|
Post by E. Magill on Apr 25, 2013 15:20:30 GMT -5
The book for May/June 2013--and the first selection in our little club--is FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON by Daniel Keyes.
This is an exciting one for me, as it's a book I've been meaning to read for years. It's a quick read; it's a highly-regarded classic; it's ridiculously easy to find; and it deals with psychology, one of my favorite topics. Here's the Amazon.com description:
"With more than five million copies sold, Flowers for Algernon is the beloved, classic story of a mentally disabled man whose experimental quest for intelligence mirrors that of Algernon, an extraordinary lab mouse. In poignant diary entries, Charlie tells how a brain operation increases his IQ and changes his life. As the experimental procedure takes effect, Charlie's intelligence expands until it surpasses that of the doctors who engineered his metamorphosis. The experiment seems to be a scientific breakthrough of paramount importance--until Algernon begins his sudden, unexpected deterioration. Will the same happen to Charlie?"
I've already read the first twenty pages or so at Barnes & Noble, and am going to go grab a copy from the library as soon as I can. So go find your own, get cracking, and come right back here when you're done to start the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on Apr 25, 2013 17:57:36 GMT -5
Before I start, I just want to say this sounds a lot like the movie version of "The Lawnmower Man" and, for you Trekkies, like "The Nth Degree" from TNG, but this obviously came first. I hope it has very little in common with those stories--though I do love them--and is a bit more grounded.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on Apr 27, 2013 18:10:58 GMT -5
It's not even May yet, but I've already finished the book. So I'm going to just jot down my fresh thoughts, but I don't expect anybody to reply to them any time soon. And though I write like a lit student (I WAS an English major), please don't think I want everybody to write the same way.
1) First of all, I'm not so proud I won't admit to shedding a tear or two at the end. It's a very emotional ride, especially at the end. You pretty much know where the book is going from the start, but being predictable does nothing to lessen the impact. This book deserves its reputation.
2) One thing I love about fiction is its capacity to elicit empathy for just about anyone, and that's clearly the goal of this book. Not only are you tasked with empathizing with Charlie--both before and after his transformation--but you also come to empathize with everyone else in the story. When Charlie realizes how hard it is for other people like Alice, his mother, etc., it's a genuine shock to his system, and he regrets not being able to do that before. He tries really hard not to judge anyone, which is, I think, the whole point.
3) Flowers for Algernon belongs in the time it was written. It is of course timeless, but it came along just at the right time, right before the social upheaval of the sixties. We still have a lot of work to do in many respects, but I think (hope) we treat the mentally disabled a little better today than we did in the fifties. Still, the book launches headlong into very difficult questions that don't necessarily have answers: is it better to remain ignorant and happy, or intelligent and disillusioned? Should we think of mental retardation as a disease to be cured or an "exceptional" trait to be respected and cherished?
4) At Barnes & Noble, this book wasn't in the "Science-Fiction" section--it was in the "Literature" section--and at the library, it was classified as "Young Adult." Though it's not what you typically think about when you think of sci-fi, I strongly believe Flowers for Algernon belongs in that category. This is a speculation about the future of medicine that relies very heavily on science (and questions of scientific ethics). Granted, the title makes you think it might be really hard-core sci-fi (when I first heard the title, I thought "Algernon" must be an alien planet or spaceship or something).
5) Keyes is some kind of writer to be able to put us in the shoes of Charlie the mentally disabled AND Charlie the super-intelligent. Though he constantly treats the two as separate people, he keeps them bound by their emotional condition and changes, and you really believe that the genius is the same human being as the idiot. Even his quick deterioration at the end feels logical and consistent.
6) I can draw parallels between this and "The Lawnmower Man" (and, now that I think about it, "Phenomenon"), but I appreciate that it never went into supernatural psychic land or the 10% of your brain nonsense or anything like that. It did, ultimately, keep itself more grounded, which is what I was hoping.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on Apr 27, 2013 18:14:34 GMT -5
From Wikipedia:
Algernon is a given name which derives from the Norman-French soubriquet Aux Gernons, meaning "with moustaches". It is first heard of in reference to William de Percy, 1st Baron Percy, a Knight from Percy-en-Auge, who accompanied William the Conqueror to England in 1066, and ancestor of the Dukes, and Earls of Northumberland, many of whom bore the name. It was also used as a nickname for Eustace II, Count of Boulogne.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on Apr 27, 2013 18:41:14 GMT -5
One other thing, and I feel justified in talking about this since it's actually mentioned in the book:
One of the reasons I don't believe in the Shakespeare authorship controversy (I actually believe Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, though the writing process was far more collaborative back then than it is today) is this idea that Shakespeare couldn't possibly have known what life was like for Kings and Queens and Danes and Scots since he was just a poorly educated actor from Stratford. If it were true that one could only write about what one knows and could not research and imagine outside their own realm of experience, than this book could not exist. Daniel Keyes, I am presuming, is neither mentally disabled nor abnormally intelligent, and yet he was able to put us very convincingly into Charlie's experience.
