Ace Characters in Books/TV v. Headcanon

[K. Derrick]

I just finished my first character profile for my PhD research on the subject.  Basically, it is a rationale for the having this particular character as a subject of research.  I would appreciate any feedback, ideas, etc. you might have on this.  The thread has already given me some great ideas on where I can go.  You are the best, and when I'm done, you can expect a thank you.

[fuzzipueo]

3 hours ago, K. Derrick said:

I just finished my first character profile for my PhD research on the subject.  Basically, it is a rationale for the having this particular character as a subject of research.  I would appreciate any feedback, ideas, etc. you might have on this.  The thread has already given me some great ideas on where I can go.  You are the best, and when I'm done, you can expect a thank you.

I did try to leave a comment about the MCU v. DC article you wrote, but the comment doesn't seem to have stuck. Is your comment section working on the site? You might check that out. I would have left a comment there about your character profile, didn't want that comment to disappear into the ether either, so now I will - this is a very interesting subject matter and I am glad that this thread is being helpful!

[knittinghistorian]

On 4/7/2018 at 1:55 PM, K. Derrick said:

This is really a topic worth noting.  It is important to remember that asexuality wasn't actually considered a type of sexual orientation until the 1950's and 1960's.  So whereas other forms of sexuality (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc.) have had representation in literature since the dawn of man, asexuality has not.  But that begs even more questions, doesn't it?  We know that sexuality is at least in part if not in totality controlled by genetics.  It isn't too much of a leap to claim that art imitates life.  So we can therefore safely say that people that would be considered under the asexual umbrella today did exist prior to the Kinsey studies of the 50's, there just wasn't really a word for it.  It then stands to reason that there are asexual characters in fiction prior to the 1950's.  Just look at Sherlock Holmes.  He is a perfect example of a character that would meet the present day definition of asexual during his time.  That is why I don't consider Jughead Jones' asexuality a retcon.  If you go back and read the back issues, he has no interest in the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter).  I think it really requires further research.  That is why it is the subject of my PhD research.

I’d like to know more about your research! What field? (Lit or gender studies or psychology or whatnot.) My PhD is in history.

[knittinghistorian]

Have you considered looking at “Wuthering Heights”? From what I’ve read about Emily Bronte I do at least wonder if she was on the asexual spectrum, and an asexual analysis of “Wuthering Heights” could be fascinating. Everyone assumes (thank you amatonormativity) that it’s about the poisonous love story, but I don’t think it is at all. I think it’s about what a Stephen King character called “the effective half-life of evil”.

[K. Derrick]

8 hours ago, fuzzipueo said:

I did try to leave a comment about the MCU v. DC article you wrote, but the comment doesn't seem to have stuck. Is your comment section working on the site?

Sorry about that.  I'm still working out some of the kinks.  I'm self hosting the site on a Raspberry Pi server I built myself.  So there is a bit of a learning curve.  For some reason, your comment didn't even show up on my dashboard for approval.

[K. Derrick]

2 hours ago, knittinghistorian said:

Have you considered looking at “Wuthering Heights”?

I haven't considered Wuthering Heights specifically.  But the Bronte sisters are definitely on my list of authors whose works I would like to explore.

[K. Derrick]

I've added another character to my research, Athena.  I'd be interested to hear any thoughts, criticisms, and ideas you might have.

[K. Derrick]

Hey everyone!  I added another character to my profile series on asexual characters, Sir Galahad.  I really think this one is interesting.  As always, I f you have any thoughts, questions, or suggestions (particularly on other characters for my PhD research) I am always keen to hear them.

[knittinghistorian]

22 hours ago, K. Derrick said:

Hey everyone!  I added another character to my profile series on asexual characters, Sir Galahad.  I really think this one is interesting.  As always, I f you have any thoughts, questions, or suggestions (particularly on other characters for my PhD research) I am always keen to hear them.

Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot.  He certainly seems very asexual to me, and probably also aromantic, or demiromantic at the very most.  Maybe Miss Marple too, as she is a happy elderly old maid.

[Tunhope]

To me, there's  a big difference between characters who are absolutely-in-your- face asexual and characters who simply don't have sexual relationships. I think it's about the author's intention. No sexual interest doesn't equate with asexuality. It might be worth looking at Claudie Arseneault's wordpress site. Readers and authors can tabulate  characters' degree of aceness eg implied, mentioned, totally obvious.

