Prairie DOG. (?)

Great

He disses gay families and blended families in one article.  I'm offend for myself (blended family) and for my brother and his partner.

What a goober.

---

by: Zorya @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:06:14 PM CDT

why am I surprised?

When people show their jerkitude?  These opinions exist everywhere...I always seem to expect the best of people...and am constantly disappointed.

---

by: melissa @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:20:59 PM CDT

The good ole' days weren't that great

Fuck Garrison Keillor. I lamented not seeing the movie version of Prairie Home Companion when it was in theaters: Not because I like that god-awful series, but because I like Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep. Now, I'm glad I didn't waste my money.

How can anyone with a straight face write the following?:

[When I grew up] Monogamy put the parents in the background where they belong and we children were able to hold center stage. We didn't have to contend with troubled, angry parents demanding that life be richer and more rewarding for them. We blossomed and agonized and fussed over our outfits and learned how to go on a date and order pizza and do the twist and neck in the front seat of a car back before bucket seats when you could slide close together, and we started down the path toward begetting children while Mom and Dad stood like smiling, helpless mannequins in the background.

As we've all learned, this highly sanitizedLeave It to Beaver/Normal Rockwellesque portrait of America was just that: a construction. I mean, you've seen Far from Heaven; the 50s weren't that family friendly, clean, what have you.

He's a fucking nitwit. I agree: This is just as homophobic as the other slurs lately. I hope he gets called on it.

---

by: godsbedamned @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:24:04 PM CDT

Why are you glad you didn't waste your money

Keillor wasn't the Producer of PHC.  The lady he dumped was.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:44:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a dumbass

I didn't read the whole wiki entry.  Sorry for the mistake.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:50:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prarie Anti-Homo Companion

1. It's not like the Lake Wobegon area has a thriving gay community.

2. I think Keillor watches too much Will & Grace.  He assumes that Jack McFarland represents the whole gay community.

3. We should tell "Mrs. Garrison" Keillor that nuclear families are heading towards a meltdown.

---

by: Blood From Machines @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:42:08 PM CDT

Bizarre

I am not saying I buy it, or even that it's true, but some have floated the idea that this was badly-executed satire.  Reading it, I started to think maybe it was, towards the end where he ran through the ethnicity of the kids in a classroom...

Other thought: maybe it's homophobe bait.  Like that DJ who talked about tattooing and imprisoning Muslims on his radio show just to see if people would agree with him.

Not saying I buy either theory, but they're worth pondering until he stands by or retracts his comments.

---

by: torrentprime @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:42:53 PM CDT

Also

If it wasn't meant as satire or similar, why would Salon publish it?  I mean, they allow conservative voices and interviews sometimes, but publishing "hate" speech isn't really their cup of tea.

---

by: torrentprime @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:45:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Satire

I think it is satire.  Mixing homophobia with an intolerance for any deviation from the norm circa 1950, including deviations in which Garrison has indulged, cannot be anything but satire, even if it was not intended.  But I suspect it was.  With good satire, it is hard to tell and you have to wait to see. (Didn't we just go through this with the Bible Says video?)  But successful satire causes good conversation, if nothing else, and this piece seems to have done that.

---

by: tony @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 00:47:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This bothers me more than Coulter or Pace

From a right wing harpy and a stale cracker in uniform, I would expect this sort of shit.  Not from someone like Keilor.  His understanding of gay people comes right out of a movie like Boys in the Band.  I don't think we should blast him quite yet, but I wonder if it work to have a group of gay people--maybe those with children--to invite Keilor into their homes and see how gay and lesbian families really live.  He could very well come out of it and write an article revealing how his perspective changed. 

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:43:53 PM CDT

Keillor, I meant.

grumble, grumble

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:44:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Boys in the Band"

Yes!  Dated and limited.  News flash to Keillor:  We don't loathe ourselves any more.

Before I came out, my own mother's knowledge of gay people was basically limited to having seen "The Boys in the Band."  So I can seriously believe that that old, simplistic stuff continues to greatly inform Keillor's perspectives.  Vs. real (and contemporary) gay people.

