When Is Vague Too Vague?

Image description: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson in the BBC series, Sherlock. This version of the Sherlock Holmes stories takes place in the modern day and as such, it became easier than ever for many fans (myself included) to view Sherlock as a potentially aspec character, although this was never confirmed. These vague elements gave aspec fans of all kinds a place to find representation, but is it possible for vague representation to have a negative effect? I'll be exploring that question in today's post.

 

Having run this blog for three years now, I feel like I’ve hit a good rhythm in much of my analysis. I don’t lack for topics, my motivation to work on said topics is always strong, and I’ve (mostly) grown adept at knowing what to keep and what to cut so my posts don’t run overly long. However, there is one thing that I still struggle with even now, and it’s something that’s not likely to get easier: when it comes to analyzing characters on this blog, how do I describe them when they’re not actually aspec characters? What are the parameters I can and should use to get my point across? This problem is persistent because aspec representation is still lacking in most mainstream media, and as such there are very few examples I can draw from in my discussions. As a result, I sometimes struggle to describe them, or to describe them consistently. I often must rely on thematic shorthand as my “evidence” when I write my posts, and then have to try and pin terminology to said evidence. This is not always the most accurate way to describe what I’m seeing or what I want to say, and that’s frustrating.

For example, it’s very common that I describe a character as having “aspec vibes,” a very vague term which I use when a character is never confirmed to be on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrums, but seems to be not interested in sex or romance. Although I’m attempting to use this to give an open-ended impression that could include a lot of identities, the fact that I have to do that means I’m unable to discuss these identities with the preciseness they deserve and require. This likewise happens when I have to describe characters as “non-sexual” or “non-romantic.” While this may be accurate for the situation I’m describing, in which a character literally is not engaged in sex and/or romance and doesn’t seem interested in these things, using these descriptions carries with it the risk of conflating aspec identities with never having sex or romance at all, which of course isn’t automatically true.

But oftentimes, I feel locked into these vague terms. Why? Because many times the moments or characters I’m analyzing are just as vague. That’s not inherently a bad thing; after all, good storytelling happens just as much in the things that aren’t said as the things that are, and vagueness in stories can be a great opportunity for people to find themselves. But while these things may seem like creative and social “free real estate,” there are some unfortunate pitfalls. So today, I’d like to explore those empty spaces where character and plot development leave blanks for us to fill in, discussing ambiguity, representation, and the question of whether it’s possible for vagueness in media to be too vague.

Spoiler warning! 

Dragon Age: Inquisition & Trespasser (specifically Solas's romance; massive spoilers!)

Content warning: Discussions of Aphobia/Asexual Discrimination

-------------------------------------------------------

The Good and the Bad of Vague Representation

What I’m calling “vague representation” is a phenomenon that I’m sure many identities and groups of people can relate to – finding identifiable moments in things that are not clearly defined and trying to use them as representation. This is where things like “queer-coding” or the trope known as “Ambiguously Gay” come into play, where characters are not explicitly identified as queer, homosexual, homoromantic, etc., but where certain context clues help the audience understand this is the case (to either good or bad effect). When it comes to representing the asexual and/or aromantic spectrums in media, we see this even more. Not only are many aspec identities not widely known, but these spectrums are also so broad and varied that sometimes it can be challenging to portray these identities well. Other times, terminology can be an issue, with a story taking place in a time period where words like “asexual,” “aromantic,” etc. are out of place for whatever reason.

This is where vague representation becomes a factor and where characters begin being ambiguously identified as aspec – whether through something they do that reminds us of our own experiences if they are not canonically supposed to be seen as aspec, or through metaphor and description if they are. In general, I am usually all for this type of representation, and believe it can lead to some great places. For instance, before Todd Chavez on the Netflix series BoJack Horseman officially came out as asexual in so many words, many aspec fans strongly related to an earlier scene in which the character, when asked about his sexuality, replied “I think I might be nothing.” Although Todd had not yet been called asexual on screen, this moment resonated with many people all the same, and it allowed them to identify with Todd even before he came out as aspec.

Image description: Todd from BoJack Horseman, who manages to be both a canon asexual character and a good example of vague representation due to the well-done evolution of his character development.

This is something I likewise see happen in many of the novels I review for the blog. While some of these books can use aspec terminology to identify their characters, others cannot. For instance, in the Archivist Wasp series by Nicole Kornher-Stace, the main character lives in a post-apocalyptic far future world, and thus doesn’t have the same type of terminology we might have. Even so, sex and romance are never once a part of her story, and many of her experiences – although not specifically related to the struggle of being aspec – are nevertheless identifiable from an aspec perspective. I passionately believe that stories like these (and representation that functions in this manner) are important. Beyond that, having characters whose stories are not inherently sexual or romantic, thus leaving them open for interpretation and identification, is definitely a good thing.