Indeed, sci-fi, as an entire genre, could not exist if writers weren't capable of writing about things that are speculative and unknown. I do not believe, as Twain put it, that all writing is biography.
|
|
kwirk
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kwirk on May 5, 2013 9:16:18 GMT -5
The book for May/June 2013--and the first selection in our little club--is FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON by Daniel Keyes. This is an exciting one for me, as it's a book I've been meaning to read for years. It's a quick read; it's a highly-regarded classic; it's ridiculously easy to find; and it deals with psychology, one of my favorite topics. Here's the Amazon.com description: "With more than five million copies sold, Flowers for Algernon is the beloved, classic story of a mentally disabled man whose experimental quest for intelligence mirrors that of Algernon, an extraordinary lab mouse. In poignant diary entries, Charlie tells how a brain operation increases his IQ and changes his life. As the experimental procedure takes effect, Charlie's intelligence expands until it surpasses that of the doctors who engineered his metamorphosis. The experiment seems to be a scientific breakthrough of paramount importance--until Algernon begins his sudden, unexpected deterioration. Will the same happen to Charlie?" I've already read the first twenty pages or so at Barnes & Noble, and am going to go grab a copy from the library as soon as I can. So go find your own, get cracking, and come right back here when you're done to start the discussion! Ok finished the book. My initial post will be without reading other's comments. Then I'll probably do some follow on comments after reading other posts. Initial impression: First thoughts when starting the book was, "Crap, This is one of those 'dog' stories". I don't like to see movies or read books with dogs as main characters because the poor, innocent dog always get's screwed over somehow. There might be a better term for it but I think of them as 'dog' movies/books. I blame 'where the red fern grows' and 'the yearling' for traumatizing me at a young age. Despite that, the story was instantly engaging and a good read. I stuck it through, though constantly on the defense waiting for the killing blow, and hoping the story would go in an entirely wacky direction instead of down the path I expected. When Algernon was starting to behave erratically I hoped that instead of a decline he was either a) evolving the ability to time travel, and was getting confused between realities when failing in the maze b) becoming an mastermind serial killer when he attacked Minnie c) was learning to control minds when Charlie has the 'compulsion' to release him from the cage d) doing the multiple personality Smeagol/Gollum thing. Even though the story progressed as I feared, it wasn't so bad. I liked that he came to terms with his sexuality and that his insights into his past and family weren't forgotten at the end. The fact that his bakery friends forgave him and the group home seemed decent, helped me accept the ending. If it had to end that way, the author did a great job at softening the blow and making it all seem worthwhile. Dumb charlie was a lot happier than smart Charlie. It could have ended in a much more frustrating way. So I shed a few tears but wasn't extremely upset. The janitorial staff at my work are disabled and I wonder if they still get picked on... I feel like most people don't pick on the disabled outright like in the book, but there are still societal barriers. In elementary school I was in a special gifted program 2-3 days out of the week. On some days the learning disabled (LD) and gifted kids would be in the same classes together. Looking back that seemed like a novel idea and program. I wonder if they found any benefits or did a study on that, or if they just did that when a teacher was out sick or something. Other Miscellanea -While I can see why it's considered Sci-Fi it didn't really feel like Sci-Fi -The audio book had several long island accents which, though appropriate, I'm not fond of -I suspect mis-spellings may have been part of the story which I missed in the audio version, but the narrator did a pretty good job with speech patterns so I think the point was still conveyed. -Hmm, I see a few movie adaptations, I'd probably opt for the older 'Charly' -The name of the book clicked well at the end. I don't think I really like the name though, because I don't think it does a good job selling the story to new readers. -I wonder if there's any link between depression or other psychological disorders and IQ. -I kind of wish his dad would have recognized him -I wish his mom would have been smacked a couple times at some point
|
|
kwirk
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kwirk on May 5, 2013 9:46:17 GMT -5
6) I can draw parallels between this and "The Lawnmower Man" (and, now that I think about it, "Phenomenon"), but I appreciate that it never went into supernatural psychic land or the 10% of your brain nonsense or anything like that. It did, ultimately, keep itself more grounded, which is what I was hoping. I agree. The part of me that wanted it to 'go off the deep end' was because I wanted to avoid the inevitable. The fact that the story stayed true, and did so elegantly and poignantly, is what makes it a classic.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on May 6, 2013 12:39:34 GMT -5
