Any one care to comment again on 'The curious incident of the dog in nightime?

Have you ever read Catcher in the Rye? I ask merely for information...

Oh, I dunno - don't you think turning negativity into something creative is a good thing? Especially if he's effectively blinded readers to the bitterness through the set-up of an autistic child. I have a small number of poems I've written starring the Roman Emperor Caligula - and he's partly a way I can vent certain feelings and opinions that I know are ill-considered, but in the form of a character, and someone who can stand for a number of things. It sort of puts me outside the negative emotions, once I've put them in his mouth - it's like an exorcism. For the time being, I'll have to take your word for what the book contains. However, there are still some aspects of your argument I'm not with. "we all have male relatives who retire 'to thier study', down the allotment' or to 'the den in the attic' when they want peace and quiet or when they are upset." While I'm aware of this being a stereotype, I haven't found it to be true in my own experience. I think it's quite an archaic form of masculinity that a young author, like Haddon, wouldn't necessarily conform to. I mean, my response to problems is all too often the opposite - I lean heavily on other people. And what's more, I've also found that this going off and sulking befits more women I've known than men. My mum does it more than my dad. In fact, my mum's the only one of the two who has outrightly blanked me, pretending I wasn't there while she involved herself in household jobs. Although that was only one occasion, a long time ago. The girls at school, when they got into an argument, refused to talk to each other until the other apologised. And even in recent years, I've found girls the more likely to storm off to their rooms. Now, my experiences don't prove that everything's gone topsy-turvy, but they *do* make it hard to accept that self-inflicted social autism is more of a masculine trait. However, the protagonist of the novel is indeed male, and it would be strange to swap the gender of the person you were sending up. So how about Haddon being gay? Or maybe he's even taking the piss out of himself - maybe other people have accused him of being like that sometimes, and he's decided to carve a character out of it. One last thing - *please* don't use evidence 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus'! I really couldn't accept anything based on that book.

Ok, sorry 'point taken' on the mars/venus rubbish. As for turning negativity into something creative; it is a good idea if done in the right way- the book however, as a structured novel is PANTS. In this particular text it does sound like the writer(s) are really attacking a person quite badly. Likening someone to a 15 year disabled person who has done nothing (I think) that bad other than grabbing his girlfriend in an abusive relationship/ignoring her and withdrawing into himself is a long way off venting negativity the way you have done so, of a roman emporer who was known to be a tyrant and has been dead a long time. Perhaps the relationship was so abusive that the male did withdraw and that the girlfriend was really too much to handle- it does happen believe me. Perhaps her behaviour was a mixture of hitting, sulking off as you say and then coming back later for more aggression BECAUSE there was no reaction and the other person had withdrawn socially (self inflicted autism as you call it). The way the narrative is so vicious (if interpreted in the way I have outlined) may indicate that finally the writer is finally being heard in the way she originally wanted; which adds weight to your argument. Everyone is different. I say she because I truly believe that Haddons major input was the maths and statistics part, the rest alot of female input. I find it hard to believe that Haddon is sending himself up, it does not read as such because there are some painful, embarrassing scenes, adding weight to my argument. Perhaps Haddon is gay- some press photographs show Haddon wearing an abnormally large earring (I know this is a cheeky stereotype and generalisation but worth a mention nevertheless)

I'm like a man with a sore tooth with this at the moment. Hen, innovation and playing with narrative, being elliptical etc, is one thing, but a novel that tries to be something that it isn't is something else. Sometimes it still works. Sometimes it doesn't. I often think experimentation is a get out clause for losing control of your subject and being shit. Read the book Hen, I'd really like to know what you think. As for writing as revenge, a pompous man would argue that's kind of the role of art - think of Plath. I see her poetry purely motivated by revenge and spite. Celine too. Does that make it bad? Of course not. Is it relevant, no. I was thinking about Catcher compared to this book. What's great about Catcher is that it's actually twice as long as its 270 pages, but you yourself write the other half in your head. As you read it you're constantly getting HC's views, but you step into the mind of the person he's speaking to, wondering what they think, how off beam he is - think of the scene on the train when he's acting the big shot to that mother, unable to stop telling whopping lies. Comparing the two books isn't fair, but you can see how one guy had the form down to a T, allowing the adults perceived by the narrator in the book to come alive, while the other gets trapped and hemmed in by the limitations of first person narrative. Sorry if this all sounds a bit A-level English, but it really struck me when reading The Curious Incident... [%sig%]

Other than using block capitals, I do not know how to hammer this point home: The mocking 'ventriloquism' is the major narrative device of the novel. Pure and simple. I have never seen it a book presented like this before, so it is interesting because it is new. This tone was set by the desire to say something about a real life situation of which very few (we can only guess) know the real story- call this 'revenge', a 'message' 'setting the record straight'- whatever. That is where the idea of the book came from. The real situation must have been very unique and interesting because without this motivation, the book would not have been written initially, and then spiralled into the disjointed ambiguous mess it became. There are references we can only guess at. Who is the teacher Siobhan really based on- some mother/sister in law? We can argue about it forever. I think we all deserve some praise now for having this debate.

Use blocks, go on

You first my right honourable friend.

