Brian Yorkey and his creative team have set themselves one hell of a challenge. I don't believe art and media need to be entertaining to be worthwhile. Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' is an important and exceptionally well-written novel, yet it's hard to call it entertaining. There are plenty of such examples to pick from over hundreds of years of art.

They do need to be engaging, however. I, as a viewer or reader, need to be gripped and immersed in the narrative. So the question is , how do you make a TV series involving sexual assault, drug addiction, violence, suicide, blackmail and numerous other challenging topics engaging?

As a TV series, the writers want us to watch the next episode. A film or a novel is a standalone work. You watch a film and that's it. You may like or not, but you've paid your admission to the cinema or brought the book and you're done. A TV series, however, gives us the option of watching more episodes. If we don't watch them, the series is a flop.

'The Road' is also set in a post-apocalyptic landscape, one alien to us, and filled with alien characters in alien situations. 13 Reasons Why is set in the school environment we're all familiar with and filled with adolescent and adult characters facing challenges that we've all faced ourselves.

Does Yorkey intend for 13 Reasons Why to be entertaining as opposed to engaging? I suspect the answer is yes. It's gripping television. I watched the whole thing over a lazy long weekend and I'd be lying if I didn't get the 'just one more episode' vibe at the end of each one. It made me want to tune in thanks to a variety of clever (albeit common) writer's tricks and a damn good script.

If Season 1 was controversial, then Season 2 is likely to prove doubly so. There's a tendency to turn things up to eleven with sequels, but I don't think 13 Reasons Why does. Rather, it fleshes out the main characters further and introduces some new ones to function as foils. We hear from other characters, not just the rather narrow narrative of Clay and Hannah, but Zach, Tyler, Bryce, Jessica and others. There are multiple sides to every story, and the narrative of Season 2 is driven by those nuances.

It is painfully topical (and, consequently, extremely close to the mark at times), dealing with the sorts of issues that pop up in the news every single day. I've read reviews saying that the characters are self-absorbed and melodramatic and I think that's completely unfounded. Given what these characters have all experienced, their actions (for the most part) make sense.

I, personally, as a 20-something heterosexual male from a background not dissimilar to most of the characters on the show found myself sympathising with pretty much all of them on some level. That includes the darker elements, particularly when it comes to the way in which we treat women, and I think most men would agree with me (whether they'd admit it or not). Adolescent boys do stupid things. Hormones do exist and they do drive boys to act in reprehensible ways. However, boys can control the way they act (for everyone's benefit), but they need to be shown. I, fortunately, was. Many others are not.

These things do not make us inherently bad people. Part of the cleverness of of 13 Reasons Why is that none of the characters are perfect. In fact, just about all of them (male and female) do something that is either downright stupid or at least hurtful. A teenage boy who sexually harasses a girl can grow up to be a more enlightened man who finds sexual harassment reprehensible providing he has that guidance. This is why framing these discussions in the context of a school works. People who are supposed involved in teenagers' educations sometimes, perhaps even often, fail in that task. We ask: why? Are they bad people? Or are there more systemic problems?

Season 1 has been criticised partly because Hannah effectively ruined quite a lot of people's lives through her actions, or at least caused them prolonged suffering. Season 2 doesn't argue with that. In fact, Hannah had plenty of faults, and the show quite openly discusses them. Clay is our main conduit for this and voices what quite a lot of people will be thinking, opening the narrative for a conversation.

Another criticism is that people lie. Hannah lied about how she was feeling. She was rarely forthright about things, as are other characters. I get that. I struggle with depression, and at times it has become very serious. Just the other day I was reading an editorial on the BBC website that discussed mental health and financial stress, and I found myself nodding along. Refusing to open letters, head-in-the-sand attitude, not answering the phone, not responding to texts/emails/whatever, yet still go out in public dressed nicely with a big smile on their face and convincingly acting like nothing's wrong.

It is extremely difficult to talk and be open, even to the people closest to you who have your back and you trust. People who have struggled with depression will understand. People who have not find it hard to figure out why such people don't just approach a situation pragmatically. I'm a scientist - I'm logical and pragmatic and rational, yet that scientific way of dealing with things often just doesn't transfer to dealing with mental health issues. By their very nature, it It's hard to explain, but I think the writers of 13 Reasons Why get it.

Something I'm sort of reluctant to include, but feel like I ought to, is the show's diversity. I was impressed by it, mainly because the show doesn't draw attention to it. The characters have diverse backgrounds without making it feel like a box-ticking exercise. (That said, there's a distinct lack of South Asian characters, i.e. there are none, and I just wonder why South Asian people are so rarely featured in the media.) Diversity isn't just racial, but economic, social and sexual. It feels representative of present-day America (or Europe). Sexuality is dealt with organically and naturally. It just feels like it belongs in the show and gay characters have relationship struggles just as straight characters do. Gay characters are far from being stereotypes. In fact, all the characters avoid being stereotypes.

Performances, set design, music, direction, etc. are all solid and I don't really have a whole lot to say.

The bottom line is that this is a show that deals with some very challenging topics in a format that's not a documentary or an instructional video or whatever. It's a TV show that wants you to come back and watch more (and it's set itself up for a Season 3) - i.e. it wants to be entertaining as well as engaging, and that's where I begin to find it uncomfortable. There are times, I think, when the show just doesn't have either the expertise or the time to properly examine certain themes. While Season 2 does refer viewers to online resources if they want to find out more, this is perhaps inadequate. I think the show crosses the line on several occasions and attempts to tackle too many things without giving them all the attention they deserve.

I still have mixed views about this. However, the show has got me thinking about things. It's given me new perspectives and a lot of things to ponder. I hope it does foster conversation among adolescents and adults alike, because mental illness and sexual harassment/assault are serious issues that are still so badly understood by the populous. If a hit Netflix show can get people talking, and I include authorities in this, then that's good.

People say that the core message of Season 1 is to 'be nice to each other'. I disagree. Society doesn't run on 'being nice'. Capitalism often involves in screwing other people over. Forgiveness and charity rarely feature in business and politics. Forget it. Real life often isn't nice. I think the core message is: talk to each other. It's easier said than done, and that's why I think the secondary message is: listen to each other. Actually listen and actually talk: have meaningful conversations, because that's ultimately what will help people work through their problems.