-While I can see why it's considered Sci-Fi it didn't really feel like Sci-Fi -The audio book had several long island accents which, though appropriate, I'm not fond of -I suspect mis-spellings may have been part of the story which I missed in the audio version, but the narrator did a pretty good job with speech patterns so I think the point was still conveyed. -Hmm, I see a few movie adaptations, I'd probably opt for the older 'Charly' -The name of the book clicked well at the end. I don't think I really like the name though, because I don't think it does a good job selling the story to new readers. -I wonder if there's any link between depression or other psychological disorders and IQ. -I kind of wish his dad would have recognized him -I wish his mom would have been smacked a couple times at some point There were lots of misspellings and punctuation errors in the text, especially at the beginning and end, and I was wondering how that would translate in the audio version. There's a whole section near the beginning where Charlie is putting commas in between nearly every word. I'm also curious about 'Charly.' Just put it at the top of my Netflix queue. Apparently, it's based on the original short story that the book is expanded from. Though I understand it, I think "Flowers for Algernon" is a terrible title, and you nailed the main reason why. You have no idea what you're getting into, and it sounds like it should be a far more hardcore or pulpy sci-fi book than it is. I also wish his mom would have been smacked around a few times. Every time she went to hit Charlie for messing in his pants or having a hard time understanding something, I wanted to string her up by the ankles, even though both her and Charlie are fictional characters!
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on May 6, 2013 12:49:04 GMT -5
The janitorial staff at my work are disabled and I wonder if they still get picked on... I feel like most people don't pick on the disabled outright like in the book, but there are still societal barriers. In elementary school I was in a special gifted program 2-3 days out of the week. On some days the learning disabled (LD) and gifted kids would be in the same classes together. Looking back that seemed like a novel idea and program. I wonder if they found any benefits or did a study on that, or if they just did that when a teacher was out sick or something. That's an interesting idea, putting LD and gifted together sometimes. I helped out with the LD program at my high school, and when I was working on my Education minor in college I did some additional work with LD students. I also grew up with a girl who was--still is--pretty significantly mentally impaired, so I've had so much exposure to it in my life that I find the idea of mentally impaired people being treated the way Charlie is treated in the book inexplicable. I don't think it's as bad as it was when this book was written, but it IS still out there. Anyway, one thing that always bugged me with the way LD is handled in schools, even when I was still in high school, is how the school sticks the weakest teachers with the LD students and the best teachers with the gifted ones. This is exactly backwards, if you ask me, but I think the way they handled it in your elementary school is a really interesting take on it that I've never heard of before.
|
|
|
Post by chriscal on May 14, 2013 14:19:06 GMT -5
Hey everybody, I’m Chris – one of Scott’s friends – thanks for inviting me into the group! I’ve had a copy of Flowers for Algernon for a while now but never got around to reading it, I was glad to finally get to it.
What I liked: I enjoyed FFA a lot – it was easy to see why it’s regarded as a ‘classic’. The story was well-executed and could easily appeal to both young adults and adults. The plot has a mild sci-fi touch to it, but it could still be accessible to a wider general audience. Although I don’t think he’s written anything else of note, Keyes showed tremendous skill in writing from the point of view of Charlie as mentally disabled and then Charlie as a genius. Charlie’s intimate thoughts are believable at both of these stages and all the periods of transformation in between. The message of the book was meaningful too, as it forces you to consider what life would be like in Charlie’s shoes and whether or not life was better for him when he was disabled and oblivious. Overall, it was a great read.
What I didn’t like: The only thing I took issue with was that Charlie was a jerk to people when he became a genius. Even though he had the insight that his emotional intelligence was not on par with his cognitive intelligence - comments in his reports show that he was fully aware of this fact - he was still an ass to those around him and he made no effort to behave any differently. Scott and I discussed this yesterday and even though we know from our work in mental health that insight does not necessarily equate to behavior change, it would have been more in line with Charlie’s good-natured character to not be a jerk, no matter how smart he was.
