Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe
discussion
Do you think Ruth and Idgy were lovers? Why do you think that Flagg wasn't clear on the subject
message 1:
by
kisha
(new)
Sep 21, 2012 10:45PM
I believe that in the book she implies that Idgy and Ninny are two different people, but the movie, based on its last scene implies they are one in the same. As for the relationship between Idgy and Ruth, I always wondered in the movie if they were lesbians or at least Idgy wanted Ruth, but feel it was definitely implied in the book.
reply
|
flag
I think it was implied in the book, and maybe the movie, that Idgie was a lesbian. I don't think her and Ruth were lovers, I think they shared a deep love and friendship but not in that way. They raised Ruth's son sort of as co-parents, so I can see how it might seem like they were in that sort of relationship. The movie did make it seem like there was more going on and idgie never really has a relationship with a man in either movie or book as far as I can remember. I think the movie was implying that Idgie was still around somewhere, I think she would have been a little younger than Ninny, at least in my mind. (view spoiler)
The relationship was a deep and intense, this story has personalities that we feel that we all know, and would be like to be friends with. I agree that the relationship between Idgy and Ruth was love, and probably could have tipped into the physical realm, but find that I don't really need to know, it doesn't really matter. They were a family in the purest sense, protection love and raising a child. This story and the following movie is in my top 10 all time favorites and this relationship is one that in some shape or form we wish we all had, be it with a woman or a man, the trust, faith and loyalty is what we all really want. TOWANDA!! :)
Yes, Idgie and Ruth were lovers/partners. The book doesn't elaborate on that fact because in the time that the story takes place 30's (?) this kind of relationship simply wasn't talked about. But the book makes clear that Idgie was gay and that she and Ruth were together (or would be) when Ruth sent Idgie that biblical verse. I never felt that Idgie and Ninny were the same person, whether book or movie...my $.02.
I actually looked at the book alongside the movie pretty in depth for writing a research paper about the American Outlaw. And I think that Idgie and Ruth loved each other very much, but one must remember what brought them together was the love they shared of Buddy Threadgoode. I believe that Flagg does not reveal the whole story as to whether the two woman had physical love, because it is not important to the story. I do feel that they did love each other as significant others do, but I don't know that at the time the story takes place that such a physical relationship could have been possible, without backlash from society, which is why I think Flagg hints at it without going into detail. However, I do feel they loved each other, there are several places in the book that hint at it the part that takes place on Aug. 29th 1924. Another taboo subject would be how Idgie handled Buddy Jr., aka Stump's issues with sexual tension Oct. 28th, 1947.Flagg's story is so compelling and moving because she is sharing that Idgie was a woman of independence and free will and had no problem standing up to the law or the preacher for that matter, which is why I chose to write about her as a female outlaw in American literature and film. I also think she was an amazing outlaw to write about and research because she was trying to do the right for the good of mankind, even if that meant going against the bounds of society and the law.
Also, I do not believe that Idgie and Ninny were the same person at all, if you look closely at the book. Flagg has Evelyn go to the cemetry after (Ninny) Mrs. Threadgoode passes and reads the headstones (Ninny) was the same age as Buddy, and Idgie was younger than Buddy. Also the bee charmer was still alive, because Evelyn noticed the jar of honey and a note on Ruth's headstone. This of course, is not evident in the movie, because the screenplay was written differently to appeal to the mass audience.So the reader is left wondering if Idgie is still alive and charming bees or has she passed that on to Buddy Jr.? Either way, the spirit of Idgie the outlaw lives on in the readers. (In the spirit of TOWANDA!!!)
Having read the book, but seen the movie 50 million times, the movie makes it clear that Ninny & Idgie are two different people. I'm going by memory but I believe there is a very small seen in the beginning of the film when Buddy was alive where young Ninny was called on to fetch something. I only remember noticing it after the first million times. I don't believe there was a physical relationship between Idgie and Ruth,but I do agree with another poster, they shared a mutual love of Buddy.
A lot of the details from the book are kind of sketchy for me, but from what I remember, I just assumed Idgy and Ruth were lovers. Specifically, I seem to remember reading about Ruth's jealous reaction when Idgy was spending a lot of time with the woman from the saloon/club by the river. It felt to me like sexual jealousy.
Read the book, never watched the movie.I believe Idgy and Ruth were lovers. Even though they never kissed or had an kind of sexual physical contact, it was clear they loved each other more than in a friendly way.
