TheSecretSmile:ReflectionsonCampintheEarly21stCenturySebastianSharp,LLB/BA(Honours)UWA.

ThisthesisispresentedforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophyofTheUniversityofWesternAustraliaSchoolofHumanities

EnglishandCulturalStudies

2018

2

ThesisDeclaration

I,SebastianSharp,certifythat:

Thisthesishasbeensubstantiallyaccomplishedduringenrolmentinthedegree.

Thisthesisdoesnotcontainmaterialwhichhasbeenacceptedfortheawardofanyotherdegreeordiplomainmyname,inanyuniversityorothertertiaryinstitution.

Nopartofthisworkwill,inthefuture,beusedinasubmissioninmyname,foranyotherdegreeordiplomainanyuniversityorothertertiaryinstitutionwithoutthepriorapprovalofTheUniversityofWesternAustraliaandwhereapplicable,anypartnerinstitutionresponsibleforthejoint-awardofthisdegree.

Thisthesisdoesnotcontainanymaterialpreviouslypublishedorwrittenbyanotherperson,exceptwhereduereferencehasbeenmadeinthetext.

Thework(s)arenotinanywayaviolationorinfringementofanycopyright,trademark,patent,orotherrightswhatsoeverofanyperson.

ThisthesisdoesnotcontainworkthatIhavepublished,norworkunderreviewforpublication.

Date:22/08/18

3

Abstract

Taking as its starting point a documentary interviewwith an aging drag queenwho

recounts sensational anecdotes from her past – and makes a number of spectacular

costumechangesintheprocess–thisthesisturnsontheparticularhistoricalmoment

thatcampnowfindsitselfin.Atermofobscureandmysteriousorigins,campisthought

largelytohaveexistedforthefirsthalfofthe20thcenturyasaclandestinehomosexual

lingo;asortofsecretcodeforanoppressedsubculture.Butin1964cameSusanSontag’s

ground-breakingessay “NotesonCamp”,whichheraldedaboomingandwiderpublic

interestintheword.Now,morethanahalfacenturyhaspassedsincethepublicationof

Sontag’siconicessay.Intheinterveningdecades,camphasamassedarichcatalogueof

infamouspersonalitiesandculturalproductions,and it canno longerbeconsidereda

novelorunexaminedterminourlexicon.

However, the interview raises several questions about the contemporary presence of

campandthecomplexrelationshipthatitassumeswithitspast.Whatdoesitmeanfora

campperformancetoreflectuponitsownhistory?Towhatextentdoesthecampwhich

was described by Sontag remain intact? Has camp managed to preserve any of its

subterranean qualities in the face of its broad disseminationwithin popular culture?

What are the challenges that accompany remembering and representing camp in the

21stcentury? What media are enlisted for these projects, and in what ways do they

facilitate, shape or limit the aesthetic rendering that camp receives? What are the

ideologicalandstylisticramificationsofcamp’sself-consciousness?Howdoesthisself-

examinationrespondtothevariouscontroversiesthatcamphasattractedovertheyears,

suchastheheateddebatesaboutitsgenderpoliticsandtheongoingconcernsaboutthe

brutalityofitshumour?Underlyingallthesequestionsisperhapsthemostdifficultone

ofall:whatiscamp,exactly?

In its contemplation of these issues, this thesis endeavours to make considered

suggestionsratherthanbindingprescriptions.Asitregistersthemultiplehistoricaland

theoreticaldiscoursesthatintersectwithcampculture,italsoattemptstonavigatethe

specific implications of individual camp performances. Hence, this critique extends

4

academic knowledge in a manner that resists the imposition of a single, formalised

framework. The thesis also takes an eclectic approach in its selection of case-studies,

whichcutsacrossadiverserangeofmedia.Primarysourcesthatarediscussedinclude

Craig Highberger’s documentary film Superstar in a Housedress(2004), the HBO

television serialTheComeback(2005-2014), JohnWaters’memoirRoleModels(2010),

JulieKlausner’spodcastHowWasYourWeek?(2011)andLeGateauChocolat’scabaret

actIHeartChocolat(2015).

5

TableofContents

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................................6Introduction:JackieisJustSpeedingAway............................................................................................7ChapterOne:GiveHerAnotherTake.....................................................................................................46ChapterTwo:DegenerateIdols................................................................................................................83ChapterThree:HerWickedTongue.....................................................................................................127Conclusion:YouCan’tCatchIt................................................................................................................165Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................182

6

AcknowledgementsI had the great privilege of working on this project under the supervision of TanyaDalziell. Thank you for the intelligence, kindness and grace with which you havementoredmeovertheyears.Iamgrateful for thegeneroussupportofmyfamily.Mywonderfulparentshavebeenparticularlyencouragingandreliable–thankyou!I would like to acknowledge the friends who have keptme in such fine company inbetweenthemanyhoursofsolitudethatwererequiredtowritethisthesis.ThankyoutoIsabelSmith,MichaelGeelhoed,CaitlinCassidy,TracyTan,MartinWills,BridgetCopson,James Hulmes, Stephaine Wong, Camila Veronica Becerra, Fran Haynes, GolnarNabizadeh,HeatherMacRae,NeilAldum,VishanAtchamah,PaulJohnson,MattSiddall,PollySmithandKameronAustinCollins.SpecialthankstoJackieHydeforkeepingmeonmytoes,andtoJamesHale forsharinghis impeccabletasteandhiseccentricsenseofhumour.Thank you to the past and present members of my faculty who have helped me ininnumerable ways, especially Chantal Bourgault du Coudray, Daniel Brown, TonyHughes-D’Aeth,KieranDolin,SteveChinnaandVanIkin.ThankyouaswelltotheGraduateResearchSchoolatUWA.ThisresearchwassupportedbyanAustralianGovernmentResearchTrainingProgram(RTP)ScholarshipandaUWATopUpScholarship.

7

Introduction:JackieisJustSpeedingAway

“I’ve lost an entire culture of values. An entire history, thatwas carefully passeddown, verbally, fromgeneration togeneration,hasbeen lost.Andwhen I try topass iton,people think I’mbeingannoying.Someday,peoplewillstandaroundatcocktailparties,asking,‘Doyourememberwhentherewereflamingfaggots? Do you know what a flaming faggot was? Do you remember when there were outrageous,courageous,screamingqueens?Doyouknowwhatascreamingqueenwas?’”–PennyArcade,OldQueen

AlexisDelLagoissittingonaleopardprintsofa.Sherestsherglassofwhitewineonthe

tabletoherleft,nexttothevasewiththepinkrosesandwhitecallalilies.Sheisatthe

centreofatableauthatispositivelybrimmingwithextravagantcoloursandobjetsd’art.

Behindher,thereisacabinetfilledwithfineornaments.Therearealsotwolampsthat

appeartobeantique,asculpture,andseveralmoreflowers.Alexisherselfisdrapedina

goldlaméeveninggown,complementedbyadramaticEgyptiannecklace.

Thelavishcompositionisunusualforthepurposesofaninterviewforadocumentary

film.Themiseenscèneforsuchanoccasionistypicallyonethatsuggestsrestraintand

seriousness.1Thegenrehasshowcasedcountlessprofessorsandexpertsspeakingtothe

camera in front of unimposing backdrops, or from behind their desks with nearby

bookshelvesthatdisplayimportant,scholarlytexts.

Withthatfamiliarformulainmind,thedecadenceofDelLago’spresentationmightstrike

viewersasincongruous.Yetthedeparturefromconventionbeginstomakemoresense

whenyou consider the subject of thedocumentary. CraigHighberger’sSuperstar inA

Housedress(2004)isafilmaboutthelegendaryartistJackieCurtis.Curtisperformeddrag

in infamous films and photographs produced byAndyWarhol during the 1960s. The

documentary, citing theatre critics of the era, labels the plays that Curtis wrote and

starredinasthe“quintessenceofcamp”.DelLago,whoisalsoadragqueen,wasoneof

Jackie’sclosestfriends.

Camp’spropensityforglamourandexaggerationlendsthevisualcharacteristicsofthe

interviewasenseofharmonybetweencontentandform.However,thecampofDelLago’s

interviewisnotsimplyamatterofaesthetics.Theentiremannerinwhichshegoesabout

1 SeeLouiseSpenceandViniciusNavarro,CraftingTruth:DocumentaryFormandMeaning(NewBrunswick,NewJersey,London:RutgersUniversityPress,2011)p.24.

8

rememberingCurtisisanexemplarycampperformance.Sheshareswildlyentertaining

storiesaboutherfriend’seccentricbehaviour.Shepraiseshistheatrework,bitchesabout

the critics who misunderstood it, and teases another actor for his reputation as a

shameless scene-stealer. (“HarveyFierstein, if you’rewatching this, youare!!!”)When

describing the seminalmoments of their friendship, she changes into the outrageous

outfitsthatshewaswearingattheeventsinquestion.

Costumechangesmaynotbeastandardfeatureofthedocumentaryinterview,butDel

Lago’s theatricality actually underscores and draws upon something essential to the

formatsheappearsin:allinterviewsindocumentariesinvolvedeliveringaperformance.

Scholars Louise Spence and Vinicius Navarro have highlighted the “artificial” and

“ritualized” aspects of such scenes by stressing the extent to which they are staged,

presented and formatted.2 Interviews normally involve carefully selected subjects,

questions,settingsandcamerashots.3Inturn,intervieweesaregivenanopportunityto

“fashiontheirpublicappearance”throughchoicesinspeech,behaviour,andthewaysin

which they style their bodies and immediate surroundings.4 The basic conceit of the

documentaryinterview–toperformasoneselfinamediatedcontext–isremarkablywell

suitedforthemachinationsofcamp,whichsooftentreattherawmaterialsoflifeasitems

oftheatre.

SuperstarinaHousedressisdemonstrativeofaparticularmomentthatcampnowfinds

itselfin.Atermofobscureandmysteriousorigins,campisthoughtlargelytohaveexisted

forthefirsthalfofthe20thcenturyasaclandestinehomosexuallingo,asecretcodefor

2SpenceandNavarro,p.229.3Ibid.4Ibid,p.231.

9

anoppressedsubculture.5In1964cameSusanSontag’sground-breakingessay“Noteson

Camp”,whichheralded abooming andwiderpublic interest in theword.6 Journalists

promptly identified specific artists such as Warhol and Curtis as camp’s leading

practitioners-adevelopmentthatSuperstarinaHousedressproudlydocuments.Now,

withroughlyhalfacenturyhavingpassedsinceSontag’sessay,campisnolongeranovel

orunexaminedterminourculturallexicon.TheinterviewwithDelLagooffersabundant

evidencethatSuperstarinaHousedress isaproductionofcamp.Butwearenotinthe

1960sanymore,andthe film isnotdispatchingcampasa fresh ideatoanuninitiated

audience.

The21stcenturyseesastageinwhichcamphasamassedacatalogueoftrailblazersfrom

thepost-Sontagera,anditstextsareoftenfreightedwithallusionsandtributestosuch

artists and the work that they accomplished. Indeed, some of the most pronounced

manifestationsoftheinterplaybetweenpastandpresentareexpressedinbiographical

documentarieslikeSuperstarinaHousedress,whichstrivetopreserveandmemorialize

camp,historicalfiguresfromacontemporaryvantagepoint.7

Ibeginbyraisingtheseissues–camp’srelationshipswithaparticularhistoricalperiod

andaparticularmedium–becausetheyformulatetheprincipalpointsofdiscussionthat

this thesis aims topursue.The interviewwithDelLago that Ihavedescribedmaybe

5SeeFabioCleto,Camp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader(AnnArbor:TheUniversityof Michigan Press, 1999) p. 9. Cleto explains that camp was first glossed in a dictionary of Victorianvernacular as “actions and gestures of exaggerated emphasis”, which are used “chiefly by persons ofexceptionalwantofcharacter”,SeeJ.ReddingWare,PassingEnglishoftheVictorianEra:ADictionaryofHeterodoxEnglish,SlangandPhrase(London:GeorgeRoutledge;NewYork:EDutton,1909)p.61.Pamela Robertson suggests that camp entered the “theatrical” lexicon with homosexual and lesbianconnotationsduringthe1920s.By1945,somemembersofthegeneralpublichadadoptedthetermwiththesamemeaning intact.SeeGuiltyPleasures:FeministCampfromMaeWest toMadonna (DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1996)p.3.AsMark Booth has explained, the clandestine nature of early camp has generated some amusing butapocryphalspeculationsontheetymologicaloriginsoftheterm:“ithasbeenlocatedinthepolicefilesofNewYorkCityasKAMP(KnownasMaleProstitute),thenameofhomosexualbrothelsintheAustralianoutbackofthenineteenthcentury,andasaslangwordusedbydandiestodescribetheirassignationswithsoldiersspendingthesummerundercanvasinLondon’sHydePark”.SeeCamp(London,MelbourneandNewYork:QuartetBooks,1983)p.30.6SusanSontag,“NotesonCamp.”inAgainstInterpretationandOtherEssays(NewYork:Picador,2001)pp.275-292.ForadiscussionofSontag’scontributiontothecampsensationofthe1960’s,seeCleto,pp.302-303.7OtherexamplesincludeBillWeberandDavidWeissman’sTheCockettes(2002),MartinScorsese’sPublicSpeaking(2010),JamesRasin’sBeautifulDarling(2010),andJeffreySchwarz’sIamDivine(2013).

10

thoroughly amusing and entertaining, but it also sets in motion a series of thought-

provokingquestionsthatdemandseriousscholarlyattention.

DelLago’sperformanceisclearlyboundupwithacampfromaparticularera.Towhat

degree is that camp still intact?Have its foundations altered, andhow?What are the

challenges that accompany remembering and representing camp in the 21st century?

Whatmediaareemployedinthatendeavour,andinwhatwaysdotheyfacilitate,shape

orlimittheaestheticrenderingthatcampreceives?Whatdoesitmeanforacamptextto

reflectuponcamp?Whatare the stylisticand ideological ramificationsof camp’s self-

consciousness?Canweobserve,forexample,effectiveinstancesofautocritique,inwhich

camp critically examines itself andperhaps even responds to various complaints that

havebeenlevelledatitovertheyears?Underlyingallofthesequestionsisafoundational

one:whatiscamp,exactly?

Althoughitlaysclaimtoapersonalitywhoapparentlyepitomizedcamp,Superstarina

Housedress does not actually attempt to submit a direct explanation of the word’s

meaning.IttellsusthattheatrecriticssawcampinCurtis’sproductions,butrefrainsfrom

detailingtheargumentstheyreliedupontosupportthatfinding.Theviewerisprivyto

videofootageoftheplaysthatsolicitedtheattentionofthecritics.Excerptsofwildsong

anddancenumbers,witty,crudesnippetsofdialogue,andshotsoffantasticalsetdesigns

andcostumesarescatteredthroughoutthefilm.Thesearchivalmaterialsmightevoke

someideasaboutwhatcamplookslike,buttheydosotentatively.Evenifonewereto

acceptthepremisethatthecriticswerecorrectintheirassessmentofCurtis’soeuvreas

aparagonofcamp,therepresentationalstrategiesofdocumentaryonlyallowalimited

insightintothatwork.Ascapturedbyvideo,theshotsofCurtis’sstagedshowshavea

grainyandflatqualitythatisnecessarilyatoddswiththedynamic,liveandephemeral

characteristicsoftheatre.Thefilmdoesnotendeavourtore-stagesuchwork;itmeansto

effectanimpressionofitusingtheavailablenarrativetools.Thus,theplaysonlyappear

in truncated clips. The viewer is afforded a vision of what might have constituted

“quintessential”camp,butitisaheavilymediatedandselectivevision,anditdoesnot

pretend to match the experience of having actually been present for the camp

performance.

11

The resulting impression is that Curtis had a rich association with camp, but the

relationshipissomethingthatcanonlybediscussedobliquely.NeitherCurtisnorcamp,

northeinteractionbetweenthem,canbeneatlycategorizedordefinitivelyrepresented.

Thefilm’ssustainedresistancetothistypeoffixeddeterminationisevidentfromitsvery

first shots.Superstar inaHousedress beginswith twoquotations, the firstofwhich is

sourcedfromCurtishimselfandreads:

Iamnotaboy,Notagirl,Iamnotgay,NotstraightI’mnotadragqueen,Notatranssexual,Iamjustme,Jackie.

Thesecond,fromAndyWarhol,declares,“JackieCurtisisnotadragqueen.Jackieisan

artist.Apioneerwithoutafrontier.”ItissignificantthatSuperstarinaHousedressstarts

offwiththissetofrepudiations.AsscholarCarlR.Plantingahasprovided,thefunctionof

exposition in documentary film is often to lay down the essential information that is

necessarytounderstandtheproceedingnarrative,anditcaneven“settheframeworkfor

theentirefilm”8.Thedocumentarysuggeststhatthemostimportantthingtoknowabout

Curtis isthatheridentitymaynotbecompletelyknowable,especiallynotbyenlisting

reductivetermsorrigidboundaries.

The construction of Curtis and camp as inherently elusive subjects has a specific

resonancewiththeformthatisreliedupontobuildthatconstruction.Academicwriting

ondocumentaryhasoftenhingedupontheepistemologicalquestionsthatthemedium

raises. John Grierson, who is credited as having first coined and defined the word

‘documentary’, described it as a “creative treatment of actuality”.9 Subsequent

scholarship has frequently contended that films of the genre are not to be taken as

unproblematicfactsortransparentrecordsofsocio-historicalevents.Theyarecrafted

texts,shapedbynarrativeconventionsandideologicalpositions.10Yet,asStellaBruzzi

8CarlR.Pantinga,RhetoricandRepresentationinNonfictionFilm(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997)pp.127-129.9SpenceandNavarro,p.2.10SeeSpenceandNavarro,p.2.SeealsoStellaBruzzi,NewDocumentary(2ndedition)(Hoboken:TaylorandFrancis,2013)pp.4-10.

12

hasargued,theperformativenatureofdocumentarydoesnotabolishtheform’svalidity;

it simplymeans thatwe should apprehend documentaries as artistic representations

ratherthanimmutablewindowsintoreality.11Thisideaisnotmerelyanextra-diegetic

theory for us to impose upon Superstar in a Housedress; the text actually enacts it

internally through its formal and thematic operations. As we have seen, the film is

suffusedwithself-consciousrecognitionsthatitcanonlyapproximateitssubjectmatter,

andneverre-createit.

Thedecision to introducemy thesis in thismanner,withone text’snegotiationof the

definitionalchallengeposedbycamp,isnotmadeonawhim.Likethedocumentary,my

ownmethodologicalapproachtocampaimstoissueconsideredsuggestionsinsteadof

binding prescriptions.Moreover,while registering the broad theoretical, cultural and

historicaldiscoursesthatinteractwithcamp,italsoattemptstonavigatethespecificity

of texts and individuals that fallwithin its (looselydemarcated) ambit.Superstar in a

HousedressidentifiesCurtisasanimportantcampaffiliateandrepresentative,butalsoas

somebody who disavowed categorization. I am interested in exploring rather than

resolving the inherent tension between these two positions, which seem to exist in

tandem.

Inordertocriticallyexaminecamp,onemustreckonwiththeparadoxproducedbythe

source material: camp’s inclination to both demand and evade recognition. If we

consignedthetermtotherealmoftheineffable,itwouldbefutiletowriteaboutcampat

all.Additionally,wewouldbeleftwithasortofawkwardvoidinourvernacular,with

texts such as Superstar in a Housedress deploying the word to a mystified and

uncomprehendingpublic.Ontheotherhand,framingcampwitharigiddefinitionseems

invariablytofallshortintrackingitsitinerantmovements.Sontagdeftlyrecognizedthis

predicament;insteadofproposingaprecisemeaningforcamp,shefamouslystructured

her essay as a series of non-linear “jottings”, so as to accommodate the “fugitive

sensibility”shewascontendingwith.12

Now,asofthe21stcentury,Sontag’scharacterizationofcampasanongoingprocesshas

beenvindicatedbytheacademicdebatesthatsurroundtheterm.Criticalinterestincamp

11Bruzzi,p.10.12Sontag,pp.276-277.

13

continuestoaccrue,butthescholarswhohaveventuredtomarkitoutwithintractable

boundarieshavenotgarneredunanimoussupport.Oneexample: in1994,MoeMeyer

namedhomosexualitythe“bindingreferentofcamp”13.Thisclaimwentontobedisputed

byseveralcritics,forinstance,CarylFlinn,whopointedoutthedangersofuniversalizing

queer identity and ignoring camp’s “non-gay” effects14, and Cleto, who preferred a

“queer”approachtocampthatwouldacknowledgebothitsintersectionswithgayculture

and its disposition to challenge any binary or essentialist thinking.15 The ontology of

campisthusfraughtwithcomplications,contradictionsandcontestations,activatedin

part by camp personae and products, and also the outside literature that seeks to

understandthem.Thisthesisdoesnotclaimasolutiontosuchdifficultiesbyapplyinga

givendefinitionorwithdrawingcamp fromcritical theoryonceand forall. Instead, it

takes an interest in the very process of grappling with camp; in the nuances and

ambiguitiesthataregeneratedbyeffortstorepresentandexplainit.

Thislineofinquiryisespeciallypertinenttotheselectionoftextsexaminedwithinthe

parametersofthisstudy.Thepurviewenactedbythisthesisisparticularlyattentiveto

contemporaryworksthataremeta-criticalintheirperformancesofcamp.Thesetextsdo

not invoke camp as an unquestioned category, or as a sort of ‘found object’ whose

qualities are readily exposed by the processes of representation. They reference and

situate themselves within the camp canon, but simultaneously draw attention to the

fissuresanduncertaintiesthatareinscribeduponitsconstruction.

Acceptingthatcampisnotaneutralorself-explanatoryterm,itmightbeexpedientto

mapoutsomereferencepointsinordertoshedlightonthespecificcourseofthisthesis.

Here,Ihaveitemizedthemforthesakeofclarity,butthisstructuringshouldnotbetaken

as an indication that they will operate as entirely discrete or independent bodies of

discussion, for these ideas canoften intertwine. They are introducedpurely to give a

precursorysenseofthecampthreadsofdiscoursethatwillbecontemplatedhereafter.

Thisisnotanexhaustivetabulationofthemyriaddebates,controversies,andanxieties

that circulate in and around camp. I submit these items as provocations for further

13MoeMeyer,ThePoliticsandPoeticsofCamp(London,NewYork:Routledge,1994)p.7.14CarylFlinn,“TheDeathsofCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReadered.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.435.15Cleto,pp1-36.

14

deliberation,forgingsomeconstructiveentrypointsintoacriticalterrainthatcontinues

toexpandandcanbeinterpretedfrommultiplepositions.

Marginality

Anotherinterview.ThistimethesubjectisLeeeBlackChilders,whooncemanagedthe

rockstarsDavidBowieandIggyPop,andwholivedwithJackieCurtisduringthe1960s.

Oncemore,aboldoutfithasbeenassembledforthecamera,althoughthisoneisalittle

disheveled. Childers is wearing a bright yellow sweater and purple pants that are

blotchedwithsmall,whitestains.Theambienceof thesetting likewise feelsdistinctly

unpolished.Childersisrecliningagainstsomecushionshehaswedgedbetweenhisback

andapaintingonthewall,andheissittingamongstavarietyoffabricsandlooseobjects,

madedifficulttodiscernbythedimlighting.Thereappearstobeaclothesrackhanging

overthetoprightcorneroftheframe.

OneoftheanecdotesChilderscontributesfindshimreturninghometoCurtisafteravery

longeveninginanightclubwithJudyGarlandandadragqueennamedMissCrises.When

Childersfinallyarrivedattheapartmentat5am,Curtiswasstillawakeandclearlyunder

theinfluenceofamphetamines.Itwasasighttobehold-watchingCurtis“gocrazy”inan

“oldlady”dresswithtornblackstockings,throwingglittereverywhere,teasinghishair.

ThestoryclimaxeswhenCurtisroarswithmaniacal laughterbeforeannouncing,“One

day…everyonewilllooklikeme!”Immediately,aphotographofDavidBowieperforming

inhisfamousglam-rockregaliaflashesonscreen,visualtestimonythatthedrug-affected

prophecymighthaveactuallycometrue,atleasttosomedegree.

Thesequenceisabriefbutevocativeanimationofanenduringthemeincampdiscourse:

the oscillation between marginalization and recognition. Curtis is imagined as a

peripheralcharacter;awakewhenmostareasleep,highonanillegalsubstance,dressed

incongruouslyevenforadragqueen(hispreferenceforrippedgarmentsandhisrefusal

toconcealsignsofmasculinitywere,thefilmelsewhereasserts,unheardofatthetime).

Yetthenarrativealsorecordstheloomingpresenceofcelebrity.Garland’sstarimageis

droppedinforatouchofglamour,andthereisanintimationthatelementsofCurtis’s

15

uniquepersonawentontobeappropriatedbymorefamousandinfluentialartists,and

were thus disseminated into dominant culture. The representation of camp as ‘other’

runsalongsideasuspicionthattheverypracticeofrepresentingcampmighttransform

itintosomethingbanal.

Theseconcernshavebeenaroundforsometime;intheintroductoryremarksofSontag’s

essay, she forecasts that camp would be significantly altered as a result of her own

documentation:

…Campisesoteric–somethingofaprivatecode,abadgeofidentityeven,amongsmallurbancliques.Apartfromalazytwo-pagesketchinChristopherIsherwood’snovelTheWorld in theEvening (1954), ithashardlybroken intoprint.To talkaboutCampisthereforetobetrayit.16

As played out in the film, however, camp’s transportation into themainstream is not

necessarilyasimpleorstraightforwardfaitaccompli.Thoughitappreciatesthe‘cross-

over’effectof figures likeBowie, thenotionofmarginalitystill retainssomecurrency

withinthedocumentary.Ifoneconsidersthegrungyproductionvaluesoftheinterview

itself,ortheramshacklesettinginwhichChildersisstationed,itbecomesincreasingly

difficulttodisentanglecamp’svariousprojectionsofgloryandgrit.

Otherinterviewsfollowasimilaraestheticdesigntotheloose,informalconfigurationin

whichweencounterChilders.TheperformanceartistPennyArcadegivesherinterview

from bed, a pose that almost seems ceremonious after we see the trangendered

entertainer Rose Royalle conducting hers inside the bathroom of a noisy Manhattan

nightclub.Theseshotsestablish the intimategazeof thecamera;peeking intoprivate

spaces,usheringviewersintothemessinessof‘actual’locations,asopposedtothesterile

visageofstudiosettings.Thecumulativeimpactofthesevisuallandscapesismuchmore

than decorative. The scrappy presentation of these interview subjects is a physical

expression of one of the film’s core undertakings: to sketch out an image of an

‘underground’ camp landscape, to vivify a world that has been overlooked or

misunderstood.Thefilmrestsupontheideathatcamp’sstoryhasnotbeenfullytold,that

16Sontag,p.275.ItisnoteworthythatseveralofSontag’scriticsdoindeedcharacterizeherdiscussionofcampasjustthat-abetrayal.Forinstance,ChuckKleinhansidentifiesabroadeninginthepublicconceptionofcampthathedirectlyattributestoappropriationsenabledbythepublicationofheressay.See“TakingouttheTrash:CampandthePoliticsofParody.”inThePoliticsandPoeticsofCamp,ed.MoeMeyer(NewYork:Routledge,1997)p.187.MeyeralsochargesthatSontag’svisionofcampglossesoveritsassociationwithhomosexualityinordertomakeit“safeforpublicconsumption”.Seep.7.

16

the process of public disclosure that Sontag initiated remains a work in progress.

Superstar inaHousedressresolves to stakea claim in that enterprise, evenas it casts

doubtupontheassumptionthatsuchaprojectcouldeveractuallycometoasatisfying

conclusion.

Thisdialecticalstagingofidentificationandobscurityindeedemergesasoneofthefilm’s

definingfeatures.It’saninternaldebatethatpersistswithasortofstubbornresilience,

flaringuptimeandagaininthedocumentary’scontentandformalike.Take,forexample,

theuseofvoice-overnarration.Earlyinthefilm,thisdevicecontextualizesCurtiswithin

certainmovements of cultural dissidence, positioninghimat “thenexus of the sexual

revolution,gay liberationandfeminism”. Italsonameshimapioneerof fringeartistic

practices such as underground film and experimental theatre, and places him as an

inhabitantoftheLowerEastSideofManhattan,aneighborhoodthathaslongfiguredin

thepublicimaginationasahubofbohemianlifeduringthe20thcentury.

Ironically, the voice conjuring these images of marginality springs from a firmly

established household name: actress and comedian Lily Tomlin. As an interviewee,

TomlindescribesherassociationwithCurtisas“peripheral”,claimingtobeproudeven

if she was only “kind of” a member of the society he fraternized. This liminal self-

identificationisechoedinherotherroleasnarrator.Shemaybelimitedasawitness,but

sheisadeptasaconduitbetweenworlds.Herinstantlyrecognizablevoiceaffordsthe

unschooledvieweratokenoffamiliarity.Sheisaknownguidetowhatmightbeunknown

territory.

Andyet,ifwethinkofSuperstarinaHousedressasatypeofexpedition,itisacuriousand

contradictoryone.Forallthatitcontrivestounveil,italsoleaveshulkingmonumentsof

knowledge shrouded inmystery.Manyof its interviewsassumea corrective rhetoric.

TheytellusthatthemodicumsofCurtis’sbiographythathaveencroachedintogeneral

knowledgeareoftenlessthanaccurate.Forexample,CurtisisforeverenshrinedinLou

Reed’s1972smashhit“WalkontheWildSide”astheprotagonistofthesong’sfinalverse:

JackieisjustspeedingawayThoughtshewasJamesDeanforadayThenIguessshehadtocrashValiumwouldhavehelpedthatbashShesaid,heybabe,takeawalkonthewildside

17

NobodyappearinginthedocumentaryrefutesCurtis’svoraciousappetitefordrugs,but

TaylorMeadisquicktopointoutthathisobsessionwithJamesDeanwasnotasfleeting

asReedmadeitouttobe.17Astonishingly,Curtisispurportedtohaveimpersonatedthe

Hollywoodstarforalmostanentireyearofhislife,non-stop-itselfanotherinstanceof

camp’sjuxtapositionofobscurityandfame:Curtis’scultidentityliterallyadornedinthe

imageofamajorcelebrity.18

Corrections of this kind indicate that the most widely distributed representations of

Curtishavenevermanagedtodohimjustice,somehowalwaysfailingtocatchthefull

forceofhischaracter,“speedingaway”,asitwere.Thisfrustrationfindsitsmosteffusive

expression in the film’s repeated charge that Curtis is deserving of more cultural

recognitionandacclaim thanshe receives. 19Theargument recalls the findingsof the

scholarMatthewTinkcom,whonotedmassculture’stendencytoco-optthe ideasand

styleofWarhol’s‘Factory’whileconcurrentlydenyingitsactualmembersanysubstantial

prestige or power. (The irony that camp itself appropriates the iconography ofmass

culture isnot lostonTinkcom).20At timesCurtisandWarholareportrayedaswilling

participants in the silencing of the former, aswhen author Laura de Coppet recalls a

scenario inwhich she requested a blurb fromWarhol for the book jacket of one her

publications. They all came to the agreement that Curtis would concoct a witty

endorsementthatwouldthengoontobeattributedtoWarhol–onemorefalseentryin

camp’spublicrecordthatSuperstarinaHousedressstrivestoexposeandamend.

However, the film’s compulsion to produce newknowledge is counterbalanced by its

coinciding impulse to foreground ambiguity. Its diverse collection of interviews can

sometimes generate disparate points of view. For instance, there are subjects who

17Infact,Curtis’sthralldomtodrugsandalcoholisdepictedasthetragicflawthatprecipitatedhisdownfall.PennyArcadedisclosesthatshespentverylongstretchesoftimebattlingtokeephimsober.Despitethesevaliantefforts,Curtiswouldonlycontinuetostrugglewithsubstanceabuse.“Icountedhimamongmybestfriends,”saysLauradeCoppet,“althoughIdidknowthat,likewithalldrugaddicts,thedrugcamefirst”.18Thistalentforcelebrityimpersonationeventuallytakesonatragicinflectionwhenitisrevealedthat,attheheightofhisdrugabuse,CurtiscametoharborthesincerelyhelddelusionthathisbodywasinhabitedbythespiritofGaryCooper.19Inhisinterviewsegment,MichaelMustoisadamantinhisassertionthatJackie“deservedastarontheWalkofFamebecausehewasastar,evenifhewaslivingoutofashoebox,ekingoutaliving,doingstageworkoff-offBroadway.Still,hewasthebiggestHollywoodstarinhismindandmymind.”20MatthewTinkcom,“Warhol’sCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.353.

18

suggestthatwhenCurtisworedrag,hecouldpassasa‘real’woman,evena‘beautiful’

one at that. Othersmaintain that his rejection of that objective, his unwillingness or

inabilitytoembodyacoherentfemininity,ispreciselywhatmadehimsuchatrailblazing

characterindraghistory.

The documentary closes with a montage that synchronizes assorted photographs of

CurtiswithhisvocalperformanceofPaulSerrato’sjazzballad“WhoAreYou?”Thesong’s

narratorisinpursuitofanenigmaticlover,expressingadazedwonderatherpowerful

but inexplicable allure (“Why am I attracted to you? /Attracted to who? /Tell me!”)

Camp’s self-reflexivity takes an unexpected path by reconfiguring Curtis’s delivery of

these lines as if they applied to her own subjectivity, the lyrics re-imagined as

commentaryonthenebulousexerciseofherbiography.Themoving-cameraviewsofthe

imagesofCurtiscanonlyconveymotionasafilmicillusion,forthesubjectinthepictures

ultimately remains static and unresponsive. Superstar in a Housedress’s final gesture

keepsCurtispoisedalongtheperipheriesofrepresentation,hispresencealwaystinged

withanelementofabsence.

SuperstarinaHousedressbothreflectsandperformsanambivalenceregardingcamp’s

visibility,andtheideaofdissimulationcontinuestoreverberateasapartofthestorythat

camptellsaboutitself.Theideologicalstatementscoursingthroughthenarrativespine

ofthatstoryaremultipleandcontradictory.Thespotlightproducedbyrepresentationis

alternately hungered for, critiqued, and shunned. These fluctuations might call into

questionsomepreconceivedunderstandingsofcamp’sconditioninthe21stcentury.At

this juncture in history, there is often a presumption that we are living in an era of

unprecedented access. There is a notion that it is now possible for images, people,

materialsandideastotravelonaglobalscaleandatrapidspeed.Celebritycultureissaid

tobeubiquitousacrossagrowingnumberof industriesandmediaplatforms.21Surely

thesedevelopmentswouldappeartochallengethesurvivalofveiledrelationsinmodern

times.

21SeeGraemeTurner,UnderstandingCelebrity(LosAngeles:Sage,2014)p.18.

19

Thatsentimentdoesindeedariseincriticalresponsestothestateofcontemporarycamp.

AccordingtoRuthHollidayandTraceyPotts,forinstance:

…Camp, that once exclusiveway of seeing, has hit themainstreammedia. Andthosewholamentedcamp’slossto‘straights’havebeenjustifiedintheirfearsofappropriation.Camp,ascoolculturalcapital,hasbecomekitsch.22

ThesenseofequivocationthatwassopervasiveinSuperstarinaHousedressdoesnot

seemtofactorintothisdeclarationatall.Itstoneisclearanddecisive.Itsinterpretation

ofhistoryisbinary:campwas‘once’exclusive,nowitisnot.Thesampleoftextsdrawn

upontosupportthis findingincludeswidelycirculatedgossipmagazines,andpopular

televisionprogramslikeEurotrash(1993-2016),QueerEyefortheStraightGuy(2003-)

andTheGrahamNortonShow(2007-).Thefactthattheseparticularculturalproductsare

designedfor(andachieve)abroadaudienceismeanttodemonstratethatcamp’sopen

presentationisself-evident.

This thesis provides a counter-narrative to that theory. My point is not to deny the

instancesofcampappropriationthatHollidayandPottsidentify,buttosuggestthatsuch

processesdonotoperateinavacuum.Theperceptionofapast,‘untouched’campnow

colonizedbythemassmediacanonlytakeussofar.Itacknowledgestheprevalenceof

programslikeQueerEyefortheStraightGuy,butitdoesnottakeintoaccountthatthere

mightbeotherformsofcampthatdonotalignthemselvessostringentlywiththatshow’s

commercialandinter-communalvalues.

In this respect,Superstar inaHousedress isa singlebutcompellingexample.The film

alertsitsviewertothepossibilitythatcamp’srelationshipwiththeoutsideworldisfar

morecomplicated thanwemight initially surmise.Appropriationcouldbea threat to

camp’sunderground,butitalsohasotherfunctionsandeffects.Itsometimesservesas

theveryfodderthatcampconsumesinordertodefineandmaintainitsotherness.Note,

for example, the faux-coyness with which the actor Paul Ambrose alleges that Bette

22 Ruth Holliday and Tracey Potts, Kitsch! Cultural Politics and Taste (Manchester University Press:ManchesterandNewYork,2012)p.141.Thisargumentechoescriticalassessmentsmadebyseveralothercommentators, such as Richard Dyer, who ascribes the “twisting of camp away from itsradical/progressive/critical potential” to the appropriation of straight culture, and Robertson, whosurmisesthatthechannelingofcampintomainstreamcontextssuchastelevisionandPop“couldbetakenasevidenceofitsdemise”,leadinghertoinvoketheterm“CampLite”asadenotationofthe“wateringdownofcamp’scriticalandpoliticaledge”.SeeDyer,TheCultureofQueers(London:Routledge,2002)p.60andRobertson,p.122.

20

MidlerliftedmaterialfromCurtis’splayVainVictory forherfamousalter-ego“Delores

Delago”:

I’mnotsayingthatthere’sanythingwrongwiththis,butsomewherealongthelineBetteMidlersawCandy[Darling]inamermaidoutfit,andmeinawheelchair,andendeduponstageayearlaterinamermaidoutfitinawheelchair.

Thedualdimensionofthisspeculation,atonceforgivingandaccusatory(“I’mnotsaying

there’sanythingwrongwiththis,but…”),mirrorsthevacillatingchoruswhichisthefilm’s

ringingrefrain: “Lookatme!Don’t lookatme!”Complainingabout theexploitationof

campcanactuallybecomeapartofwhatitmeanstoperformcamp.

Asmuchasitisrelevanttoexaminetheinternaloperationsofthedocumentary,itisalso

helpfultothinkofthefilmasacampcommodityintheglobalmediamarketplace.Recent

literature on documentary filmmaking has evaluated the impact of contemporary

technological and economic innovations upon the medium. Patricia Aufderheide, for

instance, describes the transformative “possibilities” and “opportunities” afforded by

digitizationandtheinternet,whichincludetheinstallationofnewdistributionmodels

(suchasNetflix)andthepotentialforswift,internationalcommunicationsthatconnect

content-providersandaudiencesfromvastcornersoftheworld.23

It is hard to dispute that camp is affected by such transpirations. The regional

understandingforwardedbySontag,whichlocatedcampwithin“small,urbancliques”,

doesnotapplyquiteasfirmlyasitdidinthe1960s.Oneneednotnecessarilyresidein

theLowerEastSideofManhattantobeexposedtoaperformerlikeJackieCurtis;youcan

purchase Superstar in a Housedress easily enough provided you have access to the

Internetanditsvariousshoppingforums.Nonetheless,aproliferationofavailablemedia

should not be confusedwith the notion that allmedia is consumed at the same rate.

Superstar inaHousedresswasself-produced,without thebackingofamajorstudio to

financethekindofrobustpromotionalsupportthatwoulddramaticallywidenthereach

ofthefilm.TheabsenceofthatfanfaremeansthattheplatformsdistributingSuperstarin

a Housedress largely reward customers who have some pre-existing curiosity about

Curtisorhermilieu.Anyonewiththemeanstodosocanwatchthemovie,butthatdoes

notmeanthattheydo.Nordoesitremovetheorganisationofpowerintheentertainment

23 PatriciaAufderheide,Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction (OxfordUniversity Press:Oxford,2007)pp.125-128.

21

industry that influences that decision. Therefore, the technological and commercial

circumstancesofourtimedonotinexorablycollapsecamp’sdichotomousdesiretobe

seenandremainesoteric.

Thisisjustonereadingofanindividualtext,butinthecourseofthisthesisIintendto

buildacase that the filmshouldnotberegardedasawildanomaly.Similaranxieties

surfacerepeatedlywithindifferentformsinthemedialandscape;myresearchcontrives

to assemble a selection of illustrative examples.24 Cumulatively, these interpretations

underscorethecomplexrelationshipthatseveralcampproductsadoptwiththepublic

eye.Takenseparately, thereadingsdrawattentiontotheparticularvariablesthatcan

interactwiththatrelationship:thepersonaofthecampperformer,themediumwhichhe

or she inhabits, the text’s position in the infrastructure of show business. Onemight

conceivethattheformalarrangementofthisanalysisparallelstheambivalenceofcamp

thatIhavebeendescribing,withitstwofoldobjectivetoassimilateitsconstituentparts

into a coherent argumentwhile simultaneously privileging specificity anddistance. It

seems a fitting approach to a subjectmatter that aspires to and shies away from the

onlooker’sgaze.

Theatricality

Asavisualspectacle,oneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofSuperstarinaHousedressisthe

varietyofappearancesmodelledbyitscentralsubject.Curtis’smutablephysicalityisnot

justamatterofoccasionallyperformingandcomminglingdifferentgendercodes.The

sheerquantityanddiversityof‘looks’heexhibitsisoverwhelming;onefeelsreluctantto

24ThisapproachmarksadistinctcontrasttothatwhichisadoptedbyHelenA.ShugartandCatherineEgleyWaggoner inMakingCamp:RhetoricsofTransgressioninU.S.PopularCulture (Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabama Press, 2008). Shugart and Waggoner accept the received wisdom that camp has now beenrebrandedasamassmarketphenomenon.Theyinsist,however, thatthecommodifiedreincarnationofcamp retains some subversive potential - see p. 42. Hence, their study is focused squarely on thetransgressivepoliticsofwhatareunequivocallymainstreamproductionsofcamp.These includeWill&Grace (1998-),Xena:Warrior Princess (1995-2001), and the public personae of popular singers GwenStefaniandMacyGray.Butthecampperformancesthatarecollectedandconsideredwithinthis thesisassumeafarmoreequivocalrelationshipwiththedomainofpopularentertainment.

22

listthemshouldwordsfailtocommunicatethescale,frequencyandeclecticismofthe

transformations.

Incontrast,abiographicaldocumentaryisespeciallywelldisposedforthatexacttask.Its

reliance on photographic and filmicmaterials permits it to show, rather thanmerely

describe.Moreover, the formatnecessarily involvesan imperative tocompressall the

visualmatter thatdocuments aperson’s existence, to showcase inquick succession a

selection of cues representing the subject’s appearances throughout a stretch of time

muchlongerthanthedurationofthefilm.Thisframingheightensthedizzyingeffectof

Curtis’schameleonicpresentation,foritmeansthattheaudiencecomestoobservethese

distinctivepersonaeatanacceleratedpace.

This procession of disparate images accords with a reoccurring perception of Curtis

emergingfromtheinterviewsegmentsofthedocumentary.Wearerepeatedlyinformed

thathissenseoftheatricalityextendedwellbeyondtheboundariesofanystageorfilm-

set.LilyTomlinsuggeststhatheconductedhisentirelifeasakindof“performanceart”,

anargumentsupportedbymanyotherrecollectionsinthefilm.(Afterbeingleftatthe

altar by Eric Emerson, Curtis is reputed to have snapped back at his absent groom’s

apology,“YesIknowEric,butIhaveashowtodonow.Myreception!”)Assuchretellings

fortifyourunderstandingofCurtis’sperformativeapproach tobeing,wecanbegin to

grasp some logic behind the radical upheavals in his physical bearing. Everything

becomescostume.Hence,therecanbenooriginalormonothematicrepresentationofhis

materialpresence.

TheontologicaloutlookexpressedbyCurtis coordinateswitha tenetof campculture

frequentlycommenteduponbycritics.Sontaginitiatesthediscussionwithherclaimthat,

Camp sees everything in quotationmarks. It’s not a lamp, but a “lamp”; not awoman,buta“woman”.ToperceiveCampinobjectsandpersonsistounderstandBeing-as-Playing-a-Role.Itisthefarthestextension,insensibility,ofthemetaphoroflifeastheatre.25

BoothcorroboratesSontag’sperceptionofcamptheatricality,whichheattributestoa

profounddistrustof “spontaneity”: “the camppersonalwaysacts in ameasuredway.

25Sontag,p.280.

23

Thereisacertaindeliberationineverythinghedoes.Eventhemosteverydayofgestures

maybeturnedintoaproductionnumber.”26EstherNewtonalsoaddressesthissubjectin

her 1972 study on drag queens, Mother Camp.27 Newton links the performative

philosophy of camp with other cultural concerns, such as sexuality (identifying the

theatre of impersonation which is undertaken when a homosexual is coerced into

‘passing’asstraight)andgender(“Byfocusingontheoutwardappearanceofrole,drag

impliesthatsexroleand,byextension,roleingeneralissomethingsuperficial,whichcan

bemanipulated,putonandoffagainatwill”).28Herfindingsrelatingtothelattercategory

provedparticularly significantwhen, in1990, theywereextractedby JudithButler to

bolster her hugely influential theory of genderperformativity.29Butler considers that

drag’sparodicactivitieswereinstructiveinrevealingthe“imitativestructureofgender

itself”,thuschallengingessentialistunderstandingsofmasculinityandfemininity.30The documentary’s representation of drag appears to give countenance to these

performative notions of gender. In one scene, for example, the prodigious variety of

personaeadoptedbyCurtispromptsStevenWatsontoreflect,“He’saboy.He’sagirl.It’s

asiftheideaofwhatyoursexis…isjustareflectionofyourfeelingsandyourpersonality

that day. And it changes. It zig-zags…”31 The design of this thesis, however, does not

simplyhingeuponreiteratingcamp’svalueforButler’sviewofgenderasstylizedand

culturallyconstructed.Myprincipalinterestincamp’stheatricalismliesinreturningto

thebasicrelationshipforegroundedbySontag(i.e.thefluidinteractionbetweenselfand

aesthetics)asitisanimatedby21stcenturymedia.Thedeceptivelysimplereflectionthat

Sontagofferedstillleavesalottobemulledover.Thepremiseisthatcampisnotjusta

termthatdescribesaworkofart,butisalsoawayoftreatinglifeitselfasart.Butifthe

‘real’ self is a product of affectation, what then should we make of the process of

26Booth,p.94.27EstherNewton,“RoleModels.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)pp.96-109.ReprintedfromEstherNewton,MotherCamp:FemaleImpersonatorsinAmerica(EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall,1972).28Ibid,p.105.29 See Judith Butler, “From Interiority to Gender Performatives.” in Camp: Queer Aesthetics and thePerformingSubject,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.363.30Ibid,p.364.31 These fluctuations are incarnated in the various interviews that compose the documentary, whichoscillateintheirreferencetoCurtiswithbothmaleandfemalepronouns.IhavealsochosentoalternatebetweenbothpronounswhenreferringtoCurtisinthisthesis.

24

mediation?Whataretheconsequencesofturninganalreadytheatricalisedexperience

intoactualtheatre?

Another vexed issue that comes to mind: if the camp of Curtis’s generation was not

confinedtotheparametersofrepresentation,howcanthecurrentonepossiblyfathom

itstotality?Whenwetrytoremembercamp,wemightalwaysbeoperatingatadeficit,

since apparently a great portion of its existence cannot be tracked in the observable

artefactswehaveatourdisposal.Thiswastheconclusionreachedbyauthorandcultural

critic Fran Lebowitz when she addressed the camp scene of that time in one of her

interviews:“Itwasnotahighlyproductivegroupofpeople.Thereisnotalotleft.Ifwhat

youdoistalk,insteadofwriteorleavesomething,thenyoudisappear.”32Suchdilemmas

areapttodiscouragethosewhoareaimingtowriteaboutordepictcamp.Inonelight,

theyreadasfurtherimpedimentstotheprospectthatcampissomethingwewilleverbe

capableoffullyknowingoraccuratelyrepresenting.Thereisanineluctablesenseoflack,

ofanunstabledynamismthatrefusestostandstillasweattempttoregardit.

Itisalsopossibletomisjudgeandoverdramatizetheimplicationsofcamp’sephemeral

and fluid characteristics. It is true that a subject matter relating to lived experience

presentsartisticandanalyticalchallenges,asattestedbyLebowitz’scommentsonthe

fragmentaryandincompletehistoricaldocumentationwhichcampappearstoentail.But

ifoneofcamp’seffectsistodissolvethedistinctionbetweenlifeandtheatre, itseems

slightlymisguidedtoonlylaborthelatter’sshortcomingsindelineatingtheformer,as

thoughthetwoweren’talreadyenmeshedtogether.Sincecampisaperformativeentity,

it is innately inclined to sidestep the notion of an essential identity. Had the

‘unproductive’camppractitionersreferredtobyLebowitzbeenmoreprolific,wewould

haveagreatervolumeofmaterialtodrawuponinconceptualizingcamp,butabroader

samplestillwouldnotrevealasingularor ‘authentic’campunit,becausenosuchunit

exists.

AsStellaBruzzihasarguedwithrespecttothedocumentaryform,arepresentationof

reality should not be deemed a failure simply because it cannot replicate our actual

experiencesoftheworld.33Todosoassumesthattheonlycriterionuponwhichtojudge

32 Writers and Company (November 25, 2012) “Author Fran Lebowitz Interview.” Available at:http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/230844996333Bruzzi,p.10.

25

themeritsofsuchaworkisaveryliteralstandardofverisimilitude.Assessingafilmlike

SuperstarinaHousedresswiththistypeofrubricwouldoverlooktheentirespiritwith

whichthetextapproachesitssubjectmatter.Thedocumentarydoesnotcommittothe

premise that biography can adduce a genuine article accounting for Curtis. In fact,

SuperstarinaHousedresspivotsaroundthetensionbetweenitsownassertionsandtheir

correspondingdoubtsandsilences.

The film’s explicit declaration of itself as a performative enterprise is an appropriate

corollarytoitscharacterizationofCurtisasaperformativehumanbeing.IfCurtisactually

didengagewiththeworldinanutterlystylizedfashion,itisunlikelythatwewillbeable

locate amore suitable instrument to interactwith his subjectivity than onewhich is

unabashedlystylizeditself;thisistosay,candidaboutitsstatusasanaestheticinterface.

Whatotheroptionisthere,whenevenwhenCurtiswasstillalive,herexistencewasso

comprehensivelyaestheticized?

This question is not one that I have devised independently; by posing it, I am in fact

isolatingandfocusingattentionupontheself-reflexiveworkthatisalreadyatplayinthe

film. Take, for instance, the meta-critical insights that present themselves during

entertainmentjournalistMichaelMusto’sfascinatingaccountofinterviewingCurtis:

Somany interview subjects just sit there, or give oneword answers, orwon’trevealanything. Ifanything, Jackierevealedtoomuch.Shetoldyoueverything.She told you stuff that sheprobably didn’t even knowabout until she thoughtaboutittotellaninterviewer.Iwouldjustturnonthetapeandjust lethergo.Eventuallyyouwouldgetallthespecifics,allthedetailsyouneeded.Someofthemmaynothavebeentrue.DidshereallyhaveagrandmothernamedSluggerAnn?DidSluggerAnnreallydressherlikeagirl?WasCarolBurnettreallyherspiritualgodmother?Whatever.Ibelievedit.

ThisanecdotenotonlyprovidesacharactersketchofCurtis,butalsotestifiestothevery

process ofmediating an inherently theatrical persona.Musto is outlining a particular

method for camp representation that strives for compatibility with its subject. This

approachisnotbasedonamodelofknowledgestrictlydependentuponverifiablefacts

orclaimstoanunmediatedsocio-historicalreality.Itsvisionofrealitycomestolifeonly

asitisbeingperformed.(“Shetoldyoustuffthatsheprobablydidn’tevenknowabout

untilshethoughtaboutittotellaninterviewer”).WhenwritingaboutCurtis,thepointis

not to ascertain the objective veracity of each of his claims, but to capture the air of

26

heightened drama and ambiguities of identity that one could encounter while in his

company.

Musto’s interview is a cornerstone moment in the text because it mandates the

methodological strategy of the entire documentary. It would be incorrect to think of

Superstar in a Housedress as a film pretending not to interfere with the world it

documents, as per the philosophy of the ‘direct cinema’movement of the 1960s. The

documentaryisnotonlyflagrantlycinematic(i.e.byemployingvoice-overnarrationand

showcasing interviews that only ever took place for the purposes of the film) but it

actuallychannelssomeoftheaestheticexuberanceandepistemologicalandontological

uncertaintieswhicharedictactedbycampitself.Wehaveseenthesequalitiesondisplay

inthefilm’sediting(i.e.therichprofusionofvisualstimulaebroughtaboutbythesplicing

togetherofphotographsandfootageofCurtis’smultiplepersonae)anditspreoccupation

withtheongoingdoubtsanddebatesthatareattachedtoitssubject’sbiography.From

theoutset,eventhefilm’spromotionalmaterialssignalanefforttointegrateaspectsof

thecampsensibilityintoitsownoperations;theblurbsliningthepackagingoftheDVD

includequotesfromcritics’reviewswhichpraisethedocumentaryas“tastefullyoverthe

top”(Variety),“luxuriant”(SanFranciscoBayGuardian),“fabulouslyfond”(VillageVoice)

and“delightfullybitchy”(NewYorkPost).

Iamdescribingtheserepercussivedynamicsnotmerelyasapassiveobserver,butasa

scholar in search of a template for my research. In pursuing an interest in camp’s

theatricality, it seems desirable to rendermy criticism in a fashion that incorporates

elementsoftheplayfulandself-reflexivespiritemblazonedbytheobjectofmystudy.If

campchallengesthepresumptionofacore,innateororiginalcharacter,amethodology

that assumes an empirical pose -mapping the critical and cultural field via a strictly

sequential,factualorencyclopedicmodel-mightwellbecounteractivetotheprojectof

apprehending it. Camp demands to be examined through a lens which produces

knowledge in a manner which is more protean; which accomodates its bursts of

spontaneity,itspromiscuousdesireforchangingsmasksandpostures.

Unorthodoxasthismayappear,thereisinfactprecedentforcriticalanalysesofcamp

thatdepartfromconventionalacademicstylistics.TheconcernsIhaveexpressedhere

bear some similarity to the remarksSontag forwardedwhen justifying thenon-linear

27

“jottings” that composed “Notes on Camp”. She advocated a “tentative” and “nimble”

approachfordealingwithwhatshedeemedtobean“alive”and“powerful”sensibility,

further confessing that it is too “embarassing to be solemn and treatise-like about

Camp”34.Moreflamboyantly,ScottLongintroduced“TheLonelinessofCamp”byasking

ustoimaginehisessay“deliveredasanaddressbyasmall,mustachioedmanwearinga

goldlamécocktaildress,blackpumpswiththree-inchstilettoheels,aravenwig,anda

beadedclochewithpeacockfeathers.”35Thisamusingscenarioisstagedpartlyasameans

bywhichLongcanbridgethegapbetweenthefrivolityofcampandtheseriousnessof

criticalwriting.(“Therewillinevitablybetimeswhenmyrhetoricwillseemtoohigh,my

languagetooinflated,totreatjustlythecalculatedtrivialitywhichismysubject.”36)By

the essay’s conclusion, though, it also becomes a tool for highlighting the “immense

artifice”oftheessayformat,remindingthereaderthattheyareregardingaformofpublic

discourse,whichlikecamp,ishighlystylized.37

Taking its cue from these inventive experiments, my thesis proposes a design that

deliberately fashions itself as sort of loose mélange, open to fragmentary and

discontinuouslinesofdiscussion.Myintroduction,forinstance,hasnotpartitionedoffa

discretesection forsiftingthroughandorganizingall thecritical literaturedevotedto

campanditsrelatedspheresofdiscourse.Thisabsenceisnotintendedtodiminishthe

significanceofsuchwork,ortodownplaytheintricaterelationshipsbetweenthetextsin

mystudyandwiderhistoricalandculturalnarratives.Onthecontrary,myassertionis

thatthevalueofcriticalinterpretationandcontextualisationwillbebestharnessedby

structuringtheminawaythatchargesmyreadingswithatypeofelasticitybefittingthe

mercurialandelusivesensibilityofcamp.