Those guys in gen diss don't know what they're missing! ;-) I hate bringing up Barthes and 'Death of the Author' - it's so studenty - but we're sort of straying into that territory here, in that surely, your reading of the book, Francis, depends on the inside info you've acquired? Once those suspicions are in place, it fits in, but if people are reading it as a book about an autistic boy, to some degree it *is* a book about an autistic boy. The reader is the writer and all that. Gosh. I really should read the book before I get any deeper into this.

Yes go read the book. I suppose my major gripe with the book is that it would not have been as successful 'per se' unless it was marketed as having the main narrator have Aspergers Syndrome. Otherwise it would have just been a rather warped story. Nowhere in the book is there a mention of Aspergers; only that the narrator attends a 'special school' (the meaning of this is? the writer is stating that the person the book is aimed at still behaves on the outside world as if he is still at school) and that he hassome 'behavioural problems'. The main message the novel tries to convey is that the person does not behave like an adult, rather has the mental age of a 15 year old boy, which may or may not be true. And who actually cares. I certainly wish I could be 15 again. Follow this link to read an interview with haddon in which he talks about his marketing success. http://www.powells.com/authors/haddon.html(link is external)

I wasn't really comparing the two books, although by serendipity they do have in common a first-person narrative which is unusual and featuring a narrator who although interesting is not necessarily someone you'd find easy to spend time with. It was more of a veiled barb at the risks of trying to read what you personally want to read into what an author has written in a book. Cough, Mark Chapman, cough. I'd want to see some proper evidence before I went anywhere near this theory - quoting bits from the book that actually seem to me to be in character and fairly innocuous does not make a case. For example, holding up that because the lead character daydreams of being in a spaceship that's proof that the writer is attacking an ex who used to sulk is frankly ridiculous. I find it much more plausible that the writer is demonstrating that the character finds interaction with adults, even the ones very close to him, very frightening and stressful and wishes sometimes that he was somewhere that no adult could touch him. You could make the same case - only in a much more compelling way, to suggest that the author of Men are from Mars was attacking his father for being too distant and his mother for being too clingy and neurotic... However, you are to be congratulated on coming up with a theory based on even less empirical proof than Patricia Cornwell's 'proof' that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper, something I never imagined I'd see. You keep turning speculation into assertion and I just don't see on what basis.

I assure you that none of my findings are in no way speculative. Other than actually sitting down with you with the book, explaining the whole situation and referencing the whole book to events that actually occured three and a half years ago, and taking you to see the people that the characters are based on, I cannot neccessarily 'prove' my 'theory' to you. Why should you believe me? I, as you say do not have empirical proof because, like I said, the book was written using a sneaky, ambiguous 'ventriloquist' narrative device and most of the 'attack' would only be realised by (and probably by not even all) those involved. What possible motivation would I also have for writting massive chunks of this theory on this site? I have never been here before, I do not normally ever look at this site- I am only here because I have something to say about this particular novel for my own peace of mind- a sort of cartharsis if you will. One point I will make, however -knowing the full story- is that there is a gender swapping theme throughout with the characters that Christopher tends to interact with and the real life people the characters are 'based' on. For example, Uncle Terry in the book is actually a female character in real life, and the name is the same except for the very first letter. So is Mr Jeavons; which is also a very strange surname do you not think? Sort of like if you mixed up two very common surnames, one beginning with J and the other with E. There are countless other 'non empirical' references that I could point out but I would probably be wasting my time.

See, what you've done there is confuse the word 'findings' with 'suspicions'. I shall assume, although you have given no proof, that you yourself are either one of the people you believe to have been disguised in the book or very close to such a person. I shall further assume, though again, you have given no proof, that those people are or were directly and personally connected to Mark Haddon; and again assume that there was some fairly major conflict between them and that there remains some residual bitterness. However, the allegorical reading you assert not only exists behind the scenes in Curious Incident but is instead the major or sole motivation for the writing of the book, you yourself accept would only be recognised by people directly involved and not even by all of them. So the purpose of Haddon doing it is what? If things were so bad between him and these people and there was so much hatred that he felt the need to revenge himself in print by constructing a novel that obliquely refers to them, but they would only know if they read the book painstakingly and in a semi-obsessive way, then how on earth would he know that they would ever read the book? If I were Haddon and there was that much animosity, I would assume that these people were massively unlikely to pay to read a book I'd written and put money in my pocket. Applying Hume's principle of miracles - which is more likely, that an author wrote a book for art/commercial success, or that an author wrote a book manifestly for revenge purposes and managed to disguise that revenge by also making a book which was a critical and commercial success? The latter, I suggest, is a bit like me deciding that the best way for me to get a can of Pepsi is to become such a good Beckhamesque footballer that they pay me to be in an advert and hand me a can during filming. Setting aside all of these points, however, and making the wild leap that perhaps Haddon really did have this purpose in mind - the book just simply isn't like that... if he is settling scores, redressing the balance, why is it that every person in the book actually comes out as a fairly decent person? There's no villain in the book - we recognise that Christopher's father did a bad thing for what he felt were the best reasons and we feel sympathy and sorrow for him, we recognise that his mother had to make an extraordinarily hard decision and had to live with the consequence and we feel sympathy and sorrow for her. There isn't any character in the book who gets an unsympathetic treatment - the people are flawed, and make mistakes, but they are not BAD or WICKED people. So not only did Haddon go to all the trouble of writing a critical and commercially successful book, and all the trouble of hiding his revengeful purpose so well that even some of the real people who appear would not recognise themselves, he presumably also had such an attack of conscience that he felt the need to soften this savage attack by being pleasant and fairminded to all the people he was writing about. I am not swayed in the slightest by the fact that Haddon may have had an Aunt Kerry, and there is an Uncle Terry in the book - in fact, you don't even say that he does - the inference is that SOMEONE has an Aunt Kerry. Sorry to give your theory such a pasting, but I'm afraid it simply doesn't stand up. Worth reading the account of the Bell Jar trial, where it was demonstrated with clarity and evidence that Plath had based certain of the characters on real people and also invented some incidents, which led to the person Joan's character was based on being able to bring a case for defamation. You didn't, by any chance, sit on the jury in the Barry Bulsara trial?

