The Outsiders
discussion
Does anyone think that Dally was gay for Johnny?
message 351:
by
Nathan.Phipps
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Oct 20, 2017 06:52AM
I'd like to think so
reply
|
flag
Burn my Dread Kitty wrote: "Though I love this book, I have to agree with Amy on this one. Dally did love Johnny because Johnny cared for him like no other person would. That's pure love, loyalty, and friendship. Maybe Johnny..." Doesn't it though? Being a hard tough guy you would think that Dally wouldn't soften up for anyone but a SO
mistress_muggle wrote: "Author's Solid Word > Reader's Fanciful Interpretation "Exactly! This is a case in which we have a solid answer. I find it hard to understand the idea that some readers think their interpretation is equal to the author's. This lands on both sides of the sexual orientation divide. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, so he's gay. Rowling also told me his eye color and affinity for lemon drops. This is what an author does-she creates the characters. In the same way, Hinton says Dally is straight, so Dally is straight.
Mickey Mouse is so ignorant! She honestly thinks that if and individual has the hots for one gender or sex, they can’t get off to another. Ever heard of bisexuality? She has the audacity to put her foot in her mouth and talk about me, but ignores my retort to defend myself. This woman actually believes that we think the entire story revolves around Dally and Johnny. Dally being gay for Johnny doesn’t change the plot!! This psycho is grasping at straws!!!! She has not argument! Her stance on the issue is based on a single tweet! Yikes! And now she’s accusing others of not understating the meaning of the novel because they don’t agree with her opinion on an issue that has nothing to do with it!!! She’s fucking rude, too! If this condescending asshat honestly thinks I believe the point of this novel is about gay acceptance, she is more delusional and crazy than I thought!!! What the fuck! I never made that argument! I said that it was important for queer readers to be able to interpret sexually ambiguous characters however they want because representation is important. Literally so crazy!!!
And now she’s arguing that the fucking eye color of a character is important to the plot of the story. Literally so fucking insane! If jk Rowling said she imagined Harry Potter as a talking butt plug, I wouldn’t be inclined to imagine him as one. What a dumbass.
I noticed that Goodreads cuts out words sometimes, two comments ago The comment ended saying, “because (blank) important” the phrase missing is, “representation is”.
Kara wrote: "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."Your mistrust is directed at the wrong person. I did not create that character, and I did not make a hero out of him. You know who did? J.K. Rowling. Perhaps you might want to go on Twitter and insult her for portraying such a terrible character in such a positive way.
Nathan.Phipps wrote: "Being a hard tough guy you would think that Dally wouldn't soften up for anyone but a SO "Have you ever seen a "hard tough guy" whose little daughter has him wrapped around her finger? I've seen it more than once. I don't think that this means that the relationship is obviously sexual because only a sexual relationship has this kind of dynamic. Vulnerability has its own power to bewitch others, and Johnny was portrayed as having it in spades. It's like the game "Rock, Paper, Scissors". How exactly does paper not only stand against rock but come out the clear victor? That's how it works.
She is still sexualizing the idea when no one mentioned it. She’s obsessed with the idea that we want them to have sex. Totally one sided.
Kara wrote: "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."On second thought, if you really believe this "interpretation" of Snape, how can you take the moral high ground here? You gave every book in the series five stars. If you believe it features "a stalker, racist bully who has literally 0 redeeming qualities" as a hero, what does that say about you that you are giving it such unqualified high marks?
This is another instance of a personal interpretation that warps the book. You are literally missing a huge part of the message of the whole series in order to vilify a character. It's not really a surprise to me that the ones who are so adamant about personal interpretations show the least amount of critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, their adherence to their own personal visions is unlikely to lead to an improvement in this area.
One of the reasons I never liked English classes, even though I have always loved to read, is that I hated being told that the feelings a story invoked in me were wrong. I absolutely feel that once an author/artist puts out a piece of work, they are surrendering it to the general public. Now, that doesn't mean that they are not the ultimate authority on the book. They are the ones, of course, who know what their intent was in writing it. However, I, as a reader, am allowed—and should be encouraged—to develop my own opinions on the story based on my personal experiences, interpretations, etc. If I relate to a story in a certain way, I am not wrong in doing so. No one can tell me that what I felt while reading a book was wrong.Having said that, the author is “Word of God” when it comes to the literal details of the story. I read some of the various Twitter threads in which the author discusses whether or not her characters are gay. She said she did not write them as gay. What does that mean? I can say with absolute certainty that Dallas and Johnny were not involved in a romantic relationship. They were not secretly dating or involved with one another in that way AT ALL. Because the author DOES control those details of the story. However, that absolutely does not change the fact that I read Johnny as being gay.
