Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum

getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)

<< < (4/64) > >>

dly64:

--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 07, 2006, 06:49:21 pm ---I'm comfortable with my understanding, going all the way back to 1997, that the refusal to honor Jack's clearly stated wishes and allow his ashes to be scattered on Brokeback Mountain is just that hateful and hate-filled old man's final assertion of power over the son he despised.

The unanswerable, or unresolvable, question is, do we take John Twist at his word, and assume he despised his son for being a dreamer who never followed through, or are his comments merely a veil to conceal that he really despised his son because his son was "queer"?

--- End quote ---

I feel similarly in regards to the ashes ... I have always thought that. Never once did I think that OMT kept Jack’s ashes because he wanted them in the family plot. He did it because it was opposite of Jack’s wishes.

As for OMT’s “homophobia” (or lack of it) … honestly, I have vacillated a bit on this. I have to lean to Katherine’s and others arguments that OMT was an ass and a royal SOB, but not particularly homophobic.

welliwont:

--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on September 07, 2006, 05:56:09 pm ---Also, I'm not going to go so far as some people and say that he is gay, but I think that Uncle Harold might have been, that he was a younger brother of OMT, and that's what OMT means when he says "I know where Brokeback Mountain is." (See, Harold, or "Hal" as I like to call him, went up on BBM 20 years ago with Joe Aguirre...STOP LEE!! [slaps self])

--- End quote ---

Stop it Lee, that's the PT your talkin about there, ya need to dash a bucket a water on yerself, snap out of it!   :P

J

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 07, 2006, 06:49:21 pm ---I'm comfortable with my understanding, going all the way back to 1997, that the refusal to honor Jack's clearly stated wishes and allow his ashes to be scattered on Brokeback Mountain is just that hateful and hate-filled old man's final assertion of power over the son he despised.
--- End quote ---

I think that's a perfectly good explanation, too. It's just that he mentions the"family plot" thing not once but twice, which leaves me wondering what that's all about.


--- Quote ---The unanswerable, or unresolvable, question is, do we take John Twist at his word, and assume he despised his son for being a dreamer who never followed through, or are his comments merely a veil to conceal that he really despised his son because his son was "queer"?
--- End quote ---

I don't know why he despised his son -- or even, necessarily, that he did! he could just be a jerk -- but I don't think it's because Jack was "queer." Here's why:

I think we're so set up to expect OMT to be homophobic, because of his jerkiness and his semi-parallel to Ennis' dad, that the very fact that we DON'T see any obvious sign of it calls attention to itself. I think we are meant to notice that he's doing exactly the opposite of what we'd expect -- instead of making disparaging remarks about Jack's sexuality, he shows no disapproval whatsoever of Jack's plan to leave his wife for a man (except to call it half-baked -- as though he'd have no objection if only Jack had just planned it out better).

It's not indisputable proof -- who knows how he really feels in his heart of hearts? But as far as we can see, he's not. And I think that's what counts.

I guess at this moment I'm seeing it from the storyteller's perspective rather than from the perspective of John Twist as a real person with his own private thoughts (though I am not at all unsympathetic to that perspective, as you probably know). Why would the storytellers conceive of a character with a particular characteristic, but then show us no sign of it? To me, there needs to be some hint of a characteristic in order for it to, well, exist. If you're going to have a character lie about his real motivations, it does nobody any good if you don't in some way, however subtle, hint that he's lying. Or, for that matter, give him a reason to lie in the first place (he wouldn't lie just to be polite, would he?). I can't find either one here.

Besides, why show a character behaving just as we expect him to? That doesn't add much. To me, this scene is a little like the potato-peeling scene. The meaning of the scene wouldn't change if Jack turned around -- either way, we'd know he wants to. But it's more interesting and compelling that he doesn't.

I should mention, by the way, that John Twist doesn't say anything explicitly homophobic in the story, either, as far as I can tell. It's less noticable there, I think, because we get distracted by the peeing thing and by Ennis' musings on the tire iron scenario.

Jeff Wrangler:
All I need to know about John Twist is contained in the following:


--- Quote ---The old man sat silent, his hands folded on the plastic tablecloth, staring at Ennis with an angry, knowing expression. Ennis recognized in him a not uncommon type with the hard need to be the stud duck in the pond.
--- End quote ---

The "angry, knowing expression" tells me that he knows that Ennis is--or was--his son's homosexual lover (the "knowing" part), and he despises Ennis--and Jack--because of that fact (the "angry" part). He's homophobic all right--it's his motivation for being angry at Ennis.

The "hard need to be the stud duck in the pond" tells me that his refusal to allow Jack's ashes to be scattered on Brokeback Mountain is all about him asserting power over his son.

Meryl:
Thanks for that great, thoughtful analysis, Mel.  It might just torque me back into the Open Forum.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page