Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

dumb bots....138.47.159.175 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2011 (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)