Talk:The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

THEORY OF MIND[edit]

one incident described in the book is in fact a recreation of a famous experiment regarding Theory of mind.

Please do tell which! AaronSw 07:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would presume the one with the Smarties tube. Salvadors 07:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes could someone please exand that part. It's the only bit of the article which doesn't really make sense to someone without background knowledge 195.93.21.36 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the experiment Plch 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Random old chat[edit]

Salvadors speaks with a wise tongue. In other news, some backcovers describe Cristopher's condition as Asperger's Syndrome, not autism. Not that this matters terribly, as they're pretty much labels for different portions of the same spectrum, and his AS would be a very deep one. --Kizor 11:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC

I've removed the words 'murdered' and 'dog-murder'. The word 'murder' refers specifically to the unlawful taking of human life. One cannot 'murder' a dog.

  • Good point, anonymous person! I wonder, what would the correct term be? Canicide? Amicide? ThePedanticPrick 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it would be animal cruelty, however that's a large category so to the best of my knowledge there is no one specific word for murdering a dog.
      • How about theft or destruction of property? -Acjelen 02:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Minor problem though as, whilst 'murder' usually refers to the taking of human life, the narrator uses the term, NOT seeing a distinction, and therefore I would find it MORE in keeping were it to be returned to the article. Also, by removing it, you are ofering a biased opinion - namely that human life is different to animal, and while it is a widely kept view, it is not necessarily a true one and thus cmpounds the thoughts of others. Please return it Anonymous or original writer. Thank you.Crescent 11:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Its not a biased opinion, its a dictionary definition, murder refers to killing a human, not an animal... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
            • Er, did you actually read that page? check meanings 2,3,4 and 5 of the verb to murder Quirkie 02:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is also clearly the view-point character's position. Scare-quotes may be justified; removal is not.Septentrionalis 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it honestly matters whether or not the context, "The dog was murder" or "this is a murder scene" honestly matters. First of all, this book was written by a boy who had autism/aspergers so his words might not be the same as a person with a "normal" head. (Not saying that people with autism/aspergers don't have a normal mind, they actually have a very well functioning brain with some disabilities to go along with it). If the story was written in the 3rd person, I think that the stories words(such as "murder") would be changed into something more compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.70.212 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Aspergers?[edit]

Is it stated he has Aspergers? All I know is that he is an autist? -- The book never says Asperger's syndrome. I changed this to "form of autism" and clarified that the author never states which condition.

It is clearly stated on the inside front cover, but not within the story itself. I've amended the article. Chris 42 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the newer print (ISBN 9780099450252) of it doesn't include that message, so I can see where the confusion arose from. Been reading this book myself, and although it is a fun read, I agree with the critque is has received from the Aspie community. It portrays us as dangerous simpletons, something which the vast majority really aren't!
In all honesty, I think he either has moderate autism or severe Aspergers, mainly due to the 'curling up on the grass' thing near the beginning of the book; it has been reported that Aspies with more severe autistic traits sometimes do this, although it isn't commonly associated with Aspergers. Seems that he goes a little over the top on recounting what he has remembered of specific events as well, although varying degrees of cognitive savantry have been reported in moderate cases of autism (where direct interaction with people & enviroments isn't too badly affected). CitrusC 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Character list clarification[edit]

With the spoiler warning, we should remove all confusion as to whether or not Judy is actually dead. The current discriptions are confusing and unclear. I'll explain more later when the codeine wears off (I need a root canal and my tooth hurts horrifically).A.Arc 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Error, someone fix it[edit]

"and also his belief that seeing three, four or five red cars in a row means it's a "good", "quite good", or "super good" day, respectively, while four yellow cars signify a "black" day. " That is not true. That is not written in the book. He doesn't [i]believe[/i] that the cars means something about the day. He only uses them as a guideline as to how [i]he will perceive the events of the day[/i]. He knows that the cars doesn't tell him something about the actual events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.201.239 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can fix it yourself. --Jnelson09 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

what was the point in writing that jnelson09? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.228.195 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

'Real novel' quote[edit]

  • "I am veined with iron, with silver, and with streaks of common clay. I cannot contract into the firm fist which those clench who do not depend on stimulus."

