Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II

[janjo]

But did it really get much further? The sex improved, going from the quick roughness of the mountain, where they never spoke about it, into something more resembling a standard sexual relationship where at least the sexual nature is discussed, but the relationship itself didn't move ahead. Certainly Ennis "changed" his life, going from masturbation while thinking about Jack, and having sex with Alma in a fashion which reminded him of Jack, to having sex with the living breathing Jack, but I fear it is overly romantic to view this as anything more than Ennis allowing himself to enjoy something he desired without considering the implications. During the last argument Jack puts it in a nutshell. "I'm not like you. I can't make it on a couple a high altitude fucks once or twice a year." While he says it in relation to his seeking out of other male partners, I think it's safe to say that what he really wants is a full relationship with Ennis. It's a tragedy that even in that moment he can't speak about love, only about sex.

What they had for the sixteen years of repetitive trips around cold mountain ranges was qualitatively the same as they had during their summer on Brokeback - excellent friendship and great sex. Sadly, that relationship was dependent on the idea that they were two straight men, friends with benefits, as I think Desecra described it. Jack consciously maintained the facade, and Ennis maintained it through his state of being in denial.

When Jack reflects on the Dozy Embrace, he has finally been brought up against the truth which was being displayed to him right back from the moment Ennis jerked back his hand from Jack's erect cock and turned Jack away from him in order to have sex. Twenty years has essentially changed nothing except the way they have sex. I feel that you are grasping at straws, just as Jack did for sixteen years. They had indeed "not got much farther"; emotionally they had not got anywhere because underlying all of Ennis's actions was the shame and fear involved in holding a man. As I said earlier, the reunion gave Jack an illusion of progress: if Ennis could literally face up to Jack, surely that meant that the reason for his earlier reluctance had been overcome? But sixteen years on, as Ennis threatens him, Jack understands that it was just illusion, that the progress was just window-dressing.

As regards your reply to R&R - Jack's reflection over the 20 years has metaphorical elements, but the event happened as described. Of that I am in no doubt. - does that mean that you accept entirely that Ennis would not then embrace Jack face to face because he did not want to see or feel that it was Jack he held? If you do, then it leads back to the inevitable question: How did Jack know? How did he know that Ennis chose (however unconsciously) not to hold him face-on?

Are we talking about a love story here? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.
There are lots of questions here.
If your scenario is the case why was this aspect not reflected in the screenplay?
Why have so many of us, moved to the core by this story and film to change our very lives, so misunderstood it?
Why hasn't Annie Proulx complained that we have all completely misunderstood her writing, that by changing the film version into a love story instead of one that (possibly inadvertently) shows the exploitation of one man by another, was not what she intended?

You prove your point…I accept that my sense of the ridiculous takes over here. I can't help but imagine Jack and Ennis backing away from each other all summer in a hilarious scenario, but even though I know perfectly well that is not the case you are making, I still find NEVER coming face to face during an embrace and NEVER touching each others genitals during sex unlikely. Not only is it difficult to imagine, (I find it difficult anyway), I can't understand why Jack would have fallen in love with Ennis if he was being treated in that way?
Also if behaving in such a controlling and punishing way, even inadvertently and unknowingly, how would Ennis have felt any of Jack's love coming back at him?

Does it not strike you that when Jack spoke about “a couple a high altitude fuck's once or twice a year,” that he might have been feeling angry and bitter?
Is that really what he thought he was getting, and if that was all he was getting would he really still have been there after 20 years?

You also mention Ennis recoiling from Jack's cock. He recoils, then goes full throttle. Why oh why would Ennis recoil from Jack's cock and then go straight for anal sex? Why is one activity less “queer,” than the other?
Where in the text are we told that Ennis avoided Jack's cock for the next four years?
It is much more instructive to analyse Annie Proulx’s writing technique. She does this trick with the “will they, won't they" all the time, there are phrases which are used as bumps in the road,” she does it again in the section at the Twist house at the end of the short story. We have old man Twist, telling Ennis about the ranch neighbour, and us the audience, gasping and thinking that Jack was really a rat after all, he did see lots of other men, he had got one lined up to live with him at Lightning Flat, and then, the peace, the knowing when Ennis finds the shirts, that it was true love, Jack did love Ennis right from the first moments up on Brokeback, he had stolen his shirt, and he had treasured it in a “holy of holies "for twenty years.
The recoiling from Jack's cock, has to be seen in the context of the writers style if it is to be understood fully.

