Book Review: Graeme Simsion's The Rosie Project

Most people have never met anyone autistic. Their perception of autism is usually from Dustin Hoffman's Rain Man (1988), 

Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory, or my favorite, Abed from the Community series. (South Korea's Marathon (2005) and Britain's A Brilliant Young Mind aka X + Y (2015) are also excellent, with the female lead in A Brilliant Young Mind perfectly written.) 

Given the popularity of some autistic characters, as well as greater interest into autism by neuroscientists, numerous fiction books now involve autistic protagonists. Sadly, all their authors have failed to present works both respectful and interesting, except two: Graeme Simsion and Helen Hoang. 

At first glance, techie-turned-author Graeme Simsion looks exactly like a stereotypical mad scientist. If a gargoyle could turn human, or if Moe Szyslak had a Ph.D. in data modeling and an ever-present smile, Graeme would be the result. 

Graeme knows autism well--he jokes his thirty years in information technology provided him ample research--and he's conformed his behavior to the autistic world, a welcome form of empathy. For example, many autistic people are paradoxes in that they adore unusual behavior (that increases efficiency) and despise rules, but once a logical rule is presented, they demand strict adherence. At 7:29pm, Graeme looked at his watch and did not stop looking at it until 7:30pm, when he promptly started. (Logical rules followed? Check.) Before his presentation, he disregarded the standard procedure of making people wait in line to get their books signed and went around the room, multiple pens available, to sign anyone's book upon request. (Noncomformist? Check.) 

Graeme and I discussed the book, which I had just finished, for a minute. I found the ending confusing, but he said the identity of the father "was meant to be clear." In retrospect, it probably should have been clear, but I was not prepared for deception from Don Tillman, the protagonist, which threw me off. (A recent Star Trek movie with Spock featured the same trick.) 

The Rosie Project is not an entirely original idea. Johannes Kepler, a gifted astronomer, approached finding a wife in almost exactly the same way, generating a mathematical answer to "The Marriage Problem." (His answer worked for him, surely creating bias.) Though most of us would sneer at Kepler's or Tillman's methods--Rosie, at one point, accuses Don of objectifying women--an approximate 50% divorce rate in most Western countries indicates the usual procedures aren't working well. 

My chief complaint about Graeme's book is although the first half is written like a novel, the second half panders excessively to Hollywood--even including the cliché of all clichés, a Disneyland trip. Nevertheless, I was sufficiently amused in the first half to keep reading, and the book is good. Not great, but few of us can claim to have written great books. Indeed, Graeme admitted he wrote the book as a screenplay and is hoping for a movie. His first two books are bestsellers, and "studios use [bestselling] books for adaptations because sales are established," so there's a better-than-average chance you'll see him on a red carpet someday. 

To explain some of Don's nontraditional behavior, especially in the second half of the book, Graeme delivered a profound observation: 

In romantic comedies and in real life, people do crazy things when they're in love, and the only unrealistic part is the "happily ever after." 

Other Graeme Simsion highlights: 

1. Autism is "not a disability, it's a difference." 

2. When you get to the end of the book, what do you think about Don? The "comedy doesn't detract from Don's good character," so we're not laughing at him. 

3. There's a "difference between empathy and not reading [social] signals." 

4. On the writing process: I won't stop until I've done 1,000 words, which I review first thing in the morning. (Sometimes it takes longer to write the 1,000 words, so I don't know what time I will finish.) I repeat the process for 90 days, after which I have the first draft of a book/screenplay. Then, I ask friends "to mark any passages they'd be tempted to skip," which I consider for deletion. 

5. After publication, I consider "what worked, what didn't work, and what to do differently next time." 

All in all, it's hard not to wish Graeme well. He has the advantage of being Australian, which makes his behavior easier for foreigners to handle--they can't tell if he's a bit off or just acting like an Aussie. Me, I can see his behavior is deliberately tailored to make autistic people or Aspies more comfortable, and it's nice to know at least one person gets it, even if everyone else doesn't. 

© Matthew Rafat (2019)

Bonus, on the dangers of generalizing: "If you've met one autistic person, you've met... one... autistic... person." 

Bonus II: Rosie was not written with Rosie McGowan in mind. In the original draft, Rosie was "Klara," a Hungarian physicist. 

Bonus III: if you like Simsion's character, you may also like the nonfiction book Look Me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger's (2008) by John Elder Robison. 

In Defense of Meg Whitman's Voting Record

Judging Meg Whitman's fitness for governor based on her voting record is like choosing an NBA coach based on how he voted for his favorite NBA All-Stars--it's irrelevant, because the job doesn't involve voting. In Meg's case, the relevant record would be her performance running a large, diverse California organization that must contend with state laws and regulations. (Anyone hear of a little company called eBay? Its finances are better than California's, and it hasn't regularly run deficits/losses.)

A governor doesn't vote anyway (s/he may veto bills, but s/he does not vote as part of the governor's job duties). Also, Meg's personal voting record wouldn't be public even if she had voted.

Below, Patrick and I battle it out regarding Meg's voting record:

Patrick: I do not believe corporate governance has any bearing on ability to run this state or any other. Cal has a very arcane budget process. We need professional politicians who know how it works and can make deals. We need to repeal term limits and eliminate the use of initiatives for budget decisions. While eBay is a great company, running eBay is not preparation for running the state. As I see it, there are currently no acceptable choices for governor at this time.

My response: California's political process is actually really simple--a minority can hold up a budget until their demands are met, which forces the majority to work with them and make concessions. Instead of cutting spending, however, previous/career politicians have been punting state expenses into the future or coming up with accounting tricks to mask the expenses. It's reasonable to believe that if we get another "experienced" politician, we'll get more of the same. We need someone who is honest and tough, not a career politician who will give us more of the same. We also need to cut government spending, which has been out of control for quite some time.

Patrick: a majority of the budget is controlled by spending rules passed via initiative. These initiatives have tied very particular amounts and sources of tax dollars to particular programs. They cannot be changed and the funds cannot be moved around. The discretionary portion of the budget where deals can be made is actually very small compared to the whole. The budget is a mess because we have allowed lay-persons to vote on it. Voting in an amateur corporate figure head will not fix this problem. We need to repeal the whole initiative process and allow the budget to be fixed by politicians who know what they are doing.

Me: California's Supreme Court Chief Justice agrees with you. You both believe the problem is the initiative process--which has nothing to do with any candidate's personal voting record. Maybe you should vote against Meg if she refuses to support repealing the initiative process. That would make more sense.

Patrick: [starts to move away from his original complaint about Meg's voting record] Her anti labor and anti environment positions are as equally objectionable as her lack of political experience.

Me: Well, that's different. There is nothing illogical about voting against someone b/c you disagree with her (alleged) anti-labor and anti-environment views. As for the lack of political experience, you might want to reconsider that argument if you voted for Obama or Bush II--neither of whom had political executive experience before becoming President.

Patrick: Lack of political experience as an executive is one thing, and I agree Obama had none (he did have legislative experience at both the state and federal level). A complete lack of political experience is another thing. I just don't think being a CEO qualifies you to be governor. [Me: a good analogy would be, "Driving an automatic transmission doesn't mean she also knows how to drive a stick shift."] If she spends some time as a big city mayor or in the state debate first she would then be qualified.

Me: Okay, you are saying you prefer a candidate who has some experience in politics. That's not illogical. But thank goodness you've stopped citing Meg's personal voting record--which is irrelevant--to support your choice. Peace.