it's not all about Earl -- by latjoreme

[TOoP/Bruce]

It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:38:10 )   
   
I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.

No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.

To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse.

The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job." In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.

So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond. If at 30-something Ennis worries that strangers on the pavement will "know," imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever. And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too. And then, because as far as Ennis can tell his father's opinion is in step with everybody else's, even his father's death doesn't end the threat.

That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.

And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.

Shouldn't Ennis have rejected his father's teachings, once he grew up? Well, some people raised by harsh or rigid parents do eventually do that, but it's usually because they meet other people or read books with different points of view. But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.

People who are understandably frustrated by Ennis might also keep in mind the depth of the emotional obstacles were that Ennis had to overcome to be with Jack at all. It's a glass half full, in my view. Not to mention one big sign of just how deep and powerful his love for Jack is.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by BannerHill     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:49:50 )   

Yes, yes, and yes.
Finally we are getting right down to it.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Mrs_Billy_Costigan     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:52:37 )   

UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 15:58:13
GREAT post, very true. I used to get frustrated with Ennis, but the more I watch the movie, the more homophobic crap I'm dealt with daily at my school, and the more I think about it the more I admire and care abotu Ennis and feel sorry for BOTH Ennis and Jack-Jack (my pet name for him....the name Ennis doesn't really have room for pet names....). HOmophobia is not something to be underestimated, and fear is a terrible thing to live by.....

BTW, Jack-Jack had a HORRIBLE childhood too.....from the movie I thought his father was just distant and bitter....but I bought and read the short story just today and WHOA. Lordy LORD!! HE was an intolerant abusive jerk too! poor Jack-Jack!! I can't imagine how HORRIBLE it must have been to LIVE with that man! I'm certain he beat Jack on a daily basis, I'm sure he made Jack's life a living hell, just like Ennis's father did to him. I find it interesting that Ennis and Jack BOTH had horrible childhoods but dealt with it so differently. Ennis became all withdrawn, awkward, high-strung, all that, and by looking at him, the way he walked and talked, it was obvious that he'd been hurt in some way. And Jack, on the other hand, by looking at him you'd never have thought he had an abusive childhood, he was such a full of life, live-in-the-moment guy. similar lives, different people......and I adore them both, and I REALLY hate both their fathers. If I had a father like that I'd move to Siberia to get away from him....

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Oct 12 2006 16:40:04 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –

Great post! A couple small things, though, as always –



“To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood.”

I sure do agree with all of this.


“That's all it is, a glimpse.”

But not this. The fact remains, this is the one incident that Ennis refers to and this is the one incident that was shown to us. All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.


“The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job."”

I can agree with this.


“In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.”

And this I can accept as speculation. But, this:


“So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond.”

And this…

“…imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever.”

These take the speculation a bit beyond what we saw in the film. All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms. This is why the line about Ennis thinking maybe his dad could have done the job is so startling. It’s startling to think any man, any father, could have murdered a man for being gay. And it’s startling to think of a man, a father, showing this to his child. But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on. We get the feeling he’s terribly homophobic. However, in the Lightning Flat scene, he does not appear at all homophobic.) I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father – as a doler-outer of spankings, for example. Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seems as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.


“And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too.”

I agree. And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out. Or, if he did find out and reacted in one of these ways, then Ennis must have taken it as “natural consequences to such behavior.”


“That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.”

No doubt about this. However, these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.


“And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.”

Yep.


“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”

How so?


Because it is the one incident that Ennis refers to and because it’s the one incident that was shown to us and because the rest is (possibly useful and logical) speculation, but also because of the way Ennis spoke of his father, and because of the “turn out opposite” example we’re given with OMT, I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.


“The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.”

This still remains a good assumption supported by what we see and hear in the film.





Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by dly64      (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:17:44 )   
   
Are you saying that the trauma (for Ennis) was not just seeing Earl, but (more importantly) thinking that his own father could have committed this brutal murder? If that is what you are saying, than I am in complete agreement. The visual of Earl only reinforced (to Ennis) what can happen to an openly gay individual. Ennis was taught to hate himself, his thoughts, his feelings and his attraction towards other males. Jack and Ennis’ relationship on BBM was possible because it was so private and (as others have stated) a “Garden of Eden.” Post-mountain, Ennis and Jack’s relationship was doomed to failure because all of the teachings of Ennis’ father came crashing back. IMO, Ennis spent most of his life trying to convince himself that he wasn’t “queer”. He got married (to a woman he thought he loved) and had children. He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father). Then after the divorce, he starts seeing Cassie. Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing, but because she’s there (and of course she made it easy, because she threw herself at him). Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late. Jack had died. But it is Jack’s death that only reinforces Ennis’ homophobia.

Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em" - Ennis, BBM

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Mrs_Billy_Costigan     (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:59:01 )   
   
UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 18:25:28
<<He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father).>>

Ehhhh, WTF? He wasn't a good husband, but he was a good father.It's obvious he loved his girls and they got to see a side of him he hardly showed to anyone but Jack.

Jack's death didn't reinforce Ennis's homophobia. I got the impression at the end that he came to terms with who he was. The way he walked into the Twist kitchen holding the shirts, not explaining why he was taking them, because obviously Jack's parents knew Jack's reasons for keeping the shirts in his room and never washing the bloodstains. and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much and knows that Alma Jr. who's going to be married, won't make his mistake. why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack. It's obvious Ennis has learned a lot from his mistakes and is changed. at the Twist house when he finds the shirts it's obvious he's shocked and guilty at his neglecting Jack and he even tells Lureen about Brokeback, the first person besides Jack he's ever mentioned Brokeback to. Right away when he finds out Jack's dead he changes obviously, because he tells Lureen he knows about Brokeback. so yeah. Ennis changed for the better, and that's what matters. he doesn't know for sure how Jack died, and WE don't know how Jack died, becuase it DOESN'T MATTER, because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Oct 12 2006 23:06:16 )   
   
Hi dly64 –

I pretty much agree with your entire post.

I’d like to say something about this:

“Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing,”

I agree that wasn't his main motivator. However, Cassie was physically appealing. And she was all, you know, perky. Plus, don’t underestimate the boost to a man’s ego (even a closeted homosexual man who believes himself to be straight) when a perky, sexy, young lady comes a-courtin’.


“Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late.”

I like this sentence. It’s a great sentence. I especially like the (intentional?) omission of any temporal adjectival phrase after “epiphany.”   




Hi sugarsweet666  –

I have to disagree with this:

“…and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much…”

All he did was agree to go to his own daughter’s wedding. A one-time trip to a church (that he has shunned) for a couple of hours, months in the future. And, he only agreed to this when he saw the pained look on her face. He initially rejected her suggestion. His “change” could not have been too big obviously. Your crediting Ennis with a change such as you describe is to take the character of Ennis as he was presented to us and unrealistically transform him into something he’s never been capable of and, quite frankly, has no use of becoming.

Because Ennis doesn’t know how Jack died, described even better in the short story than in the film, Jack’s death does serve to reinforce Ennis’ homophobia. Truer to the story and the theme of the story is that Ennis will become more homophobic and more withdrawn.


“why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack.”

To reinforce in Ennis’ psyche the differences.


“because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.”

And for a character such as Ennis was created and presented to us, guilt and regret more often manifest a more closed personality rather than an open one.




Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by malina-5     (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:55:30 )   
   
<<To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse. >>

I TOTALLY agree with this. Thank you for pointing it out. "Shorthand" - that's a brilliant way of putting it. It's what I'd been thinking, but never in an articulate way like this.

We have to give Ennis credit. What he did in allowing himself to fall for Jack at all was HUGE. For me the 'shorthand' for that is when he enters the tent on the second night. It was surrender to a force of nature. Surrender to love and life despite fear. What greater thiing can anyone do?

Of course, for most of the 20 f*ing years it was only a partial surrender, the mountain and the 'middle of nowhere' (hmm, again with the 'nowhere') making it possible. The miracle of the place allows Ennis to transcend what he would normally have been capable of. (Big thank you to the mountain and Aguirre's creation)

Katherine, you said: <<But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. >>

I agree to a large extent. It would have been enormously helpful, maybe, for Ennis to have known someone who contradicted his father's views. But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant.
I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.

And, if a big part of what made Ennis feel that he was unacceptable was his attraction to men, I would argue that, impartial or not, Jack's acceptance of that would have been immensely important to Ennis too. Because sex with Jack was not some random desparate sleazy f* in an alley. Jack was someone Ennis truly liked and respected, maybe even looked up to. Jack was really a great guy. And HE'S okay with it - even with the way things transpired in the first tent scene. There were probably many contradictory voices battling within Ennis that day as he watched the sheep, but that would've been one of them: maybe it IS okay. More than he'd ever dared hope for.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Ellemeno     (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:01:30 )   
   
Hi Gang, my little addition re Ennis's father's violence - I don't thnk anyone mentioned this yet. In the story, Ennis says it in the motel room, "Dad made sure I seen it. Took me to see it. Me and K.E. Dad laughed about it. Hell, for all I know he done the job. If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."