[K. Derrick]

19 hours ago, Tunhope said:

To me, there's  a big difference between characters who are absolutely-in-your- face asexual and characters who simply don't have sexual relationships. I think it's about the author's intention. No sexual interest doesn't equate with asexuality.

I'm not sure I agree.  First, the author's intent, as far as I'm concerned, not particularly relevant.  Generally, I try to follow Barthes' principle of the Death of the Author.  The idea is that once the work is published, it ceases to be an expression of the author, but rather an expression of the work itself.  Similar to a child.  Once the child is of age and released into the world by their parents, the parents are absolved of the actions of their child.  I'm by no means a purist here, but I do think Barthes makes a point. 

 

In regards to a lack of sexual interest not equating asexuality, I'm not sure I agree there, either.  I will agree, that an asexual character written today could be held to that standard, but not a character written in the 1400's when the concept of asexuality didn't exist.  It doesn't change the fact that asexuals and other Ace people existed in the 1400's.  It simply means there was no term for it.  So it becomes incumbent upon us, the reader, to apply a Queer and Neo Historicism lens to these readings. 

 

Since there is no term for asexuality prior to the mid-20th century,we have to develop a primer of language that translates the text into terms we can understand.  So in Galahad's case, the term "chaste" has an interesting meaning in the 15th century.  We can then take that meaning and see how Galahad does not fit that mold, calling into question the nature of his chastity.  That alone is not evidence to make the claim Galahad is asexual, but that coupled with numerous other aspects of Malory's work does offer us with plenty of evidence to back up a claim that Galahad is asexual.

 

A tremendously important part of any emerging critical theory, in this case Queer Theory and the possibility of an Ace Theory, is reclaiming work.  Essentially we go back and re-read literature that has a wealth of scholarship on the subject and read it in a new light.

 

P.S.  I'm familiar with that database and it is almost exclusively Post-Kinsey works (which is useful if you are studying Post-Kinsey asexual/aromantic characters), but I would like to study characters that are Pre-Kinsey.  I appreciate the suggestion, though.

[Tunhope]

That's a very fair comment about the historical lack of vobulary. 

As someone who has given birth to both children and to books... well, that takes more thinking about.

Edited later. I'd like to apologise to @fuzzipueo as I thought I had read the first post when , in fact, I began at the start of page 2 with K.Derrick.

Also, I shall try to get hold of Death of the Author as that's an interesting idea, and I'm open to modifying what I think.

[Tunhope]

Not a double post: I had another thought. Would you mind elucidating a little @K. Derrick? (Again, respecting this is Fuzzipueo's thread)

The idea of the Death of the Author, does it refer solely to an author's role in traditional publishing? I'm thinking that, in this age of self-publishing, the hard work begins after the book is published in a sense. Marketing, advertising  seeking reviews and visibility... one can't absolve oneself from responsibility. There's an emotional, time and financial cost that continues long after publication. Apologies if the thrust of Barthes' principle is different and more content-related. 

[K. Derrick]

@Tunhope, I would argue this is a relevant discussion to asexual characters in literature as Barthes was a contemporary of Foucault, without whom we would not have Queer Theory as it is today.  As far as Barthes was concerned, I don't think he conceived of an era with the Internet.  So I can't imagine he would have considered the differences between publishing through a publisher or self publishing through Nook Press, for example.  That being said, Barthes' philosophy on authorship are more oriented toward the content.  But his is only one theory of many.  Granted, his is the most predominately used and most elucidated in post-modern literature, but there are other philosophies floating around out there.

 

Using Barthes, a critic could argue that Dumbledore is not canonically gay simply because Rowling says he is.  That same critic could then go onto use evidence from the text to make a case for Dumbledore's homosexuality (his lack of a love interest, his curiosity about the relationship between Harry and Hermione, his preoccupation with Harry).  Now I for one am not a purist.  I think we should consider the author's wishes/intent, but only where it can clearly be given.  So in the case of Galahad being asexual, there are no letters or journal entries or interviews with Thomas Malory on the subject.  But when discussing Dumbledore and homosexuality, I think it is fair to do so and mention Rowling's comments on Dumbledore's sexual preferences.  But you should only do so in addition to the textual evidence which is, in my mind, always the primary impetus of any good literary analysis.

 

So the letter where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle describes Sherlock Holmes in a manner consistent with what we would consider asexual/aromantic, it would be meaningless if there were numerous instance where Sherlock Holmes was attracted to women or men.

 

If you are interested in literary theory, Roland Barthes "Death of the Author" is definitely a good read, if not a ponderous one (it is a philosophy work after all).

