Flowers for Algernon

[JustPassingThrough]

I had read the novel in high school, then they made us watch the movie with Cliff Robertson, but it wasn't until last year that I came across the short story and found out that it came first. I have to say that I liked the short story better.

 

[antiloquax]

I am surely going to read this quite soon!

 

[mosaix]

Out of interest, does anyone else see parallels between Flowers For Algernon and Frankenstein?

In a way, especially in the longer version of the story, scientists create a monster.

 

[JustPassingThrough]

The Frankenstein parallel is interesting- but instead of the scientist creating him, even though he did, the first person that I think of that "created" Charlie was the teacher.

 

[HoopyFrood]

Depends on the definition of monster, I guess, but thinking on it last night, certainly can see the parallels between the two books now. A being created by science, which inevitably loses control over it. Increased intelligence and growth, but also so naive and undeveloped in other area -- and as such, frustrated and destructive.

I don't think I've said in this thread, but I am a complete Novel advocate. I think it's been discussed elsewhere that generally it's the first version that you read that sticks with you, and it was the novel for me. The short story seems to lack all the extra details that make the ending oh-so-heart wrenching. I've read the book 10+ times now (possibly my favourite book) and it still gets me.

 

[J-Sun]

I don't think I've said in this thread, but I am a complete Novel advocate. I think it's been discussed elsewhere that generally it's the first version that you read that sticks with you, and it was the novel for me. The short story seems to lack all the extra details that make the ending oh-so-heart wrenching. I've read the book 10+ times now (possibly my favourite book) and it still gets me.

It has been discussed somewhere, and it may be so - I'm a complete story advocate, I read it first, the novel seems to clutter up the clarity and precision that made the story so heart-wrenching. I've read the story multiple times and it still gets me.

It's a pretty remarkable story in whatever form it's told. I just don't know that you can really have a perfect novel because it's such an expansive relatively amorphous form. You can nearly have a perfect story and it nearly is.

But, in sum, to all who have yet to read it, read it, in whatever form.

 

[JustPassingThrough]

I think I said it before, and if I didn't I am going to say it now so that way I will have said it- I read the novel first, then our teacher showed up the movie (which I seem to recall we were excited by because it showed boob or something like that) and then later, much later, like the ticking clock of passing time later, I happened across the short story (which I didn't even know it was based on) and read that. Having seen all three of the versions I have to say three things: Read the story any way you can. I happened to like the short story version. And I forget the third thing.

 

[mosaix]

Depends on the definition of monster, I guess, but thinking on it last night, certainly can see the parallels between the two books now. A being created by science, which inevitably loses control over it. Increased intelligence and growth, but also so naive and undeveloped in other area -- and as such, frustrated and destructive.

Also, both unable to come to terms with the world as it is.

 

[Parson]

I saw "Charlie" years and years ago. I would say it may be the best movie I have ever seen. I have not read "Flowers for Algernon" --- Although I knew the movie was based on it. Having read through this thread I may well have to remedy that situation.

Maybe I can steal my daughter's Kindle and get a cheap download. He says, not believing it for an instant.

 

[No One]

I saw "Charlie" years and years ago. I would say it may be the best movie I have ever seen. I have not read "Flowers for Algernon" --- Although I knew the movie was based on it. Having read through this thread I may well have to remedy that situation.

Maybe I can steal my daughter's Kindle and get a cheap download. He says, not believing it for an instant.

I'm assuming we're talking about the 1968 film adaptation here, which, curiously enough, I've just finished watching (having read the book less than a year ago as one of Hoopy's excellent recommendations).

Overall I thought it was a good film with a strong performance from Cliff Robertson, and while I understand that matching the nuances of Charly's post-op progression with the book would've been nigh on impossible (especially as the book details all of it from Charly's POV) I was disappointed with the ending, which entirely cuts out his regression. If nothing else, it makes me appreciate that despite being a short book, Keyes worked in a great deal of character and information.

If you loved the film Parson, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the novel, which I hold to be substantially more poignant. I'm sure you wouldn't regret it.

In fact, I'm thinking I'll be re-reading it myself in the coming weeks.

 

[J-Sun]

Maybe I can steal my daughter's Kindle and get a cheap download. He says, not believing it for an instant.

If you want the story, it's in a zillion anthologies including The Hugo Winners and The SF Hall of Fame which are both essential anyway and may not be too hard to find in used paperback.

 

[Parson]

I'm assuming we're talking about the 1968 film adaptation here, which, curiously enough, I've just finished watching (having read the book less than a year ago as one of Hoopy's excellent recommendations).

Overall I thought it was a good film with a strong performance from Cliff Robertson, and while I understand that matching the nuances of Charly's post-op progression with the book would've been nigh on impossible (especially as the book details all of it from Charly's POV) I was disappointed with the ending, which entirely cuts out his regression. If nothing else, it makes me appreciate that despite being a short book, Keyes worked in a great deal of character and information.

If you loved the film Parson, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the novel, which I hold to be substantially more poignant. I'm sure you wouldn't regret it.

In fact, I'm thinking I'll be re-reading it myself in the coming weeks.

I will indeed be looking for it. Thanks J Sun for the hints. I held the unique opinion (among my group anyway) that in the end the story wasn't really sad. "Charley" had at least a brief time in the sun. My thought was that if anyone was given a chance for even brief brilliance and love they would and certainly ought to take it. And I found Charley to be heroic in the extreme. Especially when turning down the Dr. for a marital or otherwise union.