This entry covers the first half of novel to page 130. Select one of the following prompts, and follow the guidelines for writing and posting. Please refer to the Blog Assessment Rubric and the Student Models for Blog Entries, especially Jordan’s “second” entry, in which he continues and “deepens” the conversation (some of you did not post a second entry for Blog One, so it’s very important to not miss another assignment!).
A) For many readers, the book will strike you as “different.” In what ways is this novel different from other novels or short stories that you have read? What makes reading Curious Incident an unusual, engaging, and sometimes challenging experience? Consider some of the following aspects of the novel in your discussion: writing style (i.e., word choice, voice, use of repetition, sentence structure and length), characterization , plot, and formatting (e.g., chapter numbers, use of italics, boldfacing, illustrations, etc.)
B) Think about Christopher’s need for explanation, order, and understanding (for example, see page 31). How does this compare with your own? How vital is it to believe without proof? Similarly, the “truth” is very important to Christopher. When he shares information with us about Orion and other constellations, he says, “And that is the truth” (126). How does Christopher react when the truth becomes grey or fuzzy? Consider at least two other examples from the text, and compare with your own feelings about truth.
NOTE: After everyone has posted a comment, read the entries and post a second blog within a few days entry to extend and deepen the conversation.
Josselyn
ReplyDelete“… I do not always do what I am told. And this is because when people tell you what to do it is usually confusing and it does not make sense. For example, people often say “Be quiet,” but they don’t tell you how long to be quiet for (Haddon.29).”
As I continue to read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, I find that Christopher’s simple explanations like the quote above have me comparing his need for explanation, order, and understanding to mine. For instance Christopher points out we always say things, but never tell how long to do them for or where to do them, we just expect that everyone understands what we mean, no questions asked. But to me it’s interesting when Christopher does ask what we mean when given a command, for I have the same problem sometimes at school. I also need a clear understanding and a few explanations until I can do the assignment. I feel that when others ask the questions we wouldn’t normally ask, it makes us more aware of how much we use our instincts, and also how difficult it is to understand those same simple orders when those instincts are not there. But when it comes to a need for order I would say that my kind of order is much different than Christopher’s. This is because to me order is having your room clean and everything in the right place—being organized. Whereas Christopher explains that his type of order is being logical and relying on numbers.
“I like things to be in a nice order. And one way of things being in a nice order was to be logical. Especially if those things are numbers or arguments… And that’s why I have Good Days and Black Days….(Haddon.24).” I think his with his way of ordering things by numbers and math is interesting and unique but also confusing because I consider math mixed with logic to be one of my nemesis.
(Josselyn's post continued)
ReplyDeleteI also notice throughout the book that Christopher is one that cannot seem to believe in an idea without proof, such as his explanation for the Milky Way not being a line of stars (Haddon.9), and his ideas about Heaven not existing, just a place made up to comfort those who are afraid of dying (Haddon.32). And while I disagree with him on some aspects, I have the same problem in believing in something if there is not a lot of proof to support it. I’m more of a seeing is believing type, which is why I made a small connection to Christopher when he met with Reverend Peters,
“I asked him where Heaven was and he said “It’s not in our universe. It’s another kind of place all together.”… I said that there wasn’t anything outside the universe…Except that there might be if you went through a black hole… The Reverend Peters said… I suppose what it really means is that they are with God.” And I replied, “But where is God? (Haddon.32 -33).”
The reason I connected with him so much is not that I don’t believe in Heaven, I do believe in some parts of the Christian religion because they give me a feeling of comfort and hope, but because I had the same questions as Christopher when I was younger. I remember going to a bible camp one summer and having a tough time believing what the leaders would tell us because they would insist that Jesus and God were real people. But they never showed me textbooks, photos, or remains and gravestones that I could visit - I still have a hard time seeing the personalities of religion as real people. Like Christopher I tend to lean more towards scientifically proven facts because I can hold them and its place in history makes sense. Christopher in away explains how some can only believe in what can be proven when he says,
“And anyway, Orion is not a hunter or a coffeemaker, or a dinosaur. It is just Betelgeuse and Bellatrix and Alnilam and Rigel and 17 other stars… And they are all nuclear explosions billions of miles away. And that is the truth (Haddon.126).” This shows that there are those that like to depend on science and don’t really enjoy thinking two things about an object, such as stars. There are some that only see them as explosions that are far away, while others like to imagine that they make images in the sky.
We all have different ideas about what the truth actually is, due to the different way our minds work. For instance, Christopher, when he doesn’t understand the truth or what is happening, he has a really hard time coping, because to him his mind is like a machine.
“He was asking too many questions and he was asking them too quickly… They were stacking up in my head like loaves in the factory where Uncle Terry works…I sometimes think of my mind as a machine…It makes it easier to explain to other people what is going on inside it (Haddon.7).” Even though Christopher doesn’t like metaphors, I thought that it was a really cool way of describing the mind. I had never thought of my mind as a machine but I have felt like my mine is blocked and it makes me dizzy when I don’t understand the truth. As I read further in the book, I would say that my reaction to the truth when it hurts my way of thinking is closer to Christopher’s reaction when he discovers that his mother is not really dead.
“I stopped reading the letter because I felt sick… I felt giddy. It was like the room was swinging from side to side…I don’t know what happened then because there is a gap in my memory, like a bit of the tape had been erased….(Haddon.112-113).” Though I must admit that I wasn’t too keen of the book at first, I feel like I making more of a connection with Christopher than I thought I would. I find that the way he feels about the truth is how I sometimes feel about the truth. But we must all remember that while it might hurt us at first, it may help later on in life.
First of all, I just wanted to say (and this has nothing to do with the book) I really like the blue fish. I also think there should be a purple fish.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I read a bit farther than I was supposed to and I really hope I don’t mention anything that gives anything away. So far I have mixed feelings about this book: I can’t tell if I like it or not. I recognize that the topic of this book is a very important topic and was in desperate need of being addressed in a literary form but I still don’t know. This book is different from other books that I have read. One way this book is different is in books if there is a character with a disorder or disease it’s not usually the narrator (sometimes it is but most of the time it’s not). Usually the narrator is either telling the story in third person or they are the main character and they are learning how to adapt and deal with someone with a disorder or disease. They learn how to accept it and see the good things in it. So, I thought it was interesting that the main character not only had autism but he was the narrator as well. This was his book that he was writing and it was our job to understand and empathize with him. The fact that he was writing a book was interesting to me because I think that in his own way that was his attempt at making a connection with people; and, he was succeeding: we felt compassion with his words. I liked how he mentioned how he was supposed to describe characteristics of the characters in his book; it was interesting that the characteristics he chose would not have been something I would of used to describe them, maybe even something I wouldn’t have noticed. “The policewoman had a little hole in her tights on her left ankle and a red scratch in the middle of the hole” (6). Not only are these specific, they aren’t a way to identify the policewoman.
