is it better to have learned and lost...?

[Kirby]

I'm just trying to decide whether I think charlie would have been better off just being left as he was, or if he actually benefited from the experience...anyone else have an opinion?

[Kirby]

ha ha- well, I had been trying to make a joke about the "...loved and lost..." quote w/ the title of the thread- but apparently it fell a little flat. :)

I would maybe see it as cut and dry as that if he had ended up maintaining some of the knowledge, or even "breaking even," but I thought that he ended up much worse off...I mean, his biggest fear was ending up at the warren home and that's exactly what happened to him. I guess that if I thought he could remember that he had made the contribution to science that he was so proud of, I wouldn't be conflicted about it...but I didn't think he did. I assumed that he lost even his hard-won ability to read and write, which is maybe what I found saddest.

and, maybe I'm also conflicted b/c I'm not so sure that it's even always better to have loved and lost...I think there are some situations where it's better to not have loved...

[Gerd]

Well, he did have the chance to make some marvelous experiences he otherwise hadn't.

Consider it like falling in love, it can fail miserably and end in heartbreak and depression, but it's still worth it for as long as it lasts - everytime.

And even though the knowledge he gained is lost again to him, it's not lost completly.

[Kerry]

I can't decide. Being smart gave him so many opportunities, that he wouldn't otherwise have had. But they also seemed to damage him. If he had been left as he was he would never have understood the world around him, ignorance was bliss as being smart showed him how cruel the world is.
Also, Charlie was the way nature intended him to be. Having that operation went against nature.

[Kirby]

Jaye wrote: "I believe he would have been better off the way he was... But hindsight is twenty-twenty..."

that's true! :)

[Kirby]

Gerd wrote: "Well, he did have the chance to make some marvelous experiences he otherwise hadn't.

Consider it like falling in love, it can fail miserably and end in heartbreak and depression, but it's still wo..."

dang it, gerd, you didn't get my joke, either! :)
yeah, I was thinking along the lines of loving and losing...

while I do agree that in most cases it's better to have fallen in love, I don't think that it's always the case. my uncle recently fell in love for really the first time at almost 60 years old. it was wonderful seeing him so happy while he had his woman, but now his pain is just as deep as his joy was and has already lasted twice as long...I just can't stand the thought of him suffering the rest of his life for a one-year love affair, and I think he'd be better off if she had never waltzed in and out of his life...but I could be wrong.

[Kirby]

Mary wrote: "It's been a long time since I read this book (the sixth grade so like 20 years ago) and I remember crying so hard. At that young age I thought that losing his high IQ was so tragic. Seeing this p..."

I also hadn't read it since grade school (and I think I had only read the short story) until last week- and I bawled like a baby just like I did last time! :) but it wasn't just the loss of his high IQ that made me sad- I was also really bummed when it got so high that he couldn't really maintain any relationships and he was so lonely :(

during his last "progress report," he remembers some of his experiences, but I'm pretty sure that afterwards he ends up worse off than he was before the surgery, and has no recollection of his "contribution to science" that he was so proud of...

[Kirby]

Kerry wrote: "I can't decide. Being smart gave him so many opportunities, that he wouldn't otherwise have had. But they also seemed to damage him. If he had been left as he was he would never have understood the..."

yeah, that was one of the saddest parts, when he learned the truth about all his "friends."

do you mean, "went against nature," like sorta how that one woman was talking? the woman bakery worker who tried to tell charlie that he should stay the way god made him?

[Kerry]

Kirby wrote: "Kerry wrote: "I can't decide. Being smart gave him so many opportunities, that he wouldn't otherwise have had. But they also seemed to damage him. If he had been left as he was he would never have ..."

yes, he was never born to be that person, nature never intended him to be that way, and maybe that operation did more damage to him than if he would never have had it. That said though, despite him being happy before the operation, he was only that way because he wasn't aware of how he was being treated.

[Visakan]

"But they also seemed to damage him."