When one contemplates the state of ones own relationships is it usually in terms of the physical position that either of you were in that leads to the appraisal of how things are going?
We all have ups and downs, but do we really consider the physical position of our bodies as indicative of the state of our relationships?
I can't say I ever have.

With regard to my reply to R&R. Yes I do believe that Ennis came up to Jack and embraced him from behind on that occasion. Yes I do believe that Jack used that as a metaphor for how things turned out over the next twenty years, and yes I do think he had the knowledge that Ennis had not come “face to face” with the reality of the situation, because he could look back over the twenty years and see that it was so.

I could continue my answer, with conversation about idylls, the book structure being broken down into thirds, and lots of other matters, but I suspect I have probably said too much already.

[fofol]

Beautiful rendition, janjo.  The boys both take one thing at face value, and that is each other's statement lie of not being queer.  Other than that, they hardly ever speak what is exactly on their minds: it takes Jack 20 years after "Me neither" to tell Ennis that he misses him when they're apart.
  Of course, it is that "I'm not queer; Me neither" exchange which forces both of them to think of their releationship exclusively in terms of sex, affection being the mark of a queer - men of their demographic are allowed sex with one another only when women aren't available, but they are not allowed to have attachments to the men they're boinking.

[seagull]

Janjo, thank you for your response to my previous post.

Are we talking about a love story here? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.
There are lots of questions here.
If your scenario is the case why was this aspect not reflected in the screenplay?
Why have so many of us, moved to the core by this story and film to change our very lives, so misunderstood it?
Why hasn't Annie Proulx complained that we have all completely misunderstood her writing, that by changing the film version into a love story instead of one that (possibly inadvertently) shows the exploitation of one man by another, was not what she intended?

This is most definitely a love story, (as well as a story about homophobia, as Proulx makes clear). I think there is little doubt about that. Under different circumstances, Jack and Ennis would have ridden off into the sunset together. However, this is a love story built on harsh realities, namely, the extreme and violent homophobia which existed, and continues to exist, in the world; and the lingering effects of childhood trauma. These elements are not the classic ingredients of cheap "romance" novels.

You ask why the film does not reflect the view I have of the time on the mountain. This is an aspect which I was hoping to avoid, as I can see any number of pitfalls and red herrings and false trails. I prefer to limit my posts to discussion of story and film. However, I shall attempt to answer your question.

I an certain that there will never be a Director's Cut of BBM because what was released is Ang Lee's definitive version. It is Proulx's story but filtered through the work of many other creative people, and the end result is Ang Lee's responsibility.. It need hardly be said that film and fiction writing are two different media, each with its own methods of imparting a tale. What works in one medium does not necessarily work in another, a point which Proulx addressed. The prologue is a critical part of the story, not simply a means of introducing Ennis to the reader. (And I am aware that Diana Ossana first read the accidentally decapitated version published in the New Yorker.) Amongst the other information in the prologue, there are two major points: Ennis and Jack had a relationship so rewarding that just the presence of one in the other's dream is enough to cause a sense of pleasure which overrides the bareness of his daily life; and there was a time when they were together in an apparently perfect and joyous existence. Armed with this information, the reader then begins learning about the summer of 1963.

There is no such fore-arming in the film. Instead we are thrown directly into the meeting between an apparently cheerful and outgoing Jack and a quiet, withdrawn and watchful Ennis. If the film summer had proceeded as it does in the story (bearing in mind that the Dozy Embrace is withheld until the end) how would the viewer have gleaned an idea of the deep emotional connection which underlies the tale? I believe it was Ang Lee who included "SNIT" as a means of introducing the idea of love as opposed to just the happy slaking of sexual desire. The sleight-of-hand which Proulx employs by withholding information such as the details of the punch, the post-divorce visit by Jack, and his maltreatment as a toddler, is not so easily achieved on film.

