I haven't read any reviews of this book, but I went into it thinking it was written for the young adult audience. Though there are some beautifully crafted YA books out there, I don't always expect a great deal of complexity, and so I wasn't disappointed.

The book made me think that the author, who has written mainly for children and has worked with autistic people in the past, was trying to broaden his audience's (the YA readers') awareness of autism/Asperger's. Adults, especially parents and teachers, can try to understand the experiences and motivations of an autistic person plenty, but young people might not have a reason or an interest. So I thought that was kind of what this book was for: to help young adults who come in contact with autistic people to be more sensitive to them.

The quote from Oliver Sacks (a favorite author of mine) on my copy is "A brilliant autism novel has been overdue..." Maybe this novel isn't exactly brilliant, but apparently it is filling a niche.

All that said, though, I agree that it is very hard to accept that Christopher's father killed the dog.

You know, Heidi, you bring up a good point. The book did feel very agenda driven to me - not that there's anything wrong with bringing attention to Asperger's or Autism. It's just that I read for the writing and the more importantly, the story. I think in this case story was sacrificed for the cause. In thinking about it this way, I'd say the book succeeded. I did feel that I was given a passageway into the mind of an autistic young man, especially given that I know next to nothing about the way an autistic mind works. It was quite compelling in that respect.

I had the opposite reaction to the strange voice of the narrator as Cara and Heidi - instead of feeling contrived, I loved the emotional "flatness" that obscured, but could not completely hide, the problems of the characters in the book. With Christopher's point of view, I felt that many of the other characters in the novel acquired a sort of eerie, half-seen quality. Because Christopher could not understand them, the reader can't get a good handle on the characters either - but you do get strange glimpses of the "real world", which you understand but Christopher doesn't, which (for me) gave a strange depth to what is happening in this little detective novel.

While this wasn't a book that changed my life, I found it a very enjoyable and quick read. I read it last year, one of those books I couldn't put down and read in a single night. While I think it has been marketed toward adults, it mostly reminds me of other good YA books out there, with a deceptively simple structure that shapes an interesting and true story.

Also, and this is a little silly, but I remember when reading the book the author has Christopher play Minesweeper at one point, with consistently obscenely high scores resulting... I'm pretty good at Minesweeper, and only reach those levels with luck and time, as the game often comes down to guessing (at one point or another) and simple clicking speed. Would somebody like Christopher really be able to do so well consistently? I know, it's dumb, but it bugged me!

I have to say, I agree with Sandy; I thought Christopher was a very interesting version of the "unreliable narrator," and I found myself caring more about his voice and experience instead of plot details. I thought that the dog's murder was actually irrelevant to the story in a weird way.

I liked the book because I seriously thought it was going to be a mystery, and loved the left turn it took into exploring Christopher's inner life. I was also very appreciative that there was a minimum of exposition; for instance, as a reader, you were required to figure out who Siobahn was from the details Christopher provided. while it wasn't a perfect book, it required an engaged reader, and I appreciated that.

I'm not sure if I liked the book or not. I did, for the first hundred pages or so, then I didn't, because the gimmickry (i.e., the illustrations) began to distract me. If the book captures the interior life of a person with autism, then I'm glad I read it, to experience both the strangeness and the commonality between normal and abnormal. But I don't read for that "Oprah" factor - I read for plot, character, conflict, fun, & the usual set of suspects. This book didn't sustain itself.

I took the book with me on vacation and definately approached it from a different point of view as such. I was happy that it was a bit simplified. I think that with Hadden's approach it did come out that way. I found myself really standing apart from the story and not sympathizing with any of the characters. Part of this for me was that my mind works in about the opposite way of this character. I really glazed over at the mathematical illustrations and eventually skipped over them entirely.
I find Cara's observations very interesting and now am wondering if part of my not sympathizing with the characters came from a plot not being well developed. I do have to say that I could beleive the father killed the dog (he was overwhelmed that a second woman was rejecting him because of his son). But I don't think he would have told Christopher. Especially right when he was finding out about his mother. I also agree that it is ridiculous that the mother would not have called or visited to find out about her son.