Christopher likes things to be understood through fact. He does not like metaphors because metaphors are not fact; he uses the example “we had a real pig of a day” (15) and he thinks it should be a lie because “a pig is not like a day” (15). He also doesn’t like jokes and that’s because there are several ways to interpret them (and he doesn’t think they are funny). I think that what he really doesn’t like is interpretation. If you can interpret things it means they don’t have one answer: like math and he loves math. He wants that one answer; he doesn’t want there to be more than one answer depending on how it’s interpreted. I think that’s why he has such an issue trying to relate to other people. He doesn’t understand how if one thing is good to him why it might not be good for other people. Also, I think Christopher trusts other people to tell him the truth and he trusts what they say, like his father. When he found the first letter he still trusted that his dad had told him the truth and that whoever sent this letter sent it to the wrong Christopher in the wrong house. “I looked at the letter…it was a mystery…then I thought that perhaps it wasn’t a letter from mother. Perhaps it was a letter from another person called Christopher, from that Christopher’s mother” (99). He still believed his father and he never questioned why his father would have kept a letter sent to the wrong Christopher, in the wrong house. When the truth was fuzzy here he went with what he knew and decided the letter was wrong so the truth went back to black and white. Also, with that letter he had recognized the handwriting as potentially being his mothers but he ignored that. Before he found the letter he had talked to Mrs. Alexander. “Did it make you upset to find out that your mother and Mr. Shears had an affair?” (75). He didn’t get a suspicious after that. He still assumed that his mother had died even though she had had an affair, he never went to the hospital, and he never saw her grave. Then when he got the letter he still didn’t think that maybe his mother was still alive. I had figured it out as soon as Mrs. Alexander had told him about the affair but after the letter there was so much evidence (circumstantial I suppose): A) She had an affair and in the letter she talked about Christopher being angry with her (because she left?). B) Christopher had no evidence his mother had actually died. C) The letter was addressed to a Christopher and to his house. The difference between his figuring out the truth and my figuring out the truth was that he needed everything to be in order and to make sense. He couldn’t speculate and fill in holes. There could be no holes for Christopher. It’s like a puzzle and you don’t have all the pieces. He couldn’t figure out the picture without those missing pieces and I figured out what the pieces were without seeing them.
ReplyDeleteApparently my post all together was too long.
Although many novels I’ve read stray away from the typical way people choose to tell a story, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time still stands out to me. It is different than other novels because although he is going in the correct sequence of events, I find myself falling into his tangents without even realizing it. To me, the book is written as though the narrator is sitting down and having a conversation with you rather than just telling you a story. I say this because whether it was intended or not, Chris’ need to explain things makes it seem like he is reacting off of the reader’s facial expression.
ReplyDeleteAnd example of this is when he is telling the reader about how children sometimes shout “Special Needs!” as he gets off the bus. I think if this was told face to face with someone a person would give an angry or sympathetic expression, and maybe wonder how Chris would deal with that situation. Amazingly, the next part goes on to say, “But I don’t take any notice because I don’t listen to what other people have to say and only sticks and stones can break my bones and I have my Swiss Army knife if they hit me and if I kill them it will be self defense and I won’t go to prison” (Haddon 44). Although there was no facial expression or person to respond to, Chris feels the need to explain why he makes decisions or feels the way he does, which I find very entertaining.
Like any conversation, on the other hand, there can be conflicts of interest. Even though I do find his formalized speech and explanations, there are times when what he is speaking about doesn’t interest me at all. For example, when Chris is trying to prove to the reader that “sometimes a mystery isn’t a mystery” (100), he uses frogs in his school’s pond to explain. Chris draws out a graph and goes on for a while using mathematical equations to prove his point. At the end he simply claims that things can happen because that is how numbers work. As the reader, I would have been content with him just telling me that instead of having to explain himself.
On the other hand, I respect his need for the truth and having things explained. I do this because he is telling others what he wants to be told, and he feels that if he is honest and if makes things very clear then people will do the same to him. This may not be true for everyone, but I appreciate his attempt to connect to others by communicating in the way that he would like to be spoken to.
Christopher’s outlook on the world is logical and scientific, and in this way I am somewhat similar. Like Christopher, I tend to have a scientific or mathematical approach to problems, but for me this is not always the case. Christopher often sees things very simply, which is a skill I do not always have. For example, when speaking about death, he is direct and to the point, and makes it very clear what his beliefs are:
ReplyDelete“What actually happens when you die is that your brain stops working and your body rots, like Rabbit did when he died and we buried him in the earth at the bottom of the garden. And all his molecules were broken down into other molecules and they went into the earth and were eaten by worms and went into the plants and if we go and dig in the same place in ten years there will be nothing except his skeleton left.” (Haddon.33).
Even the fact that I used the word “beliefs” before the citing the passage would not fall right with Christopher, because he sees this as the truth. Sure, Reverend Peters can believe in Heaven, which is his belief. To Christopher though, there is no logical way that Heaven can exist, therefore it does not. In this way, he sees his scientific explanation on death as the truth, not another belief. This outlook on the world is very organized and simplified. As we see later in story, Christopher’s method of understanding events is not always entirely comprehensive. For example, when he discovers that his father has lied about his mother’s death and about killing Wellington, he concludes the worst: “Father had murdered Wellington. That meant he could murder me, because I couldn’t trust him, even if he said ‘Trust me,’ because he had told a lie about a big thing.” (Haddon.122).
Christopher’s logical outlook on the world causes him to misunderstand his father. Because his father murdered Wellington and lied about it, that meant he was capable of killing anyone and lying about anything. Christopher draws this conclusion because he is looking purely at factual evidence. He does not consider why his father did the things he did or if his father’s explanations deemed him trustworthy again. In this way, Christopher simplifies a situation to find the truth in a way that I could not. Christopher found the facts he needed and made his decision, where I would have complicated the situation with both facts and emotions. Again, we come back to the idea that it is just a different way of looking at the world, sorting out problems, making decisions, and finding the truth.
From the very start of reading The Curious Incedent of the dog in the night-time, I notice that he explains every little detail. He goes in depth when writing and describes every detail he notices. When Christopher is explaining what Siobhan looks like he gives the added detail that her glasses are green and made of plastic, and that her shoes have 60 tiny circles in each of them (Haddon 5). Another thing I immediately noticed is his strange way of numbering chapters into prime numbers.
ReplyDeleteThere was one thing that I found challenging about reading this story. Just about each chapter would jump from one topic to the next randomly. I found it hard to stay engaged with the story when at one point he is investigating who killed Mrs. Shear’s dog, but the next he explains why he wants to be an astronaut and why he would be very good at it, and then it continues in the next chapter. I would have been more engaged if everything fit together rather than be split up. I did find the investigation about the dog engaging though. I have always been interested in mystery novels and I agree with Christopher that people can be interested in who murdered a dog just as much as a human (Haddon 5).
My need for explanation, order, and understanding is similar to Christopher’s. Christopher explained how people will tell you to do something and most people will understand just what to do. He would need to know for how long you would need to do the certain task, or when you should do it. I agree that I am somewhat similar with that, but more in instructions with homework assignments or building something. I like to know how long an assignment needs to be or how long I have till it is due so I can stay organized with it. I like to be very organized with my work and be efficient with it. Christopher’s mental organization is sometimes strange to me. He explained how he will get nauseous if the couches in the living room are moved around for too long (Haddon 47), or his whole understanding of good days and black days (Haddon 24).
Christopher on many occasions has showed in this book so far that proof is everything. If there is no proof of something then it does not exist to him. One time that I noticed it the most is when he talks to the pastor about Heaven. Christopher continued to question how Heaven exists and where the proof is of it (Haddon 33). Since there is no actual proof he doesn’t think it exists. I agree with his idea of needing proof. Whenever I hear about something new I will always look it up or question others about it so I can have a solid idea that what I have found out is actually true. If I can’t find any actual proof I find it very hard to really believe and I become skeptical about it.
Christopher gets very confused when the truth is fuzzy or unclear. He tries to logically work out in his head anyway he can to understand. He will get very confused when people try talking to him too fast. One time this happened is when the police officer tried to ask him about the dog in Mrs. Shear’s backyard (Haddon 7) Christopher explained that he is confused by people when they use metaphors and compares them to lies because they don’t actually mean what they literally say. He uses examples like “I laughed my socks off” and “The dog was stone dead.” (Haddon 15) The truth is important to me, but I can also understand metaphors. The truth helps to understand many situations so I find it very necessary in most conversations.
