Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis)

[fofol]

Thank you, Stan. Now I FINALLY understand where you are coming from.  I don't post much here, but Jess and I are like-minded and she is brilliantly eloquent. She is also completely heterosexual and I am completely homosexual - and we are both happy about it! So that means we are all happy! The only way to be.......peace.

Finally, some uncommon common sense...

[janjo]

Paul, I think there are many allusions made by Ennis that he doesn't want to be gay, but what he actually says is of limited value in understanding his character.
He says he "doesn't want to be like those guys you see around," he tells Jack about the fact that his father took him and his brother to see the body of a gay man who had been murdered, which to me is indicative of some point he must have been trying to make. He also says that if his father was to see them, behaving as they were in the motel, he would get his tyre iron and beat them to death.
None of this expressly has Ennis literally saying "I don't want to be gay," but life isn't like that on the whole.
People express themselves through body language, through their actions, and as literary characters, by the interpretation that the author gives us of their thoughts. Many things that people "say" aren't true, or are protective of things that they don't want to speak about. In fiction, if real characters are being portrayed, then they should behave as much like real people as is possible. To many people Ennis del Mar comes over as a very "true to life" character.
So I am sorry that I am no more able to give you a reference to an absolute "I don't want to be gay" statement, any more than Stan or Des could. (I thank them both for trying, while I have been away from my computer).
I feel sure that in that time and place, most people would not have wanted to be gay, because it was a very hard way to live at that time, but what Ennis wanted to be, or not, still couldn't change reality for him or anybody else.

[Paul029]

The rest is second-hand opinion and subjective conjecture by an onlooker with his own axe to grind.
In other words—it’s immaterial what Jack ... thinks.

It's not immaterial, because it's telling us about Ennis.  I don't think we need to be told again, independently, the same things (do we?  Further paragraphs to tell us that Ennis really did turn to the wall, etc?).  Jack noticed something about Ennis - sure, we're being told about Jack's feelings, but what Jack noticed is also relevant to Ennis. 

Why should we accept Jack’s interpretation?
If Ennis really didn’t want to know he was holding a man, why did he embrace Jack in the first place?

We’ve been all through this before, elsewhere.

(If anything, Ennis’s reaction [to Jack going to Mexico] is that of a heterosexual homophobe.)

A heterosexual homophobe probably wouldn't want to be gay either.  Probably most people wouldn't want to be, in that time and place, so it's not any leap to think that Ennis was one of them.  It's just (a) made fairly explicit in the story for Ennis, and (b) it seems that his need to not be gay is stronger than some other people's.  It affects him more than it does Jack, for instance. 

Ennis’s reaction is no less plausible than “most people’s,” as you say.
I presume that you refer to heterosexual people?

While I appreciate your input, Des, I look forward to [Jess’s] reply.

So do I .  I thought you were asking about Ennis stating that he didn't want to be gay -

No, Des. I asked Jess where it was stated in the story.
It was a simple question, but the issue’s become more convoluted since then.

I was saying that it's evident through what he says and does.   With that in mind, I think that not wanting to be one of those guys is clearer in meaning. 

I've already explained what I took that to mean.

Are you saying that in addition to all that, you'd expect him to say "I don't want to be gay", and that if he didn't, you'd think he was OK with it?  I wouldn't see it that way. 

Not sure what you're actually asking here, Des.

[Paul029]

Jess, I’m replying to this post of yours before I respond to your latest.

On the whole nature, or if you prefer, God, wants all of the different types of people that it, or he/she, creates, because they are beneficial to society and are needed.

That implies a Grand Plan. It's possible that it isn't, you know... 

It is possible that it isn't, but as I see it, it is all do do with the survival of the species, and that is damned important to nature. It might not start as a plan, but it evolves in order to give whatever the species is the best chance. Mutations come and mutations go, but the ones that are helpful will be kept because they have benefits. Not necessarily to the individual, because nature isn't bothered about the individual in the slightest, but to the group, the society, the carrying forth over generations of the genetic material. It is the gene that is important.

There are numerous examples, autism is found in excess numbers in families who are good at engineering and maths. Society needs people who are good at engineering and maths, it is essential to our lives that we have homes to live in, and means of transport etc etc. If a few members go off the edge of the scale and are disabled by autism, as far as nature is concerned that is just too bad, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Probably one in ten people is affected by dyslexia, which is bad for those who need to use our current system of symbols and sounds to read and write.  ~ snip ~ What many dyslexics do have though is enormous artistic talents, and I see this everyday in my work.
There are often, but not always, benefits in the way that dyslexics think and express themselves.

Gay people may not be needed to breed and add their genetic material to the gene pool, but they can help their brothers and sisters, friends and relatives with child rearing, and with doing lots of the other things that society needs, like running businesses, that sometimes those with children don't have time to do. ~snip ~

Is this a grand plan?
Or is it just Dawinism and survival?
I know what I think.