It would be interesting to identify this, if genuine.Septentrionalis 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's a slight misquote from "The Waves" by Virginia Woolf. The original says "Veined as I am with iron, with silver and streaks of common mud, I cannot contract into the firm fist which those clench who do not depend upon stimulus." [1] It alludes to Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a statue of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay in Daniel 2:31-33. Translation into plain English: "I'm not a tough, heartless guy." Jammycakes 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read this book. It is a correct quote. --89.213.0.43 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to the article 172.141.73.47 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading guide edition[edit]

Co0uld anyone explain the difference between the reading guide edition of the book and the usual edition of the book. What extra information does the reading guide edtion of the bok include? 195.93.21.36 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the current Penguin (Puffin?) edition of The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett is anything to go by, it probably includes questions for readers to answer after the story. Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Title's Origins[edit]

"The curious incident of the dog in the night-time" is also a line in the Sherlocks Holmes mystery "Silver Blaze." Can someone confirm this? 72.68.192.201 03:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote appears in full at the top of the "Silver Blaze" article. I'm not sure it needs to be reproduced here, though. I think the current explanation is enough. Chris 42 11:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

// [Nicos] Yes, this is the origin of the title.... //

Autism/Asperger's Syndrome[edit]

This page says that Christopher has Autism, while the blurb on my edition (Vintage 2004) says he has Asperger's Syndrome. Clarification? 82.46.0.67 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Asperger's a mild form of autism? Update: 'Doctors see Asperger's syndrome as a mild form of autism. It is sometimes called "high-functioning autism". This means somebody with autism who looks like they do not have autism, but their brains still works differently than that of other people.' (from Wikipedia's article on Asperger's Syndrome in Simple English). Therefore, both the blurb and this page mean the same thing. Saying 'autism' is just describing it in a more vague sense. Should it be changed to Asperger's to reflect the nature of Christopher's condition more clearly? Another update: It's already been changed. :) Baberlp 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but his condition at least as described in this article includes things (touch-sensitivity to the point of screaming at every touch, for instance) that I /think/ go beyond the usual depth of Asperger's symptoms and into a different class of autism. The lines are very vague, of course. 72.148.206.54 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a rather vague differance between asperger's and high-functioning autism. The latter is basicly PDD-NOS where the person has a high IQ, unless the person in question has enough symptoms for it to be classified otherwise. In which case it may or may not be asperger's. It all comes down to the number and type of symptoms really...--62.251.121.48 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Abnormalities section/plot and character info[edit]

Added Abnormalities section and rewritten plot, added more info on characters and arranged them in order of importance). Admits that plot could be a little too brief. Abnormalities section can require some adding.... By the way, I just read the book finish today ^_^ heheh Fierywindz 13:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)lol

Spoiler Warning please!!![edit]

Is there a wikipedia standard for indicating spoilers in articles about books and movies. The character list alone spoils the plot. Would be nice to have all spoilers limited to a section at the end of the article. Or at least have a "Contains spoilers" warning at the head of the article.