Thusfar,IhaverecruitedthedeterminationsofSontag,Newton,Butler,Cletoandsoforth

as a series of ingresses and egresses interspersed with (and prompted by) my

commentaryonthedocumentaryathand.Myaspirationisthatthisrunning,associative

framework will develop critical understandings through a discursive movement that

leavessufficientroomforopen-endedreflections.Ascampshiftsfluidlybetweenoutfits,

34Sontag,pp.276-277.35ScottLong, “TheLonelinessofCamp.” inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality, ed.DavidBergman(UniversityofMassachusettsPress:Amherst,1993)p.78.36Ibid.37Ibid,pp.90-91.

28

sotoowillmyresponsestryonthevariousmantlesofdifferentcriticalarguments,alert

for their correspondenceswith the subject in front ofme, butwithout the resolve to

anchormyselfdecisivelytoanysingularpositionorexhaustivesummationofcamp.

“LovingBrutality”

Curtislightsfourorfivematchesandnonchalantlythrowsthematthetorsoofacowering

youngman,whoisnakedbut fora flimsypairofgreenbriefswhichcontinuouslyslip

fromhisbody.Curtissomehowlooksmelodramaticandboredatthesametime,coolly

delivering outrageously demeaning commands to his romantic captive. (“Move those

bunssweetie.Comeon!AndIwantyoutocleanupthesematchestoo!”).Theincarnation

ofcharacterweareobservingisJackie’ssatiricalperformanceasaradicalfeministinthe

1971 filmWomen inRevolt; several excerptsofwhichappearabouthalfway through

SuperstarinaHousedress.Forhisownpart,themaninthegreenunderweardoesn’tseem

toowoundedbyhishumiliation;whendodging the little flamesaimedathisbody,he

almost starts to dance. However, aswe shall see, it is now abundantly clear that not

everybodywillreacttocamp’sstingwithsamespiritofwhimsy.

Thepotentialforrealinsultis,inthiscase,sharpenedbythedocumentary’spackagingof

thefootageinquestion.TheclipsofCurtisaresupplementedbycommentsfromWomen

in Revolt’s director, Paul Morrissey, who explains the rationale behind his film. The

centralironyunderpinningWomeninRevoltisestablishedbyitscastingofmenwhowere

“pretendingtobewomen”as“womenwhoweretoldbythewomen’slibmovementthat

they should assume the roles of men”. Morrissey contends that this arrangement

engendersafeministcritiquethatisfarsuperiortotheeffortsoffemalefeminists:

Youbecomeverysympathetictotheplightofwomen.Youhavetosaytoyourself,“Gee,it’snoteasybeingawoman.”Youwouldn’tsaythatifwomenwereplayingthe parts. Youwould just take it for granted. But the fact thatmen are goingthroughtheseproblems,pretendingtobewomen,Ithinkitmakesitmuchmoreeffective.

29

Itisnotdifficulttoimaginewhythissentimentmightdrawsomeobjectionsinfeminist

circles.EvenifoneweretoacceptthatsomemenmayrespondtoWomeninRevoltinthe

waythatMorrisseyenvisions,hefailstoacknowledgetheabsurdcounter-productivityof

a feminist discourse that essentially eliminates the voices of women. Indeed, his

statementisexactlythetypeofargumentthatelicitedthecriticismofTaniaModleskiin

1991.38 While Modleski welcomed a then-emergent body of male criticism that was

supportivetotheenterpriseof feminism,shealsoexpressedconcernatdevelopments

thatsawwomenincreasinglydivertedfromthediscussionoftheirownsubjectivity,thus

ultimatelyreinforcingpatriarchalpower.39

Thedocumentary’scapacityforcausingoffenceisnotincidental.Campregularlycourts

provocation.Inmyview,thistendencyisoftenrelatedtotheoperationofthecampgaze,

which, as Sontag recognized, fixates upon passionate failures.40 It takes pleasure in

people,attitudesandworksofartthatmakeeffusivebutunsuccessfulattemptsatbeing

takenseriously.Avividexample:CurtisasaradicalfeministinWomeninRevoltearnestly

declaringthathehasbannedallmenfromenteringhisapartment.

Numerous scholars have deliberated uponwhether such conduct should be taken as

injuriousormean.Anticipatingtheseallegations,Sontagadvisesthat,“Campisgenerous.

Itwantstoenjoy.Itonlyseemslikemalice,cynicism.(Or,ifitiscynicism,it'snotaruthless

butasweetcynicism.)”41Otherwritersinthefieldwentontocoinphrasesthatparallel

andbuilduponthisdetectionofcamp’s“sweetcynicism”:LeoBersanidescribedcampas

executing a “loving assassination”42; along similar lines, Scott Long conceived of the

expression,“lovingbrutality”43.Buttheseformulationshavenotpreventedcriticsfrom

expressingapprehensionat tracesofderision incamp’sgaze.CarylFlinn’sessay“The

DeathsofCamp”, forexample,signalsconsiderablealarmatthefrequencywithwhich

thatgazefocusesuponabjectconstructionsoffemininityasitstarget.Whileconceding

38TaniaModleski,FeminismWithoutMen:CultureandCriticismina“Postfeminist”Age(Routledge:NewYork,1991).39Ibid,pp.3-22.40Sontag,p.283.41Ibid,p.291.42LeoBersani,“IstheRectumaGrave?”October43(Winter1987)p.208.43Long,p.87.

30

that“gaymale”campprobablyisn’t“deliberatelyoressentiallymisogynist”,sheworries

thatitmaybeunintentionallyaligningitselfwithadominantculturewhichis.44

Thisthesisresistsadvocatingadefinitivepositiononthemoralcharacterofcamp.Afair

amountofmywarinessinthisrespectstemsfromtheparticularparametersIamworking

within.Theadjoiningcoordinatesofmyresearchthathavebeenpreviouslymarkedout

(camp’s inscrutability and its dynamism) do not invite sweeping proclamations and

blanketjudgments.Iamnotinterpretingcampasthoughitwereasortofready-made

formula.Therefore,while I can recognisea recurrent tendency for camp to teaseand

parody,thereisalsoanurgetoconsidertheparticulardynamicsatplayintheindividual

scenarios I am attending to. It is worth noting that Butler takes a similar tackwhen

responding to feminist critics of drag who deemed that its role-playing involves the

degradationofwomenandtheappropriationofgenderstereotypes.Butlerthinksdrag

couldactuallybecooperativewithfeministaims(becauseitsparodycanacttohighlight

theconstructednessofgender)butframesherargumentwithanemphasisonspecificity.

Parodybyitself,shewarns,isnotnecessarilysubversive;thiseffectwillbedependent

uponquestionsofcontextandreception.45

In the absence of determining camp’smoral culpability, it is fair to questionhowmy

thesiswillextendthissubject’scurrentofdiscussion.Oneofitsmorebasiccontributions

issimplytoacknowledgethepresenceofcamp’s“lovingbrutality”asanactiveentityin

21st centurymedia, forwewill see suchpricklinessmanifesting in eachof the texts I

examine. Although this undertakingmight be regarded asmodest, recent scholarship

suggeststhattheseidentificationscannotnecessarilybetakenforgranted.Inhis2011

doctoraldissertation,MichaelT.Schuylerconstruescampasanaspirationalnarrative

systemwherebymarginalizedfigures“triumphnotsimplyinspiteofbutactuallybecause

oftheiroutsiderstatuses”.46Idonotdisputethatthischaracterarccanfigureincamp

discourse,buttheproblemwiththisstructuringisthatituniversalizesandglorifiescamp

44CarylFlinn,“TheDeathsofCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)pp.452-453.45Butler,p.365.46MichaelT.Schuyler,“SettingUpCamp:IdentifyingCampthroughThemeandStructure.”UnpublishedDoctoralThesis,TempleUniversity,2011,p.23.

31

asaheroic challengeagainsthegemonicpower.47 I amnot compelled to issueavalue

judgmentindiametricoppositiontoSchuyler’sassessment,forinstance,whichvilifiesor

condemnscamp.However,thetextsforegroundedbymystudysimplydonotconform

unambiguouslytotheinspirationalvisionhehaslaidout.Whetherornotitisintended

asmalign,campcanalienateandantagonizesubjectswhoarecaughtbyitsgaze,justas

muchasitcanemboldenthosewhopracticeit.

Myotherinputistoseizeinsightsfromaparticularcriticalperspectivethatisafforded

bymyselectionoftexts.Becausethisthesisgathersandexaminescampperformances

thatarehighly self-reflexive, I ampresentedwitha richopportunity to teaseoutand

interpret some recent examples of camp’s own commentaries on the condition of its

virtue.AlltheperformancesthatIhaveselectedbearsignsofthe“lovingbrutality”that

hasbeenrecognisedasahallmarkofcampculture.Butmostofthemarealsoplaguedby

the moral questions that arise from their own participation in this tradition. The

contemplations that emerge from these recognitions are anything but orderly and

consistent. These examinations are complicated in their blend of impenitence and

compunction.Attimestheyarerestrainedbypangsofconscience,atotherstheyseem

tobeunflinchingintheirinvocationsoftruculenceandcynicism.Thisthesispayscareful

attentiontothesealternations,andendeavourstoelucidatethevariouswaysinwhich

campcelebratesandcritiquesitself.

Ruin

One of the core aspects of the documentary’s production of camp is its dedication to

unifyingcontentandform.Ihavealreadydiscussedvariousstrategiesbywhichthefilm

conceivestomirrorcharacteristicsofCurtis’sexistence(i.e.effervescence,eccentricity,

47OneofthehazardsofSchuyler’sprescriptiveapproachisthatitreliesuponaselectiveattentiontothecampcanon.Forexample,hepositsthatthedocumentaryParisisBurning(1990)cannotbedescribedascampbecauseitfailstocorrespondwiththeself-empowermentnarrativehehasoutlined.Thisiswhy,heattests,itseemsthatnobodyinthecampmilieu“quotesfromit,obsessesoveritoridentifieswithit”(p.42).Thelatterpartofthisargumentseemsparticularlyunconvincinggiventheroutine,explicitallusionsmadetoParisisBurningthroughouttherealitytelevisionprogramRuPaul’sDragRace(2009-)-arguablyoneofcontemporaryculture’smostprominentcampproductions.

32

etc.)initsformalandthematicqualities.Thismodelofreduplicationproduceslayersof

aestheticexuberanceandturnsthefilmintoacondensedsignificationofcamp’sflairfor

excess.Itisintriguing,then,thattheframeworkactivatingthisvivaciousenergyisalsoa

typeofelegy,meditatingonthemesofabsenceanddeath.

The documentary, after all, pertains to a deceased subject; Curtis died in 1985 after

sufferingaheroinoverdose.Butdeath’sarrivalinthefilm’snarrativebynomeanshalts

the documentary’s representation of camp. The account of Curtis’s demise does not

inspire a radical shift in the register of the storytelling, for instance, by becoming

fundamentallyserious,sombreoraustere.Ifanything,theoppositeistrue;deathactually

drawsoutandintensifiesthepresenceofcampinthedocumentary.Moreover,themeans

bywhichthefilmdevelopsthisinteractionpromptsustocontemplatethewaysthatcamp

bothrepresentsandrespondstotheprospectofitsownannihilation.

Consider how the film frames the scene of the fatal overdose. I use theword ‘scene’

figuratively,sinceCurtis’sdeathisnevervisuallyrepresentedonscreen,butnonetheless

emergesasoneofthedocumentary’smostmemorablescenarios.Thestrangedetailsare

parceled out as each interview subject provides their recollection of the scandal; a

structuringthatunderscoresthestaggeringcontentofthestory-asthough,inorderfor

it to be believed, there is a need for repetition and the confirmation of several

corroboratingwitnesses. The essential outline:whenhe overdosed, Curtiswas in the

companyofawomannamedGomadi,afellowdrugaddictandaworshipperoftheHindu

Goddess Kali. Instead of seeking medical assistance for Curtis, Gomadi attempted to

restorehishealthbyperforming fellatioonhimduringhis last livingmoments.Later,

Gomadi attempted to reassure grieving friends that shehad also tried givingCurtis a

shiatsumassagetreatment.

Inconfluencewithcamp’ssenseof the theatricalandhyperbolic, the filmreflectsand

produces a sentiment that the circumstances of Curtis’s death are simply ‘toomuch’.

PennyArcadegivesherexasperatedresponsetothecamera:“Whatareyoutellingme?

That Jackiehadhis firstheterosexual experiencewhiledying?!” Ina characteristically

self-reflexivegesture,thefilmalsoimpartsHarveyFierstein’shypothesisthat,“Ifyouput

that inaplay… ifyouput thateven inavant-garde film,peoplewouldsay, ‘This is for

prurient interests! Nothing like this could ever possibly happen.’” Of course, this is

33

preciselythepoint:Curtis’sdeathisbeingweavedintoafilmicnarrative,andFierstein’s

bewildereddescriptionofitself-prophesizesthestunnedreactionoftheviewer.

Deathisnotjustanincidentthatoccursinthefilm’splot.Itisalsoasiteuponwhichcamp

orchestrates a complex mise en abyme, teeming with coded images that reflect and

implodeuponeachother.Fromoneperspective,deathhasaneradicativeimpactupon

camp,leavingitspioneersincreasinglyendangeredandrarefied.“Itmakesmereallysad

thattherearesofewofusleft”,lamentsRoseRoyalle.Echoingthispoint,JoeyPreston

considersthatwhenJackiedied,“itwasawholeworldthatwaslost”.Butironically,itis

thisvisionofaravagedworldthatisalsoanidealprismthroughwhichtochannelcamp

activity.

Camp’s alliance with the macabre has its most potent realisation in the film’s

reminiscenceofCurtis’sfuneralandwake.Theremembranceoftheseobsequialevents

assemblesananthologyof familiarcampmaneuvers.HollyWoodlawn’sdescriptionof

the proceedings comes lacedwith trickles of casual irreverence (“The priest is doing

whateverheisdoing,AveMaria,blah,blah…”)Otheraccountsevokecamp’spenchantfor

bombastic theatrics(PaulAmbroseremembersPennyArcadeattackingGomadiat the

ceremony,screaming,“Murderer!Murderer!”)aswellasitsgeniusforbarbedrhetoric

(aboutGomadi,Ambrosesneers,“SheOD’dacoupleyearslater.Nobodymissedher!”)

Then there is the re-imagining of Curtis in his funeral casket, his corpse coatedwith

glitter,amagicwandplacedbyhisside,alongwithphotographsofJamesDeanandGary

Cooper,whomheidolized.Itisthisfinaldetail-themementosoflapsedicons–thatis

alsothemostloaded,foritsframingofrelic-within-relicgrantsustrenchantinsightinto

thetemporaldimensionsofthefilmasawhole.Itsstratificationofruinillustratesthat

camp’s infusion into the commemoration of Curtis (both represented and enacted by

SuperstarinaHousedress)hasaparticularlyprofoundresonance:thefilmisenshrining

someonewhohimselfwasaconnoisseurofanachronisticpersonalities.

Thereiscriticalliteraturewhichsuggeststhatitisnormalforpractitionersofcampto

gravitatetoward ‘powers indecline’.48.Sontagproposedthatcampfavourstheout-of-

datebecauseofparticulareffectsborneoutof thepassageof time. It lendsa fantastic

48AndrewRossmakesthispointin“UsesofCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999)pp.310-312andp.320.

34

qualitytoobjectswhichwereonceordinary,anditsoftensmoralindignationatworksof

art that have failed.49 Camp’s reappraisal of depleted resources was also a central

preoccupationforFlinn,who,aswerecall,harbouredreservationsabouthowfrequently

thatprocessinvolvesunseemlycharacterisationsofthefemalebody.

Thisthesisconsiderstheramificationsofcamp’schallengetothedisjuncturebetween

antiquityandcontinuityregardingitsownconstruction.Inheressay,Flinnhintedatbut

did not linger upon the possibility of this inversion. She initiates and concludes her

critiquebypointingouttheironywhichisfosteredwhenpubliccommentatorslikeFran

Lebowitzdeclarecamp‘dead’inthefaceofvarioushistoricalandculturaldevelopments,

liketheAIDSepidemic,gayactivism,andtheappropriationofthemainstreammedia.50

But thisobservation ismade inpassing,andhas littlebearingonthespecific itemsof

campculturetowhichshededicatesherstudy(whichare, forthemostpart,assorted

iterationsofcamp’sobsessionwithfadingmoviestarsandgrotesquemothers).

For reasonsalreadydivulged,my intent isnot toprovideapanoramic surveillanceof

camp’spastandpresentformations.Nevertheless,myexaminationisinevitablyaffected

bycertainclaimstohistory.Thatsomeobservershaveissuedcampwithadeathsentence

(orcertificate)arousesmycuriosityabouthowcampisprocessingandreacting to its

ownhistoricaldiscourse.This lineof inquiry isall themore inviting in lightof recent

sociological and cultural critiques that identify further aspects of our contemporary

environment uncongenial to traditional manifestations of camp. In There Goes the

Gayborhood?,AminGhazianchartsthedeclineofhomosexualpopulationsincitylocales,

aplightheascribestoahostofcircumstances.Manyoftheseoverlapwiththefactors

already named by Lebowitz, but there are some new entries on the list, including

widespreadurbangentrificationandtheinstallationofvirtualnetworksontheInternet

thatdiminishtheneedforacentralizedandphysicalmeetingplace.51InHowtoBeGay,

DavidM.Halperin traces the emergenceof ahyper-masculinity inpost-Stonewall gay

malelifethatisoftenhostiletoperceptionsofaneffeminategayculture.52Conceivably

thefomentingofthisattitudeposesyetanotherthreattocamp’ssurvival,consideringits

49Sontag,p.285.50SeeFlinnatp.433andp.454.51AminGhaziani,ThereGoestheGayborhood?(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2014)pp.24-31.52DavidM.Halperin,HowtoBeGay(Cambridge:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2012).

35

associationswith both homosexuality and femininity (according toRichardDyer, “By

definition,campingaboutisnotbutch.”53)

MyreadingofSuperstarinaHousedresshassituatedthedocumentaryasaperformance

ofcamp,ratherthanmerelyaretrospectiveanddetachedarchivingofit.Thiscanonical

placementwillalsoapplytothesubsequenttextualanalysesperformedbythisthesis,all

ofwhichpertainto21stcenturyculture.Thus,Iamnotannouncingtheendofcamp.Nor

amIdiscountingtheportraitofitsdecayevokedbyrecentcriticism.Theobjectsofmy

studyoftenprojectasortofruptureintime,pivotingaroundimagesoflostsplendour.I

arguethatthisreckoningisitselfexemplaryofcamp’sdistinctivesenseoftemporality.

Camp’sfascinationwithextinctculturespermitsitanextraordinaryresilience,allowing

ittotakeonanexistencethatissimultaneouslyposthumousandalive.

FrameworksandMethodology

Havingmarkedouttheareasofcampculturethatmakeupthethematicpreoccupations

ofthisthesis,itisincumbentuponmetoelaborateontheframeworkthroughwhichit

unfolds. My reading of Superstar in a Housedress has insistently highlighted camp’s

resistance to reductive categorisations and generalities. Although Imake a concerted

effort topreserve theunrulinessandambiguityofmysubject, it is inevitable thatmy

renderingofcampisdefinedbythestrategiesandstructuresthatIhavedevisedformy

research.Whatemergesfromthisprojectisonlyapartialvisionofcamp,shapedbyits

ownparticular fixationsandboundaries. It is thereforenecessary toacknowledge the

presenceandintendedpurposesofthesedeterminants.

From the outset, it must be recognised that my chosen methodology follows the

procedures of close textual analysis. The thesis is structured as a series of critical

explorations thatattend toaspecificselectionofcampperformances in theearly21st

century.InadditiontoSuperstarinaHousedress,theseincludetheHBOtelevisionseries

TheComeback(2005),JohnWaters’memoirRoleModels(2010),JulieKlausner’saudio 53 Dyer, p. 49. For Booth, camp’s fascinationwith femininity is further evidence of its commitment tomarginality:“theprimarytypeofthemarginalinsocietyisthetraditionallyfeminine,whichcampparodiesinanexhibitionofstylizedeffeminacy.”p.18.

36

podcastHowWasYourWeek?(2011),andLeGateauChocolat’scabaretperformanceofI

HeartChocolat(2015).Itfollowsthatthescopeofthisresearchisdeterminedbymyclose

readingsoftheseindividualenactmentsofcamp.

Theanalyticaltechniqueofclosereadingisnottheonlymethodologythatscholarshave

attheirdisposalinapproachingcampculture.Thecorpusofcriticalliteraturededicated

tocamppresentsanumberofalternativemodels.Sontag,forexample,electstoformat

her essay as a succession of elliptical pronouncements on the entire canon of camp

culture,ratherthandelvingintomorepreciseexaminationsofitsdiscretecomponents.

However, several critics have since expatiated on camp in more extended forms of

criticism. Booth, for instance, gives an expansive account of camp culture through a

framework that registers its recurrent themes and tropes, which are slotted into

categories such as “boredom”, “scandal”, “misanthropy”. And Phillip Core invokes the

encyclopediacformatforhisowncriticismofcamp,whichoffershisreadersanenormous

compediumofarticlesthatoutlinemanyofitspivotalfigures(fromJeanCocteautoMae

West) and perennial fascinations, such as “decadence”, “glossy magazines” and

“uniforms”.54

OneofthefeaturesofthesetemplatesthatIadmirethemostisthemannerinwhichthey

begin to accrue resonance with their subject matter. For instance, the compact and

elegantproseof“NotesonCamp”isitselfevocativeofthecampaptituteforaphoristic

language - a correlationwhich is only accentuated by Sontag’s frequent quotation of

OscarWilde’sepigrams.55Ontheotherhand,themoreprotractedstudiesofcriticslike

BoothandCoreareparticularlyeffectiveinreflectingtheprofoundsenseofpluralityand

eclecticismassociatedwithcampculture.Tobesure,myowncriticismisnotpatterned

on the specificmethods that are suggested by thesemodels, but they have served as

inspirationinsofarastheirformalpropertieshonourthevaluesandattributesofcamp

itself.

In this instance, a compilation of close readings appeals to me as a framework that

generatesa tensionbetweennotionsof specificityandcommonality.Wehavealready

observed how this conflict manifests as a thematic preoccupation in Superstar in a

54PhillipCore,Camp:TheLieThatTellstheTruth(London:PlexusPublishLimited,1984).55Camp’spropensityfortheepigramsurfacesasasignificantpointofinterestinmychapterdedicatedtoJulieKlausner’spodcast.

37

Housedress. The documentary is punctuated with proclamations that stress the

originalityanddistinctivenessof itssubject (LauradeCoppet: “Theybroke themould

aftertheymadeJackie.Hewasagenius.Ahilariousone.”PaulMorrisseyonWomenin

Revolt:“JackiedominatesthemoviewiththisstrongcharacterthatJackiehad,andthe

remarksshemakesarefunnyinaJackieway.”SylviaMiles:“JackieCurtishadherown

style!”)Atthesametime,thefilmentertainsthenotionthatCurtiswasalsoemblematic

ofbroaderculturalnarratives,aswhenitconceivestoveneratehimastheconsummate

performerofcamp.Thedesignofthisthesisisintendedtorecogniseandaccommodate

theseantipodalpositions:permittingsufficientspacetocontemplatetheidiosyncrasies

of individual camp performances and situating them as elements that are assembled

togetherintheconceptionofalargerstructure.

Theconstructionofmycriticismisalsoattunedtothepolysemousconditionofcamp.

Fromameta-criticalperspective,wecanrecognisethissenseofmultiplicityinthevarious

terminologiesthatcirculateintheoreticalapprehensionsofcamp.AsCletopointsout,

the body of literature on camp has denominated the term in many different ways:

“Tentativelyapproachedassensibility, taste,orstyle, reconceptualisedasaestheticor

culturaleconomy,andlaterasserted/reclaimedas(queer)discourse,camphasn’tlostits

relentless power to frustrate all efforts to pinpoint it down to stability”.56 These

ontological uncertainties are established even in the initial ruminations presented by

Sontag: she conceptualises campprimarily as a “sensibility” and a “way of looking at

things”,butshealsoconcedesthatthereare“movies,clothes,furniture,popularsongs,

novels,people,buildings…”thatcanbesafelydescribedas“campy”.57Thisinterpretation

generatesongoingdebatesandperplexities.Thereisaperceptionofcampassomething

thatmaterialisesasaperformanceoraninterpretativepractice.Dyer,forone,insiststhat

“campisfarmoreaquestionofhowyourespondtothingsratherthanqualitiesactually

inherentinthosethings”.58Butthereisalsothesuggestionthatcamphasestablisheda

recognisablecanon.ShugartandWaggoner,forinstance,definecampasan“aesthetic”

whichis“understoodatthemostbasiclevelasover-the-top,playful,andparodic”andis

“easilyapprehendedbyaudiences.”59

56Cleto,p.2.57Sontag,p.277.58Dyer,p.52.59ShugartandWaggoner,p.4.

38

Iamdrawntotheconcentratedfocusofclose-readingasastrategyforcomingtoterms

withthemultiplemeaningsthatareassignedtocamp.Ratherthansimplypresentingthe

readerwithacatalogueoftextsandperformancesthatitdesignatesas‘camp’,thisthesis

interprets its own subject with more delicacy and caution. My aspiration is that the

careful examination of a selection of cultural productions will give scope to the

complexities that attend their various interactions with camp. In the process of this

exploration, Imean to parse and analyse themultipleways inwhich campmight be

configured: as amode of social and cultural performance, as a reading position, as a

milieu,asahistoricalmoment,andsoforth.Theresultofthisconceitisthatmyresearch

approachestheveryidentityofcampasaquestionthatdemandsconstantattentionand

reconsideration.

Thepresentstudyalso locates itspreoccupations inearly21stcentury incarnationsof

camp. This structure operates on the presumption that such a time frame - however

broadly conceived – exists as an intelligible historical period. It is also a part of my

argument that the sampleof textsandperformances that Ihavechosenaredistinctly

recognisable as products of their time. Some of them are implicated in historical

discourse simply by virtue of the channels through which they are mediated: their

presenceisdefinedbytechnologies,formalconstructsanddistributionmodelsthathave

cometoprominenceonlyinrecentdecades.It isalsotruethatmanyoftheirthematic

interests are inextricably connected to the historical situation in which they have

emerged. Sometimes they comment on socio-historical developments that run

concurrentwiththeircreation,forexample,theriseofculturalphenomenasuchassocial-

networking and Reality TV. But it is important to add that these contemporaneous

reflections are accompanied by powerful impressions of the past. It would not be

melodramatictosaythatmostoftheseartworksarehauntedbythehistoricalnarratives

thatcamphasaccumulated–acomplicatedinheritancethattheyarealternatelyinclined

torenounceandromanticise.Indeed,theyseemtosuggestthatapartofwhatitmeansto

becampinthiscenturyistoreckonwiththeintricatelegaciesthatthistermnowcarries.

Whilemyresearchisdeterminedbyahistoricalframework,itdoesnotpresentitselfas

achronologicalandcomprehensiveaccountof theperiod that itdemarcates. It seems

inevitablethatathesisthatworkswithinthenarrowparametersofclose-readingmust

confess that the historical knowledge that it produces is necessarily selective and

39

fragmentary.Butthisdisclaimerwouldprobablybewarrantedinanypieceofcriticism

thatseekstoscrutinisecampculture,howeverambitiouslyitmightdefinethescopeof

itsinquiry.MyreadingofSuperstarinaHousedresshasalreadyintimatedthatthereare

severalwaysinwhichcampassumesanevasiverelationshipwiththepublicrecord.This

senseofobscurityisborneoutinitsattractiontowardsmarginalcultures,thetransience

of theatricalised experience, and the persistent ambiguities that complicate its own

definition.60 Given these considerations, it is hard to imagine awork of criticism that

could claim with confidence to have encapsulated any period of camp history in its

entirety.

Thisthesismakesnopretencethatitschosensubjectsconstitutemicrocosmsofcampas

awhole.However, this recognition shouldnotbe taken to suggest that Ihavemerely

selecteda randomsampleof campculture to explore. I have set out to assemble and

contemplatematerialthatoffersvaluableopportunitiesforcriticalengagementswiththe

specificcamppreoccupationsthathavebeenmappedoutinthisintroduction.Ihavealso

attempted tobring togetheracollectionof individual casestudies that speak to these

issuesfromadiverserangeofcontexts.Butoftenthissearchforvarietyisitselfinspired

bytheparticularthemesIhavechosentopursue.ConsidertheinterestthatIhavetaken

inthetemporaldimensionsofcampatthedawnofthiscentury:itsintensepreoccupation

withitsownheritage;itscomplexnegotiationsbetweentheoldandthenew.Mythesis

conceivestoreflectthesethemesthroughitsownselectionofsources,whichalternate

between fresh and familiar faces in the camp pantheon. Some chapters focus their

attentionuponfigureswhoarecommonlyregardedasinfluentialprogenitorsofcamp

culture,suchasJackieCurtisandJohnWaters.Othersconsiderthecontributionsofcamp

practitionerswhohavearrivedmorerecentlytothescene,suchasJulieKlausnerandLe

GateauChocolat. Ihaveestablishedthis juxtapositionbecauseitpermitsmetoengage

with two importanthistoricalperspectives.The first involvesan interpretationof the

pastthatcentreson-andissometimesrenderedby-personalitieswhoareidentifiedas

60WhenBooth surmises that itwouldbe futile to attempta chronologicaldocumentationof camp,hisreasonsaresimilartomanyofthepointsIhaveenumerated:“Littleinhistoryisobjectivelyverifiableascamp.Campissomuchamatterofaraisedeyebrow,asecretsmile,analmostimperceptiblepoutorthebarestsuggestionofalimpwrist(thelittlesignsthatpushthepersonaintoparody)that,exceptinafewcaseswherethewordcamporsecamperhavebeenused,itisdifficulttopindown.”p.42.

40

seminaliconsincamphistory.Thesecondismoreattentivetothemannerinwhichan

incipientgenerationofcampperformersseektosituatethemselveswithinthislegacy.

Mycriticalexplorationsarealsomobileintheirshiftsbetweenformalterritories.Each

chapter of this thesis concerns itself with a different medium of artistic expression,

startingwiththedocumentaryfilm,thenmovingontothetelevisionserial,thememoir,

thepodcastandthecabaretact.Theeclecticismofthissourcemateriallargelyderives

frommyinterestinthemultitudinousandenigmaticnatureofcampculture.Thefactthat

campcannotbereducedtoasingleformulationinvitesmyattentiontovariouscontexts

inwhichitispresentedandinterpreted.

Sontagdeclaresthatcamptaste“hasanaffinityforcertainartsratherthanothers”.61Her

view is that camp is heavily attracted to the decorative arts; thosewhich emphasize

“texture,sensuoussurface,andstyleattheexpenseofcontent”.Shedeemsthatcampcan

seldombefoundinconcertmusic,butitisrifeinclassicalballet,opera,popularmusic,

moviesandmoviecriticism.Theconfinesofthisthesisdonotpermitmetoperuseevery

culturalenvironmentwherecampisendemic.Butmyresearchisguidedbyanimpulse

tofollowtheexamplethatSontagsetbyinvestigatingthewaysinwhichcampassumesa

specialconnectionwithparticularartisticpractices,someofwhicharerecentcreations

thatdidnotexistatthetimeinwhichshewroteheressay.Campitselfmightneverbe

whollycomprehended,butperhapswecancomeclosertounderstandingitsproblems

andpersuasionswhenwepaycloseattentiontotheconventionsofartisticexpression

thatitinteractswith.MyreadingofSuperstarinaHousedress,forexample,underscores

thecomplementaryrelationsthatareestablishedbetweencampandthedocumentary

form,withtheirmutualinterestsinthetheatricalisationoflifeexperience.AsIcutacross

differentformsofmedia,Ihopetoilluminatemoreofthesecorrespondencessothatwe

mightsharpenourperceptionsofthespecificconditionsinwhichcampcanbeseento

thrive.

In the next chapter, I submit thatThe Comeback (2005-2014) is itself ameta-critical

reflectiononthepresenceandimplicationsofcampincontemporarytelevision.Thisisa

serialthatisawesomeinitsthematicandformalcomplexity;itconstructsanelaborate

mise-en-abymethatcontainsmultipleparodiesoftelevisualforms,fromfamiliarstaples

61Sontag,p.278.

41

such as the situational comedy to more recently ascendant genres like ‘quality’ and

‘reality’television.Intheprocessoflampooningtheseformalschemes,theserialboth

invitesandreflectsuponacampreadingpositionthatextractsaperversepleasurefrom

scenesofexcruciation.Thisresponse issustainedbycamp’s inveterate interest in the

tropeofthefadedfemalestar;thecentralcharacteroftheseries isaforgottensitcom

actress (Valerie Cherish) who repeatedly resurfaces in new modes of television

production.Theproductionofcamphumour-bothinsideandoutsidethefictionalworld

oftheseries–emergesfromthedrawn-outspectacleofherhumiliationasshestrivesto

resuscitatehermoribundcareer.

In this case, themarginality of camp takesonparticularly complex and contradictory

dimensions. There are severalways inwhichThe Comeback capitalises on notions of

exclusivityandelitism.Notonlydoestheserialself-reflexivelyremarkuponitsowncult

fanbaseofhomosexualmen,butitisalsochannelledthroughtheindustrialandaesthetic

practicesoftheprestigiousbrandof‘quality’television.Moreover,theseriesspecifically

exploitstheseconventions(particularlytheopportunitiesfornarrativeprotractionthat

areaffordedbythenascentgenre)tofacilitateandcontemplatethemoralambiguities

posedbythebrutalityofcamphumourasitmanifestsindifferenttelevisualformats.But

theprogramdoesnotattempt toexempt itself from theproblems that itperceives in

televisionculture - thisbecomesparticularlyevidentwhen itproceeds to ridicule the

pretensionsofitsowngenre.Myreadingoftheserialthusemphasisestheextenttowhich

itsvisionoftelevisionissaturatedwithnotionsofself-contempt.

This chapter is also interested inTheComeback’s reflectionson thegenderpolitics in

campculture.IamespeciallyattentivetovariouswaysinwhichValerie’spositionasa

campobjectiscontingentuponherrelationswithhomosexualmen.Itisclearthatgay

men have emerged as an important demographic in the viewership of the program.

However,theyarealsoportrayedascharacterswhoarepassionatefansoftheactress

inside the diegetic frame of the series. This narrative representation presents an

ambivalentviewonthemoral implicationsofgaydivaworship. Itappearsto intimate

thatsomehomosexualmenmightsympathisewithValeriebecauseofthepainthatlurks

beneath her theatrical persona. But the serial also implies that the malicious

undercurrents of the camp vision might be related to a perceived power imbalance

betweenthefemalestarandherhomosexualfans.Perhapsmostsuggestively,thefinal

42

episodeof theentireserial turnsonaplotdevelopmentthatconceivestocorrect that

imbalance,anditisthisadjustmentthatseemstoprovoketheprogram’srenunciationof

itsowncamphumour.

The second chaptermoves on to consider camp’s relationshipwith anothermode of

cultural production: the life-narrative. This inquiry is grounded in a critique of John

Waters’ memoir Role Models (2010). The chapter demonstrates an interest in the

vanguardpositionthatWatersassumesincamphistory.Manycriticshaverecognizedhis

directorial efforts in underground cinema as landmark texts in the camp canon.

Furthermore,thepersonathatWaterscultivatesforhisownpublicpresentationoften

referencesandreinforceshisreputationasafatherfigure(or,inhisownwords,a“filth

elder”)forthecampcommunity.ThismemoirpresentsWaterswithanotheropportunity

toconsidertheimplicationsoftheculturalrolethatheclaimsforhimself.

My criticism places an emphasis on the literary context in whichWaters forges and

reflectsuponthisidentity.Criticalscholarshiphassometimesoverlookedtherelations

between literatureandcamp.But in this chapter, I argue that thevirtues thatWaters

attributestoliteraryculturebecomepivotaltohisownidentificationasanoutsiderto

the mainstream establishment. This value system is reflected in the literary

endorsementsthatarecontainedinthememoir,anditisalsoembodiedinsomeofthe

subterraneanthemesthatarepresentedbythememoiritself.62

In addition to these concerns, the chapter gives prominence to the memoir’s

representationsofcelebrityculture.Isuggestthatthetextisinherentlyconnectedtothis

themethroughitsownstatusasacelebritymemoir.Thisisagenrethatisoftenmaligned

for its purported commercialism and banality, and these complaints resonate with

broader critiques that have disparaged the whole enterprise of celebrity culture.

However,thepositionsthatWatersespousesinthememoirsuggestamoreoptimistic

attitudetowardsfantasiesofstardom.Imeantoshowhowthisdispositionisconsistent

withaspectsofcampculture,includingitsobsessionswiththemesofculturalalienation

andtheconceptionofpublicpersonae.

62AsIwilldiscuss, theformalqualitiesofthetextaresomewhatmoreconventionalandtamethanthesubjectmatterthatitexplores.

43

The final section of this chapter is devoted to thememoir’s renderings of death and

memory.Watersisacutelyawarethatheisadistinguishedmemberoftheoldguardof

camp culture. For that reason, he is heavilypreoccupiedby the legend thathe leaves

behind.His reflections are steeped inmemories of a golden age in camp history: the

formativeperiodinwhichWatersbegantosecurehisnotorietyasarenegadefilmmaker.

But these retrospections are defined by a profound sense of ambivalence. In some

passages, Waters seems to repent for the moral recklessness that he showed in the

expressionofhisiconoclastichumor.Andyetthereareotherwaysinwhichthememoir

canbeseentopreserveandcelebratetheirreverenceoftheseearlierantics.Ipropose

thatthesecontradictionsraisequestionsabouttheextenttowhichcampiscapableofa

coherentself-criticism.

Thethirdchaptercontemplatescampasitistransmittedbyaformofnewmediaknown

as the audio podcast. To bemore precise, it examines one particular podcast – Julie

Klausner’sHowWasYourWeek?(2011)–whichoperatesasapowerfulvehicleforthe

expression and contestation of camp traditions. I argue that the podcast serves as a

platformforKlausnertoconductavirtuosicperformanceofcampspeech.Herspeechis

recognizable as camp for several reasons: the extreme sense of theatricality that

characterizesherapproachtolanguage;herremarkableprowessasawittyandcaustic

conversationalist; and the decidedly esoteric references that she makes to popular

culture. Her position as a camp performer is reinforced by her fierce affection for

homosexualmen,who are recognized as amajor presence in the podcast’s cohort of

listeners. Inonesense,thissituationrecallsthegenderpoliticsthatweredescribedin

relation toThe Comeback. In both of these scenarios, there is a heterosexualwoman

whoseidentificationascampowesmuchtoherassociationwithhomosexualmen.But

herethereareimportantdistinctionstobemade.TheComebackrepresentsValerieasa

recipient of the cruelties that attend the application of camp humour. The podcast

situatesKlausnerasaproficientandsometimesruthlesspractitionerofthathumour.She

isnotconnected tohomosexualmenasanobjectof their ridicule; she isa fellowand

formidableparticipantintherapierbadinageofcampculture.

Indeed,oneoftheobjectivesofthischapteristodemonstratehowtheformalproperties

ofthepodcastareconducivetotheproductionofKlausner’sdevastatingwit.Isuggest,

for example, that the experimental and open-ended nature of the medium permits

44

Klausnertoindulgeinextemporaneousspeech–acontextthatbecomesessentialtothe

displayofherstrikingdexteritywiththespokenword.Thereareotherfeaturesofthe

podcast that are congenial to the candorandaggressionofKlausner’s rhetoric.These

include its solicitation of niche audiences and the sense of ephemerality that is often

associatedwithoraldiscourse.Itisalsotruethatthepodcastcangenerateconflictsthat

call these camp practices into question. Its attachments to socialmedia, for instance,

mightbe fundamental to the intimate camaraderie thatKlausnerestablisheswithher

fans.However,thisnetworkalsoplacesKlausnerindirectconfrontationwithsomeofthe

targets of her derision. And another dualism emerges in the spectacle of Klausner’s

unrehearsedspeech.Thisqualityof improvisationsharpensthe lacerationsofherwit,

butitalsoleaveshervulnerabletosomeprecariousmoments,revealingtheanxietiesthat

precipitatefromherbellicosepersona.Hence,thepodcastfurnishesanenvironmentthat

bothencouragesandchallengescampactivities.

Other areas of interest include the significance of the podcast with respect to the

historicisation of camp. In somemeasure, this refers to the purpose that the podcast

servesasarepositoryforcampspeech.ButIamalsointerestedintheveryexerciseof

campspeechasameansforrelatingthepast.ForthereareoccasionsinwhichKlausner

canbeseentoperformcampintheprocessofrememberingit.Isuggestthathersardonic

andirreverentreparteeoffersusanapproachtothehistoricalimaginationofcampthat

is imbuedwith its sense of fluidity and effervescence. This function of the podcast is

especiallypowerfulinlightofcamp’sresistancetomoreregimentedandcomprehensive

formsofhistoricaldocumentation.

Thethesisdoesnotconcludewithabriefsummaryofitsprecedingarguments.Instead,

myfinalreflectionsarethreadedthroughacriticalexaminationofLeGateauChocolat’s

cabaretactIHeartChocolat(2015). Iattendedaperformanceofthecabaretthatwas

presentedundertheauspicesoftheFringeWorldFestival,anannualeventwhichisheld

in my hometown of Perth, Western Australia. I draw attention to the setting of the

performance because it plays an integral role in the evocation of marginality that

permeates this enactmentof camp.This is a festival that frames its own content as a

temporary respite from the mores of mainstream entertainment. Furthermore, the

performerhimselfdrawsuponhisincongruouspresenceasanexoticforeignerinorder

toaccentuatetheothernessthathiscabaretmeanstocelebrate.Infact,theentirecabaret

45

is predicated on the pleasures that can be found in recognitions of difference. This

position ismanifest in the socio-politicaldimensionsof the cabaret – aswe see in its

treatmentofthemessuchasrace,gender,sexualityandbodyimage.Itisalsodisclosedin

the aesthetic construction of the performance, perhaps most notably in the dazzling

varietyofitsvisualandmusicalpresentations.

Theemphasis that thecabaretplacesupon itsown foreignnesspromptsme toreflect

uponsomeofthespatialelementsthatunderpinmyowncriticalunderstandingsofcamp.

Thismovesmetoentertainthenotionthatmyperceptionofcampisinfluencedbymy

personal impressionsof itsmarginal presence inmy specific surroundings.This brief

invocationof theautobiographical lens ismeant to furtherunderscore the contingent

natureofmycriticalexplorationsofcamp.Thespeculationsthatfollowareconditional

on my own set of circumstances and perspectives. Hence, these factors are both

registeredandreckonedwithinthecourseofthiscritique.

46

ChapterOne:GiveHerAnotherTake

“Once lost these creatures cannot be recovered tho their recoverywould be agreeable.Whowouldn’twelcomebackVeronicaLakewhoisbythistimeathingintheair,ajoke,atragedy,asufferingsymbolofdownfall,workingasabarmaidatMarthaWashingtonHotels–shorn.Welosethem–ourcreatures”–JackSmith,HistoricalTreasures

Timeseemstostretchoutunbearably.Thecameraunflinchinglytargetsitsaimatevery

excruciatingdetailonitshorizon.Anuncomfortabletensionaccumulatesatatorturous

pace before finally unleashing itself with an eruption that is at once disturbing and

hilarious. These are the closest termswithwhich I can describe the curious affective

experience of watching HBO’s serialized program The Comeback (2005-2014). The

show’s brutal and prolonged sense of claustrophobia is its aesthetic hallmark. The

unnervingatmosphereitgeneratesisanaturalconsequenceofitsintensepreoccupation

withthepassageoftimeandtheactsofrecording,distributingandregardingimagesthat

arebothpainfulandamusing.

TheinstabilityandambiguitythatcharacteriseTheComeback’stonalregisterprecipitate

fromtheshow’ssimultaneousapplicationandexplorationofthecampgaze.Examining

theworld from the camp outlookwill oftenmean paying attention to and producing

spectaclesthatcouldbeinterpretedasembarrassingorfunny(orboth).Italsoinvolves

apronouncedsensitivitytotheprocessionanddragoftime,especiallywithregardsto

sitesofanachronismanddecomposition.Themoralandemotional implicationsborne

out of this way of seeing remain unresolved. The Comeback inhabits this precarious

terrainwithatightlydrawnintimacy;itschieftacticistointensifyandlingeruponwhat

isunsettledandunsettlingaboutcamp.

Inthisinstance,televisionservesasthehosttocamp’sself-contemplation,externallyand

withinthediegeticworldoftheprogram.TheComeback’sfirstseasonfollowstheplight

of its protagonist, Valerie Cherish (played by Lisa Kudrow), an actress attempting to

reinvigorate her lapsed career by starring in a lackluster sitcom while concurrently

allowingaRealityTVcrewtodocumentherhazardousandfrequentlyhumiliatingbidto

reclaimthespotlight.The‘look’oftheprogramismadetoemulatetheaestheticsofthe

47

‘reality’format,withthefictionalpremisethatallthematerialappearingonscreenisthe

uneditedfootagecapturedbythecrewValeriehaspermittedtopursueher.

TheComeback’sself-reflexiveformhasbeenpivotaltoitsreceptionincriticalscholarship.

Thusfar,theshowhasbeenreadprimarilyasacommentaryonthestateofthemedium

of television and its various genres. Lisa Williamson, for example, considers The

ComebacktobelongtoanassemblageofHBOprogramsthatchallengeconventionsofthe

sitcomgenrebyoptingtoappropriate“thelooksandstylesofothertelevisionforms,such

aslatenighttalk-showsandRealityTV”.63Inasimilarvein,CraigHightarguesthatThe

Comeback “strays from the conventions of the sitcom genre” through its refusal of a

“redemptionnarrative”foritsprotagonistanditssatiricalportrayalofthe“dehumanizing

andexploitiveethosofpopularrealityprogramming”.64

Sincetelevisionculturedoesfigureheavilyintheactsofmimicryandcritiqueperformed

by The Comeback, critics are certainly justified in making comparisons between the

programandtheothertelevisionpracticesitportrays.Byitself,however,thisapproach

doesnotaccuratelydelineateoraccountforthemurkyandsporadicmoodofthetext.

NordoesitexplainwhyIfoundTheComebacksofunnyanddisturbing.Inmyview,this

dualityisconnectedtocontradictorythemesandimpulsesthatco-existwithinthecamp

perspective:distanceandidentification,worshipandridicule,performanceandsincerity.

The unflagging resolve with which The Comeback produces and reflects upon such

conflicts(withoutpretendingtoprovidetheirresolutions)istherootcauseofitsunruly

affectiveinflections.

ApartofthechallengeinwritingclearlyaboutTheComebackderivesfromitsdensely-

stackednarrative,whichseesValerietraversingthroughcountlessinter-relatedspheres

ofthetelevisionindustry.Withgoodreason,Williamsonmakesapointofstressingthe

“complex”natureoftheshow’slayeredmise-en-abyme.65Shealsotakestimetooutline

the intricate technical strategiesof theprogram:whilemostof thenarrativeaction is

63LisaWilliamson,“ChallengingSitcomConventions:fromTheLarrySandersShowtoTheComeback.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEra,ed.MarcLeverette,BrianL.OttandCaraLouiseBuckley(Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009)p.108.64 CraigHight,TelevisionMockumentary: Reflexivity, Satire and a Call to Play (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2010)p.277.65Williamson,p.115.

48

recordedwith a hand-held camera, there is also footage filmed ostensibly by Valerie

herself (forherpersonalvideodiary),scenescaptured fromcamerasstationedonthe

ceiling of her bedroom and kitchen, and interviewmaterialwhich is shot in a studio

setting.66

TheactualprocessofwatchingTheComebackisnotasdisorientingasthesedescriptions

mightsuggest.Theshow’snarrativeandstylisticcomplicationsinnowayeffectaviewing

experiencewhichisdisjointedorunfocused.Thefactorlendingcoherencetoaprogram

that could otherwise seem cluttered is a remarkable consistency of rhythm. The

Comeback is almost always obliging its audience to adopt a specificmode of looking,

which is slow andpenetrative. That ‘look’ is imposedduring each discrete scene and

episode,anditisalsoadministeredcumulativelywhenoneisbeholdingtheprogramas

aunifiedserial.Thefollowingdiscussionisanattempttoelucidatetheoperationofthis

gazeanditsimplicationsregardingcamp.

“IDon’tWanttoSeeThat”

Aspresagedbyitstitle,TheComebackisaseriesthathingesontheactofreturning.The

motifofrepetitionannouncesitselfmosttransparentlyasabasicthematicconceit:when

wemeetValerie,itisunderstoodthathertelevisioncelebrityhasbeeninabeyancefor

quitesometime,andweareobservingherdesperatestruggletorestoreit.However,the

prospect of an encore is also something the text itself instils and relies upon in the

constructionofitsowntemporallogic.

In2015,MichaelPatrickKing(whoco-createdtheserialalongsideKudrow)commented

toDeadlinethatTheComeback“seemstohaveitsowntimeframe”.67Thisremarkwas

madeinreferencetotheidiosyncraticlifeoftheseries,havingbeencancelledafterone

seasonin2005beforebeingrelaunchedin2014forasecond.Asitstands,thepossibility

66Ibid.67 JoeUtichi, “LisaKudrow&MichaelPatrickKingDiscuss 'TheComeback'’s9-YearBreak&Season3.”Deadline(22June2015)http://deadline.com/2015/06/lisa-kudrow-michael-patrick-king-interview-the-comeback-1201451562/(accessed7/8/2015).

49

ofathirdinstalmentisstillupintheair.Duringitsnine-yearhiatus,TheComebackwas

not necessarily expelled from the popular consciousness. In fact, the author of the

Deadlinearticlespeculatesthattheinterimperiodbetweenseasonssawthesteadyrise

of the program’s avid cult following, a development enabled by contemporary

technologies which facilitate the very potential of repeated viewings with respect to

televisioncontent(DVDs,internetdownloads,etc.)

This trajectory coordinates sharply with the disposition of a camp audience. Camp

practitionersregardtheircanonasattentiveconnoisseurs;theydwellupondetails,and

sometimesre-enactchoicescenariosandsnippetsofdialogue-anactofdoublingwhich

usually betrays that its performer has had multiple encounters with the source

material.68Theyalsodemonstrateapassionforrevival.AsFlinnhasrecognized,camp’s

gravitation toward refurbishments of the obsolete is epitomized by its perennial

fascinationwith‘aging’femalestars,apostheretakenupbyValerie.69Thisproclivityalso

accords with the wavering production schedule and extended gestation periods

experiencedbytheshowitself.

Atadeeper level,TheComeback isare-examinationofold ideasaboutacampwayof

watchingtelevision.Sontagwrote“NotesonCamp”inthemid1960s,atimethatsawthe

accelerationofmasscultureanda rigorousdebateondistinctionsbetween ‘high’and

‘low’art.70Televisionwasacontroversialplayerinthisarena,havingattractedawealth

ofcriticismthatdeclareditdeficientinmoralandaestheticprinciples.71Sontagdidnot

actuallymentiontelevisioninheressay.Nonetheless,herexplanationofcamp’sapproach

toaestheticjudgmentinfluencedpopularresponsestothemedium.

As described by Sontag, the camp gaze is fundamentally ironic. Instead of adopting a

straightforwardposition in the ‘high/low’culturaldebate, campdeems thatacultural

68Note that Sontaguses the term ‘connoisseur’ repeatedly throughouther essay todescribe the camppractitioner.69Flinn,pp.433-457.70SeeMichaelKammen,AmericanCulture,AmericanTastes:SocialChangeandthe20thCentury(NewYork:BasicBooks,1999)pp.176-189.71JohnWagnerandTracyMacLeanprovideausefuloverviewoftheabundantcriticaltextscondemningtelevisioninTelevisionatTheMovies:CinematicandCriticalResponsestoAmericanBroadcasting(London:ContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup,2008)p.12.

50

productis“goodbecauseit’sawful”.72Herrecognitionofthisattitudepermittedothersto

startappreciatingtelevisionbyvirtueofacamplens.Intheiranalysisofthetelevision

seriesBatman(1966-1968),LynnSpiegelandHenryJenkinsreportthattelevisioncritics

oftheerabeganinvokingtheterm‘camp’asastrategyforfindingpleasureinaspectsof

the medium they themselves had previously derided: “cartoonish characters, cheap

industrialtools,gimmickyspecialeffects,aflattenedoutandexaggeratedsenseofcolour,

repetitiousimagery,andfactory-likeproduction”.73

TheComebackquestionsiftheespousalofcampisstillatenablepositionfromwhichto

interpret television in the 21st century. The series is conscious and demonstrative of

momentouschangeintelevisionculture,not leastofwhich:theemergenceof ‘quality’

television as spearheaded by cable networks, the surge of the ‘reality’ genre and its

perceivedthreattoscriptedcontent.Howhasthispassageintelevisionhistorybeared

uponcampirony,andvice-versa?Hasthegratificationofferedbythecampgazeturned

sour?Isitflourishing?

TounderstandhowTheComebackconductstheseinquiries,wemustbecognizantofthe

waytimeisshapedandorganizedbytheformalcharacteroftheseries.Tobeginwith,the

very fact that I am attending to the show as a discrete and recognisable unit (with a

stretched-outnarrativethatunfoldsbywayofaserializedstructure)itselftestifiestoa

shiftinpredominateunderstandingsoftelevisualtime.

Forexample,in1974RaymondWilliamsinfluentiallyappliedtheterm‘flow’todescribe

television’s uninterrupted stream of audio-visuals.74 His understanding was that

television content presented no discernible beginning or ending; the dispersal of

advertisementsduringandinbetweenprogramsmeantthatonedevelopmentonscreen

wouldalwaysleadtoanother.Scholarsoftensuggestthatthisstructurehadsignificant

narrative implications; hence the prevalence of ‘cliff-hanger’ moments prior to

72Sontag,p.292.73 Lynn Spiegel and Henry Jenkins, “Same Bat Channel, Different Bat Times: Mass Culture in PopularMemory.”inTheManLivesoftheBatman:CriticalApproachestoaSuperheroandhisMedia,ed.Pearson,RobertaE.andWilliamUricchio(NewYork:Routledge,1991)pp.121-122.74RaymondWilliams,Television:TechnologyandCulturalForm(NewYork:Schocken,1974)p.89.

51

commercialbreaks,75andsitcomswhoseschemaspermittedviewersto‘dropin’onany

given episode and easily comprehend the plotwithout necessarily having seen every

instalmentoftheseries.76

ThesequencingofTheComebackdoesnotrelyuponthesecues.First,thecablenetwork

airing it (HBO) is funded on a user-subscription model and therefore refrains from

injecting commercials into its broadcast.77 Second, as previously alluded to, The

Comebackisverymuchofanerawherethereareavarietyoftechnologiesempowering

consumers to exercise more control over their television viewing experiences, for

instance,bywatchingseveralepisodesatonceviaDVDortheInternet.78Theseconditions

ofproductionandreceptionsanctionthestretchingoftimesoessentialtotheemotional

andintellectualarithmeticofTheComeback.

It is now common to see expressions like ‘long-form television’ in critical forums

identifying a movement that has seen the medium achieve unprecedented cultural

prestige. Among other features of programming (elaborate set designs, high-profile

directors and actors, ensembles casts, explicitmaterial, well-curated soundtracks) an

extendedandcomplicatednarrativebuiltataslowpaceisoftenregardedasintegraltoa

specificproductionculturecurrentlyearningtelevisionwidespreadcriticaladmiration.79

Accordingtosuchlogic,TheComeback’sprotractionoftimemightsimplybeconsidered

amarkerof(orbidfor)aestheticsophistication,andforthatreasonincompatiblewith

camp’spreferentialtreatmentofthe“awful”overthe“good”.

75ChrisGregory,BeSeeingYou…DecodingThePrisoner(Bedfordshire,UK:UniversityofLutonPress,1997)p.25.76BrettMills,TelevisionSitcom(London:BritishFilmInstitute,2005)p.24.77AviSanto,“Para-TelevisionandDiscoursesofDistinction:TheCultureofProductionatHBO.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEra,ed.MarcLaverette,BrianLOtt,CaraLouiseBuckley(Florence:Taylor&Francis,2008)p.28.78CitingtheworkofToddM.Sodano,MelissaAmesdeclaresthat“today’sviewercantime-shiftand/orbingeonfavouriteseriesthroughDVD,DVR,on-demand,andonlineviewing.Consequently,thestandard(traditionallytheweekbetweennewepisodes)thatusedtopredominateTVdiscoursehasnowshrunk,increased or been eliminated altogether.” See Time in Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality inTwenty-First-CenturyProgramming(UniversityofMississippi:2012)p.10.79Forexample,seeTonyKelso’sdiscussionofthedistinctivefeaturesofHBOprogrammingandthecriticalacclaimthenetworkhasacquiredin“AndNowNoWordfromOurSponsor:HowHBOPutstheRiskbackintoTelevision.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEra,ed.MarcLaverette,BrianLOtt,CaraLouiseBuckley(Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009)pp.48-49.

