Why I love S.E Hinton's 'The Outsiders'

‘The Outsiders’ has been my favourite book since we started it in year 8 as a text for English. We were told to read the first chapter for the next lesson, but I ended up reading the entire novel. The Outsiders for me was the book that got me into reading. I didn’t really like it that much before, I read really terrible books I thought I would like but never really got into. The Outsiders absolutely grabbed 13 year old me and dragged me into the world of books. I’m 17 now and still read through it again to add to the annotations on my copy.

Despite being published in 1967, The Outsiders still holds all of the truths S.E Hinton discusses within her novel. The kids today may not be named Ponyboy, Sodapop or Darrel, but for every character within the novel you can find their counterpart in the modern day. The gangs may not be greasers vs. socials, but the key themes still ring true.

One of the key themes the novel deals with is the issue of poverty. Hinton perfectly highlights the difference between right and poor in Ponyboy and Cherry’s relationship... there isn’t much different between them besides their class status. The idea that the two ‘see the same sunset’ on both east and west, greaser and soc territory, can be applied to the modern day. In every town there are degrees of wealth, of course, in every town you can compare the lives of the richer and poorer. At the end of the day though, we’re all human, we all see the same sunset.

Expanding on that, The Outsiders too shines light on how misunderstood the working class are. Being a greaser is frowned upon within Ponyboy’s town, a girl in his class who discovers he’s a greaser is shocked and scared. Many, even in the modern day, have the tendency to group together the working class and apply a certain amount of fear to them. The most infamous within the UK, ‘chavs’. The greasers within The Outsiders aren’t portrayed as something to fear. They don’t carry out unnecessary murder or rapes like the term ‘gang’ may suggest they do. Hinton confronts readers with the reality of gang situations. They’re not all bad. Ponyboy would never want to hurt a fly, Darry is just the family man, in the end, even the rougher character (Dally in particular) are all only looking out for each other. They group together in likeness because it’s the only thing they have.

The Outsiders is, and always will be relatable to teenagers. The values it puts across can always be applied to the teenagers of the modern day. I love this novel so much because to me, Ponyboy will always be relatable, it’s a classic for a reason.

The problem with 'LGBT'

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about lesbians/gays/bisexuals/transgenders themselves. I'm only discussing the term 'LGBT' itself. 

The term 'LGBT' stands for lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender, of course. On the surface, this term sees to blanket all of the queer community. Sure, it's easy and simple to remember, but I've got some problems with it. 

For one, it disincludes many people within the queer community. What about the pansexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, etc.? They don't count according to that term. It could be argued that these are 'exceptions', but that's really not good enough. The term 'LGBT' is plastered all over gay pride processions and is the common term known the public, disincluding all these other branches of the queer community leads to a situation uch like we have today, where any sexuality outside the umbrella term doesn't seem to exist to the general public (if you want proof of that, my iPhone didn't recognize pansexual or demisexual as words). 

In addition, I have a problem with the inclusion of 'transgender' in the acronym. I'm not hating on transgenders, however, as any of them may tell you, transgender isn't a sexuality. The inclusion of 'T' in 'LGBT' creates the misunderstanding that one's gender has anything to do with their sexuality. A male-to-female transgender (a woman who was assigned a male body at birth) doesn't necessarily have to be attracted to men. She can be a lesbian, despite identifying as a woman in a male body. However, transgenders really do need the understanding they deserve, and their place within the widespread term 'LGBT' helps them to get this. Although the placement can create misunderstandings, there's really not much we can do. 

On the other hand, other acronyms, such as 'LGBTQ' or 'LGBTAQ' do exist. The best in my opinion is 'LGBTAQ' (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/asexual/queer). To me, this really does cover as much as we can of the queer spectrum. Other branches of sexualities would still need recognition, but are covered in the 'Q' of the acronym. Although in another interpretation this 'Q' can mean questioning, I feel it is better that it stands for queer. 

Or in the end, wouldn't it be great to hold gay pride under the term 'queer pride'? We should be raising awareness for the whole queer community, not just the branch we are in. Let's embrace all sexualities, not just our own. 

'Night Of The Living Dead' - a film everyone needs to see

I watched the original 1968 'Night Of The Living Dead' last night with my cousin. I knew already it was one of those all time classic films, but it really impressed me. It wasn't one of those black and white horror films you force yourself through because you feel you should, I really loved Night Of The Living Dead.

Night Of The Living Dead was the film that really sparked off the zombie genre. It was the first of its kind, and inspired almost every other zombie film to date. Interestingly, the living dead are never called 'zombies' within the film, but the film laid down the characteristics of zombies to come.

