Did Jack Quit Ennis?

[Desecra]

But what if Jack didn't see it the way you do? What if your sequence was reversed, or if there was only one reason that they couldn't live together—that Ennis thinks that homosexuality is wrong. The first time he ever mentions the issue ("I'm not no queer") makes that clear. To paraphrase Jack, everything springs from that: being homosexual is dangerous in itself (people on the street "knowing," passing remarks), let alone should two men decide to openly live together (which leads to death). While it's coincidental that Ennis marries, thus avoiding implications about his sexuality, his INNQ belief remains in force not only while married but even after Alma divorces him. Do you think Jack was unaware of that?

I don't think Jack did see it the way I do.  I think he weighted the reasons wrongly, for instance.  

I agree that the signs that Ennis felt (I typed "thought", then changed it to "felt", because I don't think it's anything thought out at all, but a gut feeling.  If he'd thought it out, he might have come to a different conclusion) homosexuality was wrong were there right from the beginning (even in that first contact in the FNIT).  

However, here are a couple of ideas.

Both of them were in a homophobic environment.   Would it really be so unusual and unexpected for a gay guy to initially deny his sexuality and try to avoid the implications of an attraction to a man?  I don't think so.  It could just be part of the process of coming to terms with their sexuality in a homophobic environment.  

It wasn't as if Ennis was spouting off about "queers" and what they deserved.  He actually keeps very quiet on the general subject of other gay men, apart from when he talks about Rich and Earl (and he talks of them with some respect).   He doesn't come across as particularly homophobic for the time and place.  

On Brokeback, Ennis didn't have reason to think Jack was gay.  So another explanation could have been that Ennis assumed Jack was straight, and acted accordingly.  

It was possible (from Jack's point of view, and only in the SS of course) that Ennis really wasn't "queer".    He was only aware of being attracted to one guy, and it took him about a year to be aware of that.   We know that's because his traumatic childhood experience repressed him, Jack may have believed it or not been sure (after all, part of our proof that Ennis is gay is his interaction with Alma.   Jack doesn't see that (!!), so is just left to assume that Ennis likes doing it with women.  

So, at the reunion, Jack gets the impression that Ennis is a probably straight guy who is coming to terms with what he feels for a man.   (He may not be quite there yet, but has made massive strides since his teens, when they last met).   I don't think he truly does absorb the message that Ennis is so deeply affected that he's never going to be able to accept what he feels.  It just doesn't look that way at the reunion.  

Back then, in the '60s, leaving your wife and kids was a bigger deal than it is now.  So that was actually a reasonable objection at the time, particularly for an apparently straight man.  

Of course, deep down, I do think Jack is aware of it (Ennis's homophobia).  That's why he keeps quiet for all those years.  But I think that for years he believes that it will change, and it's not until the last meeting that he realises that it won't.  

Perhaps you're placing too much importance on what Ennis thought? The divorce phone call involved two people, not one, and we don't get Jack's version.
If he misunderstood the reason for the call, what do you think Ennis thought was the "understood" reason? I'd be interested to get your opinion about that.

We kind of get Jack's version in that we know he misunderstood and drove all that way.  We know how he reacted to the news that Ennis was divorced.  

Ennis never does divulge the reason.  We know he felt short-changed, and perhaps just wanted to tell his "friend".  Unfortunately, he was at a vulnerable point, and Jack got the wrong message.  

I'd love to know what exactly was said.  

I'm not disputing that he was affected by Ennis's changed approach, and no doubt Ennis himself was also rather surprised by his own reaction, but he also stated, and elaborated upon, his reasons for not living together in the motel that same night. Considering how explicitly detailed he is about his primary objections his reference to his married life almost seems like an afterthought.

It is the first reason he gives, though.   We know it's not so important, but Jack doesn't, at that point.  Like I say, I'm not strongly attached to his idea, but it does feel right to me.   If Jack hadn't believed that Ennis wasn't going to live with him, he wouldn't have talked about him at LF and if he hadn't believed the marriage and life in Wyoming was the major obstacle, he wouldn't have misunderstood when Ennis phoned.  

Pardon my emphases, but I really don't think that that's the case, Des. We just don't know what Jack made of the phone call. I can't agree with you that he relinquished his idea of living together after the divorce. The text indicates, to me, that this just isn't so.