He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:47:16 )   
   
Hi Ellemeno --

"He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him."

Yes. However, he is certain of it at the time of the motel scene. And this is probably from the age of 9 on -- from the time of the Earl death scene forward. This says nothing about Ennis' time with his father before age 9. It also speaks to Ennis' belief directly caused by the Earl death scene.


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix      (Fri Oct 13 2006 04:09:20 )   
      
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 11:33:15
I will argue differently. (People can either agree or disagree, because my opinion is neither worth more nor less than anyone else's.)

This movie works to invite repeat viewings because our understanding of the characters (as opposed to the plot) is not revealed in a linear fashion.

We see the dead sheep, and it has meaning to Ennis, but we don't understand it yet. Likewise, we see the separation of Jack and Ennis on the mountain, and we don't understand what has happened between between.

In the later light of Ennis's story, we can now look at the separation on the mountain differently.

Ennis and Jack are striking camp. Summer is over. Jack places no real importance on it, because he does not expect his friendship and sexual relationship with Ennis to end. Ennis however is seeing things entirely differently.

His relationship with Jack is suddenly over, and he can't admit to himself what his feelings mean. He is reliving his flashback to the scene of Earl with his father and brother. They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...

Roped and dragged? uh oh...

Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them. They continue down the mountain to the fenced area. Ennis is in a post-traumatic stress induced crisis, and Jack has no idea what is going on. The sheep are mixed, Ennis can't sort his feelings.

After Ennis's father died, he went to live with his brother and his wife. Something happened between them and they had a falling out - Ennis then struck out on his own. Now add to the mix of Earl's death, Ennis's sense of loss at losing his brother, and now he is losing Jack. The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness.

When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck. But the separation is awkward, and Ennis is left alone again with only his guilt and remorse.

Jack watches Ennis recede in the rearview mirror with a sense of loss and confusion. He really doesn't understand what just happened...

Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done. He has just lost a "brother", friend, and a lover, and he feels guilt and shame for having allowed to happen in the first place. He will tear himself apart to deny his feelings and choke on his own rage, regret, and horrific sense of loss.

"Forgive us our trespasses..."






The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by malina-5     (Fri Oct 13 2006 07:55:07 )   
   
<<They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...

Roped and dragged? uh oh...

Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them.>>

V. interesting. I never thought of that. But does it give new meaning to Ennis's statement "my dad was a fine roper" - or not? Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix      (Fri Oct 13 2006 09:22:34 )   
      
Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..


I don't think Ennis has too many "extra" words to share about himself.

I certainly could mean something...





The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.

Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...   
  by toycoon      (Fri Oct 13 2006 10:01:05 )   
   
True Oracle of Phoenix, you have really dissected the scenes and reassembled them quite exquisitely.

I have more to say but I'll have to come back later as I am at work!

(I wish I knew how to quit Brokeback Mountain...)

Re: Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 11:07:12 )   
   
Hi True_Oracle_of_Phoenix --

I liked your entire post. I especially like it when people find symbolic meaning within the film. So I especially liked these two bits:

"When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck."

and

"Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done."


My take on the Earl death scene is that it is fundamental to an understanding of Ennis. So I also liked:

"The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness."



It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 13 2006 14:01:41 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 14:03:04
Hi CPDM,

All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.

But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.

All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.

Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver) 2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can 3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view. (Am I forgetting any?) Positive terms is a bit of a stretch. 1 is neutral, 2 is pretty neutral but not particularly flattering 3 is flattering but has nothing to do with fatherhood and 4 contains layers of meaning, none of which necessarily indicate that the guy was a world's greatest father or man.

But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on.

Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.

I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father

But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way). Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:

1) Ennis' personality and behavior: what I mentioned before about his shyness and closed-offness, and the couple of times we see him take care not to gaze too long at Jack. You could argue (and in "real life," I would argue) that genes are a stronger influence than family environment on personality and behavior. But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.

1a) Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.

2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job. Unless Ennis noticed a blood-stained tire iron in the back of the pickup, this idea must have been based on something his father said or did. And if he said or did it once, I think it's safe to assume he said or did it more than once, because it seems unlikely that the dad kept his homophobia to himself until the day he rushed out and tortured a guy to death, and then put it back under wraps ever afterward. Even if his father actually didn't do it, by taking the boys out there he showed tacit or explicit approval of the murder -- suggesting that he might have done the same, or something close to it, if given the chance.

3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.

So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death. We know that Ennis probably knew he was gay. We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.

Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.

I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?

And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out.

Right. As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.

these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.

I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality, though I do think it often goes the other way around. Take Jack. He's a guy who has, to some extent anyway, come to terms with and/or explored his sexuality. He's also got a different personality than Ennis. Is this because Jack, maybe as a teenager, figured the sex thing out and then, with that out of the way, heaved a sigh of relief and became outgoing and confident, a person willing to take risks and break rules in order to improve his life? No, I think the reverse -- his bolder personality helped him accept his sexuality. Same with Ennis: his personality hindered his acceptance.

“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”

How so?

In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.

I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.

I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.

Hi Malina,

But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.

Good point. I did kind of understate Jack's importance in my OP. It would have been nice if Ennis had also gone to college and joined a gay students' group on campus or something like that. But in the absence of any other positive influences, Jack's was huge. As a role model, too.

Hi True Oracle of Phoenix,

Interesting post! Your idea about the lasso, particularly.

Hi Elle,

If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."

He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.

That's how I read that sentence, too. Ennis assumes his father would readily extend his murderous hatred of a fellow citizen to his own son.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 15:30:42 )   

Hi latjoreme –


“But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.”

I agree that it’s OK to infer from fiction. But, to infer so much that it reduces what was presented to us as “the only significant” incident to “shorthand”… that may go a bit too far. The last part of my last sentence is more of a conclusion, I think.


All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.

“Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver)”

(Sorry… that last parenthetical really made me laugh. That’s cute.  )

He didn’t die because he was a homophobic dad.


“2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can”

He wasn't poor because he was a homophobic dad.


“3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view.”

I think these last two are positive.

And, when it comes right down to it, a young man who lost his parents when he was a young’un saying his dad is dead and they were poor, is kind of heart-wrenching. Puts one on his side. Doesn’t give one bad vibes about the old, misunderstood fella.


“Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.”

Yep.


I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father

“But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way).”

Not an inference at all. I base it on the evidence presented. Even if we go with your assertion that Ennis spoke of his dad in neutral terms, then what do we have? A character describing another character in neutral terms. (But, I must add, the way he described his father as a fine roper was said with a bit of admiration or respect.) So what can we say of Ennis’ relationship with his father? Well, Ennis described it in neutral terms. That is from the direct evidence given.


“Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:”

But the support you gather is not direct evidence, it’s inference. For example, you talk about what you see in terms of Ennis’ personality and behaviors. This is fine. Describe them. But, now to try and decide from whence they’ve come, that’s pure speculation. Even if you connect it to the fact that his father showed him dead Earl. Because I could connect it to the fact that Ennis only mentioned his mother twice. He said “they run themselves off” (mother and father) and that his mother used to like to compare a pure, sweet little boy like Ennis to a sleeping horse. Boy, she sounds like a winner. I’ll bet she compared Ennis to all kinds of barnyard animals. Thus, his displayed personality and behaviors.

Not great arguments, if you ask me. That’s why the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Why? Because by having the filmmaker (author) give only that one event as a defining moment in Ennis’ character, and by having all other issues relate back to it, that one event is given a legendary impact status. In other words, by making it the only event and by having his fears constantly referred back to it, the author has characterized that event in such a way as to show us the depth of the destructive nature of that event. The author has said “Here’s an event. Want to know more about it? OK. I’ll describe it for you.” Then the author describes it by making it the only event shown to us and by referring back to it (the dead sheep and the vision of Jack’s death) AND by not adding in all kinds of other events.


“But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.”

Yes. Agreed. That that one event had such a destructive effect on Ennis.


“Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.”

No and no. I’m sorry, but I see the exact opposite of your first clause to be correct. Fiction writers almost always choose a single event as being the most significant and defining. They then have other smaller events and they are usually linked to the larger one. Also, even if your first clause is correct, there isn’t an a priori connection to the conclusion you’ve made.


“2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job.”

