Better on the Box: Colbert Book Bombs
MORE
Book Review
I AM AMERICA (AND SO CAN YOU!)
By Stephen Colbert
Grand Central, 230 pages, $26.99
As cultural phenomenon and confused little man, Bill O’Reilly has never been more hopelessly endearing than when he went public a few weeks back with the discovery that colored folks chew and swallow when they eat.
“This is what white America doesn’t know,” he explained in that now-infamous radio broadcast, “They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris and Snoop Dogg.”
That just might be the most racially offensive thing ever said about white people. One presumes, after all, that true anti-rap bigots are committed enough to figure out which acts actually spew the most explicit lyrics, or, failing that, at least which ones sell enough records to merit a full fatwa. Why in the world is Mr. O’Reilly targeting the genial, obscure Twista—or as Mr. O’Reilly pronounces it, Twiss-TAH? That he knows the name at all is perhaps an unfortunate consequence of its phonological similarity to “loofah.”
Which brings me to the genius of Stephen Colbert. His nightly sendup of right-wing talking heads makes it obvious that televised white male resentment is less a matter of malevolent (or even coherent) ideology than a certain cultural dyslexia: The problem with “other voices” is having to keep straight all those new words! (Fellow Daily Show graduate Steve Carell brings the same essential insight to his role on The Office.)
IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE the show’s debut, “Stephen Colbert” has transcended parody to become one of the most richly textured characters on television. Sadly, none of that makes I Am America (And So Can You!) anything like a book worth reading.
It’s not simply that I Am America’s jarring cacophony of “satirical” charts and stickers and pull quotes reads too often like a blatant cash-in on a moment already fading (the copy from that 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner address is tacked on as an appendix), but that the dilution of the brand makes one wonder about its strength in the first place.
Take the Colbert bears. On The Colbert Report, the host’s relentless phobia of grizzlies, blacks and browns is a pristine, perfectly calibrated gag: A satiric echo of Mr. O’Reilly’s similarly prepubescent panic over the dark forces conspiring to steal Christmas, it blends bathos and bluster into dementedly good television for frat boy and psychoanalyst alike. In the book, we get a windy chapter that lays out Colbert’s animal neurosis with such leaden lines as “we have to take a page from the British Empire and rule the lesser species through intimidation.” The effect is like reading Shakespeare’s research notes on Hamlet—or Sacha Baron Cohen’s on Borat.
The text on family values and gender roles is marginally funnier, though Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield does a much better job making a fool of Harvey Mansfield than the young Harvard Lampoon alums charged with cobbling together this garish artifact. Which raises the troubling question: Isn’t there something regressive about Stephen Colbert as well as “Stephen Colbert”—the act, that is, as well as the joke?
After all, it’s a sign of progress that the adolescent-geriatric anxieties of O’Reilly and his ilk are now self-evidently “conservative.” The Colbert character is a Roth or Updike manqué, in the sense that, a generation ago, the rest of us would have been forced to accept his unique perversions as manifestations of a new mainstream. But with the advent of fake news as real protest, might we now find ourselves wedded to the peccadilloes of a different caste of white males? Dazed by good humor, we’ve jumped into bed with a bunch of clever, expensively educated, horrified liberals who can afford to throw their hands up and laugh at it all.
Lurking everywhere in this forsaken decade, Jon Stewart may have been the real enemy all along.
Jonathan Liu is a writer living in Queens.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Oh Jonathan, why do you hate America?
Interesting enough of an idea that its the wrong white guys we've been fearing... exccept that Stewert doesn't have any political ideology to spread short of this administration sucks balls. Seriously, if you pay attention its not like he's a particular fan of the democrats either, and his frustration and resignation at the democratic party--- his show doesn't quite know what to make of the democratic party and their inability to get it together long enough to send any kind of message whatsoever.
Stewert is a comedian not a politic....people keep trying to make him into something he's not just because he's sharp enough to state what;s actually going on in america today..and because he dares to voice an anti bush opinion and all that--- but really his opinions and editorials are just good common sense---you know its kind of hard to find fault when he says to one of his guests, well why doesn;t the administration just come out and say such and such. its an anger with the failings of our current government but i wouldn't say he has the political savvy to try and go for anything else. he;s not nearly as bombastic or as strict a follower of a certain ideology as Rush or Hannity or O Reilley or any of those guys. Stewert has no trouble pointing out stupidities and idiocy in his own political party unlike those guys blindly following thier party because loyalty is demanded. pshhh give me a break.
Colbert on the other hand could very well get into politics by using the exact same technique he employs on his show...and he would win too! now if he is another rich white man...he is very much just following in the shadows and riding the wave of The Daily Show...and good for him as a firm believer in capatalism and America (as he says almost nightly) for being able to do that so successfully. he got rich through hard work and years of honing an act...yes you could argue that politicians get to their positions through years of hard work and years of honing an act as well...but again he;s a comedian--he's there to make you laugh..if he happens to make you think to well that's not such a bad thing.
But you see unlike the men currently in charge--they can take a step back and publically say when a bit or a joke or a segment of theirs didn't work and can actually apologize for it, their self-mocking enough that i think we can believe 'em when they say something and not think their a hypocrate just because their now very rich and can afford to make jokes about anything at others' expense....because you know what? they were both once poor struggling comedians and i'm sure they both have known what it is to eke out a low waged living, so i don't think we have anything to fear from them except the possibility of success making them less funny or less sharp.