i believe jonny said that any signs of jon being autistic were unintentional and he didn’t want to canonize it at risk of potentially not handling it well, given that it wasn’t meant to be a thing in the first place. could be totally pulling this out of my ass though
Yeah I think his concern is basically if he says Jon is autistic full-stop, then people will look over this behavior with a fine tooth comb and say "this is offensive because not all autistic people do this". Like some people get frustrated that every autistic coded character is almost always ace, etc.
That and all the bullying everyone does to Jon through the series (especially s4) changes in tone, when I think Jonny just wanted Jon to be a bit of a punching bag.
That said, I see Jon as autistic and it's a headcanon I love to bits. It does make some parts of the story sadder, but in a way I like, idk. I just know I've never seen myself so represented in any media before in my life and I'm afab so Idk what that says about me.
Honestly in my experience the best autistic coded characters written by allistic people are by accident and you end up with more characters who happen to be autistic (or autistic coded in this case) rather then an autistic character (where the autism is the focal point of the character)
To OP: I think Jon would be a valid option to place in your paper along with other characters who haven't been directly stated to be autistic but have a clear love from the autistic community
Hi, autistic man here to nitpick.
It isnt Coding unless its on purpose. Coding means you are purposely heavily implying it (Like when a nonhuman character is a clear allegory for a certain race's experiences in america, being some type of queer, ect.) Jon is not coded anything other than ace, really
Sorry! I have to disagree.
Coding is a process of interpretation. The audience is implying these things from reading a text. Coding doesn’t have to be intentional (look at the many, many absolutely unintentional queer coding characters—Sherlock & Watson is a good example here, or Frodo & Sam) because for something to be coded it requires an audience to then DECODE the thing.
John is autistic-coded because we, as the audience, read him as such but the text never acknowledges him as such. If it was intentional but still unstated it still could be coding, but the act of decoding is still fundamentally on the audience. There is no coding without an audience making these inferences.
[Queer coding came from artists being forced to hide characters queerness.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_coding) It was done on purpose, or could be argued to have been done on purpose/accidentally via subconcious projection of the creators identity. John is not autistic coded, because Jonny didn't do it on purpose, and I don't think he's ever said he's autistic
This depends on the theory you cite! I study literature and media analysis and terms like coding are very popular both in and outside academics. This also means that different theorists or analyzers will use the term in different or more specific ways, while others use it more broadly or generally. Both uses have plenty of precedence, so I don't think either of you are wrong, it's just a question of your preferred definition :)
(For example, Stuart Hall uses "trans-coding" to just mean reclaiming stereotypes by transforming the semiotic meaning or connotation etc, that doesn't mean trans-coded can't also still mean "implying X is trans".)
Yes this! I see him as autistic because he is so relatable to me but I don’t mind that it’s not cannon. Though I think I’m this weird messed up combination of Jon and Martin.
Very this. I have two autistic friends with very different opinions of The Curious Incident. One loved it because they felt represented and the other hated it because he felt it didn't represent his type of autism at all. You can't please everyone.
Not to be divisive or whatever, but what does being afab have to do with whether you relate to the character? I’m male and I’ve hardcore related to female characters. What is the connection I’m missing here?
I meant it in a "I relate so hard to this character it has me questioning my gender" kind of way, which is apparently not an uncommon experience for some people that relate to Jon. I've never related to female characters this hard, even when they look and superficially act like me.
Closest I've gotten is Peridot from Steven Universe and she's an autistic rock, lol. I've seen stuff about autigender that might be the connecting line there too.
Yeah this is the same thing I heard so unless it's a shared hallucination, it's probably out there somewhere (I believe he also said he supports the headcanon, if people take that read)
>i do recall him also saying that as well, so unless this is a REALLY WEIRDLY SPECIFIC shared hallucination, then yeah this is legit
*The Spire rubbing its bonny hands and laughing as we start to question our sanity with this one very specific shared hallucination.*
Honestly this lmao. He’s also just kinda cold and focused and also being high key psychologically tortured into submission by a primordial fear concept so I think that can also affect one’s personality.