SE Hinton, in those tweets, tries to show how this could not possibly be true because Johnny was excited to sit with two “Soc” girls. First of all, bisexuality is a thing. Second, Johnny was written as someone who wanted acceptance and approval—desperately. Of course he would be excited if two attractive girls sat next to him. It’s something that the guys around him see as praise-worthy. That does not mean that he couldn’t be gay. There is a scene where he gives Ponyboy a book, and Ponyboy asks how he knew he wanted it, and Johnny blushes. I totally read that as him being embarrassed because a boy he potentially liked might realize that he remembered every detail of a long-forgotten conversation. That doesn’t mean that Johnny is gay. That is one scene. I interpreted it a particular way, and there is nothing wrong with that.
See, I actually thought there were more moments between Ponyboy and Johnny that might indicate they could have developed feelings for each other. But I can also see how other people might think Dallas and Johnny had a thing for each other. I ALSO see where some people would say, no, there is absolutely no homosexuality in this book at all. And all of these interpretations are OKAY. We are all reading the same book DIFFERENTLY because we are DIFFERENT people.
SE Hinton can’t make me stop seeing Johnny as gay by saying that she didn’t write him as being gay. To me, he reads as a gay character. Based on what I have seen and experienced, he reads as a gay character. Again, the author CAN tell me that there were no homosexual relationships in the book. Johnny and Ponyboy or Johnny and Dallas (or any other pairs that people have discussed) did not happen. But the author can’t stop me from interpreting things a certain way, and I can read the book wondering if Johnny had feelings for Ponyboy. Other people can read the book and wonder about the relationship between Dallas and Johnny. Other people can read the book and see nothing but friendship. We can all read the book and enjoy it based on our own interpretations.
I disagree with this Dally just cared a lot about Johnny.
Melissa wrote: "I absolutely feel that once an author/artist puts out a piece of work, they are surrendering it to the general public. Now, that doesn't mean that they are not the ultimate authority on the book. They are the ones, of course, who know what their intent was in writing it. However, I, as a reader, am allowed—and should be encouraged—to develop my own opinions on the story based on my personal experiences, interpretations, etc..."Agreed. I would add -- what would even be the POINT of a novel if no one ever read it and formed their own opinions? I love that people interpret this differently!
I think its absolutely possible that Dally could have been attracted to Johnny, if that's how you read the book, or wanted to read the book. For me, the Outsiders is one of my all time favorites, and the idea that Dally and Johnny could've had some romantic or sexual tension makes me want to read the book again with that perspective. It will be like reading the book for the first time again.
No, I think that Johnny has been through alot and Dally knew that and he cared greatly for him (as a brother) and was sad to see him die. And that is a good theory because Dally did run into a fire for him and through out the book he seems to care more for Johnny than any of the others.
NO. There relasionship was perfectly normale like father and son, S.E hintion said herself nothing was going on
I feel like you shouldn't say that because this is my all time favorite book maybe you should have a open mind about what your saying
Saying that Johnny spesiflcly was gay for Jaohhny just because he is extra nice to him is like saying that they are all gay for Johnny. They are all nice to Johnny and they all care for Johnny just as much as Dally.
I think they were gay. I have read it twice, both for a school assignment like you did, but I definitely think they were 100%, completely, totally gay for each other. Johnny worships the very ground Dally walks on, and he talks about him in the very last written thing he wrote before death and asks Ponyboy to tell Dally that life is still good. I mean, they may have just been good friends, but from my point of view as a gay who has been starved of the good diverse gay cast of characters in stories or movies like this, I like to think that they loved each other. I mean, Dally literally blows up over Johnny's death, when he never had before over anyone else. He was cold and emotionless but for Johnny. I think that's almost definitely love there.
Melissa wrote: "One of the reasons I never liked English classes, even though I have always loved to read, is that I hated being told that the feelings a story invoked in me were wrong. I absolutely feel that once an author/artist puts out a piece of work, they are surrendering it to the general public. Now, that doesn't mean that they are not the ultimate authority on the book. They are the ones, of course, who know what their intent was in writing it. However, I, as a reader, am allowed—and should be encouraged—to develop my own opinions on the story based on my personal experiences, interpretations, etc. If I relate to a story in a certain way, I am not wrong in doing so. No one can tell me that what I felt while reading a book was wrong."Would such a stance as this be valid in other academic subjects? Suppose you go into your math classes thinking that you should be encouraged to find your own answers and that others should validate your feelings and methods in spite of your inaccurate answers? Are you likely to learn much math this way? Or science? Or social studies? Why would such a method work in literature? Learning requires a level of openness to new information and ways of thinking, and if your focus is on always getting your first impressions validated, then I would say that you aren't really open to learning anything. Opinions and feelings are not totally irrelevant, but they are not the focus.
