But I thought the organization of the book suffered–perhaps some identity crisis about what this book was really supposed to be, a straight biography or a focus on one aspect of Grandin’s life–and that the writing was awkward at times. I pull this sentence out as an example in my goodreads review: “That theory was made popular in a best-selling book by Bruno Bettelheim, a doctor who had survived a Nazi concentration camp and who thought something awful must have happened to young autistic patients to make them so withdrawn.” Is the author attempting to draw a connection between the author’s concentration camp experience and his misguided theory? If so, it isn’t explored; if not, why mention it?

I do think, as Nina says, that this book will “work” for young readers (which is its purpose), but I don’t think it’s great literature.

You know how a movie biopic always suffers….telling the story of a life does not naturally make a compelling movie arc, and there’s often something dissatisfying in the pacing. A written biography can suffer the same. One of the strengths of this book, I think, is how it melds biography with a story of applied science/politics. Montgomery does a skillful job of wrestling both into a just-right-length narrative. One section may drag a little for one reader over another, and that’s the risk of doing what she’s done. But I think she pulls it off.

Anytime we as adult critics use the word “boring” I think we need to check in with our vacation calendar first to see if it’s the burnout talking.