Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis)

[Paul029]

BTW, Paul, what happens after they roll down into the dirt, or 'can that even be known' according to strict literalism??  

Who knows? It’s suddenly “A day or two later...”  

I think it can be safely assumed that "after they roll down in the dirt", they engage in "brilliantly charged sex" since the line exists within the context of the story and, at this point, the reader understands that the two of them meet once or twice a year and engage in this type of activity.  (Not to mention the fact that the text mentions one or two foreplay activities including hands between legs and unbuttoning.)

In the paragraph in which that action occurs what we are told is what Jack said, what Jack did, what the fire’s sparks did and then what Jack and Ennis did.
The final sentence doesn’t fit, because we’re no longer being told told what they’re doing.

Instead, what we have are references not only to the subjective nature of perceived time—rather than direct speech or action—but also to what Jack and Ennis did, infrequently, but more than once, in the past.

What’s interesting here is that the Narrator [or Proulx?] tells us that (perceived) time is unchanging, that it’s always flying and that there’s aways never enough of it, yet she relates this perception directly to the past rather than to the present.

She doesn’t tell us that that was what Jack and Ennis thought as they rolled into the dirt by the fire.

By stepping back from direct recording to present a new subject she’s wrenched the paragraph into two separate issues—a kind of literary seismic shift—when it would have been better for the sentence to have been presented as a paragraph in its own right.

Had she done so I’d agree that the space between the preceeding speech/action sentences and the final “time” sentence could be “read” as suggesting an “offstage” interaction between the two men; but she didn’t do that.

It would seem to me that what they “do” after they roll down into the dirt isn’t at all important, which is why I told Stan “Who knows? It’s suddenly two days later.”

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by "strict literalism".  Are you introducing exegesis and/or hermeneutics into the conversation?  If so, why?

~snip~

ETA: Silly me, it just occurred to me that you probably meant the bolded as sarcasm?

I took Stan’s question at face value rather than as sarcasm—a straightforward request for an opinion, so answered it literally.  
We’re just not told what happened after they “rolled down into the dirt.”

Which was a fair response, I thought, to his also asking whether what happened after they rolled down into the dirt “can even be known?”

I don’t know if my answer was exegetical or hermeneutical.  

[garyd]

I don’t know if my answer was exegetical or hermeneutical.  

Me either but what I do know is that for some reason, known perhaps only to you, you are parsing only one paragraph of a complex passage.  Why you insist on  isolating the paragraph and then attempt to analyze it out of context is something only you can answer.
You also, again for reasons I do not understand, choose to ignore the basic tenets of third person omniscient narration and hence your purported confusion regarding the "never enough time" comment. 

[Paul029]

I don’t know if my answer was exegetical or hermeneutical.  

Me either# but what I do know is that for some reason, known perhaps only to you, you are parsing only one paragraph of a complex passage.  Why you insist on isolating the paragraph and then attempt to analyze it out of context is something only you can answer.

# Then we agree about one thing, at least.  

Regarding my “parsing only one paragraph of a complex passage,” I thought I was parsing a single sentence in a complex paragraph, which I did in order to address Stan’s question.

My understanding of “One thing never changed, the brilliant charge of their infrequent couplings was darkened by the sense of time flying, never enough time, never enough” is that the main subject is the passing of time (which affects their coupling).

Had Proulx written “The brilliant charge of their infrequent couplings was always darkened by the sense of time flying; there was never enough time, never enough” instead, the subject could have then been related to what they did in the dirt.

But, even then, as Stan suggested, “can [what they do] be known?” 

Despite my earlier comment that we’re not told, it’s possible, as they lay in the dirt, that all they did was think about the passage of time (and it's "darkening effect" on their past couplings).  

You also, again for reasons I do not understand, choose to ignore the basic tenets of third person omniscient narration and hence your purported confusion regarding the "never enough time" comment.  

I thought that “the basic tenets of third person omniscient narration” were covered by my comments about the narrative mode changing from the presentation of direct speech/action to the presentation of ideas, from "on high," about the passage of time.