Both examples mentioned above are examples of doing vague representation well. But as I said earlier, is it possible for this type of representation to be too vague? In my own aspec experience, I tend to automatically assume I’m wrong in any given situation, and vagueness can unfortunately contribute to that. For instance, if I see a character that has aspec tendencies, my first inclination is to begin thinking of them as a headcanon aspec character. But this is usually followed by reminding myself that I’m probably wrong, that I’m probably reading too much into the situation, and that, more than likely, my “misinterpretation” will be cleared up soon enough. Likewise, if I encounter something that makes me feel safe, seen, or represented, I usually end up reminding myself that it probably won’t last and thus I should prepare myself for the inevitable disappointment that’s sure to follow.

This constant feeling that I’m probably in the wrong is extremely wearying to say the least. However, it’s more than just an odd quirk my brain does; it’s something that is backed up by media, fandoms, storytelling conventions, and people, which makes it significantly harder to shake. In fact, I’ve practically built this blog on instances where vague representation or characters who fit that mold are taken in a more allosexual direction, inevitably tossing out their “aspec vibes” in the process. In these cases, their creators probably never meant for them to be seen as aspec or aspec-adjacent in the first place, but the abrupt turn into more “normal” or “traditional” relationships is nevertheless jarring and leads to frustrating instances of having even this type of representation seem unviable.

In other instances, open-ended interpretation of events as having “aspec vibes” can likewise be wearying because viewing these events through an aspec lens is often not the most popular choice – especially in fandom spaces. I don’t mean to generalize, as there are plenty of instances where individual people in fandom spaces try to accept aspec people; additionally, what works for one aspec person may not work for another, meaning there is no way to quantify a “typical fandom experience.” However, I can personally attest to the odd sensation of interpreting something as aspec when very few other people do. In certain cases, the situation in question is so vague that nothing is confirmed one way or another, so we find ourselves stuck as Schrodinger’s Aspec Person – being both right and wrong about this representation at the same time. To illustrate this, I’d like to turn briefly to Dragon Age: Inquisition and a moment that happens if the player character romances the elven mage Solas [MASSIVE spoilers ahead].

Vagueness in Fandom Spaces

Dragon Age: Inquisition is a fantasy roleplay video game where you play as a character you create and make decisions about the world, the story, and the people around you. This includes deciding if you would like a love interest and, if so, who you romance, although many of the elements of the romance path are set in stone and you’re just deciding which path to take. In the Dragon Age series, many of these romances are “confirmed” by showing – whether explicitly or not – the player character and their chosen romantic partner having sex. This element is so ubiquitous throughout the series that oftentimes aspec fans will begin headcanoning a character as aspec simply because their romance doesn’t show a sex scene as part of its confirmation (see Josephine Montilyet as a great example of this).

So what does this have to do with Solas and his romance? Well, this romance is a special case for a lot of reasons – most notably because Solas is eventually revealed to not be who the player thinks he is, with potentially world-shattering consequences. As such, his entire romance takes on a certain tragic flavor, and leaves players with a lot of unanswered questions. From an aspec perspective, one of those unanswered questions is whether or not Solas slept with his romantic partner. There are several moments of dialogue where it seems like he may have – for instance, during an exchange earlier in the game, the player character can teasingly ask him, “You’re being grim and fatalistic in hope of getting me into bed, aren’t you?” to which he responds, “I am grim and fatalistic, getting you into bed is just an enjoyable side benefit,” in a similarly teasing manner. While it’s unclear if this is just a joke or not, its inclusion seems rather telling. But despite these moments where Solas mentions sex or sexual things are discussed in relation to his romance, there is no included sex scene, and thus the question remains.

When a player who romanced Solas eventually confronts him during the downloadable content storyline Trespasser, their exchange with him further adds to this uncertainty. If selected, a certain line of dialogue seems as though the player character is remarking they were tricked by Solas into a physical relationship. His response is “I did not. I would not lay with you under false pretenses,” which is vague enough to still make this question prevalent within the fandom. Is he trying to tell you that, despite his other lies, his feelings for you were real, and thus having sex with you was not a manipulation? Or is this an indicator that he chose not to have sex with the player expressly because he did not wish to have sex amid his ongoing deception?

