Rose Lemberg pointed me to this post by Ada Hoffmann: Note to people thinking of writing autistic characters.
“If you write a story where your character has no character traits except for impairments and behavioural issues, and where they take no actions not related to these issues (or to someone’s desire to “cure” them), you are presenting a distorted and objectified picture of autism. This goes double if you are writing from the autistic character’s point of view.”
Personally, I think it’s worth reading even if you’re not a writer and have no intention of ever writing an autistic character.
There’s a part of me that wants to write a much longer blog post here, talking about my son, about the character of Nicola Pallas in Libriomancer, about the need to listen when people tell you you’re portraying people like them in a one-dimensional way. But I worry that doing so would pull attention from Hoffmann’s piece, when my goal was to divert attention to that piece.
I’ll probably write that post one of these days. But for now, go. Read. Think. And write better.*
—
*”Write better” is advice I’d give to everyone, myself included, and wasn’t meant to suggest that you’re a bad writer.**
**Disclaimer written to try to avoid hurt feelings, and because footnotes are cool.
Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.
My Books
(August 2013)
Comments
I'm having a hard time separating the fail from the things I like in stories now. Like, I have a hard time loving something in the face of certain flaws, and those just happen to be the sort of inescapable flaws that are in almost everything. Stupid writers, ruining my fiction by being actual humans in an actual world. =p
http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2
I do think there are some seriously problematic portrayals like that, yes.
May I ask how you feel about Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory? I've heard some people say he seems Aspie, and some Aspies say they are glad to see him on TV because they relate to him. I relate to him because I and a lot of my family,a less-over-the-top-but-just-as-fussy as he is. Do you have thoughts on him WRT to the neurotypical gaze concept? Or at all?
Is there book that you think portrayed autism/autistic people and the people who love them in a fair, realistic and not-asshole-y way?
I enjoy Sheldon. But I enjoy him in a "How To Be A Fan of Problematic Things" kind of way. Because The Big Bang Theory as a whole, hoo boy is that show problematic. (Mainly in terms of jokes that are made at the expense of one group or another.)
Sheldon is not a realistic portrayal of an autistic character. His autistic traits are recognizeable, but they are distorted and caricatured just as every trait of the other characters is distorted and caricatured. Some Aspies are offended by him for this reason. However, I personally am not offended by this because it is a characteristic of the show's style as a whole; Sheldon is not more distorted than the other main characters.
A big thing about Sheldon for me, and for some other autistic viewers I have spoken to, is that he doesn't try to adjust his behavior to be more acceptable to neurotypical people. Most Aspies spend incredible amounts of effort and energy trying to imitate neurotypical behaviour. But Sheldon acts out all of his (caricatured) autistic traits to their fullest extent. And his friends accept him anyway. They complain about how annoying he is, but there is always a sense that he is still part of the group, and they do not wish for him to stop existing or be turned into a "normal" person. For many Aspie viewers, including myself, this is huge and affirming.
Another point to consider is that The Big Bang Theory, in recent seasons, passes the Aspie Bechdel test. With the addition of Amy, there are now two autistic characters who can be seen navigating their friendship in a recognizeable (though caricatured) autistic way.
So, those are my complex feelings about Sheldon. The show is not unproblematic, and Aspies legitimately disagree, but my feelings about him overall are positive.
As for books, that will take a whole other discussion, and I'm not as well-read on this topic as I feel I ought to be. I remember really liking "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time", but that was in high school, so it's possible I missed some issues, and the author has stated since then that he didn't intend for the protagonist in that book to be read as autistic.
I was going to ask this question of you, but I wasn't sure if it would be too de-rail-y over there. I thought Jim might be cool with it*
I feel similarly about a lot of female characters ("they got These Three Things awesomely right! But ERMAGERD FAILCAKES on these Three Things! WHY IS THERE NOTHING I CAN LOVE UNRESERVEDLY!?") so I see what you're saying.
Actually, now that I'm learning more about social justice issues, that's sort of beoming my feelings about Every Depiction of Everything Ever.
And bless you for the phrase "neurotypical gaze." It's so perfect and intuitive I can't believe it's not already part of the lexicon.
*my apologies, Mr. Jim, if I read you incorrectly and caused offense.
