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 51:
by
Jen
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Apr 02, 2014 08:00PM
I think it was a combination of love and friendship. It is possible to have a best friend that you will do anything for and feel incomplete when you are apart. Because of the fact that homosexuality was not acceptable during this time probably kept this love strictly nonsexual.
reply
|
flag
Jen wrote: "I think it was a combination of love and friendship. It is possible to have a best friend that you will do anything for and feel incomplete when you are apart. Because of the fact that homosexualit..."
I think the fact that Idgie clearly had a sexual relationship with Eva Bates before Ruth came back strongly suggests that her relationship with Ruth was sexual. Now that's just my opinion and I can clearly see why and respect why you would feel differently.
I think the fact that Idgie clearly had a sexual relationship with Eva Bates before Ruth came back strongly suggests that her relationship with Ruth was sexual. Now that's just my opinion and I can clearly see why and respect why you would feel differently.
I agree Fin. The author left many clues in my opinion. I posed this question because I think it's a great focal topic for a book discussion. Though some chose to be offended by the question or by others interpretion. Some read it and felt it as obvious other thought she left it in the imagination of you're readers others think it clearly wasnt a romantic relationship. The good thing about reading is that it can be interpreted many ways and there is no right or wrong answer. I did research on the author. I think it sometimes help to understand the authors mindset while writing. When I did that it showed me that clearly she intended on them having a romantic relationship but didn't want to focus on the fact that they were lesbians.
kisha wrote: "I agree Fin. The author left many clues in my opinion. I posed this question because I think it's a great focal topic for a book discussion. Though some chose to be offended by the question ..."
I think you're right. The author didn't want the story to focus on the fact that Idgie and Ruth were a lesbian couple, but wasn't trying to hide it either.
I think you're right. The author didn't want the story to focus on the fact that Idgie and Ruth were a lesbian couple, but wasn't trying to hide it either.
It's nice to hear what other people "read" when reading a book. Seeing someone else's perspective makes reading so much more rewarding. Thanks for commenting Fin :)
Idgie and Ruth were a couple.
I wasn't aware that it's not considered canon that Ruth and Idgie had a romantic, if not sexual, relationship within the book, considering it's referenced multiple times by multiple characters and was not treated as a secret.
I always thought Idgie and Ruth were lovers. Flagg is not explicit, which I appreciate because I am no more interested in listening to a sex scene than I am in watching one on television. But I can appreciate love, and physical or not, the women loved one another.
I read an interview of Ms. Flagg and she said she did write it that way with Ruth and Idgie as lovers but the publishers told her to change it so a wider audience would read it. However, lesbian/straight the devoted friendship and loving your friend is what speaks loudest. I count myself to lucky to feel like I have had that close of friendships with other women.
Ninny and Idgie are different people. When the movie starts she introduces herself to Evelyn as Mrs.Cleo Threadgood. She said "you see, I was practically adopted by the Threadgoode family. I married her brother Cleo"As to Ruth and Idgie's relationship- I think the book was beautifully written and we did not need it spelled out to know they were in Love. Rather it was sexual or not.
I did not read the book, and I did pick up on the cues that Idgie and Ninny were portrayed as different people by Ninny. But in the last scene when you saw the honey and note on Ruth's grave that insinuated that Idgie and Ninny might be one and the same made me attribute all those details to Idgie's sometimes tall-story-telling personality. If Ninny was indeed Idgie then she had just been embellishing her tale, by telling it from the 3rd person because it made it more exciting than if she was telling it from her own perspective. The little detail of marrying Idgie's brother Cleo, was to make her believable to Evelyn. As for the part when she said she had a crush on Buddy, lots of little girls have a crush on their big brother so that was likely true wither way, and Idgie's closeness to Buddy would support that. Also when Ninny talks about having a special needs son, Idgie could very well have had a child after Ruth passed away, and if she was older when she had him that could have contributed to his disability. After all she was about 8-10 years younger than Ruth. So in my mind it is still not concrete that that they were two different people. I think both Ninny and Idgie's tall-tale-telling makes them seem more like the same person than not. Just sharing my take on it.
Jennifer wrote: "I did not read the book, and I did pick up on the cues that Idgie and Ninny were portrayed as different people by Ninny. But in the last scene when you saw the honey and note on Ruth's grave that i..."Jennifer, as you yourself acknowledge, you haven't read the book. You really should because a. it's a great read and b. you're comments really don't hold a lot of merit in this particular thread. I mean no offense, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into this but I can only say you're wrong in so far as it relates to the novel, which is what this thread is about. The novel is quite straightforward and clear about these two individual characters. They have multiple conversations with each other and they have very distinct personalities from one another.
I think the relationship between Idgy and Ruth was pure love, no doubt Idgy wanted more, but I have doubt that Ruth (in 1930's culture)could grasp a more physical relationship with a woman. I think also, that she'd been so hurt by men that Idgy was her safe place. I loved their relationship. This book hugely influenced one of the characters in my novel, and the communal aspect of friends becoming family is one I write about a good deal, thanks to authors like Flagg.
