Yeah, who couldn't notice the total absence of women as major characters, or the boys' revolting obsession with masturbation.

"However, this book portrays women as nothing but sex-objects (only briefly bringing women or girls into the picture for this purpose), and depicts self-pleasure as normal for teen-age boys, as if they couldn't possibly resist sexual urges."

This is ridiculous. Trinity is an all-boys Catholic school. What did you expect?

Self-pleasure *is* normal for teenage boys. If you don't believe me, google it. Any study you may find will tell you that that the overwhelming majority of boys that age engage in masturbation. It has no negative effects on you, physically or mentally.

What a shame that society is trying to 'prove' that it is normal for teenage boys to masturbate, but I disagree with the idea that it is normal because I come from a religious culture where we strongly believe against any sexual perversion. I know of plenty of men and young men that do not participate in that practice, and plenty of people who have waited until marriage to have sex. Yes, no doubt the urge for self-pleasure is there for young men (and strong), but if we as individuals (boys or girls) can not master our own urges, we are bound to be mastered by our own bodies - there is no freedom of mind nor strength of character in one who can not master themselves. Just because plenty give in to the temptation and call it 'normal' doesn't make it so, nor does it make it right. That is why it shouldn't be depicted (and perpetuated) as normal because then it detracts from the will to conquer our baser desires and then youth won't want to strive for better desires, like one day having a monogamous relationship with their spouse.

+1

Masturbation is normal for men and women, boys and girls. Sorry you cant get your little Christian head around that.

The Puritans thought human bodies were disgraceful too. You'd be very comfortable in Hester Prynne's Boston.

Sexual desires are normal, good, and part of the wonderful creation that our bodies are, but self-gratification is not how sexual desires were meant to be satisfied.
As for the Hester Prynne's Boston?...well, actually no, I wouldn't be comfortable there. I never liked that book for that and several other reasons. I think restrictive Christian (or any other religion could be placed here) ideas for the sake of restriction alone does little for an individual or a society, but it's the self-concept and self-worth being enlarged and enriched within such guidelines as a monogamous marriage that utilizes the wonderful existence of sexual desires to create beautiful human bonding.
I guess I'd say 'sorry you feel so comfortable' in this current society that degrades something so wonderful and important as sex...but then, there isn't anything new going on in this society that hasn't gone on (to some degree) in most societies of the past. For centuries, plenty of societies have done the very same sexual perversions and thought themselves the first, and therefore the most enlightened about sex. There's nothing new or enlightened about it, but if it makes people who promote masturbation as normal feel better, they think they are so very enlightened by 'accepting' it as 'normal.' However, for real enlightenment, one might actually try using sex for its intended use...intimate bonding with someone you really love (and you're committed to that person so you get married-oh, but that might sound 'restrictive' I know, but our society thinks it's 'enlightenment' to avoid committing one's heart and mind to anything or anyone- so sad and pathetic to avoid commitment), and of course there's procreation. If a person actually used sex for its intended reasons, then they might, for maybe the first time in their life, understand what it means to be a thinking, learning human being instead of an animal that has no concept of curbing their physical desires for a higher standard. Do people in this society actually believe we as humans should behave ourselves no better than a non-neutered dog that has no mate? I'm sorry that people aren't choosing a higher standard of existence, but when media and books promote such a degraded goal, what can you expect? They can't think outside that tiny bubble of self-indulgence and wrap their brains around what the big picture really is.

The boys in this story obviously weren't raised with your beliefs, and the masterbation wasn't the main point of the story so I don't think you should let that affect your whole view of the book. And keep in mind the book doesn't take place in present day so the time period may have an effect on the boys' behavior (although I may wrong on my last point seeing as the story takes place about fifty years ago, and I've lived only thirty percent of that time...).

And I am a teenage girl and did not feel degraded or offended at all. Lighten up; don't take books so personally. They were not written to specifically offend you :)

Humans and dolphins are the exception to the animal need to only have sex to procreate. Dogs don't get a thrill out of humping you leg, they just have a need. Th chemical processes begun by reaching orgasm relax and are a pleasure to the whole human system. It certainly is holy, but partaking in it more frequently doesn't degrade it. This whole 'hooking up', 'one-night stand' culture of my generation, that degrades the wonder.