Hmm. If I was a woman writing a revenge novel, I can think of no better person to help me than an Oxford creative writing tutor. The novel was a commercial success because Haddon saw it as an original story and used it as such. The 'proof' is in the novel, which contains, all the way through certain things which only the two people I have explained earlier involved would recognise- that is what makes it so clever. I am not going to reveal myself as any sort of protagonist at all- I just know the person the book is directed at. This person, or myself has never actually met Haddon, and it is not actually Haddon who is the 'agressor' in the book so there is no animonsity towards him- he only came in years later with his eyes flashing dollar signs- that much is certain. Someone (maybe Haddon did accompany them on their travels) did go around visiting people to get certain views- therefore these people and thier views are considered neutral. They are not Haddons relatives, they are the relatives of who 'Christopher 'is based on! The attack, as said before is saying that this person is like Christopher- the voice is of this person; the attacker (not neccessarily haddon himself) is saying that this person has the point of view of a person with Aspergers. As you mention, the very fact that this 'theory' cant stand scrutiny empirically is because the 'facts' would only be recognised by these two people exclusively. Therefore it works on this revenge level and as a commercial success because it is a story. Haddon is very clever for realising this.

I think that the main reason this doesn't read as a revenge novel is exactly the reason Andrew gave above, which is that there are no villains. The mum and dad both do things which could have been written in such a way for us to hate them. Many writers would have done this and do. Martin Amis (bless him he's always my writer of choice to berate) said once that his best way of getting his own back is to mock the people that make him feel small. Haddon doesn't do this at all in this book. In fact he goes to great lengths to make the reader perescope the characters, to look outside their actions and see their motivations and more importantly their fears that drive their actions. That's not revenge... is it? It's more like compassion or understanding or that great dedication at the beginning of one of my favourite plays Lond Day's Journey into Night by Eugene O Neill. He dedicated it to his wife. ' I mean it as a tribute to your love and tenderness which gave me the faith in love that enabled me to face my dead at last and write this play--write it with deep pity and understanding and forgiveness for all the four haunted Tyrones.' Okay so I'm not comparing Haddon to O Neill (jesus no), but that 'deep pit, understanding and forgiveness' thing rings familiar. Instead of it being a revenge storyy maybe you could say it was a coming-to-terms-with-the-fact-there-are-no-villains story? Maybe.

No- it is mocking only one person and one person only - the person Christopher is based on. There are no villains involved either way. The main message the novel tries to convey is that the person does not behave like an adult, rather has the mental age of a 15 year old boy. The mocking 'ventriloquism' is the major narrative device of the novel that allows this to be achieved. This tone was originally set by the desire to say something about a real life person of which only the 2 people know the real story. That is where the idea the book originally came from. It developed as a story from there, with further inferences of this persons percieved point of view from others who know him. It is not Haddon getting his own back- he had nothing to do with the situation, only saw the idea that explioting it would be good.

Ah, so the theory is not that HADDON wanted revenge and wrote the book purely for revenge purposes (whilst at the same time being very nice to everyone involved) but that SOMEONE ELSE wanted revenge, came up with the story and Haddon helped her to write the book and then got it published. The theory now is based on, SOMEONE (whom you never specify, or qualify how you know them) read Curious Incident and thought, hey, I know someone very well who SOMEONE EVIL thinks behaves like a child (although they are in fact a female adult) and thus in some superficial way resembles this child, and this SOMEONE EVIL knows Mark Haddon the author (again, in a way that you never specify) so Haddon must have written the book on her instructions, purely to help SOMEONE EVIL revenge herself on the adult female that superficially resembles Christopher, even though the character of Christopher is one that the reader is intended to relate to and engage with and is not a horrible or bad person. Well, that's far, far more compelling than the theory I thought you were propounding, which was merely ludicrous and fanciful - the new one is actually deranged. Sadly, my computer screen doesn't show up that your typing should be in green ink, which would have alerted me much sooner to the fact that the sky is a different colour in your world.

Go back and reread the entire debate again- make notes and come back to me with your findings. You have missed the entire point.

This is one of the most bizarre threads I have yet come across on this site - and that takes some doing! It's fascinating but I just cannot see the conspiracy theory at all. I had no idea that Christopher had Aspergers - as far as I was aware he is autistic and no more. He's clearly intelligent and that intelligence is twisted from what we regard as the norm due to his condition. That is what makes the book so fascinating. If I was for a moment to begin to entertain the suggestion that it is some kind of revenge novel that only two people could understand then I would need far stronger proof - like Mark Haddon actually saying that it was thus. Now, that would be a marketing coup and would get far more people reading the book! Your illustration of the train set being related to 'men shagging all over the place' is just nonsensical to me. I can't see the connection. As far as I'm concerned it's a great read, it gives a useful insight into the mind of someone with autism, it has a subtle and original plot that tells us something about his parent's characters and their relationship in a simple pot-boiler sort of way - and not a lot more. I especially liked the train journey to London, unlike you lot, and only felt that it lost its way once he had arrived in the big smoke. Nevertheless, despite its intellectual shortcomings on the relationship front, it's a bold and original novel and one that should be lauded.