If I seemed to you to be confused about "never enough time" it’s news to me, as I thought I was quite clear about its meaning.

[garyd]

LOL, love the cartoon.

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

But, even then, as Stan suggested, “can [what they do] be known?” 

oh NOW I finally have some inkling why Ang Lee left it out of the movie.   

Despite my earlier comment that we’re not told, it’s possible, as they lay in the dirt, that all they did was think about the passage of time (and it's "darkening effect" on their past couplings).  

Yes.  Or maybe they did something totally unexpected like conjugate Latin verbs.  We simply don't know enough to rule it out!

[Paul029]

Despite my earlier comment that we’re not told, it’s possible, as they lay in the dirt, that all they did was think about the passage of time (and it's "darkening effect" on their past couplings).  

Yes.  Or maybe they did something totally unexpected like conjugate Latin verbs.  We simply don't know enough to rule it out!

Unexpected would be right—Proulx states that they’re “both high school dropout country boys...”

Ennis left school at about, or just after, “age fourteen,” which’d equate to Year 8 (Form 2, back then, in Australia), and Latin wasn’t on the curriculum at that level here, then.
So I seriously doubt any High School taught Latin in “backwoods” Wyoming during the mid-1950s. 

Perhaps the US was educationally more advanced than other British colonies? 

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

 

[Paul029]

^^^^^^
Thanks, Ellen. 

Well, I guess it’s about time to present my slant on the topic. Sara’s post a while back was what initially interested me:

These are boys of nineteen who are sexually attracted to each other, have constant exhilarating sex over the summer, and fall in love, all of which is rekindled when they meet 4 years later, after what appears to be not very satisfying heterosexual relations, and which becomes the focal point of both their lives.  They have not been leading straight lives for many years and then  been suddenly attracted to a man. ~snip ~

However, what with one thing and another (e.g. the Nabokov issue), I was sidetracked. 

Anyway, here goes—my first post on the actual question, “Were They Gay (Ennis and Jack)?”

Perhaps I should start by saying that:

   • I’m stepping into the discussion after only a quick scan through the last “several thousand” posts  , and will deal with EDM first, without any of Proulx's retrospective information "reveals."
   • I have no Yes/No answer at this stage, but will stick to the facts (SS only) and may eventually reach a decision.
   • I'm aware that my posts could be travelling over already well-trodden ground, and if so, I apologise.   

Looking at the facts chronologically, Ennis lost both his parents at an early age and at fourteen he entered high school, intending to become a sophomore. However, circumstances forced him instead into ranch work. In 1963 he was “not yet twenty,” he was engaged to be married and he applied for a sheepherding job, during which he met Jack Twist.

So far there's no indication that his sexuality is anything out of the ordinary, let alone an issue worth mentioning.

During his time sheepherding on the mountain he and Jack develop a mutual friendship in which they enjoy each other's company, talk companionably as they share supper by a fire, swap stories about dogs each had had, their respective families, and so on.

Then, late one cold, drunken night, they share a tent and engage in physical intimacy, after which, while both declare that they're not queer, they engage in what they’d describe as non-queer sexual activties with each other for the rest of the summer until, after a snow storm, and with a bigger storm on the way, Aguirre “sent word to bring them down ... and they packed in the game and moved off the mountain with the sheep.”

Ennis's life could be organised as follows:

   a) From 1944 to the summer of 1963 he was a typical child & teenager; his sexual orientation is unknown but it’s presumed to  be heterosexual, in keeping with his upbringing (and his engagement to Alma Beers);
   b) During the summer of 1963 he engaged, despite saying he wasn’t “queer,” in sexual acts with another man;
   c) From the end of summer 1963 to June 1967 he had married & fathered two children so was physically heterosexual, but also had private emotional thoughts about Jack during which he frequently masturbated;
   d) From June 1967 to his divorce in 1973 he engaged in intermittent sex with Jack, and even less so with his wife;
   e) From 1973 he continued to engage in regular but infrequent sex with Jack until the latter's death, some time after May 1983;
   f) After May 1983 Ennis was physically celibate, but had sexual & emotional dreams/thoughts about Jack which got him through the day.

