A Curious Incident of A Dog at Nighttime

Post Reply New Topic

I read it last month, someone recommand me so. Yet I did not enjoy it at all. I knew several people with AS, yet the book does not make me think about any of these acquientences in any sense.

What do you think about the book? It is famous in the UK, many NTs think that it is a good interpretation of people with AS. Yet from my point of view, I do not think so. The cliche here, everyone is a individual; so as everyone with AS. I feel indifferent about the fact, but do not really like catagorising.

Your opinions are the most welcome!

I posted about this in December:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt182674.html

Thank you^^ Again, Another curious incident of similar posting, I just met one today.

Lorna Wing, the person who defined AS what it is today, says that Raymond in Rain Man and Simon in Mercury Rising are good depictions of people with AS, just on the severe end. The higher, or less severe end, she used Sherlock Holmes as an example (from the books).

Take that for what you will.

O, and she used Mr Bean as an example of a good depiction of AS too.

O again, she also uses the book in question as an example of AS too, so there you go (just read it).

I found the book rather tiresome, I did not like it one bit.

To me, the main character in the book felt like a stereotype. It was kind of offensive to read, really, and I didn't enjoy it at all. (I was not recommended the book; it was a reading assignment.) I don't know whether it was an accurate depiction of someone on the lower end of the spectrum, but I sure wouldn't want anyone to compare me to him.

What's wrong with the character? I haven't read it, so I can't comment, other than reading what experts think.

What's out of place for AS?

I am NOTHING like Mr Bean. I don't know a single Aspie who's like Mr Bean. As far as I'm concerned, Mr Bean is not even meant to depict a human.

Sherlock Holmes is a good one though. Read all the books, and watch the Jeremy Brett shows, or maybe the Basil Rathbone ones, and then the modern BBC Sherlock, and you can see it all over him. I'm nicknamed Sherlock because we studied him at school and I frequently solved things before everyone else, and had a lot of the same characteristics. Someone said the books may as well have been written about me and my friend Sarah, so since then the nicknames Sherlock and Watson have stuck.

Anyway, when it comes to The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time, I didn't find Christopher a good example of someone with AS. I thought he was far nearer the other end of the spectrum, and would definitely be classed as having LFA, or at the very least MFA. All the same, I enjoyed the book.

It was announced yesterday that there will be a stage play adaptation of the book in London's National Theatre later this year!

I quite like the book myself, I can see why people might not like the automatic association with AS, but it's not an overly negative portrayal.

At one point in the somewhat-distant past, I came across a copy of that book. I took it from the person who owned it, and I started reading.
After a few pages, I couldn't identify with the main character at all, and I stopped reading.

Most fiction involving characters who have some form of autism seems to be made by people who don't know anything about it.
Adam, a movie which was showed on television here a few months ago, was something I set aside a normal evening for. It was an interesting romantic movie, but that was all.
The main character wasn't like me at all, yet was explicitly mentioned as having that diagnosis. If that's Asperger's syndrome, I might just be an eccentric 'neurotypical'.

Mozart and the Whale, which I watched after that, is even more inaccurate. It really shows a slapstick bunch of stereotypical idiots who would have been sent to an asylum in real life.
It's not something I'd recommend - the guy with Asperger's Syndrome is portrayed there as being obsessed with numbers, completely socially oblivious and even dangerous.
I know only one person who is even somewhat like that, and I've met plenty of people with that specific diagnosis.

I am quite similar to Sherlock Holmes regarding personality. But I don't think he is less severe. He's sort of right smack in the middle, like me, with mostly aspie traits but some social skills. Raymond, on the other hand, has kanner's...I read that somewhere. A more accurate depiction would be khan in my name is khan.

Really, I haven't read the book. I don't think it's available here. I'm just typing in what I know of other works regarding ASDs.

The two things that I didn't like about the book:

- the abundance of numbers and inserts of stuff about maths
- that Christopher is in special ed and goes to some kind of special school

When I read the book a couple of years ago, I thought that Christopher must be severe for being obsessed about maths (why not stop being obsessed and start being interested in people?) and because he is a special ed student. Since then, reality kindly pointed out me that most children with AS do go to special school whether they fit in there or not because normal schools claim they can't handle even tame, shy 10yo kids with mild AS and giftedness.