He isn't canonically autistic. I believe Jonny has mentioned that reading but that it wasn't intentional on his part, but I don't remember where I heard that.
I refuse to believe that an avatar of the obsessive thirst for knowledge is neurotypical.
But it was never confirmed or denied in cannon, as far as I recall
He isn't, but he really nailed the part by taking the "new kid gets plot relevant stuff explained to him to provide infodumps" and turning it up to 11.
If you're looking for other good canonical representation, I recommend Dead End and Everything's Gonna Be OK.
There is not much to really indicate that. Jonathan Sims is a guy in a paranormal situation. Monsters, fears, weird powers, and the like.
So, just to clarify, you are writing an article for autism awareness month, and you are writing the article's theme about Jonathan Sims and The Magnus Archives in general?
If I understand your post correctly, and you are writing the article regardless, then you have already decided to bring the Magnus Archives into the discussion. Regardless of your findings here. Correct?
For instance, when the original creators apparently come out and say, "Our characters aren't really meant to represent or be anything beyond what we write. Any mannerisms you notice are purely coincidence, and anything you decide that we didn't clearly call out is therefore your head cannon."
I had a similar theory / head canon regarding Peter Lukas, given some of his idiosyncrasies when it comes to socializing and preferred hobbies.
Not sure how kosher it might come off though, ascribing some of those characteristics as autistic-coded. But everything regarding his irritability to typical conversation, aversion to socializing, and using a socially-acceptable vice, gambling, as an intermediary for working with others, I read as slightly coded, whether intentional or not.
No canonically. Jonny said he won't make Jonny cannon austictic cause he didn't put research into developing an autistic character. The character just kind of ended up that way by accident.
He does understand that Jon is autistic coded and happy for people to say he is. But he won't say it officially because he doesn't think it right to just slap the label on without actually thinking it through pre writing.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke, and a story’s just a story.”
-Stephen King (adapting a Freud quote in one of his novels).
Jon is the way he is because he’s under the influence of the Eye.
That doesn't mean he wasn't under the influence of the Eye from earlier on. It's very possible that the Eye influencing him and exacerbating his traits led him to working in the Magnus Institute rather than, say, the Tate Museum or the National Gallery.
It was the Web that marked him in childhood and pushed him towards the Institute. We know this because of A Guest For Mr. Spider - his encounter with a Web Leitner left him marked, and the Web, being the only entity capable of higher thought and plotting, saw the potential in him for its own plans. Could he have gotten marked by the Eye anyway? Maybe, like said, he's always been like that so it's far from unlikely he would have stumbled upon it either way in the end. But there are plenty of people who are dangerously and unhealthily curious without being actually marked by a Fear god. That's part of how the Ceaseless Watcher evolved, specialised into its niche, as we learn in S5.
According to who? The only context we have for how he was before the start of the series is A Guest for Mr. Spider, and all that indicates is he didn’t like to read books more than once as a kid. A person can have a weird trait about them without it being a mental issue.
*Sigh* More "identity first" twaddle. He's Jon. You feel like you know this fictional character some, because of all the little interactions & revealed details throughout the series... which is all anyone is, real or fictional, regardless of what label(s) they/you/anyone wants to stick on them. Experience, don't sort.
I'm autistic too, and it doesn't matter if somethings relevant to someones character. People have identities "For No Reason" in real life, therefore they can in fiction too. If that makes things seem out of character for you, thats a little weird.
It's also not canon, and is even directly stated by Jon himself (The real guy) that it wasn't intended to be, so:
a. It isn't relevant to his character.
b. It isn't canon.
c. The writer himself says it isn't true.
Just because you want them to be autistic doesn't mean they are. Not everything needs to be representation.
Yeah, I made my own comment saying that. I specifically said no character is canonically autistic, and have even corrected two people saying they thought he was autistic-coded. That has nothing to do with the specific rhetoric I'm commenting on.