First off, I would like to say that I both really enjoyed and really despised this book simultaneously, which is not unheard of in "book world" but it is unheard of for me. Although I mildly enjoyed the story line, I couldn't get past Christopher's voice and his clippie narrative. The more intensely I read, the more I found myself feeling manic and jumpy, I think there was definitely a rhythm to his writing and manner of speaking that kind of sucked me in. I usually elaborate and imagine more of about the storylines that I read but in this one, I didn’t really go past Christopher’s narrative

As far as the story line itself, I thought it was a bit simplistic but that is exactly what I expected but it did kind of go off on a tangent though. Although I was a little surprised to find that the father killed the dog, it didn’t surprise me in “the big picture” of things. As far as the mother goes, Deb commented about it being “ridiculous” that the mother didn’t call on or visit the son. I personally think that is horrible but I know that it happens and I wasn’t surprised to find out the mother was indeed still alive.

As far as the father’s relationship with his son, I think it was a real relationship, real meaning it was not sugar coated, there were ups and downs but he truly cared for his son. Knowing Christopher’s nature to view things as black and white, I can understand how he got caught up in the lie about his wife being dead. How horrifying would that be, trying to explain to your autistic son that Mommy went to live with someone else. Although I don’t agree with the lie, I kind of feel like he started the hospital thing just to stall the inevitable and then got so deep he didn’t know how to get out.

Towards the end of the novel I found myself wondering how big, Christopher was, meaning physically. I found it hard to believe that someone who appeared to be a child could sit in a train station for 5 hours in a row without anyone noticing. Anyway..here I go on a tangent too.

I am not a good enough knitter to read and knit at the same time yet and I drive 1.25 hours to work everyday so I got the book on CD so my experience was entirely different than if I had read it. There are some books that I love to "read" and there are some that I think I only like because they are read to me. I think this one falls into the later. I was intrigued by the fact that there were illustrations in the book, I may now have to request it from the library just to check them out. An intrinsic fault with books on CD.

I don't know if anyone else noticed but the news has been chucked full of autism. I have never know anyone personally with it so listening to this book and then watching the coverage on The Today Show and reading about it in Newsweek allowed me some insight into the disease that I probably wouldn't have had without reading the book.

I didn't mind the first person as much either since hearing the story was much like hearing things your friends would tell you. Stories, weekend adventures, etc. I think it actually made it more real to me.

I don't think it was a work of extraordinary fiction but it did what I hope every book will do for me which is think about things long after I put the story down. It made we think about when I have kids what happens if one of them is born with autism? What if I had been a sibling of someone with it? What would my life be like if I had it? How do I treat the somewhat curious acting individuals I meet on an average day?

On the mother point, I think when you walk out and leave a situation like that you have to accept the fact that the people you do that to may never forgive you and never want to see you again, especially if they can't really understand your reasons for doing so. I think if it had been me (which I can't imagine leaving but...) I wouldn't have been totally surprised if my family wrote me off. I took the easy way out. I couldn't deal so I ran off.

I must admit that I read this book when it was first released. I saw the author on the 'Today Show' and it sounded like a good read. Although I am a little nervous to admit I loved it. I thought that Haddon gave us a small inkling as to how people with Asperger's, or any of the other autism spectrum conditions, view us. Since reading, I have recommended the book to teens at the Library where I work. The Teens love the book and discussing it. A question I'll ask is: Can you think of someone that you know that might be like Christopher and if yes, how differently will you think of him after reading this book. The Teens, and me, didn't read this book for the plot but for the character. I think it opens our eyes to another world, one that has too many citizens.

Also, if you get a chance, the music that goes with this book is by Badly Drawn Boy and the song is A Minor Incident from the film About A Boy. In Nick Hornby's book Songbook is an essay about band, song, son, and autism. I think it works well with this book.

It seems over the last year or so that the media has brought the autism spectrum to the attention of the public like never before. The numbers of diagnosed autistic children are staggering today. I felt the book was valuable for trying to explain or show us how someone with this disorder sees the world and interacts with the world. That is what I see as the value in this book-an explanation for the odd behavior that one may come across. The book was a series of "aha" moments for me.

Margie

Just wanted to add that I don't read necessarily for plot - I read for the whole package. That said, the plot twists in this book could have worked - anything goes in fiction - if all of the other elements had come together. For instance, if I had known more about the father, I might have easily believed that he could've killed the dog. And if I had known more about the mother, I could've believed that she would have left her son. Whether or not these things happen in real life is of no consquence to me when I'm reading. It's all about the world the writer presents. If the writer presents a believable world and well-drawn characters - I'll buy anything. ;-)



I find Tia's comments so interesting - maybe I'll borrow the audiobook from the library. First person narrative lends itself to being told - I wonder who read it?