We're not told directly, at that point, but when Jack speaks of it later, it seems to be an idea he'd given up on.  "I did once",  "we could have had a real good life", "you wouldn't do it", "all we got is Brokeback Mountain",  "it's all we got".  He already knows that Ennis won't live with him.  It's not a plea to live together.   He seems to have already accepted that Brokeback is all they've got.  

And reasonably, why would he think Ennis was going to live with him, if he wouldn't do it after the divorce?  

# Which brings us back to INNQ, his primary objection to living together, and the one that's affected his entire life.

I agree with the rest of the quote, except that I feel "Let be, let be" is about more than Jack simply giving up on seeking Ennis's approval.
It's about everything to do with Ennis, and all of Jack's hopes.

Well, "approval" is a sort of shorthand, but it's the closest one-word thing I can think of.  It's no little thing, though.

I do think you can get quite specific about it.  If you boil it all down, Ennis couldn't give Jack approval because he felt being gay was wrong.  He couldn't approve of Jack, or his own feelings for Jack.   That's why the DE couldn't happen after Brokeback.  The reason it could happen on Brokeback was because Ennis believed (at the time) that they were two straight friends (and it was sexless).  In that moment, Jack was good and what he felt for Jack was good.  There isn't any way they could go back to that state, because Ennis couldn't unknow what he knows.  

I think that usually, in a loving relationship, one thing you can be certain of (and need to be certain of, I think) is your partner's approval.  Ennis can't give that, once he realises that they are lovers and that Jack is probably gay.   I don't think he withholds it.  I think it just doesn't feel right for him.  Jack can't do anything because he can't change the way he is.  Together, they can't get much farther.

I just don't think living together comes into it at that point.   It's almost a side issue.  I do believe that if Jack thought they could have got farther, he'd probably have continued.   And getting farther could have been as little as Ennis agreeing to go to Mexico next time.

[Desecra]

While we're at it, where does Ennis say that being gay is wrong?  There's enough obtuseness to go around, Jess.  The story I have clearly states he is deathly afraid of people finding out that he has this 'thing' with Jack, but never does it state, or even clearly imply, that he makes a moral judgement against himself.

Once, ages ago, I did a big list.   There's quite a few bits and pieces that go together.   Ennis does change over the course of the story, but the major change comes after Jack's death, not before.  Ennis's homophobia* isn't overt, as I mentioned to Paul, but there's an undercurrent right through the story.  Because it isn't overt, I don't think Jack realises how insurmountable it is until the end. 

I might do a list again, if it's any help. 

*I've been over this before, because I don't think homophobia is quite the right word, but I mean Ennis's feeling that homosexuality is wrong. 

[Desecra]

I may be being stupid, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, but could someone explain to me how the phrase "Let be, let be" means that Jack had decided to quit Ennis. If, of course that is not the interpretation but the suggestion is that he just changed his mind afterwards, where are we told this?
Or do we only have the words of a bitter and twisted old man to base our theory on.
I really am having trouble with this, so please forgive me if I am being obtuse.

The phrase just supports what we hear at LF.  It's the words at LF (with nothing to discount them, nothing to say that Jack was lying or the old man was lying) that tells us that Jack was going to bring another guy up.   The DE thoughts just tell us why. 

[janjo]

I don't see that Des, it seems to me to countermand what we hear from OMT.

[janjo]

I'm a little concerned about this idea that Jack and Ennis, and particularly Ennis, think it is OK to have sex together because they are both "straight." I am not at all sure that truly "straight" men do have sex with each other, what ever the circumstances.
There are many, many, men on this forum who will violently disagree with me, and say that they have personal experience of "straight" men who have had sex with them, and that there are plenty of them about.
I really don't think this is true, what I do think is true is that men who are probably 80% straight, or predominately straight, still like occasionally to have sex with other men, they just don't or won't lay claim to this true state of affairs because they think that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of.
Therefore, Des, I would have thought that the reason Ennis could have deduced that Jack was gay up on Brokeback might have been because he was shagging him senseless several times a day and he was obviously enjoying it and coming back for more, but I am a simple soul.