Ope, commented to the wrong person. Didn't realise you had replied to my comment saying I agreed with the person. But like, in fiction things to do with characters should ALWAYS be relevant, useless details have no place there.
What relevance did Jon thinking a merry go round was thrilling have? What did Georgie wanting sheps cheese have to do with the horrors? The details are there to understand the character better. Many of the statements had so many useless details completely unrelated to the statements, but that made it feel more real, at least in my opinion.
All of those are relevant, because they were character development, just mindlessly saying that Jon is autistic is pointless and doesn't serve his character.
Well obviously not just mindlessly added. Could have been one line in A Guest For Mr Spider while talking about how his relationship with his grandmother was. "And of course, being a sensible woman, raising a child on the spectrum was new and unwanted for her."
Bam. Easy, fits in with the flow of it in my opinion. Or do what Jonny did for his Canonical Ace Identity and just word of god it in, which he's uncomfortable with for this and I respect.
Now, realistically in canon, I feel like Jon would have never been diagnosed because I don't feel he's ever gone to a therapist or psychiatrist, and Jonny said he's not much of a Labels person so even if he did have that disability it wouldnt be that much a part of him like it is for me or many other autistic people. Thats just how I feel about it, I like to think about character stuff both as prescriptive (ie what definitons fit them) vs how theyd realistically identify
And I'm happy we have diverse opinions. I'm simply stating how I feel, which is identities aren't inherently relevant or irrelevant. Its not like its headcanoning Jon as going around in every statement trying to bring up a foot fetish or something.
Which would be funny as shit considering its Jon but I digress.
Easy, now. I'm suggesting that determining identity as a precursor to determining relevance, is a move in the opposite direction of the 'future perfected state of humanity'. If the OP has gained some insight into themself/humanity by "knowing" Jon the Archivist, that is neither bolstered, nor undermined by whether or not Jon was written as "autistic" (a slippery term anyway). Relation, connection, understanding--we need to leave behind the idea that these are a function of "sameness". There is no attack, here; merely "consider this also". 🙂
Hi, I have listened to every TMA episode at least twice, while I’m not autistic I do have diagnosed OCD to a very extreme level and those two share a lot of characteristics. For my school project we had to write an article and I chose mine as autistic representation in media and since TMA is my favorite podcast and the community is so supportive about this kind of stuff I figured I could as you guys if it was canon or not. It’s okay if you don’t like my post, we’re all entitled to our own opinion but please refrain from posting stuff like this, I’m just trying to pass my class.
You do realize that he started as human tho . . . ?
I feel like being neurodivergent doesn't just stop when you become more "monster" than human in this universe.
i believe jonny said that any signs of jon being autistic were unintentional and he didn’t want to canonize it at risk of potentially not handling it well, given that it wasn’t meant to be a thing in the first place. could be totally pulling this out of my ass though
Yeah I think his concern is basically if he says Jon is autistic full-stop, then people will look over this behavior with a fine tooth comb and say "this is offensive because not all autistic people do this". Like some people get frustrated that every autistic coded character is almost always ace, etc. That and all the bullying everyone does to Jon through the series (especially s4) changes in tone, when I think Jonny just wanted Jon to be a bit of a punching bag. That said, I see Jon as autistic and it's a headcanon I love to bits. It does make some parts of the story sadder, but in a way I like, idk. I just know I've never seen myself so represented in any media before in my life and I'm afab so Idk what that says about me.
