You Are My Happy Ending: Schitt's Creek and the Legacy of Queer Television

by Emily Garside

From the show's modest beginnings to its massive Emmy sweep, You Are My Happy Ending tells the story of how Schitt’s Creek became the surprise hit that changed the way we think about LGBTQ relationships. Cultural analyst Emily Garside shows how this series fused classic romcom and sitcom tropes to create a world with a queer love story at its core, starting with Daniel Levy, the co-creator who plays David. She examines the show’s Canadian identity and its diverse incorporation of references from literature (Brideshead Revisited) to cinema (Hitchcock’s The Birds), as well as numerous romantic comedy texts. Schitt’s Creek is an homage to all these elements of the past literary and cinematic canon while also creating an important contemporary narrative of its own. Most importantly, Garside delves into the references to queer icons and culture—from Cabaret to drag. How did this supposedly light comedy embrace an activist perspective? And how does it use (and subvert) its romantic-comedy genre in order to make that activism even more powerful? Combining a fan's affection with a scholar's insight, Garside explains how this “little show that could” is the product of a long history of queer activism, breaking down barriers and marking a turning point in future representation of LGBTQ stories.

Genres: LGBT

282 pages, Paperback

Published January 15, 2024

About the author

Emily Garside is a writer of many kinds as well as a professional dog Mum. Emily spent a number of years as an academic and lecturer, beginning with her PhD on theatrical responses to the AIDS crisis, and the evolution of LGBTQ theatre. Currently, she is working on two books related to her research. She now specialises in Queer Culture Writing. As a journalist, she is a regular contributor for The Queer Review and has written for American Theatre, Slate, BBC and The Stage. @EmiGarside

Reviews

[Rhys England · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked the overall book but parts were repetitive. To the point I flipped pages back thinking I had already read what I was reading. I swear the same 3-5 sentences were written 5+ times each. And not in a foreshadowing way. The author and more importantly editor should have realized this!

If the book was written better I would give it 4 stars. The editing is that poor at times

[kory. · Rating 5 out of 5]

i’m so fucking here for this book. it’s so much more engaging than the first, shorter version of it, “love that journey for me.”

absolutely lovely discussions about

• the origin and making of schitt’s creek

• the town as a safe space not only for queer people but for everyone to simply be who they are

• the intentional and radical choice to not depict queerphobia on the show

• jewish identity specifically jewish masculinity

• emily hampshire not knowing what pansexuality was when they filmed the “i like the wine, and not the label” scene, but then years later, using that line to explain her pansexuality to people (icon behavior)

• neurodivergence on the show (featuring probably the most interesting analysis reading moira as having traits of depression, bipolar, adhd, and autism; david anxiety, adhd, and autism; and johnny, stevie, and patrick as kindly and acceptingly managing their mental health and caring for them in small and subtle, yet no less loving and important ways)

• the queerness of stevie (not in the sense of not being heterosexual, but in the sense of unapologetically breaking norms about sex)

• johnny rose being everyone’s dad (not just the other characters on the show, but the fans, too)

• the sex positivity and lack of slut shaming on the show (not just in showing a normalized, non-desexualized m/m relationship, but also in the women owning their sex lives and never being shamed, and normalizing the older characters also being sexual beings)

• fanfiction as a means of righting the wrongs of queer representation, wish fulfillment for media without canon queer representation, sexuality and gender exploration, and an emotional catharsis

• the important decision to have david and patrick not have kids (especially the fact that it reverses the typical solution to one partner wanting kids and the other not: rather than david being forced or pressured into having kids, patrick changes his mind, deciding he’s okay with not having kids, because plans change)

• moira as a drag icon (and a general look at moira and david’s clothing as both expression and armor)

• the impact of the queer representation on queer people (from helping them realize or accept their queerness to simply making them feel validated or seen) and allies (making them realize the importance of queer representation and inspiring them to be better allies and more accepting people in general) alike.

• the progressive and feminist approach to depictions of women and what they want out of life (romance not needing to be the happy ending, the “other woman” isn’t evil)

• the importance of dan being adamant about david and patrick being allowed to show physical affection, just like their heterosexual counterparts (think of how many heterosexual characters kiss on friends, but carol and susan don’t even kiss at their wedding)

• the various coming out stories told on the show (patrick’s late in life coming out, david’s casual confirmation of his sexuality, the truth of coming out more than once in your life, johnny sharing david’s sexuality and concern for david to roland, patrick’s parents worrying that they failed to make patrick feel safe and comfortable coming out to them)

• the absolute Goals nature of johnny and moira’s relationship

• linking david’s pansexual wine metaphor to evelyn waugh’s 1945 novel brideshead revisited (wine is used as a metaphor for wickedness, things undrinkable, tastes, things enjoyed, things associated with darkness, and is often employed in contexts related to charles’ relationship with sebastian. the quote the author is referencing, is in full: “shall we have another bottle of this wine, or of something different? something different, some bloody, old burgundy, eh? you see, charles, i understand all your tastes. [...] real g-g-green chartreuse, made before the expulsion of the monks. there are five distinct tastes as it trickles over the tongue. it is like swallowing a sp-spectrum. do you wish sebastian was with us? of course you do.”)

