#Disability Tropes | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cy-cyborg · 14 days

Text

The Untrustworthy Fake: Disability Tropes

[ID: A screenshot of Willy Wonka from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as he limps towards a crowd using a cane. In the picture, he has a brown top hat in his hand, and he's wearing a suit with a purple jacket, multicoloured bow tie and cream coloured pants. Beside him is text that reads: "Disability Tropes, The untrustworthy Fake" /End ID]

Tell me if this sounds familiar: A new character is introduced into a story with some kind of disability - usually visible but not always. Maybe they're a seemingly harmless person in a wheelchair, maybe they're a one-legged beggar on the street, or maybe they're an elderly person with a cane and a slow, heavy limp. But at some point, it's revealed it's all a ruse! The old man with a cane "falls" forward and does a flawless summersault before energetically springing back up to his feet, the wheelchair user gets to their feet as soon as they think the other character's backs are turned, the one legged beggar's crutch is knocked out of his hand, only to have his other leg pop out of his loose-fitting tunic to catch him.

All of these are real examples. Maya and The Three introduces one of it's main protagonists, Ricco, by having him pretend to be missing a leg in order to con people (something that works on the protagonist, at least at first), Buffy The Vampire Slayer had the character Spike, pretend to be in a wheelchair, until the other characters leave and he gets up, revealing it's all a ruse and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory introduces Wonka by having him slowly limp out into the courtyard of the factory, only for his cane to get stuck, causing him to "fall" and jump back up, revealing that he's actually perfectly fine. Virtually every single major crime show in the past few decades has used this trope too, from CSI to The Mentalist, Castle, Law and Order and Monk all having at least one episode featuring it in some way. Even the kids media I grew up with isn't free from it; The Suite Life of Zack & Cody sees Zach faking being dyslexic after meeting someone who actually has the condition in the episode Smarter and Smarter and the SpongeBob SquarePants episode Krabs vs Plankton has Plankton fake needing a wheelchair (among other injuries) after falling in the Krusty Krab as a ploy to sue Mr Krabs and trick the court into giving him the Kraby Patty Formula.

No matter the genre or target audience though, one thing is consistent: this trope is used as a way to show someone is dishonest and not to be trusted. When the trope is used later in the story, it's often meant to be a big reveal, to shock the audience and make them mad that they've been duped, to show the characters and us what this person (usually a villain) is willing to stoop to. Revealing the ruse early on though is very often used to establish how sleazy or even how dangerous a character is and to tell the audience that they shouldn't trust them from the get go. Gene Wilde (The actor who first played Willy Wonka) even said in several interviews that this was his intent for Wonka's character. He even went so far as to tell the director of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that he wouldn't do the film without that scene because of how strongly he felt this trope was needed to lay the foundations for Wonka's questionable intentions and motivations. His exact words are: "...but I wouldn't have done the film if they didn't let me come out walking as a cripple and then getting my cane stuck into a cobble stone, doing a forward somersault and then bouncing up... the director said, well what do you want to do that for? and I said because from that point on, no one will know whether I'm telling the truth or lying."

There's... a lot of problems with this trope, but that quote encapsulates one of the biggest ones. whether intentionally or not, this trope ends up framing a lot of actual disabled people as deceitful, dishonest liars. Now I can already hear you all typing, What?! Cy that's ridiculous! No one is saying real disabled people are untrustworthy or lying about their disabilities, just people who are faking!

but the thing is, the things often used in this trope as "evidence" of someone faking a disability are things real disabled people do. A person standing up from their wheelchair or having scuff-marks on their shoes, like in the episode Miss Red from The Mentalist isn't a sign they're faking, a lot of wheelchair users can stand and even walk! They're called ambulatory wheelchair users, and they might use a wheelchair because they can't walk far, they might not feel safe walking on all terrains, they might have unstable joints that makes standing for too long risky, they might have a heart condition like POTS that has a bigger impact when they stand up or any number of other reasons. Also even non-ambulatory wheelchair users will still have scuff marks from things like transferring and bumping into things (rather hilariously, even TV Tropes calls this episode out as being "BS" in it's listing for this trope, which it refers to as Obfuscating Disability). A blind beggar flinching or getting scared when you pull a gun on them isn't a sign they're faking their blindness like it is in Red Dead Redemption 2. Plenty of blind people can still see a little bit, it might only be a general sense of light and darkness, it might be exceptionally blurry or just the fuzzy outlines of shapes, or they might only be able to see something directly in front of them, all of which might still be enough to cue the person into what's happening in a situation like that. Even if it's not, the sound of you pulling your gun out or other people nearby freaking out and making noise probably would tip them off. A person needing a cane or similar mobility aid sometimes, but being able to go without briefly or do even "big movements" like Wonka's rolling somersault, doesn't mean they don't need it at all. Just like with wheelchairs, there's a lot of disabilities that require canes and similar aids some days, and not others. Some disabilities even allow people those big, often straining movements on occasion, or allow them to move without the aid for short periods of time, but not for long. Some people's disability's might even require a mobility aid like a cane as a backup, just in case something goes wrong, but that still means you need to carry it around with you, and unless it can fold down, it's easier to just use it.

Disability is a spectrum, and a lot of disabilities vary in severity and what is required of the people who have them day to day. This trope, however, helps to perpetuate the idea that someone who does any of these things (and many others) is faking, which can actively make the lives of disabled people harder and can even put them in very real danger, physically, mentally and even financially.

Just ask any ambulatory wheelchair user about how many times they've been yelled at for using accommodations they need, like disabled toilets or parking spaces. How many times they've been accused of faking and even filmed without their consent because they stood up in public, even if it was to do something like get their wheelchair unstuck or as simple as them standing to briefly reach something on a high shelf. I've caught multiple people filming me before, so have my friends and family, and it's honestly scary not knowing where those images have ended up. This doesn't just impact the person either, a friend of mine was filmed while standing up to get his daughter (who was about 4 at the time) out of the car. He was lucky to have stumbled across the video a few days later on facebook and contacted the group admins where it was posted to get it taken down, but had he not stumbled across it by chance, pictures with his home address and his car's number plate, his child's face and his face all visible would have just been floating around, all because a woman saw him stand briefly to pick up his daughter.

Many people don't stop at just saying a nasty comment or taking a photo though, a lot of people, when they suspect people are faking, will get violent. I have many friends who have been pushed, slapped in the face, spat on or had their mobility devices kicked out from under them. I've even been in a few situations myself where, had I not had people with me, I think the situation would have turned violent.

