Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Book censorship

There are many cases of this book being censored and banned in the United States due to sexual content and adult themes. I think we should add a section including these controversies and why the censors feel this book is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahtrissel (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahtrissel (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA WRITING ASSIGNMENT 11/2: • What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them? A content gap can easily arise in wikipedia since there are many authors contributing to one topic. Also, people don't feel as though they need to complete all sections of a wikipedia page; they often only contribute certain facts or information so content is sometimes left out. Because of this, it is important to communicate on the Talk page and make sure all content is being covered. Also, content gaps can be avoided if everyone thoroughly reads each others' work and makes edits accordingly. • Does it matter who writes Wikipedia? It matters in the sense that people should do research and fully understand the topic before adding information to Wikipedia. However, because anyone can edit the pages, information is almost always corrected because people who see wrong information feel the need to correct it. Sarahtrissel (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Sarah Trissel

  Bibliography

Eric Vo, Record-Journal for the Associated Press. "Do I Want My Book Banned?”, “Perks of Being a Wallflower”, “Wallingford Book Controversy." NBC Connecticut. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

"Perks of Being a Wallflower Banned After Parent Complains." American Booksellers Association. N.p., 02 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Staff, NCAC. "Florida School District Moves to Ban The Perks of Being a Wallflower." National Coalition Against Censorship. N.p., 07 July 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Titus, Ron. "Marshall University Libraries." - Banned Book. N.p., 1 July 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Abbamondi, Erin. "Georgetown University Library Journal Finder." Georgetown University Library Journal Finder. N.p., 28 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

"A School District Bans ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ After Parents Complain… but the Fight’s Not Over Yet." Friendly Atheist. Patheos, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

"Pasco School Committee Votes to Ban Book after Several Parents Question It." WFLA. N.p., 23 May 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

The current Perks of Being a Wallflower Wikipedia page doesn't contain any information about the controversies surrounding it. I plan on adding specific cases on which the book was censored or banned and why this occurred. Additionally, I plan on adding to the plot a bit about the incident with his Aunt Helen because the current page doesn't really explain the details. I will use the sources I have found (cited above) in order to gather good information about the book and the controversy it has taken part in. Sarahtrissel (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Sarah Trissel

I want to work on making the section "Publication and reception" into two separate sections. Honestly don't know / care too much about the publication of the book, but I found a lot of really interesting content about how the book was received by communities and critics. The group conservative Christian group Focus on Family has a parents guide to the book, and it really delves in depth about what specifically in the book people can find offensive. I also found a couple of sources about the literary merit of reading books with "controversial" material, and also have arguments people have made for why the book should not be banned.

The page should include several controversies that have happened around the country / world. I found a bunch of interesting articles about a specific case that happened in Wallingford, CT, and would like to write about that for the page. Does anyone else want to add something about a case that they found interesting? If not, I can research and find some more.

FINAL DRAFT of what I intend on adding: Sarahtrissel (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)sarahtrissel

UNDER CONTROVERSY AND CENSORSHIP (new section)

