Sep. 7th, 2012

xenith: (Default)
This is about me. I think that's two this year?

Anyway, I was reading an article on the bus, Six Principles Of Autistic Interaction, and found it fascinating.

I read stuff about autism all over the place, or people talk about it, or it's on TV, and most of it goes on about this typical behaviour stuff. Which, like most people, generally don't apply to me. But then I read something like that article that is about internal processes and I keep thinking "Well, yes, doesn't everyone think like that?". Apparently, no they don't. Which his what part of what I find fascinating, that most people out there must have thought processes that are quite alien to me (and yet they appear to function normally :)

The second bit that fascinates me is camoflague. As the psychologist told me last year, it's hard to diagnose autistic "disorders" in people my age and older, because the corners have been knocked off. Which is to say, you learn over time to blend in. I don't do weird things with my hands in public (she says, as she untwists her fingers to continue typing) but feet are a different matter. I realise that people sometimes want reassurance rather than the truth. I don't talk much about the things that really interest me (not even on here) because I know other people aren't as interested so I compromise and talk about related topics. Most sensory issues are less of a propblem (I still don't *like* vacuum cleaners, but I can tolerate them; I choose what I wear etc). And there is a *big* difference between how I behave in public and at home (untwisting my fingers again, gah). Outside I wear shoes & jeans, inside they're off as soon as I come in the door. Outside I can eat almost everything (except coffee), at home, the food I can't eat is rather long (starting with mixed-grain/wholemeal bread that's over a day old). There's nothing conscious about this. I never notice it until something makes me stop and think about it. It's adapting, over time, because that's what people me.

The combination of those things does make me wonder about why do I bother going to the support group or is it "fair" for me to claim I am "disadvantaged" in some circumstances, when in other circumstances I'm obviously advantaged. But then I remember that they reason I go to the group is because I have problems joining social groups, so I go there mostly to socialise. And I do have problems with functioning at times. I don't think I've been to a convention when I haven't spent hours crying for no apparent reason. I can't do the job-getting thing. There's all that depression & anxiety crap that has been knocking me about particularly this year. And so on. I should remember this from time to time.

Mostly though, I just find that people, me and everyone else, are quite interesting creatures.
xenith: (Default)
Another post where I've been thinking about something. (Blame Sharyn.) (Although I should write more of these but either I sit down to write them and they seem silly, or I do write them and end up writing about something else, and then get annoyed at myself.) (Sometimes though, what I ended up writing is better than my unwritten thoughts, so I should do more.) (And I think I've worn out my ( key.)

This one is about assumptions readers make about authors, or maybe it's just one assumption. That is, if the contents of a novel don't match the readers' experience or knowledge than the author is wrong.

On one level, that's a fairly simple thing. Authors sometimes are wrong (eucalypts do not have berries, OK?). Or the author is right but generally known information about the topic is wrong.

Beyond that though, is there always an assumption that unless know otherwise the author is a white, middle-aged, American/country of residence*, who had a certain type of schooling and grew up in a particular type of neighbourhood and (insert adjectives of choice). So if they're writing about someone who is not, then they're basing it on research, or assumption, or other second-hand knowledge, which is why the characters experiences don't always ring true. This assumption is what I seem to be coming across in many reviews. Of course, that might be because most authors are white, middle-class etc and there it is a valid basis for comments.

Now that I've noticed this, it's something I want to think about.


(*I'm just as likely to be reading a book by an Australian author as an American so I'd have to assume they could be one or the other)
xenith: (Steering wheel)
Borrowing from Chums again, the 4 January 1893 this time. I opened this issue up, saw the story was about mail vans and went to pick up the next issue. For we know what mail vans are like, bags of mail are thrown into them at one station and then thrown out at another, and that is all there is to it. Then I looked at the picture showing the interior of a van.


OK maybe there is a bit more to it. So, here is A Run with the Mail Van:

Read more... )
xenith: (Steering wheel)
And a bonus advertisment (from the back page of Chums).

Profile

xenith: (Default)
xenith

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags