The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Note: If you think this review is haphazard and poorly structured. . . it is. This review comes from the depths of my Google Drive, but I liked this book so much I had to feature it. Perhaps another day I will revisit this and improve it. For now, here are the unedited thoughts I had some time ago:

The novel opens with Charlie, the main character, beginning a letter to an older anonymous confidant, who we never learn the identity of. These letters that Charlie drafts, detailing his hopes, days, memories, and struggles make up the book. We learn that Charlie’s friend Michael committed suicide last spring, and that Charlie has had a rough go at life since this time and in addition to the death of his Aunt Helen. We meet Charlie’s family: the worrisome mother who distracts herself with household duties, the father who made something of himself but is possibly plagued by thoughts of possible success he didn’t achieve, the smart older sister who struggles with an abusive boyfriend throughout the book, and the star football player older brother who is off at college and aspires to play for the NFL. And then there is Charlie, the freshman who is nervous to begin high school. He doesn’t ask for much, and is fairly complacent, which becomes one of the main aspects of his character that is tracked throughout the book, as his English teacher Bill urges him to ‘participate’ in life, and his first love Sam tells him that he must advocate for what he wants so life doesn’t pass him by. Thus, the main plot of the novel revolves around Charlie finding his place in high school and the world, with the help of his senior friends Patrick and Sam, and all the escapades and struggles they go through together. I won’t spoil the ending here, because if you haven’t read it, no matter your age, I sincerely urge you to do so.

The aspects of Chbosky’s Early Life and Career as discussed on his Wikipedia page that I found most interesting were his catholic upbringing in Pittsburgh, his love of authors such as Salinger and Fitzgerald, his sister, and his attending USC.

To begin, his catholic upbringing interested me because while the book lacked religious overtones, the inclusion of themes such as sexual abuse and physical abuse were at the forefront of a lot of what Charlie went through. While I know these are not synonymous with the Catholic Church, and I mean in to way to link them together, the topics of corporal punishment and sexual abuse have been tied to events within the Catholic Church in the past, and as a result I wonder if this had any impact on why Chbosky included these issues as central themes. On the other hand, these two entities could be completely unrelated, and very well are. But as I was reading his Wikipedia page, this fact struck me.

Loosely linked with the one above, is the author’s connection to Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania is very apparent throughout the novel. Charlie’s brother goes to Penn State, as does Sam later on, the inclusion of the tunnel into the city that has become symbolic of Charlie’s feeling of being infinite, and the nights at the clubs in the city all show these ties to life growing up in the suburb around a major city. As someone who grew up in California for most of her life, the changing of the seasons within the novel(especially the inclusion of snow) pointed to this being a characteristically east coast novel.

Beautiful Boy

While on the plane to Dublin this morning, I watched Beautiful Boy (2018). It follows the struggles of father-son duo Dave and Nic Sheff(played by Steve Carell and Timothy Chalamet, respectively), through the throes of Nic’s addiction to crystal meth among other drugs. I think I liked it so much because it seemed as if anyone could identify a struggle they are going through, with the lens of the movie. By this I mean that you could see the bad side of your struggle in Nic, and the good side of it in Dave. With Nic, you see the part that wants to escape reality, the part that feels the weight of the world on its shoulders. With Dave, you see the practical side, and the part that wants to get better. While I cumulatively labeled Dave as good and Nic as bad, I think a great part of the movie is that is has you sympathize with both characters, even when Dave cuts Nic off, and even when Nic steals his little brother’s $8 for drugs. The script is amazing; it perfectly tugs at your emotions, yet remains realistic. Additionally, the way the film subtly interweaves flashbacks detailing Dave and Nic’s relationship is beautifully done.

Besides the obvious emotional appeal, the movie also ended with a striking statistic: the leading cause of death for people under 50 is drug overdose. Given the Opioid Epidemic in the US, and other drug-related issues, I think this movie also has a great strength in that it doesn’t demonize Nic, as the addict. Yes, it shows his struggles, any of which aren’t pretty, but it does end with him being 8 years sober, and acknowledging that it is a day to day struggle. Hopefully this can change the consensus that drug addicts are criminals to one of a more helpful light. By treating addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal issue, a real change could be made that would positively impact the world.

An Update:

I’m coming back to this post now, a couple days after I wrote it, because today I ran into two other people who had watched Beautiful Boy on their way over to Dublin as well(they were both from the US, one from Dallas and one from Palos Verdes). They both agreed that the movie was utterly sad, but they disagreed in its overall effect. The girl from Dallas just found it sad; even though the audience finds out that Nic had been clean for 8 years, she says the scars from his whole ordeal will never leave them, and therefore there is no happy ending. Alternatively, the girl from Palos Verdes argued that, while not the happiest of stories, it was overall one of endurance and ultimately was happy. She says that despite the damages that occurred, in the end the father-son relationship was maintained, so therefore it was a happy ending.

I agree with both of them. But I don’t think a story needs to be all good or all bad. What makes a great story is that it makes you see something(in this case, drug addiction), from another perspective(in this case, not one of malice, or criminal intent).

Photograph 51

A poster for the play.

A poster for the play.

