Two Faces, One Coin: Bisexual Representation in Malindo Lo’s “Ash”

Apr 4, 2018

The first half of Ash is rife with opposite forces seeking precedence over the same interlocutor: Ash herself. Her stepmother attempts to erase the “outdated” influence of Ash’s mother and debt of her father; The Woods and the City vie for her attention; the unearthly faerie Sidhean lays claim to Ash’s dreams while thoughts of Kaisa, the King’s Huntress, preoccupy her mind during the day; the magic, mystery, and danger found in book-bound fairy tales utilized as an escapist balm for the cruelty, indignity, and misery of quotidian reality.

As such, Ash as a protagonist is precariously situated as a “child of two worlds” wavering between what the text implies are two inherently different choices: dark versus light, fae versus human, Sidhean versus Kaisa. However, considering Ash’s bisexual identity, this oppositional duality is potentially troubling because of its implication that Ash must choose, that these choices (male or female) are distinctive and transformative (in that the nature of the relationship will change Ash’s own nature). So with this in mind, is Ash as progressive as we initially thought? Is it positive representation, or reinforcing biphobic stereotypes, or both? How do we recuperate texts with problematic content?

4 responses to “Two Faces, One Coin: Bisexual Representation in Malindo Lo’s “Ash””

annabilly

April 5, 2018 at 8:57 pm

I completely agree! I think the article we are assigned to read for this book really helps flesh out this idea. Despite Lo’s representation of a bisexual protagonist, the world the characters are situated in is strictly heteronormative. Regardless of the acceptance of different identities, the underlying assumption and drive to marry a man and find a husband remains. Even within Lo’s writing itself becomes somewhat confined and narrow. During an interaction with Sidhean where Ash gains the ring for the first time, Lo’s language gives the transference of the ring a new sexual meaning. It is as if Sidhean is taking a part of her that cannot be returned. Ash trembles in his presence and fears his power thus his request to have her is uncomfortable. The possessive language used (“you shall be mine” (162)) does not allow for anything different than his own desire, completely negating Ash’s humanity.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
zaffiroe

April 27, 2018 at 6:46 pm

I like how you use the split between the two worlds to explain how Ash was split between the two worlds. However, I find the separation to be unrealistic because no one cans easily separate their mind into two different times. For example, even in our own lives, there is a division between home life and college life, but while you are at home you think of college, and while you are at college you think of home. Humans are complex beings and have a difficult time separating information from one area to the other.

LikeLike

Reply
hwseo1004

May 14, 2018 at 4:37 am

I never really noticed this characteristic of Ash! your question on whether Ash really does give a good discussion on queer representation is I think very important. I personally think that the first reading of the book Ash emphasizes the duality less than when you think about it deeply. There are also places where Lo purposefully vaguely smudges the line between any two worlds. But I’m not sure how to answer your question in that it certainly makes so much sense.

LikeLike

Reply
poamek

May 14, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Elliott I really enjoy this idea! I think even taking it a step further we could try to group what one world is vs what the other is. Another blogger grouped the idea of Ash’s mother with fairytales and magic. These are ideal things that cannot truly be and distract Ash from reality, does Sidhean exist on this side of the coin? That’s especially interesting if we read it this way + we acknowledge Sidhean is also the hetronormative side then that makes for an interesting case. It would be a more problematic take if Kaisa is existed in this magical world or side of the coin and if there relationship could somehow ‘never be’ or something like that but I don’t think that’s what Lo is doing. In fact, I think Kaisa exists in the more pragmatic and real side of the coin, making their relationship more valid. Does any of that makes sense?

LikeLike

Reply