The “Perks of Being a Wallflower” was published in 1999. The book has been involved in controversies since its publication. The controversies have resulted in the book being banned at numerous schools throughout the nation ("Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books Lists"). The book has been on the top 10 banned books in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013,2014 ("Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books Lists"). The common reasons for controversy throughout the cases include: sexual content, drug and alcohol content, and homosexuality. Florida-In May of 2016, in Dade City, Florida, The Perks of Being a Wallflower was banned from Pasco County Middle School after two parents complained about the book’s sexual content and drug and alcohol use. The Advanced English teacher asked her students to read the book and that is when two parents complained. Following the complaint, a committee was formed, comprised of parents, community members, and staff and they voted to ban the book and recommended the superintendent ban it throughout the district. (“Pasco School Committee Votes to Ban Book after Several Parents Question It”).The superintendent proceeded to remove the book from the school and tried to get the book banned district-wide. However, Terrie O’brien, a committee member, spoke up against banning the book throughout the district due to the precedent it would set: the banning of any book with any sexual content. Based on O’brien’s objection, the book was only banned at Pasco Middle School, not district-wide ("Florida School District Moves to Ban The Perks of Being a Wallflower"). Also in 2016, the Superintendent of a High School in Wallingford, Connecticut banned the book from 9th grade English curriculum due to parent Jean Pierre Bolat’s complaint. The parent complained about “homosexuality, date rape, masturbation, and glorification of alcohol use and drugs” ("Perks of Being a Wallflower Banned After Parent Complains"). In 2014, the book was banned from classrooms at Hadley Junior High School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois after being taught in 8th grade due to language and sexual content. However, the Glen Ellyn Elementary District 41 School Board brought the book back to the school library and overturned the previous banning but a parent letter had to be sent home at the beginning of the year notifying the parents of the content their kids would be exposed to in the classroom. ("Banned Books"). In 2012, in Clarkstown, New York, the book was challenged at North High School but not banned after a parent’s complaint about teenage sex, bestiality, and homosexuality ("Banned Books"). In 2003, in Fairfax, Virginia, a group called Parents Against Bad Books in Schools challenged Perks due to its drug abuse, torture, and sexual content ("Banned Books").

UNDER RECEPTION:

When Author Stephen Chbosky (link) wrote “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” he did not anticipate the controversy that resulted. In an interview specifically responding to the Wallingford controversy, Chbosky explained that the date rape scene is violence, not sex, and he finds it disturbing that people think it is meant to arouse the reader ("Do I Want My Book Banned?"). Chbosky claims that, “the whole book is a blueprint for survival. It’s for people who have been through terrible things and need hope and support” (nbcconnecticut.com). He says that he is offended that people would take two pages of the whole book and put it out of context and say that the book has different intentions than the ones Chbosky clearly had ("Do I Want My Book Banned?"). Chbosky also comments on the act of banning his book and books in general. He explains that if someone objects to the content of the book or the book itself, they should be able to say that they don’t want their child reading it. However, Chbosky doesn’t think it’s okay for that parent to dictate what his child or other children read. Chbosky says that the novel is meant to “create dialogue” because he feels that the more these challenging, and sometimes disturbing, topics are discussed, the more people will understand the issues others face. Chbosky feels sad that the conversation which his book was meant to evoke is trying to be ended by people who fail to understand Chbosky’s purpose of writing the novel. ("Do I Want My Book Banned?"). Sarahtrissel (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)sarahtrissel

Bibliography (MLA): "Banned Books: The Perks of Being a Wallflower." Marshall University Libraries. Marshall University, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. Vo, Eric. ""Do I Want My Book Banned? No," "Perks of Being a Wallflower" Author Says After Wallingford Book Controversy." NBC Connecticut. NBC, 12 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. Chbosky, Stephen. The Perks of Being a Wallflower. New York: Pocket, 1999. Print. "The Perks of Being a Wallflower | Book Review." The Perks of Being a Wallflower Book Review. Focus on Family, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. Luther Turmelle, New,Haven Register. "Banning Books Detrimental to Students, Wallingford Residents Told." New Haven Register (CT)Oct 06 2015. Web. "The Perks of Teaching 'Perks'." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): D01. Aug 23 2015. Web. Vo, Eric. "Committee Returns 'Perks' to Curriculum." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Apr 25 2015. Web. "A School District Bans ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower’ After Parents Complain… but the Fight’s Not Over Yet." Friendly Atheist. Patheos, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswadhwa (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC) 

