Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre

Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 87–105

Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre

Kathleen Battles and Wendy Hilton-Morrow

ᮀ—This paper explores how Will & Grace, which has been heralded in the popular press for its positive representations of gay men, situates the potentially controversial issue of homosexuality within safe and familiar popular culture conventions, particularly those of the situation comedy genre. This paper draws on feminist and queer theory to examine the liabilities of relying on these familiar situation comedy conventions, demonstrating how the program equates gayness with a lack of masculinity, relies on sexual tension and delayed consummation, infantilizes the program’s most potentially subversive characters, and emphasisizes characters’ interpersonal relationships rather than the characters’ connection to the larger social world. Additionally it argues that by inviting mainstream audiences to read the program within familiar televisual frames, Will & Grace can be read as reinforcing heterosexism and, thus, can be seen as heteronormative.

hen Will & Grace took to the tion, 2000). Since its premiere, Will & Wairwaves in September 1998, it Grace has won numerous awards, in- broke new ground, offering the ﬁrst cluding a People’s Choice Award as gay male lead on U.S. broadcast televi- Favorite New Comedy Series, a Golden sion. By its third season, the situation Globe nomination for Best Comedy comedy was one of 22 shows that por- Series, an American Comedy Award trayed gay or lesbian characters in lead- nomination for Funniest Television Se- ing, supporting or recurring roles (Gay ries, two GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian and Lesbian Alliance Against Defama- Alliance Against Defamation) Media Awards for Outstanding TV Comedy Series and a Founders Award from the Wendy Hilton-Morrow is a doctoral student Viewers for Quality Television. And and Kathleen Battles a Ph.D. candidate in the during the 52nd annual Emmy Awards, Department of Communication Studies at the Will & Grace was nominated in 11 University of Iowa. An earlier version of this categories, taking home awards for Out- paper was completed as part of the Gay and standing Comedy Series, Outstanding Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Center Supporting Actress, and Outstanding for the Study of Media and Society Research Supporting Actor. Initiative on Will and Grace. The authors wish to thank Bruce Gronbeck, the two anony- The program follows the lives of mous reviewers, and Bonnie J. Dow for their Will Truman, a successful, attractive, many helpful comments and suggestions. The Manhattan lawyer, and his best friend authors further wish to thank GLAAD for their Grace Adler, a beautiful, self-employed, ﬁnancial support in completion of this project. interior decorator. The two would

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 make a perfect couple—and in fact, were rich (1993) predicted, “A regular net- college sweethearts—except for one bar- work program with gay or lesbian main rier: Will is gay and Grace is straight. characters is far in the future” (p. 402).1 The two are in a constant search for At that time gay characters appeared lifelong mates, but the search has never only occasionally and generally in sec- turned up a relationship as special as ondary roles. Later in the decade some the one that they share with each other. were left wondering if ABC’s 1998 can- Their lives are complicated by two cellation of Ellen, whose character and supporting characters, who are any- actor simultaneously came out, would thing but typical. Karen Walker is a mean the death of gay characters in straight, wealthy socialite and alco- leading television roles (Sullivan, 1998). holic who works for Grace as her assis- Instead of playing it safe after the con- tant because her life of leisure leaves troversies surrounding Ellen, NBC pre- her bored. Karen offers an appropriate miered Will & Grace the following fall. counterpart for Will’s friend, Jack. Jack GLAAD applauded the show for pre- is a flamboyantly gay, continually un- senting two different, yet likable, repre- employed, self-described actor/dancer/ sentations of gay men and for present- choreographer. ing their sexuality “simply as a part of As Will & Grace has found commer- who [Will and Jack] are as individu- cial success and critical acclaim, the als.” (1998). Other critics praised the U.S. remains embroiled in a number of show for dealing with gay subject mat- struggles demonstrating the continued ter and including explicit gay refer- contentiousness of gay and lesbian is- ences. “[T]his was the first example of sues within our heterosexist society. gay subject matter going totally main- Three years after Congress passed the stream, for there is nothing so main- Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the stream—not Broadway, not movies, not Vermont legislature passed a “civil novels—as The Box” (Holleran, 2000, unions” law, which legally recognized p. 65). committed same-sex relationships. Indeed, Will & Grace’s appeal went However, 34 states have enacted laws beyond the small, niche gay market, denying recognition of same-sex mar- attracting larger, mainstream2 audi- riages in other states (George, 2001). ences. By the program’s fourth week, it After the Supreme Court ruled in a ranked number one in its timeslot in split 5-to-4 decision that the boy scouts the highly lucrative 18– 49 demo- did not have to accept gays or lesbians graphic (Jacobs, 1998). In its second as employees or leaders, gay rights season the show ranked among the groups began pressuring sponsors and 1999–2000 season’s top 20 series the government to withdraw funding (NBC, 2000). When Will & Grace went from the organization. And three years head-to-head with ABC’s Dharma & after Matthew Shepard was brutally Greg, a sitcom about a quirky hetero- murdered by two men solely because sexual couple, the two networks found of his sexuality, gays and lesbians are themselves competing for the same de- more visible in the media than ever mographics and the same advertisers before (Wyatt, 2000). (Frankel, 2000). “All this mainstream Given this cultural climate it is not success suggests that it appeals to view- surprising that just five years before ers who might not ordinarily be in- Will & Grace debuted, Fejes and Pet- clined to watch a “queer” show” 89