[Desecra]

They weren't straight though, they were gay.  (No doubt some of those sheep herders Annie Proulx heard about were gay or bi too, but like Jack and Ennis, they kept it quiet unless they knew the other guy was too). 

Short story only ...

It does seem that Ennis didn't know Jack was gay on Brokeback.   Although it was Ennis who was in denial, Jack colluded, so he didn't give any really obvious signs.   So from Ennis's point of view -
- Jack didn't seem interested in sex for months. 
- Jack initiated the sex when drunk.  He didn't touch Ennis's body (which might show that he was attracted to men), or try to kiss him, but merely tried to get Ennis to wank him off - it appeared to be about his own sexual relief and Ennis could have been anyone (I'm talking about how it appeared to Ennis, not how it was).
- Even when they were having sex, Jack never mentioned the sex, or suggested that there was any sort of relationship going on.  He seemed to believe it was friendship, and that the sex was just friendly sexual relief.
So Ennis didn't worry, wasn't afraid, didn't think of the tire iron, didn't have flashbacks to Earl, etc., until the punch.

Afterwards, I think it's different - looking back, Ennis can see the signs were there.

[garyd]

he was shagging him senseless several times a day

I do so wish "shagging" would catch on over here as the preferred euphemism.

"shagging him senseless" just seems so much more convivial
than:
"f**king his brains out".
Don't you think?  

[janjo]

Absolutely Gary, I was trying to be expressive whilst still remaing within the bounds of good taste!

[Desecra]

I don't see that Des, it seems to me to countermand what we hear from OMT.

Now, I'm not following .   I don't see how they can countermand those words.  If the thoughts had been, say, about a resolve to carry on with Ennis or to forsake all others, then maybe (although the words would still be a puzzle - and would probably suggest that Jack had had further thoughts that we weren't told about). 

There's the torquing back (to their old habits of not speaking about things).   Then there's Jack's plans to bring another one up.   The DE thoughts do provide a sort of bridge between them - how Jack got from one to the other.   They torqued things back and nothing was resolved - Jack thinks that they didn't get much farther than Ennis's avoidance on Brokeback.   "Let be" - Jack gives up hope, and then decides to bring another guy up. 

You don't need those thoughts (they weren't there in the film, and it still looks like Jack quit), but they do connect the last argument and the words at LF.   I don't understand why you see them as discounting what was said at LF.

[Paul029]

Because the status quo is changed, permanently and irreparably, when an internal structure is fractured. Proulx was clear about this when she wrote, in reference to the structure of wire, "they torqued things almost to where they had been." I do believe I've made this point before, and in far greater detail.

Paul, firstly I would like to put on record that although I disagree with you about this, I value your insights greatly, and I am finding your postings very thought provoking.

Thank you for those kind words, Jess. They're appreciated.
I'd be interested in knowing in what ways my posts were "thought provoking," though.  

I have to say that your reading of the coathanger metaphor is somewhat different to mine. I would have thought that if Jack and Ennis were washed up, finished, moved on etc, a broken coffee pot, or mug, would have been a better example.

Perhaps she just disdained the use of cliché, Jess.  

Whilst a bent coathanger will never be quite the same again, it could still be made to look and function in the same way.
I see no point in bending it back otherwise, even if it has lost a little of its internal strength.

It reads better when reversed: The relationship "could still be made to look and function in the same way" but it will "never be quite the same again."
Their attempt to return the relationship to its original form (they torqued it back/the coat hanger was bent back) was therefore unsuccessful. While it may "look and function" in a similar way, it had fundamentally changed.
 

So I see Jack as still not knowing how to quit, because the coathanger is bent out of shape, but is definitely not fractured.

Perhaps I should explain more clearly. Proulx uses the metaphor of a coat hanger which is "straightened...and then bent again to its original shape" to describe how "they torqued things almost to where they had been, for what they'd said was no news. Nothing ended, nothing begun, nothing resolved."