I also abandoned the idea that only severely affected people have special interests. I guess WP and kids who I know are an example of that even autistic people who at times appear to be "almost normal" can be utterly obsessed with one or more topics and that the degree of a special interests isn't an indicator for severity.

I'll never understand how there are people with AS who will talk at somebody (no, not with) about something their conversational partner doesn't care about. Why talk about what you like to other people anyway?

Other than that Christopher is also extremely verbal.

Christopher would be very textbook-ish but mild if Raymond were moderate (overall, his communication seemed to make him more mild?) and if Simon were somewhere around moderate to severe.

Christopher is noticeably different, often "awkward" and appearing strange to the people around him because he ignores a lot of social niceties that weren't taught to him during conversations. He very rarely seems noticeably disabled however but is treated like an utterly eccentric and either intelligent or immature/annoying child by those characters who know him. He shows little interests in understanding other people however although he has been taught a number of conversational rules that while he often managed to keep to are definitely hard for him to follow. He is actively engaging people when he wants something from them and he has limited insight (he only has insight if he is interested in having insight) in what other people might be thinking and what their intentions might be.

He has meltdowns... but apparently, having those says little about whether you're "almost normal" or "severely affected".

As far as repetitive behaviour goes, he is moderate. He has an extreme dislike for certain colours and won't eat foods that are yellow and brown (if I remember correctly, it's been 5 years since I read the book). He isn't shown to have friends but keeps busy with what he is interested in about all day long. Despite his rigid following of rules, he is shown to be able to deviate from planned routines if there is something else that he wants badly, although being as flexible causes him great distress.

He even designs a plan on travelling to another city (in search of his mother) and manages to travel to the unknown place by himself, successfully (albeit awkwardly and immaturely) interacting with people on the way that he cannot avoid. It's pointed out a lot that during his "journey" to his mother he keeps a knife in his jacket because he isn't sure whether someone will try to kidnap him and bring him back to his father (who he ran away from).

So, I'd think a textbook example but mild for a child who has been growing up knowing he has AS and who receives a lot of special services for it (instead of being told to tough it out). His father is quite overprotective too, Christopher has missed out on a couple of experiences someone who went under-diagnosed would likely have made.

I found the book pretty interesting, especially for the writing style. I could relate to a few things only.

It was a bit depressing to read how a kid that sounds capable (notwithstanding the challenges) is put into a special ed school where he can't really achieve his potential. And I really can't think how a parent can tell such a big lie to his kid D:

Agreed. That felt REALLY forced. It's like those cartoons based in schools where the smart kid uses big words and invents things. It's a one dimensional stereotype.


That's the other thing that seemed wrong to me. About his mother, specifically. At the end of the book he made her life very hard (he couldn't help it), but was completely unaware. He comes across as heartless. He lived with her his whole life and needed her, so he would have learned the difference between "sad mother" and "happy mother."

I am often confused by life, but I do know when a loved one is unhappy. I think the book encourages the "aspies are evil" stereotype.


But to be fair, I think that almost all fiction is the emperor's new clothes. I often listen to plays on the radio and they are almost never realistic. I think most writers cannot write about other people. People do not read books to learn about other people, they read books to have their existing beliefs confirmed.

I read this a few years ago, I enjoyed it although it had the effect of making me feel more introverted as I tend to take on the characteristics of characters in books or films.

I felt frightened for him, sorry for him and frustrated by him all at the same time.

The author never mentions autism or aspergers once, I think that was mentioned by one of the reviewers, but it isn't what the author actually claims is wrong with him.

At the time I thought "If that's aspergers then I don't have it". He does fit the stereotypical bill for some form of autism, but how early he spoke isn't mentioned as far as I remember, so why slap "aspergers" on him? I don't know of any other consistant differences between aspergers and classic autism.

It is a spectrum, no-one said the character was high functioning and he clearly couldn't be independant.

I find it boring and the only think I could relate to was the meltdowns. It was very stereotypical.