True. But perhaps life is about living, not evading damage. What's the point of making it to death unscathed? Better to have lived, in my opinion. I'll take the blue pill every time. I'd rather taste both the bitter and the sweet, than to taste nothing at all.

[Pat]

Love that. Me,too.

[Yona]

I think he was glad he had the experiences afterward, but I think it also has to do with his mental state. In a way, being less smart made him happier because he didn't know/couldn't understand enough to be sad about some of the things that happened to him. I think he ended the story lonelier than ever, but at least he did know he'd loved and been loved. I think he had more meaning.

[Jason]

This can be looked at from both angles. One one hand, he did have an amazing experience and was blessed to have known what he knew. On the other, having something and losing it can be an agonizing experience. I'm reminded of the blind man from Cold Mountain who said he would not want temporary sight because having a thing and losing it might make him hateful.

Sometimes, I think it is better not to know some things. But also, there are things I am glad I know. Most importantly, there are things I know that I never want to forget.

[Visakan]

^well Jason, what do you know that you wish you didn't?

[Emanuel]

I think he benefited. I mean: we have all been babies. Certainly a mostly pleasant state of being, but still... Cognition is a game-changer.

[Harpal]

I agree with Viskan.

[Артём]

Kerry wrote: "nature never intended him to be that way"

Nature isn't a person, it doesn't intend nothing. It is human nature to look for ways to improve itself - make glasses, prosthetics, hearing aids.

Charlie's experience isn't that fantastic, many people lose some of their intellectual capacity with age or due to some health condition. The only difference is that he was smart so briefly and the change to and from smart was so fast, almost abrupt. If you know you're genetically predisposed to get alzheimer's, is it better not to learn too much because you might lose it eventually? Or should you rather cram as much as possible into your head because you only got this long to enjoy it?

[Hoda]

In both scenarios, I really liked his character, he tried to make the best out of his situation, and that is what life is about. Wonderful book!

[Michael]

Артём pretty much made all my arguments for me, better than I likely would have.

My grandfather was a brilliant man. He had a brain tumor that was destroying his mind. He chose suicide to letting it happen, and I think I might as well if that were the case.

[Sharon L.]

Charlie may not have been "happy" at the end --but then who ever really is? There's a price for wisdom, and one can never really go back. In life, I think what makes some brain illnesses (like Alzheimer's) so difficult is that there is a point when the sufferer knows he/she is losing intellectual capacity and is completely helpless to do anything. In Flowers, that was the part that got to me...

[Kirby]

Visakan wrote: ""But they also seemed to damage him."

True. But perhaps life is about living, not evading damage. What's the point of making it to death unscathed? Better to have lived, in my opinion. I'll take t..."

your statement made me think of this quote by hunter s. thompson- thought I'd share it:

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming 'Wow! What a Ride!'”

[Cheryl]

Kirby wrote: "ha ha- well, I had been trying to make a joke about the "...loved and lost..." quote w/ the title of the thread- but apparently it fell a little flat. :)

I would maybe see it as cut and dry as tha..."

I disagree. While he was still maintaining most of his intelligence, he did visit the Warren home. He had decided then that it would be a suitable home for him. Before it was just blind fear because of the situation with his parents trying to ditch him there, I assume.

Also, the last line in the book in which he asks that someone puts flowers on Algernon's grave shows that he hasn't lost 100% of his memory of what happened. He does forget about his relationship with Alice, but does attempt to attend her reading and writing class. This signals that he is still ambitious in his quest to learn to read and write (even if he has forgotten how to do so). The fact that he remembers Algernon and his meticulous ritual of placing flowers on his grave shows that with repetition and reminders, he DOES have the capacity to recall details about the time he spent with intelligence. It's there somewhere in his subconscious, just like his childhood memories were before.

[Linda (Miss Greedybooks)]

I worked with a guy that had a motorcycle accident that left him with much less brain ability - he was constantly frustrated because he knew he could figure things out in the past that he just was not able to anymore.