Curse Goodreads for always notifying me whenever someone adds a new comment to this thread. I can't help myself. Mindy, I disagree with your interpretation of Ruth and Idgie's relationship. I had a whole big response that I was preparing but then I decided to just go back to the text and let it speak for itself.
----
“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 marry Frank Bennett, the young man she was engaged to marry, and to try to be a good wife and mother. Ruth was sure that no matter what Idgie said, she would get over her crush and get on with her life. Ruth was doing the only thing she could do.”
----
“When Ruth came down, she was taken completely by surprise. She walked out on the porch and Idgie, who was trying to act casual even though her palms were sweaty and she could feel her ears burning, said, “Look, I don't want to bother you. I know you're probably very happy and all...I mean, I'm sure you are, but I just wanted you to know that I don't hate you and I never did. I still want you to come back and I'm not a kid anymore, so I'm not gonna change. I still love you and I always will and I still don't care what anybody thinks”
----
“Almost, immediately, the parties started, and she tried to shut out any thoughts of Whistle Stop. But sometimes in the middle of a crowd or alone at night, she never knew when it was going to happen, Idgie would suddenly come to mind, and she would want to see her so bad that the pain of longing for her sometimes took her breath away.
Whenever it happened, she would pray to God and beg Him to take such thoughts out of her head. She knew that she must be where she should be and doing the right thing. She would get over missing Idgie. Surely, He would help her...surely, this feeling would pass in time...with His help, she would make it pass.”
----
“Ruth couldn't help but think that something inside of her had caused him to hate her; that somehow, no matter how hard she tried to suppress it, Frank felt the love inside she had for Idgie. It had slipped out somehow, in her voice, her touch; she didn't know how, but she believed he must have known and that's why he despised her. So she had lived with that guilt and taken the beatings and the insults because she thought she deserved them.”
Julia, Nice to meet you. I'm not sure what there is to disagree with, but I appreciate your effort, these excerpts show Ruth could not imagine herself embracing that kind of forbidden love/relationship in their 1930's culture, as I said.
Mindy, thank you for replying. It has helped me to better understand your thoughts. It wasn't clear to me whether you believed Ruth was in love with Idgy or not, since you mentioned her not being able to "grasp a physical relationship". I took that to mean that you believed she didn't understand her feelings.I hope you agree then that the text I quoted clearly indicate that she did in fact have profoundly strong feelings for Idgie and that she understood what those feelings were.
I was also replying to what seemed to be the implication that her feelings for Idgie were a direct consequence of her bad experiences with men. First you mention "men" in the plural. I'm not aware of any indication in the novel that there were any other "bad" men in her life outside of her abusive husband.
Recognizing that, I ask you to re-read the excerpts I transcribed and to note that several of them take place prior to her marriage and before her husbands true nature had come out. The text plainly refutes any suggestion that Ruth's affections for Idgie are in any way a response to past relationships with men.
Now to respond your most recent comments, you're correct that the transcribed texts that I chose to include do indeed seem to strengthen your case that Ruth "could not imagine herself embracing that kind of forbidden love" and I would in fact agree with you that those were her feelings. If you look a little closer though you'll note that they all take place prior to Ruth walking away from her marriage and returning to Idgie and Whistle Stop.
Walking away from her husband was incredibly brave and a profound life decision for Ruth. Once she returned to Whistle Stop she made her life with Idgie and they lived their lives as a married couple in all but name, overcoming her earlier fears. This seems fairly straightforward to me.
My one last comment is regards to Idgie. Your earlier comments suggested she wanted more from Ruth. I assume this means sex. I can't quote the whole thing but there is a chapter 3/4 through the book were Idgie has a talk with their son about sex and girls. He'd been avoiding women and she presses him to understand why. Ultimately she manages to pull out enough mumbles from him to understand his anxieties are around "performance" for lack of a better term. Again, this is a conversation about sex. Idgie is concerned for Stump because if he keeps avoiding women because of his fears, he'll be a very lonely man. I don't think it's a big leap to recognize that Idgie believes having a lover and companion is part of having a happy fulfilling life. He's got lots of guy friends but she doesn't seem to think that will cut it in the long run.
There is nothing in this book that would suggest Idgie would settle for just a super close friend. There is nothing in the book that suggests Ruth's earlier fears continued to control her after making a massive life decision by leaving her husband and living with Idgie.
1. Ninny states in the nursing home during her first scene that she was practically adopted by the Threadgoode family, not born directly into it.2. Ninny Threadgoode also states that she married Cleo Threadgoode, another one of Idgie's brothers. However, Cleo Threadgoode never appears by name in the film, and neither does Ninny, so the confusion is understandable.
3. During the wedding scene near the beginning, a child-aged Idgie is on her brother Buddy's back while Ninny says in voiceover that she (Ninny) had always had a crush on Buddy, rather than "Idgie always had a crush on Buddy." Even if she was trying to pretend that she and Idgie were separate people, it doesn't seem likely that Idgie would describe herself as having a "crush" on her own brother.
4. Towards the end of the movie Ninny says that Sipsey confessed on her deathbed the full truth of Frank Bennett's death. Idgie knew the truth from the beginning, so Sipsey would have no reason to confess if Ninny were Idgie.