Musical references in the book

Could you please read something before editing?! In this page we are talking about "Musical references IN THE BOOK"... Heroes by David Bowie is NOT a song mentioned in the book, it is a song they choose for the tunnel scene IN THE MOVIE, instead of the original one Landslide by Fleetwood Mac. Please stop adding Bowie every time we cancel him!! And so School's Out by Alice Cooper, Where Eagles Dare by Iron Maiden or Misfits, and Autumn Leaves by Nat King Cole (which is simply the name of the mix tape that "a boy" made for Charlie's sister). It's very easy to check: read the book or find it online, search for those singer/groups, and you will find... NOTHING!! Thank you very much

Minor correction, "Where Eagles Dare"

I notice the link to the Misfits song, "Where Eagles Dare" does not actually link to the album the song was released on but to a World War II movie. I just made my account so I'm unable to fix it myself but I assume someone else could. For convenience, here's the link to the album: Night of the Living Dead (song) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherNikolai (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed 26/01/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.233.176 (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

poem hunter

Is the poemhunter site really that legit? I remember reading in the front of the book some professor that wrote 'absolutely nothing' and some other poems by that author cited in the article on the poem hunter page are accused of stealing work. (I hope that sentence was coherent or understandable) --208.71.222.219 (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed this after reading the comments on Poem hunter that said some of his poems were copied from others. I used the information for the beginning of Perks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylert123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The poem is not written by "Osoanon Nimuss" it was written by Dr. Earl Reum and it is called "a person, a paper, a promise". If you look in the credits of the book it mentions "a person, a paper, a promise remembered" by "Patrick Comeaux" (Patrick? Comeon.... as in "give me a break, this wasnt written by Patrick") In the *book* it mentions "Osoanon Nimuss" (Oh So Anonymous)... but its actually a sarcastic hint that the author of the book/poem is actually Charlie, not "Steven Chbosky" I know this for a fact, cause I know the actual author of the book and he said that "Steven Chbosky" is just some guy they hired to do public appearances for the book. Havabighed (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Reum wrote the poem. If Patrick Comeaux exists and he "misremembered" the poem, it is still not his poem. The authorship is still Reum's. There is an almost invariable attribution of authorship of this poem to Chbosky or a person Chbosky has invented on innumerable websites, book reviews, this Wikipedia article, and the general press ever since the novel was published, and this should be corrected. This poem should be clearly attributed in the Wikipedia article to Reum so that at least one major internet source is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.4.187.243 (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry if this is not the best place to enter this comment. The final sentence under Plot Summary does not make sense. It appears that earlier text which would have explained it has been removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.144.169 (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction

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)

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)

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)

I think it might be helpful to add specific cases of censorship in schools, cases where the book was challenged, why the book was challenged, what the outcome was. Perhaps it'd be a good idea to break the section up into "Critical Reception" and "Controversy," provided there are enough cases to justify it. Ruesch97 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are some citations on a case in Wallingford, Connecticut where the book was banned.

"Censorship Dateline." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 64.3 (2015): 89-71. Web.

Luther Turmelle, New,Haven Register. "Banning Books Detrimental to Students, Wallingford Residents Told." New Haven Register (CT)Oct 06 2015. Web.

Record, ERIC V. "Coming of Age Novel Focus of Wallingford School Review." Associated Press State Wire: Connecticut (CT)Apr 12 2015. Web.

Vo, Eric. "Committee Returns 'Perks' to Curriculum." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Apr 25 2015. Web.

---. "A Consensus on Texts, but Still Criticism." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Aug 20 2015. Web.

---. "Groups Come to Defense of Removed Book." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Mar 20 2015. Web.Ruesch97 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahtrissel (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

I believe Charlie was molested and it should be added to the wiki. I did a quick internet search and I'm not the only one who feels this way. http://qualvista.blogspot.com/2008/02/perks-of-being-wallflower-pt-1.html (last paragraph)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080106110553AANSdRA (question and the second answer)
Also, on page 204 it says (which made me come to this conclusion) "My brother and my sister and I were watching television with my Aunt Helen. Everything was in slow motion. The sound was thick. And she was doing what Sam was doing." and on page 209 he says he knows his dreams were true and it happened every Saturday when they would watch TV. AdamWillis (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

