You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.18 AVERAGE
4.18 AVERAGE
Intelligence is often regarded as the hallmark of humanity—'homosapien', or 'smart man', so we have called ourselves. Keyes' novel is a powerful subversion of this dogma. It is a reminder that what truly characterises man is his empathy. His capacity to feel—and to do so deeply.
The story of Charlie Gordon is heart-wrenching, soul-crushing, emotive, powerful, traumatic, and most importantly, touching. Resonance with his desire to be intelligent is unsurprising. We all want to read more books, discover new facts, write clearly and expressively, and prove to others that we are culturally and historically informed. But what is the source of this drive? Why bother being intelligent?
Common judgment speaks that knowledge and wisdom are fundamental drives. Humans are merely driven to know and learn; that's the end of it. We just want to know. The perfect irony is that for Charlie, the drive is not fundamental. Instead, Charlie (initially) wants to be intelligent to 'fit in', to be like the other kids, to be 'normal'. Even post-surgery, Charlie's 'primitive brain' tortures him with this desire. Despite being a genius, Charlie feels isolated, lonely, and stranded. He deplores Nemur for treating him like an experiment, devoid of humanity, for this separates him further from that which he is—a human. Indeed, Charlie’s pursuit of companions, both platonic and romantic, demonstrates his struggle to prove to himself that he is human. Companionship, after all, is the ideal avenue to experience the rainbow of emotion. And, to borrow a Mr. Keating quote: “Poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.” What matters, ultimately, then, is not Charlie's intelligence; it is his humanity.
Of course, an element of this drive may also be rooted in the trauma instilled by his Machiavellian mother (Rose). But matters aren't so simple. Note Rose's vacillation between isolating and pathologically 'normalising' Charlie. Before the birth of his sister (Norma), Rose attempts by every means possible to make Charlie fit in with the other kids. After Norma's birth, Rose switches from wanting to change Charlie to wanting to get rid of him. Keyes does well to remind us throughout the book that both are morally deplorable. However, the acute difference between the two, I think, highlights the deeper point and underscores the book's genius. Intuitively, one would take the latter as worse. Putting Charlie away in a facility to exclude him from society, like some animal, is pernicious. However, it is only really the former—Rose's pathological desire to increase Charlie's intelligence—that truly dehumanises him, for it can only manifest from an instilled belief that to be human, one must express a certain amount of intelligence.
To observe the difference, we steal a page from Kant's distinction between being non-human and inhuman. That is, distinguish the scope difference between lacking humanity and not being human. The former ascribes a (negative) property to the object, whereas the latter negates a property of it. The difference is acute but significant. One may behave inhumanely while still being human, so to speak. But it would be difficult not to be human and nonetheless behave inhumanely, for the latter (standardly) has a precondition of being a human.
Disposing of Charlie may then be inhumane, but maintains his humanity, just as it may be inhumane to place a prisoner in solitary confinement, or an elderly person in a care home. Still, you see them as human. But, experimenting on him, manipulating him, beating him like a dog, to make him ‘normal’—therein lies the evil. One might as well equate ‘normal’ to ‘human’.
Keyes’ message is clear: Rose’s evil is a manifestation of seeing Charlie as not human. Of course, the converse is that Charlie’s intelligence has nothing to do with his humanity.
What can be said of Charlie’s isolation, then, in light of this? Durkheim infamously reminded us that isolation, loneliness, and depression are the hallmarks of modern societies. But aside from sociology, it is unsurprising that all our souls echo a desire to fit in. Man, after all, is a social animal. And separation, of course, is a product of difference. One becomes an outcast when they differ from others. Their peculiarities and eccentricities, ironically, are what simultaneously make them unique and betray them. And Charlie is a man betrayed by his intelligence twice.
The upshot that I’m suggesting is that Keyes' novel is not entirely a study of the dehumanisation of the intellectually disabled. More, it is a study of what distinguishes human from animal.
5/5
G.K.
The story of Charlie Gordon is heart-wrenching, soul-crushing, emotive, powerful, traumatic, and most importantly, touching. Resonance with his desire to be intelligent is unsurprising. We all want to read more books, discover new facts, write clearly and expressively, and prove to others that we are culturally and historically informed. But what is the source of this drive? Why bother being intelligent?
