Yet it's not really following the after-school special pattern that you bemoaned. It's subverting that pattern for a deeper purpose.
One thing I agree with you is that I don't see this. I do see, along with your original post, that the story is more layered than a real after-school special. But that's a far cry from "subverting the pattern" - it's perhaps a more sophisticated after-school special, in the same sense that, back when I lived in New York I could step in to a restaurant that was on my route from my flat to my office, and buy a $64 burger made of Kobe Beaf and really fancy ketchup. Sure, more care and thought went into it than into a McDonald's patty, but at the end of the day it's still a burger, and this story is still an after-school special.
To subvert the pattern, the story would have to make some commentary *about* the form, and I really don't see it; and you haven't mentioned such a metacommentary in your posts. If there is, I'd really appreciate it if you explain it to me.
As far as I can see this is a story in five acts:
ACT I - SETUP - The graduation ceremony
ACT II - BUILD UP - The first few weeks at the fire station. We get introduced to the character of Bob, who acts very flamboyantly and superficially homosexual (though that is never claimed out right). We get introduced to the character of Paula, who is a woman. We get introduced to Steven's father, who is a male chauvenist. We get introduced to Jimmy, the character's best friend, who seems to be part of the same ethos.
ACT III - CRISIS - the car accident, and Steven's flashback. We learn that Jimmy has depths beyond what we thought so far. It is heavily implied that Jimmy kissed Steven, though Steven won't admit that to himself. Steven misdirects his tension with Jimmy and his anger at himself towards Bob.
ACT IV - CLIMAX - The warehouse fire. Paula proves her worth by having better instincts than the male firefighter. Steven gets lost, and (hallucinates? sees?) Bob come to rescue him. He realizes that the very thing that annoyed him about Bob (the whistle) was something he is thankful for. He then learns that Bob died trying to find him. Note that it doesn't matter whether it was really Bob that he saw. What matters was A - Bob proved his worth by attempting, and, more importantly B - When the time came, what Steven had attributed to be the cause of his hatred of Bob turned out to be a red herring. Steven reaches awareness of Jimmy's homosexuality and attraction to him.
ACT V - DENOUEMENT - Some time later, Steven is a reformed man. He honors Bob's memory. He accepts Paula as both a woman and a firefighter. He is friendly to the rumored gay firefighter who conveniently showed up.
Am I missing anything?
The main point in my earliest post is the same - the transformative effect on the bigotted character (Steven) comes through the actions of others, in this case, the hated Bob. You are arguing that because Bob is not actually a homosexual human, but Jimmy is, then the story is more sophisticated. I'm saying that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. This isn't a twist, it's a variation within the theme.
The problems I have with the after-school special format are these:
1. The structure of the story means that we are supposed to sympathize with the bigot, and learn his lessons with him. We have to be *shown*, by external evidence, just like the bigot, that his bigotry is wrong.
2. There is a clear moment that changes everything. Change is sudden and cathartic, not gradual and painful.
3. At the end, learning to accept one person (in this case, Bob) leads the bigot to accept a whole class of people (in this case, non-hetero males, including women and homosexual men).
Can you tell me which of the above doesn't hold of this story?
I'm saying that your reasons for disliking the story are inaccurate and suggesting that you give the story a second look, because it's not doing what you said it's doing.
I'm saying that my reasons for disliking this story are my impression of the story. I did not miss out on elements of the plot, as you seem to be convinced (at the very least, neither of your posts contain a single element of the story I had missed out on). I am just not particularly impressed by them. Maybe you got something closer to the author's original intention, but it's not my responsibility as a reader to understand the story as the author intended it. And note that reading this thread I see I'm not the only one.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like it is your reasons for liking the story that are inaccurate - you are reading more into it than is actually in it. I could suggest that you give it a second look, but I don't believe in doing so. Framing an argument about a story in terms of who is right and who is wrong is futile (which, I should point out, doesn't always stop me from doing it). We can fruitfully debate on whose interpretation is better, but to do that we should frame the discussion in terms of interpretation. As long as you keep insisting that you just know better, nothing useful will come of it.