Analysis Of 'The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Nighttime'

Reading novels can lead to the encountering of interesting characters that invite an individual’s empathy and understanding. However, a person with limited knowledge or experience in a set of circumstances can defer them from the ability to empathise with others, leaving them frustrated towards a particular character. In “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the NightTime” written by Mark Haddon, explores the need to understand to a certain extent in order to empathise with others. Haddon, challenges readers to accept other’s opinions through viewing their unique perspective. Fundamentally, an individual will always come across characters that connections can easily be built with, whilst, there are other characters that will be questionable because …show more content…
A character that constantly discusses about their uncommon interest will make readers become exasperated because of the unnecessarily information being communicated to them. Christopher has made individuals build an understanding towards him, however, Haddon has provoked the audience to become annoyed with Chris through revealing another side of Aspergers’ syndrome that can be difficult to form an understanding towards. Christopher’s use of orthography “Because it was a really easy sum because you just multiply 864 X 1,000, which is 864,000. Then you divide it by 4, which is 216,000, and that 's 250 X 864.” illuminates that he has immense interest in dealing with numbers. The use of bold places emphasises on the detailed facts and highlights its importance. The bold numbers make it more prominent from the other regular words on the page and is underlying that Aspergers’ syndrome allows a person unique knowledge which makes them distinctly different from others. The need to continuously ramble on about facts that are seen as irrelevant to others makes in difficult for the audience to grasp and empathise with the character. This establishes constraints on the reader to develop a deep relationship with Chris, because of their lack of interest. Moreover, the use of truncated sentences denotes the blunt and direct facts being communicated. This suggest that …show more content…
A persona’s love can compel them to do anything to protect their love ones, and depending on the reasoning the readers may relate with their action or disagree. Haddon’s character Ed has hidden the truth about his wife’s death to shield Christopher from the immense pain he could’ve felt if he found out the truth. Haddon’s use of rhetorical question “Christopher, do you understand that I love you?” emphasises the unquestionable parental love Ed has for his child. Ed loves Chris regardless of his disability and makes the effort to reassure him with the unexpressed fact that everything he does is because of this reason. The audience identifies with him through their own personal experience of expressing their love to others. However, this can be questioned when Christopher finds out his father had lied about his mother’s death. Haddon’s use of ellipsis “I just thought it was better if you didn 't know. . .” clarifies Ed’s belief that this was for the welfare of Chris. The ellipsis communicates the difficulty to further express what is being said conveying that this was the only reason Ed could come up with for his lies. To a certain degree the audience understands Ed’s need to protect Chris from being hurt, but in a situation regarding his mother the readers feel indignant because Chris needs to know the truth about his mother. Hence, Haddon affirms that