I blog as much for the comments and the things I learn from the rest of y'all as anything else, you know :-)
I hope that made sense...
Also, yeah, do folks love Sheldon in the same way folks love Uhura, in that she was awesome compared to everything else but still...a product of the era in which she was written.
I can say, however, that I enjoy watching Sheldon and like him as a character, despite being aware of the messiness we were just talking about.
Just as with writing, many sitcoms on TV are satisfied with merely capturing the caricatures and letting them bounce against each other; the best ones, however, work to portray the characters as people, with a lot more to them than the one or two characteristics that satisfy the caricature.
I have a friend who says "give me all the labels you want, because I'll put the pigeonholes together and make a mansion." Which is a different way to approach what you are saying, in your post, Ada, if I understood you right. A good writer makes the reader aware of the mansion, and isn't satisfied showing just a pigeonhole or two.
I can't find the reference, but I believe I read somewhere that the writers have said flat-out that Sheldon is not meant to be autistic or ASD. (Take this with a grain of salt. It's been a long week.) That said, a lot of his character does seem to be a caricatured or exaggerated form of autism, and authorial intent doesn't always mean much.
There are things I like about the character and his portrayal, and things that really bother me. It might take a whole other blog post for me to try to sort that all out.
So I'm just going to jump to books for the moment and mention Elizabeth Moon's THE SPEED OF DARK, which I appreciated. It's a book that does make autism the core of the story, but I thought it was done very well, and I know Moon's experience with her autistic son informed a lot of the story.
That said, I think it's also worth noting that neither I nor Moon are autistic ourselves.
Thank you! =)
(Elizabeth, if you are reading this, feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong here.)
With Sheldon, you are correct that the writers have said flat-out that he is not meant to be autistic. However, the actor (Jim Parsons) has said that he definitely sees Sheldon as autistic. So, it's messy, like the rest of the show.
Personally, I am glad that the writers do not see him as autistic, because I think it is the very fact that they do not see him as autistic which allows them to treat his autistic traits in the manner that they do. If they were conscious of the fact that they were dealing with an Actual Disability, I think they would do it much more poorly. That has to do with my perception of the writers and their level of cluefulness, you understand, and not with my perception of how writing about autism works in general.
My Many Feelings about the show are very similar to Jim's.
One of the creator's has mentioned that he modeled the characters on people he knew from college. The writer has to be in his 50s, so it's possibly Sheldon is modeled on an undiagnosed person on the spectrum-or possibly a diagnosed person that the creator-guy (sorry, can't remember his name and I'm too lazy to Google =p) didn't know was diagnosed.
I'm 34, and I was just diagnosed with ADHD. I started meds, and it has Changed My Life. I'm completely useless without my meds-can't pay attention for more than 10 minutes at a time, no patience, no frustration tolerance, never had a job for more than a year. Got thru college on a combination of periodic hyperfocus and cussedness. And I look at people who, like, become National Merit Scholars undiagnosed/unmedicated, and I'm in awe. I admire them, and I'm jealous as hell. Like, How did they DO that? And what's wrong with me that I can't? I should probably seek some of those folks out and try to learn from them.
That said, I think seeking out some of them and trying to learn from them is a fine idea. You may not learn "how to be a bootstrapper" from them (and it sounds like trying to do that would not be the best thing for you anyway), but you will probably learn a lot of other useful things.
For what it's worth, the bootstrappers I have encountered do not look down on non-bootstrappers. Far from it - their lives were very difficult, and they recognize that it would have been much easier for them if someone had done the kind of intervention for them that is done for people with diagnoses. Being diagnosed, and getting help, is better. But they did the best they could with a bad hand.
(This is all based on my experiences in the autistic community, of course, and it may be slightly different for ADHD - I apologize if I've gotten anything wrong.)
Anyway, I'm really pleased that your meds have been so helpful for you! It must be frustrating that it took so long to get a diagnosis and find them, but I am glad they are working for you now.
And given a lot of what I see on TV and movies and such, I have to agree with you on the cluefulness of many of the writers out there.
