The Outsiders
discussion
Does anyone think that Dally was gay for Johnny?
Jeremiah wrote: "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. "I will make the point again that gay people also have non-sexual relationships with members of the sex to which they are attracted. Being gay does not mean you are indiscriminately attracted to every member of your own sex any more than being hetero means you are attracted to every member of the opposite sex. People-gay and straight- are capable of deep, meaningful connections that are not sexual. Therefore, I would say that Johnny's and Dally's relationship is not necessarily foreign territory to gay people if it is not sexual. It does not exclude anyone to say that their relationship was brotherly or not sexual because gay people also have relationships that are brotherly or not sexual.
I don't agree with the idea that the purpose of literature is finding or creating interpretations that reinforce your own circumstances-particularly if you limit yourself to a very narrow sense of who you are. One of the best parts about literature is the freedom to enter into another person's experiences and circumstances and to learn to find common ground. Recent studies have shown that fiction readers are much more empathetic than non-readers. This is what fiction does and what it's supposed to do. One of my favorite quotes about this is from a book about reading by Pat Conroy:
“Here's what I love: when a great writer turns me into a Jew from Chicago, a lesbian out of South Carolina, or a black woman moving into a subway entrance in Harlem. Turn me into something else, writers of the world. Make me Muslim, heretic, hermaphrodite. Put me into a crusader's armor, a cardinal's vestments. Let me feel the pygmy's heartbeat, the queen's breast, the torturer's pleasure, the Nile's taste, or the nomad's thirst. Tell me everything that I must know. Hold nothing back.”
There's no reason and little to be gained from insisting that books should be so malleable as to include your specific circumstances. Why not relate to Dally's hopelessness or sense of loss or anger? Those are clearly in the book. Why superimpose feelings that are not there? Why feel that what's there doesn't apply to you unless it's romantic?
Okay first of all, you don't really have a right to tell me what an obviously large amount of people (probably queer) felt while reading this book. You don't speak for the LGBT+ community or relationships because you don't understand the perspective. Obviously gay males have platonic relationships with other males, however "friendship" was not the feeling inspired from reading their (Dally and Johnny) relationship and it's obvious that plenty of other people feel that way too. Was Johnny less of a friend to ponyboy or sodapop? No. They all had different dynamics in their relationships, but they were all male friendships that never inspired homosexual undertones. This wasn't the case with dally and Johnny and whether or not that was the authors intention, that's sure as fuck how the storyline came across. You're trying to water down and undermine the feelings of many people because you feel like the authors hetero rhetoric should remain unscathed and it's so stupid! Sure, we could say dally loved Johnny as a friend like everyone else in their gang, just a little more, but it would mean so much more if there was more than a platonic relationship from one of the members of the gang and that's what I took away from the story. I found love in friendship from ponyboy and Johnny and I saw love from inclination between Dally and Johnny throughout the book. That quote sounds like poetry, but even Hitler could write. I disagree with that sentiment wholeheartedly! How dare he imply that he could EVER understand the struggles of a different circumstance and say that he IS when he is, in fact NOT, just because he read a book from another's perspective. Just because you read about an individuals struggle, doesn't mean you've walked even ten steps in their shows. That is repugnant.
Jeremiah wrote: "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..."This is true and this is perhaps why certain books become so popular. There is more than one idea in operation. There is a school of thought that says, at some point, the author releases control and gives the book to the reader's interpretation, which has something to do with the collective subconscious. In that sense, what Susan Hinton 'meant to say' becomes less important than how people interpret it.
Christine wrote: "This is true and this is perhaps why certain books become so popular. There is more than one idea in operation. There is a school of thought that says, at some point, the author releases control and gives the book to the reader's interpretation, which has something to do with the collective subconscious. In that sense, what Susan Hinton 'meant to say' becomes less important than how people interpret it. "Certain books become trendy based on their ability to be misinterpreted in ways that are politically or socially in vogue. This changes books into useful tools. They are re-interpreted to reinforce a position that they didn't originally hold. In this way, the author's intent is submerged. But I like to think that a reader and a book getting together still contains a potential towards expanding the reader's awareness. Otherwise, why bother with the book at all?
