You’re completely right, there is obviously no deeper meaning to presenting a character who is a mature adult yet requires structured classes in order to learn how human beings socialise.
Picard was written by different people who needed different things from the characters, however there were occasional moments where her previous manerisms showed through.
A feral child who was not ASD could have been portrayed like Mowgli (or, for a more Star Trek reference point, Tuvok when he had brain damage). Seven gradually learns how to navigate human interaction (and how to smile, for instance) through studying and is surprised when it’s occasionally useful, a non-ASD character could have learned through interpretation of people’s reactions and would have sought socialisation rather than peace and quiet in a neatly ordered cargo bay (I’m led to believe that’s how it works anyway).
All of the traits you’ve described also very much fit PTSD as well.
To me taking a Watsonian approach to the character we she a woman who was forcibly taken by the Borg and assimilated at a very young age, then years later ripped away from that as well. That’s two extremely traumatic events( that we know of). Then following on we see the character years later at a point where she has somewhat worked though those traumas.
A Doyalist reading we can say it was the 90s and discussions around neuro-divergency and more general mental health were far less common in media. So we’re probably both over reading things.
You may be right, the more of Voyager I watch the more flexible each character appears in order to fit around what the story requires. Apart from Tom Paris repeatedly being an idiot, that’s a constant.
We can agree to disagree and enjoy it on our own terms I guess. If I have been dismissive of your argument I would like to apologise, that was not my intention.
Im guessing based on your username this character is an obsession of yours, and there’s a need to insist your interpretations are absolute fact. But unless the writer’s state explicitly what they were intending with her character. Its all just opinions.
On another note. Despite what you might think based on a lot of comments, it is possible to discuss things on the Internet without being unnecessarily smug and condescending purely because someone contradicted your head cannon
Not an obsession, I tuned out of watching Voyager when it was first on TV and I’m partway through a complete watch now … she’s simply my favorite character from the show, and given that Star Trek fans have a pleasant and active community here I thought it was a good choice. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Being interpreted as smug was not my intention, I thought I was simply stating my opinion with equal force to the poster above. How should I have responded?
You’re completely right, there is obviously no deeper meaning to presenting a character who is a mature adult yet requires structured classes in order to learn how human beings socialise.
Yes because that’s exactly what I said.
She’s closer to a feral child than ASD. I also don’t feel that she has spectrum traits when we meet her again in Picard.
Picard was written by different people who needed different things from the characters, however there were occasional moments where her previous manerisms showed through.
A feral child who was not ASD could have been portrayed like Mowgli (or, for a more Star Trek reference point, Tuvok when he had brain damage). Seven gradually learns how to navigate human interaction (and how to smile, for instance) through studying and is surprised when it’s occasionally useful, a non-ASD character could have learned through interpretation of people’s reactions and would have sought socialisation rather than peace and quiet in a neatly ordered cargo bay (I’m led to believe that’s how it works anyway).
All of the traits you’ve described also very much fit PTSD as well.
To me taking a Watsonian approach to the character we she a woman who was forcibly taken by the Borg and assimilated at a very young age, then years later ripped away from that as well. That’s two extremely traumatic events( that we know of). Then following on we see the character years later at a point where she has somewhat worked though those traumas.
A Doyalist reading we can say it was the 90s and discussions around neuro-divergency and more general mental health were far less common in media. So we’re probably both over reading things.
You may be right, the more of Voyager I watch the more flexible each character appears in order to fit around what the story requires. Apart from Tom Paris repeatedly being an idiot, that’s a constant.
We can agree to disagree and enjoy it on our own terms I guess. If I have been dismissive of your argument I would like to apologise, that was not my intention.
🤣
Maybe the first comment was little dismissive, after that it was nice to have a r/daystruminstitute type conversation.
Im guessing based on your username this character is an obsession of yours, and there’s a need to insist your interpretations are absolute fact. But unless the writer’s state explicitly what they were intending with her character. Its all just opinions.
On another note. Despite what you might think based on a lot of comments, it is possible to discuss things on the Internet without being unnecessarily smug and condescending purely because someone contradicted your head cannon
Not an obsession, I tuned out of watching Voyager when it was first on TV and I’m partway through a complete watch now … she’s simply my favorite character from the show, and given that Star Trek fans have a pleasant and active community here I thought it was a good choice. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Being interpreted as smug was not my intention, I thought I was simply stating my opinion with equal force to the poster above. How should I have responded?
You’d think after eating all that kale you wouldn’t be so rudee