I've read both The Catcher in the Rye and The Perks of Being a Wallflower.
I think they are both overrated. I'm not saying this to annoy anyone or start an e-fight, I just think they are. Tangent, if you are willing to point out the brilliance of these two books -- please do so.
IMO, Rye is much more raw than Wallflower. Much more 'swearing' and Holden Caulfield uses 'goddamn' in every single sentence. It is also a bit boring, imo, as well and I don't think Holden is very brave or heroic character. More of the anti-hero. I mean the guy is too much of a pussy to tell his parents he got kicked out school. He is also pretty cynical and a bit naive -- for example hiring a hooker and not knowing what to do with her. His 'voice' is much more worldy than that.
Wallflower is very The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Charlie's voice is very child-like and he is extremely shy. Although I do enjoy where he wonders in the first few chapters, something along the lines of:
'I wonder who is nursing a broken heart. Who has to walk through these halls with a broken heart and deal with 3 assignments, 2 essays and band practice on top of that. Or who done the heart-breaking.'
That quote was from memory so it is pretty off but you get my drift. Wallflower also has a lot of allusions in it (especially to music, as it was endorsed by MTV) and it also has a lotta classics referenced throughout.
I think both are hyped and I can see why Rye was banned (it was published in the 50s, I think) but I can't see why Wallflower was. It was published in the 90s and the world was much less conservative and much more jayded by then. We had Henry Miller, for crying out loud.
That's just my opinion, anyway. I'd say give them both a go and see what you think. I know I was extremely curious before reading Rye and then Wallflower.
