The Outsiders
discussion
Does anyone think that Dally was gay for Johnny?
message 151:
by
Irene
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jan 17, 2013 04:41PM
Dallas was not gay and I think that like since he had a soft spot for johnny probally fet for him as like a little brother.
reply
|
flag
Irene wrote: "Dallas was not gay and I think that like since he had a soft spot for johnny probally fet for him as like a little brother."I am with you!
thx. Also i thought that when he tricked the cop into shooting him was clever besides him dying. And it was so emotional when he ran out of the hospital. Do remember that scene when he was about to curse out the nurse for not letting him to see jhonny?
I do I love that book so much, I loved Dally so much, I do think it was clever of him how he did it, he commited suicide without it being with his own hand, but I think it was a mistake, I didnt want him to die.
Irene wrote: "thx. Also i thought that when he tricked the cop into shooting him was clever besides him dying."Suicide by cop is "clever?"
Chelsey wrote: "I'm not bringing this up to be crude or silly, it just occurred to me years after reading this book that Dally might have cared so much about Johnny and only Johnny because he was in love with him...."I think that is absolutely a VALID and worthwhile interpretation. The depth of their relationship is left somewhat ambiguous, and Johnny IS the "only thing Dally loved."
While there is definitely an interpretation open to them simply being friends, brotherly even, a queer reading is also defensible.
Honestly, I find that the queer reading of their relationship adds an extra layer of nuance to both Dally and Johnny's characters and an extra layer of tragedy to their ends.
Absolutely not!!!! lol
Christine wrote: "This book was written in the 1960's by a fifteen year old girl in Tulsa Oklahoma. Hello?? I'd guess it is highly unlikely she intended a gay character."I'd recommend reading "Death of the Author" if you really want to argue authorial intent. Just because it may not have been the intended reading doesn't mean that it isn't a VALID reading.
I do agree with there being sides of a character that the author doesn't even know about....but I don't believe that is the case here. And I agree that she certainly did not intend for him to be gay.
Cindy wrote: "I do agree with there being sides of a character that the author doesn't even know about....but I don't believe that is the case here. And I agree that she certainly did not intend for him to be gay."I'm not sure what you mean "not the case here." There is a queer reading for Dally and Johnny, certainly. Many people see that potential interpretation for their interactions and relationships. Authorial intent is not the end all be all of literary analysis.
don presnell wrote: "who cares?"Well, we care because it is the analysis of literature and this is Goodreads where we analyze literature.
Holy crap, I'm late. I'm gonna comment anyway because I don't care.
I was assigned this book in English, and I wasn't expecting any romance or anything along those lines, much less the characters being gay for each other, but Dallas's actions towards Johnny made me question myself.
I myself am not queer, if you will, but I have friends who are, and I've discussed this with them.
I do like manga, as you may be able to tell from my icon, and I've read my fair share of yaoi, which may have skewed my angle on things, but maybe not.
I find Dallas's love for Johnny just beyond the boundary of "platonic." An example would be the few times when Johnny has been referred to as "The only thing Dallas loved." I wouldn't call that platonic, but I wouldn't call that romantic attraction, either.
Most people wouldn't kill them self over someone who's "just a really good friend." I could see them being really depressed, possibly to the point of needing therapy, but I don't know if they would attempt/successfully attempt suicide over that.
Dallas was indeed protective of Johnny, but I wouldn't call that a "father-son" relationship. The age gap between the two wasn't even that big.
Maybe I'm going nowhere with this argument, but I will argue that Dallas loved Johnny as more than a friend. He saw him as his one light in the world, the one thing that kept him going.
And when he was gone, never to return, Dallas broke, and felt as if he had no purpose. Because his ray of light- the one he loved- was gone.
Just think about that.
Rosie wrote: "Chelsey wrote: "I'm not bringing this up to be crude or silly, it just occurred to me years after reading this book that Dally might have cared so much about Johnny and only Johnny because he was i..."I know you wrote this a year ago but this response made my day thank you
I know this is very late, but why does almost every person on this thread, phrase it to be such a bad thing? Seriously who cares, that's just their intretation of it, you have the right to have yours. It's pretty pathetic to bash it down, and act like it's an insult. It kind of makes me sad that we as a species aren't more accepting of others perceptions/opinions/sexualities. Off topic, but I just don't get it, I keep seeing the same post "I don't think they're gay, just brotherly love." Like I'm pretty sure over fifty people have said that, the op gets it already, at this point it's literally taking the second comment on the original page and putting it down into a basic sentence. You clearly see the comments before you, I think the op has heard it enoug already. Just saying, lmao.
Oh my... all the straight people on this thread talking about "same-sex friendships." Please. Just let gay people have this one thing. You cishets deny us everything else... please give us our literary fantasies...