Again, what you’ve given are inferences that make for interesting discussion. I have no problem with that. But, it appears to me that you’re seeking to make them more important than what the author gave us: the Earl death scene. If these are more important, and the Earl death scene is “only shorthand,” then why did the author present it the way she did? To make us all run around looking for more important possible factors? This isn’t the same kind of “leave ‘em guessing” that is done with “How did Jack die?” or what is meant by “Jack, I swear”?

If we want to infer from what was said, I’d say a more direct inference would be based as closely to the words as possible. Ennis’ dad was used to killing men. But, just how big was the gay population of Sage, WY in the early fifties? Not much – but I could be wrong. It’s more likely that Ennis’ father got his practice in killing men by being the state executioner. So, Ennis was really idolizing his father in this scene because he’s proud of how well his dad was able to translate his job as state executioner to his personal life. Hack, cough, gag…


“3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.”

And I have no problem with this. Not because I might agree with your inference; rather, I have no problem with this because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.


“So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death.”

We only know that Ennis said this once to Jack. He could have come to this conclusion at that very moment as he spoke. His words were, “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” The way he says it sounds to me as if he just came up with this. I don’t know. Maybe he’s always believed it? Since age nine? Maybe.


“We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.”

Agree with the first part, not the second. You only listed a few dots to connect to come up with a conclusion that negates what we were presented by the film. I could say that we all know what it’s like to grow up with a distant mother who only ever refers to her children as unconscious barnyard animals… wouldn’t that make a kid repressed or uptight?

Additionally, you only list a few of the behaviors that you see in Ennis to make your point. How about if I add these behaviors: He’s a loving husband who puts his arm around his wife in parked cars. He’s a loving husband who playfully jostles with his wife in the snow. He’s a loving husband who will work a job on the pavement to make money for his family even though he’s an “earthy” kind of fella. He smiles when women come on to him. He has no problem showing his sensory pleasure concerning beans. He cares deeply for animals. He’s a hands-on kind of dad for his infants. Even when he’s got other things on his mind (like leaving to go see Jack or having an argument with Alma), he’ll always stop and be kind to his girls. He’s the kind of man who can learn loving behaviors (an ear rub) from one person and transfer it to another (Jenny). He’s fastidious (tents and buttons). He’s in touch enough with his playful side that even in a solemn event like a wedding he can crack a smile when a Jolly Minister makes a joke. He’s discreet about his extra-marital affairs. He became a good speller – better than Jack, at least. He showed an interest in an edjamacation. He had a playful side (examples of teasing Jack). He wasn’t afraid to shed a tear or two. Put all these behind the part about living with a gay-hating dad and it doesn’t connect too well.


Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.

“I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?”

Back to the incident itself. Ennis never said he approved or disapproved of it. He simply stated what he saw and applied it to himself. This is what he was shown by his father. He has now “learned” that this is the natural consequence for such behavior. He accepts that. He thinks his daddy was right. He learned from a man he respected. Oops, there goes the whole Ennis/father tension…


“As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.”

Was there always a threat there from Jack’s mother to Jack? No. Why not? Because we weren’t given any indication that a threat could have been there. But then how do we infer that there was a threat always present for Ennis? By seeing the Earl death scene… oops, here it suddenly seems significant again… direct evidence given to us from which we may rightly or wrongly infer something else.


“I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality,”

Gulp. I’ll let this one go…


Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.

How so?

“In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.”

Sorry. I thought you were talking about something different. Yes. Agreed.


“I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.

I can go with this. I just can’t go with this: “That's all it is, a glimpse.”




If I might add… I think what you said to another poster is very true:

“But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.”

(Except, I might delete the last four words as assumption.)

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 13 2006 17:12:50 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 17:22:41
Hi CPDM,

Re that last quote, maybe I'm reading your meaning wrong, but Malina wrote it, not me. But I agree that it is true.

So before we go on debating this for a week and writing 40,000 more words on the subject, let me clarify one huge thing. You said, in agreeing with one of my points, that it was OK because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.

Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! Of course it was significant. I said outright that it was undoubtedly the most shocking and horrifying event of his childhood.

All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.

And I don't totally disagree when you say that the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Yes, it's a way for us viewers to understand Ennis. Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.

I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."

Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:

-- I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.

-- Though I agree with your enumeration of Ennis' many virtues -- loving father, wanly affectionate husband, discrete adulterer, etc. -- I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."

Now, if you want to argue that Ennis' dad was a great guy and wonderful father and fine roper at every other point in Ennis' childhood except during that one lone hour in which he forcefully escorted his two young sons to view the mutilated body of a man he himself might have slaughtered, let's get to it.

Or if you contend that Ennis must have considered his dad a great guy because he speaks of him in neutral or mildly positive terms -- that is, he doesn't spill all his deep filial fears and shames -- to Jack in the month after they met, I think I can come up with some other explanations.

Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 14 2006 01:58:14 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


“Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! … All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.”

Yes. I understand this. But, you did say:

“I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.

No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

The point I'm making is, I always refer back to it because it’s what we were given. If I post something about Ennis’ homophobia rearing its ugly head in the post-divorce white truck drive-by shot, and someone asks “Where’d you come up with “homophobia?”” I would refer back to the Earl death scene. I would not refer back to the “fine roper” comment nor would I say anything about his unknown childhood.


“Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.”

Agreed. But, isn’t any psychological analysis done of fictional characters really a literary analysis of a narrative strategy?


“I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."”

This is often true!


“Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:”

I personally love it when you clarify. I find myself doing it a lot of late.


“I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.”

But, the violence, anger and/or disapproval are assumptions about the character. Ennis said maybe his dad did the job. Ennis was not sure. Ennis did not say his father was violent or angry or whether he approved or disapproved. I personally infer from Ennis’ words in the Earl death scene (in the film only now) that there is a possibility that Ennis’ father did the job. However, if someone were to say that Ennis’ father took his boys to see dead Earl to teach them how homophobic and murderous some other guys were, then I couldn’t disagree. After all, Ennis may have misread his father that day. Ennis describes what happened and gives one possible maybe. He never said specifically why his father took them to see the body. Maybe Ennis was so scared and scarred by the whole incident that the fact that his nice father took him to see how bad those murderers were (as opposed to how bad Earl was) got twisted in his mind and he got the wrong message from his dad? Maybe his dad was a great guy?


Ennis: “The bottom line is, we're around each other and, and this thing grabs hold of us again in the wrong place, in the wrong time, then we’re dead. I’ll tell you, there was these two old guys ranched together down home… Earl and Rich. They was a joke of town, even though they was pretty tough old birds. Anyway, they, they found Earl dead in an irrigation ditch. They'd took a tire iron to him, spurred him up, drug him around by his dick till it pulled off…”

Jack: “You seen this?”

Ennis: “Yeah. I was what, nine years old? My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it. Hell, for all I know, he done the job. Two guys livin' together? No way.”


Ennis does not say why his father took them to see dead Earl. Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.

Now, you may say that Ennis surmised from this that his dad may have been capable of doing this. And that gives evidence for an inference that his dad was a bad dude. However, Ennis did not say it as a fact. He said it as an interpretation and he qualified it. Flip-side -- Ennis knew they were the joke of town, yet he called them “tough old birds.” Where did this respect come from? His nice father who wanted to show his boys that something evil had been done? Evidence for an inference.

“I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."”

But, technically, we do not know if this is true.


“Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!”

(italics are mine)

Again, technically speaking…


All of the words that Ennis spoke of his father and the way he spoke those words (pre-Earl death scene) are either 1) a startling apparent contradiction to what we later learn, or 2) further evidence of an interpretation of the Earl death scene in a whole new light.


Finally, I earlier said that I was only speaking from the film perspective. The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude. But, if we just stick with the film...






Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Sat Oct 14 2006 12:54:27 )   
   
UPDATED Sat Oct 14 2006 14:21:54
Hi CPDM,

Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.

   

OK, well now you're just making fun of me.

But s'alright, I can take it. And I really like your interpretation of the story: it's all about Ennis' stubborn refusal to conquer his homophobia, despite the efforts of everyone around him to help him accept his sexuality and find true love. Mr. Del Mar, the rainbow-bumpersticker-sporting liberal, sensing that his son might be gay and trying his best to warn the boy of the dangers that might lie ahead. Matchmaking Aguirre and discrete Alma, tactfully giving Ennis and Jack plenty of time alone together in hopes they will work things out. Even kindly Timmy, intuiting that his brooding coworker is working through some issues and trying delicately to broach the subject in hopes of drawing him out ...

Wow, this movie has even more subtle meanings than I thought!

I realize we could spend another two weeks going back and forth on this, presenting endless evidence and pithy retortes on either side. But we'll always wind up at the same brick wall: I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.

Only, your side had better take responsibility for all those people who think Ennis is being silly for making such a big f'in deal about something he saw for five minutes 20 years ago. And frankly, if I thought that was absolutely all there was to it, I might just about agree with them.