While I felt the book could be a good introduction to Autism/Asperger's, in the end, I feel like it only touched the surface. I was left with A LOT of questions - wondering what was fiction and what was fact.

It's so interesting to read your comments. I re-read this book last week after having read it when it first came out. As a mother of a son not unlike Christopher, I have to say that I truly appreciated how closely Haddon was able to create a character so realistically autistic/Asperger-ish.

My son, William, is working on a post with me that we should have up tomorrow on this site. Let me just say, though, that he has read and enjoyed this book several times (he said at least four); I believe because he is able to identify with the character. I think the beauty of the book is that Christopher is a uniquely believable character, at least from where I sit.

Christopher's mother, also, strikes me as someone NOT entirely socially adept (and his father--well, that goes without saying). Family shadings of autism are often recognized after a child has been diagnosed.



I didn't even pay much attention to the thin plot line, because I was so fascinated with the character. That we only were able to perceive emotional response through the reactions that Christopher reports was an amazing accomplishment on the part of the author, at least from my perspective.

Laurie - I'm so glad to see your comment. I'm looking forward to reading what you and William have written.

I understand what you're saying about Christopher's character - I wish I had felt it more. I wanted to feel it - I'm not sure why I didn't.

It's interesting what you say about family connections - add new light to the characters.

Also, I so appreicate the difficulty Haddon had when deciding to tell the story the way he did - the limitations he faced were formidable.

Thanks again for adding to the conversation.

THhe story itself didn't hold me. I realized early on in the book that Christopher' father was at fault. I enjoyed this book though. I was fasinated by Christopher. And reading this book actually gave me some insight on my own daughter. She is not autistic, but she has similar "quirks" if you will. So, if anything I came away realizing I need to step back and look at things a little differently sometimes.

Also, although in the characters were not developed more in the story itself, I think this is a book that allows the reader to put their own "spin" on the characters, which might be why some have difficulty accepting the father as the dog murderer, etc.

I have to say that I really enjoyed this book. I found that because of the first person point of view I was really able to get into Christopher's head and start to understand things the way that he did. It was very intersting to get a new perspective. I've never known anyone with Asperger's, but there's a character on a TV show I watch that seems to and I've always found her interesting. I think that I really love the innocence of it. It is somewhat like a young child (my area of expertise) in that he isn't able to understand multiple meanings and to think beyond what he experiences.

I didn't feel that the novel was written with a message or an agenda really. In fact, according to the author (in the interview linked above) it wasn't even begun with that thought in mind. And he claims that he never used the term autistic or Asperger's. I think that like I said, it's a new perspective that really adds something to the story.

I agree with Sandy J the emotional flatness of the character, but I do have to admit at the same time I found myself skipping over what I considered boring parts (his couple of pages on the Hounds of Baskerville for example) to search for Christopher.

I was surprised about the father killing Wellington, but I didn't find the mother's behavior that surprising. She wrote him letters perfunctorily, but seemed like she was relieved to have rid herself of the responsibility of him, so her not calling was not a shock to me. I found myself identifying with Christopher a lot.
I was incredibly depressed by the ending. His father still seemed like the best person to care for Christopher, and yet he was mainly with his mother, who did come around a bit, but who I think would dump Christopher for any attractive alternative. Christopher was so optimistic at the end, but for some reason I was decidedly less optimistic for him.

Just a thought, do you think the style of writing is British? I know that sounds odd but can you see that this book was written by someone from England rather than the United States?
I look forward to Laurie and Williams's insight into the novel. What interesting conversations we all are having!

This book was extremely disturbing to me. I have a 21 yo son who has Tourette's and has many of the behavioral characteristics of Asperger's. From that perspective, like Laurie, I really related to the book.

As the mother of a child with this kind of problem, I really sympathize with both parents. It's a very hard row to hoe and some people just can't do it.

As far as Sandy's comment--this is very true to life. People with Aspergers are generally very intelligent, especially in the area of math, while having zero ability to function socially. It's very believable that Christopher would be able to get those kinds of scores in minesweeper. My son completed the entire 3-D figure portion of the I.Q. test without error at 11 years old. He tests just under genius level on I.Q. tests and the people who tested him think he's much smarter than the test showed.

Lauren said "She (mother) wrote him letters perfunctorily, but seemed like she was relieved to have rid herself of the responsibility of him, so her not calling was not a shock to me."