(Incidentally, I used the term "fracture" rather simplistically, as it literally means the separation of an object into two or more pieces under the action of stress [although this isn't so in the case of crystalline structures]. And I didn't differentiate between brittle and ductile fractures, where fracture occurs, in the former, through cleavage and, in the latter, through plastic deformation. Perhaps I should have used "crack" or "cracked," but each has connotations I'd rather avoid.  )

Moving on, "torquing" refers not only to the application of a force (to an object), but to a particular type of force—a twisting force. (I wonder whether that subtle pun was intentional.)
For example, pushing or pulling the handle of a wrench connected to a nut or bolt produces a torque that loosens or tightens the nut or bolt. So, torquing isn't something done without force.
(An as far as Jack and Ennis are concerned, Proulx's "they torqued things" could be seen to be something they did without any effort whatsoever. Not the case, though—it required some work.)

Her decision to use the metaphor of a straightened, and then re-bent, coat hanger to illustrate the torquing which occurred wasn't one made (if I may suggest) without some understanding of what happens to the coat hanger wire when those actions take place. A material's strength is dependent upon its microstructure. Straightening a coat hanger requires the application of a force and, up to a certain point, the hanger wire is deformed (at the microstructual level) only elastically. The wire will return to its original form (spring back, if you like) when that applied force is removed. But once that point (the "yield point") is passed, the deformation within the wire's atomic and crystalline structure will be permanent and non-reversible. The wire will be deformed plastically (no longer able to "spring back") and will remain forever straightened when the applied force is removed.

Proulx takes this further by saying that the coat hanger is then "bent to its original shape." This requires, once again, the application of a force.
But now the force is to be applied to a wire which has already undergone plastic deformation. Returning it to its coat hanger shape will produce further permanent and irreversible changes to its atomic and crystalline microstructure.

Proulx may not have been writing for readers with an understanding of mechanical engineering and materials science, but her metaphor was not chosen for nothing.

Her "almost to where they had been" is putting it very mildly indeed, I think. While the wire may still look like a wire, internally it's a quite different story.

I leave you to draw you own conclusions about what the wire "symbolises," Jess.  

[Paul029]

Oops.     I missed this:

~ the ranch neighbour is not even given a name, he is so unimportant ~

~ By that reasoning Ennis's mother and father, as well as Mrs Twist, are similarly unimportant, and Linda Higgins becomes a major character.~

No comment, Jess?

[janjo]

Oops.     I missed this:
~ By that reasoning Ennis's mother and father, as well as Mrs Twist, are similarly unimportant, and Linda Higgins becomes a major character.~
No comment, Jess?

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry clever!

It doesn't change the fact that a man no one knows anything about, and who doesn't have a name, and who never came to pass anyway, who is mentioned by an embittered old man to someone he has no time for does not "quit" make.

[janjo]

Now, I'm not following .   I don't see how they can countermand those words.  If the thoughts had been, say, about a resolve to carry on with Ennis or to forsake all others, then maybe (although the words would still be a puzzle - and would probably suggest that Jack had had further thoughts that we weren't told about). 

There's the torquing back (to their old habits of not speaking about things).   Then there's Jack's plans to bring another one up.   The DE thoughts do provide a sort of bridge between them - how Jack got from one to the other.   They torqued things back and nothing was resolved - Jack thinks that they didn't get much farther than Ennis's avoidance on Brokeback.   "Let be" - Jack gives up hope, and then decides to bring another guy up. 

You don't need those thoughts (they weren't there in the film, and it still looks like Jack quit), but they do connect the last argument and the words at LF.   I don't understand why you see them as discounting what was said at LF.

To me, "Let be, let be" means, as I believe does "laissez faire,"........ leave alone.
I can't see that as meaning let Ennis alone, but rather leave the situation alone, make no changes, just let things take their own course.
That cannot, to me mean make major life changing decisions.
"Let be," is hard for me to accept as meaning giving up hope, because I don't think is a true definition.
Your Dictionary...on line, says that the meaning is...."leave undisturbed, refrain from interfering with."
I would think that deciding to leave someone would mean that both they, and the situation would be disturbed.