Once I began reading The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, I noticed this novel is “different” from others. At first I couldn’t quite pick out what made this so. However, the further I got into the novel, I became more aware of the components which make this novel far from the norm.
ReplyDeleteThe most apparent difference has to do with numbering of the chapters. This is explained by Christopher as, “...I have decided to give my chapters prime numbers, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and so on because I like prime numbers (Haddon 11).” This is also an example of the voice throughout the novel. I have found that Christopher is very blunt. Yes, he is very observant and describes each different person in great detail, however there are times when he completely “tells it like it is.” A great example is when Christopher is talking about death. The Reverend Peters is trying to simply explain to Christopher where people go when they die. Christopher knows better. It’s clear he doesn’t believe in heaven or God for that matter.
“What actually happens when you die is that your brain stops working and your body rots, like Rabbit did when he died and we buried him in the earth at the bottom of the garden. And all his molecules were broken down into other molecules and they went into the earth and were eaten by worms and went into the plants…But mother was cremated. This means that she was put into a coffin and burned and ground up and turned into ash and smoke (Haddon 33).”
Christopher’s monologue gives the reader an idea of how undisturbed he is about the whole concept of death. He’s fully aware of the science behind death, and simply lays it on the line.
A final piece of the novel which makes it different—and not the last by far—from others is the plot. Haddon has taken an ordinary murder mystery and inserted an autistic boy. In a way, he is using Christopher’s search for the truth as a way to help people understand autism. At least that’s my take on this, and I think it’s an excellent idea!
The Novel The Curious case of the Dog in the night-time has a very interesting way of engaging the readers to the story. The book is written through the thoughts of the main character that has autism. While reading it you feel as though you have autism as well and you think like him. Throughout the book there is a lot of abnormal content that would not be read in most other novels. For one in most novels there are certain things that are described in detail, like the surroundings in a particularly important part in the plot. In the curious incident of the dog in the night-time every little thing is described in detail. Even within the first page readers can see that this book has a peculiar attention to detail. “Wellington was a poodle. Not one of the small poodles that have hairstyles, but a big poodle. It had curly black fur, but when you got close you should see that the skin underneath was a very pale yellow, like chicken” (Haddon 1). Beside the close attention to detail there is also the type of details that are write about. The things that the main character, Christopher, notices are different and more in-depth than other people would say. Also the sentence structure and vocabulary seem lower than other people would write. Where as most other authors would use colorful words and complex sentences in this book it is all simple sentences and words. Although it is simple it still is very intriguing and draws your attention in a different way.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of the way Christopher descries things are the pictures that are in the book. Many times throughout the chapters there are drawings, pictures and graphs about a particular scene in the book. Usually they are unnecessary for the plot of the whole book, and in most other novels would be left out. For instance on page 126 and 127 there are three graphs about the number of frogs in a pond over the period of a decade. There are about six paragraphs with elaboration about the information. The explanations are indifferent to the actual plot of the book, but they add to the interesting inquiry for the book. The book has a certain simplicity that draws readers into the book. Although sometimes it may seem a little uneducated it describes everything and there are no confusing or unexplained parts of the book. Even though the book sometimes is difficult to keep reading, once you delve into it, you can’t put it down.
The first time I ever read "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime (before this class), I thought that Christopher Boone was a little kid. The way he narrated and explained things led me to believe he was a boy of five or six, up until he mentions that he goes to a "special school". Starting this book again knowing that Christopher has autism was a different experience, but a good one. I realized that the way he explained things and included small, and sometimes insignificant, facts was due to his autism; I also realized that I really enjoy the way he does it.
ReplyDeleteI find the way Christopher reads, talks, and narrates simple, entertaining engaging. While I think the writing style of this book is pretty easy to read, it’s still really interesting. On pages 4 and 5 of The Curious Incident there's something Christopher said which really stood out to me. "Siobhan said that I should write something I would want to read myself. Mostly I read books about science and maths. I do not like proper novels. In proper novels people say things like, 'I am veined with iron, with silver, and with streaks of common mud. I cannot contract into the firm fist of which those clench who do not depend on stimulus'. What does this mean? I do not know. Nor does Father. Nor does Siobhan or Mr. Jeavons. I have asked them."(Haddon 5). I love that he says this, because for the most part, I agree with him. For me, it’s generally not fun to be reading a book and have to stop ever couple of sentences to figure out what they mean. Most people will try to figure stuff like this out because it matters to them that they read "proper" novels; but Christopher thinks its a waste of time, and most importantly he's okay with not wanting to read proper novels. His opinion of sentences like that being useless translate into the way Christopher writes; factually precisely and explanatory. For example, on page 37 he say’s, “And then I decided to do what is called Trying a Different Tack, and I asked her whether she knew of anyone who might want to make Mrs. Shears sad”. In this quote Christopher explains to the reader that he is going to try a different tactic, instead of just doing it. Things like this pop up often in this book.
Another difference in this book is the way the author arranges Christopher’s thoughts. In one paragraph or chapter Christopher will be talking about something that is happening to him right at that moment, like talking to his father or telling Siobhan something. Then in the next paragraph or chapter it will go to something in the past, its usually something he wants his readers to know, like how he doesn’t like the color yellow or how he likes mysteries. Sometimes it’s a story of a memory from the past. Sometimes what is happening in Christopher’s life at the moment and the other story he tells are directly connected, but most often its underlying information that is used to tell us what kind of person Christopher is, and how he would handle a situation. For example, in chapter 109 Christopher is explaining what is happening to him in the moment. He talks to Siobhan about his conversation with Mrs. Alexander. Then in the next chapter he jumps to a story about his mother and what he can and cannot remember.
ReplyDeleteThe last difference that I noticed in this book compared with others is the use of pictures and diagrams to show something. Christopher does it a lot because he likes explaining math problems and using logic to show things. The pictures and diagrams are effective in this way but they also make the book more captivating and interesting to read. As stupid as it sounds, sometimes it is nice to get to look at pictures in a chapter book. I think the pictures in this book also make it seem as though Christopher is actually writing it, which he is supposed to be. Instead of the pictures just being pictures, they are Christopher’s “hand drawn” diagrams. I think this is important in making the book he is writing real. The pictures also show just how smart Christopher really is. On pages 64 and 65 he is trying to explain the math problem about the game show in which you could win a car or a goat. When I first read the description of the problem that he provided and I agreed with everyone who was wrong. It wasn’t until I looked at Christopher’s diagram that I really understood what the answer was.
While this book may be a little “different” it’s still completely enjoyable to read. Just as the character in this book may be different, he is not less.
Similar to Christopher, I can appreciate a clear and concise explanation of a complicated concept or event. When someone gives me a logical reason as to why things are the way they are, I am able to really experience a peace of mind. I’m sure most of you would agree that life goes on much more easily when you understand why. I don’t mind trusting people to explain certain things to me either. However, unlike Christopher, I am also fairly content with the old thats just the way the cookie crumbles. I can let things go pretty easily if there does not seem to be an easy explanation or it isn’t that important to begin with. I have faith in people that they will tell me the information to the best of their knowledge. I do not need an answer that can be proved with facts, elimination, or any other kind of proof. I appreciate honesty but truth in all matters of life is not that important to me. In this way I am not similar to Christopher. He needs the facts to go on living and where I don’t always need a solid answer, he does.
ReplyDeleteChristopher knew that he was not allowed to continue his search for Wellington’s murderer and his father also forbid him from continuing a number of other truth uncovering escapades as well. Yet Christopher can not take thats the way the cookie crumbles as an answer, he needs to know who killed Wellington and why. So even though it was wrong, Christopher kept searching and convinced himself that what he was doing was okay even though in his heart he knew it wasn’t. “ ‘What the fuck did I tell you Christopher?’ This was much louder. And I replied, ‘Not to mention Mr. Shears’s name in our house... And to stop this ridiculous bloody detective game. Except I haven’t done any of those things’ ” (Haddon 81). In pursuit of the truth, Christopher broke the rules, or at least found a way around them, and certainly upset his father. In this situation I probably would have said well that’s that, another dog dead, whoopdi do.
It has been clear from the start that the truth is possibly the most important virtue in Christopher’s life. He made it very plain that he does and physically cannot not tell lies “ I do not tell lies. Mother used to say that this was because I was a good person. But it is not because I am a good person. It is because I can’t tell lies” (Haddon 19). I think it is this aspect of his life combined with the whole math obsession that has lead to his constant need for an explanation. It is just the way Asperger’s has affected his mind that has caused this yearning for an logical explanation. I think it is easier for me to let go because I am not mentally affected by a disorder like Asperger’s. I am not even sure that is the reason why math and honesty are so important to Christopher. I can however say that these two characteristics defiantly explain his steady search from a logical answer and that unlike me, he will not rest until he has those answers.
Christopher likes the simple truth. He doesn’t care for insistences where people use metaphors because they extend the truth into the fantasy world and that confuses him. He rather people be outright on what they are thinking, instead of twisting the truth. Christopher has a passion for math. I think one of the reasons for this is because math is a very straightforward thing. You either solve the problem or you don’t. There are no “other opinions” like there are in English or Perspectives. On page 33 in the book Christopher talks about how when someone dies their brain stops working and their body rots. Christopher thinks that “going to God” when you die is just a vague fantasy that might not even be the truth, he prefers the straightforward explanation for death. What is interesting is that Christopher seems to be ok about white lies. He told a white lie to his father about what he was doing while researching the dog case. White lies to him are different, because technically you are telling the person the truth, just the simpler version of it. If someone is untruthful with Christopher he gets very frustrated. I, unlike Christopher don’t need the truth all the time. I like to fantasize about things and don’t necessarily mind that they are not the “truth” or that it might not be particularly reasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe Book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon is very different than most books one might read. The main reason for this is the book's focus on the main character Christopher John Francis Boone's state of mind. He has a form of autism which is shown in by his interactions with other characters in the book, the the overall writing style as he is supposed to be the writer of the book, and various aspects of the books organization.
ReplyDeleteChristopher's autism impacts the way he interacts with the world overall greatly. The overall effect of his reactions to various situations varies from amusing to difficult to read. For example his judging of whether or not a day is good by counting the number of yellow or red cars was a fascinating and amusing prospect while his other decision to leave the old lady's house because he didn't know what she was doing was frustrating to read. These and other unusual reactions he has to certain situations I believe are the majority of the reason that this book is considered different than other books.
The Book is written as if Christopher himself was writing it. As a result the perspective of every situation depicted in the book is his. Due to his autism the reader is occasionally left to make their own conclusions on what actually occurred as his own conclusions are often either incorrect or simplified. In Addition to this The Writing style is is repetitive at times because he himself is rather repetitive with some of his behavior. The most prevalent example of this is his attention to detail that is shown throughout the book. Little things that “normal” people would simply look over are examined and picked apart by Christopher. The book's focus also likes to switch quickly as his thoughts seem to like migrating towards various random subjects. An example of this is his relating of his knowledge of space and his desire to be an astronaut with situations he encounters.
The final oddity in this book is its overall setup. For example its chapters are all prime numbers simply because Christopher likes them. It also uses various pictures to illustrate things that he encounters. These two features act together to give the book an interesting design.
The novel The Curios Case of the Dog in the Night-time is different from any other books that I’ve read because the author will change scenes very rapidly. An example is page 99-100 when, in the first chapter, Christopher finds letters from his presumed-to-be-dead mother, and then in the next chapter he is talking about scientific formulas to find out the population of a species. But then the next chapter, the author goes back to talking about Christopher finding the letters. In other books I have read, the authors try to stick with the main plot of the book and only stray to another scene if it has to do with the main storyline. Mark Haddon does this though, not to tell a story of the murder of a dog, but because he wants people to see how a person with autism thinks. He explores Christopher’s mind and shows us how smart he actually is even though he’s not able to communicate as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this book challenging for me to read is mostly because of how random it is. The way the author keeps changing the topic of the book really makes it hard for me to stay interested. It took me a long time to get to page 130, simply because I found it hard to read in a sitting. Another thing that makes it challenging to read is how different Christopher is from me. An example is how Christopher shows almost no emotion or empathy. It makes it hard to sympathize with him when he almost doesn’t seem human to me. What makes humans different from other species is our empathy for each other and being able to show love, sadness, happiness, and anger; but when you take that away what’s left? To me, a story is interesting because the author explores the different emotions of a character (or characters) to keep a story interesting. But with no emotion, a character loses its appeal and interest.
All in all, I don’t really care for this book so far. I wouldn’t read this independently because of how challenging it is for me to stay interested in the story and the character. Probably the only reason I would read it, is if I was researching autism because it is a good source of information on it.
Christopher view on the truth is similar to mine in some ways but he cannot stray from this view as much as others can. He looks at the world as though it is black and white well often he finds that it is often more complicated than he may want it to be. You can see this in the way he reacts to people lying like on page 128 when Christopher decides he can no longer live with his dad because he lied and lying is bad so his father must be bad. This type of logic drives his every decision. A need for proof is something that I share with Christopher before I am ready to believe something I always like to see proof it just in my nature. Christopher need for truth order and fact on the other seems less like a way to gain new information but more like an unhealthy obsession. He Tries to force logic on to things that most people can except as just something that is and that is enough we see his when he talks about metaphors on 14 and 15 he can't or doesn't want to understand how people can be the apple of a person eye. In this way he reminds me of a robot that you might see on tv when it is presented with circular logic it says can not compute and blows up. I think that the same thing happens to Christopher if he can't see the logic in something he either hates it or ignores. So when he compared the brain to a computer I thought that was really interesting.
ReplyDeleteChristopher’s condition burdens him with a blunt, realistic view of the world. This style of perception causes many emotional and conceptual aspects of life to be misunderstood or disregarded. Where Christopher and my outlooks differ most is in the use of assumption. The autistic condition causes him to attach implications to trivial things, things that I might not even normally notice. “I saw 4 yellow cars in a row on the way to school, which made it a Black Day, so I didn’t eat anything at lunch and I sat in the corner of the room all day” (53).
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Christopher perceives intricate details of life because they are concrete. Christopher has very quantitative observational tendencies, numbers and quantities are definite “I turned round and saw Mrs. Alexander, the old lady from number 39, who was in the shop.” Christopher struggles to comprehend things where the truth is obscured. Since conceptual ideas often drift from truth, Christopher shies away from thinking abstractly “what actually happens when you die is that your brain stops working and your body rots” (33).
Christopher’s inability to handle falsity and lying makes the discovery of his father’s deceit all the more crushing. His father’s hiding his of mother’s letters is unfathomable to Christopher. Yet, in this situation Christopher focuses purely on the concrete aspects of the situation since he is not capable of understanding the implications or reasons for his father’s actions. He feels complex things but is not able to process them. “I felt giddy. It was like the room was swinging from side to side… My stomach hurt.”
With so much convolution Christopher is somewhat lost. He attempts to find clarity in the situation, striving to secure the concrete details of the situation, yet once he has secured these he is forced to tangle with more difficult concepts such as motives and explanations. He narrates the situation without being abstract and expressing feelings as I might by saying something like, “The situation caused me great resentment.” Instead Christopher just speaks the actions or non-actions as a way of conveying his thoughts and feelings. “I didn’t scream. And I didn’t fight. And I didn’t hit him.”
