Aie. I don't have time for an in-depth discussion, sorry, but quickly, here's why its worrying me. Stephen appropriating things is in character with his obnoxious cluelessness, but in this case, he isn't actually claiming symptoms of autism. It's the narrative that is providing the reader with the parallel, implying that Jon and by extension our newfound understanding of Stephen's insecurities should spring from drawing that connection between his behaviour and the children's. I know you warned about inaccurate medical information, but my point is, its not an appropriate comparison, because high functioning autistics struggle to be socially adept in spite of their medical handicaps, and so empathy with their challenges is very different than empathy with someone who is obnoxious and doesn't care enough about the damage he might inflict on others in his blindness to see that he might benefit from therapy.
See, like where I winced first was this line - "Punishment is counterproductive with these kids," the professor explained, doing a remarkable job of not flinching at the flashbulbs going off in her face. "Most of the time they're doing the best they can. To punish them for getting it wrong anyway is like telling them they're inherently not good enough." Because it seemed to be a clear set up for an insight into how Jon might treat Stephen, except that the same rules don't apply-- as a fully self-sufficient functional adult, I don't expect anyone to withhold punishment from Stephen when he deserves it (I am still mad that he hasn't been, at the very least, given a good kick in the balls for groping all the women he has. Sexual harassment is a huge trigger for me.) So that's where the narrative starts telling me as a reader how to use the information being given about autism to relate to Stephen, and I start resenting it for doing that. I can't offer any helpful suggestions for how to change this right now, but maybe you could play with Jon's reactions as a stand in for the reader? Like here - That kind of bizarre uncertainty would sure explain the man's constant need for attention. On the other hand, no one could possibly be that insecure. If Jon's just made the 'don't co-opt' remark, maybe he could follow the thought of whether Stephen is really afflicted, or just a fucked-up individual. The more complicated alternative, of course, would be to have a high functioning autistic character to act as foil, to show the gravity of Stephen being able to choose to behave better is such a privilege, in the face of those who work so hard against their disability because they are kind human beings who do not wish to offend people. Meh. I'm sorry, I don't have more concrete or helpful suggestions right now, if I do, I'll get back to you.
Yes on the thank god Jon is a comedian. Him as politician is rather heartbreaking.
no subject
I know you warned about inaccurate medical information, but my point is, its not an appropriate comparison, because high functioning autistics struggle to be socially adept in spite of their medical handicaps, and so empathy with their challenges is very different than empathy with someone who is obnoxious and doesn't care enough about the damage he might inflict on others in his blindness to see that he might benefit from therapy.
See, like where I winced first was this line - "Punishment is counterproductive with these kids," the professor explained, doing a remarkable job of not flinching at the flashbulbs going off in her face. "Most of the time they're doing the best they can. To punish them for getting it wrong anyway is like telling them they're inherently not good enough."
Because it seemed to be a clear set up for an insight into how Jon might treat Stephen, except that the same rules don't apply-- as a fully self-sufficient functional adult, I don't expect anyone to withhold punishment from Stephen when he deserves it (I am still mad that he hasn't been, at the very least, given a good kick in the balls for groping all the women he has. Sexual harassment is a huge trigger for me.) So that's where the narrative starts telling me as a reader how to use the information being given about autism to relate to Stephen, and I start resenting it for doing that.
I can't offer any helpful suggestions for how to change this right now, but maybe you could play with Jon's reactions as a stand in for the reader?
Like here - That kind of bizarre uncertainty would sure explain the man's constant need for attention. On the other hand, no one could possibly be that insecure.
If Jon's just made the 'don't co-opt' remark, maybe he could follow the thought of whether Stephen is really afflicted, or just a fucked-up individual. The more complicated alternative, of course, would be to have a high functioning autistic character to act as foil, to show the gravity of Stephen being able to choose to behave better is such a privilege, in the face of those who work so hard against their disability because they are kind human beings who do not wish to offend people.
Meh. I'm sorry, I don't have more concrete or helpful suggestions right now, if I do, I'll get back to you.
Yes on the thank god Jon is a comedian. Him as politician is rather heartbreaking.