Even though the reader is asked to consider the possibility that Charlie was better off before the operation, the reality is that the mentally disabled still have a very rough time these days. Some of the comments above question how the mentally disabled are treated now vs. the time of FFA. I’d like to think in some respects things are better , but I am sure that a large portion of these individuals still go through loads of abuse at home, at school, and in the world. Working in the mental health field, I have had some exposure to this - I know that plenty of families still dump their mentally disabled children off at sketchy institutions similar to the Warren Home in FFA, where residents are often mistreated and regulations are rarely enforced. Here in Florida, our current lawmakers have taken a lot of heat for making massive cuts to funding for services for the developmentally disabled, even though Florida already ranked something like 48th in the country in funding for developmentally disabled services.
One thing that stuck with me as I read was the connection to the Adam & Eve / Tree of Knowledge story. Keyes specifically mentioned this 4 or 5 times, otherwise I wouldn’t have placed much significance to it. Is Keyes saying that these experiments that toy with human nature are wrong? The fact that things ultimately take a bad turn supports a Biblical position that eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is bad. Following this reasoning, is Keyes insinuating that science is the devil, or am I reading too much into it?
A quick look at Keyes’ bio reveals some interesting tidbits: he first studied psychology (this is evident with the fairly accurate representation of the psych theories and practices of that time period) then became an English teacher and taught some classes for low IQ students. Then he went into writing & editing comic books under Stan Lee before publishing FFA as a short story. The FFA novel was rejected by numerous publishers because Keyes refused to change the ending into a happy one. I’m glad he didn’t – I think a happy ending would have ruined the story.
Sorry if this was a bit long, I just finished reading this morning and wanted to get my thoughts out while it was fresh in my head. Excellent choice to start the book club!
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on May 14, 2013 22:07:51 GMT -5
Hey, Chris! Glad you could be a part of the discussion, and I'm really happy that you bring such a perspective to this book in particular.
I'll just take the Tree of Knowledge thing, because it was something I thought about when reading the book as well. It's a pretty common problem in science-fiction, going all the way back to Frankenstein (arguably the first major sci-fi novel). You start with a cool science-fiction idea, and then you have to insert some provocative drama, so more often than not, you wind up with science running amok. Just look at pretty much anything by Michael Crichton; I love his work, but if you read too much into it, the guy is seriously hostile to scientific progress.
I don't think Keyes put the Eden references in there to make a harsh criticism of science--though you can definitely interpret it that way. I think Keyes probably put it in there to flesh out some of the moral ambiguity and create some underlying tension. In the end, Keyes side-steps making any kind of grand judgment about intelligence and learning, wisely leaving the ultimate judgement up to the reader. The Eden references serve a plot purpose, like the witches in Macbeth, giving readers one possible explanation for everything that happens, but certainly not standing alone as the only explanation.
|
|
kwirk
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kwirk on May 16, 2013 9:31:38 GMT -5
The janitorial staff at my work are disabled and I wonder if they still get picked on... I feel like most people don't pick on the disabled outright like in the book, but there are still societal barriers. In elementary school I was in a special gifted program 2-3 days out of the week. On some days the learning disabled (LD) and gifted kids would be in the same classes together. Looking back that seemed like a novel idea and program. I wonder if they found any benefits or did a study on that, or if they just did that when a teacher was out sick or something. That's an interesting idea, putting LD and gifted together sometimes. I helped out with the LD program at my high school, and when I was working on my Education minor in college I did some additional work with LD students. I also grew up with a girl who was--still is--pretty significantly mentally impaired, so I've had so much exposure to it in my life that I find the idea of mentally impaired people being treated the way Charlie is treated in the book inexplicable. I don't think it's as bad as it was when this book was written, but it IS still out there. Anyway, one thing that always bugged me with the way LD is handled in schools, even when I was still in high school, is how the school sticks the weakest teachers with the LD students and the best teachers with the gifted ones. This is exactly backwards, if you ask me, but I think the way they handled it in your elementary school is a really interesting take on it that I've never heard of before. Now that I think on it, the ones who joined up with gifted were called ld/gifted. They were high functioning, probably ADHD and dyslexia. Still curious about the details of the program though.
