Do you think Ruth and Idgy were lovers? Why do you think that Flagg wasn't clear on the subject

[Rowan]

Local lesbian popping in to say: It's gay, folks.

[Jaxon]

I'm gonna be honest, I thought they were pretty blatantly a thing in the novel and I'm always surprised when people are confused. I thought Fannie was pretty clear that they were romantically in love with each other, and that they were essentially married to each other. A few others posted a lot of great quotes but the novel even says that it started as a crush and turned into full fledged love. Ruth left because it was her duty and she thought Idgie wasn't serious. Idgie was literally broken by it, when ruth left she shouted that Ruth loved her, not Frank and Ruth lied and said she loved Frank. (When in the beginning she said she knew she wouldn't love anyone like she did Idgie ever again.) Idgie goes to her wedding and gets sick right after they marry because she had to drink to deal with it. It's blatantly said that she both goes downhill afterwards (she drops out of school) and that she always keeps an eye on Ruth. Then there's the bible verse, the fact that Idgie's dad refers to the kid and Ruth as hers, the fact that the baby even looks like Idgie (despite neither Frank or Ruth having blonde hair), and his name, Buddy Threadgoode Jr. In the movie they explain this away by the Buddy and Ruth subplot which doesn't exist in the books. It actually says that Idgie was a mess before ruth came in the books cuz Buddy had died a few years previous. Ruth had been her life saver.

Basically I think the book so obviously spells out their relationship, and to this day I'm surprised that people miss several chapter of text that essentially says they're together.

[Lisa]

Yep. And not that IMDB Trivia is flawless, but according to that site Flagg, Parker and Masterson all wanted the movie to depict the lesbian relationship between the characters, a la the book; however, the director and producers decided against it and instead portrayed the women as friends.

[Lis]

Sandra wrote: "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 t..."

YES! It was the Bible verse that sealed it for me. I love this book, particularly when Idgie walks through the town with the elephant. But the verse, "And your people will be my people..." was not merely eloquent, it signified a taking on of family, of togetherness, of intimacy. Others may not see it that way but that was definitely my impression. I've read the book several times and each time the relationship seems more obvious.

[Cole]

Yeah I had exactly the same question as many of you. What perplexes me is the nonchalance with which the Flagg and the rest of Whistle Stop characterize Idgie and Ruth's relationship - I would imagine rural Alabama, especially in the 1930's to be a pretty homophobic place. I mean, the book tackles the issue of racial tension and discrimination head on, detailing specific incidents like when the Klan threatened Idgie and her cafe because she was selling food to black children out of the back, or how Artis had to wait for the white guy in the telephone booth when he urgently needed to save his friend's dog. Yet, when it comes to Idgie and Ruth's relationship, the subject of homophobia is not a single time brought up or otherwise mentioned. It's oddly treated by both Flagg and the other characters as a nonissue, which is again is odd considering how much of the story centers around other controversial topics such as race and gender equality.

Perhaps Flagg had felt that trying to deal with multiple issues at once would reduce the effect in comparison to focusing on a single(ish) one. Or, maybe it's Flaggs attempt at trying to normalize same-sex relationships by treating them as completely normal. That being said, the way she chose to execute the book just left me (and a lot of other readers as evidenced by the existence of this thread) scratching their heads and wondering if there was somehow a consistent typo with the pronouns or whether or not they were the same person, due to the inconsistency between the setting (Alabama 1930s) and the relationship (Two women openly living together and raising a son) so I think it probably could have been done more effectively by acknowledging at least once the unusual (and boundary-pushing) nature of their relationship.

[Rosie]

I don’t think they were lovers though I do think Idgy was a lesbian. Idgy was extremely in love and loyal to Ruth and would take her on any terms. I think Ms Flagg was vague on purpose..to let the reader decide! I also think the town accepted things as they were and had no need to question
I also think the woman in the nursing home is Idgy.

[Jeanne]

Thanks to Sara for including the quote...