There's even been cases where those photos and videos I've mentioned before have been used against real disabled people and they've been reported to their country's welfare system as committing disability fraud. While cases like this are usually resolved *relatively* quickly, in many parts of the world, their payment will be halted while the investigation is in process, meaning they may be without any income at all because of someone else's ignorance. If you're already struggling to make ends meet (which, if you're only living off one of those payments, you probably will be), a few weeks without pay can mean the difference between having a home and being on the streets.

Not to mention that when there's so many stories about people faking a disability in the media, especially when the character is doing it to get some kind of "advantage", such as getting accommodations or some kind of disability benefit, it perpetuates the idea that people are rorting the systems put in place to help disabled people. If this idea becomes prevalent enough, the people in charge start making it harder for the people who need them to access those systems, which more often than not results in disabled people not even being able to access the very systems that are supposed to be helping them. A very, very common example of this is in education where accommodations for things like learning disabilities require you to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops, especially at higher levels, only to have some teachers and professors refuse to adhere to the adaptations anyway because they're convinced the student (and usually disabled students as a whole) is faking.

Yes, the "untrustworthy faker" is a fictional trope, and yes, it does occasionally happen in real life, but not as often as media (including things like news outlets) would have you believe. However, when the media we consume is priming people to look for signs that a disabled person is faking, it has a real impact on real disabled people's lives. "Fake-claiming" is a massive problem for people in pretty much all parts of the disabled community, and it ranges from being just annoying (e.g. such as people spamming and fake-claiming blind people online with "if you were really blind, how do you see the screen" comments) to the more serious cases I mentioned above. It's for this reason a lot of folks in the disabled community ask that people leave this trope out of their works.

#Writing disability with Cy Cyborg #Long Post #Disability #Disabled #Disability Representation #Writing Disability #Writing #Writeblr #Authors #Creators #Writing Advice #Disabled Characters #On Writing #Disability in Media #Tropes #Disability Tropes #faking disability trope

463 notes · View notes

whumpinggrounds · 1 year

Text

Overused Disability Tropes

Woohoo here we go. I expect this one to be a bit more controversial because I am using specific media as examples. I would really prefer if, when critiquing this post, you avoid defending specific media, and focus instead on what’s actually being said/represented about disabled communities. If you feel I’ve done a really grave injustice, you can come into my askbox/DMs/replies to talk to me about it, but I might not answer.

One more time: I am not interested in getting into a debate about whether something is a good show/movie/book/whatever. I’m not telling you it’s bad, or that you shouldn’t enjoy it! People can like whatever they want; I am only here to critique messaging. Do not yell at me about this.

Newest caveat aside, let’s get into it!

Inspiration Porn

Without a doubt, our biggest category! Term coined in 2012 by badass activist Stella Young, but the trope has been around for literal centuries. There are a few different kinds that I will talk about.

Disabled character/person is automatically noble/good because of their disability. A very early example would be A Christmas Carol’s Tiny Tim, or, arguably, Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Real life examples include the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, or children’s hospital ads that exploit sad-eyed kids with visible illness or disability.

Having a disability does not automatically make you a kind/angelic/noble person. This many not seem harmful, and may even seem positive, but in reality, it is condescending, inaccurate, and sets bizarre standards for how disabled people should behave.

This portrayal is often intended to elicit pity from abled audiences, which is also problematic.

In these portrayals, disability is not something to be proud of or identify with, only something to be suffered through.

Disabled character person does something relatively mundane and we all need to celebrate that. This is less common in writing, but happens in the real world when people do things like post pictures of disabled people at the gym captioned “What’s your excuse?”

This is condescending, and implies that anything disabled people are capable of, abled people are automatically capable of.

Makes it seem like it’s an incredible feat for a disabled person to accomplish tasks.

Uses people’s actual lives and actual disabilities as a reminder of “how good abled life is.”

The “Supercrip” stereotype is a specific kind of inspiration porn in which disabled people are shown to be capable of amazing things, “in spite of” their disability.

The Paralympics have been criticized for this, with people saying that advertisements and understandings of the Paralympics frame the athletes as inspiring not because they are talented or accomplished, but because their talents and accomplishments are seen as “so unlikely.”

Other examples include the way we discuss famous figures like Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing, or even Beethoven. Movies like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game frame the subjects’ diagnoses, whether actual or posited, as limitations that they had to miraculously break through in order to accomplish what they did. Discussions of Beethoven’s deafness focus on how incredible it was that he was able to overcome it and be a musician despite what is framed as a tragic acquisition of deafness.

The pity/heroism trap is a concise way of defining inspiration porn. If the media you’re creating or consuming inspires these emotions, and only these emotions, around disability, that is a representation that is centered on the feelings and perceptions of abled people. It’s reductive, it’s ableist, and it’s massively overdone.

Disabled Villains

To be clear, disabled people can and should be villains in fiction. The problem comes when disabled people are either objects of pity/saintly heroes, or villains, and there is no complexity to those representations. When there is so little disabled rep out there (less than 3.5% of characters in current media), having a disabled villain contributes to the othering of disability, as well as the idea that disability can make someone evil. There are also a few circumstances in which particular disabilities are used to represent evil, and I’ll talk about how that’s problematic.

Mentally ill villains are colossally overdone, particularly given that mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators of it. This is true of all mental illness, including “””scary””” things like personality disorders or disorders on the schizoaffective spectrum. Mental illness is stigmatized enough without media framing mentally ill people as inherently bad or more suspectible to evil. This prejudice is known as sanism.

Explicit fictional examples of this include the Joker, or Kevin Wendell Crumb in Split.

People can also be coded as mentally ill without it being explicitly stated, and that’s also problematic and sanist. In the Marvel movie Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness, Wanda’s appearance and behavior are coded as mentally ill. This is used to make her “creepy.” Horror movies do this a lot - mental illness does not render someone creepy, and should not be used as a tool in this way.

Visible disability or difference to indicate evil is another common, incredibly offensive, and way overdone trope. This is mostly commonly done through facial difference, and the examples are endless. These portrayals equate disability or disfigurement with ugliness, and that ugliness with evil. It renders the disabled villain in question an outcast, undesirable, and uses their disability or difference to dehumanize these characters and separate them from others. This is incredibly prevalent and incredibly painful for people with visible disability or facial difference.

An example of visible disability indicating evil is Darth Vader’s prosthetics and vastly changed physical appearance that happen exactly in time with his switch to the dark side. In contrast, when Luke needs a prosthetic, it is lifelike and does not visually separate him from the rest of humanity/the light.

Dr. Who’s John Lumic is another example of the “Evil Cripple” trope.