Unlike Christopher the thinking about the conceptual has become second nature and the desire for truth which he finds in concrete ideas is not a necessity in my life.
This book is unlike anything that I’ve ever had the privilege of reading. I love it. I love the point of view—Christopher’s—that allows for a short glimpse into the mind of a child dealing with asperger syndrome. A point of view seldom ever seen and extremely difficult to convey, therefore I hold in the highest respect the writer of this novel: Mark Haddon. How he has been able to understand this sort of mind, and then have the mind speak aloud on paper is a mystery to me. I don’t know much about the author but this book really has me wanting to hit up his Wikipedia page and find out how he does it. When I read this book I feel like I’m inside Christopher’s head, which is usually the case for a novel in first person. However the fact that Christopher struggles with asperger syndrome makes this a huge accomplishment for the writer. He’s gotten every detail down straight to perfection. When you read, you see the way his mind operates. You at once are given explanation for those times when perhaps you’ve been on a subway or in a restaurant and seen a person with asperger syndrome or autism acting out, screaming, flailing, or hitting. Christopher gives us insight into what goes in his mind to create that sort of situation:
ReplyDelete"The police man said, “I am going to ask you once again…” I rolled back onto the lawn and pressed my forehead into the ground again and made the noise that father calls groaning. I make this noise when there is too much information coming into my head from the outside world.” (Haddon 7)
I’ve also noticed a few differences in the language that could be expected. One particular thing I’ve come to find is Christopher’s use of explicit detail. When Christopher tries to explain a something that could be seemingly simple, he goes exceptionally far in depth. I can only be reminded of Kelly Ellis’ famous line during the drafting of our history papers: “Write it as if your reader knows nothing.” This is how Christopher writes his book. He uses examples, most commonly containing math which he likes because it is straightforward and there can only be one answer. He also uses diagrams, charts, basic drawings, and even occasionally uses examples from history or science.
“The word metaphor means carrying something from one place to another and it comes from the Greek word μετα (which means from one place to another) and фεριν (which means to carry), and it is when you describe something by using a word for something that it isn’t. This means that the word metaphor is a metaphor.” (Haddon 15)
“…But when the constant is greater than 3.57 the population becomes chaotic like in the first graph. This was discovered by Robert May and George Oster and Jim Yorke. And it means that sometimes things are so complicated that it is impossible to predict what they are going to do next, but they are only obeying really simple rules. And it means that sometimes a whole population of frogs, or worms, or people, can die for no reason whatsoever, just because that’s the way numbers work.” (Haddon 102)
On a final note I must say I rarely encounter a novel in which the author writes in the perspective of another author who writes about writing his book. “Siobhan said that the book should begin with something to grab people’s attention. That is why I started with the dog. I also started with the dog because it happened to me and I find it hard to imagine things which did not happen to me.” (Haddon 7)
“Chapters in books are usually given the cardinal numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on. But I have decided to give my chapter’s prime numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and so on because I like prime numbers.” (Haddon 11)
This book continues to be incredibly interesting and different in many good ways. I’ve realized that I’m not used to this sort of book, and I really like that. I feel like I’m getting a taste of a new genre. And I’m a reading junkie, so that’s the best feeling ever.
(From the keyboard of Simon):
ReplyDeleteIn The Curious Case of the Dog in the Night-Time, the formatting of the book itself seems to be a representation of Christopher's own thought process. For example, he goes off on tangents constantly, like on page 50, where he describes his dream of being an astronaut. In addition, he tends to ramble on a bit, much in the same way he talks. I think that this is because he has so much to say, that he continues to talk even after his sentence should be over; to the point that the relevance of the comment is lost altogether. He describes how his thoughts can go out of control on page 19, where he describes how many possibilities there are in life and how “even writing this makes me shaky and scared” (Haddon 19). He also emphasizes some of his ideas with bold lettering, like when he talks about his "Good Days" or "Super Good Days" or "Black Days" on page 24. This, I imagine, is how he would talk in real life: in place of using metaphors (which he does not use), he simply puts extra effort into detailing something to emphasize its importance.
One of the biggest differences between this book and many I have read is the honesty and detail it was written with. For example, on page 13, he describes everything that he has in his pocket. He could have simply skipped this part, but for some reason he decided that it was an important detail. This is amusing to me, as I can often go on serious tangents myself (a fact that most people who know me will testify to) and go into incessant rants of detail.
When it comes to Christopher’s opinions on truth, it’s pretty straightforward: he doesn’t see a point to it. He can’t understand why anyone would say something they did not mean. Christopher also He also needs things explained to him carefully, such as on page 29 when he is told how to interact with his fellow students. I can understand where Christopher is coming from on these ideas. I’ve been diagnosed with Asperger’s since I was in first grade. I had a lot of the problems with over-literality that Christopher has in the book, such as trying to understand when people were kidding and not being serious. I’ve struggled with metaphorical language and mixed messages for most of my life. I’ve worked through the most serious problems that Christopher has, but it’s still hard for me to understand sometimes when things people say are meant to be taken literally. I also got caught up on things that did not make sense to me, like when Christopher begins to overload when he discovers the letters from his mom on page 113. It just doesn’t make sense to keep truths from people. It only can make things worse. Telling lies just perpetuates an issue, and makes it worse than it would have been if you had just spoken up before.
--SP
P.S. I think that the new fish are invasive.
P.P.S. Luckily, I've got my net right here...darn! They’re slippery little devils.
I like the truth. I won't say I never lie, but I very very rarely lie, and I tend to be more bothered by dishonesty than almost any other sort of bad behavior. In The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, Christopher seems to feel the same way about the truth that I do. The difference between Christopher and I is that he is more literal in his definition of the truth.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Christopher does not like metaphors. He mentions a few commonly used ones in chapter 29: "We had a real pig of a day" (15) "They had a skeleton in the cupboard" (15). He then goes on to say, "I think it [a metaphor] should be called a lie because a pig is not a day and people do not have skeletons in their cupboards" (15). For Christopher, these are "lies" because they are not literally true; for me, a lie requires intent. For example, if someone says, "That's a big dog," in a sarcastic tone of voice when talking about a small dog, Christopher would consider it a lie because it's not a big dog, but I would not, because the person who said it fully expected whoever heard it to know that it was not a big dog; that person had no intention of convincing anyone of anything which wasn't true, so I don't think of that as a lie.
I think this is connected to the fact that Christopher doesn’t put as much importance on the opinions and intentions of other people as I do because he doesn’t fully understand that other people are completely separate from himself. He says, “... when I was little, I didn’t understand about other people having minds. And Julie [his teacher] said to mother and father that I would always find this very difficult. But I don’t find this difficult now. Because I decided that it was a kind of puzzle, and if something is a puzzle there is always a way of solving it” (116). He goes on to explain that he thinks people see the world as if it was on screens in there heads, and that the difference between animals and people is that people can separate the screen in their head from what is actually happening. I think this explanation works for Christopher to explain how others think, but I think he still has trouble understanding that others have separate minds; i don’t think he fully understands that others can lie unintentionally, through things like sarcasm and metaphors, and therefore groups this sort of lie with blatant distortion of the truth with the intention of deceiving others. (I have issues with that animal part too, but that’s a whole separate post.)
The way the author wrote Christopher's voice is generally logical and although he is more direct than the average person, Christopher seems to understand how to use language to describe events quite fluidly. He is consistently honest and straightforward with his language. However, one recurring issue I had with Christopher's voice was the fact that every time he mentions sex, he says "do sex" instead of "have sex". To me, every time it came up, it seemed out of place and took me out of the story; it basically felt like the author slapping me across the face with a sign that said, "Look! This character is not normal!" which was both annoying and unnecessary. I don’t know if anyone else felt that way, but I didn’t like that.