---

by: KC @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:51:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Conflating non-monogamy with gay relationships

Two separate issues, connected only artificially because of anti-gay oppression, which has compelled people into heterosexual marriages when they are not heterosexual.

I must assume that Mr. Keillor is providing the model he describes to his own children.  Anything less would be hypocrisy.

About the flamboyant men with striped sofas who aren't accepted as couples -- um, what decade are you in, man?

I must conclude that Keillor just hasn't met very many openly gay people.  He seems way too smart to be saying stuff like that.

Lily Tomlin, at least, ought to give him a call.

---

by: KC @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:45:11 PM CDT

Shit.

You know, a large part of PHC's audience is the very people he's slamming.

I'm going to have to stop listening to his show now. Which really sucks because I frequently get to hear musical acts I never otherwise would have heard of, including Iris DeMent and, more recently, the Stairwell Sisters.

I really would have thought he'd know better.

Blogwhoring @ http://indigestible.nightwares.com/

---

by: Warren @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:46:27 PM CDT

The Twin Cities are quite liberal.

That's his turf.  And he's got to know many gay folks, being in entertainment, which is clearly queer, which leads me to hope that it's satire, although, if it is, it isn't well done.

And maybe it's confessional.  Maybe he's working through his betrayals and what they've wrought.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:51:59 PM CDT

Satire or not...

The Twin Cities are a hotbed of liberal action. (That sounds sort of sexy when you say it like that.) But as for Keillor, most of us around here have noticed that his writing has become more and more that of a crotchedy old man pining for the good ol' days.

As a non-Lutheran, non-Scandinavian bisexual Minnesotan I'm completely tired of Keillor's Lake Wobegon franchise as I feel he perpetuates stereotypes that are no longer true about my homestate. In this piece of writing, (bad) satire or not, it seems like he's going off on another of his rants about how things were done (right) in his day. He's living in another world.

---

by: Xana @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:00:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

classic homobigotry, with no mention of the females

but one can only assume that garrison would denounce their "butchness" and likewise offer them that little glimmer of hope that to be accepted by society, they only need to tone it down.  what a lie. 

i understand that on garrison's extremely overrated program, that he embraces subtlety over flash, humor of the dry variety and old-fashioned corny jokes, hee-haw style.  it's a false, constructed environment where everyone is a caricature.  so perhaps garrison has become so deranged and over-exposed that he can't separate his fantasy world from the one we actually live in, the one where gay men don't always have striped sofas or small dogs (and still no mention of physical surroundings of the gay females...is it because they live in the pornos on his television?  hmmm....). 

besides, most people i know prefer a gay man's flamboyance over garrison's snooze-inducing program any day of the week.  maybe he's jealous. 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:09:20 PM CDT

Friggin' A**hole

If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control.

The last time I heard something like that was when a bunch of us queers were leading groups of police academy trainees around the gay areas of Seattle for sensitivity training.  The members of my group kept saying how happy they were that they had drawn me as a tour guide, as I looked so "normal" compared to some of the guys leading the other groups around.

I heard that once too often, so I excused myself for a few minutes.  When I returned I was wearing a dress and had done up my mustached face in garish makeup.  Flamboyance my ass.  Funny thing was, by the end of the evening they had actually become comfortable with me again, my appearance notwithstanding.  Mission accomplished.

---

by: Paul In SF @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:10:48 PM CDT

Paul,

You rock so hard, you know that, right?

---

by: Darkrose @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hasn't Garrison heard of bears?

---

by: NancyP @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:27:02 PM CDT

Keillor is most likely being satirical

I'm going to leave almost the same comment I left over at Slog earlier today...

Keillor is most likely being satirical.  It's admittedly very difficult to tell from this piece, so difficult in fact that I wouldn't suspect satire at all had I not seen other pieces by him previously that were clearly intended to be satirical and were decidedly pro-gay. Here for example. Unless you think he genuinely believes "The rise in homosexuality coincided with global warming."

And I don't point that out because I have any particular interest in defending Garrison Keillor (I'm not a fan), but because I don't want anyone to feel hated on unnecessarily. 

And he seems to be a pretty decent ally in his other work.