Examples of facial difference indicating evil range from just about every James Bond movie, to Scar in the Lion King, Dr. Isabel Maru in Wonder Woman, Taskmaster in Black Widow, Captain Hook in Peter Pan, and even Doofenschmirtz-2 in Phineas and Ferb the Movie. Just because some of the portrayals are silly (looking at you, Phineas and Ferb) doesn’t make the coding of facially scarred villains any less hurtful.

A slightly different, but related phenomenon I’ll include here is the idea of the disability con. This is when a character fakes a disability for personal gain. This represents disabled people as potential fakers, and advances the idea that disabled people get special privileges that abled people can and should co-opt for their own reasons.

In The Usual Suspects, criminal mastermind Verbal Clint fakes disability to avoid suspicion and take advantage of others. In Arrested Development, a lawyer fakes blindness in order to gain the sympathy and pity of the jury.

In much more complex examples such as Sharp Objects, a mother with Munchausen by proxy fakes her daughter’s illness in order to receive attention and pity. Portrayals like this make Munchausen or MBP seem more common than it is, and introduce the idea that parents may be lying or coaching their children to lie about necessary medical treatment.

Disability as Morality

Sometimes, the disabled character themselves is a moral lesson, like Auggie in Wonder. Sheerly through existing, Auggie “teaches” his classmates about kindness, the evils of bullying, and not judging a book by its cover. This also fits well under inspiration porn. This is problematic, because the disabled character is defined in terms of how they advance the other characters’ morality and depth.

In the “Disabled for a Day” trope, an otherwise abled character experiences a temporary disability, learns a moral lesson, and is restored to full ability by the end of the episode/book/movie. Once again, disability is used as a plot device, rather than a complex experience, along with more permanent disability being rejected as impossible for heroes or main characters.

Examples include an episode of M*A*S*H where Hawkeye is temporarily blinded, an episode of Law and Order: SVU where Elliott Stabler is temporarily blinded, and an episode of Criminal Minds where Agent Hotchner experiences temporary hearing loss.

Real life examples include sensitivity trainings where participants are asked to wear a blindfold, headphones, or use a wheelchair for a given amount of time. This does not impart the lived experience of disability. It should not be used as a teaching tool.

Disabled people as inherently pure. This is related to inspiration porn and disabled people as noble, but is different in that it is usually appears in combination with developmental, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities. These characters are framed as sweet, “simple,” and a reminder to other characters to be cheerful, happy, or grateful.

Examples include Forrest Gump, Rain Man, I Am Sam, and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.

No matter what the stereotypes of a given diagnosis are (yes, I’m thinking of the automatic cheerfulness associated with Down Syndrome), disabled people have personalities. They are capable of being sad, angry, sarcastic, irritable, annoying - any number of things beyond good/sweet/pure. It is reductive to act otherwise.

Disability as Surreal

Less common than some of the others, but still worth thinking about!

Disabled characters are framed as mystical, magical, or other than human, a condition that is either created by or indicated through their disability status. This is especially common with little people.

“Disability superpower” is when a character compensates for, or is uniquely able to have a superpower because of, their disability. Common tropes include the Blind Seer, Blind Weapon Master, Genius Cripple and Super Wheel Chair.

Examples include Pam from Supernatural, Charles Xavier from X-Men, or the grandpa in Spy Kids.

Disability as Undesirable

Last and least favorite category here. Let’s go.

Disabled people as asexual or not sexually desirable. Disabled people can be asexual, obviously. When every portrayal is asexual, that’s a big problem. It frames disabled people as sexually undesirable or implies that it is impossible for people with disabilities to have rewarding, mutually satisfying sexual relationships.

Examples include The Fault in Our Stars or Artie in Glee.

Abandoned due to disability. Hate this trope. Often equates disability with weakness. Don’t want to talk about it. It’s all right there in the title. Don’t do it.

Examples: Quasimodo in Hunchback of Notre Dame, several kittens in the Warrior Cat series, several episodes of Law and Order: SVU, Bojack Horseman, and Vikings.

Discussed in 300 and Wolf of Wall Street.

Ancient cultures and animal nature are often cited as reasoning for this trope/practice. This is not founded in fact. Many ancient civilizations, including Sparta, cared for disabled people. Many animals care for disabled young. These examples should not be used to justify modern human society.

Disabled characters are ostracized for disability. Whether they act “““normal”““ or odd, characters with visible or merely detectable disabilities are treated differently.

Examples include pretty much every piece of media I’ve said so far. This is particularly prevalent for people with visible physical disabilities or neurodivergence. Also particularly prevalent for characters with albinism.

This is not necessarily an inaccurate portrayal - disabled people face a lot of discrimination and ableism. It is, however, very, very common.

Bury your disabled. What it says on the label.

Examples: Animorphs, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, American Horror Story, Criminal Minds, Dr. Who, Star Trek, The Wire.

Mercy killing is a subtrope of the above but disgusting enough that it deserves its own aside. I may make a separate post about this at some point because this post is kind of exhausting and depressing me.

Examples: Me Before You, Killing Eve, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Of Mice and Men, and Million Dollar Baby.

Disability-negating superpowers imply that disability is undesirable by solving it supernaturally instead of actually portraying it, and giving their character powers instead.

Examples include (arguably) Toph from Avatar: the Last Airbender, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Legend of Korra, Dr. Strange, and Daredevil.

Overcoming disability portrays disability as a hindrance and something that can be defeated through technology and/or willpower.

Fictional examples include WALL-E, Kill Bill, The Goonies, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Heidi, The Secret Garden, The Inheritance Cycle, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, The Big Bang Theory, Dr. Strangelove, Sherlock, The Witcher.

Real life examples include videos of wheelchair users standing from their chair to walk down the aisle at a wedding, or d/Deaf children “hearing” for the first time through cochlear implants.

What Does This Mean for Your Writing?

First of all, congratulations for making it this far!

Now, as I have said again and again, I’m not going to tell you what to write. I’ll ask some questions to hopefully help guide your process.

What tropes might you be playing into when writing disabled characters? Why do you find these tropes compelling, or worth writing about? How prevalent are these tropes? How harmful are they? What messages do they send to actual disabled people?

Just because they are common tropes does not mean they are universally awful. Cool fantasy or futuristic workarounds are not necessarily bad rep. Showing the ugly realities of ableism is not necessarily bad rep. It’s just a very, very common representation of disability, and it’s worth thinking about why it’s so common, and why you’re writing it.

As always, conduct your own research, know your own characters and story, and make your own decisions. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, please hit me up! Add your own information! This is not monolithic whatsoever.

Happy writing!