[Tunhope]

Many thanks for that explanation @K. Derrick

[fuzzipueo]

On 12/20/2018 at 7:54 AM, K. Derrick said:

@Tunhope, I would argue this is a relevant discussion to asexual characters in literature as Barthes was a contemporary of Foucault, without whom we would not have Queer Theory as it is today.  As far as Barthes was concerned, I don't think he conceived of an era with the Internet.  So I can't imagine he would have considered the differences between publishing through a publisher or self publishing through Nook Press, for example.  That being said, Barthes' philosophy on authorship are more oriented toward the content.  But his is only one theory of many.  Granted, his is the most predominately used and most elucidated in post-modern literature, but there are other philosophies floating around out there.

 

Using Barthes, a critic could argue that Dumbledore is not canonically gay simply because Rowling says he is.  That same critic could then go onto use evidence from the text to make a case for Dumbledore's homosexuality (his lack of a love interest, his curiosity about the relationship between Harry and Hermione, his preoccupation with Harry).  Now I for one am not a purist.  I think we should consider the author's wishes/intent, but only where it can clearly be given.  So in the case of Galahad being asexual, there are no letters or journal entries or interviews with Thomas Malory on the subject.  But when discussing Dumbledore and homosexuality, I think it is fair to do so and mention Rowling's comments on Dumbledore's sexual preferences.  But you should only do so in addition to the textual evidence which is, in my mind, always the primary impetus of any good literary analysis.

  

So the letter where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle describes Sherlock Holmes in a manner consistent with what we would consider asexual/aromantic, it would be meaningless if there were numerous instance where Sherlock Holmes was attracted to women or men.

 

If you are interested in literary theory, Roland Barthes "Death of the Author" is definitely a good read, if not a ponderous one (it is a philosophy work after all).

Let's say a reader does not have an interest in and may not, in fact, be aware of Doyle's letter or of Rowling's Tweet about Dumbledore, they're going to come conclusions about Holmes and Dumbledore's respective orientations just based off the texts they've read and their own experiences. For myself, it never occurred to me that I should be making guesses about Dumbledore's orientation because I saw him as a distracted adult (a fault for which he later apologizes to Harry) who had a lot on his plate keeping up with affairs that affected the school as a whole as well as the wider world and the political maneuvering of various forces, etc. The last thing on his mind would have been dating or romance, etc. (This may also be evidence to the fact that I am ace to the core - it just never was on my radar so why should it be on other people's radars?)

 

As for Holmes, readers have been arguing over his orientation since the beginning, and, much like early Kirk/Spock fans, a certain portion of the readership came to the conclusion that he was, in fact, gay with Watson being his main interest (even though Watson gets married at one point, who does he return to in the end?). Again, we're talking about a readership who did not have access to or may not have had an interest in, Doyle's private correspondence for the most part, unless they really willing to dig into the archives for that sort of thing. Again, as merely a reader, it never occurred to me that I needed to worry about Holmes (dis)interest in romantic affairs outside of the jobs for which he was hired. Again, I see him as a man who likes puzzles and intensely dislikes quiet boredom, and is, possibly on the depressed side of the emotional scale.

[K. Derrick]

6 hours ago, fuzzipueo said:

Let's say a reader does not have an interest in and may not, in fact, be aware of Doyle's letter or of Rowling's Tweet about Dumbledore, they're going to come conclusions about Holmes and Dumbledore's respective orientations just based off the texts they've read and their own experiences.

True enough.  What you are describing is formalism, where the work and its content stands alone regardless of an context.  Formalism came out of an effort to legitimize English Departments that were emerging in the turn of the 20th century.  The idea was to take the lack of authority these programs had and foster authority by applying principles used in the Sciences.  Formalists would argue that you can only read a poem one way.  They might come to different conclusions about the poem, but they would follow the same principles.  A formalist would scoff at the idea of Dumbledore being gay or Holmes being asexual because there is not textual evidence to conclude that such a characteristic exists.  These are the theorists that came up with the concept of the "deep reading."  In doing so they set a standard for English education that still exists to this day.

 

I, as well as a litany of other theorists like Derrida and Foucault, that formalism served its purpose, but also forced other aspects of reading into the shadows.  A formalist would tell you there were no asexual characters prior to the Kinsey Studies because asexuality was not a concept.  Therefore they could not be represented in literature.  As a member of the Ace community, I feel that disenfranchises our ownership of our history.

