The Manic Pixie Autistic Sidekick

Those of you who write or read may be familiar with the trope of the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl”, a term coined by critic Nathan Rabin to describe the sort of love interest who exists only to teach young males how to experience life and make them better people. These girls aren’t real characters in a three-dimensional way. They don’t exist for themselves or their own happiness. They are creations whose purpose is only to support or provide a catalyst for growth for the man who spends time with them.

But what does this have to do with autism?

Well, think back to one of the most famous autistic characters of all time: Rain Man, aka Raymond as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman alongside Tom Cruise. I’m sure all of you are familiar with Rain Man. It’s not a bad movie, really, it’s just the public’s reaction to it has been… disappointing. Rain Man has come to represent all autistics (despite the fact that the majority of us are not savants) in the minds of many people, and the stereotypes about us have been reinforced by all the many portrayals trying to copy Rain Man as if it’s the only way to be autistic.

I don’t want to do a full review of Rain Man, or a full examination of the impact of Rain Man. It’s been reviewed by better minds than mine, been written about constantly, and there’s not much new to add to the subject. But I do want to address one fact about it, a trope that the entire plot is based on.

Rain Man/Raymond only exists to help the non-autistic character played by Tom Cruise grow as a person. He does not exist for himself or his own happiness. He is a creation whose purpose is only to support and provide a catalyst for growth for the man who spends time with him.

Sound familiar?

This is not an uncommon trope. There are tons of stories out there about characters with various disabilities ranging from mental difficulties (Rain Man) to physical ones (Me Before You – which also buys into the incredibly harmful and appalling “better dead than disabled” trope) that aren’t really about those characters, but the person next to them. Whether it’s a family member, friend, or love interest, these characters only exist to teach a non-disabled person a life lesson of some kind. Like the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, this is a sort of objectification of our existences. We are turned into teaching props. Tools.

I don’t want to be a tool.

These sorts of stories are often (possibly always) written by non-disabled individuals, and similar tropes exist for essentially every sort of minority or perceived minority character. While I’m sure the creator’s intentions are mostly harmless (they may even think they’re doing good for the people they’re representing), using us as props to teach others lessons is dehumanizing. The problem with this is the same problem as with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl – it portrays a group of people as supporting roles for others rather than the stars of their own story. It almost removes them from their own story by putting the spotlight on someone else, someone the directors and writers think is more ‘universal’ and whose perspective will sell more tickets. But the ‘default’ isn’t representative of the entire population, and a variety of voices is good for showing that those voices do exist. We need variety and diversity, representations of all types. Autistic people deserve our own stories that accurately portray us as the protagonists and heroes of our own lives, rather than as background and support for the non-autistic people in our lives. We are not teachers. If we teach people in our lives something, that’s incidental, not the purpose of our lives. That should be a side plot. The purpose of our lives is whatever we want to make of it, and to be happy for ourselves.

So, Autistic writers, keep writing. We need you in the world. Everyone with any disability who writes, keep at it. Put your perspective out there. Actors, keep auditioning. Directors, keep going. One day we’ll break in, and we can be the stars in our own story and maybe finally teach people that we’re not tools or props, but the main characters in our own stories.

I am the hero of my own story. And you are too.

Advertisements

Netflix’s Atypical – Things it gets Right and Things it gets Wrong

This is the first in a series of posts about Autistic portrayals in fiction and media, and the first of a two part series specifically on the show Atypical.

Netflix recently released its new original series Atypical about an autistic teenage boy named Sam. It gets a few things right, and a few things wrong… so I’ll start with the good.

Atypical depicts a disabled character as non-asexual. While some people on the spectrum and with various disabilities can be asexual, it is often assumed by the public and portrayed by media to be a universal feature. So definite positive points to the show for going that route.

Also for doing a decent job of portraying things like stimming, sensory management (Sam, the protagonist, often is seen wearing noise canceling headphones, which are a truly beautiful invention), and other difficulties.

Perhaps the best thing that the show gets right is when it shows that Sam understands when he’s being made fun of. There are other portrayals in media and fiction that show autistic characters as completely oblivious to the cruelty of their peers. It’s good to show how it can harm and affect an autistic person, even if they don’t 100% get all the details. Making that empathetic connection to the audience can be a step towards stopping bullying. It’s difficult to stand up to a bully – if you’re under the impression the bully’s target doesn’t care about or understand what’s going on, then you might be less inclined to help. But when you know they are hurt just the same as anyone else, you’re more likely to step up.

Now… the things it gets wrong.

