The Outsiders
discussion
Does anyone think that Dally was gay for Johnny?
What does masculinity have anything to do with a comment thread! DELUSIONS GALORE!! I'm not going to leave so long as you keep this bullshit going! If you keep making comments to me, I'm going to keep responding!
Is this the last big blast of fireworks for the evening? It seems like Jeremiah is working himself up into a state of righteous indignation. Almost time for the flouncing off. Go ahead, Jeremiah, and flounce.
Awh but you've been begging for a grand finale! It really expresses how much of an arrogant delusional narcissist you are, pretending you have an audience. You're a joke.
Jeremiah wrote: "Awh but you've been begging for a grand finale! It really expresses how much of an arrogant delusional narcissist you are, pretending you have an audience. You're a joke."I'm just pulling the strings here. You're the one dancing. You're the spectacle.
Jeremiah wrote: "Silly silly wretch"Going back to Puritan times for the insults, eh?
Jeremiah wrote: "Fuck you and safe spaces! I'm trying to create a place where free speech and opinions are valid and should be accepted in a thread discussing literary goddamn theory! "That's a pretty silly conceit. You've spent much of your time here attempting to shut down other opinions and failing to create valid arguments for your own.
But I'm the one who's having a good time! You're only pulling your own leg.
I've noticed you stopped asking me to "Answer my question!!"
Actually this wasn't an insult it was a fact I took from the time of natural philosophy, after literature killed god. But I guess you could say it's puritan too.
I mean, I noticed that you remember that I asked you to. There's no reasoning in asking you to do something when the question is clearly engraved in your brain. That was the goal! :) You must be obsessed!
A little intermission to interrupt the wonderfully entertaining war above - I don't believe Dally and Johnny were gay, nor gay for each other in the book. Theirs was a platonic love, one of brothers, of closest, deepest friends. That being said however, I do ship them in fanfiction. That is all.
I also agree with everything you've said, Mickey.
Viva la revolution and Literary theory!!!
mistress_muggle wrote: "I also agree with everything you've said, Mickey. "Thank you.
I mean, while maybe a little offensive, I do definitely agree with Jeremiah. Literary theory exists and is valid, and you don't have to agree with it. And the author's opinion doesn't have any more weight than anyone else's. Just because it wasn't her intention doesn't mean that it's not a valid interpretation.
Yeah, I just got done reading part of Inherent Vice
... by Thomas Pynchon. Needless to say, vulgarity in defense was definitely on my mind. Thanks for the support!
Amanda wrote: "I mean, while (unnecessarily) vulgar and everything, I do definitely agree with Jeremiah. Literary theory exists and is valid, and you don't have to agree with it. And the author's opinion doesn't ..."Do you believe all possible interpretations are equally valid? If I believe that the characters were girls or aliens or pieces of cheese at the supermarket, are those all valid? If not, what bar must you cross in order to have a valid interpretation equal to that of the author? It has to be pretty low if Jeremiah's qualifies.
Does this elasticity extend to other types of communication? Do I get to have valid interpretations of your words based on my desire to interpret them in a certain way? Can I say you're a 34-year-old Pakistani male and this be a valid interpretation? After all, you are as immaterial to me as a character in a book.
Mickey wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I mean, while (unnecessarily) vulgar and everything, I do definitely agree with Jeremiah. Literary theory exists and is valid, and you don't have to agree with it. And the author's o..."Obviously not all interpretations are equally valid, but if you can find textual evidence to support a claim, then yes, it is valid. In this specific instance, there definitely is textual evidence that can be used to prove that Dally loved Johnny more/in a different way than the other Greasers, and saying that he might have been queer is a completely valid argument. Actual literary critics (aka people who have degrees in literature) have published articles talking about the homoerotic subtext in the Outsiders. Literature is open to interpretation. Regardless of what the author says was or was not their intention.
So, sure, if you can provide some sort of evidence to back up the claim that I am a 34-year-old Pakistani male, or that all the characters were girls or aliens or pieces of cheese at the supermarket, then yeah, it's valid. I feel like you'd have a bit of trouble with that though.