The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude.

OK, I'll bite. Does it have to do with fighting K.E.? Or maybe the line Ellemeno mentioned earlier about "you bet he'd go get his tire iron"? (Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?)

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by HeathandMichelle     (Sat Oct 14 2006 14:34:02 )   
   
Earl dying is small, compared to thinking his Dad might have done it. I'm in absolute awe that Ennis had it in him to have that 20 year gay relationship. He was ultimately the stongest character in the movie, overcoming his past and having his love affair with Jack.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 14 2006 15:20:44 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


“OK, well now you're just making fun of me."

No, I really didn’t mean to.


“I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.”

No. Please look again. I agreed with you that this is OK. It’s just how far to go with and whether it violates either the author’s intent or contradicts what we read (see, for film).


“Only, your side had better take responsibility for all those people who think Ennis is being silly for making such a big f'in deal about something he saw for five minutes 20 years ago. And frankly, if I thought that was absolutely all there was to it, I might just about agree with them.”

You’ve missed my point and you’ve misplaced me on a “side.” If you'll read what I wrote, I'm the one who placed greater importance on that scene than you did. I just didn't add other inferences that negate the power of that scene.


“Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?”

I really do think you missed my point.



Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Sat Oct 14 2006 15:58:40 )   
   
“OK, well now you're just making fun of me."

No, I really didn’t mean to.

OK. I honestly wasn't offended, either way. I took it as lighthearted.

“I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.”

No. Please look again. I agreed with you that this is OK. It’s just how far to go with and whether it violates either the author’s intent or contradicts what we read (see, for film).

OK. Then maybe we just extrapolate differently. Personally, I don't feel that my version violates the authors' intent or contradicts what I read/see. Apparently you understand the author's intent differently and read/see it a different way. How's that?

You’ve missed my point and you’ve misplaced me on a “side.” If you'll read what I wrote, I'm the one who placed greater importance on that scene than you did. I just didn't add other inferences that negate the power of that scene.

Sorry for missing your point. Sorry for misplacing you on a side. Meanwhile, you've missed my point; I don't deny the power of that scene. Not at all! I just think that some -- not all -- of its power comes from what it suggests, whereas you think its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself. Right? If not, sorry again.

“Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?”

I really do think you missed my point.

That's possible. If so, sorry yet again. But in the paragraph above, I was joking, in the spirit of your vision of a hypothetical nice Mr. Del Mar, which I assumed was kind of a joke. Sorry if my assumption was incorrect and the joke bothered you. Really. I'll have to start being more careful or using more smileys or something.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 14 2006 18:17:58 )   
   
“Sorry for missing your point. Sorry for misplacing you on a side. Meanwhile, you've missed my point; I don't deny the power of that scene. Not at all! I just think that some -- not all -- of its power comes from what it suggests, whereas you think its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself. Right? If not, sorry again.”

We’re both a coupla sorry cowpokes, huh?

Yes. For purposes of completely understanding Ennis as he’s been presented to us, then, yes, “its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself.”

The key word is "sufficiently." Nothing more, that is not there, is required for us to understand Ennis as much as we need to -- from the literary perspective.

That said, I agree that we can infer more from the character and others and other scenes that may give us a better understanding. No problem.

But, we then have to keep a few things in mind. While we may infer this or that, the implication may not be there. Different people can draw different inferences. Because different people/different inferences, different people will see the film completely differently. And if any of these contradict what we see on the screen or violate the integrity of the piece, then it may be questionable.

This is why I gave the example above of how someone could walk away thinking Ennis’ father was a swell guy, misunderstood by Ennis. (From the film. Not from the short story.) The example I gave above is not contradicted by the film itself and it is supported by the film itself and it gives greater insight into the character of Ennis. After all, Ennis’ problem never seems to be with his father. Ennis' problem seems to be with what his father made him see. Very fine distinction, sure. But, again, another twist. Jack’s problem was always with his father on a personal level. Not so for Ennis.


“But in the paragraph above, I was joking, in the spirit of your vision of a hypothetical nice Mr. Del Mar, which I assumed was kind of a joke. Sorry if my assumption was incorrect and the joke bothered you. Really. I'll have to start being more careful or using more smileys or something.”

You could go to that venerable old institution of higher learning, Will U, and learn more about smileys, imho.   (P.S., you brought it up.  )

Actually, my example was not a joke. I do not believe it. BUT, I do seriously mean that a person could come up with that interpretation and that person could have a solid foundation for that belief.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by oilgun     (Fri Oct 27 2006 18:03:01 )   
   
Well Clancypants, I reread the whole thread. more carefully this time, and it's a fascinating discussion if somewhat frustrating to read.
Frustrating, because in a way you are both right, but it's like you and latjoreme are in different dimensions, lol!

You may be technically right but Latjoreme is right in a more practical and holistic way. She factors in human experience & knowledge that exist outside the work itself. You seem to look at the film as if it existed in a vacuum, excluding history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in.

I also think it's interesting and perhaps contradictory that you disapprove of too much inference yet you approve of looking for symbolism which is much less logical.

Anyway, I agree with Latjoreme's comment about the Earl incident being shorthand for the extreme rural homophobia that Ennis grew up with. We as readers or viewers (not Ennis) needed something that horrible so we wouldn't question (at least most of us wouldn't) why Ennis was so repressed and incapable of self acceptance. - It just occurred to me that an equally scarring father/son incident in Jack's life was omitted from the film. I think the bizarre washroom episode when OMT urinated on his 4 year old son to teach him a lesson was never mentioned so as not to lessen the impact of the Earl scene.

Earl is a potent symbol of (rural) homophobia.

I hope you weren't expecting a long missive, I've just been really busy lately

"Now scoot!"-Ms. Perky

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 27 2006 20:35:34 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 27 2006 20:49:57
Hi oilgun –

Thanks for the comments. latjoreme and I have been going back and forth on this and we appreciate the input.


“…but it's like you and latjoreme are in different dimensions, lol!”

You’ll get no argument from me. latjoreme?   


“You seem to look at the film as if it existed in a vacuum,”

I can see how this would come across. The problem with bringing in “history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is two-fold (to me, for purposes of this discussion). First, and this was really my only quibble with latjoreme, is if these outside items either destroy or obscure what has been given to us by the author. Second, everyone is going to bring in all kinds of different things from their own “history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in,” since these are not objective observations; rather, they are subjective ways of each person making his or her own sense of “reality.” For example, while I don’t like the “dad was a nice guy theory,” it can be supported from what the movie gives us (not the short story). Here, we’d have two diametrically-opposed views of the characterization of Ennis, one of which could very possibly change the author’s intent.


“I also think it's interesting and perhaps contradictory that you disapprove of too much inference yet you approve of looking for symbolism which is much less logical.”

Here, one must look at under what circumstances I approve or disapprove of the use of inference, as I explained above. As for logic being applied to inference, imagery, and symbolism… in a sense, it’s the logic each person chooses to apply to each, if any, that gives it a logical dimension.

Also, one must remember that Ang Lee is a director known for extensive use of symbolism and imagery. Proulx is an author known for her strong use of imagery and not so strong use of symbolism.


“Anyway, I agree with Latjoreme's comment about the Earl incident being shorthand for the extreme rural homophobia that Ennis grew up with.”

Agreed as long as we don’t let it obscure the fact that…

“We as readers or viewers (not Ennis) needed something that horrible so we wouldn't question (at least most of us wouldn't) why Ennis was so repressed and incapable of self acceptance.”



“It just occurred to me that an equally scarring father/son incident in Jack's life was omitted from the film. I think the bizarre washroom episode when OMT urinated on his 4 year old son to teach him a lesson was never mentioned so as not to lessen the impact of the Earl scene.”

Agreed. I still haven’t figured out how this adds a lot to Jack’s character – on a personal level – except for a contrast to Ennis’, each with respect to fathers, influences, installations, etc.


“Earl is a potent symbol of (rural) homophobia.”

Amen Brother Ben!


“I hope you weren't expecting a long missive, I've just been really busy lately”

Long or short, I just like the direction you’re going.






Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by oilgun     (Sat Oct 28 2006 13:18:37 )   
   
I still haven’t figured out how this [OMT urinating on son] adds a lot to Jack’s character – on a personal level – except for a contrast to Ennis’, each with respect to fathers, influences, installations, etc.


I'm puzzled by that incident as well. That episode has a vaguely sexual subtext but I'm not sure what it's suppose to tell us about either characters. Could it be that Jack discovering the difference in his and his father's genitalia (cut/uncut) was in some way helpful for him to separate himself from his abusive parent resulting in him accepting more easily his own sexual "difference"? Anyway, I'm in over my head here, lol!

