Fitzgerald's treatment of wonder suggests it represents a capacity for hope lacking in wealthy families.

• A. Mere fantasy limited to artists
• B. Capacity for hope lacking in wealthy families
• C. Capacity for cynicism among the poor
• D. A sign of moral decay among the middle class

Answer: (B)

Wonder, in Fitzgerald’s portrayal, is an active sense of possibility—a hopeful imagining that life could be more than what the present circumstances offer. It’s not just fanciful dreaming; it’s a daring openness to renewal and a belief in a better future. In the world Fitzgerald critiques, wealth often hardens into complacency and cynicism, dulling this imaginative energy. The rich can become so secure in their status that they lose the sense that the future could hold something better, while those outside that secure circle—striving, hopeful, or hopeful-eyed—keep a flicker of wonder alive. So the idea that wonder represents a capacity for hope lacking in wealthy families fits the pattern: wonder signals the lingering possibility of improvement and renewal that wealth tends to suppress. The other options don’t fit because wonder isn’t merely a fantasy confined to artists, nor is it about cynicism among the poor, nor a marker of moral decay among the middle class; Fitzgerald treats wonder as the hopeful impulse that wealth can erode, not as the vice or limitation those other labels suggest.