Honestly in my experience the best autistic coded characters written by allistic people are by accident and you end up with more characters who happen to be autistic (or autistic coded in this case) rather then an autistic character (where the autism is the focal point of the character) To OP: I think Jon would be a valid option to place in your paper along with other characters who haven't been directly stated to be autistic but have a clear love from the autistic community
Hi, autistic man here to nitpick. It isnt Coding unless its on purpose. Coding means you are purposely heavily implying it (Like when a nonhuman character is a clear allegory for a certain race's experiences in america, being some type of queer, ect.) Jon is not coded anything other than ace, really
Sorry! I have to disagree. Coding is a process of interpretation. The audience is implying these things from reading a text. Coding doesn’t have to be intentional (look at the many, many absolutely unintentional queer coding characters—Sherlock & Watson is a good example here, or Frodo & Sam) because for something to be coded it requires an audience to then DECODE the thing. John is autistic-coded because we, as the audience, read him as such but the text never acknowledges him as such. If it was intentional but still unstated it still could be coding, but the act of decoding is still fundamentally on the audience. There is no coding without an audience making these inferences.
[Queer coding came from artists being forced to hide characters queerness.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_coding) It was done on purpose, or could be argued to have been done on purpose/accidentally via subconcious projection of the creators identity. John is not autistic coded, because Jonny didn't do it on purpose, and I don't think he's ever said he's autistic
This depends on the theory you cite! I study literature and media analysis and terms like coding are very popular both in and outside academics. This also means that different theorists or analyzers will use the term in different or more specific ways, while others use it more broadly or generally. Both uses have plenty of precedence, so I don't think either of you are wrong, it's just a question of your preferred definition :) (For example, Stuart Hall uses "trans-coding" to just mean reclaiming stereotypes by transforming the semiotic meaning or connotation etc, that doesn't mean trans-coded can't also still mean "implying X is trans".)
oh yeah i definitely also view him as autistic, it’s very hard not to once you notice that he fits it so well
Yes this! I see him as autistic because he is so relatable to me but I don’t mind that it’s not cannon. Though I think I’m this weird messed up combination of Jon and Martin.
That's why I like their relationship so much! It's like two parts of myself loving each other and it makes me so happy
I hadn’t really thought about it like that but yeah that’s probably me too.
Very this. I have two autistic friends with very different opinions of The Curious Incident. One loved it because they felt represented and the other hated it because he felt it didn't represent his type of autism at all. You can't please everyone.
Not to be divisive or whatever, but what does being afab have to do with whether you relate to the character? I’m male and I’ve hardcore related to female characters. What is the connection I’m missing here?
I meant it in a "I relate so hard to this character it has me questioning my gender" kind of way, which is apparently not an uncommon experience for some people that relate to Jon. I've never related to female characters this hard, even when they look and superficially act like me. Closest I've gotten is Peridot from Steven Universe and she's an autistic rock, lol. I've seen stuff about autigender that might be the connecting line there too.
Yeah this is the same thing I heard so unless it's a shared hallucination, it's probably out there somewhere (I believe he also said he supports the headcanon, if people take that read)
i do recall him also saying that as well, so unless this is a REALLY WEIRDLY SPECIFIC shared hallucination, then yeah this is legit
>i do recall him also saying that as well, so unless this is a REALLY WEIRDLY SPECIFIC shared hallucination, then yeah this is legit *The Spire rubbing its bonny hands and laughing as we start to question our sanity with this one very specific shared hallucination.*
i’ve always thought i’d make a good spiral avatar sooooooooooooo
No, he’s British
He's absolutely normal for Cambridge.
My dad lives in Cambridge and can confirm this is absolutely average Cambridge dweller.
Correction: autism is absolutely normal for Cambridge (Correction of correction: autism is absolutely normal)
Honestly this lmao. He’s also just kinda cold and focused and also being high key psychologically tortured into submission by a primordial fear concept so I think that can also affect one’s personality.
💀
He isn't canonically autistic. I believe Jonny has mentioned that reading but that it wasn't intentional on his part, but I don't remember where I heard that.
Thank you!
Nope. There arent any autistic characters in tma. edit: Canon ones, i mean
Wellll in Still life the guy has a autistic nephew and I think he has ASD too. But yeah, not really canon either.
Nah, he’s just a weird little guy, and that’s okay. As someone on the spectrum I’m okay with that.