He was obviously sexually abused in some way. He freaked out on Sam because she nearly, not even fully got sexual with him. Then he went to a mental hospital and discovered some repressed memories about his aunt Helen. This only means one thing psychologically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.179.27 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It sligtly frightens me, but i found myself thinking i have extremely similar feelings to charlie at the beginning of the book. i often panic and i agree with his opinion about a god even though i was never raised religiosly. i don't really understand religion, and i find myself associating words together in random ways like he does. i also get very frightened once in a while when i realize nothing feels like i am there, it only feels like a dream, another reason i often panic.

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)

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

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.20.122 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

To stay a little more on topic, no this doesn't have a "pedophile" theme, it has a "child molestor" theme. There is a difference. --208.71.223.249 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

are you guys kidding!!?? im 13 and i get that there is a child molesting theme of this book. it is very clear. charlie was molested but his aunt and his aunt did that to him because someone did it to her. charlie does not blame her and he compares it to children of a person who is a drunk. one might not ever drink, and the other may be a drunk too. Charlie is sad because that is how he is, but he has enourmous empathy and he knows how it is not his aunts fault. He is frightened when sam touches him because it reminds him of a memory he cannot place. he find later in a dream what his young mind had blocked from him because it was so frightening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.124.38 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

The ALA is an advocate of intellectual freedom in libraries in the United States; they research controversy surrounding books and compile their list from their findings. They can difficultly ascertain if a book is 'banned' or not, but they can make an assessment on whether they are highly challenged or not. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems the book shows up on the ALA's challenged/banned lists fairly often.^[1]

• #10 on Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009.^[2]
• September 9, 2008 Book banning alive and well in the U.S. mentions “The Perks of Being A Wallflower” as being one of the "10 Most Challenged Books of 2007".^[3]
• Timeline entry for 2009: The Perks of Being a Wallflower "We’re more than halfway through Banned Books Week"^[4]
• Lead mention in September 24, 2013 "Spotlight on a Banned Books Week Hero: students and teachers from Glen Ellyn, IL".^[5]

--Marc Kupper|talk 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

The useful info from the section could potentially be absorbed into the "Background and Writing" section. Ruesch97 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Sigh. Bob, no one is paid to write material for wiki. If you can contribute, please do so. But don't whine about that fact that no one else has done so, yet. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary?

Should the plot summary maybe be corrected? Someone has written the plot summary of the film which differs in a big way from the novel. For example: "After Sam doesn't do well on the SAT exam, Charlie helps her to retake the test and score higher so that she can apply to Penn State." -- Correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't happen in the novel. Also the reference to pony-tail Derek" - that nickname wasn't used in the novel to my recollection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkennelly (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the plot should also mention that this movie's moral was that, by beating people up with your fists during a blackout, you: 1. are no longer the underdog, 2. get back in touch with the girl you like, 3. save that girl's stepbrother, 4. get thanks from that stepbrother's boyfriend. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph talks about Charlie being a wallflower, but never defines what a wallflower actually is in the context of the novel. I can fix this by quoting the part of the book where Patrick and Sam tell Charlie that he's a wallflower. The section could also use some general fixing up regarding grammar Nswadhwa (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

This article is excellently written. I was unable to find one single sentence or grammar error. Impressive. :)

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

This article uses only online sources all of which seems reliable and contain the necessary reference information. Some of the sources are well-known such as The Yew York Times, New York Magazine, Complex Magazine, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Variety Magazine and so on.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is broad in its coverage, focuses on main topics and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral, does not included personal opinion or statements and covers both negative and positive response.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article has a history of content disputes all of which are now outdated with the latest dispute occurring in 2009. And the content of the article does not change significantly from day to day (major edits done in the preparation of the GA-nomination will be ignored).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is illustrated with two images both of which contain the required text information. A third image from the film production or main characters in the "Film adaptation" section would be nice, but this is just a suggestion.