52

Herein lies one of the most striking aspects of the show: its arrangement of and

commentary upon time does not evoke a self-congratulatory glorification of ‘quality’

television.Theinflatednarrativeblocksthatframethestorytellingdonotregisterasan

uncriticalreflectionoftherisingstatureofthemediumonwhichtheyappear.Theselong

stretchesoftimeareinsteadchannelledforareckoningfarmorevolatileandambiguous.

ThepointofTheComebackisnottoexaltitselfas“good”ortoadmonishwhatis“awful”,

buttopositcamp’sdisruptionofthesedistinctionsandtesthowitreadswhenitisgiven

time to percolate, when reiterated over and over again, and observed from different

angles.

Idonotmeantosuggestthatcampistheonlylensthataviewermightadoptintheir

spectatorshipofTheComeback.Audiencereactionisnotafactorthatcanbepresumedin

categorical terms; therewillbeprobablybemanyviewerswhosepersonal tastesand

inclinationswillprecludethepossibilityofacampreading-neitherWilliamsonnorHight

makementionofthetermintheiranalyses.Thoughacampresponsemightnotappealto

everyviewer,theshowstronglylendsitselftothisinterpretation.Infact,itbothprovokes

andself-reflexivelycritiquestheapplicationofthecampgaze.

TheComeback’sproductionofcamphumouriscontingentuponthelatter’saffectionfor

what Sontag called “passionate failures”.80 These failures are usually supplied via the

program’scharacterizationofValerie.There isamplehumour tobe found inValerie’s

theatricalmannerismsandspeechpatterns;heroutdatedhairstyleandfashionsense;her

inabilitytocontrolaclearlyexploitiveRealityTVcrew;thedead-seriousnesswithwhich

sheapproachesherperformanceonaludicroussitcom;and,moregenerally,herdubious

attemptstoreframethemyriadrejectionsandhumiliationstheentertainmentindustry

showers upon her as stepping stones for what she incorrectly presumes will be a

dignifiedreturntothepubliceye.Thecomichookof theseries isValerie’s impossible

desiretobetakenseriously.

It might be uncomfortable to behold these “passionate failures”, but then camp is

notorious for thepleasure that itderives frompainfulsubjectmatter.Sontag, forone,

80Sontagdescribedcampasa“seriousnessthatfails”,whichinvolvesamixtureofthe“exaggerated,thefantastic,thepassionateandthenaïve.”Seep.283.

53

takesnoteofcamp’sinterestinthe“qualityofexcruciation”.81AccordingtoBabuscio,this

qualityisthedefiningfeatureofcamp’ssenseofhumour;thematerialtargetedbythe

campgazemust“affectoneaspainful”,forexample,byenlistingoursympathy.82Headds,

however,thattheaffectinquestionmustnotbesopainfulthatitseffectistoneutralize

humour.Theemotionsstimulatedbycamphumouraresupposedtobeambiguous:“one’s

feelingsneedtoclash”.

Inthisinstance,that“clashoffeelings”iscoordinatedandcomplicatedbyTheComeback’s

manipulationoftime.Theemotionalsensitivityofeachindividualcamppractitioneris

impossible todiscern,but Iwouldargue that “passionate failures”mightbeeasiest to

enjoywhentheyaredispatchedinbrief,discontinuousbursts.Speakingformyself,atany

rate, camp’s rejectionof conventionalaesthetic judgment ismost seductivewhen it is

deliveredasasortofrefreshingjolt;ashocktothesystem.Whenthetemporalframeis

longer,amoralqueasinesssettlesinamongst(butdoesnotnecessarilyextinguish)the

wildblastsofhumour.

Thestructuraldesignoftheseriescultivatesthisamalgamationofpleasureandanxiety

inseveralways.WatchingindividualscenesfromTheComeback,weareconstantlymade

to feel the inexhaustibledeterminationwithwhichthecamerafixesuponValerie.The

narrativeactiontendstocreepupverygradually,ratherthanprogressinginleapsand

bounds.Theeffectuponcampisthatitsdosageisnotportionedoutinrapidsuccession.

Weareaskedtopaycloseattentiontoeachandevery“passionatefailure”asadrawn-out

spectacle.Therebywebecomeintimatelyacquaintedwiththemoralambiguityitposes.

ThechoiceoftheserialformalsodemandsthatweexperienceValerie’sfailuresasasort

ofinterminablechain,ingeminatedepisodeafterepisode.Thisrepetitioncouldfurther

intensifytheconflictedpositionoftheobserver.AprincipalreasonthatValerie’sfailures

qualifyas“passionate”isthestaggeringextenttowhichtheyendure.Sheisastonishingly

incapableofbreakingherpatterns(i.e.byrelinquishingheraffectations,orcommanding

81Sontag,p.287.82JackBabuscio,“TheCinemaofCamp(AKACampandtheGaySensibility).”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.126.

54

genuinerespect),andthisisapartofwhatmakeshersoamusing.Thecyclicalnatureof

Valerie’scampinfusesitwithmorepotency.

Bythesamemeasure,thatperpetuityfunctionstoaccumulatetensionandevokedread.

EachinstalmentoftheseriesexpandsthevastarchivalrecordofValerieconfiguredin

embarrassingscenarios.Thefictionalconceitthatallthismaterialis‘raw’footagelater

scheduledtobeeditedandbroadcastanticipatesthefuturehumiliationtobesufferedby

Valeriewhenthecontentiseventuallyaired.Thelengthofthathumiliationisincalculable

becausefilmcanalwaysbereplayedandexperiencedanew.AsFrankMollerhaswritten,

“Imagesofpeopleinpainseemtoprolongasubject’svictimizationbyfixingsituationsof

sufferingandimmobilizingahumansubjectasavictim…”83Itisnotjusttheexistenceof

Valerie’s suffering that might disconcert us, but the fact that her suffering is being

preservedandprolongedasarecordedimage.

Theconclusionof the first seasondetonatesanexplosiverealisationofall the lurking

presentimentsandtensionsIhavebeendescribing.Afterstockpilinganever-increasing

moundofrecordedhumiliations,TheComebackcapitalizesuponitsaccretionofunease

inordertoenactthemostextremeexpressionofthetemporaldimensionsithassetinto

motion. This consolidation arises during the season’s penultimate episode, “Valerie

ShinesUnderStress”,whosetitleitselfsignalsastateofaccruedpressure.Thecatalytic

plotdevelopmentinquestionconcernstheproductionofaridiculoussceneforValerie’s

sitcomthatrequirestheactresstoperformapratfallwhiledressedasagiantcupcake.

Traditionally,themethodcontrivedbysitcomstoproducehumourisonethatfavours

instantgratification.MedhurtandTuckshaveunderscoredthispointbydescribingthe

form’s approach to comedy with the directive that “immediacy is imperative”.84 The

propulsionofthisrapidtempoisapalpableenergywithinTheComeback’sportrayalof

thesitcom’smachinations.ThemomentthatValeriestepsontothesoundstage,sheismet

withclamorouslaughterfromthestudioaudience.Themeresightofherpreposterous

costume - instantly appealing to camp’s taste for flagrant excess - is a self-contained

83FrankMoller,“AssociatesinCrimeandGuilt.”inEthicsandImagesofPain,ed.AshbjornGronstadandHenrikGustafsson(NewYork:Routledge,2012)p.24.84AndyMedhurstandLucyTuck,“TheGenderGame.”inB.F.IDossier12:TelevisionSitcom,ed.JimCook(London:BFI,1982)p.43.

55

comedicprompt.Butinsteadofsynchingitselftothatrhythm,TheComebackatomizesit

bydrawingout all the agonizing labourValerie undertakes in order tomanifest such

fleetingpleasure.

Oneofthereasonstheshowcanelucidatethisstrainedconditionsovividlyhastodowith

the repetitious cadence of the narrative movement. When, in an early scene of the

episode, Valerie obsessively rehearses the pratfall in her bedroom, the relentless

succession of her plummets to the ground is likely to provoke our nervous agitation.

Subsequentscenesfurtherstimulatethesetremorsofanxietybyraisingthepossibility

thatthestuntmightcauseValerieseriousphysicalharm; it isdisclosedthatshehasa

metalrodboltedtoherspinefromscoliosissurgeryundergoneinchildhood.Noneofthis

material is adventitious to the breathtaking drama that ensues when Valerie finally

performsonstage; this iswhat lays the foundation for the jitteringapprehension that

buildswitheachoneofherperilous slapstick falls.The sitcom’s finishedproductwill

showcasethetumbleasanisolatedandbriefimpression.Butherewehoverinthetorpid

spacesbetweeneverytake,thecameraunremittinglyalerttoValerie’sgrimdemeanour

of determination, the callous indifference of her head-writer (“Paulie G.”), the

increasinglydisquietedfacesoftheonlookingcrew.Wesitinthisdiscomfortwithoutany

prospect of respite: no ready cue for the next dashing scintillation on screen; no

anaesthetisingdistractionbywayofcommercialbreak.

Thearrestingforceofthescenecannotbeattributedalonetotheinternalcompositionof

theepisodecontainingit.Thecupcakesequenceharnesses,rehashes,andupstheanteon

schemes of narrative action that have been threaded throughout the entire season.

Notice,forinstance,howreminiscentthestructureofthisepisodeistothatofthepilot

that launched the series to begin with. Therein we observed Valerie indefatigably

practisingasinglelineofdialogueinherkitchen(“Idon’twanttoseethat!”)onlytoelicit

a lukewarm responsewhen, at long last, the phrase is uttered on set. Valerie is then

reducedtogrovelling,desperatelymarshallingthestudioaudienceintochantingaplea

forasecondchanceatthedelivery:“Giveheranothertake!Giveheranothertake!”The

self-reflexiveundertonetotheseunitsofdialogueisresounding;TheComebackitselfis

onecolossalexerciseinrepetition,beholdingdifficultimageswemightsometimesprefer

toavert.

56

Theonsetofnauseatriggeredbythisspinningcommotionisnotjustasensationincurred

byTheComeback’saudience;itisalsoaconstituentelementofthenarrative.Thecupcake

scenemodelsValerieasasortofemblemoftelevisualcampnausea,servingdualrolesas

itscauseandcasualty.Thispositioningisfiguredbothsymbolicallyandliterally(asaplot

development):whenValerieretaliatesagainstthecrueltyofherhead-writerbypunching

himinthestomach,shecauseshimtovomitalloverher,andthen,as ifbyreflex,she

vomitsherself.

ThatthepremiereofValerie’srealityshowshouldarriveduringTheComeback’sseason

finale leavesyetanothercircular imprint.Unsurprisingly, thegruesomefootageof the

‘doublevomit’ is the touchstonemomentof thepilot, and is abruptlyhurledonto the

screenwithoutanynarrativecontextorintroduction.AsJohnWagnerandTracyMacLean

suggest, reality programming is infamous for relying on the manipulative effects of

editing to fabricate an illusion of spontaneity, lending a sharper jolt to the often-

bewildering images it displays. 85 And how appropriate it is for the phenomenon

reignitingValerie’scelebritytoarriveintheformofafilmedregurgitation.Foronceithas

been recorded, theappalling scenecanbe recycledendlessly in infinite forumsof the

mass-media(afactalludedtoinTheComebackwhentheclipisre-airedduringValerie’s

appearanceonTheTonightShow).Renderedasatelevisionimage,thereisnolimittothe

extentandthedurationofValerie’sabasement.

Repetitionisanessential ingredientforthetelevisedcampthatTheComebackdepicts

andperforms.But therearedifferencesbetween the series andwhat itportrays.The

“passionatefailures”of thesitcomandRealityTVshowappearscatteredandfrenetic;

dressedupas ‘immediate’even though theyareutterlyhabitualandrecurrent.Those

committedbyTheComebackfeelmoredeliberate,becausetheyhavebeenassembledand

aggregatedbythestretched-outshapeofthenarrative.Theyseemtospareusnodetails;

theybeckonustolookforlonger.

85WagnerandMacLean,pp.89-90.

57

“I’mReadyforMyClose-Up”

Instructuringtheviewer’sexperienceofTheComeback,theprogram’ssubsistenceupon

narrative protraction is supplemented by a sustained sense of acute proximity. To

observe Valerie’s calamitous trials means coming into very close contact with

troublesomeimagesandtheintricatemoralandaestheticquandariestheyinspire.

This confrontational temperament is evinced by the visual composition of the series,

mostnotably,throughitsfrequentemploymentoftheclose-upshot.Intelevisionculture,

the decision to apply narrow focus upon an actor’s face is customarily a strategy for

imbuing the screenwith intensityof feeling.Hence, itspopularity as avehicle for the

emotionalhistrionicsofthesoap-operagenre.86Ofcourse,otherformshavealsoaccessed

theaffectiveintensityoftheclose-up.WhenconsideringitsoperationinSunsetBoulevard

(1950)-afilmthathasanespecialsignificancetoTheComeback,asIwilllaterdiscuss-

DanielBrowndiscernsaclaustrophobicmenaceinthecamera’szoom,aneffectthatis

drawnuponmostprofuselybyhorror-movies.87

AsformulatedbyTheComeback,theclose-upisloadedwithpredatoryimplications.The

cameraseizesuponValerie’sfacemostferventlywhenitfindsherin,orcreatesforher,

aterriblyembarrassingsituation.ItisusuallythecasethatValerie’spainisinextricable

fromthefactthatitisbeingrecorded.Aclassicexample:thediscoveryofherhusband’s

pornographicvideocollectiononlydistressesherbecauseithasbeencapturedonfilm,

anditislikelytobebroadcast.Inanotherepisode,thesymbioticrelationshipbetween

suffering and its representation is expressed more viscerally. After an excruciating

businessmeetinginwhichValerie isrejectedbyaprospectivepublicist, therecording

apparatusgetssoclosetoherfacethatitalmostcrashesintoherbody.Inhereffortto

withdrawfromthecamera’sadvance,shebecomescaughtinitscables,literallyensnared

bythemachinerythatfilmsher.

86JonathanBignell,AnIntroductiontoTelevision(2ndEdition)(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2008)p.92.87DanielBrown,“WildeandWilder”PMLA,119,No.5(October,2004)p.1128.

58

Theself-consciousadoptionofthispenetrativeoutlookcarrieswithitmultipleshadesof

meaning. The camera’s assumption of the prerogative to probe so intrusively (and

obtrusively)servestoparodyRealityTV’satrociousreputationforinvasionsofprivacy.

It also discredits any pretence that the genre might conduct a passive mediation of

‘reality’ that abstains from interferingwith the environment it represents.88 Far from

playingtheroleofaninvisible‘window’intothesocio-historicalworldthatitrecords,the

camerapushessohardintothemiseenscènethatitthreatenstostriketheobjectofits

attention.89

Buttheclose-upisnotjustawaytoparodymodesofproduction;itisalsoawayforthe

show to foreground its interests in cultures of reception. Theweight assigned to the

camera’sgazeservestoremindusthatValerieisconstantlybeinglookedatinvarious

ways.Sheisbeingwatchedbytheshow’sfictionalproductioncrewthatfilmsher.Sheis

being watched by the fictional but unseen audience for whom the footage is being

recorded. She is also beingwatched by us: the audience that peers into the fictional

universeof theseries. Ineachof thesecontexts,Valeriecanbe interpretedasacamp

object.Buthowisthislabelbeingimposed?TheComebackmightbeself-consciousinits

solicitationofthecampgaze,butthecharacterthatitportraysisnot.Valeriedoesnot

wanttobeappreciatedinironicterms;shewantstobetakenseriouslyasanactressand

inspirational televisionpersonality.Shedoesnotdeliberatelypresentherselfascamp,

butcampisaprismthroughwhichshecanbeseen(byaudiencesbothwithinandoutside

oftheseries).90ThisistheessentialviolenceofTheComeback’simaginationofthecamp

vision:ithastheimpertinencetolookatValerieinawaythatshedoesnotwanttobe

seen.91 The close-up draws attention to this imposition through the aggressive

88ByMishaKavka’saccount,critiquesadmonishingthemeddlesomenatureofRealityTVhavetrailedthegenresinceitsinfancy.See,forexample,herdiscussionofthepublicreactiontothedocumentaryseriesAnAmericanFamily(1973)inRealityTV(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2012)pp.32-35.89 This aspect of the camerawork aligns itselfwith the show’s narrative representation of Reality TVproduction. As Hight has observed, Jane (the Reality TV producer) and her crew are “seen constantlyinterferingwiththesubjectsandnegotiatingaccessinwaysthatsubvertanypretenceof‘flyonthewall’filmmaking”.Seep.277.90Sontagunderstoodthatcampcanbeimposeduponunwittingsubjects.Shecalledthis“naïvecamp”.Seep.282.91PamelaRobertsondrawsadistinctionbetweenstarswhohaveactivelycourtedthecampgaze,suchasMaeWest,who,“ifnotborncamp,certainlyachievedit”,andstarswhoaredeemedtobecampagainsttheirownwill.JoanCrawford,sheargues,seemstohave“hadcampthrustuponher”inthelatestagesofhercareer.Seep.87.

59

relationshipthatitassumeswithValerie;bearingintohersubjectivitysofiercelythatthe

cameraalmostslamsrightintoherface.

Onadeeperlevel,theclose-upcanalsobeinterpretedasametaphorfortheperformance

of parody that is enacted by the series. Here I am referring to the conflict between

proximity and alienation that is evoked by the physical dimensions of the shot. The

encroachinggazeofthecameramightbetakentopromiseintimacy,butitalsohomesin

oninsurmountableboundaries.Theclosertoitstargetthatthecameraroams,themore

finelyitdemarcatesathresholdbeyondwhichitcannottravel.

Itisinthisrespectthattheclose-upreflectstheparadoxicaltermsinstalledbytheformal

dictates of parody. Parody is a mode of humour that depends upon a simultaneous

evocationofaffinityandestrangement.Thisisbecauseitclaimsidentificationwiththe

subjectthat itendeavoursto lampoon.AsLindaHutcheonexplains,“Eveninmocking,

parody reinforces; in formal terms it inscribes the mocked conventions onto itself,

thereby guaranteeing their continued existence”.92We have seen howThe Comeback

playsoutthisdynamicthrough itsappropriationandcritiqueofcamphumouras it is

channelledbytheformatsofRealityTVandthesitcom.

Thecontradictory termssetupbyTheComeback’s investment in (andexplorationof)

camphumourconstitutea critical resource in theprogram’smethodology formaking

meaning.Theoscillationbetweenapproximationandcritiqueopensapathwaythrough

which the show confronts some of themost alarming elements of the camp outlook,

namely,itspotentialforsadism,ratherthansimplycondescendingtothem.Byhazarding

a flirtationwiththewickednessthat it teasesout,TheComebackdenies itsobservera

securesenseofmoralsuperiority.Take,forinstance,thespectacleofValerieasavomiting

cupcake.Thissceneislikelytocompelsympathyfortheprotagonist(outofconcernfor

the lossofherdignity)aswellas revulsion towards thesensationalisticvoyeurismof

RealityTV.If,however,theviewerfindsaperversepleasureinthisimage(itcertainly

mademe laugh),heorshehasbeendrawnintoapositionofcomplicity.93Thatviewer

92LindaHutcheon,ATheoryofParody:TheTeachingsofTwentiethCenturyArtForms(Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2000)p.75.93WilliamsoncontendsthatTheComeback’sappropriationofRealityTVstylisticscreatesasenseof“uneasyambivalence”;“eventhoughtheaudiencemayempathizewiththeperformer’slackofcontrol,thereisalsothesuggestionthattheyaresomewhatcomplicitinthehumiliationprocess”.Seep.121.

60

cannotclaimacomfortabledistancefromthemoralgrievancesheorshemightfeelabout

theproductionofthiscampmoment.

TheComebackisscorchinginitscritiqueofrivaltelevisualforms,butitdoesnotaddress

themasbinaryopponents.Itisfilledwithrecognitionsoftheintimaterelationshipthatit

has with the formats that it ridicules. As Williamson has pointed out, consumers of

popular television are likely to register significantoverlapsbetweenKudrowandher

fictionalcounterpart.94JustlikeValerie,Kudrowisherselfaformersitcomactress,most

famousforherroleas“Phoebe”ontheenormouslypopularseriesFriends(1994-2004).95

Williamson contemplates some of the implications of these autobiographical ties,

postulating that Kudrow “seems to be self-consciously acknowledging the limited

opportunitiesforanactresswhoiscloselyassociatedwithherpreviousrole”,andthat

her“sitcomexperienceinreallife”lendsanotionofverisimilitudetohercharacter.96I

wouldsuggestthatKudrow’sfirmassociationwiththesitcomgenrealsoenhancesthe

sense of proximity between the performer and her subjectmatter. In her capacity as

writerandleadactress,Kudrowisnotcritiquingtheformatfromaremotevantage;she

andValeriehavesprungoutofthesameformalandindustrialcontext.

OnceTheComeback jumps into itssecondseason, thedistinctionbetweenparodyand

self-parody becomes increasingly blurred. It is at this stage that the show most

dramaticallyfoldsinonitself.Ratherthancontinuingtoimitateothergenresoftelevision,

The Comeback turns its attention towards the practices and aesthetics of its own

productioncompany:HBO.

TheComeback coordinates this shift througha complicatedplotmanoeuvre.After the

eventsofthefirstseason,welearnthatValeriehasspentanentiredecadeflounderingin

akindofcelebritypurgatory:makingbotchedappearancesonotherRealityTVprograms,

showingupforbriefguestspotsoncrimeprocedurals,andsellinginfomercialproducts

foranunprofitablehaircareline.(“It’sallaboutaspecialcantaloupeinFrancethatholds

themoistureinduetosomethingintheseeds!”)Sheisluredbackintothespotlightwhen

94Williamson,p117.95Thecommonalitiesbetweentheactress/authorandhercharacterdonotendthere;Kudrow’smiddlenameisinfact‘Valerie’.96Williamson,pp.117-118.

61

sheiscastinanHBOlimitedseries(“SeeingRed”)createdbyPaulieG.“SeeingRed”isa

thinlyveiledaccountofPaulieG.’smiserabletenureasawriteron“RoomandBored”and

histurbulentrelationshipwithValerie.HBOalsoenlistsJanetofilmabehind-the-scenes

documentary on the making of “Seeing Red”. This necessitates an adjustment in the

fictionalconceitofTheComeback’sform:wearenolongerwatchingtheuneditedfootage

ofaRealityTVshow;wearenowwatchingtherawcontentofJane’sHBOdocumentary.

Afterthischangeinscenery,onemightpresumethatTheComeback’sfascinationforthe

camp gaze would recede into the background. Unlike other television content, HBO

productionsarenotrenownedfortheir“passionatefailures”.Sincethelate1990s,the

institution has been at the forefront of a radical change in estimations of television’s

aestheticandintellectualvalue.97Thisisacompanythathasstakeditsreputationonits

capacity tomanufactureprestige.98 Surely then,Valerie’s entry into itshallowedhalls

would vitiate the application of a camp reading position, which deems its target so

patently“awful”thatitbecomes“good”.Asithappens,TheComebackdoesnotposition

HBO as an uncontaminated refuge from the nausea of camp irony. It transpires that

Valerie’s ascension into the illustrious domain of ‘quality’ television simply furnishes

anothercontextforherabasement.

TheComeback’srecrudescenceasaparodyof thedocumentary format(asopposedto

RealityTV)doesnotpromptanysignificantvariationintheshow’sstylisticpresentation.

Theestablishedaestheticofthefirstseasonremainsintact,withitsmixoffrenetichand-

held camera shots, high-angle shots from the ceilings of Valerie’s house, video-diary

footage and studio-filmed interviews.99 The series alsomaintains a sense of thematic

continuity, for the camera is as ruthless as ever in its documentation of Valerie’s

debasement. Perhaps surprisingly, Valerie’s foray into the highly-esteemed culture of

HBO does not protect her from the prospect of constant ridicule. If anything, her

embarrassmentsbecomeevenmoredevastating.

97JanetMcCabeandKimAkass,“It’snotTV,it’sHBO’sOriginalProgramming:ProducingQualityTV.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEra,ed.MarcLeverette,BrianL.OttandCaraLouiseBuckley(Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009)p.83.98Ibid.99ThereisasceneinwhichwediscoverthatHBOhassuggestedthatValerie’sstudiointerviewsshouldbefilmedwithdarkerandmoresubduedlighting,buttheactressflatlyrefusestoaccommodatethisrequest.

62

ItistruethatValerie’sroleon“SeeingRed”winshercriticalacclaimandaccolades,but

TheComeback itself betrays an intense scepticismabout thepurported virtues of her

performance and the industrial practices that are devised to produce it. Instead of

attempting to flatter its own audience or canonize itself, the show finds humour in

exposingthepretensionsofthetelevisioncultureinwhichitparticipates.Fromwhatwe

seeof“SeeingRed”,theseriesappearstoexemplifyseveralofthecharacteristicsthatare

associatedwith‘quality’television(self-consciousness,verisimilitude,illicitcontent).But

inthisparodicrepresentation,suchconventionsarenotaccordedanyinherentvalue.The

Comeback regards themwith the same degree of sardonic derision that it previously

directedtowardsotherformsoftelevision.

TheComeback’ssecondseasonderivesmuchofitshumourfromitsportrayalofValerie’s

strained efforts to conform to the norms and standards of ‘quality’ television. For

instance,oneofthewaysthisformatdefinesitselfisthroughthepremiumthatitplaces

upon naturalism,100 a style of acting that is based on notions of verisimilitude and

invisibility (that is, concealing its own constructedness).101 One might suspect that

Valerie’s rearingasanactress in thesitcomgenre,whosegenerationofcomedyoften

demands a style of acting which is transparent in its artificiality, might pose some

difficulties in this respect.102 Nevertheless, Valerie proceeds to deliver a remarkably

unaffectedperformancein“SeeingRed”.Thetwististhatthiseffectseemstohavebeen

procuredwithouttheconsciousintentionoftheactress.Forexample,Valerieismortified

when sees the rushes of her acting, complaining that she looks “tired” because the

directorhadinsistedonanenormousnumberoftakesforthefilmingofherscenes.This

100SarahCardwellmakesapointof including“naturalisticperformancestyles” inher listof thetypicalfeaturesof ‘quality’ television in theUnitedStates.See“IsQualityTelevisionAnyGood?” inQualityTV:Contemporary American Television and Beyond ed. Janet McCabe and Kim Akass (New York: PalgraveMacmillan,2007)p.26101SeeMills,p.69.102Inhisdescriptionofcomedyactinginsitcoms,Millsarguesthat,“comedyisoftenlittlemorethanaveryobvious set of quotationmarks, with performances which are not coded as realistic and which don’tcontributetowardsthepsychologicalrealismofthecharacter;insteadsuchactingdisplaysitspurpose–tomakeyoulaugh-whilesimultaneouslyofferingthosegesturesascomicwithinthemselves.Forexample,comiccharactersareoftenassociatedwiththecostumestheywear,thewaytheymove,orcatchphrases.”Seep.78.

63

scenariooffersacleverspinontheconceptofValerie’s“passionatefailures”, implying

thattheonlywayshecanbetakenseriouslyasanactressiswhenshehasbeenusedas

kindofunwittingprop.

TheComebackisalsocognisantofthewayinwhich‘quality’televisiondrawsuponself-

reflexive techniques to bolster its claims of verisimilitude. Consider Williamson’s

observationabout thekeen similaritiesbetweenKudrow’s star imageand that of her

fictionalcounterpart.Thisactofsimulationissomethingtheseriesitselfparodies,forit

quicklybecomesevidentthatValerie’scharacteron“SeeingRed”ispatentlybasedupon

her likeness -hername is “MalerieChurch”andshe isdescribedasa “neurotic,older

sitcomactress”.ThereisconsiderablehumourtobefoundinValerie’sfruitlesseffortsto

distinguish herself from “Malerie”. For instance, when she demands to have a wig

especiallydesignedforthecharacter,theresultisanexactreplicaofherownhair.But

thenotionthatValerieis‘playingherself’becomesintegraltothecriticalpraiselavished

uponher performance.One reporter fromTheNewYork Timesgushes, “Youwere so

emotionally raw.Peoplehavenever seen that sideofyoubefore. It felt likeyouwere

exposinganinnerpartofyourselfinaverysurprisingandcompellingway.”ForValerie,

though,thefeatofself-revelationthatisattributedtoherperformanceisnotasourceof

artistic pride. This perception only compounds her discomfort and humiliation, since

“Malerie”isneitheraflatteringnoraccuraterepresentationofhercharacter.103

The autobiographical dimension of her performance becomes especially problematic

when“Malerie”iscastinaseriesofsordidsexscenesfor“SeeingRed”,themostdreaded

ofwhichseesherfellating“Mitch”,whoisobviouslyintendedasafictionalstand-infor

PaulieG.ThedialoguebetweenJaneandValerie(asshepreparesforthefilmshootinside

hertrailer)denotesthetroublesomeimplicationsthatcanbedrawnfromsuch‘fiction’:

Jane:PaulieG.wroteascenewhereyoublowhim?!Valerie:Well,notme,Malerie.Andit’snotPaulie,it’sMitch,hischaracter.Jane:Isdoingitgoingtomakeyoufeeluncomfortable?Valerie: I think…for an actor…they’re frequently asked to step outside theircomfortzone...OnetimeIhadtoplayabrunettewithmigraines!

103Valerie isoutragedwhenshe firstreadsPaulieG.’sscript(“He’swrittenmeasamonster!”)butshepromptlyagreestoparticipateintheseriesbecauseshecannotresisttheappealofHBO’sprestige.

64

McCabe and Akass have explained how the dissemination of illicit content has been

intrinsic toHBO’sperceivedcachet in thehierarchyof televisionscreenculture.104 Its

explicitdepictionofsexandviolencehasbecomeaway for thecompanyto fortify its

claim to creative freedom and to distinguish itself from network television, which is

beholdentotheconstraintsofstrictercensorshiplawsandtheconcernsofadvertisers.105

Butinthisparody,theunsavouryimagescastbyHBOdonotsimplyfunctiontoreinforce

thedaring reputationof thebrand.Theirpresence serves to inflict further indignities

uponValerieandtobefoulherpublicpersona.106

Becausewe are only shown very thin fragments of its footage, it is unclearwhether

“SeeingRed”isnecessarilyintendedtobeconsumedascampentertainment.Butweare

abletodiscernthatValerieiscommendedforrenderinganuglydistortionofherown

screenpersona.Bythisturn,televisionisseentoexcelbyvirtueofitsself-castigation,at

leastbyarbitersoftaste likeTheNewYorkTimes. InthevisioncastbyTheComeback,

television seems to be stuck in a compulsive and repetitive pattern of its own

cannibalizationandself-ridicule.Thisthemeenduresthroughoutthelabyrinthinetwists

andturnsoftheshow’smise-en-abyme.RealityTVfeedsonthesitcom;thedocumentary

feeds on ‘quality’ television, which in turn, feeds on the sitcom, and so forth. The

Comebacktakesupanoverarchingpositioninthisviciouscycle,offeringuspleasurein

itsexcruciatingdepictionofalltheabove.Thereisasensethattelevisioncannotseemto

resisttheimpulsetoregarditselfwithbitterness.Perhapsthisistheultimateresonance

oftheclaustrophobiaandmenaceoftheclose-upshot.

The Comeback renders a television culture so thoroughly mired in its own hideous

reflectionthatitcanonlyprojectfantasiesofreverenceoutsideitsframeandtowards

oneofitsearliestrivals.Thecinematicformisimaginedasasortofseductivestranger

104“Sex,SwearingandRespectability:CourtingControversy,HBO’sOriginalProgrammingandProducingQualityTV.”inQualityTV:ContemporaryAmericanTelevisionandBeyond,ed.JanetMcCabeandKimAkass(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007)pp.62-76.105Ibid.106Inoneoftheserial’smostdisturbingscenes,ValerieattendsafashionableHollywoodpartywhensheisgreetedby ‘fans’whobegin chanting, “Oldwoman’spussy!Oldwoman’spussy!” Inanattempt to saveherself from the humiliation of thismoment, Valerie rushes to explain that they are quoting dialoguespokenbyMaleriein“SeeingRed”.Buther‘fans’makenodistinctionbetweentheactressandherfictionalcharacter.Asoneofthemputsit,“Oldwoman’spussy…It’sthesamething.”

65

whoseglamorouspresenceisexpressedinfilmstarcameosandintertextualreferences.

Theelevatedstatusoffilmisnotall-encompassing.Forinstance,itisrevealedthatJane

wasoncehonouredwithanAcademyAwardforashort-filmdocumentary,butshenow

treats the tributewithdetached indifference, repurposingherOscar statueasadoor-

stop.Butforthemostpart,cinematendstobearacertainairofgravitaswithintheworld

of the series. It is as though the cynicismwithwhich television recognizes itself is so

overpoweringandpervasivethatTheComebackiscompelledtoenvisionanotherform

thatexistsbeyondtheconfinesofitsownimmuredstructureofironicself-regard.

OneofthewaysTheComebackconfersprestigeuponfilmisthroughitsrepresentationof

itsactors.Throughouttheserial,famousfilmstarsarerecruitedtoplayfictionalversions

of themselves, and their characters are specificallymarked for their covetable allure.

During the finaleof the first season,wearegivena fleetingglimpseofCameronDiaz

appearingasaguestonTheTonightShow(1954-).Valerieisalsomeanttobeinterviewed

ontheprogram,butherslotisimmediatelydeferredwhenDiaz’ssegmentrunsovertime.

Valerie begrudgingly accepts this postponement and the inferior position inwhich it

placesher:“Iunderstand…Youcan’tgooutthereandgrabamoviestaroffthecouchby

herhair!”Moreover,thereisanotherfilmstarwhotakesonasimilarstatureinthesecond

season.ThisdevelopmentrestsontheplotconceitthatHBOhascastSethRogentoplay

oppositeValeriein“SeeingRed”,hiringhimtoperformthepartof“Mitch”.Inalmostall

hisscenes,Rogenisfawneduponbythecastandcrew;everyoneseemstobeenthralled

by the potency of his charm and celebrity. In both characterisations, the film star is

positioned as a kind of celestial being that briefly descends into the troposphere of

television,drawingawefromitsinhabitants.

Thisfeelingofadmirationtowardscinemaisalsoexpressedthroughseveralreferential

gestures.MostofthesearetobefoundinValerie’slinesofdialogue;thecharacterhasa

persistent and peculiar habit of performing impressions of various film stars (i.e.

Katherine Hepburn, Woody Allen, Matthew McConaughey etc.) in the course of her

everydayspeech.Thecharacterswhoarewitnesstotheseperformancesmostoftenreact

tothemwithamixtureofwearinessandincredulity.Insuchmoments,Valerieisquite

literallyfiguredasapaleimitationofthecinematicicon.Thus,heractsofmimicrycanbe

interpretedasastatementonthesecond-classstatusofthetelevisionstar;apoorand

syntheticsubstituteforthegenuinearticle.

66

TheComebackmakesoneallusiontocinemathatcarriesaparticularlystrongresonance

inthiscontext.Bymycount,therearetwoexplicitreferencestoSunsetBoulevardinthe

dialogueoftheseries,bothofwhichriffonthefilm’sfamouslastline:“Mr.DeMille,I’m

readyformyclose-up!”,spokenbyaderangedNormaDesmondassheswaystowards

the newspaper photographer that she has mistaken for a film cameraman. The first

quotation arrives very early in the pilot episode, when Valerie’s hairdresser Mickey

appropriatesNorma’swordswhenheintroduceshimselftoherRealityTVcrew.Theline

islaterreferencedbyValerieherselfwhensheisonthesetof“SeeingRed”.Theactress

becomesagitatedafterlearningthatsheisscheduledtomeetwithareporteronadayof

shootinginwhichsheisdressedinanenormousgreen-screenbodysuit,wornforthe

purposesofspecial-effects thatwill transformhercharacter intoagrotesquemonster

duringadreamsequence.“Asyoucansee,I’mnotreadyformyclose-up,”sheprotestsas

shegesturestowardsthebizarreoutfitinwhichsheisattired.

Therepetitionofthisallusionbearsseveralimplications.Ononelevel,thequotationself-

consciouslysignalstheprogram’spronouncedinterestsinthecontiguityofthecamera’s

gaze, the effects of which we have already discussed. But it also suggests the

acknowledgementofanoteworthyprecursorinacamptraditioninwhichtheshowis

embedded. Sunset Boulevard’s status as a camp classic is enshrined in Core’s

encyclopaedia,107butitisRosswhomostclearlyexplainsthecampeffectofthefilm.108

Ross argues that Sunset Boulevard plays into camp’s interest in sites of “historical

incongruity”.109 It achieves this effect through its depiction of the deracination of the

silent film star; the characterisation of NormaDesmond evokes a vanishingworld of

glamour and grandeur that violently clashes with the contemporary Hollywood film

cultureof the1950s,with itsheavy relianceuponwords,dialogueandsocial interest

themes.110

In a similar vein to Sunset Boulevard, The Comeback pivots on the female star’s

maladjustmenttomajorupheavalsinmodesofculturalproduction.Whereastheformer

registersthe“traumaofthepassingofsilentfilm”,111thelatterturnsonseismicshiftsin

107Core,p.175.108Ross,pp.308-329.109Ibid,p.311.110Ibid.111Ibid.

67

television,asthesitcomgenreissupersededbytheRealityformatand‘quality’television.

Bothstarswhoareimplicatedinthesetransitionsarestillclingingtothefadedgloryof

theirrespectivepasts.Perhapsthemostcrucialdistinctionisthatthesilentfilmstar’s

trajectory represents a fall from spectacular heights. Sunset Boulevard repeatedly

stressestheepicproportionsofthefamethatNormaacquiredattheheightofhercareer.

Herstardomissoindeliblethatthepubliccontinuestomarvelatthemeresightofher

presence, even when the actress has been out of work for several decades. Norma’s

exalted rank in celebrity culture effects a stark contrast to the rather lowly post that

Valerie occupies. The television actress reached the pinnacle of her careerwhen she

landeda leading role ina sitcomduring theearly1990’s.Her crowningachievement,

however, was not nearly enough to induct Valerie into the rarefied realm of

superstardom.Thereisarunningjokethathardlyanyonebesidestheactresscaneven

rememberthathercherishedsitcomeverexisted.

Ontherareoccasionthatthesitcomisremembered,itisusuallytheobjectofridicule,as

whenoneofthedirectorsof“RoomandBored”offersthisbrutalremindertoValerie:

“Yourshowwascancelledbecause,inthelastseason,youhadachimpworkinginthelaw

firm!”Strangelyenough,thefirsttimeweencounterNormainSunsetBoulevard,sheis

holdinganextravagant funeralservice forthedeadchimpanzeethatwasherpet. It is

striking thatboth textsseemtoassociate thisanimalwith the ideaofdeath.Butonce

more,thereisadiscrepancyinthemeasureofwhathasbeenlost.InSunsetBoulevard,

thechimpanzee’sevocationofruinisintertwinedwithnotionsofexoticaandexcess.112

ButinTheComeback,thepresenceoftheanimalsimplybetokensarisiblesitcomthathas

goneofftherails.

ThehomagetoSunsetBoulevardconfirmstheshow’spreoccupationwithoneofcamp’s

canonical concepts: the displacement and desecration of the female star. While the

programisawareofthelegacyofthisidea,italsorecalibratesitsdesign.TheComeback’s

representationoftelevisionisentirelydevoidofnostalgia.Valeriedoesnotsymbolizethe

tragicdeclineofagildedera;herstaturewasdiminutiveevenbeforeitbegantowane.

Thisreflectsashiftinthelocusofthecamptradition:wearenolongerdealingwiththe

112Whenmakingplansforthechimp’sburial,Normadeclaresthatshewantsthecoffintobewhiteand“freshlylinedwithsatin”.Thissenseofdecadenceisahallmarkofthesilentfilmera.NotethatRossreferstoNormaasasymbolofthe“pre-bourgeoisage”ofHollywood;a“crumblingaristocracy”.Seep.311.

68

extinctionofsplendourbutrathertheperpetuationofmediocrity.Thecampgazethat

once gloried on the downfall of the screen goddess now finds gratification in the

demotion of the minor celebrity; the transfixing spectacle of Norma’s descent into

madnessissucceededbycrassimagesofthevomitingcupcakeandtherepulsivemonster.

“What’sfabulousaboutyou?Whydowecare?”

InTheComeback’ssecondseason,thereisanepisodeinwhichValeriefacesagruelling

dayofpromotionalinterviews.Inthescene,Valeriebravelysoldiersthroughaseriesof

questionsabouttheappallingdepictionofwomeninthetelevisionindustry,aproblem

herowncareerexemplifiesalltooclearly.ThereportersareplainlybaffledbyValerie’s

decisiontoparticipate inherowndegradation,butsheremains intransigent.Atevery

turn,Valerieiseitherunwillingorunabletoseeherselfasanythingbutadignifiedartist.

When askedwhy she agreed to film the scene that depicts her character performing

fellatio,sheanswers, “Iamanactressandyoudowhat’srequiredof therole.”Onthe

rangeof roles available towomen in television: “Youhavewaitresses, and therapists,

metermaids,strippers,crackaddicts...Ijustthinktherearesomanypartsforwomenin

TV right now. And it’s just wonderful.” Finally, there are two questions that do stop

Valerieinhertracks.Theyareposedbyamalememberofthepressjunketwhosefaceis

heavilylacqueredinmake-up.Hisdemeanourislanguidandnonchalant;heislistlessly

caressing his gold necklace throughout the entire interview. His only questions are,

“What’s fabulousaboutyou?Whydowecare?”Valerie, forherpart,canonlyrespond

withsilentbewilderment.

Theimplicationsofthesequestionsareleftambiguous.Thewordsthemselvesmightbe

construedasavaguecompliment,but there is somethingchilling in theway theyare

spoken. There is a flatness in their delivery which is at odds with their apparent

sentimentofaffection.Whenhespeaks,theintervieweriswearingasombreandeven

wistfulfacialexpression.HemightbelookinguponValerieasanobjectofpity.Hemight

simplybedespondentathisownstateofboredom. The journalist isplayedby Justin

69

Sayre,whowillbefamiliartomanycampdevoteesforhisqueer-themedcabarets,plays

and podcasts. On social media, I recently asked Sayre about his experience on The

Comeback,andhedisclosedthathischaracterwaspitchedtohimsimplyasagayblogger

whosenameis“Q”.

Howeverbriefhisperformance,Sayre’scameoisafineexampleofthemannerinwhich

TheComebackaddressesitselftothequestionofcamp’sgenderpolitics.Inbothseasons,

Valerieisrepeatedlysituatedinproximitytogaymen.Notonlydotheyassumecritical

rolesasherfansandcompanions,buttheyarealsoflaggedaspotentialgatekeepersto

herprofessionalsuccessandculturalrelevance.Asviewers,weareinvitedtobroodover

themoraldynamicsthatareatworkintheserelations.However,theshowdoesnotoffer

usanyfacileconclusions.Valerie’sconnectiontogaymeniscrucialtoherstarpersona,

buttheirallianceishighlycomplicatedandunstable.

Onthismatter,therearealsometa-criticaldimensionstoconsider,forValerieistiedto

gaymenbothinsideandoutsidethediegeticworldoftheseries.MichaelPatrickKing,

whoco-createdtheserieswithKudrow,iscurrentlyoneofthemostprominentgaymen

intheAmericantelevisionindustry;heismostfamousforhisworkonSexandCity(1998-

2004)andTwoBrokeGirls(2011-2017).Beyondthis,theshowappearstoholdaspecial

resonanceformanygayaudiences. Inonepressinterview,Kudrowevendeclaresthat

gay men seemed to be the only ones who “understood” the series when it first

launched.113

A gay following of this kind is sometimes interpreted as one of camp’s identifying

markers.Forinstance,MarkFinchconsidersthatthecampofanothertelevisionseries,

thesoap-operaDynasty(1981-1989),wasmostevident“inconversationwithinthegay

community,or intheparaphernaliaofthecommunity’sbastions”.114Fincharguesthat

gaymenprimarilyrespondedtothebitchinessevokedbytheperformanceandstarimage

113ChrisAzzopardi,“Q&A:LisaKudrowJudging‘DragRace’(AsValerieCherish!)&GaysBeingBiologically‘Superhuman’.”PrideSource (November 2004) http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=68569(accessed1/4/17).114MarkFinch, “Sex andAddress inDynasty.” inCamp:QueerAesthetics and thePerforming Subject: AReader,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.154.

70

ofJoanCollins.115IwouldsuggestthatmuchofthegayinterestinTheComebacksimilarly

restsonthecharacterisationofitsfemalelead.Bitchiness,though,isnottheregisterin

whichValeriethrives.Tobeclear,Icannotaccountforherappealinsofarasitextendsto

eachindividualgaymalefan.Thereare,however,strikingaspectsofhercharacterthat

intersectwithtropesofgayexperiencethatarerecognisedincriticalliterature.

IhavealreadyadvertedtoValerie’stheatricalisedspeakinghabitsandmannerisms:her

voiceisoftenpitchedinaheightenedandaffectedmanner;herspeechis litteredwith

peculiar catch-phrases (i.e. “hello, hello, hello!”); andher body language comprises of

many extravagant and idiosyncratic poses – as when she folds her hands in prayer

wheneversheisexpressingadmirationorgratitude.Thesequirksofpersonalitycoincide

withValerie’sconstantposturinginfrontofthecamera;herstrainedattemptstomake

herselfappearglamorousanddignifieddespiteeverybitterhumiliationshefaces.

Criticalscholarshiphaslongacknowledgedcamp’spreoccupationwiththeatricalityand

“intensitiesofcharacter”,toborrowSontag’sphrase.116Inthiscontext,JackBabusciohas

proposedsomespecificideastoexplaintheinterestthatthesequalitiesmightholdfor

homosexualmen.117Histheorycentresonthepremisethatmanyhomosexualshave,at

somepointintheirlives,madeeffortstoconcealtheirorientationbecauseofthestigma

thatattachestosame-sexattraction.Thisprocess,whichisknownas‘passing’,throwsits

participant into an elaborate regimen of stylised behaviour. As a result of which,

homosexualsarelikelytohavea“heightenedawarenessandappreciationfordisguise,

impersonation, the projection of personality, the distinctions to be made between

instinctiveandtheatricalbehaviour.”118

Ifgaymenareoftenattunedtothepracticeofmasquerade,Isuspectthattheyarealso

sensitivetoitsinadequacies.Itisanuncomfortablefactthatimitationsofheterosexuality

115Ibid,p.156.Forabroaderdiscussionontheappealofthe‘bitch’figuretogaymen,seeDanielHarris,“TheDeathofCamp:GayMenandHollywoodDivaWorship,FromReverencetoRidicule.”SalmagundiNo.112(Fall1996)p.173.116Sontag,p.291.117Sontagdoessuggest thatcamp’s “metaphorof lifeas theatre ispeculiarlysuitedas justificationandprojectionofacertainaspectofthesituationofhomosexuals”butrefrainsfromelaboratingonthesubjectanyfurther.Seep.290.SeeBabuscio,p.123.118Babuscio,p.124.

71

donot alwaysbear upunderpublic scrutiny.119 It is true that somehomosexuals are

capableofthemostimpressiveactsofdeception,buttheyareprobablynolessvulnerable

tothedreadofpublicexposure.HereImustreturntoValerie,forthetypeofposturing

thatsheperformsismostoftenflagrantandtransparent.Isaythisnotjustbecauseofthe

hyperbolicnatureofherdisplayforthecamera,butbecauseoftheinterrogativeposition

that the camera assumeswith it. The lens trains itself on every painfulmoment that

threatenstofractureherpoise.Itwaitspatientlyfortheprecisepointatwhichtheserene

smiledropsfromherfacetorevealagrimace.120

TheComebackdoesnotinsinuatethatValerieisalatenthomosexual.Shemay,however,

resonatewithhomosexualaudiencesbecausesheevokesthefragilityofanexistencethat

issustainedunderfalsepretences;ananxiousstateofdenialthatmanygaymenhave

experienced in culturesof entrenchedhomophobia.121TheComeback isnotexplicit in

spelling out these cross-reverberations, but they are hinted at obliquely through the

narrativedesignoftheprogram.Forinstance,thereareveryfewscenesintheseriesin

whichValerie isnot accompaniedbyMickey,her loyalhairdresser.Mickey isnot just

Valerie’semployeebuthermostavidfan-hehasashrinetoherinhislivingroom,which

isotherwisecrammedwithportraitsofnakedmen,art-decopaintings,andkitschobjets

d’art. It isacomicplotof the firstseasonthatMickeyremainsaclosetedhomosexual,

even thoughhe isoutrageously flamboyantandwell intohismiddle-age.Webegin to

discernthatMickeyandValerieare linkedbytheirrespectiveexercises insubterfuge,

bothofwhicharehopelesslyfutile.

ThisbringsmetoanotherelementofValerie’scharacterthatoverlapswitharecurring

theme in gay culture: the comebackmotif. Valerie’s pretencesmaybe ineffectual, but

there isnodenyingthestrengthofherpertinacity. Itdoesnotmatterhowclearly the

119WeneedonlyrecalltherumorsthatdoggedcelebrityfigureslikeRickyMartinandIanThorpeintheyearsbeforetheyresolvedto‘comeout’.120NotethatonesuchmomentoccursrightafterQasksValerietoexplainwhatmakesher“fabulous”.121 The gay liberation movement of the late twentieth century has meant that, in many countries,homosexualityisnowmuchlessclandestinethanitwasinpreviousgenerations.Butitwouldbefartoooptimistictoinferthattermslike‘passing’or‘thecloset’havebeenconsignedtothebackwatersofhistory.Inhisaccountofthehiddennatureofhomosexualitypriortothegaymovement,DennisAltmanmakesthepointthatmanyoftheyounghomosexualsofthisgenerationstillstruggleto“reconciletheirsexualitywithotherpartsoftheirlives”SeeTheEndoftheHomosexual?(StLucia:UniversityofQueenslandPress,2013)p.21.

72

cameraexposesthepainthatlurksbeneathherbrightandcheerfulfaçade.Valeriewill

alwaysreturninthenextscene,andthereshewillappearcomplaisantandreadytocarry

on.Thiscyclereflectsthebroadertrajectoryofhercareerandherstubbornresolveto

remaininanindustrythatonlyshowersherwithridicule.

In one press interview,Kudrow speculates that it is this quality of perseverance that

explainsthecharacter’sgayappeal.122ShereasonsthatValerieisendlesslyhumiliated

andsheimaginesthatherstateofperpetualtormentmightparalleltheinfinitehardships

facedbyhomosexuals intheireveryday lives.Thecharacter’s firmresolutionto“keep

going”mightbeparticularlycompellingtothemforthisreason.

DyerhasaccountedforthegayinterestinJudyGarlandalongsomewhatsimilarlines.123

Inhisanalysis,thecomebackthemeisarunningthreadinthepresentationofGarland’s

persona;itisreflectednotonlyintheembattledcharacterssheplayedonscreen,butalso

in the style of her musical performances (particularly in her later concerts, where,

“howeverdemandingthemelodynowseemedtoher,shedidgettotheendofthesong”)

and the monumental dramas of her personal life.124 Dyer also calls attention to gay

writingthatdirectlyassociatesthispatternwiththevicissitudesofhomosexuallife,for

instance,BarryConely’sstatementthatgaymen“sawinJudyaloserwhowasfighting

backatlife,andtheycouldthemselvesdrawaparalleltothis.”125

Dyer conceives of the comeback as a posture of triumphant defiance; a powerful

declarationofstrengthinthefaceofsuffering.ItseemssignificantthatValerie’sfeatsof

endurance never acquire this air of righteousness. They are more accurately

characterized as recurring steps in what appears to be a prolonged exercise in

masochism. The savage irony of the entire series is that Valerie’s deeply coveted

‘comeback’ is really the cause of her own downfall. We have already seen how this

conceptisliteralizedintheclimactic‘cupcakescene’ofthefirstseason,whereinValerie

willinglysubmitsherselftoonedangerouspratfallafteranother.Itisevenpresagedin

122 See Chris Azzopardi, ““Q&A: Lisa Kudrow Judging ‘Drag Race’ (As Valerie Cherish!)& Gays BeingBiologically ‘Superhuman’.” PrideSource (November 2004)http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=68569(accessed1/4/17).123RichardDyer,HeavenlyBodies(NewYork:Routledge,2004)pp.145-149.124Ibid.125Ibid,p.149.

73

thepromotionalartworkthatHBOhasdistributedfortheprogram;priortotheseries

premiere, the company released a poster that shows Valerie flashing a smile for the

cameraasherbodydescendsintothefunnelofameatgrinder.

If Garland’s persona evokes a fantasy of prevailing over adversity, Valerie evokes the

inverseimageofapainfulacquiescence.Iwouldsuggestthatsuchanimagemightfurnish

anotherparallelwithhomosexualexperiencesof‘passing’.Babusciodescribes‘passing’

asa“survivalstrategy”,anditcannotbedeniedthatthosewhopresentafalsefrontof

heterosexuality are often granted a temporary shield from any number of perils,

including social ostracization, professional hardship, physical violence, and in some

countries, criminal punishment. This strategy, however, is not an attempt to defy the

stigma of homosexuality. It permits homosexuals to survive only insofar as they are

willing to accommodate and reinforce that stigma. It promises them some degree of

safetyatthecostofperpetuatingtheirownoppression.Perhapsthedrawn-outspectacle

ofValerie’sself-flagellationtapsintosomeoftheanguishofthisterribledilemma.126She

couldbeseenasortofemblemforthevastreservoirofpainthatsitsbeneaththesurface

ofthegaymalecampfascinationforhyperbolicaffectations.

Theseexplanationsareofferedwithsomediffidence,sinceIamconsciousoftheextent

oftheirlimitations.TheideasthatIhaveentertainedwithrespectto‘passing’mightapply

toafewdifferentgroups(i.e.lesbians,bisexualsetc.)butitseemstobegaymenwhoare

especiallydrawntoValerie’scharacter.Thispointitselfrequiresqualification,asthere

are plenty of gay men who will have no interest in her whatsoever. Insofar as The

Comebackaddressesthissubject, it iswithafairamountofambiguityandincertitude.

Theshowappearstoself-consciouslyacknowledgeitsowngayappeal,but itdoesnot

professtoconclusivelydetermineitsprovenance.

The Comeback is also ambivalent in its contemplation of the moral mechanics that

underpinthiscultureoffandom.ItisaratherdubioushonortoberecognizedasValerie’s

impliedaudience. Ihavealreadyargued that theseries inducesanxietyabout itsown

126TheComeback’snarrativestructureseemstoadumbratethepossibilityofthisconnection.Noticethatthe gay blogger’s interactionwithValerie is placed right after the reporters’ questions concerning hercomplicitattitudetowardsherownhumiliation.

74

spectatorship,especiallyregardingthereadingpositionthatregardsValerieasacamp

object. The Comeback does not suggest that this interpretive practice is exclusively

adoptedbyhomosexuals,buttheshowdoessignalanawarenessoftheseminalrolethat

gaymenhaveplayed in itsapplication.Thesecondseason, for instance,beginswitha

plot-linethatfindsValeriestakingouttheChateauMarmontsothatshecanhuntdown

AndyCohen,theRealityTVimpresarioknownfortheRealHousewivesfranchise,andbeg

himtoemployher.CohenisshownhavinglunchwithnoneotherthanRuPaulCharles,

theinternationaldragqueensuperstar.

ItisnoexaggerationtosaythatCohenandCharlesaretwoofthemostfamousgaymen

inourcontemporaryculture.Theyarealsotwoofitsmostfamouspurveyorsofcamp.It

oughttoberemarkedthatbothmenhaveusedtheircelebrityplatformstochampionThe

Comeback,issuingtheprogramwithendorsementsthatcouldonlyintensifyitsrabidcult

following.127Thisdynamicismirroredintheinteriorworldoftheshow,wheretheyare

portrayed as luminaries of camp entertainment whose support and patronagemight

facilitateValerie’slatestcomeback.

In this fictional portrait, there is something pathetic about Valerie’s bid for the

recognitionofthesemen.ItissuggestedthatCohenandCharlesbelongmuchhigherup

intherankingsofHollywood’sechelonsoffame;otherwiseshewouldnothavetopursue

themsostealthily.128AfterValeriethrowsherselfattheirtable,thecameraconcentrates

onherpleadingeyesasshegrovelsfortheirattention.Thegaymalecampiconshavenow

becomeimplicatedinherabjectpositiononscreen.

