15 Essential Quotes from Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime
Studying The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time for Module B? You’re in the right place.
We’ve selected 15 essential quotes that reveal how Haddon crafts meaning through Christopher’s distinctive narrative voice, unconventional structure, and precise use of language. These moments trace Christopher’s slow realisation of the complexity and unreliability of the adult world, his growing independence and self-belief, and his difficulty in fitting into and understanding a society governed by emotional and social conventions.
For each quote, we’ll analyse Haddon’s language and form, link it to key ideas and values, and show you how to integrate it effectively into a Module B essay.
If you want to write a perceptive, textually grounded response, these are the quotes you need to know.
Let’s begin.
This is a murder mystery novel. (…) In a murder mystery novel someone has to work out who the murderer is and then catch them. It is a puzzle. If it is a good puzzle you can sometimes work out the answer before the end of the book. (Chapter 7)
The declarative and repetitive structure reflects Christopher’s need for clarity and order, as he categorises his narrative according to rigid genre conventions by declaring it as a ‘murder mystery’. By explicitly defining what a murder mystery novel is, he adopts a metafictional stance that draws attention to the act of writing itself, reminding the reader that this story is consciously constructed rather than intuitively told. His emphasis on logic and solvability reveals his belief that the world, like a puzzle, should be governed by clear rules and outcomes, mirroring his reliance on rational systems to navigate reality.
The reference to working out the solution before the end aligns Christopher with the tradition of detective fiction, particularly the influence of Sherlock Holmes, whose analytical detachment and methodical reasoning Christopher admires. This intertextual framework highlights his logical mindset and his desire to impose structure on chaos, transforming a traumatic and emotionally complex situation into something manageable and rule-bound. However, this also exposes his limited understanding of human motivation, as he initially assumes that people, like puzzles, can be decoded through reason alone.
His insistence that this will be a murder mystery shapes the reader’s expectations, only for the novel to gradually subvert them. While Christopher believes he is participating in a conventional detective narrative, the text evolves into a bildungsroman focused on self-discovery and growth rather than crime-solving as he slowly grapples with the emotional fallout of his father’s deception and his mothers existence.
2. ‘This will not be a funny book. I cannot tell jokes because I do not understand them (Chapter 13)’
The blunt, declarative tone immediately establishes Christopher’s literal-minded relationship with language, as he presents his inability to understand jokes as an objective fact rather than an emotional limitation. The short, truncated sentences mirror his direct mode of thinking, stripping the prose of embellishment or humour and reinforcing the sincerity and honesty of his narrative voice. This creates dramatic irony, as the reader recognises that the statement itself carries an unintended dryness that could be perceived as humorous, even though Christopher explicitly rejects humour as a concept (as he would not understand it).
The metafictional acknowledgement of how the book will function challenges conventional expectations of entertainment and invites readers to reassess what makes a story engaging. By refusing jokes, Christopher positions logic and truth as more valuable than social performance, exposing how much everyday communication relies on shared assumptions and abstract inference. This foregrounds his difficulty in navigating a world where meaning is often implied rather than stated, highlighting the social barriers he faces.
Importantly, this moment fosters empathy rather than distance. By articulating his perspective so plainly, Christopher encourages readers to adapt to his way of seeing the world, increasing awareness of neurodivergent experiences. The novel’s unconventional structure becomes a strength rather than a deficiency, offering a refreshing interpretation of the world that challenges mainstream narrative norms and validates alternative modes of perception.
3. ‘I think prime numbers are like life. They are very logical but you could never work out the rules, even if you spent all your time thinking about them’ (Chapter 19)
The use of simile reveals Christopher’s instinct to interpret life through mathematical logic, equating human existence with the abstract certainty of prime numbers. By drawing this comparison, he demonstrates comfort in systems governed by rules and patterns, suggesting that mathematics offers a sense of stability absent from his emotional experiences. The paradox embedded in the idea that prime numbers are logical yet ultimately unpredictable mirrors his view of life as something structured but unknowable.
This reflection exposes Christopher’s growing self-awareness: he recognises that although rules exist, they are not always accessible or solvable, even with total intellectual commitment. This acknowledgement marks a subtle shift in his development, as it suggests an acceptance of uncertainty rather than a complete reliance on control. The simile allows readers direct access to his thought processes, reinforcing the first-person narration as a tool for immersion into his cognitive world.