Clearly his attempt at satire failed miserably in this case, because he's made a bunch of people very angry, and left others who liked his work before feeling betrayed.  That's more than just a real shame, and I'm not about to be his apologist.  It just hurts me to see folks I care about feeling like there's one more person who's let them down, or who hates them, when I don't think that's the case.

---

by: Shakes Sis @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:40:17 PM CDT

Yeah, I'm hoping Shakes is right...

...and am waiting to see if Keillor clarifies.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 18:03:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm hoping, too...

Because, while I think it's likely that he's being satirical based on other stuff, I don't know for sure.  I also hope he issues some sort of clarification.

And, you know, also apologizes for upsetting people, even if it wasn't his intent.

---

by: Shakes Sis @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 18:10:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm leaning toward satire, too

Based on his other writings for Salon, I would be very, very surprised if this turned out not to be satire. Either that, or he and Paul Harvey magically switched bodies.

Maybe homobigotry has become so over-the-top these days that it's moved beyond anyone's ability to satirize it.

---

by: Doug @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 00:00:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stating The Obvious

The topic of the essay was "Stating the obvious." It was not an essay on "marriage and families" or on the morality of being a flaming homo. He was joking about how government studies are commissioned to find out the obvious. Read the WHOLE THING, not just choice excerpts that, taken by themselves, will enrage. Then read it again (the whole thing) if you still don't "get it." If you really don't get it still, and think he's somehow intentionally insulting gay men or "serial monogomy," read it again. Then read the "letters" about the post. Confine those letters to those granted the "Editors Choice" red star and you will see that some people do indeed "get it."

Knowing who wrote the essay, I was never offended by it and I "got it" the first time I read it. Then I find all this flaming going on about it in multiple places. Oh my. It's Garrison Keillor, for god's sake! His satire about the cliches of modern marriage and family trends matches the satire of how great the "good old days" were before all of this stuff happened. Everybody knows the "good old days" were never really so good at all. And therein lies the key. Note that he celebrates the diversity of the immigrant children at the grade school "not far from where he grew up." It's about the children and what they make of the world. That's what matters, not the judgement of their (or our) parents' generation and all the great examples they set.

 

---

by: RandyH @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 14:43:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

if he stated the obvious

he was really ham handed at it.  And yes, my condescending friend, I did read the whole thing through. 

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:42:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As long as he's not Christian...

...let's give him the benefit of the doubt, eh?

---

by: ProseHack @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 16:32:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, Hack

Donahue called.  You need to update your talking points.

---

by: JoshWatermanMN @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 16:55:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They don't even hear themselves

I am in a speech/communication class with a focus on sexuality at SFSU.

Each class session is dominated by discussion between students usually related to the chapters in our text that deal with sexual identity and expression and the context for all in our marvelous culture.

1/3 of class is non-striaght.  It never fails to amaze me what remarks fall out of the mouths of some of the more vocal straight students.

One in particular spoke of the importance of marriage and the heterosexual dynamic it has always had.  It would make him sad to see that change.

Ten minutes later he told us - without irony or any acknowledgment - that his parents were divorced when he was 4.  The only role model of a stable monogamous relationship he had was his gay uncle who has had the same boyfriend for decades. 

Stupidity runs deep.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 17:46:39 PM CDT

I don't think Keillor is being satirical...

Just as his movie was coming out, I read an article written by him and he was against gay marriage.  I can't believe I used to listen to his radio show.  He is right up there with Orson Scott Card (a science fiction writer). 

---

by: kkaatz @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 18:28:52 PM CDT

Source, please...

...you cannot make statements like that without citing sources.

---

by: ProseHack @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 16:33:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's nice that the bigots are identifying themselves...

History will record their hate for all to see.  Keillor diminishes only himself and his place in history. 

---

by: Storm @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 20:12:16 PM CDT

hard to believe it's satire

I hear his poetry almanac every day on the radio, and the guy knows his way around words.  I hope you're right, Shakes, but I find it hard to believe that someone so well lettered as Keillor could so ineptly write satire.  It's what he does every week on PHC after all.  If he comes back saying it was indeed satire, man has he got some making up to do, big time.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 20:42:39 PM CDT

Send your post to the host!