If the author supposedly "releases control", it does not necessarily mean that the reader is more capable of creating meaning. Look at what fills that vacuum: we get half-formed thoughts, some narrow and false stereotypes about relationships, and interpretations based on wishful thinking. What we've lost is the story, its meaning, and its impact. The reader learns nothing because he's listened to nothing. He's limited his understanding to what he knows. It's a self-limiting position to take, and one that does not help young and inexperienced people to grow in understanding. We start out completely self-absorbed in life, and we grow in understanding by imagining different perspectives and expanding our views. Reading is probably one of the best ways to get out of your own head, but there are certain toxic ideas that seek to limit this potential that everyone has. The importance of "reader interpretation" is one of those toxic ideas.
Jeremiah wrote: "That quote sounds like poetry, but even Hitler could write. I disagree with that sentiment wholeheartedly! How dare he imply that he could EVER understand the struggles of a different circumstance and say that he IS when he is, in fact NOT, just because he read a book from another's perspective. Just because you read about an individuals struggle, doesn't mean you've walked even ten steps in their shows. That is repugnant. ."There is another quote that I like by the Roman dramatist, Terence:
"I am human; nothing human is foreign to me."
Here is a recent article about how engaging in books makes people more empathetic and less self-centered:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/science...
And I will include here the first paragraph:
Does reading fiction make you a better, less self-absorbed person? You read because you are interested in the broad sweep of human experience, and because you want to gain access into the narrow sanctum of specific otherness - to feel Anna Karenina's recklessness and desperation, or know the shape and weight of Ahab's obsession, and thereby something of humanity itself. But to make any headway with a novel, you need to grant yourself a leave of absence from human affairs, to sequester yourself in a place where you are sheltered from the demanding presence of other people. Opening a novel might be an exposure to the world, but it necessarily involves a foreclosure against it, too. A life spent reading is, among other things, a life spent alone.
Jeremiah wrote: "Obviously gay males have platonic relationships with other males, however "friendship" was not the feeling inspired from reading their (Dally and Johnny) relationship and it's obvious that plenty of other people feel that way too. Was Johnny less of a friend to ponyboy or sodapop? No. They all had different dynamics in their relationships, but they were all male friendships that never inspired homosexual undertones. This wasn't the case with dally and Johnny and whether or not that was the authors intention, that's sure as fuck how the storyline came across. You're trying to water down and undermine the feelings of many people because you feel like the authors hetero rhetoric should remain unscathed and it's so stupid!"There are people in this thread who have thought that Sodapop and Steve were gay. Johnny and Ponyboy. This isn't just about Johnny and Dally, so your point that they were obviously different is not valid. What is behind this is the oversexualization of relationships in modern culture. It's a trend that extends far beyond this book. Again, look at the tv show Supernatural where the two main characters, who are brothers, are often paired together romantically by a section of the fans. (It's called "Wincest" as a play on their last names "Winchester" and "incest".) The BBC's modern version of Sherlock Holmes has other characters openly questioning the orientation of Sherlock and Watson. This is not proof of anything other than people having problems with representations of close, non-sexual male relationships. There's nothing in the portrayal of Dally's and Johnny's relationship that makes it gay. The author herself has said that Dally is straight and that there was nothing in the text or in her mind about their being in a romantic relationship.
If you want to read about the exploration of whether close male relationships are necessarily gay or not gay, I'd suggest reading Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof where the author actually explores this topic in the text.
^ Because one of the main themes was that the gang was like the family that these troubled youths never had. No romance necessary. They had a beautiful brother relationship that they both did need.
Tziggy wrote: "What makes you so sure?"The author said it wasn't.
Fuck the author. So what if the theme is family, can two gay characters not be a part of a family? No one is saying that they were a gay couple, it's just totally obvious to a plethora of readers that there was something more than friendship or brotherhood between Johnny and Dally.
