[off-list] Re: [ADS-L] early "gay" cite

Thu Sep 22 16:57:40 UTC 2011

The following message was meant for everybody but went to Joel:

Worth adding is that the phrase "went gay," which is what Grant said, was
even less common than "go gay."
>
>
> JL
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Joel,
>>
>> Yeah, ask him!  I'm sure he has, but the asking should bug him.
>>
>> If the Noel Coward song of 1929 in Wiki is accurately quoted and
>> described, it actually may have inspired the new meaning, particularly if
>> the reference to Oscar Wilde is legit. Or Coward may have been sending a
>> coded message. Just what that might have been is unclear to me, unless it
>> was "I'm in on the secret that 'gay' means 'queer'! Come up and see me some
>> time!"
>>
>> IIRC, Cory was writing about the '50s.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This message is intended for Jon, and I trust went only to him.  :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information in this and your earlier message "intended for
>>> Joel".  I would have been headed off to the HDAS this morning had I not
>>> received the earlier one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Butters wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should I conclude that he has read "A Scarlet Pansy", and therefore
>>> (re-)examining it is not necessary?  Or will you tell me to ask him?
>>>
>>> I too thought "scantily clad" couldn't apply to anything Katherine
>>> Hepburn might wear.  (Or was it her aunt's?  Wouldn't apply there either, I
>>> imagine.)
>>>
>>> I notice that Wikipedia on "Bringing Up Baby" has a discussion on its use
>>> of  "gay", citing sources that I haven't seen mentioned on ADS-L.  But I
>>> suppose Ron wrote that section, and he, you, and Tom Cobley are all familiar
>>> with those sources.
>>>
>>> But there is one comment I particularly noticed:  "Cory continues that it
>>> was such an insiders' term that "an advertisement for a roommate can
>>> actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual."
>>>   Has anyone searched 20th century American newspapers for advertisements
>>> requesting a "gay" roommate?
>>>
>>> After the sentence quoted above, Wikipedia cites two books available via
>>> Google Books, but neither talks about newspapers.  One, however -- Global
>>> feminisms since 1945, by Bonnie G. Smith -- does refer to a *1936* Broadway
>>> musical called "Bittersweet", which "had a line-up of chorus boys singing a
>>> song whose refrain was: 'We are the reason for the Nineties being gay.'"
>>>  New news, or not?
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> At 9/22/2011 09:49 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following post was intended for everyone, but the magic of automatic
>>>> addressing sent it to Ron only:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My post was intended for Joel, but the magic of automatic addressing
>>>> sent it
>>>> > to everyone.
>>>> > Which is fine with me.
>>>> >
>>>> > 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."
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > GB searches for "gay _folies_," "gaies folies," "folies gaies," in
>>>> > anglophone sources are equally futile, and nearly as futile in French
>>>> ones.
>>>> >
>>>> > NewspaperArchive reveals a racehorse named "Gay Follies," active in
>>>> Texas
>>>> > in the mid- '30s. Relevance: none.
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > JL
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Ron Butters <ronbutters at aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The 1941 cite that JL mentions is the earliest clear reference.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This has all been discussed on ADS-L many times, by the way.
>>>> >> Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ------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
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Joel,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But there's no way to know, is there?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Jon
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > ---------------------- 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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> -------------------
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Jon,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 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"?   :-)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 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.)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > (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 = 'homosexual' (except
>>>> maybe
>>>> >> > some gay people themselves, who at the time preferred QUEER or THAT
>>>> >> > WAY as terms of self-reference."
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > (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.)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Joel
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 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.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >The word he preferred in _A Companion Volume_ (1923) was "queer."
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >JL
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC <
>>>> >> > >Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > > ---------------------- 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)
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>>> -------------------
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>>>> >> > > > Caveats: NONE
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > Natalie Galustian's "Catalogue of Early Gay Fiction"
>>>> >> > > > http://www.nataliegalustian.**com/theyWereWhatTheyWere.pdf<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.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > 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.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > 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
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------
>>>> >> > > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >--
>>>> >> > >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle
>>>> the
>>>> >> > truth."
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > >-----------------------------**------------------------------**-
>>>> >> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------
>>>> >> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>>>> >> truth."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------
>>>> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>>>> truth."
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>>>> truth."
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------
>>>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>> truth."
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>

--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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