Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

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) ....(snip)

perfectly-well applied  in this sentence.  You are a quick study.

[fofol]

  "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."
  
   This statement focuses on a point of difference: Jack's 'knowledge.'  We all 'know' things which prove to be not factual.  Jack, for example, 'knows,' because he has been told by Ennis, and believes beyond all observation and reason (the DE itself), that Ennis is straight.  Since Jack's initial assumption is proven false (even though we know he has little reason to assume otherwise, and all the fear in the world to prevent him from seeing the truth in the matter - thank you, DRH), we must ask if Jack's knowledge that Ennis wouldn't embrace him is true.  The answer is, of course, no - we know it's merely a supposition based on an assumption - that straight boys don't embrace face to face - which based on a lie.  Maybe in some part of the world (somewhere where hung up homophobe gay boy custom rules) straight boys don't embrace each other face to face, but Ennis isn't straight, so Jack's knowledge is incorrect.  Any talking point which neglects this consideration may be the poster's 'knowledge,' but it is still knowledge based on an incorrect assumption, and is, therefor, false.  Just because we 'know' something isn't all that goes for proof of truth of our 'knowledge.'

   Ennis never tells Jack that he doesn't want to hold him face to face, for any reason, at any time.  This is the same Jack who can't figure out, after sixteen years of fishin trips/sexual escapades, that Ennis isn't as straight as he said he was?  And this is the guy we're supposed to think has the inside scoop on what Ennis thinks, what Ennis chooses to do or not do?  Maybe not.

[Desecra]

Fofol, I'd like to take you up on a few of your points there.

1. That the thought is based on an assumption that straight boys don't embrace face to face.
This is never suggested in the book, and we know it's not true in real life.  Straight guys embrace face to face all the time (during sporting events, when drunk, at funerals, when greeting old friends, etc.).   I'm sure that Jack knows, that AP knows that, and the readers know it too.

2. That Jack is later proved wrong.
He isn't.  We don't see a face to face embrace until four years later, at the reunion.   There's nothing that proves they embraced face to face prior to that (or prior to the DE).    (Jack doesn't believe that Ennis would never embrace face to face, only that he wouldn't do it then, at the time of the DE).

3. That Jack can 'know' something that isn't factual.
True, in a way.    Jack could believe something that wasn't true.  However, if Ennis really wouldn't embrace face to face on Brokeback, then Jack would know it, through observation.    If Ennis would embrace face to face on Brokeback, then there would be no way for Jack to 'know'/believe that he wouldn't.   The only way Jack could have come by that knowledge (or belief) is if it happened.  

Jack has plenty of reason to feel there were difficulties in the relationship without making something up.  They've just had a big argument that shows that 20 years later, Ennis still has difficulty accepting the relationship.  If Jack wanted to look for the signs of what might have been wrong on Brokeback, he could maybe have thought about how they never talked about the sex, or even that it was always quick and rough, or the punch, maybe.   He doesn't have to imagine something that didn't happen.    Why would he?  

He also doesn't have to have much in the way of an 'inside scoop'.   He's not analysing Ennis's thoughts, just observing his actions.  

(I'm not meaning to be blunt with the numbers and bold type.  Just trying to make it clear! ).

[janjo]

Fofol, I'd like to take you up on a few of your points there.

1. That the thought is based on an assumption that straight boys don't embrace face to face.
This is never suggested in the book, and we know it's not true in real life.  Straight guys embrace face to face all the time (during sporting events, when drunk, at funerals, when greeting old friends, etc.).   I'm sure that Jack knows, that AP knows that, and the readers know it too.

2. That Jack is later proved wrong.
He isn't.  We don't see a face to face embrace until four years later, at the reunion.   There's nothing that proves they embraced face to face prior to that (or prior to the DE).    (Jack doesn't believe that Ennis would never embrace face to face, only that he wouldn't do it then, at the time of the DE).

Just to interject here, it is not quite correct to say we "don't see a face to face embrace until four years later, at the reunion," we don't see it at all, we read it, and we are just not told explicitly that it happens. That omission can in no way be assumed to be a true record of what actually occured. We aren't told of every meal that they ate, or of every time that they urinated for that matter, we must just assume that they did. This is similar.

3. That Jack can 'know' something that isn't factual.
True, in a way.    Jack could believe something that wasn't true.  However, if Ennis really wouldn't embrace face to face on Brokeback, then Jack would know it, through observation.    If Ennis would embrace face to face on Brokeback, then there would be no way for Jack to 'know'/believe that he wouldn't.   The only way Jack could have come by that knowledge (or belief) is if it happened.  