Jeremiah wrote: "it's just totally obvious to a plethora of readers that there was something more than friendship or brotherhood between Johnny and Dally. "What was romantic about it? The argument that it's "totally obvious" to a plethora of readers isn't really that convincing. If this thread is any indication, most people do not see any romantic component. To the majority of people, it's not obvious.
The problem I have with non-canonical shipping in general is that it tends to be an uncreative distraction from the actual story. Instead of dealing with the themes that an author graciously provides, people start pairing characters off and the end results are basically just fantasies that have little resemblance to the parent story. Generally, these are pretty harmless, but it gets irritating when people start insisting that their fantasies are in the story. Their fantasies are better than what the author wrote. Fantasies tend to hold a non-transferable charge whereas the actual book is written to be fully transmitted to the reader. Books have ideas and points and content. Fantasies generally have just a need. The problem is that people have to learn how to read books and engage with them instead of using them as raw materials to make fantasies out of.
Yeah can you say that the actual AUTHOR is wrong? That's like saying someone who wrote a song was wrong about what the lyrics meant. Completely ludicrous.
No one is dismissing the story that the author actually wrote. She wrote a story about love, friendship, and family. I think that much is clear and that everyone can agree on. Now we have stepped into the "ludicrous" area of "reading between the lines". The part of the book that wasn't mentioned or even considered by the author until fans shipped a couple of characters. She may have not written them to be romantically inclined, however that's what her writing lead people to believe!
Mickey, what is distracting about shipping dally and Johnny from the story!? Because your internal homophobia is keeping you from understanding the main themes of The Outsiders? Can you not still get family, brotherhood, and friendship, if there were two queer characters in the story!? That is a ridiculous thing to even imply!
Jeremiah wrote: "Mickey, what is distracting about shipping dally and Johnny from the story!? Because your internal homophobia is keeping you from understanding the main themes of The Outsiders? Can you not still g...You are embarrassing yourself now and being offensive.
Jeremiah wrote: "Now we have stepped into the "ludicrous" area of "reading between the lines". The part of the book that wasn't mentioned or even considered by the author until fans shipped a couple of characters. She may have not written them to be romantically inclined, however that's what her writing lead people to believe! "Fans shipping characters that the author didn't intend to be a couple is not really solid proof of a romance. Say a section of fans ship Harry Potter and Voldemort as a couple. I don't know if there are such people, but I imagine there are. The ability to do this is not a reflection of Rowling's writing or her story. It's more about some pre-existing fantasy on the part of the fan who uses the characters like a small child might play with dolls: to enact certain scenarios that are pleasant to her. There's nothing wrong with this, but it is limiting-particularly when you are talking about romantic shipping. It's less interesting and nuanced than the actual story, and if you are spending your time wrapped up in the shipping, you aren't getting anything else out of the story. For example, look at how you described
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.
Reading isn't really about "making you feel alright". Particularly this book. When a book that has a guy committing suicide by cop, another one dying of injuries from running into a burning building, two childhood friends meeting on opposite sides of a gang fight, and a senseless murder, it's strange to have as an end result from a reading the message: 'it's okay to be gay'. Look at the points that she made about bravery, being a hero, watching sunsets, staying gold. What about the characterization of Johnny by Ponyboy as the "least" of the gang? How about the tirade of Dally's about being tough so no one can touch you (which he obviously didn't follow himself)? These topics are all shoved aside to ship Dally and Johnny as a couple. The stated purpose of this? To make people feel alright about being gay. That purpose seems more on the level of a picture book, not a novel.
Seeing a romantic relationship in the story between two characters is not really a good litmus test for gay acceptance. Throwing out words like "homophobic" because people don't see the relationship as romantic is silly and immature. Harassing the author on Twitter because she contradicts your fantasy of her book is rude. Mulishly clinging to your interpretations while being too inarticulate to present your side logically comes across as childish. You would be much better served if you would read books and think over the ideas that the author is presenting instead of looking for same-sex people to ship to feel alright about being gay, and then getting upset when others don't see the characters as you do. I really can't think of a less interesting way to read.
