Can I get your opinion

Post Reply New Topic

How about

Neurofreaks
The Definitive Guide to Misfits
Mysterious: Who are Autistic people?
Adventures in Autism Land
The Autism Code
The Power of Autism
The Lord of the Geeks

?

Those are all really awesome. (I especially like "The Autism Code". ) Unfortunately, I think they may be a little too catchy for JKP's liking. They also don't really get the gist of the book. It's pretty sciency and does need to seem a little bit serious. --Not too serious, mind you! But a little.

"Dissecting Autism 101"

Maybe a little too morbid?

I like the title. I think it's a wonderful title.

A little morbidity never killed anyone ^^.

Accurate though, with some of your data coming from post-mortems?




Love it, though she'd have to write a sequel; "the Descent of Spergs".

Last edited by Wolfram87 on 22 Mar 2018, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why, thank you!




Well, true, there is that. Although I wouldn't say the bulk of the science presented is based off postmortem work.

But I suspect JKP may not be keen on the "dissecting" part. Although I do think it a clever title!

'Defining Autism' is declarative. Much like the statement, "It is raining." Leaving no room for interpretation, which is fine if your book is the end all-be all of answers regarding autism and how it is defined.

'Genetic, Neurological and Environmental Factors in Autism Spectrum Disorder', is less declarative and provides a general synopsis for your book, without the reader having to even pick it up and read the back cover. It also allows the reader to form their own opinions based on the evidence you have collected without being forced fed the conclusion you want to draw for them. It also allows you to go back later and add to it if new research is published that adds to or refutes your conclusions. It would be very difficult to backtrack if you made the declarative statement and it would lead to creditability issues.

Quite frankly, if you want your readers to take your word for your conclusions using 'Defining Autism' you need extraordinary proof, which you may have; don't know haven't read it playing devil's advocate. Otherwise you will constantly have to defend your work. Are you that confident in your findings to say you have defined autism as in it can be tested and found to be true across the board? That's up to you to decide.

I am always looking for more and more info that defines autism biologically instead of listing symptoms. I would buy it with that title.

Its a book that needs to be written.Thats for sure. Picks up were Silberstiens fine book "Neurotribes" leaves off. Though I don't know if its for a general audience (like Silberstien's) or just for the shrink community.

"Defining autism" isn't too bad actually. But...

Maybe the title should derive from your conclusions.

One of my favorite nonfiction titles was that of a bio of singer Marvin Gaye: "Trouble Man" ( both the title of one his early hit songs, and...what the nub of what author shows that he was_ troubled, and caused trouble to those around him). Double meanings are always cool.

If your conclusion is that the already expanded range that the experts have taken autism to, is still not broad enough then you might consider working that into the title.

"Autism: A fuller spectrum on a fuller spectrum"

I'd prefer "Definitions of Autism."

Although I actually like the title I agree with the publishers that someone will take offence. The problem is that even if most people like it those that are offended are can cause problems by down voting it.

I think people will take offence at the fact that you can't define autism because there is no clear definition. While I love the irony of a book on autism having a title that can't be taken literally although warrior mothers who are fighting the battle on behalf of their children are likely to have a tantrum.

I don't know much about the this but I would have thought that the main purpose of a title was to sell a book. Having autism in the title can't be a bad thing in a world where search engines rule but your publishers are likely to know more about selling books than anyone. It may feel like selling your soul but what do you want to achieve. if it is money or even awareness then shifting as many copies as possible should be your priority.

I like Defining Autism. It's a two word title that would pique my interest. To me the title suggests the book is about figuring out autism. If the title was Autism Defined, that would be a problem. Maybe the publishers don't get the difference.

So the book is about discussing different aspects of autism, and in the end I don't attempt to define the condition in any strict sense (although I do draw from lesion studies and highlight areas of the brain that may underlie the "core features"-- debates about DSM reliability aside). The title actually makes more sense when viewed in relation to the content of the book. This book is about looking at autism from different, albeit mostly biological, perspectives. Which is why the book would never be called "Autism Defined," but rather the book is an ongoing effort in defining the condition, if that's ever possible.

Meanwhile, I genuinely feel the title proposed by the publishers will chase MANY readers away because it is extremely dry. In addition, the book is about more than just genetics, neurology, and the environment. So in that way it's also inaccurate.



Great! Let's see what the title ends up being, lol.



In truth, the book really is about defining autism from many different perspectives. And the first and final chapters really do focus on that. The final chapter especially. But it's opened-ended. This book is part of an ongoing discussion. Which is why, as I said above, I don't want to call it "Autism Defined."



Any particular reason as to why you prefer that over the original proposed title? Just curious how the nuances make a difference for you.



True, I definitely want it to sell. It seems the majority in this thread either like or don't mind the title. Some don't like it or may even find it offensive (I'm realizing I should've separated that option out into "I'm not fond of it" vs. "I find it offensive" as people may not like it for reasons that don't have to do with offensiveness.)

On the other hand, I think it may be impossible for me to please every group, and perhaps that could be a good thing? I mean, Neurotribes has sold wonderfully and the ND community loved it, but the parent community had a hissy fit. I've tried to write this book so that it represents both sides, although I don't go into the various debates on stuff like vaccines, etc. I keep to the science. I try to drive home that autism is very broad and the DSM probably misses a lot of people who should be considered autistic. There's even a whole chapter on the broader autism phenotype. On the other hand, I have a another chapter on regression, which I suspect a lot of parents will like. I've really tried hard to walk that line and give both groups information they'll appreciate and find interesting.



Great, I'm glad that nuance is apparent. It's definitely an ongoing discussion.

It sounds like a good book. I would like to read it. The subject matter in the component chapters sounds very interesting.

Thanks! I'll try to remember to post a notice in this thread when it's published. I suspect it may be released next fall or winter.