Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: nakymaton on September 12, 2006, 12:22:58 pm ---So do you think the lying is more or less forgiveable with the New Yorker punctuation? "You do it with other guys, Jack?" sound more casual, and without the longer pause, it sounds like Jack didn't hesitate before answering. Is the pause (in the Close Range version) there because Jack is thinking about the effect of what he's going to say on Ennis?
(I'm enough of a fan of brutal honesty in relationships that, although I can understand Jack's lie as a way to protect Ennis, it's still something that I, personally, wouldn't want from a partner. But I'm not Ennis OR Jack.)
--- End quote ---
No, I don't think the lie is either more or less forgiveable. I do think the pause makes the lie less casual, perhaps more deliberate, perhaps more self-defensive. It's not that Jack worries about the effect of the truth on Ennis for Ennis's sake, but that he worries about the effect of the truth on Ennis for his own (Jack's own) sake.
I wouldn't want the lying from a partner, either.
Penthesilea:
Sorry to interrupt the flow again. This thread proceeds so fast and I want to answer one of nakymaton's post. Feel free to ignore.
--- Quote from: nakymaton on September 12, 2006, 08:47:36 am ---Anyway, I asked about novels, because it seems like the punch at the end is very much a technique used to make short fiction powerful. It reminds me of the twist endings that O. Henry is famous for (and the only story of his that I've ever read is the one about the guy and his wife buying Christmas presents for one another, but I know his other stories are supposed to have surprise endings, too). And it reminded me, actually, of a technique that a friend of mine uses when she writes drabbles (100-word fan fiction pieces) -- her drabbles always feel especially complete and poignant to me, because she always manages to set up a scene and then make some kind of emotional or thought-provoking twist at the end. (She doesn't write BBM fanfic, so most of you wouldn't know her.) And she knows a lot more about writing than I do, so maybe she does it deliberately because she knows it's a good technique to use in short fiction. I've never talked to her about it, though.
--- End quote ---
I know next to nothing about English literature. Everything I know about short stories as a form of prose is in regard to German literature: immediate beginning (without introducion of characters), open or half open end, "everyday" plot, but with conflicts, few characters, only a short period of time is covered within the plot, simple and plain language to name just some.
Since the short story as an art form in Germany developped in following the American archetype, I guess those characteristics are true for the American short story, too (tell me when I'm plain wrong with my asumption).
But a twist, let alone a punch at the end as a technique being typical for short stories is unknown to me. But it's true: it makes (can make) a story powerful.
So it striked me as typical for Proulx's short stories and your OP reminded me of this.
(BTW:The litetrary form of the short story is much more important and widespread in English literature than in the German one.).
--- Quote ---Yes! I agree entirely. In some ways, the very rough-spokenness of the boys in the story makes the discovery of the tenderness all that more powerful. But on the other hand... well, I'm glad the line about whipping babies isn't in the movies. It would have detracted from the mood in that scene, to say the least.
--- End quote ---
Yes. Proulx really knows how to write powerfull prose. I'll order Close Range in English via Amazon. I liked the other stories from CR in German, but didn't like BBM in German for all the mistakes respectively imprecicions due to translation (I have the STS book and therefore BBM is the only story I read in German and English).
And for the movie: yuck, this line would have killed the entire scene.
--- Quote ---(The sink-peeing amuses me, though. I wouldn't put it in the movie, but as a story detail, it makes me laugh, when I think about it. I mean -- talk about going a level beyond leaving the toilet seat up!)
--- End quote ---
:laugh: level beyond leaving the toilet seat up :laugh:
I don't mind the sink-peeing too. I don't think it's yucky, as I've read sometimes. It amuses me that Proulx wrote it. I like that she has the guts to write so frankly.
But the more I think about it, the more I think it's sad. It's kind of being low, hitting rock bottom. And this is what Ennis's state is.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 12, 2006, 01:18:32 pm ---I wouldn't want the lying from a partner, either.
--- End quote ---
Me neither, yet paradoxically I think lying is the best course in this situation. That is, I myself would choose not to be ignorant if I knew there were something not to be ignorant about. Yet if I were Jack, I would lie. Unlike Mel, I'm not a fan of brutal honesty in relationships. What is telling the truth going to accomplish, except to hurt Ennis? It's not like those other men were meaningful to Jack, so that Ennis should be aware there's a serious threat to their relationship. It's not like Jack wasn't entitled to have flings, back when he didn't know he'd ever see Ennis again. It's not like, knowing about those flings, Ennis would go out and have flings of his own, or change his behavior in any way, except possibly to get hurt or threatened enough to break it off with Jack. And neither one really wants that. So in other words, I find the lie completely forgivable.