I didn't see this as the case, I think that the mother seemed to be a tad bit emotionally inept and she herself even admitted that she didn't know how to deal with Christopher most of the time. I don't think it was simply that she didn't want to take responsibility anymore..she didn't seem well equipped enough to know how to take responsibility. I think we assume that just because they are the mother or the father that they automatically know how to deal with him.

I didn't fault the author for not exposing more about the characters because I thought the value of this book was in seeing people the way that Christopher saw them. At times, that means understanding them in an incomplete and simplistic way.

The coldness and flatness of the book resonated with me when I think about a friend of the family who has asperger's. As this boy moves further into adolescence, it's tougher to see him as an "odd kid" and becomes more evident that the way he sees and experiences the world profoundly impacts the way he interacts with those around him.

I found the narrative voice convincing considering the characteristics of the narrator.

Was it a perfect book? No. I certainly skipped over some of the math parts. That said, I read really quickly and seldom remember details about books. I have been known to reread books and never realize that I've read them before. I read this book about six months ago and will say that the image of Christopher waiting for the train, rocking, moaning, and covering his head will stay with me for a good long time.

I think I am going out on a limb, and saying I enjoyed this book. I didn't read many reviews, and while it had been on my "want to read" list for awhile, I didn't pick it up untill it was assigned for this month. And I read it last night, it that matters.



To me, this book wasn't about autisum, or about the dog, but about Christopher. From the begining, we know that he himself is "writing" the book, because Sibohan assigned it to him. It caught my interest, because if the character is developed enough, I don't mind seeing something entirely from his point of view.



I was thrilled with the foot notes, as it is something I do myself, when I want to add more information that isn't really important to the plot. And the diagrams. If you were writing it yourself, perhaps in a notebook, you would draw little pictures to yourself. The chapters being prime numbers was all "christoper," and I could tell he was different right away.



To answer one of the questions:
5. The author has used his extensive knowledge of Asperger's syndrome to allow us to see the world through Christopher's eyes, how do you think the story further enhances our attachment to the character and our enjoyment of the book in general?



I believe I was extreamly attached to Christopher, in a non-emotional way, of course. I don't think this story would have worked from any other point of view. From the third person, being told that the main character feels no emotion doesn't really catch our attention, but when the character himself does it. For example, when Christopher explains about the face cards (for which the drawing was much better than trying to explain it), it makes sense that when most of human interaction is physical, he would need que cards to get it right. Or later on, when his dad is mad at him, but speeking quietly, Christopher doesn't realize until after the fact that he was mad. It wouldn't have been as involving as "His father was speeking in a quite voice, and Christopher didn't realize he was mad at him."



I liked that everything was the "truth," making a much more straightforward book. We arn't drawn into the emotions of lesser characters. We don't know how intense the fighting was among his parents, because Christopher doesn't know.



However, I for one would like to know other people's impressions on the train scean. Why didn't anyone tell the porters where Christopher was hiding? And how did he get lucky enough to get off in London, and not someplace before?

First of all, I listened to the book on Audible instead of reading it (it was read by Jeff Woodman who did a great job). I think I missed quite a bit since I didn't see any of the drawings. However, I found it to be successful as an audiobook because it was in first person and the reader was convincing as the character of Christopher.

It seems to me that this book is a success only because it is told by Christopher. That's what makes it so interesting and adds a complexity that we wouldn't get from any of the other characters, since few of us have much exposure to the thinkings of an autistic person. I found it rather fascinating how he didn't get wrapped up in the drama of his parents' actions and it only affected him on the very base level of whether he was "safe" or not.

I wonder, like Nancy, how this would be different if not set in Britain.

I really had no problem "believing" the story but than again I have relatives etc with developmental and emotional "issues" so maybe I went into this a little more "prepared" than the average person.

I thought the book was wonderful because of it's uniqueness. While most of us will never really "know" if the voice given to Christopher is true to someone with autism I personally felt like it was feasible. And I agree with what someone else said about feeling like the reader had more room to put their own "spin" on the characters. When I was finished with the book (which, admittedly, I read quite a bit ago at the suggestion of a coworker) I could imagine Christopher continueing to live on somewhere, just without us, the readers, "visiting".