5. Mrs. Otis, Ninny's friend and roommate, was also present at Sipsey's confession, meaning that she would know both Idgie and Ninny if they were separate people. Mrs Otis' adult daughter confirms that her mother has been Ninny's neighbor for many years. Even though we never see Ninny and Mrs Otis interact in the film, it seems likely Mrs Otis would have noticed that her long-time friend "Idgie" was suddenly calling herself "Ninny."
The implication that Ninny and Idgie are the same person, therefore, is impossible based on several other points in the film.
The book makes it clear that Ninny and Idgie are different people, as Ninny has died and Evelyn is visiting her grave when she finds the jar of honey and the note on Ruth's tombstone. A final scene confirms that Idgie now runs a roadside stand with her brother Julian (the boy who made fun of Idgie at the wedding), where they sell honey while Idgie entertains visitors with her tall tales.
Since watching this movie I have been trying to lay down a timeline to really determine if Ninny is Idgie. I think it is safe to assume based solely on age that it is nearly impossible for them to be the same person. The brother crush and marriage to Cleo are not definite reasons why Ninny could not be Idgie. Buddy does say God made sure they "got together" not that she was born a Threadgoode. Ninny being Idgie could have been adopted has a crush on Buddy and married Cleo all without it being incest. Also saves the birth defects of Albert being chalked up to a brother and sister having a baby. However, if the modern day time frame of the movie takes place anywhere from 1987-1990 and Ninny is 82-83 years old that would make her D.O.B. 1904-1908. Idgie would have been 12-16 years old at the time of Buddy's death 1920. I do not think she is that old in the movie. If Idgie is even 10 that makes Ninny anywhere from 2-6 years older. Not having read the book and going by what people say here that they are two different people I have no comment on that. However, in the movie they are either two different people, Idgie/Ninny was adopted and married her step brother Cleo or Idgie/Ninny is one sick puppy. By the way I personally have no doubt that Ruth and Idgie are way more than friends that love each other.
Ninny and Idgie are not the same. Idgie is a lesbian, but Ruth is not. I think it is important to note that Flagg was trying to break new ground, and the bond between Idgie and Ruth was a strong way to express this. In reading the book several times and viewing the film, I find it amazing that in this day in age that people can't accept that a straight woman might have a lesbian best friend. It is a story of full acceptance and friendship so pure that sexual orientation did not matter. After all, Ruth spent a great amount of time trying to get Idgie involved with a man. Ruth was married, albeit to an abusive man, and was completely in love with Buddy Threadgood. Sometimes deep frienship and love doesn't have to be complicated. It shocks me that as many women love this book and film, that it is unrealistic to believe that Ruth was straight, Idgie was gay, and they were both comfortable with that. Think about your own relationships with your best friends. Hopefully the depth of love and friendship would not change because your best friend said she was gay. I know I wouldn't. I met my best friend when I was 7, and we are both 37 now. We're both straight, but if she told me tomorrow she was gay, she'd still be my person.
Dottie wrote: "Ninny and Idgie are not the same. Idgie is a lesbian, but Ruth is not. I think it is important to note that Flagg was trying to break new ground, and the bond between Idgie and Ruth was a strong ..."Dottie, I'm going to assume you've seen the film adaptation a lot more times than you've read the novel, because you'd otherwise know that Ruth was never in love with Buddy Threadgood. That's fact. In the novel, she never meets him and therefore is unable to fall in love with him. She also never spends one iota of time attempting to get Idgie involved with a man. I can't speak for the film but that's nowhere in the novel.
If you're seriously interested in understanding Ruth and Idgie's relationship within the novel, I strongly recommend reading this thread from the beginning. There are a lot of insightful comments from many readers. I'd also recommend re-reading the novel to get a better perspective on the differences between the book and film adaptation.
I don't think I've ever directly commented in this thread on the relationship between Ruth and Buddy in the film. Mostly because, duh, it's not in the novel. But it's worth considering why the film made that change. It seems pretty obviously intended to pull away from the lesbian context in the book.
In the novel, Buddy dies, then Ruth shows up years later and meets Idgie. They're gaga about each other, it's openly commented on by friends and family, Idgie herself loudly declares her love for Ruth, but Ruth returns home to get married. A few years later, Ruth leaves her husband and moves in with Idgie and they raise her son together. They name him Buddy Threadgood.
In the film, Ruth shows up, she and Buddy have a whole childhood sweethearts thing going, then Buddy dies. Ruth tries to reach out to a distant and reclusive Idgie. Ruth later returns home to get married. A few years later, Ruth leaves her husband and moves in with Idgie and they raise her son together. They name him Buddy Threadgood.
First of all, in the film Ruth is immediately presented as heterosexual (i.e. she love's Buddy). Ruth and Idgie's relationship is presented as being rooted in their shared love of Buddy. It's what initially connects them and it's reaffirmed when Ruth names her son after him.
In the novel, there's isn't even a hint that Ruth has a crush or even a passing flirtation with a man. She does of course marry Frank but what she thought of him prior to their marrying isn't clear. It is made clear that she's marrying primarily because it's what's expected of her and especially because it's what her mother wants. The roots of Idgie's and Ruth's relationship is based on their shared affection for each other. Buddy doesn't play a part in it. I'll leave it to you to interpret why Ruth names her son Buddy Threadgood in the book.