"Just because Dally loved Johnny doesn't mean it was gay"
Sure. But if either Dally or Johnny was a female, there'd be no question that the two of them were in love. Hell, it'd probably be explicit in the novel in the first place.
Please stop with the "he loves him but only as a brother" bullshit. I am sick of it. Give us explicit representation, authors. And fans, stop denying us our beliefs about characters.
"Just because Dally loved Johnny doesn't mean it was gay"
Sure. But if either Dally or Johnny was a female, there'd be no question that the two of them were in love. Hell, it'd probably be explicit in the novel in the first place.
Please stop with the "he loves him but only as a brother" bullshit. I am sick of it. Give us explicit representation, authors. And fans, stop denying us our beliefs about characters.
If anyone doesn't know yet, S.E. Hinton was asked about the relationship on Twitter recently. She says it was not sexual. Some people were rather heated with her, but she is the author, and I say that gives her final say. A relationship isn't "given" to one side or another. It simply "is" one side or the other, and this relationship wasn't sexual. Nor does it have to be. It says in the book that Johnny was the one person that Dally loved. That it was not sexual does not mean that it wasn't "real" or "deep" or would have been better if it were sexual.
I mean she may not have meant for it to come off as really homo, but homo is how it came off...
Young adults are at the stage in their lives where they are learning how to incorporate hormones into their lives, so it's not unusual that it can become overemphasized, but think about what Hinton said: Where in the text are these sexual feelings between Johnny and Dally? Dally loved Johnny, but there never appeared to be a sexual component to it. What is something that happened in the book that would have been out of place if felt between two close brothers? Or two best friends? Insisting that there has to be sexual feelings simply because the feelings were so strong doesn't take into account that many of our deepest relationships in life aren't sexual at all. It's pretty common for fans to go rogue and ship pairings that aren't canonical, but I think that has more to do with the overemphasis of sex in our culture. Look at an example like the TV show "Supernatural": The two main characters are close brothers and from the beginning, there has been fan fiction about the two of them together, even though there isn't that component. With the mainstreaming of homosexuality, the playing field has become much more crowded with possible pairings, so people are more likely to entertain same-sex pairings even when there is no evidence of homosexuality. Look at how BBC's modern-day update to Sherlock Holmes "Sherlock" entertains the possibility of romantic feelings between Sherlock and Watson.
Maddie wrote: "I definitely think so. The fact that Dally couldn't stand Johnny dying, and actually let himself die because he couldn't stand the thought of living without him, proves this. "I think that had more to do with the fact that Johnny was the only person that Dally loved. If he had more people who loved him and whom he loved, he might not have felt so desperate at losing Johnny.
Why do so many people feel that only a sexual love can be so deep? A mother grieving the loss of her child, a brother grieving the loss of his sister, surely these relationships are not sexual but can still be very deeply felt and are often irreplaceable. Their loss might drive someone to despair, especially if that person does not have a good support system.
But Maddie, people don't even die for their mothers. They live through the pain. However, people will die for romance and love. Juliet didn't kill jersey because she was in bromance with Romeo... what's wrong with entertaining the idea that they were day for each other?
Jeremiah wrote: "But Maddie, people don't even die for their mothers. They live through the pain. However, people will die for romance and love. Juliet didn't kill jersey because she was in bromance with Romeo... what's wrong with entertaining the idea that they were day for each other?"Maddie isn't saying that people don't commit suicide over the loss of someone they aren't romantically attached to. I am.
Some people do commit suicide after losing people that they are not romantically attached to. It is not a sure sign that there was a romantic attachment. Here is a study that says people who experience the loss of a parent in childhood are at higher risk for suicide: http://time.com/4106315/kids-who-lose... and another one about grieving parents being at a higher risk for an early death, including suicide: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/grieving...
The "wrong-ness" of insisting that it has to be romantic love is in the misunderstanding of how love works. The honest truth is that many of the deepest connections anyone will have in life will not have a sexual component. Your parents, your siblings, your children, your good friends: these can be people who are closest to you. Now suppose (like Dally), every significant link and connection in your life is centered on one person and you watch that person die. Is it in the realm of possibility that such a loss would be a deciding factor in an impulsive suicide-by-cop?
Is it really fair to the character of Dally to reduce or distort his story in order to ship him with Johnny? Wouldn't this story be a good opportunity to explore the power of non-romantic love instead of trying to force a template that the author says emphatically was not there? Is it really realistic to ship every deep relationship as romantic? Is there a downside when that happens?
On a related note, I looked up suicide by cop. Hinton wrote this book before the term was in common usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide...
I wouldn't call suicide by cop "clever" as some have on this thread. You are basically forcing someone to kill you or to risk the possibility of being killed themselves. You are putting them in a position where they have to make that decision, often with little time to react. That seems to me like a heavy burden to put on another person.
