Another fictional aspie accused of murder?
Throughout my many trips to the bookstore, I saw the cover for Saving Max. For some reason it always intrigued me, but I never actually bought it until Monday. I flipped over to read the blurb on the back, skipping the bold print at the top like usual. I've often found that it tells me about the continuation of a series (and since I've read a lot of series, I usually jump into the regular blurb that tells me the plot.) Then I read the first three pages and was surprised to find that it said Max had Asperger's Syndrome.
I looked at the back, and sure enough, the bold print said "autistic". This must be a lesson to me: read everything on the back of the book. Even the ISBN number.
Even though it's only a few days to Christmas, I bought the book. I had braved the store, shelled out money to ship a package to German Boy (more annoyed that the package would be late than at the cost. Stupid exams and lack of knowledge about where the post office is around my university...oh well, better late than nothing, right?) and I hadn't asked for this book, so I bought it.
I must confess to feeling something of fear about this book. Both this book and House Rules were published in 2010. Both are about young men (one eighteen, the other about sixteen-seventeen) who are accused of murder. Statistically speaking, those with Asperger's are less likely to commit a crime than a Neuro-Typical. So why are two books about the same kind of plot coming out in the same year? Isn't there another plot you can give with an aspie? Why is it a murder mystery? And while I insist that The Curious Incident of a Dog in the Nighttime is more drama than mystery, it's still a murder mystery because the whole thing is set into play by the death of a dog and Christopher's attempt to find out who did it.
Since I was afraid, I decided to visit the author's website. She has a tab for resources and one of those resources is...AUTISM SPEAKS. My reaction: o.o
I don't approve of Autism Speaks, the majority of the autistic community I've encountered HATES Autism Speaks with a passion. Autism Speaks appears to be more of a fear based charity than anything else with a strong desire to eradicate autism - through means of eugenics or a forced cure. That's what I've heard from the autistic community. And by eugenics, I mean abortions chosen because tests show that the baby will have autism of some sort.
In fact, quite a few of her resources are links to sites of organizations looking for a cure. I can't even begin to tell you how often I encounter a "Do You Want a Cure" thread on WrongPlanet.net, the majority say 'no'. Now, that's just WrongPlanet, but that's one of the biggest autistic community boards online that people know about. They're a pretty good representation of the bunch.
The author, Antoinette van Heugten, is the mother of at least one autistic child.
These factors only increased my worry.
So...
Saving Max
A novel by Antoinette van Heugten
A review by Apolla
It starts out with a therapy session. Or maybe an intervention is the right word to describe it. Max is suicidal, according to Danielle who read his diary. Max keeps a diary?
Alek: He's a computer whiz, right?
Me: Yeah.
Alek: Then why wouldn't he write his journal entries on his computer and lock them? Your computer is locked to protect your novels - wouldn't he protect his thoughts?
Me: Yeah, I thought that too.
Right, Max is a computer genius. A typical thing for aspies to be...I must confess that one of my own characters, with an autism like disorder (what? he's an alien, it can't be autism exactly) is a computer genius. In my defense, I styled that portion of him after a friend of mine and my maternal grandpa who was a computer whiz. We never really get to see any of his computer talents - I mean it. Sure he manages to find some things out on the computer, but he uses Google and iPhone apps. Those are things my sister could do and she's kind of clueless about electronics. I mean, doing research on the web isn't that hard, you know. But this is supposedly his big "Asperger's clue" or whatever. I was both pleased and disappointed that Max's Asperger's didn't come to be the forefront of the story. In fact, they rarely touch on it at all. At times I wondered if Max did have Asperger's. The doctors at the main psychiatric hospital don't bring it up. At one point the main character, Danielle, wonders why they aren't even mentioning the autism. My response was: maybe he doesn't have it? Maybe it's an incorrect diagnosis and he really is the murderer?
Alek: That might have been the way to go.
Dean: Agreed, or it could have ghosts
Me: It's not a paranormal story - it's about the legal system and mental disorders.
Dean: I'd rather watch Cuckoo's Nest.
Anyway, Max is admitted into Maitland for depression, suicidal thoughts, and violence. These issues are never resolved, really. In fact, they're hardly mentioned after Max is admitted. Danielle isn't allowed to visit him more than twice a day (no real explanation is given) and that rubs her the wrong way. Meanwhile there's another patient named Jonas, who is supposedly extremely autistic, and his mother Marianne. Marianne and Danielle become friends and unsurprisingly, Jonas dies.
This is where the murder mystery steps in. Although Max is in the room with the dead body, he's unconscious. Danielle attempts to drag him out, according to her to find help, but I'm still not sure if she was telling the truth or not. Then she gets a lawyer who is some guy she had a one night stand with. There's supposedly love and affection between them, but I didn't see it.
