Written By: Mylo Ortega, Staff Writer
STEREOTYPICAL: Poly student involved in play production questions whether play was the right choice for production on Poly’s campus. Please read the theater arts teacher, Mark Markermorse’s Response to the concerns expressed in this article: CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO MR. MARKERMORSE’S RESPONSE .
Following the completion of the last shows of the 2021-2022 school year, the topic of what comes next is sporadically thrown around in the Poly Theater department. In whispers it was murmured that next year an autistic character will be in the spotlight. Now in regards to my perspective…and the perspective of some people around me, neurodivergent and even disabled representation in media is generally underrepresented from the beginning and misrepresented towards the end. And although with many urging it to halt from the beginning after discovering what form of literature was to be used for the production, Poly theater agreed to produce the show The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, a highly controversial, and extremely disrespectful representation of autistic media which yet again follows the trope of another neurotypical person writing an autistic story without proper research.
Although I believe it is important for those with neurodivergence to be represented, I am under the belief that this representation is not what anyone needs. Poly is chalked-full of brilliant autistic actors, writers and aspiring directors that would’ve killed for an opportunity to tell their story without making it downright depressing and stereotypical. And unfortunately that’s exactly what this story has done.
The Author Behind the Story
Mark Haddon, the writer behind Curious Incident has openly admitted in a now deleted blog post that “I did no research for Curious Incident.. I’d read Oliver Sacks’s essay about Temple Grandin and a handful of newspaper and magazine articles about, or by, people with Asperger’s and autism. I deliberately didn’t add to this list…..Imagination always trumps research. I thought that if I could make Christopher real to me then he’d be real to readers.” The fact of the matter is that this self “realism” is simply a quirky marketing tactic trying to capitalize on a condition that is nothing of what Haddon would ever have to experience. Haddon even redacted what many consider the main representation of his character after receiving backlash over misinformation, proving even further that the autism aspect of his “brilliant” character isn’t so important after all. Yet even after review after review of his mistakes, Mark Haddon continued on writing another book A Spot of Bother which once again indirectly or not, capitalizes on conditions that Haddon now renames “behavioral difficulties” or “hypochondria” only when disagreements from others arise.
Books Have Impact
What is even more alarming about this book is how far its success has reached; unfortunately, a hard truth that has become more realistic day by day is that the majority of people are not fond of looking at the perspectives of actual people with neuro divergences such as autism. They much rather hear the perspective of a parent or teacher or a neurotypical man who read an article about autism. And they usually get much more praise for it. For example, the play adaptation of Haddon’s book was awarded a 5 Tony awards in 2015, which was then congratulated by Autism Speaks, a renowned autism eugenics organization, that believes that autism is a problem that needs to be cured. An organization that is 99% neurotypical employed – an organization that is denounced practically by almost every known autism advocate and organization. Yes, that is who congratulated this show.
It’s reach doesn’t only minorally affect people worldwide, but it also reaches majorally locally, since it was reported in the Penquin Press in 2015 that many autistic people have been alerted that “it is used as a textbook, and handed to policemen or social workers to give them some insight into the behaviour of people they might come across in their professional lives.” Its local effect continues with the argument that I even have to explain that its origins are morally wrong in a high school newspaper, to people who are much older than me. I mean even after seeing the backlash towards Mark Haddon not even the playwright bothered to further his research on autism, stating in an article “I did no research for [Christopher] at all. I just imagined him from Mark’s book.” Both authors wanted the audience to interpret Christopher’s diagnosis in their own way, considering everyone’s perspective valid so that all can profit from the public’s interest in autism but take no responsibility for how they represent it.
Stereotypes to The Point That’s Laughable
Now I am not stating that it’s bad to have a character that happens to fall into some stereotypes – in fact I think many times when done correctly, it can create a hilarious source of irony. However Curious’ stereotypes definitely reach an embarrassing amount of stereotypes. From the low profile surface level things such as Christopher being written to be a male, his obsession with playing with trains, and only liking specific colors, to the deeper aspects of how Christopher is scared of touch and does not know how to interpret emotion, to how his mother leaves him because of his condition. Although realistic to many, it would’ve been nice to see something good happen to someone with a minority. In various forms, a lot of representations of minorities always have to revolve around their condition and identity. In the case of Christopher, although his interests lie outside his autism, the activities he enjoys perpetuate stereotypes – his interest in math being the main one, proving further that the only thing that separates him from his difficulties are his acts of genius, in many ways making his genius abilities the only thing people value from him, which is another stereotype that autistic people continually have to dismantle. The notion that if people cannot take the time to understand with words spoken through the mouth, one can never be a genius and if one is not a genius, are they allowed to even exist?
