Author Topic: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)  (Read 150744 times)

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,288
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #90 on: September 13, 2006, 11:44:57 am »
What I meant by "hadn't really changed" Jeff, was that Ennis still believed that he could only carry on his relationship with Jack "every once in a while" "way out in the middle of nowhere" and wouldn't leave his wife/daughters/miserable life for Jack. I believe that's the same situation in the story and the film. You are right in that story Ennis is more vocal, sympathetic, demonstrative than movie Ennis. What I really love about the story is that it portrays the two men together against a hostile world, whereas in the movie they are almost against each other some of the time.

"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #91 on: September 13, 2006, 01:49:26 pm »
What I meant by "hadn't really changed" Jeff, was that Ennis still believed that he could only carry on his relationship with Jack "every once in a while" "way out in the middle of nowhere" and wouldn't leave his wife/daughters/miserable life for Jack. I believe that's the same situation in the story and the film. You are right in that story Ennis is more vocal, sympathetic, demonstrative than movie Ennis. What I really love about the story is that it portrays the two men together against a hostile world, whereas in the movie they are almost against each other some of the time.



Thanks, Friend. Sorry if I was obtuse about your meaning. It was late and I was tired.

You all want to get back to talkin' about the film, that's fine. I'll leave a fresh pot of coffee on the stove (unless you're from Texas. ...) and the cherry cake on the kitchen table. You all help yourselves and have a high old time!  ;D  ;)
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #92 on: September 13, 2006, 02:01:51 pm »
No! I think it's pretty hard to keep the film from slipping in here and there. But I do want to talk about the story. My new goal is to try to understand it better. I think it has a lot to offer, but it's harder (for me, anyway) to get to it. So thank you to all of you here -- Mel, Lee, Jeff and others; even TJ? -- who have loved the story all along and can shed some light. Keep talkin!

Me:  ???    You guys:  8)


Scott6373

  • Guest
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #93 on: September 13, 2006, 02:36:14 pm »
Are we discussing the written story or the film?  From my pov, the film has far more layers than the story because of ths visual aspect.  The written story was fairly cut and dry.  It was what it was, and I don't think that AP had any intention of being purposfully ambiguous.  I think she was just being truthfull that there are no complete answers and sometimes you have to just accept that.  That's somthing that dawned on me fairly recently.

All the questions we like to percolate over:  would E&J have made it if J hadn't died, how did J really die, what did E mean by "I swear", we never meant to be answered, because they couldn't be without the gift of prophecy.

Just my opinion of course :)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #94 on: September 13, 2006, 03:08:42 pm »
From my pov, the film has far more layers than the story because of ths visual aspect.  The written story was fairly cut and dry.

That's what I used to think. But lately I've been coming to see that there's a lot more to it than I recognized at first.

Quote
  It was what it was, and I don't think that AP had any intention of being purposfully ambiguous.  I think she was just being truthfull that there are no complete answers and sometimes you have to just accept that.

I think that ambiguity is one of her ways of expressing that idea. I mean, an omniscient narrator could easily have made the ending and some of those other issues clear -- to Ennis, or even just to the reader -- if she had wanted to.


Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #95 on: September 13, 2006, 04:14:50 pm »
So, jumping on Katherine's mention of an omniscient narrator.

I can understand why AP didn't use a 100% omniscient narrator. It's interesting, though, that the narrator is maybe a bit more omniscient that I would expect, given all the stuff I've been saying about how the story is essentially from Ennis's POV. I mean, there are a number of times where we learn things that Ennis wouldn't have known at the time -- Jack's memory of the dozy embrace is the most obvious one to me, but there are also some offhand references to things that Ennis wouldn't have known about Jack ("riding more than bulls," for one), or about Alma (her silent thought that what Ennis likes to do doesn't make too many babies), or Aguirre ("ranch stiffs aren't ever any good"). And the descriptions of the natural world, too, are in very erudite language ("somber slabs of malachite") -- they're quite a contrast from the language in the dialogue.

So why does Annie Proulx do this? Does it keep us a bit more distant from the characters? Is the story from the POV of an older Ennis, and we're hearing what old-Ennis thought people were thinking? Does the sophisticated language of the descriptions capture how Ennis feels about the natural world, even if he wouldn't use those words?

