Victoria, 

      I'm glad that you feel you have come to understand Christopher to some 
   extent, because crossing that border of empathy is one of the things we hoped 
   everyone would experience in reading this book.  

   Specific comments:

   (1)  Saying that the underlying story of the "curious incident" is that of 
        a boy trying to solve the mysteries of the world on his own is just
        the kind of metaphor that Christopher would never use himself.
        To him (and don't forget, he's the narrator and the author in the 
        world of the novel) it's the story of how he solved the mystery of
        the death of Wellington, found his mother again, and got an A grade
        on his Mathematics A Levels, nothing more, and nothing less.  

   (2)  Somehow, I think we're supposed to guess that Christopher 
        would hate nicknames.  After all, each person has one "official" set of 
        names, so wouldn't calling someone named Christopher by "Chris" or a John 
        by "Jack" be almost like a form of lying to him?  Note that, in the book, 
        no one ever uses any other name for him besides his full name, Christopher.
        So using "Chris" is probably not a good idea.

   (3)  On page 1:  "Haddon focused not only on the thoughts of Christopher but 
        took a focus also on the relationship he has with his parents and 
        surroundings."  When you find that you want to use the same verb (like
        "focus" here) twice in one sentence, it's sometimes better to combine
        the two objects like this:  "Haddon focused not only on Christopher's
        thoughts, but also on the relationship he has with his parents and
        surroundings."  Also, since the first paragraph was in the present
        tense, "focused" could be "focuses".

   (4)  In the next sentence, you need a comma after the word "mystery".

   (5)  On page 2:  Does the way Christopher decide what is a Good Day versus
        what is a Black Day strike you as logical, though?  It's certainly 
        orderly and he uses a definite set of rules.  But do those rules really
        make sense, especially to other people?

   (6)  page 2:  "All together I don’t think anyone really has a fully understanding 
        of themselves."  You don't really need the "all together," or you 
        might say "All in all, ... " if you wanted to emphasize the fact you
        are coming to a conclusion.  Also, "fully" should be "full".

   (7)  page 2 onto page 3:  "His comparison to math is different than what 
        most people would compare their lives too but it is simple to understand."
        This is not too clear as a sentence on its own.  I think you meant 
        something like:  "Most people would not compare mathematical ideas to
        life in this way, but what he says is simple to understand."  Also, 
        what Christopher says there strikes me as a very deep thought, not 
        really simple to understand at all.  Note that Christopher understands
        that prime numbers seem very random when you look at their distribution
        even though they follow definite rules.  The fact that that sort of
        combination of properties is possible is not obvious.  In fact, 
        Christopher is indirectly referring to some ideas in mathematics 
        that really only took hold in the 1970's ("chaos theory" -- also see
        the discussion on pages 101 and 102; a similar thing is happening
        there).  Note:  I'm not saying you should have known all this, by
        the way.  I'm just pointing out that there's quite a bit going on
        here(!)    

    Content: 88 (B+)

    Mechanics: 88 (B+)