Admittedly, neither of these answers are necessarily aspec at all (although it could be argued that they maybe indicate demisexuality, demiromanticism, or some other identity). Likewise, Solas is not really portrayed in a way that makes him seem like an aspec character, at least from my own point of view. Even if he were, there’d be a few potential sticking points, not the least of which is the issue of whether villains should be aspec representation. But despite the fact that Solas and his romance aren’t perfect examples of this phenomenon, the underlying point about vagueness is still valid and this scenario nevertheless illustrates some of the inherent problems of being vague regarding sex or sexuality. As I said earlier, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to leave things open to interpretation, and in some cases that actually allows aspec people space to headcanon characters in certain ways. But when these moments become so muddled that it’s impossible to riddle out what’s being portrayed, can it still be productive?

Image description: Solas, as he appears in Dragon Age: Inquisition's "Trespasser" DLC

In the case of the Solas question, the open-ended nature of these scenes might be used by aspec fans to imagine an aspec relationship with Solas, and that would undoubtably be a good thing for them. But when it comes to fandom spaces, things aren’t always so cut and dry, especially for many aspec fans. For instance, another fan might choose to interpret this scene as meaning Solas and the player character definitely had sex – and because of the way the scene is written, their interpretation is just as valid as the interpretation of someone who says their relationship was non-sexual. But because neither option is confirmed and both options are equally possible, this has the potential to cause friction between fans and in fandom spaces (and indeed it does; reading the Reddit thread for this debate felt like walking through a field of landmines).

Of course, I’m sure the writers of the game and of the Solas romance did not mean for this ambiguity to be so polarizing. As I said earlier, a good story is often about what you’re not told as much as what you are told, and I believe they were just trying to add that element of mystery to Solas’s character for obvious reasons. But despite what I suspect were perfectly reasonable intentions, the fact of the matter still remains that the deliberate vagueness does indeed spark debate and controversy to this very day. Sadly, we live in a world where aspec identities are still the subject of discourse and where non-aspec people often still express the opinion that these labels and identities are unnecessary, and so this vague representation is easy to wave away. In turn, this can lead to the experiences, headcanons, and writings of aspec fans being dismissed or devalued as “not true.”

This goes back to what I said earlier about the constant fear of being wrong or having aspec headcanons stripped in fandom spaces. This is not a baseless fear and it happens even in fandoms that claim to be welcoming, accepting, or tolerant. On the opposite end of the spectrum, aspec fans may likewise jump to the conclusion that those who disagree with their headcanons are automatically aphobic. This is a dangerously easy trap to fall into, and I know that because I too have felt that same knee-jerk reaction at times. This reaction is wrong of us and should not be excused, but it’s an unfortunate reality that people like me are used to our headcanons and safe spaces being taken away and we, like many underrepresented identities, are left being on constant alert for when that may happen. As a result, we sometimes overreact based on past experiences, which ironically sours the fandom experience for other people the way our own fandom experiences have been soured in the past.

Thus, the idea of vagueness and vague representation can sometimes become a headache. If we can’t point to a specific character as canonically aspec, we are left to constantly defend and justify our own feelings, sometimes with disproportionate fervor. Sometimes, in so doing, we upset other fans who want or are even granted their own forms of representation through the characters we wanted to be ours. It’s a tragic cycle, and one that seems unlikely to change unless canon aspec representation becomes not only more prevalent, but more widely accepted in fandom spaces.

The Unwillingness to Portray Aspecness?

Over the years, I’ve noticed an unfortunate trend with vague representation, something that may just be my interpretation, but nevertheless seems like it’s possible – it seems like, when people begin questioning if a character is aspec, there is sometimes an effort to “correct” this assumption. Sometimes, this happens in fandom spaces, but it also happens by the people who created the media in the first place. This has always been a little strange to me, because it almost treats aspec headcanons as a bad thing and a thing to be avoided, as if having your character be interpreted in such a way means you failed at doing something as a writer and now you must take steps to set the record straight. Again, this might just be my own interpretation of events that are otherwise innocent, but if these things are truly how people are reacting, I think you can see the inherent problems.

For instance, I’m reminded of the fact that Steven Moffat, the co-creator and writer of the BBC series Sherlock felt the need to seemingly correct the assumption that Sherlock was aspec when this idea began to gain traction. Whenever he was asked about it, Moffat (often badly) tried to elaborate on the character, as if this was something he needed to go on record and sort out, rather than just letting people have their headcanons. This is one of the other problems with vagueness – it’s easy to take it back if and when it’s decided that aspec headcanons are unwelcome. This is extremely unfortunate for a number of reasons. Firstly, the creator(s) discouraging these headcanons means it becomes very difficult for aspec people to continue to hold onto them in fandom spaces, because they’ve been “proven wrong.” Secondly, as I said earlier, the compulsion to correct these notions in the first place carries with it strange connotations, as if being aspec is somehow insulting to characters. That in turn reinforces the idea that aspec identities are bizarre or inconvenient, or that they shouldn’t be portrayed in media.