#disability writing guide #writing disabled characters #disability #disability representation #disability justice #writing advice #disability tropes #writing tropes #ableism #sanism

1K notes · View notes

batrogers · 2 months

Text

"Feral" Tropes

For Clarity: I have written pretty much every single trope on this list at some point or another myself.

(Yes, including extremely ill-advised arson, non-verbal and illiterate Link, needs help with his hair, and spends weeks in blood-stained clothes.)

These can be funny tropes, dark tropes, ironic tropes, heartfelt tropes, and cathartic tropes.

[Art of my Minish Cap Link, by @l3ominor]

Why do people find “Feral” link so polarizing, then?

I’m gonna go over what makes a fantasy, character agency (or deliberate lack thereof), and – because I’m AO3 trash forever, and because I think it’s the most useful thing here – tagging.

It's also like 2000 words, whoops.

I’m using “feral” here to say that Link is positioned as either failing to adhere to expected social norms, or positioned as outside them. Social norms are part of civilization: a structure of rules and expectations that are positioned as the “height” of human social achievements. Meeting them makes you a good, normal person who is respectable and respected; failing them can make you anywhere from imperfect to exile to enemy.

“Civilized” is a moving target that’s defined by others. Anyone, at any time, can be constructed as a failure just because someone wants to do that. Similarly, other features – like slavery and war crimes – can be considered “civilized” because that’s just what the dominant power does. Being “civilized” isn’t inherently good; it’s also not inherently evil. Civilized social rules also include stuff like charity, hospitality, and similar social welfare stuff.

Basically both “Civilized” and “Feral” can mean whatever you want them to mean, but there are some common ways it goes wrong.

Again. I have written 90% of these in various ways. These are not inherently wrong; the frustration often arises from presentation and lack of clarity, which I’ll address below:

The first is infantilizing the character, creating them as helpless.

Wild can’t bathe himself and doesn't see the point in being clean; he doesn’t do anything with his hair. He’s so dumb he eats rocks; he'll eat too much or anything at all, and he has no objection to being treated like a child. He doesn’t know language or how to read or write. If transmale, he doesn't understand his period and thinks he's dying. He was literally raised by a wolf. He can't do anything right. It's presented as fair and just to pin him down to clean him, because he cannot do it himself.

The fact the wolf is supposedly Twilight, who should be striving to get him to other hylians is irrelevant. Real youth react to their period thinking they’re dying, but this is associated with literal children, particularly ones raised completely ignorant of their own bodies and of sex.

The second is othering them, treating them as antisocial.

Other people react badly to him; he has no manners, he smells; he never tells anyone what he's doing. He's afraid of other Hylians; he's indifferent to them, and wants nothing to do with them. He doesn't understand how to function in a group. He'll wander into a trap carelessly, and drag others with him in pursuit of something pointless.

In the case of Hyrule, he lives in a cave and this is strange, bizarre, and horrible, rather than a thing that is in the actual historical record and is a dry, temperature controlled and easily protected place to sleep.

The third is to make them dangerous, a savage thing.

He solves his problems by lighting things on fire, uncaring of the damage done. He bites and growls when upset. He'll kill a monster with his bare hands; he'll show up in town covered in blood and filth.

He's an abomination; he's literally not human at all.

IIII

Probably you read that list and had checkmarks going off in your head. I like that one; I don’t like that one. People never do that right; I’d handle this way better if only—

Good. It’s a fun list of things that can be good, if done to your taste.

A lot of these touch into disability tropes; some edge into racialization ones. A lot are dehumanizing. People have a lot of feelings about both, good and bad, and feeling your way through it by writing is normal, expected, and okay. You do not deserve to be punished for writing something “bad” while trying to understand what you like. Many of these fall under care-taking tropes: someone needs help, and they feel awkward asking so they just want someone to step in and “Fix it” without the humiliation of having to ask.

That’s fine. But if you want to change it up: let Link ask. Let him reach out. Let him initiate the help. There’s a very different feeling when someone pins Wild down to clean him, versus when Wild works up the courage to ask “Can you help me?”

Because yeah, brain damage is complicated. He could have just about any struggles you imagine, but what can be frustrating for others seeing this, over and over, is that he’s treated like a permanent child or an animal. He always will need taken care of; he always needs someone to step in. It is right and just to force him to submit to care against his will...

He never has anyone ask if they can help him, either.

How much sweeter can the care be when he’s willing? When he initiates? When he has agency in his own treatment? Because too many people who need help are not given that choice. Some readers are turned off because the force is all too real, and all too painful to see reflected in what they came to for escapism. One person’s care-taking fantasy, is another’s real life trauma.

Escaping society and it’s pressures is also a fantasy, one of independence and freedom all its own but again, a major feature here is choice. Does Wild have choice? Does Hyrule? Is this presented as of course they don’t belong, or as a reasoned decision, or as a result of being driven out by real violence from others?

All different stories. All different fantasies.

And being the agent of violence is a fantasy, too. “Burn it all down” is a valid emotion (I write variations on it myself, although not this one.) Think of “Kill Bill” and “Fury Road.”

But with an ostracized, feral Wild there is the reflection of real violence against the marginalized communities whenever they express frustration or rage at their treatment. The wrong person being dangerous can get them killed. Of course this is polarizing.

Ironically, this category includes the one trait that Wild displays in the Linked Universe comic that didn’t make the feral list: emotional dysregulation. He loses his temper; he lashes out. He gets upset and jumps the gun... but it’s not cute, it’s not pretty, it’s presented very well in canon (Warriors is frustrated with him, but not seriously angry.) But it doesn’t suit the feral take, because it’s too mild for the violent fantasies, and too adult and human for the innocent ones.

IIII

My first advice about writing this is to be more clear about your tags. Spoilers are always a thing people worry about, but some things can be improved with clarity, and conflict over “bad writing” is one of them. “Feral” Link can mean literally any combination of the above, but those are all wildly different things. Narrowing down what happens in your fic into more specific tropes will both help people who want to read what you write to find it, and help people who will be upset avoid it.

It just common courtesy. I tagged a recent fic “Drunk arguments”+ “Politics” because that argument could go a lot of ways. Someone who’ll read political nonsense may not read sex and may not read crack. It doesn’t say anything but the subject matter, and it doesn’t need to: the question of whether this will turn into politics or sex is a way to direct people in or away according to their taste.

Is this required? No. People make mistakes or have bad days or just don’t want to, and don’t deserve punishment for it. But it’s a tool at hand to filter your readership to better match you, one you shouldn’t disregard.

