# Flowers for Algernon (novelette), by Daniel Keyes



## Omphalos (Jan 3, 2009)

When people say that SF is a gloomy body of literature, I think that they have stories like this week's in mind. Flowers for Algernon is not a tale of the failure of science to make people's lives better. The operation that was performed in this story was expected to fail, so what it really is about is how science and scientists treat other humans like lab rats, and the effect that experiments that are not wisely performed can wreck havoc on the lives of the participants. Five out of five stars...Please click here, or on the book cover above, to be taken to the complete review..


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 4, 2009)

I can't quite agree that this was what the story was about, though it is certainly one valid interpretation. To me, it always seemed much more about several other things: the fact that it is as often -- if not more so --through failure that we learn and grow, and that such losses are inevitable if we are to grow; it is about courage and sacrifice and, ultimately, optimism (even as he is regressing, Gordon recognizes the importance of this step and that it does open doors to learning more about increasing intelligence); the precarious balance between intellect and emotion; loss and grief and recognizing your ineluctable demise (even if not physically -- though that, too, seems to be a side-effect of the operation)... just an entire load of very powerful things are dealt with here, in quite small compass, and with amazing skill. Even after having read and reread this story over the past 40 years (minus two), it can still raise a lump in my throat and bring tears to my eyes... but that isn't just because it is bitter, or a tale of loss; it's because of all the many, many emotions and issues the tale deals with, with consummate art. A wonderful, complex, touching, painful, and joyous tale, all rolled into one.

I agree: HIGHLY recommended....


----------



## Jbshare (Jan 4, 2009)

I concur.  One of the interesting aspects of Flowers for Algernon is that they are truly timeless.  It is a story of how some humans have so much control over others, that they can become both superior, but at the same time, everything is equal.

I agree.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 4, 2009)

One of my all-time favourites. I agree that reading it is a truly moving experience.


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 4, 2009)

You know, I usually take a much more optimistic view of SF stories that I read than I did with this one.  I frequently get into debates about whether or not the genre is a gloomy one or not.  In fact, I just got into one on a friend's blog recently about whether or not Octavia Butler was a gloomy writer.  I took the con position, because I think her books are about transformation (as the good Mr. Panshin likes to say), and that is almost always positive.  But with this one, I have never been able to see it.  In the novelette the most terrible, horrible thing has happened to Charley.  Ive tried, J.D.  I promise you I've tried.  I just don't see it though.  I cannot say that I think Charley is any different at the end of the story, save that he knows he has to leave because he cannot make people happy any longer by acting like a buffoon.  That is something that even pre-operation Charley could have seen.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 4, 2009)

The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this story is one of the greatest expositions of the axiom '_show don't tell_' ever written.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Jan 4, 2009)

Often *rightly* touted by those who claim that SF *CAN* be about people,and CAN be skilfully,nay,MOVINGLY,written


----------



## AE35Unit (Jan 4, 2009)

Just added this to my wishlist on bookmooch


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 5, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Just added this to my wishlist on bookmooch



The novel is not as good as the novelette.  If you want to read the novelette it is in The Hugo Winners, Vol 1, edited by Asimov.


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 5, 2009)

mosaix said:


> The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this story is one of the greatest expositions of the axiom '_show don't tell_' ever written.



I was just thinking something along those lines yesterday.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jan 5, 2009)

Omphalos said:


> The novel is not as good as the novelette.  If you want to read the novelette it is in The Hugo Winners, Vol 1, edited by Asimov.



Oh right so the nevellete was expanded into a novel by the same author.
Thanks for the info!


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 5, 2009)

de nada, amigo.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Jan 5, 2009)

Omphalos said:


> The novel is not as good as the novelette.  If you want to read the novelette it is in The Hugo Winners, Vol 1, edited by Asimov.



I'm one of those who think differently, as mentioned around here. It seems it might be the case of which you read first -- I read the novel first and absolutely adored it and when I read the short story it seemed rather condensed and didn't have all the back story that I enjoyed in the novel. But I know that some people who read the novelette first feel that the novel is too drawn-out compared to it. 

I personally absolutely adore the novel and it's one of those books that I can read in one sitting, again and again. The last four pages or so are some of the saddest in literature...


----------



## Ian Whates (Jan 7, 2009)

Omphalos said:


> The novel is not as good as the novelette. If you want to read the novelette it is in The Hugo Winners, Vol 1, edited by Asimov.


 
From my point of view, Omphalos is entirely right. The novel is not as good as the novelette. The novel is merely extremely good. I read the novel first and it immediately nestled into my top 10 all time favourites. I then read the novelette and realised it was even better, with all the emotional impact of the longer version but condensed. 

Both are outstanding.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Jan 7, 2009)

Well, that's my theory trounced, then...!


----------



## Ian Whates (Jan 7, 2009)

HoopyFrood said:


> Well, that's my theory trounced, then...!


 
Hey, Hoops, we're all entiled to our own opinions, 'tis what makes the world go round (forget money, which is highly over-rated!).


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 7, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Oh right so the nevellete was expanded into a novel by the same author.
> Thanks for the info!


 
I just looked in my collection, AE-35, and its also in the SFWA's Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Vol 1 (the short stories), edited by Silverberg, which is actualy currently in print.  You will probably have an easier time finding that one.


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 7, 2009)

Ian Whates said:


> Hey, Hoops, we're all entiled to our own opinions, 'tis what makes the world go round (forget money, which is highly over-rated!).


 
And quite scarce these days.


----------



## Contrary Mary (Jan 8, 2009)

I have read both the novelette and the novel and both are outstanding.

I feel the extenede back story in the novel--epescially the parts about Charlie's childhood--enhances the story.

Treat yourself, people and read both if you have not--you will not be disappointed.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2009)

I agree that both should be read. While I prefer the original short story, nonetheless the novel is an exceptional piece of work as well.

And Omphalos: I think here it's just a case of it hitting different people differently. It's a painful story, no matter whether you see it in a positive or "negative" light (I qualify the term because I think very few will feel negatively about the quality of the story, only about the "downbeat" feel), as it really gets to the heartmeat of being human. Certainly one of the best sf stories ever written, and frankly one of the best stories I've come across, period.

You can also find it in various other older anthologies, as it quickly caught attention far beyond the world of sff when it was published, being recognized as one of the best stories of the year, highly acclaimed both critically and popularly....


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 19, 2009)

It is one of the stories they used to make you read in 7th and 8th grade, both years.
I think that I might have to reread it; it has been awhile.


PS It is also a movie.


----------



## dask (Jan 20, 2009)

I haven't read the novel but I have read the novelette and I can't imagine anyone reading this and walking away thinking their time was wasted. It's simply stunning sf.


----------



## dask (Jan 20, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> It is one of the stories they used to make you read in 7th and 8th grade, both years.
> I think that I might have to reread it; it has been awhile.
> 
> 
> PS It is also a movie.


 
Actually it's at least two: CHARLY, a theatrical film starring Cliff Robertson, and FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON, a television movie starring Matthew Modine.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 20, 2009)

dask said:


> I haven't read the novel but I have read the novelette and I can't imagine anyone reading this and walking away thinking their time was wasted. It's simply stunning sf.


 
The only nit I would pick here is that I would argue one could leave off the "sf" -- this one is simply stunning... period!


----------



## Connavar (Jan 20, 2009)

My policy is the original story in short or novella is always best to read first than the later novel made to make money in novels dominated book bizz.

Thanks to these last post i know there is a novelette and wont get the novel to try the story.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 21, 2009)

Connavar said:


> My policy is the original story in short or novella is always best to read first than the later novel made to make money in novels dominated book bizz.
> 
> Thanks to these last post i know there is a novelette and wont get the novel to try the story.