Jack has plenty of reason to feel there were difficulties in the relationship without making something up.  They've just had a big argument that shows that 20 years later, Ennis still has difficulty accepting the relationship.  If Jack wanted to look for the signs of what might have been wrong on Brokeback, he could maybe have thought about how they never talked about the sex, or even that it was always quick and rough, or the punch, maybe.   He doesn't have to imagine something that didn't happen.    Why would he?  

He also doesn't have to have much in the way of an 'inside scoop'.   He's not analysing Ennis's thoughts, just observing his actions. 

[fofol]

I grew up gay and clueless about it (due to a childhood sexually-related trauma - like Ennis, I knew what I had to do to be socially acceptable, and was prepared to live my life accordingly).  It was most certainly a fact in Jack and Ennis's time that men didn't touch one another at all: back then, straight boys did not embrace, ever, for any reason.  Straight men hugging each other is very much an inspiration of the 90s.
Jack is proved wrong about his claim that Ennis would not hold him face to face when he holds him face to face..  Both these kids are damaged goods - damaged by the DRH which the author claims as her subject.  Ennis does hold him face to face when the opportunity presents itself.
I wrote about Jack's knowledge.  Jack's 'knowledge' is not knowledge at all, but his assumptions about some suppostions which he confuses, as many human beings do, with knowledge.  Since we know that he doesn't know for twenty years that Ennis is gay, how could we possibly think that Jack is a reliable source for what Ennis is thinking about anything?  He simply can not know what Ennis will or won't do...

[fofol]

That the thought is based on an assumption that straight boys don't embrace face to face. ,,, Straight guys embrace face to face all the time (during sporting events, when drunk, at funerals, when greeting old friends, etc.).   I'm sure that Jack knows, that AP knows that, and the readers know it too.


  Not in their time.  This is, in fact, an excellent example of something that people "know" that isn't factual.

[Desecra]

Fofol, I'm happy to take your word on the male embracing - no doubt it's more of a European thing.  However, I still don't think we're being told that there's an assumption that straight boys don't embrace face to face, as opposed to the face to back embracing of the DE.   (In fact, I think the DE comes across as more 'gay' than a face to face embrace between, say two drunken friends, or sportsmen who have just scored a goal, or brothers comforting each other at a funeral).   You could say that Ennis's reason for avoiding embracing face to face was because straight guys didn't do it, yes, but I think it was something more precise than that (that it would tell him too much about what he felt for Jack). 

You say that Jack coudn't know what Ennis would or wouldn't do.   Why couldn't he?   If Ennis wouldn't embrace face to face on Brokeback, then of course Jack would know.  It would be 'knowledge'.  I know you're not the only one to hold that view, Fofol, and I just don't understand it.    Ennis's avoidance wouldn't be so obvious the first time (the FNIT), but if he continued to avoid it, how could Jack fail to notice?  

[Desecra]

Just to interject here, it is not quite correct to say we "don't see a face to face embrace until four years later, at the reunion," we don't see it at all, we read it, and we are just not told explicitly that it happens. That omission can in no way be assumed to be a true record of what actually occured. We aren't told of every meal that they ate, or of every time that they urinated for that matter, we must just assume that they did. This is similar.

I'm not sure what you mean about us not seeing the reunion embrace and not being told that it happens.  It's described fairly visually in the story.   Unless you just mean that we don't actually see anything happen in the book, because it's a book?  (I'm sorry, if that sounds too obvious.  I just can't work out what you mean).  It's pretty explicit in the book.

No we're not told about everything that happened.  But what I took Fofol to mean was that Jack is proved wrong in his thoughts about Ennis, because Ennis does embrace face to face at a later point.    I was saying that he is not proved wrong, because he doesn't claim that Ennis still won't embrace face to face - he remembers that Ennis wouldn't do it then.  

The face to face embracing isn't similar to daily living functions because we're told something specific about it.   (Jack remembering that Ennis wouldn't then embrace face to face).  It's not an omission, it's an addition.

[fofol]

Fofol, I'm happy to take your word on the male embracing - no doubt it's more of a European thing.  However, I still don't think we're being told that there's an assumption that straight boys don't embrace face to face, as opposed to the face to back embracing of the DE.   (In fact, I think the DE comes across as more 'gay' than a face to face embrace between, say two drunken friends, or sportsmen who have just scored a goal, or brothers comforting each other at a funeral).   You could say that Ennis's reason for avoiding embracing face to face was because straight guys didn't do it, yes, but I think it was something more precise than that (that it would tell him too much about what he felt for Jack).  

