Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis)

[Paul029]

I enjoyed your post, Paul, and there's bits that made me think, bits I agree with, and bits I disagree with (as usual!).

Thank you, Des.
But you are coming at things backwards, so to speak, with your mind already made up, aren't you?  
 

[Cally]

I do—the ones Proulx thought that we needed to know.

 

They were weeks/months? before he died. 

I think we are at cross-purposes here. We both know that in the story they are the last thing we are told about Jack's thoughts, and this gives them great significance.

[Cally]

c. Why would it belittle any man to be described as gay?  Who says he is defined and labelled by it?  Sexuality is just one aspect of a person, but it is central to one's identity.  However we answer the question "Were they gay?", and it seems to me to be a valid question, I don't think any one of us on this forum would be offering the answer as a value judgment. To me, saying - in an appropriate context - that someone is gay, straight or bisexual, is merely stating what one believes is true about that area of their life (complex subject though it is, of course).
Jack Twist isn’t “any man,” Sara, he’s a particular man (even though a fictional construct), and I wasn’t referring to people in general.
And, in the context in which I used the word, being "defined and labelled" solely on his (perceived) sexuality reduces (i.e. belittles) his individuality.
Pigeon-holing him into a blanket category (another is “boat people”) in this way ignores that his sexuality was fluid.

He deserves more than that, and describing him as (solely and absolutely) “gay” diminishes him as a person, in that his psychologically complex nature is flattened to a single “type” of sexuality.A comparison would be a hand plane riding over and shaving off the high spots on a piece of wood, reducing it to a smooth, uniformly flat surface.
It’s easily done, of course, as I said, but I don’t see Jack in that simplistic way.

The question “were they gay” is a global one, and doesn’t take into account that people change over time.
(My post regarding the actual question refers to this, but perhaps too obliquely.)
I’ve attempted to address the issue of temporal transformation with my comments regarding Jack’s childhood and teenage years.
But (apparently) the general opinion here is that Jack was “gay” from the moment he was born, which is a view I do not hold. 

I also said that ‘Proulx wasn’t writing about a stereotype—Jack didn’t see himself as “queer.”’
Perhaps I should have expanded that to indicate that I agreed with him, but I would have thought that that was clear.
I apologise for not being articulate enough. 

But those who think that the answer is 'yes, he was gay', there is no feeling or intention of flattening or belittling.

[Cally]

Okay, make it complicated. Why not?   

And you never do.... 

[Paul029]

They were weeks/months? before he died.  

I think we are at cross-purposes here. We both know that in the story they are the last thing we are told about Jack's thoughts, and this gives them great significance.

Methinks the lady doth misunderstand me, forsooth.  

Hypothesising about what Jack may, or may not, have "thought" once he'd left the scene gets us nowhere.

He's offstage, therefore he exists no longer, and the last thing we know to be his thoughts are those about the DE.

Anything apart from that is conjecture, and so is irrelevant.

[Cally]

Methinks the lady doth misunderstand me, forsooth. 

Hypothesising about what Jack may, or may not, have "thought" once he'd left the scene gets us nowhere.
He's offstage, therefore he exists no longer, and the last thing we know to be his thoughts are those about the DE.
Anything apart from that is conjecture, and so is irrelevant.

Exactly, as I said, but what you originally said was open to misunderstanding.

[Paul029]

And you never do.... 

Well! Excuse me for going into details. 

[Paul029]

Methinks the lady doth misunderstand me, forsooth.  

Hypothesising about what Jack may, or may not, have "thought" once he'd left the scene gets us nowhere.

He's offstage, therefore he exists no longer, and the last thing we know to be his thoughts are those about the DE.

Anything apart from that is conjecture, and so is irrelevant.

Exactly, as I said, but what you originally said was open to misunderstanding.

I thought my meaning was clear, but have now added a bit for greater clarity:

“...and then he dies, his last thoughts—before we learn of his death—are a recollected memory of once being affectionately embraced, with sex not part of the equation.”

[Paul029]

But those who think that the answer is 'yes, he was gay', there is no feeling or intention of flattening or belittling.

They're (presumably) real people, not fictitious constructs.