Mickey wrote: "The "wrong-ness" of insisting that it has to be romantic love is in the misunderstanding of how love works..."Mickey, I agree on all counts. These boys were a family, I think Hinton was exploring family ties. It is perfectly fine with me if anyone wants to interpret a 'queer read' on it, but I think it is always a powerful message about (nonsexual) love and sacrifice.
It's important that kids understand that romantic love is not necessarily the most binding or the most important. All this focus on "shipping" just feeds into this illusion that it is. I just recently read the one YA novel from S.E. Hinton that I didn't read as a middle schooler (Taming the Star Runner). Reflecting on that story and the others, I'd say that Hinton doesn't put many hardcore romantic elements in her novels. She's more a realist. Case in point: Cherry and Dally don't end up together, and they were never in love. Her other stories (such as That Was Then, This Is Now and Rumble Fish) deal more with brotherly issues. While there are romantic relationships, they are peripheral, although in That was Then...you could say that Cathy (view spoiler).
From what I can remember, all the main characters in her YA novels end up (view spoiler)
Mickey wrote: "It's important that kids understand that romantic love is not necessarily the most binding or the most important. All this focus on "shipping" just feeds into this illusion that it is. ..."Yes, true. Hinton said that she wanted to write these books as a realistic reflection of what actual teenagers were experiencing. They were not written as 'love stories' (although the current YA market is certainly rife with love stories.) Hinton's books are a different breed.
The point is it shouldn't matter if someone thinks they were homosexuals or not. It shouldn't matter if their love was romantic or not. Both sides of the coin are just as good as the other. A queer youth who reads this novel should have a right to interpret it as a queer read without anyone telling them they're wrong.
Jeremiah wrote: "A queer youth who reads this novel should have a right to interpret it as a queer read without anyone telling them they're wrong. "I tend to value the author's interpretation above any particular reader's-gay or straight. In my mind, there's a difference between the person who created the story and someone who has just read it. So if the author tells me a character is gay (like Rowling with Dumbledore), then I consider him gay. Conversely, if the author tells me that a character is straight (like Hinton with Dally), then he's straight. It's a sign of respect for the person who has given me something that I value (a good story). It's my way of thanking them by saying, "This is yours. I recognize and acknowledge that this belongs to you more than anyone else."
I don't think anyone can reasonably expect to have immunity from other people's opinions, and saying Dally wasn't gay doesn't devalue homosexuality (come on now, let's all admit that he wouldn't be a good poster boy for either side), not to mention that gay youths could also benefit from the message that romantic love is not the only kind of love. It not being homosexual does not mean that it is necessarily foreign to gays (who also love people non-romantically). It's just not an example of romantic love.
Okay well I disagree. You can state that your opinion is that's it is not romantic love, but to tell someone that they are wrong because the author said otherwise is degrading their opinion. So yes. Dallas and Johnny were gay for each other and it's important for young readers to know that romantic love in a group of friends is possible and okay. For god sakes, they all loved each other. They all loved Johnny, but Dallas loved him in a different way from the other boys. A different and a gay way.
Thinking it over now, it seems nearly every book she wrote during this time dealt with platonic male relationships. Sometimes they were brothers (full or half) or they just lived in the same house and referred to each other as brothers. The only YA novel of hers that I can think of that did not have a brother figure was Travis in Taming the Star Runner, which was actually published much later than the others.
Rather topical story in the news recently about the the death of a mother the day after her daughter dies. We know about it because both mother and daughter were famous actresses. (I am speaking of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds.) It's being reported that Reynolds spoke of missing her daughter and wanting to be with her again right before suffering a fatal stroke. Now Reynolds did not "will" her stroke into being the same way Dally "willed" the bullets that killed him, but it is an instance of a non-romantic bond that could have been a deciding factor in a person's death.
Mickey wrote: "Now Reynolds did not "will" her stroke into being the same way Dally "willed" the bullets that killed him, but it is an instance of a non-romantic bond that could have been a deciding factor in a person's death...."Hmmm, that is a very interesting comparison. I believe such things happen often on a perhaps subconscious level.
Mickey wrote: "Here is a recent article about the twitter interactions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/o..."Good article Mickey! Thanks for linking. I did not know Hinton denied it, but I had guessed she would.
I think it's perfectly possible that Dally was gay or bisexual. A lot of people seem to be equating the idea of a homosexual Dally to one that wants only to get with Johnny, but it's a perfectly realistic relationship to assume that he loved him in a way that surpassed heterosexuality but that wasn't consumed by erotic needs. Literature is open to interpretation so if some like to see him as a brotherly type and others as a lover it seems to me both are equally valid perspectives.