Few people are so naturally gifted that they understand without being taught, so this method will leave the majority of people in the primitive state of projecting their own fantasies onto the book and characters and thinking that these projections are as "valid" as others. Shipping characters whom the author did not put together doesn't have a lot to do with the book's themes and doesn't show much understanding of what the book was about. Why should this habit be encouraged as if it is likely to lead to a better understanding?
Is it okay to ship them, but acknowledge that in canon their relationship wasn’t like that?
I know I’m DEFINITELY on this thread late, but personally I think that they had feelings for each other that stemmed from friendship,and their bond had grew from that, and they both had a little crush on each other. They had not expressed their feelings for each other though, because they were afraid of rejection as well as what may happen if they did get together though. The kamikaze by Dally was for more than the friendship that he and Johnny. People may be comparing their relationship with brothers, and as much as I love my brother I wouldn’t do what Dally did for Johnny. Dally was experiencing the lost of his truest friend, as well as someone who he had the deepest emotions for out of anyone he knew, and in my opinion those had romantic feelings involved. Remember this is all just my theory and it is up to the reader to decide for themselves.
I don’t know if he was gay. He could also be bisexual. But even if he wasn’t I do think he was in love with Johnny. He was his whole reason to be alive. When Johnny died Dally was literally heartbroken. And you don’t need to have a sexual attraction to someone to be in love with them, or else asexual people wouldn’t want romantic relationships.
I would be lying if I said that this thought never crossed my mind while reading "The Outsiders." My first answer would be no because during the 60s in communities of the greasers showing admiration and affection towards other greasers was common. However, if this book was written today, then I would agree that Dally may have had a romantic interest in Johnny. Overall, I think it's just brotherly love.
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...."Omg! No!!!! Then why was he hitting on the girls at the theater? This would not make sense. He only cared for him as a brother. That was what it was hinting at. Please don’t say stuff like this. It is really not necessary.
you guys are homophobic no one is saying two of the same genders have to be in love but so many situations showed that they deeply cared for each other dally literally killed himself after johnny died
But "caring deeply for each other" doesn't automatically equal or make the case for the relationship being sexual. A lot of people on here seem to think that a deep relationship or the deepest kind of relationships have to be sexual. Case in point from Post #354 which states: Being a hard tough guy you would think that Dally wouldn't soften up for anyone but a SO.The problem with this idea that a deep relationship = a sexual relationship is that it's often not the case in real life. In real life, a "tough guy" can be "softened up" by his daughter or his best friend or his grandfather. This does not mean that any of those relationships are sexual. People, including gay people, obviously, deeply care for others without the relationship being the least bit sexual. I would even go so far as to say that if a person were insistent that such a relationship had to be sexual because of the acts of caring, I would consider that person to have a really shallow understanding of human relationships. As if we just put up with all other people in our lives and only really care about people we want to have sex with.
No?? I always thought it was more like a brother's bond, never a romantic one.
No. He was his brother that he wasn't able to protect. Dally had a stronger bond Because Johnny got beat on by his parents. And same thing happened to Dallas.
Honestly, i don't think Dally is gay and he can still care for Johnny in a nonromantic way which i think is what he was going for since he was so close with him.
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 Dally just really loved him as a brother and friend. Not in love with him romantically, just loved him.
Lyla wrote: "I don't really agree to it but, I respect it. *nods* I can deal with that..."SyntaxError: could not find who asked
I don't think that Dallas is gay for Johnny. It's more of brotherly love that is seen in his actions toward Johnny. There is also the fact that when this book was written, such things surrounding the LGBTQ+ community weren't as accepted as it is today.
I personally think they are platonic soulmate. But it also could be that Dally is bisexual in my opinion. Still, I saw them as platonic soulmates, which cared about each other deeply and loved each other in their own ways. They were special to eachother and nobody ever could replace the other one, it was like a once in a lifetime thing.
*I personally think they are platonic soulmates. But it also could be that Dally is bisexual in my opinion. Still, I saw them as platonic soulmates, which cared about each other deeply and loved each other in their own ways. They were special to eachother and nobody ever could replace the other one, it was like a once in a lifetime thing.
I've been scrolling through this thread for a hot second (I actually made an account just to add my opinion)While S.E Hinton might have denied it, some brought it up that death to the author is in fact a thing. It's okay to have a queer reading of a book when it's not intended.
I believe there's some gay subtext in the writing. All the "Johnny was the only thing Dally ever loved" kind of thing really made me think wow that's gay . I don't think I would really ever "ship" them, it's still an interesting read on it. Also, like the person above me has said, Dally could be bisexual 100%.