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW

(Gairola, 2001). This increased visibil- form textual analysis of Will & Grace ity is, for some, a sign of society’s grow- episodes from the 2000–2001 season ing acceptance of the gay community. to explore the liabilities of relying on In an issue of Entertainment Weekly de- familiar sitcom conventions. We will voted to “Gay Hollywood,” Benjamin draw upon feminist and queer theory Svetkey (2000) made this equation: to demonstrate how the program continually positions gayness in opposi- [T]oday, in 2000 A.D. (After DeGeneres), tion to masculinity, pairs its characters gay characters are so common on televi- in familiar opposite-sex dyads, defuses sion, so unexotic, that their sexual orientation has become all but invisible to most the most outrageous characters’ threats viewers. It is, in a sense, the ultimate sign to heteronormativity, and emphasizes of acceptance ...” (p. 26). interpersonal relationships at the expense of gay politics. Implicit in these statements is that greater visibility equals greater social acceptance. However to say that Will Will the Tru-Man Please & Grace’s large audience, comprised of Stand Up: Gayness both gay and straight viewers, signals a and Masculinity cultural acceptance of the gay and lesbian lifestyle is premature. As Dow Before Will & Grace first premiered, (2001) similarly points out in her analy- GLAAD (1998) applauded the repre- sis of Ellen, “saying the success of Ellen’s sentations of Will and his more flam- initial coming out means the end of boyant sidekick, Jack, as “different prejudice against gays and lesbians is types of gay men—both of which are like saying that the success of The Cosby valued within the community.” Given Show in the 1980s signaled the end of the negative stereotypes of gay men racism” (p. 128; see also Gray, 1994; that have been a part of television since Lewis, 1991). its earliest years (Fejes & Petrich, 1993), This paper takes a critical approach the two gay characters on Will & Grace to examining portrayals of gay charac- can be considered progressive. How- ters on television, rejecting the assump- ever, these two characters are position that the mere representation of tioned within a narrative space that gay men in primetime television neces- relies on familiar comedic conventions sarily reflects a huge shift in societal for addressing homosexuality—equat- attitudes towards gays and lesbians in ing gayness with a lack of masculinity. America. Instead, we will argue that In Hollywood, homosexuality histori- Will & Grace makes the topic of homo- cally has been defined in opposition to sexuality more palatable to a large, masculinity; gayness is that which is mainstream television audience by situ- not masculine (Russo, 1985, Epstein & ating it within safe and familiar popu- Friedman, 1996). Comedic conven- lar culture conventions, particularly tions of film and television have histori- those of the situation comedy genre. cally reinforced and poked fun at this Additionally, we will argue that by in- stereotype of the gay man (Fejes & viting viewers to read the program Petrich, 1993; Dow, 2001). By relying within familiar televisual frames, Will on this conventional representational & Grace can be read as reinforcing strategy, Will & Grace fails to challenge heterosexism and, thus, can be seen as the heterosexist equation between ho- heteronormative.3 Our paper will per- mosexuality and that which is “not 90

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 masculine,” and in the process allows acter for “not being gay enough” enough space in the narrative for view- ( Jacobs, 1998). ers to read Will’s character as straight. Rather than determining how “gay” Additionally, the program does not Will is, a move that risks essentializing force viewers to question heteronorma- gay identity,4 a more productive line of tive assumptions of gender inversion. analysis is to consider how Will’s “gay- Gender inversion refers to the com- ness” is defined at specific moments in monly held belief that homosexuals the text. In this case, it is significant are oppositely gendered; a gay man is that whenever Will & Grace specifi- considered more feminine than a cally deals with Will’s sexuality the straight man and vice versa with a series falls back on the convention of lesbian in contrast to a straight woman feminizing Will. The November 23, (Sedgewick, 1990). 2000 (Greenstein & Burrows) episode The character of Will could be con- provides the audience with the particu- sidered more threatening to an ideol- lars of Will and Grace’s romantic rela- ogy of heteronormativity because he tionship in college. While Will gener- offers a different model for homosexu- ally fits very well into a mainstream ality. Unlike his feminized counter- model of masculinity, this coming-out part, Jack, Will fits well into a main- episode defines his gayness in opposi- stream model of masculinity, being tion to heterosexual masculinity. A handsome, muscular, and physically flashback introduces the audience to Will and Grace as college students, fit. He mirrors the image of the “young, where they are attending a “kegger” in white, Caucasian ...with a well a dorm room. The camera scans a muscled, smooth body, handsome face, roomful of couples making out. The good education, professional job, and camera lingers on one couple as the high income” that advertisers purport man, kissing the woman, tells her “I as the model to which all gay men am so into you.” As it pans to another should aspire (Fejes, 2000, p. 115). This couple kissing, the man also tells his version of gay masculinity is in no way girlfriend, “I am so into you.” Then the different from the same image being camera comes to a rest on Will and sold to heterosexual men. Will pro- Grace, her sitting on his lap. He tells vides a mainstream audience with a her, “I am so into those earrings.” Im- likable, well-assimilated gay character mediately, Will is defined as being dif- that is very different from the negative ferent from (more feminine than) his stereotypes of gay characters in early masculine heterosexual college bud- television. However, his character has dies. Will and his roommate eventu- been criticized for confining the por- ally meet up at the keg and the audi- trayal of gay men to those who are ence is again exposed to Will’s more white and upper-middle class, making feminine concerns, asking his room- his character more acceptable to a mate if his “butt look[s] big in these mainstream heterosexual audience at jeans.” His roommate replies, “Dude, the expense of alienating a large por- I’m a guy. I don’t know. Just get some tion of the gay community (Gairola, pants that fit and leave me alone,” 2001). And while some praise Will’s insinuating that Will is not a real “guy.” character as being positive and pro- Will is likewise effeminized in the gressive, others have attacked the char- episodes featuring his most significant 91

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW romantic relationship to date, with tial heterosexuality within desire itself Matt, a sportscaster. As a sports fa- by emasculating Will in his relation- natic, Matt is instantly marked as more ship with the macho, sports-oriented masculine than Will. For their first date Matt. Because Will is portrayed as more they meet at a sports bar, where the feminine in the episodes that focus on following exchange takes place (Poust, their relationship, the heteronormative Kinally, & Burrows, 2000): understanding of desire—as existing between a masculine person and a femi- Matt: [To bartender] Two more please. [To Will] I love sports. I always wanted to nine person—is upheld (Sedgewick, be a sportscaster. I used to hold my moth- 1990). (Although, as will be discussed er’s curling iron and pretend I was Howard below, Will and Matt’s relationship Cosell. might be better understood as male Will: Funny. You know when I was a kid, I bonding rather than actual desire.) used to hold my mother’s curling iron and Ironically, these episodes that demon- pretend I was Eartha Kitt. strate Will’s gayness through gender inversion are the exceptions to how The marking of Will as feminine con- Will is generally portrayed. It is when tinues, as Will takes batting lessons the program must explicitly account from Grace because he believes that for his homosexuality that he is de- Matt broke up with his last boyfriend fined as “not masculine.” for not sharing his interest in sports. As If gayness is defined in this manner, Will discusses Grace’s adventures re- then the usual oppositioning of Will decorating Jack’s apartment, Grace looks on in disgust as Will misses every and Jack is important. They are de- ball pitched to him by the machine, fined by their difference. They are con- finally blurting out in frustration, “Hit trasted by physical appearance, responsi- the freaking ball you damn sissy!” Then bility levels, and even the relationships Grace proceeds to show Will how to that they pursue. Will is always in search hit the ball, doing her best imitation of of romance, desiring a man with whom macho-style ball playing, finally in- he can share “His and His SUVs and 2.5 structing Will to get some snacks. The Jack Russell Terriers.” Meanwhile, Jack next scene finds Will and Grace back juggles multiple boyfriends, continually at their apartment, where Will asks flirting with nearly every man—gay or Grace to admire his first “sports in- straight—with whom he comes in con- jury,” a blister on his finger. Grace tact. Jack fulfills the stereotype of the congratulates him and then tells him flamboyant gay man and Will provides that she hopes that he didn’t mind that the norm of masculinity against which they had to move to the “kiddie” area. Jack’s gayness is defined. “Even Will She chides him for feeling like a man and his other friends poke fun at Jack’s when he hit the clown, to which Will campiness, thus drawing a distinction sheepishly agrees. between their ‘straighter’-seeming gay- These episodes reinforce a defini- ness and Jack’s overt ‘queeniness’” tion of gayness as that which is not (Gairola, 2001). Because the program masculine, and even present gay mas- repeatedly codes nonmasculine qualities culinity as a “pale imitation” of hetero- as gay, then one must wonder about the sexual femininity, asserting the pri- sexual coding of masculine qualities, macy of heterosexuality (Butler, 1991). which is not made as clear. This allows Additionally, they preserve an essen- Will’s sexuality to be more ambiguous. 92

