# Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx [sp?]



## a.jordan (Mar 15, 2006)

The book was small and satisfying, not very sexually deviant with great imagery and an enjoyable plot.

A good read overall. 


I know that's not much of a book review but whatever. :albino:


----------



## Stewart (Mar 15, 2006)

Book? It's a seventeen page short story.


----------



## a.jordan (Mar 16, 2006)

Connor Wolf said:
			
		

> Book? It's a seventeen page short story.


 
The version I got was 75-100 pages. :-?


----------



## Stewart (Mar 16, 2006)

Large type?


----------



## K-P (Mar 16, 2006)

I saw the book at Barnes & Noble. I already read the short story, so I didn't bother to flip through it. Is the story expanded, or are there pictures or other things to make more pages?

But, the movie was based on a short story. The booklet came out after the movie became popular.


----------



## Avarice (Mar 17, 2006)

the movie was the only bit that seemed interesting, especially since a friend said "the anal scene was brilliant!! I loved it!!" but shes lesbian so i suppose she was just interested at the education of it.


----------



## strangedaze (Mar 17, 2006)

Without lube, no less.


----------



## K-P (Mar 17, 2006)

They were ok; dude blew a loogie on it.


----------



## desideratum (Mar 19, 2006)

I think that the spacing between the lines and size of the font were both change in order to be published in a "novella" format, despite it being a short story.

Regardless, I think it's quite a piece of work. One of the best short stories I've ever read. The staccato prose and simplicity of the dialogues are excellent. Nonchalant is the only word that comes to mind, I guess. I know it's not exactly fitting but it's what I thought of.

The film was also a sumptious adaptation, one snubbed at the Academy Awards.


----------



## pride.in.introspection (Mar 27, 2006)

Short and sweet.


----------



## The Hooded One (Mar 28, 2006)

The short story was horrible,the movie was horrible, everything about it was horrible. All the producers wanted to do was make a movie that would get tons of attention just because it was about gay love. Which in my opinion
they got. 
Sincerely - J.C


----------



## A_MacLaren (Mar 28, 2006)

Yeah, that's good. No, really, way to have a measured and rational opinion. I especially like the implication that I'm gay because I enjoyed it. Nice work.

Isn't the book a collection of her short stories? That's what I thought when I heard it had been republished, but I've never read it.


----------



## BeautifulDisaster (Jun 28, 2006)

I loved the movie.. maybe because I'm a huge Heath Ledger fan and Jake Gylenhall fan as well. The ending made me bawl my eyes out. I do want to read the short story (just to see what the differences are between the movie and the short story-that is, if there are any)- I guess I'll have to go to the library or find it on the internet.


----------



## Nettie (Jun 30, 2006)

a.jordan said:
			
		

> ... not very sexually deviant with great imagery and an enjoyable plot.



Interesting choice of words. Homosexual sex is deviant? I guess perhaps that's why people found the movie so shocking ... personally I thought it was just a nice love story (a little Bridges of Madison County) but the protagonist happened to be gay. 

Had they been in love with the horses, I guess I could better understand the choice of the word "deviant." ;-)


----------



## Avarice (Jul 3, 2006)

i think gay love stories are interesting but its just... impossible for their sex to be "romantic". There is NO way you can romantically smear on the KY....


----------



## SilverC (Jul 13, 2006)

Heterosexuals need lube too!  And it's still romantic, so :tongue:

I loved short story and I loved the movie, for different reasons.  The story was very simple, very to the point.  Desideratum, I think nonchalant is a great word to describe it.


----------



## Kane (Jul 13, 2006)

I never read the book, but the movie was pretty gay.


----------



## Spherical Time (Aug 13, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> I never read the book, but the movie was pretty gay.


I agree.  And by "gay" I mean beautifully produced and written, with careful attention to detail and emotion.

The acting was superb.

I have read the short story though, and I cried at the end of both.  Annie Proulx is a masterful writer.


----------



## Shawn (Aug 13, 2006)

Kane is such a hater. I haven't got the courage to go to check out where the fat, sixty year old, bigot works at the cash register.


----------



## strangedaze (Aug 14, 2006)

Avarice said:
			
		

> i think gay love stories are interesting but its just... impossible for their sex to be "romantic". There is NO way you can romantically smear on the KY....



ah, but if you recall, they did their tent-sex rough and tumble: LUBE-FREE!


----------