Luckily I read this article AFTER I finished the book. (After having the ending spoiled without warning in the wiki article on Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, I no longer read wiki reviews before I have read a book..) ScottDK 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I advise you to read Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates before implementing the spoiler warnings into the article yourself. These past few months have seen deep discussion about spoiler warnings. –Sebi ~ 22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
One statement in the Characters section is a major spoiler. Moreover, with it being the book of suspense it is, I can't believe anybody thinks this article can live without spoiler warnings. -- Smjg 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You think somebody would look up this article and expect not to see how the story unfolds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.14.228 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes: You should be able to see cover, author, basic information, etc. And *then* hit spoilers. With a clear warning ahead of time. That's how it seems to be in most articles, and for good reason. I just wanted to know if there had ever been statements of his diagnosis. Instead I find every "surprise" listed, without any kind of warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.209.8 (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Somebody wanting to find out how the story of a book unfolds would likely read the book. One should be able to read about a book and still have a reason to read the book afterwards.
It's true that some people may still want to read a bit about the plot of a story through Wikipedia. But such info should be provided through a Plot section, which the individual may choose to read or not to read, not by spoilers dotted about the article where anybody can inadvertently see them. As it happens, this article used to have a Plot section, but then it was vandalised away. I'm wondering whether to reinstate it.... -- Smjg (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please add a spoiler warning! I would expect to hit one before hitting, well, spoilers. I'm very glad my friend who hasn't read this yet looked up the author's page, and not the book's page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.209.8 (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Film?[edit]

According to this, Steve Kloves is busy writing a script for David Heyman and might even direct. Should be interesting… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The film has been taken off IMDB so not sure if its still gonna be made or not

If the film section is left in the article, it should have a current reference that does not return a 404 Page does not exist error, such as reference 3 currently does. --Harrv (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

British spelling[edit]

With regard to recent 'corrections' that were probably well-intended, please observe the following from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." This article relates to a book that was first published in the United Kingdom, is written by a British author and features a British protagonist in a British setting. Chris 42 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

References to The Curious Incident...[edit]

In the movie 'I Am Legend', in the scene just after the scene where Robert Neville (Will Smith) kills his own dog, a building is shown whith a huge sign. The sign reads: "Wellington". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.101.231 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. So what? Pippin the Mercury (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is without a doubt a reference to the book. That should be added.

- wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.254.104 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP guidelines do not support including trivia, such as mentions of an article's topic in popular culture. A little of that goes a long way. David Spector (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Curiousincidentofdoginnighttime.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Curiousincidentofdoginnighttime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article[edit]

Isn't the current title a bit too long? Think about it this way:

Most people see Through the Looking Glass's article at Through the Looking Glass. And this book is called "The Curious Incident" for short by most people. So should we move it to the short title? I think it should be done. --20000 Talk/Contributions 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It should be a redirect but not the title. Bam123456789 Please Talk!! 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the book was influenced by the title of the mystery-novel that Christopher wrote. A teenage boy with autism/aspergers wouldn't title his book as simple as average mystery novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.70.212 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Short redirects are fine, but titles should follow the title guidelines. David Spector (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Diagnosis of protagonist[edit]

Isn't Asperger's syndrome and high-functioning autism the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.226.24 (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. The difference is that Asperger's is very like autism but not exactly the same thing. High-functioning autism, however, is just autism where the person is capable of functioning mostly like normal people. To say that Asperger's and high-functioning autism are the same is like saying that someone like, say, Temple Grandin just has Asperger's. (This is an explanation of the difference as far as I understand it. People tried to explain my own Asperger's to me and I had the hardest time understanding it.) Pippin the Mercury (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the same. This guy is way more severe than people I know with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.209.8 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

this is crap[edit]

im sorry but the story pissed me off alot at the point when he figers out that his dad killed the dog and lied to him. ok lieing to him i understand and he can be pissed off but come on! his dad took care of him all this time and his mother basicly left him. wtf! i know he has mental problems but still the his dad was his best frined and he was only tryin to help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.99.32.5 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lol wut 58.160.52.128 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I only have mild AS, but I am aware that more severe variations will cause the sufferer to do "illogical" things. Christopher was unable to comprehend the reason that his father killed Wellington, and he was unable to understand killing a dog is different from killing a human. By the way, get grammar and spelling lessons. 92.237.21.186 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

criticism?[edit]

Wasn't there previously a section of this article that talked about ASD people criticizing the portrayal of autism in the book, and saying that it gives the average person an inaccurate view of HFA and Asperger's?Gorramdoll (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This really needs to be addressed because the majority of people with Asperger's have expressed issues with this. Here is one example. --01:41, 27 July 2015 Frcstr (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)frcstr

vandalism from river dell[edit]