Why because I accused you of internalizing homophobia? Cry me a freaking river.
Who is saying ANYTHING about needing solid proof of anything!? We are clearly speaking about people's opinions and feelings about two characters. The question was "does anyone THINK dally was gay for Johnny?" No one is asking for concrete evidence within the novel, just weather or not they think they are gay or not and to provide reasons why they think that. You've been trying to diminish other people's opinions for what they *thought* of dally and johnnys relationship with your ONLY argument being "the author said so" (insert spongebob mocking meme). Just because an author said they didn't have the intention of something, doesn't make queer undertones and implications invalid. You trying to devalue other people's OPINIONS about indirect connotations within the novel based solely on the fact that the author didn't catch her own subtle queer subtext is your own homophobic problem. Honestly ponyboy would be disgusted.
And how DARE you Mickey think I need or want your goddamn acceptance, especially from you or an author! Oh boohoo, the author had to answer a couple questions about her gay ass book that she wasn't expecting. You're clearly not comfortable with the idea of people thinking dally was gay for Johnny which is why you've been so adamant with trying to shut down everyone who thinks dally loved Johnny. There are theories that some of the characters were female too, it's called literary theory and it's a valid fucking dialogue.
Jeremiah wrote: "And how DARE you Mickey think I need or want your goddamn acceptance, especially from you or an author!"The above statement is a big part of your problem: You turn what you read into some unrecognizable strawman that you can be outraged about. What I actually said was:
Mickey wrote: "Seeing a romantic relationship in the story between two characters is not really a good litmus test for gay acceptance."
Meaning that the answer to the question about whether Johnny and Dally had a romantic relationship does not reveal a person's views on homosexuality, however much you would like to claim it does.
This failure in understanding is not the first one of yours that I have noticed. Your ideas about the themes in this book read like a Hallmark card, which does not reflect that story at all. We've just discussed a time when you couldn't understand one of my posts, and you are now citing "literary theory". How is this premature idea that "any thoughts you have are valid" going to help you with these understanding deficits that you have?
Short answer: it's not. You'll continue to misunderstand and misrepresent any reading you come across. You'll miss out on the benefits of listening to what another person says or of seeking to understand another's point of view.
General Statement:
This poster is a perfect example of why an emphasis on a reader's interpretation is so toxic, especially for young people just starting to read books. If you say to someone who hasn't developed much understanding to "Create meaning out of this text", you will get nothing but a mixture of self-absorbed fantasies and cardboard villains. I don't see how any of these are likely to result in a mature and reasoned understanding down the line. It's more likely that the reader will just be stuck at his present level of functioning because he's not being shown anything different.
I'm all for gay characters and lgbt representation in books, but I definitely felt like Dally and Johnny's relationship was brotherly. If anything Johnny and Ponyboy might have been a little gay for each other
Right Amy!?!!!!!! Like people can interpret the book any way the please without some third party peanut gallery like Mickey Mouse up here getting all butthurt and defensive of a possible faggot shipping in a book. Like bitch get your homophobic rhetoric the hell out of here
You're a condescending homophobic apologists who is trying to justify your opinion by implying that I'm not understanding what you're saying. I know exactly what the fuck you're talking about and you're entire argument has been based on the authors opinion.You clearly don't even know what literary theory every is!!!! It's pathetic! It's called character development outside of the authors plot! Like have you ever taken a critical thinking and composition of literature class or are you that against Johnny and Dally (or any other) being gay!? Honestly fuck your feelings this is not a yes or no answer. All of the boys had a brotherly connection and people who noticed that Johnny and Dally had more than that clearly interpreted it as a homosexual type of love. Get the fuck over it you giant baby!
Whoa I think you need to calm down a little there buddy. It's not that serious.
Right because telling someone that their feelings about a novel aren't valid and tearing down others because of their feelings about sexuality aren't "right" in your opinion are wrong. Then trying to escalate the situation to imply that I don't understand what she's saying and insulting me in the proses is overreacting? Fuck you.
This is just a book discussion and you're being vulgar and unnecessarily rude. These are just opinions and because someone disagrees with you does not mean you need to go off on them. Not everyone is going share your ideas, and that's okay.
The only one tearing down other people's opinions at this point is you.
It's attitudes like yours that degrade LGBT culture because you don't think it belongs in a specific LITERARY THEORY (ever heard of it!?) and walk all over LGBT+ opinions because you're angry that someone thinks your fave is gay! I'm sick of this shit and I'm not going to sit by while you shoot down valid opinions like what the fuck. Obviously I'm gonna be pissed about it
Excuse me C.A.!?! She is literally telling people NO YOURE WRONG the author said NO so your wrong. Shut the fuck up. Welcome to the real world!!! Free speech and what not. Kiss my gay read ass.
Like honestly does vulgarity not exist in literature get OVER yourselves
Well, she was right that S.E. Hinton confirmed that their relationship was only platonic. That means that canonically speaking, Johnny and Dally were not gay for each other.However!! I do agree that in the non-canon world anything is possible. It's all up for interpretation. Like with Harry Potter ships. Or like with the ending of the Giver.
So canonically speaking, Johnny and Dally weren't gay for each other whether you like it or not. That's just that. But non-canonically speaking, it's up to the reader's own interpretation. That's all. Simple.
It's called LITERARY THEORY OH MY GOD BYE GO TAKE A LITERATURE CLASS
Ooh, "Literary theory" you say? Those sound like big words (not). I so wish I took an English class like you so I could understand the most basic compilation of words! (A toddler could figure out what literary theory is. Don't flatter yourself.)No but literally you're not even actually reading anyone's comments. You just keep shouting the same things over and over again. It's kinda like talking to a brick wall, so I'm not even going to bother trying to get you to understand my point any more. You're too stubborn to even consider that any opinion that doesn't directly correlate with yours could have truth to it.
And for the last time: No one is saying you can't believe that Johnny and Dally were gay for each other. You can believe what ever you want in the world of literature. But factually speaking, they weren't. Simple as that. No need to cry over it.
*No need to get angry over it
C.A. wrote: "No but literally you're not even actually reading anyone's comments. You just keep shouting the same things over and over again. It's kinda like talking to a brick wall, so I'm not even going to bother trying to get you to understand my point any more."This is the extension of that particular brand of literary theory into Goodreads conversation: what you write doesn't matter. What matters is how he interprets it. Again, it's a limiting way to read or have a discussion because he listens to nothing and simply makes up people's positions to suit himself. He wants to fantasize that he is a spokesperson for the gay community and that he is righteously stamping out homophobia, so he creates a strawman to rail against. He wants to fantasize that he is a sophisticated reader, so he creates an enemy that doesn't understand his lofty, intellectual ways. He's doing exactly what he does when reading books, he uses them to "feel love and understanding" (in his own words), which is what he thinks that books should do. This is what happens to people who read in this manner: they don't learn or grow or think outside of themselves. It's all about them, and they become outraged when other people don't see that it is all about them. It's an incredibly stunted way to live. I don't see how anyone can say that this particular school of thought has not handicapped young readers into an arrogant complacency.
That's literally not what the fuck I'm saying. First of all Mickey, you, a homophobic trash bin, has been commenting to people who think that Dally may have been gay and telling them straight up that they are wrong. I can quote you but this isn't my literature class and I have more things to do that argue with a couple of twats on an app. Literary theory is an actual world of study where you can interpretation books as anything so long as it's reasonable and has proof to back it up. Have you read Frankenstein, I'm sure you haven't, but there are many valid an scholarly LITERARY THEORIES (there's that phrase again) that intemperate parts and characters of the book in many ways. There is one really amazing one that a feminist professor wrote about how the monster in Frankenstein in the book actually represents women and the essay is extremely well written and makes amazing points and references to back her claim. Does that mean I believe her? No. But I respect her theory and it is a valid point to consider. Do you think Marie Shelley thought of the monster as a woman. No. Probably not, but that doesn't matter because the bitch is dead and that goes the same for the author of the outsiders. She has set president to and open discourse to opinions about her book and you shutting all over people's theories is bullshit and pretentious as fuck.