Thanks Sara, for including the quote:

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.

It makes me wonder, is "bee charmer" code for "lesbian?" Because the passage reads perfectly that way. And I've never understood why Idgie would ask if bee charming was wrong. But certainly she would wonder if her loving women is bad or crazy. And Ruth responds, "It's wonderful--don't you know that?"

Suddenly, this passage gives me chills! Though, if if I'm correct about a double meaning, Ruth doesn't really believe what she says, since she still married Frank. Maybe she just says what she WANTS to believe. :-(

[Jeanne]

The only thing that makes me second guess the nature of their relationship (in spite of the text, which affirms that it's a romantic relationship again and again) is the town's total acceptance of Idgie and Ruth. I admit, I don't know the first thing about Southern gay history, but I can't believe that if Whistle Stop were a real town that the community would be so supportive of an openly gay relationship. The pastor preaches against the evils of alcoholism and against Eva Bates, the town prostitute, but he's ok with an openly gay woman teaching Sunday school? It doesn't add up. But then I remember, this is not a real town, it's fictional. And if Fannie Flagg wants to create a town that suffers from racism but not homophobia, well, that's the beauty of fiction.

[Tracy]

Natlukens wrote: "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 r..."

If I recall correctly from the book (and not getting the details mixed with the movie details). Ninny was married to one of Idgie's older brothers. His name was Cleo. He wasn't the one killed by the train, that was Buddy. He wasn't the one close to Idgie's age who teased her when they were kids, that was Julian.

[Phoenix]

I see some debate into whether or not ruth and idgy were lovers, to end this debate once and for all YES!! They absolutely were. If there is any further doubt get the extended DVD where Flagg does commentary and makes it explicitly clear that they were openly discussing it. Hence the food fight scene wich was to be an undertoned sexual thing.

[Hayley]

I just finished reading this book for the first time, and I have never seen the movie. It's interesting, I thought Idgie and Ruth were a couple the entire book. I didn't even consider them to be "only close friends" until looking up discussion questions for my book club. I wonder if it's because of the society of today, that I just accepted it as fact. The author's decision to leave this undefined makes me feel like it was even more plausible, as at the time it would have been unacceptable in society.

[Jenny]

idgy and ninny are different people. if you read the book, it states that. ninny married one of idgy's older brothers. reading the rest of these, i see that no one actually pays attention to the books they read lol

[Stella]

The town saw two women who lived together, no more. Having a female roommate, in itself, doesn't prove anything. They weren't making out in the cafe or flying rainbow flags. The people closest to them knew what was up, the rest didn't, or turned a blind eye (like a lot of people are doing here.)

Ruth had been through some trauma and had a son to raise. There was nothing questionable about her "best friend" helping her. Basically, people "minded their business."

[Sadie]

I believe they were indeed gay lovers.

[Karen]

I recently reread it. Ruth and Igdie's connection is explicitly a romantic love relationship and this is made clear in a number of places. There are 3 that are particularly striking to me.

1. Before she marrie's Frank Ruth recognizes her feelings for Idgie, fears that they are wrong and fights against them.

2. Idgie's parents have a private chat with Ruth regarding her relationship with Idgie that is clearly a version of the same "are you going to take care of our little girl" chat that they would have had with a man expressing interest in marriage with Idgie - they clearly want to know of Ruth's intentions and feelings towards their daughter and then close the conversation by telling her that they cannot imagine anyone better for their daughter than Ruth.

3. Ruth is clearly jealous of Idgie's relationship with Eva Bates. It is left of the reader to decide whether Idgie still ever sleeps with Eva or if she just goes down there to drink, play cards, etc., but it is clearly stated that Ruth doesn't like it and not just because of the partying factor of what is going on down at the roadhouse. This is clearly sexual jealousy of Eva on Ruth's part.

As far as the discussion of whether this romantic love took or did not take on a sexual expression, I would like to add:

If this was a straight couple, wouldn't we assume that it did, because don't we assume this of most romantic relationships that we are presented with in text and film media, most of which are hetero?