If you want to adjust how you write, frequently the aggravating factor is in the presence (or deliberate absence) of agency, and in evoking sympathy over pity. There’s also a way to balance traits in just like, the general sense of making the story more complex: nobody is one thing.

For an example from my own projects, I write my version of Minish Cap Link combined with the first Four Sword game. The second time he used the Four Sword changed him into something not-quite-human. But even prior to that, he was non-verbal and skittish; he bit and hissed, he has visible injuries on top of the later changes. I have two fics that present two different ways to frame much the same event: he gets upset and lashes out, and legitimately terrifies the people around him.

In one story, he is restrained. The people doing so are treated as villains for it; you see his fear and panic, and Zelda’s rage over his treatment. In the other, he is calmed by another of the Links, and even in an outside perspective it is made clear that Minish is reassured, relieved and desperate for comfort once his fear has passed – and he trusts the person who talked him down (who did not hurt him) to give it now. He doesn’t have to “behave” to be treated as human, but I also don’t have to make him act “normal” to do so: the framing of how he’s treated by others does it. He’s also clean, well-kept, polite, sweet when he’s calm, and playful.

Similarly, because I have multiple characters who are all non-verbal to varying degrees, I can get away with a lot of variety. I can make one a total bitch, and I don’t have to worry that he’s going to be “bad” representation because if people don’t want a bitchy non-verbal character to relate to, there’s two others to choose from. Balancing a “feral” trait with a mix of signals creatures a nuanced character that isn’t just a ball of Whump.

(Although again: nothing wrong with a ball of Whump if you’re in the mood for it. I have my balls of Whump fics, too.)

Some of the other weird things can be done as just misunderstandings: Is Link eating rocks because it’s polite to join the gorons? Did he realize he was weird and could eat rocks as a child and now does it to joke around? Does Hyrule get to be exasperated at the others pitying his cave? Letting the weird be weird but legitimate can be fun, or even funny: Hyrule lets the others sleep cold in tents while he’s warm inside.

Readers get tired of one-note characters no matter what they’re like. I’ve heard the same complaints about “Dad” Time as I’ve heard about “Feral” Wild, and about Twilight. The fix isn’t to throw out what you like; it’s to build it up into something more. It will never be to everyone’s taste, but you can have a dirty little gremlin who, no matter how inhuman they may seem, is still treated like a person.

Dehumanization is far too prevalent in the world right now, and a lot of us desperately need somewhere to escape it.

Now I’m gonna go write me some fluffy Wild asking for hair brushing. After spending all week chewing on this, it sounds like a fun challenge.

#Linked Universe #Hello it's me again #but people did ask #this is opinion not prescriptivism #LU Wild #LU Hyrule #Zelda fanfic #BOTW #TOTK #disability tropes #disability in media #dehumanization in media

34 notes · View notes

green5quirrel · 2 years

Text

Hemmer Rant

I wanted to write this before I read any other thoughts or comments about Hemmer's character arc in Star Trek Strange New Worlds and before I watched The Ready Room interview with Bruce. So this is done directly after getting home from work. (They haven't even removed their binder, friends!)

Be aware, SPOILER ALERT.

I want to preface this with saying I am neither blind nor do I have a significant vision impairment that isn't corrected with glasses. So I absolutely can't speak to that experience but I do want to speak to what I feel was a flawed character arc for our chief engineer.

Additionally, forgive any ignorance I've expressed in my wording or perspective. Please feel free to correct me.

Bruce was, as interviews have said, told clearly about his character arc before he took on the role as Hemmer. And if he had to die, he said, he wanted it to be a cool death. And as far as death's go cinematically, it was pretty cool. What wasn't cool (in my opinion) is that the writers and creators had to do it at all.

Historically people with disabilities have lacked autonomy in their characters and stories. Yes, Hemmer was not considered disabled but he was played by an actor open about his vision impairment and advocacy and this was touted in articles as something revolutionary in the Star Trek universe. "Star Trek's first legally blind actor!"

Thus, I believe this character still has fallen to a common trope, sacrificing his own character development to be a bolster for another character's development. In this case, that character was Uhura.

The thing is, there was potential for Hemmer to be a fully drawn and realized character. He had a past we all wanted to know about. He had intrigue. He was played fully by a brilliant actor who had the experience to do so. But his story was sacrificed, quite literally, to fulfill the development of another character. That is the trope. That is where his autonomy was abandoned. His existence was in service to an able bodied character and only that. He was to inspire Uhura to stay in Starfleet and on the Enterprise by giving up his life.

Star Trek has done so well bringing marginalized characters into stories and integrating them without fanfare and with pure acceptance. I think they failed miserably with planning this character's arc.

Hemmer is the blind prophet (a terribly annoying trope but unavoidable considering the history of the Aenar cannon). Hemmer's development is only seen when in service of abled body people around him (a fact they worked into the very fabric of his personality by never allowing him to grow past only being useful in fixing but also useful as a fully autonomous person FOR HIMSELF). Hemmer dies tragically as an inspiration. The representation was almost there. It was so close. It could have been SO GOOD. But Star Trek bowed to cliché. It bowed to the popular media motif for disabled people. And perhaps it didn't do so knowingly, but it is a genuine shame that Hemmer had to die without having explored him beyond a prop for furthering another character's story.

If it had been any other type of alien that didn't represent a disabled population perhaps it would be better. But touting disability representation and then bending to such a disrespectful storyline was such a disappointment to see. Hemmer deserved better. And we deserved to see a disabled representation that didn't end with tragedy as too many so often do in story telling. We still have a lot of work to do.

#Hemmer #Star Trek Strange New Worlds #Star Trek SNW #Strange New Worlds #Spoilers #bruce horak #aenar #disability representation #ablism #tropes #All Those Who Wander #blind tropes #impaired vision #disability trope #ableism #martyr trope #disabled character autonomy #disability tropes

187 notes · View notes

hasellia · 6 months

Text

So I have a question for the disabled pokémon community in regards to designing a character, from an able bodied presenting person. I'm gonna give my sketch of Wally so far below under the cut if that helps.

I'm designing my take on older Wally, and I wanted to make him more visably disabled. I'm aiming for something aligned with cripple punk ideals beyond aesthetics, but I'm not that well read about it and I don't want to betray those values. Since his condition is only loosely implied to be asthma, which from my own limited observations is mostly seen through the use of medical inhalers, I thought I'd take a few creative liberties. I'm giving him a futuristic mask attached to a small cylindrical filter on his back through two large tubes on the side. It's not a permanent fixture, and he can take it off to sleep, eat, talk over tea, etc. It's sort meant to look like a knight mask, reminiscent of gallade. The mask functions as both a filter (since he works in/near the battle factory at the Hoenn battle frontier) and also as a drug administration device when he's having asthma-esque episodes. My idea is meant to invoke images of more villainistic / ableist characters (like the obvious Darth Vader), but once you meet him, Wally's is actually a very soft, sweet guy. He's just is also capable of annihilating you in a pokémon battle, so people talk up how scary he is to battle. I know this in itself is a trope, but I'm unaware of how the disabled community feels about it and if it's initself abeist. The rest of his clothing isn't villainous, just kind of a progress of what he wore when he was younger.

