getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)

[Front-Ranger]

I think you are on to something there, fernly. Ennis was either pushing Jack away, or simultaneously pushing/pulling him, sadly. Some people have disagreed with me that Jack had to change his behavior to be with Ennis or to placate him. In fact, people have told me that while he was with Ennis that Jack was at his most natural and that Ennis saw Jack's true self. I disagree. Not only did Jack have to change his behavior from the very beginning, but he had to lie and do things surrepticiously to avoid Ennis' blowing up at him.

At one point, Ennis's question to Jack in the motel was "You do it with other guys? Jack?" and then it was changed to "You do it with other guys, Jack?" This small change in punctuation is somewhat equivalent to the famous "To be or not, to be"/"To be or not to be" dilemna for Shakepeare.

[nakymaton]

Penthesilea -- I apologize for not responding to this earlier.

Back to the OP:
Judging on what I've read from Proulx (which is not much, allowedly) it's typical for Proulx to come off-hand, in half-sentences with crucial informations. Moreso, she likes to gut-punch her readers through the backdoor. A story may flow along - but then, in the last paragraph, or even in the last sentence, there comes the punch.
A good example for this is the story, which in German is called: "In Hell, all you want is a glass of Water" I just transalted the German title and hope the original one is the same or at least close enough for you to know what story I'm speaking of.

At the end of said story, a long-ago act of deathly violence is illustrated. Then she writes: "We're heading for a new millenium now and such things don't happen any more. A likely story!"

I've only read about half the stories in Close Range and (ages ago) The Shipping News, so I don't have a good sense of how much Proulx uses the same writing techniques in different stories. I did read "People in Hell Just Want a Drink of Water" (the title in English is pretty close to the German translation), and I know what you mean about the punch in the ending. (That story, though. Argh. That's the last one I read in Close Range -- I couldn't pick up the book again after that. Well, except for BBM, but I bought the book for BBM.)

I'm wondering if she uses techniques like that in novels, as well? It's been so long since I read The Shipping News that I can't remember. (And I've got a copy of Postcards, but then there was a murder on the first page and... I just thought, "I need more sex and less violence in my reading life," and put it down. I just needed to read something less bleak than Annie Proulx.)

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.

What comes to my mind is Proulx's description of the boys: "rough-mannerd and rough-spoken": Ennis peeing in the sink, Jack saying he missed Ennis bad enough sometimes to make him whip babies. How much more loveable is the confession in the movie "miss you so bad I can hardly stand it".

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.

(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!)

[nakymaton]

For this pairing of scenes, maybe the fireworks scene is partly a reminder of the last time Ennis hit someone? I hadn't thought before that this would be one of the times that Ennnis was remembering Jack, but if this was the first occasion when he'd lost control since slugging Jack on that hillside, then maybe...
And for us, it reminds us that Ennis hurt Jack in more ways than one that last day, helping to emphasize why Jack liked the direction Lureen was going...toward him, instead of pushing away.

That could be it. Or it could just be that Lureen is the only woman we see Jack with, and that we've also gotten into the mindset that the relationships with women aren't a threat? I don't know.

At one point, Ennis's question to Jack in the motel was "You do it with other guys? Jack?" and then it was changed to "You do it with other guys, Jack?"

The punctuation in my (recent) edition of Close Range is the first one: "You do it with other guys? Jack?" Does the story in the New Yorker use the other punctuation? (You're right, it makes a HUGE difference.)

[dly64]

I think you are on to something there, fernly. Ennis was either pushing Jack away, or simultaneously pushing/pulling him, sadly. Some people have disagreed with me that Jack had to change his behavior to be with Ennis or to placate him. In fact, people have told me that while he was with Ennis that Jack was at his most natural and that Ennis saw Jack's true self. I disagree. Not only did Jack have to change his behavior from the very beginning, but he had to lie and do things surrepticiously to avoid Ennis' blowing up at him.

I don't know that I can agree or disagree with you. I just don't see that it has to be so black and white. Certainly Jack had to make some adjustments. Jack kept certain things from Ennis as a way to protect/ placate him. But I also think that Ennis knew/ understood Jack in a way that nobody else could and vice versa. Ennis knew the truth about Jack’s indiscretions; he just didn’t want to acknowledge them. Jack allowed himself to be vulnerable around Ennis. I think the key is that they loved each other despite each other. What I mean is that they found in each other a soft place to fall. But they also found a place that was mired in pain and tragedy, homophobia and societal expectations.

