Too many canon examples, other problems: Ambiguously Autistic

The trope needs to be redefined to make it less about the characterization of the person and more about the audience reaction (i.e. "I think said character is on the autistic spectrum").

1. For a YMMV trope, there are an abundant number of aversions where their Aspergers is either speculated, confirmed or denied in-universe, or via Word of God, or researched enough that Asperger's is a reasonable guess. There should be a separate trope for them, like High Functioning Aspie or Neuro Atypical; it makes no sense to say "Your mileage may vary" but Character X is canonically confirmed to be autistic. (either that, or list them under a separate section).

2. The trope's 2nd paragraph description is meaningless. It suggests the character isn't canonically diagnosed because the writers don't want to portray the disorder accurately or don't care, yet most of these examples are from before Aspergers was even well-known. The rest, who were created recently have been speculated, confirmed or denied to have Asperger's. In addition, some examples like Spock, River Tam have other reasons for their Austic traits that have nothing to do with autism, even if the writers thought of that. Furthermore, since all references to the actual disorder are gone, it's clear the trope has nothing to do with Asperger's or trying to depict it faithfully, and is more a weird hybrid of The Theme Park Version of autism and fan speculation of who might be on the autistic spectrum.

3. Inconsistent character examples. What are the criteria for this trope other than having some sort of social difficulties (and not even that)? If you pick any two or three characters on this page, you'll get 2 or 3 very different characters:

• Cal Lightman on Lie To Me: very sociable, loud, passionate/irritable, generally the center of attention anywhere he is. Knows people and social rules very well and lies/manipulates people all the time. Doesn't get along because he's just a blunt Insufferable Genius and a Living Lie Detector who mistrusts people and constantly pokes into people's business.
• Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter: Cloud Cuckoo Lander, soft-spoken, flat affect, polite, yet direct and honest. Socially isolated because everyone thinks she's nuts because she believes in nargles & whatnot (if you believe in fake creatures in a world where All Myths Are True, you deserve the crazy label).
• Lisa Simpson of The Simpsons: she's passionate, outspoken, yet also polite and empathic (sometimes). She's isolated because she's a gifted, empathic child in a world full of complete idiots and heartless sociopaths.

In addition, Cal and Lisa (and many other examples on this page) are definitely not introverts, so there's no reason for this to be on the Introversion Tropes index.

This is not even beginning to touch on the number of characters like House and Daria who are loners by choice, which would put them under Schizoid-(X)-Disorder.

I propose the trope be redefined to make clear that this is a Hollywood Psych trope about the audience interpretation of a quirky character as autistic, who is explicitly not confirmed or denied as autistic, and/or characters that remind us tropers of autism. Without any barometer of symptoms of the actual disorder to judge examples by, it's full of genuine autistics, mild autistics and probably-not-autistics-but-they-remind-us-of-them-anyway. Any in-universe examples where the writers were clearly going for the autistic model should be a part of a separate canon trope.

edited 24th May '11 8:43:15 PM by DarkNemesis

Yeah, I think the biggest problem with this trope is its vagueness which I guess makes sense given that it is titled Ambiguously Autistic.

The part in bold is pretty much how I see the trope and that is why I believe it is a YMMV one. I am not sure what purpose such a trope really serves, but your mileage may vary there. I agree that in-universe examples in which the writers clearly wanted to have a character be autistic should be a separate trope.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Hell no. There is nothing wrong with the article. We really don't need anymore "audience reaction" stuff.

The article is clearly about the writer leaving a personality un-diagnosed.

Fans will find any behavior autistic.

edited 25th May '11 11:12:56 AM by FastEddie

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty