In a 1950s time-warp, Eddie Haskell — from the real 1950s — grew up and met — in the 70s idea of the 50s — his counterpart Fonzie.

Presented for your contemplation, in a tribute to Ken Osmond ("Eddie"):



Osmond died yesterday. Here's the NYT obituary. Everyone easily took the prompt to loathe Eddie Haskell, who was the trickster and outsider to the conventional family, the Cleavers, back when TV was teaching us Baby Boomers the timeless values of honesty and domesticated sexuality. Think I'm exaggerating? Here's Mrs. Cleaver smacking down young Eddie's sexuality:



20 years later, as we Baby Boomer were rebellious young adults, TV served up the trickster-outsider we got the message to love — Fonzie. Many of us had outgrown TV sitcom messages however, and Fonzie seemed stupidly squishily lovable, but maybe if you're a few years younger than me, Fonzie worked on you and is part of the foundation of your psyche.

But I look back now and see how TV treated Eddie, and I think — they set Eddie up. We were the bullies, hating Eddie. What did Eddie want? How did he suffer? What made Eddie Eddie? I'd like to see a movie like "Joker," explaining the origin of Eddie. I think he had intelligence and desire and he was hemmed in by the stifling culture that "Beaver" celebrated for the humble people of America, who wanted to feel comfortable and rested in the evenings, as we did our TV.

I feel for Eddie, now, as I see that Ken Osmond has died. I'm in the mood to suggest: What if you had to argue that Eddie was the real hero of "Leave It to Beaver"? But of course, Eddie was hilariously awful, and we remember this secondary sitcom character 6 decades later — we remember him because we loathed him. That guy meant a lot to us! Our hate was specific and important enough that we took it to heart and remembered it all our life.