Overall, though, I like the book. I read it before; I think I was in sixth or seventh grade at the time. Reading it again now was a very different experience. I am now older than the protagonist rather than younger, which I think has given me a different perspective on the plot and characters, and reading something for school always feels different than just reading. I have a lot more I could say about this book, but I will leave it there for now.
Zoë
The vast majority of mystery novels have a central dilemma that one or more main characters struggle to solve: the “who dunnit” and why. Typically, these questions remain unanswered until the final chapters. This is not the case in The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Halfway through the book, the murderer is identified and the reason for the crime explained. The focus shifts to how Christopher, the main character and ostensibly the novel’s “author,” will come to grips with the news that the perpetrator is his father.
ReplyDeleteChristopher himself makes the novel unique. He is autistic, obsessed with math and everything mathematical, and, a very literal person who likes to understand everything in depth. His story is a series of detailed vignettes complete with drawings and mathematical formulas intended to make everything clear to the reader.
However, the text jumps between subjects, the only connection being Christopher’s train of thought. This is not to say that it is disorganized, it is comparable to seeing someone’s internal monologue written out in novel form. I enjoy this style of writing because it is freeing. In many forms of writing, there are rules to obey and logical transitions to be made. It is taboo to suddenly change the subject, only to return to it a few pages later.
I also enjoy the frankness with which Christopher writes. He never lies because it make him feel “shaky and scared, like I [Christopher] do when I’m standing on the top of a very tall building and there are thousands of houses and cars an people below me and my head is so full of all these things that I’m afraid that I’m going to forget to stand up straight and hang on the rail and I’m going to fall over and be killed” (Haddon 19). As a result, everything that he writes is the truth. He even points out when he tells a “white lie”—a lie by omission.
Like most autistic people, Christopher struggles to relate to people, finding dogs much easier to relate to and understand. The reader sees this as he introduces other characters in the novel. For example, he describes Wellington, a dog that is murdered, saying, “The dog was called Wellington. It belonged to Mrs. Shears, who was our friend. She lived on the opposite side of the road, two houses to the left. Wellington was a poodle. Not one of the small poodles that have hairstyles but a big poodle. It had curly black fur, but when you got close you could see that the skin underneath the fur was a very pale yellow, like chicken” (Haddon 2). The contrast between this careful introduction and his portrayal of his teacher Siobhan as simply having “long blond hair and wear[ing] glasses which are made of green plastic” (Haddon 5) is striking. In fact, the reader only discovers that Siobhan is Christopher’s teacher much later in the novel.
Admittedly, following the leaps and bounds of Christopher’s train of thought is a challenge. And each jump finds the reader immersed in the details of another part of his life. Still, I find the challenge entertaining, largely because, in the back of my mind, I find myself wondering where he will go next.
As you read the book you realize that it is very different from your normal book. You open to page one and find that you are on chapter two. If you are like me you flip back a page just to make sure that you didn't miss a page. This alone is a weird enough way to start a book making it unusual. He later goes on to explain why the chapter numbering were so odd was that they were all prime numbers and that he likes prime numbers.
ReplyDeleteThis story is written as if the character had actually written the book itself and had it published. He is always explaining the different elements of the book and why he said something here or there. It makes it a very engaging book in my opinion. He is always explaining his actions to us so that we can clearly follow his logic and thought proses. I find that this next level of story telling, especially from someone who has autism, draws the reader even further into the story. If the story was told in the third person it would be not only very boring but you would also have no connection to the character and not understand any of his actions.
Another oddity is that this book also has illustrations. Not of the landscape or of charaters, as you would expect in many novels, but instead number charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, ect., that are used to show what the character is thinking.
I think that the best part of the book is the way that it draws you in and not only lets you see and hear what the character is experiencing but also allows you to understand what the character is thinking at the same time almost like another sense that you can experience while reading.
Matthew Diamond
ReplyDeleteB
Throughout the story Christopher has trouble with what is referred to as the grey area in answers. He likes his answers to black and white answers and for there to be no mixing, this creates the basis for the first half of the book where Christopher searches for the murderer of his neighbors dog. When he firsts starts having a problem with this grey area in the book is when his father tells him to stop searching for the dogs murderer. This was just one instance in his life where he encounters with the grey area throughout his life has lead him to his need for explanation. One example of his need for explanation is on page 86 when Christopher’s dad takes him to the zoo. He recounts what his three favorite animals were.
“My favorite animals were,
Randyman, which is the name of the oldest red-faced black spider monkey (Ateles paniscus paniscus) ever kept in captivity. Randy is 44 years old, which is the same age as father. He used to be a pet on a ship and have a metal bound round his stomach, like in a story about pirates.
The Patagonian Sea Lions, which were called Miracle and Star.
Maliku, which is an Orangutan. I liked it especially because it was lying in a kind of hammock made out of a pair of stripy green pajama bottoms and on the blue plastic notice next to the cage it said it made the hammock itself.”
Christopher did not need to explain all of this he could have just said his favorite animals were the sea lions, the orangutan and the red-faced black spider monkey; but he explained it all because that was the way his thought process told him to. Christopher prefers to explain in this way throughout the whole book because it helps him keep his book factual. He says very early on in the book that he prefers logical explanations, and his explanation of the animals keeps a small bit of the grey area out of the book for the reader.
In the book when he encounters the grey area he reacts in different ways. The way he reacts the most commonly is when he is uncomfortable he starts to count multiples of two. This helps his thought process stay on track. He also reacts by eliminating the impossible circumstances like on page 130. Christopher needed to decide what he should do after he discovers that his father killed Wellington. He eliminates the impossible things to do and decides he will go find his mother and live with her. Christopher uses an elimination process to give a little bit more color to the grey area throughout the book. I am very similar to Christopher with this need for factual base behind my understanding. But I like to believe somethings are true even when there is no actual proof; for this belief I need there to at least be some sort of reasoning why it could be true. For instance the Orangpendek a small primate, that is some sort of bigfoot type creature. I do not believe bigfoot is real but I have faith that the Orangpendek is real because it is said to live in the dense jungles of indonesia which are so difficult to traverse you need local guides to lead you in and even they don’t know all the creatures that live in the forest. So for me this is enough to spark my faith. I see my self as similar to christopher but not similar enough to fully understand all of his actions.
P.S. I think we should name the fish
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the comments I noticed a similar theme. Many people have had similar ideas on how truth works or how we all have our own specific ways of organizing our thoughts compared to Christopher’s. However they were never to the extent of Christopher’s. It really shows that noticing that someone has autism can actually elude some at first.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Josselyn, Hannah, Elizabeth, Emily, and Ashley. The way this book is written is very strange compared to many other novels out there, but I think that without the way the author writes this it would be the same immersive experience. The way it explains every little detail as if he is actually talking to you, the reader, rather than telling a simple story really makes this an interesting experience to read. I was originally not too excited about reading this story, but so far I have found myself enjoying it more and more as I pass by each chapter.
I found that after reading everyone's comments, that most people found the book hard to read because the way Christopher thinks is so different from us. I think this is because we are used to authors trying to relate their characters with their readers, so the readers understand the character. I think this is interesting, because once we are given a book where the main character acts and thinks so different from the readers, people don't like the book. People find it hard to read because the way Christopher does things is "strange". I just thought that was interesting.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading everyone else's comments, I found myself interested in Billy's second comment. He spoke of how people don't like the book or can't relate with the character because the way he behave's being so strange. But is this type of character a good thing? I feel as if having a character that cannot be related to makes a book worse rather than better. It seems as if the removal of character relatability is detrimental to one's enjoyment of the book. I'm curious how others feel but I believe this is a case of different not being better.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that many people found that either the way that the story is told and the story itself interesting as a whole. I can understand some peoples confusion about the story line and how it jumps around a lot. I do have to agree with Kerin about how if I had read the book and known nothing about autism I would have believed that Christopher was a child under the age of 7 because of the way he talks. After doing research about autism this allows us to have a greater understanding of the book. I am very pleased that Simon was willing and trusting enough with this group to talk about his experience.