Thnak you both for letting me join in this pleasant discussion.

"Save the cheerleader, save the world"

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:09:53 )   
   
Hi oilgun –


“I'm puzzled by that incident as well. That episode has a vaguely sexual subtext but I'm not sure what it's suppose to tell us about either characters. Could it be that Jack discovering the difference in his and his father's genitalia (cut/uncut) was in some way helpful for him to separate himself from his abusive parent resulting in him accepting more easily his own sexual "difference"? Anyway, I'm in over my head here, lol!”


In the short story, this comes right after OMT told Ennis about “another one’s goin a come up here with him and build a place and help run the ranch, some ranch neighbor a his…” This comment caused Ennis to believe it had been the tire iron (“So now he knew it had been the tire iron”).

He stood up to go up to Jack’s room (described in terms of a “boy” rather than a “man”). This remembrance occurred after he walked away from OMT but before he got to the top of the stairs (with their own climbing rhythm, akin to climbing the mountain – AP used the imagery of climbing and “up” only and whenever she referred to Brokeback and to Lightning Flat).

So, as Ennis is climbing to Jack’s room – an allusion to Brokeback, an allusion to sexual identity freedom – he remembers this story. We hear it as Ennis recalls it as Jack told Ennis about it. It’s described as “the anatomical disconformity.” This immediately sets it up as a contrast between father and son. The contrast is continued: “I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they’d cut me different like you’d crop a ear or scorch a brand.” There is an implicit control or ownership element, tied to the penis, and instilled by a lesson carried out through the penis. This episode centers on “piss.” Piss is the cause and piss is the solution. This is something his father only did once. But it seared the lesson into Jack such that his belief after that was “No way to get it right with him after that.” Here, we see Jack distancing himself from his father. We do not see Ennis distance himself from his own father. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Earl death scene is linked to this scene not only because of the instilling of a belief or mindset into each child, but also by Ennis’ comment after he told the Earl death story to Jack in the motel room: “It scares the piss out a me.”

There are only two other examples of “piss” in the short story. Both are up on Brokeback. The first is when Jack is trying to get Ennis and Jack to “live together,” in one camp – the pup tent smells of cat piss; the other is when they are having their first true moment of connection as they sit by the fire and talk at length, getting to know each other, respecting each other’s opinions. It is right after this that Ennis felt he could paw the white out of the moon. AP is not really big on symbolism, but she is HUGE on imagery. Here she uses the imagery of “piss” and smell to showcase the connection that had been made between Jack and Ennis, a connection that is tied to the penis and that also distances the father from the son. When Ennis finally finds the shirts, he hopes “for the faintest smoke and mountain sage and salty sweet stink of Jack, but there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain…”

She also uses the imagery of water – “then he throws a towel at me and makes me mop up the floor, take my clothes off and warsh them in the bathtub, warsh out the towel” – just as she used this in the Alma Thanksgiving scene, most explicitly, and elsewhere such as the laundry where Ennis thought he had lost the shirt.

Again, this comes immediately after Ennis "got reason" to believe that Jack was killed for being gay. It's immediately after this that the anatomical disconformity, the imagery of the penis as a separator, comes into play as a connection between Jack and Ennis, bolstered by the other connections of the two described through the imagery of climbing Brokeback and what that represents to the two of them, appositionally to the father-son relationship.



“Thnak you both for letting me join in this pleasant discussion.”

My thanks to you. You restarted the discussion.





Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by oilgun     (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:32:05 )   
   
Here, we see Jack distancing himself from his father. We do not see Ennis distance himself from his own father.

Excellent analysis clancypants! It also explains why Jack speaks so derogatorily about his father while Ennis still speaks of his with a measure of respect.

))<>((


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:32:38 )   

Thank YOU for being here, oilgun!

The best I've come up with to explain the peeing episode in the book are 1) it undercuts the sentimentality of the bedroom scene. AP is, um, zealously unsentimental and uses tricks like this to keep sweet or sad scenes from getting too sappy. 2) Jack noticing the differences in their genitalia symbolizes his noticing the differences in their sexuality. "They'd cut me different like you'd scorch a brand" suggests this. And good point, oilgun, that Jack may have used it in a positive way; once he established that clear-cut (sorry) difference, he was freed of some pressure to conform.

In the book, I interpret that scene as suggesting that Jack's homosexuality was the source of tension between father and son: "No way to get it right with him after that." But in the movie, OMT is not portrayed as homophobic. An SOB, yes, but not a homophobe, as far as we can tell. I think the filmmakers did this on purpose, and had their reasons. So there's still another explanation for omitting the peeing scene in the movie; it would confuse that issue.

One reason for making OMT unhomophobic, BTW, is to create a parallel with Ennis' dad. We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer. We know OMT is a jerk, assume he's homophobic, then find out he's not.

UPDATE: CPDM, your post came in as I was writing this. Interesting analysis! Much more complex than mine, and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.

Hi CPDM,

But are you able to explain that even though this is the way the character was drawn for us, it must necessarily be inadequate?

When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented or how the character was drawn, you always make it sound as if we're going behind Annie Proulx's back and, against her permission, sneaking in some extra information that she hasn't authorized and wouldn't approve of. On the contrary, I think she is setting us free to do just that. If we're content with the Earl story as sufficient in itself to explain Ennis' childhood, fine. But I don't believe she would frown on the interpretation that the Earl scene is a shocking emblem of a larger bad situation. I believe she intends it.

To say Ennis got to be like he is because of one brief experience contradicts what I know about developmental psychology in real life. But OK, this is fiction. If that's the point a story wants to make, I can cut it some slack. But to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.

So how about the proposal that Mr. Del Mar's homophobia could be a product of Ennis' paranoia? I'm sorry, but that's not remotely arguable. Ennis observed his dad's behavior and attitude during the Earl incident. And yet somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?

IMO, his opinion that his dad could have done the job must be basing on something, and something that doesn't fly in the face of what he observed -- during the Earl incident certainly, and more than likely before and after as well.

Must all characters make sense to each and/or any of us?

I don't think we need to know, for example, why OMT is such a jerk. (We might need to know whether his treatment of Jack has to do with homophobia, but not much eyond that.) We don't need to know why Lureen was eager to marry Jack. But Ennis' homophobia and repression, Jack's relative comfort with his sexuality, Alma's willingness to stick around for a while without confronting Ennis about his sexuality -- those are all aspects of character that are central enough to the story that, yes, they do have to make some degree of sense.

And in this case, especially. We're presented with the Earl incident specifically as a way to explain Ennis' character. So yeah, in that case I think it has responsibility for explaining it. And I think it does! Because of what it implies as well as what it contains.

““History, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is exactly what we're supposed to bring to the table as readers/viewers.”

Why?

“We're not supposed to clear our minds of everything we know about societal homophobia or developmental psychology or prejudice or violence or anything else before reading/viewing.”

Why not?


Because without that basic information none of it would make any sense whatsoever. We're expected to understand, for example, why Ennis' dad -- or someone -- would have killed Earl. All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death. We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked. In fact, our realization that this sort of thing happens in real life is what lets the incident stand on its own to represent society's homophobia. Someone here once protested that we never see any evidence of society's homophobia -- it's all in Ennis' head. Wrong. But it's not illustrated at length, either; it's concentrated in the Earl incident. That scene is given responsibility for representing all of the societal homophobia in the story, and most of it in the movie.

Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.

You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive. They work together to form the whole, and the second could not exist without the first. To say they can't is like saying "Romeo and Juliet" is not a heterosexual love story, it's a play about the destructive effects of family feuds. Or "Titanic" is a movie about the destructive effects of icebergs. Both, and both. Love stories do not have to end happily. When Annie Proulx said that, I think she meant only that the term "gay love story" is simplistic. Maybe she feels that phrase implies sentiment (ugh!) and romance and a nice happy ending. Of course, it doesn't. Yes, it's about homophobia. But as far as I'm concerned, it's also a love story.

We were challenged and surprised. And we were constantly challenged and surprised as the story played out, driving the theme.

True!

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sun Oct 29 2006 23:17:59 )   
   
UPDATED Mon Oct 30 2006 01:18:13
Hi oilgun –

Thanks. You’re very nice.


Hi latjoreme –

Sorry I missed this post of yours. It deserves a well-thought out response. So what the heck am I doing here?   


“AP is, um, zealously unsentimental and uses tricks like this to keep sweet or sad scenes from getting too sappy.”

I’d agree with all of this, except I’d change the word “zealously” to … oh, never mind!


“One reason for making OMT unhomophobic, BTW, is to create a parallel with Ennis' dad. We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer. We know OMT is a jerk, assume he's homophobic, then find out he's not.”

Agreed. Except the word “possible” should be in there somewhere… 


(re: My analysis of "pee")

“…and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.”