I also think that Christopher's mother not calling (or at least not calling and speaking to Christopher) is completely plausible... she, of course, had no reason to suspect that Christopher wasn't getting her letters (or have any idea that Christopher was told she was dead) and if he was as "emotionally inept" as he seemed to be to me than it's not inconceivable that she wouldn't expect him to write back to her. He wasn't an emotional person because emotions were outside of his "scope".

But that's just my view on it.

I don't even know where to start with my comments about this book. I tried reading the book last year when it came out and just couldn't finish it. I normally never leave books unfinished and I really thought this would be a book that I loved but it just wasn't. My brother has Asperger's but wasn't diagnosed until his early 20's (he is 27 now). I keep coming back to what I felt was the flatness of the book and I wonder if it is me seeing Christopher as my brother. Christopher and my brother are on two different sides of the Asperger's scale so the flatness just didn't ring true - not to say that my brother has not had a difficult time fitting in to social structures, just that because my family was part of all that, it didn't seem flat to me - it was always chaotic, dynamic and sometimes just out of control. I then think of how much of "normal" I imposed on my brother (especially since we didn't know that Asperger's existed) - maybe the flatness I see is a world that is ever changing and dynamic for him.

As for Minesweeper (and any other video game for that matter), he just kicks my ass.

Like Donna, I had first picked up this book thinking it was going to be a quirky little mystery, so I was really surprised when the plot took its sidestep.

I wasn't looking for any deeper meaning with this book, and I think that's the reason why I liked it. Admittedly, I had to warm up to the first-person narrative and the idiosyncrasies of the diagrams and footnotes. But once I did, I really enjoyed it.

Also, I like the fact that Nancy pointed out the book's British perspective. It's been ages since I've ready any British novels, but I have to agree that this probably made a difference on the tone and writing style.

I am a psychotherapist... and one of the things I enjoyed about this book was the depiction of a frame of reference that was internally logical and consistent but was so "different" from so-called "normal" people. My clients (not just Aspbergers' types), and, dare I say it, most of us-- have internal gaps in our logic or observation that make the outside world seem incomprehensible. I hear stories every day of things that I would never have been able to "dream up"... The father silencing the dog in rage seems plausible to me. Similarly, the breakdown of his marriage under the stress of raising Christopher... who was not "retarded" or dumb.. but very differently abled. I think the fast Minesweeper score (as well as his advanced physics take on religion, fantasy and metaphor) is totally within the realm of possibility given his neurological style.

I agree that the book would be interesting to some YA readers... however, the subject matter expands the readership... as it is about relationships in general; parent/child, spouse/spouse, public/private, individual/bureaucracy. In my experience YA novels tend to have at the center some adolescent developmental task... i.e., individuating, discovering self, developing courage. I think Christopher was the lens through which we focused in a new and different way on the issues of loyalty, self-control, love and pain.

I enjoyed this book. I read it awhile ago for my real-life bookclub. I think what I enjoyed was the simplistic world view. In this way, I think the first person narrative works well for this. C's outlook on life is limited but not limitless. When made aware of circumstances, by either witnessing him himself or by witnessing them and then receiving feedback about the nature of the circumstance from other people, he can see them and report on them but cannot always place them into the appropriate emotional compartment. The format of solving a mystery provides a great base for these characteristics. Creating a character with true-to-life tendencies (in terms of "normal" characteristics for people with a higher functional ranges of autism.) C's a person with a memory for facts, numbers, and events. He can recall and report but yet he can't always understand or read the emotional cues that present themselves. He needs these things explained to him in terms that he can understand. This makes my hurt lurch as I read his story and understand how this all must be processed in his world-view, the confusion he must feel (obviously described in his actions during his train trip.) Mostly because I see such things happen with my brother. My brother has asperger's tendencies (he's 27 and has ever been formally diagnosed.) We (people without this "world-view") tend to take for granted how easy it is for us to read a face or situation and act appropriately.

A babbling take on the novel...but just about all I can say!

I read this book when it came out in 2003, and unfortunately was not able to do a 2nd read-through for this group. I really enjoyed reading this book the first time, and in many ways it reminded me of _Flowers for Algernon_. Did anyone else see this?

I enjoy reading everyones' comments, and hope to contribute more very soon.