SuchscenariosinviteustoconsiderthekindofexchangethatismadebetweenValerie

andgaymenthroughthechannelsofcampappreciation,bothinsideandoutsidethetext.

Elsewhere, I havediscussed thewry sensibility that informs the camp ‘vision’, as per

Sontag’sfamousdictumthat“it’sgoodbecauseit’sawful”.Itistheadoptionofthisironic

readingresponsethatmightsteerthegayfascinationforValerieintoquestionablemoral

127Cohenoftenprofesseshiskeenaffection forTheComeback onhis television talk-showWatchWhatHappensLive(2009-).RuPaulfrequentlyreferstodialoguefromtheserialduringhisappearancesonhisownrealitytelevisionshow,RuPaul’sDragRace(2009-).128ValeriehasonlylearnedthatCohenislunchingattheMarmontthroughtherevelationsofsocialmedia.ThehostofthehotelrestaurantisvigilantinhiseffortstorestrainValeriefromenteringitspremises.HeeventuallyresortstopunchingValerieinherabdomen,buteventhiscannotstopher.

75

territory,sinceitsoperationiscontingentuponherdegradation.Iwanttoconsiderthe

possibilitythatValerie’sdegradationdoesnotjustelicitthesympatheticidentificationof

hergayaudience;itmightalsobeasourceofsadisticpleasure.

AccordingtoDanielHarris,thegaymalefascinationforthefemalestaroftenbearstraces

of mockery and spite.129 He also places the cultivation of these tendencies within a

specifichistoricalcontext.Hisessayoffersaroughlysketchedchronologyofthecultural

forcesthatshapedthegayresponseto female iconsonscreen,whichhas increasingly

turned“fromreverencetoridicule”.Itisworthprovidingabriefsynopsisofthisnarrative

becauseitgeneratessomeusefulideasinconsideringhowourtextmightpositionitsgay

viewersinrelationtoValerie.

Harrisarguesthatthefemalestarwasasiteofgayworshipintheearly20thcentury.She

securedthiseminentstatusforreasonsthatarepeculiartothecultureofcinemaandthe

socialcircumstancesoftheera.Herappealasavehicleofescapism,forinstance,pivoted

onthestarkcontrastbetweenthedecadentandpermissiveworldconjuredbyherfilmic

imageandtheoften-grimrealityofhomosexuallifeatthetime.130Beforetheadventof

theirpoliticalactivism,gaymenrequiredindirectsourcesofinspirationtosurvivetheir

hostileenvironments.Hence, theirattractiontothecombativescreenpresenceof film

divaslikeBetteDavis.131Knowledgeofthesestarsalsoestablishedasortofsecretcode

thatgaymenreliedupontoidentifyoneanotherandexpresssolidarity.132

Thiswastheperiodinwhichthefemalestarmostpowerfullycommandedtheadmiration

ofhergayfans.Butevenatthisstage,theiradmirationforherwasoftentingedwithfaint

tracesof irony.Harris attributes this to “thehomosexual’s sly awareness thathewas

misusingsomethingasnaïveandwholesomeaspopularculture…toreinforcesomething

asillicitandundergroundashissolidaritywithotherhomosexualpariahs.”133Overtime,

thehomosexualattitudetowardsfemalescreenidolsbecamemoreandmorecynical.By

theearly1960s,gaymenhadstartedtorejoiceinrepulsivedepictionsandimitationsof

129Harris,pp.166-191.130Ibid,p.168.131Ibid,pp.169-174.132Ibid,pp.174-178.133Ibid,p.179.

76

thestarstheyhadoncerevered.ThiscoincideswiththetimeduringwhichSontagfirst

detectedcamp’sironicgaze.134

The growing bitterness with which gay men regarded the female star arose from a

constellationofcircumstances.Withtheadvanceofthegayliberationmovement,those

homosexualswhoremainedearnestlydevotedtoHollywoodfilmstarscametobeviewed

asembarrassinganachronisms.AsHarrisputsit,“thedivaisperceivedastheemotional

crutchofthepatheticoldqueen”,becomingakindofworthlessartefactthatreminded

homosexuals of their own repression.135 There was also good reason to doubt the

integrityofthediva’sloyaltytoherfans;Harrisallegesthathersupport“rarelyamounted

tomorethansuchambiguousstatementsas‘youpoorlittledarlings’or‘leavethemalone,

youbullies,they’resoharmless.’”136

Togetherwiththesedevelopments,thereweretidingsintheentertainmentindustrythat

significantlydiminishedtheprestigeandglamourthatwasonceaccordedtothefemale

star. Through its broadcast of ‘re-runs’, the television screen presented us with

irrefutableevidenceofthedevastatingeffectsofthepassageoftime:

Forthefirsttimeinhistory,gaymenwereallowedtosee,virtuallysidebyside,whatthesewomenoncewereandwhattheyhadbecome,watchingonenightaglamorousBetteDavis inTheLetter at theheight of her career and thenext abatteredoldcronestarringinWhateverHappenedtoBabyJane?137

Thefemalestar’sdebasementwasthenexacerbatedbytheinvasiveandsensationalistic

practicesofthemedia,which“suddenlybroughtgaymenincloserproximity,notonly

thedivas’deterioratingbodies,buttotheirchaoticprivatelives”.138

Harris’ study is not specifically aimed at contemplating the gay reception of The

Comeback.Hepublishedhisessayinthe1990s,whichiswhenthetimelinedropsoffin

hisanalysisofgayattitudestowardsthefemalestar.Hence,hisinquirydoesnotcover

134Ibid,p.180.135Ibid,p.180.136 Ibid, pp. 182-183.Harris cites thehomophobicpassages inMaeWest’smemoirs as oneof themostegregiousexamplesofthediva’sineptitudeasanadvocateforgayempowerment.137Ibid,p.187.138Ibid,p.188.

77

severalimportanthistoricaldevelopmentsthathavearisensincethattime,suchasthe

riseof ‘reality’and‘quality’television,andfurtherstridesinthegayrightsmovement.

Theseareonlysomeofthereasonsthathistemplatecannotberelieduponasadefinitive

statementorrationaleforthegayaudienceresponsetoValerie’scharacter;itseemsto

me that any hypothesis on this subject can only ever be speculative, given the

questionable nature of any presumed knowledge about the motivations behind our

interpretivepractices.

Therefore, The Comeback should not be read as a precise confirmation of the social

critiquethatHarrispropounds.However,Iwouldsuggestthattheserialappearstotake

upastronginterestinseveralofthebroadconceptsthathehasposited.Ihavepreviously

mentioned its concerns about intrusivemediapractices, as per its parodic critiqueof

‘reality’television.TheComeback isalsomarkedlypreoccupiedwiththepoliticsofgay

spectatorship, and at times, the judgments that it pronounces on this issue are very

reminiscentof the ideas thatHarrishasproposed. Itsnarrative, forexample, tends to

suggestthatthetraditionofgaydivaworshipisoutofstepwiththespiritofourtime.It

also places a persistent emphasis on the self-indulgence of the female star and her

inabilitytopledgemeaningfulsupporttoherhomosexualfans.

LetmeelaborateonTheComeback’srepresentationofgaydivaworship.Mickeyisthe

characterwho is themostsincerelyenamouredbyValerie’sscreenperformances.His

adorationforherdoesnotseemtocarrytheslightestwhiffofsarcasm.Hechampionsher

likeanecstaticcheerleader,burstingwithdelightateachonehercomedicantics. Just

lookathisenrapturedfacewhenValeriedecidestosingGloriaGaynor’s1978gayanthem,

“IWill Survive”, for the opening credit sequence of her Reality Show.Mickey is also

encodedasa figurewho inhabitsanoutdatedmodelofgayexistence.Heoftencomes

acrossasacaricatureofahomosexualfromanotherera:deckedoutinhismuumuusand

hissombrerohats,coolinghimselfwithhisorientalfans,decoratinghislivingroomwith

endlesskitsch,groovingtodateddiscohitslikeGaynor’s.Atonepoint,Mickeyconsiders

throwingoutthecontentsofhisstorageunit:“ButassoonasIdo,Iknowsomeone’sgoing

toneedamirroreddiscoball!”139Mickey is thechannel throughwhichTheComeback

139Mickeyisliterallyhoardingtherelicsofabygonegayculture.

78

registersthepossibilityofregardingValeriewithheartfeltinfatuation,butthissentiment

can only be articulated through a wildly anachronistic character. In this way, the

narrativeplacesitselfatahistoricaldistancefromtheexpressionofearnestadmiration

towardsthefigureofthefemalestar.

TheComebackalsoreflectsupontheoften-fraughtrelationshipbetweenthefemaleicon

and her gay followers. Here I am referring to Valerie’s narcissism and her oblivious

disregardforthegaymenthatcomeintohersphere.Valerie’sinadequaciesinthisrespect

are frequently played for comic effect. There is, for example, the scene inwhich she

reminisceswithMickeyaboutherformerpublicistnamedLou:

Valerie:Hereallygotme.Youknow,Ithinkitwasbecausehewasgay.Gotthenuancesmore.Gottagetmeagay,Mickey.Gottagetagay.Whydon’tI justcallLou?Mickey:Oh…hedied…in’94Ithink.Valerie:Ohno,didhehave…?Mickey:No,hitbyacarcrossingBarham.Valerie:Oh,good.

Valerieisshrewdenoughtorealisetheimportanceofgaymenintheproductionofher

owncelebrity,butshedoesnotappeartoshowmuchgenuineconcernfortheirwelfare.

Eventhephrasingofherdialogue(“Gottagetmeagay”)effectivelyreducesthemtotools

orpossessions. Inanearlierscene,shepersuadesoneofherhomosexual fans,named

“Raoul”,toappearonherRealityTVshowwithhisboyfriend.Raoulhasmisgivingsabout

herinvitation;sincehehasnotyet‘comeout’tohisparents,heisconcernedabouthow

theywould react to the footage.Valerie is so steadfast in thepursuitofherownself-

promotionthatshecanonlyrespondtothesehesitationswithblitheindifference.This

reflectsanongoingnarrativepatternwhereinthehomosexual’ssubjectivityiseclipsed

bythevanityofthefemalestar.

Valerie’snarcissismevendropsastainonhercherishedfriendshipwithMickey.Besides

theirobviousaffectionforoneanother,therearemanyotherthingsthatbindthesetwo

figurestogether.Intermsofcharacterdefinition,botharemarkedbyasenseofflagrant

theatricality and historical incongruity. They also come up against similar hardships;

botharestrugglingtokeepafootholdinanindustrywhosesexismandageismthreatens

torenderthemobsolete.Yet,foralltheiraffinities,theirrelationshipisstilldefinedby

79

certainhierarchicaldistinctions;ValerieisthestarandMickeyisherdotingfanandher

dutiful employee.140 She clearly enjoys receiving his attention, but she often fails to

reciprocate.WhenMickeyfinallyworksupthecouragetorevealhishomosexualityon

screen,herreactionishilariouslyglib:“Thereyougo.Allright.That’sdone”.Laterinthe

series,Mickeypointedlyremarksthatshehasnotoncemadetheefforttovisithiminhis

apartmentinovertwentyyears.Theirattachmenttooneanotherisheavilydependent

uponMickey’sidolizationofValerie;itisalmostnevertheotherwayaround.

“Showsomerespect!She’sanEmmywinner!”

As the series advances towards thedenouementof its second season, thequestionof

Valerie and Mickey’s friendship is weighted with a profound thematic and formal

significance.ThelastepisodefindsValerieinabittersweetscenario:asshebasksinthe

gloryof therecentsuccessofhertelevisioncareer-herperformanceon“SeeingRed”

garnersanEmmynominationandsheisheavilyfavouredtowintheaward-herpersonal

life begins to disintegrate. Valerie’s desperate hunger for the spotlight places her

marriageunderseverestrain,withherhusbandMarkgrowingincreasinglyresentfulof

themedia’sinvasionsoftheirprivacyandthescarcityoftimethathehasalonewithhis

wife.ButValerie’s devotion toMickey is also tested, and this iswhat trulydrives the

dramatictensionoftheepisode.Mickey,whoisbattlingacancerdiagnosisthatsurfaced

much earlier in the season, becomes too unwell to accompany Valerie to the Emmy

Awards. Once Valerie is seated for the ceremony and nervously awaiting the

announcementofhercategory,shereceivesanurgenttelephonemessageinformingher

thatMickeyhascollapsedandisbeingtreatedatanearbyhospital.Hence,theclimaxof

theepisodeturnsonthismoralquestion:doesValeriehavetherectitudetocurtailher

140Dyerhasrecognizedthedominanceofgaymenwithinstyleprofessionslikehairdressing(madecampbecauseoftheirinterestsinartificeand“styleforstyle’ssake”).ThisculturehasyieldedastrongnexusbetweengaymenlikeMickeyandwomenlikeValerie.Buttheirinteractionsarestillinformedbypowerdifferentials.AsDyerputsit,“Wegaymenhavebeendeeplyinvolvedincreatingthestylesandprovidingtheservicesforthe‘turn-out’ofthewomeninthewesternworld.Thisgivesuslegitimacy–butasparasitesonwomen,whoarethemselvesseenassubordinatetomen.”SeeTheCultureofQueers,pp.52and59.

80

rampantdesireforattentionandacclamationsothatshecometotheaidofherailing

companion?

In the end, Valerie makes the honourable decision to drop everything and rush to

Mickey’sside.Theaffirmationofherloyaltyleadstoasurprisingturninthelogicofthe

show’s narrative and aesthetic conceits. For the first time in the entire serial, The

Comebackabandonsitsself-consciousframeworkofrepresentation.WhenValerieflees

theawardsceremony,shealsoleavesbehindthedocumentarycrewthatfilmsher.Thus,

thecamera’sgaze isno longerregisteredasapresencethatexistswithinthe fictional

worldof theseries.Fromthispoint forward,TheComebackdoesnot relyonanyplot

devicetoexplainitsownfootage;Valerie’sselflessdeedseemstorupturethemiseen

abyme that once defined the show’s form. This act of solicitude also inspires a

transformationinthevisualschemeofthemiseenscène.Thefretfulandpenetrativegaze

ofthehand-heldcameranolongerservesastheviewer’sconduit.Valerie’simageisnow

rendered in a series of elegantly composed shots. The cameramaintains a respectful

distanceassheracestowardsherfriendinneed.ThefirstsightofValerierushingintothe

emptyfoyeroftheauditoriumiscapturedinastunninglybeautifullong-shot.Thelighting

hassuddenlybecomesofterandmoresumptuous,lendingagentleglowtothepresence

of the actors onscreen. The visual language of these scenes evokes conditions of

tendernessandwonder,ratherthansadisticpleasureandabjection.

At thiscrucialmoment, theseriesappearstonegate itsmeta-critical invocationof the

campgaze.TheviewerisnolongerencouragedtoreadValeriethroughthelensofcamp

irony.After thenarrativeconfirmshercapacities forconcernandsolidarity, she isno

longerframedasanobjectofridicule.Evenherextravagantaffectations(thetheatrical

mannerisms,theheightenedvoice)begintosubsideaftershehasextricatedherselffrom

thetelevisionfilmcrew.Kudrowplaysthesemomentswithaquietdelicacy;almostall

heremotioniscommunicatedintheanxiousstareofherwideandwateringeyes.Her

restrainedperformanceenhancesthemeltingmoodoftheepisode’sconcludingscenes;

thereisasensethatValeriehasfinallybeenstrippedofhermask;thatweareaccessing

moresinceredimensionsofhercharacter.

81

It is highly suggestive that this departure from camp runs coterminous with a plot

development that repairs the fraught relationship between the female star and her

homosexualfan/friend.Thisthemeofrecuperationsurfacesmostpowerfullyinthescene

inwhichValerie isadmitted intoMickey’shospitalroom,asettingthat is itself tiedto

notionsoftreatmentandrecovery;welearnthatMickeyhadanadversereactiontohis

medicationbutisnowonthemend.Thesceneupholdsthepotentialformutualkindness

andadmirationbetweenthetwocharacters;itisperhapstheonlymomentintheseries

in which there is nothing strained or uneven in their relationship. The two of them

eventuallywatchtheEmmyAwardstogetherastheyarebroadcastontelevision.When

Valeriewinshercategory,Mickeyhandshertheremotecontrolforhishospitalbedso

thatshecanuseitasamockmicrophone.Bythelogicofthisnarrative,Valerie’ssingular

momentofunmitigated triumphcanonlybeachievedwhenMickey is included in the

picture,notmerelyasherpatheticminion,butasthebelovedfriendwhosewell-beingis

more important to her than the bestowal of any award. Valerie’s commitment to

safeguardthereciprocityofthisfriendshipiswhatreleasesherfromthebrutalasperity

ofthecampgaze.

Thus, the season ends with the implicit suggestion that an amelioration in the bond

betweenthegaymanandthefemalestarultimatelyholdsthepowertoextinguishthe

ironicsentimentofthecampgaze.Itpresentsanappealingalternativetotheinternecine

dynamicsoutlinedbyHarris:analliancethat issustainedbythesimplepleasuresand

intimaciesofcommonaffectionandempathy.Inthesefinalmoments,Mickeyisnolonger

confined to the closet, nor is he relegated to the pitiful position of the sycophantic

admirer.Valerie, forherownpart, isno longeraprisonerofherravenoushunger for

attention;herabsurdpretensions;herblindnesstotheneedsofothers.Andwiththese

plotcoordinatesinplace,theaudience(knownbytheseriestocontainmanygaymale

constituents)ispositionedtoregardherfromaplaneofperceptionthatcompelswonder

insteadofuncomfortablelaughter.

Having jettisoned itsownstylisticandnarrativepatterns,TheComeback alsomakesa

subtleintimationthatitmayhavereformeditsassessmentofthemediuminwhichitis

ensconced.Inthemiddleofthissceneofexultation,MickeyandValerieareinterrupted

byan irasciblepatientwhoshares theirhospital room;hesharplydemands that they

82

lower theirvoices. “Oh, showsomerespect!”Mickeycriesout in retaliation, “She’san

Emmy winner!” His protest resounds as a symbolic recognition of the program’s

newfoundinterestinthemesofhonourandself-respect.Perhapsthismeansthatitisno

longernecessaryordesirabletocelebratetelevisionwithanedgeofbitterness.Whatever

pleasuresitsaudiencehaswroughtfromsuchcynicismareworthsacrificing,atleasttime

forthetimebeing.WemustrememberthatthereisalwaystheriskthatValeriewillstage

anothercomeback.

83

ChapterTwo:DegenerateIdols

“Andthosehundredsofmoviestillsonmywalls…They’remy‘friends’,Isaytomyself.ButallImeanbythatisthatI lovethem(Garbo,Dietrich,Bogart,Kafka,VěraChytilová):Iadmirethem;theymakemehappybecausewhenIthinkofthemIknowthattherearen’tjustuglyleadenpeopleintheworldbutbeautifulpeople;they’reaplayfulversionofthatsublimecompanytowhichIaspire…They’reonmyteam;orratherIam(hopetobe)ontheirs.They’remymodels.”SusanSontag,AsConsciousnessisHarnessedintoFlesh:JournalsandNotebooks1964-1980JohnWaters’filmPinkFlamingos(1972)closeswithascenesosuperlativeinitsprofanity

that ithasbecome forever indelible tohis cinematic legacy. It featuresanobesedrag

queen known as Divine eating freshly produced dog excrement in her (seemingly

successful)bid tobecome“the filthiestpersonalive”.Thisnotorioussceneappears to

havesetthebenchmarkforcamp’scapacitytocauseoffenceagainstthedictatesofgood

taste and civility. When Holliday and Potts contemplate Waters’ films and their

contribution tocampculture, it standsas theonlynarrative sequence fromhisentire

oeuvrethattheydescribeinanydetail.141Thisexampleisincludedtojustifytheirclaim

that“Watershasbecomesynonymouswiththetackyandthetrashybutalsowiththe

sordid and the shocking…he pushes the camp aesthetic (down) to another level.His

preoccupationiswiththeseedyunderbellyofAmericanculture.”142

Nearlyfortyyearslater,WatersbrieflyrevisitstheiconicsceneinhismemoirRoleModels

(2010).143 Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that he reflects upon the fact of its

constant commemoration. For he mentions the scene only to describe his sense of

exasperationeverytimeoneofhisfansapproacheshimtoask,“DidDivinereallyeatdog

shit?”Howmanytimescanonerespondtothisquestion?Whatnewinterpretationcan

beofferedtoreinvigoratethecamplegend?Orhaveallsuchpossibilitiesbeenexhausted?

ThepassagesuggeststhatWatersisacutelyawareofthebannerthathecarriesasa“filth

elder”.Infact,thisisatitlethatWatershasbestoweduponhimselfinhisownwritings

and the press interviews that accompany them (variations of the same include: “the

141HollidayandPotts,p.134.142Ibid.143JohnWaters,RoleModels(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2010)p.17.

84

People’sPervert”and“thePrinceofPuke”).144ThememoirfindsWaterscomingtoterms

with the various duties and demands that this self-proclaimed identity entails. One

component of the job description is to provide retrospection on the annals of camp

history. This conferral of historical understanding coincides with the ongoing

maintenance of his iconoclastic and rakish persona. His reticence concerning the

consumeddogshitspeakstothedifficultiesthatbesetsuchactivitieswiththeonslaught

oftime.Inthefulfilmentofhisroleasacustodianofcampmemory,heresiststhepublic

appetiteforthesameoldnarrativerepeatedadnauseum.Thereisadesireforingenuity

andrejuvenescence;areluctancetostrikefamiliarposes.

In broad terms, his rumination could be interpreted as a painful recognition of the

creativechallengesposedbytheagingprocess.Inherseminalstudyonoldage,Simone

deBeauvoirbemoansthesenseofstagnationthatburdensmanywritersastheyreach

theiradvancedyears.145Byherjudgment,thereisatediumthatcanarisefromhaving

coveredthesameideologicalandthematicgroundtoomanytimes.146Shespeculatesthat

some authors in this predicamentmay have resorted to formal and generic shifts to

imbuetheirworkwithrenewedenergy.147

ItispossiblethatRoleModelsitselfcouldbeconstruedasonesuchprojectofreinvention.

Inpreviousautobiographicalinstalments,Watershasalreadychronicledtheproductions

ofmanyof hismost infamous films.ShockValue, for example, is heavilypremisedon

behind-the-scenerevelations,anditincludesadetailedaccountofthedogshitscenethat

hasincitedsomuchcuriosity.148ButinRoleModels,Watersoptsforanalternatenarrative

schemetoshapehisrepresentationsofcampmemoryandidentity.Ratherthantracinga

sequentialmovementthroughtime,thememoirispresentedasacollectionofassorted

vignettes.Thesearecomposedasaseriesofdiscursivereflectionsonthediversecastof

personalitiesandworksofartthathave,inonewayoranother,setthestandardstowhich

heaspires.

144WaterstakesgreatprideathavingearnedsuchappellationsinMakeTrouble(ChapelHill:AlgonquinBooksofChapelHill,2017)pp.3-4.145SimonedeBeauvoir,TheComingofAge(NewYork:W.WNorton&Company,1996)p.401.146Ibid,p.402.147Ibid,p.404.148JohnWaters,ShockValue(Philadelphia:RunningPressBookPublishers,2005)pp.12-14.

85

Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson have classified this approach to autobiography as a

“relationalnarrative”,atermmeanttodenotethoseactsoflifewritingthatmanifesta

senseofsubjectivitythatis“routedthroughothers”.149Theyexplainthat“relationality

invitesustothinkaboutthedifferentkindsoftextualothers–historical,contingent,or

significant – through which an ‘I’ narrates the formation or modification of self-

consciousness.”150Inthischapter,IarguethatthetributesthatWaterspaystohisrole

modelsbearsignificantimplicationsregardingcampideasofconnoisseurship,celebrity,

agedness and antinomianism. By taking inventory of his inspirations, Waters both

invokesandinterpretsestablishedcamppracticesthatintersectwiththesediscourses.

Thisenactmentandexaminationofcampcarriesaparticularweightinlightofthefact

that Waters is so often regarded as a pillar of the culture. Scholars have frequently

referred to his filmography as source material for their critical investigations into

camp.151Attimes,Watershasevenpositionedhimselfwithinpopularcultureasakind

ofcampambassadororspokesperson.ThispointismadeinHollidayandPotts’analysis

ofhisguestappearanceonTheSimpsons(1989-).152Watersstarsas“John”,theownerof

a store of kitsch collectibles who befriends the Simpson family, mollifies their

apprehensionsabouthomosexuality,andteachesthemthemeaningandvalueofcamp.

In one scene, Homer looks mystified at John’s casual reference to the term, so John

proceedstoclarifythatcampisthe“tragicallyludicrous…theludicrouslytragic”.

WithRoleModels,Waterscontinuestonominatehimselfasanauthorityonthearcanaof

campculture.Heexplicitlyconfirmsthisconceitinaninterviewpromotingthememoir

published in Little Joe magazine.153 Waters explains that he uses the word ‘filth’ to

describehis thematicpreoccupationsbecausetheterm“sortofsounds likecamp, like

149 Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson, Reading Autobiography: A Guide to Interpreting Life Narratives(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2010)p.86.150Ibid.151Forexample,seeMatthewTinkcom,WorkingLikeaHomosexual:Camp,Capital,Cinema(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,2002)pp.156-188.SeealsoKleinhans,pp.189-191,Ross,p.321andFlynn,p.442.152HollidayandPotts,pp.134-135.153StuartComer,“JohnWaters.”LittleJoe:AMagazineAboutQueersandCinema,MostlyNo.2(2011)pp.9-15.

86

watchingRitaHayworthmoviesin1962underaTiffanylampandreadingSusanSontag”.

Hegoestoremarkthat,

She [Sontag]was a guide to intellectuals. I’m not saying I’m anything like her,becauseI’vegotmoreofasenseofhumour…butIthinkItakepeopleintoaworldthey’veneverbeenin,I’maguidethatmakesthemfeelsafeanditstakestheedgeoffofitsothattheymightconsideringinvestigatingitmore.Sobeingawriterisbeingaguide,andbeingacurator…”154

Hence,oneofthepositionsthatWatersassumesinrelationtocampisapedagogicone.

But for reasons relating to style, he is somewhat hesitant to place hiswriting in the

traditionofSontag.Whereassheclaimedadegreeofdistancefromhersubject(declaring

her mixed feelings of “sympathy” and “revulsion” towards camp)155, Waters is less

inclinedtostepoutsideofthesensibilityinordertodelineateit.Hisguidetocampwill

notsuppressanyofitsjocoseandindecoroushumour.

“SeeLibrarian”

AtthesametimethatWatersclaimshisroleasacampcicerone,hespecificallylinksthat

vocationtotheenterpriseofliterature.Hesuggestsaconnectionbetweencampandthe

literaryformthatcentresuponthetransmissionofspecialisedknowledge.Thispremise

isborneoutinthestylisticcompositionofthememoir:RoleModelsisstructuredasasort

of cabinetof curiosities,witheach chapterpromising its readerapeekatunexplored

delights.ButWatersalsopromotesasensibilityofconnoisseurshipinseveralpassagesin

thememoir that endeavour tomeasure some of the value of literature (which I will

discuss shortly). Role Models reflects two distinct but complementary positions on

literature:apledge toenlist themedium for thepurposesofa campeducation, anda

desiretoaffirmthevirtuesofcultivatingliteraryknowledgewithincampculture.

Therelationshipbetweencampand literaturehasbeenasomewhatneglectedareaof

criticalscholarship.Thisisnottodiscountthepresenceofacademicstudiesonthecamp

154Ibid,p.15.155Sontag,p.276.

87

implicationsinworksbyauthorssuchasOscarWilde,MarcelProustandDjunaBarnes.156

Butinquantitativeterms,suchstudiesfillarelativelymodestspacewithinthetotalbody

of research dedicated to camp. In his study onWalt Whitman, Karl Keller pointedly

complainsthatSontag“barelynoticedtheexistenceofcampinliterature”,arguingthat

herunderstandingofthetermwasmostlylimitedto“findesiecleartandwitorfrom

opera and mannered Hollywood acting”.157 Booth, for his part, is unpersuaded that

literarycampdemandsanyseriousconsideration.158Heconsidersthatcamp’saffection

forsurfaceandfrivolityrendersthisissueamootpoint.Insupportofwhich,hecitesthe

legendaryquoteattributed toRonaldFirbankwhentheauthorwasasked toexpound

uponhisliteraryprinciples:“Mydear,Iadoreitalics,don’tyou?”159

Tosomeextent,theperceptionofliterature’ssubordinatepositionincampismirrored

inthecompositionofWaters’starpersona:heisfamousfirstandforemostasacinematic

auteur and his status as an author often comes across as a secondary or supportive

identitytothispost.Thisrankingisreflectedintheacademicinterestinhiswork,which

tendstogiveprecedencetohisfilmoeuvreoverhiseffortsinprose.Itisalsoinscribedin

theproseitself,insofarashismemoirpresumesandreliesuponthereader’sfamiliarity

withthenotoriousreputationhehasacquiredfromhisexploitsinfilm.

Waters’ventureintolifewritingisanattempttoleveragehisrenownincinemaintoa

literarycareer.Moreover,hisstationattheintersectionoftheseculturesispresentedas

one of the memoir’s explicit themes. His chapter intended as a catalogue of book

recommendationsisprefacedwiththischainofextravagantboasts:

I’vejitterbuggedwithRichardSerra,eatenThanksgivingwithLanaTurner,hadteawithPrincessYasminAgaKhan,goneoutdrinkingwithClintEastwood,andspentseveralNewYear’sEvepartiesinValentino’schalet inGstaad,butwhatIlikebestisstayinghomeandreading.160

156SeeMoeMeyer,“UndertheSignofWilde:AnArchaeologyofPosing.”inThePoliticsandPoeticsofCamp,ed.MoeMeyer(London,NewYork:Routledge,1994)pp.75-109,GregoryWoods,“HighCultureandHighCamp:TheCaseofMarcelProust.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality,ed.DavidBergman(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993)pp.121-133andMargaretGillespie,“‘TheTriumphoftheEpiceneStyle’:NightwoodandCamp.”Miranda,no.12(2016).157KarlKeller,“WaltWhitmanCamping” inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality,ed.DavidBergman(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993)p.115.158Booth,p.125.159Ibid.160RoleModels,p.163.

88

Waters’passionasabibliophileisdisclosedastheunforeseenelementinhisstarimage,

which isdistinguishedby its glamorousassociationswith the royaltiesof cinemaand

state.Butsuchstatementsalsoformpartofawidercampaign,wagedbothinsideand

outside the text, to romanticise the culture of literature. Browsing the merchandise

section of the StrandBook Store during a recent trip toManhattan, I came across an

assortmentoftotebagsandt-shirtsemblazonedwithoneofhismostfamousepigrams:

“Ifyougohomewithsomebodyandtheydon’thavebooks,don’tfuckthem.”Watersaims

togenerateenthusiasmforliteratureinamannerthatisconsistentwithcamptacticsand

traditions,namelyitsinvestmentsinthedecorativeanditsfantasiesofculturalelitism.

Byhiswords,theactofreadingbecomesasalaciousfashionstatementandatokenof

socialprivilege.

In Role Models, much of the pleasure afforded by literature derives from ideas of

elusiveness and exclusivity. Take, for instance, the author’s reminiscence of his

adolescentinfatuationwiththeworksofTennesseeWilliams.Thelureofthesebooksfirst

camefromthetantalizingtermswithwhichtheywereregisteredinthecardcatalogueof

hislocallibrary-anenigmaticnotewhichread“SeeLibrarian”.161Waterssoonlearned

thisinscriptionmeantthattherelevantitemswerereservedonaspecialshelfbehindthe

counter, presumablybecause theywere consideredunsuitable for children.Waters is

deeplyenthralledby thesenseofmystery thatattaches tocertainworksof literature.

WhenhelaterdeclareshisadmirationforJaneBowles’TwoSeriousLadies, itbecomes

clearthatheisespeciallyattractedtothesubterraneanstatusofthenovel:“Originally

publishedin1943toconfusion…andthentrappedinout-of-printlimboforyears,this

peculiar piece of fiction’s street cred never quite faded”.162 That the novel has been

championedacrossgenerationsbyanundergroundnetworkofaficionadosisessentialto

itsappeal.WaterspaysspecialtributetotheowneroftheProvincetownBookshopwho

firstrecommendedthebooktohimbackin1966.HealsodelightsinthefactthatTwo

Serious Ladieswas reputed to be the favourite novel of none other than Tennessee

Williams.Thesearethefiguresthatformthecharmedcircleofconnoisseurswithwhom

Watersfeelsanespritdecorps.

161RoleModels,p.35.162Ibid,p.174.

89

Theconceptofconnoisseurshipisanimportantelementinthelegacyofcamp.Sontag

positedthatcampwasa“partofthehistoryofsnobtaste”,sponsoredby“animprovised

self-elected class, mainly homosexuals, who constitute themselves as aristocrats of

taste”.163Theimageofthecampcognoscentihassometimesbeenspecificallydrawnin

relation to literature, as whenWilliam Lane Clark introduces Ronald Firbank as “an

acquiredtaste,appreciatedlargelybyacultofhomosexualreaders”.164(Clarke,itshould

benoted,departsfromBooth’searlierstatedpositionthatcampauthorslikeFirbankdo

notmeritseriousliterarycriticism).Morerecently,scholarslikeHollidayandPottshave

argued that the distinction between the cognoscenti and the ignoranti has become

increasinglyblurredasaresultofcamp’sbroaddisseminationwithinpopularculture–a

process that Waters participates in through his aforementioned appearance in a

mainstreamtelevisionprogramsuchasTheSimpsons.165

Butbyhisownaccount,thearistocraticpostureofthecognoscentistillretainsitscharm.

DespitethechargethatWatershashimselfdecodedthecovertcultureofcampformass

consumption, he is not prepared to relinquish his self-image as a formidable and

discriminatingconnoisseur.Hesustainsthispositionontheassumptionthathisliterary

preferencesandprescriptionsremaineithersubversiveorobscurebythestandardsof

dominantculture.Watersiswellawareoftechnologicalandindustrialdevelopmentsin

the consumer economy that have inaugurated a new era of accessibility – one that

threatens the word-of-mouth culture of the independent bookstore that was so

influentialtothecultivationofhisowntaste.“Likeallavidreaders,”heconfesses,“Isob

aboutthedeathofmyfavoritebookshopsineachcityIvisit,butI’msecretlythrilledat

howeasyandcheapitistoorderfromAmazon.com.”166Butthebreadthandconvenience

of the onlinemarketplace has not spawned an entire generation of virtuosic readers

wholly conversant in literary works that were only once considered esoteric and

eccentric. Waters implicitly makes this point when he submits his list of reading

recommendations–hand-pickedfrom“thousandsandthousandsoftwistedvolumes”–

163Sontag,p.290.164WilliamLaneClark,“DegeneratePersonality:DeviantSexualityandRaceinRonaldFirbank’snovels.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality,ed.DavidBergman(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993)p.138.165HollidayandPotts,pp.134-137.166RoleModels,p.163.

90

forwhat he imagines is the decidedly select audience that would share his perverse

predilections.167 This presumption permits Waters to situate his own project in

opposition to the pervasively popular book club convened by one of the leading

tastemakersofourtime:OprahWinfrey.Heexplainstherationaleforhissyllabuswith

the complaint that, “Oprah hasmade book lists amiddle-class phenomenon. Sowhat

abouttherestofus?Theoutcastswhohavenodesiretoassimilateandlovetoreadabout

the ‘little horror stories in other people’s lives’…”168Waters perceives a predominant

reading culture that has become increasingly sterile and standardised. He offers his

literaryexpertiseastheprescribedantidotetothiscondition.

WhileWatersproudlyclaimsmembershipwiththecognoscenti,healsosignalsaself-

conscious recognition of the hauteur and pretension of his pose. For instance, he

specificallyrecommendsthenovelDarknessandDaybyIvyCompton-Burnettforthose

readerswhowishtoadvancefurtherintheir“searchforsnobbish,elitist,literarywit”.169

Waterspromotesthepursuitofculturalsophisticationwithanundercurrentofsardonic

humour;itisasthoughhewearsaknowingandmischievoussmilethatsnickersathis

ownpomposity.Hissenseofplayfulnessandironyallowshimtoassumehispositionas

a cultural authority without taking himself too seriously. For the crime of

humourlessness,wecanrecall,wastheprecisecharacterflawthatheimputedtoSusan

Sontag. Ironically enough, it was Sontag herself who first identified the spirit of

playfulnessandirreverencethatmanifestsinthecampsensibility.170Herobservationof

thesequalitieswaslatercorroboratedbyseveralcritics,includingEstherNewton,who

stressedthat,“campisforfun;theaimofcampistomakeanaudiencelaugh”,171andMark

Booth,whodescribedcampasa“goodhumouredcommitmenttothemarginal”.172 In

this instance,Waters’ self-deprecating humour serves to gently deride the shameless

elitismoftheliteratitowhomheclaimsallegiance.

167Ibid,p.164.168ThisquotereferstodialoguefromWaters’ filmFemaleTrouble(1974),anallusionthatcontinuestothreadtheconnectionbetweenhiscinematicandliterarypursuits.Ibid.169Ibid,p.176.170Sontag,p.288.171Newton,p.106.172Booth,p.28.

91

The trope of the outsider figures not only in the value that Waters places upon an

exclusive readership but also in the formal and thematic register of his book

recommendations. He reserves his praise for those literary works that are seen to

challenge convention through their violation ofmoral and aesthetic norms.Waters is

drawn to thematicmaterial that explores the aberrant desires of variousmisfits and

malcontents: the sadomasochistic fantasies of the disturbed adolescent in Denton

Welch’sInYouthisPleasure;thebittercontemptoftheimpoverishedcouplewhotaunt

each other with vicious barbs in Christina Stead’s The ManWho Loved Children; the

strange sexual adventures of the titular Two Serious Ladies in Jane Bowles’s novel. I

mentionedbeforethatHollidayandPottscreditWaterswithpushing“thecampaesthetic

down another level” by virtue of his fascination for the disreputable characters that

populate the fringesof society.But in this respect, it is in factpossible to trace some

continuitieswithinthecampcanon.AccordingtoClarke,camp’schiefprovocationisits

affront to the“ideologyofRespectability”,aprotest initiallyvoiced in the literatureof

OscarWilde andDonald Firbank.173 Clarke defines Respectability in somewhat broad

terms; he provides that it is predicated upon the identification and relegation of

“transgressive” individuals, a process that is mobilised by “Darwinian concepts of

industryandprogress”.174Hecircumscribesawidescopeforthehistoricalapplicationof

this term, stating only that Respectability has been camp’s prime subject from the

nineteenthcenturyonwards.Thosedeemedbeyondthe“paleofRespectability”include

the urban poor, Jews, people of colour, and so-called “sexual deviants” such as

“masturbators”andhomosexuals.175Clarke’saccountthusemphasisescamp’slong-held

identificationwiththelowerstratumofsociety,whichcontainsitsrejectsandmiscreants.

TheliteraryendorsementsthatWatersissueswithinRoleModelscanberegardedasan

affirmationofthistradition.

Waters also gravitates towards works of literature whose eccentric and rebellious

propensities are embodied in their stylistic properties. His paean to Ivy Compton-

Burnett,forinstance,castsaspotlightupontheformalidiosyncrasiesofhernovels.“Pick

any one of them. They’re all prettymuch the same,” he advises. “Little actual action,

173Clarke,p.135.174Ibid.175Ibid,p.136.

92

almostnodescription,andendlesspagesofhermeticallysealed, stylized, sharp,cruel,

venomousEdwardiandialogue.”176WatersadoresCompton-Burnettforherdisplaysof

audacityinnarrativetechnique:“Shewouldpaintaverbalpictureofthepeopleinher

booksbutonceandonlyonce(usuallywhentheyarefirstintroduced)andyou’dbetter

remember it, because often there are thirty pages of dialoguebefore someone else is

identifiedagain.”177ForKeller,thepresenceofformalpeculiaritiesisoneofthesignposts

of camp literature,whichhe claims is notorious for its useof “extrememannerisms”,

“flamboyantplayfulness”and“extravaganceofstyle”.178Ittherebyevokesaliteraryvoice

characterised by an “anarchic” and “autonomous” personality.179 In this case, it is

significant tonote thatWaters explicitly links the extravaganceof ComptonBurnett’s

prose to the supercilious posture of the littérateurs he imagines as her readers. He

reasonsthattheirengagementwith“therhythm,thesparkle,thesubtlenuancesoffamily

dominance” inherdialoguewill leavethemfeeling“superiortootherpeopleandhow

they struggle to speak in real life”.180 Hence, their fascination for Compton-Burnett’s

unconventionalnarrative construction itself functions to satisfy theirdesire for social

distinction.

DoesWaters’ownmemoirreflectthecharacteristicsthatheprofessestoadmireinthe

literatureofothers?Perhapstheanswerisbothyesandno.Itwouldbeplausibletoreach

thelatterconclusionbyarguingthatWatersisfarlessradicalanauthorthanCompton-

Burnett,atleastwhenitcomestotheformalcharacterofhiswriting.Foronewouldbe

hard-pressedtofindanyconspicuousflourishesintheproseofhismemoir:themanner

of expression is plain anddemotic; there are no shocking excesses or absences in its

deployment of stylistic resources. Role Models also conforms to several of the

conventionalexpectationsthatarecommonlyassociatedwiththegenreofthememoir,

forexample:itsclaimtoprovidethereaderwithinsightintothe‘interior’lifeofitsauthor;

itsrevelationsabouttheinnerturmoilsandpersonaltriumphsofadistinguishedpublic

figure.(Iwilldiscussthetext’sstatusasacelebritymemoirinmoredetail laterinthe

chapter).Forthesereasons,itwouldbewrongtosuggestthatRoleModelsdemonstrates

176RoleModels,p.177.177Ibid.178Keller,p.114.179Ibid.Preciselywhose“voice”Kellerisreferringto(i.e.thewriter’s?thenarrator’s?)remainsunclear.180RoleModels,p.178.

93

its dissident spirit through a brazen repudiation of generic codes or through feats of

formaldaring.

However, this questionbecomes farmore complicatedwhenwe turn to the thematic

preoccupations of the memoir. In Role Models, Waters continues to draw from the

outrageous and dissoluteworld of the demi-monde for his artistic inspiration. In the

chapter dedicated to the denizens of Baltimore that became his formative influences,

Waterssketchesportraitsofashockinglyskinnydrag-queennamed“Pencil”,analcoholic

lesbianstripper,andanexceptionallyfoul-mouthedbartenderfamousforherclienteleof

“alcoholics,mentalpatients,andvets”.181Elsewhere,Watersdeliverspanegyricstogay

pornographersBobbyGarciaandDavidHurles,bothofwhomhavemanagedtoproduce

contentthatisconsideredscandalousevenbythestandardsoftheadultentertainment

industry: Garcia films himself having sexual relations with real-life members of the

Marine-Corps; Hurles specialises in naked photographs of “rough trade” (slang

terminology foraworking-classmalepartnerwhocommitsactsofviolenceduringor

afterhomosexualintercourse)andaudiorecordingsof“verbalabuseporn”.RoleModels

alsopresentsWaterswithopportunitiestoplayuphisownreputationasaroué.Inone

passage,forexample,hecontemplatesplacingapersonaladvertisementintheclassified

sectionofBoxofficemagazinethatreads:“TheSultanofSleazeseeksalunaticusherwith

agoodbodandacrookedsmile.Let’srobamultiplextogetherandholeupatmyplace

afterward.”182Onsuchoccasions,theiconoclasticidentitythatWatersbrandsforhimself

seemstobesustainedbyhisabidinginterestinthemesofdebauchery.183

Buttheadoptionofthislouchepersonaisaccompaniedbymoresurprisingposes.The

first chapter ofRoleModels turnson a stunning confessionon thepart of the author,

wherein Waters, the patron saint of the camp underground, comes to declare his

susceptibilityto,andevenhisjealousyfor,the“mainstream”and“popular”appealofthe

singer JohnnyMathis.He goes so far as to describe his intense state of ecstasywhile

watchingtheJohnnyMathisChristmasconcert,whichwaslargelyattendedbyamiddle-

181Ibid,p.151.182Ibid,p.230.183NotethatBoothconsidersthedeclarationofsexualsatietytobean“outstandingfeatureofthecampperformance”: “the languor of the campmanner, its lubricity of voice and perpetually post-coital air,publicisesnotonlyboredom,butsleaziness.”p.99.

94

agedaudience“wearingfestiveholidayjoggingsuits”.184How,wemightwonder,cansuch

anadmissionbereconciledwiththeanti-assimilationiststancethatwehaveseenWaters

articulateelsewherewithsuchfirmconviction?Aclosereadingofthetextsuggeststhat

the disclosure of this devotion is deliberately intended to unsettle presumptions that

arisefromtheauthor’spublicprofile.Butheoffersthisgestureasadigressionfromhis

establishedpersonainsteadofitsrenunciation.TheaffectionthatWatersexpressesfor

Mathisisonlysurprisingifweperceiveaprofounddisparityinthesensibilitiesthatthey

are purported to represent (Mathis: popular/wholesome/sentimental. Waters:

obscure/indecent/sardonic). The memoir consistently endeavours to uphold this

polarity, from the dream that it conjures up in its opening sentences (“Iwish Iwere

JohnnyMathis.Somainstream.Sopopular.Sounironic,yetsoperfect.”)tothehumorous

comparisons that itdrawsthroughout(“AmanwhoseGreatestHitsalbumwasonthe

Billboard charts for 490 consecutiveweeks. Versusme, a cult filmmakerwhose core

audience,nomatterhowmanytimesI’vecrossedover,consistsofminoritieswhocan’t

even fit in with their ownminorities.”)185These juxtapositions both presuppose and

reinforcethediscretenatureofthesensibilitiesWatersdescribes.“BothJohnnyMathis

andIhaveChristmasprograms,”hemuses,“Whatwouldhappenifweswitchedtoursand

dideachother’sacts?Imaginehisaudience’ssurpriseatmesigning‘OHolyNight’and

picturetheshockofmyaudienceatseeingJohnnycomeoutandtalkabouthowSanta

couldbeeroticifyouwerea‘chubbychaser’”.186Inorderforthisimaginedscenarioto

deliveritsincongruouseffect,thereadermustremaincommittedtothepremisethatthe

clashingworldsitrepresentsarefundamentallydistinctandirreconcilable.

Having marked out these boundaries, the memoir depicts its author’s foray into the

domain of popular entertainment as a refreshing and unexpected detour. We are

encouragedto interprethisoccasionalventures intomainstreamcontexts(“nomatter

how many times I’ve crossed over…”) as brief deviations rather than permanent

defections.187Therefore,RoleModelsstillinsistsuponthemarginalpositionofcampin

184Ibid,p.17.185Ibid,p.3andp.4.186Ibid,p.16.187ItshouldbeacknowledgedthatWaters’excursionsintopopularculturearenotalwaysacceptedinthetermsthataresuggestedbyhismemoir.Someofhisdetractorsappeartodeplorethesetransactionsonthegrounds thatWaters has betrayed his loyalty to the underground culture he claims to represent. Forexample,QueerZinesexcerptsanarticle(“JoJoPriceMorgan’sCLONEWATCH.”)fromtheBimboxmagazinethattakesaimat“stupid,richwhite”homosexualswhohave“whoredthemselves”to“thebreederindustry”

95

theculturalhegemony.Paradoxically,italsoimpliesthatthismarginalitybecomesmost

clearly defined when camp infiltrates the realm of mainstream culture and thereby

generatesashockingsenseofcontrast.It ispossiblethatasomewhatsimilardynamic

informsWaters’compliancewithstandardprotocolsofgenreandform.His fidelity to

theseconventionscouldbeperceivedasakindofTrojanhorse;arusethatimpartsan

impression of comfortable familiarity that jars with the memoir’s visions of a lurid

underworld.188Thisinterpretationwouldproceedfromthesamepresumptionmadeby

theauthorhimself: thathisassociationwithradical culturalproduction is sosecurely

anchoredthatevenhisdeparturefromthattraditioncoulditselfbeconstruedasanother

formofsubversion.

InRoleModels, the project of literature is embeddedwith a romanticised notion of a

journey into unfamiliar territory. The expression of this ideal takes on many

permutations: it is articulated in the memoir’s account of Waters’ unexpected

transpositionsbetweencinemaandliterature;inthelavishpraiseitgivestoprovocative

literarytexts;and,atleasttosomeextent,intheconceitsthatformthebasisofitsown

construction.Thememoirperceivesvalueintheproductionandreceptionofliterature

insofar as theseactivities evokea senseof theunwontedand theobscure.This value

systemisoftenimposedthroughgesturesthathavebecomecommonplacewithincamp

culture,forinstance:thepostureofconnoisseurshipandthechampioningofoutcastsand

incendiaries.However, thememoir’s interest in themesofdislocationalsoplaces it in

morecomplicatedrelationswith thecampcanon.Waters’penchant fordisorientation

inevitably leads him to assumepositions that are at variancewith the poses that are

but “didn’t leave a red cent for their true culturewhen they bought the farm... Are you listening JohnWaters?It’stoobadyouneverlistenedtoyourownfilmscripts.Youknow,afteralltheseyears,YOU’REtheonewhoshouldbeeatingshit.”SeeAABronsonandPhilipAarons,ed.QueerZines:SecondEdition(NewYork:PrintedEdition,2013)p.35.188WalterMetzmakesasimilarargumentinrelationtoWaters’latefilmwork.HisthesisisthatPecker(1998)andCecilB.Demented(2000)adoptmainstreamandconventionalfilmtechniquesatthesametimethattheyexploreaggressivelycounter-culturalthemes(theformer,forinstance,“isaclassicallystructured,realist filmaboutaWaters-likephotographerwhotakesclose-upsofa lesbianstripper’svagina.”)Metzproposes that the combination of these contradictory elements provides an “ingenious solution to themainstreamingofradicalcinemacrisis”.See“JohnWatersGoestoHollywood:APostStructuralAuthorshipStudy.”inAuthorshipandFilm,ed.DavidA.GerstnerandJanetStaiger(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2003)p.162.Tinkcomhas also argued thatWaters’ “late career has been less concernedwith accommodating ‘hip’,knowing urban spectators than with smuggling a camp reading of melodrama into the venue of themelodramaitself;WatersdistanceshimselffromcamptoinstallitbeforehisunsuspectingviewersinthenewformationsofHollywoodcinema”.SeeWorkingLikeaHomosexual:Camp,Capital,Cinema,p.159.

96

traditionally associatedwith camp. But even this diversion appears to reference and

reinforcethemarginalcultureofcampasthestartingpointfromwhichhispersonatakes

flight.Andhoweverfarhemaytravel,thisisstilltheprovincethatheclaimsashishome.

“Iyearnedforabadinfluence”

Thethemeofcelebrityculturehasalreadysurfacedasanimplicitconsiderationinmy

readingofRoleModels. Ihave, for instance,argued thatWaters’ lifewriting is filtered

throughtheculturalreputationsthathecarriesasacampveteranandpractitionerpar

excellence.However,thissubjectdoesnotdemandattentionsimplybecauseWatersisa

famouspersonandhismemoirissomewhatindebtedtohisfame.Thereareotherways

inwhichcelebrityemergesasoneofthememoir’smajorthemes.Manyoftherolemodels

profiledwithinthememoirareprominentpublicfiguresintheirownright.Waterscounts

himselfamongtheirmostardentfans,andhealsoreportsontheirvariedexperiences

withthehighsandlowsofcelebrityculture.Someofthesecelebritieshavemadetheir

own contributions to the literary genre of autobiography; the chapter on Tennessee

Williams was originally published as a prolegomenon to the playwright’s memoirs;

Waters elsewhere takes great delight in recounting the sensationalmemoirs of Little

Richard.Heisalsointerestedintheproductionanddisseminationofcelebritynarratives

outside the enterprise of literature: he comments, for example, on televisual

representationsofLeslieVanHouten,oneofthenotoriousMansonFamilycriminals.To

be sure,Waters’ selection of rolemodels does include civilians and artistswho have

remained largely unknown to the general public. But even these tributes are often

marked by preoccupations with celebrity; the focus is simply directed towards the

subjects’ failuretoachieveit. Ironically,onecouldarguethatthesepersonalitieshave,

afterall,achievedacertaindegreeoffamebyvirtueoftheirinclusioninWaters’memoir.

Suchfactorspointtothemultipleandcomplexwaysinwhichthememoir’srelationship

withcelebritycultureisconfigured.

Critical literaturehas sometimesdisparaged thegenreof the celebritymemoir for its

apparentbanalityandvulgarcommercialism.Wefindaclearexampleofthispositionin

97

Smith and Watson’s sceptical critique of the form. They might recognise that some

celebrities are capable of “innovative” lifewriting (as in theirwarm appraisal of Bob

Dylan’s Chronicles and its rejection of a linear storytelling model), but their general

assessmentofthegenreisdecidedlyunfavourable.189Theycontendthattheincreasingly

commodifiednatureofcontemporaryculturehas facilitatedagrowth industry inself-

advertisement, which has permitted a steady stream of profit-driven celebrities to

capitaliseontherecentmemoirboom.190Thesepublicationsareveryoftendesignedto

rouseourbasestappetitesforgossipandfantasy.SmithandWatsonareespeciallycritical

oflife-writingauthoredbycelebritieswhoaremerely“famousforbeingfamous”,andfor

whom“lifeandstory”isa“recursiveformation”.ParisHilton’sConfessionsofanHeiress

issingledoutasaparticularlyunfortunateexample.191

Thisdenunciationofthecelebritymemoirrecalls familiarthreadsofcriticaldiscourse

regardingcelebritycultureat large. In the1960s,DanielBoorstin influentiallyposited

thatAmericanlifehadbecomeincreasinglysyntheticasaresultofmassmediaculture.192

ItwasinthiscontextthatBoorstincoinedhisnow-famousmaxim(echoedbySmithand

Watson)thatacelebrityissimply“apersonwhoisknownforhiswell-knownness”.193

Theemptinessofthisformulationhasmadethecelebrityanabundantandcost-effective

commodityforthemachineryofpublicinformation:sincevirtuallyanyonecanbecome

one, the construction of celebrity is furnished by an endless supply of readily

manufacturedproducts: “Celebrities,because theyaremade toorder, canbemade to

please, comfort, fascinateand flatterus.Theycanbeproducedanddisplaced inrapid

succession.”194 ForBoorstin, one of the effects of this process has been awidespread

tendencytoconfusefameforgreatnessandaccomplishment,wheninfactcelebritiesare

only“receptaclesintowhichwepourourownpurposelessness.”195

SmithandWatsonmightwellbe justified in channellingBoorstin for their critiqueof

ConfessionsofanHeiress,butdoesthislineofthoughtholdthesameresonancewiththe

189SmithandWatson,p.163.190Ibid.191Ibid.192 Daniel Boorstin, The Image, or What Happened to the American Dream (London: Weidenfeld andNicolson,1961).193Ibid,p.57.194Ibid,p.74.195Ibid,p.61.

98

celebrity constructions that are performed and reflected upon inRoleModels? Is the

memoir best understood as a cynical exercise in self-promotion? And when Waters

professeshisavidinterestinvariousiconsandiconoclasts,ishemerelyperpetuatingthe

pre-digestedfantasiesthathavebeenmass-marketedtothepublicundertheauspicesof

consumercapitalism?Inmyopinion,thesejudgmentscouldonlyarisefromanextremely

severe and reductive interpretation of the memoir. Waters’ introspections are not

oblivioustothecommercialincentivesthatmotivatethemanufactureofcelebrityculture,

nordoeshefail toappreciatetheprevalenceofembellishmentsanddistortions inthe

popularnarrativesthatcirculatearoundpubliclives.Norishenaïveenoughtopresume

thattheprocessthroughwhichonebecomesfamousisnecessarilymeritocratic.Buthe

is able to register these concerns without rushing into a furious and wholesale

condemnation of celebrity culture. This is becauseWaters approaches the concept of

celebritywithevaluativestandardsthatarenotrecognisedwithinBoorstin’sanalytical

framework. However, the features of his approach are indeed acknowledged and

valorisedbyimportanttraditionsthatexistwithincampculture.

Here I am not referring to the gay male fascination for the diva that has figured so

prominently within critical understandings of the camp response to celebrity (as

previously discussed in my chapter on The Comeback). The celebrity idolatry that is

representedinthememoirshowsarangetoodiversetobecharacterisedinthoseterms:

Waters is just as besotted with Luchino Visconti as he is with Rei Kawakubo.