Julia wrote: "Dottie wrote: "Ninny and Idgie are not the same. Idgie is a lesbian, but Ruth is not. I think it is important to note that Flagg was trying to break new ground, and the bond between Idgie and Rut..."I'll admit, I read the novel once, before seeing the film, and I knew the implications were there, and I still think they are there in the film as well. I'd have to re-read the novel to understand better. And I'm not necessarily opposed to the possibility of Ruth being gay; however, I am certain of her convictions. Desire from Ruth's side was a little more subtle than Idgie's in book and movie. I do think if she was gay, she did not submit to those feelings, based on her religious convictions, and appropriateness of the time period. Perhaps an unrequited love, satisfied by living together, raising a son, and a truly intimate relationship. Intimacy isn't restricted to sex alone. Given their very different personalities, I think they had to learn to live in an age that would have condemned them as much as they would have hung an innocent black man. I will re-read because the novel is what made me excited about the movie, and it's been 20 years since I read it. I feel like I'm waiting for Fannie Flagg to just tell me...it's like that long wait to find out who Carly Simon wrote "You're So Vain" about. lol
I believe that Idgie and Ruth were lovers, hands down. The biblical verse was a message from Ruth to Idgie saying that wherever Idgie went, Ruth would follow. This was sent after her failed marriage with Frank. She devoted herself and the rest of her life to Idgie. Why? Because she knew that no other man or woman for that matter would ever love her as much as Idgie. They weren't just best friends. The thing that I found to be most interesting was that Ruth was a big part of helping Idgie grow into the woman she became, and later, that same woman took care of Ruth and her son.
Absolutely they were lovers. The book makes it quite clear, Ninny constantly refers to Buddy Jr as "their son" not Ruth's son.To suggest there weren't lesbians in the 1930s because of religious beliefs and it not being acceptable is just plain wrong. I'm sure there were just as many lesbians and gay men back then as there are today - people just weren't as open about it...but it definitely existed.
It's also obvious from the posts here who hasn't read the book and is basing their comments on the film version.
I just finished the book today, but even without including an explicit sex scene the author makes it known that Ruth and Idgie are a 'couple' in every sense of the word.
I believe they were lovers. If they were of the opposite sex people wouldn't doubt that their interaction was that two people who were in love, not just best friends. That on top of the fact that Idgie always dressed like a man, didn't date a man, and was very protective of Rose. (I'd be worried if my significant other had a relationship like that with someone other than me!)I agree with the posters who mention that during that time it just would not have been an open lesbian relationship--this decade, in the South (and they weren't shown behind closed doors in the movie) so that's all that you would have seen had you actually been there (especially if Ninny is not Idgie but is telling the story from a third person's perspective). I also agree with the poster who mentions that that would have definitely taken away from the storyline. People would have labeled it as a movie about two lesbians and left it at that, missing the humor, love, loyalty, etc. that the movie encompasses.
Yes, I believe they were. It seemed kind of clear to me although it didn't go into explicit detail.
(I hope you will excuse my english... I'm french.)I've been reading this discussion and I'm quite intrigued by some answers...
First, I think it's important to remind that the book and the movie are quite different.
As a lot of people quote, there is no doubt about their relationship in the book. It's said: Ruth who fears that Idgy's feelings are not as true as hers, Idgy's family who support them, Buddy Junior being called THEIR son,... I think they're like any married couple.
The movie is different, their relationship is in the innuendo... The looks, they're hand holding (even on the photo that Ninny have), Ruth saying the court that she loves Idgy, she wearing pants just like Idgy (yeah, she did)...
I read something about Mary-Louise Parker who didn't want it to be a lover relationship... but that's not what I read in this interview:
"AE: Do you ever wish — I know this is a long time ago, but do you ever wish the story line on Fried Green Tomatoes was a little bit more —
MLP: Yes! Well, in some ways I do. I tried to make it a little bit more articulated at the time, but they didn’t really want to go that way. And in some ways I wish that it was, and then in some ways I think maybe the audience wouldn’t have gone there, so I don’t know — I have very mixed feelings about it. Because I tried — I really tried to push it at the time, and they didn’t want to go there with me.
AE: Who didn’t want to go there?
MLP: [emphatically] No one.
AE: Not even your co-star?
MLP: Oh no, Mary Stuart did, Fannie Flagg did, but not the director, not the producer, nobody else.
AE: Wow, OK.
MLP: But I was really trying to push it, and they were like [shakes head]."
The topic of this discussion is about our feeling and why do we think Fannie Flagg is unclear on their relationship.
Well, to my mind, it's clear they are lovers (and yes, I think they had sex). It's my favorite love story... I think Fannie Flagg didn't wanted them to be labeled as lesbians but she knew what she was writting... Maybe she was hiding her own feelings...