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002

Additionally, Will’s character, because it viduals) constantly fails or is safe- is defined against the flamboyant gay guarded within the parameters of “male man, becomes a safer, better-assimilated bonding” rather than same-sex desire. portrayal of a gay man. He fits into the A staple of the situation comedy, new masculine, asexual images of gays and of mainstream television and film in the media that “in no way challenge in general, is the search for romance, the heteronormativity of mainstream so- many times played out as a battle of ciety” (Fejes, 2000, p. 116). the sexes. Scodari (1995), for example, explores the spate of romantic situation comedies of the late 1980s as an “Romantic” Comedy? adaptation of the screwball romances of the 1930s and 40s. These situation Will & Grace typically pairs its char- comedies find their humor in the play- acters in opposite sex dyads. It is in ful interactions within the ostensibly these heterosocial (relationships be- egalitarian relationships between men tween men and women) dyads that and women who are either already in these characters find their most success- romantic relationships or in search of ful relationships. While all four charac- them. Oftentimes these relationships ters interact with one another, there are played out in terms of a delayed are clear bonds along heterosocial lines. consummation plotline. Originally the Will and Grace are oftentimes posi- term applied to classical era Holly- tioned as a couple and Jack and Karen wood films in which sex before mar- usually operate as “partners in crime.” These pairings are represented in the riage was not permitted to be por- program’s opening sequence in which trayed, leading to films that usually the characters stand in a line—Will, centered around the male lead’s desire Grace, Karen, and Jack—visually fram- to consummate the relationship and ing the dominant character interac- the female lead’s desire to get married. tions on the program. Will and Grace In between, a lot of playful barbs were are standing closer together, as are Jack exchanged between the couples (Ep- and Karen, than are Grace and Karen, stein & Friedman, 1996). As Scodari emphasizing their heterosocial pair- has argued, television sitcoms adopted ings. Will and Jack, the two gay charac- this type of plot, which in the weekly ters are farthest away from each other, series format allows for a constant re- signaling the absence of romantic ten- play of the delay of consummation sion in their relationship. Read alone, between the lead male and female char- each of these relationships can be read acters. In fact, many working in the positively as challenging typical repre- television industry argue that consum- sentation of straights and gays, offering mation often equals the death of the safe, caring relationships between both series as the dominant narrative ten- opposite and same sex dyads that do sion that keeps viewers tuning in week not lead to sex. Read against each other, after week disappears ( Jacobs, 1998). however, and in terms of sitcom and Will & Grace offers the “ultimate twist” popular cultural romantic conventions, on the delayed consummation trope, these pairings can tell a different story. separating potential lovers by sexual Will & Grace continually privileges orientation. Armistead Maupin, whose heterosociality, while homosociality (re- book-turned-miniseries Tales of the City lationships between same-sexed indi- featured a gay man and straight woman, 93

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW acknowledges that the old obstacles of After Grace assures Will that her affec- distance or class are no longer convinc- tions are true, they share a kiss on the ing to audiences: “The only thing you lips and an embrace. can come up with that keeps the lead Another episode (Barr & Burrows, actor and actress from doing it today is 2001) deals with the provocative issue homosexuality” (quoted in Jacobs, of gay marriage by having the four 1998). By relying on this largely hetero- characters attend a commitment cer- sexual romantic convention writers are emony for their friends Joe and Larry. able to tease audiences without fear of However, throughout the episode Will the post-consummation ratings drop. and Grace are clearly positioned as a As its creators have acknowledged, Will shadow couple of Joe and Larry and it & Grace likewise relies on this latest is their relationship that takes center twist of the delayed consummation con- stage. When Will and Grace meet Joe vention (Svetkey, 2000). and Larry for dinner in New York, Joe Will and Grace share an intimacy looks fondly upon Will and Grace bick- with one another that they cannot find ering over dessert, asking, “You guys in a sexual partner. They routinely are so cute together. Are we?” Then, perform roles associated with couples, Joe and Larry ask Will and Grace to do particularly married heterosexual part- a reading together at their ceremony, ners. They have lived together, argu- further positioning them as a couple. ing over matters of bathroom time and As the episode progresses Grace is other mundane issues associated with clearly being positioned as Will’s wife, marriage. In the third season premiere much to Will’s resentment. While in (Kohan, Mutchnick, & Burrows, 2000), the car ride on the way up to Vermont, when Will returns unexpectedly from the two continue to fight over money, an extended business trip overseas, he prompting Karen to blurt in frustra- asks Grace, “Where’s the love? I just tion, “Just climb on top of each other flew coach.” Grace jumps up into Will’s and get it over with already!” While arms, wrapping her legs around his meant as a joke, Karen’s comment waist and then hugs him from the be- highlights the way in which the tension hind. After their initial greeting Will in Will and Grace’s relationship closely explains to Grace why he decided to resembles the sexual tension and bick- come back. “I missed you. I just felt ering between heterosexuals in other every time you needed me I wasn’t sitcoms prior to the consummation of there.” As the episode progresses, Will their relationships (e.g. Sam and Diane grows jealous over Grace and Jack’s in Cheers or Rachel and Ross in Friends). new found closeness. When Grace asks The two continue to bicker, until Will what she can do to reassure him they are prompted to stand and per- that she has not replaced him with form their reading during the cer- Jack, he responds, “I don’t know. How emony. As they recite the short poem about something like you need me about love, they begin to address each more than anyone else. There’s no one other, until finally they admit their love who could ever take my place. And for each other and make up. On the that you promise when your last breath one hand, this poem, which discusses escapes you in this earthly life it will the possession of infinite amounts of whisper my name. [In a whisper] ‘Will.’ love, indicates that Will and Grace can But you know, in your own words.” love each other, and still have enough 94