• the possibility of patrick being demisexual

• cabaret as a tool of self-acceptance for patrick (and an interesting reimagining of it with david as the emcee, considering the parallels between david, emcee, and alan cumming)

• how the show is able to portray the parents’ side of their children being queer or coming out sympathetically and realistically without turning it into the typical story about queerness from a straight character’s perspective, and similarly, portraying patrick’s ex-fiancé rachel in a thoughtful sympathetic manner without turning it into the typical story about a scorned woman who was left for a man

• the radical and rebellious nature of a queer love story that is kind, easy, gentle, isn’t at any point in danger of not ending happily, and is what some people might consider “too dull” or “too vanilla,” when so many queer love stories feature or revolve entirely around pain and suffering

• dan levy’s intentional effort to mention being gay and the queerness of the show in interviews or promotion for the show on mainstream platforms as an act of activism (as well as the rest of cast being speaking passionately about the queer representation on the show)

• a brief history of queer representation in media

while i have a lot of thoughts, most of them are simply musing about the topics the author brought up, not issues or criticisms, even if i might disagree with the author.

i feel like there was a missed opportunity when it comes to amatonormativity. during the topic of the importance of david and patrick kissing, i wish the author had simply said it was because that is how their heterosexual counterparts are depicted, rather than stressing it’s “what couples do.” because there isn’t any one thing that every couple does. which the author actually acknowledges later on when discussing how fans have pointed out that david and patrick never hold hands, suggesting “agonizing” over that is “heteronormative” because m/f romcoms have conditioned us to view handholding as a must in a romance, when in reality, other touching can represent the same affection. however, the author doesn’t seem to realize this also applies to kissing, which is not the only way to show affection and became the standard in romance through the dominant m/f depictions of romance. the author similarly applies inherent romance in physical touch by stressing that “even though they don’t touch during the open mic scene, it’s one of the most romantic,” but when i think of something being romantic, i don’t think of physical affection, i think of words or gestures, so there’s nothing groundbreaking or surprising to me that a scene without touch could be so romantic. in addition, when discussing stevie and alexis not having romance be their endgame, the author says it’s not typical because we can’t conceive of that not being a woman’s endgame, presenting it as simple misogyny in what women are told they can be and have. kids not being part of david and patrick’s happy ending is also described as not typical because we can’t conceive of a family that doesn’t involve kids. however, amatonormativity is also a part of this. stevie, alexis, and david and patrick’s respective endgames being considered outside of the norm is a product of believing women are defined as wives and mothers, believing the only kind of family that should exist is a mother, father, and children, as well as believing an exclusive, monogamous romantic/sexual relationship culminating in marriage and kids is a universal goal that should be sought out and prioritized over other relationships and life paths.

the author describes schitt’s creek as showcasing chosen family, but i’m not sure i agree. chosen family is creating a family unit outside of your biological family, usually due to either lack of biological family or lack of accepting/healthy relationships with biological family. personally, i feel like what the author describes on the show as chosen family is simply friendship and community. the argument for patrick being taken in by the roses is the most convincing for chosen family, but i also can see it as a typical in-law situation. jocelyn and roland being there for the roses is more akin to community building and friendship. the hypothetical future where david and patrick become “father figures” to people in place of having children isn’t canon, so even if that were chosen family, it’s not a depiction on the show. johnny being stevie’s surrogate dad could also be interpreted as a friendship. additionally, i don’t think our concept of chosen family should rely on replicating the roles/dynamics of a biological family, usually a parent/child relationship. this is seen in the author arguing patrick has been adopted by johnny and moira, jocelyn and roland take care of david and alexis as they would their own kids, david and patrick might one day become father figures to people, and johnny is stevie’s surrogate dad. the people within a chosen family don’t need to view each other or be viewed by us/others as neatly slotting into the roles of a biological family. chosen family can consist of friends who don’t see each other as siblings and cross generational relationships (or mentor/mentee relationships) that don’t take on a parent/child dynamic. while acknowledging that family can take on many different forms, the author still manages to analyzes every non-biological, non-romantic relationship through the lens of biological family.

the book presents a reading of patrick as demisexual, which i think is interesting and fun. however, it’s mentioned that dan levy has said love and sex are separate things for david and patrick, which is why the happy ending massage wasn’t a big deal, and that this supports a demisexual reading of patrick. i personally don’t follow what the separation of love and sex has to do with needing an emotional bond before experiencing sexual attraction. the author explains that “for asexual people, sex means something else” and that they don’t subscribe to the idea that “sex equals commitment and loyalty,” which isn’t true for all asexual people and ignores the fact that allosexual people often have sex that’s completely separate from love. the idea of sex not being what defines a relationship, of not being intrinsically tied with love, a couple being able to have sexual encounters with third parties and it not undermining their relationship or love is more in line with polyamory than it is with demisexuality. dan’s quote to me supports a polyamorous reading of david and patrick, them just being open to idea of it, or simply them not subscribing to toxic monogamy. again, this isn’t about patrick being read as demisexual, it’s about the interpretation of dan’s quote.

