What is Happiness? - The Perks of Being a Wallflower

            Reading this book was exhausting for me, honestly. Reading all of these experiences and feelings Charlie goes through left me feeling mentally and emotionally drained. I am not a particularly emotional person (except for rage, I’m full of that fiery passion). I tend to be more logical and analytical to the point where on multiple and separate occasions I’ve been called a “disembodied brain” so this was difficult for me to get through and not feel so tired. It’s interesting, Charlie says in the book that he doesn’t consider a book or movie good unless he walks away after it feeling differently, as if what he sees or reads changes him. I felt that way after I finished reading this novel. For about two days after, I just felt as though I was in this haze and I couldn’t stop thinking about everything that I read.

            This text and the emotions I felt from it reminded me so much of this book called Go Ask Alice. For those who haven’t read it, it’s an anonymous diary this young girl writes as she becomes addicted to drugs in the 1970s. There has been speculation as to whether or not it is partially nonfiction or fully fictional, because it was published originally in 1971 as written by an anonymous person but that has since been mostly cleared up. Basically, it was this manufactured story meant to serve as warning to teenagers at the time not to use drugs. With that being said, it was still a good read and I recommend it if you liked Perks. Aside from the blatant propaganda of it, it was interesting. Be warned, it is somewhat (not really, in my opinion) explicit. It’s held a solid position on the banned books list which I think makes it all the more enticing, but here’s a link to an article from a couple of years ago surrounding the controversy of the book if you’re interested: http://www.bustle.com/articles/29829-go-ask-alice-is-still-awash-in-controversy-43-years-after-publication.

            I am honestly not sure how I feel about Chbosky’s portrayal of adolescence in Perks. Aside from running my mouth all the time and being argumentative, I was a pretty tame teenager and so were the majority of my friends so I can’t say that Chbosky writes about many experiences I can relate to. One of the only things I found myself being able to understand was the issue of suicide. In my freshman year of high school, one of the guys I knew in my grade killed himself and then two weeks later, a girl in my neighborhood killed herself. My friend lived next door to her and was hanging out with his friends outside when he heard the gunshot. It was really hard seeing the aftermath and having to carry on with our days like everything was normal when it definitely wasn’t. Other than that though, I think all of the things Charlie has experienced and witnessed is a rare thing (or at least I hope so, I really hope so).

            This book caused me to have several unresolved questions. I wondered why Michael’s father didn’t cry at his son’s funeral. I thought that maybe his father just doesn’t grieve that way, because each person handles trauma differently, but I also thought it could have something to do with the gender roles thrust upon all of us. As a man, a father, he may not feel as though he is allowed to cry or show emotion, but rather he must be stoic and “strong”. I saw this issue of gender roles come up over and over again throughout the text. For example, when Charlie’s family is watching the finale of MASH and he catches his dad crying, but his dad asks him to keep it a secret because he doesn’t want anyone to know he cries (pg.17). As for the women, one thing I noticed is that Charlie consistently refers to conflicts that arise and says “and my mom was quiet”. I wondered if this is because of her past because her dad physically abused her, the gender role her society imposes upon her which expects her to be docile and unassuming, or her own personality aside from those factors. In a separate context on page 23-24, Charlie makes an observation of the visibility of gender roles without quite fully understanding the connection he has made. He says “In the hallways, I see the girls wearing the guys’ jackets, and I think about the idea of property. And I wonder if anyone is really happy” which brings me to my broader question: Are the characters happy in the roles they occupy? Are they content with filling these roles because it allows them to easily fit in to society’s status quo or are the dissatisfied with how these roles can tend to infringe upon their agency? And if they are only happy with the roles they fill because it allows them to “belong” is that true, fulfilling happiness? That kind of starts to get into the need to achieve self-actualization versus fulfilling needs to belong which becomes a whole analysis of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and which level of happiness is ultimately the most important but that is just unnecessarily psychological in this context, I think.