Crud from 69.74.245.228 is getting really excessive. Perhaps we can prot for a while til school is out or something? Cratylus3 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

plot section is very naive[edit]

The plot section actually reads like something Christopher himself would write; i.e. a very straightforward and literal interpretation of what really transpires in the story. For example, the following sentence (and the paragraph that follows) is clumsy and doesn't reflect what really happens:

Christopher, having lost all trust in his father and fearing that he may also try to kill him 
since he had already killed Wellington, decides to escape from home and live with his mother

What really happens is that Christopher has a really strict classification of "strangers" and "people he can trust". "Father" is not a stranger, and he can be trusted to tell the truth. We're told Christopher is really wary of strangers, whom he feels he cannot trust and who cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Also, he has a hard time bonding with people but he "gets" animals easily. Therefore, when he finds out Father lied about Mother and also killed the dog, his world is shattered and an irrational fear of his father takes hold of him. But we -- the readers -- know Christopher is not in any real danger of being murdered! 190.191.230.38 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agreed. The plot really needs a lot of work. The entire way the book is written is counter to the way the plot unfolds totally from Christopher's point of view. We as reader work out and know what is happening, but Christopher is often completly unaware. 121.127.193.209 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Having both terms "prime number" and " ignoring composite numbers such as 4 and 6"[edit]

Firstly, I am rather new to editing wikipedia articles, so before I make any changes I will post it in the talk page to see if others agree. I see having in the paragraph "Literary techniques" having "strictly with prime numbers, ignoring composite numbers such as 4 and 6."... the phrase "strictly with prime numbers" is enough, and "ignoring composite numbers such as 4 and 6" is just adding unneeded text. Anyone who doesn't know what a prime number is will likely not know what a composite number is, and therefore go and research both. Basically, I see having just "prime numbers" as enough, as it implies straight away that the "opposite" to prime numbers is not included.

Again, I am relatively new to editing wikipedia articles, and I can't be sure if changes are worth making or not straight away. JoshHendo (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just remove the "composite" part.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What did Christopher name the book?[edit]

"Throughout his adventures, Christopher records his experiences in a book, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time."

I've read the book, and don't recall there being any indication of the in-universe title of the book (or even that it has one). Or is there? What bit of the book have I blinked and missed? (Or did Mark Haddon state somewhere outside of the book that "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time" is what Christopher called it?) -- Smjg (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I've changed the article to reflect the book's actual text. Chris 42 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to discuss Christopher's autistic similarities?[edit]

I saw a recent edit on this page that compares Christopher's autistic nature to that of a dog. I thought the entry was somewhat relevant due to Christopher mentioning that he understood animals better than people (by smell, behaviors, tendencies), If it is truly unuseful, than I think the page is fine as is. 173.26.19.206 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

National Bestseller?[edit]

The "Reception" section currently includes the statement "The book... is also a National Bestseller". Does anybody know what this means? Or which nation it refers to? I think the statement should be either clarified or removed. Robfuller (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK, I believe, which is actually four nations, not one. I'll google and fix if possible. Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced?[edit]

{{unreferenced}} has appeared for the Characters, Plot and Literary techniques sections.

Surely it goes without saying that the source for this information is the book? -- Smjg (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree for both Characters and Plot--artistic works do not need sources beyond the work itself, as they fall under the common sense exemptions for primary sources (WP:PSTS). However, Literary Techniques is a matter of interpretation, both in the sense of interpreting whether or not a particular text has a particular meaning (like the previous mention about other references to Doyle), and also in the more general sense of determining what is important about the book. This kind of section does need reference to reliable sources, usually either reviews or academic analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Night-Time"?[edit]

