early "gay" cite

Thu Sep 22 15:44:15 UTC 2011

Cary Grant used the known phrase "gone gay", which meant to be
colorful and youthful and even a bit silly.

That it might have also been dog-whistle language to the gay community
of the time is an interesting theory, unproven and unrefuted.

DanG

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Ronald Butters <ronbutters at aol.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Ronald Butters <ronbutters at AOL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: early "gay" cite
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> JL suggests that using someone else's published ideas as if they are =
> one's own is OK if done privately. I won't bother to argue with that.
>
> JL believes that when Cary Grant uttered, in an ad lib that the director =
> did not cut from the movie the words, "I've just gone gay all of a =
> sudden," GRANT the actor MUST have bee using GAY in the sense =
> 'homosexual' rather than (or as well as) what virtually everyone on the =
> planet would have understood it to mean (the then-ordinary sense of =
> 'showy, flashy', with the extended connotations of 'wild, decadent"). To =
> agree with this one must confront the following questions:
>
> (1) "Could the deeply closeted Grant have known the underworld sense of =
> the term in 1937 or 1938?" (not impossible, given that he is thought to =
> have been participating at the time in down-low activity)
> (2) "Would the deeply closed actor have intended an arcane pun?" (not =
> very likely--Why would he want to do that and risk compromising his =
> secret identity? Who could he have been trying to impress? Maybe some =
> cameraman he was having a secret affair with?)
> (3) "Would the consummate professional Grant have made some kind of a =
> Freudian slip?" (not very likely from one of the most professional =
> actors of his day)
> (4) "If it was a secret pun, what is the other leg of the pun, i.e., =
> what is it that the audience--and the director--would have thought 'gay' =
> meant in this context?" (the director obviously thought that the =
> director knew what it meant--and it wasn't 'homosexual'; obviously, =
> everyone would have thought it meant, 'showy, flashy, wild, decadent'; I =
> suggest that the fact that he was scantily clad in frilly women's night =
> garments merely ads to this sense)
> (5) "If there is a legitimately inferable meaning for the word "gay" in =
> Grant's utterance, one that virtually no one but Grant MIGHT have had =
> any sense of when the movie was made, why would anyone today want to =
> seek an arcane pun (or posit a Freudian slip)?" (nothing legitimate that =
> I can see: well, there is always the obsessed lexicographer's desire to =
> provide an antedating; and there is the 1980s-style gay subcultural =
> desire to find gay content everywhere in history; and there is the naive =
> heterosexual belief that putting a man in women's clothing MUST suggest =
> some kind of 'homosexual' connotation).=20
>
> JL quibbles about my description of Grant in a woman's frilly nightgown =
> as "scantily clad." This is a red herring. I obviously did not mean that =
> his ass was showing. Such garments as he is wearing in the movie, even =
> when worn by women, were intended only for private, intimate display. I =
> meant to convey that for Grant's character to be wearing such garments =
> in the presence of his girlfriend's blue-nosed aunt (a stranger to him =
> besides) would have been somewhat shocking and would have suggested =
> something that a slightly decadent person might have done at a wild (for =
> the 1930s) drunken party--i.e., it was a "gay" (in the 1930s =
> non-homosexual sense) thing to be doing: "I've just gone wild all of a =
> sudden." At any rate, that is what the audience would have thought he =
> meant. That is what the director would have thought he meant. That is =
> what Grant would have thought they would take it to mean. It wasn't =
> until GAY =3D 'homosexual' became the dominant sense of the word that =
> anyone ever even thought that the word GAY as uttered in the movie could =
> have possibly meant "I just turned homo all of a sudden."
>
> As for the "gay follies," if my earlier posting suggested that I thought =
> that Grant was thinking specifically of the words "gay follies" when he =
> uttered his ad lib, then what I said was misleading. I meant only that =
> "gay" was frequently used in the 1930s to describe somewhat decadent =
> behavior, such as (for example) women dancing in frilly revealing =