Later, when all those things DO matter -- when Jack is seeing Randall and that is a violation of trust and it does pose a threat to their relationship and the knowledge of that threat could change Ennis' behavior -- Jack sort of tries to be honest. But he still isn't. I'd say that lie is more questionable. Though I'm not sure I fault him for that one, either.
Do I sound completely amoral? Tell you what, I rarely lie, myself. I am a terrible liar. But lying simply to keep someone you love from being hurt -- in the absense of other negative consequences -- doesn't seem wrong to me.
Unlike Jeff, I believe Jack lies mainly to protect Ennis, not himself. The same way he withholds the info about Aguirre's spying. After all, even when Ennis says outright he will kill Jack for going to Mexico, Jack doesn't seem particularly scared.
--- Quote from: Penthesilea on September 12, 2006, 02:43:25 pm ---I know next to nothing about English literature. Everything I know about short stories as a form of prose is in regard to German literature: immediate beginning (without introducion of characters), open or half open end, "everyday" plot, but with conflicts, few characters, only a short period of time is covered within the plot, simple and plain language to name just some.
Since the short story as an art form in Germany developped in following the American archetype, I guess those characteristics are true for the American short story, too
--- End quote ---
That's right. Your description applies to most contemporary American short stories. They're supposed to contain some sort of "change," preferably subtle, but outright twists at the end are rare.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: latjoreme on September 12, 2006, 02:50:12 pm ---What is telling the truth going to accomplish, except to hurt Ennis?
--- End quote ---
I was talking specifically about the story. It seems to me it might have accomplished a lot if Jack had been up front with Ennis right from the get-go at their reunion in 1967. I've always been convinced that by 1967 Story Ennis knows perfectly well that he's in love with Jack, and if Jack--the man he knows he loves--had been honest with him it might have helped Ennis to be more comfortable with their whole situation. It would have set their relationship off on an honest foundation--or a more honest foundation, anyway--or else it would have been a deal breaker, in which case we would have had no story and no movie.
But Jack's dishonesty in the motel sets them up for a 16-year relationship (till 1983 in the story) built on a lie. No wonder Ennis collapses when he learns that Jack has been screwing around in Mexico. All that time Ennis has supposed they had a one-shot deal going on, and it wasn't true.
dly64:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on September 12, 2006, 03:09:33 pm ---I was talking specifically about the story. It seems to me it might have accomplished a lot if Jack had been up front with Ennis right from the get-go at their reunion in 1967. I've always been convinced that by 1967 Story Ennis knows perfectly well that he's in love with Jack, and if Jack--the man he knows he loves--had been honest with him it might have helped Ennis to be more comfortable with their whole situation. It would have set their relationship off on an honest foundation--or a more honest foundation, anyway--or else it would have been a deal breaker, in which case we would have had no story and no movie.
But Jack's dishonesty in the motel sets them up for a 16-year relationship (till 1983 in the story) built on a lie. No wonder Ennis collapses when he learns that Jack has been screwing around in Mexico. All that time Ennis has supposed they had a one-shot deal going on, and it wasn't true.
--- End quote ---
I agree with Katherine on this. The reality is that Jack also knows that he loves Ennis. I don't believe that the revelation that Jack was sleeping with other men would have made Ennis more comfortable with the situation at all. On the contrary … it would have been disastrous. I wouldn’t agree that their relationship was built on a lie. Ennis knew what was going on. Ennis didn’t want to know the truth.
Let me back up just a little, because I think we can go round and round on this point. In relationships there tend to be a few trains of thought (I am only mentioning two). One is the whole “let’s divulge our past to each other and have this completely open and honest relationship.” Personally, I think that is completely unrealistic. (but understand that I am a bit tainted when it comes to relationships … I can be a bit, ummmm, should I say bitter? Pessimistic? Sarcastic?) A second is compartmentalizing. What I mean by this is that the relationship is one facet of the person’s life. Other parts of the person’s life have little to nothing to do with the relationship at all. This is how I see Jack and Ennis.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version