#instead of a legitimate plausible story that deserves exploration | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hoshiko2000 · 6 years

Text

The Boy On The Bridge & The Dangerous Myth Of The Autistic Robot

I want to begin by saying how much I love M.R Carey’s The Girl With All The Gifts! A highly original addition to the sci-fi genre, it centers on a race of human/zombie hybrids discovered in the fallout of a devastating apocalypse. Told through the eyes of Melanie - one such of these unsettling, eerily intelligent children - it paints a terrifying and unnervingly tangible picture of a decimated England. It was a book I found utterly impossible to tear myself away from, so when a prequal was released in late 2017 I couldn’t fail to check it out.

Set around 10 years before the original novel, The Boy on The Bridge follows the ill-fated former crew of the Rosalind Franklin; an elite team of soldiers and scientists who will become the first humans to encounter the mysterious ‘hungry’ children. It’s a intriuiging premise, promising to provide answers to the many burning questions left over from the previous novel.

But as much as I wanted to lose myself in this exciting tale of post-apocolyptic survival, devastated cities and fungal-plagues, I quickly found myself distracted by one specific character. A character who, from the moment they first appeared on the page, immediately began to grate on me.

They’re not someone I’m at all unfamiliar with. I’ve encountered characters exactly like him many, many times over. While once they were rare, today they seem to endlessly bombard us in movies, on TV, across countless genres of fiction. They are a character who embodies troubling, regressive cliches that – in 2017 – I was hoping we were finally beginning to see the back of. A character who is, supposedly, just like me.

His name is Stephen Greaves, and he’s autistic.

(TW for references to both the fictional and real life abuse of autistic children)

I should correct my previous paragraph by stating Stephen’s not ‘actually’ autistic. The author does have the forethought to pull the disclaimer-card of saying he might just have severe PTSD instead. It’s the same convenient ambiguity that always seems to precede terrible, regressive depictions of autistic people; Christopher Boone being another key example.

Considering that this is a kid who literally watched his parents get eaten by zombies, the idea that Stephen may have PTSD does feel fairly plausible. Probable even. But this still doesn’t change the fact that Stephen is heavily, heavily autistic coded. By which I mean he is yet another exaggerated stereotype of how neurotypical authors believe we think and behave.

From the moment he first appears Stephen is strikingly, undeniably ‘odd’. At 15 years old he rarely speaks, is terrified of physical contact and devotes much of his time to avoiding other people. He is a scientific savant who views the world through a detached, analytical lense and considers human relationships an unwanted distraction. This doesn’t stop him from forming one close relationship - with his mentor and mother-figure Dr Khan - but this is clearly an exception to a rule.

Like many other autistic caricatures in fiction, Stephen is obsessed with facts and has a neurotic preoccupation with the truth. More bizarrely, he is physically incapable of telling a lie. Like, genuinely physically incapable. If forced to lie, he will literally begin uncontrollably stuttering out the truth as though under some bizarre curse.

Out of all the myths regarding us that exist in fiction, the one that says autistic people can’t lie is the one that completely baffles me. Autistic people can lie. I told a lie just yesterday; ‘I’m not drunk’. A claim I refuse to believe was at all undermined by the fact I was unable to walk straight at the time.

Some autistic people are, in fact, talented liars. Parents of kids with pathological demand avoidance will attest to this. Neurotypical writers keep returning to this cliché under the misguided belief it offers us a ‘virtuous’ quality; it doesn’t. It’s patronizing and dehumanizing; dismissing us as individuals with free will and turning us in to the helpless puppets of some ‘robotic’ internal wiring.

And this is the fundamental issue with Stephen’s character: his uncomfortable robotic quality.

Unusually for an autistic character, a great amount of effort has been put in to exploring how Stephen thinks and feels. But this is only to emphasize how fundamentally different he is from other human beings. Stephen doesn’t function like a human being, he functions like a computer. His machine-like mental processes are depicted frequently, and in tedious detail. He is not a character who exists for non-autistic readers to relate to. He is instead constructed to be as strange, as baffling and as dramatically different as possible. Not because this is how autistic people actually are, but because we apparently make much more interesting reading this way.

A lot of neurotypical readers are probably wondering why – outside of the blatant predjudice, loss of relatable representation and piss-poor, lazy characterisation - the ‘robotic’ stereotyping of autistic characters bothers me so much. And that’s because outside the realms of fiction, the dehumanization of autistic people has devastating repercussions. The most harrowing example being the all-too-frequent murders of autistic children at the hands of their parents, and the disturbingly sympathetic news coverage that follows them.