 
By no means is this always true, Connavar; nor is such a thing a recent trend, as it dates back to the 19th century, at least (Le Fanu expanded several of his shorter tales into full novels, often improving them considerably in the process; Uncle Silas being one of the results, for instance). There are times that a writer has an idea and rushes to get the thing down, but later realizes they have much more to say on the subject. There are also plenty of occasions when they themselves become dissatisfied with the original shorter version and feel they (and their ideas and talent) have grown, and they rewrite an earlier piece because of this, often expanding it along the way. This is, in fact, quite frequent with writers of sf from the 1920s on.

In this case, though I myself prefer the original short story, I can see where the novel is actually quite complementary, as it expands on various ideas only briefly touched on in the shorter tale, and introduces a great deal more to characters who were only sketched in originally. It also tackles things that simply were still taboo in the magazine sf of the period. As I said before, both are very much worth checking out, as each offers much that the other doesn't have....


----------



## Connavar (Jan 21, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> By no means is this always true, Connavar; nor is such a thing a recent trend, as it dates back to the 19th century, at least (Le Fanu expanded several of his shorter tales into full novels, often improving them considerably in the process; Uncle Silas being one of the results, for instance). There are times that a writer has an idea and rushes to get the thing down, but later realizes they have much more to say on the subject. There are also plenty of occasions when they themselves become dissatisfied with the original shorter version and feel they (and their ideas and talent) have grown, and they rewrite an earlier piece because of this, often expanding it along the way. This is, in fact, quite frequent with writers of sf from the 1920s on.
> 
> In this case, though I myself prefer the original short story, I can see where the novel is actually quite complementary, as it expands on various ideas only briefly touched on in the shorter tale, and introduces a great deal more to characters who were only sketched in originally. It also tackles things that simply were still taboo in the magazine sf of the period. As I said before, both are very much worth checking out, as each offers much that the other doesn't have....



I think its the best way cause you can read original story first and then see what the author did make when he enlarged the story into a novel.  

Also i prefer shorter stories in SFF, too many great authors of the past in the fields has made me like that.

I know its not a recent trend but in SF specially many authors has done their award winning shorter stories in to novels when it became the era of paperbacks,hardcovers.   Thats why i prefer the short version read first.  You dont want to be cheated by the original rated story cause reading it after novel version isnt the same.

Also about how it not a recent trend, i was reading the introduction of The Caves of Steel a couple of days ago where Asimov talked about how he came up with the Baley Robot series.  Some editior wanted a novel version of a Robot story after Asimov became popular with the readers for the early Robot stories like Robbie,other I,Robot stories.


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 21, 2009)

In circumstances like these I like to read both the orininal short version, then the later longer one, Connovar.  Sometimes there is a start difference in quality, sometimes not.  Stories like Ender's Game, Blood Music and Beggars in Spain, for example.  In stories like these and Flowers for Algernon the authors get their points across well in each, and I like to compare the two.  That is a great way, I think, to understand an author and where they are coming from both with teh story, and in general.


----------



## dask (Jan 22, 2009)

Omphalos said:


> In circumstances like these I like to read both the orininal short version, then the later longer one, Connovar. Sometimes there is a start difference in quality, sometimes not. Stories like Ender's Game, Blood Music and Beggars in Spain, for example. In stories like these and Flowers for Algernon the authors get their points across well in each, and I like to compare the two. That is a great way, I think, to understand an author and where they are coming from both with teh story, and in general.


 
Whenever possible the above is the way to do it. I enjoyed the short version of "The Witches Of Karres" by James H. Schmitz so much I read the novel and liked it even more. However, if I remember correctly the novel is pretty much an extension of the story, not an expanded reintegrated rewrite.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 22, 2009)

dask said:


> Whenever possible the above is the way to do it. I enjoyed the short version of "The Witches Of Karres" by James H. Schmitz so much I read the novel and liked it even more. However, if I remember correctly the novel is pretty much an extension of the story, not an expanded reintegrated rewrite.


 
It's been a while, but as I recall, you're correct on that. Certainly, that's one of the _wonkiest_ sf stories of all time....