C.A. Nothing is set in stone and accepted in any novel when there isn't any written evidence behind whatever the the question at hand is. It's clearly not widely accepted that day wasn't gay, hence this whole question thread and it pissed me the fuck off that you and Mickey Mouse out here are trying to diminish other people's interpretations of a novel that have bothering to do with the fucking plot. The goddamn plot is canonical everything else is left to LITERARY THEORY. Goodbye.
Mickey- your such a condescending fucking idiot. Cash me outside as the kids would say. You're implying that I look for the good, "love and understanding" which I sure as fuck did say, in all books!? I'm reading "It" by Stephen king right now and that's definitely not what I'm thinking about. I'm reading into the coming of age, sexual, and abusive undertones of the novel. You're trying to make it seem that I only live in a fantasy land full of rainbows and gay character ships, when in reality, I'm talking about one book and one fucking character who CLEARLY loved Johnny as more than a brother. My evidence of this is that all of the boys loved each other as brothers, Dally is the only one who couldn't live without Johnny. Do you think if ponyboy died he would've killed himself. No because they didn't have that "special relationship". He was in hysterical grievance. He loved him more than life itself OBVIOUSLY. And going back to why I said "love and understanding" in the first place, is because it's important for a reader of any age who asks these questions to know it's fucking well and good to think that Dally (were not even talking about Johnny the questions was about Dally) was gay for Johnny and to have you Mickey Dicky to sit people down because I don't know you have some homophobic agenda on Goodreads to "stomp" (your word not mine) out anyone who has a differing opinion from yours by using "oh the author said so" as your only foothold, is absolutely ridiculous.
Jesus this thread is supposed to be for intellectual literary discourse with evidence to support your claims, not "oh lets ask the author on twitter." Because obviously the author was only a teenager when she wrote the damn book and wasn't thinking about any subtext besides brotherhood. But she left open a lot of holes to be considered and accepted but those who wish. I don't give a damn if she a liberal, a conservative, or a communist Jew. That has nothing to do with it.
This conversation has devolved into something that would feel more comfortable on a comments section on YouTube. Outrage is a emotional reaction that feels invigorating, but it's a cheap and lazy way to function. It adds nothing of any value to a conversation.
Jeremiah wrote: " My evidence of this is that all of the boys loved each other as brothers, Dally is the only one who couldn't live without Johnny. Do you think if ponyboy died he would've killed himself. No because they didn't have that "special relationship". He was in hysterical grievance. He loved him more than life itself OBVIOUSLY. "We dealt with this line of thinking a few pages ago. People commit suicide in grief over the deaths of people that they don't have a sexual relationship with. It is not an OBVIOUS sign that there was. Since you are recycling information, let me recycle the same study that I referenced in my answer the first time:
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...
You know, looking back, I don't remember you having any studies of your own that you cited. Your main attempt at making points seems to be calling people homophobic and saying something is OBVIOUS, which is a fallacy.
I asked you point blank on Message #220 what was so OBVIOUS about it, and you never answered.
Right because literature and discourse isn't emotional right? I'm presenting you with a VALID field of study and open discussion and you're only refuting it based on your OWN emotions and opinions. I represent no one but myself, just as you do, however I'm presenting you with facts and evidence while you present me with opinion and tweets from an author who wrote this book in high school I believe. Not to say her opinions aren't valid either, but it doesn't belittle others opinions or theories and it doesn't give you a goddamn write to tell anyone they're wrong! If you can't take a vulgar word here or there I suggest you stick to children's novels and biblical books. Get over yourself.
Jeremiah wrote: "Mickey- your such a condescending fucking idiot."That's the wrong kind of "your", Jeremiah.