Furthermore, I'm not so sure I liked this. So what if the boys masterbate, can we quit parading it around and acting so ashamed? Just leave it be and move on, Mr. Cormier, we get it, you like to shock and awe. But once too often is awful.

At least it won't happen again, since the man is dead...

May he rest in peace.

His portrait of an monstrously evil school will live forever.

To the teenage girl,
I would have to say 'refer to my first review of this book.'
Also, I would have to say 'you just proved my point.'
And third, 'you missed the point of the book.'
Cormier DID intend to offend his reader because he was using a layered effect in this piece of literature. He not only showed the reader the cruel and offensive behavior of a group of young men against each other, but he also wanted to offend the reader so that the reader could therefore sympathize and care about the protagonist that much more. He was pulling in the reader with manipulation and offense, just like what the main character was dealing with. At the end, we were to ask ourselves how such cruelty could happen....?....And why do we feel like we might have contributed to it, had we been there?....that's what everyone in the book was asking themselves, if they had any shred of decency and humanity still left in them.

If any person took NO offense at what Cormier portrayed, then that person is undoubtedly desensitized to the cruelty and depravity of our society and doesn't even recognize it.
Cormier was trying to offend so that we could reflect as readers upon how much we contribute to society's detrimental power struggles(he knew that plenty of average Christians would read his book-masturbation would shock and bother them, just like violence should too). He threw in several things that could offend the reader, not just masturbation. The portrayal of masturbation was what bothered me because I value the sanctity and the importance of sex.
If one doesn't take offense at something in this book, then that person is as numb to human indecency as the most cruel characters of this book - that's what I believe Cormier was trying make us evaluate. The book is amazingly written - literary genius really - and Cormier is still having a sad, ironic laugh at anyone who misses the point.

Side note: A teenager now would have been a toddler in the 90's. In the 90's, Seinfeld, not against portraying casual sexual encounters, was depicting that masturbation was NOT universally accepted or acceptable. He showed that it was something to be ashamed of and not spoken of by 'regular' people - only depraved people. Now 20 years later, masturbation and plenty of other sexual perversions are portrayed regularly on television that wouldn't have been on tv back during the heyday of Seinfeld. This shows that whatever media starts portraying as 'normal' and 'acceptable,' we as a society start to accept. Any teenager not bothered by the depiction of masturbation in the media would seem to prove my point that media DOES influence and manipulate how we think. THAT is why I don't like the book 'The Chocolate War,' because its literary genius is lost on the average teenager if they are not told to look for this layered effect (manipulation of the weak and young in the plot line - one layer; manipulation and offense to the reader - layer two; manipulation of society in touting this book as good literature for youth to read and yet its message is twisted - layer three).
All of the facts evaluated above adheres to more than one literary analysis that any English major would be introduced to in their basic lit. classes....so it's not just my opinion here, it's regular literary analysis dissecting the literature.
Again, Cormier is having a chuckle every time someone reads his book and misses the point - that WAS the point, and it apparently is doing its job.

Fascinating.

why are you the judge of what's perverted and what isn't? Oh- wait- 'cause the Bible says so. My bad.

again, another person that has missed the boat....just refer to the above statement to clarify the purposes of Cormier's book. I'm judging the book because that was the purpose of the book. I'm making a judgment on society as a whole (again a purpose of the book) because that's what a rational, thinking human being should probably do if they don't want to be a sheep and follow the herd (theme in the book). It's about time that people actually stand for something. It's amazing to me that the media (and their faithful audience) is so strongly bashing on Christianity lately because it's trendy right now. Just because plenty of Hollywood types jump on that bandwagon doesn't mean I'm going to do the same. I don't even have to bring religion into the mix to justify my statements about this book. Logic does the job well enough. However, I know scores of people that would want to be forewarned that this book, hailed as a classic, has the aforementioned characteristics, and it was with them in mind that I don't laud this book as a 'must read' - well, I wouldn't think it objectionable for English majors in college, at the very least, but they might as well be aware anyway. That's kind of the point of a 'review.'