Sarah wrote: "I actually looked at the book alongside the movie pretty in depth for writing a research paper about the American Outlaw. And I think that Idgie and Ruth loved each other very much, but one must re..."Very nice in detail! It gave me a new insight. Especially about the relationship between Idgie and Ruth. True enough had she included a detailed romantic relationship between the two it would have taken he focus of the plot line and created a new one as she would have had to focus on the criticism that would have resulted. Good point.
Also great attention to detail about Ninny and Buddy's age.
i could be wrong, but doesnt the book mention that Ninny was married to a relative of Idgies, a cousin or uncle i think. and she had a son with special needs as well. They are two different people.
Christa wrote: "i could be wrong, but doesnt the book mention that Ninny was married to a relative of Idgies, a cousin or uncle i think. and she had a son with special needs as well. They are two different people."YOU ARE RIGHT.
Based on the book, I found no evidence that Idgie and Ninny were the same person. Not buying that one.As for Idgie and Ruth's relationship? I think it was definitely a "marriage" of sorts. The one thing that really, really tipped it in my favor was that Idgie's father gave her a speech about being responsible for Ruth as well as the seed money to start the cafe. I know the relationship isn't spelled out, but based on one of the book's themes--accepting people for who they are--I believe Flagg very much had that in mind.
Of course, Flagg doesn't spell it out. Neither when the book takes place nor when Flagg wrote it (1987) were lesbian relationships accepted. Flagg was ahead of her time.
I think Ruth and Idgie were lovers. I believe that Flagg didn't address the relationship in a head-on and explicit way because back in that time frame people kept their sex lives private.
In the book it seemed that Idgie and Mrs. Threadgoode were different people, but in the movie it was suggested they were the same. As for Ruth and Idgie, it was written such that if there was sex between them, it wasn't the most important aspect of their relationship.
At the end of the book, Evelyn visits Ninny Threadgood's grave. She visits the other family graves and she sees Ruth's grave; there are pink roses from the old Threadgoode house left there by Idgie, so they couldn't have been the same person.
Idgie loved Ruth, Ruth loved Idgie. They were best friends, but not lovers. Ninny is not Idgie.
Idgie and Ruth were lovers in my mind because they always had a relationship that was deeper than friendship. They were best friends, but aren't most couples too. I don't feel like Buddy was reason enough to become house-mates and co-parents for life, there had to be another reason, because Ruth could have easily remarried and moved on, but she stayed with Idgie. Also how they acted around one another in both the movie and book was huge clue/hint for me. The movie doesn't portray so much of them being in a romantic relationship because Mary Louise Parker (Ruth) didn't like of Ruth and Idgie as a lesbian couple. During the food fight scene though, on the commentary, the director or producer (can't remember which) says that that scene definitely signified that there was a deeper, sexual meaning underneath everything else. Also to answer why Flagg didn't explicitly say that they were lovers it was probably due to the fact it was published in the late 80's so the world was less forgiving about that subject and it could have been banned/prohibited or not welcome in certain schools, libraries, and communities in general.
While I watched the movie, I wondered if Ninny was Idgie, until the scene in the cemetery where Evelyn sees the card from the bee charmer. In the book, it is clear that Idgie and Ninny are different people.
When I watched the movie, I was certain that Idgie & Ruth were lovers. I thought the book was less clear about it, but I think they were. The neat thing is, as someone else said, it doesn't matter to the story.
Idgie and Ruth were plainly lovers, and it was understood just fine by the fine folks in Whistle Stop. They are repeatedly refered to as a couple, Stump is refered to as their son and his last name is Threadgood; which is Idgies last name, not Ruth's. Here's a helpfull passage from the book: "It's funny, most people can be around someone and they gradually begin to love them and never know exactly when it happened; but Ruth knew the very second it happened to her. When Idgie had grinned at her and tried to hand her that jar of honey, all these feelings that she had been trying to hold back came flooding through her, and it was at that second in time that she knew she loved Idgie with all her heart. That's why she had been crying, that day. She had never felt that way before and she probably would never feel that way again. And now, a month later, it was because she loved her so much that she had to leave. Idgie was a sixteen-year-old kid with a crush and couldn't possibly understand what she was saying. She had no idea when she was begging Ruth to stay and live with them what she was asking; but Ruth knew, and she realized she had to get away. She had no idea why she wanted to be with Idgie more than anybody else on this earth, but she did. She had prayed about it, she had cried about it; but there was no answer except to go back home and mary Frank Bennett"
I notice that some of the comments are confusing the film with the book. To help clarify a few points:
1. The film plays Buddy and Ruth as childhood sweathearts. Not in the book. Buddy is long dead by the time Ruth turns up. In fact, Buddy is quite in love with Eva the town harlot.