Amanda wrote: "Obviously not all interpretations are equally valid, but if you can find textual evidence to support a claim, then yes, it is valid. In this specific instance, there definitely is textual evidence that can be used to prove that Dally loved Johnny more/in a different way than the other Greasers, and saying that he might have been queer is a completely valid argument. Actual literary critics (aka people who have degrees in literature) have published articles talking about the homoerotic subtext in the Outsiders. Literature is open to interpretation. Regardless of what the author says was or was not their intention."If you've read through Jeremiah's contributions to the thread, you will see there is no evidence used to support his claim. All there is is a wish that is based on reinforcement. His posts were simply filled with calling people "bitches, twats, and hoes" [sic]. That is an incredibly low standard for a valid claim. It doesn't meet my test, and I would guess that most people would not be convinced or persuaded through these means.
Claiming that Dally loved Johnny more or in a different way does not make a valid claim for the idea that it was sexual. This is faulty because there have been others who have posited that other male relationships were gay (Johnny/Ponyboy, Steve/Sodapop). If the relationship were so obviously different, why are others "picking up on" these other relationships? This is not a valid standard. The conclusion I think has validity is the idea that its simply culturally trendy to ship characters. Using such metrics to root out hidden relationships in the text (such as "I think it would be cute" or "I want to feel good about loving my own Johnny") require little understanding of the text and lead to self-limiting referencing.
You put literary critics above the author as a source of authority on the meaning of the book. I can assure you (having read many essays by literary critics) that they aren't more insightful than any other reader into the meaning of books. Insight is not something that is automatically distributed with a degree. Frankly, finding homoerotic subtexts are in vogue right now, and the recognition from such an assertion is likely to be good for that critic's career. Ultimately, it's about hijacking someone's communication (the author's book) and using it as a platform to communicate yourself.
If you extend this beyond books, you can see how problematic it becomes when all interpretations become "valid" without much substance. My posts are my communication, and I am an authority on what I meant. It would be strange for two other posters to ignore my claims of what I meant to come up with their own meanings (although they could discount what I said or believe I was lying) and then claim that their interpretation was more valid than mine without solid evidence.
What evidence did Jeremiah bring that was of any substance? What logical points did he make? There was no solid evidence. His argument rested on what he wanted it to mean and how it was "obvious" to others.
Going beyond his contribution, where is the evidence in the book that there was anything sexual between Dally and Johnny? I recall no trysts at the park, no odd interruptions, no sexual behavior between them of any kind. Where is your evidence that backs up your claim that it is a valid interpretation?
On a related note: This new conversation is a much better one than the previous one. This is what a conversation on Goodreads should be like.
I totally gave you evidence AND articles that you refused to read. Just because you’re a condescending twat doesn’t mean shit. Anyways, you just started this conversation with this other person and, if you can recall, our debate was totally civil until you started to act like a pretentious ass with a superiority complex. Get over yourself!!!!
If you honestly want to bring me back into this, that’s fine! Lets do this!!
To everyone new to this petty argument between Mickey and I; This conversation started about five years ago. you’re willing to go back that far, I think you might find some *obvious* (there’s that word again), provocation on the part of my rude as all hell goodreads enemy. Are my words clearly (switching it up to appease she who shall no longer be named) aggressive and borderline offensive to read, sure; However irrationality sparks and irrational response. I gave multiple articles that this woman openly refused to ignore. Her entire argument is based on a tweet made by the author forever ago. Subtext, I intentional or not, is more than enough evidence for a literary theorist (not critic because they are not critiquing the novel, but expanding upon certain events with quotes and EVIDENCE to support their claim).
It’s totally infuriating when, after expressing reasons why it’s important, valid, and acceptable to interpret a relationship as LGBT in a novel, though not acknowledged by the writer, the peanut gallery tells you blatantly that you are wrong because they say so. Even after providing a valid field of study I feel that someone could maybe understand why the conversation escalated into a full blown altercation. Perhaps I’m not justified at all in my admittedly childish name calling, but I do think it’s fair to at least say this is not totally one sided.
What really pissed me off, if you’re willing to look back that far is when this woman attacked me for even entertaining the though that
... for even entertaining the thought that the idea or *theory*, if you will, of a gay romance within the novel could be important to a queer youth.
