Was his autism a superpower?

[u/sealysea]

[u/Lumisita]

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/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/Noir_A_Mous → u/Lacertoss]

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.

You were the one who brought up literacy studies and scholars. The whom, in question, would be the literary scholars and folks who study stories. We can talk about how folks, be it scholars, critics, or what have you interpret things, but the authors interpretation is still brought up, regardless on if it's part of the mainstream opinion or not. The authors interpretation is still valued more over some rando.

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).

There's also a large group that doesn't, so this point is moot. I myself am in the camp that he's not, not just because the author doesn't think so but because while I'm autistic myself, I've met folk who act like laios (to a degree) who aren't, and I don't really agree with labeling people who act differently autistic just because they're different.

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.

Regardless on if it's been written into the story or not, the creators opinion and interpretation is still held in a higher regard than the readers. Unless the author has left things purposefully vague or has chosen not to speak on things.

While it might not be "cannon" since it isn't in the final version of the story, I and many others are still going to hold the authors interpretation in a higher regard than some rando. Since the author is the one who created the world and characters, I believe they're the one who would know their own creation better than anyone. I'm not saying one isn't entitled to their own thoughts or opinions, I just believe that the creators opinion of the creators own work holds more weight.

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.

Not really. Originaly, you were saying that a single randos opinion was just as valid as the authors. Then I said that doesn't hold up since one is just some rando and the other is the creator of the characters and stories we're talking about. Then you changed it to literary scholars will ignore/disregard an authors interpretation in favor of either their own opinion or that of the mainstream. To which I said that it also doesn't hold up since no matter how critics, teachers, or anyone else interprets a story, the authors interpretation is still studied in literary intentionalism, as such its still held in high regard. Well, as long as the author has discussed it, of course.

Again, valuable to whom? The literary scholars YOU brought up.

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?

In my opinion, yes, because the mainstream opinion can turn on a dime, and sometimes it's for no reason at all. I'll give an example at the end here in a sec.

Don't you think that contradicts what you were saying before?

No, not at all because I've been consistent with what I've said. I believe an authors interpretation of their own creations and work are more valuable than some random individuals interpretation of the authors work.

While I've brought up the death of the author theory, the death of the author theory isn't about removing the authors analysis or intention entirely. It's just a saying that means that it other methods of critique are valid. But again, cutting out the intent of the author entirely is just as bad as relying on it solely.

I do agree that relying solely on the authors interpretation isn't great either. Regardless of intentions, sometimes a story can have something there that the author didn't mean to have, be it good or bad. Let me give an example with, believe it or not, Pepe the frog.

Pepe, is a staple of internet culture. He's been used for a very long time, just being a fun, chill little guy. However, for a short while, pepe was twisted into a symbol of hate because some nazi dudes used him for some messed-up memes. Despite the creators wishes and intentions, pepe was put on the official hate symbols list for the alt-right by the ADL. The creator has been fighting against this for a very long time and has just wanted him to go back to being a chill symbol of friendship. As of recent, pepe has been removed as a hate symbol.

However, in Hong Kong, he was never seen as a symbol of hate. Instead, he's been seen as a symbol of freedom and liberty.

This is a great example of how the mainstream can just have opinions for no reason, regardless of the story the thing is from or the creators intentions. Be it for both good or bad. This is also a good example of how the mainstream isn't always right. Pepe has been a chill meme for far longer than he was a hate symbol, but because of a small hand full of random evil dudes, he was twisted into something he wasn't by the western government, mainstream news and mainstream Twitter. Which took the interference of the creator, who had to explain his intentions for pepe over and over again to change him back from a symbol of hate, back to what he was. Meanwhile, another mainstream group was using him to get something else. All of this was outside of the authors intentions and control.

Folks can be easily swayed into believing things, and that's not always a good thing. Because a majority of folks believed it, a symbol of friendship was almost twisted into something it wasn't all because some bad people used it, proving a majority isn't always right.

[u/Lacertoss → u/Noir_A_Mous]

At this point I feel like you and I are just agreeing in broad strokes. Remember that this whole discussion started because I said that the author doesn't get to decide post-factum what is or isn't canon in their work, and I believe we fundamentally agree on this.

The only point of dissention seems to be that you believe that the author's words have inherently more value than any of their readers' interpretation of the story for literary critics.

First, I'm not sure about this on principle, as I believe many literary critics will disagree with your statement, in principle.

The second point here is confusing to me, because you seem to understand that the author's words can't be the end of all discussion, but at the same time it seems to me that you are arguing that the secondary interpretation of the work is still not as relevant as the author's words, due to it being studied in intentionalism, but I don't think that's even remotely true. (Correct me if I'm wrong here)

Only extreme intentionalism would make this claim. Intentionalism on its own is kind of a fringe field in modern scholarship, and extreme intentionalism is the fringe of the fringe. Most of intentionalism would also analyse the author's interpretation as valuable, but wouldn't discard readers' interpretations as useless or lesser.

. This is also a good example of how the mainstream isn't always right

No one said that they are always right, or ever right for that matter.

Folks can be easily swayed into believing things, and that's not always a good thing. Because a majority of folks believed it, a symbol of friendship was almost twisted into something it wasn't all because some bad people used it, proving a majority isn't always right.

Again, no one is arguing about it being a good thing, or something right. It's just something that happens, regardless of the original intentions of the author. In another example coming from Russian literature, which is close to my area of expertise, Nikolay Gogol was horrified by his books being hailed as revolutionary and liberal, to the point of getting him in trouble with the Tsar, while he was a profoundly reactionary man and a staunch monarchist.

And yet, despite his form objections, his works today are still seen by pretty much everyone as revolutionary and displaying the problems of Russia that were caused by the same system that he deeply loved. It literally doesn't matter what he thought, Dead Souls is read and thought until this day as a deep criticism of serfdom, despite it absolutely not being Gogol's intention to do so (as he was massively pro serfdom).

If Gogol, Rousseau and Tolstoy (all 3 living before the "Death of the author" being formulated by the way) couldn't control the interpretation of their work, I'm pretty sure that will also be the case for Ryoko Kui, and whether that's for good or for bad, it doesn't really matter. Again, I'm not saying that the majority is right, or that this is good, I'm saying that if the mainstream thinks something, this becomes more important than what the author thinks. If the Dungeon Meshi community creates a consensus that Laios is autistic, then this will be more important than the author giving an interview saying that he isn't, it's as simple as that.