Euty’s right. This will end in tears.
I didn’t like the book when I read it. Our school had some problems with it back when it was first published, but we still have it in the school library.
You are a profoundly disturbed individual, fauxpas.
NO, MGibson, that does not count.
Seriously, even if you were being facetious, saying that, I still wonder whose the bloody hell idea it was to change the fucking ending of the story? I won’t post any spoilers, but suffice to say, this was not a tweak along the lines of the girl instead of the boy being the computer expert in Jurassic Park, or Shawshank Redemption ending with Andy and Red meeting on the beach. It was a total reversal, utterly counter to what Cormier was leading up to. Whether you like the book or not, that was not the way it was supposed to end.
Anyway, fauxpas, wait’ll you have to read Brave New World. I think your head will explode.
In the case of fauxpas, that shouldn’t produce anything more than a barely-perceptible “pop.”
Reviews and analysis of the book by middle/high schoolers.
Is that connected to the brainbone?
I don’t actually laugh out loud much when reading, but that did it.
No, no, burning books is way too violent. What we’ll do is gather all the books together. We’ll give them milk and cookies. Then we’ll tuck them in with comfy pillows and blankets in front of a warm fire. Then when they’ve all fallen asleep, we’ll shoot them in the head.
I read the book, but honestly don’t remember any homosexual episodes.
Friedo, am I disturbing or disturbed. Or both?! I guess I’m just normal, but then again… normal in my vocabulary might mean something else then what you believe it to be.
They gotta start giving more homework in school.
Or less. Literacy: it’s not for everyone.
Okay, Lamia, I admit it, you called it. Teach me to give the OP the benefit of the doubt…
I’m 29 and just finished reading the book for a class. I did find it to be pretty poorly written–but of course, I don’t believe any book, movie, etc should be banned.
Without going too much into the plot, there are no homosexual “episodes.” What Cormier does, however, is to set the hero up against any number of hardships, which he weathers just fine. It is only when the hero is called a “faggot” that he physically reacts. In other words, a charge of being gay is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In a later conversation between two of the novel’s bullies, one asks if the accusation is true. “Of course not,” the other replies, “but the one thing a person can’t stand is being called something he’s not.”
Now, I have several problems with this. Cormier seems to imply that if the hero, Jerry, WERE gay, then he wouldn’t be upset by the remark at all. Also, why not have the bully call Jerry a “coward” rather than a “faggot,” since Jerry’s clearly not a coward either? The novel’s clumsy execution makes it seem that a “true American boy” can handle anything, even his mother’s death, but must draw the line and lash out if he is called a faggot.
I’ll admit, however, that this might very well be the world-view of a 14 year old boy, and Cormier might understand their psychology much better than I do. All in all, though, the use of the word faggot and its accompanying psychological explanation came across as pretty lazy writing and character exploration in my opinion.
Dude, it was 1974. I mean, Jerry also felt inadequate because he saw a guy smoking a joint, which he’d never done. And I daresay that at an all-boys’ school, there’s an enormous amount of pressure to be as much of an alpha male as possible. The whole thing was about his challenge to go from boy to man.
I’m so confused. What’s with these people who got a positive message from the book? If you did, then never read the sequel.
Gah both of those books are so depressing.
Perhaps he was simply telling it like it was, from the vantage point of the characters. I don’t think there was any particular anti-gay message in the book, quite the opposite. I think he was, in his own way, trying to expose the wrongness of anti-gay hatred.
Blaron makes a strong point ,it should in a way be banned…but then again…
First, I don’t think the fact that it was written in 1974 has anything to do with anything, myself. But ymmv.
Secondly, sure, I think it’s definitely possible that Cormier has a better understanding than I do about how a 14 year old boy might feel about the situation. But I still think he gives a cheap psych job on the reason why Jerry reacts to being a called faggot while he keeps his cools about everything else. I don’t think this makes the book homophobic, but I do think it makes it rather poorly written.