So, is there anything I should do differently or should know before going forward? I'm not going to pretend that I'm immune to being abeist, and I'm not sure if implying that Wally has some form of fictional pokémon asthma is really the proper way to go. But I thought I should at least try to reach out to the disabled community before I do anything that might be speaking for them.

#able bodied #disability advice #disability advocacy #cripple punk #wally pokemon #disabilties #disability #Pokémon #pokemon #fanart #character design #Hoenn #Sketch #my art #disability tropes #pokemon fanart #Wally #Pokemon Gen 3 #pokemon ruby and sapphire

10 notes · View notes

capricorn-0mnikorn · 2 years

Text

{sigh} Just now noticing the ableism in “Nightmare Before Christmas”

I first saw this film on The Big Screen™ with my Dad when it first came out. I’ve loved it ever since.

And, since being on The Internet, I’ve seen and appreciated all the perennial reviews, and all the Feelings and Thoughts people have about this film.

But it was only this year (a few days ago), watching one of those reviews, that I noticed Dr. Finkelstein uses a motorized wheelchair, controlled with a joystick.

(I don’t know why I didn’t notice until now. Maybe it’s because there are so many other characters on screen who move in a non-normative way).

And that means he created Sally to be his Personal Care Attendant. A role she is trapped in, and is always trying to escape from.

(I don’t have to explain why that’s a bad trope, right?)

I mean, Doctor Finkelstein didn’t have to be disabled in order to desire to keep someone trapped in a servant role. He could have been any old, privileged, man who wants someone to do his work.

But they went and gave him a disability as an explanation, anyway.

{sigh}

#nightmare before christmas #disability tropes #ableism #Still like the movie #just: disappointed

35 notes · View notes

slugass · 4 months

Text

the rant 😳

great job pissing off someone who doesn't even have strabismus

CW: Swearing, Discussion of Ableism, Brief mention of Sanism, Implied Killing (fictional), Mention of Bullying, Brief mention of Body Horror (skin peeling)

the concept of turning "where's waldo" into a horror game but goddamn did the dev have to use fucking strabismus to make the antagonist look "creepy" or "uncanny" or "wrong" when real people look like that?

seriously, if you don't mind being spoiled, and knives don’t bother you, just google it and look at the pictures. that is literally hypotropia.

I'm not hating on the people/person behind the game. I'm saying that they should be past giving their antagonists legit disabilites to make them "scary-looking" in a 2023 GAME.

there are other ways of making a character look creepy and uncanny besides giving them strabismus.

real people are bullied for being strabismic. using it to make a KILLER look "creepy" or "unhinged" is fucking bullshit and NOT the representation those people with the condition need.

-----

I hate seeing character designers use strabismus to make a character look "creepy" or "wrong" or "uncanny".

Just look at the bridge worms. The skinned peeling face is horrifying, the strabismus was not needed.

-----

also the villains wiki's bullshit "p$ych0pathic killer" omg that's so accurate and original!!! /s

-----

#let's find larry #rant #ableism #sanism #disability tropes #character design #strabismus #trevor henderson mention #do not harrass the people mentioned #do not harass the dev of lfl #im just tired of this trope #spoilers

2 notes · View notes

miseria-fortes-viros · 7 months

Text

best trope is the one where the character’s godlike power is also killing them btw. they don’t even lift a hand to kill the monster but now they’re delirious with fever. they save a friend’s life and said friend immediately finds them emergency medical care. they raze the enemy to nothing and it takes far too long to find their pulse with all the bruising. their friends just constantly having to patch them up and worrying over which feat will be their last. et cetera

#tropes #idek who this is about #but. disability metaphor i love you #helenaposting #greatest hits #best of #barbi.wip

30K notes · View notes

prokopetz · 5 months

Text

I've remarked in the past that first-wave literary cyberpunk's skepticism of body modification is typically rooted in concerns about capitalist intrusion upon bodily autonomy and ownership of human bodies, with the "prosthetics eat your soul" stuff developing later in order to allow authors to continue to write about angsty cyborgs without any political subtext which might be uncomfortable for mainstream audiences.

(Which is not to say that "prosthetics eat your soul" is, itself, apolitical, of course – it merely exchanges a potentially uncomfortable political subtext for one which able-bodied audiences found more palatable!)

While this is true as far as it goes, I think it's also important to recognise that, while first-wave literary cyberpunk did have all that bodily autonomy stuff, it was almost invariably being written by able-bodied authors who treated it as a metaphor for the artist's loss of intellectual freedom under the corporate state, rather than as a topic worth exploring in its own right. Like, give credit where credit is due, but don't give those guys too much credit; they largely weren't taking disability rights issues seriously, either.

I'm saying this because I've noticed an increasing tendency in certain circles to characterise modern self-styled "cripplepunk" incarnations of the cyberpunk genre as in some sense reactionary – i.e., like they're merely rolling back the clock to before cyberpunk sold out. The fact of the matter is that the golden age of disability-aware cyberpunk literature never existed, and folks who are taking a hard look at that aren't trying to "turn back the clock": they're giving the literal text of this shit the attention it deserves for possibly the first time.

#media #literature #cyberpunk #tropes #disability #ableism #politics #capitalism #swearing

3K notes · View notes

cy-cyborg · 2 months

Text

Disability Tropes: The disabling change of heart

When a character in a story becomes disabled, they'll sometimes experience a trope that I like to call "the disabling change of heart". This is when the character goes through a massive change in their outlook, their personality, their goals or even roll in the story, specifically because they became (or are about to become) physically disabled. Sometimes, this will be in relatively small ways: the happy-go-lucky comedic relief character might become bitter, angry and jaded after getting into an accident that caused a spinal injury, or the severally depressed and nihilistic character might suddenly start acting more cheerful and hopeful, stating that loosing their leg has "put things into perspective and showed them what really matters". In other cases though, the impact is much larger, the heroic character you've been hearing about looses an arm thanks to the main character's actions, causing them to become consumed with anger and self-loathing which they take out on everyone else, eventually becoming an antagonist as they seek revenge for what the main character did to them. The morally grey or even villainous character is injured by their own scheme, giving themselves a permanent disability in the process, which prompts a change of heart and leads them to turn their lives around and become better people, maybe even deciding to team up with the heroes.

