Show Hide image

“Lick it up, SJWs”: Will the Heathers TV reboot become a cult classic… for the far right?

Will a twist find the left embracing the show, or is it the anti-SJW screed the right wing have been waiting for? 

No one really wanted a remake of the 1988 cult classic Heathers. When the TV reboot was announced in 2016, fans of the dark comedy (which saw Winona Ryder on a murderous rampage against her school’s popular, pretty clique) were concerned. Would it be any good? How on earth could it live up to the original? Yet after the pilot episode was released online last night, Heathers fans gained a new concern. Will the TV show also become a cult classic, but for the far right?

Heathers (2017) turns the premise of Heathers (1988) on its (Diet Coke) head. The popular trio of Heathers is now no longer made up of thin, privileged, white blonde girls, but a black lesbian Heather, a genderqueer Heather, and a “body-positive” Heather (“Fat kids can be popular?” is a line in the trailer).

This change was met with scorn from much of the left, who noted that turning marginalised people into the popular, powerful and privileged was not only 1) not true to the lived experiences of many minorities, but also 2) intensely problematic when the premise of the film is that the powerful deserve to be brutally murdered.

This idea, however, has become unsurprisingly popular with those who identify as “anti-social justice warriors”, Trump supporters, and conservatives.

“I already know SJWS are going to collectively lose their shit,” reads one tweet, with nearly 500 retweets and over 1,400 likes. Cassandra Fairbanks, a reporter for Sputnik News and an outspoken Trump supporter, replied that she “kind of loves” the show. Ian Miles Cheong – a writer for the Daily Caller and also Milo Yiannopoulos’s – tweeted repeatedly while watching the pilot.

“I absolutely love the new Heathers,” he wrote. “The new Heathers completely wrecks SJWs and makes fun of their sensibilities and virtue signaling [sic]. It’s great.”

Jason Micallef, the series showrunner, has explained that actually, the Heathers in the original Heathers aren’t villains, so the new Heathers aren’t either. “In the original film, the Heathers were the ones I always loved, and it’s the same with the series. The Heathers are the aspirational characters,” he told Entertainment Weekly.

Unfortunately, barely anyone else read the original Heathers in this way, and the right wing doesn’t see the new show this way either. “They’re the bad guys,” tweeted Cheong of the series’ “SJW” Heathers, rendering Micallef’s intent immediately irrelevant.

The show’s creators should’ve been prepared for this, because it’s 2018. Pop culture is now inherently political, and new releases find their fans on either the left or the right. Beauty and the Beast (2017) was boycotted by conservatives because of its “gay moment”, while Wonder Woman (2017) became the highest-grossing superhero origin movie because of its feminist credentials. Shoes aren’t immune. In 2016, Neo-Nazis declared New Balance “the official shoes of white people” after a company representative tweeted seeming support of Donald Trump.

If the rest of Heathers episodes (released in March) continue to vilify identity politics, then it wouldn’t be surprising if every frog avi on the internet gleefully told the left to “lick it up”.

Yet, Heathers might still anger its new right-wing fans. On Twitter, the creators deny that the show is “a power fantasy about a straight white couple murdering minorities”, cryptically stating that “you’ll get it when you watch it.” Presumably, then, there’s a twist. Micallef has even tweeted that the teachers in the show get guns and it “doesn’t end well” in episode 8, which may lose the show some conservative American fans (Trump is currently suggesting that teachers should be armed to protect students from mass shooters).

So while Heathers may still become an alt-right classic, it also may remarkably end up with no fans on either the left or the right. All in all: fuck me gently with a chainsaw.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.

The Isle of Man, from where author Zoe Gilbert hails. CREDIT: GETTY
Show Hide image

Zoe Gilbert’s original debut novel Folk feeds our new appetite for myth

Is Folk a novel? Its publisher says so, but I’m not sure.

I’ll put up my hands and make an admission: I don’t read many contemporary novels. Most of them seem, well, too contemporary. For a long time, much “literary” fiction has skated along the surface of modern urban life, engaging with the “interiority” of the middle-class mind and whatever cultural brouhaha is currently in fashion among the progressive literati.

