Jack Rhys Hancock explores the well-loved novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time and Simon Stephen’s play adaptation, reflecting its ongoing influence on the representation of Autism.
Mark Haddon’s (2004) novel: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night -Time and Simon Stephen’s (2012) play adaptation of Haddon’s novel provides an outlook into how people with Autism observe the world. It shows that adults, particularly those in authority, forget that people with Autism often have different ways of expressing their thoughts and ideas and that they need to develop an empathetic approach in order to make them feel included within education settings and areas of society (Hanssen, 2024). Using a narrative tautology approach, Jessica Allen Hanssen (2024) believes that Christopher Boone, who narrates the book, has an egocentric outlook on a complex world. In terms of tautology, Christopher is fixated upon who killed Mrs Shears dog, Wellington. However, this plot line is the catalyse into Christopher understanding why his parents separated and why his father tells him that his mother is dead. Also, it is apparent why Christopher has admiration for Sherlock Holmes, and how Christopher has to learn his own independence. Therefore, Haddon’s novel (2024) and Stephen’s play (2012) can be used as a way of helping people without lived experience of autism to understand the difficulties which young people with Autism face when it comes to understanding the complexities of the world and how they can develop a supportive, empathetic approach to helping them.
Moore (2001), Vilinbakhova, Escandell-vidal & Zevakhina (2021) and Bouizegarene et al. (2024) observe that narrative tautology is about using repetitive elements of an individual’s story in order to understand their thought processes and assumptions of the world. In The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Christopher is fixated on the death of Wellington and who might have killed him. Although the murder of Mrs Shear’s dog is an important development, as Christopher alludes back to the discovery of the dog in both the story (Haddon, 2004) and the play (Stephens, 2012), the murder of Wellington is a instigating event for the story, and is used in both Haddon’s novel and Stephen’s play to show us more about Christopher when he gets in trouble with the police for trying to help solve the dog’s murder. In the novel, Christopher says, “I think someone killed the dog…” (Haddon, 2004, p. 7). Meanwhile, in Stephen’s (2012) play, Christopher states, “I could see Wellington in the garden, it looked like someone tried to plant him…” (Stephens, 2012, p.5). Both of these quotations show that Boone finds the death of Wellington confusing. This is evident in Christopher’s use of the pronoun, “someone,” as he is convinced that another human being has killed the dog, but finds it challenging to determine who this could be and their motive behind killing the dog. This moment raises one of the main challenges for Christopher which is that no matter what challenges he faces, or people telling him not to become involved, he has a single-minded desire to solve the case.
Christopher’s perseverance in pursuing Wellington’s murderer eventually leads to his father confessing to killing Wellington. It is evident that Christopher finds this challenging to comprehend as he is dismissive of his Father’s touch and from engaging with him. Also, this exacerbated by the fact that Christopher’s father had previously told him that his mother was dead, had hidden her letters to him and gone to live in London with Mr Shears. This shows that Christopher is traumatised by his father admitting to two issues which have had a major infleunce on Christopher’s life. These revelations are the murder of Wellington and the revelation that his mother is actually alive. The shock of this revelation becomes clear when Christopher claims, “[m]y memory is like a film…” whilst in the play, Christopher, “pushes [his father] backwards…” (Haddon, 2004, p. 96; Stephens, 2012, p. 50).
Additionally, Taber (2010) belives that child-adult discrepancies can lead to dysfunction within families because both the child and the adult have their own understanding of an event, and can therefore fail to understand one another’s perspective. However, it is argued that Christopher’s father should show a level of understanding towards how Christopher would feel from receiving two very upsetting pieces of information simultaneously and whilst showing him support his understandable, he should also be aware that Christopher required time to process the information he’d been given.
One character who Christopher relates to the most in this story is his teacher, Siobhan. In both the novel and the play , Siobhan tries to help Christopher work through the complexities he is facing in his life. Siobhan teaches Christopher some strategies in which to cope with the problems which he is faced with. For example, when Christopher finds it challenging to stand on the crowded train from Swindon to London, he uses Siobhan’s strategy of imagining a red line to help him cope with moving. This is evident when Christopher recalls calling. “[l]eft, right, left right…” (Haddon, 2004, p. 207) as he walked through the carriage. Christopher feels comfortable with specific, unchanging rules, which removes the complexity of negotiating a crowded train, or moving through an unfamiliar area.
In Stephen’s (2012) play adaptation, Siobhan takes on a more prominent role as narrator and and encourages Christopher to narrate his own story, without placing pressure on him. Siobhan and Christopher co-narrate the story, with Siobhan taking on a prominent role and Christopher interjecting with clarifying or expanding on information. In the play, Siobhan asks Christopher, “I was wondering if you’d like to make a play out of your book…” (Stephens, 2012, p. 53). Throughout the novel and the play, we see that Christopher is reassured and feels supported by Sibhoan, whose gentle approach is a direct contrast to both his father and the police who tell him what he has to do. While Christopher’s father and the police speak in instructions that give Christopher little room for agency, the use of the modal verb ‘if’ here by Siobhan reinforces that she wants Christopher to always have a choice over how his story is shared. It is important to remember that in both Haddon’s (2004) novel and Stephen’s (2012) play adaptation, that Christopher has to process two major and distressing pieces of information and it is through Siobhan that he feels that he is able to achieve this. This is reinforced at the end of Stephen’s (2012) when she acknowledges that both of them have managed to put on a play in front of an audience about Christopher’s experience. In conclusion, both Haddon’s (2004) novel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time and Stephen’s (2012) adaptation highlight the need for support for individuals with Autism in navigating life’s complexities. By using a narrative tautology approach, the murder of Wellington serves as a way in which Christopher’s difficulties in understanding the world, and putting his trust in a few adults, helps us to understand the anxiety felt by some people who have Autism, or neurodiverse needs. It is important to observe that this novel has helped to frame many individuals, both those with lived or without lived experience, of Autism to understand that every person crafts and carves their own understanding of the world through their own strategies.
About the Author:
Jack Rhys Hancock is a secondary school English teacher. He has a BA (Hons) in Education Studies adn English from the University of Winchester and a MA in Educatoin from the York St John’s University. His specialisms are in Special Educational Needs pedagogy, reflective practice, autobiography and biography in teaching and multi-sensory teaching practices. Currently, he is studing for a PhD at Selinus University where he is looking at mutli-sensory teaching and learning in English Language and Literature both pre and post 1914.
References:
Bouizegarene, N., Ramstead, M., Constant, A., Friston, K. &, Kirmayer, L. (2024). Narrative as active inference: an integrative account of cognitive and social functions in adaptation. Frontiers: Psychology – Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,15.
Haddon, M. (2004). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Vintage.
Hanssen, J. (2024). Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Narrative Fallibility, and the Young Adult Reader. Literature 4 (2), 135-146.
Moore, M. (2001). “THIS IS LIKE DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN” — Eight Types of Tautology. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 58 (2), 151-165.
Stephens, S. (2012). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. Bloomsbury.
Taber, S. (2010). The veridicality of children’s reports of parenting: A review of factors contributing to parent–child discrepancies. Clinical Psychology Review, 30 (8), 999-1010.
Vilinbakhova, E., Escandell-vidal, V. & Zevakhina, N. (2021). Tautologies, inferential processes and constraints on evoked knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 191, 55-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.02.001
