American Normal: The Hidden World of Asperger Syndrome 2002nd Edition

Excellent book (I say this as an Aspie who married an Aspie), but marred by some sad proofreading sloppiness. Specifically, the surname of the French educator and psychologist Edouard Seguin is persistently misspelled as "Sequin."

I stumbled upon this book 15 years late, but I am so glad to have found such a gem: it is at once educational, enlightening, entertaining, but most importantly it is a testament of the author's sincerity, encyclopedic knowledge and compassion. Simply put, this book is totally engrossing to me. I so wish it could be twice as long as it was hard to put down once I started it. Great work!

This is the funniest, most perceptive book on the subject that I have ever read. The author's style and approach make this work stand out from the plethora of other books on the whole Asperger's Syndrome phenomenon.

I think Osborne made a strategic error in the way he wrote this book. I believe his intent was to identify and empathize with those who suffer from Asperger's Syndrome. To this end he showed us how he, a "neurotypical," does things that might be considered Aspergerish, such as giving in to an obsessive need to circle lamp posts or to watch every episode of the Japanese TV show "Iron Chef" or to only feel comfortable at Red Roof Inns, etc. In his interviews with Aspies he took a sometimes playful tone, and in his retrospective of people who may (or may not) have had AS, he emphasized the eccentric nature of their lives, not their suffering. The effect of this approach on Aspies themselves was to make them feel that he was trivializing AS. Some even felt he was making fun of them.

Furthermore, in his effort to suggest that AS can be seen as an alternative approach to life (or at least an attempt at one) he ran into those who want to make it clear that Asperger's is a neurological disease and that most (if not all) who suffer from it are not curious "little professors." They and their friends and relatives (and the therapeutic community administering to them) do not want to read anything that in any way might mislead the general public into thinking that Aspies are just weird eccentrics.

In other words, he missed the psychology of the larger AS community. People who are distinct minorities in a larger community, as Aspies are, and who feel discriminated against because they are different (and the larger society surely does discriminate against them)--such people are not likely to welcome a satirical or playful approach to their situation. They tend to be serious and understandably intolerant of anything that might threaten their dignity. And they are right in feeling this way because throughout human history it is only one step from making fun of people to ostracizing them.

Also one gets the sense that more than anything Osborne was satisfying his curiosity. He became the journalist who travels around interviewing AS people to find out what they are like. He reported what he saw and heard. For readers who know little or nothing about AS, this approach has its merit. For those who have AS or are friends or relatives of people with AS, this approach is not only not interesting, it is of little value.

The AS people also feel that such an approach does not best serve the general public. What they want are books that inform the larger community about AS in a factual manner complete with an understanding of the problems that Aspies have to deal with vis-a-vis governmental bureaucracies, school administrators, daily life, etc. They are not going to be pleased with a book about AS that is largely an entertainment. Osborne missed all of this. I am sure he was absolutely shocked and dismayed at the reception his book received from the AS community.

On a more positive note, like me say that Osborne is a very good writer. He worked hard to make his book accessible to the reader, and, yes, entertaining and very readable. He balanced the interviews with Aspies with information about historical figures like famed pianist Glenn Gould and our second president Thomas Jefferson and others who might have suffered from AS. He did this in an attempt to give as broad a picture as possible. He even compares AS to other neurological diseases such as latah and koro in an attempt to show how such disorders are affected by cultural norms in different countries.

What I think Osborne was trying to do is follow the ideas of Dr. Mel Levine, Professor of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, whom he quotes as saying that "American psychiatry embodies a deeply pessimistic, gloomily simplistic view of the world" and is "Unable to conceive of a healthy eccentricity..." And so it resorts to "reductionist labeling." In particular, the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders is replete with "dubious disorders" which "children are shoehorned into." (pp. xiv-xv)

He further observes (still relying on Levine) that "the codes [from DSM-IV] are quick and convenient, especially for the purposes of filling out insurance forms and getting reimbursed, but they bear little relation to the complexity of people's lives." In other words, the whole idea of syndromes as defined by the DSM-IV is a convenience for the administrating and "therapeutic" community, and not for the patients or those with neurological differences.

In the long run I think we are going to find that Osborne is on the side of the angels, and that his approach which emphasizes the similarities between those with AS and those they label "neurotypical" is better than an approach that stigmatizes people whose behavior is different.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I have seen people with autism and other mental disorders and they are very real and in some cases terribly disabling. However, I think whenever possible we ought to tolerate individual differences and not put depreciating labels on them.

Finally Osborne asks the telling question, "What would it mean to 'cure' a personality disorder?" "We might ask whether a personality disorder should be cured at all...Do we even really know what a personality is in the first place, and by what impertinence do we affect to lay down its laws?" (p. 185) The truth is in most cases we don't understand either the etiology of these so-called disorders or have any idea of what we can or should do about them. In some cases we might ask should we "fix" the individual or the society?

I think Osborne has made some important points here, and that an open-minded reading of his book would reveal the author as a person who has thought long and hard on the subject of AS and one who appreciates individual differences.

Excellent book that really puts things in perspective. It makes the reader realize that just because one has certain strange qualities that are "out of the norm," does not mean they have a disorder. The pharmaceutical companies capitalize on illnesses and we need a more objective perspective.

I do not believe that anyone should make light of real illnesses. Asperger's is an illness. People with Asperger's have trouble in many areas of their lives. But we must also realize that not everyone who has certain traits should jump to the conclusion that they have a disease. We need to be aware that our society may be the cause of many symptoms people seem to be experiencing, such as isolation, loneliness, not fitting in... The cause of some of these feelings may not necessarily lie in any illness, but in the way we are socialized. People today seem to be more isolated. They don't know their neighbors, they are fake at work, they smile when they feel sad because it is not acceptable to show any "negative" feelings. The focus has become on work, money, achievements, and less on friendships and community. All of this, no doubt, contributes to an increase in people feeling like outsiders in their own lives. So we need to distinguish a real illness from a cultural "illness" and not jump to quick conclusions. I did enjoy this book and it is well written and shows the other side of these "symptoms."