On Hanschen Rilow and Potential Bisexual Erasure in the Spring Awakening Fandom

[arqueete]

I've been following the slash drama being documented in metafandom, and a little while back a piece of meta was posted entitled "Captain Jack Harkness is not gay". Now, I am a fan of Torchwood and Jack Harkness, but where the post really hit me was in realizing its applications to my main fandom right now -- Spring Awakening (in this case applying both to the musical and the Wedekind play).

I think the Spring Awakening fandom as a whole has a bit of a problem we need to look at more closely. And that is how we classify our characters' sexuality -- specifically that of, for the purpose of this post, Hanschen Rilow.



For those on my flist who aren't Spring Awakening fans, allow me to explain who Hanschen is. Spring Awakening's poster couple is Melchior and Wendla, and a large portion of the story revolves around their relationship. However, there is also a sort of side couple -- Hanschen Rilow and his male classmate Ernst Robel, who have a scene where they kiss and confess their love to each other (well, sort of) in act two.

However, there is one thing that seems to throw a lot of people. And that is the scene in act one where Hanschen is masturbating to a picture. Of a woman. (The 2001 workshop makes reference to Hanschen also looking at men on other occasions, if I recall correctly. The original play has him only looking at women. The current show makes no references to any other pictures.)

Now, what disconcerts me is the reaction to this by much of my fandom. Which I've seen include the following:

1) He's gay. The picture of the girl is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.

2) He's straight. Ernst is just experimentation/him settling for what he can get.

Another popular opinion which I think is fair and supported by canon is that he simply gets off on power and doesn't care about gender -- something which is sometimes substituted as the reason in the above two cases, which is even more disconcerting to me.

What I don't get is why so many people are so quick to vehemently jump on sides 1 or 2, not as possibilities and theories (which I'm happy enough to accept) but as the truth and see other options as ridiculous or wishful thinking or homophobia.

To me, the obvious assumption is not 1 or 2. It's that Hanschen is bisexual (or pansexual or omnisexual or some other orientation which encompasses both men and women).

There are people out there that don't believe bisexuals exist. I've known some. As a woman who identifies as bisexual, I have to be concerned that some people in my fandom may be doing the same thing -- or just not thinking hard enough about it, forgetting we exist. (And I'm not going to be a hypocrite -- this is a revelation on my part as much as I hope it will be for some others. I have always thought Hanschen was bisexual, but I too have taken the easy way out of just referring to him as being "gay" -- either just as a lazy umbrella term (and see the Jack Harkness essay I linked for some better discussion of that than I can give) or out of not thinking, considering we tend to think/talk more about the Hanschen/Ernst relationship than the more straightforward masturbation scene).

The truth is, I think, sexuality is complicated, and in life, we can't really know most people's sexual orientations. Mostly we can just trust them if they tell us, assuming they even really know themselves. Usually we jump to conclusions based on their actions (or stereotypes or lack of action) unless corrected. I think this is fair enough in fandom where we definitely have more right to get into characters' personal business than we do any real life person. However, if you're going to choose to label his sexuality, and if you're going to jump to a conclusion which makes many assumptions that aren't fact in canon -- such as points 1) and 2) above -- I don't think it's fair for you to be quick to discard other possibilities that have nearly the same amount of evidence (see 1 vs 2) or more evidence (which I think bi/pan/etc.-sexuality by definition does) than what you're assuming. You can argue points 1 or 2, and like I said, I can see how both could be possible, but I don't see how you can disregard the possibility of one or the other just because you don't agree or it doesn't align with your experiences, or claim that one or the other is "obvious" or that it even has to be one or the other.

Bisexual erasure exists. We as a society have a tendency to do it fairly frequently, I think, without thinking about it. In a fandom for a canon which is about sexuality to a large degree, I don't think it is very responsible for us not to consider whether we, too, are contributing.

Comments

[imperfect_tense]

I've always thought that while Hanschen does indeed swing both ways, he wouldn't identify himself that way.

[arqueete.livejournal.com]

This is probably true. While I was writing this I was going through the companion book trying to see if anywhere in there Word of God said anything particularly definitive about his sexuality. It doesn't, as far as I saw, but there were some interesting things that I didn't talk about in this post as I was trying to be TO THE POINT. Such as:

I always saw Hanschen as the conservative banker who would look back and completely deny ever having ever had anything to do with a boy. He's a heartbreaker, in that respect. He's very sophisticated and more than a little scary. And here's poor little Ernst, who loves him. Where does their story end? Wounds. Ernst gets completely wounded, gets his heart broken, and I think Hanschen is a very successful guy. And maybe Ernst does go marry his preacher's daughter.

That's Steven Sater.

[youngshadow.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. I also identify as bisexual and bisexual erasure is a big insult, especially when it comes from the LGBTQ community. Poor Hansi. We fangirls do want Hernst to live happily ever after, but I do think Sater could be right.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi There, I do have an account but am more eager to let you know I liked your post alot then try to find passwords.

As an actor auditioning for SA and for someone who has studied Hanschen, also as someone who is a gay man, I wanted to let you know that I support you as a bisexual and I think that you nailed it in that Hanschen just doesn't know exactly who he is. In the show he and Ernst are set up together as a "couple" but he also anticipates being with him for a long time, the nature of this isn't elaborated on, as he could mean just living in the same community all the way to being his lover. I think that if anyone washes away the fact that he is truly different, not Straight, not Gay, just Hanschen, and the fact that he probably was written as a bisexual and could definitely be that, the "washers" so to speak are not giving human beings the option of being able to physically love someone regardless of gender, and it comes down to people not accepting that sometimes you don't have a designated gender you are pulled to, you are interested in a person because of them and not what they identify as. Good on you for writing this, thanks!

[arqueete.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your input and good luck in your auditioning :)

[(Anonymous)]

I think he's gay
When he's masturbatinf to the picture he did not cum

It's just an experiment for him to see if he's gay or not

And it's said that he's comfortable with he's sexuality

[(Anonymous)]

This article is really interesting and makes a good point. I always read the 'Desdamona' scene a little differently. After he finishes, both the play and musical scripts say that he destroys the picture. I think it's symbolic of the photo (or the woman in it) being what he needs any more, and maybe coming to terms with his sexuality. Because the flirtation and attraction to Ernst is present from the first scene (Huddle over Homer, maybe do a little Achilles and Patrocles...). This is just how I read the scene (straight girl POV, tbh)