ReplyDeleteI found the comments about the likability of the book strange. I do agree that it can be difficult at times to relate to the voice and follow along, but that makes me even more interested to keep reading. The premise of the book is a murder of a dog. I can say, with 100% certainty, that if it were told in any other way I would have a very difficult time reading the book. Luckily for me, it is told in a way that makes the plot almost insignificant. Instead of following the plot, I focus more on the story behind the thought process of the narrator. Chris is dependent on the truth and putting things into the simplest terms. Without that, he gets frustrated and confused. His train of thought is so different from mine that as he struggles to understand why people lie, I struggle to understand why I lie. He has put very specific ways of society into such simple terms for me. Because of this book I don’t understand how Autism can be thought of as a disorder or a disease; to me it is a very structured and simplistic way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through reasons why or why not the book wasn’t great, I realized that I couldn’t decide what my opinion was because I was in the middle. Yes, I have to admit that some parts of Christopher’s story haven’t interested me and I have had to go back to reread passages a second time, while other passages had me staying up into the night. But Billy pointed out, Christopher’ narration does skip around quite a bit, which really distracted me from what was going on. One minute I would be really excited because Christopher had just found letters from his supposed dead mother (a twist that I never expected but loved!), and then the next chapter was like a kick in the face for he would begin talking about school or mathematical formulas. I don’t know how it made others feel, but I was finding myself a little annoyed.
ReplyDeleteBut please don’t think that I am saying that I don’t like the book. On the other hand I have always found it interesting when an author imagines a character that is nothing like them, and does such a realistic job bringing that character to life (based on the information that I found during the first blog). It is a skill that I wish I had and find really interesting. It’s like being two people at once! To also add on to Hannah’s comment, I also feel like Christopher is a friend who is telling me his story. I like that author Mark Haddon chose to write the novel in first person, opposed to third person. I feel that if he had decided to write the book in third person, we as readers wouldn’t be able to look inside Christopher’s head and understand his life as we have been. The way Haddon has written the novel has me feeling closer to Christopher and caring for him, where as I might have not have if Haddon had just told it to us. When Christopher tells us what is going on, I feel like we’re in a friendship and I become immersed in the book.
I think right now we are all wondering why this book is so curiously addicting and I have a few ideas of my own. As many of you pointed out, the odd writing style has us all captivated and I think the anticipation of what tangent or twist will happen next has us reading more. Yes, at times it is annoying, but isn’t it also interesting to be inside of the mind of someone who’s thought process is completely different from your own? I agree with Devon that a characters relatability is very important to the reader and as Ashely mentioned, most of us can relate to Christopher’s experience and possibly that is what Billy was getting at. I think it is nice to be inside of a mind I have seen so many times on the outside through strange and embarrassing actions but never through the inner thought process of those actions. Which as it turns out make so much sense. I can tolerate and relate to this book because it is a door into a mind of which I have seen but never been inside. Everything that Christopher goes through makes so much sense to me but it is yet so different from my own. I find that very captivating.
ReplyDeleteI think that after reading all these comments we could come to the conclusion that this book is so addicting because of it's differences. I feel like Billy hit it dead on when he mentioned this book being so interesting because it isn't the same style we're so accustomed to. The more I read the more I see that it remains far from the predictable teenager-relatable melodrama we've come to know. We are seeing a character we never have before. It's interesting for us to get inside the mind of something other than the average teenager. Christopher's mind gives us a fresh and new view, and we can't get enough. Perhaps those who hate this book can't stand it because of it's differences?
ReplyDeleteI found after reading everyones comments that I agree with what most people said that the book is enjoyable to read because Christopher's unpredictability makes it hard for the reader to know what is he is going to do next. Also I think that it is a refreshing viewpoint that Christopher has it is so straightforward and not disillusioned in any way while I think that this gets him into trouble I it at least for me a nice change of pace in my thinking. I think that this factor makes the book fun to read but I can also see why some people may find this book hard to read.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with several of my classmates who stated, they would have thought Christopher was much younger than he was at the start of the book if they had not known what autism was. At first I thought we were just supposed to research autism for knowledge sake, not for the purpose of the book. I started reading and actually thought Christopher was 7 years old until he talked about how his father holds out his hand with fingers spread wide to represent a hug. Also after reading the second comments I tend to agree with most everyone's opinions especially Hannah's who said that the straightforwardness of Christopher's thoughts make the book far more enjoyable. But with agreeing with Hannah I would also have to disagree with Billy's earlier statement that the author is distancing Christopher from the reader. In my own opinion I thought Mark Haddon was slowly pulling the reader closer to Christopher. My reasoning is everyone has an inner battle they are fighting with themselves from addictions to actions and forcing themselves to do things they simply don't want to do. Christopher puts all of these inner thoughts and condenses them ten-fold. This makes him far more relatable than an average book character, (at least to me.)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Simon's comment about how Christopher went into excessive detail I flipped back through the book to see if I could find more examples of this. On page 80 Christopher explains his dad's appearance when he walks in the door from work. He talks about his shirt colour and design, but also he pointed out that his dad only had one of his shoelaces double knotted. This is just another (of many including Simon's) example of how Christopher goes on "tangents" and over explains the situation or appearance of something. I think because of this way that Christopher think it helps paint a vivid picture for the reader about what the atmosphere is like or the mood the character is in. Because Christopher over explained his dad’s appearance the reader might have picked up that Christopher’s dad was a busy and stressed man to think about such a little thing like tying his shoes properly. This conclusion might be a bit of a stretch, but even so, Christopher’s way of thinking makes reading this book more enjoyable and interesting.
ReplyDeleteI liked Hannah's comment on how the way Christopher narrates the story feels as though he is reacting to the facial expressions of the reader. I agree that it does feel this way sometimes, and I think it is because Christopher is used to not being able to read facial expressions and therefore has gotten used to speaking to people without using them and therefore speaks (writes) in the same way regardless of how his audience reacts to what he says.
ReplyDeleteRosie's comment about how Christopher misunderstood his father was interesting to me as well. For me, Christopher's logic in that situation seemed sound. Frankly, if one of my parents killed a dog with a garden fork, I would not feel safe in my house either; I would be worried that they might, if not kill me, at least seriously injure me. I also think lying about something like the death of a family member is also perfectly reasonable justification for believing they could lie about anything.
A lot of people have commented about the randomness of the book. For me, it didn't seem random at all. Obviously, it does jump around, but there is always a reason for the jump. I guess it made more sense to me than others because the way Christopher thinks is not unlike the way I think.
For me, Christopher is a very relatable character. I think what Billy said about what makes humans different from other species probably has something to do with that (although I think it is because we express our empathy, love, sadness, happiness and anger differently from other species, not that we have those emotions). I'm not sure exactly how the author has been able to show this in a book so this will not be a very persuasive argument, but I think people who can relate to animals easily will be able to relate to Christopher because the logical, black and white view of the world that Christopher has is similar to that of an animal.
For example, a dog that is hit by it's owner will flinch any time that person raises it's hand regardless of the reason it was hit for the same reason Christopher assumes his father can and will lie to him about anything and everything in the future because he was "hit" by his father's lie about his mothers death.
P.S. I vote we name the blue fish Wellington.
