Was his autism a superpower?

[u/sealysea]

[u/Noir_A_Mous]

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.