I feel that the successful use of this technique can be attributed to three main elements: Nick's geographical placing within the plot, his morality, and two aspects of his character.
These are his astute observational skills and outward tolerance to 'unsought…confidences' of others.
This drive is an individual's personal moral code.
If Nick's honesty is deemed questionable, it follows that his morality is also questionable.
I therefore see no evidence to validate Scrimgeour's claim that '(Nick) is a moral eunuch' Nick’s reply to Tom’s question on 5th Avenue, “Do you object to shaking hands with me?
' is another example of Nick acting to his own moral code.Also that he, and therefore the reader, is provided with too much information too quickly through the relationships that he has with the other characters.Secondly, that Nick's relationships with characters are too distant therefore, preventing him learning anything from them by the end of the novel.There was one thing to be done before I left, an awkward, unpleasant thing that perhaps had better have been let alone.But I wanted to leave things in order…' Here, Nick does not abstain from but consciously performs performing a morality driven action.However, a balance must be struck between two extremes.Firstly, that Nick is so involved in the plot that he becomes noticeably biased.Although Nick is aware that this meeting will not be an easy one, he feels he cannot simply 'trust that obliging and indifferent sea to sweep my refuse away.' There is undoubtedly a motivation behind his action and, in my opinion, it is a moral one.Nick must be in a position to tell enough of the story to satisfy the reader.To achieve this, Fitzgerald must create relationships between Nick and those characters from whom he is going to get the most interesting or useful information to aid the development of the plot.