Now, having a character go through a personality and goal change due to a major life event, such as becoming physically disabled, isn't inherently bad. A lot of writers are told to tie major shifts in your character's development to major life events, because realistically, something like becoming newly disabled will at least impact how you view the world around you. I very frequently talk about how if I didn't loose my legs, I would have become a vastly different person, but the issues with this trope depends on how it's used and the reasons behind these developments, and whether or not the change suits the character in question.

Before we get into things, I would like to specify that in this post, I'm only going to be talking about how this trope is used with physical disabilities and other easily visible forms of disability. It does show up with characters who develop disabilities under the mentally ill and neurodivergent umbrellas, and is actually a bit more common than what I'm talking about today, but the specific ways its utilised are so different that it's more or less a separate trope, and one that deserves much more attention than I could give it here as this is already going to be a pretty long post. So for today, I'm keeping to it's use with physical and visible disabilities, and we'll talk about how this trope is used with neurodivergence and mental illness another day.

The main thing you need to be mindful of is ensuring that you, as an author, are not including your ingrained biases about disability into the reasoning behind the change. Let's look at one of the examples from before, an evil character who, after loosing their arm (because it's almost always loosing an arm for some reason) becomes a villain and wants revenge against the main character. In a story like this example, the character who became an amputee often views this new disability as something that has ruined their life. It's something that has caused them to suffer, and they want to make the main character (or whoever has "wronged" them) suffer like they did. Stories like this example portray disability as something that is not just horrible, but life-destroying, especially with villains who become all-consumed by the misery this disability has brought them. Many stories that utilise this version of the trope also often perpetuate the idea that if you become disabled, you'll have to give up all the things you love and your goals, even when this wouldn't necessarily be true for the character in question.

Let's say your character was a knight, and the main character cut off their arm in a training accident. obviously you can't be a knight with only one arm because you can't fight anymore, so they left their order. Now this character has become a villain and has found power that "makes up" for their disability, perhaps magic or some other force that doesn't exist in the real world, and are back to get revenge on the character for ruining their lives. Here's the thing though, the loss of a limb, or at least, the loss of an arm specifically, often isn't the career ender people think it is, even back then. In fact, there are many historical records of real amputees continuing to serve as knights and other similar military roles after loosing an arm or at the very least, continuing to fight in other ways. One such example was Götz of the Iron Hand, a mercenary knight who lost his arm to a cannon. Götz had fought as part of the Roman empire's military in 1498, but shortly after left to form his own mercenary company. He lost his hand in 1504 and continued his career as a mercenary with the help of an iron prosthetic capable of holding his sword and the reigns of his horse, among many other things such as writing, for another 40 years. Götz wasn't unique in this though, several suits of armour from the same time period have been found with integrated prosthetic hands, though the names of their owners are unknown. There was also Oruç Reis (aka Aruj Barbarossa), A privateer admiral who served the Ottoman Empire in and around the Mediterranean who lost his left hand - earning him one of many nicknames: Silver-Hand, thanks to the colour of his prosthetic. Oruç, like Götz, continued his career for several more years until he was eventually killed in 1518.

My point in bringing this up, is to highlight how important it is to double check that the reason your character's whole motivation for turning to villainy, isn't just based on your ideas about what a disabled person can or can not do. Actually double check it, research it, especially if it's important for your plot.

Even in the cases where the disability in question actually would stop someone from being able to do something, the incorrect assumptions can still occur and cause issues in different ways. For example, a character in a more modern setting who looses their arm due to an accident the main character was responsible for while serving in the military would be discharged, ruining the character's plan to become a general some day. This absolutely would be devastating for a character like that, and they realistically could struggle to adjust, both in terms of getting used to their disability and finding new goals for their life. They may well feel anger at the main character, however, if you are portraying just living with a disability, in the case of this example, living with an amputation as inherently "suffering" for no other reason than they are disabled, it is still perpetuating those really negative ideas about disability. I've said this a few times in other posts, but villains who are evil or even just antagonists purely because they're disabled or are trying to avoid becoming disabled is a trope all its own and one that is best avoided if you yourself aren't disabled, as even outside of spreading these negative ideas about life with a disability, it's just an overdone and overused trope.

But what about when this trope goes in the other direction? when you have an antagonistic or even just morally grey character who becomes disabled and this is the catalyst that turns them into a good guy?

For the longest time, I knew I usually disliked this version of the trope too, but I couldn't put my finger on why. With disability being the reason someone became a villain, the underlying reason it's there is often able to be boiled down to "I, the writer, think being disabled would be terrible and life like that is inherently suffering, so this character is angry about it," which is obviously an issue (the "inherently suffering" bit, not the anger). However, when a character becomes good due to becoming disabled, the reasoning is usually more along the lines of, "this is a big change in a character's life that has caused them to reconsider and revaluate things" (or at least, that's what I thought). This isn't bad, nor is it necessarily unrealistic. Hell, as I already said, I do consider my disability to be a catalyst that made me into who I am today. I also know plenty of people who, after becoming disabled later in life, did have a big change in how they viewed themselves and the world, and who consider themselves better people since becoming disabled. It's far, far from a universal experience, mind you, but it does happen. So why did this version of the trope still not sit right with me?

Well, I think there's a few reasons for it. The first being that there's a tendency for non-disabled people to think real disabled people are just incapable of evil deeds, both in the sense that they aren't physically capable of doing them (which is bad and not even always true for the reasons we already discussed), but also in the sense that there's this idea that disabled people are, for some reason, inherently more "good" and "innocent" - As if breaking your back or loosing a limb causes all evil and impure thoughts to be purged from the body. This is a result of many folks viewing disabled people as child-like, and thus attributing child-like traits (such as innocence) to them, even subconsciously. This is an incredibly common issue and something disability rights organisations are constantly pushing back against, as this mentality can cause a lot of unnecessary barriers for us. With how often I and many other disabled people are subjected to infantilization, I would be honestly shocked if it wasn't at least partially responsible for people thinking becoming disabled is a good reason to kick off a redemption arc.

This infantilization isn't unique to physically disabled people by the way, in fact it's way, way, more commonly directed at people with intellectual and developmental disabilities - or at least, people are more open about it, but as I already mentioned, how that is reflected in tropes like The Disabling Change of Heart is vastly different and deserves a post of it's own.

That's mostly just speculation on my part though, since that infantilising mindset does show up a lot in media, but not usually as part of this trope specifically.

