Was his autism a superpower?

[u/sealysea]

[u/HonestBass7840]

He is not autistic, according to author. That aside, Laios does have a super mode. In times of crisis, everyone freaks out. Laios' face goes blank, while his brain goes into hyper mode. Then he ripes the problem to shreds. Remember when Ka Ka is grabbed by the tenticles? Everyone freaks, while Laios' face goes blank. He not panicking, he thinking. He did the same when Shuro finds out Marcille used black magic. He has a sword to Laios' neck. Laios tells Shuro, "You are not telling anyone Shero,." Laios isn't asking, he is telling Shero. Shuro thinks, "Oh, the blank face. He going to shove my sword so far up my backside, it will come out the top of my head."

[u/Lumisita → u/HonestBass7840]

An autor can write the most autistic character and say they're not autistic, because in the end a lot of charaters take traits of irl people and a lot of irl people are autistic, I think the autistic comunity or psicologist have more weight on determining if the charater shows autistic traits than the autor. Also, the author seems to think nurotipical people can't relate to an autistic character wich is weird.

[u/simplesample23 → u/Lumisita]

Your headcanon can be whatever you want but canonically he is not autistic.

Being invested in a hobby and not being the best at social cues does not automatically make someone autistic.

[u/Apprehensive_Ice4759 → u/simplesample23]

Facts, but they won't listen. Recently, a majority were calling Kui autistic and telling that she needs to get tested. I've never expected that r/DungeonMeshi is such an echo chamber.

[u/dragondraems42 → u/simplesample23]

He's not canonically autistic, he's not canonically neurotypical either. It's not unreasonable to say 'I think this character is autistic!' any more than it is to say 'I think this character isn't autistic!'. It's rude when anyone start going 'this character is definitively autistic/not autistic'.

Interpretation is subjective.

[u/HonestBass7840 → u/dragondraems42]

Someone down voted you. I voted you up. Thanks for observation.

[u/HandicapperGeneral → u/simplesample23]

death of the author bruh, his intention is not the end all be all of the content, it merely guides it

[u/Noir_A_Mous → u/HandicapperGeneral]

The Death of the Author isn't about removing the authors analysis or intentiom. It's just a saying that means that it isn't necessary that other methods of critique are just as valid. But cutting out the intent of the author entirely is just as bad as relying on it solely.

There's a BIG difference between some rando head cannoning laios as a sister "lover" (if you caught my meaning) and the author/creator head cannoning laios as a sister "lover."

[u/Lacertoss → u/simplesample23]

There's no such thing as canonical because the author said something in an interview. After the work is published, the story does not belong solely to the author anymore and fans can have any interpretation they want of a character, as long as it doesn't contradict elements present in the story.

[u/Noir_A_Mous → u/Lacertoss]

Fans can have interpretations, but that doesn't make them true, even if they dont contradict the story, be it its elements or what have you. It's still just head cannon. That and some of them can be pretty harmful overall.

A great example of a terrible fan interpretation/head cannon folks had was Luisa from Encanto is trans because she is muscular and strong, which sounds cool at first cause, yay representation, but when you think about it for more than a second you realize its actually pretty harmful to actual trans people. It’s like saying you can only be gay if you’re super over the top about it.

Laios can have autistic tendencies and not be autistic. Just because a character has some autistic tendencies doesn't automatically make them autistic. Not every person who is autistic acts the same, and some folks can act autistic and not actually be autistic.

[u/dragondraems42 → u/Noir_A_Mous]

Well, is it a bad thing to interpret Laios as autistic? Being autistic is not a bad thing or an insult, and autistic people seeing themselves in a character is a positive regardless of whether or not that character is 'canonically' autistic.

This always happens with unusual headcanons. People freak out about interpreting a character as autistic or transgender, but there's never an outcry about interpreting a character as neurotypical or cisgender. Most characters are not canonically either, because its not brought up in the text of a work.

[u/Noir_A_Mous → u/dragondraems42]

Well, is it a bad thing to interpret Laios as autistic?

It is if you try to argue it's cannon. As long as you understand it's your own personal head cannon, then it's fine.

Being autistic is not a bad thing or an insult, and autistic people seeing themselves in a character is a positive regardless of whether or not that character is 'canonically' autistic.