Ashley wrote: "again, another person that has missed the boat....just refer to the above statement to clarify the purposes of Cormier's book. I'm judging the book because that was the purpose of the book. I'm mak..."

The trouble with it, in that regard, is that it's dark and adult enough for college students but is nevertheless a young-adult book.
Wanna hear something strange? I first saw this book on a teacher's shelf--in a fourth-grade (or lower) class. That's terrible, because this book is completely inappropriate for someone so young, and I'm glad I didn't open it. I was curious about it, though. I wondered what chocolate had to do with a war.

I read this book in college. As I finished the last page, I tossed it into my trash can that was beside my bed. I don't remember ever heaving a book into the trash, but this one won that honor.

Marilee wrote: "I read this book in college. As I finished the last page, I tossed it into my trash can that was beside my bed. I don't remember ever heaving a book into the trash, but this one won that honor."

Why is that?

Are you kidding????

This book mentions beating off like 3 times. Get over it. You'd think at your age and with that much life experience you'd realize teenage boys masturbate.

He wrote this book from a TEENAGE BOY's perspective. You're saying TEENAGE BOYs treat women as sex objects....and SURPRISE FREAKING SURPRISE we do.

Just to clearify God isn't real btw. Someone who wastes their life on religion surely won't receive any respect from me, a realist.

It was surprising to me, Coleon, but you're right, they do.

But your comment on God is ridiculous. You cannot prove it nor disprove it. Turning this into an attack against the reviewers beliefs is one of the fallacies you learn to avoid, in Debate club, or Literature Analysis.

I think the masturbation point has been made. Whether we think teens should masturbate or not is moot, as this isn't about us as individuals, and I think I /can/ make one broad generalization. It is the way that Cormier discusses these topics that makes us uncomfortable, not that he discusses them at all. There are much more profound and disturbing books that discuss their topics with tenderness that we would not ascribe them, for example, the Spanish Novel: Carnivorous Lambs. Two Brothers become lovers. That would make almost everyone uncomfortable, but the author writes it in a way you wouldn't expect. Also, the writer with the correct ability could write a novel about a woman giving natural birth to her offspring in a way that would offend anyone.

Coleon I'd be interested to hear what else you've read.

Also, Ashley, is "Teenage Girl" me? I'm trying to find correlation. :)

Laura, you shouldn't have dignified the religion comment with a response.

Don Incognito wrote: "Laura, you shouldn't have dignified the religion comment with a response."

I really liked learning about the fallacies of argument. Was kinda hoping I could inspire something...

Fascinating discussion -- but let's not lose sight of the fact that the boys in this book are all creepy and hateful even when they aren't engaged in acts of masturbation.

Haha! Agreed. But Lily, I did find the main character (whose name I have forgotten ;P) pretty sympathetic. Even if they are creepy and hateful in retrospect, Cormier arguably wrote him very well.

Gerry, also known as the Renault kid, that was his name. The funny thing is, there's a movie called FROM HERE TO ETERNITY which tells pretty much the same story, only with MUCH more drama and genuinely interesting characters.

Really? Isn't From Here to Eternity a World War II movie? I'll have to look it up, because I wonder how it could resemble The Chocolate War.

Oh, I can't spoil it -- but believe me, the basic conflicts are almost identical!

I also saw this book on a Middle school classroom library shelf. i picked it up, not knowing what it was, and immediately wondered if the teacher had read it. these were not teenage boys, they were 9 year olds, and on page one or two it said something about 'jacking off.' I was surprised, but i continued reading. Honestly, besides the inappropriate placement (according to my opinion of age appropriate literature) i dont remember much about this book.

It's definitely not appropriate for younger children!

Nope, absolutely not. But middle school kids perform the behavior depicted in this book anyway.

So you rated this book with one star just because it speaks the truth...