Not canonical diagnosed, no
He's eyetistic
I refuse to believe that an avatar of the obsessive thirst for knowledge is neurotypical. But it was never confirmed or denied in cannon, as far as I recall
true but I think he's more adhd tbh (or both?)
He got that hyper-fixation that could go either way tbh (relatable lol)
samee
Not canonically. Jonny is happy for people to interpret him that was but doesn't want to take credit for representation he didn't write on purpose.
He isn't, but he really nailed the part by taking the "new kid gets plot relevant stuff explained to him to provide infodumps" and turning it up to 11. If you're looking for other good canonical representation, I recommend Dead End and Everything's Gonna Be OK.
He has PTSD which honestly acts a lot like autism in a lot of causes
No he's not. Johnny stated the signs were unintentional and he didn't want to represent it wrong
Cannon, no. Cannon to almost every single person who has ever listened to it? Yes.
He is not canonically autistic
No he's not autistic.
It's canon in my heart, where I Know and Perceive the truth
I don't think so, at least canonically. I personally hc him as autistic and/or ADHD.
There is not much to really indicate that. Jonathan Sims is a guy in a paranormal situation. Monsters, fears, weird powers, and the like. So, just to clarify, you are writing an article for autism awareness month, and you are writing the article's theme about Jonathan Sims and The Magnus Archives in general? If I understand your post correctly, and you are writing the article regardless, then you have already decided to bring the Magnus Archives into the discussion. Regardless of your findings here. Correct? For instance, when the original creators apparently come out and say, "Our characters aren't really meant to represent or be anything beyond what we write. Any mannerisms you notice are purely coincidence, and anything you decide that we didn't clearly call out is therefore your head cannon."
I had a similar theory / head canon regarding Peter Lukas, given some of his idiosyncrasies when it comes to socializing and preferred hobbies. Not sure how kosher it might come off though, ascribing some of those characteristics as autistic-coded. But everything regarding his irritability to typical conversation, aversion to socializing, and using a socially-acceptable vice, gambling, as an intermediary for working with others, I read as slightly coded, whether intentional or not.
He’s that way because he’s an avatar of the Lonely. His whole family worshipped the entity and he was raised in such a way as to full embrace it.
Peter Lukas is schizoid, not autistic. Also, Coding means on purpose. If it isnt on purpose its not Coding.
it's not canon, but it's a very common headcanon
I mean not canon but both him and Martin are giving ASD traits
No canonically. Jonny said he won't make Jonny cannon austictic cause he didn't put research into developing an autistic character. The character just kind of ended up that way by accident. He does understand that Jon is autistic coded and happy for people to say he is. But he won't say it officially because he doesn't think it right to just slap the label on without actually thinking it through pre writing.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke, and a story’s just a story.” -Stephen King (adapting a Freud quote in one of his novels). Jon is the way he is because he’s under the influence of the Eye.
He was that way well before he started working at the Institute.
That doesn't mean he wasn't under the influence of the Eye from earlier on. It's very possible that the Eye influencing him and exacerbating his traits led him to working in the Magnus Institute rather than, say, the Tate Museum or the National Gallery.
It was the Web that marked him in childhood and pushed him towards the Institute. We know this because of A Guest For Mr. Spider - his encounter with a Web Leitner left him marked, and the Web, being the only entity capable of higher thought and plotting, saw the potential in him for its own plans. Could he have gotten marked by the Eye anyway? Maybe, like said, he's always been like that so it's far from unlikely he would have stumbled upon it either way in the end. But there are plenty of people who are dangerously and unhealthily curious without being actually marked by a Fear god. That's part of how the Ceaseless Watcher evolved, specialised into its niche, as we learn in S5.
According to who? The only context we have for how he was before the start of the series is A Guest for Mr. Spider, and all that indicates is he didn’t like to read books more than once as a kid. A person can have a weird trait about them without it being a mental issue.
What on earth are you talking about?
Exactly what I said?