So Danielle is put on bail and then she violates it. She sneaks into Maitland to get a blood sample from her son, flies all over the country collecting evidence - all the while not being a lawyer and while she does solve the case, if she hadn't....well, if I had been that judge, I would have thrown her in jail anyway. Bail isn't granted for kicks and giggles - she clearly violated it. I would have said, "You might be innocent, but you still need to serve a few weeks in jail." Her actions were ridiculous and they killed any plausibility the book might have had. And it was on thin ice to begin with, the procedures and practices at Maitland were ridiculous. I was waiting for ghosts to show up, to be honest.
The prose was difficult to read. It is a present tense book (I'm never sure how to tell someone what the tense is. Do you say "it was in present tense" despite the fact that if someone else reads it, it will be present tense? Yeah, I'd stumble over that in Jeopardy! too.) It was very flowery, much more so than Jodi Picoult. Her whisper was a feather? Every page had at least two metaphors/similies on it. I was drowning in them when the author brought in Doaks. First off, how do you say his name? Doe-ax? Do(long o)ks? Second, why can't he make sense? I read and read his lines a couple times, trying to discern what the heck he was saying, and then gave up. If I couldn't figure it out, it wasn't worth anything. Once I got used to this, though, it was ok. Not great, but not horrible.
There are some very gory instances. The villain keeps a fetus in a jar in her closet. No, seriously. Hand to God, I am not making that up. There is a dead fetus that's in a jar in her closet. The villain has Munchausen Syndrome and the son had Munchausen by Proxy (had because he's dead, she has because she's alive.) I am familiar with this syndrome, but when I read it, I thought that wasn't really the proper diagnosis. I'm not sure what would be, but yikes. The stuff this woman did...well...let's just say she deserves a straightjacket and a padded room.
I never really felt close to Max. I never really felt like Danielle was either. If you asked a mother of an autistic child to describe her child, I bet she'd tell you a ton of information about a special interest. Except for Max's dependency on his iPhone, I felt nothing about his computer love was true. And why would a lawyer have two phones? Is this normal? If it is, I'm not aware of it. Apparently Danielle has two phones, a flip phone and an iPhone. I know this because she said she flipped the phone shut. iPhones do not flip shut. I never felt that the Asperger's was worth bringing into play. He could have easily have been depressed and bipolar (he is diagnosed as biploar at the end) and been admitted into Maitland and had this stuff happen. The Asperger's felt like a forced card, a terrible card to play. There are at least two instances where Danielle refers to her child as "damaged". When I read that, I nearly hurled the book across the room. DAMAGED? Maybe from your arrogant point of view but combine that with the Autism Speaks and the result is something very, very frightening. Yeah, I'm sure some mothers think that, but wow...to hear that from an author with at least one autistic child? Frightening.
it had a good premise (I guess, but stop with this whole "autistic charged with murder") and was ok, but it wasn't great. It had a lot of problems, but this was the first novel of the author.
6/10, "damaged" my ass...I still can't believe that was included and no one's brought this up.
I looked at the back, and sure enough, the bold print said "autistic". This must be a lesson to me: read everything on the back of the book. Even the ISBN number.
Even though it's only a few days to Christmas, I bought the book. I had braved the store, shelled out money to ship a package to German Boy (more annoyed that the package would be late than at the cost. Stupid exams and lack of knowledge about where the post office is around my university...oh well, better late than nothing, right?) and I hadn't asked for this book, so I bought it.
I must confess to feeling something of fear about this book. Both this book and House Rules were published in 2010. Both are about young men (one eighteen, the other about sixteen-seventeen) who are accused of murder. Statistically speaking, those with Asperger's are less likely to commit a crime than a Neuro-Typical. So why are two books about the same kind of plot coming out in the same year? Isn't there another plot you can give with an aspie? Why is it a murder mystery? And while I insist that The Curious Incident of a Dog in the Nighttime is more drama than mystery, it's still a murder mystery because the whole thing is set into play by the death of a dog and Christopher's attempt to find out who did it.
Since I was afraid, I decided to visit the author's website. She has a tab for resources and one of those resources is...AUTISM SPEAKS. My reaction: o.o
I don't approve of Autism Speaks, the majority of the autistic community I've encountered HATES Autism Speaks with a passion. Autism Speaks appears to be more of a fear based charity than anything else with a strong desire to eradicate autism - through means of eugenics or a forced cure. That's what I've heard from the autistic community. And by eugenics, I mean abortions chosen because tests show that the baby will have autism of some sort.
In fact, quite a few of her resources are links to sites of organizations looking for a cure. I can't even begin to tell you how often I encounter a "Do You Want a Cure" thread on WrongPlanet.net, the majority say 'no'. Now, that's just WrongPlanet, but that's one of the biggest autistic community boards online that people know about. They're a pretty good representation of the bunch.
The author, Antoinette van Heugten, is the mother of at least one autistic child.
These factors only increased my worry.
So...
Saving Max
A novel by Antoinette van Heugten
A review by Apolla
It starts out with a therapy session. Or maybe an intervention is the right word to describe it. Max is suicidal, according to Danielle who read his diary. Max keeps a diary?
Alek: He's a computer whiz, right?
Me: Yeah.