The theory is interesting and *can* be used as a way of interpreting the book - in the same way that we have Marxist readings of 'Pride & Prejudice', and a reading of 'The Tempest' that suggests it's about the end of Shakespeare's career in the theatre. Coming up with 'readings' of literature, following them through, and accepting that more than one of them may be true, is part of what I've got a degree in. So I'm prepared to go with your theory as far as, yes, an autistic character could well be a device through which a character portrays someone he thinks is childish. Nevertheless, Andrew's right. You can't expect us to believe that this is 'true' per se. In the article you posted a link to, Haddon gives an account of the origin of the novel that is equally, if not more, plausible. Without actual (ie. Haddon admitting your account,) the only way your reading of the novel could be proved true is by disproving other interpretations. So you have to demonstrate how it is *not* a novel about an autistic boy, which is, I think, impossible. "The mocking 'ventriloquism' is the major narrative device of the novel that allows this to be achieved." But what is achieved? For most readers, there is no ventriloquism. There is only the autistic boy. In the same way that Prospero is Prospero, and not Shakespeare, Christopher is himself. An author cannot create a character solely for the purpose of revenge - the character takes a life of its own. In addition, there is nothing *within* the text that suggests he is anything other than an autistic boy. You've shown that once you have the theory, certain passages fit into it, but there has to be something in the book that proposes the theory, something that says, "This is not just a character." If, as Andrew says, all the passages are in character (and the ones you've quoted are,) the theory has no foundation. One reason I find this debate interesting is that I'm currently writing a book that I'm well aware could be construed as a revenge attack on some of the characters. Their personalities are heavily based on real life people, but deliberately 'livened up' where I thought they could be, and they aren't shown in the kindest of lights. However, it isn't a book about the people in question, and I have nothing to say about them through the narrative. I just thought they'd make good characters. So in a way I'm defending myself here. Penultimate point: you say you know the 2 people involved, but we've already discussed how, going by your theory, the 'mocking portrayal' could be about anyone, male or female, who is seen as childish. So how can you be so sure it is these particular people? Surely, there situation is not in any way unique? Couldn't a thousand angry exes have gone to Mark Haddon with the idea? Finally, look at what you said here: "This tone was originally set by the desire to say something about a real life person of which only the 2 people know the real story. That is where the idea the book originally came from." Even if this is true, you use the phrase 'originally' twice - so you're only saying this incident 'inspired' the book, not that it is what the book about. Haddon says in the article that the book arose from an image of a dog with a pitch-fork in it, yet, in the same way, this is not what the book is about. Ideas can come from anywhere, but how a book turns out is often very different. So even if you could prove that Haddon's inspiration came from someone else's desires for revenge, how can you be sure that, as the author, he hasn't turned it into something else?

I like Hen's last point <> Exactly. Isn't that what writers are doing all the time? Transforming things?

No, Francis, I do not need to read the debate again and take notes, because you see, I have an analytical mind capable of discerning risible theories from plausible ones. As a sidebar, while you can sensibly have a debate about whether Prospero is intended to be a mapping of Shakespeare (there's a lot, particularly in the breaking the staff and drowning the books that suggests just that), I don't see the sense in having a Marxist reading of Pride and Prejudice. It may be amusing to show that you can twist any text into meaning by careful selection and ignoring the facts that don't fit your theory, but nobody can seriously suggest that this is what Austen intended as subtext in the same way that Orwell intended Animal Farm to work on two wholly different levels. I've had clients/patients before who insisted that John Major or whoever loved them, and they knew because when he was on television, he was smiling at THEM and I can't get away from the thought that this is precisely what Francis is doing. Any shred of empirical evidence, anywhere in this debate? What is irritating me here is what Hen touched on - you are not saying 'I found the Christopher character strange and thought he seemed more of a device for something else' you are insisting that your interpretation IS correct and IS the only valid interpretation of the book, when this is quite clearly paranoid delusional bobbins. As everyone here knows, I am a terminal fence-sitter, but I simply can't just sit here and respect your right to an opinion when it is based on nothing at all. Point me to a single passage in the book that jars with Christopher being a child who has some particular syndrome that is at least in part related to Aspbergers. (Haddon admits that he never uses the word Aspbergers in the book because the symptoms he uses are not exactly matched, for the purposes of drama and narrative). Fullly expect Paul G to come in now and lambast me for using Latin, but cui bono? In your theory, who benefits from this book - other than in the clear and apparent sense that we all see, that Haddon has written a work of fiction and got some enjoyment out of it and also made a name for himself and a bob or two. In the revenge theory, what are Haddon or his imaginary accomplice gaining? To be honest, if this mystery person herself came up to me and said, I know Haddon and I asked him to write this book for the purpose of revenge, I would STILL apply Hume's principles and ask myself which is more plausible. That someone would do that, or that the person claiming it was misguided or delusional... There's a famous message sent by the Germans in WWII on the Enigma machine once they realised that the English had cracked the code :- Discussions with persons who have utterly closed and blank minds are fruitless. You will understand therefore why we are giving them up.