I mean, I understand that some people are so biased and blind that can’t pick up on the queer nuances within the novel, but to tell someone who is is queer that their literary theory isn’t valid is, to me, as personal of an attack as calling someone a “fucking cunt skank bitch”. Especially after they can provide evidence to support their claim. If there was no evidence, this thread wouldn’t even exist. This would be on some fan fiction site. And lets talk fanfic !!! Everyone loves it and ships are always fun to start, but the difference between this romance between the boys and a shipping of two characters within a story is that fan fiction doesn’t need evidence to support their ship! Hell, if a fan wanted to, they could ship ponyboy and sodapop! Totally outraged and clearly problematic, but absolutely possible in fanfic. In this debate, however, there is subtext and nuance within the novel to suggest that there was more than brotherhood or friendship between Dally and Johnny.
So to tell someone they are wrong because the author says so is ludicrous and condescending as hell. So fuck yes I’m going to be defensive against someone who has walked all over, not just me, but many others through the majority of this thread. I got sick of it. All because she thinks the author has complete “authority” over her story. If she wasn’t open to interpretation and scrutiny about her novel, maybe it should have been published. For fucks sake, religious texts have been interpreted and wars have been waged. Because of a book with the ultimate authority.
Further more, no one has claimed that their relationship was a sexual one. We are talking about love and romance which can exist apart from sex. I don’t believe they had a sexual relationship, hell I may go as far to say that Johnny didn’t fell the same way about Dally. You’re conflating the argument that, if I could point you to the main question of this glorious thread, talks of Dally as the lover and Johnny as the object of affection.
On a side note, I would like to close with an apology to everyone who read my comments as offensive and repugnant. It is my opinion about a single person. This is extended to everyone who has similar or differing opinions. Except you Mickey. You can choke.
You're right about one thing, which is that I shouldn't have said that if you can find some sort of evidence that I am a 34-year-old Pakistani male that it'd be valid. The difference between the discussions here and literature is that literature is art - art is open to interpretation, that is literally the point. An author or any other type of artist creates something, and then the audience of that artwork is open to find their own meanings in it, aside from what the author/artist intends. Literary theorists (I did use the wrong word there before, they are theorists not critics) are not necessary more qualified than the author, but their claims, as long as supported by textual evidence, are valid. As long as there is some textual evidence to support a claim in general, it is valid. (Valid here does not mean definitely true - it means it is a point worth considering that isn't immediately wrong. There are literary theorists who argue for their opposing points all the time, and both sides are valid). Something doesn't need to be explicitly pointed out within the text in order for the subtext to imply something. The ships between Ponyboy and Johnny and Steve and Sodapop I believe have some validity as well, there is textual evidence supporting them, but this thread is about Dally (and to a lesser extent Johnny). I said that Dally loved Johnny more than he did the other Greasers. And that there is evidence to support the idea that he is queer. That's all. This has nothing to do with the fact that you believe that being queer/writing about queerness is "in vogue". Your argument that Dally is straight is that there weren't any "trysts at the park, no odd interruptions, no sexual behavior between them of any kind," which is not what is being considered here. We are considering whether Dally may have been queer, or "gay for Johnny," as the title of this thread says. That does not necessarily involve them having a secret relationship, it is about his private feelings that wouldn't be explored explicitly within the book anyway, because it is told from Ponyboy's perspective. It is his actions towards Johnny, the way he treats him differently than he does the other Greasers, that may lead one to believe that he may have had romantic feelings for Johnny that he never acted on.
Whether or not you agree with the idea that Dally may have been queer, it is a valid interpretation of the text. Also, you said that literary theorists aren't any more insightful than regular readers, and that's good, because many regular readers have come to the conclusion that Dally might have been queer, too.
Amanda wrote: "I said that Dally loved Johnny more than he did the other Greasers. And that there is evidence to support the idea that he is queer. "What evidence is that specifically? You say there is evidence, but I don't see you providing any. The idea that people believe this interpretation isn't really a good argument since it does not relate to evidence, and this is your own litmus test. Also, the second assertion does not logically follow from the first. I can love someone more than another and this does not mean that it is more or less sexual. It's certainly not proof of a sexual component.