Straight (ahem) from the Prairie Home website:

Send your post to the host!
Here's your chance to ask GK your most pressing questions about the writing life, the radio life, Lake Wobegon, Guy Noir, whatever you like. Also, feel free to send feedback about the show. Honest comments and criticism are always welcome!

Here's the link:
  http://www.publicrad...

Thinkin' it's time for a good ole blogswarm.....

---

by: inahandbasket @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 20:54:04 PM CDT

Just sent GK this letter

Mr. Keillor,

I read your incredibly homophobic, bigoted screed at Salon today.  I'm glad you revealed your true self.  I can never listen to your program again as you've ruined my image of you as a progressive person. Now you'll be known throughout the land by liberals and conservatives alike as a flaming hypocrite.

"Monogamy put the parents in the background where they belong and we children were able to hold center stage" - you have the chutzpah to write this when "Keillor is mildly notorious for having dumped his long-time lover and PHC producer Margaret Moos to marry Ulla. The marriage failed when Keillor had an affair with his Danish language teacher."

"Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors."

Tell us how you handle the holidays amongst your three marriages and permutations of extended family created by divorce, remarriage and (only God knows) affairs.

"And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show."

How many gay couples with children do you know?  Obviously none. Did you form your impression of gay men with children simply from the film "The Bird Cage?"  Do you have ANY IDEA how offensive your stereotyped musings are to your (former) legions of listeners who are themselves gay or simply not homophobic as you obviously are? 

If you haven't yet, you will soon hear from many more stunned listeners who will probably desert you.

---

by: inahandbasket @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 21:38:33 PM CDT

Why Is Anyone Surprised By This?

Garrison Keilor draws his inspiration from presenting a place directly out of the 50's, a time when life was simpler - which is comforting to the millions of people who feel that modern life has the world going to hell in a handbasket.

If this isn't satire (I was wrong about Donnie Davies so I'm too gunshy to make a decision) then it is hate speech and consequently GLAAD, HRC, PFLAG, NGLTF and any other of our so called leaders should be pounding on the doors of National PUBLIC Radio demanding that the show be pulled from the air. The show itself may be a privately held commodity but the airwaves of NPR are owned by the American people.

Finally, FUCK HIM. I'm still looking for my personal Prairie Home Long Time Companion.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 22:36:41 PM CDT

Whoa

I find myself in a distinct minority here, but I think there's a lot of over-reacting by people who haven't really understood Garrison Keillor's piece in Salon.

IMHO it's not hate speech, nor is it "satire," in the sense that many people use that term (i.e., he means the exact opposite of what he says).  Instead, its an expression of GK's usual style of comedy, which - obviously - some will like more than others. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I happen to be a longtime GK fan, so let me try to explain how I see his comedy work and how I think this piece fits into his work.  (I understand well enough that some of you will read no further, having made up your minds already.  Fair enough. It's still a free country, despite Alberto Gonzales et al.)

First, GK's is a comedy of nostalgia - of a mythical simpler, nicer time and place, which had some values that we have lost.  He knows perfectly well there have been many changes that were positive, but that's not his theme, and no one expects it of him.  Nor does he seriously want to go back to the 1950s, even the mythical 1950s in his mythical hometown.  He accepts the present for what it is; he enjoys it, from what I can tell.

But in his view (and mine, and that of many listeners/readers, I imagine) along with progress there were/are always losses as well, and he likes to remind us of them: certain kinds of trust, innocence, mutual respect that no longer feel possible today.  Obviously (to us, and doubtless to GK) they didn't exist everywhere, but where they did, they were nice to have.  Just being able to walk by yourself to school as a kid, without worrying about what might happen on the way, was something I enjoyed, as did my son after me.  No one even thought of needing metal-detectors in schools!  In some neighborhoods, people could leave their doors unlocked. &c.

We ought to be able to acknowledge this without being accused of validating the entire social order of the past or wishing to go back in time.  Why can't we do this?  (If any of you actually think that the world today is 100% better, in every possible way, from the world of a generation or two ago, you can sign off here.  You and I clearly have nothing to say to each other.)