You say that Jack coudn't know what Ennis would or wouldn't do.   Why couldn't he?   If Ennis wouldn't embrace face to face on Brokeback, then of course Jack would know.  It would be 'knowledge'.  I know you're not the only one to hold that view, Fofol, and I just don't understand it.    Ennis's avoidance wouldn't be so obvious the first time (the FNIT), but if he continued to avoid it, how could Jack fail to notice?  

  The author does not fill us in on any of the background for this story, leaving it to her readers to 'suffuse it with air.' If and when m2m hugging happened before the 90s here, it was a likely indication and public assumption that the men involved were queer, something which neither Jack not Ennis, products of their era, could admit to, in public.  It is still astounding that the hold DRH had on them was so strong that Jack couldn't see that Ennis loved him any more than Ennis could see that Jack was the love of his life.  Jack guessed wrong about whether or not Ennis WOULD hold him face to face.  'Did' and 'didn't' are inoperative in Jack's speculation as 'would' is the operative word here, referring to the possibility/probability of Ennis behaving in a way that Jack imagines or suspects to be true.  Again, Jack couldn't imagine it, didn't figure out, and therefore didn't know, that Ennis was homosexually oriented, and if he didn't 'know' that basic fact, how could he be so certain what Ennis would or wouldn't do?  Would Jack ever figure it out?  He comes close at the final argument, but doesn't work it out.

     If you and I spent the summer together and in all that time I didn't see you type, would it be fair of me to say that you wouldn't type?  I know the subject is simplistic, maybe too simplistic, but my subject isn't your ability to type, but your drive to do so.  Jack doesn't get inside Ennis's head enough to know where he's coming from, what Ennis's intentions toward him are - other than the fact that Jack doesn't figure out after 20 yrs that Ennis loves him.  Neither of our boys are a threat to your Nobel prize...   This is basis enough to know that Jack's knowledge about Ennis is flawed and lacking.

[Desecra]

Well, we'd have to be in the situation where typing might be expected, and I can't imagine one just at the moment.  (As you'd expect lovers to embrace face to face).   And it wasn't talked about!   But yes, you could certainly notice that somebody wouldn't do something if they were consistent about not doing it and opportunities arose where you might have expected them to do it.   Say, for instance, that at every meal, I left the meat at the side of my plate and ate the rest.   You'd know that I wouldn't eat that meat, rather than just that I didn't eat it.  It would soon become obvious that I was actively avoiding it.

At the beginning of the summer, there's no opportunity where you'd expect them to embrace face to face, so there's no way that Jack could have noticed whether or not Ennis would do it.    But when they move on to sex, you might expect there to be points where they were face to face during sexual embraces (kissing, particularly, if I can say that).    That's when Jack might start to notice - not the first time, but after a period of time. 

I think it would be very difficult for Jack to know that Ennis was gay.  I don't think Ennis knew himself.   But if Ennis wouldn't embrace face to face on Brokeback, that would be easy for Jack to know. 

[janjo]

I'm not sure what you mean about us not seeing the reunion embrace and not being told that it happens.  It's described fairly visually in the story.   Unless you just mean that we don't actually see anything happen in the book, because it's a book?  (I'm sorry, if that sounds too obvious.  I just can't work out what you mean).  It's pretty explicit in the book.

No we're not told about everything that happened.  But what I took Fofol to mean was that Jack is proved wrong in his thoughts about Ennis, because Ennis does embrace face to face at a later point.    I was saying that he is not proved wrong, because he doesn't claim that Ennis still won't embrace face to face - he remembers that Ennis wouldn't do it then.  

The face to face embracing isn't similar to daily living functions because we're told something specific about it.   (Jack remembering that Ennis wouldn't then embrace face to face).  It's not an omission, it's an addition.

Sorry if I confused you, but I hoped I had made myself clear! We don't see any embraces because it is a book, obviously. We are told things, we do not see them. Ennis would not embrace Jack face to face "then," at the time of the DE. Not necessarily before or after, "then." Or that at least is the way Jack remembers it. We are not told what happened for all of the rest of the time. We are not there, we do not see. The fact we are not given chapter and verse about everything that happens in the time on the mountain, however, does not mean that many things we are not told about didn't happen, (or wouldn't have happened if it had been real).
It's a short story.
It can't include everything, or it wouldn't be.
It would also be very boring.

[seagull]

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.

I shall endeavour to make my posts shorter in future. 

perfectly-well applied  in this sentence.  You are a quick study.

However, brevity does not always ensure comprehensibility, as I fear I don't understand the point of this post. I assure you that I have no complaints about the scene in the film, or anything else about the film. I consider it to be a stand-alone masterpiece while differing from the story in various ways.