Why is "Time" in "Night-time" capitalized? Yves (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would believe it is because that is how the title of the book spells it. Similarly to how if a book called itself "The mOBIle PhOnE" Then that is how it would be spelt on Wiki as well. Does this make sense to anyone else? Crashdown13 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
WP's rules seem to be inconsistent. It seems that in some contexts you're meant to use the official capitalisation, and in others follow standard English title-casing rules (e.g. Honey to the Bee where officially it's Honey To The Bee). I'm confused. But my experience of normal title-casing is that hyphenated words are capitalised as if each part is a separate word. — Smjg (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The copy of the book I have before has this on the cover: 'ThE c/Cu/URio/ou/sS/s INC/ciDEN of THE Do/Og iN ThE NiGHT - TiMe' [hyphen/dash spacing is unclear to my nonprofessional eye]. The letters are of various sizes, with the second two words having the largest. The / letters are ones where they could be upper or lower case. Size does not make things clear, since, e.g., the 'f' is larger than any of the letters in each of the following letters. Why there is no "T" at the end of "Incident" I can only guess as a typo. On the title page, all letters are in caps, with all initial slightly letters taller than following ones except in non-initial articles and prepositions, thus reflecting title-casing. Here, the 'T'" in "time" is of the same height as the other tall initials. On the next page, with copywright etc., the name of the book is totally absent. My edition is Vintage 2004 , 12 14.. 13. ISBN 0 099 45009. This looks like a case for capitalizing the 'T' in "time." Kdammers (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like you downloaded a bad epub. If you paid for that thing, then you got ripped off by a copyright infringer. Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, Kdammers may be describing this cover: [2]. As for the syling "Night-Time", a few pictures at [3] support it, as do most hits at [4], including booksellers and publishers. Mark Haddon's homepage (see [www.google.com/search?q=curious+incident+of+the+dog+in+the+site%3Amarkhaddon.com]) isn't particularly helpfull in this matter; like some covers he sometimes uses all lower case, and the fact that it has "Night Time" (no hyphen) in a page title may be accidental. I think we should keep "Night-Time"-- (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Film adaption[edit]

The more I think about it, the more I don't think that we should have the section on the possible film adaption. The references aren't very substantial, and, more importantly, are highly speculative. WP:CRYSTAL (a part of the policy WP:NOT) says that we have to be careful when reporting speculations about the future. I'm not convinced that the evidence we have here is strong enough evidence that the film is really being created. "Planned" films may take years or more to get may, or may never be made at all. How would others feel about removing the section? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If "currently being planned" is a true, referenced statement, and remains true over the months and years, it should remain. If it is speculation, or not always true, then it should be removed (WP is not a news service). David Spector (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Publication date[edit]

Hi all.

My copy of this book is copyright 2002 while this article states it as 2003. So I should probably change it eh?

Bremen (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No there's no reason why you shouldn't keep the book you have... GrahamHardy (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Graham, I actually laughed out loud! Thank you for the humour! David Spector (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not autisim spectrum.[edit]

There's absolutely no citation for this, no mention of it in the novel, and the writer himself states on his website that Christopher's character was based on people he knew who had no form of disability whatsoever. http://www.markhaddon.com/aspergers-and-autism


This "with an autistic spectrum condition" needs to be deleted immediately as it is just the mistaken opinion of someone who read the book and doesn't understand what autism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.152.28 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

However, various covers of the book have used the term aspergers and/or autism. I've edited the lead to make the distinction between what the cover's have said and what Haddon says. Note that an author does not actually have final word over how their work is interpreted (that idea disappeared from literary criticism a few dozen years ago), but I do agree that it should be better phrased. Let me know if this seems to capture the distinction better. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It's also worth remembering that authors don't have much say on what the publishers put in the marketing materials/blurbs/etc. Zian (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ 85.50.152.28 (talk ) 10:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC): Whereas I do understand what Autism is being Autistic myself, and while Christopher Boone is like no one on the Spectrum, he is a good caricature of an Aspie. Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove dedication paragraph?[edit]

The following paragraph appears at the end of the first section:

"The book is dedicated to Sos Eltis, Haddon's wife, with thanks to Kathryn Heyman, Clare Alexander, Kate Shaw and Dave Cohen."

