Young Writers discussion

Discuss!

really liked it

Oh goodies! I'm reading this for another book group at my school ... so yay. I've actually already read it, but it was like five years ago, so I'm reading it again. :P

Peeeeeerks.
I was actually planning to read this again really soon, so this is quite convenient.

Aah, I loved this book. I need the movie to hurry up and come out.

YES. Also, we get to meet in person when it comes out. :DDDD

For me, it's the lovable MC and how he doesn't really try to force plot along...I don't know if that makes sense.

Yue [Wonder of living] wrote: "Is it just me that found out that Stephen Chbosky himself is directing the film? Whatwhatwhat this will be so great as;kjfa;sfkjafafj;g
Also I've been overwatching the trailer, which probably adds ..."

Yes, he wrote and directed it! I'm so psyched. :)

Holden wrote: "Can someone explain to me what made them "love" this book? I mean, it was good, but I didn't "get" why it's gotten so much praise. I'm probably missing something, so...anyone care to explain? It..."

I'm not as obsessed with it as many people are, but I do like it a lot. But, I see what the hype is about. First of all, it's quite short and concise––it doesn't take on an overly complicated plot. It's just kind of about life and the pains of being a teenager, which is something that a lot of young adults can relate to.

I think it's also the brutal honesty. The book doesn't shy away from controversial subjects like sex, drugs, sexual orientation, etc. There are many YA books that kind of breeze over these things, while the book addresses them (and doesn't go too overboard with it, either).

And I think it's also the narrative. It feels like a more authentic teenager's point of view/stream-of-consciousness. It kind of feels like Charlie is just "talking" to you. Also, it has a lot of philosophical/quotable parts that put the simple things in life into perspective. It kind of has a Catcher in the Rye vibe to it. (Although I know you hate that book, so poopies on you.)

... So yeah, that's what I think the appeal is.

After seeing Emma Watson was going to be in the movie I finally read the book (and enjoyed it, though I didn't think I was all that crazy about it). Right afterward I walked into the grocery store and one of the people working there was doing the "be aggressive, passive aggressive" line from the movie trailer. I almost yelled out "we are infinite".

For me, it was that the book was so easy to relate to. At some points, I felt like Charlie was in my head or I was in his head or whatever and that blurred line of not knowing where you end and where the narration begins is so amazing to me.

Lav [I'm still not sure what I stand for] wrote: "For me, it was that the book was so easy to relate to. At some points, I felt like Charlie was in my head or I was in his head or whatever and that blurred line of not knowing where you end and whe..."

Yeah, this book was really cool because Charlie is the same as me in a lot of ways. Well, maybe not the same as me. But, I, and probably a lot of us, perceive ourselves as a version of Charlie. Although, that may not be the correct version... Anyways, it totally makes sense why this book is so popular, every slightly angsty (myself included) teenager can relate to it. Also, it covers such a wide variety of topics that it's kind of hard not to find a common ground with Charlie.

That's definitely a lot of it. It's like Charlie could be anybody, at least for some part of the book.

I feel like I'm going to love it no matter what it's like, to be honest. Unless it's the worst movie EVER.

Pretty much.

I think I'll love it too.
I'm currently rereading the book...and I'm loving it even more than I did the first time. Maybe because I knew I was going to love it this time around?

Holden wrote: "Hopefully the later reviews will be better (the only other high profile reviewer that I found, "Village Voice", was much close to a pan than "Variety"), but I will say: who's idea was it to let Ste..."

I dunno, I like the idea of him directing it because at least he'll be true to what he thinks is important ...

Well I just looked him up (I have no idea about any of these wallflowers and their people) and he does have experience in the movie field, both directing and writing.
Of course, that might not mean much at all. But there you go!

Yeah, that makes sense. But it could go wrong the other way as well. An outside director could have a vision that completely ruins the movie for most of the people who fell in love with the book because it doesn't stay close to the tone and meaning of the book.

*nods* That would've been a smart choice. But it is what it is. AND I'M STILL EXCITED.

After I finished it, I was really mad... and wrote a kind of nasty review because I was just ticked off by it. I don't know what it was about it that made me that way. Thinking about it now, I think I enjoyed it more than I give it credit for. I didn't really LOVE it, I guess. I felt like I actually couldn't relate to Charlie that much, except when he'd go off in full narrative without the plot really happening (if that makes any sense), even with me pretty much being the stereotypical "wallflower." (But with Charlie, everyone thought he was brilliant until the end where he wasn't? Or something.) I guess I just wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be. Also, one of the most important parts of a book for me is the characters, and I feel like I barely knew them, or just didn't connect with them. Which is different from what other people seem to be saying, but I guess I'm just pessimistic and bleh. I almost feel bad for not liking or knowing these characters that are so loved by everybody else.
And I do like how it didn't shy away from touchy subjects, but at the same time, I felt like they were just grazed over and then the book kept on going (the sister's pregnancy, for instance). I don't know. I'M CONFLICTED.
Definitely excited for the movie, though! :)
(sorry for my pessimistic opinions)

Haha, don't feel bad for not liking something. No book pleases absolutely everyone. :P I understand how you could feel that way, and that's kind of how I felt the first time I read it ... Now that I'm re-reading it, I like it and connect with it a lot more for some reason. I don't know, I feel like it took a while for it to settle with me the first time. As for how it deals with touchy subjects, I feel like it's not so much "grazing over" them as it is not over-dramatizing them, if that makes sense. I don't know. I feel like it's realistic in that way. Of course, you don't have to agree. ;)

I kind of don't know what to think about this book. I got it last night and finished reading it a second ago, and it was alright. I did like the way the author portrayed a lot of stuff that most people either over-exaggerate or just skim over, like the drugs, abuse, homosexuality, and sex. When it comes to relating to the characters, there are some ways that I related to them and some ways that I didn't. Charlie's "voice" was supposed to be personal, I think, but it came across as apathetic to me. There was a lot of emotion sometimes, and other times there wasn't any at all, if that makes sense?

