Teaching assistant gave 8-yr-old DD a book full of F-bombs

[MiniPharm]

After school yesterday 8-yr-old DD told me that the teaching assistant had given her her personal copy of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time. DD said the TA had given it to her to keep and that "it has lots of rude words in". I've just looked at the copy on our bookshelves at home and indeed on Page 4 there is a "f*king" and a "f*k", plus plenty more throughout the book. TBH I can't remember that much of the story and whether it is generally suitable for an 8-yr-old. Google tells me that it is on the Suggested Reading List for Yr 8 (KS3 / age 12-13). I don't to overreact but it seems pretty inappropriate / idiotic to give an 8-year-old an adult book without checking with the parents. I personally swear like a trooper but never in front of the kids. I certainly would never allow her to write or say the f-word at home and would be very concerned if she was swearing at school. AIBU / WWYD?

Curious Incident is a work of literature. It is an absolutely brilliant account of how a boy with Asperger's sees the world.
It is not literature. It's a badly written novel and in my not unlimited experience I haven't come across anyone with AS who sees the world in the manner that Christopher Boone does.

It's really, really not a very good account of Aspergers at all, and it's certainly not appropriate for an 8 year old.

My kids' state primary school got cheap tickets to go and see the show. DS aged 9 was there with lots of classmates and their parents. Yes - there is a lot of swearing and some adult themes, but the kids enjoyed it and have not been scarred by the trip. DS aged 12 has read the book and enjoyed it. DH is struggling with it!

OP - your approach sounds very sensible.

The book could be the best book ever written. It still isn't appropriate for an 8 year old if it contains the words fuck and cunt.

I'm with Ralph. I don't think it was a brilliant book, nor a brilliant account of Aspergers. I was disappointed- I had heard it was amazing but found it a little poor. And I certainly don't think it's suitable for 8 year olds, I think the themes are too grown up. It is a book for tweens or teens.

While we're on the subject- I found almkst everyone in that book unlikeable. Christopher chilled me to the bone- that book was an insight into his mind, well he never expresses affection for anyone, at all, (though he notes that they 'love me'), he sees people purely in terms of what they can do for him. Surely, autstic kids may not be demonstrative, but they can't be so cold inside.

Banderwassnatched:

They're not 'cold inside' FFS. My little sister has a diagnosis of ASD and she didn't 'feel' emotions towards others as such (can't speak for her now) when she was a child. She simply didn't see the world as NT children did.

Trifle- no, they're not. But have you read the book? He is. His fantasy is a world where everyone who isn't like him is dead- including his parents. He doesn't love anyone, doesn't care for or think of anyone, not once in the book dies he express care or concern for another person. Reviewers have noticed, people with ASD have said this perpetuates a negative stereotype.

Yes, I've read the book. I can't say whether it is a good representation of the feelings of someone with that condition because a) they are not all the same and b) I am not them. What I can say is that I would be surprised if my little sister fantasised about a world where everyone was like her, because she found social interactions so incredibly stressful and strange. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't feel 'love' in the sense that I feel it, although she felt deep attachments, including to me. And Christopher doesn't show care or concern for others because he doesn't empathise with others. My little sister found that difficult too because she couldn't imagine the feelings of others.

*would not be surprised

Christopher also says things like (massive paraphrase; read it years ago): "I have Aspergers so I can't lie, so I'll get around not being able to lie by doing X..." Im pretty sure that's not how 'not being able to lie' works...

Honestly, Google it and see what, say, the HuffPost said about this book. Or why Haddon removed the word 'Aspergers' from the back cover. The book describes an boy who is sometimes incontinent, who curls up on the floor in public because of noise. He's violent, he's often inarticulate, he's violent, he's surprisingly devious when so much is made of his inability to lie, he's elitist and he lacks empathy. I don't think that's what people with Asoergers are like at all.

X-posted on the lying thing!

RalphSteadmansEye: The point is that he fixates on the technical definition of dishonesty without necessarily understanding the nuances of it, ie the 'spirit of the law' versus the 'letter of the law'. He is completely literal. I don't find it that surprising.

Oops, said 'violent' twice!

Understanding the difference between a lie and a lie of omission is nuance. And he described knowing that.

Banderwassnatched: I don't think that's what 'people with Aspergers' are like because I don't think 'people with Aspergers' are a monolithic group. I think someone can have Aspergers AND be all those things. Obviously if the author represents his character's attributes as typical then that thinking is flawed in some respects. I don't think it's amazing book or anything but I think some of that criticism is overblown.

I think it's a positively damaging book because so many people consider this a blueprint for understanding autism. It isn't, and like I said, it is not just me saying that, it features in many one star reviews from ASD readers who felt caricatured by that book. Not only that- it is just a poor book generally. It's an excellent examole of a book capturing public interest, but as a teaching tool about ASD, it is worse than worthless.

My own children read that book aged 11 and 9 - the nine year old nicked it from her brother's room to read. I would have thought it too young for her but she read it and enjoyed it. They are now 13 and 11 and we saw the play this August (it was incredible, so amazingly done) - plenty of young teens and tweens in the audience. My two were completely blown away.

I do think 8 is too young but not because of the swearing.

I work with a who is autstic - he describes the book as "the story of his life" - he really identifies with the character. He's seen the play so many times he can recite it!

*autistic

It's been ages since I read this book, but I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was given to my 8-year old DD. She comes across (at school) as quite mature and would be perfectly capable of reading it, but I know that emotionally it would be too much for her. I can easily imagine someone like my DD coming across as ready for a book like that, when actually a parent would know better.

It's not about censoring what they read either; DD wouldn't yet select a book like 'Curious...' if left to herself, but might choose to read it if given it as a gift. There's a difference between allowing free choice of reading mattter vs presenting a child with a complex/controversial book.

I read the book ages ago, I don't think it's suitable for an 8 year old, but that isn't the point as far as I can see.
The TA did know it had swearing in it, OP says TA had given it to her to keep and that "it has lots of rude words in". This is a huge red flag to me. She has given the child the impression she sees her as 'special', given her something belonging to her personally, suggesting she knows the content is inappropriate, and not cleared this with the parent - this can be construed as grooming.
It is a very different scenario to giving all the children a chocolate for Christmas, having a conversation with the parent and recommending a book, or any other perfectly innocent set of circumstances that might occur.
Hopefully the TA is either very new to the job, or just massively misguided. I am a very experienced TA working with Y4 (8-9yrs) and I would never do this. Please speak to the teacher, this TA (at best) needs guidance and safeguarding training.

Exactly, Bander: it was more like "I'm not supposed to be able to lie so I'll try and get around that." Just very odd.