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 love for potential romantic partners. which any possible attraction between The poem also suggests that fulfillment the characters is dealt with marks even cannot be achieved through others, or the hint of same-sex intimacy as a per- at least, need not be achieved through version. Moreover, when considered a romantic partner. On the other hand, in comparison to the romantic tension Will and Grace clearly get caught up in in Will and Grace’s relationship, the this reading designed to commemorate lack of a similar tension between Jack a marriage. Once they finish they turn and Will could be understood as a to each other and confess their love to significant absence. As Fejes (2000) ex- each other, each uttering the statement plains, “While in the past same sex “I do.” When finished, the guests ap- desire and the males who practiced it plaud, and Will and Grace march down were depicted as ‘not really men’ at the aisle as if they are, in fact, the pair best, and sick and depraved at worst, getting married. It is a gentle reminder today representations of gay males in from Joe and Larry that brings Will the media often separate same sex de- and Grace back to their seats, but only sire from the males who practice it, after the same sex union ceremony has representing the latter in a positive, become incidental to the vows ex- masculine, and upbeat manner while changed between Will and Grace. In making the former invisible” (p. 116). this way the program deflects attention While Jack and his desires are not from the potential threat posed by por- invisible in the show, Will’s frequently traying gay marriage to a mainstream are; when they do appear are safely audience by focusing on the relation- figured within the conventions of male ship between Will and Grace, who bonding. have been coded as a couple. Occasionally the denial of desire be- By pairing Will and Grace as the tween Will and Jack becomes quite central dyad in the text, the program explicit. During a visit to Psychic Sue deftly escapes having to deal in a more (Palmer & Burrows, 2000), Will is told overt matter with same-sex attraction. that he already knows the man with While heterosocial pairings are success- whom he will spend the rest of his life, ful, the program does not allow the and that his name begins with the letter same success for homosocial relation- “J.” In this humorous scene we see ships, which are often marked by a Will pondering over whom he cur- failure to communicate and achieve rently knows whose name begins with intimacy. This is especially true be- the letter “J,” the audience knowing, of tween Jack and Will, who are the only course, that Psychic Sue is speaking of recurring gay characters on the pro- Jack, whose name she finally blurts gram, but can rarely spend meaningful out, much to the horror of Will. The time together. Whatever time they do rest of the episode focuses on Will’s spend together is purposively devoid revulsion of the idea, which is ex- of any hint of sexual intimacy or attrac- plored through a series of humorous tion between the characters. On the interludes between him and Jack, lead- one hand, this can be read as a positive ing to a playful reenactment of a stan- representation because it demonstrates dard “honey, I’m home” scene com- that gay men can form bonds that are mon to the imagining of domestic not based solely on sexual intimacy.5 sitcom life. Will arrives home and is On the other hand, the manner in greeted by Jack emerging from the 95

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW bathroom greeting him with an ironic Will: Sex is out of the question. I don’t “Hi honey.” even like to see your head poke through your sweater. Will: [Clearly upset] What are you doing here? This scene offers an extreme play on Jack: Calm down, I was just using your tub the denial of possible consummation [pause] and your ylang ylang. [ Jumping of a relationship between same-sex towards Will] You like? You like? friends. The scene, played ironically Will: Why don’t you leave, you leave. within the format of a sitcom marriage, Jack: Why are you so crabby? Bad day at with the husband coming home after a the office? long day at work to a feminine, stay-at- Will: No, I just wanted to come home and home wife who is making herself pre- not to Madame Butterfly. sentable for her tired husband, is one that will be familiar to most situation Jack: [approaching Will]: Helloooo gor- geous suit. Where did we get this, huh? comedy viewers. What makes it strange [He runs his fingers up Will’s arm and then (and humorous) is that two men per- moves behind him, grabbing him.] Nice. form the role of husband and wife. The The shoulders, the pecs, the pits, the waist. disruption caused to this domestic scene Woo! is handled with absolute denial of any Will: [Breaks away from Jack in horror and same-sex affection or erotic desire, as blurts out.] I AM NOT HAVING SEX played through a culturally-constructed WITH YOU!! revulsion against gay male sex. Will’s Jack: [Shocked] WHAT! revulsion at Jack’s touch mirrors similar homophobic scenes played over Will: I am never having sex with you. We are never having sex. Sex with you, NO! and over again in films and in television. It is telling, for example, that Jack: Oh, you poor thing. That wasn’t sex. Will’s outburst of revulsion comes Alright, how can I explain this [pauses as he moves closer to Will] When two men when Jack is grabbing him from be- are in love and committed and greased up hind, a position that suggests anal inter- like two pigs at a county fair ... course. When Grace touches Will from Will: NO! Psychic Sue said I’m going to behind in the episode discussed above spend my life with a man named Jack. (Kohan, Mutchnick, & Burrows, 2000), it is in no way threatening. Will’s out- Jack: Jack who? burst, in fact, amounts to what can be Will: Jack you. seen as a hysterical denial of same-sex Jack: Jack me? desire. At the same time, in an ironic Will: No THANKS! [Voice goes up on twist, the idea of same-sex relation- thanks. Looking perturbed, he moves next ships can only be imagined through to Jack.] You know ordinarily I wouldn’t the conventions of heterosexual rela- believe all this psychic stuff, but she’s been tionships, thus underscoring that het- right about everything else ...[pause] erosexuality is at the root of all desire.6 ... What if she’s right about this? [Both The most curious statement in this ex- walk to opposite ends of the room]. change, however, comes from Jack, Jack: Well, what if she is right [looking who, when trying to explain sex to somewhat horrified]? Will, says that two men should be in Will: I wonder what that is going to be like. love and committed. This is a strange Jack: I’m gonna [stuttering slightly] have to comment for Jack to make, as he is have my own place. frequently portrayed as having mul- 96