I’ve noticed that those who chose to respond to the prompt more focused on Christopher, found characteristics much like their own. After thinking about it, I found this fact had a link to my second entry for the “Research Autism” posts. In the entry I was questioning whether or not “normal” people are that much different from anyone with a disorder. My answer was no, and I think some the responses back up my idea. An example of this is in Rosie’s response. In the first paragraph she is comparing Christopher’s way of thinking to her own: “Christopher’s outlook on the world is logical and scientific… Like Christopher, I tend to have a scientific or mathematical approach to problems...” Christopher’s way of thinking and talking is partly his personality, however some could regard it as a symptom of Autism. To be clear, I don’t think a person has a disorder if they have one little “thing” that makes them, them. I am only backing up my idea that people have quirks and little “things” they do which doesn’t make them much different from those with disorders. We are all unique, and the same in different ways—connected.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite idea that people have talked about so far was the one Hannah originally brought up about how it seemed as though Christopher said things based off of peoples reactions. Because this is a book, we have no way of telling. But it made me wonder what it would be like talking to Christopher in person. I could think about the fact that he has autism and then come up with a list of characteristics he has that would determine how he would act in person. But this book is leading me to believe that maybe Christopher is more "normal" than we give him credit for. I think that, hypothetically speaking, writing this book would have been really good for Christopher; it could have helped him realize things about himself. I don't know, just an idea.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I read that I really really liked was when Emily said something about feeling like you have autism when you read this. I'm not sure if I would say that I feel like I have autism, but after I've read the book for awhile and I put it down, I start to think in the same tone of voice that Christopher uses in his writing. To me this is only an indication of how nice the writing is. Its clear and distinct and also kind of catchy, like a song that gets stuck in your head; in a good way.
I also really liked Zoë’s idea of comparing Christopher’s mind to that of a dog. Although I am nowhere near saying that Christopher’s behavior is solely that of an animal, I do think Zoë makes a solid point. When Christopher finds out that his father lied, the only idea in his mind is that he IS a liar. I think the main idea behind this is that Christopher doesn’t understand the idea of a “second-chance”. Which makes sense, because when you think about it, giving out a second chance isn’t a very logical thing to do. It’s generally something you do because of a really strong emotion you feel towards a person, and if Christopher doesn’t completely have those emotions he has no reason to do it. In Christopher’s case its not that he doesn’t believe in giving his father a second chance, it’s that he has no recollection of what a second chance is.
I’d like to begin by stating that I hate computers. This is the third time I have had to type this, and I’m bloody sick of it!
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think that the question of whether or not this book is a particularly good novel is moot at this point. The point of it is to give the reader an idea of what life is like for Christopher. As you know, Christopher is a logical person. He likes things to be in order, and it’s hard when people act irrationally and illogically. To him, the world is a confusing and chaotic place. However, to the rest of the world, Christopher is rather odd himself. He doesn’t pick up on subtle social cues and he has trouble understanding many of the expressions that are considered commonplace and easily understood. To many, Christopher is the odd one. Believe me on this: autism makes it difficult to so much as communicate some days. This disconnect between viewpoints is what Haddon is trying to bridge with this book. It’s supposed to be a journey: not just into Christopher’s life, but into his logic and his mind. It’s to help the neurotypical reader to better understand what the world is like from the autistic perspective. To truly appreciate this book, try looking at why he does things, as opposed to how good a novel it is. I agree with Ashley on this: reading this book as a narrative is to miss the point entirely.
I also believe that this book can help all of us to try to understand each other better. I realize that some of us have trouble with reading this book. Rather, it’s perfectly reasonable that the pace of the book is erratic; the notions presented are on the abstract side, etcetera. It is nothing for which to be at fault, certainly. Try looking deeper into Christopher’s mind as you read on; try to feel the emotion that he does, think like he does. Use your inner empathy, and you’ll realize that the autistic mind is not as alien as you might think.
--SP
P.S. The black fish is evil. It took a bite out of my cursor!
Josselyn says in her second post that she is in the middle with wether or not the book is great. I agree with her. There are aspects of this book that are great. For example: we really get insight into the way autism works and how people with autism respond to situations. I think being able to learn that is great. However, so far in this book Christopher has found out his father lied, his mother didn't die but she left him, and his dad killed the dog with a pitch fork. So far we have learned a lot but I cannot say that I like the story itself...yet. Maybe the second half of the book will change that but for now this book is interesting and informative but not enjoyable...for me, anyway.
ReplyDeleteKarleen mentioned something about it being taboo to change the subject without a transition and, not only do I like the way she said that, but I like that she also said that it was freeing that he wrote that way. Christopher tends to change subjects abruptly but that's how all our minds work. I'll be thinking of what to have for breakfast and then my mind will change to the fact that I have to do my laundry. Our minds change subjects abruptly due to visual cues or just a fast process through our brains. It's not explained how we go from one subject to another: just like Christopher doesn't explain it.
I really liked Jared's comparison to a robot you might see on tv. I'm not saying Christopher is a machine, in fact, he is often incredibly emotional. It's more that when a situation passes Christopher's distinct comfort level, he explodes, if you will. There seems to be a certain point that he can no longer deal with people. In terms of telling the truth, he cannot function when someone lies.
ReplyDeleteAs he gets older, he has begun to understand people better than when he was younger. For example, he writes, "when I was little I didn't understand about other people having minds." (Haddon 116) I think, as Christopher has more life experiences, he may have less of these explosions. He will get used to other peoples habits of lying and probably learn to cope better. Like Sydney, I think Karleen's comment about transitioning is important. Since Christopher thinks and functions differently than the average person, giving him the time and necessary experience to learn to deal with uncomfortable situations is very important. Christopher is unquestionably smart, and I think he will learn how to function in society with considerably less explosions.
A wise person once told me that we learn the most about ourselves from people who are different from us. I have learned a lot from Christopher. I realize now that having Autism is similar to being a very smart child. Children see the world in black and white. There is always a right thing to do, a right answer. This is one of the reasons that I enjoy being around children so much. The way that they see the world is simple and beautiful. Christopher wants this degree of order and simplicity in his life.
ReplyDeleteChristopher also taught me that being a “good” person is less complex than I thought. It isn’t about saving the world or making everyone happy. First and foremost, you must be at peace with yourself and who you are. From this peace and understanding comes the wisdom to never lie about important things, although you might tell a “white lie”—leave things out—to spare the feelings of others. When you compromise your morals, you become a “bad” person and lose the potential to do amazing things.
I really like the idea that Simon was getting at in his follow up. Often when I read books it escapes me to question what the point of the book was. Simon talked about the authors decision to go for an in depth look into the life of the autistic character, and I agree that the books purpose definitely, to some extent is to give us a better understanding of autism. But I also think that the book forces us to look at our own views of Christopher and autism and how these views are influenced. Maybe it is even helping us to remember why we do have slightly different standards for those with disabilities. Not standards that degrade them by any means, but standards that allow those with disabilities to be judged fairly. Emily also mentioned the books ability to force us to feel autism. Many people expressed feelings towards the erratic nature of the book and Haddon’s choice to write with autistic tendencies. I agree with Emily that the book does to a certain extent force the reader to feel the effects of autism. We are used to reading literature that flows with rationality and full-fledged ideas, without these I felt a little of Christopher’s perception of the world coming through.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of the books structure definitely enhances the readers experience and makes it seem more autistic. As I read the book I felt as if I was reading faster and more frantically. With less desire to analyze texts and simply following Christopher’s train of thought. Many people found this difficult to follow, and to some extent I did as well, but I at the same time I felt as though I was truly in Christopher’s mind. The occasional thoughts that had seemingly no relevance didn’t bug me, but made me feel as though the writing was truly Christopher’s train of thought.
GPF