Jeremiah wrote: "My evidence of this is that all of the boys loved each other as brothers, Dally is the only one who couldn't live without Johnny. Do you think if ponyboy died he would've killed himself. No because they didn't have that "special relationship". He was in hysterical grievance. He loved him more than life itself OBVIOUSLY. "This doesn't qualify as evidence.
Jeremiah wrote: "Right because literature and discourse isn't emotional right? I'm presenting you with a VALID field of study and open discussion and you're only refuting it based on your OWN emotions and opinions...."This is another fantasy of yours, Jeremiah. You've done nothing but name-call and write long, semi-literate, stream of consciousness posts that are barely comprehensible. Show me where you have provided any studies. Oh, right,.. you haven't. You show little grasp of what literary theory is based on the fact you keep calling it "literary theory", which is a generic term for any way of looking at or evaluating literature, in which there are dozens of different ways in vogue right now. But you keep referring to it as if it's a single entity.
You're bringing studies about parental relationships with their children to a discussion about brotherly love vs. romantic love? What does that have to do with anything!? Clearly people commit suicide for reasons other than romantics and infatuation. You're an idiot! People commit suicide because of stress for fucks sake but we're not talking about stress either! I can give you a bullshit study too that has nothing to do with romantic suicide; http://medind.nic.in/jak/t08/i2/jakt0...That shouldn't suggest that Dally didn't love Johnny so much that life wasn't worth living without him! It was completely OBVIOUS otherwise he wouldn't have stood in front of the goddamn bullet. Pull up some studies of brothers who kill themselves because their brother or friend died. I sure as fuck can pull up studies on suicides brought on by the loss of a significant other. You're absolutely delusional and trying to defend your homophobia with studies that have nothing to do with what we are talking about! I mean, you of all people should know! They write books on this shit! Romeo and Juliet for example!
Regarding the question you may have asked on page 220 or whatever the fuck, I'm writing you in between classes so I can't pull that shit up on a computer, why don't you ask it again!
The entire point this this ridiculous thread is that Dally (the only person the question refers to as being queer) could have loved Johnny. People have presented valid reason to theorize that Dally was gay for him and for some reason you have a problem with it. The reason being that you're probably homophobic and can't stand the thought of someone in your favorite novel being gay. Fine! If you don't want to think that, that's great for you, but don't patronize people who think otherwise with some dumbass tweet from the author!
I said that believe a character might be gay for queer youth who read this novel is a great thing for them to theorize and imagine without people like you telling them they are wrong.
Representation fucking matters even if it's in the readers own imagination! Fuck you for telling people they're wrong in their beliefs about a FICTIONAL character. That's what the fuck I'm heated and emotional about because you're kind of a twat.
Jeremiah wrote: "Not to say her opinions aren't valid either, but it doesn't belittle others opinions or theories and it doesn't give you a goddamn write to tell anyone they're wrong!"That's the wrong kind of "write", Jeremiah.
Jeremiah wrote: "You're bringing studies about parental relationships with their children to a discussion about brotherly love vs. romantic love? What does that have to do with anything!? "People have committed suicide over the death of someone they did not have sexual feelings for but still loved. It is not a sure sign of a sexual relationship. If you don't see the relevance of that to the discussion, then there's not much I can do for you. It's absolutely relevant. I would even say it's OBVIOUS.
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)
She's already been asked on Twitter about whether there was anything sexual between Dally and Johnny. Her response was was to deny there was anything like that. Her first response was to ask, "Where are you getting that in the text?" I shared this exchange on this thread last November.
The problem is a lack of respect for authors as the originators of their works. For me, this is something I find disturbing. I think writers work really hard to create stories. Their opinions and interpretations are not on the same level as someone who is simply a reader of that work. I think this erosion of the creator's authority originated with critics who wanted their own interpretations and personal themes to take precedence over the author's. This makes reading an exercise of reinforcement of one's opinions rather than an exploration of another's. Instead of enlarging one's own view of the world by exploring another's take, you simply superimpose your own.