Speed of Dark

In Speed of Dark we meet Lou Arrendale, an autistic. He's what you might call high-functioning, in that he holds down a skilled job, drives, lives independantly and is beginning to form firm social bonds with non-autistics. Yet he has a great deal of difficulty in understanding other people, and he gets easily overloaded and needs a lot of supports to help him calm down.

Set in the near future, Elizabeth Moon asks what would happen if his autism could be cured. Lou and his work colleagues are amongst the last generation of autistics, the rest having been cured at birth or in the womb. When a new experimental treatment comes along they have to choose whether or not to take it.

Running throughout this book is the will-he won't-he question, but most of the story is concerned with the details of Lou's life. It's a book written by a non-autistic for an audience largely made up of science fiction fans, rather than people who know a lot about autism. The author dwells on things that wouldn't surprise anyone with knowledge of the condition, so in parts it has quite a slow pace.

Moon has clearly done her homework. Lou is a believable and rounded character rather than a stereotype. He likes routine and has sensory issues with light, but he doesn't have every foible or difficulty that an autistic ever had.

A side-issue is Lou's relationship with Marjory, and the jealousy of those around him about it. This demonstrates how Lou can sometimes be naive because of his condition. Then there are the office politics, which he isn't' entirely unaware of, and the suggestion that those who don't want the treatment will lose their jobs.

The ending, when it comes, lacks emotional impact. There is perhaps too much build-up, but also the fact that although this ethical question is interesting, it's also not necessarily a huge drama. Lou may well have savant abilities, but it's by no means certain that he will lose these through the treatment. It would have been interesting to read more about what happened to those who took the treatment, after they took it. As it is, this is just a small section at the end.

This book only raises the ethical dilemma, but it doesn't really answer it. The author could have come down firmly on one side or another, for the sake of debate, but she doesn't. For sheer entertainment I don't rate it very highly. It's diverting and readable, but not exactly compelling. But this is a thoughtful book that will teach its readers a little about autism, and encourage them to think about issues that they may never have even considered. For that alone it deserves praise.