My thoughts on Sheldon are similar to my thoughts on Abed from Community, as well as some other fan-diagnosed autistic people. I find the characters entertaining (particularly Abed, who is amazing), but they rub me the wrong way as well. I remember reading that the creators of both shows have said that they don't intend for the character to be autistic because then they'd likely just get it wrong. (I've also read the same sentiment from a SF author whose book I ended up DNFing because of the portrayal of their autistic-but-not-really character, so.)
(Now I'm wondering if I really read the same sentiment from three different creators. I know I've read it twice, for sure, but... I'll have to do some research.)
Anyway, it bothers me that these characters will have traits clearly derived from autistic people, and those traits are often played for laughs, but the creators don't want to be criticized so they're just saying the character isn't meant to be autistic. I mean... either write an autistic character, do your research, and accept the criticism that comes your way, or, well, don't. This just seems like a cop-out.
It also bothers me how quick fandom/writers are to diagnose characters as autistic just for having narrow interests and being socially awkward, even though they display no other common autistic traits like eye contact or food and texture issues. Sheldon at least has some food/habit peculiarities, though since he's not supposed to be autistic, I'm kind of throwing my hands up in the air and going, "How the hell am I supposed to critique this?"
I'm veering off-track, though. *g*
I haven't seen Community (though I've heard good things about it), but yes, it's a cop-out. In some ways it's a complex cop-out because the writers may not realize consciously that the traits are derived from autistic people. But if it walks like autism fail and quacks like autism fail, saying "but it wasn't supposed to be autism" is a poor excuse.
I agree about fandom over-diagnosing characters. For example, I like Sherlock (though that's not an unproblematic show either!) but Benedict Cumberbatch's character doesn't strike me as autistic at all. He strikes my mom (and a lot of other fans, including some Aspies) as autistic, but he doesn't have any sensory sensitivities, he doesn't have trouble interpreting social signals, etc; he just doesn't care about social politeness, which is a related but different thing.
And I see what you're trying to say about social culelessness being a function of personality. I'm not sure that there's agreement on the use of words like "disorder". Technically, the word "disorder" is in the phrase "autism spectrum disorders" so I see it as just a logical word to use with no particular connotations. Others may feel differently. I get a little impatient with some of these debates about words at times. A few Aspies react badly when autism is referred to as a "disability". They say, "It's a difference, not a disability!" But I am very, very uncomfortable with that rhetoric, because it strikes me that these people are trying to distance themselves from the concept of "disability" out of some notion that people with "real" disabilities are bad. By the social model of disability, at least, I think it's clear that autism is one.
Anyway I could rant on and on about that, but the short version is, there is legitimate disagreement between Aspies about what words they like to use for themselves. (Some Aspies don't even like the term "Aspie". :P ) You're being very respectful and have nothing to worry about. Also, asking what words a person prefers, as you have just done, is a clueful and respectful move.
This is where I make a note to email my publisher and tell them to send me a copy!
I do feel obliged to point out that my name is spelled with two "n"s at the end. (Don't worry, even editors publishing my stories have gotten that one wrong. I forgot to take ease of spelling into account when choosing a pen name. :P )
Edited at 2012-12-01 02:14 am (UTC)
You're welcome for the signal boost, and thank you for writing the post.
I heard rumors that there had been some ... issues ... before or related to this post. I don't know the details, but I hope things haven't been too stressful or overwhelming.
But it has made me think... ASDs are so complex and there is so much controversy about different aspects of it, maybe it is inevitable that fail will keep happening.
Mind you re listening to people, one of the comments questioned why I interviewed somebody very important in the autism research of today, because what would they know? If more people listened instead of airing their poorly formulated opinions, maybe we would have less fail and surely listening to people with an ASD and their advocates is the single most important thing to do.
Edited at 2012-12-01 05:45 am (UTC)
I can't even wrap my brain around this one. Why ... what were they thinking?
I'm sorry you had to deal with someone being misinformed and ableist in comments to your thesis. (I'm finishing up a MSc thesis myself, although in a wildly different field, so I know how much effort and how many nerves go into a thing like that!)
Listening to people with an ASD and their advocates IS the most important thing to do, and I'm glad you're doing research with that understanding.
A lot of it comes from personal experience and working with people with a disability. I think more research would be useful if people came to it with that practical experience too.