Amanda wrote: "The difference between the discussions here and literature is that literature is art - art is open to interpretation, that is literally the point. An author or any other type of artist creates something, and then the audience of that artwork is open to find their own meanings in it, aside from what the author/artist intends."
I would disagree with the idea that interpretation is the point of literature. Being receptive to literature leads to new thoughts and ideas for the reader. It expands one's worldview. Claiming an interpretation and then throwing a tantrum when others disagree with you leaves you stuck in the ruts of your mind. Calling that "valid" and claiming that it's as valid as the author's (particularly when the author has explicitly contradicted that claim) is shutting off the possibility of a newer and more nuanced understanding from a different point of view (the author's).
The simple fact is that authors do communicate through their books. Agree, disagree, remain indifferent to the message, but to claim that their message is beside the point and we should all look to our own prejudices, biases, and fantasies (or those of literary theorists) to form our valid and personal interpretations of the meanings of the book (which is a few steps further than extending the books with specific fanfiction) would lead to a serious dumbing down of readers. It's a way of neutering the books and not engaging with them. You can see this trend with other posters who do not have the intellectual sophistication to hide these defects. This focus on interpretation will not lead to a worthwhile or valuable take on literature particularly if it is not based on evidence which this is not.
Amanda wrote: "Also, you said that literary theorists aren't any more insightful than regular readers, and that's good, because many regular readers have come to the conclusion that Dally might have been queer, too. "Is the argument that "some people believe it" really one that you want to go with? It seems that this is not a universal belief. There have been plenty on this thread who have said that they don't believe that the relationship was sexual. I don't see how this proves a point either way. Validity is tested with evidence, and I haven't heard any evidence. How are they arriving at the idea that it is sexual? What are they looking at?
As I've stated before, I think it's the oversexualization of any relationship that's common today. This trend can be seen in the different ships for fandoms. It's not uncommon to find any combination of characters that you could conceivably come up with. The idea that this could be a valid measure of "subtext" is untenable and not logically sound. Claiming that other ships of characters are valid shows a very low bar in place for determining validity. How many gay couples are you saying there were in The Outsiders? What relationships (if any) would it not be valid to say were sexual? Is it valid to say Darry was gay for Ponyboy? Darry for Sodapop? Isn't it true that you would say any interpretation of a sexual relationship between any characters was valid? If not, what is the factor that goes into determining validity?
You seem to be the one focusing on sexualizing the relationships. If you actually read what I said instead of picking and choosing smaller parts of my argument to dispute, you'd see that I said that he "may have had romantic feelings for Johnny that he never acted on." Nowhere did I mention sex. And to quote your favorite Jeremiah, he said that "no one has claimed that their relationship was a sexual one. We are talking about love and romance which can exist apart from sex," which I wholeheartedly agree with.As for evidence to support the claim that Dally was queer, there's the fact that he is repeatedly described by Ponyboy as tough and strong, that he could handle anything. Yet he is completely emotionally distraught when Johnny dies, to the point where he feels as though he no longer has anything left to live for. All of the Greasers grieve Johnny's death but Dally is the only one who took it to this point. Ponyboy at the beginning of the novel says it'd be a miracle if Dally loved anyone when discussing how Cherry could fall in love with him, and then that is contradicted at the end when he says that Johnny was the only person that Dally loved. Yes, this could be brotherly love, but I would argue that it is not considering it is contrasted in the context of talking about Cherry as a romantic interest for Dally. There is much more but I don't want to waste my time here when you're obviously never going to agree with me. I am not claiming that Dally was absolutely 100% queer, no one can prove that, all I'm trying to say is that it is a valid interpretation with actual textual evidence. Me saying that other people see it too is not my entire argument here, I am just using that as support to show you that it's not one person against everyone else, you should be smart enough to see that and not focus on that as if it is the only piece of evidence I am putting out there.
Mickey wrote: "Agree, disagree, remain indifferent to the message, but to claim that their message is beside the point and we should all look to our own prejudices, biases, and fantasies (or those of literary theorists) to form our valid and personal interpretations of the meanings of the book (which is a few steps further than extending the books with specific fanfiction) would lead to a serious dumbing down of readers. It's a way of neutering the books and not engaging with them."