You’re funnin’ with me, huh?


But are you able to explain that even though this is the way the character was drawn for us, it must necessarily be inadequate?

“When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented or how the character was drawn, you always make it sound as if we're going behind Annie Proulx's back and, against her permission, sneaking in some extra information that she hasn't authorized and wouldn't approve of.”

Well… I’d change the first few words to: “When you talk about drawing interpretations that contradict or defeat what the author…” Then I’d agree.


“On the contrary, I think she is setting us free to do just that.”

With the same restriction as above, I’d agree.


“If we're content with the Earl story as sufficient in itself to explain Ennis' childhood, fine. But I don't believe she would frown on the interpretation that the Earl scene is a shocking emblem of a larger bad situation. I believe she intends it.”

I don’t know if I agree with the last sentence, but I agree with the rest… because it’s within the above limitations.


“To say Ennis got to be like he is because of one brief experience contradicts what I know about developmental psychology in real life. But OK, this is fiction. If that's the point a story wants to make, I can cut it some slack. But to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”

This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.

Again, it should be noted, again, that I have not said that it is wrong to muse whether OMDM was homophobic or whether he spoke of it or whether he acted on it at other times. I have said that it detracts from the destructive significance of this one episode on Ennis. As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.


“So how about the proposal that Mr. Del Mar's homophobia could be a product of Ennis' paranoia? I'm sorry, but that's not remotely arguable. Ennis observed his dad's behavior and attitude during the Earl incident. And yet somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?”

Ummmm, the obvious answer is “Yes.” Ennis was a nine-year-old boy. If someone wants to make the argument as I’ve outlined above – and which I do not subscribe to, then they are on very solid ground. Both with regard to the evidence from the film and from “real life” psychology.


“IMO, his opinion that his dad could have done the job must be basing on something, and something that doesn't fly in the face of what he observed -- during the Earl incident certainly, and more than likely before and after as well.”

Sure. I can go with this. But if someone wants to say what I outlined above, I cannot disagree. The film and psychology support it.


Must all characters make sense to each and/or any of us?

“I don't think we need to know, for example, why OMT is such a jerk. (We might need to know whether his treatment of Jack has to do with homophobia, but not much eyond that.) We don't need to know why Lureen was eager to marry Jack. But Ennis' homophobia and repression, Jack's relative comfort with his sexuality, Alma's willingness to stick around for a while without confronting Ennis about his sexuality -- those are all aspects of character that are central enough to the story that, yes, they do have to make some degree of sense.”

I agree with all of this.


“And in this case, especially. We're presented with the Earl incident specifically as a way to explain Ennis' character. So yeah, in that case I think it has responsibility for explaining it. And I think it does! Because of what it implies as well as what it contains.”

Exactly. But the questions remain: What does it imply? Do we all agree? Could something else be implied? Are all of the various implications that different people come up with supported by the film? Are any any better or worse than any others?


“History, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is exactly what we're supposed to bring to the table as readers/viewers. Why? “We're not supposed to clear our minds of everything we know about societal homophobia or developmental psychology or prejudice or violence or anything else before reading/viewing.” Why not?

“Because without that basic information none of it would make any sense whatsoever. We're expected to understand, for example, why Ennis' dad -- or someone -- would have killed Earl.”

I disagree. We’re supposed to understand the effects that the Earl incident had on Ennis. If we never know what really happened to Earl or why or whether OMDM was involved or what his motivation was for showing this to Ennis (all of these being musings), we still know one thing: The effect it had on Ennis. Interestingly, we do not know the answers to any of those musings and yet we do know about the effects on Ennis, and yet, somehow, it all still makes sense to us… from our own experiences, from our own hearts. The same can be said about whether Lureen knew, whether Lureen was in on it, how Jack died, whether Randall was randy and ready…


“All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death.”

And that they were tough old birds… and that they were the joke of town… Hmmmm… interesting that an apparent dichotomy has been set up for us, huh?


“We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked.”

Sure. I can go with this. Is this everyone’s experience? Would everyone see it this way? If someone saw it differently based on his/her experiences in life, would that person be wrong?


“In fact, our realization that this sort of thing happens in real life is what lets the incident stand on its own to represent society's homophobia. Someone here once protested that we never see any evidence of society's homophobia -- it's all in Ennis' head. Wrong. But it's not illustrated at length, either; it's concentrated in the Earl incident. That scene is given responsibility for representing all of the societal homophobia in the story, and most of it in the movie.”
Absolutely.


Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.

“You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.”

But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme. The theme has been enunciated by AP herself. Those words are not mine. They are hers. In fact, if you’ll look at her quote (in her essay “Getting Movied”) you will notice that she herself did not link the two as I have. She is much more responsible for any mutual exclusivity.


“They work together to form the whole, and the second could not exist without the first.”

Yes. This is what I have always said.


“To say they can't is like saying "Romeo and Juliet" is not a heterosexual love story, it's a play about the destructive effects of family feuds. Or "Titanic" is a movie about the destructive effects of icebergs.”

And I have not said any of this.


“When Annie Proulx said that, I think she meant only that the term "gay love story" is simplistic.”

Now you shut up about Annie Proulx... this ain't (all) her fault. I have to disagree with this. The word “only,” I mean. Yes, I believe that she would agree that to call this a gay love story is simplistic. But by her own words and given their context, she is focused on the theme – almost exclusively. (As I have shown, I am not.) Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me. But I'm willing to cut her a break.


“Yes, it's about homophobia. But as far as I'm concerned, it's also a love story.”

And I have always agreed with this. It is a gay love story that is used to propel a specific theme. One problem with focusing only on the plot and not recognizing the theme (which I am not saying that you are doing here) is all of the posts we see here from young, gay men who were terribly disappointed in this film. They expected a pro-gay agenda film and they did not get it. Truly, they did not “get it.”







Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by toycoon      (Mon Oct 30 2006 13:26:10 )   
   
After all these years, I guess he finally mastered the technique!

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Mon Oct 30 2006 13:33:10 )   
   
Hi toycoon --

I had no idea what you were talking about until I read the subject line of your thread.

LOL! That's really good. He was pretty proficient, huh? Not such a total f-up after all.



Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by toycoon      (Mon Oct 30 2006 15:52:29 )   
   
Hello ClancyPants,
It's the only subtle reference to the abuse that Jack suffered as a child inflicted by his father.

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by latjoreme     (Mon Oct 30 2006 16:26:11 )   

UPDATED Mon Oct 30 2006 16:27:38
Hi CPDM,

“We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer."

Agreed. Except the word “possible” should be in there somewhere… []

Oops! You're right. Sorry.

re: My analysis of "pee")

“…and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.”

You’re funnin’ with me, huh?

No! Every now and then you get something right. 

“When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented ...”

Well… I’d change the first few words to: “When you talk about drawing interpretations that contradict or defeat what the author…” Then I’d agree.

How does my interpretation "contradict or defeat" what AP presented? On the contrary, it includes, in fact relies upon, what she presented. I simply read AP's words as implying more than you read in them.

"to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”

This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.

Sure, I agree with all this. So what's with the "hmmm ..."? In other words, I don't see how this contradicts what I said.

As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.

Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident? Yes, I agree, the scene highlights an incident that was significant and destructive for Ennis. I'd even go along "most horrific -- thus, the key -- incident." But IMO, there all kinds of additional reasons AP and AL might have limited anecdotes from Ennis' childhood to this one scene: It's dramatic and horrifying, for both Ennis and the viewers. It conveys a lot of meaning in a concise, efficient way. It's easy for the writer to describe and for the director to film. It's the kind of thing that would stick in a kid's mind, as well as in a reader's/viewer's. It wouldn't work, on paper or on film (at least not in the styles that either AP or AL uses elsewhere), for Ennis to spend the next three hours describing his horrible childhood. It is a powerful and effective way to encapsulate the horror of rural homophobia both within and beyond the Del Mar family. Look how the scene is filmed: you don't see the dad's head, he's taking two boys (not just one): it all suggests a symbolic rite of passage for boys in that society.

“somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?”

Ummmm, the obvious answer is “Yes.” Ennis was a nine-year-old boy. If someone wants to make the argument as I’ve outlined above – and which I do not subscribe to, then they are on very solid ground. Both with regard to the evidence from the film and from “real life” psychology.

Wait, you're saying "yes," the father is a cipher, or "yes," Ennis is psychotic, or what? In either case, to me the obvious answer is "no." I've outlined my reasons, but I don't understand yours, and you don't provide enough support to challenge them. I've never heard of anyone acting that way (that is, betraying no sign of homophobia except on the one occasion it might have driven the person to torture someone to death), in film or in real life. Sure, I suppose it's remotely possible -- never say never -- but I don't think AP or AL were trying to paint Mr. Del Mar as some bizarre crazed unhinged psychotic. Instead, he's a man who shares his culture's prejudices, albeit to an extreme degree.