I said in one of my previous points that the novel started off as a sly attack etc and then they ran out of things to say; this happens in the book- Christopher goes to London halfway, as I said earlier: If you read the novel, it so obviously does not have any sort of 'drawn out process', like other novels at all. It has no structure until the middle, where the writers think, 'oh well, lets send him on a trip to london to lengthen the story'. It is fragmented, disjointed and sounds like an accusing, whining, rant for reasons I outlined earlier. This is cleverly disguised as a disjointed diary of events, using numbering the pages by prime numbers as an excuse. Hen said: So how can you be so sure it is these particular people? What I mean is there are undoubtedly a great deal of examples of the incidents which can only be realised if you were the person the book is 'addressed' to; I did not realise until this was pointed out to me myself, using many examples which were EXPLAINED to me. (particulary the letters from the mother) I cannot break it all down here; far too many examples and it wouldnt be fair on the person in question. Know this: Only a chosen few know the real motivation of the writing of the novel TO BEGIN WITH. It does develop into a rather convulated story in the middle to keep it 'novel length', but the mocking ventriloquist tone stays throughout the action. Also Hen said: Surely, there situation is not in any way unique? Couldn't a thousand angry exes have gone to Mark Haddon with the idea? Yes true, but it seems, take my word for it the examples given to me were unique and would only apply to certain incidents that occurred to these 2 people during their relationship. I will not go into any more detail, but it is very cleverly done. I am not mad or being paranoid- alot of the text was designed intangiibly to do just that. If you were on the 'inside' you would just GET IT. Hen again: But what is achieved? For most readers, there is no ventriloquism. There is only the autistic boy. The book functions this way on two levels: in essence uses 2 languages. 1 to tell a story to the general public; the other to convey the otherthing I am sick of trying to explain. I know it sounds incredibly paranoidly schizophrenic of me to say this; but that is just another facet of the absolute beauty of the novel. Finally, may I also add that the person who revealed all of this to me has had a great deal of distress due to the book (it completely broke them before, and bringing it up again like this made it worse, in that they had to leave their job) and I think that the person(s) behind it (not neccessarily Haddon, he only probably wanted a quick buck) should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves- For actions both in the past and for the damage the book has caused.

"If you read the novel, it so obviously does not have any sort of 'drawn out process', like other novels at all." But I was talking about the drawn out process of *writing* a novel, not planning the structure. As in, it takes a long time to write, and few authors follow a watertight plan from start to finish. Many just go where the book leads them, and the loose structure of 'Curious Incident...' suggests that Haddon went by this process. I would think that the revenge theory would actually be more plausible if the book had a tight structure, because it would suggest all the ideas that went into it were formed at the start - ie. the revenge was carefully plotted. That it trundles away on its own journey suggests that Christopher had more control over Hadden than Hadden had over Christopher. Now, to an extent you agree with this, in that you say it 'starts out' as an attack, only to be 'lengthened' when they 'ran out of things to say'. But the inescapable conclusion from this is that Haddon wanted to, and did, turn the book into something else. He abandoned the revenge project. So the book cannot properly be considered an attack anymore, even if it began as one - the 2 languages you mention cannot be considered, because the private one is not sustained for the length of the novel. Also, this can't be considered a narrative experiment - it's what writers have done for ages. Many novels have obscure origins, turning into something else as the author's write them. I'd be interested to see the examples that you talk about, which have led you to conclude the book *must* be about a particular couple. Be aware that the world is full of such coincidences - that if you look for certain patterns, you can often find them. The Bible Codes, for instance - which were disproved conclusively (a mon avis) when someone showed you could find a prediction of 9/11 in 'Moby Dick'. Now, I don't know whether your friend has done a similar thing with 'Curious Incident...' or not. Also not sure about Haddon wanting 'a quick buck'. If someone came to you with this revenge idea, you might well see a 'good story' in it, but a runaway bestseller? If it were that predictable, there'd be one every day. So maybe Haddon saw a good idea for a novel, but I doubt there were dollar signs in his eyes. On the sideline - Shakespeare as Prospero. The major problem with this, I always thought, is that 'The Tempest' wasn't Shakespeare's last play, and he kept on writing, acting and directing for a good while after it. Also, there's so much else that the character can mean and be, with proofs that are more inherent throughout the play, such that the throwing down books and breaking the staff looks purely circumstantial (and not even that, if Shakespeare did no such thing himself.) However, I *do* like the theory that he represents 'the playwright' or creator in a general sense.

Yeah... the big buck thing doesn't ring true....' Yeah, I'm writing this novel.... it's about a 15 year old kid with Aspergers...uh huh... yeah...he lives in Swindon....there's a dead dog....yep...it's based on this breakup of a couple of friends of mine....' Hardly the stuff of ker-ching methinks. but anyway, enough of that..... Oooh, the shakespeare as prospero debate. I love that one.... new thread perhaps..?

Yeah, although I warn you.... I might be tempted to copy and paste large portions of my essays on the matter! Fergal - have we ever met? I know you were on the MA, so it's unlikely, but I was pres of the creative writing society in the year just gone. We did err... nude calendars? I am often seen in the winter in a homburg and raincoat, with umbrella and gloves. In the spring, I was more reclusive.