Makes me think of the assisted living question - would you rather have your mind go or your body go first?

[Maria]

There is a modern day equivalent of what happened in the book that is harsher- mental illness. There are thousands of people with mental illness whose brains function in fascinating ways and they acknowledge that. The only problem is there is stigma and they can't use their intellectual abilities. Its so depressing to see that. The book was heartbreaking and what is even more depressing and that it can happen in real life. Have you ever heard of a homeless mad genius? If not walk around your city and you might find one.

[Beverley]

I think the book was trying to make a point about society's assumption that certain types of 'person' or 'intellectual' capability have more 'value' than others and the danger of imposing that on individuals. Charlie was blissfully unaware of his 'limitations' before the experiments. Like the bible quote 'he that increase th his knowledge, increaseth his sorrow ' he only became unhappy after his intellect increased. It was one of the saddest books I've ever read but I think at the end Charlie himself was neither worse nor better off because he was unaware again, whereas the reader could appreciate the poignancy of his experience.

[Hoda]

Kirby wrote: "I'm just trying to decide whether I think charlie would have been better off just being left as he was, or if he actually benefited from the experience...anyone else have an opinion?"

I believe he was better off as he is, and that IQ score is overrated, because one can be quite happy and productive -as much as he/she can be- with any level of IQ. I loved the simple Charlie, and I mourned him when they turned him into something that he isn't.

[Hoda]

Beverley wrote: "I think the book was trying to make a point about society's assumption that certain types of 'person' or 'intellectual' capability have more 'value' than others and the danger of imposing that on i..."

I agree wholeheartedly. I felt that this was the powerful message of this story.

[Lesley]

I think it was better that Charlie learned and lost then had he never learned at all. First, he made a major contribution to science in an effort to help "millions of unborn" people with mental challenges. He says at one point that whatever happens to him, he is happy he could have contributed to the betterment of society. Whether or not the science pursued would better society is up for debate, but for Charlie, being able to make people smarter was everything.

Secondly, when he goes to see his mom, it is surprisingly Norma who gives him the acceptance he has so craved all those years. He admits that, had he not been smart, Norma wouldn't have talked to him in the candid and caring way that she did.

I guess whether or not it is better depends on who you ask. For Norma, it was certainly better since she could talk to her brother and together work through some of the terrible moments that comprised their childhood and shaped their lives. Not sure if it was better for Alice Kinnian, who essentially gained and then lost someone she loved, though I do believe the old saying "better to have loved than lost than never to have loved at all."

[Courtney]

Gerd wrote: "Well, he did have the chance to make some marvelous experiences he otherwise hadn't.

Consider it like falling in love, it can fail miserably and end in heartbreak and depression, but it's still wo..."

I see it similarly, even though I feel awful for him, but he contributed to the world. I actually love this about the book. You really have to think about if it was better "to have learned and lost".

[Paul]

Realistically, he would have been better off staying dumb. It's romantic to think he was better for the experience, but it will haunt him the rest of his life.

[Nick]

Kirby, to answer your original post, I think that yes, it is better to have learned and lost than to never have learned at all. It's more life. It's living. It's something. It's a story. To decide otherwise falls in line with scores of people who don't read and don't do anything and watch hours of television and wonder where all the time went.

In Charlie's case, he is aware of the decline but at no point does he wish he remained the 68 IQ who had no idea he was the butt of all jokes. He even asks a question like, "what is worse: to be dumb and not know it or to be smart and lonely?" That he is asking the question shows that it is his opinion that his former situation is a bad one.

Also, I would say that he is still better off at the end because the guys at work stick up for him and genuinely treat him right (because enough time has passed and they looked in the mirror and realized they were picking on a mentally retarded person). Charlie may not remember many details of his intelligence, but he knows that he has grown and gained the respect of his peers. Ultimately he decides to do what he does, but I would argue this point with anyone, and I get a funny feeling that I can make a lot of correct assumptions about people who argue that it is better that Charlie remain a 68 IQ who is unwittingly the butt of all jokes and has the respect of nobody his entire life. Hell, he even made a friend, never mind the species of the poor guy. So yeah, sign me up for option A every time.

