The short story

[MaineWriter]

I have a couple of questions about this...why do you suppose the collection in which Brokeback Mountain appears is called Close Range? Also, is there a discussion of the prologue anywhere? Thanks for any insights.

Brokebackjack posted that he saw Annie Proulx a few weeks ago. He asked her why the Prologue was not included in the New Yorker version of the story and she said it was a MISTAKE...it was not included by accident. When she received her copy of the magazine with the missing prologue, she almost had a stroke.

His comment is here:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2833.msg115760#msg115760

and a longer commentary about the short story and the movie can be found here:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2833.msg115579#msg115579

Leslie

[Front-Ranger]

Thanks very much, Leslie. Of course, I didn't see that information when Jack first posted it. I will ask him if he wouldn't mind duplicating it over here.

[louisev]

I'll be glad to offer a simple explanation, boiled down from Wikipedia:

"Canon" is what the author wrote.

Because the author wrote both the New Yorker Version, AND the Close Range version (Close range contains some other changes besides the prologue), both stories may be considered equally "canonical."  As Leslie's link points out, Annie Proulx was NOT happy about the New Yorker leaving off the prologue because it was very important to her, thematically.

In terms of the screenplay, there are also two screenplays.  I have them both if anyone wants copies.

Fan fiction is written by other authors using the original author's characters, setting, and often some of the plot.

That should clear up the terms for anyone - so by the definition of "canon", there would be both short story versions, as well as both screenplays, though the second screenplay would be more authoritative since that contained the actual shooting script from which the film was made.

[Front-Ranger]

I am reading from my dictionary, which is the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and the definition of canon is "a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council." There are several other definitions of this word, but none of them have anything to do with what you're writing.

This topic is about the short story, NOT the screenplay or about fanfiction. Please delete any such references or move them to your own forum.

[David]

FREEZE!    Time out!   

Jeff Wrangler harmlessly mentioned Fanfic at the end of his post and suggested readers interested in that go check out some of the choices in the other threads.   Nothing more.

I think we can keep this "On Topic"  (Annes short story" without getting heated about it.

[Ellemeno]

My reading copy stays on my bedside table.  And my souvenier copy goes with me to Brokie meetings for autograph purposes.   

Lynne, what a beautiful idea.  Makes me wish I had already done that when I met Brokies here in Seattle, and in Santa Monica and San Francisco.  But it's not too late for me to be ready for the next time I meet me some wonderful Brokies. 

[serious crayons]

Without intending to offend anyone -- either fanfic fans or nonfans -- I would like to ask that we keep discussions of fanfic to the fanfic forum. I'm sure nobody meant any harm. For many Brokies, fanfic is enjoyable. But for others, the existence of fanfic is highly controversial, even objectionable. We don't all feel the same way about this; to each his/her own. This difference of opinions poses no problem when fanfic discussions remain on the fanfic forum, where people can read them or not, as they choose.

But when the subject is broached in posts on a forum devoted to discussions of the story and film, there is no way that people who object to fanfic references can steer clear of them, while continuing to participate in the topics at hand. That has caused distress to more than one BetterMost member. I'd like to respect those sensitivities by avoiding those situations.

Thanks!

 

[Lynne]

Lynne, what a beautiful idea.  Makes me wish I had already done that when I met Brokies here in Seattle, and in Santa Monica and San Francisco.  But it's not too late for me to be ready for the next time I meet me some wonderful Brokies. 

Of course, Clarissa!  It's never too late.  Bring it to Virginia with you, please? 

If the prologue was written and added later, then my take on it is that it actually represents Annie's "sequel" to the body of the story, and that a significant amount of time has passed between the end of the story and the morning described in the prologue, possibly ten years or more. Why do I think that?

My opinion is based on Annie's physical description of Ennis as he gets out of bed that morning. Remember that Ennis and Jack were essentially the same age when they met in 1963, so they were also essentially the same age when Jack died (in 1983 in the story)--39 or 40-ish. While it's true that everyone ages differently and at different rates, it seems to me that the Ennis of the prologue is significantly older than the Ennis of the conclusion of the story because--forgive me for being graphic here--Annie describes his belly and pubic hair as having turned gray. That suggests to me that Ennis-in-the-prologue is in his late 40s at the youngest, if not older.

And he's still alone, with the shirts, in that ratty trailer which, apparently, doesn't even have a bathroom (more like a travel-trailer camper than a "house trailer").

Hey there, Jeff,

I believe that the prologue is in essence an epilogue, regardless of when Annie wrote it or added it, for exactly the reasons you mention.  It's apparent to me that Ennis has lived with the pain of being without Jack for quite some time.  He seems to have been dealing with the dreams coming to him for a length of time such that he has made peace with them, considering himself fortunate when they're good and he can use them to 'stoke the day.'(?)  It's as if he's had enough time to develop rituals, if that makes any sense.

Regarding the trailer's bathroom - I suspect it has plumbing, but it's either not functional (likely), or Ennis is so apathetic about the state of his life that p*ssing in the sink seems like the thing to do (equallly likely IMO).

I love talking about the story...wish I had my copy at work - need a 3rd!

Lynne

[Jeff Wrangler]

Brokebackjack posted that he saw Annie Proulx a few weeks ago. He asked her why the Prologue was not included in the New Yorker version of the story and she said it was a MISTAKE...it was not included by accident. When she received her copy of the magazine with the missing prologue, she almost had a stroke.

His comment is here:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2833.msg115760#msg115760

and a longer commentary about the short story and the movie can be found here:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2833.msg115579#msg115579

Leslie

Thanks for that, Leslie! You just increased my BBM knowlege base exponentially!

(I wish I could remember if 1997 was still within the Tina Brown regime at The New Yorker. In any case, standards have declined from the days of William Shawn's editorship.)

[MaineWriter]

Thanks for that, Leslie! You just increased my BBM knowlege base exponentially!

(I wish I could remember if 1997 was still within the Tina Brown regime at The New Yorker. In any case, standards have declined from the days of William Shawn's editorship.)

I was amazed to learn this tidbit of information. I have always assumed it was an editing decision to leave the prologue off. I couldn't believe a magazine of the stature of the the New Yorker would make this sort of egregious error.

No wonder Annie almost had a stroke!

L