These reports follow a distinct formula. They paint a tragic picture of the murderer; their ‘hellish’ existence as the parent of an autistic child, the eventual ‘breakdown’ that drove them to commit this ‘desperate’ act. They will gloss over incriminating details like online-evidence suggesting the murder was being planned weeks in advance, or previous accusations of exploiting their child’s disabilities for money or attention. We will hear all about their ‘mental health problems’, their manslaughter plea, how ‘dedicated’ a parent they supposedly were prior to stabbing, drowning or – in one inconceivably horrific case – burning their own child to death.

The one person they say little about is the murdered child.

Unlike other young murder victims, we rarely see quotes from grieving relatives or teachers about how they were ‘a delight to teach’ or ‘a bubbly, affectionate little girl’. We don’t hear about how they - like other kids their age - loved cuddles and bath-time and watching Peppa Pig. We often don’t even get a photo.

Instead we are presented with yet another faceless autistic monster who has driven their parents to desperation.

It gives me no pleasure to detail these horrendous acts of violence. I know this segment must be deeply distressing for many of you to read; it was harrowing to research. I’ve not included it because I wish to upset you. I’ve included it because I want you to understand that the dehumanization of autistic people across the media - the depiction of us as emotionless, affectionless and not quite human - is a very, very dangerous thing.

At best, it robs of us our identities as sensitive human beings who experience life in diversely individual ways.

At worst it legitimizes the abuse we suffer; turning us in to the deserving recipients of our own victimization.

And indeed, the way Stephen is portrayed in The Boy on The Bridge is only one half of the problem. The other is how the rest of the cast treats him. Stephen isn’t just treated with dislike by the other members of his team, he’s treated with open contempt. He is nicknamed ‘The Robot’, a cruel moniker that is used so frequently you’d be forgiven for forgetting his actual name. He’s called ‘emotionally disturbed’, ‘an idiot’ and a ‘fucking retard’; the verbal punching bag for the frustrations of a terrified and disillusioned crew. When a panicked Stephen locks members of his team outside during an attack, this abuse boils over in to physical violence and he is viciously slammed against a wall.

There are two very important things to remember when we talk about how Stephen is treated by the other character in The Boy On The Bridge.

This is the abuse of a literal child at the hands of adults twice his age.

This is abuse of a child at the hands of characters readers are sympathize with. Characters who have their own chapters, voices, storylines. Characters readers are not meant to always necessarily like, but are expected to relate to.

We are expected as readers to empathize with fully grown adults victimizing an autistic child. The bullying, isolation and violence Stephen is subjected to by the rest of the cast is presented as cruel, but seemingly understandable.

Because Stephen is different, and that makes them uncomfortable. And that is the only defence they need.

I don’t want anyone to leave this post with the wrong impression; I’m not writing this because I don’t want to see autistic characters in fiction. I do, desperately so. I yearn for characters I can relate to, characters who represent my own experiences. Autistic characters who, like me, who have struggled with a life-time of misdiagnosis. Autistic characters who are told they ‘don’t look autistic’. Autistic characters that struggle with subtle, frequently misinterpreted difficulties which are constantly overlooked.

Autistic characters who represent the sum of our real experiences, not creative interpretations of how non-autistic writers imagine we ‘might’ function.

I don’t want to see yet another tiresome savant with intellectual abilities way outside of human limitations.

I don’t want to be represented by caricatures so cartoonishly exaggerated they are unreIatable to most autistic people, let alone neurotypical people.

I don’t want to see the abuse I have suffered legitimized through the myth that my supposed strangeness ‘drove’ my abusers to it.

I don’t want to be shown the world through the eyes of another emotionally-detached robot, and be told that this is how people like myself think and feel.

Those are not my eyes, that is not my story.

#autism #disability #actuallyautistic #disability in fiction #asd #aspergers syndrome

24 notes · View notes

dynamics-of-an-asteroid · 7 years

Note

I really would like to know your opinion about Sherlolly and Molliarty 💕

My opinion on Sherlolly grew as my opinions on fandom politics thankfully matured cause it’s really easy to make assumptions about M/F ships since typically they’re filled with everything Progressive Fandom supposedly hates.

But what I’ve come to realize is that Progressive Fandom is kind of full of shit.