The Theater

The South Coast Repertory is a very nice new theater that is surrounded by other concert halls and art installations. To the left of the theater and down the road, there are more new buildings surrounded by outdoor cafes, fountains, hedge mazes, large iron obelisks, and much more. Everything was very clean, bright, and well maintained. In addition to this, tickets were only around $20. I ended up sitting in the first row of the balcony, which gave me a great view of the stage. The setting is quite intimate as the theater is relatively small, so you feel very close to the actors and as if you yourself are immersed within the story.

This morning, as I was eating my breakfast, my Dad handed me a couple of haphazard newspaper pages that were folded over one another. They were from the Los Angeles Times, and detailed a play called ‘Photograph 51’, which centers around Rosalind Franklin and her contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA. It was being put on by the South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa tonight at 7:45. My sister and I, both avid fans of Franklin, eagerly agreed to go, and my family made an excursion out of it. The play certainly did not disappoint.

The front of the theater.

The front of the theater.

The Show

‘Photograph 51’ begins with Rosalind Franklin coming to work with Maurice Wilkins at Kings College London in the early 50s. She is met with all the obstacles women in STEM at the time faced, and even more since she is Jewish. The play makes a decent amount of references to her Jewish-ness, with characters such as Wilkins and Caspar saying things about ‘her kind’ this, and ‘her kind’ that. Besides that, certain post-war attitudes are apparent, with many references to atomic weaponry and nuclear physics as well. The play follows through her journey to photograph DNA, and includes 6 characters total including Franklin herself. There is Maurice Wilkins, the stern project commander who becomes infatuated with Franklin(secretly), as time goes on. Then there are Watson and Crick, the dynamic and evil duo who will eventually take unapologetic credit for a discovery Franklin played a large part of. Finally, there is Don Caspar and Ray Gosling, two PhD students who are climbing the scientific ladder. Gosling’s role is mostly that of comedic relief, whereas Caspar serves as at first a loyal fan of Franklin’s, and towards the end a close confidant. Throughout the play, these 5 men interact with Franklin and play out what happened over the years as they fought over techniques and hypotheses. The play ends with Franklin dying of ovarian cancer that was spurred on by the radiation she was exposed to in the lab, and with Wilkins wondering what could have been.

The stage from the balcony.

The stage from the balcony.

One point I would like to touch on is the brilliance of the set. Hanging above the stage was a hollow square whose perimeter gave off bright light, which was switched from blue to yellow at specific points in the play to signify importance changes and realizations. On the stage below was a wooden floor that was sunk into the ground with the same perimeter of light. Around the edge of the wood were glass panels over black metal bars. In each of the far corners were upholstered benches that also served as storage for the minimal props that were used. I say that this is brilliant because the play was essentially going on inside of the camera Franklin used. Streaming down from the ceiling is the light, and on the stage, made with the direction of the grain of the wood flooring, is the diffraction pattern. The audience is essentially watching Franklin’s life radiate out on the stage, just as the X-ray beams radiated out and showed themselves on the picture.

An article within the program, and my ticket.

An article within the program, and my ticket.

Besides the stage, I really enjoyed the power with which the actors spoke. The emotion they imbued in the audience was palpable, and made moments like when Rosalind spoke of being in the Swiss Alps magical, and moments like when she realized she was ill, gut-wrenching. Additionally, I like that the props used were constrained to glasses, lab coats, the occasional DNA model, and the photos. It kept the story easy to follow, and kept my mind focused on the relationships between the 6 people on stage.

Besides Franklin shining, Wilkins was a character I hadn’t expected to warm up to. Surely at times he is very severe, but in a way the care and respect that he holds for Franklin really shines through by the end of the play. The care with which Caspar treats Franklin was also quite moving. The evolution of their relationship is defined in the diction that is used in their exchanges; Franklin goes from being curt and cordial to warm and open.

Finally, I think the way Franklin was written was quite beautiful. There are very extreme moments, in which she seems like Steve Jobs; cut-throat, and willing to die for her research(which she inevitably does. This is then juxtaposed with wonderful moments of humanity, such as the wistful comments that trail at the end of her letters with Caspar, or her admittance to being scared that she is not doing the right thing with her life. Especially for women in STEM, there is definitely an internal struggle as to how one is ‘supposed’ to behave. On one hand, there is an urge to be headstrong and confident, fearless and a lone wolf. On the other hand, science is a collaborative effort, and it is enticing to be vulnerable, and honest. But, when historical precedent is taken into account, being vulnerable and honest have become synonymous with weakness. To see Rosalind go through this internal struggle on stage was refreshing, and a reminder that I think I needed. Asking for help or admitting you were wrong is not a weakness. Being confident in yourself is OK and can give you strength.

Overall I really enjoyed the play, and would recommend it to everyone. For people who are interested in the science, or for people who are not interested in the science, I think that this play has a message that can appeal to everyone. Or, if plays aren’t your thing, a simple glance at Franklin’s Wikipedia page(Link), might give you something to think about.

I continue on the topic of women in STEM in a ‘Thoughts’ post here(titled, ‘Photograph 51: Reflecting on the Plight of Women in STEM’).