What Could Be Changed In Poly’s Production
I go back and forth between what could be improved in this production since most of my problems involve the author of the original play and overall writing issues. One thing especially is making the show on stage with an audience, believe me it does allow the audience to gaze into a intimate and deeper perspective into Chris’ mind, however it adds a bit stronger light that can be rather overstimulating, but I also know that from past productions that flash warning are always put in place before the show begins.The biggest issue for me, however, is I would have loved to see some sort of autistic director or simply overseer who has experiences and is educated heavily on the topic who would have given helpful insight and changes to blocking and emotional cues to create a bit more of authenticity and realism especially some that are not based on Mark Haddon’s rendition of the character.
What Poly Has Managed to Change And Get Right
Although the contents of this piece of work I have argued to be horrific and although I don’t 100% support this production, I do have to give credit where the Poly theater production has managed to change and improve. For one, the casting of Christopher has been changed to Christina, both casts are women. At least one cast member is autistic. Many hours have been placed directly towards specific scenes to ensure a sense of realism. The combination of three directors has allowed them to bounce ideas around and ensure the least amount of offense. The acting from every actor is extremely well-done and unquestionably tear jerking. There’s prominence of autistic techs involved in the building of the set and tech side of the show. The set design and prop design is fun, imaginative and intimate. I personally do not think I have had this many interesting and multi-step props to work on for quite some time. (Yes – I was part of this production.) Everyone involved has tried their absolute best to create the most inviting and comforting space to tell this story.
Autism Awareness Week
Now I’m not here to completely bash the performance of this show; in fact, I dove into it to see how it played out, and since there was no chance to halt it, I joined in on the cast and tech crew for the show. I appreciated the pristine effort that was put in even though I find irony in how Poly’s theater placed this as their performance for Autism Awareness Week, since the authors of both the play and the book do not know whether or not to make their audience aware of the condition they profited off of for so long. It’s ironic but I will give it slack.
Use of High/Low Functioning Labels, Outdated Use of Aspergers
What I will not give slack for is that even many people who have seen the wrong doings still need updates in their language even if their plan is to disagree with my views and defend this show. First, the specific original descriptions of Christopher is that he has Aspergers, a “high functioning” form of autism, which for the time of the release of the book and play was an accurate way to depict his condition. Things now have changed, and I think it’s important to spread accurate information on what is now updated new information for many. For one the term Aspergers has been removed and redacted from the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) since 2013, after many years of fighting due to this just being an outdated offensive term for autism. The reason for this comes from the origin of the word first coming into the light during the time of the Holocaust when Hans Asperger, a pediatrician who had involvement in the euthanasia program in charge of the killing of disabled individuals, was up for a promotion. Author of the boot entitled “Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna,” in an interview with Michel Martin on National Public Radio in 2018 revealed that Hans Asperperger:
“…worked under an ardent Nazi who was the director of the University of Vienna
Children’s Hospital. and he was up for Assistant – Associate Professor in 1943. And he
did prize the – what he called the special abilities of children that he diagnosed with
autism. And he believed that they could be even superior to normal children – or typical
children, I should say. At the same time, he had a very eugenicist view and believed that
some children were not able to be remediated. And those were the severely-disabled children who were transferred to the killing center.”
Essentially if the autistic person could speak and move around on their own, they were considered the good kind of autistic people, and then at that moment relabel them with Aspergers, and they would get the chance to escape the death camps of the holocaust. As noted by Shefer, “his definition of autism was shaped by Nazi ideology, and he was complicit in the regime’s child euthanasia program.” It’s a sad reality to come to terms with; however, it is important to denounce its origins. Hans Aspergers was a eugenist who, although praised for saving the lives of some autistic people, still sent hundreds upon thousands of others to death. Because they didn’t fit his criteria, they didn’t receive the privilege to live. Which is another amounting reason to why terms such as high and low functioning are so incredibly harmful. It’s important to realize that autism isn’t a line spectrum with less autistic being on one end and more autistic being on the other like how Hans once imagined it to be. Many autistic people have encouraged neurotypical people to imagine it more like a circle, like this:
Autistic people have the same amount of autism but they require different needs; yet, unfortunately, when those needs require the help and support from electronic devices, mobility aids, or even just other people, the condition of this disorder gets boiled down to nothing but “these people will succeed and these people can’t,” simply because help is needed in some physical aspects. Support is important for everyone. It is sad to stereotype how the level of how well someone can function is based heavily on if they can speak verbally – it’s dismissive and I hope we can work on attempting to dismantle it.
The Show Must Go On
The beauty of artistic expression is that everyone experiences it through their own lens. Adolescents will not experience what adults will, and it will be interesting to hear how my peers reacted to this production.
Please read the theater arts teacher, Mark Markermorse’s Response to the concerns expressed in this article: CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO MR. MARKERMORSE’S RESPONSE