It says one thing (“we want better material for this female character!”), but then proceeds to do the complete opposite (takes a male background character with exceedingly less material and creates mountains of fanworks to the point where even the creators start giving him more screen time over the female character). It’ll come up with all these tl;dr think pieces that seek to blame some other outside sources as to why this keeps happening (“men are just written better!”, “there’s just more male characters to choose from statistically!”, etc.), but there’s really no denying which types of ships and characters and dynamics and narratives it actually values when you see what kind of content dominates creative spaces that no one is controlling except the fans.

So I realized a lot of my “concerns” were just the result of theoretically wanting the most subversive conceptualization for the ship as any good Progressive Fandom member prides itself on seeking, but then falling in to the same traps that reinforce a very biased hierarchy Progressive Fandom measures everything by and upholding ridiculous standards that I wasn’t holding everyone else to.

For example, I’ve done the typical “pOoR mOlLy :(( sHE dEseRveS bEttEr tHaN sHerLOcK” spiel everyone seems to say after watching ASIB since that scene is meant to elicit a reaction. She very clearly was in love with him and particularly series 1 & 2 Sherlock, despite whatever good he was doing or moments of ~humanity~ he had, was overall a pretty rude, abrasive dick. He wasn’t this way just to her, but Molly is a legitimately decent person on a show full of assholes so there was some part of me that wanted to protect that, you know?

However, my reaction shouldn’t have been “Wow, Molly deserves better than Sherlock”, it should have been “Molly deserved better from Sherlock because she deserves common fucking decency.” Her unwavering love for him is always considered a problem that needs to be either removed entirely or given to someone else more deserving. It’s never Sherlock’s behavior that’s the problem that needs to get checked because Progressive Fandom doesn’t typically criticize male characters for their actions. You excuse, you explain, you apologize, but you don’t with any kind of negative intention seek to frame their reaction in any given situation as the part that’s wrong. The feelings of white dudes are valued over everything and everyone.

So my reaction of “come on, Molly, let’s get out of here and find you someone better” sounds noble, but all I’m really saying is “Well he’s an ass and we can’t do anything about that, but your crush on him is definitely fixable!” Again, she’s not the problem here, her love for him is not the problem here. He is the problem here, his rudeness is the problem here. There’s absolutely something we can do to fix that and we know this because part of his character arc was about becoming warmer and kinder. “Molly deserves better” is such an empty, meaningless statement when you really get in to it and I cringe every time I see it now.

Plus, something I’ve noticed that seems to be exclusive to the ship is most people in fandom ship one of these characters with Sherlock or are invested in a dynamic that includes him in it. And I guarantee you there’s a scene or a moment or a line that Sherlock was the source of that you had to go fix with fic or meta or some AU gif set or something because you wouldn’t still care about it if you didn’t. He’s done some pretty horrendous shit to these characters that far surpasses what he did with Molly at the Christmas party. But we’re not saying poor John he deserves better (hell we’re not even saying poor Sherlock he deserves better), we’re not saying poor Mycroft he deserves better, or that poor little Lestrade deserves better. It’s always poor Molly, specifically, because Progressive Fandom isn’t about to micro-comb through her material like they do with male characters in order to flesh her out more and find ways to make her a person of equally nuanced value to Sherlock. Then it would be easier to see why he’d extend more than just common courtesy to her, which lays the foundation for potentialness (specifically romance cause no one is gonna flip their shit about friendship), and now you’re sighing in agony about having to deal with a love interest - and worst of all - yet another M/F ship existing.

And listen, I get it - M/F ships have everything and it’s obnoxious. They get the coveted title of being “most likely to happen”, they get all the exposure, all the juicy arcs, all the cast conversations when it comes to their expressions of sex and love and romance being treated as completely plausible and entirely normal, etc. But when Progressive Fandom notoriously doesn’t produce nor consume F/F media let alone at the same rates as M/M media, when Progressive Fandom deeming a female character “too awesome/independent for romance” is basically a death sentence in spaces where romance and pairing up characters is the name of the game - what are people supposed to do with Molly that doesn’t decrease her visibility or sideline her entirely in the name of what? Making sure heteronormativity doesn’t happen? Cause looking at tumblr’s most popular M/M ships that are full of exceedingly harmful gendered stereotypes about the characters then being further conceptualized in to gross top/bottom discourse among other issues, that pesky problem of not reinforcing heteronormativity shouldn’t fall solely on M/F ships cause they’re not the only ones perpetuating it.

From what I can tell, Sherlolly shippers are the only people placing her in multiple kinds of dynamics and narratives that seek to explore the depth of her character without treating all of her material with Sherlock like a joke or a predicament that must be changed (which is different from fixing some bumps or gaps or straight up missteps that may be present, and there are some, but no one is denying that). Sometimes it’s a reversal of expectations, sometimes it’s not, and that’s pretty standard summary of any ship in fandom, really. You don’t have to like what they’re doing, but the door is always open for these diverse, inclusive stories Progressive Fandom wants so badly to be brought to the table yet I get the feeling they won’t be walking through it any time soon.

so tl;dr - the ship isn’t bothering me and any faux-criticisms I had about it in the past I can easily say about other ships, including my own, so it’s not fair to condemn one but then bolster another with the same elements. As long as they aren’t engaging in anything harmful or pushing any Ists, Isms, and Phobias, which they aren’t, I’m cool.

And I’m not even gonna lie, I could not stand Molliarty in the beginning stages of fandom.

I hated how Jim from I.T. was treated as a separate person from Jim Moriarty just to give Molly a cuter and more fun version of him to continue dating (to be fair, this ship isn’t the only one that did this, [don’t even get me started on the Richard Brook\twin thing omfg], but I loathed this trend regardless of who did it more cause particularly with Jim everyone would always push the ‘we don’t know anything about his private life!!’ excuse to justify wildly ooc shit [and still do to this day]).

I hated that narrative of Molly ~softening~ monstrous beast!Jim with her kindness and in return he became obsessed with having her love him, but she couldn’t cause he’s a bad person or whatever, so he’d protect her until his dying days instead (I recognize the trope, I personally can’t stand that trope, but I still don’t understand why it was applied to this dynamic).

I hated all the creepy undertones in a lot of the really early fanworks that were like “come with me little girl and you’ll never be hurt again” (look, MY ships are capable of creepy undertones, but particularly with this ship it felt more like an impending sense of doom that Molly was getting herself in to a really skeevy, fucked p situation which is gross).

I hated with a goddamn passion that still consumes me to this day that Little Red Riding Hood/Big Bad Wolf aesthetic cause it’s just piggybacking off what I just said of this lecherous devil ready to devour this unsuspecting and naive victim (as you can imagine I don’t like imbalanced dynamics so a lot of this one is just personal irritation too, but it still feels like you’re having to compromise their characters by bastardizing the shit out of them in order to get this to work).

I hated how Jim was treated like her sassy gay best friend who’d stay up at night watching Say Yes To The Dress with her and Toby, and gushing about cute boys when someone did a more platonic bff take on the ship (this was the biggest one for me because Andrew was walking a fine enough line as it was with Jim to not have everyone go ahead and throw his character into stereotype hell anyway and I hate most fanworks with Jim for this very reason, so again this problem isn’t exclusive to the ship).

And I hated how Molly tapping in to her inner darkness thanks to Jim awakening it somehow always took the form of her becoming sadistic and murderous to illustrate how strong she really is in an effort to put her on even footing with him so she’d get the love and respect and appreciation she wasn’t getting else where through being his faithful killing babe (besides having problems with women having to become badass and bloodthirsty in order to equal strength of any kind, the implication she can only be treated right through bad people is unsettling).

After making that list, I realized a lot of why I couldn’t stand it was tied to general misinterpretations of their characters that was floating around fandom, so putting those specific versions of them together to make a ship out of it was unforgivable to me. I’m gonna make an assumption here and say I’m willing to bet a lot of their earlier stuff wasn’t made by the shippers themselves and that it was people from other ships making material for it based off what they thought it was. So for all I know a lot of what I hated wasn’t even what the ship was about cause I know that’s the case for old stuff about my ships. None of us really had the numbers to change public opinion about how we perceived it, so there’s a lot of lingering misconceptions thanks to those works and I might have just listed all of them for Molliarty, I don’t know.

But a lot of this seems to have gone away now in any case? Not all of it, but it’s been replaced with lighter, more comical material which is still not the ballpark I’d personally place them in, but I’m not in that inner circle of shipping so I don’t know why it took that turn. They could be trying to counter fanon ideas surrounding the pairing, they could be trying to build up a more diverse selection of fanworks, I have no idea, but the ship doesn’t bother me in the same way it use to mostly because I’ve become too indfferent for most ships to even get a reaction from me anymore tbh

#this came out longer than expected #apologies if this somehow ends up in the mobile tag

6 notes · View notes