the Curious Incident of the Dog at Night-Time, Mark Haddon

I wonder if Mark Haddon is one of those writers who write, or those who must write. I'm inclined to think the former.

I have high praise for this book. The writing is easy and approachable. The book is clear, in purpose and execution, too - it is like a very well-formulated, clearly illustrated essay. It is exactly one idea that has been completely fleshed out: everything in the book works. The plot was unexpected, unpredictable, and so the suspense is part of what makes this book such an engaging read. I did not know that the trivial scene of a dead dog would blow into such a drama. At first I doubted whether the incident was real, or a deranged figment of Christopher's imagination. I questioned the timeline. I expected it to have a different catch, really, one deeper and more psychological. I hardly thought it would be a family drama, so I can see how it makes for dramatic film material with a unique perspective. I really expected Christopher to get caught when he ran away, but I can see how well it works that he succeeded in his quest to London. I think the ending is realistic, but a little flat and "factual" after the intrigue of all the other chapters. It lacks Christopher's unique voice, and is too motivational.

This book made me reflect upon and become more deeply convinced of some things: one, that there is truth in stories. I would learn more about autism reading this, or watching its film rendition, than a thousand textbooks or an "awareness" pamphlet. Literature arouses compassion, and changes lives. And that is why I would really like to write.

Also, I can see how I'm... not autistic, but has the germs of it. I'm not truly affectionate and I'm selective about physical contact. I have trouble deciphering facial expressions (and I actually have trouble remembering faces, but that's another story.) I like logic, but I share Christopher's implicit convictions... or superstitions about signs for good and bad days. My memory is fairly remarkable, and I detest it when furniture is moved. I could not talk or eat for extended periods. My world is so delicate that very little could make me erect a wall to protect it and to shut out what hurts or frightens me.

Perhaps that is Haddon's best achievement: to make autism so accessible and easy to relate to. I'll think twice from now on about the crazy man in the subway. The prime numbers, observation (like the billboards in London - oh how nostalgic this makes me for London!), the Hound of Baskervilles book report, the lists, his Mom's spelling mistakes and the slightly awkward turns of phrase like "do sex" really make it real.

Haddon's math and logic does have flaws though, and I do nitpick. For instance, if Christopher's fear of his father and his feeling of safety are an inverse relationship, fear(constant)≠ fear(father) x safety. it would be fear(father) / safety. And Christopher says he does not like metaphors, but at the very end he describes the pain of missing his A-levels like putting a finger on the radiator. That's a metaphor. What Haddon means is that Christopher doesn't get idioms and common expressions, like "you're the apple of my eye." That's *not* a metaphor.

I find Christopher's family entirely realistic in the modern context. I think it's realistic that his Mother felt trapped by taking care of him, and envious of her husband's ease of managing him. The partner swap is maybe a little too soap-opera. And lastly, it's realistic that there is no resolution for his parents' relationship, but they do work together to ensure the best possible for Christopher.

But that's not how my family would've handled it. I'm not too conservative - over the years I've become a fan of non-traditional families (and, in all honesty, desensitized to and sympathetic of having affairs), but Christopher's family makes me sad. It troubles me how much a person has to give up to care for their child. I don't think I could ever handle such a responsibility - what a daunting thing it could be to bring a life into the world! It also troubles me that Ed showed no mercy to Judy even though they both had Christopher's best interests at heart. You'd think that, if she was his wife, if they both still love the child they brought into the world, he'd let her stay in the house. I don't know, it's not very realistic, and I'm not talking in terms of romance, but my family would have different values in this situation, and I'm ashamed to say that my rebellious ways would probably make me shirk duty (to the child and to one another), and my parents wouldn't.

And last of all, the book is a well-presented argument, but it is JUST a well-presented argument. I learned from Christopher, but I would not grow in him. That is the difference between a stand-alone piece of this sort, and a true classic like Anne, or Jane Austen, or even - I daresay - Harry Potter. And if I ever made it, I do not know what kind of writer I should prefer to be, after all.