Image description: Sherlock Holmes, as portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC series, Sherlock. Sherlock Holmes in general is a character who has been viewed as having those elusive "aspec vibes" by many aspec fans over the years, but when it comes to this interpretation of the character, that somehow seems to be treated as a bad thing.

This is something we also sometimes see in fandoms, especially if some fans consider a character’s sexuality an important thing to portray. For instance, if said character is in a typically underrepresented minority, and them being portrayed as sexual and/or romantic is seen as important representation for that group, aspec headcanons are often labelled as problematic as a result. I always find this especially sad because I imagine it means that some aspec fans who may be a part of other minority groups don’t get to be represented fully. As a result, they have to act like one thing or the other in their fandom life, not both, which surely must be a terrible position to be placed in.

As I’ve said before, my own belief about representation is that not everything can offer aspec representation at any given time. Because these spectrums are so varied, it would be impossible for everyone to be happy with how they’re portrayed or to see all of themselves represented in a character anyway. In general, representation is less about seeing all of ourselves and more about being able to relate to some part of a character or their journey. This is why vague representation works, because we can extrapolate certain experiences or elements and apply them to ourselves. But it’s a mistake to think that vague representation can do it all. If you don’t wish to include aspec representation because you don’t think it fits your characters or stories, or it’s not a top priority in what you’re trying to communicate, that’s not necessarily a problem. However, if you’re not including aspec representation because you think it’s bad or unnecessary, that’s where the problems can begin.

Due to these factors, it can sometimes feel as if we’re being given representation that’s vague or only there if you squint because giving us actual representation is… too hard? Too unpalatable? Not popular enough? I admit I’m not sure, and any of these possible options may be oversimplifications of the issue and a little cynical besides. In general, I think it’s more a symptom of the eternal problem of aspec identities not being widely known enough and that, even in cases where people are familiar with these identities, they may not know how desperately many of us crave canon representation. While representation is not, strictly speaking, necessary, I’m sure many of us agree that it would go a long way to helping aspec visibility. Therefore, it’s a shame that we have to practically beg even for these vague crumbs and often can’t hope of having anything more concrete.

And so I return to the question I posed with this post’s title and introduction: when is vague too vague? Although different people may have different definitions of what is “vague” and what is “too far” when it comes to ambiguity, I believe vague representation shouldn’t take the place of actual representation in cases where it could otherwise exist. As I’ve said many times, I don’t think every piece of media needs to have canon aspec representation, nor does each instance of this representation have to be explicitly spelled out. But at the same time, I think there’s a tendency in media to make these things more complicated and mysterious than they have to be, allowing these things to be opened up to debates that don’t technically have to exist. I love analyzing stories as much as the next person, but I’m not a huge fan of having my identity up as a topic of “discourse.”

Vague representation should be allowed to exist and people should be allowed to interpret that vagueness as they like, but it should never be an excuse to doubt the validity of people’s lives or experiences. It should never be used as an excuse to push them out of their own fandoms or treat them as “less than.” And it should never be used as a springboard to disrespect them or their identities. Headcanoning a character as aspec should not have to be a controversial hot take the way it often seems to be in fandom, just like headcanoning them as sexual shouldn’t be controversial either. In my opinion, when ambiguous portrayals lead to very unambiguous aphobia, that is when things have gone too far and when we need to ask ourselves if there’s a better way.

-----------------------------

Although I identify as aspec, I identify first and foremost in my life as a storyteller. As such, I would hate to live in a world where we weren’t allowed to be ambiguous, open-ended, or vague in our storytelling; in fact, some of my favorite storytelling involves not answering questions and allowing space for each person to analyze the material through their own lens. But I think we also need to question why aspec representation sometimes seems to stay stuck in this vague zone. Can we lift it out of that place and make it less ambiguous in future? Can we encourage fandom spaces to be more accepting of aspec headcanons when possible? And can we see a media landscape where aspec people deciding to search for representation in these nebulous places isn’t actively discouraged?

These are all tough questions. They involve a lot of middle ground and finding a happy medium, especially since it’s impossible to make everyone happy at the same time. I don’t think vague representation is a bad thing, nor do I want it to be something that goes away. But I do want vague representation to be more of a blessing and less of a curse; I want it to be something that raises aspec people and their experiences up instead of making them even harder. In order to do that, we need continued understanding that aspec people and their stories are valid, rather than seeing them as a burden. Aspec people, like everyone, have stories to tell and they should be allowed to tell those stories. Only then can we actually see a true diversity of opinions and culture, vague or otherwise.