The entire book is extremely gay out of context. I was reading some of the Ponyboy/Sodapop bits to my friend and she said (not knowing that they were brothers) that it sounded pretty gay. I think relationships were just different back then. Two boys could do things like that without arousing suspicion. A good friendship or admiration is not the same as gay. I think Dally's love for Johnny was more of a brotherly love.
Maya wrote: "The entire book is extremely gay out of context. I was reading some of the Ponyboy/Sodapop bits to my friend and she said (not knowing that they were brothers) that it sounded pretty gay.."I think because it was written by a 15 year old girl, she may have created the boys she loved/ would have a crush on. I think that came out in the writing, possibly unintentionally. To today's readers, they all may sound gay lol!
I never even considered that Dally might've been in love with Johnny. It could be, but I don't think so. I think he just saw a bit of himself in Johnny and that's why he cared so much for him. I never thought any of them were in love with each other I just thought that they just acted like themselves.
I don't think s.e. hinton intended for that to be an interpretation, and we shouldn't assume, because love can be that strong. but, the love of your life, your soulmate, doesn't have to be romantic. it is whoever completes you and makes you whole. johnny brought out the best and worse in dally. love does that to people, not romance. there is a difference. your child can be the love of your life, and that's not romantic.
I never really thought that they were gay. I think that Hinton was trying to show the brotherly love that kids in gangs feel, as an explanation to why kids join gangs. I don't think she would have meant for Dally to like Johnny in a romantic way, it just doesn't fit with the story. Of course thats just what I think.
Personally, I always really wanted them to get together. I think that they would be really cute together! However, I know that that was most likely not the actual intention. Even so, no one can stop me from pretending they were in love.
I think a lot of the commenters back a few pages were really out of line ridiculing OP for even putting the idea of queerness out there. It seems that many of these people crusading for the sanctity of same sex 'no homo' friendships would hardly bother to do the same thing if the genders were made opposite.That being said I don't think there was much of a romantic or sexual love between the two boys. Dally seemed more like a protective older brother who took Johnny under his wing. The vulnerable Johnny gave Dally a purpose beyond committing crime and acts of violence for kicks. He wanted to set an example and try to protect the kid. When Johnny was taken from Dally, his life's purpose went back to crime and violence, and he realised that a life made up of those things wasn't a life at all.
I did detect a bit of effeminacy from a lot of the gang - it might have been S.E Hinton's developing grasp on the opposite sex that affected this, or it could be that the group (described as a sort of family in the book) had inadvertently feminised themselves to a small degree in order to compensate for the lack of any female figures in their lives.
See a lot of people I'm friends with strongly believe that Dally was in love with Johnny and can't read the book and see it any other way. I totally understand how they can see this and it is definitely a valid interpretation of the story. But I personally think Dally was not in love with Johnny but just loved him, as a younger brother. That's just the way I interpret the book but there is no wrong or right way to read a book! It doesn't disclose Dally's feelings for Johnny or Johnny's feelings for Dally in the story so I think it's up to the imagination....:)
Definitely not. He loved him like a little brother.
Jessica wrote: "See a lot of people I'm friends with strongly believe that Dally was in love with Johnny and can't read the book and see it any other way. I totally understand how they can see this and it is defin..."
I totally agree. That's exactly how I interpreted it.
I totally agree. That's exactly how I interpreted it.
Hm. You do all know that S.E. Hinton is still alive, and that she is active on Twitter, and answers questions? She's very much a liberal. If she wrote subtext into this book, she'd have no problem admitting it. Rather than debating, why not take the opportunity presented to you to actually ask the author?
Honestly I don't care what the author has to say. Literature has it's denotations behind the plot, however the author opens up inadvertent nuances within their stories that are open to interpretation by the reader! That's the whole point of reading literature. If you want to take something seriously, go read a religious text and devote your lives to it. To me, Dally was gay as hell for Johnny and great for anyone one else who thinks otherwise. Growing up gay and reading this novel that just so happened to be a little homo, whether it was supposed to or not, made me feel alright in a world that often put me down for being in love with my own Johnny. Isn't that what reading is all about? That feeling of understanding and love for what you've read within your own interpretation. I mean god.
Furthermore, maybe dally was totally in love with johnny in a best friend AND a lover way. We just never got to see their love flourish because the both FU*KING DIED!!!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Taming the Star Runner (other topics)
Taming the Star Runner (other topics)
That Was Then, This Is Now (other topics)
Rumble Fish (other topics)
More...
Pat Conroy (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (other topics)Taming the Star Runner (other topics)
Taming the Star Runner (other topics)
That Was Then, This Is Now (other topics)
Rumble Fish (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Tennessee Williams (other topics)Pat Conroy (other topics)