Second, his humor is self-deprecating.  When he appears in one of his own stories, it is never as the "hero" in any classical sense.  He does not pretend to be more virtuous or charismatic or clever than the people he writes about.  He's part of the problem, if you will.  (Almost a Woody Allen figure, in most of WA's films.)  In that sense, charges that he's a "hypocrite" in this piece tend to miss the point.  I imagine he'd say (or at least think): "Of course my family is as screwed up as any other!  I made choices, and these had consequences, and we live with them today.  I'm not regretting and regressing, but I am acknowledging the consequences, not all of which are good."

(In a similar way, one might muse about the fact that most Americans are overweight today without having to be sylph-like or a hard-body oneself.  An essential element of comedy is being able to see our own absurdity!)

This piece, as I see it, tries to make a fairly simple point, doubtless oversimplified for purposes of humor, to wit: Children are (generally) better off when they are the center of [their own] attention, with parents being conveniently off in the background and ignored as much as possible.  (My phrasing; you can catch GK's better prose in the original article.)

  Children are resilient, and they can survive being caught up in the psychodrama of fraught adult relationships, but GK doesn't believe that's best for them, and I agree.  Maybe his critic don't, but I'd be interested in the evidence for the view that it's actually preferable for children to be surrounded by parental angst.

In this piece, the chief contributor to over-emphasis on adult concerns within the family is identified as "serial monogamy," i.e., divorce and remarriage.  This, as many have noted, is GK's own personal foible, so he's not speaking from a high moral plane here - but he's also not pretending to.  This is self-reflective, not a sermon.

  Divorce and remarriage may be necessary for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, but let's not suppose (he implies) that this is the ideal way to raise children.  (And if anyone thinks my own experience is at all germane, I note in passing that my wife [of 37 years now] was married before we met, so I am certainly no opponent of divorce!)

He then points out - on the basic comic principle of "piling on," as seen in every farce since the ancient Greeks - that the possibilities of gay marriage add even more levels of complexity to an already too-adult family scenario.  He does NOT say or even imply all gays are flamboyant drag queens.  Rather he suggests that we (= the American public) have come to accept this "stereotype" (and he uses just that word), which would not have been true a generation before.  But he also suggests that such flamboyance - like anything else that puts the parents at the center of family life, rather than the children - is not the ideal way to raise kids.

(A similar point might be made about [heterosexual] parents who dress garishly, or who run for public office, or take a starring role on TV, or get caught up in a notorious criminal case.  Life becomes about THEM, not the children.) 

I don't know if GK is homophobic, but I don't think this piece - absent other evidence - makes the case that he is.  But I can say that I myself have no difficulty in: (1) appreciating this piece for what it is; and (2) endorsing gay marriage.  In fact I think that the logic of this piece is that a simple, stable, monogamous gay marriage, with minimum melodrama, might be considered a very good place for children indeed, certainly better than the multiply-fragmented heterosexual families GK decries first. 

If you still don't like A Prairie Home Companion, well, that's your loss, IMHO.  But don't let a superficial reading of this piece be your reason for hating Garrison Keillor.

---

by: dr ngo @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:14:32 AM CDT

I read the entire piece several times, carefully, and it leaves a bad taste...

Perhaps it is some esoteric form of humor to convoluted for mere mortals to understand.  I don't know.  Only Mr. Keillor understands his motivations for the piece.  I think an explanation, from him, would be the only helpful thing. 

Sometimes I find a little word substitution to be helpful:

"The country has come to accept stereotypical black men -- brutish fellows with kinky hair who live in filthy apartments with a orange sofa and a large viscious dog and who worship thugy performers and go in for thugishness now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as parents and daddies, however, the thugishness may have to be brought under control."  -- Now it's not sounding so good, is it?

---

by: Storm @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:36:01 AM CDT

Word substitution

I agree that sometimes word substitution helps, but this does not strike me as being aptly done here.  Because what GK is (presumably) referring to is that Americans have "welcomed into their living rooms" certain stereotypical gays (which I would have thought incontestable).

So:  Which African-Americans have been similarly accepted?  Bill Cosby.  The Jeffersons.  Flip Wilson.  Sanford & Son.  &c.  Probably "stereotypical" in some sense, but NOT in the "thuggish," filthy sense that your paraphrase implies.  So this particular parallel just doesn't work for me.  You're changing the terms of the discourse too radically.

