Heated Rivalry: Bold queer rep with a helping of misogyny and tokenism
I will try to keep this as impersonal as I can(even though there is no way that's possible when discussing art). I want to put forth why I have major critiques for HR, and why it's rise in popularity is largely due to a mix of appealing to the largest demographic while appealing to White feelings.
The show is very bold in portraying gay sex. It's to please the viewer, as Jacob Tierney had said since this is a Harlequin Romance. It's breaking boundaries in bringing this kind of self-indulgent queerness to the forefront. The cishets were the ones who always got this level of in-your-face eroticism. In addition, a fair amount of the sex does serve the plot. Not all of it, but the scene with Ilya dragging the chair, and all their sex scenes in EP 1 and the episode with the tuna melt were pretty significant for character work and plot progression.
It's a sexy romance that is here to give the audience a good time, and it does well on that front.
(I'm not calling this section "bad" because the word feels too close too moral judgement.)
Since this is a gay romance, the expectation for the focus and character building would be on the main pairing. Romances do tend to define their side-characters less, taking that time and page-space to build on the romantic tension. Side-characters are catalysts for action between the lovers.
This would be fine if some of the most significant relationships these men had weren't with women.
Rose and Svetlana are prominent parts of Shane and Ilya's friend circles. Where Hayden's backstory is peppered throughout every interaction he has with Shane, we know little about Svetlana and Rose outside of Ilya and Shane.
Hayden has been with Shane for a while and they're frequently in the same team. He's married and has two children with a third on the way. He's a bit callous but he cares for Shane. Most importantly- he's allowed to inconvenience the romance.
As I mentioned before, side-characters exist to increase tension. They are rarely doing anything outside of that. But Hayden drags Shane into babysitting, he interrupts Shane, he calls Shane when he's just about to get it on with Ilya. He exists in the dialogues Shane exchanges, divorced from Ilya. This on top of being the typical "romance facilitator" side character.
Neither Svetlana nor Rose is afforded this ability to inconvenience the two men they're affiliated with. Svetlana smiles when 'Jane' is mentioned, despite being emotionally invested with him(as a friend) for decades. Rose plays it off with a smile when Shane says he's gay and not into her. She is so averse to inconveniencing him that she is ready to fake her sexuality to ease Shane's life.
Even Yuna quickly gets over the coming out to better support Shane and Ilya's relationship. The act of supporting them is expected of course but the way she isn't given even a moment of being somewhat inconvenienced is noteworthy.
You might say Shane's dad is less defined than any of these women. The issue is Shane's relationship with his dad is attached to Yuna. He's not even a side character, he's more background. He could be out of the picture and the Pasta scene in EP6 would've gone down almost exactly the same.
Svetlana, Yuna and Rose did not need to take center-stage. They should have at least laid some bumps on the road of romance the way Hayden has been shown. A "that was hurtful", or a "I can't talk to you for a while, give me some space to process this". Something.
Their lack of resistance to being used in these men's journey to discover their sexuality turns them into props, falling back on regular old cishet movie misogyny.
Tokenism or Representation? Shane's Asian Identity-
Let's define Tokenism first. Wikipedia's a good place to start.
It is used, as Malcolm X put it, to improve the image(of America) but fails in its attempts.
Throughout the 6 hours of television, there are about 3 references made to Shane being Asian. Not Japanese, never explicitly stated as Japanese, but Asian. One of these times, they don't even mention the word (when the Hollanders are at an award function as the MLH sponsor says subtly they want Shane for boosting rep). In an effor to critique the same kind of tokenism, the show fell into it.
This in contrast, to the amount of work put into Ilya's Russian identity. The show has taken many liberties with respect to the storytelling. Expanded where the book fell flat, added a whole other book as part of this series' adaptation. But for some reason, it could not make any additions, for Shane.
Ilya gets 5 pages of dialogue in Russian in one episode, and multiple other exchanges with Russian characters across the series. They take care to show how his country and his identity impacts his queerness.
Shane is off-handedly, with little surety called Japanese by Ilya, and then Ilya says that's why he's pretty. A summation of the series' tokenism in terms of Asian representation with a dash of Orientalism.
Shane's identity is mentioned perfunctorily by the story, but it is not in any way part of the text. It exists mainly to give diversity points for the show itself, which is very, very white-centric. Where Ilya's Russian identity is deeply impactful, Shane's Asian identity has little to no effect on his career, or on his view of himself as an NHL(well, MLH) player. The few mentions are there in a manner as if the show is going "see? we acknowledged it!".
This feels absurd considering ice hockey is notoriously homogenous in its whiteness. They are equal rivals, but in an industry as conservative as this, it is glaring to ignore the issues Shane's race would've brought out of the League. It would've been as present as Ilya's troubles.
But neither the book nor the show had interest in Shane being Japanese beyond commenting on how pretty, short and hairless he is (I'm not kidding, Shane complains about it in the books- as written by white woman Rachel Reid). Are we satisfied with this? Is this what Asians are?
2025-2026 have been a deeply conservative time, and there are no signs of it getting better in the near future. You might be wondering why I am being harsh to a famous queer show. We need it in this climate, we need this kind of positive reputation and representation.
But my questions is, at what cost? At the cost of intersectionality?
Sensational Flesh: Race, Power, and Masochism by Amber Jamilla Musser
Throughout history, the most marginalized of us have been told over and over again, "let's get this first, and then we'll come to you". Let the white women get to vote first, we'll deal with the black women's rights later(not. Black women had to fight on their own against racist 'feminists' focused on white supremacy). Gay rights first, then we do trans rights(trans rights is always reduced first). On and on and on.
We can't keep repeating these cycles.
Enjoy it, sure, but understand why this is the queer show the public has chosen to make popular. Why it is always the white-washed version of things that is considered high art, whereas anything that shows the truth of being marginalized is forgotten
It is a privilege to think one can ignore pain and politics for 'queer joy'. There is joy, there is always joy in queerness, in being any identity that whiteness has deemed too vulgar or beneath it. But it shouldn't come at the cost of shoving the reality of racism, sexism, and colorism under the rug. You might be able to ignore it, but for many who are marginalized on multiple levels, it is impossible. It's like watching the morning sky in a TV show without a sun. Of course people will question it.
In the thick of this awards season comes, think about how First Kill got cancelled after season 1, why Interview With The Vampire(2022)'s lead Jacob Anderson has been given no awards despite the show being a critical and audience darling, or why Sinners keeps getting snubbed. Why anything that is a little too brown/black or a little too bold in pointing out the realities of discrimination gets dismissed.
I am aware HR never intended to be a political show, but the fandom and promotion does try to make itself out to be as such. Discussions have centered around how important this is to dismantling homophobia in the NHL and sports in general. Is it politically bold? Is it just a romance? Can it be both? If so, who is drawing the margins around when it should be critiqued as a romance or a politically important piece of representation?