> garments on the stage (as they had in New York all during the 1920s).
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>
>> The following post was intended for everyone, but the magic of =
> automatic
>> addressing sent it to Ron only:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> My post was intended for Joel, but the magic of automatic addressing =
> sent it
>>> to everyone.
>>> Which is fine with me.
>>>=20
>>> I'm not surprised that the mere appearance of the word "gay" in a gay =
> novel
>>> should excite attention; hence my cautionary "worth =
> checking...however."
>>>=20
>>> Grant was unlikely to be thinking of "gay follies" and scantily-clad =
> girls.
>>> First of all, he was hardly scantily clad in the scene, which makes =
> the
>>> association _prima facie_ unlikely.
>>>=20
>>> Furthermore,  GB turns up few exx. of"gay follies" before 1950; only =
> two or
>>> three refer specifically to a stage show (at Cambridge in the mid =
> '40s,
>>> though Folies Bergere dancers are called, in passing, "gay" in one =
> 1935
>>> source); none seem to refer to scantily-clad people (the Folies girls =
> are
>>> having supper); and Grant could not have expected anybody to have =
> caught
>>> such an obscure allusion, had he intended it.
>>>=20
>>> GB searches for "gay _folies_," "gaies folies," "folies gaies," in
>>> anglophone sources are equally futile, and nearly as futile in French =
> ones.
>>>=20
>>> NewspaperArchive reveals a racehorse named "Gay Follies," active in =
> Texas
>>> in the mid- '30s. Relevance: none.
>>>=20
>>> In any event, why so many people should want to believe that Cary =
> Grant was
>>> sending them a coded message in 1938 is a question I'm not ready to =
> answer.
>>>=20
>>> JL
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Ron Butters <ronbutters at aol.com> =
> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> As JK knows, I PUBLISHED an article in Dictionaries a number of =
> years ago
>>>> that says everything that he says here, except that I also question =
> that the
>>>> deeply closeted Cary Grant would have made such a slip of the =
> tongue--except
>>>> that I point out that "gay" as Grant's character is using it is most =
> likely
>>>> just a reference to the then-current sense of a "gay folies" =
> performance
>>>> having to do with scantily clad female dancers. The ad lib =
> sarcastically
>>>> explains why  Grant is wearing Hepburn's sexy dressing gown; =
> homosexuality
>>>> has nothing to do with it. As for SCARLET PANSY, the term is indeed =
> in a
>>>> novel about the gay subculture, but the word "gay" is not used in a =
> way
>>>> there that is markedly different from the way it is used in the =
> general
>>>> population's slang in the 1930s, as I have noted here before.  Just =
> because
>>>> a gay novelist uses the word "gay" that does not mean that a pun on
>>>> 'homosexual' was intended.
>>>>=20
>>>> The 1941 cite that JL mentions is the earliest clear reference.
>>>>=20
>>>> This has all been discussed on ADS-L many times, by the way.
>>>> Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE
>>>>=20
>>>> ------Original Message------
>>>> From: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:00:56 PM GMT-0400
>>>> Subject: Re: [ADS-L] early "gay" cite
>>>>=20
>>>> Joel,
>>>>=20
>>>> HDAS has a seemingly unequivocal "gay" from 1933 and an absolutely
>>>> unequivocal one from 1941. The 1933 source is a sub rosa gay novel. =
> (If
>>>> the
>>>> word had been used more than once at so early a date, I think I =
> would have
>>>> noted that.)
>>>>=20
>>>> Thus no brackets around the Grant quote seemed necessary to ye HDAS
>>>> editor,
>>>> who was reluctant to accept it as a genuine ex., until he and =
> several
>>>> other
>>>> natural-born skeptics (incl. Jesse Sheidlower) could think of no =
> other
>>>> convincing explanation.
>>>>=20
>>>> Of course, HDAS I appeared seventeen years ago, which means it may =
> as well
>>>> never have  existed as far as today's scholars are concerned.
>>>>=20
>>>> The Hollywood censors obviously never thought twice about the word, =
> and of
>>>> course the meaning didn't become universally familiar till the '60s. =
> The
>>>> possibility, no matter how remote, that the censors *would* have =
> caught
>>>> it,
>>>> is one reason to doubt that Grant intended it that way. But if the =
> quip
>>>> was
>>>> truly spontaneous, he may not have had time to catch himself. The =
> fact
>>>> that