Nevertheless,themannerinwhichWatersinhabitsandcommentsuponcelebrityculture

stillinvokesideasandstrategiesthatarecloselyassociatedwithcamp.Theseincludehis

arch sense of humour, his intense attachment to themarginal, and his vivid sense of

theatricality.Itmaybeusefultoconsiderhowtheseideasplayoutwithinthememoirin

order to further understand the complex ways in which the categories of camp and

celebrity interactwith one another – dynamicswhich gowell beyond the recognised

practice of diva worship. I make this statement partly out of respect for Waters’

celebratedpositionasaseminalfigurewithinthecamppantheon.Withthismemoir,we

find one of the supreme exemplars of camp culture in a pose of deep contemplation:

ruminatinguponhisinsatiablepassionforstar-gazingandtheconstructionandreception

ofhisownstarimage.Itstrikesmethatsuchanoccasionmightofferuskeeninsightsinto

someofthewaysinwhichcelebrityandcampareinterconnected.Ihastentoaddthat

99

such insights are necessarily provisional in nature. Waters’ reflections on fame are

filtered through the generic conventions of the memoir and the vagaries of his own

memory:thisisnotanunmediatedrecordofsociohistoricalfact.Anotherqualification:

notwithstandingthetremendousinfluencethatWatersholdsasacampicon,heshould

beregardedasasignificantbut individualcaserather thanamicrocosmof thewhole

culture.196RoleModelsthereforeconstitutesavaluable(butnotinfallible)resourcefora

criticalinvestigationintotherelationsbetweencampandcelebrityculture.

Tobeginwith,thisisamemoirthatpositivelyrevelsintheglamourandmysteryoffame.

Thecharacterofthecelebrityisnotrepresentedasacommercialproductwhosevalues

andmeaningsarefixedandaxiomatic.Theabilityofthenarrativetointrigueitsreader

dependsupontheoppositeassertion:thatthecultofcelebrityisfarfromself-evident;

thatthereareinterestingstoriestobetoldaboutthecultureoffandomthattheauthor

bothattractsandparticipatesin.Intheabsenceofthispresumption,thedisclosureofthe

celebritynarrativewouldbecomemeretrivia:asimplerecitationofthosereferencesand

associations thatarecommonlyattributed to iconicpersonalities.Waters,however, is

mostcompelledbythepreciseoccasionsinwhichsuchnarrativesmanagetoescapetheir

mostpredictablepatterns,whenthepracticeofcelebrityworshiptakessomestrangeand

unexpectedturn.“WhenevertheyhaveJohnWaters look-alikecontestsatthecolleges

whereIappear,lesbianswin!”hegleefullyconfidestothereaderinonepassage.197This,

asweshallsee,isjustoneexampleofthekindofsurprisinginversionthathesorelishes

inthecourseofthememoir.198

Waters’attentiontothemutableandunpredictablenatureofcelebrityfandomrecallsthe

criticalworkofGilbertRodman.InhisdiscussiononthepublicreceptionofElvisPresley,

196Oneofthecoreprinciplesofthisthesishasbeentorecogniseandaccommodatecamp’smultiplicity.197RoleModels,p.16.198NotethatWatershasalsodemonstratedaplayfulandironicapproachtocelebritycultureinhisworkas a filmmaker. For instance, Tinkcomargues thatWaters often chooses to cast stars in roles that areintendedtochallengeaudienceexpectations;“hedeliberatelyrebrandstheminwaysthatmightendangerthevalueoftheircelebritysignature”.SeeWorkingLikeaHomosexual:Camp,Capital,Cinema,p.181.

100

Rodmancontendsthattheculturalsignificanceofcelebritiescannotbereducedtothe

designsofthecommercialforcesthatmediatethem:

Stardomisnotapurelymercantilephenomenonimposed‘fromabove’byprofithungry media conglomerates as much as it is a socially based phenomenongenerated‘frombelow’atthelevelofrealpeoplewhomakeaffectiveinvestmentsinparticularmediafigures…TheculturalcirculationofElvisasaniconhasmovedbeyondthepowerofbigbusinesstocontrolit:today,thepeoplewhowieldthemostpoweroverElvis’spublic imageare themillionsof individualsacross theglobewhoarehisfans.199

AccordingtoRodman,despitetheundeniableinfluenceofcorporationsuponcelebrity

culture, suchpowers cannotnecessarilydictate themanner inwhichmembersof the

publicwill engagewith various stars. If that processwere entirely pre-ordained, the

memoir’sendeavourtonarrativizeitwouldseemplainlyredundant.

Rodman’s argument is particularly germane because it seems unlikely that Waters’

responses to celebrity culture would be readily anticipated and exploited by “profit

hungry media conglomerates”. For instance, in his chapter on Tennessee Williams,

Waterssuggeststhatmanyofthecelebritiesandculturalproductionshecherishesmost

arecommonlyregardedasdross:

MaybeIlike‘bad’TennesseeWilliamsjustasmuchas‘good’.Naturallyhisbetter-knownclassicplaysareimportanttomebutImustconfessI’mdrawnmoretohissupposedly‘second-rate’work.Sorry,IalsolikeAlvinandtheChipmunksbetterthan TheBeatles, JayneMansfieldmore thanMarilynMonroe, and forme, theThreeStoogesarewayfunnierthanCharlieChaplin.200

Waters’ predisposition to favour the underdog over the crowd-pleaser is further

evidenced when he remembers his childhood enthusiasm for the US Democratic

politicianAdlaiStevenson,who lostpresidentialelections toDwightD.Eisenhower in

1952and1956: “Ihadno ideaof thedifferences in thesepresidential candidates,”he

admits.“IjustknewnooneinmyentireprivateschoolclaimedtobeforStevenson,soI

naturallyjumpedonboardhiscampaign”.201ItwouldappearthatWaters’revoltagainst

199ElvisAfterElvis:ThePosthumousCareerofaLivingLegend(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1996)pp.12-13.200RoleModels,p.37.201Ibid,p.286.

101

conformity is specifically designed to confound the expectation that celebrity appeal

derives fromcriticalorpopularacclaim.But then,as if toavoid theprospectofbeing

typecastforhisminoritytastes,Watersastonishesusoncemorewithhisfondregardfor

apopularentertainerlikeJohnnyMathis.

By now, it has been clearly established that camp taste often attributes value to the

flotsamandjetsamofmass-culturalproduction.Waters’proclaimedreverenceforthat

whichhasbeendeemed‘second-rate’bringstomindoneofSontag’searlyobservations

aboutcamp:“Thereisasenseinwhichitiscorrecttosay:"It'stoogoodtobeCamp.Or

"tooimportant,"notmarginalenough.”202OnealsothinksofBooth’scentralthesisthat,

“tobecampistopresentoneselfasbeingcommittedtothemarginalwithacommitment

greaterthanthemarginalmerits”.203ManyofthecelebrityinfatuationsrecordedinRole

Models accordwith this notionof campas an adversarial and idiosyncratic systemof

taste.ButthereferencetoMathisasanobjectofhisadorationalsosuggestsa flexible

approachtothistradition.Itisarguablethatcamp’sappreciationforthedetritusofmass-

cultural production has itself become somewhat formulaic and predictable. With his

occasionalendorsementsofpopularculture,Watersisabletomaintainasenseofongoing

vacillationandsurprise.

However,RoleModelsdoesnotmerelyserveasaplatformfromwhichWaterscanboast

thathisownstyleofcelebrityworshipdeviatesfromdominanthierarchiesoftasteand

camp stereotypes. Perhaps with the exception of Adlai Stevenson, Waters does not

admire his favourite celebrities simply for the sake of being contrarian. In fact, his

attachmenttothemmostoftencomesacrossasutterlydevotedandsincere.Forinstance,

onecannotfindtheslightesttraceofironyinthepassageinwhichWatersrhapsodises

overMargaretHamilton,theactresswhosetwelveminutesoftotalscreentimeinThe

WizardofOz(1939)astheWickedWitchoftheWestmadesuchanimpressiononWaters

thatheclaimstohavebeencopyingherperformanceeversincehefirstwatchedit.204

202Sontag,p.278.Alsotakenoteofherdescriptionofcampas“theanswertotheproblem:howtobeadandy in theageofmassculture…Thedandywasoverbred.Hisposturewasdisdain,orelseennui.Hesought rare sensations, undefiled by mass appreciation… The connoisseur of Camp has found moreingeniouspleasures.NotinLatinpoetryandrarewinesandvelvetjackets,butinthecoarsest,commonestpleasures,intheartofthemasses.”pp.288-289.203Booth,p.18.204RoleModels,pp.10-11.

102

Indeed,thereisanextremelypassionatequalitytothefandomthatisrepresentedinthis

memoir. Despite never having met Tennessee Williams in person, Waters earnestly

declaresthattheauthorsavedhislife.205

Criticalscholarshiphasacknowledgedthe fact thatmembersof thegeneralpublicare

capableofdevelopingintensepersonalfeelingsforcelebrityfigures.Regardingcinema,

forexample,GraemeTurnerarguesthat theworksofRichardDyer(in the1970sand

1980s)andDavidMarshall(inthe1990s)are“devotedsubstantiallytoexplainingthe

comprehensivenesswithwhichwesterncultureshaveacceptedthefilmstarasaformof

publicpersonalitywithwhomtheyidentify,inwhomtheyinvestandmaintainapersonal

interest,andtowhomisascribedavaluethatisculturalandsocialratherthanmerely

economic.”206TheprofoundsenseofintimacythatmarksWaters’celebrityobsessions-

whetherheissettingouttoemulateMargaretHamilton,ornamingTennesseeWilliams

ashispersonalsaviour-wouldappeartofallbroadlywithinthedynamicthatTurnerhas

described.

We can draw further insight by turning to the specific line of thinking pursued by

Marshall,whoplacesaspecialemphasisontheroleofcelebritycultureintheshapingof

socialidentity:

Celebritiesrepresentsubjectpositionsthataudiencescanadoptoradaptintheirformation of social identities. Each celebrity represents a complex form ofaudience-subjectivitythat,whenplacedwithinasystemofcelebrities,providesthegroundinwhichdistinctions,differencesandoppositionsareplayedout.Thecelebrity, then, isanembodimentofadiscursivebattlegroundon thenormsofindividualityandpersonalitywithinaculture.207

Marshall’s argument addresses the central theme of thememoir (as suggested by its

title): the influence of the ‘role model’. Waters’ personal definition of this term is a

“personwhoseexaggeratedfameornotorietyhasmadehimorhersomehowsmarter

andmore glamorous than I could ever be”.208 During his appearance at the Adelaide

Writer’s Festival promoting the memoir, he also proposed that, “Everybody in the

205Ibid,p.35.206Turner,p.16.207CelebrityandPower:FameinContemporaryCulture(MinneapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997)p.65.208RoleModels,pp.6-7.

103

audiencecouldwriteabookontheirrolemodels,becauseeveryonehaspeoplethatthey

discoverontheirown,whenthey’reyoung,thatgivethemtheconfidenceandthecourage

tobecomewhotheywanttobe.”209

AsMarshallhasexplained,themannerinwhichthepublicengageswithcelebritiescan

reflect the “normsof individuality andpersonalitywithin a culture”. As thememoir’s

selection of literary heroes has already shown, Waters is especially partial to those

celebritieswhosepersonaeareseentodisturbdominantmoralandaestheticcodes.Their

spirit of defiance is not coincidental to their appeal;Waters often emphasizes it as a

crucial component of their charisma. Consider this reflection on TennesseeWilliams,

whomheconsidersa“childhoodfriend”:

IyearnedforabadinfluenceandTennesseewasoneinthebestsenseoftheword:joyous, alarming, sexually confusing, anddangerously funny. Ididn’tquite ‘get’“DesireandtheBlackMasseur”whenIreaditinOneArm,butIhopedIwouldoneday.ThethingIdidknowafterfinishingthebookwasthatIdidn’thavetolistentotheliestheteacherstoldusaboutsociety’srules.Ididn’thavetoworryaboutfittinginwithacrowdIdidn’twanttohangoutwithinthefirstplace.No,therewasanotherworld thatTennesseeWilliamsknewabout, auniverse filledwithspecialpeoplewhodidn’twanttobeapartofthisdrearyconformistlifethatIwastoldIhadtojoin.210

WhileWaters does include some non-celebrities in his roster of childhood idols, the

passage above does not suggest an abundance of contrarian figures in his everyday

adolescent life. In fact, it seems that the primary accomplishment of this particular

celebrity is to evoke a glamorous alternative to the pedestrian mentalities that he

encountersinthequotidiansphereofhisexistence.

ForWaters,theforeignpresenceofthecelebritypromisestoinjectasparkofelectricity

(and eccentricity) into an otherwise banal environment. His appreciation of the

celebrity’scapacityforscintillatingglamourisnotconfinedtohischapteronWilliams;it

cutsacrossmanyofthestarprofilesthatarefeaturedwithinRoleModels.Atonepoint,

herecallsthetransgressivethrillofplayingaLittleRichardrecordtohisstunnedparents

209 Adelaide Writer’s Week 2014 (March 31, 2014) “Role Models: John Waters Podcast.” Available at:https://www.adelaidefestival.com.au/blog/Adelaide_Writers_Week_2014_Podcasts210RoleModels,p.36.

104

andGrandmotherduringafamilydinner:“Inonemagicalmoment,everyfearofmywhite

familyhadbeen laidbare: anuninvited, screaming, flamboyantblackmanwas in the

livingroom.”211 Inasimilarvein,heremembersbeingsodeeply infatuatedwithPatty

McCormack, the nine year old actress who famously portrayed a psychotic child

murdererinthecultclassicTheBadSeed(1956),thathefelttheurgetoscreamoutthe

film’sadvertisementtag-line(“TheBadSeed istheBigShocker!”) tohisobliviousand

unreceptivegradeschoolclassmates.212

Turnerhascommentedthatsociologicaldiscussionsofcelebritytendtolinkaperceived

surge in our attachments to celebrity figureswho are known to us only through the

channels of media representationwith a deterioration of ourmore traditional social

relations, for example, the nuclear family and church.213 Perhaps this idea has some

legitimacy as a broad statement on the status of social structures in contemporary

westernculture,but it fallsshortasanexplanation for thecelebrityrelationsthatare

reflecteduponinRoleModels.ForitwouldbeerroneoustosurmisethatWatersmakes

hispersonalinvestmentsinfamouspersonalitiesasaresultoftheapparentdeclineinthe

conditionoftraditionalsocialinstitutions.ItisevidentfromWaters’narrationthatthose

institutionswereneverattractivetohiminthefirstplace.Infact,itistheallureofthe

celebrityimagethatgrantshimanescapefromtheiroppressiveclutch.

It is true thatWaters identifieswith celebritieswhoarenotoriousoutsiders, but it is

equally important to appreciate that it is also thenatureof celebrity itself that exists

outsidetherealityofhiseverydayworld(atleast,untilhebecameone).Rememberthat

itwasonlythroughthemediumoftheLPthata“screaming,flamboyant,blackman”might

everclaimapresence inhis family livingroom.And itwas in thepagesofTennessee

Williams’ scandalous books thatWaterswas first introduced to the very existence of

bohemian life.Watersdoesnot lament the fact that thecelebritypersonaresides ina

domainexternal tohisown, fortherein lies itsappeal.Thevehiclesthatcommunicate

celebrity culture may be highly mediated by modern technologies and commercial

incentives,buttheyalsoprovideatantalizingglimpseintotheworldoftheother,which

211Ibid,p.183.212Ibid,p.18.213Turner,p.6.

105

istheonlyspaceinwhichWatersimaginesthathebelongs.214Whenseeninthislight,

Waters’devotiontothemystiqueofcelebritycouldbereadasafurtherextensionofthe

marginalitythatisingrainedincampculture.

Criticalresearchhaspaidcredencetothenotionthatacelebrityimagemightinculcatea

senseofbelonging.NickCouldry,forexample,hascommentedontheabilityofpopular

culturetoengineer“thefantasyofbeingincludedinsomewayinmajorculturalforms

suchastelevisionorfilm”.215Inthiscase,itisparticularlyinterestingthatWatersdoes

notdispensewiththatfantasyonceheachieveshisownfameasafilmmakerandpublic

personality.RoleModelsisrepletewithglitteringdescriptionsoftheexclusivecelebrity

gatherings thatWaters has attended over the years. He cannot resist boasting to the

readerthathewasamongthoseontheguestlistforEltonJohn’ssixtiethbirthdayparty,

andthathewasseatednexttononeotherthanYokoOno.216Healsofondlyrecallshis

tenureasamemberofthejuryfortheCannesFilmFestival,whichfoundhimenjoying

freefoodwithJeanneMoreauatseveralblack-tiedinners.217Inanotherpassage,hedrops

inacasualreferencetohissparklingconversationsaboutfashionwithLindaEvangelista

atanotherfilmfestivalinFrance.218Hisproudmentionofthesepersonalacquaintances

evokestheworldofthecelebrityasanelitetribetowhichWatersnowbelongs.

Elsewhere,thereisfurtherevidencethatthesocialandculturaldistinctionconferredby

celebritystatusisacurrencythatWaterstradesin.Evenwhenheprofilesaveryobscure

personality, such as the gaypornographerBobbyGarcia, he vouches forhis talent by

comparinghimtofamousfilmdirectors,honouringhimas“theAlmodóvarofAnuses,the

BuñuelofBlowJobs,theJodorowskyofJerkingOff.”219Hethenarguesthatthereshould

beanequivalentoftheMacArthurawardforGarcia’scontributionstothepornographic

214Thisdimensionofthememoir’srepresentationofcelebrityremindsmeofthedynamicthatisdescribedbythescholarJeffSolomoninhisaccountofthechildhoodfascinationthatheheldforTrumanCapote.SolomonrecallsthathefirstencounteredCapoteduringatelevisedbroadcastofMurderByDeath(1976)andsoonbecamerivetedbyhisflagrantperformanceof“gayness”,thelikesofwhichhehadneverseenbefore.ThismemoryleadsSolomontoreflect,“Myonlyexposuretodifferencecamethroughbooksandtelevision – and throughmyself,who obviously did not fit the regimedespitemy best efforts.” SeeSoFamousandSoGay:TheFabulousPotencyofTrumanCapoteandGertrudeStein(MinneapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2017)p.xiii215NickCouldry,InsideCulture:Re-ImaginingTheMethodofCulturalStudies(London:Sage,2000)p.55.216RoleModels,p.30.217Ibid,p.11.218Ibid,p.102.219Ibid,p.204.

106

genre,220andhelatercomplainsthatthe“abuseporn”producedbyDavidHurleshasnot

received enough academic attention.221 While the projection of the celebrity image

broughtWatersintocontactwithwonderfullyeccentricpersonalitieslikeLittleRichard

and TennesseeWilliams, his memoir also acknowledges that celebrity culture is not

devoidoftheveryfeaturesthathefoundsointolerableinhisadolescentschooldays,

withitsbenttowardsconservativepositionsontaste,moralityandsoforth.Waters is

contenttoincludehimselfinthesocietyofcelebritiesandtoenjoyitsattendantpleasures,

buthealsorefrainsfromtakingfametooseriously,orfromusingitasareliablemeasure

of cultural value. By way of example, his references to Almodóvar, Buñuel and

Jodorowsky are undoubtedly intended to compliment both Garcia and the acclaimed

directors in question. But the playful alliterationWaters invokes in connecting their

namestosexualactsandanatomyisalsoanexpressionoftheraffishhumorforwhichhe

isrenowned.Headmiresthesemen,butthatadmirationisalsoinflectedwithacheeky

senseofirreverence.

Waters’ approach to celebrity is defined by expressions of passionate devotion and

detachedwhimsy. This juxtaposition is characteristic of camp’s idiosyncratic attitude

towards‘theserious’.ForSontag,“thewholepointofCampistodethronetheserious.

Camp is playful, anti-serious. More precisely, Camp involves a new, more complex

relation to ‘the serious’. One can be serious about the frivolous, frivolous about the

serious…”222 Babuscio also considers that “camp, through its introduction of style,

aestheticism, humour and theatricality, allows us to witness ‘serious’ issues with

temporarydetachment….The‘serious’is,infactcrucialtocamp.Thoughcampmocksthe

solemnities our culture, it never totally discards the seriousness of a thing or

individual.”223 Whereas a commentator like Boorstin delivers a robust and damning

critiqueontheartificialityofthecelebrity,Watersneverapproacheshissubjectwithsuch

dry condescension. He is unrepentant in describing his indulgence in the various

privilegesanddelightsthatcelebritycultureaffords.Whenheappraisesitsdeficits,he

doessowitha lightandmischievous touch.Hiscomplaintsneverstrikea tone that is

combativeoraustere;hepreferstosubmithiscritiqueintheguiseofacrudejokeabout

220Ibid,p.206.221Ibid,p.227.222Sontag,p.288.223Babuscio,p.128.

107

“anuses”, “blowjobs” and “jerking off”. This tactic permits Waters to express an

ambivalentpositionontheelitismofthecelebrity:heisbothdismayedandseducedby

itsmarkofculturaldistinction.

Similar contradictions feature in the memoir’s discussion on the relations between

celebrity and the construction of identity. As a self-conscious exercise in celebrity

autobiography,RoleModelsdemonstratesarecurringinterestinthestoriesthataretold

about and by public figures, the channels that shape and deliver them, the different

intereststhattheyserve,andhowtheyarereceivedbythepublic.Watersiskeenlyaware

thattheachievementofcelebritystatusmeansthatone’s‘life’becomesembeddedwith

narrativesforpublicconsumption,someofwhichmayhavedireconsequencesforthe

famousperson inquestion.Thequestionofnarrative control (and itsabsence) looms

over many portraits of celebrity identity in the text. For example, Waters is deeply

concernedthataCBStelevisionfilmversionofHelterSkelterwillhinderthechancesof

parole for Leslie Van Houten, one of the reformed Manson murderers that he has

befriended.224Heisalsoconcernedabouttheimpactofhisownmemoir,worryingthat

theDistrictAttorneywill“usecertainsentencesoutofcontexttohurtherchances”225.

Several critics have commented on the difficulties that are faced by celebrities in the

managementoftheirpublicimage.JoeMoran’sstudyoncelebritywriters,forinstance,

notesthefrequencywithwhichsuchauthorsexpresstheirresentmentabout“thelossof

controlandagency”thatissufferedasaresultoftheircelebritystatus-evennotorious

publicity hounds like Truman Capote have added their voices to this chorus of

complaint.226WhenGraemeTurnerreflectsupontheresearchthatheconductedwith

FrancesBonnerandDavidMarshallonthemedia’sportrayalofStuartDiver,thesurvivor

ofalandslideintheAustraliansnowfields,heconcludesthat,“theonlywaysuchaperson

could control their media representation was by fully engaging with the celebrity

industriesthatproducedit:byhiringamanagerandsurrenderingcontrolofthesituation

toamediaprofessionalwhowouldentirelycommercialiseallmediaaccess.”227Butwhen

celebritieshavetakensuchmeasures,theresultscanbedispleasingforthosewhoare

224RoleModels,p.68.225Ibid,p.85.226StarAuthors:LiteraryCelebritiesinAmerica(London;Sterling,Va.:PlutoPress,2000)pp.68-69.227Turner,pp.41-42.

108

concerned about the independence of celebrity journalists. Here Turner refers to the

personalaccountofTobyYoung,anentertainmentwriterwhoonceworkedforVanity

Fair but then became quickly disillusioned by the titanic influence of publicists in

controllingthestoriesthatarepublishedabouttheirstarclients.228

Therearemanyways inwhichtheseaccountsresonatewiththemusingsoncelebrity

thatsurface inthememoir.For instance,Watersmakesapointofadmonishinga“gay

militant” reporter who has implied that John Travolta, who starred in a Hollywood

remakeofWaters’filmHairspray(1988),isahomosexualwhohasremainedclosetedas

a resultofhis involvementwith theChurchof Scientology: “Hehada lovelywifeand

children,andhowdoesthejournalistknowwhomhesleepswith?”229ButwhenWaters

findshimselfinthepositionofthecelebrityjournalist,hebecomesembroiledinpower

struggles with several of the subjects that he profiles. JohnnyMathis is said to have

requestedfinalapprovalofthepiecethatiswrittenabouthiminRoleModels.230When

Waters refused the request, Mathis was eventually persuaded to participate in an

interviewontheconditionthathislegalrepresentationwouldremainpresentatalltimes.

WhenLittleRichardmadeasimilardemandforfinalapproval(thistimeattheconclusion

oftheinterview),itledtoanextremelytensealtercation.231RoleModelsthereforereflects

anambivalentstanceonthequestionofcelebritysubjectivity:whileWaterssympathises

withthecelebrity’sdesireforprivacy,theprofilesinhismemoiralsosuggestafirmdesire

tonarrativizetheiridentitiesonhisownterms.

Another duality presents itself when Waters reflects on the act of celebrity self-

disclosure: Waters is both fascinated and confounded by famous figures who have

willinglypublicizedsalaciousdetailsoftheirprivatelives,whetherininterviews,oras

per the generic conventionsof the ‘tell-all’memoir. “WasTennesseeWilliamsnuts to

revealeverythingabouthispersonallifeashegotolder,orwashejusthigh?”,heisleftto

ponder in one passage.232 In his chapter about Johnny Mathis, he makes this sad

assessment: “When I readaboutany celebritybaringhisor soul to a journalist, I just

228Ibid,pp.49-50.229RoleModels,p.13.230Ibid,p.7.231Ibid,pp.195-197.232Ibid,p.38.

109

figurethestardoesn’thaveanyoneelsetoconfidein.”233Later,though,heseemstobeam

with excitement when recounting Little Richard’s flamboyant and gossipy memoir,

praising the book for its shocking revelations about drugs, alcohol, and a “hilarious

threesomewithBuddyHolly”.234

The task of locating some sense of coherence amidst these shifts and contradictions

requires some consideration, particularly in the absence of a transparent explanation

within thememoir itself.Waters does not pause to present a consistent through-line

betweenhismyriadjudgementsandobservations;henimblyswervesfromonetonext.

How then, can he appear to recognise the pitfalls involved in the projection and

dissemination of celebrity identity, while continuing to perpetuate that very process

himself,andtakingunreservedpleasureattheresults?Atfirstglance,Water’spositions

do not necessarily appear to be uniform or dogmatic, but it would be a mistake to

presumethattheyaresimplyrandomandhaphazard.Mysuggestionisthatthissenseof

ambivalence is actually consistentwith core tenetsof the campculturalpractice.One

thinks again of the camp tendency to scramble the categories of ‘serious’ and the

‘frivolous’,whichmightexplainhowWatercanseemtosimultaneouslydenounceand

delight in the celebrity scandal. But I alsowant to propose thatWaters’ complicated

stanceonthisissuebearsasignificantrelationtothecampunderstandingoftheselfas

theatricalised.

233Ibid,p.13.234Ibid,p.190.

110

OnthispointisitisusefultoconsidertheideasthatthatareexpoundedbyCoreinhis

camp encyclopaedia. In his entry on the female star, Core links the camp fixation on

famouswomenwiththeearlycultureofHollywoodfilm:

BecauseoftheHayeslawsofcensorship,itwasneverpossibletosayoutrightthattheappealoftheHollywooddivaswassex.Compensatoryexcessesofexoticismandsuggestionsofperversitywere instead injected into theirappearancesandmore-or-lessfictionalbiographies,creatingpersonaebasedoneverythingbutthebasic factof theirpopularity; thus theyequated thegayworldpanacheofdragqueens or outrageous aesthetes whose elaborate clothes, off-colour jokes andabsurd preciosities grew from the unspoken central joke of a concealedsexuality.235

Corepositsthatthecampinvolvementwithcelebrityisboundupwithapreoccupation

regardingthecomplexityandmultiplicityofnarrativesthatcirculatearoundtheself.In

hisview,therecurringcampthemeofconcealedsexualityisessentialtothisissue,forit

meansthatcampperformersconstantlynegotiateandenactdifferentversionsoftheir

‘selves’ inresponsetothedominantnarrativeofsexualitythrustuponthem-namely,

thattheirdivergencesfromheterosexualityareshamefulorimmoral.Andso,thereisa

kindofbattlebeingplayedoutbetweenwhatissaidaboutthecampperformer,andwhat

thecampperformersaysabouthimorherself,parallelingthetypesofidentityconflicts

sooftenfacedbyfamousfigures.Asisthecaseincelebrityculture,thisbattlelendsitself

toagreatdealoffictionalbiographyonbothsides,andtheideaofan‘essential’or‘true’

selfbecomescomplicatedandobscured.Althoughtheexistenceofaconcealedsexuality

can lead to intense personal suffering, the camp activities Core describes (“elaborate

clothes,off-colourjokes,absurdpreciosities”)aredecidedlyunserious.Weseethesame

juxtapositioninthecomicstrategiesthatWatersdeploysinhisremarksaboutcelebrity

(aswellashissexualidentity)inthememoir.

Consider,forexample,themannerinwhichWatersnarrateshisestrangementfromhis

almamater:

I hated my Catholic high school, so I certainly never went back to a reunion,although I did get to comment to the Baltimore Sun, on the school’s fifty yearanniversary, that theChristianBrothersand lay faculty therehad“discouragedeveryinterestIeverhad.”Afriendwhoattendedthereunionthatyearsaidhe

235Core,p.173.

111

heardme called “faggot” and “pornographer” by some ofmy pissed-off fellowclassmateswhohadreadmycriticism,butIdidn’tmind.Theonlyreasontoattendanyschoolreunionistoseehowthepeoplewhomyouwantedtohavesexwiththenlooktoday.AndIhadalreadylookedupthosepeople’saddressesanddrivenbytheirhomestostalkthemyearsbefore.236

Waters’anecdotedoesnotglossoverthehostilenatureofhisschooling,nordoesitignore

the derogative labels his former peers have attached to his sexual and professional

identity. He can acknowledge the scurrilous attacksmade upon his character, but he

chooses to respondwithaplayfulandwickedhumour.Theeffect is toneutralizeany

damageinflictedbytheinsultingnarrativeslevelledathispersona;heappearstoemerge

triumphantthroughhisdisplayofirreverentwit.

TheapproachthatistakenbyWatersintheexampleabovebearsastrongresemblance

tohiscomplexresponsetotheproductionofcelebritylifenarratives.Forheisableto

measurethecoststhatareinvolvedintheachievementofcelebritywhilealsoretaininga

senseofhumourabouttheentireprocess.Forexample,thoughIalreadymentionedthat

Waters denounces the sexual rumours that have swirled around John Travolta, he

choosestoclosethatargumentonawhimsicalnote,statingthatevenifwecouldverify

theexistenceofclosetedcelebrityScientologists,hewouldnotwantthem‘outed’:“’Go

on!’,I’dtellthem,‘letScientologyhaveyou!Gobackintheclosetwhereyou’rehappy–

wedon’twantyouanyway!’”237

InRoleModels,thecelebrityfigureisembeddedwithprojectionsoffantasticdifference.

Watersyearnsforthesmoulderingpersonalityofthelarger-than-lifecelebrityinorder

toescapethemundanitiesofanotherwiseparochialandpredictableexistence.Itisnot

lost on him that these projections often consist of contrived images and contested

narratives.For thesenseofartifice that isassociatedwithcelebrityalsoemergesasa

pointoffascination.Itishighlysuggestivethatthispreoccupationappearstocorrespond

withthecampthemeofthetheatricalisedself.Theconstructednessofcelebrityculture

seemstoresonatewiththecampinterestintheadoptionofpersona.Thispracticeisitself

markedbyasenseofplayfulness inthefaceofpain,whichmightgosomedistance in

236RoleModels,p.281.237Ibid,p.14.

112

accountingforthelightnessofspiritwithwhichWatersapprehendstheunpleasantand

sometimesbrutalrealitiesoffame.

“CultGraveyard”

ThefinalchapterofRoleModels–inwhichWaterscomicallyenvisionshimselfasacrazed

cult leader – closes with the author fantasizing a spectacular death for his tribe. He

decidesthatspontaneouscombustionwouldbethemostappropriatemeanstothisend,

deeming it a “beautiful death, dramatic, scary, internally cleansing…”238 His final

instructiontohisfollowersisthattheyshouldalwayswearstylishshoes,forthesemight

beallthatremainaftertheirbodiesburstintoflames.

Death, like almost every other theme in Role Models, is mined for opportunities for

flamboyance.Onceagain,Watershandlessubjectmatterthatmightbeconsideredgrave

withahumorousandlight-heartedtouch.Hisfashionadvicetestifiestohisinsistencethat

stylebemaintainedatalltimes,evenandperhapsespeciallyintheadventofaviolent

extinction.Watershimselfenactsthisbeliefbymediatingdeath;treatingitasanarrative

item that can be exploited for glamour. These aspects of thememoir’s conclusion all

indicateanapproachtodeaththatisthoroughlyenmeshedwithcamp.

Thevisualthatisconcoctedhere–beautifulshoesleftbehindbyavanishedcorpse–is

not anomalous. The question of death - its preparation, its aftermath, its aesthetic

rendering-isalingeringpreoccupationthroughoutthememoir.Mostoftherolemodels

thatWaters profiles are now either elderly or deceased - a fact which the text both

records and reflects upon.Waterswonders, for instance,whatmight havebecomeof

TennesseeWilliamshadhenot,aspopularmythwouldhaveusbelieve,chokedtodeath

onadrugbottlecapattheageofseventy-one:hespendsalmostanentirepageinventing

variousscenariosforthedeceasedplaywright’snon-existentthirdact:“Wouldhehave

hadasecondwindcareerlikeEdwardAlbee?Orwouldhehavedespairedandcrumbled

238RoleModels,p.294.

113

furtherwhentheAIDSepidemichitandwipedoutmanyofhisyoungernewfriends?”239

Watersisalsoconcernedwiththeissueofhisownmortality,andthepreservationofhis

legacyforcontemporaryandfutureaudiences.Thefollowingsectionofthischapteraims

todeciphertheserecurrentthemesastheyrelatetopracticesincampandautobiography.

Storiesaboutagingaresomewhatofastaplewithinthelife-writingmedium.Smithand

Watson have given a persuasive explanation for this pattern by observing that

autobiographicalnarrativesaremostoftenwrittenbyauthorsata time that theycall

“laterlife”.240Theypredictthatthepopularityofthissubjectmatterwillonlycontinueto

riseasbabyboomersbegin toenter theageof retirement.241Born in1946,Waters is

certainly a member of that generation, which is also true of many other camp

practitionerswhowereresponsibleforintroducingthetermintopopularcultureduring

the1960sand1970s.Forthesereasons,thereisanintersectionbetweenautobiography,

campandagingthatishistoricalinnature.WhileIacknowledgetheimportanceofthese

chronologicallinks,myreadingwillalsoforegroundformalaspectsofautobiographythat

areequallysignificantinconsideringtheframingofcampandoldageinRoleModels.I

will argue that the narrative parameters of the autobiographical format have distinct

renderings of memory and interiority. The way that the medium is inherently

predisposed to shape these ideas has a significant impact upon the understanding of

deathandoldagethatWatersforwardsinthetext.

Camp’s own fascinationwith people and things that are ‘old’ is widely noted. I have

outlinedsomeofthemajorscholarshiponthisissueintheintroductiontothisthesis,but

Iwouldliketorevisitthisideainmoredetailsothatwecanconsideritsapplicationto

the textathand.Tobeginwith,Sontagacknowledges that camp taste tends to favour

items that are “old-fashioned”, “out-of-date” or “démodé”.242 She explains this

predilectionbyarguingthatthepassageoftimecanprovide“thenecessarydetachment”

forcampconnoisseurstofindpleasureindisreputableculturalobjects.Whenapieceof

contemporaryartfails,wearemorelikelytofeelindignantorconsiderittobe“banal”.

However,whenweobservethesameartworkfromoutsideofitshistoricalcontext,we

239Ibid,pp.40-41.240SmithandWatson,p.150.241Ibid.242Sontag,p.285.

114

areaffordedasenseofdistancethatmeanswecanenjoyitascamp.Rossseemstoaffirm

thisconceptwhenhedescribescampas“therediscoveryofhistory’swaste,”goingonto

positthat,

Camp irreverently retrieves not only that which had been excluded from theserioushigh-cultural‘tradition’,butalsothemoreunsalvageablematerialthathasbeenoverandfoundwantingbypurveyorsofthe‘antique’.Forthecampliberator,as with the high modernist, history’s waste matter becomes all ‘rag bag’, butirradiated,thistimearound,withglamor…243

Flinndedicatesanentireessaytothesubjectofcamp’srelationshipwitholdage.244Her

discussionunderscorestheextenttowhichcamp’sattachmenttodecaymanifestsina

preoccupation with aging bodies, and in particular, female bodies. Citing the camp

followingsofGloriaSwanson, JoanCollinsandElizabethTaylor (amongothers),Flinn

contendsthatthereisa“strikingregularitywithwhichagingandthebody‘too’old,too

obese, too close to death, are hurled ontomiddle-aged, female star images...”245 It is

noteworthythatFlynnlocatesseveraloftheseimageswithinWaters’ownfilmography.

Inherdiscussionof camp’s fixationwithgrotesque femalebodies, for instance, she is

quicktopointoutDivine’s“infantilizedmother”inPinkFlamingos,whospendstheentire

durationofthefilmgorgingoneggsinsideaplaypen.246

Flinnarguesthatthegendereddimensiontocamp’srelationshipwithdeathis further

pronounced by the youthfulness and virility so prevalent in camp images of

masculinity.247ShesuggeststhatRockHudson’smuscularphysiqueofthe1950sproved

tobeaveritable“campfest”,adescriptionthatcouldhardlybeappliedtothematinee

idol’s emaciated appearance during his final years in the 1980s.248 Camp’s lopsided

concentration on female bodies in decline lends itself to allegations of sexism. In

weighing that charge, Flinn considers somedefences that have beenmade on camp’s

account,forinstance,thecommonlyexpressedargumentthatcamp’s“aggressivityand

fascinationwithgrotesque,disunifiedbodiesaretiedtothesubjects’ownaphanisis,his

243Ross,p.320.244Flinn,pp.433-457.245Ibid,p.444.246Ibid,p.447.247Ibid,p.445.248Ibid.

115

ownlacks,masochism,andjouissance,his ‘coming’apart…”249Bythislogic,the(male)

campconnoisseurunderstandshisownsubjectivitybyproxy.Insupportofthispoint,

sheregistersJonathanDollimore’sremarksontheambivalenceofcampparody,which

stressedthatthecampperformermightdesireoridentifywiththeveryobjectorperson

heappearstoridicule.250

TheseargumentspersuadeFlinn thatgaymalecampprobably isnot “deliberatelyor

essentiallymisogynist”.251Nevertheless,sheremainsunconvincedthatcamp’sapproach

to gazing atwomen is completely innocuous, cautioning that itmay be inadvertently

aligningitselfwithnefariousaspectsofdominantculture“bentondoingdamagetothe

female body”, naming tirades against abortion and unwed mothers as just some

examples.252Informulatingpotentialsolutionstothisproblem,Flinndoesnotadvocate

theeradicationofcampaltogether,butencouragesitto“risetotheoccasion”andmove

forwardwithagreatersensitivityregardingthesubjectsitinteractswith.253

Role Models continues to foreground the camp fascination for physical deterioration.

Arguably it isWaters’ work in film – as per the visual nature of the medium – that

demonstrateshisinterestinthisthememostconspicuously.Butevenwhenheexpresses

himself inthewrittenword,Waters isremarkablyattentivetomattersofappearance,

and especially to things or people that are in conditions of decay and disrepair. The

chapterdevotedtoReiKawakubo,afashiondesignerknownformakingclothesthatare

“torn,crooked,permanentlywrinkled,illfitting,andexpensive”,offersclearevidenceof

thisrecurrentpreoccupation.254Butinfact,theentirememoiraboundswithmeticulous

descriptions of visual presentation. When Waters relates his encounter with Johnny

Mathis, he inventories every single aspect of the singer’s memorable attire: an

unbuttonedwhiteshirtrevealingahairless,muscularchest,whitepants,whitesocks,no

shoes.HecanonlyconcludethatMathislooksasfabulousasever:“JustlikeJohnnyMathis

249Ibid,pp.451-452.250 Ibid, p. 451. Original citation: Jonathan Dollimore, Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud toFoucault(OxfordandNewYork:Clarendon,1991)p.321.ThisargumentrecallsBooth’sstatementthat“thetypicallycampperson(shallwecallhimTruman?)neverlooksatanythingwithoutseeinghimselfinit.”Seep.78.251Flinn,p.452.252Ibid,p.453.253Ibid.254RoleModels,p.95.

116

shouldlook,likehealwayshas.Effortless.Twentyorseventy.”255Butlater,whenhepores

overhiscollectionofBobbyGarcia’spornographicvideos,henoticesthatwhenGarcia

beginstogrowolder,theMarinesthathesleepswithbecomelessandlessattractive.256

AnditcannotbedeniedthatsomeofWaters’campassessmentsofphysicalityarefocused

upon women. Role Models includes a vigorous critique of Aretha Franklin’s fashion

choices, inwhichWaters judges that, “shemaybe the ‘BestSoulSingerEver’,butshe

designsherownclothesandsomeoneshould intervene”.257HeencouragesFranklin to

wearsomeofthepiecesfromKawakubo’savant-gardefashionline:“Don’ttrytobesexy

atthreehundredpounds;Aretha;becuttingedge.Exaggeratethebulges inyourbody

through fashion and nobodywill see the real weight. Anybody that calls herself ‘the

Queen’andhopestogetawaywithithastohavenerve.”258

Therefore, Role Models is not an unmitigated disavowal of camp’s interest in the

grotesquefemalebody.Butwhenweexaminethememoirinitsentirety,itbecomesclear

that itscampapprehensionof femalebodies is interspersedamongimagesofawhole

host of subjects that receive a similar treatment;Waters does not reinforce the firm

genderdivisionFlinnrecognisedincamp.Hisgazeturnstomenaswellaswomen,aswe

havealreadyseeninthewayhenoticesthediminishingappealofBobbyGarcia’ssexual

partners.PerhapshismostunflatteringportraitisoftheagingcriminalCharlesManson:

A repellentoldmanwithanunappealingpotbellyand teeth rapidlybecomingsimilar to Edith Massey’s, he would have a hard time leading any cult today,believeme.Helooksmorelikeahomelessfoolwhoforgottotakehismeds.259

RoleModelsnotonlycallsattentiontobodies,butalsotoplacesthathavebeenravaged

bythepassageoftime.WatersdespairsoverthedisappearanceofhisfavouriteBaltimore

bars,whichweresomewhatluridevenbeforetheywerecloseddown.Ofoneofhisold

haunts,HardTimes,hejokes,“Dirtydrinkingglasses?What’sthebigdeal?Justrinsethem

outwhen it rains.”260WhenhevisitsBobbyGarcia,he finds the formerpornographer

livinginsqualidconditions,with“elevendogs,twopigs,tworoosters,andmorethanfive

255Ibid,p.8.256Ibid,p.208.257Ibid,p.103.258Ibid.259Ibid,p.83.260Ibid,p.145.

117

hundred rats” cohabiting his home.261 In one excruciating moment, Waters notices

critters moving under newspapers that are canvassed over the kitchen floor. These

representations of space recall camp’s long abiding attraction to decrepit and

insalubriousenvironments-thinkofNormaDesmond’scrumblinganddesertedmansion

inSunsetBoulevard,theracooninfestedsummerhouseinGreyGardens(1975),Quentin

Crisp’sdust-coveredEastVillageapartment,tonameonlyafewexamples.

ItisalsoimportanttoappreciatethatWatersincludeshimselfasasubjectthatevokes

ideasofdecayandmortality-aswehavealreadyseeninhisconfesseddesirefordeath

throughspontaneouscombustion.Waters’representationofhimselfasamaincharacter

isnotreflectedinhisfilmography,whereheremainsprimarilybehindthecamera,bara

fewHitchcockiancameosinfeatureslikeHairspray(1988)andCecilB.Demented(2000).

Thepretenceof‘self-revelation’,though,isintrinsictotheformofautobiography.Smith

andWatsonhavewrittenaboutautobiography’spledgetograntthereadersomeinsight

asto“theselffeltfrominside”,callingthemediuma“recordofself-observation”.262Since

theproductionofautobiographyplacestheauthorcentre-stage,perhapsitismorelikely

than some other forms to deliver a type of camp that expressly implicates the camp

performer in its representation of aging and mortality. In such a context, it is less

incumbentupondefendersofcamptorelyupontheideathatitspractitionersidentify

withthecharacterstheysendup–thus far,anargumentthathasnotprovenentirely

effectiveinswayingcriticslikeFinn.Thisby-proxylogicneednotbeinvokedwherethe

campperformersoclearlyturnshimselfintohisownleadcharacter.

Autobiography’s designation of the author as protagonist turns camp’s gaze inwards.

Othercharactersmaycomeintoitsfieldofvision,butnoindividualisscrutinized(and

theatricalised)morethanhewhoenactscamp.Hence,thenarrativefocusofRoleModels

islesscentreduponcamp’sprojectionofimagesofdeathanddecayontoothers,thanit

is on the way in which camp incorporates these motifs into its own self-conscious,

aesthetic construction. One passage in particular demonstrates how thoroughly

interconnectedthevariablesof‘autobiography’and‘camp’areinRoleModels’realisation

261Ibid,p.204.262SmithandWatson,p.6.

118

ofdeath.AfterdeclaringhissenseofaffinitywithJohnnyMathis,asafellowbachelorwho

isapproachinghissenioryears,Watersyetagainimagineshisowndeath:

I’velongacceptedthefactunlesssomehideousdiseasegetsmefirstandIhavetomakeforcedsmalltalkwithdedicatedcaregivers,Iwilldiealone.Andthat’sfineas longas Ihavemymoustachedrawnonstraight.Hopefully itwillbeaquickdeath.Maybeonstage.263

HeproceedstorevealhispurchaseofaburialspotinthesamegraveyardasDivine,where

severalotherartisticcollaboratorsofhishavealsoboughtplots.“Comeondown!”tovisit

the“cultgraveyard”,hebeckonsthereader.264

Thisforetellingsaysagreatdealabouthowdeathandcampareconstruedintheworld

ofthebook.First,eventhoughWatersisostensiblyprofilingMathis,whoisimplicatedin

thenarrativetropeofthe‘agingperformer’,itisevidentthatWaters’primarysubjectis

himself;Mathisservesasakindoflaunchingpadfromwhichtheauthorcontemplateshis

ownidentity.Infact,Watersspecificallypointsoutthathehasnoideawhat,ifany,burial

plansMathismayhavemade,believingitwouldhavebeen“toofamiliar”tohaveasked

afteronlymeetinghimtwice.Second,althoughWaters’imaginationofhisowndemise

comespairedwithcamp’scustomaryinterestinvisualstyle(fakemoustachesandall),it

also forecasts another loss. Waters seems to be pre-emptively officiating the

commemorationofsomethingthatisbroaderthanhisownphysicaldeparturefromthe

worldoftheliving.Thebook’srenderingofcampisinfusedwithasenseofaforthcoming

lossofthehistoricalera,community,andculturalmomentthatinculcatedtheveryidea

ofcamptothewesternworld.Theprolepticimaginingofthisabsenceisevokedbythe

imageofthe“cultgraveyard”,withitsrelicsofabygonetimeonpublicdisplay.Initsown

way,RoleModelsfunctionsasaliteraryincarnationofthegraveyardWatersdepicts.It

strivestopreserveandmemorializenotonlythefigureswhoparticipatedinWaters’film

career(andthus,itscontributiontoabroaderideaofcamp),butalsothosewhoprovided

thenecessary inspiration for those films to comeabout. It is interested inwhat came

beforecampasitbecameknowninthemid-20thcentury,andwhatwillcomeafterits

currentembodiment.

263RoleModels,p.30.264Ibid,p.31.

119

Inexploringthoseinterests,Waterspositionshimselfasawitnesstocamphistory,and

as one of itsmost senior and influential participants. The prediction that his tomb is

boundtobecomeapopulartouristattractionspeakstotheself-consciousrelationshiphe

haswithhisownlegacy.IhavementionedbeforethatWatersoftenreferstohimselfasa

“filthelder”.Claimingsuchanidentityassumestheprerogativetoactasan ‘authentic’

narrator of the past, and as an important commentator on present and future

developmentsthatmightrelatetocamp.Andyet,indeclaringhisauthoritytocarryout

suchtasks,Watersalsodemonstratesajauntyplayfulness–atendencywehavealready

seenmanifestinhisapproachtocelebrity.

Forexample, thecatchphrasehedeploysasan invitationtohisgraveyard–“comeon

down”–hasconnotationswiththerealmofentertainment;itisinfactahallmarkofthe

televisiongame-showThePriceisRight(1972-).ItistellingthatWaterswouldchoose

thisexpression–withitsairofshowmanshipandtheatricality–overmoresombreitems

of discourse we might traditionally associate with mourning or remembrance (i.e.

dictumssuchas“Payyourrespects”,“RestinPeace”etc.)Similarly,thetitle“filthelder”

bothdemandsandrejects respect. Itasks toberevered forbeing irreverent. It is this

paradox that informs the way Waters goes about curating camp’s history and

prognosticatingitsfuture.Aspreviouslydiscussed,theinterminglingof‘seriousness’and

‘frivolity’isarecognisedconventionofcamp.Hereweseethatconventionbeingapplied

asastrategyforcamptoexamineandcommentuponitsownruins.

In other words, the camp exercised by Waters is self-conscious about being self-

conscious. It reflects upon camp’s condition of decay and also acknowledges the

performativenatureofthatinquiry.Waterswritesthathehopestodie“onstage”,butit

is the writing itself that is also staged; it is inherently mediated by the genre of

autobiography and the camp sensibility it draws upon. Waters’ whimsical image of

himselfasagraveyard-groundskeeperturnedsideshow-salesmandrawsattentiontothe

theatre that is involved in theprocessof remembranceand thecaretakingofhisown

legacy,anditistheseveryactivitiesthataresetinmotionbythenarrativeundertakings

ofthememoir.Thislayeredhyperconsciousnesshasdistinctramificationsforthevision

ofcamp(past,presentandfuture)achievedbyRoleModels.

120

For instance, the graveyardmodel of camp figuredbyRoleModels, and its associated

promiseofpayingtributetoiconsfromalapsedtime,isonethatcouldveryreadilyveer

intoamodeofnostalgia.Nostalgicdesire,however,posesavarietyofproblemsasalens

withwhichtoencounterthepast.SusanStewarthasforwardedthatnostalgiaexpresses

a longing whose object is not the past per se, but rather, an idea of the past that is

“impossiblypure”,“unmediated”,and“hostiletohistoryanditsinvisibleorigins”.265She

argues thatnostalgia turns thepast intoanarrativewithout recognising the selective

natureofmemoryasitsstoryteller.266

DavidRoman haswritten specifically about the dangers of channelling nostalgia as a

meansforcamptoconceptualiseitspast.267HeexpressesthisconcerninhiscritiqueofI

CouldGoonLip-Synching,adragshowthatwasperformedduringthelate1980sandearly

1990sbyJohnEppersonunderthestagename“Lypsinka”.ForRoman,Lypsinka’sactwas

nostalgicbecauseitdrewuponatraditionofcamp(dragentertainment)thatwaspopular

inaperiodpriortotheStonewallRiotsandtheAIDSepidemic.268Duringthistime,Roman

argues, homosexual men congregated mostly in gay bars (with fewer options for

communalspacesthanapparentlyexistedinthe1990s),wheredragflourished.269The

nostalgiaofICouldGoOnLip-SynchingisfurtherpronouncedbytheiconsthatLypsinka

chosetoimitateduringtheshow:figureslikeTallulahBankheadandDoloresGray,who

may be famous to mature audience members, but are largely unknown to other

generations.270

Some of the claims made by Roman demand further clarification. For instance, his

argumentthattheverymediumofdragitselfisnostalgicraisesmanyquestions.(Among

which:howfirmlyisthe“pre-StonewallandAIDS”perioddemarcated?Areallgenresof

performance that have historical antecedents inherently nostalgic?) However, the

problems that Roman identifies with camp and nostalgia merit some consideration.

265SusanStewart,OnLonging(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1993)p.23.266Ibid,p.24.267DavidRoman,“It’sMyPartyandI’llDieifIWantto!:GayMen,AIDS,andtheCirculationofCampintheU.S.Theatre.”TheatreJournal,44(1992)pp.305-327.268Ibid,p.313.269Ibid.270Ibid,p.314.

121

Romanisconcernedthatbyromanticizingacampoftimesgoneby,ICouldGoOnLip-

Synchingprovides “a locationwheregaymencanretreat temporarilyandreclaimthe

mythic truthof identityandagency thatmayneverhavereallybeen there in the first

place”.271Thisprocessisideological;onlyacertainversionofcamphistoryistold,inthis

case, onewhich articulates the subject position of “olderwhite gaymale spectators”,

leaving others unvoiced.272 Roman suggests, for example, that it is not only new

generationsthatmightbealienatedbyreferencestoTallulahBankhead,butalsoother

classesandethnicitiesofgaymenandlesbians.273Romanthereforeidentifiesproblems

relatingtoinclusionanddiversitythatareperhapsconcealedbyLypsinka’saccountof

camphistory.Thesentimentallongingofnostalgiaprojectsanidealizedimageofcamp

thatdoesnotincorporateanyofitsshortcomingsorfailures.

AlthoughWatersdoesexpresstendernesstowardshiscampcomrades,RoleModelsoften

comesacrossasarejectionofnostalgia.Watersistooself-conscioustobesentimental.

Heisnotdriventoenshrinecampaspureandinfallible,butrather,tomeditateuponits

strangemixtureofgloryandugliness.Waters’refusaltoglossoverthemoreunpleasant

aspects of the past is especially apparent in his chapter on Leslie Van Houten. His

narration of the crimes Leslie committed and her subsequent imprisonment calls

attention toWaters’misgivingsabout someof thequestionableelementsof the camp

culturethatheheralded.Infact,hiscamp‘moment’ishistoricizedasemergingoutofthe

samemoralchaosofthelate1960sthatculminatedinthehorrificeventsoftheManson

Familymurders.Thattroublingassociationisborneoutofthesequencingofthechapter,

withWaterspitchingitemsoftriviaontheMansonFamilyalongsiderecollectionsabout

hisown ‘family’ – the teamof creative individualswho collaboratedonhis films.The

reader is positioned to discern some chronology and connection between these two

worldsastheytakeshapeonthepage.

With this structural pairing in place, Waters remarks upon a set of commonalities

betweenthegroups:apredilectionforLSD,rebellionandmadness.274 It isundeniable

thatonegroup’spursuitof these interestshad farmore tragicrepercussions than the

271Ibid,p.315.272Ibid.273Ibid.274RoleModels,p.52.

122

other’s.ButWatersdoesnotattribute thisoutcome to theperceptionofany inherent

moral superiority: “As nuts and angry as we were, would we have committed the

atrocious crimesofmymovies in real life ifwehadn’thad theoutletofunderground

filmmaking?Well,whoknows?”275Theopen-endednessofthisquestionleavesarather

dubiousimpressiononthemoralfortitudeoftheWatersclan.Thisisnotamemoirthat

simplyintendstoindulgeinthecomfortofself-congratulation.

Thepastitselfisnotshowcasedasa‘pure’vision,butasaproductofstorytellingthatis

inevitablymediated.WhenWaters confesses the staggering frequencywithwhich he

consumedLSD,andtheconfidencethatthedruggavehimtoexplorehiscreativity,he

immediatelyacknowledgesthepotentialdangerofsuchanadmission:“’Don’ttellyoung

peoplethat!’mymotheralwaysbegs;butit’strue.”276Thepast,ashismotherseemsto

appreciate, isnotasimple ‘fact’: it isanarrativethatcanbemanipulatedfordifferent

audiences.Watersmakesitclearthathehasintentionallyeditedhisversionofthepast

so as not to mask its unsavoury or politically incorrect components, in spite of his

mother’sdisapproval.

Theideaisnottoglorifythedarknessandgritoftheperiodrecounted;buttoenacta

soberreminiscenceofanerathatitselfismarkedbyanairofdazedintoxication.Infact,

the chapter is partly a cautionary tale about camp’s own misguided tendencies to

romanticizegruesomehistoricalincidents.Watersdivulgesthatwhenhewasmakingthe

ground-breakingfilmsofhisyouth,hewasheavilyinfluencedbytheMansonmassacres,

andheevenclaimstohavebeenjealousofthenotorietyofthekillers.277Hepaintsan

unsettlingportraitofhimselfasaMansonfamily‘fan’,whoattendedtheircourthearings,

referenced them in his films, and wrote about them in his other memoirs “rather

inappropriatelyandwithlittleinsight”.278Watersremembershis“jokey”and“smart-ass”

infatuation with the Manson tribe with stunned horror, repenting for the lack of

sensitivity he showed towards the “victims’ families or the lives of the brainwashed

Mansonkillerkidswhowerealsovictimsinthissadandterriblecase.”279

275Ibid,p.60.276Ibid.277Ibid,p.49.278Ibid,p.50.279Ibid,p.45.