I read this book not long after it came out. I read it on my Palm device in ebook format, so I didn't get some of the pictures that were apparently in the printed version of the book.
What I valued most was the totally different way of looking at things that Christopher had. His description of how he sees "everything" was amazing and enlightening to me. It made me see how a condition like Asperger's could, in SOME respects and in SOME situations, be a benefit rather than a handicap.
I was fascinated.
I read another book not long after I finished this one. "The Speed of Dark" by Elizabeth Moon also treats with a high-functioning autistic character, but in a more speculative context (i.e., what if there were a treatment that could "fix" autism. Would you give it to your child? Who would the child be then? How would his personality change? Would he lose by the treatment, or gain by it? The two books together gave me lots to think about.

I have to say that I had mixed feelings about this book. I have worked with kids who are autistic and one of the professors at my job is the father of a child with Asperger's so I guess I went into my reading with some expectations. What I found was that it hit on some things and seemed to miss on others. For example, I think the feelings that Christopher had about not wanting to be touched, liking things to be in a certain order, etc. were dead on. One child I worked with would have to be let on the van early in the afternoons so that he could buckle all the seat belts and arrange them just so or else he would not ride in the van home. But then other things bothered me. Such as the amount of insight that Christopher seems to have into his condition. I understand this is necessary for the reader to understand what Christopher is feeling and why, but it has not been my experience that even high functioning autistic children are this aware of why they do what they do, nor are they able to explain it so eloquently.

Aside from these points, I did enjoy reading this book. I liked how there was no clear answer and no real good or bad guy. Everyone in the story was human, they all made mistakes and (best of all) they tried to fix those mistakes. It is very difficult living with an autistic child, and I loved that this book presented that fact truthfully. There was no window dressing here. I think that it may also help people to understand why sometimes these children end up in institutions when parents feel they cannot cope with raising an autisic child.

I also like how they portrayed his intelligence which I have also seen in the children I know. I have had long conversations about world politics with a 10 year old boy who seemed to know way more about it than I did. He gave me his opinions in a very loud orratorial voice and didn't allow me to interrupt while he was talking but he was very in the know *smile* While I was reading this book and listening to Christopher's dead-pan narration in my head, it put me very much in mind of my little friend.

I was a little mad at the mom for not calling and trying to talk to Christopher but I think that under the circumstances it was understandable. She woundn't have wanted to risk talking to the father on the phone and since Christopher cannot "read" vocal cues a phone call would not have been anymore personal to him than would be a letter. She also would not have any idea that the father would have hid her letters and told Christopher she was dead. I think she would have known that it might take a long time for Christopher to come to terms with her leaving and therefore the amount of time that had passed without him writing her would not have seemed unreasonable. But I do think it really sucked that she left in the first place, lol.

I have to say, I enjoyed this book. I was engaged by Christopher and found him sympathetic, though I expect if I was parenting a child with his difficulties I wouldn't be able to cope either!

In many respects the book is a simple, but interesting variation of a typical "coming of age" novel. Because of Christopher's autism/aspergers, the emotional affect of the first person narration is flattened, creating an artificial distance, or false sense of objectivity. While you know he is not omniscient, his tone of authority and certainty frame his character.

And yet, despite a character who could seem cold and unemotional, Haddon imparted a sense Christopher's vulnerability and engendered my sympathy. I cheered for him when he made it to London, despite all of the internal and external obstacles in his way. I was proud of his "A" level grades and rejoiced in his sense of accomplishment. You know he will never have a "normal", easy life, but by the end of the book, you come to believe that Christopher will succeed on his own terms.

It's not a perfect book, nor a groundbreaking one, but it did make me look at the world from a perspective very different from my own, through the eyes of a very engaging character.

I too listened to the audio version of this book and one of the reasons I chose audio was so that I could keep on knittin' and also because the first person narrative works really well this way.

I cannot listen to a story being told third person at all. My memory is a bit photographic and I find even now that I cannot remember all the characters names but I figure that's ok because really it was all about Christopher.
He was what I was reading about. The plot did not thrill me and I can't say that I was emotionally attached to Christopher like some of you.

That has me wondering what was the author's objective in writing this story - surely it wasn't a plot that you could get swept away in... did he want us to get swept up in the life of Christopher?

I found this a quirky read, I was interested in all the tangents Christopher went off on and found myself wondering: Now how did he getting talking about this?

Maybe reading it in printed form and seeing the sketches would make a difference... did anyone find this book funny, as in funny ha'ha? I've heard people talking about the book that way and I don't think I get it.