[Front-Ranger]

Yes, Mel, in the New Yorker, it's "You do it with other guys, Jack?"

[serious crayons]

I don't know that I can agree or disagree with you. I just don't see that it has to be so black and white. Certainly Jack had to make some adjustments. Jack kept certain things from Ennis as a way to protect/ placate him. But I also think that Ennis knew/ understood Jack in a way that nobody else could and vice versa. Ennis knew the truth about Jack’s indiscretions; he just didn’t want to acknowledge them. Jack allowed himself to be vulnerable around Ennis. 

That's pretty much how I see it, too (yay, Diane, you and I agree on something!). I think the very fact that Jack knew to withhold that information from Ennis, and that Ennis suspected it anyway, shows how well they knew each other. There were some things they didn't talk about directly (especially in the movie) -- how they felt about each other, Jack's frustration, Ennis' fears -- so in that sense they were both holding back. But I think in other areas of their lives, they were pretty comfortable and frank with each other. They talked about their marriages, their kids, their pasts. Their conversation in the motel, both in the story and the movie, shows two men who feel pretty comfortable with each other (even if, for example, Jack isn't telling all about Aguirre).

[Front-Ranger]

I'm not arguing with the idea that they were comfortable with each other. I just don't think they were honest with each other or with themselves for that matter.

Ennis knew the truth about Jack’s indiscretions; he just didn’t want to acknowledge them.

What makes U think that, Diane?

[dly64]

What makes U think that, Diane?

Have you ever asked a question that you already know the answer? And then the answer you get you know is a lie? That’s how I see Ennis and Jack. I think both the story and the book make it clear that Ennis knew about Jack’s indiscretions, but Ennis chose not to deal with them (until it was thrust upon him). I don’t have the book in front of me … but it says something about what Ennis heard was no surprise. And Ennis’ comment about, “.. all them things that I don’t know ….” indicates that Ennis knows Jack has been with other men, but he doesn’t know the specifics (nor did he want to know the specifics).

[Jeff Wrangler]

Yes, Mel, in the New Yorker, it's "You do it with other guys, Jack?"

It does make a huge difference. For me, breaking that one sentence down into two, "You do it with other guys? Jack?" indicates that there is a bit of a pause, Jack doesn't answer right away, and Ennis has to prod him to answer. Like, maybe, Jack doesn't want to answer because he's concerned the effect of telling the truth might have on Ennis, and then when Ennis prods him for an answer, he lies.

[nakymaton]

It does make a huge difference. For me, breaking that one sentence down into two, "You do it with other guys? Jack?" indicates that there is a bit of a pause, Jack doesn't answer right away, and Ennis has to prod him to answer. Like, maybe, Jack doesn't want to answer because he's concerned the effect of telling the truth might have on Ennis, and then when Ennis prods him for an answer, he lies.

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.)

Lee - when you talk about Jack changing his behavior to be with Ennis, which moments are you talking about? There are a bunch of moments early on the mountain where it seems like Jack is putting on various sorts of acts -- for instance, there's the moment after the bear attack, when Jack smiles when he hears Ennis coming into camp, and then changes his expression (deliberately, it seems to me) and starts complaining about beans. (And then he softens again right away when he sees that Ennis is hurt. I love that moment.)

But it seems like Jack stops acting at some point. I'm not sure if it's at the end of the "rodeo cowboys are f***-ups" scene, where both guys look so comfortable laughing together, or if it's during TS2. But during the last part of the summer, up until the arrival of the snow, Jack doesn't look very guarded.

Later on, after Ennis's divorce, Jack looks like he's censoring himself more again. But Jack's changed a lot by that point.

Diane -

Have you ever asked a question that you already know the answer? And then the answer you get you know is a lie? That’s how I see Ennis and Jack. I think both the story and the book make it clear that Ennis knew about Jack’s indiscretions, but Ennis chose not to deal with them (until it was thrust upon him). I don’t have the book in front of me … but it says something about what Ennis heard was no surprise. And Ennis’ comment about, “.. all them things that I don’t know ….” indicates that Ennis knows Jack has been with other men, but he doesn’t know the specifics (nor did he want to know the specifics).

YES. I think both the story and the movie imply that, in different ways. ("I know what they've got in Mexico for boys like you" - both the line and the way that it's delivered - suggests that Ennis suspects, at least, that Jack has had other affairs, but until that painful confrontation, both men have avoided talking about them.)