I have seen the movie a million times and its one of my favorites. From the movie I never saw Idgie and Ruth as lovers, and in my opinion the movie did imply thar Ninny and Idgie were the same person but after reading the book (well most of it) I think that Idgie and Ruth were lovers and way more. No thebook doesn't say that they have any physical relationship but i think it does a little more than imply that they did.Ninny and Idgie are definitely two different people. Aside from the fact that it would make Ninny a liar if they weren't it would also make her very boastful and irrogant about herself which is a very unatractive quality.
Never have I thought they were lovers, only that they loved each other in the purest sense. Ruth is straitlaced, and would not have left her husband had her mother not died and told her to leave him. The Bible verse she sends to Idgie as a cry for help is from the book of Ruth, and if any of you have read the Bible, you would know that Ruth was telling her mother in law Naomi that she would not be parted from her after the death of her husband, Naomi's son. The connection they feel is one of kinship, a pure love and friendship, which helps them both move beyond their loss and into their future. FGT is a retelling of this story, of two friends bound together by their respective griefs and troubles, helping each other to grow and build a future. As for the town knowing and accepting them, the social dynamic of this era proves this to be false: the KKK not only targeted blacks, but also women and homosexuals. They would not have tolerated an open lesbian relationship in their presence, since they were offended merely by the Cafe serving blacks out the backdoor...if they were open lesbians, the Klan wouldn't have left them alone, they'd likely both be raped and Ruth forced to return to her abusive husband instantly, and the law would have supported that. Also, at no point during the book is there explicit detail, the only thing that is said is that they loved each other and would do anything for the other. I feel the exact same about some of my close friends, male and female, but that does not mean I've had sexual relations with any of them. It just seems that today, every relationship, every person, has to be categorized and labeled, regardless of the reality.
Sorry are you actually claiming this novel is a retelling of the book of Ruth? I’m not really interested in unpacking your contentions about the KKK lack of tolerance for homosexuality and what their actions would or wouldn’t be. Because it’s not the point. What I know is that as it’s portrayed in the novel, Ruth and Idgie are treated like a married couple in all but name by pretty much everyone in Whistle Stop. Whether you think that is realistic of the times or not is a different conversation and something you can take up with Fanny Flagg.
As you say, there is never any explicit description of anything sexual between them, but is that really the standard that we’re measuring against? Truthfully, the book plainly avoids any scenes that would require that kind of detail. Flagg almost certainly did this on purpose and the strategy may well have helped it to become a bestseller back when it was originally published in the 90’s. Not because the book is unclear or ambiguous, but by avoiding any big loud scenes yelling LESBIANS, it makes it easier for some readers to skim over the quiet details that make up the whole.
So instead of LESBIANS, we get glimpses into Ruth’s thoughts about her feelings for Idgie like:
“Ruth couldn't help but think that something inside of her had caused him to hate her; that somehow, no matter how hard she tried to suppress it, Frank felt the love inside she had for Idgie. It had slipped out somehow, in her voice, her touch; she didn't know how, but she believed he must have known and that's why he despised her. So she had lived with that guilt and taken the beatings and the insults because she thought she deserved them.”
"Whenever it happened, she would pray to God and beg Him to take such thoughts out of her head. She knew that she must be where she should be and doing the right thing. She would get over missing Idgie. Surely, He would help her...surely, this feeling would pass in time...with His help, she would make it pass.”
Or we have a scene between Idgie and their son Stump regarding his fears about sex. He’s been avoiding girls because of his own anxieties and Idgie councils him about the importance of finding a partner to spend your life with. This scene says a lot about what Idgie believes a good and happy life looks like and it includes sharing your life with someone who is also your lover.
There’s also a period in the novel where Ruth walks out on Idgie. When Idgie is talking with Eva about it, she admits that she lied to Ruth about where she had gone. She tries to defend herself by saying that Grady and Jack lie to their wives sometimes as well, so what’s the big deal. So here, Idgie is comparing her and Ruth to married couples. Eva then warns Idgie that Ruth could have any man she wanted and that Idgie had better smarten up if she wants to keep her.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on why Ruth believes her feelings for Idgie would cause Frank to hate her and that she believes that she actually deserves his hate and abuse or why she prays to God to take away “such thoughts” out of her head.
And I’d love to understand your thoughts on the conversation between Eva and Idgie where they plainly talk about Idgie and Ruth’s relationship as if it were a marriage, where one half is angry enough to live somewhere else because the other lied about where they had gone, or why Eva thinks Idgie should be concerned with Ruth's ability to get any man she wants.
Julia, all your comments are exactly why I think it's clear. There's also the time Ruth got angry at Idgie for visiting the old friend who was the ... well, town prostitute, and it seemed earlier in the book they had done some exploring together, hence the jealousy and their big fight and split for a time.
Having read the book several times and watched the movie several times it is clear that Idgie and Ninny are different characters, but that fact would have bogged down the pace of the movie and I don't begrudge Flagg altering the book for commercial reasons. I much prefer the book version though. Likewise, it seemed very clear to me that Idgie and Ruth were a couple in every sense of the word and that the town folk accepted that fact without concern. The novel would not have been half so powerful without that relationship at its core. Nor would the movie. As I recall, the cafe came into existence so that Idgie could support Ruth.