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 tiple sexual partners and is devoid of of heterosexual male bonding. When any desire for a long-term stable rela- they embrace, it is devoid of apparent tionship. This comment, however, al- romantic affection, and their hugs fre- lows gay sex to be safely figured in quently end with shoulder pats, or other conventional heterosexual terms of gestures that read more like male bond- emotional intimacy, thus de-eroticiz- ing. ing the gay male sexual act. The sec- Relying on the convention of male ond part of the comment, “greased up bonding to frame potential male-to- like two pigs at a county fair,” simulta- male desire allows for a safe represen- neously marks homosexuality as devi- tation of homosexuality at a time when ant. Here we have a catch-22: in a the portrayal of gay desire on broad- heteronormative system of gender and cast television is generally accompa- sex relationships, same sex desire must nied by disclaimers and advertiser wari- be denied or marked as deviant; at the ness. However, the de-eroticization or same time, if it must be imagined it can total erasure of same-sex desire in a only be done so through heteronorma- text that does not de-eroticize or erase tive social and cultural conventions. heterosexual desire7 fails to challenge After receiving much criticism for the homophobic sanction against same- Will’s apparent asexuality, the pro- sex desire. gram’s creators introduced a more seri- Generally, Will & Grace’s funniest ous love interest for Will. However, and most outrageous moments come instead of allowing the audience to see not from the two leading characters, the development of a sexual relation- but from the two supporting charac- ship between two male characters, the ters, Karen and Jack. Both characters relationship is safely figured within the continually call into question the as- convention of “male bonding.” Their sumptions and beliefs of a heterosexist first date takes place in a sports bar culture through their dialogue and ac- (Poust, Kinally, & Burrows, 2001). Dur- tions. However, the potential social cri- ing this scene, Matt mentions that he tique offered by these characters for a plays weekend ball with some “bud- mainstream audience is often con- dies,” a term more typically associated tained by their position within the sit- with heterosexual male bonding. The com narrative structure. Situation com- two play basketball together, which edies feature stable recurring casts of ends in a locker room scene during characters who rarely remember events which Will finally confesses his disinter- from previous episodes, and who est in sports. This locker room scene is hardly ever achieve personal growth, potentially threatening due to the com- instead occupying a particular slot in mon homophobic fear of gay men star- the sitcom narrative: father, mother, ing at straight men, and indeed the best friend, precocious child, buffoon, scene can be read as a direct and pro- etc. Thus, the situation comedy relies vocative challenge to this fear. How- on a set of domestic and familial-like ever, this locker room scene, and one relationships to structure the narrative from the following episode (Kohan, slots available to characters in the pro- Mutchnick, & Burrows, 2001), also gram. Even when programs do not works to safely contain any threat of take place within a family or home, the desire between the two male charac- setting still functions as a surrogate ters by placing it within the safer sphere home and the characters relate to each 97

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW other as part of a family (MacDonald, sitting in a bar, the camera frames a 1979; Newcomb, 1974). We see this in two-shot of Grace and Karen. Karen is Will & Grace as Jack and Karen are looking across the room at someone continually infantilized, occupying the out of the camera’s frame. She pulls slot of children to Will and Grace’s down her shirt to reveal her cleavage. narrative slots as parents. For example, Grace looks on horrified and asks in two episodes during the 2000–2001 Karen why she is doing this. Karen’s season, the four characters appear to- childish reply is “She started it,” to gether in automobiles. In each case, which Grace emphatically responds, Will and Grace sit up front, acting as “SHE’S NURSING!” Karen, proving de-facto parents to Jack and Karen, her inability to recognize such mater- who sit in the back seat and remain nal behavior is left to respond, “Oh, oblivious to where they are going, con- well that explains the little bald man.” cerned only with their own desires. In Karen also rejects the role of com- one episode (Rosenstock & Burrows, forter, which again leads to the failure 2000), Will and Grace enter her office of any homosocial bonding. In many to find Karen talking dirty on the scenes Karen proves that she is inca- phone. When she sees them, she says, pable of offering real emotional com- “Crap, I gotta go. Mom and Mom are fort to any of the characters, instead home.” While each character calls into she remains primarily concerned with question dominant cultural ideologies fulfilling her own desires. Moreover, regarding gender and sexuality, this is Karen challenges traditional ideolo- limited by their placement in the narra- gies about marriage, making it clear tive. that her marriage is based on an ex- Karen can be read as calling into change model. She gives her husband question those roles generally associ- sex and he gives her all the money she ated with being a woman—supportive wants. She views marriage as a contrac- mother, friend and wife. In one epi- tual obligation that must be fulfilled, sode (Palmer & Burrows, 2001), Karen’s not as a loving relationship between stepson, Mason, wins a spot on his two people, and thus not through the school’s swim team, and Jack chides heterosexual ideology of romance. In Karen for not attending any of the the February 8, 2001 (Kohan, Mutch- meets. Feeling guilty, Karen attends, nick, & Burrows, 2001) episode, Karen but with a large plastic cup full of and Jack go to the bank so that Karen booze in hand. She argues with the can take out some jewels from her safe other mothers who chide her for her deposit box to attend a charity ball. bad mothering skills. As Mason com- Fondling the jewels, she says to Jack, petes, Karen cheers him on, yelling, “Looking at all of these jewels. Stan has “Go! Go! Honey, Swim! Swim! I know been so good to me honey. [Picking up you can do it. Hey! Hey, if you win, the jewels one at a time.] On my knees tonight I’ll let you watch the Spice in Belize. On my back in Iraq. Oh, and Channel! [To another mother] That lit then there was that time in Nantucket. a fire under the horny little monkey!” [She and Jack both giggle.] Oh, good Karen even sexualizes the most basic times ...Well, good jewels anyway.” maternal behavior when she sees it. In Karen provides a delightfully funny the November 23, 2000 (Greenstein & character who rejects all traditional ide- Burrows) episode, when the group is ologies about what it means to be a 98