My guess is that GK would have thought the Huxtables (on The Cosby Show) were very good parents indeed.  No need to change anything.  Fred Sanford (Redd Foxx), on the other hand? . . . hmm, going to have to work on the analogy here.

---

by: dr ngo @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:05:17 AM CDT

welcomed into *their* livingrooms

even the construct assumes gays to be outside of American society.  Gays aren't Americans with livingrooms, they are the people we deign to allow on our furniture.

Think about it.

The whole piece is built on these kind of bigoted, exclusionary underpinnings.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 11:05:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Misunderstood metaphor?

Lurleen, I take your point, but I'm afraid it arises from my failing to fully identify the context of the phrase I was using.

  For at least half a century, thoughtful commentators on culture and the media have noted the fact that performers on television - as opposed to movies and the stage - actually appear in people's living rooms, not "out there" somewhere, and consequently need in some sense accepted as guests, not just admired at a distance as "stars" are.  This is why "likeability" (the Q-factor?) is so important, and why hard-edged shows in other media become softened for TV.  (Compare, e.g., the movie M*A*S*H with the TV show of the same name - my presumption is that the producers thought the American public couldn't stand "welcoming" the original Hawkeye [Donald Sutherland] on a weekly basis, so replaced him with the adorable Alan Alda.)  Check out also any local newscast to see presenters chosen for their ability to flirt with the camera - in a non-threatening way, of course.

If you accept this interpretation of TV as having at least some validity, then it is useful to ask "What kinds of images do Americans in general - white or black, gay or straight, whatever - find comfortable enough to welcome into their homes, week after week?"  It can be asked of images of California (Lucille Ball), or the South (Andy Griffith), or the urban north (Marlo Thomas) as well as to images of gays or African-Americans or Hispanics (Edward James Olmos?).

In trying to explicate Garrison Keillor's text (as best I understood it) I used this metaphor - he didn't - without explanation, and therein may lie the confusion.

I do not dispute for a moment that gays can, with reason, feel themselves marginalized and "externalized" by American society today, but I would hate to think that I inadvertently contributed to this feeling.  If I did, I apologize.

---

by: dr ngo @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 02:03:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I guess this is why...

...no leading Democratic contender for a major office will speak unequivocally in favor of marriage equality.  The 'ick' factor remains strong among the generation of Edwards, Clinton and Keillor.  The older the generation, the ickier we are to them.  The mainstream has come far enough to respect our right not to be fired simply for being gay - ENDA may become law in the next couple of years - but by supporting marriage equality that implies that the mainstream will fully integrate us into society.

Ain't gonna happen until the generation of my children (teenagers) are old enough to start making a difference by voting and running for office.  I have confidence in these kids. Clinton, Edwards and Keillor are old school.  Obama is on the cusp but I'm not holding my breath.  He smacks of more the slick politician than great statesman - a younger and far more pleasant sounding Billary Clinton figure.  He's not going to stick his neck out for our issues any more than the aforementioned. I'm already so over the 2008 campaign - they've all lost my support.  Wake me up in five years.  2012 will be much more interesting.

---

by: inahandbasket @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:30:19 AM CDT

Sorry, haters

I smell a strong strong whiff of "A Modest Proposal" here.

They pilloried JSwift for that one, too.

---

by: ProseHack @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 16:31:03 PM CDT

this is hardly a ringing endorsement

Read Keillors own words.

Geepers Garr, thanks.  For nothing.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 18:07:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have to agree with dr ngo

I'm disappointed that so many of my favorite blogs have missed GK's point.  Are they just unfamiliar with his style?  Was this piece just too subtle?  Can a joke still be appreciated if it has to be parsed and explained in this much detail? 

Even on first my first read of the piece I detected no hate or fear.  He is not condemning anyone.  He's not calling for 'right thinking people' to man the barricades.  He's wistful.  [Sigh]  I am too. 

For another take, Bilerico defends Keillor here. 

---

by: dug.inn @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 03:16:51 AM CDT