Well, that’s my “maiden” post on the topic.

Jack’s next...

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Books
In Search of the Elusive Definition of Heterosexuality
By ABIGAIL ZUGER, M.D.
Published: January 30, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com.html

[Sandy]

   a) From 1944 to the summer of 1963 he was a typical child & teenager; his sexual orientation is unknown but it’s presumed to  be heterosexual, in keeping with his upbringing Well, that’s my “maiden” post on the topic.

Paul, could you clarify for me whether you believe that someone's upbringing determines his sexual orientation. Thanks.

[Paul029]

~snip ~    a) From 1944 to the summer of 1963 he was a typical child & teenager; his sexual orientation is unknown but it’s presumed to  be heterosexual, in keeping with his upbringing (and his engagement to Alma Beers);

Paul, could you clarify for me whether you believe that someone's upbringing determines his sexual orientation. Thanks.

Interesting question, Sandy.

What I meant was that there’s nothing in the story at this stage of its chronology to contradict a reader’s implicit understanding that Ennis is anything but heterosexual.

(I was going to say normal, but suspect that it could have caused offence in some quarters.  )

[Paul029]

Paul,

Forgive me for pointing this out, but you didn't answer Sandy's question...

I'm sure that Sandy—should he agree—will let me know in due course, Stan.  

[Lyle (Mooska)]

You DIDN'T answer the question, whether Sandy replies or not.

[Desecra]

I think that in the story, we're seeing somebody's attitude to their sexuality being determined by their upbringing, not their sexuality itself.

I don't think there's really any mystery about their sexuality.   I think we're shown that homophobia can affect gay men's expression of their sexuality - obvious, but true.    One of the things that struck me about the story was that the conflict was partially internal - I think I wanted it to be two men together against the world, but I think we're shown that they were also fighting things in themselves (and each other).   Obviously, in such a homophobic society, it would be difficult for a gay man to grow up always feeling OK about his sexuality.   I don't think either Jack or Ennis did, but they each felt differently and that was what was determined by their upbringing.   

[Paul029]

In keeping with my first post on this topic I’ll present the bare chronological facts, as they’re presented in the SS, about Jack.

   a) While we’re told little about Jack’s life between 1944 and the summer of 1963 in the first section of the story what we are told is straightforward.
Like Ennis, he was raised on a small, poor ranch; that he was a high school dropout with no prospects, brought up to hard work and privation, that he similarly claimed to be saving money for a small spread; he’d also had a dog, and that he loved little dogs. Both he and Ennis were good shots with rifles (Jack had shot an eagle, presumably one of Aguirre’s .30.30s, and Ennis shot a coyote with one of Aguirre’s 30.30s).

But, unlike Ennis, he’d worked as a sheepherder on the mountain in the summer of 1962; was infatuated with the rodeo life; wore a minor bull-riding buckle and a hat with the feather of the eagle he’d shot. Also unlike Ennis, whose parents had died, Jack’s father and mother held on(to their ranch).

   b) During the summer of 1963 he initiated sexual activity with Ennis, despite saying he wasn’t “queer.”

   c) Between 1963 and 1967 Jack married & fathered a child, so was physically capable of heterosexual intercourse.

   d) In June 1967 he contacted Ennis to arrange a reunion, during which they resumed their sexual activites, about which each expressed some enthusiasm and delight. During a brief respite Jack proposed that they get a little ranch together, a suggestion which Ennis declined.
 
   d) From June 1967 until May 1983 he and Ennis maintained their sexual relationship (out in the middle a nowhere, two or three times a year). During what turns out to be their final meeting he admits that, as Ennis keeps him on a short (sexual) leash, he goes to Mexico for what he "needs."

    e) After his death, post-May 1983, Jack no longer engaged in physical sexual activity.

Well, that’s about it, for Jack.  

Determining Ennis's sexuality will require further thought...