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 woman—failing at even the most basic by Will and Grace. The camera rou- maternal level, putting herself before tinely cuts to Will and Grace for reac- all others, and rejecting any notions of tion shots, which typically involve a marriage as anything more than an shaking of the head or rolling of the exchange of sex for money. In this eyes to demonstrate that Jack is not to way, Karen could be read as challeng- be taken seriously. ing the dominant gender structure and Jack’s character is more complicated sexist and heterosexist assumptions. than this, though, because of the possi- One popular press critic calls her “the bility that he can be read as camp. only really gay character on the sit- “This classic gay (male) strategy of sub- com” (Holleran, 2000). However, she version is camp – an ironic stance to- is such an extreme character that the ward the straight world rooted in a gay sheer audacity of her words and ac- sensibility” (Gross, 1989, p. 143). tions can safely diffuse any potential Therefore, Jack’s exaggerated behav- threat she may offer. Karen’s com- ior could be read as a critique of main- ments are generally followed by audi- stream culture. However, as John Fiske ence/laugh track laughter demonstrat- (1987) argues, jokes function to open ing that she is a screwball character not up the meaning of a text “through a to be taken seriously. Additionally, the collision of discourses” (p. 87). The more mainstream characters, Will and script of Will & Grace cannot control Grace, offer reactions that demonstrate the meaning that audiences make of how over-the-top she actually is. In the jokes about Jack’s performances. So, breastfeeding example offered above, while Jack is a likable character who Grace is horrified by Karen’s behavior. provides an alternative to heterosexual After Karen’s final comment about “the masculinity, the polysemic nature of little bald man,” Will redirects atten- joking allows audiences to either laugh tion back to his story by beginning, with Jack or at Jack. In fact, this ambi- “ANYWAY ....” as if to completely guity of meaning is necessary in a prime dismiss Karen. While Karen might of- time television text attempting to reach fer a gay sensibility for some of the a large audience.8 And because Jack’s program’s viewers, her position within performance of gayness fits within a the familiar role of child or buffoon historical framework of media images within the situation comedy narrative that make homosexuality the focus of means that such a sensibility need not humor, his character can also be read be taken seriously by the mainstream as upholding heterosexism. When the audience. studio audience roars as Will refers to Jack’s character can also be read as Jack as “Mrs. Jack McFarland,” the threatening traditional categories of pleasure comes from an understanding gender and sexuality. He constantly of the “sissy,” or the “queen.” If view- objectifies other men, refusing to con- ers agree to position themselves in a form to any traditional notions of mas- way that recognizes these stereotypes culinity. He acknowledges that he of gay men, they get the payoff—the doesn’t “pay attention to the straight laugh and the pleasure it brings. world,” and certainly lives in a world Jack and Karen provide much of the of his own. However, Jack also is infan- humor on Will & Grace and are al- tilized by the more stable characters. lowed to do and say things the more Like Karen, Jack is continually scolded palatable main characters aren’t. This 99

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW is due, in large part, to their positions the coming-out episode (Greenstein & within the narrative structure of the Burrows, 2000). What might have been sitcom. As “children” or “buffoons,” a story exploring the range of emotions Jack and Karen can say and do as they that accompany this experience, the please because their positioning within story revolves around Grace’s reaction the narrative structure indicates that to Will’s revelation and her pain. This they are not to be taken seriously. is indicated right from the beginning of the episode when the four characters, out for dinner, encounter a woman at a The Personal, Not the bar upset because of relationship prob- Political lems with her boyfriend. The group quickly realizes that this is because her Perhaps the most limiting conven- boyfriend is gay. To help her figure tion of the situation comedy, and one this out, Will and Grace recount their that also makes it a safe space for the own experience, which is told in a exploration of controversial topics, is series of flashbacks to their college the genre’s emphasis on interpersonal years, when they were dating. Feeling relationships between characters rather hopeful about their future together, then their relationship to the outside Grace invites Will home for Thanksgiv- world. The effect of this in Will & ing, hoping that they will finally con- Grace is to depoliticize gayness in two summate their relationship. While try- important ways. First, when the pro- ing to get Will to kiss her in bed, Will gram explicitly deals with the question of sexuality, it falls back on the conven- stalls by mistakenly proposing mar- tion of treating homosexuality as a riage to her, forcing himself to come problem, especially for straight charac- out to her before she begins planning ters in the narrative. Second, the em- their future together. This leads to phasis on interpersonal relationships Grace’s breakdown and estrangement prevents a consideration of gay politics from Will. Later in the episode, Grace and leads to a failure to acknowledge learns that during the year that they the social consequences of gay and didn’t speak, Will slept with another lesbian persons living in our heterosex- woman, just to make sure that he wasn’t ist culture. Dow (2001) recently argued sexually attracted to the opposite sex. that these were particular pitfalls of the Feeling hurt, she leaves, forcing Will to way homosexuality was dealt with in follow her, and to comfort her and Will & Grace’s predecessor sitcom, reassure her that he loves her. Thus, Ellen. the episode doesn’t deal with the social Stories that specifically confront the consequences that Will faced by admit- issue of homosexuality frequently do ting his homosexuality. Instead, it so through the common cultural con- frames Will’s coming out as a decision vention of presenting it primarily as a for which Grace paid the consequence. problem for the heterosexual charac- Homosexuality is likewise posed as ters (Dow, 2001; Fejes & Petrich, 1993; a particular burden for Grace in the Gross, 1989). This is the case in Will & episode where Will breaks off his rela- Grace, where Grace is the one who tionship with Matt due to Matt’s re- must deal with the problems raised by fusal to come out of the closet in his Will’s sexuality. A particularly poi- workplace (Kohan, Mutchnick, & Bur- gnant example of this comes during rows, 2001). The voice for social change 100

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 in this episode is Grace’s, but her voice responds, “Look if you’re feeling guilty says that social change is the personal because your compromising every- responsibility of gays and lesbians, not thing you believe in, that’s your thing. of the larger society. Throughout this Don’t put that on me. I’m just standing episode it is Grace who advises that here thinking about clam strips, which Will end the relationship, insisting that is moot because they’re all out. Out he live an honest and open life and, by and Proud [smug look].” inference, insisting that all gay persons Will again attempts to return to his should do so. The episode begins with dinner with Matt, only this time they Will watching Matt cover a basketball are interrupted by Matt’s homophobic game on television. When he goes boss, Harry. Harry tells Matt that he down to the stadium to see Matt after has spent the day ﬁghting rumors that the game, he meets Matt’s boss. Matt Matt is gay to which Matt sheepishly introduces Will as his brother, thus respond that “the idea of two guys indicating his desire to not reveal his together ...creeps me out”. Will boldly sexual preference to his employers. responds, “I think two guys together is Will is extremely angry, and when he hot.” Following the charade that he is tells Grace, she tells him to break up Matt’s brother, Will “comes out” to with him. When Will reports his con- Matt and Harry and, addressing Matt, versation to Grace, he states the follow- says “I can’t go on lying. I know I said I ing: “I just said I’m an out and proud would and I’m sorry, but I can’t. The gay man. I’m not about to go back in only way I know how to be in a rela- the closet for the sake of relationship.” tionship with you, [looking at Harry] Grace responds with emphasis, “Oh, brother, is if we are open and honest. that is so good! And it’s so right! We’re Those are the terms. Can you accept here, we’re queer and he better get that?” Grace applauds Will’s adamant used to it [waving a spoon above her stance. head].” Then Will sheepishly admits to The “lesson” of this episode is that not breaking off the relationship be- gay men should live their lives out of cause Matt “said he likes me.” This the closet. The “problem” is that it is scene clearly indicates that Grace is his “straight” friend Grace who has to more willing to stick by her guns than remind him of this. It is Grace—an is Will. unmarked, middle-upper-class, white, Later, Will invites Grace to join him heterosexual woman—who seems to suf- and Matt at an out-of-the-way ﬁsh res- fer the burden or consequences of taurant in Queens where he and Matt Will’s sexuality and his choice of dis- can be safe from being recognized, and closing it or not. Drawing on the cul- though she shows up at the restaurant, tural convention of treating homosexu- she refuses to join them, explaining ality as a personal rather than political that “I’ve thought about it and I cannot issue, Will & Grace also does not take in good conscience have dinner with into account the social consequences you two, I’m not going to be a party to of a gay man outing himself in a poten- your lie.” While she waits for her “killer tially homophobic profession.9 It as- onion blossom” Will attempts to return sumes a “post-gay” rights environment to his dinner with Matt, but is dis- in which publicly acknowledging one’s tracted by Grace’s disapproving looks. homosexuality carries no social conse- When he confronts her about it, she quences and denies that this marking 101

