Ace Representation: Canon, Coding, and... Assigning?

In preparation for this series on asexual representation on the screen, I launched a question for the community: What canonically asexual or ace-spec characters do you know from TV and Film?

In my head it was a very straightforward question but, as soon as answers began rolling in, I realized I was very wrong.

First, let's define what canonical, often abbreviated to canon, means to the internet. According to Urban Dictionary:

"The real deal; a piece that is widely recognized as a genuine member of the body of work (oeuvre) of a given artist/writer/composer; a standard by which all others are compared."

When I launched the question, I meant it as ace characters that are explicitly stated as ace in the film or series. However, answers varied from characters with heavy ace-coding, those taken in as iconic because they give off 'ace-vibes', and a very interesting category of characters that are never categorized as ace within the work, some not even displaying any sort of indication of their sexuality, but whose creators have alluded in interviews or in their social media that they are. Technically, it could be argued that these can all fall under the definition of canonical as long as they are widely accepted. So let's discuss these categories as well as some of the positive and negative sides to each.

1. Explicit In-Show/Film

This first category is the most straightforward that there is. Once a character is explicitly stated as ace within a series or a film there is no denying their identity. There is no obscure interpretation or hidden writer intentions. What you see is what you get.

That is not to say that fans do not play with, bend, or alter said orientation within headcanons, AUs, and fanfiction, as is the case regardless of a character's identity.

A positive aspect of explicit in-show/film identification is that members of the ace community can directly identify with said characters. Asexuality is often erased in both fiction and reality, so having explicit representation can help people work out their own identity as well as serve as a reference point for those who do not know about it.

Asexuality, since it is based on attraction NOT action, is difficult to represent visually. Attraction is a very abstract concept. Therefore, the best way to show it is by outright stating it. However, this does lead to the potential downside to having characters explicitly state their asexuality in order to identify as such. It places an unnecessary pressure to 'come out' to be legitimately considered asexual. A pressure that by no means should be fostered whether in fiction or reality.

2. Coding

Most commonly known within the context of queer coding, it refers to the practice of creating characters with traits that hint heavily at their sexuality without actually stating it. Queer coding arose to present mainly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people mainly during the era of The Hays Code which limited what was allowed to be depicted on films. If you want to learn more about it, check out this very helpful video by Jessica Kellgren-Fozard:

As mentioned in the video, queer coding can be both positive and negative depending on who the creators are, intentional or unintentional, but it has shaped people's perception of queerness, sexual identities, and created lasting character tropes.

This same concept exists with ace-coding. While it cannot be said that asexual coding arose because of a ban on the depiction of such characters, ace-coding is very much present, or interpreted as such, due to several reasons. With more historical works, characters are sometimes interpreted as ace-coded and justified since the term did not exist, or was widely used, at the time it was written (although the earliest recorded use of the term, with some small variation, was in 1896 by German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld who identified as such). The most common example of this is Sherlock Holmes, who has been adopted as an asexual icon due to his lack of interest in relationships and sexual encounters.

Unfortunately, most of ace-coding, whether intentional or not, falls into the realm of characters who have no interest in relationships or sex. Generally depicted as emotionless and even going as far as having trouble with interpersonal relationships in general. As with many of the queer coding tropes, this creates a harmful stereotype of asexual people as emotionless, cold, and distant. Not only that, but it completely glosses over asexual people who are still interested in relationships, those who are not aromantic, and platonic relationships. Additionally, it incorrectly assumes that asexual people do not engage in sexual activity. Once again, asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, not necessarily action.

This also results in the automatic assumption of many that any character that displays a disinterest in relationships or rejects having a partner that they are asexual. It can also be problematic, since there are plenty of allosexual people who, regardless of their reasons, do not seek out a partner or relationship. The disinterest does not mean they are asexual, just like being asexual does not mean there is a disinterest in relationships.

Even so, ace-coding opens up the opportunity to explore asexuality without being constricted to an already assigned sexuality. It also gives space for creators and the character to grow, explore their interests, while at the same time allowing many people with asexual traits who might not know yet, to have an introduction to similar experiences without being alienated by a term they do not yet identify with.

3. Creator Assignation

Finally, there is the matter of those characters who are labeled by their creators as asexual outside of the series or film. If the character has been ace-coded and the author merely confirms the suspicions, the character is gladly welcomed. This was the case of Peridot in Steven Universe. Ace-coding had been created around Peridot's disinterest in fusion and later confirmed as asexual (and aromantic) by a storyboard artist.

The issues arise when there is no agreement between this newly assigned label and what the audience has seen on screen, or the words of the creator are not as direct as some would wish.

The general public is not aware of a creator's intentions when designing a character except for what is explicitly stated. When it comes to assigning a sexuality afterwards or hinting at it, outside of the realm of the series or film, the audience has to take the creator's words as truth, despite not knowing the true intentions behind it. There are often concerns whether these outside talks are mere marketing tactics to draw in a section of the population that desires this representation, without actually giving it to them.

