![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, it came to my attention that Jacob Frye from Assassin's Creed Syndicate was described as canonically bisexual on the Assassin's Creed official Tumblr.
...Boy do I have problems with this.
For one, it's pulling a "Dumbledore"—having a character who would probably not be interpreted as LGBTQ+ based on the actual script, and then externally confirming that the character is LGBTQ+. It's not actually good representation, or representation at all, really. The most cynical reading of it is Ubisoft trying to get cookies for having a canonical LGBTQ+ character...without actually doing any of the work representing that character as LGBTQ+ in the canon.
For another, are gamers supposed to interpret Jacob's kiss with Maxwell Roth as hinting at his bisexuality? Because if so, that's a terrible attempt at representation.
Based on the way that scene plays out, Jacob seems pretty repulsed by Roth kissing him. You could, of course, argue that that could be due to other factors—personal revulsion to Roth for being a homicidal maniac, or even internalized homophobia—but the problem is, without any other explicit context, the kiss scene falls too neatly into the harmful "straight guy assaulted by predatory gay guy" stereotype as the most likely interpretation that gamers (particularly straight male gamers) would probably react to the scene with.
The bottom line is, I don't consider Jacob Frye as positive bisexual representation at all, and it irks me that Ubisoft has pulled a "Dumbledore" when Jacob being explicitly portrayed as bisexual had so much potential. (After all, Victorian London is the era of people debating sexuality and criminalizing gay men.)
One final note: I take issue with writers claiming that "I didn't give the character a love interest in the game because the character is gay/bi!" Uh, if that's the case, the character could just as easily (in fact MORE easily) be interpreted as aromantic asexual???
...Boy do I have problems with this.
For one, it's pulling a "Dumbledore"—having a character who would probably not be interpreted as LGBTQ+ based on the actual script, and then externally confirming that the character is LGBTQ+. It's not actually good representation, or representation at all, really. The most cynical reading of it is Ubisoft trying to get cookies for having a canonical LGBTQ+ character...without actually doing any of the work representing that character as LGBTQ+ in the canon.
For another, are gamers supposed to interpret Jacob's kiss with Maxwell Roth as hinting at his bisexuality? Because if so, that's a terrible attempt at representation.
Based on the way that scene plays out, Jacob seems pretty repulsed by Roth kissing him. You could, of course, argue that that could be due to other factors—personal revulsion to Roth for being a homicidal maniac, or even internalized homophobia—but the problem is, without any other explicit context, the kiss scene falls too neatly into the harmful "straight guy assaulted by predatory gay guy" stereotype as the most likely interpretation that gamers (particularly straight male gamers) would probably react to the scene with.
The bottom line is, I don't consider Jacob Frye as positive bisexual representation at all, and it irks me that Ubisoft has pulled a "Dumbledore" when Jacob being explicitly portrayed as bisexual had so much potential. (After all, Victorian London is the era of people debating sexuality and criminalizing gay men.)
One final note: I take issue with writers claiming that "I didn't give the character a love interest in the game because the character is gay/bi!" Uh, if that's the case, the character could just as easily (in fact MORE easily) be interpreted as aromantic asexual???