• Pass, fail or hold?

The article surely meets the GA-requirements and I'm therefore going to pass it. Good job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The plot should include Charlie's struggles with his flashbacks from his Aunt sexually assaulting him, since that is a big part of the book. Also, there are grammar mistakes and no footnotes, so I plan on fixing those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahtrissel (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In the sentence, "As Charlie engages with his new friends he can control his flashbacks of Aunt Helen", I think "can" should be changed to "can't".Sarahtrissel (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Film Adaptations

Should we not take out the biased language of, "The film was a commercial success"? Maybe just take into account the money budget and revenue from box offices.

Also, Should there be negative reviews of the movie from credited sources? The film did not receive 100% success rate, so should we not include some analysis of the film other than the positive reviews?

Amb401 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Alex Blackwood, amb401Amb401 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Some unreliable sources (Amazon review by a single user), and much of the material comes from YA media sources (Cosmopolitan).

May need more information from scholarly articles to further the idea of the novel's success and popularity.

Jtc79 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Joe CarneyJtc79 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim, "Chbosky took five years to develop and publish The Perks of Being a Wallflower, creating the characters and other aspects of the story from his own memories." needs a citation to su[port it.

Jtc79 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Joe CarneyJtc79 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Censorship

I intend to delve into specific censorship cases of this novel. Included is a list of cases and sources that I intend to use. I also hope to rework sentence structure of some paragraphs and and film reviews from credible sources to the "Film" section. Works Cited CANDACE PRESTON-COY, and Staff W. ThisWeek. "Parents and Students Defend Reading Choices." ThisWeek Community Newspapers (Columbus, OH): 01A. Apr 26 2007. Web. Christopher, Placek c. "Dist. 41 Debates Reinstating ‘Perks of being a Wallflower’." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL): 3. May 29 2013. Web. "During the Second Week of School, a Ninth Grade Pre-AP English." Post-Tribune (IN)Nov 26 2008. Web. LUCCA, VIOLET. "The Perks of being a Wallflower." Film Comment 48.5 (2012): 86-. JSTOR. Web. Luther Turmelle, New,Haven Register. "Banning Books Detrimental to Students, Wallingford Residents Told." New Haven Register (CT)Oct 06 2015. Web. "The Perks of Teaching 'Perks'." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): D01. Aug 23 2015. Web. Vo, Eric. "Committee Returns 'Perks' to Curriculum." Record-Journal (Meriden, CT): A01. Apr 25 2015. Web.

Amb401 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Alex BlackwoodAmb401 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)amb401Amb401 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is lacking information on the many bans and instances of censorship that have plagued this novel. In the coming weeks, I plan to create a section solely dedicated to the controversies and add information on specific cases. In addition to these improvements, I will add information from more scholarly sources on the reception of the novel by young adults I noticed a few citations from unreliable sources. Even though the information they claim may be accurate it is still better to back up this information with more reputable citations.

Works Cited Brannan, Sarah, Stephen Chbosky, and Lauren Myracle. "Banned Authors Speak Out." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58.6 (2009): 196-230. Web. Christopher, Placek c. "Dist. 41 Debates Reinstating ‘Perks of being a Wallflower’." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL): 3. May 29 2013. Web. Curwood, Jen Scott, Megan Schliesman, and Kathleen T. Horning. "Fight for Your Right: Censorship, Selection, and LGBTQ Literature." The English Journal 98.4 (2009): 37-43. JSTOR. Web. Foerstel, Herbert N. Banned in the U.S.A. : A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries. Westport, US: Greenwood Press, 2002. Web. Karen MacPherson, Pittsburgh P. "Attempted Book Bans Focus Now on Gays." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA): A. Sep 24 2005. Web. MARY, BETH V. "Petition Launched to Reverse D41 Banning of 'the Perks of being a Wallflower'." Glen Ellyn News, The (IL)May 16 2013. Web. Sarigianides, Sophia Tatiana. "Tensions in Teaching Adolescence/ts: ANALYZING RESISTANCES IN A YOUNG ADULT LITERATURE COURSE." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56.3 (2012): 222-30. JSTOR. Web.