I did like the characters though, and it was a good story, even if it didn't have a major plot or anything.

Yeah, his voice is very ... simplistic, I guess, which makes it seem kind of emotionless at times. But I think it's just like, the subject matter can be very heavy and so I didn't feel the style had to be very emotional to get that across. It could have come off as very whiney, but I think the simple style prevents that.

Yeah, I get what you mean by that. I understand why the author wrote it that way, and it does prevent the book from becoming whiny or over-the-top. I also really liked how it was written in the form of letters addressed to someone completely anonymous.

I LOVED this book! Was freaking amazing <33

SO. I'm listening to it on audiobook now and it's SO GOOD. I think it's mostly his tone, and how there is a certain filter through which we see things because we see them Charlie's way, which is to say an unique perspective. I'm still not quite sure why he is what he is but I think he's endearingly naive... I think.

Yeah, you won't find that out until pretty much the end.

I'm almost there!!!!

5:46/6:20 hrs

Okay so I was listening to it in like the middle of the night (~10, 11, 12 hours ago) and it was something about the narrator or something but his desperation and upset creeped me out a lot, so i stopped reading it.. this morning I finished the epilogue.

I found out the reason........ I think. But it doesn't make sense to me.. I know about Aunt Helen & stuff. But like, is that why Charlie is the way he is?? I ...I really can't say that I understand that in any way. Is this PTSD, actually? Because that's the only explanation I can think of.

It gets explained a little better at the end, I think. But you should totally finish it!

Not sure exactly what you mean by "the way he is" ... ? And by "Aunt Helen & stuff" you have to be more specific ... I don't want to accidentally give anything away. XD Put it under a spoiler?

Haha okay so I finished the book & I guess I understand now. The thing was that I always thought maybe Charlie was being treated for some other kind of disorder. Something about his personality just somewhat struck me as... I don't really know. I don't mean to be offensive, but that was really what I thought, for a good portion of the book. He was very.. socially immature, as another site put it, and I didn't understand how he was that way because his brother and sister all seem to be very "normal". Don't get me wrong, I love Charlie and I think he is a very nice person. But some parts of the book had me questioning his teenagery-ness, and I don't think he seems like a very real teenager at some parts, no matter how real his voice is.
But I still don't understand why his parents knew to get him to a psychiatrist, especially if they didn't know (view spoiler)[ about the "stuff that happened during Saturday movie time with Aunt Helen" (sry. i'm just uncomfortable with saying it :c..) (hide spoiler)] Or how the psychiatrist knew, when Charlie was confused about it as well, and only really figured out what happened to him toward the end of the book.

Yeah I know what you mean ... the writing does have a kind of an immature vibe to it. But I think it's supposed to be because he's not supposed to be a very good writer––at least at first, but the writing gets better and more mature as it goes along as he reads/learns more (at least, it seemed that way to me). It might also have something to do with his mental state, but it's sort of unclear.

(view spoiler)[I think the ending is a bit different in the book and movie so hopefully I'm not getting this wrong because they're kind of mixed up in my head ... but I think in the book, after he remembered what happened, he went into total shock––like, he was just completely catatonic?? So that's why his parents brought him to a psychiatrist. I remember being really confused by the ending the first time I read it––like, I didn't even understand what Aunt Helen had done to him––but when I read it a second time it made more sense. (hide spoiler)]

Okay.. yes I get the part about his writing getting better.

Anyway, (view spoiler)[ I was under the impression that Charlie had been seeing a psychiatrist prior to his whole actual figuring out about what had really happened to him. I think it was because of something that happened while he was on drugs or something - he just passed out (or something of equivalent magnitude.) That psychiatrist just kept asking Charlie about his past. So I'm like, wait how does the psychiatrist know about this? Does s/he suspect that took place? And if so, why didn't s/he notify the parents????? It's just kinda confusing to me. (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[Oh yeah, there was the part where he took LSD on New Year's and then passed out in the snow and almost froze to death ... so yeah I think he was already getting help because of that. But he'd also been depressed before because his best friend killed himself (which is only mentioned like a couple times in the book I think ... so I guess his psychiatrist thought all his depression and whatnot was because of his friend's suicide, which of course his parents already knew about). That is to say, no one knew until Charlie remembered it; before that he had just completely blocked it out of his memory since that's what PTSD can do sometimes. (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[OHHHH okay so it did have something to do with Michael. At the end of the book Charlie says "I hope you know I really miss Michael" or something so that also left me confused as to how it tied in with anything, but you just reminded me that Michael's death kind of started everything, in a way. Because if Michael didn't die then Charlie wouldn't have searched for a new friend and found Patrick & Sam, etc. (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[Yeah, I think that's exactly it. :D (hide spoiler)]