I would urge you to do two things. The first is to read old versions of the screenplay which are available if you seek them out. In them you will find nothing in the way of "love" in the sense of "romance". In the scenes of 1963 there are no romantic interludes or kissing and cuddling or even soft words spoken (excluding the DE which is always the anomaly, hence its critical importance to the story). Ossana and McMurtry interpreted that summer in a practical, no-nonsense fashion, and this version (or one similar to it) was what Proulx signed off on.

The second is to take note of what we actually do see in the film. Apart from SNIT (I suppose I'll have to get used to the term), the reunion kiss, and the post-coital motel embrace, there is very little to suggest a loving sexual relationship. There's a bit of wrestling of a sexual nature, a cheek rub, a hug which Ennis abruptly ends, and an arm casually thrown across a body during sleep. Apart from the wrestling (which immediately follows SNIT and is in keeping with the face-to-face nature of that added scene) there is nothing shown which would not be appropriate for two men who cannot, for whatever reason, fully express their love. Take, for example, the scene where Ennis leaps out of his truck, lugging his almost-forgotten fishing gear. He is delighted to be back with Jack, if his expression is anything to go by, and yet their greeting has about as much passion as it might have had if Ennis had merely slipped down to the pub for beer supplies.

I assume we all have our reasons to be moved by the story, to the point of changing our lives. I don't think that one side of this argument or the other holds the monopoly on that. The story as you see it moves you, and the story as I see it moves me. Nothing more can really be said.

Why has Proulx not complained? Why should she? I hold the view that she wrote a story which can be read on various levels, and if some readers need Jack and Ennis to have been totally free on Brokeback, then I assume that is fine by her. However, I am firmly convinced that she also laid out a series of pointers to an alternative reading (and by "alternative" I mean the real story, as opposed to the easier version which you espouse, but this is just my opinion, of course). I'm sure if you asked her she would give an answer like: It is up to each reader. And it would appear that even some readers who are well versed in American literature and who are very familiar with Proulx's style pick up on the nature of Jack's and Ennis's early sexual interaction. I quote again the words of Dr O. Alan Weltzien, Professor of English at Montana University:

The site of their adolescent coming out becomes the benchmark against which their subsequent relationship falls forever short, and the story defines its most intense memory as a "sexless hunger".... Though the lovers kiss subsequently [after the Dozy Embrace, i.e. at the reunion] the suggestion is that there lingers something immature, even infantile, in their love affair. (The emphasis is mine.)

Regardless of which version one believes, the basic story is the same: two men who should be together are denied that outcome by the insidious effects of homophobia. Both film and story convey that powerful and moving message. Why should Proulx argue against it.

You say, one [story] that (possibly inadvertently) shows the exploitation of one man by another. I can't let that go by unchallenged. If you are referring to my reading of the story then I am afraid you are wide of the mark. I see no exploitation, inadvertant or not.

You prove your point…I accept that my sense of the ridiculous takes over here. I can't help but imagine Jack and Ennis backing away from each other all summer in a hilarious scenario, but even though I know perfectly well that is not the case you are making, I still find NEVER coming face to face during an embrace and NEVER touching each others genitals during sex unlikely. Not only is it difficult to imagine, (I find it difficult anyway), I can't understand why Jack would have fallen in love with Ennis if he was being treated in that way?

I have no problem with your finding the scenario hilarious. You may imagine and laugh at whatever scenarios you devise, but please remember that these are your scenarios, not mine. If you wish to discuss the story with me in a meaningful fashion, it would be best if ridicule and hyperbole were not employed as arguing tools.

Does it not strike you that when Jack spoke about “a couple a high altitude fuck's once or twice a year,” that he might have been feeling angry and bitter?
Is that really what he thought he was getting, and if that was all he was getting would he really still have been there after 20 years?

Of course he is bitter. We are told just a few lines earlier that his tone is bitter and accusatory, and that is before Ennis has threatened him. And of course he is getting more than a couple of high altitude fucks once or twice a year: he is getting to spend time with the man he loves. But set what he gets against what he wants and it seems quite understandable that he might reduce it to a cutting remark about sex. He is unable to say what he wants and needs, he can't even own up to still nurturing the idea that they might live together. He has to relegate it to the past - "I did once." Sex and friendship are the agreed bases of their relationship. Love is never mentioned.