2. Again, the film implies Ninny and Idgie are one and the same. They are very much different people in the book. Ninny is married to Idgies brother Cleo. Ninny and Idgie have conversations with each other throughout the book.
Of course they were. Ruth left Frank Bennett to be with Idgy. Check the Bible verse she sent her one more time.I am old enough to recall a time--not as far back as this was set, mind you--when being gay was considered by mainstream US culture to be almost as unnatural as sex with farm animals. For Ruth and Idgy, it is possible, if they were real people, that they would never have registered that their love was a sexual thing. There are many, many gay couples who stayed together during eras of the past, without ever actually acknowledging why they are each other's family. This is sad, but it's definitely better than forcing oneself into a loveless marriage with a member of the opposite sex just to conform to convention. A family member of mine lived with her partner for almost a decade before they realized they weren't just roommates, and that was a couple of generations later than the one in which Fried Green Tomatoes is set.
Ruth left Frank because he was a monster. She returned to Idgie because she was in love with her.I'm not sure why you're suggesting that they didn't understand that they had a romantic sexual relationship with one another. Again, I'm not talking about the movie, but the book. They are two very different beasts.
There's nothing to suggest that they didn't understand. Again I go back to the fact that they are frequently referred to as a couple and compared to other opposite sex marriages.
There's a brief episode in the book where Ruth walks out on Idgie. In a scene where Idgie is talking about this with her friend Eva, Idgie acknowledges that she had lied to Ruth about where she had gone. She points out that Grady and Jack lie to their wives sometimes as well, so what's the big deal, she says. Eva gives Idgie this warning: "You listen, Idgie, I'm gonna tell you something. Don't you think she couldn't have anybody that she wanted around here? All she'd have to do is snap her fingers. So I'd think long and hard before I'd go flying off."
Eva understands, Idgie understands and Ruth understands.
Julia wrote: "Ruth left Frank because he was a monster. She returned to Idgie because she was in love with her.I'm not sure why you're suggesting that they didn't understand that they had a romantic sexual rel..."
Thank you Julia. I was going to post the same excerpts /info as comments. I find it amazing that it's been nearly thirty years since the release of this book yet people still miss the portions that so clearly state the nature of their relationship. I think this just shows how people view couples in the gay community, their eyes gloss over the hard truth because they don't want to think their favorite characters swing that way. Anyway, thank you for saving me the hassle this time.
Wow Danni. I don't think the fact that the author was purposely unclear about the relationship has anything to do with disrespect to the gay/lesbian community. When I put this post up I wasn't finished reading the novel. An in interview even Flagg said that she was purposely unclear due to not wanting it to be labeled gay/lesbian, not wanting it to be banned,not wanting it to be the main focus, and for lack of understanding in the 80s. So to attack someone else's interpretation is ridiculous. Shr left that fact open ended for interpretation.
Ninny and Idgie were not the same person. The movie may lead u to this if u r not paying attention.But Ninny explains her role in Idgies family and it allowed her to tell the story w/out being too involved in the story line too much. I do believe that Ruth and Idgie were lovers but Flagg never comes right out and says it b/c I think that she wants us to feel what it was like in those times and and lesbian relationships were not something u talked about at the dinner table in the 30's!
Danni wrote: "Julia wrote: "Ruth left Frank because he was a monster. She returned to Idgie because she was in love with her.I'm not sure why you're suggesting that they didn't understand that they had a roman..."
I think the movie was so profound (...and well done, imo) that it superimposes itself on the novel. Especially, if one hasn't read it recently. I tend to get confused as to what happened in the books and what happened in the novel. Plus add on the fact that most people have probably only read the book once years ago yet have probably seen the movie 2 or 3 times or more by now.
btw, isn't it interesting that The Color Purple, which was also published during the 80's, deals with the same subject matter much more blatantly and directly. Does that mean that Alice Walker was more daring in her writing than Fannie Flag was?