What's particularly interesting about the film's zombies is the influence the nuclear age had on them. The broadcast of news updated throughout the event at one point states that the revived dead were the result of radiation. My first thought was nuclear radiation, and the dropping of US atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Released in 1976, the film originated in the USA, where the Cold War was currently escalating. 

Both the space and arms race of the Cold War were in full swing, bringing new anxieties to the public. Space was a big unknown, the idea of a danger from space could be a possibility, and meanwhile the new nuclear weapons being developed were an obvious sues for fear. The new, scary technology being developed by the US and USSR led to some drastic thinking. Night Of The Living Dead displays a result of some of this thinking. What could be some of the effects of radiation? This question inspired the risen dead we see within the film. 

-Stop reading if you don't want spoilers!-

But what I really loved about this film was its ending. It's tragic. Surviving throughout the whole incident, our protagonist, Ben, goes to the window to see the arriving officers, only to be shot, the officers thinking he was one of the risen dead himself. It's so raw and crushing, the traits of his character really get you hoping that he makes it out. He's kind but firm, he's logical and a real leader, and he's just shot down right when he's got through it all. 

It's a frustrating ending, but great. The film is extremely worthy of all the praise it receives. 

Why do football players get paid so much?

I was having a look through some of my old tweets and I found something my cousin posted about how unfair the pay checks of footballers are. I think we’ve all wondered this at some point. Why are football players racking up the millions, whereas the real ‘heroes’, the firemen, doctors, etc. are making scraps compared to them? In terms of ‘football players’, I’m talking the top players of first division football. Your average player of Brighton and Hove Albion FC makes nowhere near the millions the big names make, names such as Wayne Rooney and Christiano Ronaldo who earn a yearly salary of £27 million between them[1]. Do bear in mind though, not all players get paid this much. It really is the top of the top.

The way I look at it is this. In the hierarchy of clubs, you’ve got the players, the managers and the club owners. Let’s take the football club Chelsea FC, owned by Roman Abramovich and managed by José Mourinho. Abramovich has owned Chelsea FC since 2003. He’s where the money comes from, and he’s got a lot of it. When you’ve got that much money, you own a football club for fun and publicity. Once the English Premier League formed in 1992, English football suddenly became the million dollar sport it is today. It created a league of competitive football which got the fans on board, and allowed the sport to blossom into what it is today. 

Last Christmas my dad took my brother and I up to Chelsea to watch a game. My whole family supports Chelsea, so we go every time we’re back in the UK to watch them. This time however, we splashed out and bought tickets for a tour of the stadium too. The tour of the stadium included meeting three classic Chelsea players, the two that are important to this story are Ron Harris and Peter Bonetti. After taking some photos with fans, they wrapped up with a question and answer session. I stuck my hand up and on the last question I was pointed to. My question was ‘in your opinion, what’s the hardest thing about being a professional football player?’, a pretty simple question, but the answer I got really surprised me.

Ron Harris explained the key differences between modern day football and the ‘60s and ‘70’s football they played in. He said that modern day footballers were more like celebrities with football on top. Peter Bonetti then added that in his time they weren’t paid in millions; even the best of the best weren’t international celebrities. Ron Harris then went on to ask ‘well, have you ever met any of your favourite players?’. He made a good point. Of course I never expected to, but all the times I’ve ever seen Chelsea play I’ve never come closer than 100 metres to them. My dad really topped it off the point as we were leaving the room. Believe me when I say the guys we met are Chelsea legends, yet my dad pointed out they still have to go to talk to fans at stadium tours. There may be some line between whether they’re doing it out of loyalty to the club or as an income, but it certainly does highlight football wasn’t always like it is now.

Back to the point. The point is that the owners of the clubs are the top dogs. They have the money. When they’ve invested so much in a club, they don’t want to lose that money. It also doesn’t look so good for them if their club loses. With their money they aim to attract the best players they can. Why would a player of first division standard stay in the third? They wouldn’t. They’d work their way up the league tables to wherever their highest offer was. So a club sees a talented player, they want him, how do they get him? Offer a big buying price to the club and a big salary to the player. Simple. If a club wants a player bad, they’d offer him a bigger and bigger salary. It stands to reason  the better the player the higher their salary. That’s why the big players get paid so much, everybody wants them.

So in short, that’s the way I see it. It’s not right morally but yes, that’s why they get paid so much.

---

[1] Source: http://www.tsmplug.com/football/top-10-highest-earners-football-players-in-the-world/