Hi Maya & bookbloggers. What a phenomenal story! "trouble relating to Christopher?" Not at all. He was an excellent narrator, giving us vivid and effective descriptions of mental confusion and sensory overload. His train trip to London near about killed me. He also invites our empathy with his ingenuous view of the world - which offered some comic releif. As to sympathy for him...total and absolute. He tries so hard to overcome his fears.

The parents. Yikes. His Mom was a selfish, spoiled bitch. I'm sure it would be awful to have a kid meltdown in the middle of Xmas shoppers and never be able to cuddle and snuggle your only child - but is abandonment her best solution? The father, tho he falls short, truly tries to do what's best for his kid. (the dog forking really seemed out of character and not quite believable) He is drawn in a much more sympathetic light - advocating for his son at school, providing him stability, space, routine, comfort and a world of patient acceptance.

The difficulty I had with this story is I felt like I absorbed all the emotional pain Christopher was incapable of experiencing. I felt so desperately sad and empty at the end. Damn powerful piece of writing. SO glad Maya chose this title... even if I did have the blues the whole rest of the day. ;)

barbara | November 22, 2004 1:36 PM

Barbara, thanks for your comments. I totally agree with you that the book packs an emotional punch because you have to take on Christopher's pain. I think Christopher filters out all the non-logical bits and the reader gets slapped in the face with the emotional rubbish.

I had trouble assimilating the dog-forking, too. The best I can come up with is Christopher's father is under so much stress that he made a very bad decision in an extremely emotional moment.

maya | November 22, 2004 1:49 PM

Yeah, poor ol Wellington got the sharp end of a LOT of repressed anger & frustration.

barbara | November 22, 2004 3:02 PM

sorry i'm late...i'm still going to be late, actually
i'll get back tuesday night!!!
(didn't read comments above yet)

:-D

ana | November 22, 2004 10:48 PM

I was surprised to find I enjoyed this book. I took a real dislike to the cover, and it made me reluctant to read the story. Nevertheless I found it well crafted. Did you notice the way Christopher would bounce from an emotional chapter to one more analytical, as if he was trying to re-center himself? While Christopher wasn't capable of much humor, the author made sure to include some. Using prime numbers for each chapter was not only Christopher-like, but also amusing.

I felt a lot was implied between the lines about the parents. Like Barbara, I found the forking incident out of character for the father since he seemed so patient with Christopher. While I don't approve of the mother abandoning her son, I try to empathize with the difficulty of raising a son with such emotional problems. I think it was important that the story included one of her letters, misspellings and all, so we could get a more balanced perspective of Christopher.

Karmon | November 22, 2004 11:21 PM

I've been meaning to read this novel for a long time, and I'm glad I finally did. The way the plot unfolded and, halfway through, took a completely different turn was at once predictable and surprising. But I think it really served to show us who his parents were, and to humanize them. Their behavior may not be acceptable, but it comes off as at least somewhat understandable.

While the simple, precise language sort of turned me off at the beginning, I also realize that it works perfectly to pull us inside Christopher's head. It's hard not to start thinking like him after digesting a few chapters (in particular, I'm fond of his usage of the word "detecting"). If it's possible for us to understand how someone like Christopher thinks, this novel certainly comes very close.

Tangentially, what turned you off about the cover, Karmon? And which cover do you have? I'm extremely fond of the US paperback cover.

Andy | November 23, 2004 11:32 AM

The cover didn't have any impact on me at all. (never judge a book by one) But I loved the illustrations. Unlike Mary, I don't get to read too many picture books these days. But seriously, the use of graphs and charts etc, emphasized the intensity of Christopher's mental compulsions in a way that mere language couldn't (in my humble opinion)

barbara | November 23, 2004 12:31 PM

By the way....I'm out of the office the rest of the week & therefore, de-computerized. Ya'll have a great Thanksgiving and I follow up on the rest of the discussion next week. ;)

barbara | November 23, 2004 12:34 PM

Karmon - I'm glad the cover didn't keep you from enjoying the read! I liked the U.S. cover with the upside-down dog. I didn't mind the U.K. cover either, but it does seem a little more gruesome.