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW matters in the lives of gays and lesbi- Yet, visibility alone cannot serve as ans. This episode implicitly lets the the framework from which to evaluate audience know that Harry’s homopho- the program. As Bonnie Dow (2001) bia is wrong, but it also suggests that argued regarding Ellen, visibility on Harry’s views are personal, rather than the television screen does not necessar- cultural, while Matt’s decision not to ily signal a shift in dominant social come out on the job is similarly treated attitudes towards gays and lesbians. as a personal failure rather than as a After all, as the program’s creators and painful decision reﬂecting the realities others have admitted, the pairing of a of our heteronormative culture. gay man and straight woman at the center of a narrative has as much to do Conclusion with the exhaustion of the delayed con- Will & Grace is a potentially subver- summation narrative on television se- sive program that portrays male homo- ries than with any attempts to contrib- sexuality in a way that many different ute to social acceptance of gays and audiences can identify with, appreci- lesbians. It is important to remember ate, and enjoy. One of the program’s that visibility often comes with the price co-creators, David Kohan, is very open of having to conform to or be made about the fact that Will & Grace is an sense of within dominant cultural dis- attempt to reach a wide demographic courses (Dow, 2001; Sedgewick, 1990; and not to educate the American pub- Warner, 1993). To become visible is to lic about gay life: enter into a dominant discourse that marks the boundaries of normalcy— We never really set out to make a gay ... which in contemporary U.S. society show we were just trying to come up means hetero-normalcy. As this paper with something original, to mine a dy- namic that hadn’t already been mined on has argued, in the case of Will & Grace, TV. And we came up with the idea of a gay the representation of gayness enters man and his relationship with a straight the realm of heteronormativity through woman. It was something we hadn’t seen its reliance on certain popular culture on TV before, a fresh approach to roman- conventions that historically have rein- tic comedy. (Svetkey, 2000, p. 28) forced, at the least, heterosexism and, When considered from the perspective at worst, homophobia. Will & Grace of visibility, this “fresh approach” rep- makes homosexuality safe for broad- resents an important shift in popular cast television audiences by framing its culture representations of homosexual- characters within the familiar popular ity. By placing an out gay man, who is culture convention that equates gay- comfortable with his sexuality, as the ness with a lack of masculinity and star of a primetime, broadcast televi- through the familiar situation comedy sion series, Will & Grace presents the genre conventions of romantic com- idea of social acceptance of gays and edy and delayed consummation, infan- lesbians as a positive one. It is impor- tilization, and an emphasis on charac- tant to recognize that it is popular cul- ters’ interpersonal relationships rather ture conventions that help make gay than the characters’ connections to the and lesbian characters palatable for a larger social world. Taken together, mainstream audience, thus, creating the these conventions work to conﬁne ho- space for increased media visibility of mosexuality within its paradoxical po- gays and lesbians. sition in dominant heteronormative dis- 102

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002 courses; homosexuality can only be lives of gays and lesbians within our represented through heterosexist cat- heteronormative culture. This possibil- egories and language, while at the same ity is one that media critics should be time it is marked as a deviation from attendant to in their research on recep- the norm. tion of television programs featuring Regardless of the positive intentions gay and lesbian characters. of the program’s producers and actors, As gay characters become more and regardless of viewers’ capacity for common on broadcast and cable televi- multiple readings of the text, these con- sion, it will be tempting to equate this ventions, combined with the weight of increased visibility with social accep- the dominant discourse of heteronor- tance and valuation of gays and lesbi- mativity, set boundaries for the main- ans. Therefore, media critics need to stream representation of male homo- continually interrogate the assumption sexuality. Such conventions guide, but that a quantitative increase in gay rep- do not wholly determine, viewers’ ex- resentations (increased visibility) sig- pectations of and experiences with nals a qualitative change in representa- popular culture texts. For the main- tional practices. Qualitative challenges stream audience, Will & Grace offers a to current representational conven- potential glimpse into a world with tions, which have the power to call into which many viewers might not have ﬁrst hand experience. For gay audi- question normative cultural ideas, serve ences the program offers a space for as a more powerful indication of and identiﬁcation and self-construction. contribution to social change. Instead However, the conventional emphasis of looking at numbers as a sign of on interpersonal relationships and per- social progress, critics should look for sonal responsibility possibly encour- ways in which gays and lesbians are ages straight audiences to believe that represented in popular culture texts we have entered a “post-gay” period in targeted to a broad audience, and how which the struggle for gay rights has such representations conform to and already been won and that an individu- challenge normative structures of our al’s personal rejection of homophobic heterosexist society. As the case of Will attitudes equals the improved social and Grace suggests, the mere presence standing of sexual minorities. Viewers of gay characters on broadcast televi- are congratulated for their acceptance sion, even in leading roles, does not of gays and lesbians, but without any necessarily represent a challenge to the real consideration of the compromised dominant norms of U.S. culture. Notes

1For a more extensive history of the representations of gays and lesbians on television, see Dow (2001) and Fejes & Petrich (1993). 2We use the word “mainstream” here with some caution. We understand that the proliferation of cable channels in the 1990s ushered in an age of narrow-casting, in which networks target particular demographics, especially those that are most desirable to advertisers. This shift ended the days when the majority of the U.S. population tuned into one of only three networks. NBC targets Will & Grace to an audience of young, educated professionals, of whom most are presumably straight. Thus, the audience for Will and Grace is not necessarily a large portion of the U.S. public. However, we believe that the four major networks continue to symbolically represent the “mainstream” of U.S. culture. The appearance of previously marginalized representations on 103