123

By choosing theManson case as one of his comic references,Waterswas essentially

carryingoutabentformofnostalgia.Itmaynothavearticulatedthesaccharineyearning

thatwemightconventionallyassociatewithnostalgia,butitstilloperatedbyprocedures

thatareverysimilartothosethatStewartpreviouslydescribed:cullingitemsselectively

from the past, longing for a fantastical re-imagining of them. A more thorough

investigationofhistorymightdemandaconsiderationofthereallivesthatwereaffected

by the crimes in question. ButWaters failed to take this into account, regarding the

tragedyonlyasanopportunityforshockvalue,asacrasssymbolforcamp’srepudiation

ofstandardmoralcodes. Inthischapterthen,Waterspresentshimselfasfillinginthe

severegapsthatwereleftbehindbyhisprioractsofremembering,attemptingtoatone

forthecollateraldamageeffectedbyhisaestheticfascinationwithinfamy.

Uponreadingthischapter,wecouldbetemptedtointerpretRoleModelsasanexample

ofthe“confessionallifenarrative”,agenredefinedbySmithandWatsonasa“recordof

somekindoferrortransformed”,thatmightalsobe“thenarrator’sattempttoreaffirm

communalvaluesor justifytheirabsence”.280TheprofileonVanHoutenappearstofit

thisdescription,withitsintimationofpersonalandcollectiveguiltovercamp’sirreverent

recyclingofreal-lifehorror.ThismightleadustodeducethatRoleModelsisattempting

asimilartypeofrevisionaryworkthatwehaveseenconductedbyFlinnandRoman,who

exposedfault linesincamphistoryandexpressedaseriousdesireforcamptoreform

itself into somethingmore sensitive, inclusive and diverse. If thatwere the case, the

memoircouldbeinterpretedasapieceofsolemnadvicefromacampelder,urgingthe

nextgenerationtochastenitswildappetiteforprovocation.

But to construeRoleModels as an earnest record of contritionmight overlook other

salientaspectsofthememoir.Forinstance,itwouldbereasonabletoquestiontheextent

ofWaters’repentanceregardinghisresponsetotheMansonmurdersafterreadingthe

memoir’s concluding chapter, which shamelessly parodies the trope of the cult, and

represents the author as a crazed leader who issues seditious instructions to his

followers. One of his directions is to effect a look of “threatening glamour” by

280SmithandWatson,p.265.

124

diagramming“onthe topofyour foreheadthehorriblescalping JayneMansfieldwent

through in that fatal car accident.”281Waters seems to take perverse pleasure in the

terriblespectacleofthistragicincident,thuspayingverylittlerespecttoMansfieldand

thelovedoneswhogrievedher.Theglibcharacterofthishumourimmediatelyrecalls

theotherheedless,“smartass”jokesthatWatershadonlyjustfinishedrepentingfor.

This inconsistency speaks to the presence of a piercing discord emanating from the

narrativeworldofthetext.Seriousformulationsofregretandreformarenotstationary

inhabitants inWater’svisionofcamp’spastand future.Theyare temporarymodesof

performance; aesthetic tools fleetingly drawn upon in themediation of camp history

Watersrealizesthroughtheformofautobiography.Rememberingisasortoftheatre,and

Watersoffersdifferentposesuponitsstage–alternatelyrecklessandrepentant–that

boldlyclashwithoneanother.Rejectionsofnostalgiaandrepetitionsofthemarealla

partofthesamedizzyingpageantryofcamporchestratedbythememoir.282

RoleModels’auditingofthepastdoesnotresultinasingularandcoherentobjectivefor

thefutureofcamp;thereisnoclearlydeliveredincitationforcamptomoveforward.The

ideologicalmovementof the text is not to advancedownadefinedpath; it fluctuates

betweenrenegingonoldpositionsandreaffirmingthem.Moreover,thereisanextentto

whichRoleModelsobservesitsownstateofirresolution.Thechapter“BaltimoreHeroes”

narrates the ambivalence Waters feels about having seized upon figures from his

adolescence– localoutsidersandso-called ‘freaks’–assourcematerial forhisartistic

projects. He discovers that two of the personalities in question: Zorro (the alcoholic,

lesbianstripper)andEsther(thefoul-mouthedbarowner)leddeeplytroubledlivesand

werebothabusivemotherstotheirchildren.ThedisclosureofthissufferingleadsWaters

toquestion,“CanIgotoofarinbeinginspiredbysomeoneelse’sgood‘badmother’?Can

othermoms’militantlunacyeverbefunny,eveniftheiridealsarebasedinrawnaked

281RoleModels,p.279.282 It is interesting that Laurence Scott detects a similar sense of ambivalence concerning the issue ofnostalgiainhisstudyononeoftheothermasterpractitionersandpreeminentcommemoratorsofcamp:FranLebowitz.“AnapparentincoherenceinLebowitz’ssocialcommentaryresidesinherattitudetowardsthepast,”hesuggests,“Ontheonehandsheblamesartisticstagnationonthe‘merry-go-roundofnostalgia’dizzyingcontemporaryculture…Ontheother,oneofthemostrepeatedrefrainsinherpublicspeechesisanintenseandwhollysincerelamentfortheNewYorkofthe1970s”.See“NotesonFran:TheEthicalCampandMuteElegiacofFranLebowitz”PerformingEthos2No.2(2011)pp.129-130.

125

pathology?It’saquestionIwrestlewithdaily.”283Ofallthereflectionscontainedwithin

this book’s stacked levels of self-consciousness, the passage above most neatly

encapsulates the essential character of thememoir: the perpetual “wrestling” that is

undertaken, the notion of a “fight” Waters is having with himself that produces no

outright victor. Like Flinn and Roman, Waters endeavours to review camp. What

distinguisheshimfromthemisthathepersistsinperformingcampasheassessesit.That

two-pronged approach generates the central contradiction ofRoleModels that I have

beenexploring.ThecamptoolsthatWatersenlistsforhisanalysis-irreverenthumour,

aheightenedawarenessof the innate theatricalityofstorytelling,acoalescenceof the

‘serious’andthe‘playful’-comprisetheverythemeshewishestodissect.Thus,formand

contentcollapseintooneanother,andinsortingthroughthewreckage,onestrugglesto

locateacohesiveorconclusivestanceontheissuesathand.

Waters himself appears tomaintain a sense of jocularitywhen one of his heroes has

perplexed or disappointed him. Upon learning that Johnny Mathis is disposed to

conservativepolitics,heconfides,“I’malwaysshockedwhenanyonesaysheorsheisa

Republican,butI’velearnedtonotrunscreamingfromtheroom.Imaginemysurprise

whenIdiscoveredoneofmylongtimeassistants(andshedoesagreatjobofspreading

myfilth)isaRepublican!Andshewasfrontallynudeinmylastmovie!!”284Waterscan

recognise the imperfections of his rolemodels, but his persistent evocations of levity

seemtoundercutthepossibilitythatanyseriousresentmentorbitternesswillquench

his capacity for admiration. Perhaps this attitude is a necessary condition for the

continuationofhis fandom. It is conceivable that fansofWatersmightbe inspired to

adoptthesameattitudefortheirownexercisesinidolatry.Orperhapstheywilldevelop

entirely new strategies to honour the camp torchbearers that came before them.We

cannotpredicthowWater’ssuccessorswillchoosetointerpretthecomplicatedlegacy

283Ibid,p.158.284Ibid,p.26.

126

thatheleavesbehind.285Butattheveryleast, letushopethattheywillhavethegood

sensetofollowhisadviceabouttheshoes.

285SincethepublicationofRoleModels,Waters’exaltedreignasthedoyenofcamphascontinuedtorunitscourse.Watersrecentlyinaugurated“CampJohnWaters”,whichisbilledasa“campysleepawayweekend”event inConnecticutwhere fans congregate fordanceparties,book readings, filmmarathonsandpingpong,amongotheractivities(moredetailsat:http://campjohnwaters.com).Hisavuncularpositionasa“filthelder”isfurthercementedinMakeTrouble,thepublishedtranscriptofhiscommencementspeechtothegraduatesoftheRhodeIslandSchoolofDesign,whomhebeseechesto“gooutintheworldandfuckitup beautifully.” See p.57. True to form, this inter-generational exchange has taken some bizarre andunexpectedturns:in2014,WatersstagedandfilmedabowdlerizedversionofPinkFlamingos(1972)withanewcastofyoungchildrenintheleadroles.Thefollowingyear,hemadeacameoappearanceplayinghimselfinanAlvinandtheChipmunksfilm.

127

ChapterThree:HerWickedTongue“Heruninhibitedwitandevanescentreparteearehardtoimagine,thoughsomeremarksarestillfunny;toSomersetMaugham,whoonceexcusedhimselfearlyfromapartybysaying,‘Imustkeepmyyouth,’shesaid,‘Oh,butyoushouldhavebroughthim.’”-PhillipCoreonAdaLeversoninCamp:TheLiethatTellstheTruth“Overwhelmedbynakedcuriosity,shecametomyapartmentoneafternoonandaskedmehowithappenedthatI’dbrokenupwitharealmanlikeWilliamandwasseeneverywherewithsomeoneasobviouslygayasShawn,anddidn’tImisssex,orwhat?‘He’snotthatgay,’Iexplained,‘andbesideswehavefun.’‘Idon’tgetit,’shepersisted.“Peoplearereallywonderingaboutyoutwo-allthetime-together.”‘God,people…’Isaid.”–EveBabitz,SlowDays,FastCompany

Is itoffensiveforawomantocallherselfafaghag?Thisisaquestionthathascaused

somedegreeofconsternationforthecomedianJulieKlausner.Klausnerinvokedtheterm

todescribeherselfduringanepisodeofherpodcast(HowWasYourWeek?).Itwasan

utterancethatexcitedtheindignationofatleastoneofKlausner’slisteners,who,inturn,

tookhergrievancestosocialmedia,whereshedirectlyconfrontedthebroadcaster.When

Klausneraddressesherquarrelsomeinterlocutorinthefollowingepisode,thestrainin

hervoiceispalpable:

I’msobeatendownbythisconversation.Idon’tknowwhattosay…AllIdoislovegay people and be a good example for women and I get my stuff discussedexhaustingly,JudithButler-ized,asitwere.IhaveneverreadanyJudithButlerinmylife.Iknowherthing.Ikindofknowwhatshe’sabout,sortof,orusedto.She’snotagoodwriter.Whycan’tpeoplewritelikeemails?286

ItishardlyunusualtoencounteraltercationsoverpoliticalcorrectnessontheInternet,

butitwouldbeamistaketodismissthisparticularincidentasinconsequential.Aswewill

soon discover, the discord that this moment discloses is redolent of portentous and

intricatelydefinedconflictsthatarestagednotonlywithincontemporarycampculture,

butalsothroughtheformaldimensionsofthemediatedspokenword,andthetechnical

strategiesofnewmediaplatforms.

286 Julie Klausner (June 13, 2014) How Was Your Week? “Jason Nash - Brillsplaining.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/jason-nash-brillsplaining-ep-171

128

Klausner’s podcast traffics in not one, but all three of these arenas, providing fertile

groundforcriticalinquiry.Hercoetaneousentanglementswiththesespherespresentan

attractive invitation to contemplate someof theways camp is traveling (andperhaps

transforming) within our current historical environment, especially in light of new

technologiesandtheculturalpracticestheyelicit.Thefaghagcontroversy,forexample,

could not possibly have inflamed in quite the way that it did were it not for the

unprecedentedspeedandaccessibilityofthecommunicativechannelssuppliedbythe

Internet, which permitted near instantaneous exchanges between Klausner, her

detractor,andherotherlisteners.Thedisseminationofsuchdialoguesinspiresquestions

abouthowcamp’s irreverentrhetoricand investments inmarginalitymightsitwitha

mediaculturethatseemstopromotenotionsofbroadparticipationandconnection.

Thesoniccharacterofthepodcastalsowelcomesapropitiousopportunitytoconcentrate

uponcamp’sexpressioninspokenwordaesthetics,asubjectthatrarelyarisesincritical

literature.Bywayofexample,whereasSontag’s“NotesonCamp”,stilltheseminaltextin

thefield,isheavilystockedwithreferencestothevisualtropesofcamp,itsallusionsto

oralculturearecomparativelythinandbrief.Giventhispreferenceinsourcematerial,it

isprobablynot incidental that thevery terminologySontagelects todescribecamp is

fundamentallyocular,aswhensheconceptualizesthe“campeye”,“vision”,and“wayof

looking”.

Thischapterisgalvanizedbythepropositionthattherearealsocampsounds;campways

of conversing and listening. That there exists an abundance of striking and indelible

voicesinthecampcanonisincontrovertible:BetteDavis;TrumanCapote;Cher;Tallulah

Bankhead; Quentin Crisp; Liza Minelli; Margo Howard-Howard; the list goes on. The

significanceofverbalformstocampisalsohintedatinGaryIndiana’sincisivebookon

AndyWarhol, which gleans a connection between the artist’s childhood affection for

radioandthesubsequentprofusionofdialoguefeaturedinhisfilmoeuvre.287

Promptedby such intimations, this chapterasks if therearepropertiesof the spoken

wordthatlendthemselvestothearticulationofcamp.Itisoutsidetheconstraintsofthis

287GaryIndiana,AndyWarholandtheCanthatSoldtheWorld(BasicBooks,NewYork:2010)p.10.

129

inquirytodeterminetheentiremagnitudeofcamp’srelationshipwithvoice.Asacase

study, however, Klausner’s podcast is highly suggestive of certain affinities at play

betweentheserealms.Itespeciallycallsattentiontotheoraltradition’spropensityfor

arousing feelings of spontaneity, intimacy and effervescence, often noted in scholarly

characterizationsoftheform.Iwillarguethatthisfacilityisacutelyresponsivetospecific

camp practices (gossip, verbal acuity) and paradoxes (above all, its capacity for a

simultaneousevocationofproximityandremoteness).

The implementationof thiscontradiction isprevalent throughout thepodcast,both in

termsofcontentandform.InasmanywaysasKlausnercultivatesandfeedsuponthe

confluence of a community, she also inculcates a sense of distance and division. The

uproarsurroundingherself-proclamationasafaghagemblematizestheconflictIhave

described.Thereisaremarkableironytobeholdintheextentofantagonisticdiscourse

springing forth froma termthatostensiblydenotes theexistenceof friendlyrelations

betweenawomanandahomosexualman.

Certainly,thelistenerfulminatingagainstKlausner’sapplicationofthephrasecouldfind

supportforhercomplaintbyreferencingculturalcritiquesoftheterm.Inhisintroduction

toCamp:TheLieThatTellsTheTruth,Coreconsidersthatthefaghagcomprisesoneof

the only two designations available to women in camp, the other being ‘dyke’. His

expositionisfurtherindicativeoftheunflatteringimplicationsaffixedtotheterm,worth

quotinghereatlength:

‘Faghag’isapatentlymale-devisedphrasewhichresoundshideouslyinawaythat‘drag queen’, for instance, cannot balance. Yet its strident syllables perfectlyequatethetypeofwomanwhosebehaviorisexaggeratedtoappeal,nottolovers,buttomalehomosexuals.Shedoesnotwanttobepossessed,onlydesired,andiswillingtoaccept theplatonicaccoladesofmenwho loveherstylebuthateherbody.Shemaywellhateherbodyaswell,oradoreitinamannerwhichdeniesitssexuality.288

Bythisaccount,thefaghagstereotypeinsinuatesthatfriendshipsbetweengaymenand

womenshouldbeviewedpurelyasarenunciationofheterosexualdesire,resultingeither

from desperation or revulsion. Robertson has remonstrated against the shallow

288Core,p.11.

130

assumptions promulgated by this understanding, for example, the clichés that such

womenaretypicallyunattractiveorsecretlyinlovewiththehomosexualswithwhom

theycavort,themselvesridiculedas‘fags’.289

AccordingtothehistoricalchronologychartedbyMariaF.FalkerandNickSalvato,the

pejorativeconnotationsofthefaghagwereattheirmostpotentinthegaysceneofthe

1970s.290 They consider that the HIV/AIDS crisis inaugurated a dramatic shift in the

perceptionofherculturalrole,totheeffectthatthetermisnowfrequentlyunderstood

asa termofendearment.Theirowndelineationof the faghag isasortofpanegyric -

submitting that her defining characteristics include “charm, sparkle, giddiness,

outrageousness,witandbawdiness”.291Nevertheless,theincidentonKlausner’spodcast

demonstratesthatthewordisstillcapableofcausingoffense.Itdoesnotappearthatthe

faghagfunctionsasreceivedidentitywhosereferencesareuniversallyagreedupon,let

alonepraised.Asaresult,thetermremainsgratingandcontentious.

Thisispreciselythesortofterraininwhichtheeffronteryandsardonichumorofcamp

ispronetothrive.Callingoneselfafaghagdoesnotnecessarilyimplyidentificationwith

itsgrotesquestereotypes.Iwouldarguethattheabrasivenatureofthetitlemightalso

indicatethat itsclaimantnavigates(ifnotdefines)herbondwithhomosexualmenby

participating in a form of discourse that is itself abrasive. Themode of conversation

Klausnerengagesinonherpodcastwouldsupportthistheory–heraffiliationwithgay

men in the camp fraternity seems to rest heavily upon her aptitude for acidic and

audaciousremarks.Hence,herembraceofthefaghagmonikerbothevokesandenlivens

camp’sperpetualplaybetweenconnectionandrupture.

Afurthercontradiction:atthesametimethatKlausnercastsherselfasaproponentfor

the impudence of camp, her commitment to such temerarious antics is frequently

accompaniedby inflectionsofhesitation.Note, forexample, the shadesofuncertainty

coloringherdefiantperpetuationofthecamptaxonomy:“Fortherecord,Iamgoingto

289Robertson,p.8.290MariaFFacklerandNickSalvato,“FagHag:ATheoryofEffeminateEnthusiasms.”Discourse34No.1(Winter2012)pp.67-69.291Ibid,p.76.

131

continuetouseterms,Ithink,untilI’mnotokaywiththem.”292Herassumptionofthe

provocateurpersonaisonethataccommodatesambiguity,second-guessingand,onsome

occasions,remorse.

Itisfarfromcoincidentalthatthisambivalentpositionplaysitselfoutvis-à-vistheformal

settings of the podcast. Themedium, Iwill argue, issues a powerfulmandate for the

championingandcontestationofcamptraditions.Ontheonehand,itsetsupanattractive

environmentfortheexpressionofrecalcitrantdiscoursethatbindstogethermembersof

thecampcognoscente.Meanwhile,italsoprovidesanavenueforinterloperstocallthat

discourseintoquestion.Thisdialecticariseswithinaformatthatislargelyundisciplined

and lacks the rigid commercial and stylistic dictates that might insist upon a more

coherentresolutionoftheconflictsitforegrounds.

Likecamp,theword‘podcast’isappliedwithafairamountofsemanticincertitude.Vince

Merserko, in his study on various podcasts associated with the comedy troupe “The

UprightCitizensBrigade”,makesapointofunderscoringtheelusivenatureoftheterm,

citing the open-ended definitions proposed by various academic authorities.293 For

example,RichardBerryconstruesthepodcastasan“over-archingtermforanyaudio-

contentdownloadedfromtheInterneteithermanuallyfromawebsiteorautomatically

viasoftwareapplications.”294AccordingtoMcLungandJohnson,podcastsare“audioand

visualfilesthatcanbedownloadedtoadesktopcomputer,iPod,orotherportablemedia

player for playback later.”295 While these entries offer us insight into the diverse

technologicalinterfacesthroughwhichthepodcastischanneled,theydonotprescribe

any of its generic codes. Since the podcast is still relatively new and inchoate, it is

conceivablethatformulasdeterminingmatterssuchascontent,structureandlengthwill

comeintosharperdefinitionovertime.Fornow,theveryunpredictabilityofthesefactors

isitselfasignatureaspectofthemedium.

292 Klausner (June 13, 2014) How Was Your Week? “Jason Nash - Brillsplaining”. Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/jason-nash-brillsplaining-ep-171293VinceMeserko,“UprightCitizensoftheDigitalAge:PodcastingandPopularCultureinanAlternativeComedyScene.”UnpublishedMastersThesis,UniversityofKansas,2010,p.7.294 Berry, Richard. “Will the iPod kill the radio star? Profiling podcasting as radio.” Convergence: TheInternationalJournalofResearchintoNewMediaTechnologies12No.2(2006)p.144.295McClung,StevenandKristineJohnson,“ExaminingtheMotivesofPodcastUsers.”JournalofAudioandRadioMedia,17No.1(2010)p.83.

132

Some podcasts essentially serve to redistribute pre-existing materials (such as the

popularpublicradioprogramThisAmericanLife,orrecordeduniversitylectures),and

these replications will inevitably bear markings of the formal and institutional

imperatives that governed their original sources. In many other cases, however, the

podcastsanctionsexperimentationbyconferringautonomyuponbroadcasterstodevise

theirownapproachestotheform.AsMeserkohasstipulated,thepodcastisunfettered

bymanyofthetraditionalgatekeepingprocessesofthemedia:itislegallyexemptfrom

governmental regulations on language and content; it does not pass through any

overridingauthority;isnotboundbyanytimelimitationsoradvertisingrequirements.296

The absence of these rules of decorum leaves the podcast susceptible to the more

invidiouselementsof thecamprepertoire. It tolerates, forexample, theunexpurgated

distributionofprofaneandprovocativelanguage.Butsuchdisorderalsoentertainsthe

prospectofperpetualrevision.Broadcastersarefreetogeneratetheirworkthrougha

processoftrialanderror,witheachinstalmentofthepodcastamendingorabandoning

thepatterning thatcamebefore it.Theartist isentrusted tocommit imperfections, to

refineandreconsiderhisorherownpractice(whichmightincludecamp).

From the critic’s perspective, these haphazard maneuvers pose a methodological

challenge.AtthetimethatIamwritingthis,Klausnerhasreleased209episodesofher

podcastasofitsinceptioninMarchof2011.Overtheyears,thepodcasthasexperienced

severalpermutationswithrespecttostructure,contentanddistribution.Initially,each

episode comprised of an opening monologue, two guest interviews, and a closing

monologue.Thistemplatewasthenalteredsoastoincludeonlyoneguestinterviewand

amuchlongeropeningmonologue.Inmorerecentepisodes,Klausnerhasscrappedthe

interviewsegmentaltogetherinordertoprovideextendedcommentaryonatelevision

showthatshecreatedandstarsin-DifficultPeople(2015-2017).Foralongstretch,the

podcastwasadministeredinweeklyinstalments,butitscurrentdistributionisfarmore

sporadic.Fornow,financialcontributionsfromfansconstituteHWYW?’sonlysourceof

funding, but Klausner frequently suggests that this model could change at any time

(perhaps inviting the prospect of corporate sponsorships, following the path of other

notable podcasters, such asMarcMaronofWTF).My intention is not to exhaustively

296Meserko,pp.7-8.

133

document such fluctuations, but to emphasize that I am dealing with a form whose

restlessnessresistsneatencapsulation.AsIhavealreadysuggested,thisinstabilityisin

fact pivotal to this chapter’s interest in the relations between the podcast and camp

(which is itselfprecariouslyorganized). Insteadofconceiving tocodifyeitherentity, I

wish to put forward some provisional ideas about the ways in which these unruly

categoriescanbeseentointersectandinformeachotherthroughoutHWYW?

Thissetofinterestscallsforaperusalofthesourcematerialwhichisespeciallyattentive

toKlausner’sperformanceof the faghagpersona.While this framing isnotmeant to

encompasstheentirescopeofthepodcast,itsparticularpositioningisonethatthetext

itselfexplicitlyprovokes.Klausner’sadorationofgaymenisoneofherperennialsubjects

ofdiscussion.InoneepisodeofHWYW?,guestJesseThornremarksuponthepodcast’s

preoccupations with what he can only fumblingly identify as “lady stuff” and “gay

stuff”.297Klausnerreceivesthedescriptionasapointofpride,boastingthatsheisgladto

bebringing“femininityandfaggotry”intohislife.

Theplayfulalliterationenactedbythisturnofphrasealsodrawsattentiontotheauditory

mediumthroughwhichKlausnerstakesherclaimasacamppractitioner.Thecultural

scholarshipfocusingonthestatusofwomenincampispredominatelyconcernedwith

the realizationand interpretationof theirvisual image.This is the frameof reference

adoptedbycriticswhohaveexpressedalarmatthewayinwhichcampaddressesthe

femalebody(i.e.Flinn’sexaminationofcamp’smorbidfascinationwithagingHollywood

stars;298thefeministswhocharacterizedragqueensasmisogynists299).Italsoanchors

thecounter-positionarticulatedbyRobertson,whoperceivesa feminist formofcamp

(“relatedtofemalemasqueradeandrootedinburlesque”)intheaestheticstrategiesof

film, television and video.300 A disembodied voice on a podcast escapes this plane of

analysis.Klausnerdemonstrates that awomancan situateherself in relation to camp

withouthavingtofashionanyphysicalappearancewhatsoever.Heroccupationofthis

297 Klausner (Jan 31, 2013) How Was Your Week? “Tom Scharpling, Jesse Thorn.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-100-one-hundred-tom-scharpling-jesse-thorn298Flinn,pp.452-453.299Carole-AnneTylertakesinventoryofthesecomplainantsin“BoysWillbeGirls:DragandTransvesticFetishism.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubjectaReader,ed.FabioCleto(AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.374.CountedamongstthemareMarilynFrye,JudithWilliamson,ErikaMunkandAlisonLurie.300Robertson,p.9.

134

station is predicated upon a style of oratory – recognizable as camp for its flagrant

flamboyanceandvenomouswit.

Thisverbalcommunicationtestifiestogapsinthecriticalglossary’saccountofthefag

hag.Core’sdefinition,forinstance,isessentiallyaspeculationonbodyimage.HeleneA.

ShugartandCatherineEgleyWaggonerofferaslightlymoreexpansiveview,formulating

identitymarkerspertainingnotonly tobeauty,but also class and race: “Faghagsare

popularly portrayed as wealthy, attractive, typically white women with some social

cachet…”301Buttheydemonstratelittleinterestonthequestionofhowafaghagmight

soundorspeak.TheworkofFacklerandSalvatotakesasignificantstepinbeginningto

address these oral dimensions. They observe, for example, the extraordinarily high-

pitched voice of Karen Walker in the sitcom Will & Grace (1998-).302 They also

acknowledgeCarrieBradshaw’sperformanceofwitandlinguisticplayinSexandTheCity

(1998-2004).303However,thissortofnotationisusuallyissuedasapassingreference,

interspersedwithremarksaboutotheroperantelementsintheaudio-visualschemeof

thetexts.Thereis,Iwouldsuggest,roomtofurtherdevelopthislineofinquiry.

Whendoesspeechbecomecamp?

Letusbeginwiththeassertionthatthereisnosuchthingasa‘neutral’voiceorwayof

speaking–eachonespringsoutofaspecifichistoricalandculturalcontextandallofits

attendant influences. Ifonespeaksinafashionthatadherestodominantconventions,

that speechmight seem topassas ‘neutral’,butonly in thesense that it strikesusas

inconspicuous.Campspeechwilloftensituateitselfinoppositiontothisfalseconceptof

neutralitythroughabalddisplayofitsownconstructedness.Itsphoneticscanachieve

301ShugartandWaggoner,p.95.302FacklerandSalvato,p.77.303Ibid,p.79.

135

this effectwhen they deviatewildly fromprescribed norms orwhen they register as

overtlystylized.

Booth’s description of the “campquality of voice” even ascribes a dramatic arc to itsfluctuations:

…Thetypicaldictionisslowalmosttothepointofexpirationwithheavyemphasison inappropriatewords (lots of capital letters and italics) rising painfully to aclimax, to be followed by a series of swift cadences – a sort of rollercoastereffect…304

Campspeechisnotsimplyameanstoanend.Ifanything,campiswillingtocounteract

the functionality of speech (“with its emphasis on inappropriatewords”) in favour of

producinganaesthetic impression. Klausner isrenownedfor indulging in thissortof

affectation.Inthecourseofherpodcast,shehasdevelopedamanneredstyleofelocution

that seesherdeliberatelymispronouncing a growing listwords – so that “murder” is

transformedinto“murdair”,“noodles”become“noodelles”,andsoforth.Itmightseem

rathertrivialtoscrutinisethisroutine,buttheseidiosyncrasiesareinfactsignificantto

thelistener’sexperienceofthepodcast.Indeed,theyseemtofigureprominentlyinthe

cultculturethatithasamassed.Forexample,onawebsitemaintainedbydevoteesofthe

program,thereisapagewhichpainstakinglyitemizesandinterpretsthequirksofspeech

Iamreferring to.305WhenthewriterDavidSedarisappearsasaguestonHWYW?,he

leapsattheopportunitytoconfesshisdelightatthesepeculiarities.306

There are comparable cases in the camp canon. Dina Martina, the drag queen who

describesherselfasa“tragicsinger,horribledancerandsurrealraconteur”,relishesina

verysimilarformoflinguisticdistortion.307Anotherexamplecanbeobservedinthecamp

habitofinterpolatingarticlesofFrenchintoEnglishsentences–aphenomenonthatthe

linguisticsscholarKeithHarveyidentifiesandthensubstantiateswithquotationsfrom

Allan Hollinghurt’s novel The Swimming Pool Library: “‘This is the salle á manger,’

announcedCharles.‘AsyoucanseethatslutLewisneverbotherstodustinhere,because

Ihaven’tactuallymangéinitforyears.”308Harveyarguesthatoneoftheeffectsofthis

304Booth,p.67.305http://www.howwasyourwiki.com/index.php?title=Vernaculair(accessed17/9/14).306 Klausner (May 17, 2013) How Was Your Week? “David Sedaris - Madame, No.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-115-david-sedaris307ThebestwaytogetasenseofMartina’stwistedworldplayisprobablytoheartheperformerherself:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wRMNNHwODw(accessed17/9/14).308KeithHarvey,“CampTalkandCitationality:AQueerTakeon‘Authentic’and‘Represented’Utterance.”JournalofPragmatics34No.9.(2002),p.1153.

136

practiceisthatit“throwsinterlocutorsoffthescentofdecodingprepositionalmeaning

andsignals,instead,thefar-fromtransparentpresenceofamedium,i.e.language”.309In

hisanalysis,camparisesattheprecisemomentatwhichtherawvoiceisconditionedinto

anorderedsystemofspeech.Andwhenwehearit,itsoundssooddandobtrusivethatit

putsusatadistancefromtheprocessofconditioning.Thesituationisanalogoustoan

actoronstagesuddenlygoingoffscript,thereforeremindingusoftheexistenceofascript

inthefirstplace.Thisishowcampdisruptslanguage.

JonathonDollimoreconsidersthatcampis“situatedatthepointoftheemergenceofthe

artificialfromthereal,culturefromnature–orratherwhenandwheretherealcollapses

intoartifice,natureintoculture…”310Hemightjustaseasilyhavebeendescribingspeech.

Itishardtothinkofanothersettinginwhichsuchconversionsareexpressedmoreoften

and more swiftly. The voice is a product of nature, at least in the sense that it is

established through the coordinated efforts of organic structures located inside the

body.311Theinstantthatthevoicespeaks,ittransportsitselfintotherealmoflanguage.

Thestylisationisimmediateandintensive.Whatcouldbemoreattractivetocamp?

“Youcutlifetopieceswithyourepigrams”

The theatricality of camp’s speech cannot be confined to instances of funny

mispronunciationsorwhimsicaldigressionsintoFrench.Itsself-reflexivedisplayfinds

butanotherincarnationinitsverbalperformanceofwit.Theruefulquiphascometobear

asapreciousresourceinthecampartillery.Klausner’spodcastestablishesherasoneof

itsgreattechnicians.Atthispoint,myinstinctasawriteristoprovideaquotation,to

309Ibid.310JonathanDollimore,“Post/Modern:OntheGaySensibility,orthePervert’sRevengeonAuthenticity.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsand thePerformingSubject:AReader, ed.FabioCleto (AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999)p.225.311AsStevenConnorputsitinDumbstruck–ACulturalHistoryofVentriloquism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),“Myvoicecomesfrommefirstofallinabodilysense.Itisproducedbymeansofmyvocalapparatus–breath,larynx,teeth,palateandlips.ItisthevoiceIhearresonatinginmyheadamplifiedandmodifiedby the bones ofmy skull, at the same time I see andhear its effects on theworld.” Seep. 3. Connor’spositioningofhimselfinthisexplicationbetokensthesenseofintimacythatisassociatedwiththevoice;itcomesfrominsideus.Thismightcontributetothenotionofpersonaldisclosureenactedbythemediumofthepodcast–athemefurtherdiscussedbelow.

137

extractandtranscribeoneofthesecleverandderisiveutterances.Hereinliesaproblem,

for to fix such words to the page is to purge them of their kinetic élan. The act of

transcriptioninevitablyattenuatesthepiquancyofverbalwit.Somethingessentialgets

lostintranslation.

StevenConnorsuggeststhatvisualcultureturnswordsinto“mnemonicobjects”.They

are“formsofrecord,signscapableofcapturingbitsoftheworldandofexperience,and

holdingtheminplace.”312Wecanregardwrittenwordsatourwillandreturntothemif

we so desire. This is not the casewith the spokenword.When someone is speaking,

wordsonlyexistastheyarebeingdelivered.313Thelanguageisthereforedistinguished

byitstransience.

The ephemeral condition of the spoken word can lend a particular resonance and

intensity to the sense of the eloquence, brevity and surprise that we have come to

associatewithwit.314 These dimensions have an especially dazzling effectwhen they

appear to have been arranged extemporaneously. Booth has marvelled at this

phenomenoninthefollowingterms:

Atitsbest,theepigramaddsextremeartificialitytoanairofspontaneity;ithasbeenborninresponsetothe inspirationofthemoment,attheendof longanddistinguished lineofwitticisms;glitteringbalefully itsprings fully-formedfromthecampwit’shead.315

Tobesure,thisimpressionisnotformedwhenitisclearthataspeechhasbeenscripted.

Itmustseemtoberespondingtothevagariesofanongoingexperienceorconversation.

Speechwillnotalwaysworkinthisway,buttheimmediateandevanescentaspectofits

charactersituatesitwelltodoso.

Klausner’spodcast isheavilydependentuponthespectacleof improvisedspeech.She

preparesonlyathinoutlineofnotespriortoeachrecordingsession;asortofscattering

312Connor,p.15.313Ibid.314BruceMichelsonhasenumeratedthesequalitiesasthedefiningmarksofmodernwitasaformofsocialdiscourse.SeeLiteraryWit(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2000)p.4.315Booth,p.117.

138

of thoughtsmeant to prompt, rather than dictate, the discussion that follows.316 This

intuitive process seems to accentuate the sensation of perpetual motion that

accompaniesthespokenword.Hermonologuescomeacrossasaseriesofdriftingand

unsettled reflections. It is typical for conversations with guests to take sharp and

ingeniousturns.Considerthefollowingexchange,whichfindsKlausnerandherfriend

DavidOzanichcontemplatingthefilmcareeroftheactressKarenBlack:

JK:Howisherrange,doyouthink,asafanofhers?DO:She’sgreatasasexy,crazywilyblonde.She’sgreatasasexy,wilybrunette.Andshe’salsogoodasacrazybrunette.JK:So,herrangeissuperb.317

The wry irony is transparent enough. The whip of its release, on the other hand, is

impossibletoapproximateinprint.Thethrillofthesemomentsisinthealacrityoftheir

delivery-thetearingspeedandprecisionwithwhichartificeisconcoctedoutofthinair.

Whatwecandiscernfromthisdialogueisthemordantcharacterofitscontent:thelavish

praiserenderedfacetiousinitsrepetition;theslicksarcasmofthefinalretort.Thisisthe

kindofcausticreparteethatproliferatesthroughoutthepodcast.

Itisreasonabletosurmisethatmanyofuswouldexpecttorecognisetracesofderision

insuchperformancesofwit.Michaelsonhasnoticedthatmostdictionariesofliteraryand

cultural terms are inclined to pair “wit” and “humour” together, with the latter

differentiated as the “kinder, gentler practice”.318 Oscar Wilde, arguably the most

renowned wit of all time, and whom Sontag exalted as one of camp’s most eminent

forefathers, actually embedded the rancorous reputation of wit into his literary

narratives.ThePictureofDorianGray,forinstance,hasitstitularcharacterattributinga

sort of violence to the aphorisms of Lord Henry: “You cut life to pieces with your

epigrams.”319Insuchdialogue,theexerciseofwitisconstruedasaformofbrutality.

316Klausner elaborateson the ad-hoc compositionof thepodcast in this interview:EricMeltzer, “JulieKlausneronHardWork,MakingStuff,andtheUrgencytobeHeard.”CreativeLiveBlog(May16,2014)http://blog.creativelive.com/julie-klausner-interview/(accessed20/5/15).317Klausner(February8,2013)HowWasYourWeek?“DavidOzanich,MichaelKupperman-HeavyThingsontoStages.”Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-101-heavy-things-onto-stages-david-ozanich-michael-kupperman318Michelson,p.10.319OscarWilde,ThePictureofDorianGray(London:PenguinClassics,2008)p.95.

139

Thespokenlanguageofcamphasaspecialpropensityforteasingoutthiscynicaledge.

Indeed,camp’stasteforbarbedrhetorichasbeenwidelyacknowledgedandspeculated

upon.AnearlyinterestinthetopicisrecordedinNewton’sMotherCamp,whichpicksup

on the preponderance of scathing one-liners in the parlance of drag queens.320 The

subjectcropsupagaininHarvey’sanalysisofcamputterances,wherehecitesQuentin

Crisp’s characterisation of the modes of conversation engaged in by his homosexual

milieu:“alotofstylizedcattiness…aformalgameofinnuendoesaboutotherpeoplebeing

olderthantheysaid,abouttheirteethbeingfalseandtheirhairbeingawig”.321

Criticalinvestigationsintocamp’sacerbitiesareprimarilydevotedtothespeechpatterns

ofhomosexuals,asreflectedintheexamplesabove.Babuscioevenarguesforacausallink

betweenthe“bitterwit”ofcampandthegayidentityofitspractitioners;heframesthe

hostility of the discourse as an inevitable corollary to the degradation that society

imposesuponthemasastigmatisedminority.322Howthattheorycouldeverbeverified

withunambiguousandempiricalevidenceremainstobeseen.Itisnotreallymyobjective

todebatethemeritsanddeficitsofsuchpronouncements.Iam,nevertheless,intrigued

by the extent to which the literature on this topic persistently highlights the

homosexuality of camp speakers, not least because the object of my study identifies

herselfasaheterosexualwoman.Iwouldoffertwocommentsinthisregard.Thefirstis

thatgaymendonothaveamonopolyonthepracticeofverbalsparringthatensueswithin

camp discourse. But where the speaker in question deviates from this identity

description,itappearsthatgaymenwilloftentakeonsomeformofauxiliaryrole–for

example,asco-participantsinthedialogue,orasitsintendedorunintendedaudience.323

ThissenseofexchangehasadeeplyfeltpresenceinKlausner’spodcast.Someofhermost

stingingepithetsarereeledoffinthemidstofaconversationwithoneofhergaymale

friends.Foranexample,listentothepredatoryzealwithwhichKlausnertradesgossip

320“Thecampyqueenwhocan‘read’(putdown)allchallengersandcuteveryonedowntosizeisgreatlyadmired”.Newton,p.107.321Harveyp.1155.Originalsource:QuentinCrisp,TheNakedCivilServant(London,Cape,1968)p.29.322Babuscio,p.127.323Harrisprovidesastrikingexampleofthisdynamicinhisdiscussionoftheappealoffilmdivastogaymenofthepre-Stonewallera:”Homosexualsweredrawntotheimageofthebitchinpartbecauseofherwicked tongue, her ability to achieve through conversation, through her verbal acuity, her snappycomebacks,thecontrolthatgaymenwereunabletoachieveintheirownlives.”Seep.173.

140

onSharonStonewithherfriend,BryanSafi.324Inabroadersense,gaymenarealsoin

attendanceasthepodcast’spresumedfanbase.Fromtimetotime,Klausnerexplicitly

recognises that her style of social and cultural performance caters to this specific

demographic.Sheevenjeststhatshemayneedtoinstalla“gay-splaining”featurethat

would serve to impart the requisite literacy needed to understand her podcast upon

confused heterosexual listeners. Her powers as a raconteur, and in particular, her

masteryofthethrowawayput-down,havetheeffectofconsolidatingandcementingher

allegiancetohomosexualmen.Theyareanimportantpartofwhatmakesherafaghag.

ThisaspectofKlausner’soralperformancehasinterestingramificationswithrespectto

thegenderpoliticsofcamp.Fromoneperspective,itrefutestheassumptionthatwomen

canonlyexistinthatcultureasobjectsofscrutiny.Thevituperationsthatpunctuatethe

podcastmorelikelyplaceherasabeholderofthecampgazethanitstarget.Itisalsotrue

that this position is still contingent upon the company and cooperation of gay men.

Moreover, the thrust of the academic writing on camp wit - with its overwhelming

emphasis on male homosexuals – would seem to lend a sense of marginality to the

participationofthefaghaginsuchproceedings.325

Klausner is also implicating herself in a tradition that some feminist critics have

consideredinimicaltoherownsex.Oneofthemorenoticeablefeaturesofcamp’sverbal

witisthefrequencywithwhichitpitsitselfagainstthecorporealrealm.Or,toputitmore

plainly: it insults people based on their appearances.326 As we have already seen,

allegationsofsexismarelikelytoarisewhenthistypeofcritiquecentresuponthefemale

body.Klausnerherselfshowslittlerestraintinridiculingthelooksofotherwomen.Take

thisremarkafterwatchingtheAcademyAwards:“RenéeZellwegerlooksexactlylikea

kangaroorightnow.Idon’tknowwhathappened.Idon’twhethershedidit,orwhether

Goddidit.”327

324Klausner(August5,2011)HowWasYourWeek?“SteveAgee,BryanSafi-RaveWithdrawal.”Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-22-rave-withdrawal-steve-agee-bryan-safi325Thenagain,itispossiblethatthisismorereflectiveofcamp’scriticalreceptionthanitisofcampitself.326 InParis isBurning(1990), JennieLivingston’sseminaldocumentaryabouttheHarlemdragsceneof1980s,dragperformerDorienCoreydefinestheexpression‘throwingshade’intheseterms:“Shadeis:‘Iwon’ttellyouyou’reugly,butIdon’thavetotellyou,becauseyouknowyou’reugly.’”327Klausner(March1,2013)HowWasYourWeek?“DCPierson,AlexTimbers-BattlefieldGirth.”Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-104-battlefield-girth-dc-pierson-alex-timbers

141

Thechargesofmisogynyleveledagainstcampcanbemetwithvariousdefenses,which

attest that suchmockery is often tingedwith affection, or that the camp gaze is not

exclusivelydirectedatwomen.Wecanweighupthesecompetingargumentsanddraw

ourownconclusions,butthisisunlikelytoresolvethecontroversythatsurroundsthem.

The faghag takesupaparticularlycontentiousposition in thisembattledcourse.The

officialliteraturewouldsuggestthatsheisnotamemberofcamp’sdominantclass.She

alsorunstheriskofbeinglabeledatraitortoherownkind.Suchisthepriceofadmission

forpartakingintheglitteringconversationsofthecampcoterie.Butifthisisoneofthe

costs of camp,Klausner seemswilling to bear it. Anticipating the fire of criticismher

wisecrackaboutZellwegermight ignite,shedefendsherselfwiththisdryrejoinder:“I

couldsaythatI’mnotjudgingher.Icouldsaythatit’snotnicetomakefunofsomeone’s

appearance…bothofthosethingsarealie.”

“HowoftendoyouthinkaboutCher?”

Aconfession:Iamhalf-temptedtosimplyissuethequestionabovewithoutprovidingany

furthercontext.HowoftendoyouthinkaboutCher?Thisimpulseofmineisn’tjustabout

ofwhimsicalstupidity.Norisitborneoutofaradicalorinsanedesiretoabandonthe

coherenceofacriticalargument.NordoIharboranysincerecuriosityabouttheextent

to which Cher figures as a cynosure in our collective consciousness. I entertain this

absurdnotionasafittingtributetothesourcematerialIamgrapplingwith:itssudden

starts;itswindingnon-sequiturs;itsfeverishobsessionwithpopularculture.

Thequestionwasoriginallyposedinthemiddleofadesultoryconversation,poppingup

unexpectedlyduringKlausner’sbustlingchatterwiththesingerNekoCase.Theanswer,

forthosewhomustknow:ChercrossesCase’smindonceaweek,andKlausner’stwicea

day.328 This is a moment of frivolity that swiftly slips away in the procession of the

interview, and yet it yields significant insight into the podcast’s approach to popular

cultureandthecelebritypersonaethatitpropagates.

328 Klausner (April 29, 2011)HowWas YourWeek? “Neko Case, JoeMande - All theWay to Canada.”Available at: https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/hwyw-ep-8-all-the-way-to-canada-neko-case-joe-mande-

142

Klausner'smusings on such topics are alwaysdigressive. She does not rely upon any

methodical procedure for their delivery. They seem to just burst forth irrepressibly,

intertwinedwithothercontemplationsonthemostquotidianaspectsofherlife.Thereis

noformaldemarcationbetweentheglossyworldofentertainmentandtheminutiaeof

everyday experience. As a result of which,Klausnerreally does sound like someone

whomightactuallythinkaboutCherasoftenassheclaims.Arguably,thisdispositionis

an increasingly ubiquitous one – a common symptom of the modern world and the

plethoraofmass-mediated imagesandnarrativesthat inundate its inhabitants.329One

canstill,however,observevariousgradationsofthisphenomenon.Toappreciatethis,we

needonlyturntoKlausnerandCase’srespectiveanswerstotheCherquestion.Itis,for

example,particularlyprevalentandpronouncedamongstcamppractitioners.

JeremyKelleyandKeithHarveyhavemadesimilarrecognitionsintheirlinguisticstudies

on camp speech, albeit in slightly different terms. In both instances, the inquiry is

confinedtothespokenutterancesofhomosexualmen.Kelleycontendsthatcampspeech

doesnotnecessarilyimmerseitselfinpopcultureatlarge;ittendstofastenuponwhat

hebroadlydefines as “female andqueer iconic contentmatter”, or thatwhich is “not

normatively recognized as content of importance for heterosexual men”.330 This

formulation is strongly reminiscent of the terminology that the podcast invokes to

declareitsownthemes:“ladystuffandgaystuff”,“femininityandfaggotry”.Kelleytakes

it for granted that the scheme of reference he outlines is unique to the “gay male

experience”.Butthepairingitconstrues(“female”and“queer”)isinfactperfectlysuited

forthefaghag–whoseverynameisitselfavariationonthatcouplet.Inasimilarvein,

Harveyarguesthatcamp’scitationofculturalartefactssetsupaspecificrepertoireof

referencesthatfunctionto“createorreinforcegaysolidaritybetweeninterlocutors”.331

Hedoesnotpropose,asIamdoinghere,thattheseallusionscanbedrawnuponinorder

toestablishasenseofaffinitywithgaymen,ratherthansimplybetweenthem.

329ThisviewissupportedbyJokeHermes’sfindingsonmediaaudiences’interestsinthelivesofcelebrities:“Seeingmediafiguresasrealandaspartofoureverydayculturalandemotionalexperienceispartandparcel of how media texts come to have meaning.” See “Media Figures in Identity Construction.” inRethinkingtheMediaAudience:TheNewAgenda,ed.P.Alasuutari(London:Sage,1999)p.71.330 JeremyKelley,“QueeringConversation:AnEthnographicExplorationof theFunctionalPropertiesofCamp-Based Language Use in U.S. GayMen’s Interactions.” UnpublishedDoctoral Thesis, University ofCalifornia,2013,pp.95-96.331Harvey,p.1151.Notethathepreferstouseamuchwidertermto“popularculture”-“culturalartifacts”.IhaveemployedtheformerdenominationbecauseitbefitsKlausner’sparticularsetoftastes;sheisfarmorelikelytomentionCherthanChopin.

143

The formal character of the podcast is instrumental in conducting this webwork of

association.Ofcourse,therehavebeenwrittentextsthathaveendeavouredtorecorda

campperusalofpopularculture-forexample,Sontag’s“random”listofthecampcanon,

or Core’s Camp: The Lie That Speaks the Truth, which assumes the format of an

encyclopaedia.Whileeachofthesetextsdeploysitsownstylisticstrategyforassembling

itspointsofreference,bothcataloguesareclearlydefinedinscope.BythisImeanthat

the itemsofpopularculturethattheycollectandarchivecannotchangeovertime.As

individual printed publications, their anthologies are fundamentally static and

immutable.

Thecompilationofreferencesthatweencounterinthepodcastisfarmoreopen-ended.

It isdisseminated throughaseriesof instalmentswhose iterationsare indeterminate,

allowing it to amass a library of figures and symbols that perpetually expands and

elaborates.Thismobilityisfurtherenhancedbythepodcast’saestheticsofspeech,that

is,thelaxityofthespokenword,theunfocusedmeanderingsofthebroadcaster.332The

podcastbothassumesandcapitalisesuponanaudiencethatistoreceptivethisprocess

of accumulation. Its scanning of popular culture never pretends or attempts to be

panoptic.Thepleasure that it offers is in satisfyinganappetite for suchmaterial that

requiresconstantsatiation.

Wecanrecogniseacardinalinstanceofthisdynamicinthepodcast’srenderingofthe

celebrityfeud.Itisatopicthatiscanonicaltocampdiscourse,synthesizingmanyofits

customary preoccupations (with stardom, scandal, gossip, gratuitous affect and

aggression).333 A feud is also, by its very nature, a prolonged affair; its extravagance

stemmingnotjustfromthefervourofitsbitterrecriminationsbutthestubborntenacity

withwhichtheyendure.Thepodcastprovidesanaccommodatingspaceforthiskindof

ongoing saga,with its capacious structure, its serializeddispatches, and the license it

grantstospeakfreely.

332AruminationonthetelevisionseriesSmash(2012-2013),ashort-livedNBCmusicalthatquicklybecameoneofKlausner’schoiceobjectsofridicule,unfoldsasfollows:“AndthisisthelastthingI’llsayaboutSmash,unlessIreturntoit.I’llsayonemorethingactually…”. SeeKlausner(February8,2013)HowWasYourWeek? “David Ozanich, Michael Kupperman - Heavy Things Onto Stages.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-101-heavy-things-onto-stages-david-ozanich-michael-kupperman333TheendlessspeculationsharedbycamppractitionersregardingthepurportedhatredbetweenBetteDavisandJoanCrawfordisthequintessentialexampleofthis.

144

Inthiscontext,thespectacleofthefeudisdepositedandshapedthroughaconcatenation

ofvitriolicoutpourings.Theseservetorecapitulateoldgrievanceswhilealsoanglingat

fresh insults and condemnations. Klausner’s extended excoriation of the television

actress Pauley Paurette is a prime example. The origin story of their acrimonious

relationshipisrecitedsoregularlythatitbecomesstitchedintotheloreofthepodcast.334

Furthermore,thisantipathyisalwaysbeingreplenishedthroughadditionalanticsand

activities.335Camp’sinterestinpopularcultureisthereforeexpressedasapersistentand

ferociouscraving. It isalsoexplicitly framedasacollectiveexperience.Somelisteners

will only engage with the podcast’s peregrinations into popular culture as reticent

observers.Butitsbroadcasterdoesextendaninvitationtoheraudiencetoparticipatein

encoding thesystemof references Ihavedescribed.Mostepisodeswill concludewith

Klausner poring over correspondence from her fans, thereby offering them an

opportunity to trade thoughts with her on various items of entertainment. They can

solicitheropiniononafilm,alerthertosomeobscurepieceofcelebritytrivia,andso

forth.

Fortheconsumerofaculturalproducttocontributetoitscontentisnotofitselfanything

new.Asearlyasthe1930s,WalterBenjaminwastakingnoticeofphenomenasuchas

‘letterstotheeditor’appearinginthedailypressandprognosticatingthatthe“distinction

between author and public is about to lose its basic character”.336 The more recent

ascension of newmedia and the Internet is often regarded as an acceleration of this

disintegration.Botharecreditedwithinstallingmodelsofcommunicationthatencourage

interdependentexchangeandnetworkingoverthesortofone-waytransmissionthatis

associatedwith‘traditional’mediaoutlets.337InKlausner’scase,therecanbelittledoubt

that the broadcaster still holds dominion over the product in question; it is shewho

providesthebulkofitscontent,andwhopresidesoverandeditorialisesallotherinput.

334Inshort:Klausnerencounteredthetelevisionstarwhileattendinganawardsshowfordogsthatshewascovering as a correspondent for thewebsiteVulture. Klausner facetiously asked the actress if shewasintoxicatedandwhethersheintendedonstealinganyofthecompetingdogs.PauretterespondedtothissarcastictauntbyattemptingtohaveKlausnerbanishedfromtheevent.335 In her monologues, Klausner will periodically skewer Paurette’s social media posts. When sheinterviewsSethRogen,shepersuadeshimtocommittoapledgethathewillrefusetoworkwithPauretteinanyandallofhisfutureprojects.See Klausner (May 2, 2014) How Was Your Week? “Seth Rogen - A Working Heart.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/seth-rogen-a-working-heart-ep-165336WalterBenjamin,“TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction.”inIlluminations:EssayandReflections,ed.HannahArendt(SchockenBooks:NewYork,1968)p.232.337SeeTerryFlew,NewMedia(Melbourne:UniversityPress,2014)pp.26,31,and34.

145

That being said, the podcast does make gestures towards audience interaction that

servicetheestablishmentofaspecialisedvocabularyaroundmassentertainment.These

interrelations are made possible by contemporary communication platforms (email,

socialmedia)andtheinstantaneousexchangestheyafford.

Ishouldstressthatthereisnothingneutralaboutthewayinwhichthepodcastaccrues

andsharesitssetofculturalcitations.Itisnotarepositoryofdispassionatelyrecorded

factsand figurespre-emptivelyassumed tobecamp. In fact, it isoften themanner in

whichthepodcastcastsitsreferencesthatushersthemintothiscategory.Itsincessant

probingofpopularculturebeliesashamelessavidityandardourforthatcontent,yetthe

discourse itself is often riddledwithhostility.That combinationof rapt attention and

sarcasticcritiqueisatell-talesignofthecampoutlook.ItpositionsKlausnerbothasa

fanaticaldevoteeandadisaffectedcritic.

Camp’sbipolarattitudetowardspopularculturerunsalongsidesimilardualitiesatwork

inthemediuminwhichKlausneroperates.Inspiteofthenoveltyimpliedbyitstitle,new

media isnotoriousfor its ingestionofexistingformats. Itscustomistodemonstratea

mixtureoffidelityandtransgressionwithrespecttoestablishedformsofexpression.338

Thepodcastisnoexception;radioservesasanobviousandinfluentialprecursortoits

broadcastingofsoundanddisembodiedvoice,butitsdeparturesfromthatmediumare

daringandmomentous.Notonlyisthepodcastunconstrainedbyregulatoryoversight,

but italsohasanentirelydifferentdistributionmethod,withconsumersdownloading

and listening to content at their ownwhim instead of intermittently tuning into the

incessantstreamofbroadcastradio.

Anothercontradiction:whiletheInternetisheraldedforitsunprecedentedadvancesin

mass participation and connectivity, it also evokes a sense of fragmentation.339 The

decentralisedinfrastructurethatadministersitsactivitiesallowsforavastprofusionof

material to emerge from a myriad of channels, somemarkedly less frequented than

others.340AlthoughInternetcontentissituatedwithinaninterconnectedsystem,alotof

itcanbehighlyspecifiedandarcane.Thisiscertainlytrueofthepodcast.Meserko,for

338ThisideaformsthebasisofJayDavidBolterandRichardGrusin’stheoryof‘remediation’,discussedinFlew,p.31.339Flew,p.59.340Ibid.

