To Take Away What is Unnecessary, You Must First Define What Is Necessary

Through the fictional autistic narrator, Christopher, author Mark Haddon introduces a vital theme, not only apparent throughout The Curious Incident of the Dog in Night-time, but also evident in the non-fictional accounts of autism provided by Oliver Sacks (throughout his Anthropologist on Mars). The theme is that of Occam’s razor, which (in Christopher’s translation from latin) states, “no more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary” (Haddon 90).
There is certainly evidence enough to argue that Christopher’s mental state is an illustration of this tenet. For one, he (like other autistic individuals) considers the non-goal-oriented chit-chat that so greatly comprises human interaction as unnecessary: “I didn’t reply to this either because Mrs. Alexander was doing what it called chatting, where people say things to each other which aren’t questions and answers and aren’t connected” (Haddon 40). [As Feinberg describes this phenomenon, albeit rather bluntly: individuals with Asperger’s (the less-severe and more functional form of autism), “…cannot see the point in social chit-chat. They do not ming having a discussion…on a particular issue in order to establish the truth of the matter…But just a casual, superficial chat? Why bother? And what on earth about? How?...it is both too hard and pointless” (Feinberg 172). Perhaps a more neutral and reflective tone is found in Oliver Sacks’ description of the same sentiments (or lack there of) in Temple Grandlin: “By professional standards, she is extraordinarily successful, but other human interactions—social, sexual—she cannot ‘get’” (Sacks 260). Indeed, the emotional understanding and communication that serves as the basis for such social interactions (be it chit-chat or deep empathic exchange) rests on an individual’s ability to share the emotions of the other person, an ability that is also lacking in Sacks’ other true-life character, Stephen: “He seemed not to understand different emotions and would laugh if one of the children had a temper tantrum or screamed” (201).
In turn, Christopher’s direct, simplistic thinking is another example of the reductionist motif. He does not waste time in mincing words or thoughts, but states and attends to things without the presumed prefrontal cortical inhibition that causes otherwise neuro-normative individuals to hold their tongues: i.e. when Christopher explains to Mrs. Alexander why he does not feel sad about his mother’s (supposed) death: “I don’t feel sad…because mother is dead. And because Mr. Shears isn’t around anymore. So I would be feeling sad about something that isn’t real and doesn’t ecist. And that would be stupid” (Haddon 75). Or, when Christopher shows up at his mother’s house and genuinely asserts to Mr. Shears that “I’m going to live with you because Father killed Wellington with a garden fork and I’m frightened of him” (192). Likewise, Oliver Sacks’ depiction of Temple’s lack of “…diffidence or embarrassment (emotions unknown to her)” (Sacks 262) while displaying her bedroom and squeeze-machine “…with a complete absence of inhibition or hesitation” (265). Thus the regular tentativeness, humbleness, or self-consciousness that might be expected of a non-autistic individual is not apparent. Such is the case, as well, with Steven Wiltshire who “…seemed to have no sense of either vanity or modesty, but showed [Oliver Sacks] his drawings, commented on them, in an ingenuous way and with total absence of self-consciousness” (Sacks 205).
A further embodiment of the theme present in Occam’s razor is the presumed “hypertrophy of a single mental faculty” (Sacks 193) to the exclusion of all others that characterize savant talents. Inherent in this distinction is a cleavage of all (or most) other mental faculties that unrelated (and thus unnecessary to) the hypertrophized faculty—i.e. verbal/communicative skills, emotional competence, etc. Christopher compares this to the otherwise normative state of mind, wherein “most people are almost blind and they don’t see most things and there is lots of spare capacity in their heads and it is filled with things which aren’t connected and are silly, like ‘I’m worried that I might have left the gas cooker on” (Haddon 144). Thus, at least to Christopher, such non-autistic minds to not cleave the unnecessary or surperfluous.
It is crucial to note, however, that to define “necessary” or its counterpart, “superfluous” is entirely subjective. Indeed, Christopher sees what others may deem necessary as silly, or stupid (in his words); while most non-autistic individuals would deem his retention of every detail when looking at a farm field, for instance, as equally unnecessary—disadvantageous, in fact. Thus it can be argued that perspective is inherently correct.
This, of course, leads into the discrepancy over whether savantism is a deficit or a gift. Most would see it as a disadvantage, if it is to be accompanied by social deficits and interpersonal dysfunctional; however, as Temple asserts, “If I could snap my fingers and be nonautistic, I would not…Autism is par of who I am” (Sacks 291); “It is possible that persons with bits of these [autistic] traits are more creative, or possible even geniuses…If science eliminated these genes, maybe the whole world would be taken over by accountants” (292).
In summation, then, one individual’s take on Occam’s razor may be entirely different than another’s: unnecessary and necessary (and the removal of and/or implementation of each) are highly dependant upon perspective—which, itself, is colored by an individual’s predisposition, emotional interior, exterior, and cognitive capacities. The very insistence that deficits such as autism are unnecessary can even be lumped into this discrepancy.

Welcome to My World

What strikes me the most about Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime is how evidently blunt the writing it is and where the bluntness comes from. Because we are reading the story from the perspective of a young boy with Asperger syndrome, we receive a very straightforward narrative with very little description or speculation. Christopher, because of his condition, is extremely deliberate in anything that comes across his mind. He doesn’t like yellow and brown. He likes red. Different types of food on the same plate cannot touch one another. There is no real designation for why he likes these things those ways. There is even a chapter about why Christopher doesn’t like yellow and brown, but it provides no true reason for why he hates yellow and brown, but creates more of a list of yellow and brown things. The idea behind this is that Christopher believes that when the reader notices his “list” they will automatically realize why yellow and brown are terrible.

The clear-cut decisions and thoughts bring up an interesting style of narrative. Some would argue that it waters down the true quality of the prose, but in the case of Mark Haddon, that fact is almost the idea behind the novel. Everything is very frank to Christopher, thus making things like finding out about his mother and Mr. Shears just seem to be something that happened, instead of the horrible affair that is truly behind the discovery. The lack of adjectives helps to make frightening sections of the novel, like Christopher’s father becoming very angry unfold in a slow motion style. They are occurring with no real emotion and because of the lack of emotion, the narrative becomes extremely powerful.

Although the subject matter is entirely different, I couldn’t help being reminded of The Road by Cormac McCarthy. The same style of writing is employed, giving the narrative a blunt side that takes away from the beauty of writing but enhances the experience of the novel. Horrible moments become that much more terrible because of their exposure to the reader. Each sentence is naked, creating a strong piece of writing.

I believe that the experience that the reader has when moving through the narrative of The Curious Incident is the important part of the novel, and the idea that Mark Haddon is looking for. He presents it to the reader very obviously in Christopher’s perspective, but also through his actions and thoughts because he forces the reader not only into seeing the way Christopher sees, but also the way he thinks, and the affect that it has on the reader. One cannot help reading The Curious Incident and being shocked at some points in the novel, and if you are shocked then Mark Haddon has achieved his goal.