Monday, July 27, 2026

Stephen Colbert reinvented the TV talk show, if only for one night

When I saw Stephen Colbert hosting Only in Monroe the day after he said goodbye to The Late Show, I thought, "Is he reinventing the television talk show?"

I know that was unlikely, yet I was a bit excited with the possibility.

Only in Monroe has an audience of perhaps dozens of people in the town of 20,000 people in southeast Michigan, so its ability to reshape national television is limited -- even though Colbert's episode has increased awareness of the show: it has been viewed 1.8 million times on YouTube as I write this.

My thoughts about Colbert reinventing the talk show were not entirely out of line, since Colbert had replaced David Letterman on The Late Show, and Letterman has been credited with reinventing the form, first with Late Night with David Letterman on NBC (1982-1993) and then with The Late Show  with David Letterman on CBS (1993-2015). 

The claim that Letterman's reinvented the talk show is premised on his ironic approach to the format. His talk shows seemed to ask, "Aren't talk shows stupid? Why take any of this seriously?" I am sure Letterman and his staff worked diligently on the shows, but in their appearance the shows suggested no one was working very hard.

Of Letterman's show, Tim Grierson wrote, "There was nothing upscale or 'professional' about Late Night’s witty stupidity, which made it the polar opposite of the ingratiating, slightly sleepy Tonight Show."

Colbert's recent Only in Monroe had lots of silliness, but I found it surprisingly earnest. Colbert and his writers studied Monroe and its peculiarities to produce jokes and gags just as good as they did on The Late Show about national and international news. This was different to a degree from his first appearance on the show.

When Colbert first hosted Only in Monroe in 2015, he was fresh off The Colbert Report, in which he performed as "Stephen Colbert," a parody of a Fox News political pundit  who was sometimes rather stupid. That character lingered during Colbert's interview with Michigan native Marshall Mathers (Eminem). Colbert pretended to be unaware of Mathers' success as a rapper and worked to irritate him in several ways during the segment. (How much Mathers was in on the joke is not clear.) This segment also was reminiscent of Colbert's time as a correspondent on The Daily Show

In other words, Colbert had ironic moments during his initial Only in Monroe appearance. For much of the episode he is genuine and playful, but there also are moments when he is goofing on the idea of a cable access TV show, in some ways similar to how Letterman goofed on the idea of a network talk show.

I think that this ironic approach, which can seem smug or condescending, was missing from Colbert's return to Monroe 11 years later. The irony of The Colbert Report and of the Letterman influence was replaced with what seems to be a more genuine and humane spirit of fun, and that perhaps reflects more of who Colbert is as a person off the stage.

Oddly enough, this earnestness is evident when Colbert and the show's regular hosts huff helium while discussing one of the host's "cancer journey."

Why would they do that? Because when co-host Michelle Baumann was being treated for cancer, she shared video updates on social media that were recorded with a filter that distorted her face and made her voice cartoonishly high and squeaky. The helium gag reflected someone's careful attention to the people involved with Only in Monroe. Colbert's questions about her illness and recovery were sincere,  and Baumann and Kaye Lani Rae Rafko Wilson discussed the experience candidly -- but with a sense of fun, as they were all mindful to take a fresh hit of helium before talking.

The careful attention to the show and to Monroe was reflected in other parts of the episode. All of it became material for jokes, but I did not find the humor condescending. The jokes were not making fun of Monroe for being a small town; the jokes were similar to those made about national events or the absurdities of life in New York City, where The Late Show was recorded. Colbert's staff paid attention to recent local events and created an entirely Monroe-centric show about it -- such as Colbert and volunteer musical director Jack White judging which rival hot dog stands had the better chili dogs: Monroe's Original Hot Dogs and Vince's West Elm Drive-In?

Early in the episode, I wondered if the whole thing was a set-up. Was there really a show called Only in Monroe? Were the hosts real or actors? Were local events invented for the sake of the jokes? I kept thinking of National Lampoon's Sunday Newspaper Parody in 1978. It created an entire Sunday edition of the Dacron, Ohio Republican-Democrat, with fake ads and news stories. It was an impressive, elaborate, and funny contrivance (I still have my copy, nearly 50 years later). 

Had Colbert's crew pulled off something like that?

I almost wish they had, but I am happy to know they did not. Monroe Community Meida is a real non-profit organization in the southeast corner of Michigan, and Only in Monroe is a real show.

I had not been aware that Colbert hosted Only in Monroe in 2015. Nor had I been aware that this had apparently inspired several bits on The Late Show, which featured celebrities sharing "community calendar" events from their hometowns. You can find segments with John Oliver, Melissa McCarthy, and others on YouTube.

One of the staff at Monroe Community Media kind of stole the show, creating what I think is another interesting comparison with Letterman's show.

Larry "Bud" Melman, played by Calvert DeForest, vaulted to fame as a bumbling regular character on Letterman's show. He regularly flubbed his lines, missed his cues, and frequently did not seem to understand the premise of the skit he was performing. None of this was edited out. In fact, it became the central appeal of the character and his bits. Melman sometimes acted a foil to Letterman, keeping him from getting through the prepared material. The general failure of the bit was the point. More irony.