Common judgment speaks that knowledge and wisdom are fundamental drives. Humans are merely driven to know and learn; that's the end of it. We just want to know. The perfect irony is that for Charlie, the drive is not fundamental. Instead, Charlie (initially) wants to be intelligent to 'fit in', to be like the other kids, to be 'normal'. Even post-surgery, Charlie's 'primitive brain' tortures him with this desire. Despite being a genius, Charlie feels isolated, lonely, and stranded. He deplores Nemur for treating him like an experiment, devoid of humanity, for this separates him further from that which he is—a human. Indeed, Charlie’s pursuit of companions, both platonic and romantic, demonstrates his struggle to prove to himself that he is human. Companionship, after all, is the ideal avenue to experience the rainbow of emotion. And, to borrow a Mr. Keating quote: “Poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.” What matters, ultimately, then, is not Charlie's intelligence; it is his humanity.
Of course, an element of this drive may also be rooted in the trauma instilled by his Machiavellian mother (Rose). But matters aren't so simple. Note Rose's vacillation between isolating and pathologically 'normalising' Charlie. Before the birth of his sister (Norma), Rose attempts by every means possible to make Charlie fit in with the other kids. After Norma's birth, Rose switches from wanting to change Charlie to wanting to get rid of him. Keyes does well to remind us throughout the book that both are morally deplorable. However, the acute difference between the two, I think, highlights the deeper point and underscores the book's genius. Intuitively, one would take the latter as worse. Putting Charlie away in a facility to exclude him from society, like some animal, is pernicious. However, it is only really the former—Rose's pathological desire to increase Charlie's intelligence—that truly dehumanises him, for it can only manifest from an instilled belief that to be human, one must express a certain amount of intelligence.
To observe the difference, we steal a page from Kant's distinction between being non-human and inhuman. That is, distinguish the scope difference between lacking humanity and not being human. The former ascribes a (negative) property to the object, whereas the latter negates a property of it. The difference is acute but significant. One may behave inhumanely while still being human, so to speak. But it would be difficult not to be human and nonetheless behave inhumanely, for the latter (standardly) has a precondition of being a human.
Disposing of Charlie may then be inhumane, but maintains his humanity, just as it may be inhumane to place a prisoner in solitary confinement, or an elderly person in a care home. Still, you see them as human. But, experimenting on him, manipulating him, beating him like a dog, to make him ‘normal’—therein lies the evil. One might as well equate ‘normal’ to ‘human’.
Keyes’ message is clear: Rose’s evil is a manifestation of seeing Charlie as not human. Of course, the converse is that Charlie’s intelligence has nothing to do with his humanity.
What can be said of Charlie’s isolation, then, in light of this? Durkheim infamously reminded us that isolation, loneliness, and depression are the hallmarks of modern societies. But aside from sociology, it is unsurprising that all our souls echo a desire to fit in. Man, after all, is a social animal. And separation, of course, is a product of difference. One becomes an outcast when they differ from others. Their peculiarities and eccentricities, ironically, are what simultaneously make them unique and betray them. And Charlie is a man betrayed by his intelligence twice.
The upshot that I’m suggesting is that Keyes' novel is not entirely a study of the dehumanisation of the intellectually disabled. More, it is a study of what distinguishes human from animal.
5/5
G.K.
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Wonderful book about intelligence enchantment via drugs. Think Limitless movie. However, the protagonist's intelligence keeps growing and growing until his small talk is way too complex for the average person, or even for a reasonably smart person. And then it starts to decline, which must be terrifying. Knowing that you were smarter just yesterday. Watching yourself start to not understand your own thoughts and journal entries must feel like you're going insane.
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
The last few lines broke me
adventurous
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
fast-paced
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism, Animal death, Bullying, Child abuse, Mental illness, Physical abuse
Moderate: Suicidal thoughts, Forced institutionalization, Excrement, Medical content, Dementia, Alcohol
I couldn’t read the beginning of the book with all these misspelling… i couldn’t get throw it… later was fun, but still something was not keeping me into this story. The last 100 pages went super fast!
emotional
funny
inspiring
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes