The Rosie Project

Post Reply New Topic

'The Rosie Project' blooms with hilarity
Korina Lopez, USA TODAY 2:03 p.m. EDT September 29, 2013

USA TODAY Rating ****

When it comes to social skills, on a scale of 1-10, Don Tillman is a zero. As a genetics researcher, Don has extensive knowledge of autism and Asperger's syndrome, but can't take a joke and never cries at movies, not even Casablanca. Despite his familiarity with Asperger's, he doesn't realize he himself has it.

As he rounds the bend toward his 40th birthday, Don decides it's time he find a wife. Traditional approaches in the past, like blinds dates, always ended awkwardly, if not disastrously, such as the time his date refused to eat any flavor of ice cream other than apricot. His date insisted on apricot even though Don explained there really is no taste difference, it's a matter of chilling the taste buds. Things didn't really go anywhere after that spat.

So he creates The Wife Project, a long, detailed questionnaire for prospective mates, an efficient way to weed out inappropriate matches such as smokers, vegetarians and women who are habitually late.

The rest of the story... http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/book ... w/2870673/

So the reporter has the qualifications to diagnose Autism? Just being quirky is not enough to qualify as having AS. That's not what Autism is.

It's a novel. That confused me at first too.

IC. Unless the author is Autistic him or her self, then they haven't the insight to accurately depict something they are not capable of understanding. It's easy to parody from afar, but you can't inform a character with authenticity if their entire life experience is utterly alien to you.

You could write a novel about a giraffe that works as a CPA and lives in a third floor walkup, but it wouldn't mean you know anything about wildlife or accounting.

I don't see how one could understand the epigenome and fail to self diagnose such a prevalent condition. Scaling sociability in ten ambiguous groups demeans the reviewer's own social skills; she did land a job at a tabloid. This review reads like a trailer for the pilot episode of a cancelled sitcom.

Furthermore I can't see how a genetecist could ever end up on a date with anyone who didn't understand basic physiology. I agree, this all seems contrived.

There was a review in the latest Entertainment Weekly's book section. I put a hold on it at the library, so I will reserve judgment until I read it. But since I'm not an autism expert either, it can only be my opinion as to whether the character's depicted accurately and fairly.

And I disagree, Willard. Since when did any author write only characters who are exactly like him or herself? Would that mean no woman could accurately write a male character or vice versa? A Catholic couldn't write a believable Buddhist character or a Jew a believable Quaker?

Writers research. They observe family, friends and colleagues who are different from themselves. That's what empathy is all about -- getting inside someone else's skin and doing your best to understand him or her. Nobody's perfect at it, but a good author will write characters who ring true.

I read this book several months ago and I thought it was pretty good.
Yes, I raised my eyebrow a couple of times that he couldn't identify Aspergers within himself but this isn't a book that takes itself too seriously - it's a lighthearted comedy with a little romance. I enjoyed it for what it was - I may be biased as it's set in Melbourne by an Australian author.

I'm most of the way through reading The Rosie Project.
I find it an entertaining read.

As for who is diagnosing what:

It shouldn't be assumed that the reporter is just making her own assumptions. She may have read a synopsis from the author or publisher.

It also shouldn't be assumed that the author is basing the character Don on his own assumptions. As an amateur writer myself, I spend more time on the research than I do on the writing. The research is equally enjoyable and not just utility to the writing. Almost all writers I've followed are just as keen on the research part.

Most fiction involves exaggerated, charicatured or archetyped characters. And why should any personality type or neurological type be excluded from character creation?

As an amateur writer, I struggle to create characters, but I persist because a) I love to write, and b) the process helps me to understand people, perhaps by exploring characters as archetypes etc. Turning up the contrast causes traits and motives to stand out.

Just some thoughts.
Cheers,

The book is being made into a movie
Catastrophe Director Ben Taylor Handling The Rosie Project

Overall, the book is very funny and not intended for much serious consideration. That said, there is one message or theme that's pounded into the reader.

What do you all think of the idea that a character, or a real person, can be so completely wrong about what they think their requirements are for a partner?

Another stereotyped AS character. I'm sick of all the novels portraying people with ASDs as cold and emotionless people, computer hackers or potential killers and active shooters. Enough already!