The most obvious is that it plays into the stereotype of the straight or asexual, white, autistic male. This is by far the most common depiction of autistics in fiction/media – at least, the most popular ones. I’m including in this characters who are implied to be or read by the audience to be on the spectrum, despite not necessarily being labeled as such. This includes Rain Man, Sheldon Cooper, Christopher Boone, Sherlock Holmes (technically a high-functioning sociopath, but for some reason audiences conflate the two conditions… I don’t quite get why considering how different they are), Dr. House, and Spock, to name a few. We need more diversity because we are diverse. Sometimes when I hear ‘You don’t look autistic’ I wonder if they actually mean ‘You don’t look like a straight, male stereotype.’ This has real world consequences. There are psychologists out there who refuse to diagnose girls. The color blue was chosen to represent autism by certain groups because they felt it was a boy’s club and blue means male. Aside from gender, race is also a factor. I’ve heard people say ‘black people don’t get autism’ which is just plain false and harmful to any child out there who gets overlooked as a result. Media is a reflection of how we see our world, and it can shape our world when it changes. If we include more diverse autistic characters, people will recognize more diverse autistics as valid. There have been a handful of these more diverse representations in recent years, but they’ll half to wait their turn for their own post, of course.

Next point: Humor. Humor is almost always at someone’s expense; that is a universal truth. In this show, which is meant to be a comedy, the expense is usually Sam’s. We are not meant to laugh with him, we are laughing at him. At how awkward he is when he sits on a bus and bursts out laughing for no reason, at how awkward it is when he doesn’t get something and everyone else does, at how awkward it is when he has a freak out in class and throws his jacket in the trash. We are meant to laugh from a neurotypical perspective. Once in a while it can be excused, but not whenever he’s on screen. I would pay money to see a scene where a neurotypical and an autistic are talking and the humor is played at the NT’s expense, and from the autistic’s perspective. For example, the following:

NT: Oh, you’re autistic? My father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate has a kid who’s autistic! I know all about it!

AT: … Goody for you then?

Or maybe:

NT: You’re autistic? But you don’t look like you’re autistic.

AT: Yeah, well, I peel off my scales every morning and tuck in my tail so I’m not too obvious in public.

But, in my opinion, the worst plot sin is in the episode where Sam is shown breaking into his therapist’s house at night because he has a crush on her. This is not okay. It is illegal, predatory behavior, not just an awkward autistic symptom. It’s stalking. Apparently contrary to popular belief, autistic people do understand the difference between right and wrong. We have empathy and can often understand that if we wouldn’t want to be abused or violated in some way (privacy, mentally, physically) then we shouldn’t do it to others because that will upset them just as it will upset us. Abusive behavior is not to be excused by a person’s neurology. I was in a class with someone once who told me that someone they’d had a sexual encounter with had gotten abusive, but that they weren’t going to press charges because the boy in question was autistic. This is bad for so many reasons. If someone who’s autistic is doing something illegal or abusive, they likely know too and are making a conscious choice to continue based on factors completely unrelated to their neurology. There may be one or two exceptions where someone genuinely has been socialized to believe abuse is normal and an acceptable way to behave (perhaps from a bad home, or with bad friends who normalize it), but that is not right. The media we consume (and that many people will use to educate themselves about autism) should not normalize this behavior as something quirky that just goes along with an autism diagnosis. It hurts both neurotypicals and autistics because people will expect and excuse abuse. Neurotypicals might be more tolerant of abuse, which hurts them, and autistics might be avoided/stigmatized despite not naturally being abusive, which hurts them. No one wins. Fiction needs to not portray autistics as abusive, or at least, not portray the abuse as a symptom of autism. That scene should have been completely omitted.

Not the last thing I have to say about Atypical, but one of the more important points that needs to be made is about research. For one, Sam is shown to have little empathy (in the last episode he claims he has more, but it’s almost the first point in the show where he seriously considers it. For example, he doesn’t consider whether or not his therapist might like him at all and how she feels, only focuses on how to steal her from her boyfriend and how he himself feels), which is an incorrect assumption NTs have about autistics. This shows that the writers of this show researched based off of other NT’s writing/work/experiences rather than talking to autistic adults. I did some reading up on their process for this show, and while they have good intentions, the only interactions they seem to have had with actual autistics is talking to autistic children. An autistic child’s perspective is not the same as a teen or an adult’s. They are making a show about relationships and sex: they needed to interview an autistic adult to understand that perspective. But they didn’t… I’m not sure why.

Here’s a note to all writers. If you are writing about a group of people you are not a part of, you need to be meticulous with your research. If you have a main character who is a race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other that you are not or has a disability that you do not have, don’t shove in stereotypes and call it a story. Don’t talk to people who know someone who’s a part of that community. Talk directly to people in that community, read articles by people in the community, learn about experiences they have that you don’t directly from them. Ask them for input, ask them to review your work, make the changes they suggest. Accuracy is key. We need visibility and diversity in fiction for all types of people, because absence is harmful. But possibly more harmful is inaccuracy. We in the community you portray will zero in on every inaccurate detail, while those not in our community will use those details against us.

This has been part one of my Atypical review. I’ll continue with part two hopefully soon, so stay tuned for more analysis!