You mention the importance of the survival of the species and contributions to the gene pool and that, while mutations may come and go, it’s the mutations that are most helpful to society which are retained. (How are they retained, may I ask?)

You also group a neuro-developmental disorder, a receptive language-based learning disability and homosexuality.
Am I to understand that you feel all three are functional abnormalities, or even mutations, which are not part of nature’s plan (the survival of the species) yet are "retained" because they are "beneficial to society?"

That the “benefits” of these “conditions” outweigh their respective “disadvantages,” because:
     • autistic people may be good at mathematics and engineering (just like non-autistic people);
     • dsylexics may have enormous artistic talents (just like non-dyslexic people); and
     • homosexuals can “help out” their friends and relations, and do things like run businesses (just like non-homosexual people).

Never mind that the latter group may not be needed to contribute to the all-important gene pool. 

[Paul029]

I feel that the reason that Jack and Ennis resonated with us all here so strongly...

~
So now you speak for all DCF members—or, only some (and which ones would they be, I wonder)?

I certainly hope not, that was never my intention.

Well, it’s what you said. 

[janjo]

You mention the importance of the survival of the species and contributions to the gene pool and that, while mutations may come and go, it’s the mutations that are most helpful to society which are retained. (How are they retained, may I ask?)

You also group a neuro-developmental disorder, a receptive language-based learning disability and homosexuality.
Am I to understand that you feel all three are functional abnormalities, or even mutations, which are not part of nature’s plan (the survival of the species) yet are "retained" because they are "beneficial to society?"

That the “benefits” of these “conditions” outweigh their respective “disadvantages,” because:
     • autistic people may be good at mathematics and engineering (just like non-autistic people);
     • dsylexics may have enormous artistic talents (just like non-dyslexic people); and
     • homosexuals can “help out” their friends and relations, and do things like run businesses (just like non-homosexual people).

Never mind that the latter group may not be needed to contribute to the all-important gene pool.  

I think you will find that in the latest research there are some connections. Both autism and homosexuality are thought to be caused in at least some cases to exposure to different levels of testosterone / oestrogen in utero.
Also as far as brain development is concerned dyslexia and autism are opposite ends of a spectrum in the way the brain is structured or at least that is the latest theory.
I will find you the research if you so desire.
Also there are other ways to protect the gene pool than actually contributing to it oneself.

This is a long way from the topic of whether Ennis was gay or not, but may contribute to the discussion as to whether it was anything he needed to be ashamed of.

[Paul029]

~ This is a long way from the topic of whether Ennis was gay or not, but may contribute to the discussion as to whether it was anything he needed to be ashamed of.

I understand that many here have decided which way to vote on the issue, but I've yet to state my own thoughts about it, one way or the other.
As regards, Ennis, I mean.

It's interesting that you raise the possibility of his feeling shame, something I'd not considered.
And it helps me in consolidating my thoughts—so maybe it's not as far OT as you say.

Thanks, Jess.

[Paul029]

Paul, I think there are many allusions made by Ennis that he doesn't want to be gay, but what he actually says is of limited value in understanding his character.

He says he "doesn't want to be like those guys you see around," he tells Jack about the fact that his father took him and his brother to see the body of a gay man who had been murdered, which to me is indicative of some point he must have been trying to make. He also says that if his father was to see them, behaving as they were in the motel, he would get his tyre iron and beat them to death.

None of this expressly has Ennis literally saying "I don't want to be gay," but life isn't like that on the whole.

People express themselves through body language, through their actions, and as literary characters, by the interpretation that the author gives us of their thoughts. Many things that people "say" aren't true, or are protective of things that they don't want to speak about. In fiction, if real characters are being portrayed, then they should behave as much like real people as is possible. To many people Ennis del Mar comes over as a very "true to life" character.

This was a very good post, Jess, and I appreciate your taking the time to put it so concisely.

So I am sorry that I am no more able to give you a reference to an absolute "I don't want to be gay" statement, any more than Stan or Des could. (I thank them both for trying, while I have been away from my computer).

I also thank them (retrospectively  ) for their endeavours.

I feel sure that in that time and place, most people would not have wanted to be gay, because it was a very hard way to live at that time...

It's also applicable to just about any time or place, I think.
Perhaps not Ancient Greece, though.

but what Ennis wanted to be, or not, still couldn't change reality for him or anybody else.

* Could you clarify this please?

While the previous discussion (sort of) became entangled a bit, it was based on this earlier post of yours, which contained heartfelt gems, IMO—

How can we choose who we fall in love with?
Isn't that the whole point of Brokeback Mountain ultimately?
Ennis didn't want to be gay and he didn't want to fall in love with Jack, did he?
Love is beyond the rational mind.
It shows us our true needs and desires, as they are and not as we want them to be.