As to your kind words about my being a quick study (by which I gather you mean I learn quickly - it's not a phrase I am familiar with) I must disabuse you of that idea. Far from being quick, this tough old bird has spent many years contemplating this story but I am now able to discuss it with others and to learn more through their opinions and viewpoints.

[royandronnie]

I am afraid that the face to face thing is one of those old intractables, but it certainly is interesting from a psychological viewpoint--it shows how difficult it is for each of us to sway anyone else from theirs! A long time ago on another thread, I innocently stated my belief that Jack had no prior m/m experience before BB. I'm not so rigid in my thinking now, though I don't think it was extensive, or serious, or that, despite the whispered suggestion of "his second year up there" that he'd had any the year before on BB. But in the course of adolescence, he might have played around, because I was told by men like him that this did happen, gay and hetero, in that environment, then.

ANYWAY. The next day there were three pages of posts in reply to mine. The point I'm trying to make is that obviously this whole "then," "K/NK," "f2f" thing is one of those questions which are rooted deep in our psyches and it's essential to our self-respect and view of the world that we see them in a certain way. So, romantic or anti-, gay or hetero, young, old, whatever your background, this scene seems to touch something deep in you and bring you out fighting.

Not that that's ever stopped me from adding my thoughts… So, here's what I think, for what it's worth as the man says.

While hewing to Kiss, I do believe Ennis actively avoided hugging Jack frontally, or allowing himself to be so hugged. I use that word because as all regular readers know, I believe Annie goes to great trouble in this scene to define "embrace" in a particular and somewhat limited way, even specifying that she means hugging ONLY. Then she calls what happened an "embrace," so we are left in no doubt as to what we have just witnessed. But because this throws open the whole question of how intimate they were not only sexually but emotionally on the Mountain, a very turbulent can of worms gets opened. I use the exclusion of sexual aspects from the DE to declare that Ennis could therefore have allowed some f2f when he was horny. I don't think this is inconsistent. But I also believe that Ennis was very INNQ, as fofol argues, all the rest of the time. So, I extrapolate, he never hugs Jack hello or goodbye or offers any other overt show of affection outside of sexual clinches. You know, Ennis believed nothing was wrong on the Mountain. So, if the sex is just fun between two hetero guys, whatever they did in sex was just fun between two hetero guys too…

Now, some would argue "'no f2f' doesn't say 'only in sexual context,' so it means 'all the time.'" To that I say, how blatantly is the whole vexatious issue raised? Goodness--it's practically a throwaway line! So, once again, we are not so much allowed as forced to read between the lines and make our own decisions. Which seem to be based in reason, but are in fact based in our hearts.

Not that will ever stop us speaking our minds…

[Desecra]

Royandronnie, I know you're not the only one to take 'nothing seemed wrong' to mean that they could have done anything at all on the mountain and it would have been OK.    But I don't think it does mean that.    We know they were holding back on the mountain.   'Not a goddamn word'.  They never even verbally acknowledged the fact that they were having sex, or that they might be more than friends.  Jack stole Ennis's shirt, rather than admit what he felt.  So of course there were things that would have seemed wrong, had they done them (talking about the sex, for instance).   

Presumably the things Ennis avoided (embracing face to face, masturbating Jack, etc. - and talking about, or during, the sex) would have felt 'wrong', had he done them.   (Not that those individual acts were 'wrong', but that Ennis would have had an inkling of what he felt for Jack if he had done them, and that would be accompanied by a feeling of wrongness).

Jack has to somehow get the idea that Ennis wouldn't embrace face to face.  It can't come from the DE.  Ennis faces Jack in the DE.  It's Jack who doesn't face Ennis.  Jack's information must have come from Ennis's behaviour outside the DE.  And quite simply, if Ennis had embraced Jack face to face before the DE, in any context (sexual or otherwise), Jack couldn't have got the idea that Ennis wouldn't do it. 

[Sandy]

I have to wonder why "wouldn't then embrace face to face" sets so many of us off towards conclusions about kissing and sex.

There are other directions in which we can go. "Embrace" is not a synonym for "(only) hug". "Embrace" encompasses meanings not available to "hug." For example, the notion of acceptance, as in "Joe embraced that idea, socialism, his sexuality, etc." We can't say "he hugged that idea."

Use of the word "embrace" should therefore be taken as a clue for us to pursue the theme of Ennis' reluctance to accept his feelings for Jack and, more to the point, to accept Jack. Pursuing it in the direction of kissing (or not) or having face-to-face sex (or not) leads to something unprovable.