Heartstopper has become a hit graphic novel and TV series based on its idealistic representations of young gay love. But does its idealism sell its audience short?
I agree with most of what you say, but I'd disagree that heart stopper is homosexual. It's homo romantic, the author is asexual and the characters, like many teens, have budding sexualities that progress at different rates or not at all. The show is heavily geared towards ace or demisexual individuals who still feel romantic attraction. I wish sex wasn't subtly demonized, but honestly I've yet to meet an asexual person who didn't understandably have negative feelings towards sex, given that it's pushed on us so forcefully, men and women. Even as a hypersexual barely romantic individual, it felt refreshing to watch homoromance nearly devoid of sex in the same way teen heteroromances are often devoid of sex. Yes it's fairytale fluff, but it has its place.
I agree we missed out on Ben's redemption. He came very close but it simply wasn't allowed to him.
Hi Huw! Long time fan of "Bad Gays" here. I've been looking forward to this essay ever since you mentioned you were working on it (on one of the "Extra Bad Gays" podcasts).
I actually like "Heartstopper". Primarily because it offers an alternate vision of what high school could have been like. I was in high school (in the US) in the early 2000s--a time which definitely was less pro LGBTQ. So it was heartening to see a show in which coming out was not deeply fraught and parents generally were supportive. I found Elle's arc particularly interesting.
You make an interesting point about how Charlie and Nick's relationship replicates traditional heterosexual gender dynamics. I hadn't previously thought of that and can see how it is problematic.
I found your empathy for Ben to be interesting as well. When I watched the show, he came across to me as someone who sexually assaulted Charlie and gaslit him. Obviously, his own self-hatred played a role but it was hard to feel bad for him. But I see where you are coming from. It is the structure of the show that determines that Ben is the villain.
It's a failure of the show that we don't feel empathy for Ben, a teenager who fucks up and struggles. He's not allowed full humanity, he is simply a villain. I think the messaging that it's not Charlie's responsibility to help him was good but then that's just it, the end of his narrative. Who does help him? Who does care for him? It's lazy and careless writing, especially in a show/comic (I've not read the comic) that is ostensibly about taking teenagers seriously and building this fictional utopia for them, which apparently you only get access to if you never do any real harm.
I think 'as a society' we've developed this relationship to sexual assault where we've shifted the narrative purely to the victim's perspective, which is important because victims' voices are so often taken from them in legal and social contexts. But I do think we're making a huge mistake if we don't allow for empathy and growth for perpetrators. Victims never have to forgive perpetrators for their ills, but someone needs to show them empathy or they will never learn to be better. Abolition doesn't work without empathy for aggressors.
Sorry I got lost in the sauce here, you don't have to respond to this haha!
Yeah for sure and it's not the responsibility of those characters to resolve Ben's storyline but I do think the handling of the character by the show was irresponsible.
Loved this! And that ALC review of A Little Life is always such a joy. I really appreciated your gloss on "representation” as “an image of myself I’m comfortable seeing."
Huw, I’ve been longing for YEARS for someone to write this. Tour de force! Didn’t expect A Little Life & Proust’s Albertine to get folded in, but was thrilled they did. So lucid & useful 👏👏👏👏
I agree with most of what you say, but I'd disagree that heart stopper is homosexual. It's homo romantic, the author is asexual and the characters, like many teens, have budding sexualities that progress at different rates or not at all. The show is heavily geared towards ace or demisexual individuals who still feel romantic attraction. I wish sex wasn't subtly demonized, but honestly I've yet to meet an asexual person who didn't understandably have negative feelings towards sex, given that it's pushed on us so forcefully, men and women. Even as a hypersexual barely romantic individual, it felt refreshing to watch homoromance nearly devoid of sex in the same way teen heteroromances are often devoid of sex. Yes it's fairytale fluff, but it has its place.
I agree we missed out on Ben's redemption. He came very close but it simply wasn't allowed to him.
Hi Huw! Long time fan of "Bad Gays" here. I've been looking forward to this essay ever since you mentioned you were working on it (on one of the "Extra Bad Gays" podcasts).
I actually like "Heartstopper". Primarily because it offers an alternate vision of what high school could have been like. I was in high school (in the US) in the early 2000s--a time which definitely was less pro LGBTQ. So it was heartening to see a show in which coming out was not deeply fraught and parents generally were supportive. I found Elle's arc particularly interesting.
You make an interesting point about how Charlie and Nick's relationship replicates traditional heterosexual gender dynamics. I hadn't previously thought of that and can see how it is problematic.
I found your empathy for Ben to be interesting as well. When I watched the show, he came across to me as someone who sexually assaulted Charlie and gaslit him. Obviously, his own self-hatred played a role but it was hard to feel bad for him. But I see where you are coming from. It is the structure of the show that determines that Ben is the villain.
It's a failure of the show that we don't feel empathy for Ben, a teenager who fucks up and struggles. He's not allowed full humanity, he is simply a villain. I think the messaging that it's not Charlie's responsibility to help him was good but then that's just it, the end of his narrative. Who does help him? Who does care for him? It's lazy and careless writing, especially in a show/comic (I've not read the comic) that is ostensibly about taking teenagers seriously and building this fictional utopia for them, which apparently you only get access to if you never do any real harm.
I think 'as a society' we've developed this relationship to sexual assault where we've shifted the narrative purely to the victim's perspective, which is important because victims' voices are so often taken from them in legal and social contexts. But I do think we're making a huge mistake if we don't allow for empathy and growth for perpetrators. Victims never have to forgive perpetrators for their ills, but someone needs to show them empathy or they will never learn to be better. Abolition doesn't work without empathy for aggressors.
Sorry I got lost in the sauce here, you don't have to respond to this haha!
I don't disagree with you. I guess all I can say is that the show is not about Ben. It's about the love story between Nick and Charlie.
Ben created a lot of trauma for the protagonist. I guess that's dramatically the only purpose of having him there.
Yeah for sure and it's not the responsibility of those characters to resolve Ben's storyline but I do think the handling of the character by the show was irresponsible.
Loved this! And that ALC review of A Little Life is always such a joy. I really appreciated your gloss on "representation” as “an image of myself I’m comfortable seeing."
Huw, I’ve been longing for YEARS for someone to write this. Tour de force! Didn’t expect A Little Life & Proust’s Albertine to get folded in, but was thrilled they did. So lucid & useful 👏👏👏👏