I love it when Andrew lets off steam, Samurai of words hands down

You said: the 2 languages you mention cannot be considered, because the private one is not sustained for the length of the novel. it goes and comes back- during the action when Christopher is travelling it is not so apparent but returns towards the end. Also: Be aware that the world is full of such coincidences - that if you look for certain patterns, you can often find them. Certainly true, but not to the obvious extent that they are revealed in the novel to my friend. And I believe him because I witnessed alot of what happened years ago. I am adamant that I am correct. I am writing at length on a site I have never before used. I have never been so sure of anything in my entire life. Even though I know it is fruitless, to keep on banging away like this and that it will not 'solve' anything or address the balance I truly believe that what I have revealed is true.

Yeah... but in making it public, you have to be prepared to convince people, otherwise you will suffer rebuke. Can you not give away some of these examples? Can't you describe what happened to your friend, then the part of the novel that addresses it? You see, I have to agree with Andrew that it sounds like a crazy and unlikely thing to happen - this revenge through literature - but, you know, crazy and unlikely things do happen. And if what we're talking about is not so much 'what the novel really is', but the circumstances that gave rise to it, I'm certainly prepared to entertain the possibility. I'd just like to see more of the comparisons you speak of.

'Discussions with persons who have utterly closed and blank minds are fruitless. You will understand therefore why we are giving them up'. Could say the exact same thing to you my right honourable friend?

Sorry Francis, you've had several chances to come up to proof and you are nowhere bloody near. Every retort you make actually weakens your case. In saying that your informant was so distraught by the book that she had a breakdown, you actually make her account less believable. Unless she can show you letters that predate the book which are more or less verbatim of the ones in the book, or at least readily recognisable as paraphrases, then you would be best to assume that she is either delusional or mistaken. And its learned - not right honourable. I'm not a bloody politician. Haven't had this much fun since Steve and Yoko Ono debate. Stop sitting on the fence, Hen - while this is an interesting theoretical discussion, Francis is wrong and you know it. Or to qualify it a little in the interests of fairness, what he asserts is so inherently implausible that he would need significantly good evidence to justify asserting it so strongly. Remember, he is not saying 'I wonder if', he is saying 'this is' and has failed every time I have sought any clarification. I'd love to bring Haddon in on this, does he have a website we could post this link to? Mind you, I think I could do him a pretty decent advice on whether he has a case for defamation here, then we really would have to see Francis' proof.

I'm not sitting on the fence. How can you be so sure he's definitely wrong about the book's origin? My point is that it's not what the book's become - what it's about. Francis is no longer (and never really was,) suggesting a viable 'reading' of the book. He's always been going along the lines of, "I have insider information about how it came to be...", even if at first he attempted to couch this in terms of an interpretation. The interpretation, he has admitted, doesn't fit because the book veers off into mystery and adventure. But that doesn't discount his being right about the origins. I'd just like to see the actual evidence he talks about. Until then, it's just a clear cut case of not really knowing.

How do we know that Franics is a 'he'? Is this a conspiracy between you all?

Tell the truth, I assumed Francis was a 'she' until Andrew referred to him as 'he', whereupon I realised it was a more common male name. Also makes sense if he's buddies with a guy who thinks his ex-girlfriend is taking revenge on him through literature!

You have obviously not understood, or do not wish to understand the arguments I am expressing. This is revealed simply by: 'In saying that your informant was so distraught by the book that she had a breakdown, you actually make her account less believable' excuse me?a breakdown? did I SAY that? and why would that make 'her' account less believable? did I reveal the person the book I believe to be directed at to be FEMALE? and: 'I'd love to bring Haddon in on this, does he have a website we could post this link to? Mind you, I think I could do him a pretty decent advice on whether he has a case for defamation here, then we really would have to see Francis' proof'. This is a forum for debate is it not?- I only used the right honourable friend reference to jokily calm YOU down a bit. Am I defamating HADDONS character by discussing the characteristics (real or imagined) of CHRISTOPHER? Oh and try to calm down a bit. Bit too aggressive.

I only see one person shouting.... This is an interesting debate. I shall have to buy this book to read it now.

Aren't you suggesting he didn't write, or come up with the ideas for the book himself, Francis? That *is* dangerous territory - the impetus is on you to provide proof for such an accusation, unless you backpedal and say it's only speculation.

I leave you guys / girls (?) alone for two minutes and look what happens...anarchy. I think Mark Chapman had a good understanding of Catcher, don't you... Francis? Plus, I know where Haddon lives, anyone want the address...Francis? We should all turn up at his house and find out what he "really" meant by the book. [%sig%]

I think I will bail out of this very, very enthralling and interesting, not to mention 'curious' discussion now that legal threats have been issued as an alternative to debate. I did not realise that users treated this discussion forum as a courtroom. I am now really scared. I am not so stupid to expect that any of my 'accusations' would ever stand up in court, not that I ever, ever wanted to do that in the first place. This is a debate, and for what it is worth I have enjoyed the time spent here. My argument was one I had hoped people would be interested in and as something to keep in mind when reading the book. I have been accused of defamating Mark Haddon's character(!) but I have also praised him for constructing (what appears to me to be) an exciting new narrative device. Ok Hen, to be safe (I do not wish to go to court) I will 'backpedal' and say my theory is only speculation, but a damn interesting one. I am sure Mark Haddon came up with the idea of the story all by himself, just from the image of a dead dog with a garden fork through it. Thank you all for your time and opinions.