 

My theory assumes tow things.  One, sexuality is not a choice.  Two, life imitates art.  If we assume those things to be true, then asexual characters must be represented in fiction prior to the Kinsey studies as they certainly must have existed.  The only difference being that they cannot be referred to as "asexual," but rather whatever language would be relevant at the time (Galahad's "chastity" in the 14th century, Holmes' "confirmed bachelor" in Victorian England, etc.).  But, not everyone ascribes to that philosophy.  There are many people that scoff at a Feminist reading of Hamlet or a Marxist reading of Great Expectations. 

 

For me, that additional evidence that exists outside of the literature, puts the literature into context.  While I would agree that the additional evidence is not sufficent to make any ultimate conclusion without the use of the literature, when used as an ancillary proof, that extra bit of evidence can help illuminate things in the text that readers may not have noticed before.  For example, let's apply the same principle to the theory of evolution.  I can line up the fossils of one species and explain that that species evolved into what is today.  We can show that this particular species, step-by-step, became what it is today.  Now, does that mean other species also evolved?  No.  But if I can demonstrate that other species also follow similar patters of evolution, then it supports the idea that all species do, even those that I am unable to find complete, conclusive, or any evidence on whether they were subject to evolution or not.  But because we bring that outside evidence to bear, even though it is not evidence specifically relative to this species in question.

 

So in the case of Galahad, we can look at what the prevailing attitudes were toward chastity in Malory's time.  We can then find how his characters either meet or subvert that perception.  In Galahad's case, he does so in such a unique way, that a strong case could be made that he is not simply a virgin or chaste, but rather a member of what we would now call the Ace community.

 

There is nothing wrong with taking an absolutist approach to formalism.  But for me, there are times when what is in the text leaves me with unanswered questions.  The absolutist would argue that whatever I read was a bad work of literature and unworthy of study.  I find that attitude a little discouraging.

[K. Derrick]

I just thought all of you might be interested that I am scheduled to appear on "Slice of Ace" to discuss my research and presentation at the 2019 UK Asexuality Conference.  I'll try to post a link for those keen to see it.

[Carmine88]

If you want to know why there's no representation I'd bargain it's probably...

A. Lack of awareness it exists

B. Lack of knowledge and experience of writers

C. Lack of writers who are asexual

D. Writers love to use regular storylines like pregnancy, coma, affair, amnesia, surprise murder and if your character is asexual that can take out quite a few of those most of the time. Like for example lots of murders are 'crimes of passion' on tv and sex motivated. Or your character isn't likely to be secretly pregnant if they don't really do sex much. A lot of writing is shock based, they like to surprise the audience and it's harder to do that with an asexual character. People expect it now it's been that way so long. We go into a movie and there's always a love interest. Writing feels very controlled to me now and it's put me off most TV shows because it becomes so formulaic. Nothing ever really surprises me any more. Maybe this will change with inclusiveness but I get the feeling a lot of writers avoid this because they find it harder to write and don't really want to. It's a lot easier to write from your own perspective. Maybe if they hire more directors and writers from different backgrounds this will change.

[knittinghistorian]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:20 PM, Carmine88 said:

If you want to know why there's no representation I'd bargain it's probably...

 

C. Lack of writers who are asexual

In my novel, one main character is asexual, and there is no romance/sexual element whatsoever.  Because... How does one even?

[Tunhope]

Just watched @K. Derrick 's Slice of Ace interview and much enjoyed it. Also  have thought hard about the death of the author ideas exchanged above and have changed my opinion, to some extent, about ownership of a work once it has been written. I can see that reading is a very different experience from writing. 

[K. Derrick]

On 9/8/2019 at 1:48 PM, Tunhope said:

Just watched @K. Derrick 's Slice of Ace interview and much enjoyed it. Also  have thought hard about the death of the author ideas exchanged above and have changed my opinion, to some extent, about ownership of a work once it has been written. I can see that reading is a very different experience from writing. 

Thank you for the reminder.  I completely forgot to post the link.

 

 

 

The idea of the death of the author is really interesting.  There are also a lot of excellent theories revolving incorporating the author into analysis of a work or incorporating the world in which a work exists into a work.  That's one thing I really love about literature and art in general.  It isn't wrong if you can justify it.  It's just different.

[Carmine88]

On 9/8/2019 at 6:19 PM, knittinghistorian said:

In my novel, one main character is asexual, and there is no romance/sexual element whatsoever.  Because... How does one even?

I want to date but it's hard to know where to start and find the other 1% of the population