Whether or not this is meant to be a piece of trivia, it is not encyclopedic, not typical information provided in articles on other books, not relevant to the rest of the article, provides no useful information to most readers, and should therefore be removed. David Spector (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing, especially concerning the lead, but since I'm now second in line, I'll just go ahead and remove the paragraph in a stealthy, Grinch moment. — MaxEnt 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Plot section: edition?[edit]

The Plot section reads like an adult-level story. Is the Plot section valid for the Children's Edition? If not, I suggest adding an initial note to the effect that this is the plot presented in the Adult Edition of this book. David Spector (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The curious incident of the dog in the night time[edit]

I've removed the spam from this section (can't remove sections from talk pages, apparently). Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Stage run in Moscow[edit]

In an encyclopedia "which anyone may edit" I would have liked to add here the information, that a Russian version is currently playing at the Sovremennik Theatre, Moscow.[1]

Perhaps a vandalism protection from 2012 might be lifted in 2015? I for one would entertain the notion, that the enterprising vandals might meanwhile have changed their target... --Terminally uncool (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

First Publisher was Divid Fickling Books or Johnathan Cape?[edit]

My book says it was published first by David Fickling Books

while Wikipedia says it was published first by Jonathan Cape.

Whos right?

  • The article is correct. The book was first published in the UK by Jonathan Cape, David Fickling published it first in a different country months later.
  • Sheogorath 149.254.218.26 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception from autistic audiences[edit]

There is absolutely nothing about the mixed reaction the book has had from autistic audiences due to the fact it's hailed as the inner workings of an autistic mind, but it wasn't written by an autistic person, or even someone. It's thus NOT in any way a good representation of the inner workings of an autistic mind, it's just a fictional book about an interesting character. They're opinion matters just as much if not more than the medical professionals. Overall the reception section is very one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:541:D901:88FD:FBAB:F245:41E4 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Year of the setting[edit]

Although it is not explicitly stated in the book, it appears to be set in 1998. Christopher mentions an England vs. Romania football match (June 1998), he mentions an event in 1992 when he would have been nine, he receives a letter from his mother with an October 1997 postmark and claims it is eighteen months after her "death" (two years prior to the book). If this were to be added, would it constitute original research, because the citations are all in the book. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reopening in Gielgud date[edit]

This pair of sentences is inconsistent/incorrect:

On 19 December 2013, during a performance of The Curious Incident at the Apollo, parts of the ceiling fell down injuring around 80 of the over 700 patrons inside.[27] The production re-opened at the Gielgud Theatre on 24 June 2013.[28]

I think the latter year should be 2015 (based on dates listed next to the referenced articles, but not sure whether those are useful). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.143.69 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017[edit]

The Plot says "in order to take his mathematics O-level" in fact it should be "in order to take his mathematics A-level" 2001:984:E122:1:99DA:8F5D:6E01:E11B (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? The source for this is the book itself, p.44: "I am going to prove that I’m not stupid. Next month I’m going to take my A level in maths and I’m going to get an A grade. No one has ever taken an A level at our school before." Note that in the UK O Level exams haven't existed since about 1987, as they were replaced by GCSEs. These exams are normally taken by 16 year-olds finishing secondary school, and A Level exams are normally taken by 18 year-olds before going to university, but some bright children may take A Levels earlier, so the fact he is going to take A Level maths at age 15 tells us Christopher is very advanced for his age in mathematical ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.173.210 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If a secondary source is preferred, google provides plenty - perhaps one of these would do:
Personally, I'd prefer no other source in the article than the book itself, but my too links indicate that the requested change is correct.-- (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ History of the theat-re. Official website of the Moscow Sovremennik Theatre (in Russian)