How is creating your own interpretation of a novel independent of an author's opinion dumbing it down and not engaging with the text? It is exactly the opposite of that. If readers are unable to come to their own conclusions and are supposed to just listen to what the author says outside of the text, how is that engaging with the text? Engaging with the text is coming to your own conclusions about certain aspects of it. Reading Dally or Johnny or Ponyboy or anyone within the novel as queer does not change any canon aspect of the story, they can be gay or bi or ace or anywhere else among the LGBTQ+ spectrum and it doesn't change anything that actually happens within the book. There is nothing within the novel that contradicts this. Let's turn this around - show me some textual (within the actual pages of the novel) evidence that Dally is straight. Yes, he flirts with Cherry and Marcia at the beginning of the novel, but he could be bi. Why is everyone assumed straight until proven otherwise? If Hinton wanted Dally or anyone else to be indisputably straight she should have put that within the text of her novel and not said it on Twitter fifty years after the book's publication.
Shipping is completely different than using subtext to argue that a character could have had romantic feelings for another in context of the story. Some ships are based in textual evidence and some are not.
Side note, your claim that I'm throwing a tantrum is hardly the case - you've been wasting your time on this thread for five years, I've been here for a day. Re-examine your priorities.
Amanda wrote: "Side note, your claim that I'm throwing a tantrum is hardly the case - you've been wasting your time on this thread for five years, I've been here for a day. Re-examine your priorities."That wasn't you who I claimed was throwing a fit. I was talking about Jeremiah who was throwing a fit.
How many gay couples are you saying there were in The Outsiders? What relationships (if any) would it not be valid to say were sexual? Is it valid to say Darry was gay for Ponyboy? Darry for Sodapop? Isn't it true that you would say any interpretation of a sexual relationship between any characters was valid? If not, what is the factor that goes into determining validity?I'd like an answer to this as the answer will change how I proceed. I want clarity on your position.
Mickey wrote: "How many gay couples are you saying there were in The Outsiders? What relationships (if any) would it not be valid to say were sexual? Is it valid to say Darry was gay for Ponyboy? Darry for Sodapo..."I find this funny because you tend to simply ignore pieces of my responses (and Jeremiah's), yet you re-ask a piece of yours.
But I already did address this - shipping is not the same thing. Darry, Sodapop, and Ponyboy are all literal blood-related brothers. I do not see any textual evidence that they had any romantic feelings toward one another. This has nothing to do with my position on Dally, though, which is what my argument is all about. The ways in which the Curtis brothers treat each other compared to how Dally treated Johnny are different.
However, if someone could provide some textual evidence that there was some sort of romantic side to the Curtis brothers' relationship (which again, I do not believe exists), I could consider that a valid interpretation, even though I do not personally agree with it.
It is not true that I would say any interpretation of a sexual relationship between any characters is valid; that depends on the existence of textual evidence. Which I have provided for Dally in regards to Johnny, and which I do not believe exists for Darry/Sodapop/Ponyboy or any combination of the three.
See? Mickey is legitimately trying to rile people up who hold differing opinions from her own. She’s a joke.
Amanda wrote: "I find this funny because you tend to simply ignore pieces of my responses (and Jeremiah's), yet you re-ask a piece of yours."I'm interested in getting an answer. Although I do not plan to follow you around and call you a bitch and a hoe [sic] like Jeremiah does when someone won't answer his question. You didn't answer it, so I just copied and pasted it. I imagine that's what happens when there is too much content in posts-things get lost easier.
Amanda wrote: "As for evidence to support the claim that Dally was queer, there's the fact that he is repeatedly described by Ponyboy as tough and strong, that he could handle anything. Yet he is completely emotionally distraught when Johnny dies, to the point where he feels as though he no longer has anything left to live for. All of the Greasers grieve Johnny's death but Dally is the only one who took it to this point. Ponyboy at the beginning of the novel says it'd be a miracle if Dally loved anyone when discussing how Cherry could fall in love with him, and then that is contradicted at the end when he says that Johnny was the only person that Dally loved. Yes, this could be brotherly love, but I would argue that it is not considering it is contrasted in the context of talking about Cherry as a romantic interest for Dally. There is much more but I don't want to waste my time here when you're obviously never going to agree with me."How exactly does Cherry telling Ponyboy that she hopes she never sees Dally again because she is afraid that she'll fall in love with him proof that Dally had sexual feelings for Johnny? That makes no sense.
