**Warning: spoiler alert**
This book has been hailed a 'coming of age' story, though I don't really think that's the most fitting description. The main character, Charlie, starts high school and celebrates his 16th birthday in the book. But he is already, in a lot of ways, an 'adult', mature beyond his years, having navigated an array of psychosocial crises, some beyond his expected stage of development. He is different, sensitive, intelligent. He's perceptive, reflective, loving. He is the antithesis of egotistical.
He starts the book in many ways a 'loner', not because he is unlikeable per se, but because he is so far 'ahead' in his development that he doesn't fit in with his regular peers. Consequently, he is taken under the wings of some older, more experienced/developed individuals (a gay senior student in the 90's and his sexually abused step-sister) - they are better able to recognise how beautiful he is, albeit in his own way, and they accept him quirks and all.
Though perhaps quirks is not the right word either. He's special. That's the best way to put it really. I fell in love with his character.
I think the book is quite well written, and the character development in particular is applaudable- there is enough detail provided to scaffold deeper understanding for the reader, giving access to a whole range of audiences (from young adult to the more mature adult like me!). I was able to connect with the characters, especially Charlie, and mould him into a version that made the most sense in my reading of the story. And it was a version that maintained consistency throughout the story, so kudos to the clever craftsmanship of the author for facilitating that.
Saying that, I found the book gratuitously sexual in some parts - which was probably the only inconsistency where Charlie's character was concerned. The only redemption in that regard was that it was articulated in a very matter-of-fact kind of way, which is consistent with my reading of his character. Nevertheless, I think some of those scenes were unnecessary and did not add any value to the book. At the very least, they could have been less explicit- the book would not have lost any of its potency at all.
As a side note, the music and the books that were referenced in the story are a great collection to get your teeth/ears into. I have read some (not all) many years ago, but will revisit them over the next few months.
There were some remarkable observations made by this 16 year old, which made you forget just how young he was. I will share a few that I really loved. I guess they resonated with me because I think/have thought in that way too...
'And all the books you've read have been read by other people. And all the songs you've loved have been heard by other people. And that girl that's pretty to you is pretty to other people. And you know that if you looked at these facts when you were happy, you would feel great because you are describing "unity" '.
'I walk around the school hallways and look at people. I look at the teachers and wonder why they're here. If they like their jobs. Or us. And I wonder how smart they were when they were fifteen. Not in a mean way. In a curious way. It's like looking at all the students and wondering who's had their heart broken that day, and how they will be able to cope with having three quizzes and a book report on top of that'.
'I remember going to sleep last night, and I realised something. Something that I think is important. I realised that throughout the course of the evening, I wasn't happy about Craig and Sam breaking up. Not at all. I never once thought it would mean Sam might start liking me. All I cared about was the fact that Sam got really hurt. And I guess I realised at that moment that I really did love her. Because there was nothing to gain, and that didn't matter'.
'But it's like when my doctor told me the story of these two brothers whose dad was a bad alcoholic. One brother grew up to be a successful carpenter who never drank. The other brother ended up being a drinker as bad as his dad was. When they asked the first brother why he didn't drink, he said that after he saw what it did to his father, he could never bring himself to try it. When they asked the other brother, he said that he guessed he learned how to drink on his father's knee. So, I guess we are who we are for a lot of reasons. And maybe we'll never know most of them. But even if we don't have the power to choose where we come from, we can still choose where we go from there. We can still do things. And we can try to feel okay about them'.
There are so many poignant observations but I'll leave it at that.
There were some things I thought could have been executed better- like the fact that he didn't recall his sexual abuse at his first sexual encounter but does so subsequently, with the girl he loves. Perhaps that was intentional, perhaps it took someone whom he was emotionally deeply connected to to trigger those repressed memories, but it's not clear enough. Plus, once it's revealed, it was not given its due diligence and the story was quite rushed from there on in. In my opinion, its a significant revelation that warrants more exploration. Perhaps that's my own personal bias colouring my perspective, I don't really know.
There were some other issues, minor ones I suppose, like how quickly and easily they 'got over' certain addictions/habbits. They could stop and start at will, which is unrealistic. But I guess it doesn't take away from the story, which makes it tolerable.
I cried in a couple of places. And I'm not even hormonal at the moment. So that says something positive too I suppose.
The movie, on the other hand, was a big disappointment. The characterisation of Charlie was all wrong. You could forgive incomplete or inaccurate characterisations for secondary characters but not for the main character. And what really bothered me was that it was directed by Chbosky, the author, so he should have known better. It was far too Hollywood for me. It lacked depth and as such, had zero emotion. It was an insult to the book as far as I'm concerned. I thought the casting was good but they simply didn't have an adequate script to work with. I loved Emma Watson as Sam. And Ezra Miller as Patrick. But again, they had very little to work with so it didn't really go anywhere for me. Perhaps some books are just better left untranslated to screen.
Well, I think that's enough to be getting on with.