Am I thinking too much about this?
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #96 on: September 13, 2006, 04:22:57 pm »
So, jumping on Katherine's mention of an omniscient narrator.

I can understand why AP didn't use a 100% omniscient narrator. It's interesting, though, that the narrator is maybe a bit more omniscient that I would expect, given all the stuff I've been saying about how the story is essentially from Ennis's POV. I mean, there are a number of times where we learn things that Ennis wouldn't have known at the time -- Jack's memory of the dozy embrace is the most obvious one to me, but there are also some offhand references to things that Ennis wouldn't have known about Jack ("riding more than bulls," for one), or about Alma (her silent thought that what Ennis likes to do doesn't make too many babies), or Aguirre ("ranch stiffs aren't ever any good"). And the descriptions of the natural world, too, are in very erudite language ("somber slabs of malachite") -- they're quite a contrast from the language in the dialogue.

So why does Annie Proulx do this? Does it keep us a bit more distant from the characters? Is the story from the POV of an older Ennis, and we're hearing what old-Ennis thought people were thinking? Does the sophisticated language of the descriptions capture how Ennis feels about the natural world, even if he wouldn't use those words?

Am I thinking too much about this?

I wouldn't venture to answer for Annie, why she does this. This wouldn't have passed muster with my high school composition teacher, who insisted on maintaining one point of view. However, the affect on me of her doing this is to make me feel more like the story is being told to me, orally, by a story-teller, rather than something I'm reading on paper.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #97 on: September 13, 2006, 05:28:06 pm »
So why does Annie Proulx do this? Does it keep us a bit more distant from the characters? Is the story from the POV of an older Ennis, and we're hearing what old-Ennis thought people were thinking? Does the sophisticated language of the descriptions capture how Ennis feels about the natural world, even if he wouldn't use those words?

Am I thinking too much about this?

No. I've done a lot of reading about and taken a lot of classes in fiction writing (you might not know it from my clueless reading of this story, but it's true). And writers are supposed to think through these things as closely as you have and make very conscious choices. From what I gather, the thinking on POV has changed a bit since Jeff was in high school (which I believe was the same time I was in high school -- that is, only a few years ago  ;D). Writers can do pretty much whatever they want now, as long as it works. And I think it does here. We're never unclear whose POV we're reading through. Going outside Ennis' head now and then probably does create a a bit of distance, but I think it helps balance the story. (I'll have to reread it before I can say anything more specific.)

To be brutally honest, what distances me from the characters isn't the erudite language -- phrases like "somber slabs of malachite" actually help me feel more connected. It's when the dialogue gets really colloquial or the narrator's voice goes very informal. To me, it sounds ... well, cartoonish in parts. It's too much. The "whip babies" is the most extreme example, but there are other milder ones. I was glad they toned that down for the movie -- there I have no problem at all with the dialect or grammar or anything. I love it, in fact. I really think it's one reason I immediately felt more empathy for the movie characters. (And one reason I couldn't finish The Shipping News, actually.)

Now, I hasten to add that it's undoubtedly just me: me being narrow-minded, me being unfamiliar with Western dialect, whatever. Go ahead and tell me that I'm narrow-minded and ignorant. I can take it.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #98 on: September 13, 2006, 06:51:21 pm »
I wouldn't say it's narrow-minded of you, Katherine. It doesn't distance me, but it took some getting accustomed to. As a former editor who had very old-fashioned training, it drove me crazy to see going as goin without an apostrophe in place of the final g.

Probably the only reason I'm so comfortable with it now is that I read the story every day while I was visiting my dad over last Christmas--how I survived till I got back home to Philadelphia and could see the movie again!
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,288
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: getting hit hard by offhand revelations (story discussion)
« Reply #99 on: September 13, 2006, 07:13:30 pm »
Have any of you read Cormac McCarthy's work? He not only has the colloquial spelling, syntax, etc. but also doesn't use any quote marks for his extensive dialogue. In contrast that makes AP easy goin'!!
"chewing gum and duct tape"