You also mention Ennis recoiling from Jack's cock. He recoils, then goes full throttle. Why oh why would Ennis recoil from Jack's cock and then go straight for anal sex? Why is one activity less “queer,” than the other?
Where in the text are we told that Ennis avoided Jack's cock for the next four years?

Where indeed? I have no idea what you mean by this last question. All I can suggest is that the distance between Wyoming and Texas is longer than Ennis's arm.

Why is one activity less "queer" than another? While I'm sure that Ennis was not thinking it out, the obvious answer - and one which Desecra has explained at length - is that while a cock is undoubtedly a male appendage, an anus is common to both men and women.

It is much more instructive to analyse Annie Proulx’s writing technique. She does this trick with the “will they, won't they" all the time, there are phrases which are used as bumps in the road,” she does it again in the section at the Twist house at the end of the short story. We have old man Twist, telling Ennis about the ranch neighbour, and us the audience, gasping and thinking that Jack was really a rat after all, he did see lots of other men, he had got one lined up to live with him at Lightning Flat, and then, the peace, the knowing when Ennis finds the shirts, that it was true love, Jack did love Ennis right from the first moments up on Brokeback, he had stolen his shirt, and he had treasured it in a “holy of holies "for twenty years.
The recoiling from Jack's cock, has to be seen in the context of the writers style if it is to be understood fully.

I couldn't agree more about looking at Proulx's style. I have read all of her published fiction and am well aware that she can be playful, teasing, etc. She will use such "Will they? Won't they?" road bumps (or variations thereof) in some works, often to extremely funny effect. However, I am certain that in a scene as critical as FNIT she is not resorting to cheap and easy writing. Why, in a story of such tragedy and power, would she use a technique which can be found far too often in thirdrate books, films or TV series? What would be the point? Why bother? This story is written so tightly that words are at a premium. What difference would it make to the overall narrative if the reader had a second or two of "gasping"? I'm sorry but I find the suggestion risible. As for the "bump" at the Twists, I will leave that for another post. Suffice it to say that I consider neither passase to be an example of the unsophisticated technique which you describe.

When one contemplates the state of ones own relationships is it usually in terms of the physical position that either of you were in that leads to the appraisal of how things are going?
We all have ups and downs, but do we really consider the physical position of our bodies as indicative of the state of our relationships?
I can't say I ever have.

Not even metaphorically?

With regard to my reply to R&R. Yes I do believe that Ennis came up to Jack and embraced him from behind on that occasion. Yes I do believe that Jack used that as a metaphor for how things turned out over the next twenty years, and yes I do think he had the knowledge that Ennis had not come “face to face” with the reality of the situation, because he could look back over the twenty years and see that it was so.

But how did he know that Ennis WOULD NOT do it face to face? This is a question which never seems to receive an answer.

I could continue my answer, with conversation about idylls, the book structure being broken down into thirds, and lots of other matters, but I suspect I have probably said too much already.

Another post, perhaps. I would be happy to discuss idylls and story structure. I have strong views about that as well.

[kathy]

I can't seem to "get" the previous posts in this forum.     Perhaps I am the one who is missing something.  Why is so much being said of the "difference" between ss and film?  (Maybe "difference" isn't the correct word.  I don't know). 

I have to state that BBM is one of the best films ever made, a love story so touching and sad that it strikes me to the heart and mind like a hammer.  Isn't it evident that Jack and Ennis love each other so much??  And isn't this the purpose of the entire film?  Ang Lee makes this so evident; he even stated many times that "it's a love story; anyone can identify with that".  Why do some find the SNIT so hard to believe?  It's only natural they'd have that SNIT.  The FNIT was rough sex, sure; but that beautiful SNIT was love!  Why cannot it be believed that they'd love each other all summer (and all their lives) like that, and in any kind of direction - of course it's face to face, front to back, any kind of direction there is!

Well, if it is ME who is missing the point of these posts, I do apologize.  But I do not think it is.  I think I'm in agreement with fofol and janjo when they write.  But this discussion is getting to the point that I don't recognize what it's all about anymore!
Forgive me if I am just not "getting" it.  E&J loved each other all their lives; thru everything and anything.  The real tragedy of their not being together, the lousy lives they had, the tragic ends of both - is something that is never forgotten by all of us who love it so.

kathy   
p.s.  maybe fofol and/or janjo can explain...or try to...