The comparison invites readers to reconsider conventional definitions of understanding. Christopher’s insight challenges the assumption that emotional intelligence is the only valid way to interpret life, instead proposing logic as an equally meaningful framework. Through this mathematical metaphor, the novel deepens appreciation for neurodivergent perspectives, encouraging readers to value different ways of constructing meaning in an unpredictable world.
4. ‘We do this because sometimes Father wants to give me a hug, but I do not like hugging people so we do this instead, and it means that he loves me’ (Chapter 31)
The calm, explanatory tone reflects Christopher’s tendency to rationalise emotional interactions in practical terms, translating affection into a system he can understand and tolerate. The repetitive sentence structure mirrors his methodical thinking, as he carefully breaks down the action and its meaning to ensure emotional clarity. Physical contact, which is often instinctive and emotionally charged, is instead reduced to a logical alternative ( a hand gesture) that fulfils the same purpose without causing Christopher any distress.
This moment highlights the adaptability of Christopher’s father, showing how love must sometimes be redefined rather than diminished. By substituting a hug with a non-invasive gesture, the novel challenges conventional assumptions about how affection should be expressed as it encourages the reader to recognise that emotional connection does not rely on traditional physical norms but on mutual understanding and respect. Love is not verbalised sentimentally but demonstrated through accommodation and compromise.
5. ‘I do not tell lies. Mother used to say that this was because I was a good person. But it is not because I am a good person. It is because I can't tell lies.’ (Chapter 37)
The blunt distinction Christopher makes between morality and ability exposes his literal understanding of ethics. By rejecting the idea that honesty stems from goodness, he reframes truth-telling as a cognitive limitation rather than a moral virtue within a tone of factual neutrality.
This moment complicates traditional moral frameworks by questioning intent (ie what we want to do) versus outcome (what actually happens, what we do). While society often praises honesty as a sign of integrity, Christopher reveals that his truthfulness exists independently of ethical choice. This challenges readers to reconsider how moral value is assigned and whether goodness must be intentional to be meaningful.
At the same time, the passage subtly critiques adult interpretations of Christopher’s behaviour. His mother’s attempt to moralise his honesty reflects a neurotypical tendency to impose emotional narratives onto actions that, for Christopher, exist outside that framework. The honesty of his narration reinforces the novel’s commitment to presenting his perspective without sentimental distortion.
6. ‘So talking to the other people in our street was brave. But if you are going to do detective work you have to be brave, so I had no choice.’ (Chapter 67)
Christopher’s definition of bravery is rooted not in emotional courage but in logical necessity. By framing bravery as a requirement of detective work, he removes fear from the equation entirely, transforming what would normally be an intimidating social act into a procedural obligation, which reflects his growth throughout the novel.
The phrase “I had no choice” reveals how duty overrides emotion in Christopher’s decision-making. Once he commits to a task, personal discomfort becomes irrelevant, highlighting both his resilience and his vulnerability. What appears courageous to the reader is, for Christopher, simply a consequence of following rules he has already accepted.
This reframing invites readers to reconsider conventional ideas of bravery as the novel suggests that courage does not always arise from emotional resolve but can emerge from logical commitment, reinforcing the value of alternative cognitive approaches to challenge and fear.
7. ‘I liked maths because it meant solving problems, and these problems were difficult and interesting but there was always a straightforward answer at the end. (…) Maths wasn’t like life because in life there are no straightforward answers at the end.’ (Chapter 101)
The contrast between mathematics and life underscores Christopher’s search for certainty in a moment of emotional upheaval. Mathematics is presented as a safe, closed system in which complexity still leads to resolution, offering reassurance through predictability. Life, by contrast, is characterised as open-ended and unresolved, intensifying his sense of instability following personal betrayal.
This comparison reflects Christopher’s attempt to process emotional trauma through familiar logical frameworks. Having previously approached the murder investigation as a solvable problem, he is now confronted with a situation that resists resolution, exposing the limits of logic when applied to human relationships. The absence of a “straightforward answer” mirrors his emotional confusion and loss of control.
Structurally, this moment marks a turning point in the novel, as the detective narrative gives way to a deeper exploration of emotional complexity. The breakdown of Christopher’s problem-solving model reinforces the bildungsroman aspect of the text, as he begins to confront uncertainty as an unavoidable part of life.