I'm fully aware it could just be bros being bros, guys being guys, they were just family, etc, however I just want people to be gay. I had to this for required school reading and I just want them to be gay so the homophobic frat-boy wannabes at my school can suck it.
I've also seen talk of a possible sexual relationship. Just because it's gay doesn't mean they're fucking. Asexual gay people exist and not all gay relationships are sexual.
I think it's weird how people think that saying something is "a thing" is an adequate argument for it applying. Leprosy is "a thing" because it exists in the world. This is not a good argument as to why I believe Ponyboy has leprosy.
Roxie wrote: " It's okay to have a queer reading of a book when it's not intended."I disagree. I think people think it's a magnanimous thing to say that it's okay to read a book any way you like, but that kind of attitude is more concerned with elevating the opinion holder's supposed generosity and open-mindedness (which is usually just an indifference) than with a thought out position on reading.
Book themes matter. I would say the same thing to a heterosexual kid who seems only to ship characters or notice love themes (whether there or not). I would say "There are other things you can think about. There are other aspects of your life. It's not alien to you to think about things like friendship or social classes or growing up." That also applies to kids of other strains. Focusing so much on your sexuality that you cannot really relate to anyone except imagining that they have your sexuality is limiting, and telling kids that it's okay doesn't help them become thoughtful readers.
Equating love with sexuality (which a lot of kids do) is a big problem. It's funny because you would think that, having had more experience with familial love or friendship, they would tend to err on that side, but the default seems to be that love is sexual. You can look at this thread. Is there a pairing we haven't seen?
Roxie wrote: Asexual gay people exist and not all gay relationships are sexual""How exactly is an asexual gay relationship different from a friendship?
Roxie wrote: "I'm fully aware it could just be bros being bros, guys being guys, they were just family, etc, however I just want people to be gay. I had to this for required school reading and I just want them to be gay so the homophobic frat-boy wannabes at my school can suck it."So your main goal here in assigning the book would not be to have everyone connect personally to the book and its themes but to alienate those who aren't gay. That's being exclusionary. It's not as if the theme of brotherhood or deep friendship is an alien concept to gay people. Gay people live in the world like everyone else. They are not simply same-sex love machines. They can often get something out of themes that don’t have anything to do with their orientation. In fact, I think it’s helpful not to make any characteristic the only defining characteristic you recognize about yourself.
Just by your reasoning, I could say that Ponyboy's changing views on the Socs (who probably could be termed at least "frat boy wannabes") should get you to consider the possibility that this group that you are focused on in your school aren't just the stereotype that your words suggest. Perhaps you even have something in common with one or two of them that doesn’t involve thinking in terms of team membership. Wouldn't this be a better theme to explore? Particularly since it's already in the book and is something that obviously affects you and might be something you've never thought of before in any thoughtful way?
Definitly no because he dated Sylvia and girls also you could only be straight back then.
No, the whole group was like a family. I think that Dally always pretended to hate everyone, but didn't really hate them as much as he put on. I think the one he cared most for was Johnny, but only in a little brother-type way. Also, who is Virginia??
Just a reminder that the author clearly stated that her characters were not gay! Like… buddy you didn’t write the book and also you have to respect her choice! I understand where people could get the idea but in the end, the person who literally wrote the book denied it, so uhh maybe go look at another book for representation? Cuz we love representing lgbtq people (I am part of that community) , but we don’t need to make actual straight characters gay because we “think there’s something there”
Sodapop wrote: "I don’t know if he was gay. He could also be bisexual. But even if he wasn’t I do think he was in love with Johnny. He was his whole reason to be alive. When Johnny died Dally was literally heartbr..."Yeah If dally did have romantic feelings for Johnny, he wouldn’t be gay but Bi, because of his interactions with Cherry and Marcia
Also!! Don’t wanna bring back old fights haha, anyone can totally believe what they wanna believe, but in the end the author said that her characters were not gay. If you want/would like to believe something is between any of the characters, go right ahead, every opinion is valid. Both sides make sense and have great arguments, but uhh there was a literal war going on lmao (ik it was five fucking years ago but idgaf) and we gotta respect everyone’s opinions, because hate to break it to you *cough cough Mickey and Miah* that you weren’t exactly doing that (no hate to anyone)
Id say its a brotherly relationship, but, hey, the fun thing about books is you can read it however you want
IMO dally saw johnny as a little brother, aka the closest thing to family he ever had. On the other hand, I think Pony-boy and Johnny had a more-than platonic relationship.
No. These guys are like brothers to each other, even besides the Curtis trio. Also Johnny a bit younger than Dally
I never really thought about it. I mean I don't think he was.
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)
