Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by laurenb_123
House Rules by Jodi Picoult
2.0
Jodi Picoult did a lot of research for this book. I know this because Jodi Picoult tells us she did a lot of research for this book. No stone was left unturned and no factoid was left unsaid. One could argue that going into painstaking detail about every minute detail (e.g., paperwork filing) was needed to help the audience understand the book's autistic protagonist – to show how the autistic mind can fixate on these details. Except, Jodi Picoult delves into these inane details regardless of which perspective the chapter was written in.
Along these lines, while there can be a lot to be gained by using the multiple-perspective approach to narratives, it only works when we can clearly see a difference in voice or the presentation of thought. Everyone in House Rules - regardless of whether they were a 40-something-year-old single mother, a young 28-year-old lawyer, a detective, a 15-year-old boy, a 23-year-old social skills tutor or an 18-year-old boy with Asperger's – thought the same way. Sure, the content of their thoughts was different and their perspectives were different (in a stereotyped way: mom: mom thoughts, detective: detective thoughts, fifteen-year-old boy: angst and boobs, stereotypic caricature of young adult with Asperger’s: quirky thoughts). But they all shared the same voice and this was discombobulating. After being introduced to a hyper-literal characterisation of a person with Asperger’s (who we are told could not understand figurative language) it was startling to see that same person using figurative language and generally thinking in the exact same conversational “by gosh I'm just an average Joe” kind of thought pattern as his mother, lawyer, judge, detective, and 15-year-old brother.
In this book, Jodi Picoult went to great lengths to cross her Ts and dot her Is. This makes it even more egregious that she presented misinformation in her book. If one were to pick up House Rules, they would be forgiven for thinking that they were reading an information pamphlet about Asperger’s (and forensics and the justice system in Vermont) in narrative form. Because so much of this book oozes dry facts, one might not pick up on the misinformation. If the book weren’t presented like the encyclopedia of up-to-date autism (and forensics) research, then it wouldn’t be a problem to include this quackery to show the mother's desperation and willingness to believe in snake oil. But everything in this book appears to be so painstakingly researched (and is presented as such), why wouldn’t the average reader believe that mercury from vaccines causes autism? Why wouldn’t they believe that gluten and casein unequivocally reduce symptoms of Autism?
Along these lines, while there can be a lot to be gained by using the multiple-perspective approach to narratives, it only works when we can clearly see a difference in voice or the presentation of thought. Everyone in House Rules - regardless of whether they were a 40-something-year-old single mother, a young 28-year-old lawyer, a detective, a 15-year-old boy, a 23-year-old social skills tutor or an 18-year-old boy with Asperger's – thought the same way. Sure, the content of their thoughts was different and their perspectives were different (in a stereotyped way: mom: mom thoughts, detective: detective thoughts, fifteen-year-old boy: angst and boobs, stereotypic caricature of young adult with Asperger’s: quirky thoughts). But they all shared the same voice and this was discombobulating. After being introduced to a hyper-literal characterisation of a person with Asperger’s (who we are told could not understand figurative language) it was startling to see that same person using figurative language and generally thinking in the exact same conversational “by gosh I'm just an average Joe” kind of thought pattern as his mother, lawyer, judge, detective, and 15-year-old brother.
In this book, Jodi Picoult went to great lengths to cross her Ts and dot her Is. This makes it even more egregious that she presented misinformation in her book. If one were to pick up House Rules, they would be forgiven for thinking that they were reading an information pamphlet about Asperger’s (and forensics and the justice system in Vermont) in narrative form. Because so much of this book oozes dry facts, one might not pick up on the misinformation. If the book weren’t presented like the encyclopedia of up-to-date autism (and forensics) research, then it wouldn’t be a problem to include this quackery to show the mother's desperation and willingness to believe in snake oil. But everything in this book appears to be so painstakingly researched (and is presented as such), why wouldn’t the average reader believe that mercury from vaccines causes autism? Why wouldn’t they believe that gluten and casein unequivocally reduce symptoms of Autism?