[royandronnie]

Kathy, there are numerous differences between the story and the movie, one of the most important being that in the story, there is no SNIT. Therefore, there is no scene of love between them while they are on Brokeback--not until the end of the story, when Jack remembers the DE. It is not until the last few scenes--the argument, the DE, and Ennis finding the shirts--that we begin to realize that these two men, who have expressed lust but hardly any of what we think of as affection for each other, were actually in love with each other, a fact which in the story as in the movie, Ennis spends all of Jack's life denying to himself and refusing to admit to himself or Jack in words, words Jack craves. Also importantly different, Ennis and Jack are not as obviously different in personality in the story--Ennis is not silent and tense as he so often is in the movie. There are additionally many other differences, such as a great deal less time spent on Ennis and Jack's lives with their wives and families. LD Newsome dies in the story. Ennis has that very revealing line, in the motel scene from the story only, about how he realized he shouldn't have let Jack go after Brokeback. Things like that.

No one, of course, questions whether or not they loved each other--though many believe Jack finally gave up on Ennis and moved on to another relationship--but, tragically, in both story and movie, Ennis' experience at nine years old of a man murdered for merely being suspected of being gay prevented him not from loving a man, but from ever being able to take joy in loving him, and making a life with him.

[Desecra]

Kathy, as well as what RoyandRonnie said, I think there another couple of key differences:

-   The short story is almost completely from Ennis's point of view.  Jack is a bit of a mystery until the end (we find out most about him after he sees Ennis for the last time). 

- In the short story, we aren't shown things in order.  Information is withheld and revealed at key points.   For instance, at the end of the summer, we know that Ennis punched Jack, but we don't know the circumstances of the punch until Ennis finds the shirts. 

I think it's made clear that they loved each other in both book and film.  However, in the book, we're told that they loved each other before we're even told about Brokeback.  In the film, we're shown it while they're on the mountain. 

I agree that the SNIT would be natural for people in love.  I think that's the point - that because they have been brought up to homophobia, they are unable to act naturally.    The book seems to set up two conflicting things - their love and homophobia.  Most of what's in the story seems to be to do with Ennis's conflict - a homophobic man who falls in love with a man.   When we're shown things that don't fit with what people in love would do, it's because homophobia is getting in the way, I think.

I believe the film shows much the same thing, but just in different ways. 

[janjo]

Kathy, as Royandronnie and Desecra have said there are differences between the short story and the film. The argument, I think, is to how different they are. In the short story the pivotal scene, almost literally, as it is in the centre of the narrative, is the time spent in the motel room, and what is said and done there. In the film, part of the emphasis is moved to the final scene at the lakeside.

There is no SNIT in the short story, although some of us like to ascribe what may have happened in that scene in the film, to the "August night in the tent" mentioned in the short story.
In the film we are shown them kissing and embracing, in the short story we are given the line from the DE thus: Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held  which some construe as meaning that they never at any point even during sex or its preludes came face to face in their time on the mountain, or as I and many others see it, that they were not face to face at that moment in time and not over a longer period.
This led to a furious row about whether they ever kissed before the reunion, and to a thread which became so acrimonious that it was closed down.

That is the back story to these discussions.
We do all of us agree that Jack and Ennis loved each other, we all love the film and the short story, but some people see the short story as telling a much harder and more brutal story than that of the film.
A story of very quick and rough sex on the mountain disturbed only by the DE which gives Jack the hope of a better tomorrow, which never comes. This "version" however doesn't really give him anything other than the DE to pin his hopes on, and gives him little but some sexual relief with Ennis to base his life on.

The other major incident that is in the short story and not in the film, is the scene where Jack is brutally abused by his father who beats him at the age of three, and then urinates over him, making Jack clear it up afterwards. I can see why this is not portrayed, it s a very harsh scene, but it is very instructive as to why Jack behaves as he does, why he is always trying to please both his father and Ennis, even when they don't give him back the love he deserves.

Those are just some of the points of difference. Perhaps I could suggest that you read the short story a couple of times, so that the differences become more clear. We have been teasing these things out for four years, and much of this is not apparent until it has been discussed and considered for some period of time.