[janjo]

Paul, firstly I would like to put on record that although I disagree with you about this, I value your insights greatly, and I am finding your postings very thought provoking.
Thank you for those kind words, Jess. They're appreciated.
I'd be interested in knowing in what ways my posts were "thought provoking," though.  
Perhaps she just disdained the use of cliché, Jess.  
It reads better when reversed: The relationship "could still be made to look and function in the same way" but it will "never be quite the same again."
Their attempt to return the relationship to its original form (they torqued it back/the coat hanger was bent back) was therefore unsuccessful. While it may "look and function" in a similar way, it had fundamentally changed.
 Perhaps I should explain more clearly. Proulx uses the metaphor of a coat hanger which is "straightened...and then bent again to its original shape" to describe how "they torqued things almost to where they had been, for what they'd said was no news. Nothing ended, nothing begun, nothing resolved."

(Incidentally, I used the term "fracture" rather simplistically, as it literally means the separation of an object into two or more pieces under the action of stress [although this isn't so in the case of crystalline structures]. And I didn't differentiate between brittle and ductile fractures, where fracture occurs, in the former, through cleavage and, in the latter, through plastic deformation. Perhaps I should have used "crack" or "cracked," but each has connotations I'd rather avoid.  )

Moving on, "torquing" refers not only to the application of a force (to an object), but to a particular type of force—a twisting force. (I wonder whether that subtle pun was intentional.)
For example, pushing or pulling the handle of a wrench connected to a nut or bolt produces a torque that loosens or tightens the nut or bolt. So, torquing isn't something done without force.
(An as far as Jack and Ennis are concerned, Proulx's "they torqued things" could be seen to be something they did without any effort whatsoever. Not the case, though—it required some work.)

Her decision to use the metaphor of a straightened, and then re-bent, coat hanger to illustrate the torquing which occurred wasn't one made (if I may suggest) without some understanding of what happens to the coat hanger wire when those actions take place. A material's strength is dependent upon its microstructure. Straightening a coat hanger requires the application of a force and, up to a certain point, the hanger wire is deformed (at the microstructual level) only elastically. The wire will return to its original form (spring back, if you like) when that applied force is removed. But once that point (the "yield point") is passed, the deformation within the wire's atomic and crystalline structure will be permanent and non-reversible. The wire will be deformed plastically (no longer able to "spring back") and will remain forever straightened when the applied force is removed.

Proulx takes this further by saying that the coat hanger is then "bent to its original shape." This requires, once again, the application of a force.
But now the force is to be applied to a wire which has already undergone plastic deformation. Returning it to its coat hanger shape will produce further permanent and irreversible changes to its atomic and crystalline microstructure.

Proulx may not have been writing for readers with an understanding of mechanical engineering and materials science, but her metaphor was not chosen for nothing.

Her "almost to where they had been" is putting it very mildly indeed, I think. While the wire may still look like a wire, internally it's a quite different story.

I leave you to draw you own conclusions about what the wire "symbolises," Jess.  

Firstly, your postings provoke thoughts in me, as I suspect my postings provoke thought in you. There wouldn't be much point having these exchanges otherwise.

With regard to the coathanger, I do take your point, a coathanger that has been bent will never be as strong or quite the same as it was before, but it will be almost the same, depending on where it has been bent it will still be perfectly servicable for hanging coats on, for instance.
In this way, maybe the exchange of views at the lakeside may have been another nail in the coffin, just as the divorce debacle was, but I don't see the metaphor meaning that Jack quit.
Sorry.

[Desecra]

To me, "Let be, let be" means, as I believe does "laissez faire,"........ leave alone.
I can't see that as meaning let Ennis alone, but rather leave the situation alone, make no changes, just let things take their own course.
That cannot, to me mean make major life changing decisions.
"Let be," is hard for me to accept as meaning giving up hope, because I don't think is a true definition.
Your Dictionary...on line, says that the meaning is...."leave undisturbed, refrain from interfering with."
I would think that deciding to leave someone would mean that both they, and the situation would be disturbed.

I don't feel it has the same meaning as "laissez faire" in the context we're given. 

I do agree that it probably means that Jack is going to leave something alone, something which he hasn't been leaving alone up until then. 

What is he going to leave alone?  I think it's most likely what he's just been thinking about - the DE, what it means, his craving for it, and perhaps, his belief that they'd been moving farther (he realises that they haven't been). 

Whatever it is, I think it has to lead to him saying those words later at LF, because that's the next thing we know about him, chronologically (and I suppose it also has to fit with what's gone before.  The last argument has to lead to it, somehow).   Jack letting the DE be does lead to those words.