What does it imply? Do we all agree? Could something else be implied? Are all of the various implications that different people come up with supported by the film? Are any any better or worse than any others?

What I just said. Obviously not. Maybe. Not necessarily. Probably.

I subscribe to the idea that works of fiction are open to more than one possible interpretation. So yes, different people could find different implications. IMO, no, they are not all equally valid. But it's not impossible that more than one could be valid.

We’re supposed to understand the effects that the Earl incident had on Ennis. If we never know what really happened to Earl or why or whether OMDM was involved or what his motivation was for showing this to Ennis (all of these being musings), we still know one thing: The effect it had on Ennis.

I agree.

“All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death.”

And that they were tough old birds… and that they were the joke of town… Hmmmm… interesting that an apparent dichotomy has been set up for us, huh?

OK, so ...?

“We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked.”

Sure. I can go with this. Is this everyone’s experience? Would everyone see it this way? If someone saw it differently based on his/her experiences in life, would that person be wrong?

I think yes, this much is within the experience of, and would be the likely interpretation of anybody who is casually familiar with Western American culture, history, current events and so on. If a hypothetical person saw it differently based on different experiences, I guess I would have to know more of the specifics before declaring that version right or wrong -- that is, clearly outside of the author's intentions.

If someone interpreted it as saying, for example, that Mr. Del Mar potentially killed Earl, a rancher, because Mr. Del Mar was a vegetarian who objected to raising animals for food, then I would boldly say they are wrong. But I'm guessing not many viewers saw it that way. That's where our basic cultural knowledge comes into play.

“You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.”

But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme.

But you did not say the gay love story is secondary to the theme of TDEORH. You said "Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story." Emphases mine. It's NOT one thing. It's another thing INSTEAD.

Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me.

In the context of that whole paragraph, she sounds to me like someone who is annoyed by clueless "urban critics" who romanticize and/or oversimplify what she was trying to do. (In the context of the whole essay, I'd say she sounds like she is annoyed by clueless urbanites in other circumstances, too.) In the sentence that follows the one you quoted, she mentions Matthew Shepard. Yes, I agree her story has a larger point to make, and that she wants to place the emphasis on that point. But let's face it, setting aside her quibble with the term "cowboy," it IS irrefutably a tale of two gay cowboys. She's just saying that's not all there is to it. Otherwise, the quote wouldn't make any sense at all.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Mon Oct 30 2006 18:33:46 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –

(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs?   )


(re: My analysis of "pee")

“No! Every now and then you get something right.”

Well, I think my moron chip finally short-circuited.


(re: (mis-)interpretations)

“How does my interpretation "contradict or defeat" what AP presented? On the contrary, it includes, in fact relies upon, what she presented. I simply read AP's words as implying more than you read in them.”

I was going back to the beginning of the thread when you said… well, YOU know! You’ve come a long way, baby. (Or is that "girlie-girl"?)   


"to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”

This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.

“Sure, I agree with all this. So what's with the "hmmm ..."? In other words, I don't see how this contradicts what I said.”

You said it would be stretching your tolerance for literary license “to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion?” I gave an example of just why this may have been “one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic – occasion.” We are not told that OMDM killed gays every Sunday right after church and his chicken dinner. We can believe it if we want to, but to not believe it is equally valid. The same is true about us not being told that OMDM murdered Earl. The same is true about whether OMDM never had another occasion in his life of seeing a man murdered for being gay. We were never told any of these things. So we can believe them or not – equally valid. So, for purposes of this argument, let’s go with the idea that OMDM has never before murdered a gay man, including Earl, and he has not had such an occasion before. NOW, he finds out a man was murdered for being gay and here’s his opportunity to show his boys what happens to gay men. So he does. This is the one and only time that we KNOW of him “express[ing] murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic – occasion.” And I just gave a reason wherein this is plausible. Let’s say OMDM went around the house all day long for Ennis’ first nine years complaining about those two gay old birds. That’s not “express[ing] murderous homophobia.” Here, he had an opportunity to show his boys something to instill a lesson and he took advantage of it. No stretch of literary license at all.


As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.

“Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident?”

Because I called them each up on the telephone and asked them just so we could settle this question. They each said I was right. I’d show you the call on my phone bill, but I think I lost it somewhere…

(Ha-ha?)

I still think that my wording makes the point that you also make:

“Yes, I agree, the scene highlights an incident that was significant and destructive for Ennis. I'd even go along "most horrific -- thus, the key -- incident."”


“But IMO, there all kinds of additional reasons AP and AL might have limited anecdotes from Ennis' childhood to this one scene: …”

Yep. I agree with everything you said here. And, none of what you said contradicts what I said.

(BTW – I really like this part: “Look how the scene is filmed: you don't see the dad's head, he's taking two boys (not just one): it all suggests a symbolic rite of passage for boys in that society.”)


“somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime,”

Yes.


“even in the absense of supporting evidence”

Yes. But there is supporting evidence: You have described the scene as horrific and murderous. This is exactly the kind of thing that only requires one such event to shock a person’s psyche for life. Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” He didn’t say he believed it. He said he didn’t know. He was shown a murdered corpse by his father with his father’s tight hand on his neck. He was nine years old. Young and impressionable. This is supporting evidence to explain why Ennis had thoughts or doubts in his mind about who killed Earl. Let’s draw this out. That night Ennis went to bed. All he could think of was what his dad showed him. Wouldn’t the thought somehow cross Ennis' mind “Gee, I wonder who did that to poor old Earl?” Seems pretty reasonable to me. If his next thought was “Gee, I wonder if daddy did it? I mean, he knew it happened, he took me to see it…” then I think that would be pretty reasonable too. A nine-year-old boy wondering like that… pretty reasonable. He’s probably still got monsters under the bed. But back to Ennis’ exact words. He didn’t say to Jack “Hell, he probably done the job.” He also did not say “Hell, I’m convinced, he done the job.” He said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” If you ask me, that gives even MORE support to the notion that OMDM didn’t go around acting like a murderous homophobe all the time. If he did act that way enough to compound little Ennis’ fears, wouldn’t Ennis have had a much more definite statement to make to Jack? At the time Ennis made that statement to Jack, Ennis had all the knowledge he was ever going to have of his father’s murderous homophobic ways. Yet, he said “for all I know.” Which is akin to “I dunno” and “maybe” and “who knows?”


“-- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence?”

What contradictory evidence?


“Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder,”

It’s not a question of whether OMDM was a blank slate, it’s a question of what Ennis formed in his little, impressionable mind.


“even while forcing his sons to view the body?”

Yep. Even then. The focus is not on OMDM. It’s on Ennis and his mental condition at the time and thereafter.


“Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic”

Yes.


“... or psychotic?”

Maybe. How do you define “psychotic” based on Ennis’ further feelings, actions, and words?


“I've outlined my reasons, but I don't understand yours, and you don't provide enough support to challenge them. I've never heard of anyone acting that way (that is, betraying no sign of homophobia except on the one occasion it might have driven the person to torture someone to death), in film or in real life.”

But you keep changing the scenario. And you’re mixing in a lot of assumptions. And you’re switching the focus. Are you talking about what is or isn’t believable in OMDM’s actions or are you talking about Ennis? Why do you always describe OMDM as murderously homophobic? What’s your evidence of this? The one reason I keep hearing from you is that you have never heard of this. This is where I am stymied. Talk to any psychologist. This is exactly how millions of people end up screwed up for life: one, isolated, horrific incident in childhood. Ennis was there. He done seen it with his own two eyes. You can read these stories practically everyday in newspapers and magzines… in true-crime books… in psychological journals… on TV talk shows… on news programs… in documentaries… One, isolated, horrific episode causing a person to be detached from his emotional self. I’m sorry, but the answer is undeniably “Yes.”


“If someone interpreted it as saying, for example, that Mr. Del Mar potentially killed Earl, a rancher, because Mr. Del Mar was a vegetarian who objected to raising animals for food, then I would boldly say they are wrong. But I'm guessing not many viewers saw it that way. That's where our basic cultural knowledge comes into play.”

Um, no. This has nothing to do with cultural knowledge. It has to do with what was shown in the film. We were given nothing that would connect Earl’s death to another man’s vegetarianism. We were given the implication that Earl was gay and the fact that he was murdered. From those two bits we can infer that Earl was killed for being gay. This does not require “cultural knowledge.” If we are given that a man has a book and then we see him get killed and then the killer walks away with the book, we can infer there’s something pretty damn special about that book to the killer. Then we start to wonder whether it’s a valuable book or whether it has incriminating evidence in it against the killer or whether it was a special book given to the killer by his dear departed mother and later stolen by the killed man, etc. No special cultural knowledge required. And the film will probably later show us what was so special about the book. Or, it could keep us guessing. It depends how good or bad the film is.