Just because the action of the novel is during the 20's-40's, doesn't mean that there weren't lesbian relationships in that time.
Yes, there were relationships in the past that were what could be best expressed as "non-aware-of-being-lesbians-lesbian-relationships", but there were also ones that were clearly (and sexually) lesbian in nature.

I believe that Ruth is every bit as gay as Idgie is. It seems a clear and forthright expression of a butch-femme relationship dynamic. The fact that so many readers see Idgie as the "real gay one" and Ruth as being not so indicates that a lot of us don't really know a heck of a lot about queer culture, past and present. and what truly constitutes lesbian identity. We have been under-educated in this arena and have a lot to learn.

[Tracy]

Karen wrote: "I recently reread it. Ruth and Igdie's connection is explicitly a romantic love relationship and this is made clear in a number of places. There are 3 that are particularly striking to me.

1. Befo..."

Plus I believe there is a passage where Idgie's mother says that Idgie has a crush on Ruth.

[Rosario]

In the book is more evident that they are a couple. An example of this being a bit more clear, is that Ruth feels jealous when Idgie visits Eva Bates. Or when Idgie's father says that she has to mantain her family (Ruth and Buddy).

On the other hand, I think the author may have wanted to show all the aspects of being a couple and forming a family, without centering on sexuality as a topic. The story and the relationship between characters is very rich, and maybe stating explicitly that they were toghether would have drawn the attention from the main themes: LOVE and tolerance.

This book was written more than 30 years ago, so I believe that if it were explicit, people may have focused more on the sexual orientation of the characters, instead of focusing on their relationship as a whole.

An example of this (pointing at the movie, but applies as well): “It’s a mainstream movie,” Flagg said in a 1992 interview with Entertainment Weekly. “People are taking children, they’re taking old people. It speaks to everybody. That’s what’s wonderful. They can make up their own minds.”

[Rosario]

In the book is more evident that they are a couple. An example of this being a bit more clear, is that Ruth feels jealous when Idgie visits Eva Bates. Or when Idgie's father says that she has to mantain her family (Ruth and Buddy).

On the other hand, I think the author may have wanted to show all the aspects of being a couple and forming a family, without centering on sexuality as a topic. The story and the relationship between characters is very rich, and maybe stating explicitly that they were toghether would have drawn the attention from the main themes: LOVE and tolerance.

This book was written more than 30 years ago, so I believe that if it were explicit, people may have focused more on the sexual orientation of the characters, instead of focusing on their relationship as a whole.

An example of this (pointing at the movie, but applies as well): “It’s a mainstream movie,” Flagg said in a 1992 interview with Entertainment Weekly. “People are taking children, they’re taking old people. It speaks to everybody. That’s what’s wonderful. They can make up their own minds.”

[Lawrence]

I don't think they were lovers, but there was definitely some unrequited love on Idgy's side. As for why Flagg wasn't clear, it was probably because the book took place in the 60's when being LGBT was still considered 'shameful.' So even if they were lovers, they probably wouldn't have shown it to the public.

[Stella]

Lawrence wrote: "I don't think they were lovers, but there was definitely some unrequited love on Idgy's side. As for why Flagg wasn't clear, it was probably because the book took place in the 60's when being LGBT ..."

Ummm, the Whistle Stop parts of the book took place in the 30's. And the parts with Evelyn were contemporary with the book's publication in the late 80's.

And believe it or not, people are people and we haven't progressed. The 30's had a mix of tolerant and intolerant people, just like now. Maybe it was slightly better then, since it's possible that it would have been considered Idgie and Ruth's business, not everyone elses'.

You might want to read the book again. Ruth and Idgie were definitely an item.

[SUZAN]

I never thought Ruth and Idgy were lesbians. Except when my lesbian friend told me she was sure of it. I disagree. To me, it was two friends with a common bond, Buddy, that brought them together and created a loving and caring friendship like sisters.