Jtc79 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Joe CarneyJtc79 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

• Intro paragraph seems similar to that of a persuasive essay than an encyclopedic introduction
• In background section there are a lot of quotations used and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing it seemed like one large quote -- never hurts to paraphrase a little
• The article doesn't go into detail on the reasons why the book was challenged and what was used to justify those reasonings
• Some links are missing from things that I believe should be tagged -- like some of the drugs (including alcohol), the main character Rocky of the Rocky Horror show, suicide, the definition of realism, and possibly the definition of molestation so as to give readers a clearer insight
• Cite information other than articles? (Not always plausible)

Other than that I believed it was well written and gave clear, concise, and accurate portrayals of the book and the author. It presented both the negative and positive feedback the book received, limiting bias, as well as a thorough plot summary and background information. Mil2trill (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Publication and reception:

Objections to the book include the use of "profanity", "drug abuse", "sexually explicit" scenes, and "torture". Groups like PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in School) work to restrict literature considered "controversial" from being accessed by younger children, and moved to the adult section. In 2009, Perks was repeatedly challenged for descriptions of masturbation, sexually explicit conduct, drug use, and talk of suicide. There have been multiple pushes across the United States to move this literary work from the young adults section to the adults section in order to regulate access to the book.

Furthermore, parents have raised issues with the novel for it's "pornographic" content and "vulgarity", but others have argued that the book deals with real teen issues that deal with growing up, so it presents a realistic viewpoint. Furthermore, issues surrounding the books themes of homosexuality, as well as a "glorification" of the use of drugs and alcohol.

Background and writing:

... he was experiencing an unpleasant breakup...

...referring to self love, encompassing one's life and hopes for the future, and not just romantic love...

...In the novel, Chbosky included much of his own memories from his time in Pittsburgh. The other characters were all manifestations of people the author had known throughout his life. Chbosky.... attempting to pin down the very nature of each of the characters...

As well as additional sources for the information I retrieved for the challenges presented in opposition to the book: http://www.marshall.edu/library/bannedbooks/books/perks.asp http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=1525 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/27/perks-of-being-wallflower-ban-kamloops_n_5045524.html http://www.pabbis.com/ Mil2trill (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

New suggested edits for the article

I want to revise certain sentences to make them more concise:

Edit this sentence: "Charlie chooses that person because he said that he heard the person was nice and thought that this person would not be judgmental "to "Charlie decides to send letters to a kind and nonjudgmental person."

Edit this sentence: "Charlie, whom Chbosky has said is '[his] hope in the form of a character', is loosely based on the author." to "Charlie was loosely based on Chbosky himself" to make the sentence less wordy.

Edit this sentence: "The idea of anonymous letters came from a real experience; during his senior year in high school, Chbosky wrote an anonymous letter to Stewart Stern about how Rebel Without a Cause had influenced him."

Edit this sentence: "Chbosky first conceived random ideas, including 'a kid standing up in a tunnel', a girl he likes, and parties he goes to." to "Chbosky incorporated both fictional ideas and personal experiences to the novel."

I want to add an image of the new/updated cover-page.

Manuelaf99's Proposed Edits

After evaluating this article, I believe it is important to re-organize the themes section as well as the reception/publication section of the article. There is a paragraph in the themes section that speaks about critiques of the book, which I believe are more relevant to the section about reception/publication. Additionally, it is important to highlight the backlash received after the film release and how that changed the public's perception of the novel.

Additionally, I believe that the first sentence in the "Background and Writing" section should be edited, or even removed, due to grammatical errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelaf99 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)