Connavar: I'd agree that that is, in general, a good policy. For one thing, if you don't like what you read, you're not expending nearly as much time; for another, you get to see the writer expand their ideas, which can be fascinating in itself.

On *The Caves of Steel* -- IIRC, it was Horace L. Gold, who was editor of _Galaxy_, someone who had published Asimov for years, and who had had a lot of editorial input during that time. As I recall, he suggested a science fiction detective story, something Isaac was dubious about, but having a love of both fields, took it as a challenge to prove it could be pulled off, something about which there was considerable doubt. (In fact, according to some sources, it was John W. Campbell -- then one of the most powerful voices in sf as editor of _Astounding Science Fiction_ -- who claimed that the two genres were incompatible. Wiki mentions this, but doesn't go into detail beyond that, but you can find remarks on this in scattered sources both by Asimov, iirc, and historians of the genre.)

I may be misremembering some of this, as it has been some time since I last read Asimov's account of the matter, but for what it's worth....


----------



## Connavar (Jan 23, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> It's been a while, but as I recall, you're correct on that. Certainly, that's one of the _wonkiest_ sf stories of all time....
> 
> Connavar: I'd agree that that is, in general, a good policy. For one thing, if you don't like what you read, you're not expending nearly as much time; for another, you get to see the writer expand their ideas, which can be fascinating in itself.
> 
> ...



Yep it was Gold, i actually have Asimov's own words mention all the things in your post about it.   Interesting things you read about how he felt about John W. Cambpell.     Very interesting to read a legendary writer like Asimov's own words about getting published in mags and the editor having so much power.  How proud/glad Asimov was when Cambpell first accepted a story without changing anything in it before it was published.   

Makes you think of how easy famous writers has it today.  In the hole we give you millions in a 3 books contract and you have to write a book a year and thats it.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 23, 2009)

Of course, in those days, Asimov could (and did) hop a subway and actually go see JWC in person to talk over stories and story ideas with him, even as a very new writer. Not that easy to do, these days....

Speaking of which... not to take the thread further off-topic, but I'm wondering, Connavar: given your interest in "Golden Age" sf... have you ever read any of the stories Campbell wrote? While he's by no means a favorite of mine, he did write some damn' good stuff in his time; "Twilight" remains a very powerful piece, and "Who Goes There?" is deservedly a classic....


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 23, 2009)

I loved Campbells stuff that he wrote as Don A. Stuart.  Here's a link to the recent Nesfa collection of all of those pieces:

Omphalos' Book Reviews: Book Info


----------



## Connavar (Jan 27, 2009)

J.D i was surprised when i read somwhere that JWC wrote sf himself and i read some of them being classic, maybe even the ones you mentioned.  

As you said me and golden age sf are good friends by the judge of the sf books i have  so i will eventually read him ,prolly sooner than later.


----------



## Omphalos (Jan 27, 2009)

Here is a link to some of the stuff that Campbell wrote under his own name, Connovar.  

Science Fiction (Bookshelf) - Gutenberg


----------



## Rodders (Aug 11, 2022)

I thought I'd bump this as i think it's one of those books that is well worth talking about. On my TBR pile to a long time and i finally got around to reading it last year and i thought it was a stunning book. 

The book to me seemed to focus on Charlie's loneliness above everything else. Always outside of the group, Charlie is made fun of as a mentally challenged person, but he's unaware and happy. (Ignorance truly is bliss, eh?)  As his intellect increases, he's rejected by this "friends" and i felt that he never quite connected with anyone. Charlie's degradation near the end of the book is especially sad because he knows what's happening. 

Ultimately, i think it's less lonely to be the fool than to be more intelligenter than everyone else.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 11, 2022)

I would recommend anyone who has loved this to give The Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon a try. Slightly different angle as it's about an autistic person (Moon's son is autistic) and when a 'cure' becomes available it's about the ethics and desirability of the cure. It's not up there on the same level as Flowers but it is very good and nothing like Moon's more normal adventure space operas.


----------



## Rodders (Aug 11, 2022)

I'll be sure to check it out.


----------