>>>> the director didn't yell "Cut!" indicates just how arcane the usage =
> must
>>>> have been.
>>>>=20
>>>> Regardless, I don't think Grant could have "intended it for those in =
> the
>>>> know," though that seems to be a popular assumption. The censors =
> might
>>>> been
>>>> "in the know," and that might have caused problems for him in 1938.  =
> More
>>>> to
>>>> the point, I doubt that Grant was trying to send a  wink-wink =
> nudge-nudge
>>>> signal to anybody through the dubious means of a spontaneous quip in =
> the
>>>> middle of screen dialogue ("coming out of the closet," so to speak, =
> in
>>>> front
>>>> of ten million filmgoers). I assume it just slipped out because it =
> seemed
>>>> so
>>>> aptly funny to him.
>>>>=20
>>>> But there's no way to know, is there?
>>>>=20
>>>> Jon
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> =
> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>>>>> Subject:      Re: early "gay" cite
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> =
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -----
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Jon,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> If this from 1932/1933/1937 can be confirmed as really referring to
>>>>> homosexuality, will you consent to removing the square brackets
>>>>> surrounding the OED's 1938 quotation from "Bringing Up Baby"?   :-)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> And perhaps they could be removed from some of the other 1922 to =
> 1941
>>>>> OED quotations as well.  (I don't have HDAS on line or shelf.)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> (I note that Ron Butters once wrote "1. The remark was an ad lib,
>>>>> made up by Grant himself." and "3. Thus the audience in the late
>>>>> 1930s would certainly not have known GAY =3D 'homosexual' (except =
> maybe
>>>>> some gay people themselves, who at the time preferred QUEER or THAT
>>>>> WAY as terms of self-reference."
>>>>>=20
>>>>> (What the audience would not know is not evidence of Grant's =
> intended
>>>>> meaning, *particularly* if it was an ad lib.  And it does not have =
> to
>>>>> be a pun; it could be simply intended for those in the know.)
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Joel
>>>>>=20
>>>>> At 9/21/2011 05:50 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>>>>>> Worth checking. HDAS quotes earlier McAlmon writings, however, =
> none of
>>>>> which
>>>>>> appeared to me to use the word in the given sense.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> The word he preferred in _A Companion Volume_ (1923) was "queer."
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> JL
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC <
>>>>>> Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>>>> Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
>>>>>>> Subject:      early "gay" cite (UNCLASSIFIED)
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>> =
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -----
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>>>>>> Caveats: NONE
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Natalie Galustian's "Catalogue of Early Gay Fiction"
>>>>>>> http://www.nataliegalustian.com/theyWereWhatTheyWere.pdf
>>>>>>> includes four editions of "Scarlet Pansy" by Robert Scully =
> (probably
>>>> a
>>>>>>> pseud. for Robert McAlmon), published as far back as 1932.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> The catalogue quotes Hugh Hagius as saying "McAlmon is, I =
> believe,
>>>> the
>>>>>>> first writer to use 'gay' in the sense of same-sex orientation."
>>>> And
>>>>>>> Fred Shapiro in a Jul 15 2003 ADS-L posts quotes part of a Gary
>>>> Simes
>>>>>>> article which has citations from "Scarlet Pansy" which support =
> this.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> The citations are not given any significant context by Simes, and
>>>> the
>>>>>>> auction catalogue doesn't elaborate either, but it is clear that =
> the
>>>>>>> book is full of gay content.
>>>>>>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>>>>>> Caveats: NONE
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle =
> the
>>>>> truth."
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>>=20
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>>>> truth."
>>>>=20
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the =
> truth."
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the =
> truth."
>>=20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org