(Sorry for my bad English. I'm not a native speaker)When I saw the movie, I thought it was a great love story between Idgie and Ruth. I was surprised that so many people didn't take it that way. So I read the novel to make sure (even though they are two different things).
It is obvious that Idgie and Ruth were lovers. Although it isn't clearly written whether they had intimate relationship or not, as Julia commented before, it is natural to think they did.
Besides, I would love to think that they were sexually involved and happy as any other married couples. If they weren't, the only physical relationship Ruth ever had was with Frank Bennett, and I hate to think that was the way it was. I think Idgie and Ruth wouldn't let it stay that way, too. (hope you understand what I mean) Idgie eases Ruth's pain both mentally and physically.
Yum wrote: "(Sorry for my bad English. I'm not a native speaker)When I saw the movie, I thought it was a great love story between Idgie and Ruth. I was surprised that so many people didn't take it that way. S..."
Beautiful! And your English was perfect
You are all so heteronormative in your thinking. You act like you read this book but for some reason STILL think that Ninny is Idgie even though it is stated in several stories in the book that Ninny is married to Idgie's BROTHER Cleo. He was a chiropractor and they had a retarded son named Albert. A son who she would take to visit Ruth, Idgie, and Stump every day. Ninny is completely different in personality and even falls for Idgie's stories because she is naive.I like when people actually read the book and they still don't understand that Ruth and Idgie are a couple even though it is explicitly stated. JUST GALS BEING PALS. You know, living together their whole lives and raising a child together. Sipsey saying that the love bug bit Idgie. Teen Idgie showing off for Ruth with a football and pretending she caught a lot of fish. Showing up at the dinner table with her hair slicked back and then blushing because Ruth asked her to pass the snap beans.
All the kids erupting in a fit of laughter and one even peeing her pants even though they were told by the mom that Idgie had a crush and to leave her alone. Idgie trashing her own room when Ruth said she was leaving to get married. Screaming at Ruth that Ruth loved her and not Frank. Ruth hitting Idgie because she was freaking out.
Idgie going down to the river juke joint and drinking herself sick and then hooking up with Eva Bates because Eva felt bad for her. Idgie rescuing Ruth and then Idgie's parents telling her she had to grow up because she had to support Ruth and the baby. Ruth being beaten and raped by Frank because she loved Idgie and not him and he could sense it. Idgie cheating on Ruth over the years with Eva and Ruth knowing this and feeling bad about it.
Etc. Etc. I mean, did we read the same book? Tbh it is clear to me that most people commenting here even have terrible reading skills or didn't read it because they don't understand basic facts about the characters.
Edit: Ruth could also be bisexual. You know, bisexuals do exist. This would explain why she liked Buddy and Idgie. she could also be homoromantic or biromantic but asexual.
I agree with you - it was completely plain to me they were a coupleAnd I did pick up on Ninny being a different character in the book from Idgie. The movie made it seem like she was Idgie but that was a change.
In the beginning of the movie, I am pretty sure there is one clue that shows us that Ninny and Idgie are two different people. She talks about her marriage to Idgie's brother Cleo. And then during Idgie and Buddy's sister Leona's wedding, Ninny states that she had a crush on Buddy, and that he was a big flirt. Now, while I suppose it is possible, I don't think that the movie was suggesting that Idgie had romantic interest in her own brother, so I think it is safe to say that even in the movie, Idgie and Ninny are two different people.
That's the beauty of the written word, every person can get their own meaning from the one writing. What matters to me about this book and especially the movie, is that it is awesome. One of my favourites! :)
Human beings are sexual creatures. Craving and needing love both emotional and physical.I have to believe they had a physical relationship. I grew up in the fifties and gay people in NW Missouri were known. They stayed in their homes and did not make trouble by flaunting their lifestyles. Under those circumstances they were tolerated.
In the 30's and in the deep South they existed I am sure and were very hidden but accepted.
Do not forget the deep South had many children with Master Slave relationships. Those relationships continues illegally in the sex trades which also existed always.
So I am squarely in the corner that they were lovers.
And that is a beautiful thing.
Hmm I honestly thought it was very clear that they were lovers in the book.
Anne wrote: "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 re..."Anne wrote: "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 re..."
Julia wrote: "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 ..."
I think you explained it very well.. as it was. I was surprised as I love the movie, but I never thought about them as a "couple" not once.. just how they cared so much for each other. In the book, it was very clear there was more going on. Interesting to read everyone's thoughts.
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..."Actually, if you look at the book, Idgie doesn't meet Ruth until long after Buddy dies, so it's not their love for him that unites them, at least not in the original.
I think it's pretty explicit in the book that they were romantically in love with each other, and it seems pretty unlikely that sharing the same house and raising a child together wouldn't allow them the opportunity to be physical with each other. They perhaps wouldn't have been public about it, but what they did in their own home was no business of anyone else.
Equally, the movie's director John Avnet has said that the food fight scene was supposed to metaphorically represent Ruth and Idgie making love.
There's too many moments in both stories to go through, but if you re-read and re-watch, there's plenty of information that explicitly tells you they were together.
