While I really did enjoy The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I’m unsure of why it’s considered a modern classic (then again, I’ve heard it referred to as a modern Catcher in the Rye, and I’m reading that right now, and while it’s enjoyable, it’s not mind-blowing brilliant). It’s a book I definitely think is worth reading and discussing – it contains lots of interesting issues, very thought-provoking stuff, and Charlie is certainly a unique character – and it’s also very quotable. I loved the pop culture references (even though I don’t particularly like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It just made me feel uncomfortable) and the letter format. There were a few things that bothered me, and that I’m interested to hear your views on as well, if you’ve read this (hopefully I haven’t been too harsh here. I really did enjoy it):
It really seemed as if Charlie was autistic or otherwise mentally handicapped. Or that he’d been homeschooled his entire life and had never engaged with other people his age (not to say that homeschooling is a bad thing – I was homeschooled for a time myself – but he seemed awfully sheltered). He seemed to have no social ability, and was totally unaware of things like homosexuality. The book was written very simply – lots of run-on sentences and no contractions. (Note that I’m not saying this book was bad – I quite enjoyed it – just mentioning what really stood out for me.)
While the title is great, Charlie doesn’t seem like a wallflower at all. He’s accepted into a group of older teenagers who really like him, and he dates one older girl and hooks up with another older girl over the course of his first year of high school. Yes, he totally lacks social tact. Yes, he’s weird. I don’t think he’s a wallflower at all, though, since he is socially accepted and seems to get by.
Again, I’ve read a lot of reviews of people complaining about sexual content, mostly the storyline with Charlie’s gay friend. Whilst I think parents do have a right to decide what their children read, most of the stuff in here are things that their kids have heard about or experienced probably by their mid-to-late teens. I wasn’t particularly shocked by anything, though I disliked the fact that Charlie’s gay friend was made out to be a slut (going to parks at night and hooking up with strange men) which is something I read too often in YA literature (gay teenaged male? They’re always promiscuous. I mean, seriously, you can’t be gay and have decent standards and morals. It’s like being a sociopath that experiences empathy).
Now, a note on these reviews of older books I’m doing – I know in the past I’ve said that there’s no need to review meanly (and I’m really trying not to, sorry if I did that with Forever) but with these types of books that have been widely read or are considered modern classics of YA literature, I think it’s really worth discussing, rather than writing a stock-standard review (This book was ___. The characterisations were ___. This book will appeal to ___.).
It’s worth thinking about things like ‘Why is this book so popular? If this book were published today, how would it be received by today’s teenaged readers? What do I think of other people’s views on this book?’
Hopefully that made some sense. Nod if you understood. If you want to recommend an older YA book, go ahead.
Have you read The Perks of Being a Wallflower? What were your thoughts?
11 notes passed:
Darlingggggggggg it's 'Stephen' with a 'ph' not a 'v'!
But apart from that :P
I LOVED Perks. I think it's a great book.
I agree with some of what you said, but I do think Charlie was a wallflower. Yes he was accepted, but he stood on the edge and observed a lot of the time.
Either way, awesome book:)
Haven't read Perks, but it's on my TBR pile. All my friends tell me its great (guessing this means it would be accepted by today's teenagers) and the comparisons to Catcher make me want to read it even more.
But then, I think Catcher is mindblowing. It just feels so amazingly real to me. Like such a ground breaking novel and at the time, when YA practically didn't exist...WOW. I love Holden :)
I've just picked up Perks.
Just read the first chapter, and I am hooked.
I'm so SO glad I read this when I was actually a teenager. I think if I tried to read it now it would annoy me to no end, but fortunately I have very happy memories of reading this instead of Anna Karenina in the 11th grade. I don't think I'll re read it though, because it has a perfect little place and I don't want to ruin it.
A classic should stand the test of time, but it is also important to look at the social and historical context in which the classic was published and originally read.
Even though it has only been ten years since its publication so much has changed in teen culture in that time. It was written in a pre cell phone, pre gay marriage legislation, pre Gossip Girl, pre every quirk had a DSM diagnosis era.
Teen literature has really blossomed in the last decade. And any book that was groundbreaking in content or form, like Catcher in the Rye, is more likely to be deemed a classic.
I loved Perks. A lot of why I love it so much is because I was 14 when it came out and there was hardly any YA at all around. I get what you mean with Charlie, but I think all his sheltered ways is what made him a wallflower. Even if he did get accepted later on, he still was one.
I like your review.
I've got too many things to read at the moment, so I'm afraid this one won't be going in a pile, but I like your opinions on this one. It was interesting to see what you thought about it.
I just finished reading this about two weeks ago, actually.
I liked the way it was written. It really added to Charlie's character and made him a lot more believable. Then again, I tend to write how I talk, so I like it when other people do the same thing.
Overall, I thought it was a really good book. Not as good as some people say it is, but excelllent nonetheless.
i'd forgotten about this book! i really enjoyed it...as far as i can remember...and definitely echoes and whiffs of catcher in the rye. i'd have to read it again to remember what my first impressions were. again, loving the trip down memory lane with the books you're reviewing lately!
I don't think that Charlie was autistic, otherwise mentally handicapped, or even particularly sheltered. I think his perspective is a mixture of what happens when you live inside your head for most of your life. He is the epitome of the introvert. That's what makes him a wallflower, aside from the fact that he has friends. He's more observant, overly so, when it comes to his friends and they are all older than him, meaning he cannot relate to peers closer to his age--which also contributes to the wallflower thing. There seems to be the phenomenon that when a younger kid (like a ninth grader) doesn't exactly relate to their peers, but has somewhat of an interesting personality, older kids (like 12th graders) bring them into their inner circle. The older kids are usually on the fringes of the high school social hierarchy anyway and were more than likely where the younger kid was when they were in ninth grade. That's what happened with Charlie.
I didn't exactly like the fact that Patrick was kind of slutty, but I think it didn't really have anything to do with the fact that he was gay. I mean, he was really broken up about everything going on in his life at the time and decided (as too many people do) to take the reckless path in life to numb the pain, which is why I didn't exactly like it. However, that was more of a brief period than anything else.
Anyway, I think that this book is so popular because most people who read it tend to get their hands on it when they are going through an introspective adolescent period and feel that the main character really speaks to them. It's an easy read and has a lot of aspects of everyday life without making it boring. It also kind of deals with one of the classic problems of growing up, being that you're not a kid and you can't tell your parents everything anymore (or at least feel that way), but you're still very far away from being anywhere close to being an adult. You also can't tell your friends everything because they may not understand everything, you don't want them to look at you differently, and mainly there are all those little secrets you promised to keep. But you still need some sort of communication. And I know that a book is a static thing and that once it's written it can't be changed, but the mere fact that it was written I think brings about that communication that certain adolescents are looking for.
I think it would be received with a mixture of cheers and jeers from both critics and readers alike if it were released today, mainly because plenty of people are still reading it for the first time these days and that's what I'm hearing. As far as what I think about other people's views on this book...well, I like it when they like it and when they don't I find myself thinking that they didn't get it.
Sorry to be so verbose.
I read what Frank said, and can maybe see his point of view, but my impression of Charlie was also that he was autistic or mentally challenged in some way.
Post a Comment