|
|
kwirk
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kwirk on May 19, 2013 17:48:24 GMT -5
What I didn’t like: The only thing I took issue with was that Charlie was a jerk to people when he became a genius. Even though he had the insight that his emotional intelligence was not on par with his cognitive intelligence - comments in his reports show that he was fully aware of this fact - he was still an ass to those around him and he made no effort to behave any differently. Scott and I discussed this yesterday and even though we know from our work in mental health that insight does not necessarily equate to behavior change, it would have been more in line with Charlie’s good-natured character to not be a jerk, no matter how smart he was. One thing that stuck with me as I read was the connection to the Adam & Eve / Tree of Knowledge story. Keyes specifically mentioned this 4 or 5 times, otherwise I wouldn’t have placed much significance to it. Is Keyes saying that these experiments that toy with human nature are wrong? The fact that things ultimately take a bad turn supports a Biblical position that eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is bad. Following this reasoning, is Keyes insinuating that science is the devil, or am I reading too much into it? A quick look at Keyes’ bio reveals some interesting tidbits: he first studied psychology (this is evident with the fairly accurate representation of the psych theories and practices of that time period) then became an English teacher and taught some classes for low IQ students. Then he went into writing & editing comic books under Stan Lee before publishing FFA as a short story. The FFA novel was rejected by numerous publishers because Keyes refused to change the ending into a happy one. I’m glad he didn’t – I think a happy ending would have ruined the story. Nice insight Chris. I'm glad to know that the professionals think Charlie could have stay good-natured despite increased intelligence. I didn't like self centered Charlie so much, but I chalked it up to his emotional immaturity. As far as the tree of knowledge reference, I'd probably say it was used as a talking point but I didn't get the vibe that science was evil. Charlie was striving to help further the science and they mentioned how scientific failures are valuable. If it had ended with Charlie's death or him ending up worse off than he started I would have considered the science is evil thing more. And thanks for that Keyes' bio. That's interesting. Glad you joined us! I'm trying to get Scott to post his thoughts too, but he's always doing school work.
|
|
kwirk
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kwirk on May 19, 2013 17:51:25 GMT -5
When discussing this with Scott he disagreed with the idea that the bakery 'forgave' him. He saw it more as they were never really his friends and in the end they 'became' his friend. I like that explanation better since they seemed to stick up for him in the end, which they didn't do before.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on May 26, 2013 19:56:20 GMT -5
So I watched "Charly," the 1968 film based on this story. It roughly follows the book--though it omits some major subplots in order to focus almost exclusively on the relationship with Miss Kinnian--but I feel like it completely misses the point. At no point is Charly's humanity questioned by anyone, and the climactic scene at the symposium is used just as a plot developer in which Charly learns of the temporary effect of his change (something he was not made aware of earlier). The film also goes completely off the rails near the middle, flying into psychedelic 60's land with little explanation, but recovers for the final act. It's a fair adaptation, but it doesn't delve into any of the meaningful aspects of the story. In the movie, for example, Charly has no family.
The only thing that really salvages it is the acting, with both Cliff Robertson and Claire Bloom putting out admirable performances. Alas, it's not enough to make this much of a memorable movie. It's a shame, too, because I think the book could translate relatively well into a more provocative and interesting film.
|
|
|
Post by dgmarnp on Jun 8, 2013 19:32:28 GMT -5
Hi Kid and Friends. I first read this years ago when Charley first came out. This time was different due to my medical knowledge and life experiences. While a good but predictable story, it addresses many issues that continue o this day. I'm not sure that I would have enjoyed it as much if I didn't have a history with it. The movie, which I saw first, does not follow the book all that well--tending to be more of Hollywood's formula pics. However, the acting was fantastic. But the book gave much more insight into Charley's state of mind, confusions, and issues. I do feel that there are still some gaps in the anxiety this would have produced and the medical side of it was not realistic--but I have to remind myself that it was written many years ago before we had come to the point we are now.
|
|
|
Post by amelia on Jun 15, 2013 14:48:19 GMT -5
I read the book in about 2 days. I enjoyed the transitions from poor grammar to perfect grammar to poor again. I've always enjoyed books that are written in a journal format and this was a unique version of that format.
In general I didn't find it delved very far into science fiction. But more on that later.
The biggest impact this book had on me were the relationships within Charlie's family as he was growing up. It made me think hard about how I would treat a child with a severe disability. As some of you know, my kid Tommy, had a speech delay which I found embarrassing and frustrating (I've been doing a lot of soul searching lately). Also the parts about Charlie being beaten for potty training issues and normal tantrums were very difficult for me to read. I really sympathized with his internal dialogue of fear of consequences of involuntary actions.