Alek: Then why wouldn't he write his journal entries on his computer and lock them? Your computer is locked to protect your novels - wouldn't he protect his thoughts?
Me: Yeah, I thought that too.
Right, Max is a computer genius. A typical thing for aspies to be...I must confess that one of my own characters, with an autism like disorder (what? he's an alien, it can't be autism exactly) is a computer genius. In my defense, I styled that portion of him after a friend of mine and my maternal grandpa who was a computer whiz. We never really get to see any of his computer talents - I mean it. Sure he manages to find some things out on the computer, but he uses Google and iPhone apps. Those are things my sister could do and she's kind of clueless about electronics. I mean, doing research on the web isn't that hard, you know. But this is supposedly his big "Asperger's clue" or whatever. I was both pleased and disappointed that Max's Asperger's didn't come to be the forefront of the story. In fact, they rarely touch on it at all. At times I wondered if Max did have Asperger's. The doctors at the main psychiatric hospital don't bring it up. At one point the main character, Danielle, wonders why they aren't even mentioning the autism. My response was: maybe he doesn't have it? Maybe it's an incorrect diagnosis and he really is the murderer?
Alek: That might have been the way to go.
Dean: Agreed, or it could have ghosts
Me: It's not a paranormal story - it's about the legal system and mental disorders.
Dean: I'd rather watch Cuckoo's Nest.
Anyway, Max is admitted into Maitland for depression, suicidal thoughts, and violence. These issues are never resolved, really. In fact, they're hardly mentioned after Max is admitted. Danielle isn't allowed to visit him more than twice a day (no real explanation is given) and that rubs her the wrong way. Meanwhile there's another patient named Jonas, who is supposedly extremely autistic, and his mother Marianne. Marianne and Danielle become friends and unsurprisingly, Jonas dies.
This is where the murder mystery steps in. Although Max is in the room with the dead body, he's unconscious. Danielle attempts to drag him out, according to her to find help, but I'm still not sure if she was telling the truth or not. Then she gets a lawyer who is some guy she had a one night stand with. There's supposedly love and affection between them, but I didn't see it.
So Danielle is put on bail and then she violates it. She sneaks into Maitland to get a blood sample from her son, flies all over the country collecting evidence - all the while not being a lawyer and while she does solve the case, if she hadn't....well, if I had been that judge, I would have thrown her in jail anyway. Bail isn't granted for kicks and giggles - she clearly violated it. I would have said, "You might be innocent, but you still need to serve a few weeks in jail." Her actions were ridiculous and they killed any plausibility the book might have had. And it was on thin ice to begin with, the procedures and practices at Maitland were ridiculous. I was waiting for ghosts to show up, to be honest.
The prose was difficult to read. It is a present tense book (I'm never sure how to tell someone what the tense is. Do you say "it was in present tense" despite the fact that if someone else reads it, it will be present tense? Yeah, I'd stumble over that in Jeopardy! too.) It was very flowery, much more so than Jodi Picoult. Her whisper was a feather? Every page had at least two metaphors/similies on it. I was drowning in them when the author brought in Doaks. First off, how do you say his name? Doe-ax? Do(long o)ks? Second, why can't he make sense? I read and read his lines a couple times, trying to discern what the heck he was saying, and then gave up. If I couldn't figure it out, it wasn't worth anything. Once I got used to this, though, it was ok. Not great, but not horrible.
There are some very gory instances. The villain keeps a fetus in a jar in her closet. No, seriously. Hand to God, I am not making that up. There is a dead fetus that's in a jar in her closet. The villain has Munchausen Syndrome and the son had Munchausen by Proxy (had because he's dead, she has because she's alive.) I am familiar with this syndrome, but when I read it, I thought that wasn't really the proper diagnosis. I'm not sure what would be, but yikes. The stuff this woman did...well...let's just say she deserves a straightjacket and a padded room.
I never really felt close to Max. I never really felt like Danielle was either. If you asked a mother of an autistic child to describe her child, I bet she'd tell you a ton of information about a special interest. Except for Max's dependency on his iPhone, I felt nothing about his computer love was true. And why would a lawyer have two phones? Is this normal? If it is, I'm not aware of it. Apparently Danielle has two phones, a flip phone and an iPhone. I know this because she said she flipped the phone shut. iPhones do not flip shut. I never felt that the Asperger's was worth bringing into play. He could have easily have been depressed and bipolar (he is diagnosed as biploar at the end) and been admitted into Maitland and had this stuff happen. The Asperger's felt like a forced card, a terrible card to play. There are at least two instances where Danielle refers to her child as "damaged". When I read that, I nearly hurled the book across the room. DAMAGED? Maybe from your arrogant point of view but combine that with the Autism Speaks and the result is something very, very frightening. Yeah, I'm sure some mothers think that, but wow...to hear that from an author with at least one autistic child? Frightening.
it had a good premise (I guess, but stop with this whole "autistic charged with murder") and was ok, but it wasn't great. It had a lot of problems, but this was the first novel of the author.
6/10, "damaged" my ass...I still can't believe that was included and no one's brought this up.