I've already shared studies about the increased risk for suicide for people who have lost others they did not have a romantic relationship with (parents or children). This also isn't proof of a sexual relationship.
So there's no textual evidence that anyone has brought forth. This is precisely what the author asked for when the question came up on Twitter (something like 'Where in the text are you getting this?'). The answer was something about how she (the questioner) thought it would be cute. That's shipping. That's not an interpretation with any validity. "Feeling love and understanding" isn't textual evidence either. Nor is the idea that "it must be true because others (literary theorists) have written about it".
Mickey wrote: "How exactly does Cherry telling Ponyboy that she hopes she never sees Dally again because she is afraid that she'll fall in love with him proof that Dally had sexual feelings for Johnny? That makes no sense. "You're ignoring what I said. So I'm going to spell it out for you.
When thinking about what Cherry said, Ponyboy remarks that Dally "could never love Cherry Valance back. It would be a miracle if Dally loved anything." (page 59 of my copy)
So okay, Dally doesn't love anything.
Flash forward to the end of the novel, when Dally is about to commit suicide. Ponyboy thinks, "Johnny was the only thing Dally loved. And now Johnny was gone." (page 152)
So we go from how Dally doesn't love anything to Johnny is the only thing Dally loved. These are the only two times Dally's ability to love is mentioned in the novel, at all. The first time is in regards to a potential romantic relationship between him and Cherry. Why wouldn't the second and last ever mention of Dally's ability to love anyone also be in relation to a romantic interest, Johnny? They parallel each other. This is simple analysis. Like, middle school level.
Amanda wrote: "You seem to be the one focusing on sexualizing the relationships."I'm the one saying they are not sexual. Exactly how many "valid" sexual relationships are there in The Outsiders? There's Dally and Johnny, Ponyboy and Johnny, and Sodapop and Steve. Any others? What textual evidence shows that they are sexual? I ask because you say that textual evidence is what makes these valid, so I imagine that you have these at your disposal.
Mickey wrote: "Amanda wrote: "You seem to be the one focusing on sexualizing the relationships."I'm the one saying they are not sexual. Exactly how many "valid" sexual relationships are there in The Outsiders? ..."
Did you read the rest of that paragraph? Because the rest of the paragraph explains why I said that, that sex and romance are not the same thing.
I've given you textual evidence for Dally and Johnny. I really don't want to waste my time here going into why Ponyboy/Johnny and Sodapop/Steve are also valid interpretations, because as proven here, you just twist my words and apparently only read the first sentence of each paragraph.
Just because you personally do not agree with an interpretation does not mean that that interpretation is invalid. That is the main takeaway you should be getting from this thread. You are allowed to believe that all of the Greasers are straight if you want to. But that doesn't mean you can just say that anyone else who disagrees with you is wrong because you don't like it.
Lol Amanda, friendo, you made a Mistake™ getting involved. Like wow what a mess. But okay, look at me, doing it too (though I literally have no plans to write more than this comment).So Mickey, here is the thing, I have not read the Outsiders, like at all. I watched the movie once, in like elementary school maybe, idk, a really long time ago. I started reading this thread only from where Amanda got involved, so I legit have no clue what Jeremiah or whatever has claimed. I have heard you like correcting grammar, so have fun, idc. I do not have the energy to write out an academic text for you, so this is what you get.
But like, okay, take it from someone who is super, super gay (me), gay≠sexual. Like literally, gay for me is mostly looking at a girl and going /wow/. Like you can 100% have romantic feelings without sexual ones, I super duper promise you. And like maybe Dally did have sexual feelings for Johnny, maybe they were just romantic, or maybe they were platonic, literally that does not matter to me. But please stop asking for evidence of a sexual relationship, like there does not need to be a sexual relationship, or even sexual feelings on either parties part, for it to be super gay. Like for real, it is super super homophobic to reduce a gay relationship (canon or not) to sexual feelings. So just, stop. Like literally Amanda (and it seems like Jeremiah) never once argued that Dally and Johnny were actually having sex, just that Dally might have wanted too.
