Dennis’ article runs afoul of this possibility when the author turns his attentions to The Ren & Stimpy Show. Dennis hits it square when he identifies the show as “an overt parody of the early 1960s cartoon duos...”, but then goes on to state of Ren and Stimpy: “They occupy a world in which gay identities cannot exist, so same-sex desire is portrayed as anomalous and perverse.” Dennis concludes that despite significant indications of a gay subtext (also noted by many critics and fans of the show), “Some of the signs may adhere to the reading of a sexual relationship; however, it is not a gay, or even romantic relationship. They are instead presenting a parody of heterosexual relationships, supposedly funny because they are both men, yet one of them is acting like a woman…. Oddly, Yogi and Boo Boo present a more consistently gay relationship.”

There is only one problem with this analysis: The show’s creator does not seem to agree. One certainly cannot fault Dennis for writing his article well before the debut of Ren & Stimpy’s Cartoon Party. It was clearly beyond the author’s control that in their very first new cartoon, Ren and Stimpy are openly gay. Yet, as the dog and cat anticipate the type of “pitching and catching” not seen in Yankee Stadium, it can be argued that this is the logical and natural conclusion of Ren and Stimpy’s evolution as a gay dyad. They have shared a bed; they have discussed their wedding; they actually have lived as significant partners in many of their cartoons. They may have had a “love child” in the form of a living fart. As if that is not enough, creator John Kricfalusi disclosed to the San Francisco Examiner way back on Jan. 28, 1997 that Ren and Stimpy are a gay couple, in effect outing them.

Dennis delves into same-sex coding in Pinky and the Brain. © Warner Bros. Ent. All rights reserved.

True, the new series made its debut after Dennis’ article was written, but prior evidence and the creator’s own testimony seem to show that the new cartoons simply represented the end result of a long developmental process; Ren and Stimpy are gay because Kricfalusi said they were, he produced a cartoon that proved it, and there is no way Ren and Stimpy can deny being gay from this point on. Semiotics can play with viewpoints but cannot erase reality; if it looks like Queer Duck and walks like Queer Duck, it must therefore be Queer Duck.

There may be validity in the idea that we tend to organize a series of codes or subtexts when the original text is nonspecific; humans, by nature, do not like ambiguity and will attempt to impose meanings on unclear texts and events. To be fair, Dennis has some interesting comments about same-sex coding in Steven Spielberg Presents Pinky and the Brain and SpongeBob SquarePants (another cartoon that has drawn the attention of the gay community), and his writing is far more digestible than typical postmodern fare. As I have stated, the problem is not with postmodern criticism or theory. The problem occurs when critics imbue theory with subjective ideology and insist it is truth. Dennis is working on a book about the production of heteronormativity in children’s literature, and I certainly wish him well in that endeavor.

As for other semioticists interested in animation, I offer the following: Observe all the cartoons you can and take note of how they have evolved over time. Study animation history. Read interviews. Place the cartoons you watch in historical and cultural context. There is a place for postmodern studies, but unless semioticists stringently study the history, dynamics, culture, economics, and evolution of animation before attaching their icons, codes and signifiers, animation may not be that place.

Martin “Dr. Toon” Goodman is a longtime student and fan of animation. He lives in Anderson, Indiana.