Enjoy your holiday, Barbara!

maya | November 23, 2004 2:48 PM

okay, finally!
first off, thanks, Maya, for choosing this book. i, like Andy, have been wanting to read this and it's been IMPOSSIBLE to find anywhere here! it was such an ordeal to find one library that had a copy.
anyway,

I didn't have trouble relating to Christopher, i think that's correct...i do feel some sympathy, to a certain extent.
mmm...i think that because emotions were too complex for him, i didn't need to feel that sympathetic. of course, i did at certain times, like when strangers would just touch him or would just say rude things to him (at the train station and tube station).

christopher's parents: i felt like the father had a huge load on his shoulders. i did sympathize for him, although, at times, i couldn't tell if he really loved christopher, because he'd just curse at the boy. his mother, well, i don't know. i think that once i found out she was alive and her explanation of things, i felt bad for her. when christopher's father pointed out to her that all she did was write letters, i totally agree with him. she could've tried calling or visiting--anything.
but in general, i did empathize with them. it seemed and felt very frustrating to raise a child like christopher. and even though the parents must try to be understanding at all times, they need a little break every now and then...
but what do i know? this is my first encounter with this kind of disorder or syndrome.

oh, i agree with you all on how christopher's dad's killing the dog was completely out of character. it seems almost irrational? i don't know--it didn't really make sense...

i wasn't surprised with the way the story unfolded...in the literal term. but i wasn't expecting. i didn't think that he'd be writing a book, and i didn't think his mother would be alive, but why not...seems like dead people are alive nowadays

as for the narration, i think christopher is a very good narrator, in fact, TOO MUCH of a good narrator to the point where it was completely annoying. i was fed up with his logic and facts. i myself was becoming impatient with christopher--whoa, says a lot on my part, huh?
but i did enjoy this book tons.
i really liked it.

again, thanks maya!

ana | November 23, 2004 11:18 PM

(pardon for typos and short and incomplete thoughts in the previous post--i haven't really settled the events in my brain yet)

oh! i like how karmon pointed out that "Christopher would bounce from an emotional chapter to one more analytical, as if he was trying to re-center himself"
i did notice that. i felt a little confused because i felt like he was having abstract thoughts about things that aren't necessarily logical or scientific. (i'm sorry, i can't recall a specific passage right now)
anyway, it confused because i thought that he wasn't capable of that, and i began to think that maybe he was growing and developing. either that or he was just faking it.

someone mentioned something earlier about christopher's mom's letter. i think that offers the reader a perspective different from christopher's on how christopher is outside of his mind. i think this serves to give the reader an insight on how difficult it is to raise someone like christopher.

-p.s. i think the u.s. cover is fine too.

ana | November 23, 2004 11:29 PM

I enjoyed this book but I didn’t understand all the praise on the covers: “astonishingly captivating,” “amazing novel… amazing book,” “superb,” “think of The Sound and the Fury crossed with The Catcher and the Rye,” “reading this book cured my cancer,” etc. I thought it had a clever story, was well paced, interesting and everything a good book should be, but not all that.

I thought that this book pulled me in more than others. Not only the graphs, maps, pictures, equations and footnotes but the bold words as well. At first, I thought that they must be some kind of clue since Christopher was writing a mystery novel. Then I gave up after a while.

As for my character analysis:

Christopher: I don’t have a clear idea in my head of what he looked like, which kind of bothered me. Other than that, I liked him.

Father: Did the best he could. I agree that killing Wellington was completely out of character for him.

Mother: Immature. She left her son. When Christopher found her, she was trying to hard to please him (nearly all red food) but you see that she hadn’t changed.

Mr. Shears: A-hole.

Mrs. Shears: Be-atch.

Mrs. Alexander: I thought she was the dog killer in the beginning.

Oh, and as for the book being funny… can someone tell me a part that they thought was funny? I didn’t think the book was very funny, just dead-pan. Because that’s the way Christopher wrote.

amy | November 24, 2004 7:21 AM

I'm curious about why most of you think the dog murder was out of character for Father.

I don't think we received a really through explanation of what happened with the dog murder. But throughout the novel, we saw his dad act impulsively and angrily. Remember when he grabbed Christopher forcefully out of anger alone? Nearly every time he became frustrated with Christopher, he had an instant overreaction, even when Christopher was making rational sense. He'd just flip out, although because he was dealing with Christopher who could fight back and couldn't, to an extent, control his annoying behavior, Father generally limited his response to shouting.

But when he faced the dog, he encountered was a situation in which he could finally let loose, partially in self-defense, and he did.

Andy | November 24, 2004 12:11 PM

for me, the reason i think it was out of character, was because father's reason for killing wellington wasn't sufficient or reasonable enough.
he felt that mrs. shears cared for the dog more than she did for father or christopher.
well, it was also self-defense...but how big was that dog anyway? wasn't it kinda small? i don't know.
althought it was self-defense, i think killing the dog with the garden fork was very violent.

i got the impression that self-defense was secondary.

ana | November 24, 2004 12:36 PM

For starters, did anyone have trouble relating to or feeling sympathy for Christopher?
I had no problems feeling sympathy for Christopher. Just the fact that he lacks empathy makes me feel sympathy for him! (Say that ten times fast!)

I think he views love in a way that means love to HIM, even if others would not necessarily call it, or see it, as love. I think the “proper” definition of love changes on a case by case scenario. Is it the “stereotypical” version of love? No. But to Christopher, things are different.