The result is a kind of placid, smug dullness about which it’s mostly impossible to care: an Ian McEwan-isation of the soul. For years, writers shunned or simply ignored the old storytellers’ realms of mythology, image and the collective unconscious; the strange, magical depths which underlie all things, but which our society prefers to pretend is not really there.

But something is stirring. In recent years, novelists have begun to venture out beyond the shores of reason, beyond the city and sometimes beyond the human, too. The result is a small blooming of books, and of films and music, which are exploring this strange otherness again. Writers such as Daisy Johnson, Andrew Michael Hurley, Sylvia Linsteadt and Ben Myers are pushing the boundaries of what has been called “folk horror”. They, in turn, are drawing from a thriving underworld of eeriness, folk culture and myth that is perhaps unparalleled in Britain since the 1970s.

What is going on here? Well, people are hungry. Hungry for real meat, and missing what they don’t know they have lost. What we might call the “folk soul” still undergirds our vision of the world, however many gadgets we use to navigate it. Why else would the likes of Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings continue to grip the popular imagination?

The surface is not enough. Our culture is starving people of spiritual and mythic nourishment. We barely even know what these words mean any more, so how would our writers know how to engage with them? Yet when our stories remain stuck in a permanent present, something is missing – something old, strange and sacred. “Fantasy” novelists such as Alan Garner, M John Harrison and the late Ursula K Le Guin, have long known this better than their “literary” counterparts.

In this vein comes Folk, the debut novel by Zoe Gilbert, a past winner of the Costa Short Story Award. It draws deeply from the old tales of the Isle of Man, from where the author hails, to give us a book which is genuinely original, disturbing, beautiful and gripping. It is both a joy to read, and –always a bonus – a tricky book to pin down

Is Folk a novel? Its publisher says it is, but I’m not sure. It has recurring characters, but no single storyline; each chapter could stand alone. So is it a collection of short stories? Yes, but no: the same characters recur throughout, popping in and out of each others’ tales and adding to the weight of the whole. That whole makes up a convincing world peopled with distinctive characters, a verdant, living landscape and a liminality of strange beings who regularly intrude upon the everyday lives of the humans.

Perhaps Folk is neither a novel nor a collection of stories; perhaps it is a map. Indeed, one of its attractions for me is that a map of Neverness, the fictional village in which the stories are set, is the first thing you see when you open the book. (I am a sucker for books with maps in the front: I grew up on fantasy novels, and the cartography was always part of the attraction.) Folk can be read as a map of the British mythic imagination: of the river under the river. Starkly original and expertly written, it draws you, like a faerie song, into a kingdom from which you may never escape, and may not want to.

Gilbert’s writing has shades of Le Guin and Angela Carter, and like both of those authors she knows that real mythology, real folk culture, has a core of darkness to it; a core that both repels and entices. True fairytales are not fluffy, and they often do not have happy endings. There is an undercurrent of earthy danger here; a raw sexuality too, unashamed of itself.

A young boy is burned alive in a gorse bush, seeing visions of angels; a girl’s father kills and skins her pet hares; a woman is kidnapped by a water bull and ravished beneath the waves; a girl drowns her father by mistake; a woman murders her sister to steal her lover. But the darkness is not revelled in or overdone; it is intrinsic to the book’s realism. “Realism” might seem a bizarre word to use about tales set in a mythic land in which men are born with wings for arms and women become hares. But in a book like this, it is imperative that the newly-minted world has an internal logic and consistency.

Folk succeeds triumphantly in this regard. Reading its chapters – which have titles like “The Neverness Ox-men”, “Fishskin, Hareskin”, and “A Winter Guest” – is like sitting by a fire with some old storyteller, listening to the strange tales of his people. The work that has gone into creating the world of Neverness has paid off. These seem like stories from a real place.

This is the marker of the novel’s success: that immersion in its world makes that world seem, for a while, more real than the one you are living in. More appealing, too. When you turn the last page, you may find yourself looking out of the window, or at the screen of your phone or laptop, with a pang of regret and a sense of loss. Then you might find yourself returning to Neverness, like the children return to Narnia. It beats what passes at the moment for “reality”, and it is more human, too. 

“Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist” by Paul Kingsnorth is published in paperback by Faber & Faber

Zoe Gilbert
Bloomsbury, 256pp, £14.99

This article first appeared in the 13 March 2018 issue of the New Statesman, Putin’s spy game