SJ Longthorne

I don’t know. That’s how I feel, and maybe some of you folks will school me, and that’s fine. Perhaps it is just cowardice and I’m doing a disservice by defending it. But this is what I believe. Over and out.

I would say that if making her explicitly gay/asexual made her less "relatable" then all the more reason to do it. And I don't think asexuality and homosexuality are so interchangeable as the opposition to the latter are considerably greater than the former.

And lastly, we all absolutely should not be looking to massive corporations to provide us with meaningful representation and stories about identity.

^ This last is an extremely good point. I don’t mean to say people will stop relating to her — I think they will still relate. I suppose a good counter to my argument is that it could help others relate by showing them a familiar experience in a different skin. 1/3

I guess I’m saying that leaving it up to the imagination, in this case, means that the audience can believe irrefutably that Elsa and her journey represent their community — communities which are just as valid. Specifying loses that, to a small degree. 2/3

I’d like to see characters represent specific communities, and I also want characters like Elsa as well who are more ambiguous and far-reaching. 3/3

I just find ambiguous/far-reaching to be uninteresting. Blank slates for the audience to attach themselves to and fill in are fine but I think it's always better to be more direct about the thing you wanna talk about. Basically: Go big or go home

I get that. Parvati was super exciting to me because she was so specific. But then I also feel extremely emotionally attached to Elsa for how represented I feel by her, even though it largely exists in my head. So i suppose that aspect is subjective.