getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)

[Jeff Wrangler]

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.)

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

(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!)

  level beyond leaving the toilet seat up

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]

I wouldn't want the lying from a partner, either.

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.

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

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]

What is telling the truth going to accomplish, except to hurt Ennis?

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]

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.

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.

[Front-Ranger]

You're right about that compartmentalizing thing, d. So, someone asked me a few pages back how Jack changes his behavior when he's with Ennis. I'll just mention a few examples. First scene, when Jack starts out to walk up and introduce himself to Ennis in his straightforward way, Ennis reacts by lowering his hat brim. So Jack comes to an abrupt halt and, after thinking about it, retreats to slink by his truck. He even gives Ennis more space by turning his back to him to shave, peeking thru the rearview at him.

Next we see Jack being his exuberant self, strutting in front to the bar, drinking two beers to Ennis's one, drawing Ennis out in conversation and, later, selecting the most high-spirited horse for his mount. But Ennis warns him to tone it down, saying the horse has a "low startle point" (was he talking about himself?) Making camp, Jack splashes water and whacks with an ax, while Ennis plods along with a saw, and laboriously arranges rocks in a fire ring. Working together, they get accustomed to each other's style and temper their behavior to fit the other's. Two weeks later, Jack remarks on Ennis actually being conversational, as Ennis even makes eye contact and says "what?" to invite Jack to take a risk with him.

But Jack still doesn't behave the way he normally would. When Ennis walks away to strip and bathe, he doesn't look. And there's the aftermath of the bear scene that Mel mentions. When Jack's horse continues to be high-spirited, Jack is embarassed. Even though he lets his guard down, Jack can't just be himself around Ennis. If he did, then the events of the last day on the mountain wouldn't be plausible and Jack would have never driven away and left Ennis walking down the middle of the road. Also, he wouldn't have had to steal Ennis's shirt. It just wouldn't have made sense.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Ya know, at the risk of sounding like our ol' buddy TJ  , this thread started out as a story discussion and it's turned or is turning into a movie discussion. That Jack hat-brim business, for example, is pure movie.

I'm stickin' to my guns on the story, and I can't forgive Story "Used Car Salesman" Jack for that lie in the motel. Maybe Story Ennis wouldn't have wanted to know that Jack had had sex with other guys--Movie Ennis sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to know--but the very fact that Story Ennis asked the question in the first place--which Movie Ennis does not--suggests to me that he would have been able to handle the truth better than Movie Ennis, maybe would have wanted to know what it was about, might have helped him be more comfortable with his sexuality.

No, it would have been better for Jack to answer truthfully. He's just complimented Ennis on what a good fuck he throws ("it got a be all that time a yours a horseback"); he could have answered honestly and still found a way to soften the revelation. But he didn't. And I'm not accepting any excuses.

Bad Story Jack! 

[Front-Ranger]

That's right TJ uh Jeff. Everything I brought up in that last post had to do with the movie. And perhaps that was unforgiveable for Jack to lie about rolling it with other men. In the story didn't Ennis ask what other people do when this happens to them, and Jack said, I dunno, maybe they go to Denver... and then he said, I don't give a flyin f**k. Let's U and me get away to the mountains for a few days (I'm paraphrasing here). So Jack opted for just a few days more of what he wanted, cause he could see that Ennis hadn't really changed and he wasn't ever going to get what he wanted, long-term. He was practical in his own way.

BTW, any of you symbolism-sensitive people out there..."flyin f**k... eagle alert!!

[Jeff Wrangler]

That's right TJ uh Jeff. Everything I brought up in that last post had to do with the movie. And perhaps that was unforgiveable for Jack to lie about rolling it with other men. In the story didn't Ennis ask what other people do when this happens to them, and Jack said, I dunno, maybe they go to Denver... and then he said, I don't give a flyin f**k. Let's U and me get away to the mountains for a few days (I'm paraphrasing here). So Jack opted for just a few days more of what he wanted, cause he could see that Ennis hadn't really changed and he wasn't ever going to get what he wanted, long-term. He was practical in his own way.

BTW, any of you symbolism-sensitive people out there..."flyin f**k... eagle alert!!

"Hadn't really changed" from what? I'm not following you there. I know Katherine dislikes the process, but I've often used the story to help formulate my understanding of the film, usually by way of comparison and contrast, but now I'm getting confused.

I think Story Ennis has changed in four years. He's figured out that he should never have let Jack out of his sights in '63--a line we never get from Film Ennis. Story Ennis doesn't ask Jack whose fault it was that they hadn't seen each other in four fuckin' years (which suggests to me that after he'd figured it out, he might have tried to get in touch with Jack, but "I didn't know where in the hell you was."). He also says to Jack, "I goddamn hate it that you're goin a drive away in the mornin and I'm goin back to work." (Then we get the famous, "But if you can't fix it you got a stand it.")

And then when Jack urges they go up in the mountains together for a few days, adding, "Come on, Ennis, you just shot my airplane out a the sky--give me somethin a go on. This ain't no little thing that's happenin here," Ennis without hesitation picks up the motel phone and calls Alma to tell her he's going away with Jack for a few days.

This is a different man from the one we see on the screen, one, frankly, I like better.

[serious crayons]

But Jack still doesn't behave the way he normally would .... Even though he lets his guard down, Jack can't just be himself around Ennis.

At the risk of bringing movie content back into the discussion (though the overall point, I think, covers the story, too) in your examples, Lee, it's true Jack does alter his behavior -- softening his approach, refraining from ogling naked Ennis --  in deference to Ennis' sensitivities. But I don't think being yourself necessarily means acting on every impulse, regardless of its effect on the other person. Or if it does, then I'm not completely "myself" around anyone -- even you guys!! 

I think any relationship involves some awareness and restraint in regard to the other person's startle points. And the two people can draw out different things in each other without changing their essential natures. (BTW, I'd note that the examples you mention all come from their first month of knowing each other, before they became lovers, and presumably he became even more himself as the years went on. Still, he did continue to exercise restraint when it came to discussions of love or living together or Mexico.)

I know Katherine dislikes the process, but I've often used the story to help formulate my understanding of the film, usually by way of comparison and contrast

Actually, I'm not quite that much of a hardliner about it. I don't mind using one to understand the other, and I even do it myself.

What I object to is holding one to the rules of the other (for example, using the "Ennis didn't want to see or feel that it's a man he's holding" line to explain Movie Ennis' behavior, even though there Ennis does not appear to feel that way in the dozy embrace). As we know, the characters and scenes aren't identical in both, so those rules may not apply. But sometimes they may, which is why using them to understand is fine by me.