Review
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a popular coming-of-age story from the 1990s and was written by Steven Chbosky. The author was born in 1970 and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is his only novel.
In the book the main character Charlie is an inconspicuous boy who starts to write letters to an unknown person after a friend committed suicide. In this letters he writes about everything that happens in his life whereby he becomes a kind of an observer and you notice that he’s really for many people a “wallflower”, but not for his friends. During the time he has many ups and downs. His character and behaviour changes especially because of his surroundings, but at the end you discover that most of his behaviour is caused by something which happened in his childhood.
During the book there are many themes discussed, like smoking, drinking, taking drugs, love, homosexuality, removing from the family and friendship. Also abortion, abusiveness and violence of children are a big topic.
The book is very emotional because of the letters which are written privately. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” deals with problems which many teenagers have to experience.
I liked reading the book because it was about an interesting topic and wasn’t hard to understand. At first the book reminded of “The Sorrows of Young Werther” because of the letters, but after some pages I noticed that I was wrong and that the book is different.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Character description
In the book there is one main character, Charlie, who’s a very interesting person with a special character. There isn’t much information about his look, but he was doing sports some years ago. He also made a haircut by himself which looked quite unusual.
At the beginning Charlie is a boy who is inconspicuous and seems to be normal, but often a bit too emotional. After a friend of him commits suicide he starts to write letters to another person. He’s also musingly what Sam and Patrick, brothers and sisters whom he meets, notice, but unlike other people they don’t think he’s strange. After a short time they make friends and aren’t ashamed when he’s crying. Charlie gets to know many other persons and becomes more self-confident. He even stops thinking that much, feels better and happier. Because of them he also experiences a new part of life, learns about love, homosexuality, how to behave during a date, and friendship.
But Charlie’s character also changes and so he starts to drink, smoke, take drugs and lie to his parents. When he hurts his friends because of being too honest they split up, but when he stands up for Patrick who is beaten up, they become friends again. During all that time Charlie has to talk to a psychiatrist because of many problems in the past, but after a mental breakdown they discover that most of his behaviour is caused by his aunt Helen who abused him. Many weeks later his therapy was successful and he becomes happy again.
In the book there is one main character, Charlie, who’s a very interesting person with a special character. There isn’t much information about his look, but he was doing sports some years ago. He also made a haircut by himself which looked quite unusual.
At the beginning Charlie is a boy who is inconspicuous and seems to be normal, but often a bit too emotional. After a friend of him commits suicide he starts to write letters to another person. He’s also musingly what Sam and Patrick, brothers and sisters whom he meets, notice, but unlike other people they don’t think he’s strange. After a short time they make friends and aren’t ashamed when he’s crying. Charlie gets to know many other persons and becomes more self-confident. He even stops thinking that much, feels better and happier. Because of them he also experiences a new part of life, learns about love, homosexuality, how to behave during a date, and friendship.
But Charlie’s character also changes and so he starts to drink, smoke, take drugs and lie to his parents. When he hurts his friends because of being too honest they split up, but when he stands up for Patrick who is beaten up, they become friends again. During all that time Charlie has to talk to a psychiatrist because of many problems in the past, but after a mental breakdown they discover that most of his behaviour is caused by his aunt Helen who abused him. Many weeks later his therapy was successful and he becomes happy again.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Correction of the 2nd exam
Violence and violence in the media are heatedly discussed topics. In such discussions it’s often claimed that especially children learn about violence on TV.
I totally agree with Michael Medved when he explains the four lies of the media. First of all Medved’s fist mentioned lie by directors is that violence is a part of our life and so it is not bad when it’s shown on TV. Similarly to Medved’s opinion I think that (thank God) hardly ever someone get’s threatened by a rapist or someone else, so to the majority of the people violence like shoot-outs is just fiction. In addition to that directors also claim that violence in movies like “Kill Bill” wouldn’t influence people because it’s made unrealistic which is true, but like Medved I think there‘s still a part of people who get influenced or become copycat killers. Likewise I’m also sure that you know much about a movie even if you haven’t watched it because of the media. Finally, the 4th lie Medved explained and I agree with is that non-violent movies aren’t successful because for example “Finding Nemo” is very popular and I think there’s a way especially for children not to become influenced so much.
Violence and violence in the media are a real problem, like a theory says, but there are also other ways how you can become violent. First of all I think it can be learned by watching TV or by grown-ups. I also think that violence can be inborn, but in my opinion in most cases violence is the result of frustration because frustration often leads to aggressive behaviour.
I believe that violence caused by these three arguments can be reduced especially among children. First, a child should grow up in a non-violent family where the parents have a good relationship to the child. Second, a child shouldn’t be punished physically because violence leads to more violence. Finally I’d say that children shouldn’t watch TV because there’s too much violence on it.
Concluding I would say that especially children are impressed by Idols or TV, but if the violence and the length of time a child is allowed to watch TV is reduced, maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence.
I totally agree with Michael Medved when he explains the four lies of the media. First of all Medved’s fist mentioned lie by directors is that violence is a part of our life and so it is not bad when it’s shown on TV. Similarly to Medved’s opinion I think that (thank God) hardly ever someone get’s threatened by a rapist or someone else, so to the majority of the people violence like shoot-outs is just fiction. In addition to that directors also claim that violence in movies like “Kill Bill” wouldn’t influence people because it’s made unrealistic which is true, but like Medved I think there‘s still a part of people who get influenced or become copycat killers. Likewise I’m also sure that you know much about a movie even if you haven’t watched it because of the media. Finally, the 4th lie Medved explained and I agree with is that non-violent movies aren’t successful because for example “Finding Nemo” is very popular and I think there’s a way especially for children not to become influenced so much.
Violence and violence in the media are a real problem, like a theory says, but there are also other ways how you can become violent. First of all I think it can be learned by watching TV or by grown-ups. I also think that violence can be inborn, but in my opinion in most cases violence is the result of frustration because frustration often leads to aggressive behaviour.
I believe that violence caused by these three arguments can be reduced especially among children. First, a child should grow up in a non-violent family where the parents have a good relationship to the child. Second, a child shouldn’t be punished physically because violence leads to more violence. Finally I’d say that children shouldn’t watch TV because there’s too much violence on it.
Concluding I would say that especially children are impressed by Idols or TV, but if the violence and the length of time a child is allowed to watch TV is reduced, maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