An example of this is when there is some ace-coding within the characters and the creator comments around it, and yet never explicitly states it, although the interpretation of many is that it has been confirmed. Confused? Me too.

A case in the rise is Neil Gaiman's Good Omens. The protagonists, Crowley and Aziraphael, could be interpreted as potentially ace-coded. This interpretation was taken a step further when Neil Gaiman tweeted:

I wouldn't exclude the ideas that they are ace, or aromantic, or trans. They are an angel and a demon, not as make humans, per the book. Occult/Ethereal beings don't have sexes, something we tried to reflect in the casting. Whatever Crowley and Aziraphale are, it's a love story.

So... Not confirmed but not excluded? Either way, it creates a lot of excitement about the possibilities while also a wariness since it does not shut the door to other interpretations.

“Particularly the way that Michael plays Aziraphale just as a being of pure love, I think that gave us something very special, because people of every and any sexual orientation and any and every gender looked at Crowley and Aziraphale and saw themselves in it, or saw a love story that they responded to, and that was completely unexpected... Things like this, you can’t manufacture, they have to happen from a fandom.”

With Season 2 of Good Omens looming over us, there is nothing left to do in this case but wait and see. Perhaps in the second season there will be more clarity about their orientations, or not.

While a creator's announcement that a character is asexual in a random interview could be a fun additional fact they want to share with the audience, it can easily be mistaken as queer baiting. Especially in shows where the characters are not ace-coded and have shown no sign whatsoever as to their sexuality, assigning them as asexual seems almost dishonest. Similarly to when a very famous magical world's author tweeted out how a certain headmaster was gay, declaring a character asexual when there is nothing to show for it, more than likely demonstrates a lack of understanding of how asexuality impacts someone's life since it's not limited nor equivalent to not having a relationship.

There are times when such actions are justified by saying that the show is not focused on that and therefore there was no way to show it. In those cases the question would be: why bring it up at all then? If it is does not influence the character's life in any way, shape, or form, is it truly a part of them? Is this truly representation? The answer varies from person to person, but it is good to ponder upon it. Some may see themselves represented in the character and that is wonderful, but there will also be those who do not feel represented in that depiction and should be respected as well.

There are also times in which creators attempt to justify this sexuality assignation but end up causing more harm than good. Take for example the case of SpongeBob. On one hand, there is the context in which creator Stephen Hillenburg declared SpongeBob as asexual. He was being asked if the characters were gay and, as a response, he stated that

“We never intended them to be gay. I consider them to be almost asexual,” he told Reuters at the time. “We’re just trying to be funny and this has nothing to do with the show.”

Asexual people can still be gay, so there is a misunderstanding of the term, but asexuality is used as a throwaway answer to dismiss their homosexuality. Hillenburg also mentions it has nothing to do with the show, therefore, nothing about SpongeBob, or Patrick, has been designed as asexual.

On the other hand, even if you choose to consider SpongeBob as representation for the asexual community, there was a problematic explanation attached to his asexuality. Hillenburg references the biology of sponges and their asexual reproduction through 'budding' to drive home the idea that it makes sense for SpongeBob to be asexual. However, there is a mixture of two different definitions of asexual. One being asexuality the orientation, in which people feel little to no sexual attraction, and the other asexual reproduction, in which organisms reproduce without the need for intercourse.

While the comment might be well-intentioned, it uses the biological definition that gets constantly weaponized against those who identify as asexual. People often use the idea that humans do not reproduce asexually to invalidate ace identities and use it to tell asexual and ace-spec people that their orientation is not real.

Ultimately, characters who are not explicitly stated as such will always allow for open interpretations. Whether someone wishes to recognize that as legitimate representation or not, is a matter of personal opinion. In the meantime, let's strive for media that better represents people of all sorts and uplifts communities.

*******************************

Sources:

“Asexuality: A Sexual Orientation Still Unknown and Pathologised.” Grow Think Tank, 18 Dec. 2021, https://www.growthinktank.org/en/asexuality-a-sexual-orientation-still-unknown-and-pathologised/#:~:text=The%20common%20use%20of%20the,who%20lacked%20sexual%20desire%201.

“Canonical.” Urban Dictionary, 2 June 2004, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=canonical.

Gaiman, Neil. Twitter, 8 June 2019, https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1137370226931228672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw.

Hale-Stern, Kaila. “Neil Gaiman on Aziraphale and Crowley's 'Good Omens' Love Story.” The Mary Sue, 29 Oct. 2019, https://www.themarysue.com/neil-gaiman-fan-reaction-aziraphale-crowley-good-omens/.

Scott, Katie. “Nickelodeon Announces SpongeBob Is Member of the LGBTQ2 Community - National.” Global News, Global News, 15 June 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/7066112/spongebob-lgbtq-community/.

*******************************

Part 3 coming soon. Be sure to check out Part 1: Ace Erasure on the Screen