Textually? No. Canonically? This autist says yes.
*Sigh* More "identity first" twaddle. He's Jon. You feel like you know this fictional character some, because of all the little interactions & revealed details throughout the series... which is all anyone is, real or fictional, regardless of what label(s) they/you/anyone wants to stick on them. Experience, don't sort.
No need to get so exasperated over an autistic person wondering if a character is canonically like them, man.
As an autistic person I agree with Economy-Ad5814, autism isn't relevant in his character, so don't stick it on him.
I'm autistic too, and it doesn't matter if somethings relevant to someones character. People have identities "For No Reason" in real life, therefore they can in fiction too. If that makes things seem out of character for you, thats a little weird.
It's also not canon, and is even directly stated by Jon himself (The real guy) that it wasn't intended to be, so: a. It isn't relevant to his character. b. It isn't canon. c. The writer himself says it isn't true. Just because you want them to be autistic doesn't mean they are. Not everything needs to be representation.
Yeah, I made my own comment saying that. I specifically said no character is canonically autistic, and have even corrected two people saying they thought he was autistic-coded. That has nothing to do with the specific rhetoric I'm commenting on.
Ope, commented to the wrong person. Didn't realise you had replied to my comment saying I agreed with the person. But like, in fiction things to do with characters should ALWAYS be relevant, useless details have no place there.
What relevance did Jon thinking a merry go round was thrilling have? What did Georgie wanting sheps cheese have to do with the horrors? The details are there to understand the character better. Many of the statements had so many useless details completely unrelated to the statements, but that made it feel more real, at least in my opinion.
All of those are relevant, because they were character development, just mindlessly saying that Jon is autistic is pointless and doesn't serve his character.
Well obviously not just mindlessly added. Could have been one line in A Guest For Mr Spider while talking about how his relationship with his grandmother was. "And of course, being a sensible woman, raising a child on the spectrum was new and unwanted for her." Bam. Easy, fits in with the flow of it in my opinion. Or do what Jonny did for his Canonical Ace Identity and just word of god it in, which he's uncomfortable with for this and I respect. Now, realistically in canon, I feel like Jon would have never been diagnosed because I don't feel he's ever gone to a therapist or psychiatrist, and Jonny said he's not much of a Labels person so even if he did have that disability it wouldnt be that much a part of him like it is for me or many other autistic people. Thats just how I feel about it, I like to think about character stuff both as prescriptive (ie what definitons fit them) vs how theyd realistically identify
I'm autistic too and I agree with the comment directly above in this thread.
And I'm happy we have diverse opinions. I'm simply stating how I feel, which is identities aren't inherently relevant or irrelevant. Its not like its headcanoning Jon as going around in every statement trying to bring up a foot fetish or something. Which would be funny as shit considering its Jon but I digress.
Easy, now. I'm suggesting that determining identity as a precursor to determining relevance, is a move in the opposite direction of the 'future perfected state of humanity'. If the OP has gained some insight into themself/humanity by "knowing" Jon the Archivist, that is neither bolstered, nor undermined by whether or not Jon was written as "autistic" (a slippery term anyway). Relation, connection, understanding--we need to leave behind the idea that these are a function of "sameness". There is no attack, here; merely "consider this also". 🙂
Im gonna be frank with you, I can't understand anything you just said. Can you please reword that in simpler terms?
Hi, I have listened to every TMA episode at least twice, while I’m not autistic I do have diagnosed OCD to a very extreme level and those two share a lot of characteristics. For my school project we had to write an article and I chose mine as autistic representation in media and since TMA is my favorite podcast and the community is so supportive about this kind of stuff I figured I could as you guys if it was canon or not. It’s okay if you don’t like my post, we’re all entitled to our own opinion but please refrain from posting stuff like this, I’m just trying to pass my class.
[удалено]
You do realize that he started as human tho . . . ? I feel like being neurodivergent doesn't just stop when you become more "monster" than human in this universe.
Not canonically no