However, it's not the only reason I wasn't a fan of it. When the disabling change of heart is used to fuel redemption arcs, I think, once again, that the disability itself being credited with causing the change directly is another factor. When this happens, it's usually because "it put things into perspective for me and showed me what really mattered."

This sounds better than our previous example on the surface, but stories that use this logic are often still portraying disability as an inherently bad and tragic thing, something so bad, in fact, that it makes all the other (legitimate) issues they thought were massive before seem so small by comparison. This is a type of inspiration porn: content made to make non-disabled people feel inspired or just better about their own situation. It's the mentality of "well my life is bad, but it could be worse, at least I'm not disabled like that!"

In a fictional story, this might look like an athlete character who dreamed of making it big so they could be famous and get out of poverty. They were a dick to anyone who got in their way but only because they were worried about not being able to make rent if they don't constantly win. One day though, they overworked themselves and got into a car accident on the way home because they were too tired, and now they're in a wheelchair and can no longer walk, which is (supposedly) absolutely tragic and way worse than anything else they were already going through. But they end up becoming a better person because it has put things into perspective for them. Yeah they were struggling to make ends meet, but at least they weren't disabled! Now that they are, they know they shouldn't have cared so much, because money doesn't matter when compared to not being able to walk, right?

As well as portraying disability in a negative light, these kinds of stories dismiss and diminish the other struggles or challenges the character is experiencing, placing the status of "not disabled" above all else.

There's also the fact that, when a lot of real people say their disabilities had positive impacts on their lives, they don't usually mean the disability itself is directly responsible for the change. There's exceptions of course but for myself personally, and most of the people I know who say they are better people because of/since becoming disabled, the disability has been more of a neutral catalyst than the actual cause of positive change. Meaning, it opened the door to allow those changes to happen, but it wasn't the direct cause. For me personally, becoming physically disabled at a young age didn't make me a nice person like people expect, I was still a little judgemental asshole for a lot of my childhood. However, because I was disabled, I had to travel a lot, initially because I needed medical treatment that my local hospital wasn't equip to provide, and later, because I started competing in disability sports. because of both of those things, I met people I never would have otherwise who made me reconsider what I'd been taught on a wide range of subjects, and made me question where those beliefs had come from in the first place. When I say my disability played a part in who I became, it wasn't because my disability itself change me, but it helped me meet people who were positive influences on me and my life. but when creatives make characters who experience arcs like this, they ignore this, again, defaulting to the "this was a bad thing that just put all my other problems into perspective" reasoning.

Some iterations of this trope also use disability as a kind of "karmic punishment" where the disability is portrayed as a rightfully deserved punishment for an evil character's deeds - usually something relating to the disability they acquired but not always. An example might look like an evil tyrant who punishes the rebels they captured by cutting off their hands. Eventually, this catches up with him, maybe the friend or a child of one of the rebels is able to capture the tyrant and cuts his hands off as payback so that he gets a taste of his own medicine, a taste of the suffering he imposed on others. Now facing at least one of the same realities of the people he subjugated, he realises the error of his ways. With some pressure from the main characters, he has a change of heart and surrenders himself, steps down to let someone else take his place, or perhaps he decides to start changing policies to be more in-line with these new morals until some other character usurps him, becoming an even bigger threat than the previous former tyrant.

Once again, stories that use a disability like this are still portraying the disability as an overall inherently bad thing, but there's the added layer at play in this example. The thing is, there are a lot of people in real-life who actually believe disability is a punishment from God. I remember one time when I was over in the US, an older lady came and sat down on the seat beside me on the bus and started asking me about my disability and specifically, how I became disabled. This isn't an unusual interaction, it happens fairly regularly whenever I use public transport, but on this particular day, the conversation suddenly shifted when I told her I became disabled when I was very young. This woman, despite the bus-driver's best efforts to get her to stop, ended up lecturing me for an hour and a half (during which time I couldn't move due to how my wheelchair was held in place) about how my disability was punishment from God for my parent's sins. She then tried to convince me to attend her church, claiming they would be able to heal me. And the thing is, this isn't an uncommon experience.

A lot of disabled people are targeted by cults using this same method: they'll convince people their disabilities are a punishment, make them believe they deserved it, that they just weren't good enough, but don't worry, if you repent and come to our specific church we can heal you. There was even a case in Australia recently that uncovered a cult called Universal Medicine, who taught that disabled people were reincarnations of evil people, and that being disabled in this life was their punishment, as well as that parents who have disabled children were being punished for other sinful behaviours. They were found to be operating a disability care service named Fabic that was being paid for by the NDIS, a subsection of the Australian government funded healthcare system that specifically aids disabled Australians by paying for and subsidising treatments, technologies (such as mobility aids) and other services relating to their disability. Fabic was found to be stealing excessive amounts of funding from their disabled clients under the guise of therapies and carer services, but was not actually helping their clients at all. Whether it's just taking advantage of them to get their money, or actually using this logic as a justification to mistreat them, this mentality of "disability is a punishment" actually gets real disabled people hurt or worse, and so seeing it come up in media, even if there is no ill-intent, can be very distressing and uncomfortable for disabled audiences.

So with all this being said, is the disabling change of heart a trope you should avoid in all it's forms and versions? No, but it does need to be handled with extreme care. I do think it should be avoided as a reason for a character becoming evil for the most part. If that really can't be avoided in your story though, at the very least, ensure that you foreshadow the change. Your happy little ray of sunshine, embodiment of sweetness and innocence type character probably isn't going to turn murderous and want revenge for an accident for example. A character who is likely to be driven to that kind of extreme of wanting revenge for their disability, so much so that they become a villain, probably already had at least a few traits that would predispose them to that line of thinking already, before becoming disabled. As for when it goes in the other direction, and you have a character becoming a good guy, avoid using the reasoning that "the disability put things into perspective for me". Instead, if you must use this version of the trope, use the character's new disability as the reason they encountered other people and situations that challenged their views, things they wouldn't have encountered otherwise. No matter the reason though, be very careful to avoid inspiration porn, and as always, try to find a sensitivity reader to give your story a once-over, just to make sure something didn't slip under your radar.

[Thumbnail ID: An illustrated image showing the same elf character twice. The picture of her on the left shows her laughing evilly, two tiny horns protruding through her brown hair. She is wearing a black dress and red shoes. On the right shows her in a yellow dress, sitting in a bright pink wheelchair with her head held eye and her eyes closed. The horns have been replaced with a glowing halo. In the centre is text that reads: "Disability Tropes: The disabling change of heart." /End ID]

521 notes · View notes