 

[janjo]

Janjo, thank you for your response to my previous post.

This is most definitely a love story, (as well as a story about homophobia, as Proulx makes clear). I think there is little doubt about that. Under different circumstances, Jack and Ennis would have ridden off into the sunset together. However, this is a love story built on harsh realities, namely, the extreme and violent homophobia which existed, and continues to exist, in the world; and the lingering effects of childhood trauma. These elements are not the classic ingredients of cheap "romance" novels.

You ask why the film does not reflect the view I have of the time on the mountain. This is an aspect which I was hoping to avoid, as I can see any number of pitfalls and red herrings and false trails. I prefer to limit my posts to discussion of story and film. However, I shall attempt to answer your question.

I an certain that there will never be a Director's Cut of BBM because what was released is Ang Lee's definitive version. It is Proulx's story but filtered through the work of many other creative people, and the end result is Ang Lee's responsibility.. It need hardly be said that film and fiction writing are two different media, each with its own methods of imparting a tale. What works in one medium does not necessarily work in another, a point which Proulx addressed. The prologue is a critical part of the story, not simply a means of introducing Ennis to the reader. (And I am aware that Diana Ossana first read the accidentally decapitated version published in the New Yorker.) Amongst the other information in the prologue, there are two major points: Ennis and Jack had a relationship so rewarding that just the presence of one in the other's dream is enough to cause a sense of pleasure which overrides the bareness of his daily life; and there was a time when they were together in an apparently perfect and joyous existence. Armed with this information, the reader then begins learning about the summer of 1963.

There is no such fore-arming in the film. Instead we are thrown directly into the meeting between an apparently cheerful and outgoing Jack and a quiet, withdrawn and watchful Ennis. If the film summer had proceeded as it does in the story (bearing in mind that the Dozy Embrace is withheld until the end) how would the viewer have gleaned an idea of the deep emotional connection which underlies the tale? I believe it was Ang Lee who included "SNIT" as a means of introducing the idea of love as opposed to just the happy slaking of sexual desire. The sleight-of-hand which Proulx employs by withholding information such as the details of the punch, the post-divorce visit by Jack, and his maltreatment as a toddler, is not so easily achieved on film.

I would urge you to do two things. The first is to read old versions of the screenplay which are available if you seek them out. In them you will find nothing in the way of "love" in the sense of "romance". In the scenes of 1963 there are no romantic interludes or kissing and cuddling or even soft words spoken (excluding the DE which is always the anomaly, hence its critical importance to the story). Ossana and McMurtry interpreted that summer in a practical, no-nonsense fashion, and this version (or one similar to it) was what Proulx signed off on.

The second is to take note of what we actually do see in the film. Apart from SNIT (I suppose I'll have to get used to the term), the reunion kiss, and the post-coital motel embrace, there is very little to suggest a loving sexual relationship. There's a bit of wrestling of a sexual nature, a cheek rub, a hug which Ennis abruptly ends, and an arm casually thrown across a body during sleep. Apart from the wrestling (which immediately follows SNIT and is in keeping with the face-to-face nature of that added scene) there is nothing shown which would not be appropriate for two men who cannot, for whatever reason, fully express their love. Take, for example, the scene where Ennis leaps out of his truck, lugging his almost-forgotten fishing gear. He is delighted to be back with Jack, if his expression is anything to go by, and yet their greeting has about as much passion as it might have had if Ennis had merely slipped down to the pub for beer supplies.

I assume we all have our reasons to be moved by the story, to the point of changing our lives. I don't think that one side of this argument or the other holds the monopoly on that. The story as you see it moves you, and the story as I see it moves me. Nothing more can really be said.

Why has Proulx not complained? Why should she? I hold the view that she wrote a story which can be read on various levels, and if some readers need Jack and Ennis to have been totally free on Brokeback, then I assume that is fine by her. However, I am firmly convinced that she also laid out a series of pointers to an alternative reading (and by "alternative" I mean the real story, as opposed to the easier version which you espouse, but this is just my opinion, of course). I'm sure if you asked her she would give an answer like: It is up to each reader. And it would appear that even some readers who are well versed in American literature and who are very familiar with Proulx's style pick up on the nature of Jack's and Ennis's early sexual interaction. I quote again the words of Dr O. Alan Weltzien, Professor of English at Montana University:

The site of their adolescent coming out becomes the benchmark against which their subsequent relationship falls forever short, and the story defines its most intense memory as a "sexless hunger".... Though the lovers kiss subsequently [after the Dozy Embrace, i.e. at the reunion] the suggestion is that there lingers something immature, even infantile, in their love affair. (The emphasis is mine.)