146

example,hasemphasizedtheamountof“selectionandwork”thatthepodcastdemands

of its listeners relative toother typesofmedia.Unlike televisionor radio, there isno

apparatusthatpermitslistenersto‘flip’betweenstations–theymustactivelysearchout

thecontentthemselves.341

The most cursory glance at the Podcast section of the iTunes Store reveals an

overwhelmingamplitudeofchoices.Sofar,noneofthesehasachievedanythingcloseto

thecommercialpopularityofahitsitcomorablockbusterfilm.342Inthepodcastwefind

a form that borrows from tradition at the same time that it claims distance from it;

positionsitselfwithinaninterlinkednetworkwhilealsopreservingitsownmarginality.

Theseinterplaysco-existwiththetug-of-warthatweseeattheheartofcamp’sresponse

topopularculture–betweenimmersionandalienation,enthusiasmandreproach.

“Aone-sidedconversationwithafriend”

Thereisanotherelementtotakeintoaccountwhenconsideringthemixedfeelingsthat

Klausnerholdsforpopularculture.Thishastodowiththevantagepointfromwhichshe

expresses her ambivalent relation to celebrity. Her podcast is not just a forum for

celebritycritique;italsohasastakeintheprojectofcelebrityconstruction(specifically,

herown).ThisisnottodiscounttheextenttowhichKlausner’spublicrecognitioncanbe

attributed to various other endeavours she has engaged in both before and after the

creationofherpodcast.Theformhas,however,playedanimportantroleinshapingthe

personathatconstitutesherstarimage.Thefamegeneratedbythepodcastisaspecific

breedofcelebritythatscholarsinthefieldhavecometoassociatewiththeInternet.The

vast and diverse sphere of cyberspace offers any number of platforms of self-

341Meserko,pp.45-46.342AsfarasIamaware,Klausnerhasnotpubliclydisclosedanyinformationonthequantityofdownloadsherpodcastgenerates.But toprovideageneralsenseof themarketplace - in2013, IraGlass,hostandproducerofThisAmericanLife,oneoftheworld’smostpopularpodcasts,statedinaninterviewthatthehighestnumberofdownloadsasingleepisodeofTALhadreceivedwasapproximately1million,andthatthemedianfigureforthepodcastwassomewherenear800,000.SeeMichaelWolf,“ThisAmericanLife’sIraGlass talks Podcasting.” Next Market Insights (April 15,2013):http://nextmarket.co/blogs/conversations/7703637-this-american-lifes-ira-glass-talks-podcasting(accessed5/10/16).

147

representationthatareintendedforpublicconsumption.Thenet-effectoftheseactivities

ismanifoldandcomplex,butthereareafewimplicationsthatstandoutasparticularly

salientforthepurposesofthisdiscussion.

Thefirst is the ideathattheInternetprovidesmultipleavenuesofself-disclosurethat

betraya‘do-it-yourself’aesthetic.Itstechnologicalinterfacesareoftengearedaroundthe

premiseofuser-createdcontent,requiringminimalinterferencefromthirdparties.We

canseehowthisreputationappliestothepodcastinlightofmyearliercommentsonthe

absenceofgatekeeperspatrollingthemedium.Italsoattachestothesocial-networking

activitythatKlausner’spodcasttethersitselfto.Theprofusionofthiskindofmediahas

givenrisetowhatTheresaSenfthascalledthe“micro-celebrity”:“anewstyleofonline

performancethatinvolvespeoplein“ampingup”theirpopularityusingtechnologieslike

videos,blogsandsocial-networkingsites”343.Bythisdesign,themyth-makingmachinery

offameisnotjustinthehandsofthepress,orpublicists,orscriptwriters,ordirectors.

Conceivably,itbelongstoanybodywhohasaccesstoasmart-phone.

Severalthoughtsariseastowhatallofthismightmeanforcamp.Onewouldpresume

thataputativedemocratisationofcelebritywouldbeconsequentialtocamp’sinterests

inpolarities suchas ‘life’ and ‘theatre’, and ‘obscurity’ and ‘fame’. If opportunities for

stardomabound,isthecamppractitionerdrawnalittleclosertothelimelight?Couldthe

Internetbeseentopromotecampvalues,orhasitrenderedthemlessdistinct?Ihave

positedtheseinquiriesratherbroadly,andcaremustbetakeninordertorefrainfrom

generalising toowidely. But Iwould at least like to contemplate how such issues are

broughtintoquestionbytheartefactatmydisposal.

ItisclearthatthebrandingofastarpersonaispivotaltotheoperationsofHWYW?Inone

of its broadcasts, Klausner herself deems that the projection of her own personality

serves as a thematic centrepiece for the podcast. (Not incidentally, the only other

dominant motif that she can identify is “popular culture”).344 Indeed, this display is

fundamentaltoKlausner’sassumptionofthefaghagposture,forheraffectionaltiesto

343TheresaSenft,Camgirls:CelebrityandCommunity in theAgeofSocialMedia (NewYork:PeterLang,2008)p.25.344 Klausner (January 31, 2013)HowWas YourWeek? “Tom Scharpling, Jesse Thorn.” Available at: athttps://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-100-one-hundred-tom-scharpling-jesse-thorn

148

homosexualmenextendfarbeyondthosewhomshehappensinterviewontheprogram.

Shealsooffersupanapproximationofherselfforthepodcast’saudience,notonlyasthe

protagonistofitsanecdotes,oritsleadingconversationalist,butalsoassomethingthat

comesclosetoanacquaintance.Incriticalvernacular,thisissometimesreferredtoas

‘para-social’bond,atermmeanttodescribethesimulationofasocialrelationshipthat

canbeengenderedbythecelebrityimage.345

Thepodcast’s investment in this concept seems to involveawillingness tobarewhat

mightostensiblybeconsideredprivateor interioraspectsof self.Wesee thisgesture

performed inmanydifferentways.There is thepodcast’spretenceofuninhibitedand

unscripted speech.There is the recording location itself,which is not a studio or live

stage,butthebroadcaster’sownManhattanapartment.Thereareitsappealstoaudience

interaction; the potential to communicate at any given moment with the headlining

star.346Inoneepisode,Klausnerisexplicit inarticulatingherdesireforthepodcastto

sound like a “one-sided conversation with a friend”.347 She goes on to describe her

gratificationuponreceivingfeedbackfromfanswhoclaimthatthey“feelliketheyknow

her”.

Howcouldthisrhetoricbecompatiblewithcamp?It iscorrecttopointoutthatcamp

performancesarenotknown for theirclaims toverisimilitude, sincerityoramiability.

Throughout this thesis, I have referred to criticism that highlights the richness of its

ornamentation,itspreferenceforsurfaceoverdepth,itsrancouranditsexclusivity.This

is where it is instructive to take in some of the finer details regarding the mode of

celebrityenactedbytheHWYW?Althoughitpromisesabehind-the-curtainpeakintothe

subjectivityofitsperformer,nosuchconceitiseveractuallyrealisedwithintheconfines

ofanymediatedspace.Thereisalwaysalensthroughwhichtheselfisfiltered.Inthevery

345SeeTobyMiller,NitinGovil,JohnMcMurriaandRichardMaxwell,GlobalHollywood(London:BFI,2001)pp.174-175.346 See Turner’s comments on the effect of Twitter (awebsite that Klausner both uses and referencesfrequentlyonherpodcast)uponcelebrityculture:“…thepre-eminentobjectiveofthefan–tofindoutwhatthecelebrityis‘reallylike’appearstobemorecategoricallyachievedthroughtheengagementviaTwitterratherthananyotherplatform.Celebritiesreadandrespondtotweetsfromtheirfans–sometimesfromtheirfans,sometimesdirectly,andsometimessimplybyre-tweeting.Theyalsoconversewitheachother–celebritytocelebrity–andallowtheirfollowerstoeavesdroponthatconversation.”p.73.347 Klausner (January 31, 2013) How Was Your Week? “Tom Scharpling, Jesse Thorn.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-100-one-hundred-tom-scharpling-jesse-thorn

149

samebreath thatKlausner confessesherdelight at being “known”byher fans, she is

candidaboutherconcertedeffortsto“keepfunnyandcharmingandbright”andtoedit

out“bits”ofherselfthatmaybetoo“boorish”forthepurposesofherbroadcasts.

It thereforebecomesevident that the ‘strippedback’ aestheticsof thepodcastdonot

necessarilyamounttoarenunciationofcamp’stime-honouredattractiontoartifice.In

thisinstance,theunveilingofaprivateselfisanimaginedexperienceandnotarealone.

In fact, one of its effects is to intensify the jouissance of the podcast’s most overtly

theatricalantics.IhavealreadytouchedonhowthisdynamicisborneoutinKlausner’s

métierasawit.Theverveofherperformancerestsheavilyonitscontextofcommonand

unrehearsedspeech.Theseemblemsofauthenticityprovideabackdropfromwhichthe

devastatingpowerofhercraftwithwordscanemerge.

Asimilardialecticisatplayinthesupposedlyintimatefootingthatthepodcasttakesup

withitfans.Itistruethatthepodcastappearstopromotesomenotionofitsbroadcaster

asthelistener’s‘friend’,butitisimportanttorecognisethattheseoverturesarecarefully

rationed.Forinstance,theextenttowhichKlausnercorrespondswithherlistenersand

incorporates those interactions into each broadcast is completely at her discretion.

Whateverheightened senseof proximity socialmedia instils in the relationsbetween

celebrity and fan, it does not eradicate the power differentials between them.348

Unrestrictedaccesstothecelebritywouldonlyservetoobliteratehermystique.Itwould

alsodiminishtheexcitementofassuminganyformoffamiliaritywithher.

Insofarasthepodcastdoesproduceanevocationoffamiliarity,itisworthconsideringits

intended recipients. Klausner’s celebrity is not a large-scale enterprise. In theory, its

fashioningofKlausner’simageisaccessibletoanybodywithanInternetconnection.In

practicalterms,itsactualappealistoadecidedlyselectaudience;thesmallcircleoffans

whoareenamouredwithitscamp-codeddiscourse.Thishighlycircumscribedinduction

of fame is characteristic of web culture, a fact that Turner has registered in his

observationthatthe ‘micro-celebrity’willtypicallyoperate“withinarelativelylimited

andlocalizedvirtualspace,drawingonsmallnumbersoffanssuchasthefollowersofa

348AliceMarwickandDanahBoydmakethispointin‘ToSeeandBeSeen:CelebrityPracticeonTwitter.”Convergence17No.2(2011)p.155.

150

particular subcultural practice.”349 For this reason, it is difficult to disentangle the

podcast’svarioussignalsofintimacyanddistance.Thereisaninterdependencebetween

thetwo;ifKlausnerweremarketedtowardsabroaderdemographic,shewouldloseher

cultstatus.Orifsheweretotonedowntheasperityofherattacksonothercelebrities,

shewouldriskrelinquishingtheidentitythathercampconstituencyhascometoadore.

“Iregretnothing,butIdofeelbad”

Sofar,mostofthepointsraisedinthischapterhaveservedtoadvanceoneproposition:

that the technical strategies of the podcast establish a syncretisation of various

oppositions,andthis,inturn,buildsastateoftensionthatisauspicioustocampactivity.

Ialsowanttoacknowledgetheoccasionsuponwhichthistensionthreatenstospillover,

themomentswhencampseemstolosesomeofitsequanimity.Attimes,campexposes

itself tocontestation, isevenbroughttothebrinkof itsownrepudiation.Thepodcast

seemingly issues a mandate for some of the more ornery elements in the camp

disposition,butitdoesnotprovideanyfortificationfromthecontroversiesthattheyare

likely tostirup.Onthecontrary, themediumactually facilitates theexistenceofsuch

disputes.

IamthinkingspecificallyoftheabandonwithwhichKlausnerevisceratesvariousfigures

inthepubliceye.IwouldsuggestthatKlausnerisemboldenedtopractisethisdiscourse

by certain aspects of the form she inhabits: the modest ambit of its circulation; the

sensationof evanescenceprovokedby its orality.These factors conspire to foster the

illusion that the acerbic apothegms of the broadcasterwill go unnoticed by offended

parties. Inpressmaterial,Klausnerhas intimated that the formatof the spokenword

permitsherafreedomtoexpressherself“withoutfearofupsettingsomebody”.“Ifyou’re

typingsomethingout…”shesays, “you’remore likely tobemisquotedorheldup toa

flame.”350Butthetruthofthematteristhatherbroadsideshaveprecipitatedquiteafew 349Turner,p.72.350HughBassett,“NeverTooGaytoCabaret:AConversationwithJulieKlausner.”TheNewYorkObserver(17 June 2013) http://observer.com/2013/06/never-too-gay-to-cabaret-a-conversation-with-julie-klausner/(accessed20/9/2016).

151

disturbancesandunpleasantconfrontations.Itturnsoutthatthepodcastisnotimmune

fromthesurveillanceofunwelcomeobservers.Soundmaybeimpermanent,butwhenit

isencasedwithinapodcast,itbecomessomethingwecanreturnto,repeat,examinewith

precision.Andifthepodcastismarginal,itisnothermeticallysealed.Theattendanceof

anichefanculturedoesnoterectabarricadeagainstexternalcriticism.

In1994,JoshuaGamsonsubmittedthefollowingrationaletoexplainthemachinationsof

celebritygossip:

Celebritiesarelikeneighbourswhonearlyeveryoneknows,innearlyeverysocialsetting,and‘stuff’aboutthemiseasiertofindandsharethaninformationaboutyour friends and colleagues. More important, celebrity gossip is a much freerrealm,muchmoregame-likethanacquaintancegossip:therearenorepercussionsandthereisnoaccountability.351

Thereisgoodreasontosuspectthatthelatterstatementnolongerapplies-atleast,not

toallofthecommunicationsthattranspireontheInternet.Thereisnothingclandestine

about the gossip thatKlausnerhasdistributedvia thepodcast and socialmedia.As a

matteroffact,theseplatformshavebroughtherintodirectconfrontationwithcelebrities

thatshehaspilloried.

ThiswascertainlythecasewithJessicaSeinfeld,thebestsellingcookbookauthorwhois

probablybestknownforhermarriagetothefamouscomedianJerrySeinfeld.However,

fansof thepodcastaremore likelytorememberherasKlausner’sbêtenoire.Mostof

Klausner’scontemptforSeinfeldisdirectedatherInstagramaccount;shegoessofaras

to compare itsdeplorable content (Seinfeld’s inanediscussionsaboutheralcohol and

sugar-freediet;aphotographofafoil-coveredchickenkeptinherexpensivehandbag)to

the atrocities of the Vietnam War. This diatribe evidently came to the attention of

Seinfeld,352whotooktoTwitterwiththisretaliatorycomment:“JerryandIbothnoted

your 13 year old behaviour, having our own. If you don’t likeme orwhat I do, look

351JoshuaGamson,ClaimstoFame:CelebrityinContemporaryAmerica(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994)p.176.352ItappearsthatfansofHWYW?hadbeenfollowingSeinfeld’sInstagrampageandmentioningKlausnerinits‘Comments’section,whichmayhaveprovidedthemeansthroughwhichSeinfeldcametodiscoverthepodcaster’svenom.

152

inward.”353

Klausner eventually brought their tumultuous exchange to a close with an opening

monologue acknowledging her guilt over the affair.354 But it would bemisleading to

suggestthatheradmissionamountstoacompletecapitulation.Acloseinspectionofthe

apologyisboundtodiscernhowremarkablywaywarditisinitsmanner.Expressionsof

self-flagellation(“IgotalittlemeanandIdon’tfeelverygoodaboutit”)aresucceededby

statementsofstubbornresistance.Klausnerisadamantthatherdisdainisnotentirely

unjustified.Sheclaimsthatshe“feelsbad”butmaintainsthatshe“regretsnothing”.Itis

as though she cannot quite bring herself to abandon her post as an irreverent

troublemaker. “The last thing I want is her husband disparaging me publicly,” she

confides.“Ireallydon’twantthat,unlessitservestomyadvantage.”

ThealtercationmaynothavedismantledKlausner’sposeasacampprovocateur,butit

certainly exerted pressure upon it. It caused her antics to acquire an air of fallibility,

suggestedhintsofperturbationlurkingbeneaththewickednessofherwit.Thecopious

flowofimpulsivetalk–soeffectiveasadeliverysystemforhercleverandpugnacious

rhetoric–canalsothrowthatrhetoricintodoubt.Withnofixeditinerarydeterminingits

course, inflectionsofdiffidencecanseep intoherspeech.Klausnersaysonethingand

then another, contradicts herself, discourses in the fumbling and unstable fashion of

someonewhoisthinkingoutloud.

CampReminiscences

Intheintroductiontothisthesis,oneoftheissuesIraisedconcernedtheimpressionofa

lacunainthehistoricalrecordofcamp.Ifoneacceptsthatcampcannotbeformulatedas

agenreofaesthetics-thatitisalsoawayofbeing-itsactivitiesbecomedifficulttotrack

353 Seinfeld, Jessica (Jess Seinfeld) 4 June 2014. Twitter post. Available at:https://twitter.com/JessSeinfeld/status/474269449022095360354 Klausner (June 6, 2014) How Was Your Week? “Our Generation’s Nessie.” Available at:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/tara-ariano-our-generations-nessie-ep-170

153

andpindown.YouwillrecallthatIrecitedthelamentationofFranLebowitz:“Thereis

not a lot left. If what you do is talk, instead of write or leave something, then you

disappear.”Hercomplaintbearsrepetitionfortheimplicationsitcarriesforcampspeech.

Itatteststothesignificanceofthepodcastasanarchivalresource,forwehaveseenhow

itstechnologycanconsigntheperipateticwordsofcampspeakerstothepublicrecord.

Bythesametokenthatthiscapacitysubjectssuchwordstothescrutinyofothers,italso

rescuesthemfromoblivion.

Hence, the documentary value of the form: it records for posterity various items and

stylesofspeechthatwouldotherwisebeforfeitedtoanirretrievablepast.Orperhapsit

is more accurate to say that if it weren’t for the podcast, the discursive practices it

preserveswouldnotexistinthefirstplace.Afterall,theideathatspeechisshapedbyits

formalcontexthasservedasacentralconceitofmyargument.Totakethatargumenta

littlebitfurther:notonlydoesKlausner’spodcastfurnishastoragevaultforcampspeech,

butthatspeechalsosuggestsitsownframeworkforremembering.Itcannotrecoverthe

scores of lost conversations that so invigorated previous iterations of camp. It can,

however,deviseavocabularyforcamptodrawuponinordertocometogripswithits

past.

Iamproposingthatthispodcastcanbethoughtofasakindofinformalexerciseinoral

history.Therearenumerousoccasionswhereintheformisenlistedasavesselforthe

expressionofpersonalmemoryandcampcommemoration.Inthesereminiscences,there

emergesastyleofhistoricalunderstandingcharacterizedbythesamefeaturesofcamp

oralitythatIhavebeendescribingthroughoutthischapter.Whatthepodcastoffersisby

nomeansanobjectiverenderingofthepast,butthismaynotbethebestcriterionby

whichtomeasureitsvalue.AsRonGrelehaspointedout,oralinterviewstellus,“notjust

whathappenedbutwhatpeoplethoughthappenedandhowtheyhaveinternalizedand

interpretedwhat happened”355.My purpose here is not to isolate some authoritative

recordofaformertime,buttocontemplatetheverymeansbywhichcamplooksbackat

itself.

355RonGrele,ed.EnvelopesofSound:TheArtofOralHistory(NewYork:Praeger,1991)p.245.

154

These self-reflexive procedures are on vivid display in the interview that Klausner

conductswiththedragqueenLindaSimpson.356Simpsonisinvitedontothepodcastto

publicizehercuratorshipofphotographsdocumentingtheNewYorkdragsceneofthe

1980sand1990s.This inspiresananimateddiscussionaboutherrecollectionsofthat

epochandmilieu.KlausnerandSimpsonconferonmanyvicissitudesinthelifeofdrag:

how it transformed from a “gay bar dusty cliché” to an underground East Village

sensation;theadverseeffectoftheGiulianimayorshiponthevitalityofnightlifeinthe

city; therecentefflorescenceofdragcultureattributedtoRuPaul’srevivedpopularity

andthedisseminativecapacityoftheInternet.

Forourpurposes,themostpertinentfactorhereisthefashioninwhichthisversionof

history is discursively constructed. The podcast assembles a sort of hall of mirrors,

drawingoncampstylisticsintheprocessofmemorializingcampactivities.Thefriendly

rapportbetweenKlausnerandSimpsonisbutanotherconfirmationoftheformer’sfag

hagidentity.Moreimportantly,thereflectionsthattheyshareareawashwithirreverent

banter and diabolicalwitticisms. Every now and then, the conversation trails off into

shamelesscelebritygossip–aboutBarbraHershey’scollagenlipinjections,forinstance:

Klausner:Shelooksokaynow,doesn’tshe?Simpson:(incredulous)Doesshe?Klausner:Nooneknows.

Theirdiscussionisalsonoteworthyforitsrefusaltostrikeaseriousordeferentialtone

initsrecollectionsofseminalcampfigures–aswhenKlausnerandSimpsonburstinto

wrylaughteroverRuPaul’searnestdeclarationthatshewouldnotperformdragduring

theBushadministration.

Thisisanarrationofhistorythatunravelsthroughaseriesofstrayandsometimessnide

observations. It does not purport to register facts or present a comprehensive and

chronologicalaccountoftheperioditreconstructs.Insteadthepastisimaginedthrough

thetwistsandturnsofanexcursiveand jocoseconversation. In fact, theconversation

itself alludes to difficulties thatwould beset any exhaustive or definitive rendition of

camphistory. SimpsonechoesLebowitz in testifying to the scarcityof artifactsatour

356Klausner (May23, 2014)HowWasYourWeek? “Linda Simpson - TheCurrent Incarnation ofAlec.”Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/linda-simpson-the-current-incarnation-of-alec-ep-168

155

disposal for such an enterprise. The nightlife scene she remembers predates the

prevalence of the smart phone,whose technology hasmade record-keeping (through

photography,video,sound)acommonplacepracticeineveningentertainment.Whenshe

doescomeacrossprofessionalphotographsoftheera,shewilloftennoticethattheyare

incorrectlycaptioned.

Inhertheorizationoforalhistory,LynnAbramsdescribesmemoryasaprocessthatis

marked by “imperfections, mutability, and transience.”357 Its flashes of insight are

inevitablyselectiveandconditional;itcanneverbestowanomniscientnarrativeofthe

past.Iwouldaddthatthefluidityandfragmentationofthisepistemologicalmodelare

onlycompoundedwhencamp(sonotoriouslyelusiveandpolysemous)istheobjectthat

it pursues. To adopt camp speech as a lens for camp history is to create a double

impression of dynamism, mobility, and playfulness. Imagining the past is always an

ongoingprocess,butthisstateoffluxisespeciallyappreciablewhenitmanifeststhrough

the instabilityof thespokenword.358Andacampwayofspeaking,which ispeppered

with caustic asidesandgossipy tangents, furtherhighlights the constructednessof its

narratives. Its indulgentconjecturesandmischievous judgmentsdenyanypretenseof

neutrality.Inlightofcamp’sresistancetostringentcategorization,perhapsitwouldbe

misguidedtokeepanofficialtallyofallitsmovements.Campspeechkeepsthestorythat

ittellsaboutitselfinconstantmotion.Noonecanlayclaimtothefinalwordsolongas

thereisanotherbrilliantretortthatliesinwait.

DinnerwithFranattheWaverlyInn

ItisnotcoincidentalthatthischapterhasincludedreferencestoremarksmadebyFran

Lebowitz.ForthereissomethingreminiscentofLebowitzinthekindofastringentwit

357LynnAbrams,OralHistoryTheory(2ndedition)(NewYork:Routledge,2016)p.34.358 Abrams identifiesmutability as one of oral history’smost distinctive qualities: “Before it has beentranscribed,theoralhistoryisinconstant,ithasacapacitytoundergochange.Nointerviewwiththesamepersonwill ever be repeated the same.Words will change, stories will change, and performance andnarrativestructurewillchange…”pp.34-35.

156

thatoneencountersinthepodcast.359Itisalsosuggestivethatthepodcastitselfhasmade

severalallusionstoLebowitz.Inoneepisode,forinstance,Klausnerhumorouslyrecounts

herdinnerattheWaverlyInn,anexclusiveManhattanrestaurantthatLebowitzisknown

tofrequent.360KlausnerclaimstohaverepeatedlyinterrogatedthestaffastoLebowitz’s

whereabouts -offering the famousauthoraplaceather tableandsuggesting that the

waiters provide themwith an order of French fries. Not only does this anecdote pay

tributetooneofhermostnotablepredecessors,butitalsoevokesaveryspecificsense

ofplace.Thenarrativeturnsonfantasiesofproximitythatareengenderedbyparticular

settings; itplayswith thesomewhatoptimisticnotion thatKlausnerwouldbeable to

assume familiar relations with Lebowitz simply by paying a visit to her favourite

restaurant.Theimaginationofthisromanticscenarioprovokesfurtherconsiderationof

thepodcast’srelationshipwithspaceanditsimplicationsregardingcamp.

Critical scholarship has traditionally associated camp with metropolitan locations.

Sontag, for instance, notices that camp most often flourishes “among small urban

cliques”.361 Booth agrees with this assessment and points out several factors that

reinforcetheurbanlocalizationofcamp:itsexhibitionisticpropensitiesarestimulated

bythegazeofthedensecrowd; itshostileattitudetowardsnaturearousesanintense

desire for the artificiality of city life.362 But Scott’s discussion of the public persona

adopted by Fran Lebowitz suggests that there are other ways in which the urban

landscapehasbeenfundamentaltotheestablishmentofcampculture.Scottarguesthat

theformationofhercampidentitywasprofoundlyinfluencedbythemalehomosexual

populationofNewYorkCity.363HecitesinterviewsinwhichLebowitzrelatesthather

arrivaltothecityimmediatelyusheredher“intoawordof‘incredibletalkers’whowere

almostexclusivelyhomosexualmen…Shecreditsthisperspicaciousenvironmentwith

thedevelopmentofherownverbalpowers”.364Hisaccountconceivesoftheurbanspace

359Coremakes theaccusation thatLebowitzherself ismerelyanepigoneofDorothyParker,whomhedescribes as another “uproarious” New Yorkwit. But Lebowitz’s flagrant emulation of her forerunnerapparently makes her all the more camp: “The frankness with which Lebowitz continues to publishrevelationsofherlackoforiginalityisextremelycamp;thisshouldmakeherveryhappy.”p.119.360Klausner(July8,2011)HowWasYourWeek?“TomScharpling-GiantPicturesofHamburgers.”Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-18-giant-pictures-of-hamburgers-tom-scharpling361Sontag,p.275.362Booth,pp.44-46.363Scott,pp.131-132.364Ibid,p.132.

157

as the juncture in which the bonds between women and gay men are forged – an

intersectionthatbecomescrucialtotheexpressionofcampspeech.Itisworthnotingthat

Klausnerhasmadesimilarobservationsaboutthecultivationofherownacidicwit.In

hermemoir,IDon’tCareAboutYourBand,sherecallsthatshe“didn’tseemtohaveasense

ofhumour”beforesherelocatedtoManhattanandbefriendedahomosexualmanwho

bothsharedandencouragedhertalentforviciousbarbs.365

Butwhatrelationshipdoesthepodcastassumewiththesegeographicalassociations?It

isarguablethattheformaldimensionsofthepodcastcouldhaveaneradicativeeffecton

thesignificanceof thematerialworld. Meserkohasregisteredsomeof the ideas that

wouldlendsupporttothisview.366HereferstotheresearchofthemediascholarJoshua

Meyrowitz,whoclaimsthat“electronicmediaweakensthesignificanceofphysicalplace

asadeterminantforsocialsituations”.367HealsotakesintoaccountTerjeRasmussen’s

criticismontheaestheticsoftheradioformat.Rasmussenproposesthattheimagesthat

manifestfromradioproductionsare“reconstitutedindividually,accordingtopersonal

biographyandexperience”ofthedisparatelistenerswhohavetunedintotherelevant

broadcast.368 Meserko considers that this characterisation of radio culture has some

resonancewiththepodcastsincludedinhisstudy.Heargues,forinstance,thatComedy

BangBangcreatesanenvironmentinwhich“physicalsettingandsocialsituationareto

someextentdivorcedfromoneanother”,sincetheworldthatitconjuresisaconstruction

ofthepodcaster’s“ownnarrationandoftheimaginationoftheindividuallistener”.369

This chapter has already contemplated some of the effects of these deprivations of

material character. It has, for example, examined how the disembodied voice of the

podcastsituatesKlausnerinrelationtothegenderpoliticsofcamp.Buttheissuesthat

havebeenraisedbyMeserkomighthaveotherimplications.Considertheaccountsthat

associatetheemergenceofcampspeechwithface-to-faceinteractionsintheurbanlocale.

365Klausnerreflectsthatonetherichestrewardsofthisfriendshipwasthat,“itfeltsogoodtomakefunofpeopleforonce, insteadofsilentlyhatingthem.” See IDon’tCareAboutYourBand(NewYork,GothamBooks:2009)pp.39and42.366Meserko,p.35.367 Ibid.OriginalSource: JoshuaMeyrowitz,NoSenseofPlace:The ImpactofElectronicMediaonSocialBehaviour(Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress:1985)p.122.368Ibid.OriginalSource:TerjeRasmussen,SocialTheoryandCommunicationTechnology(Burlington,VT,Ashgate:2000)p.102.369Ibid.

158

In themost literal sense, the podcast obscures the appearance of these connections.

Certainly,thesettingofthecityisnotforegroundedasexplicitlyasithasbeeninaudio-

visualrepresentationsofcamp.OnethinksofParisisBurning(1990),adocumentaryfilm

thatsourcessomeitsmostamusingdialoguefromdragqueensandtransgenderwomen

whoareshownloiteringonthestreetsofManhattan.InPublicSpeaking(2010),Martin

ScorsesespecificallychoosestofilmFranLebowitzinconversationattheWaverlyInn–

atonepointthecameraevenlingersonthepaintedportraitofherthathangsonthewall

–providingtheviewerwithconstantimagesthatpinpointthelocationtowhichsheis

affixed.Byitsverynature,thepodcastsimplycannotsupplythesevisualcues.

However, it would be incorrect to surmise that the podcast has no contact with the

physical realm. For while it cannot make any visual representations, its verbal

communicationscanstillproduceapowerfulimpressionofspace.Meserkoconsidersthis

notionasitrelatestothepodcastsinhisstudy.First,herecognisesthesignificancethat

ComedyBangBangconfersuponplacewhensomeofitsepisodesarerecordedfromlive

comedyperformancesstagedattheUprightCitizen’sBrigadeTheatre.370Althoughitis

truethatmanyepisodesofthepodcastareinfactrecordedinastudiosetting,Meserko

purportsthattheyarestillcharacterisedbyaparticularsenseofhumour(“builtoutof

theabsurd,theimpromptu,andtheunsavoury”)thathasbecomefirmlylinkedtothat

theatre.371Bothoftheseperceptionsconfirmthattheoralformatofthepodcastdoesnot

renderitssenseofplaceentirelyindistinct.

ThesamecanalsobesaidofKlausner’spodcast, since itbecomesclear that thesonic

nature of the medium does not necessarily remove the geographical context of the

humourthatitgenerates.Infact,thepodcastisstockedwithcountlessreferencestothe

settings and inhabitants of New York City, as we have already notedwhen Klausner

describes her strained efforts to strike up a social acquaintancewith Lebowitz at the

Waverly Inn.Thesereferencesalso testify to the importantrole thathomosexualmen

playinherperformanceofcampspeech.Notonlydoesthepodcastrecordmanyofthe

witticisms that she trades with them, but it also positions these exchanges within a

context that is specific to the city. For instance, one of hermost treasured and often

370Ibid,p.36.371Ibid,p.37.

159

repeatedanecdotesconcernsanincidentthatoccurredwhensheattendedtheBroadway

musicalproductionofAnniewithherfriendBillyEichner.Whenitwasannouncedthat

the childactressplaying the titular rolewouldbe replacedbyanunderstudy for that

evening’sperformance,sheandEichnerproceededtoscreamimprecationsinafurious

protest–anoutcrythatquicklycausedoffencetotheparentsofthechildrenwhowere

sittingnexttothemintheaudience.372Inthisscenario,thecity’sfamoustheatredistrict

servesasthebackdropagainstwhichKlausnerandherhomosexualfriendprojecttheir

truculent rhetoric. Furthermore, the setting of that story becomes a reminder of the

metropolitanspacefromwhichthecamphumourofthepodcastemanates.

Ihaveargued that thepodcast reinforces theperceptionof the cityasaplace for the

confluence of women and gaymen in camp culture. But this statement relies on the

implicitassertion thaturbanspacesareknown tocontainahighconcentrationof the

homosexualpopulation.373AsIhavementionedintheintroductiontothisthesis,recent

researchsuggeststhatthisreputationissomewhatstartingtofade.Thisdeclinehasbeen

attributedtoseveralfactors,includingthemonumentaldeathtolloftheAIDSepidemic,

thegrowingspreadofurbangentrification,andtheassimilationofhomosexualpeople

intoheterosexual society.374The Internetalsoarises in thesediscussions–oftenwith

regard to websites, social media platforms, and smartphone applications that enable

social interactions to transpire in the absence of a shared physical space.375 It is

interesting to consider this current of thought in relation to the podcast. From one

perspective, Klausner’s podcastmight be seen to advance the dispersed condition of

campincontemporaryculture:thespeechthatKlausnerdisseminatesontheinternetcan

beheardfromremotecornersoftheworld,andwehaveseenthatthepodcastitselfis

intertwined with online communities (through its engagement with social media

networks) that have no fixed address. At the same time, its references to the city

372Theeventsof this fatefuleveningwere later re-enacted in thepilotepisodeof the televisionseries,DifficultPeople(2015-2017),inwhichKlausnerandEichnerappearasfictionalisedversionsofthemselves.373Inhissociologicalstudy,GhazianiclaimsthattheAmericanurbanizationofthehomosexualcommunitywasoccasionedbyseveralhistoricaleventsandcircumstancesoverthecourseofthetwentiethcentury.For instance, he points out the impact ofWorldWar II, duringwhich thousands of homosexualsweredischargedfromthearmedforcesanddispatchedtospecificmilitarybases(i.e.SanFrancisco,NewYork,Seattle,etc.)HealsoarguesthatthepublicexposureachievedbytheStoneWallRiotsin1969“motivatedgaysandlesbianstocomeoutoftheclosetenmasseandmovetobigcitieswheretheyknewtheycouldfindotherslikethemselves.”Seepp.12-16.374SeeGhaziani,pp.24-31.SeealsoHalperin,pp.432-457.375SeeGhaziani,p.30.SeealsoHalperin,pp.439-440.

160

landscape continue to honour and celebrate that space as the physical source of the

speech that it distributes. Herein lies another contradiction that emerges from the

podcast.Insomeways,itseemstotranscendthewidegulfsinspacethatkeepusapart.

But in others, it can be understood to perpetuate traditionalmeanings that attach to

specificsettingswithincampculture.

OtherVoices,OtherRooms

Thischapterhasbeenexclusiveinitsexplorationofonepodcastanditsrelationshipto

camp.Thedecisiontoframemyinquirythiswaywasdeliberate,anditresultedfroma

variety of considerations. Iwas aware that even a single podcast can often contain a

formidable mass of content, and that this alone would be challenging to navigate,

especially since the form allows for that content to be structured so shambolically.

Indeed,oneoftheclaimsofmyargumenthasbeenthatthemediumofthepodcastplaces

a premium on notions of heterogeneity, plurality and experimentation. This instils a

certainwarinessaboutmakingwidegeneralisations.Needlesstoadd,onefeelsasimilar

hesitationwithrespecttocampanditsmyriadpermutations.Ontopofallthis,italsofelt

apttofocusuponanindividualcaseinlightofmyinterestintheintimacyandsingularity

ofvoice,assomethingproducedbytheinternalmechanismsofadistinctbody.Onthe

otherhand, it isundeniable that IhavesituatedmycriticismofHWYW?amidstbroad

systemsofdiscourse.However tentatively these connections aredrawn, it is patently

clearthatIaminterestedinthekindsofintersectionsandpolaritiesthatareplayedout

when the medium of the podcast serves as an outlet for camp. It therefore seems

appropriatetoacknowledgesomeotherpodcastsinwhichcampcanbeheardcomingto

life.

I would be remiss not to mention Justin Sayre’s Sparkle and Circulate, which, like

Klausner’s podcast, introduces itself as a rendezvous point for camp enthusiasts and

practitioners. In themythologyof the show, Sayre is anointed as the chairmanof the

“InternationalOrderofSodomites”.ForGlitterintheGarbage,DrewDroegeinviteshis

161

friends onto the podcast to impersonate obscure celebrities in improvised comedy

sketches. There is also Throwing Shade, hosted by Brian Safi with Erin Gibson, who

professtotakea“aweeklylookatalltheissuesimportanttoladiesandgays...andtreat

themwithmuchlessrespectthantheydeserve.”Eachoneofthesepodcastsdeservesto

be studied in terms far more rigorous than in the abstracts above. They have been

mentioned here only to adumbrate the possibility of some common groundwith the

object of my study, whether that is expressed through a fascination for celebrity,

irreverentdiscourse,extemporaneousspeech,ortheevocationofatribalaffiliation.

Suchoverlapsshouldpromptfurtherconsiderationoftherelationsbetweenpodcasting

andcampincontemporaryculture.Thisisboundtobeachallengingareaofdiscussion,

and not simply for the reasons I have already disclosed. As Flew has cautioned,

hypothesesabouttheroleandsignificanceofnewmediaareoftenprovenerroneouswith

thepassageoftime.CitingFennandRaskino,Flewsurmisesthatmanytechnologieswill

go through moments of inflated hype without ever delivering on their perceived

potential.376It isprobablyunwisetomakealotofboldpredictionsinalandscapethis

shiftingandunstable.Whichshouldmakethefieldevenmoreattractivetoanyscholarof

camp,familiarasheorshewillbewiththemesofobsolescence.

“Ihopeyoumakemesoundthin”

Iwouldliketoconcludewithapersonalreminiscenceaboutaratherbriefbutmemorable

encounterthatIoncehadwithJulieKlausner.Asweshallsee,thisencounteroccurredin

quiteadifferentdimensionfromthatwhichisestablishedbytheformalconditionsofthe

podcast.Nevertheless,IamtellingthisstorybecauseIbelieveitdramatizesmanyofthe

issuesthatIhavebeengrapplingwithinthecourseofthisdiscussion.Theencountertook

placeonashorttripthatImadetoManhattaninJuneof2014,duringwhichIhadtaken

my friendStephaine to seeKlausnerperform ina cabaretactat Joe’sPub–a famous

downtown venue which is home to cutting edge artists like Sandra Bernhard, Justin

376Flew,p.38.JackieFennandMarkRaskino,MasteringtheHypeCycle(Boston:HarvardUniversityPress,2008).

162

VivianBondandBridgetEverett.Atthisstage,IhadalreadydecidedthatIwasgoingto

write aboutKlausner’s podcast for the thesis. Indeed, Iwaswell into thepreliminary

‘research’ for thechapter–a strenuousprocess thathad involvedmanyhourson the

livingroomcouchwithmyfeetupandmyheadphoneson,listeningwithkeenattention

totherapidprocessionofwitticisms,pausingonlyhereandtheretojotdownalittlenote

tomyselfasIbecamemoreandmoreimmersedintheworldofthepodcast.

This experience had caused me to assume a distinct sense of intimacy with the

broadcaster -so familiarhadIbecomewith theparticularresonanceofhervoice, the

specific range and intensity of her cultural predilections, the sardonic register of her

humour,andsoforth.Atthehighestpointofthisobsession,Icouldalmostforgetthat

Klausnerwasacompletestrangerwholivedthousandsofkilometresaway.ButIshould

placesomeemphasisontheword“almost”,sinceitwasneverthecasethatIsincerely

entertainedanyillusionthatwehadactuallybecomefriends.Perhapsit feltmore like

eavesdroppingonsomebodyelse’sconversation,onethatIfoundsolavishandseductive

thatIendeduplisteninginformuchlongerthanImighthaveanticipated.Furthermore,

Icouldremainutterlyinvisibleandmutethroughoutitsentireduration.Andtherewasa

certain comfort in this aspect of the podcast too - after all, Imust admit that I could

probably take more pleasure in Klausner’s most violent reproaches with the safe

understandingthatImyselfwouldneverhavetoreceivethem.Morethanthis,though,

therewasalsopleasureinthewaythatherwordscouldenliventheinnertheatreofmy

imagination.Theabsenceofhermaterialpresenceallowedmetofostermyownfantasies

of theenchantedworld thatsheseemed to inhabit,onewhichwas filledwithendless

streamsofurbanebanterandimpishgossip.Thenotionthatthisworldexistedonaplane

thatwasseparatefrommyownrealitywasapartofitscharm.Mysensewasthatthe

podcastcouldevokefeelingsofintimacyanddistanceatthesametime,anditwasthe

delicateinteractionbetweenthesesensationsthatIfoundtobesointoxicating.

Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthecabaretisaverydifferentmediumofartisticexpression,

anditengagesitsaudienceinamannerthatisquitedistinctfromthepodcast.Thiswill

becomemoreapparentwhenwecometothenextchapterofthisthesis,whichaddresses

theformalcharacteristicsofthecabaretinsomedetail.HereIonlymeantoconveythe

surrealitythatwasinherentinthephysicaldimensionoftheform–specifically,inhaving

theperformersoclosebeforemyowneyes,whenIhadspentsomanyhourslisteningto

163

herdisembodiedvoicefromsuchafardistance.Ihaveseenothercelebritiesbeforeand

afterthismoment–someofthemarefarmorefamousthanKlausner,andyetnoneof

themhas leftmeas awestruck. This effectmighthavehad something todowith the

excitementofthecabaretitself,whichwasuproariouslyfunnyandentertaining.Buther

appearancewouldnothavemadesuchanenormousimpressiononmehaditnotbeen

fortheformalsettinginwhichIhadfirstbecomeacquaintedwithher.Thepodcasthad

encouraged me to develop a somewhat paradoxical relationship with Klausner; it

providedaverystrongsenseofintimacythatcouldonlybeapprehendedfromaremote

vantage.Asaconsequenceofwhich,therewassomethingprofoundlyuncannyaboutthe

whole experience of the cabaret. The presence of the performer was extraordinarily

familiarandstrange:herewassomeoneIhadcometoknowverywell,butnowshewas

dislodgedfromthecontextinwhichIhadcometoknowher.

Andwhatever senseof familiarity I had come toharbor couldnotbe reciprocatedby

Klausner,sinceofcourseshedoesnotknowmeatall.Thisisanotherreasonitfeltso

peculiar to find myself in the same room as her – it was as though I had somehow

breachedthetermsofthe“one-sidedconversation”thatwehadbeenengagedinpriorto

thatoccasion.Aftertheshowwasover,IwaschattingwithStephaineinthefoyerofthe

theatrewhenwebothcaughtsightofKlausneroncemore.Sheappearedtobespeaking

withsomeofherfansandposingfortheirphotographs.Ihadsomereservationsabout

joiningthisbandofadmirers;Itendtofeeltootimidandself-conscioustojumpatthese

sortsofopportunities.ItwasparticularlydauntingtoapproachaperformerofKlausner’s

caustic temperament; therewas an inherent risk that I wouldmanage to fumble the

conversationandthenfacethewrathofoneofherwitheringinsults.Butoncewefinally

worked up the courage to introduce ourselves, we found Klausner to be more than

graciousandtolerant.Infact,sheseemedtobedelightedtoreceiveourpleasantries.Once

wefoundourselvesinhergoodgraces,StephaineevenventuredtodisclosethatIwould

bewritingaboutherpodcastinmythesis.IwasconsciousthatKlausnermightnotbe

thrilledatthisnews,rememberingheraversiontothescrutinyofacademicsandtheir

jargon-ridden prose. She paused for a moment and stared at me with a watchful

expression.“Well,”sherespondedwithalittlesigh,“Ihopeyoumakemesoundthin.”And

justlikethat,shehadunleashedthequickandrazor-sharpwitthatIhadcometoexpect

andadmire.

164

The jokemight be interpreted as an ironic recognition of her own vanity, but it also

derivesasenseofabsurditythat isconnectedtotheformal limitsofthepodcast:how

couldanyonepossiblysoundthinwithintheboundariesofanauralmedium?Iwouldbe

writing about a form that conceals her corporeal presence and privileges her verbal

dexterity,soitfeltutterlyappropriatethatherfunnyremarkshouldseemtoplayonthat

dynamic.Italsoprovideduswithagoodnoteonwhichtodepart;thethreeofusshared

somelaughter,andthenweposedforaquickphotographandsaidourgood-byes.Later

that evening, Stephaine showedme thephotographonher smart-phone.Much tomy

surprise,IsawthatKlausnerhadbeenposingnexttomewithhertonguelashingoutat

myface.AndIcanbeseensmilingblithelyforthecamera,completelyoblivioustoher

prank.

165

Conclusion:YouCan’tCatchIt

“TogototheChamps-Élyséeswasunbearabletome.IfonlyBerogttehaddescribeditinoneofhisbooks,Iprobablywouldhavewantedtogettoknowit,likeallthethingswhose‘double’someonehadbegunbyputtingintomyimagination.Itwarmedthem,madethemlive,gavethemapersonality,andIwantedtofindthemagaininreality;butinthispublicgardennothingwasattachedtomydreams”.MarcelProust,InSearchofLostTime,Volume1:TheWaybySwann’s

BeforeIbeganmyresearchintocamp,Ialreadyharbouredreservationsabouttheextent

towhich the term could ever be entirely illuminated. As far as critical literaturewas

concerned,IwasfamiliaronlywiththebrilliantworkofSusanSontag. If,bychance,a

professorhappenedtomentioncampina lectureIattended,heressaywas inevitably

citedastherelevantauthority.“NotesonCamp”placesitssubjectrightonthresholdof

whatcanbenamedorunderstood.Itssenseofenigmaisconjuredbothincontentand

form.Fromthestart,Sontagwasshrewdtounderscoretheontologicalincertitudeofher

topic,statingthat,“tastehasnosystemandnoproofs.Butthereissomethinglikealogic

of taste: the consistent sensibilitywhichunderlies and gives rise to a certain taste.A

sensibilityisalmost,butnotquite,ineffable.”377Thissentimentisalsoexpressedinthe

idiosyncraticstructureoftheessay,whichrefusedtoharnesstheauthor’sperceptionsof

campintocategoriesthatcouldberigidlydefinedorneatlyarranged.

Theperceptionsthemselvessuggestedsomeotherreasonsthatcampshouldgiveoffan

auraofdissimulation.Sontagidentifiedanassociationbetweencampandhomosexuality

atatimewhenthelatterwasroundlyconsideredascandaltopublicmorality;thiswas

shortlybeforethebourgeoningofa‘gayliberation’movement.Shealsopositionedcamp

as an esoteric response to mass culture; a “special taste” that goes against grain of

traditionalaestheticjudgment(i.e.“it’sgoodbecauseit’sawful”).

This iconicessay -my formal introduction tocamp - framed itassomething thatwas

oblique and iconoclastic. I soon discovered more recent scholarship that puts less

emphasisonthesesubterraneanelements.Theconvictionthatcamphasbeendivested

ofitssecrecyissometimescarriedasanexpresslystatedargument.Therearecriticswho

377Sontag,p.276.

166

no longer seecampasaneccentric interpretationofmassculture; it isnowakindof

product that mass culture has co-opted and merchandised for bourgeois and

heterosexualaudiences.378Thatpositionisalsoimplicitinthesourceselectionsofseveral

studies that recognise an invocation of camp in the offerings of pop singers, reality

televisionshowsandnetworksitcoms.379

The sampling of texts and performances that I have concentrated upon cannot be

comfortablyassimilatedintothisdiffusedandcommercialisedvisionofcamp.Thisisnot

toimplythattheyaremaroonedinsomeunheard-ofcorneroftheworld,orthattheyare

aloof to demands of the globalmarketplace and the connections fostered bymodern

technology.Theystill,however,takesatisfactionintheirownarcanequalities.Notonly

aretheyrecusanttocanonsofpopulartaste,buttheyarealsodisposedtoconfrontmoral

andepistemologicaluncertaintiesaboutthelegacyofcampitself.Theyconceiveofcamp

asaworkinprogress,ratherthanastandardizedmould.

Weshouldnotbeoblivioustothedepredationsoftimeandtheculturalgentrificationof

marginalideasandsensibilities.Butitwouldbesimplistictothinkthatcampisredundant

becausehistoricalcircumstanceshavechangedsincethetimeofSontag’sessay(andthey

have).Itwouldalsobereductivetoinsinuatethatitonlyshowsitsfaceundertheauspices

ofmassentertainment.Whetherinneworoldformsofmedia,onecanstilltrackdown

performancesofcampthatareimbuedwithelusivenessandirreverence.Theforcesthat

threaten their survival – moral scruples about their air of mockery, the erasures of

selectivememory,theascendencyandappropriationsofpopularculture–areoftenfed

uponasrawmaterialforthenarrativestheydisclose.

Mydesiretofocusattentionupontheseshadowyrecessesshouldnotbemisconstruedas

nostalgiaforwhathasalreadypassed.Thishasbeenanhonestreflectiononsomeofmy

apprehensionsofcampinrecentyears.Icannotpretendtohavedeflectedallknowledge

ofthecampthatisexposedbyoutletsofthemainstreammedia,yettherehavealsobeen

morefurtiveglancesatsomethingfarlessconspicuous.

ItseemsgermanethatthesourcesIhavecollectedhaveallbeenpluckedfromacountry

thatisnotmyown;thatmyaccesstothemisaproductoftheworldwideeconomy.This

378SeeHollidayandPotts,pp.137-141.379SeeSchuyler,andShugartandWaggoner.

167

mighttestifytothegreatexpanseofcamp’shorizonsandtheprerogativeitassumesto

moveacrossinternationalborders.Ontheotherhand,Isuspectthatitalsoderivesfrom

avaguesenseofminethatcampalwaysseemstobelongsomewhereelse.Itcanhardly

besaidthatIhaveneverfeltitspresenceinthecountriesIhavelived;certainly,itmakes

anappearanceinAustralia,Canada,andBelgiumtoo.Itwould,however,beludicrousto

arguethatitpredominatesinthelocalculturesIhaveoccupied.

Everysooften,Iwonderifthisisthecaseforotherpeople.Justrecently,Ihappenedto

comeacrossa radio interviewwith theactressGabyHoffmann.As I tuned in, Iheard

Hoffmanndescribingherunconventionalupbringing. She is thedaughterof aWarhol

SuperstarandspentmuchofherchildhoodintheChelseaHotel.“Igrewupwithartists

anddragqueensand transvestites…as theywerecalled then,” she reminisced, “these

werejustmyneighborsandfriendsandthepeoplewhowereraisingme.”380Whatlent

thestoryitscharmwasthenarrator’searnestdeclarationthatthisallfeltnormalatthe

time.

This is not to idealize any particular territory of the globe as the space in which an

essential version of camp is embodied. But it is reasonable to imagine that camp’s

marginalityhassomegeographicalcontingencies.Inmyexperience,atanyrate,thereare

someplacesthatarefarmoreprovincialandadversetocampthanothers.

Thereisasenseinwhichmanyofmyinitialencounterswithcampartefactshavecome

aboutthroughserendipity,especiallytheonesIhave labouredover inthisthesis.The

familiarity I have cultivated with the material is greatly indebted to one particular

friendship,whichitselforiginatedwithakindofspontaneousspark.Itbeganinearnest

whenIdiscoveredAfterClaude,a littleknownbutfascinatingnovelbyIrisOwens.381I

wasimmediatelystruckbytheferocityofthebook;ithardlycontainsasinglesentence

thatisn’thilarious,offensive,orseriouslydepraved.Eagertodiscussitwithsomeone,I

boughtanothercopyandgiftedittomyfriendJames.Itwasaslightlyimpulsivemove,

sinceuntilthen,JamesandIwereonlycursorilyacquainted,butIknewhimwellenough

380There isarecordof the interviewavailableonline:FreshAir,“‘INeverSetOutToBeAnActor,’says‘Transparent’ Star Gaby Hoffmann.” NPR (October 10, 2016)http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=496958090(accessed28/10/16).381IrisOwens,AfterClaude(NewYork:NewYorkReviewofBooks,2010).

168

tointuitthathemightenjoytheperversehumourofthebook.Jamesnotonlyresponded

to thenovel, butpromptly reciprocatedwithpilesof readingmaterial forme to feast

upon. That exchange gradually evolved into a constant ritual.We’d lend books, films,

televisionshowsandpodcaststoeachotheranddiscussthembreathlessly.Webecame

enthralledbyfigureslikeFranLebowitz,GaryIndiana,JulieKlausner,JustinSayre,Dina

Martina,ReneRicard,andJustinVivianBond.

Theconnoisseurshipthatwesharedfeltdecisivelyoutofplace;therewasnotmuchin

ourimmediateenvironmentthatwouldencourageourratherpeculiarsetof interests.

Ourperceptionofthisincongruitybecameintegraltothewayinwhichweapproached

andperformedcamp.Forexample,Jameswouldoftenmentionthathewasdeveloping

elaborateplanstostageanavant-gardeperformanceofdrag.Iwasneverquitesurehow

seriously he was pursuing this endeavour, but whenever he mentioned it, he would

alwayssaythattheshowwasgoingtoopen“Off-Broadway,Nedlands”,asemi-suburban

streetinourcitythatbearsnoresemblancetothehistorictheatredistrictinManhattan.

These autobiographical reflections ofmine are not unprecedented. Some of themost

classic works of camp criticism draw upon first person accounts of their authors, to

varyingdegreesandeffects.Sontagappearstoteaseuswithpartialdisclosuresofself;

she iscandidaboutherownreactionstocampbutsilentontheprecisenatureofher

accesstoit.382Newtonpositionsherownemotionalandaestheticsensitivityasakindof

backdropagainstwhichcampcanbemeasured,aswhenshedescribeshowastonished

she is to discover that drag queens would laugh at all themost grotesque scenes in

WhateverHappened to Baby Jane? (1962).383AndDyer goes even further by pointing

towards his very own speech patterns as evidence of the camp culture hemeans to

critique.384

382TheambivalentpositionthatSontagholdstowardsautobiographyin“NotesonCamp”isdiscussedatlengthbyMarcieFrankin“TheCriticasPerformanceArtist:SusanSontag’sWritingandGayCultures.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality,ed.DavidBergman(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993) pp. 173-184. Frank is of the persuasion that Sontag should have included even moreautobiographicalmaterial in theessay, and she citesOscarWilde’s “TheCritic asArtist” tobolsterherargument.383Newton,p.106.384Dyer,TheCultureofQueers,p.50.

169

Whatcompelsuswriterstocomposetheseself-portraits?Maybeitistheelusivenessand

eclecticism of camp that triggers the self-reflexive impulse. If a subject matter is ill

defined, one tends to reflect on the vantage point fromwhich it is regarded. So, the

questionbecomesnot justaboutwhatcamptellsus,butwhatwetellourselvesabout

camp. Or another theory: if one of the ways that camp applies itself is as a reading

position,thecriticwhowritesaboutit–andnoticescampqualitiesinthings–isoften,at

leasttosomeextent,implicatedasitspractitioner.Hence,hisorherdesiretolookinward.

Ofcourse,theautobiographicallensisnolesstenebrousthananyother.Itdoesnotrecord

orclassifythecircumstancesofcamp’sreceptioninempiricalterms;itisconditionedby

the questionable selections of memory and craft. It is a performative gesture, and

therefore very compatiblewith camp. I castmyself as the character that stumbles on

campasanesotericpleasure.Thisisthestory,whethertrueorimagined,thatItellmyself.

Imightlamenttheperipheralpresenceofcampinmysurroundings,butImustalsoadmit

thatsuchmarginalityintensifiesthegratificationofmyexperience.Itisseductivetothink

ofyourselfasanexceptionalcase,tocountyourselfamongthosewhoareprivytosome

formofinsiderknowledge.

Campwilloftenfomentthesedesiresbyrelishingitsownminoritystatus.Inthecourse

ofthisthesis,Ihavecomeuponvariouswaysinwhichcampplacesitselfataremovefrom

moral, aesthetic and industrial norms. The foreignness that I associate with these

performancesofcamplendsanotherdimensiontotheirotherness.Theycometomeas

imported goods, and their mediated interfaces are portals into another world. The

positionfromwhichIinterpretcampisthereforemarkedbyasenseoftheexotic.

Camp sometimes affirms this impression by honing an image of worldliness that

consolidates and celebrates its outsider status. I noticed the use of this tacticwhen I

attendedacabaretproductionnamedIHeartChocolatbythedragperformerLeGateau

Chocolat.TheperformancewasstagedundertheaegisofthePerthFringeWorldFestival,

aneventthatperfectlybefitsthekindofactivityIamdescribing.Asitstitlesuggests,the

festival conceives to showcase itemsof entertainment that falloutside themarginsof

dominant culture. Although it includes domestic talent,muchof the programme feels

reminiscentofthevisitingcircus,featuringcuriositiescollectedfromallovertheworld.