I never got the impression reading the book that Idgie and Ruth weren't having a physical relationship. Of course people did that back then, and all the way back to Sappho's time, and before that. The people around them were mostly the kind who were tolerant and minded their business. And Idgie and Ruth were well liked. Nobody made a big deal of young white Idgie going to live with Black people, either, and this was the south in the 1930's. Well, a little oasis of sanity in the south, anyway.
The movie toned the relationship down compared to the book, but it never says it was platonic, either. And Idgie is always in pants and vests and the like, when women generally wore dresses. It's hinted at.
Ninny and Idgie are definitely NOT the same person in the book, but the movie leaves this open to interpretation: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101921/faq
Idgie and Ruth were definitely in love. People can find it pretty easy to act like they weren't just because we never read about them kissing or having sex, but they did everything short of that and it was explicit that they were in love nevertheless. As the story is narrated largely through Ninny's eyes and as it is set in the early 20th century, it's not a surprise that we don't see them being intimate; if Idgie and Ruth were ever physical in public they would have been imprisoned. Let me offer some examples of why it is clear that they were in love, though. (a) There are other people in Whistle Stop who know it. Idgie's mother tells her siblings, "Your sister has a crush," and Sipsey says, "That ol’ love bug done bit Idgie."
(b) When Ruth is about to leave to marry Frank, Idgie says, "You don't love him [...] Oh no you don’t. You love me… you know you do. You know you do!" And she really does. Her reasoning for leaving Idgie is outlined in the following passage: "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 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 knew 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 realised 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 marry Frank Bennett, the young man she was engaged to marry, and try to be a good wife and mother. Ruth was sure that no matter what Idgie said, she would get over her crush and get on with her life. Ruth was doing the only thing she could do."
And when Idgie sees Ruth again for the first time, two years after she has married Frank, this happens: "When Ruth came down, she was taken completely by surprise. She walked out on the porch and Idgie, who was trying to act casual even though her palms were sweaty and she could feel her ears burning, said, ‘Look, I don’t want to bother you. I know you’re probably very happy and all… I mean, I’m sure you are, but I just wanted you to know that I don’t hate you and I never did. I still want you to come back and I’m not a kid anymore, so I’m not gonna change. I still love you and I always will and I still don’t care what anybody thinks–’
Frank called down from the bedroom, ‘Who is it?’
Idgie started backing down the porch stairs. ‘I just wanted you to know that – well, I gotta go.’
Ruth, who had not said a word, watched her get into the car and drive off.
There had not been a day when Ruth had not thought about her."
Ruth clearly tries to suppress her feelings for Idgie and feels guilty about them. Probably because she's a woman. She agonises over it when she's married to Frank: "Almost immediately, the parties started, and she tried to shut out any thoughts of Whistle Stop. But sometimes, in the middle of a crowd or alone at night, she never knew when it was going to happen, Idgie would suddenly come to mind, and she would want to see her so bad that the pain of longing for her sometimes took her breath away.
Whenever it happened, she would pray to God and beg Him to take such thoughts out of her head. She knew that she must be where she should be and doing the right thing. She would get over missing Idgie. Surely, He would help her… surely, this feeling would pass in time… with His help, she would make it pass. […]
Ruth couldn’t help but think that something inside of her had caused him to hate her; that somehow, no matter how hard she tried to suppress it, Frank felt the love inside she had for Idgie. It had slipped out somehow, in her voice, her touch; she didn’t know how, but she believed he must have known and that’s why he despised her. So she had lived with that guilt and taken the beatings and the insults because she thought she deserved them."
(c) The bee charming scene itself. It's pretty explicit.
"Ruth put her arms around Idgie and said, ‘Oh Idgie, I’m not mad at you. It’s just that I don’t know what I’d do if anything ever happened to you. I really don’t.’
Idgie’s heart started pounding so hard it almost knocked her over.
After they had eaten the chicken and potato salad and all the biscuits and most of the honey, Ruth leaned back against the tree and Idgie put her head in her lap. ‘You know, Ruth, I’d kill for you. Anybody that would ever hurt you, I’d kill them in a minute and never think twice about it.’
‘Oh Idgie, that’s a terrible thing to say.’
‘No it isn’t. I’d rather kill for love than kill for hate. Wouldn’t you?’
‘Well, I don’t think we should ever kill for any reason.’
‘All right, then, I’d die for you. How about that? Don’t you think somebody could die for love?’
‘No.’
‘The Bible says Jesus Christ did.’
‘That’s different.’
‘No it isn’t. I could die right now, and I wouldn’t mind. I’d be the only corpse with a smile on my face.’
‘Don’t be silly.’
‘I could have been killed today, couldn’t I have?’
Ruth took her hand and smiled down at her. ‘My Idgie’s a bee charmer.’
‘Is that what I am?’
‘That’s what you are. I’ve heard there were people who could do it, but I’d never seen one before today.’
‘Is it bad?’
‘Nooo. It’s wonderful. Don’t you know that?’
‘Naw, I thought it was crazy or something.’
‘No – it’s a wonderful thing to be.’
Ruth leaned down and whispered in her ear, ‘You’re an old bee charmer, Idgie Threadgoode, that’s what you are…’
Idgie smiled back at her and looked up into the clear blue sky that reflected in her eyes, and she was as happy as anybody who is in love in the summertime can be."