Regardless of which version one believes, the basic story is the same: two men who should be together are denied that outcome by the insidious effects of homophobia. Both film and story convey that powerful and moving message. Why should Proulx argue against it.

You say, one [story] that (possibly inadvertently) shows the exploitation of one man by another. I can't let that go by unchallenged. If you are referring to my reading of the story then I am afraid you are wide of the mark. I see no exploitation, inadvertant or not.

I have no problem with your finding the scenario hilarious. You may imagine and laugh at whatever scenarios you devise, but please remember that these are your scenarios, not mine. If you wish to discuss the story with me in a meaningful fashion, it would be best if ridicule and hyperbole were not employed as arguing tools.

Of course he is bitter. We are told just a few lines earlier that his tone is bitter and accusatory, and that is before Ennis has threatened him. And of course he is getting more than a couple of high altitude fucks once or twice a year: he is getting to spend time with the man he loves. But set what he gets against what he wants and it seems quite understandable that he might reduce it to a cutting remark about sex. He is unable to say what he wants and needs, he can't even own up to still nurturing the idea that they might live together. He has to relegate it to the past - "I did once." Sex and friendship are the agreed bases of their relationship. Love is never mentioned.
Where indeed? I have no idea what you mean by this last question. All I can suggest is that the distance between Wyoming and Texas is longer than Ennis's arm.

Why is one activity less "queer" than another? While I'm sure that Ennis was not thinking it out, the obvious answer - and one which Desecra has explained at length - is that while a cock is undoubtedly a male appendage, an anus is common to both men and women.

I couldn't agree more about looking at Proulx's style. I have read all of her published fiction and am well aware that she can be playful, teasing, etc. She will use such "Will they? Won't they?" road bumps (or variations thereof) in some works, often to extremely funny effect. However, I am certain that in a scene as critical as FNIT she is not resorting to cheap and easy writing. Why, in a story of such tragedy and power, would she use a technique which can be found far too often in thirdrate books, films or TV series? What would be the point? Why bother? This story is written so tightly that words are at a premium. What difference would it make to the overall narrative if the reader had a second or two of "gasping"? I'm sorry but I find the suggestion risible. As for the "bump" at the Twists, I will leave that for another post. Suffice it to say that I consider neither passase to be an example of the unsophisticated technique which you describe.
Not even metaphorically?

But how did he know that Ennis WOULD NOT do it face to face? This is a question which never seems to receive an answer.

Another post, perhaps. I would be happy to discuss idylls and story structure. I have strong views about that as well.

Could I just say, Seagull, that you have put your views to me clearly and understandably, I hope I have done likewise. Whilst our understanding of the short story differs, I know that we both love and respect the story of Brokeback Mountain and so I feel we should leave it there, and agree to disagree.

[Desecra]

In the film we are shown them kissing and embracing, in the short story we are given the line from the DE thus: Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held  which some construe as meaning that they never at any point even during sex or its preludes came face to face in their time on the mountain, or as I and many others see it, that they were not face to face at that moment in time and not over a longer period.

I just wanted to pick up on this point, because it keeps coming up.   I don't think anyone has ever (that I know of), construed that line as meaning that they never came to face to face on the mountain.   The line is pretty clear - Ennis would not embrace face to face.   It doesn't say that Ennis wouldn't face Jack.   It's reasonable to assume that they faced each other in the normal course of things.   They just didn't do it while embracing (i.e. sex).   There's no need to imagine that they walked backwards, or didn't look at each other.  I imagine they just acted as normal outside the sex - as normal as it can be when you're both avoiding a certain subject.  

[janjo]

A useful clarification, Des.

[Desecra]

Thank you.  I think that scenario sometimes gets in the way, because it's talked about as if it were something extreme - either Ennis has no hangups about them having sex, or else they never face each other at any time, whether they're having sex or not.   But I think the word 'embrace' helps to narrow it down.  If Ennis's avoidance is limited to 'embraces', then it's much more easy to imagine.