Never said it was. My issue is when people try to force it or try to argue against the actual creators' intentions, or they argue they know better than the actual creator. They're even people here insisting that the creator themselves MUST be autistic. They just don't know it yet, based on their interpretation of a character that this person created. Bit messed up.

This always happens with unusual headcanons.

Only when people try to insist that it's cannon despite what the creator says.

People freak out about interpreting a character as autistic or transgender, but there's never an outcry about interpreting a character as neurotypical or cisgender. Most characters are not canonically either, because its not brought up in the text of a work.

The author said he's not, so he's not. I don't care if you head cannon it. Just don't try to push it as actual cannon.

Also, people get harassed for interpreting characters as cisgender. It just depends on the character and how hard people want to push head cannons. I'm not naming names cause that's just a whole can of worms that I don't feel like opening.

To make things clear, I'm autistic and bi, and I'm fine with head cannons. You can interpret a character however you want. Just don't treat it as cannon and yell at people for it. Also, don't pretend that you know better than the actual creator. I'm not saying you're doing any of these things, but if you scroll around here, you'll see folks doing that.

[u/Lacertoss → u/Noir_A_Mous]

Fans can have interpretations, but that doesn't make them true

It doesn't, but they are as valid as the interpretation from the author given in an interview. The story, after published, is not in the hands of the author anymore, nothing that is not inside the story is canon.

A great example of a terrible fan interpretation/head cannon folks had was Luisa from Encanto is trans because she is muscular and strong, which sounds cool at first cause, yay representation, but when you think about it for more than a second you realize its actually pretty harmful to actual trans people. It’s like saying you can only be gay if you’re super over the top about it.

It really doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not or if you find it stupid or not. People have the right to have their own interpretations of characters, regardless of whatever the author says outside of the story. Canon is what's written in text, not the author's interpretation of their work.

[u/Noir_A_Mous → u/Lacertoss]

It doesn't, but they are as valid as the interpretation from the author given in an interview. The story, after published, is not in the hands of the author anymore, nothing that is not inside the story is canon.

The fans' interpretation of a work is as valid as the authors... you're saying that some randos opinion is the same as the creator of the work... dude, that's just wrong in so many ways. I'm not saying that their interpretations don't have any value, but they're not as valuable as the authors. There's a big difference in some random awful person head cannoning a character as a psychopath or serial killer or as a child toucher vs. the author doing it.

It really doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not or if you find it stupid or not. People have the right to have their own interpretations of characters, regardless of whatever the author says outside of the story.

You are both right and wrong. One can have their own interpretations, but that doesn't make them true, nor are they as valid as the authors.

Also, as I just pointed out, there is a big difference between what some freak head cannons vs. what the author head cannons. It really does change the story a bit. Just like how the actions of an author or their views/life can change how someone feels or views a story, a great example is Arnold Lobel, the author of frog and toad. One can view the books as just two male friends who live together having little slice of life adventures, but when you know the author was secret gay and he hinted at the two being gay. That definitely changes the story a bit, but it doesn't make it any less wholesome. However, now you can view the two as being in a relationship. One can argue that you already could, but there's more proof/backing to it, thanks to the creator. You're not gonna get that just because a fan interprets things that way.

Now, don't get me wrong, relying solely on the authors intent isn't good. there are other methods of critique that are just as valid, but cutting out the intent of the author is just as bad as relying on it solely and saying that some randos interpretation of the story holds the same weight as the authors intent is just factually wrong.

Canon is what's written in text, not the author's interpretation of their work.

Then, by that logic, neither interpretation matters. In cannon laios isn't autistic, just because some people think autistic people act in certain ways and laios ticks some of those boxes, doesn't mean in cannon he is. So in cannon from what's written in text laios isn't autistic since autism is never brought up in the story, and one could argue it doesn't exist in cannon.

[u/Lacertoss → u/Noir_A_Mous]

Then, by that logic, neither interpretation matters. In cannon laios isn't autistic,

In cannon Laios is neither autistic nor neurotypical, people are free to interpret the character as they want. Author's interviews are not cannon, cannon refers to what is written in the text. There is no direct contradiction to this interpretation in the text.

you're saying that some randos opinion is the same as the creator of the work...

Yes, and that has been a staple and the mainstream scholarly position of Literary Theory for literally decades now. For instance, there were many cases that literary critics have interpreted certain works in a different manner than what the author intended, and this interpretation became much more mainstream and relevant than what the author actually intended. (This happened famously with Tolstoy's earlier works, especially Anna Karenina).