(d) Ruth is jealous of Eva Bates. We are told that "Ruth was glad to see her because she always worried whenever Idgie went off for a week or more, especially when she knew she was down at the river with Eva Bates." And Ninny says, "You take Idgie and Ruth. Now, you never saw two people more devoted to each other than they were, but even the two of them went through a period when they had their little problems. Ruth moved in with us once. I never knew what it was about, nor did I ask, because it was none of my business, but I think it was because she didn’t like Idgie goin’ over to the river, where Eva Bates lived. Said she felt maybe Eva encouraged Idgie to drink too much for her own good." Now, we don't know if Idgie ever cheated on Ruth. Personally, I don't think she did. But we know that Idgie and Eva were intimate before Ruth moved back to Whistle Stop, so it makes sense that Ruth would have learned this and that she would be jealous of Eva.
(e) They raise a child together. Idgie tells Stump, "Now, you’re my son and I love you no matter what." Idgie is referred to as a "proud parent", and Stump is "Idgie and Ruth's little boy".
In conclusion, I think that explicit statements that Idgie was "in love", that Ruth "loved Idgie with all her heart", that sometimes "she would want to see her so bad that the pain of longing for her sometimes took her breath away", and so on, make it pretty obvious that Idgie and Ruth were in love. I mean, I have best friends that I love very, very deeply, and I would never describe myself as being "in love" with them, or "longing" for them. There isn't any ambiguity about it. The only reason we never get to read them kissing or have sex is because of the setting in the 1920s to 30s - we must remember that the threat of incarceration for homosexuals at the time was very real. Nevertheless, it is explicit that Idgie and Ruth were in love.
Thanks for collecting all those quotes from the book, Sara, I don't have a copy handy. It's the kind of thing I remember about the book, but I coundn't articulate all that here without a copy.Jeez Louise, Ruth MARRIED Frank Bennett trying to "cure" herself and Idgie. Nobody ever did that over a platonic friendship.
I think having all those quotes here settles it once and for all.
Maybe people are just too used to having everything explicit and spelled out for them these days. This book is more like that scene in Gable and Harlow's "Hold Your Man" where Gable kicks the bedroom door shut. This is the same way. The proverbial door gets kicked shut many, many times in the novel, and it's assumed we know what's going on behind it.
Bravo. :)
Sara thanks that was awesome. You are making me want to read the book again.
YES it was a lesbian relationship. Fannie Flag, the author, has been out as a lesbian for quite some time. Why wasn't their relationship more explicit? Having come out in the late 70's, that answer is very obvious for people in my generation. It was only in 1973 that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM. Before that courageous and very controversial move, being gay was classified as a mental illness. In the 80's, Ronald Reagan was extremely popular, and with him came troglodytes from the Moral "Majority" and the religious right which held a tremendous amount of influence. So did creeps like Pat Robertson.
Had Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe been an explicitly "lesbian" novel, distribution would have been limited mainly to women's book stores. Further, we would never have had the wonderful movie that inspired so many. A straight and very close friend of mine told me, about a year ago, that she and her grandkids watched FGT at least 20 times. Only recently did it dawn on her that Idgie and Ruth were lesbians. It's interesting that straight people assume that we are so different from them. Had Idgie been a guy, everyone would have known they were a couple. (Same thing goes for Xena + Gabrielle.) Many people assume that lesbians are in some way different than the rest of the human race.
It was tough for LGBT literary talent back then. Writing explicitly gay or lesbian material meant the bold choice of kissing mainstream success goodbye. It's fascinating that this question is even raised, but already (!!!) I'm running into LGBT's youth who assume that gay marriage was ALWAYS legal somewhere in the world. It certainly was NOT. We ignore history at our own peril.
SSM exists in the US because Americans realized that they knew and (in many cases) loved someone in their circle who is gay or lesbian. Novels such as Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe went a long way to making non-LGBT's aware that we are everywhere, in every walk of life, at no threat to them or to their families.
Thanks for the detailed historical context, Sue! It's really important to remember what you've mentioned when reading earlier LGBT lit like Fried Green Tomatoes. Remember, homosexuality was still a criminal offence in the UK, US and Canada until the late 60's - that wasn't all that long ago.
Fin wrote: "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."You make some excellent points, Fin! I was in a profession that had rules against "moral turpitude". So did my partner. We shared tremendous admiration and respect for courageous people, activists, who passed up a lucrative career to fight for the rights of others. However, the bitter truth was that not everyone could work in a tattoo parlor, head shop, book or record store, or women's center where being out wasn't a problem. As doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, women in the military, etc, some of us were forced to live discreetly. It wasn't a comfortable choice, nor one we embraced willingly. Both of us were private people who didn't display family photos prominently in our offices. The best approach to avoid being a topic of gossip was to keep work and home separate. Kudos to people who manage to do the opposite. :)
I am reading the book now and I was wondering the same question. I definitely think that it is a possibility, but the author never came out and said they were partners blatantly. But I do think it is a good possibility. I think they both cared for each other and loved each other but was it more than a friendship/strong bond?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
