Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Novels Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correction on Page

From: wikipedia page on perks of being a wallflower: "The book also touches strongly on drug use and Charlie's experiences with this". What? Charlie smokes butts and weed once or twice, as well as drinks a little. I think this phrase should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.111.199 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also took LSD, started buying Marijuana and using it regularly, as well as unknowingly taking 'Pot brownies,' I don't find this to be a strong use, but not a light one. JavaDog 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the book, most of Charlie's drug use is unintentional, the two most obvious examples of this being pot brownie he unknowingly eats at the party with Patrick and the tab of acid someone slips him at the Halloween party. Nonetheless, towards the end, the book pretty much says that Charlie smokes like a chimney. His pot use also gets to a point where it isn't just social; he's buying large amounts of it with his own cash and even coming to school high.

Criticisms?

There has been a lot of criticisms of this book from parents trying to ban it to plainly book critics classifiying the book as "emo". Should a criticisms section be added?

I would say it would be unnecessary, unless there are some sources that support it and not just a book review either. Maybe some interviews or articles from somewhere. Plus, I wouldn't consider it that significant to add so much of a criticism, at least right now. Pigman5 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie

It is definetlya´a book anyone can relate to. Charlie is a wallflower who observes people and feels very deeply for the experiences occuring around him. His favorite Aunt Helen died in a car accident when he was six, and he holds himself accountable, and his best friend committed suicide a year before he began the letters. His English teacher realizes Charlie's potential and brilliance and asks him to try and participate, which Charlie agrees to do. He becomes friends with two seniors Patrick and Samantha and begins to experience dances, parties, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, pot, love, bad trips and sexuality.

Charlie is the most peaceful and connected being I've ever known. I feel honored to have been introduced to him through reading this book. It's so wonderful that such a person that's so gratifying to know can be met by everyone, and is meant to be. Reading Charlie's letters is like befriending tha in your life you've been looking for.

The character list needs revising. Character lists are not meant to describe the plot of the story; they serve as a brief description of the characters. Knowing that Charlie has a sexual dream about Sam does not give any further information about Sam (she is already described as being beautiful). Other character summaries should be edited as well.

This is my favorite book ever.

Fair enough, I think it's hokey crap and Charlie is merely a cipher.

Honestly, I think the book is incredibly overhyped for what it is. Although it is a theme to which a lot of people can relate, that doesn't mean it was written well or handled correctly. I wanted to throw it across the room when I was finished.

I didn't like the book all that much either. I heard so many good things about it and I was very dissapointed. Everything was melodramatic to the extreme and unrealistic. The situations were unrealistic, the drug use was realistic, the dialogue was realistic and it just felt really fake. Charlie was a hollow and naive character who I couldn't sympathize with. He is so unlike Holden Caulfield, a real character. Holden was a man of action anda believable character, not some whiny windbag like Charlie. Plus, Chbosky packed this book with so many issues (Promiscuity, drug use, child abuse, homosexuality, first time sexual experiences, rape, abortion, homophobia) that it almost becomes comical. I thought this book was a joke and that it does not deserve all the praise it gets. Like the poster above me, I felt like throwing the book across the room upon finishing it.

71.177.170.54 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completeley agree. I HATED this damn book. And, like so many people, I was recommended it by a friend who found it so "profound, sensitive, and life affirming". The writing style is inane (I cannot believe someone so 'talented' in writing like Charlie would have such a dull narrative) and the character of the protagonist is completley stupid (he's essentially a card-board cut-out who drifts through the world trying to make everything around him seem profound and significant, but just ends up coming across as terribly insincere). All the situations were wholly improbable (like 10 seniors wanting to screw a dull wallflower freshman) and it seemed as if the author was being paid by MTV to systematically raise as many 'ulta-edgy youth issues' into 200 pages as possible. Eugh. Crap. Insincere. Juvenile. Un-naturalistic. It's depth for the Harry Potter generation. Buy Catcher in the Rye.

