2 November 2013:
I started re-reading The Outsiders a few days ago.
The Outsiders was my literature text when I was in Secondary 2. Besides that (prose), we also did The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds (drama) and selected poems e.g. The Sick Rose.Since, then the book has been left in my bookshelf collecting dust. I was looking through my bookshelf the other day for a book to read when I saw it, hiding in a corner, obscured by larger (i.e. physical size) books.
I decided to re-read the book, instead of starting a new book (e.g. 1Q84, Sense and Sensibility ...). Confession: one of the reasons was because I knew that I may not be able to sustain this book-reading when make-up lectures arrive.
I view reading a book like taking a journey: so I would not want to start a book without completing it comfortably (i.e. not rushed through just because I have to). Re-reading an old book would allow me to stop at any time since I've at least read it once properly.
Anyway, on to my latest re-read of The Outsiders. It's a rather different experience reading it now, as compared to back then. Three years have passed and reading the same book evokes different feelings to the same segments of prose.
Above all, it's great when you don't have to read a book because it is tested for the exams. I mean, maybe some literature students may like it, since it forces you to take a critical look at it. But for me, I'd rather read it without stress.
Of course, I would do brief analysis and evaluation of what I read, but I don't have this worry that I am not analysing enough for me to score during exams. I just read, analyse when I want to, and enjoy the whole process.
Between then and now, I have become more anti-America. Back in Sec 2 I wasn't so informed of their hegemonic ways, so I was simply neutral towards it. Now that's a different story, as my classmates (especially from history class) would know.
The Outsiders is a novel written by an American, about Oklahoma in 1965. Yet, I never hated this book, even now. In fact, I grew to appreciate it a bit more. This sounds slightly ironic, but actually isn't.
Someone asked me before: 'Since you don't like America, does it mean you dislike American literature?' And actually, I don't. I dislike America(ns) for their attitude and behaviour (not all of them), but why should I dislike their literature?
A country's literature is about its culture and it is a slice of history encapsulated within prose or poetry. So in fact, I as a history student would like it more, because reading it allows you to access to a foreign culture and experience.
(I am going way out of point now, better get back.) When re-reading the book, I realised how I had missed out many details that S. E. Hinton had intricately put into every page. There were minute occurences of certain characteristics of various characters.
One example would be Buck. He was supposedly a tough guy, yet he could be 'ordered around' by Ponyboy and Johnny at his own house. It does seem ironic, yet I suppose this is one of many little ironies in the different characters.
There was also the whole idea of gang dynamics. I think this was a part which I severely missed during Sec 2 (, although I don't think this was focused on). Ponyboy's gang was intricate. Different members had different roles and they complemented each other.
Johnny was the gang pet, Two-bit was the gang's comedian, Dally was the backbone (disputable), etc ... It was like they were different gears of a machine. It had to be fit in place else the machine would not run.
Of course towards the end there's mention about how, if Johnny died, the gang wouldn't function the same. And this begs the question: were some members as indispensable as Johnny? My opinion is no, some actually won't be missed.
Also related to the topic of gang dynamics, why did each of the characters join the gang? The simple answer would be that they all had dysfunctional families. Since these teenagers could not find comfort and warmth at home, they went over to a gang.
Which, as I later realised, was a common theme in Marigolds as well. The thing about radiation and its effects, it was all an analogy of how dysfunctional families affect children. So I guess this was why the Lit department decided to pair these two together ...
Another message in The Outsiders was about being outcasts. In the story people were and were not outcasts. If you were a Greaser, you were outcasted by the Socs. Yet, within Greasers, no one was an outcast.
This message is, of course, relevant at the age of 14. I must say that I can personally relate to it at that time. Luckily, no more now. Nevertheless, this is a good checkpoint for 14-year-olds to inspect their friendships and rivalries. Things are in shades of grey.
In conclusion, re-reading The Outsiders has certainly allowed me to gain more insights into this book. There are things which are invisible to a 14-year-old but explicit to a 17-year-old. Finally, please help me choose:
TTFN.