The 'not face to face sex' is easy enough to imagine, because of the FNIT (where we see it happen).   Ennis is quite forceful in the FNIT, but he wouldn't need to be afterwards.   They both knew how it would go.   They just had fun with it, snorting and laughing, doing it out in the open, but sticking to much the same sort of sex as they enjoyed the first time.   It's not really that hard to imagine.  Ennis didn't know that Jack wanted more (if he had known, he'd have had his doubts about Jack's sexuality at the time, instead of later).   Outside of the sex and leading up to the sex, they'd naturally come face to face at times.  There's no suggestion that there was any avoidance except during the sex itself.

[kathy]

In the film, yes, they acted as lovers on Brokeback.  In the book, I don't think they did.   Does that mean they loved each other any less?  I don't think so at all.  One difference between book and film is that we're more or less told that Ennis loved Jack and how much before Brokeback (in the prologue).  We don't need a 'love' scene to tell us that.  I think that one thing the limited sex shows is just how deeply Ennis was affected by homophobia.   Their love was set up against that, which doesn't make the love any less - it makes it stronger, I think. 

   Well, the "differences" between ss and film had to be done.  Larry and Diana took a 30-page ss and fleshed it out into one of the most outstanding screenplays written.  AP and Ang Lee knew it had to be done; she was very,very pleased with the end result and stated this fact many times. 
So Larry & Diana omitted the prologue - OK.  But look what they did with everything else!  It's almost amazing, taking words from a page and making a beautiful screenplay out of it.  And I believe the love scenes     between these two boys are beautiful.  With such perfect acting by them, I don't mind at all.

p.s.  Just my take - the film works much better by starting in 1963 in Signal.  There is no prologue needed, as Larry and Diana realized.   

[kathy]

   Hello - just an addendum to my previous post above:

To des, janjo, r&r (hope I haven't left out anyone who has replied to my previous posts) --

To each his own.  I do admit I love that beautiful film more than the ss (which I've read more than a couple of times, but always go back and read the screenplay again)!! 
Maybe the reason that I don't "get" all of your recent posts is simply that I just don't understand them!  Yes, I am aware of the differences in ss and film.  But - it's to be expected that they would differ; that always happens when an author of a ss or book makes a sale of the work to the powers that be.     

Admission:  I just don't "get"it.  I appreciate your answers to me a lot.  But - and this is important - the best thing I can do is stand by my prior posts re the relationship - the original one #3032 on 5/9/10, #3071 on 5/19, #3072 yesterday, and the two of today.

Sincerely,
from kathy 

 

[Desecra]

  Well, the "differences" between ss and film had to be done.  Larry and Diana took a 30-page ss and fleshed it out into one of the most outstanding screenplays written.  AP and Ang Lee knew it had to be done; she was very,very pleased with the end result and stated this fact many times. 
So Larry & Diana omitted the prologue - OK.  But look what they did with everything else!  It's almost amazing, taking words from a page and making a beautiful screenplay out of it.  And I believe the love scenes     between these two boys are beautiful.  With such perfect acting by them, I don't mind at all.

p.s.  Just my take - the film works much better by starting in 1963 in Signal.  There is no prologue needed, as Larry and Diana realized.   

Don't think that I was saying the film-makers were wrong to have left things out.    I understand film making even less than I understand writing, but I think it's obvious that it would be impossible to film the book exactly as written, with no changes whatsoever.   If the prologue had been in the film, what would it have told us?   Nothing much, unless we had a voice-over telling us about Ennis's feelings about Jack being in his dream.   Jack's thoughts about the DE - how could they have been filmed?   The only way I can imagine it being absolutely true to the book, would be to have a narrator reading the story over the action.   

A little of the prologue does find its way into the film, at the end. 

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

But this discussion is getting to the point that I don't recognize what it's all about anymore!

This reminds me of me!

Some the longest posts can sometimes make the most obscure arguments.  I have wondered if it's me or else the point might be elusive. 

For shorthand, I will say that in this topic I will hitch onto janjo and fofol.  Thanks for making your points so well.