but one thing that i do have actual criticism and an issue with is how pansexuality is (and more often than not, isn’t) talked about in this book. the author is pan and i don’t think any ill intent was meant, so i’m not taking my usual angry approach, with immediate accusations of panphobia and not understanding pansexuality or caring about pansexual people. my issues remain the same, though. in all the conversations i’ve seen about the queer representation on schitt’s creek, the focus is more often on patrick’s gayness and the relationship between david and patrick and queerness as a whole, than it is on david’s pansexuality. people talk about a pansexual character without ever feeling the need to mention their pansexuality. i mean, there are 7,352 fics on ao3 tagged as david rose and only 28 of those mention the word pansexual. i have long since wished people cared about the pansexual representation on the show the way they do other representation and this book sadly is no different. for example, the author shares quotes from fans about the importance of the show’s representation and of the 30+ quotes shared, only two are from pansexuals. there are more quotes from allies and fans talking about headcanons than there are from pansexuals. that is just incomprehensible to me. to make matters worse, of all the interviews and social media posts from dan levy about the pansexual representation, not a single one was quoted in this book, even when talking about how dan has been very vocal in the media about the queer representation on the show. again, i don’t understand it.

related to this is how the importance of pansexual representation tends to depend on more than pansexuals being able to relate to it. the author describes david’s “i like the wine, and not the label” explanation of his pansexuality as “universal,” “adopted by queer people of all labels,” because it “neatly fits any sexual and gender expressions” and that david never using the word pansexual himself shows means that the wine metaphor indicates “it doesn’t matter to david how he’s labeled more who he is with.” however, this is a misrepresentation of david’s wine metaphor in order to make it universal. wine is a metaphor for people and label (as in, the label on the wine) is a metaphor for gender. liking the wine, not the label directly translates to liking people, not genders—a clumsy explanation of pansexuality—being attracted to people regardless of gender. which is not a type of attraction that everyone feels, because not everyone is attracted to all genders. the wine metaphor is not, and shouldn’t have to be, a universal slogan for queerness in order for it to be important. (the cast wearing “i like the wine, and not the label” shirts at a pride parade is described as an “important act of visibility” but in a general queer visibility sense, without ever mentioning what that could mean for pansexual visibility or pansexuals.) further, it’s mentioned elsewhere in the book that the word pansexual being used on screen is important, but here the author is arguing that because david isn’t the one to say it that he doesn’t really care how his sexuality is labeled. it’s upsetting to hear a pan person argue that david doesn’t care how he’s labeled, when he is a very explicitly purposeful pansexual character, because that’s exactly what people say when they’re defending erasing david’s pansexuality: “he doesn’t say it...maybe his dad got it wrong...he seems like the type to not care what you call him.”

other notes: desperately in need of editing, as there are names that are spelled wrong or just simply the wrong name, falsehoods about shows are presented as facts, and there’s a truly, unbelievably excessive amount of repetition. erroneous claims about schitt’s creek having been the first show to have a positive depiction of queer characters. i hate the conversations about cishet women creating/consuming queer content being fetishization and appropriation, because it relies on assuming the sexuality and gender of people creating/consuming queer content and their reasoning for doing so, and can pressure people into coming out before they’re ready. we simply do not know who is creating/consuming what and why, so this inescapable conversation about a hypothetical cishet woman boogeyman is invasive and gatekeepy.

content/trigger warnings; mentions or discussions of queerphobia, queer death in media, sexualization and fetishization of queer people, sex, hiv/aids crisis, antisemitism, mental illness, ableism, ageism, misogyny, gaslighting, amatonormativity, allonormativity. instances of panphobia/pan erasure, amatonormativity, allonormativity, binary language,

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is my second Garside book (first was about the musical RENT). The author has a very scholarly approach again to delving into Schitt’s Creek. Like RENT, SC has been really important to me and a comfort. The wide array of found family, acceptance and quirky people is really nice to revisit. I’ve seen the whole show so many times now that it was easy to picture the scenes she writes about. At times there is a little too much detail and or repetition. I think a fair amount could’ve been less repetitive if some of the text was structured a little differently. The chapter on Cabaret reads a bit like a tennis match at times.
It is however very well researched and clearly written. I’m glad Garside took the time to write this and why SC was an important show for many.
The book focuses mainly on David, Moira and the dad, which is a pity because Alexis is a fantastic character played really well by Annie. In the fashion chapter I definitely missed reading more about her looks and accessories.
It also really highlights why this show and queerness, in a little utopian small town is so important to the LGBTQIA+ community and its allies.

[Scarlet · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loveeee academically written books/analysis about nerdy or fictional topics

[Julie Bozza]

Fun, thoughtful, and heart-warming - but in need of a good editor!

[Lore Graham · Rating 2 out of 5]

If this book had been half the length, it would have been delightful. Instead, it's terribly repetitive, not just repeating quotes and anecdotes but actually duplicating entire sentences (and in at least one case, a full paragraph) word-for-word just a few pages apart. Really disappointed that poor editing turned what could have been a fun read into a frustrating slog.