[Lesley]

Thank you, Nick, I enjoyed your post. This discussion kind of reminds me of the blue pill/red pill debacle from "The Matrix." Do you choose to stay blind and ignorant in a fake world or do you choose the tougher road that may lead you to harm and pain, but ultimately to truth?

I know it's science fiction, but much like stories like Orwell's "1984," I find so much real-life truth to that movie. And I have asked myself many times which pill would I choose? I, too, can understand taking the blue pill, or choosing ignorance over unhappiness. But I like to think that I'd down the red pill. After all, as Nick wrote, "it's living. It's a story." And a much more interesting one!

[Sam]

Anyone only truly knows their own experience. Everything else is simply speculation. The key is to love the experience that you have regardless of what it is. For all we know its the only we one we get!

[Kirby]

Nick wrote: "I get a funny feeling that I can make a lot of correct assumptions about people who argue that it is better that Charlie remain a 68 IQ who is unwittingly the butt of all jokes and has the respect of nobody his entire life."

Well, now I'm rather curious about these assumptions you're making...

[Raptori]

If I remember correctly, his spelling and grammar at the end of the book are much better than they were at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that in the end he's more intelligent than he was to begin with, so it's not a total loss for him.

As to whether he would have been better off without it happening I can't really decide.

[Kc]

I believe that a significant part of advancing into the future metaphysically is being able to let go of your past experiences, something Charlie, sadly, was unable to do.

[Sam]

Any fresh, or otherwise unattainable experience is a positive aspect in one's life, so long as they see it that way. It is up to the individual to come to such a realization.

[Nick]

Kirby wrote: "Nick wrote: "I get a funny feeling that I can make a lot of correct assumptions about people who argue that it is better that Charlie remain a 68 IQ who is unwittingly the butt of all jokes and has..."

Hey Kirby, I was in a particularly assholier than thou mood when I posted that, wasn't I? Haha. I think what I meant was that to argue that Charlie is worse off from having gone through the experience reeks of fear. It is purely a fear-based argument. "It ended a "bad way" for Charlie, and because it could have ended "badly" for him, then he was better off not trying it." Look, that type of argument just might add more years to one's life, but it also makes sure to strip most of the life from one's years. But hey, to each his own. I was just saying that we are all evaluating whether a third party, Charlie Gordon, was better or worse off for having done this, and I read it to be pretty obvious that his own opinion was that he was better off. And if I'm conceding "to each his own" opinion on how to live one's own life, then shouldn't we all concede to Charlie his own?

I think that was the gist of my assumptions. To call them "correct" was kind of pompous. But I stand by the reasoning. Cheers, all.

[Nick]

RaptorSaur wrote: "If I remember correctly, his spelling and grammar at the end of the book are much better than they were at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that in the end he's more intelligent than he was to begin ..."

Hmm. Maybe you are right, I don't have the story in front of me, but my recollection is that by the end his spelling is pretty bad again. The one thing that I love, love, love is in that final entry and postscript Charlie misspells all kinds of words, but he spells Algernon's name right. I just think that is so beautiful. I suspect Keyes did this intentionally.

[Sam]

Nick wrote: "RaptorSaur wrote: "If I remember correctly, his spelling and grammar at the end of the book are much better than they were at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that in the end he's more intelligent th..."

Yeah I'm sure it was done intentionally, because the fact it presented the story the way he did with the misspellings in the beginning and end seemed to be well thought out characterization. I agree a beautiful touch on one magnificent story.

[APetNamedSteve]

Kerry wrote: "I can't decide. Being smart gave him so many opportunities, that he wouldn't otherwise have had. But they also seemed to damage him. If he had been left as he was he would never have understood the..."

If Charlie wanted to be smart then he should be allowed to be smart,
I think that "nature" isn't perfect and we should try to make our-selves better.