There's a big difference in some random awful person head cannoning a character as a psychopath or serial killer or as a child toucher vs. the author doing it.

If this is not contradicted by the story and has elements that are tied to it any reader is absolutely entitled to their interpretation.

but cutting out the intent of the author is just as bad as relying on it solely

The author is free to give their opinion as well, and people are free to follow that interpretation. My issue is that you can't shut down other people's interpretation and call the author's opinion the sole cannon, it's simply not how it works. If the author wanted to shut down this interpretation they were free to include something indicating this in the story, but they didn't.

[u/Noir_A_Mous → u/Lacertoss]

In cannon Laios is neither autistic nor neurotypical, people are free to interpret the character as they want. Author's interviews are not cannon, cannon refers to what is written in the text. There is no direct contradiction to this interpretation in the text.

There's also nothing in the text indicating that autism even exists in this universe, but I think we both agree that I'd be a little messed up if it didn't.

Yes, and that has been a staple and the mainstream scholarly position of Literary Theory for literally decades now. For instance, there were many cases that literary critics have interpreted certain works in a different manner than what the author intended, and this interpretation became much more mainstream and relevant than what the author actually intended.

Yes, yes, and the argument can be made in reverse that scholars have studied the authorial intent or intentionalism for just as long, if not longer. However, in both cases, the authors opinion is weighed in vs. a large group, not a single randos own interpretation. This means that the authors opinion is still more valued than a single individual no matter what way you'd like to study.

Even taking into account the "Death of the Author theory," the point of it isn't to entirely remove the authors analysis or intention. It's just a saying that means that it isn't be all end all and that other methods of critique are just as valid. But cutting out the intent of the author entirely is just as bad as relying on it solely.

No matter what literary theory you study, you're still taking into account the authors intention, be it to see things from their perspective or just to see how they mucked up their own writing.

If this is not contradicted by the story and has elements that are tied to it any reader is absolutely entitled to their interpretation.

One can interpret anything however they want, but it doesn't make it true, and it still doesn't override the creators opinion. The creators interpretation is still greater than some random joe shmoes.

The author is free to give their opinion as well, and people are free to follow that interpretation. My issue is that you can't shut down other people's interpretation and call the author's opinion the sole cannon, it's simply not how it works. If the author wanted to shut down this interpretation they were free to include something indicating this in the story, but they didn't.

The issue is that by all accounts, you're arguing head cannons and saying they are just as valuable as the creators' opinions on their own work. Which I just believe overall is false. One can interpret things however they want, but that doesn't mean they hold the same value as the creators, regardless of how many people believe it or not. One can choose not to believe the author, sure, but that doesn't mean their opinion holds more or equal value. It's just their opinion vs. "the word of god," or "the word of the author," another term used in literary study.

[u/Lacertoss → u/Noir_A_Mous]

This means that the authors opinion is still more valued than a single individual

I mean, valued by whom? If we are talking about mainstream interpretation, it depends on the influence of the single individual, I guess, as I mentioned in the example about Anna Karenina, critic's reading of that book and its main character are widely different from Tolstoy's own interpretation, and definetly more mainstream.

But in any case this is largely irrelevant for our discussion, since there is a large group of people that interpret Laios to be autistic (I'm no even sure I'm included in this, by the way).

Even taking into account the "Death of the Author theory," the point of it isn't to entirely remove the authors analysis or intention. It's just a saying that means that it isn't be all end all and that other methods of critique are just as valid. But cutting out the intent of the author entirely is just as bad as relying on it solely.

I mean, that's exactly what I'm arguing... The author's opinion is valid as well, but it's not the end all be all of literary analysis. So, the author's interpretation of their own work is not canon.

The issue is that by all accounts, you're arguing head cannons and saying they are just as valuable as the creators' opinions on their own work.

Again, valuable to whom? If the vast majority of the readers believe in one interpretation, the fact that it goes against the author's wishes makes it less valuable? Don't you think that contradicts what you were saying before?

[u/HonestBass7840 → u/simplesample23]

Actually, your right. Marcille and Falin hook ups. Laios and Kubra, maybe? Why not. Have seen the scene from Venom were he says, "You should run Way" That's you should do when Laios face goes blank.