I also watched the movie with Eric and like he said it took a hard left in the middle where in the book Charlie gets his own apartment and goes out drinking and dancing and sexing with his next door neighbor. In the movie the director and editing staff apparently dropped some LCD to translate this section of the book. It was wacked, seriously. At that point the movie went from a B to a D for me.
Back to the book. I really liked the point where he becomes smarter than his research team and goes above them to get his own research grant. The pacing of the book was really good here, he was at his smartest and trying to solve the problem of losing his smarts. But then after he determines he can't fix it and Algernon dies, the pacing got inconsistent for me. But maybe it makes sense since he was losing it and the book mirrored those transitions.
After thinking about it more (during writing this entry) I think this was a very well written book. But again, not traditional science fiction. From Wikipedia: Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas." I think that about sums it up for me.
|
|
ericv
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by ericv on Jun 18, 2013 5:34:34 GMT -5
Hello, everybody. I finished the book near the end of last month (Geeze, where did this month go!?), but I completely forgot to contribute to the forum. I did the book part, but completely neglected to do the club part.
Overall, I liked the book. I thought it was a little slow at times, and the fact that Charlie was a jerk for most of the book bothered me, but other than those two things it was an enjoyable read. Oh, and the fact that Charlie's desperately mom needed a smack upside the head with a quickness. That bothered me too. So three things then.
One thing that's been brought up in the posts that I've found interesting involves a scene near the end of the book. Someone, I don't remember who, maybe Eric, mentioned how heartwarming it was when Charlie's old bakery "friends" stood up for him when that one guy started picking on him. This scene struck me in a completely different way. I didn't see it as them helping out their friend, but as them defending their punching bag. They treated him poorly when he was stupid, they treated him like garbage when he was smart, why should I think that they've changed their ways? Because they've seen him regress back to being mentally impaired? I don't think so. Plus, one of the aspects of Charlie getting smarter was that he had a better understanding of what was happening around him. When he was mentally handicapped his knowledge of his surroundings only extended to what was right in front of him. What Charlie saw as them standing up for him could have been something entirely different.
Man, what a bummer. I'm usually an optimist and I try to assume the best about most situations, but I can't shake the feeling that there was some shady business going down that Charlie just didn't understand.
Now, that I've remembered the club part of the book club I belong to I'll probably check this forum once a day, usually around this time. Its right before I head out the door for work.
|
|
|
Post by E. Magill on Jun 19, 2013 6:54:00 GMT -5
They treated him poorly when he was stupid, they treated him like garbage when he was smart, why should I think that they've changed their ways? Because they've seen him regress back to being mentally impaired? I don't think so. Plus, one of the aspects of Charlie getting smarter was that he had a better understanding of what was happening around him. When he was mentally handicapped his knowledge of his surroundings only extended to what was right in front of him. What Charlie saw as them standing up for him could have been something entirely different. That's a good point. The scene didn't really strike me either way, but I think we should keep in mind that Charlie is an unreliable narrator, moreso the more mentally disabled he is. We only see things the way he interprets them, so it's hard to say whether his coworkers at the bakery had a genuine change of heart after reflecting on what happened with Charlie or whether they're the same jackasses they were in the beginning.
|
|
ericv
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by ericv on Jun 19, 2013 17:47:34 GMT -5
I would like to believe that they were standing up for their friend in the end, but I don't know. They sure seemed like a real bunch of jerks.
Okay, two quick questions!
What do you think happens past the ending? I've been pondering it a lot and I would like to think that Strauss and Nemur could prefect the procedure and eventually go back and help Charlie. I mean, it seemed pretty final, but Charlie did spend some time studying the procedure and his regression. I don't see why they couldn't go the few extra steps, build on his research, and bring him back. Maybe I'm just being a dreamer.... and then his old crew at the bakery could throw him a party to celebrate...... okay, now I'm just being ridiculous.
And now the most important question of all: Alice or Fay? For me its Alice all the way. She has a good job, a good heart for working with the mentally disabled, and keeps a neat apartment. Sounds good to me! Fay seemed like hot mess, and to be frank, a borderline drunk. I know I'm what the kids call a "square" but I don't think I could handle going out every night or any of her drama. Just her messy apartment alone would scare me away.
|
|