All of us have, at some point, been transported by a good book: time loses its meaning, our earthly struggles dissipate, the room around us dissolves…
I think this place we are transported to is the world of words that Chamberlin describes. This is the world of the text that becomes suddenly very real, although we know it is not. I appreciated Chamberlin’s question of whether stories can actually make change. “Stories don’t really help, do they?”, he asks. I ask this of my students often – can words make change? I think it is in the journey to and from this world of words that stories are able to affect change.
To illustrate my point I want to use the multi-award winning Canadian TV show, Schitt’s Creek. If you haven’t seen it, put it on your list. It is such a gem. Schitt’s Creek follows a previously wealthy family, having recently lost all their money and their home, as they start a new life in a small town. The aspect of the show that I want to focus on is how it engages with gender and sexuality. David Rose, the son in the Rose family, is pansexual and dresses in a unique and bold style that he wears as confidently as his gender and sexuality. In the first episode of Schitt’s Creek I took in David’s flamboyant personality and I predicted the story that was to come. One where a liberated, confident, city queer moves to a backwoods nowhere town and is attacked by vicious conservative homophobes. Or well-meaning, sweet-seeming, church ladies. Or tough-looking, proudly masculine tractor-riding farm boys. And the flamboyant city queer suffers and suffers and then, through great labour, manages to turn this stupid town around and get on with their life. Or something like that. Do you know that story?
The story told by Schitt’s Creek was so different than I expected. David’s sexuality and gender are not a main plot point at all. They are not a point of conflict. They’re woven into the fabric of the story as other character traits and personal experiences are. People are not frightened or judgemental. Nobody gawks or stares. Everyone’s parents are accepting and only want the best for their children. In one particularly charming scene, David casually explains his sexual preferences to a woman he slept with the night before. This is not the story I thought it would be.
This is a world without homophobia. This, I believe, is the world of words that Chamberlin is talking about. A world we are transported to while encountering a story. And then we return. And our “real” world looks different. It is a sort of riddle and it “requires us to make sense of what seems like nonsense” (Chamberlin, 168). I think it is this journey to and from the world of words that allows for words to make change. “It is in such riddles that we find faith. Or lose it” (Chamberlin, 183). I surely found some faith in the riddle of Schitt’s Creek.
Chamberlin loves to destroy our many perceived dichotomies – settlers and nomad, doers and dreamers, reality and imagination. I believe that the more we depart to the world of words (imagination) and return to our daily lives (reality) the shorter this distance becomes. I would like to believe that the fact that thousands of people watched Schitt’s Creek means that the distance between a world without homophobia and our current world has became a little bit smaller.
My final thought leads us away from Schitt’s Creek and back to a conversation I was having in a comment thread about land acknowledgements and their purpose. If what I’ve said is true – that we travel to a realm created by stories and then return to our lives and reckon with the differences, ultimately bringing imagination and reality closer – perhaps land acknowledgements do the same. Maybe part of their power is to transport us collectively over and over to this world of words, where indigenous sovereignty is honoured, and then ask us to reckon with the reality upon our return.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. A.A. Knopf, 2003.
Ivie, Devon. “Dan Levy Explains Why Homophobia Will Never Infiltrate Schitt’s Creek.” Vulture, 18 Nov. 2018, www.vulture.com/2018/11/dan-levy-explains-why-schitts-creek-has-no-homophobia.html.
Minutaglio, Rose. “Sorry to Moira, But David Is the True Style Icon of ‘Schitt’s Creek’.” ELLE, 5 Feb. 2020, www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a30757231/schitts-creek-dan-levy-david-rose-fashion/.
“‘Schitt’s Creek’ Star Dan Levy On Playing Pansexual.” YouTube, uploaded by Larry King Now, 18 Mar. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4IXXM0A6vg.
“Schitt’s Creek | David and Stevie Discuss Their ‘Wine’ Preferences.” YouTube, uploaded by CW Seed, 9 Aug. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5dIClRkmfc.
~Hi Laura,
I like that you introduced the story-telling of a TV sitcom. It is interesting to think of how TV — which is more than likely a large portion of entertainment in many peoples lives because of the easy access — is able to change our way of thinking (or perhaps try to). I have also watched Schitt’s Creek (such a delightful show!) and I remember the moments you mentioned about the character David’s sexuality. The casual feel of how the show addresses sexuality of this character, without putting any stress on it, makes it feel natural — sexuality is a natural part of life, so why should it have to be explained or be a big deal in other TV sitcoms?
Shows like Schitt’s Creek, with its visual and oral form, I feel will play a part in “normalizing” that which should already be normal. Through the humor of the show I would suggest it also softens the message for those who may not outright accept David’s sexuality from the get-go.
Yes, I totally agree that is normalizes and it does so in this soft and approachable way. it makes me think of the assignment for this week and how we can speak stories into action. That’s what normalizing is – speaking something enough that it becomes real and everyday.
Thanks for your comment!
Hi Laura. Thank you for your eloquent post. I love your description of the potent, imaginative travel to and from the world of worlds. You make me think that the more we recognize ourselves in transit between reality and the world of worlds (so to speak) the more we realize they’re one and the same. As you suggest, a world in which homophobia exists is no more given, no more naturally substantial than one in which it doesn’t. Both depend on discourse, on the stories we tell (or could tell). Chamberlain writes of the “need to reclaim the unbelievability of our belief,” and your post speaks to how empowering this sense of contingency can be (229). The fact that this isn’t the way it had (or has) to be, that we can reevaluate and tell new stories or look at old ones differently, means that we can change word and world at the same time. The imaginings that structure our experience could be better and more humane–and it’s wonderful to think that TV (as medium of a kind of mass fantasy) can make that happen!
Yes – Exactly.
I also think it connects to Chamberlin’s efforts to find common ground. When we start to notice this travel between world and word ‘in-transit-, as you put it, we become aware of how easy it is to travel to this other world and to believe in something else. It makes me think about understanding people who hold different values than me and how I might be able to see how they could believe so strongly in what they believe and I in what I believe. Chamberlin says we must focus on the act of believing and not the belief itself (p. 235).
Thanks for your comment, Connor!
Hi Connor,
That was an insightful post! I’ve watched a few episodes of the Creek, of course, who hasn’t, but your analysis made me think of something that hadn’t occurred before and that’s the parallel with the 1970’s “All In the Family.” My idea is that both these shows cause viewers to examine their own biases and bad tendencies, and so improve themselves. If you don’t remember AITF, Archie Bunker was the arch-bigot; he was prejudiced in every way possible, it seemed, and he was surrounded by sweet progressives––so it was hilarious––but I suspect it helped a lot of viewers examine and control their own worst biases. Not me, of course: present company excepted. Schitt’s Creek is more subtle than AITF; Archie was more in-your-face than the elder Roses, but maybe they take over where Archie left off; maybe today’s prejudices are more subtle, too. Anyway, thanks!
Cheers!
Joe
Hi Joe,
I haven’t watched AITF but I see the connection. Comedy has such a brilliant way of asking us to look at our lives and making us think it was our idea. It sounds like AITF’s way of getting you to examine your life was to say, ‘maybe you don’t want to be like this guy.’ Whereas, Schitt’s Creek’s method is more like, ‘these complete weirdo’s can be supportive and loving – you can too.’
Thanks for your comment, Connor 😉
Oops! Sorry, Laura. I don’t know why I called you “Connor.” I’ll get it straight next time…