A Conversation with Nanette
“ Damn , Girl !” Gadsby exclaims , “ Hug !” as she stands and reaches over the bar to embrace Nanette .
And , striking a Pollyannaish tone , Gadsby continues , “ That must have been so haaarrrd ,” pulling the word in empathetic emphasis . “ But , look on the bright side ,” Gadsby cheers , “ if you hadn ’ t gotten here late , we ’ d never ’ ve met . And you are exactly the woman I intend to celebrate in my next gig�that female model of fortitude who gives us all courage to go on . I ’ m gonna name it after you , Girlfriend !”
Another hug .
Here I stop imagining because , had this exchange actually occurred , Gadsby ’ s show wouldn ’ t have fed the clamoring crowd of accusers ready to critique every Nanette / Other they see through their lens of hermeneutical suspicion ; the show wouldn ’ t be the popular sensation it is .
Is my imagined version of the two women ’ s exchange sappy like Pollyanna is purported to be ? Perhaps . But isn ’ t it a better model of human interaction than Gadsby ’ s version ?
Everyone is quick to engage in what literary critic Rita Felski calls “ a spirit of skeptical questioning or outright condemnation ” ( 2 ). It ’ s the low fruit�just check the daily news . “ Why is it ,” asks Felski “ that critics are so quick off the mark to interrogate , unmask , expose , subvert , unravel , demystify , destabilize , take issue , and take umbrage ?” ( 5 ). Gadbsy is Nanette ’ s self-appointed critic who fails to follow through with the requisite conversation to confirm her suspicion . The harder task for Gadsby and every accuser is to converse with their subject before marking them a suspect while reaching beyond the zone of comfort with the hope of exonerating and understanding an Other . Felski and her allies preach a
135