the fulfilled motifs in alhaitham and kaveh's relationship are on my brain!!
- most poignantly, the two coming together to unveil the temple of silence in cyno’s story quest, which parallels their thesis on ancient architecture and runes of king deshret’s era, as the two appropriate the other’s respective signature (alhaitham recognises architectural structures whereas kaveh is struck by the beauty of an emblem) - where the two once fell out due to the disharmony of their viewpoints, they have reconciled them within this quest
- there’s the two working together in the house of daena, where they argued in the house of daena upon meeting them in the archon quest, where they were described to have a ‘terrible’ relationship by the npc geoff, which is mirrored in cyno’s story quest by the two actively working together - as well as paralleling the npc archon quest scene the player has to actively seek out in which the two argue once more, whereas in cyno’s story quest, the two willingly exchange information and are supportive in helping the other
- we have the fulfilment of kaveh losing his family and therefore his idea of ‘home’ through him actively referring to the house he and alhaitham share as ‘home’, and that he wants to return to it together with alhaitham, as a set, and by implication a family, in cyno’s story quest
- by extension, kaveh not concealing his living arrangements by openly referring to him and alhaitham’s ‘home’ in front of his friends, which refers back to when kaveh asks the traveller to keep it a secret upon meeting him officially in alhaitham’s story quest
- kaveh buying wine and coffee beans in the tavern, alhaitham and kaveh sharing wine in their house, which is something they are mentioned to do in the bulletin boards of sumeru as well as in alhaitham's story quest, going hand in hand with the two drinking coffee together in the house of daena, with kaveh mentioning he wishes he had made some for them before leaving the house, which refers back to his 2023 birthday letter where he and alhaitham taste tested coffee beans (i am, once again asking, for an alhaitham mention in 2024....),
for future sumeru quests or events i am thinking of the unfulfilled instances or things that can be addressed??
- whether kaveh accepts alhaitham's research into sachin's influence over his father as closure for his involvement in his father disappearing into the desert, as his reaction differs from whether alhaitham tells him vs when the traveller tells him. since cyno's story quest 2 indicates that alhaitham telling him is what happened in canon, this subsequently betters their relationship. the idea of kaveh's cycle of self-detriment due to his past guilt hasn't been addressed since apop and it remains uncertain as to if kaveh has made steps to forgive himself or if he even wants to. this development of kaveh's character is truly interesting and i would love to see it explored at some point, and also in turn what alhaitham's involvement is in this, as in his newly accepted support of kaveh
- kaveh writing to/visiting his mother in fontaine? or at least a mention of kaveh's mother, as his hangout has a heavy focus on faranak's past relationship with kaveh and her hopes for his future, which we see in her advice to him as a struggling artist being that to found reliable companions. if kaveh undergoes a reconciliation arc within himself, as in he aims to forgive himself for his past guilt, then it would make sense for him to have a reconnection with his mother to talk about the past in order to truly look to the future
- kaveh and alhaitham having a role to play in the exploration of the temple of silence in future events - hints of this may be seen in sethos cautioning cyno that he may only invite people he and lord kusanali deem worthy, for cyno to then tell alhaitham and kaveh upon arriving back in sumeru. To this, kaveh expresses an open interest and cyno tells him that he will have an opportunity to investigate in the future. As alhaitham and kaveh have teamed up together in order to investigate into the temple of silence, and are indirectly connected to it through their thesis of king deshret, it seems they will likely be a part of the role the temple of silence will play in the future
(- i thought that an unfulfilled instance could be kaveh referring to alhaitham as his friend in game as this would be a callback to when paimon asked whether he and alhaitham were friends, to which he replied that they ‘used to be’ but weren’t anymore… but in terms of how alhaitham and kaveh's relationship is handled in-game, i think queercoding plays a big part in having labels such as ‘friends’ continue to be evaded (i have spoken about definitive labels being avoided in the writing of haikaveh here), this is backed up by sethos’ voice line as the two are paired together as “alhaitham and kaveh” and are referenced as a set with “those two”, rather than a definitive label such as ‘roommates’ or ‘friends’ being placed on them. Rather, they are conceived to be something outside of this, as sethos conveys their ‘otherness’ with “something about those two hanging out, you just can’t look away”, so i think, imo, it would fall more in line for them to continually not be assigned definitive relationship status, but if the improvement of their relationship is actually mentioned in-game since it was only shown and not told in cyno's story quest 2, it would make sense for them to say something that indicates they overcame misunderstandings or something vague like that. as there's an air of secrecy around alhaitham and kaveh's relationship, the traveller won't ever be privy to the specific details)
66 notes
·
View notes
I keep thinking about how no one seems to think about nuance when it comes to like, the concept of "autistic traits / symptoms" and discussing them, and how that is intertwined with the push to not consider it a disability. And its complex to discuss, but here's my convoluted thoughts. I know it's long but I hope people will take the time to read it.
There are in fact people who do fit some commonly associated with autism traits that are not impaired by them. Let's make up a guy, for a second:
They like routine and repetition a lot but easily handle change in them. For example they wear the same set of clothes for years with no desire to ever branch out, but if you made them wear something else they wouldnt really be bothered by it as long as they dont think it's super ugly, etc. They like to watch the same movies over and over but happily agree to watch other things with their friends when spending time together, and are engaged and interested in those movies. Etc. They speak very formally or choose "complicated" words for things that could be expressed easier. They however do not face problems with communication beyond annoyance of others because they're able to rephrase things easily to be understood, and they also have a normal back and forth in conversations and initiate conversations normally. They sometimes engage in subtle self stimulating behaviors and recognize the desire to do so during boring or stress inducing times (which pretty much everyone does, btw). They dislike loud environments but do not respond with melt- or shutdowns or any other "severe" reactions, and while for example preferring to go to a museum over a club, they easily go through their daily life in busy areas like city centers, shops or cultural events like parades without issues beyond like, mild annoyance and no desire to stay for longer than necessary. They have strong interests in seemingly random topics and spend quite some time researching or engaging with those, but they do not view the world through the lense of said interest, they do not neglect caring for themselves or fulfilling academic or professional responsibilities because they are so engrossed in their interests, they are easily able to hold conversations about other topics. I could go on.
This person would not be diagnosed with autism by any doctor who pays attention to the impairment clause of the diagnosis. They would probably be told "you're subclinical / you do not meet enough criteria / ..." While his person would probably relate quite a bit to (parts of) descriptions of (level 1 and / or low support needs and / or high masking) autism. And this is an imaginary person I made up, but these people obviously exist (and as a side note, are probably what people refer to when they talk about "everyone being a little autistic" etc)
And this person being told they're not autistic might be upset. Because clearly, they have so many autistic traits. They relate to so many videos! But the thing is! There is no impairment! The one thing that connects all of the symptoms related to autism to the actual diagnosis. This does not mean they do not in fact relate to the autistic experience. This does not mean these parts of their life or personality are fake / non existent / not important to who they are and how they experience things. But it is important to differentiate. If they consider themselves autistic, if the world considers them autistic, it waters down the definition to a point of being categorically useless from a medical standpoint, from a standpoint of figuring out who needs support and in what ways. Who needs (early) intervention, who needs extra support in school or at work or at home or in public.
And like. Humanity at large will probably always want to shove themselves into random categories. "Which character are you like?" "What is your personality style?" "What is your star sign?" or "which sports team do you support", and countless more come to mind. I dont think this imaginary person is wrong or silly for wanting to find a category of people they are like, or recognizing this similarity with some autistic people. I wouldnt even mind if they made up a non-clinical category / group of people who relate to autistic experiences without the impairment. It would get the point across that it is a group of people with shared experiences, but it is not the same as autism.
However autism is increasingly treated like something thats just a personality type without impairment, by people online and offline. And when they go "this is an autism symptom" without nuance, without looking at the need for impairment, or even differential diagnosis, it spreads that attitude. "Liking to eat the same foods is an autistic trait"... or is it normal to have food preferences to a degree if it does not cause you stress to eat new foods, if you are capable of eating other food if hungry and presented with them and not the food you prefer? Or is this person anorexic and their mind has created categories of "allowed to eat" and "not allowed to eat" based on arbitrary categories relating to their fear of weight gain? "Only eating with small spoons at home is a common autistic trait"... or is it a harmless preference as long as you are still able to eat food outside a strict routine set up with zero possible deviations? Or is it a person with OCD and eating with small spoons is a compulsive behavior for some sort of intrusive thoughts?
I could go on forever. But in the end, these short sentences are all the same. They are, at the same time: autistic experiences and allistic experiences, because they are so non specific. They are watered down and any additional information is removed.
autism is about a specific combination of experiences that impair you. That's literally all it is. It does not automatically turn us into a category of "other" that is fully not possible to relate to, because we are human too. And some of it will be relatable to people that are not autistic!
And there is value in discussions of experiences of autistic people that go beyond the impairment, as long as we do not forget about it, or treat it as secondary instead of the defining factor. I dont mind if autistic people bond over something they're not impaired by, that they see as a common experience, for example not easily going along with authority. Being creative. Preferring the small spoon (without being impaired by it while having other impairments), whatever, and call those common autistic experiences. But those are not the pillars of what make up autism and solely relating to them should not be your reason for calling yourself autistic. Neither should relating to commonly impairing symptoms without being impaired by your version of them. The impairments resulting from abnormal development are what makes someone autistic.
There needs to be more nuance, detail, when discussing autism symptoms. And the push to, at the very least, expand autism into an area of experiences that do not cause impairment of any kind, or worse claim it never caused impairment, need to stop. It does not help anyone.
I genuinely think part of the whole "everyone is autistic these days" crowd who likes to go after people and invalidate them has picked up on some of this, but they lack the skills to criticize it for what it actually is and / or they want there to be a simple solution, which is that everyone who calls themselves autistic online who does not fit their very stereotypical view is faking. They are wrong of course. But I dont think this comes out of nowhere. There is something to criticize about how autism is treated in many circles, especially among younger people.
I'm really not sure how to end this post because I like to come to some conclusions on my long posts but just. Uhm. The way some people treat "autistic traits" as completely unrelated to the impairment they cause while staying exclusively autistic traits is wrong. The way people try to redefine autism is harmful and in the end not needed because they could simply invent other words for that experience.
74 notes
·
View notes