Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.18 AVERAGE
4.18 AVERAGE
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
A timeless classic of a man who struggles with mental disability. I read it with a focus on how emotions are written and calibrated on the page. For that purpose, it was excellent study material, as one of the core themes of the book is the study of emotional vs. intellectual development.
What rubbed me the wrong way as a reader 50 years after the book was written:
I will forgo pointing out the non-PC language in the book: times change, and language does with them. As long as we are moving towards having and showing more respect to people, I'm good with it.
However, the simplistic archetypes of women in the book gave me pause. We have 5 archetypes:
1. An abusive mother
2. A selfish sister
3. A free-spirited neighbor who is as superficial in her relationships as the protagonist is with her
4. The true love interest who is also pretty one-dimensional (caring and.... what else?)
5. Any elderly woman is a benevolent caregiver
Notice how every description of a woman boils down to "pretty" (when he is still in his child-like mindset), "attractive," "handsome," "beautiful" when he starts using bigger words. But he never evolves past that stage, even in the height of his intellectual or emotional development.
For some reason, men are not as pigeonholed as women in this book. The two study directors, Nemur and Strauss, are there only to be opposites, and yet they receive a more nuanced treatment than major female characters. The father character is not stereotypical either. Just look how many male characters are developed in detail: 3 co-workers and a boss, 2 professors and a psychologist, even the boys in the Warren house are not lumped together during the one scene they receive. Women don't get the same treatment.
I know it's a harsh criticism to level at a literary classic. If it were that only the simple-minded Charlie was so simplistic in his views, I would be fine with that. But even the genius Charlie never looks deeper than the surface.
What rubbed me the wrong way as a reader 50 years after the book was written:
I will forgo pointing out the non-PC language in the book: times change, and language does with them. As long as we are moving towards having and showing more respect to people, I'm good with it.
However, the simplistic archetypes of women in the book gave me pause. We have 5 archetypes:
1. An abusive mother
2. A selfish sister
3. A free-spirited neighbor who is as superficial in her relationships as the protagonist is with her
4. The true love interest who is also pretty one-dimensional (caring and.... what else?)
5. Any elderly woman is a benevolent caregiver
Notice how every description of a woman boils down to "pretty" (when he is still in his child-like mindset), "attractive," "handsome," "beautiful" when he starts using bigger words. But he never evolves past that stage, even in the height of his intellectual or emotional development.
For some reason, men are not as pigeonholed as women in this book. The two study directors, Nemur and Strauss, are there only to be opposites, and yet they receive a more nuanced treatment than major female characters. The father character is not stereotypical either. Just look how many male characters are developed in detail: 3 co-workers and a boss, 2 professors and a psychologist, even the boys in the Warren house are not lumped together during the one scene they receive. Women don't get the same treatment.
I know it's a harsh criticism to level at a literary classic. If it were that only the simple-minded Charlie was so simplistic in his views, I would be fine with that. But even the genius Charlie never looks deeper than the surface.