And also nobody here, or at least Amanda isn't, is arguing that Dally def had feelings for Johnny, just that the text leaves it ambiguous. Again, I've never read it, so who knows what I would see in the text. But if so many people clearly see evidence that Dally might have had gay feelings for Johnny, then maybe, you might want to consider, they see something you don't??? Like they aren't saying you are wrong for not seeing it, you are saying they are wrong for seeing it, so yeah.
I really don't care what the author said. Like tbh, I write. And if I wrote something that someone took and started shipping characters that I definitely did not intend to be shipped together I would be ????? But like, if they see it, I would let it happen (unless it was super problematic, like incest, or abusive, or pedophilia, then I would have a problem but that is a completely different argument to be had [which hopefully you do not want to argue]). Once you put you're art out there, people are going to interpret it how they want, that is just a fact. So the author saying it didn't happen literally means nothing to me lol, if there is nothing in the book explicitly disproving it, and there is something in there that supports it (which I'm [not] sorry, if so many people see it, there has to be something there), then let people interpret it how they want.
From everything I've seen, you are completely justified in believing that Dally has no gay feelings towards Johnny. In the book it seems like there is nothing that explicitly states that he does have gay feelings, neither romantic nor sexual, towards Johnny. So you and the many other people who don't see anything there, you are valid. But the thousands of people who do see something there, because there is nothing in the novel that explicitly states that Dally is the straightest man to ever walk the face of the earth, they can interpret Dally's seemingly undeniably strong feelings as romantically/sexually driven as they want. Because feelings are just that, feelings.
But whatever, I know spending my time on this was a waste. You likely completely disregarded everything I said after I said I haven't read the book. Even though, tbh I think that makes me slightly more objective, I can come here and say if you see evidence for it, you can believe it.
And I am also pretty sure you are going to hold onto that one tweet by the author, you are going to continue in your believe that the author is almighty. And that is fine, I literally don't care what you do. I just don't actually have much of a life, I'm done with school for the week and I'm super bored, so I have nothing better to do at midnight on a Thursday night/Friday morning. If I was not clear on anything I said, that is on me, but literally don't bother asking for clarification.
Also, again, I'm going to be super childish and just post this one massive post and probs will never comment or respond again (this is the first time I've even been on this website in like a year, and I'm not in the habit of debating the same topic with the same people for more than a day [let alone years lol]). So because I don't plan on responding, I'm going to end on something that I'm sure will spark even more drama. I stopped taking you seriously the second I went on your profile and read that one of your favorite literary heroes is Severus Snape. Like, how can I trust you to find evidence of a gay relationship when you can't even process the fact that Snape is a stalker, racist, bully who has literally 0 redeeming qualities???? I can't.
But, because I'm a nice person, I figured I would share with you a tumblr blog that seems to fit your interests (heterosexuality and Severus Snape): https://hetcharacterof2day.tumblr.com/
Also, Amanda regrets getting involved, but doesn't want to stop posting and make you feel like you won, so I am giving Amanda an out rn. Like if she stops replying it is just because she is a better person than both of us and actually has more important things to do with her life than get involved in debates on Goodreads, not because you stumped her. If she chooses to keep commenting, that is her choice.
Bye lol
I get Literary Theory and all that jazz and interpretations/ textual evidence as well. However, I feel that if the Word of God (in this case, the author) actually firmly comes out when questioned and says that what they wrote is neither open to interpretation or speculation and they, the person who wrote the book, puts their (pen) down and says that we the reader are wrong to see it as such...I'm going to go with that.
You're still free to read and interpret (in this case) a homosexual relationship/subtext between Dally and Johnny if that's what floats your boat, but it's not going to change the fact that the person who wrote the book, the author, says otherwise. You are wrong if you say these two characters are actually gay in the book.
The author was a teenager in the not-gay-friendly 1960's when she wrote the book. She definitely was not intentionally writing the characters as gay and if they came across that way, it was by accident. Perhaps because a groups of (mostly) teenage boys was written by a teenage girl.
She was asked if the characters are gay and she said no. She didn't say it was "up to you the reader" or "it was implied", or "it could be interpreted that way". It was an outright "no".
