Oooh, this is exciting! I am hardly unbiased in this regard, but here are my thoughts:
I think explicit representation would be awesome. I think fiction needs more explicit representation of marginalized groups who otherwise have to settle for "arguably like me" when they encounter characters who strike a chord with them. It would be really great to have it be canon, and not in a "Dumbledore's gay because JKR said so in an interview" sort of way.
And I say that not to disparage that particular interpretation, but to point out that it's still interpretation and interpretation is not representation when you can just as easily interpret things a different way. Plus, being an ~English Major~ and all, I know just how little authorial intent matters when it comes to interpreting a work. Sometimes this works in the favor of fandom aces (see: anything Moffat has said regarding Sherlock's orientation and his ambiguous treatment of the Doctor and River's relationship), but often it doesn't, because most people don't fill perceived gaps with things like 'asexual' and 'aromantic,' they fill them with 'straight' or 'repressed' or 'closeted homosexual' or other, more familiar tropes.
All that being said, I'm also aware that it could be awkward to shoehorn in an expository blurb about asexuality that doesn't cue up this in the reader's mind. I don't want to come across all, "YES DO IT YOU HAVE TO YOU MUST."
no subject
I think explicit representation would be awesome. I think fiction needs more explicit representation of marginalized groups who otherwise have to settle for "arguably like me" when they encounter characters who strike a chord with them. It would be really great to have it be canon, and not in a "Dumbledore's gay because JKR said so in an interview" sort of way.
And I say that not to disparage that particular interpretation, but to point out that it's still interpretation and interpretation is not representation when you can just as easily interpret things a different way. Plus, being an ~English Major~ and all, I know just how little authorial intent matters when it comes to interpreting a work. Sometimes this works in the favor of fandom aces (see: anything Moffat has said regarding Sherlock's orientation and his ambiguous treatment of the Doctor and River's relationship), but often it doesn't, because most people don't fill perceived gaps with things like 'asexual' and 'aromantic,' they fill them with 'straight' or 'repressed' or 'closeted homosexual' or other, more familiar tropes.
All that being said, I'm also aware that it could be awkward to shoehorn in an expository blurb about asexuality that doesn't cue up this in the reader's mind. I don't want to come across all, "YES DO IT YOU HAVE TO YOU MUST."
But it would be awesome.