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW broadcast television (“the big four”) is considered by many to indicate movement of certain ideas into this “mainstream,” as demonstrated by popular press television critics’ use of the term (Gairola, 2001). 3Heteronormativity refers to the discourses and practices by which heterosexuality is consti- tuted as the natural and compulsory norm, against which homosexuality is defined as its binary, and hence, negative opposite (See Butler, 1991, 1993a,b; De Lauretis, 1984, 1991; Foucault, 1978; Warner 1993). 4Feminist media scholars, embracing performative theory, have worked to move beyond analysis of stereotyped characters in narratives and models in advertising that look for distortions in representation of women. van Zoonen (1994) recognizes the problematic nature of simply arguing against stereotypes: “Before media could translate more realistic images of women, it would be necessary to define incontrovertibly what the reality about women is” (p. 31). That is to say, in rejecting an essentialist model of gender, it is an impossible task to ascertain which representations are “truer” or “more authentic” than others. This would be an equally impossible project for determining “realistic” images of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people. 5Thank you to Bonnie Dow and the two anonymous reviewers for pointing out this reading of Will and Jack’s relationship. 6An important project for queer theorists has been a thoroughgoing critique of the ways in which heterosexual norms are used to make sense of and define gay and lesbian categories and experiences. Warner (1993) writes that a particular pitfall of theorizing queer sexuality is that the theoretical language in questions can specify sexual identities only in ways that produce the ideology of heterosexual society. Bonnie Dow (2001) writes that “the romantic narrative of autonomy and liberation that undergirds the rhetoric of Ellen allows it to be celebrated by gays and straights alike. For many gays, the fiction of personal authenticity and control provides psychologi- cal comfort in a deeply homophobic culture; for sympathetic straights, this narrative facilitates blindness toward the heterosexism and homophobia in which they are complicit and from which they benefit.” 7Grace talks explicitly about her sexual relationships with men, and viewers have seen her in bed with at least one of her boyfriends. 8Norma Schulman (1995) found the success of In Living Color (a program produced by, written by, and primarily performed by blacks) came not simply from its camp humor about race relations in America, but from its ambiguity, which “gives it bimodal appeal—a quality deemed all important in a commercial medium for whom the aggregate minority viewing audience is insufficient in itself to garner the kind of ratings that yield substantial revenue” (p. 438). 9Bonnie Dow convincingly argues Ellen used the same kinds of strategies in dealing with the possible political consequences of her “coming out.” In fact, when it comes to explicitly dealing with the relationship between homosexuality and the broader political culture, Will & Grace clearly follows the conventions that were used in Ellen.

References Barr, A. (Writer) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2001). Coffee & commitment. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Butler, J. (1991). Imitation and gender insubordination. In D. Fuss (Ed.), Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories. (pp. 13–31). London: Routledge. Burler, J. (1993a). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge. Butler, J. (1993b). Critically queer. GLO: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1, 270–282. de Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice doesn’t: Feminism, semiotics, cinema. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. de Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 3(2), iii–xviii. 104

GAY CHARACTERS IN CONVENTIONAL SPACES MARCH 2002

Dow, B. (2001). Ellen, television, and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 123–140. Epstein, R., & Friedman, J. (Producers/Writers). (1996). [Videocassette]. Tri-Star Home Video. Fejes, F. (2000). Making a gay masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 113–116. Fejes, F., & Petrich, K. (1993). Invisibility and heterosexism: Lesbians, gays and the media. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 396–422. Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London: Methuen. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction, volume 1. New York: Random House. Frankel, D. (2000, April 3). It’s Dharma vs. Grace. MediaWeek, 6. Gairola, R. (2000). Will & Grace: Watching with ambivalence. PopMatters.com. Retrieved August 8, 2001 from http://www.popmatters.com/tv/reviews/w/will-and-grace.html. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (1998) Will & Grace come out on Monday. Retrieved November 15, 2000 from http://www.glaad.org/org/publications/alerts/index.html. Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (2000). The 2000–2001 Television Season: Leading Roles from the World Wide Web. Retrieved November 15, 2000 from http://www.glaad.org/org/projects/ tv/index.html. George, R. (2001, July 23). The 28th amendment. National Review, 32. Gray, H. (1994). Television, black Americans, and the American dream. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (pp. 176–187). New York: Oxford. Greenstein, J. (Writer) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2000). Lows in the mid-eighties. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Gross, L. (1989). Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media. In E. Seiter, et. al. (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audiences, and cultural power (pp. 130–149). London: Routledge. Holleran, A. (2000). The alpha queen. Gay and Lesbian Review, 65. Jacobs, A. (1998, October 23). When gay men happen to straight women. Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved August 9, 2001 from http://www.ew.com. Kohan, D., & Mutchnick, M. (Writers) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2000). New Will city. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Kohan, D., & Mutchnick, M. (Writers) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2001). Brothers, A Love Story. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Lewis, J. (1991). The ideological octopus. New York: Routledge. MacDonald, J. F. (1979). “Don’t touch that dial!”. Chicago: Nebon-Hall. Newcomb, H. (1974). TV: The most popular art. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press. NBC. (2000) Will & Grace: About the show. Retrieved November 15, 2000 from http:// afﬁliate.nbci.com/LMOID/bb/fd/0,946,-0-2153,00.html. Palmer, K. (Writer) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2000). Gypsies, tramps, and weed. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Palmer, K. (Writer) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2001). Swimming pools . . . movie stars. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will & Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Poust, T. & Kinally, J. (Writers) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2001). Crazy in love. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. 105

CSMC BATTLES AND HILTON-MORROW

Rosenstock, R. (Writer) and Burrows, J. (Director). (2000). Love plus one. [Television series episode]. In D. Kohan, M. Mutchnick, & J. Burrows (Producers), Will and Grace, Studio City, CA: KoMut Entertainment. Russo, V. (1985). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the movies. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Russo, V. (1996). The celluloid closet. [Videocassette]. Tri-Star Home Video. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Schulman, N. M. (1995). Laughing across the color barrier: In Living Color. In G. Dines and J. Humez (Eds.), Gender, race, and class in media: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Scodari, C. (1995). Possession, attraction, and the thrill of the chase: Gendered myth making in ﬁlm and television comedy of the sexes. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12, 23–29. Sullivan, R. (December 1998). Dull and duller: After Ellen, gay characters are still a novelty. The Boston Phoenix. Retrieved August 8, 2001 from http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/1in10/ 98/12/TELEVISION.html. Svetkey, B. (2000, October 6). Is your TV set gay? Entertainment Weekly, 24–28. van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist media studies. London: Sage Publications. Warner, M. (1993). Fear of a queer planet. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press. Wyatt, D. (2000). Gay/lesbian/bisexual television characters. Retrieved November 15, 2000 from http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/ϳwyatt/tv-characters.html.