—but I only wanted to know why you'd stated what I bolded. (i.e. What you thought were the reasons behind his intention.)

I think that you, Des and Stan have assisted me to come closer to drawing a conclusion.

PS The question I've asterisked is an important one. 

[janjo]

Annie Proulx described Ennis as being "self loathing" so I think we can assume that he was ashamed of the feelings that he had for Jack Twist.

[Paul029]

Annie Proulx described Ennis as being "self loathing" so I think we can assume that he was ashamed of the feelings that he had for Jack Twist.

God, you're quick! 

I wanted to know what you meant, not what some author said. 
Is self loathing even mentioned in the SS?

Talk about "spoon-feeding" her readers... 

[janjo]

What Ennis wanted to be?

I think probably he wanted to be a completely heterosexual married man with children who was happy in that situation.

That was what he tried to be.

That was what he worked hard at being.

It wasn't what he was though.

He fell madly in love with Jack Twist, and even though he tried to deny what was happening to him, and to carry on as the, (ultimately), married man he had planned to be, this did not satisfy  him.
His life was empty without Jack, and however hard he tried to deny the love he felt for him, and his physical need of him, he was unable to not see him, or to stop loving him.

Therefore, he was not a happily married man, he was not heterosexual, as he wished to be, and the core of his emotional life was not with his wife and family.

He tried to make it so, but there are some things about ourselves that cannot be changed by will.

[Desecra]

Why should we accept Jack’s interpretation?
If Ennis really didn’t want to know he was holding a man, why did he embrace Jack in the first place?

Why not accept Jack's "interpretation"?  Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would assume that it's wrong.  Jack was there on BBM with Ennis - of course he would be able to see how Ennis acted.    It's the same with Alma's "interpretations" - she's thinking about observable behaviour.  She was living with him and would notice if he tended to roll to the wall, if he yearned for ranch work, etc.   It's more about observation than interpretation in Alma and Jack's case. 

We're not told that Jack thought that Ennis "didn't want to know know he was holding a man", so I suppose that's our interpretation, not Jack's.  Jack just remembers Ennis refusing to embrace face to face (something he could easily observe in their day to day interactions - i.e. sex) because he didn't want to see or feel that it was Jack (an obvious interpretation when you think about what Ennis avoiding).  It's up to us to wonder why Ennis would have a problem with Jack being the object of his desire - I think you're correct that it was because Jack was a man. 

Why did Ennis embrace Jack, if he didn't want to feel it was Jack - I think he had a strong inclination to do it, and the physical restrictions took care of his misgivings. 

Ennis’s reaction is no less plausible than “most people’s,” as you say.
I presume that you refer to heterosexual people?

People of any orientation. but obviously (I think) gay people are going to be more affected by homophobia/a need to not be gay. 

No, Des. I asked Jess where it was stated in the story

I thought I'd answered that . 

[royandronnie]

Ah, the old "them guys" question again. I don't have any time right now, but I'll be back on this one.

[Paul029]

I feel sure that in that time and place, most people would not have wanted to be gay, because it was a very hard way to live at that time, but what Ennis wanted to be, or not, still couldn't change reality for him or anybody else.

Could you clarify [the bold] please?

What Ennis wanted to be?

I think probably he wanted to be a completely heterosexual married man with children who was happy in that situation.

That was what he tried to be.

That was what he worked hard at being.

It wasn't what he was though.

He fell madly in love with Jack Twist, and even though he tried to deny what was happening to him, and to carry on as the, (ultimately), married man he had planned to be, this did not satisfy  him.
His life was empty without Jack, and however hard he tried to deny the love he felt for him, and his physical need of him, he was unable to not see him, or to stop loving him.

Therefore, he was not a happily married man, he was not heterosexual, as he wished to be, and the core of his emotional life was not with his wife and family.

He tried to make it so, but there are some things about ourselves that cannot be changed by will.

You say that Ennis wanted to be completely heterosexual.

This suggests that he was partly successful.
 
Then you say that he wasn’t heterosexual at all.

I’m mystified.   

[Paul029]

Why should we accept Jack’s interpretation?
If Ennis really didn’t want to know he was holding a man, why did he embrace Jack in the first place?

Why not accept Jack's "interpretation"?  Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would assume that it's wrong. 

Because his interpretation is not only biased, it is also wrong.

He’s upset about their fight, and in his regret over Ennis’s reluctance to admit that he feels the same way about Jack as Jack does about him, Jack imagines that even during that special embrace that there were signs that he should have noticed earlier.

But his imaginings are spurred by anger, and then dismissed as being irrelevant.

I said earlier that he had an axe to grind—which is how he came to reinterpret, and spuriously so, Ennis’s motivations for, and during, the embrace.