You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.

But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme.

“But you did not say the gay love story is secondary to the theme of TDEORH. You said "Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story." Emphases mine. It's NOT one thing. It's another thing INSTEAD.

No, read it again. I did not say “It’s not a gay love story; it is a story of the destructive effects of rural homophobia. Period. End of sentence. That’s all she wrote.” I said it has both elements. Your complaint was that I pitted them against each other as if they were mutually exclusive. I showed that I included both elements. You did not complain about me ordering them. The reason that you did not complain about this is because you saw me as making them mutually exclusive, thus obliterating any ordering of them. I added the ordering of them simply to reemphasize the fact that the theme is primary and the plot is secondary, to reemphasize the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, and to reemphasize the fact that they do co-exist. So, in a sense, your last two sentences are correct. "It's NOT one thing -- it's not justa gay love story." "It's another thing instead -- it's a gay love story plot advancing a theme of the destructive effects of rural homophobia."


Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me.

“In the context of that whole paragraph, she sounds to me like someone who is annoyed by clueless "urban critics" who romanticize and/or oversimplify what she was trying to do. (In the context of the whole essay, I'd say she sounds like she is annoyed by clueless urbanites in other circumstances, too.)”

Yes, I agree. This is why I also said that I cut her some slack.


“In the sentence that follows the one you quoted, she mentions Matthew Shepard. Yes, I agree her story has a larger point to make, and that she wants to place the emphasis on that point. But let's face it, setting aside her quibble with the term "cowboy," it IS irrefutably a tale of two gay cowboys. She's just saying that's not all there is to it. Otherwise, the quote wouldn't make any sense at all.”

Agreed. But, I quoted her to show you that her words were more exclusionary than my words.


Ding! End of Round 6. Round 7 coming up…

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by latjoreme     (Mon Oct 30 2006 22:01:03 )   
   
(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs? )

It's becoming a full-time job! 

You said it would be stretching your tolerance for literary license “to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion?” ... We are not told that OMDM killed gays every Sunday right after church and his chicken dinner.... Let’s say OMDM went around the house all day long for Ennis’ first nine years complaining about those two gay old birds. That’s not “express[ing] murderous homophobia.”

Oops, oops, oops. You're right. I misworded it. I should have said "it stretches my tolerance for literary license to think that a man would express homophobia one isolated occasion -- and then it's so intense as to be possibly murderous."

“Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident?”

... Yep. I agree with everything you said here. And, none of what you said contradicts what I said.

OK. Good. Because all those things I said were reasons why AP and AL would have used that one incident as an emblem of a larger problem.

(BTW – I really like this part: “Look how the scene is filmed: you don't see the dad's head, he's taking two boys (not just one): it all suggests a symbolic rite of passage for boys in that society.”)

Me too. I love that part. Wish I could take credit for it, but I stole it from M_____ at BetterMost. (I'd gladly name her, but I'm not sure whether she'd mind being named.)

Yes. But there is supporting evidence: You have described the scene as horrific and murderous. This is exactly the kind of thing that only requires one such event to shock a person’s psyche for life.

But see, that's one big place where we disagree.

Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” ... He was shown a murdered corpse by his father with his father’s tight hand on his neck. He was nine years old. Young and impressionable. This is supporting evidence to explain why Ennis had thoughts or doubts in his mind about who killed Earl. ... Wouldn’t the thought somehow cross Ennis' mind “Gee, I wonder who did that to poor old Earl?” Seems pretty reasonable to me. If his next thought was “Gee, I wonder if daddy did it? I mean, he knew it happened, he took me to see it…” then I think that would be pretty reasonable too."

Maybe. But even if it were to cross his mind at nine, as he is lying in his bed that night mulling over the shocking event, I don't think it would stay there for 14 more years without any further proof. Let's assume, for the moment, that OMDM was a cipher -- that he gave no clues one way or the other about how he felt toward the murder, except that he wanted his sons to see it. And elsewhere, we've been shown that Ennis respects OMDM. If OMDM never again betrayed any sign of homophobia -- and remember, Ennis would have been hyperalert to the faintest hint of it -- I find it impossible to believe that 23-year-old Ennis had not long since abandoned that idea. What boy wants his respected father to be a murderer, especially one he might have reason to fear himself? What kid clings to that unfounded suspicion about an otherwise respectable and seemingly just father, for 14 years, even after the guy has died tragically, in the absence of any other evidence? Or even, to stretch our imaginations to the very limit for the sake of argument, even if Ennis continued to harbor in his heart of hearts some tiny little spark of suspicion that his dad would be capable of such cruelty -- even then, would taciturn, repressed Ennis just casually and gratuitously toss it off to Jack like that, leaving his friend to suspect his presumably innocent, otherwise respectable and tragically deceased dad of a terrible crime? Sorry. No way.

He also did not say “Hell, I’m convinced, he done the job.” He said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” If you ask me, that gives even MORE support to the notion that OMDM didn’t go around acting like a murderous homophobe all the time. If he did act that way enough to compound little Ennis’ fears, wouldn’t Ennis have had a much more definite statement to make to Jack?

Frankly, I'm not sure that Ennis would have made a more definite statement to Jack if he'd seen a bloody crowbar in the back of the pickup. I think he had damn good reason, but was trying to be offhand and unsure out of respect for the memory of that fine old roper he thinks was right.

“Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder,”

It’s not a question of whether OMDM was a blank slate, it’s a question of what Ennis formed in his little, impressionable mind.

But little impressionable Ennis, probably already sensing he himself was gay, would have been scouring that slate, blank or otherwise, sifting through every single second of that afternoon for meaning and clues. His own life may depend on finding answers! Why did his father want him to see that? What was his father's tone when he told the boys he was taking them somewhere? What did his father say on the drive out and the ride home? Would the entire expedition have taken place in stony silence, or might his father have indicated why he thought it was important for the boys to have the experience? And Ennis' desperate examination of his father's attitudes would take place not only on that one day, but for days and years to come. It would become essential that he figure out what his father thought. Previously, when his father had "passed a remark" about Earl and Rich, or been present when they "was the joke of the town," how did he react? In years to come, how did his father behave when they ran into Rich in town? How did his father respond when the subject of homosexuality came up on other occasions, on TV or joking around with the guys?

Chances are, his father would have other opportunities to show his attitudes toward gays. It wouldn't take much to leave Ennis really scared, especially if what he saw gave him further reason to connect his father with Earl's murder.

“even while forcing his sons to view the body?”

Yep. Even then. The focus is not on OMDM. It’s on Ennis and his mental condition at the time and thereafter.

But Ennis' mental condition would sure as heck be focused on OMDM.

“... or psychotic?”

Maybe. How do you define “psychotic” based on Ennis’ further feelings, actions, and words?

Here's a typical definition randomly plucked from the web: "Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren't there)." I don't think these describe Ennis -- unless we're talking about an Ennis who would accuse a respected parent of murder with no evidence.

But you keep changing the scenario. And you’re mixing in a lot of assumptions. And you’re switching the focus.

Huh-uh, YOU are.

Are you talking about what is or isn’t believable in OMDM’s actions or are you talking about Ennis?

Both. If we take the Earl incident as an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia, then neither Del Mar's behavior fits my view of human psychology.

The one reason I keep hearing from you is that you have never heard of this. This is where I am stymied. Talk to any psychologist. This is exactly how millions of people end up screwed up for life: one, isolated, horrific incident in childhood. Ennis was there. He done seen it with his own two eyes. You can read these stories practically everyday in newspapers and magzines… in true-crime books… in psychological journals… on TV talk shows… on news programs… in documentaries… One, isolated, horrific episode causing a person to be detached from his emotional self. I’m sorry, but the answer is undeniably “Yes.”

I'm sorry, but don't read these stories, and I just don't believe this happens very often. I do believe people's personalities get permanently affected by long-term trauma (prolonged child abuse, extreme poverty, living in a war zone). I can even believe that their personalities can can be permanently affected by a single traumatic incident that intensely involved them (seeing a parent murdered, being sexually assaulted, surviving a natural disaster). And I certainly can believe that what happened to Ennis -- an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly -- could leave him seriously, permanently, shaken and disturbed and scared. But would it profoundly alter his character and personality and worldview? Nope, sorry, I don't think this happens everyday in newspapers and magazines and psychological journals and TV talk shows and documentaries. I've never seen it in any of those places, anyway. I believe people take the character and personality and worldview they've already got into such situations and deal with them accordingly.