Melman's counterpart on Only in Monroe was Genevieve Benson, the creative director for Monroe Community Media. She was behind the scenes as a kind of all-purpose wrangler, providing props and relaying information to Colbert -- and keeping him in line. Benson's appearance lacked the irony of DeForest's; she was appearing as herself, not a character.

When she brings the chili dogs out to be taste-tested by Colbert and White, she quickly realizes she cannot recall which dog is from which restaurant, which defeats the purpose of the taste-test.

When Colbert washed the taste of the chili dogs from his mouth, he spit the water on the studio floor. When Benson came out later with a basket of ingredients for Jeff Daniels to make his famous peanut butter, potato chip, and barbecue sauce sandwich, she admonished Colbert, "No spitting. On the floor. No."

Later in that segment, Colbert called her out to ask whether the studio had a microwave oven. She bounded out and told him they did not -- and then, laughing, she said, "Wait. I'm sorry. We do. I was just ready to say no to you."

When Colbert asked for something to drink because Daniels's sandwiches were very dry, Benson brought him her own water bottle. "It smells a little weird, but don't be alarmed."

If Colbert has another show, he should bring Benson along to be his assistant/foil, in a dynamic perhaps similar to that between Conan O'Brien and Sona Movsesian. Colbert and Benson could recreate their Monroe magic in towns across the United States, presenting their quirks, charms, and chili dogs. 

Sunday, April 26, 2026

Do novels owe us happy endings?

I conclude my class on 20th century American novels with students reflecting on the books we read during the semester. And I offer my own reflection: 

Do novels owe us happy endings?

I imagine you answer that question quickly: “No.”

However, many of us gravitate toward works that end happily. This makes sense if we look to literature
for entertainment. Happy thoughts and experiences are more entertaining than sad thoughts and bad experiences. There is some entertainment value in the catharsis of tragedy, but even in our favorite sad stories we look for some signal that something was gained through a character’s pain or sacrifice.


Art, though, is different. When we think of novels as art or Literature (with a capital L), we may value “honesty” more than entertainment. We may want stories that represent the world to us as it actually is, not as we wish it were (Realism vs. Romance). We could say that The Sun Also Rises is Literature because it ends ambiguously. I do not sense that Brett is going to change. I think her unhealthy behavior will continue, and I think people are really like that. I do not know about Jake. I think his final line of the novel could hint that he is done with wishing for things between them to be different, although he cannot tell her this straight. Absalom, Absalom! is Literature if only because it is constructed and narrated in a way that makes the reader do much work; in terms of this discussion it could be Literature because Quentin Compson has found no satisfying answers to his real
question – Why is the South so messed up? – despite working through the saga of Thomas Sutpen yet one more time. Perhaps he does have his answer. Perhaps he knows why the South is so messed up: because of men like Thomas Sutpen and the South’s complicity in their crimes, but this answer does not help him. Coming closer to the truth about Thomas Sutpen – and,  perhaps more importantly for Quentin, the truth about Henry Sutpen and Charles Bon – does not make him feel satisfied. Those answers do not reconcile him to his Southern heritage. I do not know that Kurt Vonnegut finds a satisfying solution to the problems he identifies in Breakfast of Champions. The novel ends with his own tear, after all.

This can be a major role for novels: articulating the problems of a generation or community. Another role could be imagining solutions to those problems. Ceremony does this. It imagines a solution to the problems created by U.S. colonialism for American Indian people: get in touch with your community’s pre-colonial culture and never forget your responsibilities to the land. Perhaps Beloved does this too for African American people: do not dwell in your trauma; live for your present and your future. The House on Mango Street may suggest to young Chicanas: do not let your community limit how you imagine your own life.

If we turn to novels to help imagine solutions to our society’s problems, we may feel frustrated because some of the solutions are not realistic. Sometimes they are not workable solutions because the problems have not been correctly or clearly articulated. That is the criticism of The House on Mango Street some students make. Some people feel Cisneros blames poverty for some of the problems faced by her characters, when instead she should ask who is responsible for that poverty. They may believe that the correct conclusion is not imagining an escape from the location of the poverty but imagining ways to fix the system that creates the poverty.

You could say that the less realistic those solutions are, the less likely a novel is to be classified as Literature (capital L). Emotionally rewarding but unrealistic solutions to big problems may classify a novel as “escapist” or “fantasy” or “mere entertainment.”


What led my thoughts down this path? In past semesters, I have sensed that some students are moved by The House on Mango Street in ways they are not moved by other books in this class. Even though Sethe learns in Beloved that she is “her own best thing” and that she needs to be present for her living daughter, and even though Ceremony ends with Tayo and the Laguna land healed, with an awareness of a transcendent connection among all living things, I sense that some students have been more moved by The House on Mango Street. It is a brief, beautiful book; I am not criticizing it, but this reaction got me thinking about what kinds of books we could or should be reading. It reminded me of a quote I had on my office door for a long time. The quote is about poetry, but it easily could apply to novels:

Let us remember that in the end we go to poetry for one reason: so that we might more fully inhabit our lives and the world in which we live them, and that if we more fully inhabit these things, we might be less apt to destroy both.

- Christian Wiman

 

I hope you keep reading and that you look for those works which help you more fully inhabit your life and your world. I hope you find writers who help you think in new ways and feel in new ways.