Wasn't suggesting anyone *would* threaten you with legal action, but debates are often like courtrooms. If you express certainty in something, you have to demonstrate proof, or people will conclude that you believe it for subjective reasons. That's just the way things run usually. Of course, trouble starts when people get very attached to contesting 'proofs'.

Francis - I keep a very careful eye on these forums for the possibility of defamation. I don't hink it is the case in this debate. We are having an interesting and constructive debate about a book. You have a theory -most of us choose not to agree with you - but nevertheless it has given me a new take on the book and when I get home I shall look at it again and see if I can find evidence in there that backs you up. No one is getting heavy or threatening legal proceedings. Andrew made a fair point and I am glad that he did. But we still do not have the evidence to back up your assertions!

Ok thanks, I will continue. This is to Marc. Well, having read a bit on the net about Mark Chapman, and the Catcher in the Rye (having never read the text or heard of the former) I believe that you have very possibly solved the mystery for me (you will understand what I mean I imagine.) So..............I guess the burning question now is, How do you know Mark Haddon?

If my suspicions are eventually confirmed about this book, well....... it will undoubtedly be an amazing story in itself!

hrm, the curious incident of why jeremy england becomes francis wise (an old oxfordian librarian) and , in another thread, jonathan. Why are you hiding? Liana, don't buy the book based on this piffle. I'm about a third into it at the moment and am enjoying it for its comedy let alone any deeper meanings. Tony, it clearly states on the back of my paperback version that the book is about a boy with aspergers. Francis/jeremy/jonathan, put up or shut up. You cannot open and continue a debate based on the premise 'trust me, I have insider info'.

I'm sorry if you felt I came on too strong Francis - this is because I don't like arguments constructed time and again on 'because I say so'. Let's use a hypothetical illustration :- I tell everyone here that I know, from personal knowledge, that the reason David Beckham left Man Utd was because he and Ferguson were having a love affair which ended badly; as 'proof' I offer that Beckham wears jewellery, models on covers of gay magazines, is a gay icon and that Ferguson used to dote on him and then started snubbing him publicly in the manner of a scorned lover, finally assaulting him with a football boot. I don't say, I wonder if, I say I know this is true. You would all rightly say that this account is inherently implausible and that you would require some better proof, many of you would point out that Ferguson and Beckham are both family men with children and that there is nothing to demonstrate any other sexual orientation. You would also wonder what my personal knowledge was and ask me if I had anything better or more compelling. You would all be completely right to reject my claim as being fanciful unless I had some supportive evidence. But I would say Francis, that my fanciful claim has MORE supportive evidence than you have shown us... As for questioning my reading of the debate - I'll quote you :- Finally, may I also add that the person who revealed all of this to me has had a great deal of distress due to the book (it completely broke them before, and bringing it up again like this made it worse, in that they had to leave their job) I don't see a lot of dissonance between what I've said and what you said. As I am personally unaffected by the allegations you make, I would have no claim in court, but as a former defamation lawyer I always have an eye to this, and I'd not be happy as a writer if someone claimed that my book was not original and had just had my name and a bit of my polish put to someone else's work. If I were Haddon, I would probably laugh it off, but I might not. It is the way that you have been so definite with vague proof that has irked me, and it might irk the writer too. However, I do apologise if I've upset you - I am someone who is quite capable of having quite an animated debate without falling out personally with the other person, but I forget that others might not see it that way. So, as far as I'm concerned, I have no ill-feelings towards you personally. I am utterly sure, for what it is worth, that you believe your theory and have the best of reasons for doing so. I'd noticed the same thing as Stormy, which perhaps led me to be more rough with you than I might otherwise have been. Pseudonyms are fine, but I like consistency.

Stormy - I don't read the back cover - it's normally piffle - and in the text Aspergers is not mentioned.

Ok apology accepted! I am sorry for being so vague too. The fact that I cannot substantiate my claims may be deliberate by the writer(s) of the book. However please remember that what I say below is me speculating, but it is a fabulous theory. With all the ambiguous knowledge I possess, it make sense to me. I will use the Pseudonym Francis Wise in reference for the book, but I do not want to revealed for reasons mentioned below. The fact that my claims are so far fetched may be the icing on the cake for a very clever wind up put on my friend. Having been given clues by Marc as to the Mark Chapman episode, I believe it might, just might, be a complicated and intricate wind up what Haddon et al. are trying to pull off. I am asking for an incredible leap of faith on this, but knowing what I do know, it is not that far fetched. My friend could cetainly be percieved to have 'pissed alot of people off' in the past (but has certainly not done anything THAT bad), and the information collected in the book does seem like someone has been going around collecting information and making it look like this character Christopher is based on a person. The examples I cannot give you because they are designed to be so ambigious so if he told anyone in authority they would dismiss him as being a paranoid mad person, like Mark Chapman. Rather like I have been on this site. That is the absolute beauty of it you see. An ambiguous example? There is a part in the text where Christopher sees some objects that look like components of a wind up watch. Now again, you will dismiss this, and I cannot blame you for doing so. I would do the same in your position. If it had not been for Marc identifying how Mark Chapman became so convinced 'The catcher in the rye' was based on someone who believed that the book was written exclusively for him I would have also given up. Knowing what I do know about certain people I believe to have been involved in this 'wind up'- and I am NOT talking about Mark Haddon at all here- it is becoming all too clear for me. Some, although by far not all, of the people I believe involved are some of the most sneakiest, nastiest, people you could possibly hope to meet. My friend has lived in a lot of places and could be deemed to have made 'enemies' (although he does not know exactly why- perhaps it is because he is in some respects, like Christopher, and cannot tell when people are angry with him) of certain people. Lets just say that petty crime and drugs are involved and that using underhand tactics, ambiguity, and having pure bad feeling towards others is a daily thing. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT I AM ACCUSING MARK HADDON OF SUCH UNDERTAKINGS. I need to do some more investigation before I comment further.

I think you have managed to weave the Mark Chapman references, ( which were a warning against believing that the reader is in charge of what a book actually means) into supporting your theory, when I was arguing the exact opposite... To play devil's advocate for a moment - and please, do not think for a second that I am inviting you to add these to your theory - there is at least one precedent that I can think of for a writer disguising a real person as a character in his book - and that is Martin Amis in The Information. But, I think it would have to be acknowledge that Amis is a far more technically skilled writer than Haddon, yet the disguise is still transparent. Everyone knows he is talking about Julian Barnes. Maybe because the person being character assassinated is not a celebrity, the disguise is buried so much deeper. This is what I would need to take the conspiracy theory as anything other than utterly fanciful, and this is not even me demanding proof, but just assurances that you know this to be the case :- 1. That the person claiming to be disguised in the book recognises themself and moments from their life which would be significant to them and people who know them, and would also be (a) not common experiences and (b) things which would seem incongruous in the context of the story. 2. That such a person had an enemy, an enemy who felt so bitter about whatever had happened that they felt the need to construct quite an elaborate revenge. 3. That the enemy has a DEFINITE and CERTAIN link with Mark Haddon (and of all the ingredients that are missing from your theory, this is the most glaring by its absence) and I'd also want to know what that link was. 4. That the enemy is someone who would be capable of coming up with a scheme of this type (I'd suggest this was very rare) and who would also be capable of coming up with a central story which could not only carry the revenge story but that a writer such as Haddon would believe could make a story that could be published (I'd suggest this is extremely, extremely rare... there are a bunch of people here who write passionately, but would not be necessarily capable of 'pitching' a story that would be certain of publication) 5. That the link between the enemy and Haddon was such that Haddon would be prepared to embark on this enterprise; which let's not forget would involve him sitting down and writing a bloody novel. This is not a letter, or an anonymous phone call, it's a novel. That involves time, and passion. Trust me, you can't sit and write a novel unless the subject consumes you. 6. That the desire for revenge from enemy was SO STRONG that it did not dissipate in the time it would take to (a) write the novel and (b) get it touted round agents, publishers and (c) get it published. As Drew says earlier in this thread, a nine year old boy could not have a book published, because it would take at least a year after finishing it to get it published. 7. And this is the doozy that you just can't get away from. Having accepted all of those points above and had convincing proof for all of them, you have to then accept that despite the fact that there is all that hate and desire for revenge, the Enemy and Haddon then go on to construct a book where everyone in it seems like a pretty nice person and nobody gets an authorial kicking. For me, it just does not seem anywhere near enough to say 'this person once got on a train, and Christopher gets on a train, so that's a disguised dig at that person' - it has to be more than that. If the idea is that the person is supposed to recognise themself in Christopher, well I just don't think Christopher is intended to be a bad person. Hard to live with, but his mum and dad love him and the reader likes him. As a revenge, it is toothless. It is such an elaborate and involved scheme, I'd suggest that you couldn't make a credible short story out of it, never mind an academic literary argument. I have enjoyed having the debate, and it is an interesting one; but I don't think we've got anywhere beyond 'it's true because my friend says so'. Help me out on at least point 3...

And re-reading this whole debate is interesting, because you don't put your cards on the table till halfway through. You begin by idly wondering whether the author 'might' have done this because some of the sentences seem odd and only after a long while do you suddenly start claiming some insider knowledge and saying strongly that this IS what happened. You also post immediately after Jeremy and refer to his comments as though you were two different people, which I don't really like.

I just can't see this argument without thinking we could have it about ANY book ever written ever. Everyon pinches bits of stuff from around them don't they? And no book is EVER about just one thing. That is impossible. Once you start writing other stuff just creeps on in there. That's what I find strange about Francis' arguement.... I find it implausible that it could be just about this one relationship. The main character *is* a boy with Aspergers and not just a mouthpiece of a useless person in a relationship. Once you have Christopher there he is Christopher. And the Mark Chapman debate is useful because he thought Catcher in the Rye was written just for him when it obviously wasn't. Just as I thought Mary Poppins (the movie) was made to reiterate my entire life view when I was kid (actually I have *evidence* that it was which I will post at a later date...) p.s Hen - no I don't think we've met, although I do know Tim as I've been on the MA this past year same time as him. I must have seen you around, though can't think where, other than said calendars.... You may recognise me; I'm a Marylin Monroe type with reddish hair and a penchant for 50s style skirts. Oh, no, that's in my imagination. Posting your essays? Isn't that *cheating*?

I lived next door to Haddon and ended up shagging his wife. We went off to London, then this nutter of a kid turned up out the blue. Her son. Couldn't stand him and she started feeling all guilty. Maternal instincts, I suppose. The whole thing was a living hell. A nightmare, I tell u. I might write a book about it someday. Tell the truth. The real story - my side, you know? [%sig%]