The author was not purposefully unclear. If you read many of the sections it should be fairly obvious they were a couple. The only thing she doesn't do is go into great sexual detail, but that is the same for all the characters in the novel. Lesbian/homosexual identity wouldn't have been prevalent in the setting of this novel, again the passages make it fairly obvious to anyone who has ever been in a relationship as to the nature of the character's feelings. If it was a male/female there would be no question of the nature of the relationship based on those passages.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Danni wrote: "Julia wrote: "Ruth left Frank because he was a monster. She returned to Idgie because she was in love with her.I'm not sure why you're suggesting that they didn't understand that th..."
The Color Purple was definitely more explicit but then again the subject matter was in my opinion far more serious. Fannie Flagg's novel reads more like an adventure novel to me that's based on a location (Whistle Stop) and the bright characters associated with it. The two main characters are Idgie and Ruth and the focus is on the town, their love, and the bright Southern charm she's so good at writing. It touches on serious issues but none of them are the main focus of the story. That's my two cents. Basically the two novels had far different angles of severity/focus.
There is a very interesting scholarly article written about this.http://www.pcasacas.org/SiPC/27.3/Wha...
Skip down to the third page where the author references what Rita Mae Brown has to say about Fannie Flag and what inspired her to write the novel.
Wow thanks Mochaspresso for the link. It's funny even the critics are confused and disagree about the relationship. Flagg was quoted in the link saying that she wasn't concerned about the relationship. She was also quoted saying she didn't create lesbian characters. How's that for an answer. However readers interpretation will trump the writers proclaim. She was also admittedly (at the time) insecure and confused about her own sexuality. However, imo the comparison to The Color People was a bit off base considering Celie and Shug were open about their sexual relationship in the book although the movie is a different story.
Julia wrote: "Idgie and Ruth were plainly lovers, and it was understood just fine by the fine folks in Whistle Stop. They are repeatedly refered to as a couple, Stump is refered to as their son and his last name..."VJ wrote: "Idgie loved Ruth, Ruth loved Idgie. They were best friends, but not lovers. Ninny is not Idgie."
I think u so right. They are lovers. I first read this book in junior high and i picked up on that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves . . .perhaps b/c they might feel differently about the book should it center around a lesbian relationship?
Cj wrote: "The relationship was a deep and intense, this story has personalities that we feel that we all know, and would be like to be friends with. I agree that the relationship between Idgy and Ruth was lo..."Thank you for saying it doesn't really matter,[if Idgie and Ruth were lovers.] The story is character driven as was the movie by wonderful characters and what wonderful characters they were. I always wanted to see Idgie end up with Grady, but apparently she married someone else and had a son with some sort of health issues from which he died young.
Idgie and Ruth's friendship was deep and strong, something many of us have enjoyed or wished we had the chance to enjoy. The setting is full of details and complete, reflecting life at the times of coming out of the Depression and before the U.S. entry into WWll in all its beautiful simplicity and awful bigotry, delicious foods and starvation.
That Idgie did not become attached to a man seemed to me to be her response to the death of her brother. That she remained a tomboy was a continuation of the little girl who hated dresses and also protection from a man loving her only to be lost as was her brother.
I feel compelled to argue against the frequent refrain that it "doesn't matter whether or not Idgie and Ruth were lovers". Because it does in fact matter. How in the world could it not? I would have an entirely different understanding of who they are and what motivates their actions if I was under the impression that they were only a close platonic friendship.
I am always bugged by our assumption that there are only two kinds of love: sexual or not sexual. The depth of these two characters' love for each other worked on so many levels. I feel as if I am disrespecting it just because one part of the relationship might have been sexual and I need the label! Maybe there are no words for what was between Idgie and Ruth.
I don't understand why one would feel that it was disrespectful to their relationship to believe it was sexual in nature. I understand and respond to the novel and to Idgie and Ruth as examples of real lives and real people and therefore as people with sexual needs. They aren't Greek Gods or characters in a science fiction novel.I also don't think the discourse in this thread has really been about labels. The question being debated in this thread seems to boil down to whether or not Idgie and Ruth had a romantic sexual relationship. I can understand why it may seem like labelling or at least limiting the characters, especially if this is the only thing we take into consideration when reading the novel. But I don't believe that's what's happening, or at the very least, it's not what I'm arguing.
Throughout this thread there have been some who have suggested that the nature of Idgie and Ruth's relationship "doesn't matter", or that it is reductive in some way if one interprets them through that prism. I disagree.
When I read Jane Eyre for example, I understand that Jane and Mr Rochester have a romantic, sexual relationship. My understanding of the specific nature of their relationship to one another is intrinsic to how I respond to the narative and how I interpret their choices and motives. At the end of the day, it really is the same for Idgie and Ruth.
