We did Environmental Ethics last semester with a literary theme, this article has me thinking the same could be done with the literature of Bioethics. For instance (besides the titles mentioned here), Richard Powers' Echo Maker, Generosity, and Orfeo would all work. Other suggestions?By Marie Myung-Ok Lee
I read every night to my teenage son, who has severe autism. Only recently has he been calm enough to tolerate this, but it’s become an enjoyable ritual. I’m not sure what he understands, yet as I read Helen Macdonald’s memoir, “H Is for Hawk,” about a woman’s year of grief and falconry, J gets a dreamy look on his face. On nights he’s worried I’ll forget, he’ll come to me and demand: “Read bird hawk!”
As a teacher, book columnist and novelist, I’m something of a professional reader. Casting about for what to read to J next, I’ve noticed a surge of books with autism in them. I don’t mean books about autism, but, rather, novels that include characters who have autism or that use symptoms of the disorder as a metaphor or plot device, or to stylize language.
These portrayals drove me to revisit “Illness as Metaphor” (1978), Susan Sontag’s critical look at the “literary transfiguration” of illness. Tuberculosis, a microbial infection characterized by sputum and wracking coughs, became the “romantic disease” of the 19th century, its fevers and pallor standing in for creativity, beauty and moral superiority. Novels of the era were populated with beautiful TB deaths whenever an innocent deserved a peaceful and painless end, perhaps most memorably Little Eva in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
With the virtual eradication of tuberculosis in the 20th century, it receded as a dominant form of illness — in art as in life. Cancer filled the void, but with darker metaphors of shame, external disfigurement, war. Like cancer and like TB before the discovery of the mycobacterium tuberculosis, autism is a condition whose etiology remains largely a mystery... (continues)
Its interesting how people romanticize terrible things like war and disease...
ReplyDeleteAs more people get diagnosed and more individuals become more aware of the nerodiversity around them, I think the narrative might change. I always felt close to characters that had similar quirks to, from Sherlock Holmes to Meg in a Wrinkle in Time. I had adults in more reality based narratives too, some that made sense to me, like Dr Brennan from Bones, others felt like a dark mirror of all the things I disliked about myself, like Dr Cooper from Big Bang Theory. I was late to be diagnosed when I would get assistance and I do not have the traits that affect my life so much that I am dependent on my family no more than my brother. These characters were like me but nobody called it anything. After I was diagnosed, I felt like I understood why I felt connected. Yet I still had issues. Nobody said autism unless the character was a mute male child. We recently have taken steps in the right direction. In the most recent Power Rangers movie, the character Bobby said it out loud. (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/power-rangers-autistic-billy-blue-superhero) I was shocked. The next month they announced the show "The Good Doctor" showing the job market for ASD has expanded. Even the shows made for children have expanded, the main character in the cartoon "Star vs the Forces of Evil" is an alien to Earth's culture. Often for females, autism can manifest as "different planet syndrome" or the idea that rules make no sense for the context of them. Authors are always going to use tropes and stereo types to inform the audience of certain attributes, but that is also an opportunity for new ideas and diversity. Here are some TED talks from female ASD individuals.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ95xlZeHo8
https://www.ted.com/talks/alix_generous_how_i_learned_to_communicate_my_inner_life_with_asperger_s
https://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds
I definitely think that there are incorrect ways for authors to portray autism. Using the disease as a representation of something else is something that I feel is explicitly incorrect, as there is truly no other condition, be it medical or simply an event throughout life, similar to autism. I do believe, however, that it is the author’s right to portray their characters how they deem necessary, and considering the condition is different from person to person, it seems only logical for there to be discrepancies from author to author.
ReplyDeleteDQ:
Should we restrict authors’ characters to being obligatory representatives of a population?
Should authors be restricted to portraying a single or limited perspective of autism, despite the actual wide spectrum of the condition?
Do you think authors consider the possibility of those with autism reading their work?
Is it fair for authors to use autism metaphorically regarding some other textual conflict?
Does attempting to limit authors’ representation of a disease in their work infringe on Constitutional right?