Dear LC:
I think maybe there is a misunderstanding of my use of “queer” here. I wasn’t really referring to a sexual orientation thing. What I was referring to (and what I think the Essayist was referring to also, though it's been a long time since I read this!) was that queer quality of being odd, eccentric, - unconventional in all aspects. Not just queer in the typical usage that has become predominant in the recent past as being a synonym for homosexual or gay and referencing a persons sexual orientation. The Ennis/Jack, who is more gay? more butch? more fem? top/bottom? discussion is, I think, really separate from this. The fact that Ennis appears to be the more traditionally (stereotypically) dominate male in this pairing blurs this issue, but I'd say it is really beside the point in an analysis of his unconventional (queer) thinking.
Ennis's idea of a sweet life is so totally unconventional (i.e. queer) as to be almost unrecognizable, especially to Jack who thought, in structural terms anyway, of a much more traditional sweet life. That is, for Jack it was a couple living together, sharing a ranch, a house, and a bedroom. It's not at all clear that Ennis actually understood the radical nature of his own view; I'd have to say that he almost certainly didn't. But I am fascinated by this view of Ennis, in his extremely pragmatic thinking, trying to figure out a way to meld a free roaming, cowboy lifestyle with a long-term meaningful relationship with an individual man.
I see Ennis's thinking going sort of like this: “Two men can't live together, we'll be dead. Being a cowboy is all I know, and wanna’ know. So the only way to make this work is to see each other every now and then way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. That oughta' work.” Yes, that’ll work if you can get the other person to go along.
I feel that even today, with our (supposedly) more enlightened more modern eyes, it may still be difficult for many people to recognize or accept this type of long-distance, infrequent relationship has having much real meaning or significance. Maybe one reason there's so much crying at the end of the movie, many feel they never had the opportunity to have a "real" relationship. Some who do consider this as a meaningful relationship might possibly be thought odd and unusual – i.e. queer. Believe me, as you're aware, I have some experience. It would not matter if it is a man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman relationship. The relationship Ennis had in mind, or at least the only way he could imagine the relationship with Jack working, was this truly unconventional "queer" arrangement. IMHO.
Thanks for prompting me to rethink this idea yet again Andrew. Maybe if I get snowed in (alone) this winter I will try and dig it out and read a few more essays.
hmmm...yes, I see your distinction here, queer as in the original meaning of the word, not Queer.
I am not sure which side I stand on this issue of Ennis having queer idea of the sweet life. On the one hand, it is not at all uncommon for men to have a wife, and a mistress or two. In 'em earlier days, when gays had to remain in the closet, it was not uncommon for men to have their buddies and the wives turning the other way. What made Ennis stand out, in my opinion, was his deliberate or unconscious sabotage of his marriage to Alma. If there wasn't that kiss at the stairs...if he had taken on that job at the power plant...if he had brought home a fish or two. It seems Ennis just didn't care to put any effort into his marriage with Alma. This is in contrast to Jack, who did everything he needed, from being a father to Bobby, being the best combine salesman, and a good husband to Loreen in every way, except perhaps in bed.
I think Jack's idea of ranching together with Ennis, is ironically the queer one, given the traditional concept of husband and wife and family. Perhaps, being a queer idea of the sweet life as Queers make Jack's idea paradoxically less queer.
Does that make sense? Two negatives make a positive?
In the end, I think Ennis and Jack needed to strike out as originals and map out their relationship in their own way. There ain't no precedent or pattern to follow. Ennis was afraid to death of following in the footsteps of Earl and Rich. But times are always changing, so all Ennis needed to do was to follow the times to a better future, instead of following the fears of the past.
I cannot speak to the viability of long-term long distance relationships or a-few-times-a-year relationships since I have not any experience that matter. I suspect it is probably difficult because it will only work for two people with characteristics that are similar to Ennis, the introverted self-sufficient loner, which make their mutual attraction highly unlikely. Their passion stems from the differences between them. One of them is bound to need the other more than a few times a year. The question here, I believe, is the reason for the infrequent queer sweet life. If they were both married with children and they had to stay with their families for the sake of the children, I guess that's one thing. If it were just to placate the irrational homophobic fears planted by Ennis' father long ago, then I think Jack had a responsibility to help Ennis along in his emotional growth and evolution, to be freed from the shackles of fear. That's why Jack was singing king of the hill on his drive up from Texas after the divorce. He was seeing the potential for change. But when Ennis slammed the door on his face, his hope faded, and his whole personality changed - becoming more cynical and bitter.
So whose sweet life was more queer? I think they were both unique, both queer, but Jack's was certainly more stable and happy.
I suppose I see Ennis struggling to be rid of his queerness, but couldn't. And in a sense, I think it would have been better for him to embrace his own uniqueness, as he would be encouraged to do today, and as Jack undoubtedly did on Brokeback that summer, finding friendship where none was expected, respecting each other. Once he were to overcome his fears, then he would have the sweet life. Perhaps that was the point of riding a piece of stock for eight seconds, to help develop the courage needed to face 'em other intangible, more sinister fears with no names, no reins. 'em rodeo cowboys were NOT all f@#@-ups ... after all.
