I think it's overrated, how about you?

[Lily]

Honestly, this is probably one of my top five favorite books (its hard to choose just one). I read it two years ago after my parents' divorce. I don't think liking a book has anything to do with relating to it but your personal ability to empathize with other people's emotions. I have anxiety and although I'm not socially challenged, I could put myself in Charlie's shoes. If you can you that, you'll love this book, I cried through half of it!

[Brooke Steinberg]

I completely understood the plot, i thought it was pretty straight forward. But i just didn't think it deserved all the hype it got.

But i don't agree with you when you say that not understanding a book is not a good reason to dislike it. It is a very good reason to dislike the book. If certain things don't connect for a specific reader it is understandable for them to not like that book at all. That means the author wasn't able to do their job for that specific reader.

[Sammy]

It really doesn't mean that at all...

[Brooke Steinberg]

An author cant make every single reader happy and understand everything.......

[Emma]

Aj wrote: "I think that the author have misled the readers in a way, like he so presented Aunt Helen as someone to be adored and sympathize on, only to find out that she molested Charlie. "

In my opinion this was one of the best parts of the book. People who do not understand/have never experienced abuse like to paint abusers as heartless monsters, but that depiction couldn't be farther from the truth in many cases. Sometimes abusers can be the most genuinely kind, loving, and generous people you know. This makes it especially hard for victims to comprehend how the person who loves them the most can also be the person who hurts them the most. The two often become separated in the victims head and seem to be two entirely different entities. I thought this book handled that really well. I thought that treating Aunt Helen as a person with an illness and not a monster was a much more realistic portrayal of how abuse is.

And for those complaining about Charlie's odd behavior, he was obviously suffering from PTSD from the childhood abuse. Repressed memories, the flashbacks of Aunt Helen, his extreme passivity and difficulty saying no (like when he let Patrick kiss him), acting younger than he is, his difficulty expressing himself to others, his seeming separated/disassociated from his emotions (i.e., emotional numbness). Even his depression and social anxiety can be linked to PTSD (although many teens go through this).

[Emma]

Sammy wrote: "Ana-Rose wrote: "Sammy wrote: "I can completely appreciate someone not looking a book we all have different opinions, but I don't think it's right to give something a negative review when you simpl..."

I agree. If you've missed the most important plot point of the entire novel, then you really have no right to rate the book at all until you reread it.

[Ana]

Brooke wrote: "I completely understood the plot, i thought it was pretty straight forward. But i just didn't think it deserved all the hype it got.

But i don't agree with you when you say that not understanding ..."

I actually agree with this assuming the person is rating it on a personal preference basis. Whether people like it or not, everyone has a right to judge a book however they like according to their personal taste. Not understanding a book is a good enough to reason to rate a book badly just as understanding a book and still rating it badly is.

The only issue with this point of view is in terms of an objective review. Example, I could hate a book but still acknowledge it's well written. In that case, then it will be unfair to criticize a book as badly written when objectively and in terms of technicality, it's not.

[Becca]

I did love this book a lot, and I would recommend the book. However, maybe it was because I haven't gone through many experiences like Charlie, but I found the book a short chore to get through. Many people told me it was fabulous, so of course, I wanted to read it. I can honestly say it wasn't as good as I was told it would be. I did enjoy reading it though.

I realize that I can't really judge BECAUSE I haven't been through many experiences like Charlie.

[Sammy]

Brooke wrote: "An author cant make every single reader happy and understand everything......."

Yes but if you don't understand something how can you then give an educated opinion on it? For example I'm not going to give an elongated opinion of the theory of relativity because I simply cannot understand physics but that in no way gives me the right to say that Einstein did a bad job discovering his theory and an even worse job explaining it - because I would be wrong - it simply means that I did not understand it and if you don't understand something there is no way you could give a fair, unbiased and educated opinion on the matter.

[[deleted user]]

Emma wrote: "Aj wrote: "I think that the author have misled the readers in a way, like he so presented Aunt Helen as someone to be adored and sympathize on, only to find out that she molested Charlie. "

In my ..."
The Catcher in the Rye is an accurate portrait of a teenager with PTSD.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is not.

[Sammy]

Brooke wrote: "Emma wrote: "Aj wrote: "I think that the author have misled the readers in a way, like he so presented Aunt Helen as someone to be adored and sympathize on, only to find out that she molested Charl..."

Not every person reacts the same to having PTSD...

[Annemarie]

While I didn't find this book to be particularly rich literature I thought it was a valuable story for young people to read. This young man suffered a trauma and dealt with it in a manner that slowly manifested itself in his present life. Charlie suffered molestation and kept it within himself instead of speaking out for several reasons, the most prevalent being attached to the setting of the book, early 90s when sexual abuse was not as openly discussed by boy victims. Heck, even now we aren't the best society in helping those victims and survivors! But I brought this as a potential summer reading book for my students, along with several others, students were given full appraisal of the stories prior to reading so there would be no traumatic upset for them. The students who chose this book really enjoyed it, and liked the narrator's voice. They had interesting discussions on who was the recipient of the letters. But what bothered me, the other English teachers couldn't get past what they saw as a lack of literary value. I thought this was a very good book for young readers to talk about issues of violence, acceptance, sexuality, and community. So what if he didn't vary his sentence structure? I liked it. But if others didn't that's cool too.

[Tiffany]

Maybe it's just because of the age I am but I genuinely enjoyed the book, it's become one of my favourites and I would without a doubt read it again.

[Emma]

Kristen wrote: "The purpose of a review is to encompass all aspects of a book. If someone fails to understand the plot, that is a reflection of the authors writing weaknesses."

I don't agree, at least not in regards to the sexual abuse. A child of Charlie's age who had suffered such a tremendous trauma would find it difficult to express what had happened. He would likely tell it in vague statements. It's been nearly two decades since I was abused and I still find it difficult to say the words, even here on an anonymous internet site. I thought it was a pretty accurate portrayal of how a teenager would tell someone that they had been abused.

Plus, most of the greatest literature is full of nuances and subtleties. A very popular work of literature is Pride and Prejudice. The majority of readers I've spoken to don't realize that it was a social satire, not just a sappy love story. It's genius is in its subtlety. If books were supposed to be immediately obvious there would no need for Literature scholars. And reading would be a whole lot more boring. If someone read Animal Farm and didn't realize it was a commentary on Soviet communism, is that the fault of Orwell or the person who didn't do their research?

[Emma]

Brooke wrote: "The Catcher in the Rye is an accurate portrait of a teenager with PTSD.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is not."

How so? He's got repressed memories, emotional distancing/numbing, flashbacks, avoidance, physical reaction to reminders of the abuse, increased anxiety, outbursts of anger. I think it's a pretty obvious conclusion. As with any illness, people manifest symptoms differently.