This book has been hailed a 'coming of age' story, though I don't really think that's the most fitting description. The main character, Charlie, starts high school and celebrates his 16th birthday in the book. But he is already, in a lot of ways, an 'adult', mature beyond his years, having navigated an array of psychosocial crises, some beyond his expected stage of development. He is different, sensitive, intelligent. He's perceptive, reflective, loving. He is the antithesis of egotistical.
He starts the book in many ways a 'loner', not because he is unlikeable per se, but because he is so far 'ahead' in his development that he doesn't fit in with his regular peers. Consequently, he is taken under the wings of some older, more experienced/developed individuals (a gay senior student in the 90's and his sexually abused step-sister) - they are better able to recognise how beautiful he is, albeit in his own way, and they accept him quirks and all.
Though perhaps quirks is not the right word either. He's special. That's the best way to put it really. I fell in love with his character.
I think the book is quite well written, and the character development in particular is applaudable- there is enough detail provided to scaffold deeper understanding for the reader, giving access to a whole range of audiences (from young adult to the more mature adult like me!). I was able to connect with the characters, especially Charlie, and mould him into a version that made the most sense in my reading of the story. And it was a version that maintained consistency throughout the story, so kudos to the clever craftsmanship of the author for facilitating that.
Saying that, I found the book gratuitously sexual in some parts - which was probably the only inconsistency where Charlie's character was concerned. The only redemption in that regard was that it was articulated in a very matter-of-fact kind of way, which is consistent with my reading of his character. Nevertheless, I think some of those scenes were unnecessary and did not add any value to the book. At the very least, they could have been less explicit- the book would not have lost any of its potency at all.
As a side note, the music and the books that were referenced in the story are a great collection to get your teeth/ears into. I have read some (not all) many years ago, but will revisit them over the next few months.
There were some remarkable observations made by this 16 year old, which made you forget just how young he was. I will share a few that I really loved. I guess they resonated with me because I think/have thought in that way too...
'And all the books you've read have been read by other people. And all the songs you've loved have been heard by other people. And that girl that's pretty to you is pretty to other people. And you know that if you looked at these facts when you were happy, you would feel great because you are describing "unity" '.
'I walk around the school hallways and look at people. I look at the teachers and wonder why they're here. If they like their jobs. Or us. And I wonder how smart they were when they were fifteen. Not in a mean way. In a curious way. It's like looking at all the students and wondering who's had their heart broken that day, and how they will be able to cope with having three quizzes and a book report on top of that'.
'I remember going to sleep last night, and I realised something. Something that I think is important. I realised that throughout the course of the evening, I wasn't happy about Craig and Sam breaking up. Not at all. I never once thought it would mean Sam might start liking me. All I cared about was the fact that Sam got really hurt. And I guess I realised at that moment that I really did love her. Because there was nothing to gain, and that didn't matter'.
'But it's like when my doctor told me the story of these two brothers whose dad was a bad alcoholic. One brother grew up to be a successful carpenter who never drank. The other brother ended up being a drinker as bad as his dad was. When they asked the first brother why he didn't drink, he said that after he saw what it did to his father, he could never bring himself to try it. When they asked the other brother, he said that he guessed he learned how to drink on his father's knee. So, I guess we are who we are for a lot of reasons. And maybe we'll never know most of them. But even if we don't have the power to choose where we come from, we can still choose where we go from there. We can still do things. And we can try to feel okay about them'.
There are so many poignant observations but I'll leave it at that.
There were some things I thought could have been executed better- like the fact that he didn't recall his sexual abuse at his first sexual encounter but does so subsequently, with the girl he loves. Perhaps that was intentional, perhaps it took someone whom he was emotionally deeply connected to to trigger those repressed memories, but it's not clear enough. Plus, once it's revealed, it was not given its due diligence and the story was quite rushed from there on in. In my opinion, its a significant revelation that warrants more exploration. Perhaps that's my own personal bias colouring my perspective, I don't really know.
There were some other issues, minor ones I suppose, like how quickly and easily they 'got over' certain addictions/habbits. They could stop and start at will, which is unrealistic. But I guess it doesn't take away from the story, which makes it tolerable.
I cried in a couple of places. And I'm not even hormonal at the moment. So that says something positive too I suppose.
The movie, on the other hand, was a big disappointment. The characterisation of Charlie was all wrong. You could forgive incomplete or inaccurate characterisations for secondary characters but not for the main character. And what really bothered me was that it was directed by Chbosky, the author, so he should have known better. It was far too Hollywood for me. It lacked depth and as such, had zero emotion. It was an insult to the book as far as I'm concerned. I thought the casting was good but they simply didn't have an adequate script to work with. I loved Emma Watson as Sam. And Ezra Miller as Patrick. But again, they had very little to work with so it didn't really go anywhere for me. Perhaps some books are just better left untranslated to screen.
Well, I think that's enough to be getting on with.