I do think the author wanted us to get swept up in Christopher's life. It seemed to me that we get to see his situation from a very different perspective. The story by itself is really kinda sad -- autistic boy's mom can't cope, runs away with neighbor. Boy's father copes a bit better with the boy, but in his anger at the mother, tells the boy she's dead. Boy finds out different, goes off to seek mother.

It's Christopher's perspective and flat emotional tone that make the story interesting. Events that could be very painful emotionally are distanced by Christopher's flat affect. Events that would be trivial to most of us (e.g., entering a subway tunnel) are fraught for Christopher.

I've been re-reading this book on my Zire, and there are a few more images than I remembered that are included in the ebook. I don't think that most of them add that much to the story. Mostly they help illustrate ways that Christopher thinks.

I went into this book wanting to understand how the point of view of an autistic narrator would enhance/limit the experience of the story. I am glad Haddon tried this. While I agree that the book has its imperfections, it was a good read for me and I have so enjoyed reading others' comments and criticism!

I also listened to the audio version of this book (I listen to books on my daily commute). I think that the audio version made the telling of the story more "real" to me. I felt that I was able to get a glimpse of what it would be like to see the world through the eyes of an autistic person. I do feel that the book did have some imperfections, however, I have yet to find the "perfect" book.

I have also enjoyed reading everyone's comments. It is interesting to see all of the different points of view. This has made the book even more enjoyable.

This may be beyond the purview of this discussion, but I'll throw it out anyway.
Would you change places with Christopher? IOW, if you could gain something (e.g., increased concentration, enhanced memory for details, exceptional mathematic ability), would you ever opt to be "differently abled" as Christopher is?

I just finished the book tonight, and I am glad I read it. Like Amy, I didn't think the book was funny - even though I've heard it described that way. I didn't get it. I was really affected by the first description of the dad fanning out his fingers in lieu of giving his son a hug. Not being able to hug your child... At the same time, I did get a greater appreciation of how fascinating, although frustrating, caring for someone like Christopher would be.

I wasn't surprised that the mother didn't question why Christopher didn't respond to her letters. I found the (one-sided) conversation between Christopher and his dad about regaining trust to be absolutely heart-breaking. If the mom thought that she had lost his trust, she probably expected this kind of response to her betrayal.

I did not find Christopher's insight on how his brain worked to be impossible, just very improbable. In class, I watched an amazing interview with a woman named Temple Grandin. She is an extrordinary instance of a high-functioning autistic, and has written books about her experience, in addition to having a Ph.D. in animal husbandry and designing stockyards used extensively in the US. You can read more about her here: http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol7-spring2000/grandin.htm

I'm joining this discussion quite late - I just read the novel while on vacation. I enjoyed it a lot, although I can see many of your points about its failings - the limited nature of the first-person perspective, the flatness of the characters and narrative style - even the rather unbelievable revelation that the father killed Wellington (which didn't strike me at the time I was reading it, but I can see it now). I think I enjoyed it because I felt like I was being forced to imagine myself inside someone's mind that is so different from my own - in both strengths and weaknesses. I enjoyed Jonathan Lethem's Motherless Brooklyn for the same reason - it's narrated by a young guy who has Tourette's. And I found myself comparing how my mind works to how Christopher's works - and as many of you have noted, I identified with him to a certain degree because I realized that in some ways we are probably all autistic. By this I mean that I noticed that I have little quirks about certain things - I don't like certain foods to touch each other, for example. And the descriptions of being in a London underground station and finding it all nightmarish - well, I've been there, especially at rush hour - I just deal with it better than Christopher could. But there's sometimes a part of me that wishes I could curl up in a ball and bang my head against the floor and groan!



I liked some of the metaphorical aspects to the novel - the use of prime numbers for the chapters and Christopher's explanation of why he likes prime numbers and how they relate to life. Some of his musings on how humans' brains are and aren't like computers were also interesting. As far as metaphors go, these weren't terribly complex or sophisticated, but I appreciated them all the same.



This book was recommended to me by my mother, who's a math teacher - and I can only imagine that she must have gotten so much more out of it than I did. I've never been good at math, and much of the math content of the novel made no sense to me. So I definitely need to talk to her about what she thought of it.

I jussst finsihed reading THE HA-HA. Has anyone else read it and found similarities in the two books? Although not suffering from the same illness but living life sort of the same. I'd love to know if someone else has read it.

Can I just say - I'm SO HAPPY to see how this conversation has flourished! This was EXACTLY my intention for K1R2!

Thank you all!
Best,
Cara