8. ‘But sometimes we get sad about things and we don't like to tell other people that we are sad about them. We like to keep it a secret. Or sometimes we are sad but we don't really know we are sad. So we say we aren't sad. But really we are.’ (Chapter 109)
Siobhan’s reflective tone contrasts with Christopher’s typically factual narration, introducing emotional complexity in a language that remains accessible and clear. The repetition of “we” broadens the observation beyond Christopher, suggesting that emotional confusion is a universal human experience rather than a uniquely neurodivergent one, collapsing the boundary between reader and character.
The idea that people may feel sadness without recognising it exposes the unreliability of self-awareness, challenging the assumption that emotions are always consciously understood. This subtly validates Christopher’s difficulty with emotional expression, positioning it not as a deficit but as part of a wider human condition, as everyone, neurodivergent or otherwise, struggles to understand others emotions
This insight encourages reflection rather than judgement and reinforces the novel’s central message that understanding (of oneself and of other) is often partial and evolving. By articulating emotional uncertainty in simple terms, Siobhan becomes a bridge between Christopher’s logical worldview and the emotional ambiguity of everyday life.
9. ‘I was not a very good mother, Christopher. Maybe if things had been different, maybe if you'd been different, I might have been better at it. But that's just the way things turned out.’ (Chapter 157)
The fragmented syntax and repeated modal “maybe” convey uncertainty and self-reproach, as Christopher’s mother frames her failures through conditional speculation rather than direct responsibility. This hesitant diction reflects emotional instability and regret, contrasting sharply with Christopher’s usual preference for certainty and factual clarity. The repetition creates a rhythm of doubt, suggesting an attempt to rationalise guilt rather than fully confront it.
The parallel structure juxtaposing “if things had been different” with “if you’d been different” subtly shifts blame, revealing the complexity of parental frustration and emotional exhaustion. This linguistic mirroring exposes the tension between circumstance and individuality, implying that Christopher’s neurodivergence is perceived as a contributing factor to her inadequacy. The declarative closure of the final sentence imposes finality, signalling resignation rather than resolution.
From Christopher’s perspective, the emotional ambiguity embedded in this confession is difficult to process. The lack of clear causality clashes with his logical worldview, reinforcing the emotional distance between mother and son and highlighting how indirect language can obscure meaning rather than clarify it.
10. ‘Mother had not had a heart attack. Mother had not died. Mother had been alive all the time. And Father had lied about this.’ (Chapter 157)
The use of short, simple sentences shows how Christopher copes with shock by focusing on facts. Instead of reacting emotionally, he processes what has happened step by step, repeating information to help himself understand it. Each sentence removes an old belief and replaces it with a new one, revealing his need to restate the truth until it feels certain and secure.
The impact of the revelation is made stronger because it is delivered without emotional language. Christopher does not express sadness or anger; instead, he lists facts, which highlights his emotional detachment and sense of disbelief. By avoiding emotive vocabulary, Haddon shows that Christopher experiences betrayal through logic rather than feelings. The final sentence draws attention to the lie itself, presenting it as a clear break in trust rather than an emotional wound.
This moment marks the collapse of Christopher’s trust in his father and in the reliability of the world around him. Language becomes a way for him to rebuild his understanding of reality, showing that when truth is disrupted, Christopher relies on repetition and precision to regain control.
11. ‘I felt giddy. It was like the room was swinging from side to side, as if it was at the top of a really tall building and the building was swinging backward and forward in a strong wind (this is a simile, too).’ (Chapter 157)
The simile helps Christopher describe panic by turning an internal emotional experience into something physical and visual. Instead of naming his feelings directly, he explains them through movement and space, showing his preference for concrete, observable details over abstract emotional language. The large-scale image makes his fear feel more intense and overwhelming.
The description of repeated “swinging backward and forward” suggests instability and lack of control, reflecting Christopher’s mental state at this moment. This repetitive motion mirrors how his thoughts feel unbalanced and unsettled, reinforcing the sense that he is overwhelmed both physically and psychologically by the discovery of his fathers lie.
Christopher’s direct acknowledgement that he is using a simile highlights his self-aware and analytical narrative voice. Even during moments of distress, he steps back to identify language techniques, which emphasises the tension between his emotional experience and his need to intellectually control and categorise the world around him.
12. ‘I had to get out of the house. Father had murdered Wellington. That meant he could murder me.’ (Chapter 167)
The short, blunt sentence structure reflects how Christopher thinks quickly and logically in a moment of fear. Instead of reacting emotionally, he breaks the situation down into a clear cause-and-effect sequence, using reasoning to decide that he must escape. This shows how he relies on logic rather than instinct when under pressure.