If I believe them to have a platonic non-sexual relationship, my interpration and how I respond to the book would be completely different than if I did believe their relationship was sexual.
And that's why this discussion does matter.
They were lovers and it shocks me that people don't get that. It is hinted at in the book a million times. HELLO!!!!! Ruth talked about why she had to leave and marry Frank Bennett because their relationship (Idgy and hers) would never be accepted and Idgy was just a kid and had no idea what she was getting herself into. Also Ruth was most certainly a lesbian. I know this may be a shocking thought... but people (especially back then and even today) wed people of the opposite sex to conform to societal standards even when they are not in love with them or sexually attracted to them.Idgy also slept with the red headed woman that Buddy had a romantic relationship with. It was again implied at the end of the chapter when Flagg talked about Red saying that Idgy just needed someone to love her (this is post Ruth leaving) and that Red hated to see someone in pain and that her true talent was loving people physically.
Flagg does not have to be literal with everything she writes and write Idgy and Ruth's sex life out like 50 Shades of Grey to get her point across. However, in the first 5 chapters alone I counted 20 unmistakable references (subtle as they may be) to their relationship that went beyond a friendship intimacy.
Again though, if the thought of those two women being together in a relationship and sharing physical and emotional intimacy intimidates readers that badly they can go on lying to themselves about it.
The question matters but it doesn't. It doesn't matter for the surface story that readers tend to enjoy (those that obviously need everything spelled out to them in excruciating detail). However, for those that get that relationship and understand how revolutionary it was for Flagg's time and how she wrote that couple, in that culture and the other characters' perceptions of their relationship in a way that really hadn't been explored (pre Rosie, Ellen, Portia, etc) it does matter.
This book was one of the first that blew the discussion of sexuality, female relationships (intimate or not) in southern culture for this type of folky literature out of the water.
No, I don't believe they were lovers. I'm a woman and have a friend that is very much my Idgie/ruth and we are not Lesbians. I would compare our friendship in every way to theirs. I would kill for her and she would kill for me. She's the woman I can't live without. She is my soul sister, and I am closer to her then anyone in my family. That's after only knowing her for a year and a half. She completes me and will always have a place in my heart. Both of us are in relationships with men, but we both know there is no way we could live with out our bond, our friendship, and our sisterhood. I can't explain how our relationship really is, other than its a love as deep as one for a significant other, without the drive for the physical aspect that make you a lover.
No, I don't believe they were lovers. I'm a woman and have a friend that is very much my Idgie/ruth and we are not Lesbians. I would compare our friendship in every way to theirs. I would kill for her and she would kill for me. She's the woman I can't live without. She is my soul sister, and I am closer to her then anyone in my family. That's after only knowing her for a year and a half. She completes me and will always have a place in my heart. Both of us are in relationships with men, but we both know there is no way we could live with out our bond, our friendship, and our sisterhood. I can't explain how our relationship really is, other than its a love as deep as one for a significant other, without the drive for the physical aspect that make you a lover.
ok to Anne and all the others who attack the question. This questuon was very relevant and it did matter. I posed this question because of the controversy this book had about their relationship when it was written. It was banned bc of hit at lesbianism. Early on the author said they weren't lesbians. But then after the author herself accepted she was a lesbian she admitted that she felt Idgy and Ruth were indeed lesbians. This question wasn't to judge the characters either way. It was to indulge in conversation about perception. It's no different than asking if a heterosexual character were together but then of course people wouldn't be so offended by the question and attack people's answers. I think it's cool she left that question to the readers imagination. The best writers show and not tell. In doing that it leads to AWESOME book discussions!
Julia had I seen your comment first I wouldn't have felt the need to write mine! You said it in a nutshell. That is precisely what I was trying to say. It would matter if it were a heterosexual relationship so why is it" irrelevant" now? Thank you for that.
I think that Idgie loved Ruth from the time when Buddy loved Ruth. Remember the scene when all three were walking by the water, Idgie in front reaching behind for Ruth's hand while Buddy held Ruth's other hand from behind? When Buddy was killed though, I think Idgie first saw that her and Buddy's love of Ruth was their undoing (he died in pursuit of Ruth's hat.) Idgie was cool toward Ruth when she first came back into her life some years after Buddy's death.It's irrelevant if Idgie and Ruth ever consummated their relationship. The bonds they shared were built on other, more lasting forms of love which allowed them to raise a child and run a business during a time when women did not have enough power or autonomy for the most part to run their lives without a masculine "chaperone"!?