Oh, and I think it's great how all the people who like Perks... never read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.74.60 (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also hated the book. I hear people rave about how it's so realistic and brilliant and I just want to retch. There was nothing, absoultely nothing in this book I could relate to. Even the drug use didn't seem realistic to me and the main character was pathetic. Everyone goes on and on about he's so brilliant and an excellent writer when he comes across like a naive idiot with no mind of his own through his letters. Everything is cheesy, pretentious, overly sentimental and melodramatic. It's like the sequence with the plastic bag blowing in the wind in the movie American Beauty stretched into 200 pages. Comparing this to Catcher In The Rye is, as I once read in a review, like comparing a child's fingerpainting to the Sistine Chapel. And to top it all off, people say that Chboksy really delves into sensitive issues like rape, homosexuality, drug use, pedophillia and teenage preganancy, but he really doesn't. He mentions them but never elaborates on them. The poster above hit the nail on the head when he/she said that its depth for the Harry Potter generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.239.86 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, a book directed at the Harry Potter generation is (SUPRISE) well-liked by them.

Category: Novels With a Pedophile Theme

Is this category really necessary?

what pedophilia is in this book? i can't remember. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roxysmashsir43 (talk • contribs) .

it's subtle, but it's there. maybe you should reread the book. it's mainly discussed toward the end. in that way the category may be a bit of a spoiler. Sparsefarce 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill was not a pedophile! --66.214.200.130 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Helen was molested as a child, and towards the end it is revealed she molested Charlie.

also Sam was molested when she was 7 by her dads friend

Bill was not a petefile, that's true.

But it never said Charlies Aunt Helen molested him. Towards the end he comes close to having sex with Sam, but he starts to cry and Sam stops.

Are you blind?! Did you read this book? Days will chase 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pedophile theme is definitely present guys, theres no debating that. there is a laundry list of symbolism as well as hints that charlie makes throughout the book, just read the book again with new eyes and you'll see more and more of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.98.119 (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you guys to be honest, am starting to think that the reason you guys didnt or couldnt sympathize with charlie, was because you werent born alone in this sad cruel world. you probably had two loving figures that protected you from reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.17.159 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Besides, Charlie had decent parents, maybe not the most loving parents, but good parents nonetheless. And pray tell, what makes this world so sad and cruel? Your Ipod touch not working? A bad internet connection? Talk to the kids dying of HIV and starvation over in the middle east if you want to know how sad and cruel the world is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.245.151 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALA Claim

The American Library Association makes no claim that it is one of the most frequently banned: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#mfcb

Also, nothing is found when searching google that supports this claim.

maybe so, but its touching on a variety of controversial issues essentially guarantees its status as a frequently banned book.Quietmind 07:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)quietmind[reply]

The ALA List is official, meaning that if you can not find a book on the actual list then there is no one way it is one of the most frequently banned or challenged books. Also about the Pedophilia; the way I remember the book was Charlie and Sam begin to FUCK (it's suggested she begins to fondle his penis). Charlie appears very uncomfortable so Sam quits and Charlie leaves. He blacks out somewhere in the Park and has a flash back where his Aunt is touching him the same way Sam did while his Brother and Sister are watching SNL. Somehow he looses hair too, I don't remember if he cut it, pulled it out, or it just sort of fell out.

In the end it does state that Aunt Helen molested Charlie. Every night they watched SNL. reread the book, you fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.84.36 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themes Section: Worthwhile?

As it stands now the themes section is a list supported by absolutely no expository writing and citing no roots in the text itself. It brings down the quality of this entire article and I would like to nominate this list for removal if others agree. MrSmith85 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It never said Charlie was from Penn.

It can't be proven he is from Penn.. It says quote: ...I don't want you to find me. I didn't enclose a return address for that same reason. It does give a few small hints... and Stephen Chybosky was from Penn. But, there isn't a way to prove that.

______________________________________

He was from Pittsburgh, the Fort Pitt Tunnel was mentioned.

I remeber something about him mentioning the Steelers so another to hint that hes from pittsburgh?

Cleanup

I think the character list should either be cleaned up or gotten rid of all together. It reveals too many spoilers and is poorly written. Nakono 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Perksofbeingwallflower1.jpg

Image:Perksofbeingwallflower1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a wiki that doesn't suck?

Don't you think that an article about The Perks of Being a Wallflower should include a little more than a list of other works referenced in the novel? Don't worry about spoilers. This is a Wiki, not an advertisement. Check out A Child Called It or The Catcher in the Rye pages for some good examples. I'll gladly start writing some new info for the page, but we need to start working up a list of topics to include. Some good examples would be a plot synopsis, a list of themes discussed in the novel, a discussion of the unique writing style, possible illnesses we can attribute to Charlie, etc. Bob Caveman - 4000 B.C. (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Sabrina[reply]