I think his parents expected a trip to France and ended up in Holland when Christopher was born as he was. There is a poem that speaks of having a child with special needs and how it changes your whole view of parenthood and life. It’s not that Holland is a bad place, it’s just not was expected and therefore, a shock. Again, I think they loved in their own ways, but I definitely think they could have done a way better job at being parents to their son. I wouldn’t say they failed because you don’t really know what it would be like to be in their shoes, with their son, but I definitely think they were a bit, uh, lacking…the mother more so than the father.

I loved the narration and I had no problem following it. I didn’t expect things to go as they did and I was pleasantly surprised accept in the area where the father killed the dog. It was almost as if the author couldn’t find anyone better to “pin” the murder on, so he picked a character out of the hat. Then he picked a “reason” out of another hat and just wrote it in that way.

I like the cover, it grabbed my attention and I certainly could not put this book down!

Chandos | November 24, 2004 2:46 PM

My problem with cover has to do with the upside-ness of the dog. After reading the book, I understand "why" it is upside down, but seeing upside makes me want to adjust it. I'm also obsessive about making sure cupboard doors are shut.

Andy, I think the father acted out of character when he killed the dog because, while he was impulsive and would yell and smack, actually killing a dog is at a different level. Do you think he felt remorse over what he did? Or simply embarrassment?

What do you think of the old neighbor lady, Mrs. Alexander, who keeps revealing too much to Christopher? Do you think she was really trying to help Christopher or just looking for gossip?

I found Christopher's relationship with the animals interesting. He had no problems touching the dogs or his pet rat. I can only guess it is because the animals make no real demands on him. In a way, he has a similar relationship to his teacher. (I wondered why the parents weren't more involved Christopher's education considering his special needs.)

Christopher set out to write a detective novel. Do you think he succeeded?

Karmon | November 26, 2004 7:26 PM

I'm late on the discussion because I needed the holiday in order to finish the book. I also purposely avoided looking in the comments since I didn't want to spoil the ending.

It's funny how there's been so much discussion about the cover, especially since it bothered me as well. I like it just fine, but the upside down dog kept making me pick it up upside down and then turn it around before reading. The design might have been intentional since Christopher doesn't see things the way most people do, and always having an upside down book actually helped me relate to him better.

This book was particularly interesting to me because I have two autistic students this year (third grade). I'm not sure how they feel about animals, but I do know that neither of them like bugs. We did a lab using mealworms, and both boys freaked whenever the larvae or beetles came near them. Bugs and animals aside, they certainly relate to objects much better than people. One of my boys usually brings a small toy to recess, then spends the entire period running around in a circle while making the toy "fly." I wish he would spend that much time paying attention to me because he's not as good at math as Christopher.

I agree with Ana that "christopher is a very good narrator, in fact, TOO MUCH of a good narrator." Having met quite a few of the autistic children at my school, I have yet to meet one as self-aware as Christopher. My impression is that they're sort of stuck in their own worlds and don't care much about what's going on outside. You have to drag them into the "real world" and they don't come easily. Christopher spends a lot of time and effort trying to get along with what was going on with the outside of his mind, but maybe that's something that happens as an autistic child matures. All the children I know are under 10.

Chandos asked about feeling sympathy for Christopher. Although I could relate to him, I didn't sympathize mostly because I never got the impression that he knows what it is or wants it from anyone. He sort of plugs along in his own way and at his own speed. I did find it very easy to empathize with Christopher because, as far as I could tell, he only experiences three emotions: happiness, sadness, and fear. It was also interesting how he understands Siobhan's drawings for the first two emotions, but doesn't ever show us one for fear.

marydell | November 27, 2004 8:24 AM

Karmon, the impression I got is that Father feels mostly embarrassment for killing Wellington. Did you notice how we never find out what actually happens at the time of the killing?

Because of the above missing piece, I don't think Christopher actually succeeds in writing a detective story. In most detective stories, the detective reveals who commits the crime, how they commit it, and the motive behind it. Christopher gives us the killer and the fork, but very little else. Did Father go to Mrs. Shears' house with the sole intent of killing Wellington? Or did Father act in self-defense after Wellington tried to attack him? Or did killing Wellington happen in a fit of rage after an argument with Mrs. Shears? Christopher doesn't seem to understand the concept of motive, which makes him a pretty bad detective.

I also found it quite ironic how Father gives Christopher a dog in the end. Christopher spends a great deal of time worrying that his father will kill him because he killed Wellington. However, he never appears concerned about Sandy. I think that a dog killer might kill another dog before a person, but obviously Christopher doesn't think the way I do.

marydell | November 27, 2004 8:48 AM

If you loved this book. Which I did. You will also want to try out the Troy's Amazing Universe series. The main Character is a special boy, who is unusually small for his age and has difficulty speaking clearly. He reminds one of a younger Christoper, with an added dash of optimism.

sharon | December 23, 2004 12:44 PM