AlthoughThe Simpsonshas never really explained what happened to the controversial character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, this sort of works thanks to the show’s style.The Simpsonsis the longest-running scripted primetime American TV show in history, so it is not surprising that the series has needed to retire a few characters in its time. Some regular recurring characters, such as Edna Krabappel and Troy McClure, were retired due to the deaths of their real-life actors, while others like Bleeding Gums Murphy were killed off to give an episode higher stakes.
However, there is one character who is unlikely to show up inThe Simpsonsseason 37, but who was never officially killed off by the series. Hank Azaria’s shopkeeper, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, was a regular fixture throughout the show’s first twenty seasons, and the Indian-American immigrant was always a divisive figure among critics and fans alike. To some commentators, Apu was a lovable supporting star and an example of positive South Asian representation. To many more, he was an insulting stereotype whose catchphrases made him a simplistic caricature of a diverse community.
The Simpsons Hasn’t Decided Whether Apu Exists Anymore (And Might Never)
Mike Reiss Called The Former Supporting Star “Schrodinger’s Character”
In Mike Reiss’s 2018 bookSpringfield Confidential: Jokes, Secrets, and Outright Lies from a Lifetime Writing for The Simpsons, the former showrunner ofThe Simpsonsclarified Apu’s role in the show’s recent seasons. Interestingly,Reiss didn’t confirm whether Apu exists in the world ofThe Simpsonsor not, and he noted that the show might never need to do so. According to Reiss, the controversy around Apu means that he now functions as a sort of “Schrodinger’s Character,” a phrase borrowed from the famous “Schrodinger’s Cat” thought experiment.
Reiss argues that until he is seen in the series again, Apu simultaneously both is and is not a character in the world ofThe Simpsons.
In the original thought experiment, physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that a cat left in a sealed box with a Geiger counter and a poison flask is simultaneously both alive and dead until the box is opened, as an observer can’t be certain of its fate until that point. Similarly, Reiss argues that until he is seen in the series again, Apu simultaneously both is and is not a character in the world ofThe Simpsons. SinceThe Simpsonschanges the futures of its charactersall the time, this explanation makes a surprising amount of sense.
In most TV shows, the absence of a major recurring character would at least merit a mention if not a full-blown explanation. However,The Simpsonsconstantly changes its canon, most infamously altering Marge and Homer’s birthdates so that different episodes suggest they were born in the 1950s and the 1980s. Executive producer Matt Selman said in anXpost thatThe Simpsonshas an “Elastic canon,” meaning the show’s specific continuity details are always open to change for the sake of a given episode, plot point, or joke.
Why Apu Was Phased Out Of The Simpsons
Longstanding Criticisms Of The Character Appeared in 2017’s The Problem with Apu
This made it easier forThe Simpsonsto retire Apu without explaining his absence, a decision that was a long time coming thanks to the growing backlash to the character. Although numerous earlier think-pieces had been written about Apu’s impact on South Asian representation, comedianHari Kondabolu’s 2017 documentaryThe Problem with Apucemented the issue as a character-defining problem for the show. Kondabolu’s documentary argued that, for all of Apu’s positive character and qualities in-universe, the character’s real-life impact has been decidedly negative for many.
Speaking to stars like Kal Penn, Maulik Pancholy, Hasan Minhaj, and Aziz Ansari, Kondabolu collected stories of children using “Apu” as an insult towards South Asian children and argued that Hank Azaria voicing the character constitutes an instance of brownface. WhileThe Simpsonscriticises its own writingregularly, Kondabolu’s issues with the limitations of the show’s South Asian representation are more serious than the show’s playful, self-effacing gags. Interestingly, the comedian notes that he loves the show despite his issues with Apu.
The Simpsons Attempted To Address Criticisms of Apu Before His Retirement
Season 27’s “Much Apu About Nothing” Highlights The Issue
Prior to the release ofThe Problem with Apu,The Simpsonsitself addressed the issues viewers had with Apu in one 2016 episode. Season 27, episode 12, “Much Apu About Something,” saw Apu’s nephew Sanjay temporarily take over the Kwik-E-Mart. Guest star Utkarsh Ambudkar’s character Jay criticized Apu for acting like a stereotype, a comment that reflected the actor’s real-life feelings about the character. In a 2013 interview withThe Huffington Post, Ambudkar said “I hate that guy” and was adamant that “You’re not going to catch me selling hot dogs or working at a 7-Eleven” in reference to potential future roles.
The Simpsonsdidn’t do much to address the show’s shortcomings even while ostensibly talking about the controversial aspects of Apu’s character.
“Much Apu About Something” wasn’t well received, with numerous reviewers noting thatThe Simpsonsdidn’t do much to address the show’s shortcomings even while ostensibly talking about the controversial aspects of Apu’s character. In a 2020 interview withThe New York Times, Ambudkar was unimpressed with the finished episode, saying: “Basically it was ‘The Simpsons’ being like, ‘The show is all stereotypes, stop complaining.’” This viewpoint was shared by many fans and critics alike, and Apu was quietly retired to a non-speaking background role in the years that followed.
Why The Simpsons Never Has To Directly Address Apu’s Fate
The Show Is Uniquely Suited To Subtly Dropping Characters
WhileThe Simpsons’ TV show parodiesprove the series isn’t afraid to mock its contemporaries, the show isn’t always eager to wade into potentially divisive discourse. As such, it is perhaps not surprising thatThe Simpsonshas never explicitly addressed the fate of Apu in the eight years since he last spoke in the series. Luckily, the show’s style makes this possible in a way other series could not accommodate.
The canon ofThe Simpsonsconstantly changes, so Apu can always come back, but does not necessarily even exist until he does return. This means that the show has never needed to kill off Apu to get rid of the character, and may even bring him back if a recast version of the character is approved in later seasons. It is hard to envision a world where Apu’s return makes sense, but this is uniquely possible thanks to the show’s ever-shifting canon.
Although the inconsistency ofThe Simpsonscan be grating for some viewers, it is highly helpful in cases like this.The Simpsonsnever needs to officially retire Apuand can instead just leave the character in limbo, available for later outings if a fitting plot ever arises. The only question that remains is whether the “Schrodinger’s Character” ofThe Simpsonswill ever return to the series in the future.
Source:Springfield Confidential: Jokes, Secrets, and Outright Lies from a Lifetime Writing for The Simpsons(Author: Mike Reiss)