170

Thefestivalwouldbepointlessifthepleasuresitpromiseswerealreadyfixturesinthe

local landscape. Fringe World exercises its fascination as a temporary experience of

strangeness.Inthisrespect,itissomewhatevocativeofMikhailBakhtin’stheoryofthe

‘carnivalesque’:apassingritual that licenseseccentricity,unleashingwhat isnormally

forbiddenorrepressed.385Earlyinthecabaret,thereisamomentwhenChocolatpauses

topoke funathisaudience: “This is justwhatyoudo inPerthonaWednesdaynight,

right?Yougoseeablack,Rubensquemaninadress!”Thecrowdroarswithlaughterat

theline,recognisingitsstingingirony.ItisunlikelythatChocolatwouldmakethesame

jokeinParisorBerlinorSanFrancisco.

His performance, and the entire apparatus of the festival that hosts it, are poised to

deliverthefrissonofamomentarytransgression.Thevenue,forexample,isnotoneof

Perth’s established arenas or nightclubs. It is instead the world-famous Spiegeltent,

proppedupintheCentralBusinessDistrictonlyforthedurationofthefestival.Before

theshowhasevenstarted,itsaudiencemembersareadmittedintoatransientandmobile

space.

Itshouldnotbesurprisingforacampperformancetoemergefromthiscarnivalesque

context. Cleto, for one, has already pointed out parallels between the two categories,

whichinclude“hierarchyinversion”,“mockingparodoxicality”,and“sexualpunningand

innuendo”.386Moreover,hearguesthatbothtermsrequireandreinforcetheexistenceof

“normality”sothattheycancauseitsdisruption.387Inthiscase,thecabaretispredicated

ontheideathatitsaudiencedoesnotcomeintoface-to-facecontactwithcamptheatrics

onaregularbasis.Itneedsthispresumptionofnormalitytoadministeritsshocktothe

statusquo.Andforme,thegamblepaysoff.EventhoughIhavespentyearsconducting

researchoncamp,IstillfeelabitofajoltwhenIfindmyselfinthedirectlineoffireofa

raucousdragqueen.

385ForBakhtin,carnivallifewasahistoricallyspecificphenomenonthatreacheditspinnacleduringtheRenaissance.Hedoes,however,detectsomecontinuationofitstraditioninmodernpracticessuchasthecircusandthetheatre.SeeProblemsofDostoevsky’sPoetics(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1984)pp.130-131.386Cleto,p.32.387Ibid.

171

Cabaret is not an easy form to define, partly because its template accommodates a

generousrangeofartisticexpressionsandexperiments;Chocolat’sowniterationmoves

lithelybetweensong,dance,monologueandimprovisedrepartee.388Ifcriticsarehesitant

tocircumscribethecontentofcabaret,theyaremoreconfidentindescribingitsspatial

relations.This isamediumthatthrives insmall-scalevenues,whoseintimatesettings

instil a heightened sense of proximity between performers and their audiences.389

Chocolateagerlyminesthisopportunity forphysicalcontactandcontiguity.Theshow

beginswithhimcreepingupbehindhisaudience;heisalreadysinging,slowlyambling

his way up the aisle, brushing past us in an extravagantly ruffled black dress. The

immediacyofhispresenceispivotaltothewholeatmosphereoftheroom,whichisone

ofjitteryandrestlessexcitement.Thereisanongoingprospectofdirectconfrontation

withtheperformer,whichisbothtantalisingandscary.Inbetweensongs,Chocolatdives

intotheaudienceandchoosessomeoneatrandom,whoisofferedatasteofchocolatebut

alsobecomesthesubjectofhisraillery.390

These interludes appear to delight most of the crowd, but they also occasion some

momentsofdiscomfort.ThereisonemanwhovisiblyrecoilswhenChocolattoucheshim.

“Don’tworry!”Chocolatlaughs,“Youcan’tcatchit.That’snothowhomosexualityworks.”

Notechnologycanproducethissortofexchange.Itsturbulentenergyiswhollyreliant

upon thematerial presence of the performer. The otherness of camp (as situated by

sexualnorms)isincarnatedinthetactileandephemeralpresentationofthebody.This

schemealsohasaprofoundresonanceinaprovincialsettinglikePerth.Bearinmind,this

isacitywhosegayclubsceneconsistssolelyoftwovenues.Outsideofthem, it isstill

ratherraretoseesame-sexcoupleskissingorholdinghandsinpublic(butthereisno

shortageof closetedandmarriedmenonphoneapplications for same-sexhook-ups).

ThismakesforanenvironmentinwhichChocolat’semphasisonphysicalityisespecially

piquant.

388 See Lisa Appignanesi, The Cabaret (London: Studio Vista, 1975) p. 12. See also Merve Carlson,Performance:ACriticalIntroduction(NewYork:Routledge,2004)p.94.389SeeAppignanesi,p.12.SeealsoShaneVogel,“WhereareWeNow?QueerWorldMakingandCabaretPerformance.”GlQ:AJournalofLesbianandGayStudies6No.1(2000)p.35.390Theteasingaffectionofcampisepitomizedbythissequence,withitsofferofatreataccompaniedbyanactoftaunting.

172

Themomentalsoreflectsaclassiccamptrope:thehomosexualwhochannelshiswitto

explainanddefendthefactofhisexistence.Dyerwroteaboutthistraditionbackin1977

and surmised that itwas particularly useful for gaymen “in the past”.391 But several

decades later, the practice has yet to fall into desuetude. If Chocolat’s cabaret is any

indication, it continues to serve as a valuable resource. At the very least, it remains

relevantinplaceslikePerth,whosepopulationstilldesperatelyrequireseducationabout

homosexuality.392

Whenan internationalperformerstepsup to the task,campbecomesakindofcross-

culturaloutreach.Chocolattapsintothisideawhenhebeginstosharefunnystoriesabout

hislifeasaglobetrottingartist.Hedescribes,forinstance,theordealofgoingthrough

customs at the airport and having to explain all thewomen’s clothes stuffed into his

suitcase.Suchanecdotespositioncampasanobjectofwonderthattravelsfromoneplace

toanother.Chocolatpaintshimselfasabriefandbewilderingapparition:thestranger

who floats into town to upend order and instigate mischief. He holds onto his

otherworldlinessasasourceofexcitement.This isprobablywhatkeepshimatasafe

distance from the false notes that spring up so often in the stage banter of visiting

entertainers,whosejokesaboutlocalnewsitemstendtoregisterasterriblystrained.He

doesnottrytoingratiatehimselftotheaudiencebyplayingdownhisculturaldifferences.

Heflauntsthosedistinctionssothatwemightappreciatethemwithasenseofawe.

Chocolatarticulateshissenseofdislocationthroughabolddisplayofotherness.Infact,

he assumes this flamboyant posture to address a variety of factors that play into his

marginality and eccentricity - not just his status as a foreigner, but also his race, his

sexuality,hissize,hisclassandeducation.Heattendstoallthesevectorsofidentitywith

a spirit of shameless theatricality. Immediately after changing into one of his most

outrageousoutfits,Chocolatannounces,“Ihavealawdegree!Youcanlearnanytrade:

391DyermakesspecificreferencetoQuentinCrispandtheskillwithwhichheran“ringsoflogicandwitaroundthepedestrianideasofpsychiatrists,magistratesandtherest”.SeeTheCultureofQueers,p.49.392Suchdeficienciesbecomeobviouswhenobservingthediscourseofourpoliticians.In2010,mylocalmemberofParliament(DonRandall)ridiculedthenationalpublicbroadcaster(ABC)bycallingitthe“Gay-B-C”.Heneverapologized for thestatement–offensivenot just for itshomophobiabut for itspatheticattemptatwit.SeeAndieNoonan,“LiberalMPRefusestoClarifyGaySlur.”StarObserver(October2010).http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/liberal-mp-refuses-to-clarify-gay-slur/32251(accessed2/1/16).

173

technician;electrician;architect;doctor;lawyer…butthereisalwaysadistinctpossibility

thatyoucouldendupinaforeigncountryonastagewearingDalmatianprintlycra”.

ItisworthnotingChocolat’senthusiasmforlycra,afabricheturnstorepeatedlyduring

hisseveralcostumechanges.Idonotthinkitisdiscourteoustomentionthatthematerial

tends to accentuate the performer’s voluptuous figure. It is quite clear that this is its

intendedeffect.Atonepoint,Chocolathimselfreferstoaconstantbattletosqueezehis

“amplitude” intotheextremelytight fitof the lycra.Hedropsthisremarkwithout the

slightest hint of embarrassment. It only draws out thewicked smile that is sprawled

acrosshisface.

HeisnolessvivaciousduringhisrenditionoftheSouthPark(1997-)song,“Chocolate

SaltyBalls”.For thisrisquénumber, thesinger targetsaconservativelydressedwhite

womaninthefrontrowandimploresherto,“stickmyballsinyourmouth/Oooh,suck

onmychocolate,saltedballs/Stick‘eminyourmouth,andsuck‘em.”Shedoesnottake

himupontheoffer.Nevertheless,theribaldryevokedbytherequestisfreightedwith

someprovocativeideasaboutraceandsexuality.

Historically speaking, the image of black male sexuality has often been a subject of

nervousregard.AsDyerhaspointedout,whitenarrativesarepronetoarticulateanxiety

intheirrepresentationsofthesensualityoftheblackbody.393Thiscanbedemonstrated

bywhatDyercallsthe“rapemotif”,whereintheblackmaleisrepeatedlyconstruedasa

sexual threat to the white female. Such tropes are constituent elements of prevalent

stereotypes that position black men as “brutes” or “beasts”. 394 Given its lascivious

content,itwouldbesimpletoarguethat“SaltyBalls”hastheeffectofreinforcingsuch

myths.However,thisinterpretationwouldignorethefinerpointsoftheperformanceand

the spirit in which it is delivered. At this stage, Chocolat has already professed his

homosexuality,afactthatlendsakindoffrivolousabsurditytohisinteractionwiththe

393SeeDyer,HeavenlyBodies,p.135.394Ibid,p.95.ToniMorrisonhasmadesimilarobservationsregardingthefetishizationofblackbodiesinAmerican fiction. This strategy, she states, is “especially useful in evoking erotic fears or desires andestablishingfixedandmajordifferencewheredifferencedoesnotexistorisminimal.Blood,forexample,isapervasivefetish:blackblood,whiteblood,thepurityofblood,thepurityofwhitefemalesexuality,thepollutionofAfricanbloodandsex.Fetishizationisastrategyoftenusedtoassertthecategoricalabsolutismofcivilizationandsavagery”.SeePlayingintheDark:WhitenessandtheLiteraryImagination(NewYork:Vintage,1992)p.68.

174

confronted woman in the audience. That absurdity is also borne out in Chocolat’s

hyperbolicsexualposturingandtheludicrousnatureofthesong’slyrics.Thereislittle

doubt that Chocolat’s performance registers the sexual potency that is frequently

attributedtotheblackmalebody.Buttomymind,hisfarcicaltreatmentofthatcliché

seemstounderscoreitsconstructednessandartificiality.395

Inshort,Chocolatusesflagrantstylisticstocallattentiontohisotherness,buthealsouses

themtodiscreditthenarrativesthatimposesuchbarriers.Hechallengestheassumptions

andapprehensionsthatkeepusestrangedfromoneanother.Hisworkinsiststhatthere

isnoreasontofearthesexualityofblackmen.Thereisnoreasontoflinchatdisplaysof

homosexuality. There is no reason to inflict shameupon each other in honour of our

prescribedidealsofbeauty.Thereisnoreasonthatadragqueenshouldnothavealaw

degree.Chocolat’sendorsementofthesemessagesmakeshimanadmirableproponent

ofculturaldiversityandinclusion.Heentreatsustomarvelatourdifferencesinsteadof

maligningthem.

His invitation is particularly compelling because of the framework in which it is

presented,forthisisaperformancewhoseformaldesignsanddeterminantsareheavily

stakedontheappealofheterogeneity.Fromtheoutset,FringeWorldshowcasesIHeart

Chocolat as but one of the items within its vast and varied assortment of

entertainments.396And,aspreviouslynoted,thecabaretitselfdrawstogetheracongeries

ofartisticenterprises.ThereisalsoChocolat’swildlyeclecticrepertoireofsongs,which

includes material from several different genres, eras and countries of origin.397 His

surprisingandellipticaltreatmentofthemusicfurtherbetrayshisirrepressibledesire

fordiversity.Justasheishittinghisstridewithonenumber,hewillabruptlytransition

395Tobe sure, therehavebeenotherperformerswhohaveused theirdragpersonae as aplatform tointerrogatereceivedideasaboutrace.JoséEstebanMuñoz,forinstance,considerstheoeuvreofthepunkdragsuperstarVaginalCrèmeDavisinthislight.MuñozdescribesDavis’dragasakindof“cross-sex,cross-raceminstrelsy”. Herwork includes impersonations of “white supremacistmilitiamen”, “blackwelfarequeenhookers”andnotorious,whitehomosexualserialkillerssuchasJeffreyDahmerandJohnWayneGacy. He reads this masquerade as a form of intersectional cultural critique; a “terrorist send-up ofmasculinityandwhitesupremacy”.See“‘TheWhitetobeAngry’:VaginalDavis’sTerroristDrag.”SocialTextNo.52/53(Autumn-Winter,1997)pp.87,91,and92.396Henri Schoenmakers characterizes festivals as “meta-events” because of their amalgamation ofindividual performances. See “Festivals, Theatrical Events and Communicative Interactions.” inFestivalising!TheatricalEvents,PoliticsandCulture,ed.TempleAhuptfleisch,ShulamithLev-AladgemandJacquelineMartin(Amsterdam:BrillAcademicPublishers,2007)p.28.397ChocolatpayshomagetomusiciansasvariedasAmyWinehouse,NickCaveandJudyGarland,tonameonlyafew.

175

intoanother.Acoverof“Summertime”brisklyelidesinto“IsThatAllThereIs?”,asong

titlethatcouldnotbebettersuitedtoitscontext.Itisasthoughtheperformersimply

cannotwaitforsomethingnewtohappen.

Hisappetiteforvarietyiswhatsendshimracingthroughallthosespectacularcostume

changes.Thesetransformationscometoformanintegralpartofthecabaret’sdramatic

action.Atvarious intervals,Chocolat rummages throughaclothesrack thatstandson

stage,takingsuggestionsfromtheaudienceforhisnextbiglook.Hereinliesoneofcamp’s

perennial fascinations: the pleasure of visual transformation. Booth describes this

preoccupationasachild-likeinterestinfantasy:

…Dressingupincompanyinvitesotherstoenterintoagameofmake-believeandpretencewhichoffersthechanceofbeingmorevividlyalive…Ourclotheshaveagreatersayinourpersonalitiesthanwedo:putonbootsthatmakeaniceloudclunkandwebecomeboldandswaggering:cramourpillowlyfleshintoatightcuirassofleatherandwebecomeleanandpredatory.Putonsandalsandweareinstantlycastrated.Putonfancydressandwecanactourwildestfantasies.398

Notice the senseofplurality conveyedbyhis statement: the infinitenumberofposes

madeavailablethroughasimplechangeofclothes.Chocolatoffersalavishdemonstration

ofsuchpossibilities-austereblackforhismostheartrendingdirge,purplespandexfor

thejauntiestdanceroutine,andsoforth.

Themutablecharacterofhisphysiognomyisnevermoreapparent than inhischosen

approachtodrag.LikeJackieCurtisbeforehim,Chocolatmakesnopretenceof‘passing’

asawoman.Despitehisdazzlingarrayofdressesandwigs,heneverbotherstoconceal

hislustrousbeard.Heoftenappearsonstagecompletelybald.Thesechoicespresenta

proteanandpromiscuoussetofimages.Manyofourvisualstylesaredesignatedtothe

exclusiverealmsof‘masculinity’or‘femininity’.Chocolatsimplyrefusesfidelitytoeither

category.Hiswhimsaretooplentifultobecontainedbysuchstrictures.399

398Booth,pp.79-80.399Chocolat’sdepolarizationofgendersistypicalofthejuxtapositionsthatariseincarnivalesquesettings.AsBakhtinexplains,“Allthingsthatwereonceself-enclosed,disunified,distancedfromoneanotherbyanon-carnivalistichierarchicalworld-viewaredrawntogetherintocarnivalisticcontactsandcombinations.Carnivalbringstogether,unifies,wedsandcombinesthesacredwiththeprofane,theloftywiththelow,thegreatwiththeinsignificant,thewisewiththestupid.”Seep.125.

176

IHeartChocolatconsistentlypresents itselfasanantidotetoconditionsofconformity

andstagnation.Itsmanydevices,drawnfromcampandothercomplementaryforms,are

coordinatedtopromotethevirtueofcuriosity.Theyendeavourtoexploretheunfamiliar,

toresistagainstprejudice,torupturethemonotonyofparochialmentalities.Duringthe

cabaret,theseaspirationsmanifestindimensionsthatarebothaestheticandpolitical.

Consideringmywarm appraisal of Chocolat’s work, it is important to recognise that

criticshavenotalwaysbeenpersuaded topraiseperformersofdragas championsof

cultural reform. Some even argue that drag can align itself with hegemonic power

structuresandtheirallocationsofprivilege.AccordingtoCarol-AnneTyler,themimicry

ofdragoftenreinforceswhiteandbourgeoispresumptionsofneutrality.Sheinsists,for

example,that“itisonlyfromamiddle-classpointofviewthatDollyPartonlookslikea

female impersonator; from a Southern working-class point of view she could be the

epitomeofgenuinewomanliness.SomethingsimilarcanbesaidofDivine inPolyester

(1981), whose polyester marks his impersonation as such for those who find it in

unnaturally bad taste, since Divine never gives any (other) indication he is ‘really’ a

man”.400 JoshMorrisonhasmade similar judgments againstRuPaul’s television series

DragRaceandDragU.401Heassertsthatbothprogramsexploitcamphumourtobolster

“normativeregimesofpower”.402Theirparodiessuggestpatronizingattitudestowards

women, people of colour, immigrants, trans people, and other minority groups. For

Morrison,theproblemisnotjustwithsomeofthemaliciousundercurrentsofcamp.He

also considers the reactionary positions of these programs to be symptomatic of

consumercapitalism’sappropriationofdrag.

Thesecritiquesareusefulinsofarastheycautionusagainstaglorificationofcamp.They

shouldremindusthatthemereactofcross-dressingisnot irrecusableevidenceof its

practitioner’s moral integrity. It is far more instructive to contemplate the specific

circumstances and nuances of the performance at hand. But upon close inspection, it

becomes evident that Tyler and Morrison’s complaints are not so easily directed at

400Tyler,p.384.401JoshMorrison,“‘Dragulating’toNormal:CampandHomonormativePolitics.”inTheMakeupofRuPaul’sDragRace:EssaysontheQueenofRealityShows,ed.JimDaems(Jefferson:McFarland&Co,2014)pp.124-147.402Ibid,p.125.

177

Chocolat. Tyler’s points might have some application where the drag performer in

question is a white gaymale whose gender performance involves impersonations of

identitiesfromothermarginalcultures.Butwehaveseenthatthisisnottheoperative

modethatisassumedbyChocolat.Infact,IhavearguedthataspectsofChocolat’scabaret

functiontocritique(ratherthanconfirm)dominant(mis)understandingsofblackmen.

AsfarasMorrisonisconcerned,itshouldbeacknowledgedthatIHeartChocolatisnot

impervioustotheexigenciesofcapitalism(ticketsarepricedat$30).However,itssmall-

scaleenterpriseishardlycomparabletothatofRuPaul’stelevisionempire.Andthough

Chocolat’s humour might be sardonic, it shows no signs of condescension towards

marginalcultures.Whileherecognisestheexistenceofhisownmarginalityonseveral

different fronts, his representation of that identity never falls into any kind of

grotesquery.

Chocolatreserveshismostdevastatinginsultsforthosewhohavebeenaccordedwith

privilege and prestige. These are often propounded as satirical responses to the

pretensions of mass commercial culture, which is the very culture that Morrison is

repining over. For example, Chocolat’s parody of the film-musical version of Les

Misérables (2012) contains some of his most memorable put-downs. He offers an

impeccable impression of Anne Hathaway’s cloyingly sentimental performance as

“Fantine”, forwhichshewonanAcademyAward.Whenhe imitatesRussellCrowe,he

deliberately begins to sing out of key. He continues to lampoon the cast members’

deploymentofAmericanandcockneyaccents,neitherofwhichareappropriatetothe

Frenchlocaleofthefilm’snarrative.Thatincongruityisoneofthemorejarringeffectsof

thedecisiontoremodelLesMisérables(originallyaFrenchnovel)foranEnglish-speaking

audience.Thefilm’sefforttocircumventthefactofculturaldifferenceonlymakesitseem

moredisjointedandconfused.ItisperfectlyaptthatChocolatshouldbetheonetopoint

thisout;hiscabaretgainsitsimpetusbyrejoicingindiversityinsteadofattemptingto

diluteit.

Chocolatisverymuchawareofhisownmischievousdisposition.Quiteafewtimes,he

referstohimselfasa“completeandutterasshole”.Itisfittingthatheshouldclaimthis

titlewithsuchobviouspride.Allhissharpestreproachesarestatedwithasteadyand

178

firm conviction. He does not seem to be afflicted with the moral anxieties we have

observedintheothercampperformancesofthisthesis.IHeartChocolathasnoneofthe

nervous equivocations of Julie Klausner; the plaintive apologies of John Waters; the

wrenchingself-examinationofTheComeback.Thisabsencedoesnotariseoutofcareless

disregard.On the contrary, it speaks to the scrupulousattentionwithwhichChocolat

availshimselfofthecausticelementsofcamphumour.First,hemodulateshissentiments

ofantipathysothat theydonotcrossover intosheercruelty.403More importantly,he

carefully chooses his targets so that he does not profit from the misfortunes of the

powerless.

Conclusion

Thenight’srevelryculminatesinaspiriteddancetoMadonna’s1990hitsingle,“Vogue”.

Thisstrikesmeasthecabaret’smostpredictablemanoeuvre,forthesongisstandardfare

fordragperformersfarandwide.Butitistheveryfamiliarityofthepiecethatinterests

me,forIbelievethatitposescomplexquestionsaboutthelegacyofcamp.

“Vogue”takesitsnamefromthedancestylethatwaspioneeredbyAfricanAmericans

and Latinos in the underground gay scene of Harlem in the 1980s. The dance itself

borrowsfromseveraldifferentcultures.AsdescribedbyMarcosBecquerandJoséGatti,

it“bringstogetherposesfromthemagazineofthesamename,breakdancingmoves,and

gesturesrepresentedinEgyptianhieroglyphics.”404Bytheiraccount,eachoneofthese

elements isweightedwith specific cultural implications.The fashion iconography is a

medium through which ‘voguers’ traverse between essentialist and performative

representationsofgender.405Thehieroglyphicscanbeinterpretedas“anassertionofthe

heritageclaimedbyAfricanisminthediaspora”.406Thebreakdancingremodelstraditions

ofhip-hopcultureintodeclarationsofblackandhispanicgaypride.407

403Thisisonlymysubjectiveassessment;CroweandHathawaymightdisagree.404MarcosBecquerandJoséGatti,“ElementsofVogue.”inTheSubculturesReader,ed.KennethElderandSarahThornton(London:Routledge,1997)p.445.405Ibid,p.449.406Ibid,p.448.407Ibid,p.449.

179

Madonna’spopularsongeffacesthesepoliticalundertones.Herrepresentationsmerely

imply that the dance is designed for the general enjoyment of the undifferentiated

masses. As Becquer and Gatti suggest, “it becomes a (star) vehicle of escape to the

polymorphousperversityofanidealized,universallyavailabledancefloorwhere,asthe

lyricsgo,‘itmakesnodifferenceifyou’reblackorwhite,ifyou’reaboyoragirl’”.408

ItwouldbereasonabletoarguethatChocolatiscomplicitinthisbroadreformulation.

Whenheplays“Vogue”,itisaninvocationforthewholeaudiencetorisefromtheirseats

anddancehowevertheyplease-someofthemevenventuretojoinChocolatonstage.It

follows that he does not preserve or recuperate the intricate details of the original

‘vogueing’phenomenon.PerhapsitissomewhatcontradictorythatChocolatshouldpay

littleheedtosuchmatters,consideringhiscelebrationofculturaldiversitydoesappear

toinvestinsomenotionofauthenticity(asinhiscritiqueofLesMisérables).

Butitisalsopossibletointerprethisrecyclingof“Vogue”asakindofreclamation,albeit

anindirectone.Hecannotconstructatime-warpthatwouldrecreatetheunderground

gay culture of the 1980s in all its multitudes and specificities. He is, however,

transplanting a mass-mediated product into the domain of live and small-scale

entertainment.Thisconceitdoesnotseemthatfarremovedfromthesomeofthetactics

of‘vogueing’,whichalludedtoimagesofmasscultureintheformationofitsdanceposes.

Followingthesedevelopments,wecanbegintodiscernacircularpattern,wherebyone

entity that appropriates from another is eventually appropriated itself, and so on. In

dealing with such implicated structures, it is challenging to keep track of camp’s

configurationsandpathways,letalonepredicthowitwillorwillnotassertitselfinthe

future.

Consider, as well, the vast stretch of time and space through which ‘vogueing’ has

travelledandtransformed.ItwasinitiatedbyamarginalizedsubcultureinManhattan,

then co-optedbyamainstreamartist of international fame,whose song isnowbeing

reproducedalmost thirtyyears laterbyaBritish-Nigeriandragperformer inWestern

408Ibid,p.452.

180

Australia. This remarkable itinerary testifies, among other things, to the startling

complexityofcamp’spermutationsandperambulationsinourglobalisedworld.

Camp has a way of moving in unruly and unexpected directions. I have argued that

sometimesthescarcityofitspresenceis,paradoxically,whatallowsittakeonfreshvigor

andrenewedurgency.ThisishowthephysicalspectacleofChocolat’scabaretwieldsits

powerinalocationlikePerth,whereonecanonlycatchsightofcampinfleetingglimpses

orthroughmediatedtechnology. Ifcampintendstoretainitsqualitiesofmysteryand

marginality,itmustpresentitselfwhereitisnotentirelyacceptedoranticipated,which

posesfurtherdifficultiesforanycriticwhomeanstoofferahypothesisaboutitsfuture

incarnations.

Thereareotherpowerfulfactorsthatcontributetotheuncertaintyofcamp’spathahead.

Ihavebeenatpainstostressthatcampisnotaready-madeorself-containedentity:it

passesthroughvariousforms;reactsagainstandisinformedbythecircumstancesofits

time; survives through the persistence of its practitioners and enthusiasts.409 Each of

thesecoordinatesshouldbeapproachedwithdueconsiderationandcaution.Onlyinthe

recentpast,forinstance,wehavewitnessedprofounddevelopmentswithinourmedia

landscape,withoutwhichtherewouldbenoreasontodiscusscampinrelationtoterms

likethe‘podcast’or‘qualitytelevision’.Astimemarchesforward,campwillprobablybe

expressedandremodelledbytechnologiesthatareyettobeinventedorevenimagined.

Itisalsoconceivablethatformsthatarealreadyfamiliartouswillsoontakeonentirely

newmeaningsorapplications.410

Which is to say nothing of impending shifts in political and cultural attitudes. I have

attemptedtotracesomeofcamp’smorerecentintersectionswithsuchdiscourses(which

reflectsignificantchangesincelebrityculture,thepositionsofhomosexualsandwomen,

theirrelationshipstooneanother,etc.)Movingforward,perhapssuchconcernswillarise

409HereIamremindedofthepredictionthatCoremadein1984that“campwillre-emerge.Indefinable,unshakeable,itistheheroismofpeoplenotcalledupontobeheroes.Itwillfindnewwaystoreactbothwith and against public tastes, it will selfishly and selflessly shriek on, entertaining the self and thespectatorinonemadgesture,obliviousofwhatitisrequiredtodo.Campisalwaysinthefuture…”Seep.15.410Indeed,Sontagwasalreadycontemplatingsuchpossibilitiesinthe1960s.“Theeffectoftime,”shewrote,“isunpredictable.”Shewenttoentertaintheideathatthe“methodacting”ofherday–heraldedbyactorslikeJamesDeanandWarrenBeatty–couldseemcamptolatergenerations.Seep.285.

181

inwaysthatescapethecriticalframeworksofthisthesis.Sontag’searlywritingsabout

camp,forexample,aresharplyattunedtoissuesofsexuality,genderandclass,butthey

makenomentionofrace,whichisnow,aswehaveseen,agrowingareaofinterestinthe

field.Ofcourse,thisdoesnotmeanthatsuchmatterswerenotrelevanttotheperiodthat

Sontagcovered.Butmanyofusmightbemademoresensitivetothembythecriticsthat

followedher.

There is also a chance that circumstanceswill alter so drastically that campwill not

surviveatall.Perhaps,inthesepastfewyears,Ihavemerelybeensittingbyitsdeath-bed

andlisteningtoitsfinalgasps.Surely,theprospectofthisannihilationwouldonlylend

morepoignancytothepreoccupationswithdecaythatIhaveregisteredinsomanyof

camp’s performances and productions. But the cabaret before me does not manifest

visionsofcamp’sextinction.Thereisnothingelegiacorvaledictoryinitstone;itholdsno

fascinationformorbidimagesorlandscapesofruin.Itswholeatmosphereisinfusedwith

abreathtakingspiritofexuberance.Thisisevokedthroughitsinfectioussenseoffunand

frippery;itsimpetuousflowofimagesandimpressions;theimmediacyandsimultaneity

oftheactionthatitcramsintoonetightlycontainedperformancespace.

Asawriter,Ihavetriedtothebestofmyabilitytokeeppacewiththeboisterousand

waywardenergyofmysubjectmatter.Risingtothischallengehasproventobeamost

formidable task. I Heart Chocolat is teeming with formal and cultural concerns that

demandseriousscholarlyconsideration.Turningmyattentiontothem,Ihaveoftenfelt

asthoughdancingonatightrope,wishingneithertoglossovertheircomplexitiesnorto

dispensewiththeplayfulnessandagilitywithwhichtheyareexpressed.

As“Vogue”comesblaringthroughthespeakers,thesceneisenvelopedbyawhirlwindof

activity.Itseemsthatalmosteveryonehassurrenderedtothesaturnaliaofthemoment.

Chocolat is frolicking around the tent with gay abandon, and most of the audience

membersaregamelyjostlingagainsteachother.Inthemidstofallthiscommotion,my

handsremainclenchedtomypenandpaper,furiouslyrushingtorecordmyobservations

beforetheybecomeobscuredorforgottenbythepassageoftime.Needlesstosay,itdoes

nottakelongformetonoticetheincongruityofmyscholarlypose.ButIamstillholding

ontomynotebook,evenafterIleapforwardtodancewiththeothers.

182

Bibliography

Abrams,Lynn.OralHistoryTheory.NewYork:Routledge,2016.Altman,Dennis.TheEndoftheHomosexual?StLucia:UniversityofQueenslandPress, 2013.Ames,Melissa,ed.TimeinTelevisionNarrative:ExploringTemporalityinTwenty-First- CenturyProgramming.UniversityofMississippi:2012.Appignanesi,Lisa.TheCabaret.London:StudioVista,1975.Aufderheide,Patricia.DocumentaryFilm:AVeryShortIntroduction.OxfordUniversity

Press:Oxford,2007.Azzopardi,Chris.“Q&A:LisaKudrowJudging‘DragRace’(AsValerieCherish!)&Gays

BeingBiologically‘Superhuman’.”PrideSource(November2004)http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=68569(accessed1/4/17).

Babitz,Eve.SlowDays,FastCompany:TheWorld,theFlesh,andL.A.NewYork:NewYork

ReviewBooks,2016.Babuscio,Jack.“TheCinemaofCamp(AKACampandtheGaySensibility).”inCamp:

QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader.ed.FabioCletopp.117-135.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Bakhtin,Mikhail.ProblemsofDostoevsky’sPoetics.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota

Press,1984.Bassett,Hugh.“NeverTooGaytoCabaret:AConversationwithJulieKlausner.”TheNew

YorkObserver(17June2013)http://observer.com/2013/06/never-too-gay-to-cabaret-a-conversation-with-julie-klausner/(accessed20/9/2016).

Becquer,MarcosandJoséGatti.“ElementsofVogue.”inTheSubculturesReader.ed.

KennethElderandSarahThornton.pp.445-453.London:Routledge,1996.Benjamin,Walter.“TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction.”in

Illuminations:EssayandReflectionsed.HannahArendt.pp.217-251.SchockenBooks:NewYork,2007.

Berry,Richard.“WilltheiPodkilltheradiostar?Profilingpodcastingasradio.”

Convergence:TheInternationalJournalofResearchintoNewMediaTechnologies12No.2(2006):pp.143-162.

Bersani,Leo.“IstheRectumaGrave?”October43(Winter1987)pp.197-222.

183

Bignell,Jonathan.AnIntroductiontoTelevision(2ndEdition).LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2008.

Boorstin,Daniel.TheImage,orWhatHappenedtotheAmericanDream.London:

WeidenfeldandNicolson,1961.Booth,Mark.Camp.London,MelbourneandNewYork:QuartetBooks,1983.Bowles,Jane.TwoSeriousLadies.London:ViragoPress,1979.Bronson,AAandPhilipAarons,ed.QueerZines:SecondEdition.NewYork:Printed

Edition,2013.Brown,Daniel.“WildeandWilder.”PMLA,119,No.5(October2004):pp.1216-1230. Bruzzi,Stella.NewDocumentary(2ndedition)Hoboken:TaylorandFrancis,2013.Bugliosi,VincentandCurtGentry.HelterSkelter:TheShockingStoryoftheManson Murders.London:ArrowBooks,1992.Butler,Judith.“FromInterioritytoGenderPerformatives.”inCamp:QueerAesthetics

andthePerformingSubject.ed.FabioCleto.pp.361-368.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Cardwell,Sarah.“IsQualityTelevisionAnyGood?”inQualityTV:Contemporary

AmericanTelevisionandBeyondeds.JanetMcCabeandKimAkass.pp.19-34.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2007.

Carlson,Merve.Performance:ACriticalintroduction.NewYorkRoutledge,2004.Clark,WilliamLane.“DegeneratePersonality:DeviantSexualityandRaceinRonald

Firbank’snovels.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality.ed.DavidBergman.pp.134-155.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993.

Cleto,Fabio,ed.Camp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader.Ann

Arbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999.Comer,Stuart.“JohnWaters.”LittleJoe:AMagazineAboutQueersandCinema,Mostly. No.2(2011):pp.9-15.Compton-Burnett,Ivy.DarknessandDay.London:Gollancz,1951.Connor,Steven.Dumbstruck–ACulturalHistoryofVentriloquism.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress,2000.Core,Phillip.Camp:TheLieThatTellstheTruth.London:PlexusPublishLimited,1984.

184

Couldry,Nick.InsideCulture:Re-ImaginingtheMethodofCulturalStudies.London:Sage,2000.

Crisp,Quentin.TheNakedCivilServant.London,Cape,1968.deBeauvoir,Simone.TheComingofAge.NewYork:W.WNorton&Company,1996.Dollimore,Jonathan.SexualDissidence:AugustinetoWilde,FreudtoFoucault.Oxford

andNewYork:Clarendon,1991.Dollimore,Jonathan.“Post/Modern:OntheGaySensibility,orthePervert’sRevengeon

Authenticity.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:AReader.ed.FabioCleto.pp.221-236.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Dyer,Richard.TheCultureofQueers.London:Routledge,2002.Dyer,Richard.HeavenlyBodies.NewYork:Routledge,2004.Fackler,MariaFandNickSalvato.“FagHag:ATheoryofEffeminateEnthusiasms.”

Discourse.34No.1(Winter2012):pp.59-92.Fenn,JackieandMarkRaskino.MasteringtheHypeCycle.Boston:HarvardUniversity

BusinessPress,2008.Finch,Mark.“SexandAddressinDynasty.”inCamp.QueerAestheticsandthePerforming

Subject:AReader.ed.FabioCleto.pp.143-159.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Flew,Terry.NewMedia.Melbourne:UniversityPress,2014.Flinn,Caryl.“TheDeathsofCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerforming

Subject:AReader.ed.FabioCleto.pp.433-457.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Frank,Marcie.“TheCriticasPerformanceArtist:SusanSontag’sWritingandGay

Cultures.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality.ed.DavidBergman.pp.173-184.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993.

FreshAir,“‘INeverSetOutToBeAnActor,’says‘Transparent’StarGabyHoffmann.”

NPR(October10,2016)http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=496958090(accessed28/10/16).

Gamson,Joshua.ClaimstoFame:CelebrityinContemporaryAmerica.Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994.Ghaziani,Amin.ThereGoestheGayborhood?Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,

2014.

185

Gillespie,Margaret.“‘TheTriumphoftheEpiceneStyle’:NightwoodandCamp.”Miranda,No.12(2016).

Gregory,Chris.BeSeeingYou…DecodingThePrisoner.Bedfordshire,UK:Universityof

LutonPress,1997.Grele,Ron,ed.EnvelopesofSound:TheArtofOralHistory.NewYork:Praeger,1991.Halperin,DavidM.HowtoBeGay.Cambridge:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversity

Press,2012.Harris,Daniel.“TheDeathofCamp:GayMenandHollywoodDivaWorship,from

ReverencetoRidicule.”SalmagundiNo.112(Fall1996):pp.166-191.Harvey,Keith.“CampTalkandCitationality:AQueerTakeon‘Authentic’and

‘Represented’Utterance.”JournalofPragmatics34No.9(2002):pp.1145-1165.Hermes,Joke.“MediaFiguresinIdentityConstruction.”inRethinkingtheMedia

Audience:TheNewAgenda.ed.P.Alasuutari.pp.69-85.London:Sage,1999.Hight,Craig.TelevisionMockumentary:Reflexivity,SatireandaCalltoPlay.Manchester:

ManchesterUniversityPress,2010.Hilton,ParisandMerleGinsberg.ConfessionsofanHeiress.Touchstone,2004.Holliday,RuthandTraceyPotts.Kitsch!CulturalPoliticsandTaste.Manchester UniversityPress:ManchesterandNewYork,2012.Hollinghust,Alan.TheSwimming-PoolLibrary.NewYork:VintageBooks,1989.Hutcheon,Linda.ATheoryofParody:TheTeachingsofTwentiethCenturyArtForms.

Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2000.Indiana,Gary.AndyWarholandtheCanthatSoldtheWorld.BasicBooks,New

York:2010.

Isherwood,Christopher.TheWorldintheEvening.London:Methuen,1954.Kammen,Michael.AmericanCulture,AmericanTastes:SocialChangeandthe20th

Century.NewYork:BasicBooks,1999.Kavka,Misha.RealityTV.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2012.Keller,Karl.“WaltWhitmanCamping.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality.ed.

DavidBergman.pp.113-120.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993.Kelley,Jeremy.“QueeringConversation:AnEthnographicExplorationoftheFunctional

PropertiesofCamp-BasedLanguageUseinU.S.GayMen’sInteractions.”UnpublishedDoctoralThesis,UniversityofCalifornia,2013.

186

Kelso,Tony.“AndNowNoWordfromOurSponsor:HowHBOPutstheRiskbackinto

Television.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEraed.MarcLaverette,BrianL.Ott,CaraLouiseBuckley.pp.46-64.Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009.

Klausner,Julie.IDon’tCareAboutYourBand.NewYork,GothamBooks:2009. Kleinhans,Chuck.“TakingOuttheTrash:CampandthePoliticsofParody.”inThe

PoliticsandPoeticsofCamp.ed.MoeMeyer.pp.182-201.NewYork:Routledge,1997.

Long,Scott.“TheLonelinessofCamp.”inCampGrounds:StyleandHomosexuality.ed.

DavidBergman.pp.78-91.UniversityofMassachusettsPress:Amherst,1993.McCabe,JanetandKimAkass.“It’snotTV,it’sHBO’sOriginalProgramming:Producing

QualityTV.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEraed.MarcLeverette,BrianL.OttandCaraLouiseBuckley.pp.83-94.Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009.

McCabe,JanetandKimAkass.“Sex,SwearingandRespectability:CourtingControversy,

HBO’sOriginalProgrammingandProducingQualityTV.”inQualityTV:ContemporaryAmericanTelevisionandBeyond.ed.JanetMcCabeandKimAkass.pp.62-76.I.BTauris:LondonandNewYork:2007.

McClung,StevenandKristineJohnson.“ExaminingtheMotivesofPodcastUsers.”

JournalofAudioandRadioMedia,17No.1(2010):pp.82-95.Marshall,David.CelebrityandPower:FameinContemporaryCulture.Minneapolisand

London:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997.Marwick,AliceandDanahBoyd.“ToSeeandBeSeen:CelebrityPracticeonTwitter.”

Convergence17No.2(2011):pp.139-158.Medhurst,AndyandLucyTuck.“TheGenderGame.”inB.F.IDossier12:Television

Sitcomed.JimCook.London:BFI,1982.Meltzer,Eric.“JulieKlausneronHardWork,MakingStuff,andtheUrgencytobeHeard.”

CreativeLiveBlog(May16,2014).http://blog.creativelive.com/julie-klausner-interview/(accessed20/5/15).

Meserko,Vince.“UprightCitizensoftheDigitalAge:PodcastingandPopularCulturein

anAlternativeComedyScene”,UnpublishedMastersThesis,UniversityofKansas,2010.

Metz,Walter.“JohnWatersGoestoHollywood:APostStructuralAuthorshipStudy.”in

AuthorshipandFilmed.DavidA.GerstnerandJanetStaiger.pp.157-174.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2003.

187

Meyer,Moe,ed.ThePoliticsandPoeticsofCamp.London,NewYork:Routledge,1994.Meyer,Moe.“UndertheSignofWilde:AnArchaeologyofPosing”inThePoliticsand

PoeticsofCamp,ed.MoeMeyer.pp.75-109.London,NewYork:Routledge,1994.Meyrowitz,Joshua.NoSenseofPlace:TheImpactofElectronicMediaonSocial

Behaviour.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress:1985.Michelson,Bruce.LiteraryWit.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2000.Miller,TobyNitinGovil,JohnMcMurriaandRichardMaxwell.GlobalHollywood.

London:BFI,2001.Mills,Brett.TelevisionSitcom.London:BritishFilmInstitute,2005.Modleski,Tania.FeminismWithoutMen:CultureandCriticismina“Postfeminist”Age.

Routledge:NewYork,1991.Moller,Frank.“AssociatesinCrimeandGuilt.”inEthicsandImagesofPain.ed.Ashbjorn

GronstadandHenrikGustafsson.pp.15-32.NewYork:Routledge,2012.Moran,Joe.StarAuthors:LiteraryCelebritiesinAmerica.London;Sterling,Va.:Pluto

Press,2000.Morrison,Josh.“‘Dragulating’toNormal:CampandHomonormativePolitics.”inThe

MakeupofRuPaul’sDragRace:EssaysontheQueenofRealityShows.ed.JimDaemspp.124-147.Jefferson:McFarland&Co,2014.

Morrison,Toni.PlayingintheDark:WhitenessandtheLiteraryImagination.NewYork:

Vintage,1992.Muñoz,JoséEsteban.“‘TheWhitetobeAngry’:VaginalDavis’sTerroristDrag.”Social

TextNo.52/53(Autumn-Winter,1997):pp.80-103.Newton,Esther.“RoleModels.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject.

ed.FabioCleto.pp.96-109.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPress,1999.Noonan,Andie.“LiberalMPRefusestoClarifyGaySlur.”StarObserver(October2010).

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/new-south-wales-news/liberal-mp-refuses-to-clarify-gay-slur/32251(accessed2/1/16).

Owens,Iris.AfterClaude.NewYork:NewYorkReviewofBooks,2010.Plantinga,CarlR..RhetoricandRepresentationinNonfictionFilm.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1997.Proust,Marcel.InSearchofLostTime:TheWaybySwann’s,trans.LydiaDavis.London:

PenguinBooks,2002.

188

Rasmussen,Terje.SocialTheoryandCommunicationTechnology.Burlington,VT,Ashgate:2000.

Robertson,Pamela.GuiltyPleasures:FeministCampfromMaeWesttoMadonna.

DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1996.Rodman,Gilbert.ElvisAfterElvis:ThePosthumousCareerofaLivingLegend.Londonand

NewYork:Routledge,1996.Roman,David.“It’sMyPartyandI’llDieifIWantto!GayMen,AIDS,andtheCirculation

ofCampintheU.S.Theatre.”TheatreJournal,No.44(1992):pp.305-327.Ross,Andrew.“UsesofCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerformingSubject:A

Reader.ed.FabioCleto.pp.308-329.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Santo,Avi.“Para-TelevisionandDiscoursesofDistinction:TheCultureofProductionat

HBO.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEraed.MarcLaverette,BrianL.Ott,CaraLouiseBuckley.pp.19-45.Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009.

Schoenmakers,Henri.“Festivals,TheatricalEventsandCommunicativeInteractions.”in

Festivalising!TheatricalEvents,PoliticsandCulture.ed.TempleAhuptfleisch,ShulamithLev-Aladgem,JacquelineMartin.pp.27-38.Amsterdam:BrillAcademicPublishers,2007.

Schuyler,MichaelT.“SettingUpCamp:IdentifyingCampthroughThemeandStructure.”

UnpublishedDoctoralThesis,TempleUniversity,2011.Scott,Laurence.“NotesonFran:TheEthicalCampandMuteElegiacofFranLebowitz.”

PerformingEthos2No.2(2011):pp.121-135.Seinfeld,Jessica.(JessSeinfeld)4June2014.Twitterpost.Availableat:

https://twitter.com/JessSeinfeld/status/474269449022095360Senft,Theresa.Camgirls:CelebrityandCommunityintheAgeofSocialMedia.NewYork:

PeterLang,2008.Shugart,HelenA.ShugartandCatherineEgleyWaggoner.MakingCamp:Rhetoricsof

TransgressioninU.S.PopularCulture.Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,2008.

Smith,Jack.HistoricalTreasures.ed.IraCohen.MadrasandNewYork:HanumanBooks,

1990.Smith,SidonieandJuliaWatson,ReadingAutobiography:AGuidetoInterpretingLife

Narratives.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2010.Solomon,Jeff.SoFamousandSoGay:TheFabulousPotencyofTrumanCapoteand

GertrudeStein.MinneapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2017.

189

Sontag,Susan.AgainstInterpretationandOtherEssays.NewYork:Picador,2001.Sontag,Susan.AsConsciousnessisHarnessedtoFlesh:JournalsandNotebooks1964-1980.

ed.DavidRieff.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2012.Spence,LouiseandViniciusNavarro.CraftingTruth:DocumentaryFormandMeaning.

NewBrunswick,NewJersey,London:RutgersUniversityPress,2011.Spiegel,LynnandHenryJenkins.“SameBatChannel,DifferentBatTimes:MassCulture

inPopularMemory.”inTheManLivesoftheBatman:CriticalApproachestoaSuperheroandhisMedia.Ed.RobertaE.PearsonandWilliamUricchio.pp.117-148.NewYork:Routledge,1991.

Stead,Christina.TheManWhoLovedChildren.NewYork:AvonBooks,1996.Stewart,Susan.OnLonging.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1993.Tinkcom,Matthew.WorkingLikeaHomosexual:Camp,Capital,Cinema.Durhamand London:DukeUniversityPress,2002.Tinkcom,Matthew.“Warhol’sCamp.”inCamp:QueerAestheticsandthePerforming

Subject:AReader.ed.FabioCleto.pp.344-354.AnnArbor:TheUniversityof MichiganPress,1999.Turner,Graeme.UnderstandingCelebrity.LosAngeles:Sage,2014.Tyler,Carole-Anne.“BoysWillbeGirls:DragandTransvesticFetishism.”inCamp:Queer

AestheticsandthePerformingSubjectaReadered.FabioCleto.pp.369-392.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1999.

Utichi,Joe.“LisaKudrow&MichaelPatrickKingDiscuss'TheComeback’'s9-YearBreak

&Season3.”Deadline(22June2015)http://deadline.com/2015/06/lisa-kudrow-michael-patrick-king-interview-the-comeback-1201451562/(accessed7/8/2015).

Vogel,Shane.“WhereareWeNow?QueerWorldMakingandCabaretPerformance.”GlQ:

AJournalofLesbianandGayStudies6No.1.(2000):pp.29-60.Wagner,JohnandTracyMacLean,ed.TelevisionatTheMovies:CinematicandCritical

ResponsestoAmericanBroadcasting.London:ContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup,2008.

Ware,J.Redding.PassingEnglishoftheVictorianEra:ADictionaryofHeterodox

English,SlangandPhrase.London:GeorgeRoutledge;NewYork:EDutton,1909.Waters,John.MakeTrouble.ChapelHill:AlgonquinBooksofChapelHill,2017.Waters,John.RoleModels.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2010.

190

Waters,John.ShockValue.Philadelphia:RunningPressBookPublishers,2005.Welch,Denton.InYouthisPleasure.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1982.Wilde,Oscar.ThePictureofDorianGray.London:PenguinClassics,2008.Williams,Raymond.Television:TechnologyandCulturalForm.NewYork:Schocken,

1974.Williamson,Lisa.“ChallengingSitcomConventions:fromTheLarrySandersShowto

TheComeback.”inIt’sNotTV:WatchingHBOinthePostTelevisionEra.MarcLeverette,BrianL.OttandCaraLouiseBuckley(eds.)pp.108-122.Florence:Taylor&Francis,2009.

Woods,Gregory.“HighCultureandHighCamp:TheCaseofMarcelProust.”InCamp

Grounds:StyleandHomosexuality,ed.DavidBergman.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1993.pp.121-133.

Wolf,Michael“ThisAmericanLife’sIraGlasstalksPodcasting.”NextMarketInsights

(April15,2013):http://nextmarket.co/blogs/conversations/7703637-this-american-lifes-ira-glass-talks-podcasting(accessed5/10/16).

FilmographyAlvinandtheChipmunks:TheRoadChip.Dir.WaltBecker.2015.TheBadSeed.Dir.MervynLeRoy.1956.BeautifulDarling.Dir.JamesRasin.2010.CecilB.Demented.Dir.JohnWaters.2000.TheCockettes.Dir.BillWeberandDavidWeissman.2002.FemaleTrouble.Dir.JohnWaters.1974.GreyGardens.Dir.EllenHovde,AlbertMaysles,DavidMaysles,andMuffieMeyer.1975.Hairspray.Dir.JohnWaters.1988.LesMisérables.Dir.TomHooper.2012.MurderbyDeath.Dir.RobertMoore.1976.PinkFlamingos.Dir.JohnWaters.1972.

191

ParisisBurning.Dir.JennieLivingston.1990.Pecker.Dir.JohnWaters.1998.PublicSpeaking.Dir.MartinScorsese.2010.IamDivine.Dir.JeffreySchwarz.2013.SuperstarinaHousedress.Dir.CraigHighberger.2004.SunsetBoulevard.Dir.BillyWilder.1950.WomeninRevolt.Dir.PaulMorrissey.1971.WhateverHappenedtoBabyJane?Dir.RobertAldrich.1962.TheWizardofOz.Dir.VictorFleming.1939.

LivePerformances

Arcade,Penny.OldQueen.Dir.SteveZehentner.July2009.DixonPlace,NewYorkCity. Excerptfootageavailableat:https://vimeo.com/46125116.LeGateauChocolat.IHeartChocolat.28thJanuary2015.FringeWorldFestival,Perth.Klausner,Julie.JulieKlausner’sCabaretSituation.June2015.Joe’sPub,NewYorkCity.Lypsinka.ICouldGoonLyp-Synching.September1988.ProvincetownPlayhouse,New

YorkCity.

Music

Chef(IsaacHayes).“ChocolateSaltyBalls”.ChefAid:TheSouthParkAlbum(Album).

ColumbiaAmericanRecordings.1998.Curtis,Jackie.“WhoAreYou?”WhoAreYou?(Album).X-CentricRecords.2004.Gaynor,Gloria.“IWillSurvive”.LoveTracks(Album).PolydorRecords.1978.Gershwin,GeorgeandDuBoseHeyward.“Summertime.”PorgyandBess(Opera).1935.

192

Lee,Peggy.“IsThatAllThereIs?”IsThatAllThereIs?(Album).Capitol.1969.Madonna.“Vogue.”I’mBreathless(Album).SireRecords,1990.Reed,Lou.“WalkontheWildSide.”Transformer(Album).RCARecords.1972.

Podcasts

“AuthorFranLebowitzInterview.”WritersandCompany.(November25,2012). Availableat:http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2308449963Klausner,Julie.“DavidOzanich,MichaelKupperman-HeavyThingsontoStages.”How

WasYourWeek?(February8,2013)Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-101-heavy-things-onto-stages-david-ozanich-michael-kupperman

Klausner,Julie.“DavidSedaris-Madame,No.”HowWasYourWeek?(May17,2013)

Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-115-david-sedarisKlausner,Julie.“DCPierson,AlexTimbers-BattlefieldGirth.”HowWasYourWeek?

(March1,2013)Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-104-battlefield-girth-dc-pierson-alex-timbers

Klausner,Julie.“JasonNash–Brillsplaining.”HowWasYourWeek?(June13,2014)

Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/jason-nash-brillsplaining-ep-171

Klausner,Julie.“LindaSimpson-TheCurrentIncarnationofAlec.”HowWasYourWeek?

(May23,2014)Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/linda-simpson-the-current-incarnation-of-alec-ep-168

Klausner,Julie.“NekoCase,JoeMande-AlltheWaytoCanada.”HowWasYourWeek?

(April29,2011)Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/hwyw-ep-8-all-the-way-to-canada-neko-case-joe-mande

Klausner,Julie.“OurGeneration’sNessie.”HowWasYourWeek?(June6,2014)

Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/tara-ariano-our-generations-nessie-ep-170

Klausner,Julie.“SteveAgee,BryanSafi-RaveWithdrawal.”HowWasYourWeek?

(August5,2011)Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-22-rave-withdrawal-steve-agee-bryan-safi

Klausner,Julie.“TomScharpling-GiantPicturesofHamburgers.”HowWasYourWeek?

193

(July8,2011).Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-18-giant-pictures-of-hamburgers-tom-scharpling

Klausner,Julie.”TomScharpling,JesseThorn.”HowWasYourWeek?(Jan31,2013)

Availableat:https://howwasyourweek.libsyn.com/ep-100-one-hundred-tom-scharpling-jesse-thorn

“RoleModels:JohnWatersPodcast.”AdelaideWriter’sWeek2014(March31,2014).

Availableat:https://www.adelaidefestival.com.au/blog/Adelaide_Writers_Week_2014_Podcasts

Television

AnAmericanFamily.CreatedbyCraigGilbert.1973.Batman.CreatedbyWilliamDozierandLorenzoSempleJr.1966-1968.TheComeback.CreatedbyLisaKudrowandMichaelPatrickKing.2005-2014.DifficultPeople.CreatedbyJulieKlausner.2015-2017.Dynasty.CreatedbyEstherShapiroandRichardAlanShaprio.1981-1989.Eurotrash.CreatedbyPeterStuart.1993-2016.Friends.CreatedbyDavidCraneandMartaKauffman.1994-2004.TheGrahamNortonShow.CreatedbyGrahamNorton.2007-ThePriceisRight.CreatedbyMarkGoodson,BobStewartandBillTodman.1972-QueerEyefortheStraightGuy.CreatedbyDavidCollins,DavidMetzlerandMichael

Williams.2003-RuPaul’sDragRace.CreatedbyTomCampbell.2009-SexandtheCity.CreatedbyDarrenStar.1998-2004.TheSimpsons.CreatedbyJamesL.Brooks,MattGroeningandSamSimon.1989-Smash.CreatedbyTheresaRebeck.2012-2013.SouthPark.CreatedbyTreyParker,MattStoneandBrianGraden.1997-

194

TheTonightShow.CreatedbySteveAllen,DwightHemion,SylvesterWeaverandWilliamO.Harbach.1954-

TwoBrokeGirls.CreatedbyWhitneyCummingsandMichaelPatrickKing.2011-2017.WatchWhatHappensLive.CreatedbyAndyCohen.2009-Will&Grace.CreatedbyDavidKohanandMaxMutchnick.1998-Xena:WarriorPrincess.CreatedbyRobertTaper,SamRaimiandJohnSchulian.

1995-2001.