So, they're free to think, say, and do whatever they like.

Both Jack and Ennis are fixed, forever unchanging and forever unchangeable.

And to simplify either of them (and I haven't even started on Ennis, yet), to force them into "round holes" does them no service (despite what their creator may say after the event).

[Cally]

IF you think that's what's happening - fine!

[Paul029]

If you think that's what's happening - fine!

Thank you accepting my point of view in such a civil fashion, and refraining from shouting "They were gay!" 

[Desecra]

Thank you, Des.
But you are coming at things backwards, so to speak, with your mind already made up, aren't you?  
 

Yes, in the sense that when I first read the story I thought of them as gay, and haven't seen anything to tell me otherwise.   But I do think that their behaviour has to be seen in the context of the time and place, when the default position for gay men was to hide their sexuality and pretend to be straight.   That's why (to believe Jack was straight/bi) I'd have to see behaviour that showed actual attraction to women, rather than behaviour that showed him hiding his sexuality and pretending to be straight. 

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Paul, how did you answer the survey question at the top of this thread.
The poll that is there? 

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Both Jack and Ennis are fixed, forever unchanging and forever unchangeable.

If I accept that, the way people individually or as a group of some sort look at them or perceive them
can change, however.

And to simplify either of them (and I haven't even started on Ennis, yet), to force them into "round holes"
does them no service (despite what their creator may say after the event).

I am assuming you are saying that if you say Jack & Ennis are gay that you are simplifying them.  I wouldn't agree with that.
Using myself as an example, if I am gay, isn't it a disservice to keep telling me I am something else?  Like politicians and
right-wing fundamentalists, among others, keep trying to do?

[janjo]

c. Why would it belittle any man to be described as gay?  Who says he is defined and labelled by it?  Sexuality is just one aspect of a person, but it is central to one's identity.  However we answer the question "Were they gay?", and it seems to me to be a valid question, I don't think any one of us on this forum would be offering the answer as a value judgment. To me, saying - in an appropriate context - that someone is gay, straight or bisexual, is merely stating what one believes is true about that area of their life (complex subject though it is, of course).
Jack Twist isn’t “any man,” Sara, he’s a particular man (even though a fictional construct), and I wasn’t referring to people in general.
And, in the context in which I used the word, being "defined and labelled" solely on his (perceived) sexuality reduces (i.e. belittles) his individuality.
Pigeon-holing him into a blanket category (another is “boat people”) in this way ignores that his sexuality was fluid.

He deserves more than that, and describing him as (solely and absolutely) “gay” diminishes him as a person, in that his psychologically complex nature is flattened to a single “type” of sexuality.
A comparison would be a hand plane riding over and shaving off the high spots on a piece of wood, reducing it to a smooth, uniformly flat surface.
It’s easily done, of course, as I said, but I don’t see Jack in that simplistic way.

The question “were they gay” is a global one, and doesn’t take into account that people change over time.
(My post regarding the actual question refers to this, but perhaps too obliquely.)
I’ve attempted to address the issue of temporal transformation with my comments regarding Jack’s childhood and teenage years.
But (apparently) the general opinion here is that Jack was “gay” from the moment he was born, which is a view I do not hold.  

I also said that ‘Proulx wasn’t writing about a stereotype—Jack didn’t see himself as “queer.”’
Perhaps I should have expanded that to indicate that I agreed with him, but I would have thought that that was clear.
I apologise for not being articulate enough.  

I am rather late in replying to this Paul, but I do take issue with some of your conclusions. I think it is hard to say that Jack wasn't gay from the moment he was born. There isn't anything "wrong" with being gay all ones life, any more than there is anything "wrong" with being straight all ones life. Some people, as you say, change over time, either they are towards the bisexual section of the spectrum, or they actually direct themselves towards the opposite sex and modify their behaviour because they find that to be easier or more socially acceptable. However, some people do not change at all. I haven't for instance ever been anything but heterosexual,, there are others here who have never been anything but homosexual, either in thought or deed.
It happens, and we are not belittled in any way by being described by our sexuality if it is an absolute fact about ourselves.
I don't think it matters whether it is more comfortable to believe one thing or the other, somethings just "are."