Author's Solid Word > Reader's Fanciful Interpretation
I don’t agree that the writer of something is the end all be all of interpretation. I understand, as many others, that she may not have had an internet to write something with a homosexual subtext, but that doesn’t change the fact that, to me, she did. You can’t just take something that your wrote and published and keep adding to the narrative because you don’t like what people thought about it. Publish a revised version if you want to make a definitive statement that Dally was 100% not in love with Johnny.
I feel, as many others do too, that, regardless of the author’s intention, there was something more than platonic love between Dally and Johnny. Who gives a shit what the author says? Think of it this way, if an author is writing about a character but leaves out an important trait that describes them, such as the sex, it’s the readers right and responsibility to fill in the details in any way they want. Just because the author imagined their character one way and others imagined them another doesn’t mean they’re wrong in their interpretation. It just means the author didn’t develop the characters background enough and doesn’t have a right to tell people they are incorrect in their assumptions.
I think what the author says after they are published (in this case decades later) is something that doesn’t really matter. You can’t take back what you’ve already produced and start adding more to it just because you didn’t explain it well the first time. If this were written for a grade, could she take back what she said or add more context to it after she was graded? No.
The author’s statement should be taken into consideration but shouldn’t make you change your opinions solely because the author said so.
I have one question for you, If the author didn’t make a statement about it would an individual still be wrong in their interpretation (moving on from theory) even though the author probably still felt like Dally and Johnny weren’t gay? I see you like Harry Potter, I do too. Had JK Rowling not mentioned that Dumbledore was gay, would those who thought we was straight been wrong anyways? Of course not. That’s just the way the author imagined him and doesn’t change the plot of the story.
... and doesn’t NOT change the plot of the story**
And does not* Jesus Christ -.-
Amanda wrote: "How is creating your own interpretation of a novel independent of an author's opinion dumbing it down and not engaging with the text?"Look at Jeremiah if you need to know how this goes awry. He's not engaged with the text when he makes claims like he feels the message in the book is "love and understanding" and that "it's okay to be gay". This is a dramatic book involving several deaths. A character commits suicide over losing someone, yet Jeremiah doesn't register this. Instead his takeaway is that he feels 'alright' about 'being in love with [his] own Johnny'. As if this were some sort of ideal romance. This is a lack of engagement. See how this translates to this thread: Jeremiah's knee-jerk reaction is that anyone who doesn't find his nonsensical, grammatically incorrect, vulgar posts logical is homophobic. He has no understanding of nuance or shading. He might be able to tell you what happened in the story, but any meaning that Hinton put in there flew over his head. You are seriously going to contend that Jeremiah is the ideal reader?
Amanda wrote: "If readers are unable to come to their own conclusions and are supposed to just listen to what the author says outside of the text, how is that engaging with the text? Engaging with the text is coming to your own conclusions about certain aspects of it. "
I said nothing about not coming to your own conclusions. You respond to what the author says, you don't interpret it to mean what you want. For example, from the first time I read it as a teenager, I've never bought into the idea that Dally "died a hero". This is why I say you can agree, disagree, or remain indifferent to the story. However, you do not create it. You are not the creator. That story isn't yours. Making it yours (interpreting it) generally means adding your biases, prejudices and pet hatreds into the mix.
Amanda wrote: "So we go from how Dally doesn't love anything to Johnny is the only thing Dally loved. These are the only two times Dally's ability to love is mentioned in the novel, at all. The first time is in regards to a potential romantic relationship between him and Cherry. Why wouldn't the second and last ever mention of Dally's ability to love anyone also be in relation to a romantic interest, Johnny? They parallel each other. This is simple analysis. Like, middle school level. "This isn't proof that Dally's love is romantic. You do understand that, don't you? I agree with you that this type of analysis is middle school level (but only in the sense that a middle schooler might come up with it and think it's logical). Dally's interest in Cherry points to heterosexual tendencies. Just because you love someone of the same sex when there is a person of the opposite sex around does not mean that you are homosexual. There's still no textual evidence of a romantic relationship between Dally and Johnny. Not surprising, since their relationship wasn't sexual.
Your tone is becoming increasingly petty and insulting. Let's raise the level of discourse around here instead of succumbing to immature silliness.
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)
Yet more silly fantasies...