The repetition of the word “murder” makes the danger feel immediate and serious. By repeating it without emotional language, Christopher treats the threat as a fact rather than something to be emotionally processed. This links the past action to a future risk, showing that he struggles to judge emotional probability and instead assumes logical certainty.
This moment marks the collapse of Christopher’s sense of safety. The language becomes simple and functional, revealing that when he feels threatened, he depends on reasoning to survive rather than emotional reassurance. This reinforces the novel’s focus on logic as Christopher’s primary coping mechanism.
13. ‘But after a few seconds they looked like this. (…) because there were too many and my brain wasn't working properly and this frightened me so I closed my eyes again and I counted slowly to 50 but without doing the cubes.’ (Chapter 211)
The shifting visual imagery reflects cognitive overload, as ordered perception dissolves into incomprehensible excess. The vague demonstrative phrase creates ambiguity, signalling Christopher’s inability to process what he sees once it exceeds his mental limits. This loss of clarity mirrors the breakdown of rational control that occurs when his environment becomes overstimulating.
The polysyndetic accumulation of clauses conveys panic through linguistic excess, as thoughts pile up without pause. The causal conjunction foregrounds Christopher’s awareness of his own cognitive malfunction, transforming fear into a physiological problem rather than an emotional one. This self-diagnosis reinforces his analytical narrative voice even in distress.
The act of closing his eyes and counting functions as a symbolic retreat into order. Numbers operate as a stabilising motif throughout the novel, and the deliberate omission of cubes suggests compromised cognitive capacity. Language here maps the movement from chaos to controlled routine, revealing how Christopher manages fear through structured repetition.
14. ‘And when I was asleep I had one of my favorite dreams. And in the dream nearly everyone on the earth is dead.’ (Chapter 229)
The simple, matter-of-fact opening sentence contrasts strongly with the disturbing nature of the dream, creating an unsettling tone. By describing the dream as a “favorite,” Christopher creates dramatic irony, as the reader recognises how violent and apocalyptic it is while he finds it comforting. This contrast highlights the difference between how Christopher processes the world and how a neurotypical reader is likely to respond emotionally.
The dream works as an extended metaphor for Christopher’s desire to escape social pressure. With most people gone, there is no need for social interaction, physical contact, or emotional interpretation, all of which cause him distress. The survival of people “like him” suggests a world where he is no longer different, revealing his deep desire to belong and not feel like an outsider.
The absence of authority figures turns the dream into a fantasy of independence. Christopher shows no sadness about their disappearance, which emphasises his growing need for autonomy rather than emotional attachment. Structurally, this moment represents a turning point in his development, showing his movement toward independence and adult identity.
15. ‘I know I can do this because I went to London on my own, and because I solved the mystery of Who Killed Wellington? and I found my mother and I was brave and I wrote a book and that means I can do anything.’ (Chapter 233)
The polysyndeton (repeated use of “and”) creates a steady, cumulative rhythm that reflects how Christopher builds confidence through logic and evidence. Instead of expressing emotion, he lists his achievements step by step, treating each one as proof that supports his belief in himself. This shows that his self-belief is constructed rationally rather than emotionally.
The list-like sentence structure turns personal experiences into measurable successes. By repeatedly using the first-person pronoun, Christopher takes ownership of his actions, showing how his confidence has grown as he becomes more independent. Language here is used to define who he is and what he is capable of, rather than to explain how he feels.
The final confident statement brings the novel to a sense of closure. Although the claim that he “can do anything” may seem simplistic, it clearly represents Christopher’s growth. His confidence is based on what he has proven he can do, reinforcing the idea that independence can be built through logic as well as emotion.
Looking for some extra help with your Curious Incident Essay?
We’ve got an incredible team of English tutors at Pinnacle Learners!
If you’re studying Curious Incident for Module B, we’ll help you strengthen your essay writing and build the confidence to ace your next assessment.
Our one-on-one lessons are available online or in person at our office in Rozelle, giving students across Sydney’s Inner West (Balmain, Leichhardt and beyond) the support they need to excel.
Over the years, our students have boosted their results by 20% or more in just 6 weeks through expert guidance, proven strategies, and mentoring that goes beyond the textbook. If you’re looking for support that builds real understanding and lasting skills, we’d love to help.