The revelation to these two women that they could live happy lives without male companionship, as well as the empowerment of their story on Evelyn's life was quite a refreshing story line to me. I get sick of being fed the corny "knight in shining armor" as what women need to save them from life's events and to make their drab lives complete.
Peggy wrote: "I think that Idgie loved Ruth from the time when Buddy loved Ruth. Remember the scene when all three were walking by the water, Idgie in front reaching behind for Ruth's hand while Buddy held Ruth'..."Ohmy, Idgie was such a tomboy. You wrote about the scene with the threesome by the water and pow! it was a flashback. Had really forgotten that. Quite an illustration. I probably wondered about the twosome, but didn't ponder it for long. I love Fannie Flag's books. RED BIRD CHRISTMAS is wonderful. I just learned the other day her real name is Patricia Neal. Never knew that.
To Nora:Perhaps she changed her name because Patricia Neal, the actress might have been confused with the writer.
Ruth and Idgie were partners. There was a scene where Idgie spends the night elsewhere and Ruth is mad. Also Fannie Flagg is a lesbian, so why wouldn't she have a female couple?Personally I like the way she did this because you know and the town knows they are together, but no one cares because they are happy and good for each other.
To Melanie:How true. They are good for each other!
In the book they are lovers. In the movie they are friends. Ninny and Idgie are the same person in the movie but not in the book. In the book Ninny is married to Idgie's brother.
I was also unsure whether or not Idgie and Ruth were a couple and so did some research on it after finishing the book. From articles I read, it was clear that they were indeed a lesbian couple and this even caused some controversy with activist groups when the movie was released because their romantic relationship was down played.
Apparently, according to the director of the film there is a scene in the movie where Idgie and Ruth have a food fight that was supposed to represent symbolic lovemaking.
As to whether or not Ninny and Idgie are the same person. In the book it is clear that they are not. When Evelyn is going through the shoe box of Ninny's knick knacks she finds pictures of both Ninny and Idgie and has to ask who Idgie is, so she clearly had never seen Idgie before. In both pictures the women were older so there can be no confusion due to age.
One other point on the Ninny/Idgie as the same person theory. Part of the story in the book is told through a community newsletter put out by Dot Weems. In that news letter she clearly refers to Ninny and Idgie as separate people and also refers to Cleo as Ninny's wife, Albert as her son and Idgie and Ruth as a couple.
Apparently, according to the director of the film there is a scene in the movie where Idgie and Ruth have a food fight that was supposed to represent symbolic lovemaking.
As to whether or not Ninny and Idgie are the same person. In the book it is clear that they are not. When Evelyn is going through the shoe box of Ninny's knick knacks she finds pictures of both Ninny and Idgie and has to ask who Idgie is, so she clearly had never seen Idgie before. In both pictures the women were older so there can be no confusion due to age.
One other point on the Ninny/Idgie as the same person theory. Part of the story in the book is told through a community newsletter put out by Dot Weems. In that news letter she clearly refers to Ninny and Idgie as separate people and also refers to Cleo as Ninny's wife, Albert as her son and Idgie and Ruth as a couple.
"It's funny, most people can be around someone and then gradually begin to love them and never know exactly when it happened; but Ruth knew the very second it happened to her. When Idgie had grinned at her and tried to hand her that jar of honey, all these feelings she had ben trying to hold back came flooding through her, and it was at that second in time that she knew she loved Idgie with all her heart", p. 88. To Melanie: I agree. And I also liked how uncomplicated it was in her family when she and Ruth got together. I think one of the things I love with this book is that Flagg doesn't shy away from difficult topics - men's violence against women, racism etc. - but she doesn't let it define the story or the characters in them. Idgie takes a stand against racism. Ku Klux Klan is not mightier than Idgie's ability to recognize the shoes of the sheriff. The man who beats upp a women is barbequed. The black man on trial for the murder of a white man is defended by Idgie and the priest. Not how things usually play out in real life, but isnt't that the beauty of books?
Which is also my answer for the second question - why Flagg wasn't more clear on it (and I do feel she is pretty clear). For me it's part of the liberating feeling of the book that a person can be born a woman, be a tomboy, find another woman to love and teach their one-armed kid to hunt and play baseball, without it being something that needs commenting or any kind of statement or leading to any kind of persecution.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
