Talk:I Am Charlotte Simmons

Synopsis

I've added a synopsis for the novel's plot, which mentions the plot of the book and info on several of the characters (most notably the Adam Gellin character) not mentioned in previous edits of the entry, and the entire "Night of the Skullfuck"/plageiarism subplots which drives the bulk of the actions of the characters in the novel, moreso than the whole sex angle.....

This is not a synopsis, it's a long, meandering account of the plot, adopting a fictional pov, and full of inexactitudes (e.g. Hoyt doesn't tell Charlotte about the contract since the offer comes after the formal, when they are no longer on speaking terms.) The author seems to have missed the point that the deus ex machina of the Hoyt subplot is the frat student Ivy, taking revenge on Hoyt's friend for filching his girlfriend Gloria. --Anne97432 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical Response and Sales Figures

This page states that the book was met with a fairly poor critical response from the majority of the major outlets, which is accurate. However, I think it would be good if the page got more specific as to what aspects of the book reviewers didn't like. I know this book won that "Bad sex in fiction" prize, but I don't think that really reflects the overall critical response. I don't know if the majority of reviewers had problems with the book being too explicit (it's about kids in college, it would have to be pretty explicit to be realistic) or if it had to do with the novel's overall themes and characterizations.

Also, I think this book sold pretty well despite the reviews. If anyone has any figures, it might be helpful to put them up here.

GWB

"This book was found on George Bush's bedside table." How is this relevent? OrdoAbChao 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant, but maybe one could bring up and add a section discussing whether or not the evil governor/Presidential hopefull character (who's physical description and ultra-conservative beliefs are pretty much similar to Bush's) who gets caught in the sex scandal that drives the bulk of the book's plot is a George W Bush analogue....

- - -

In my opinion the Hoyt Thorpe character is influenced by George W. Bush's personality, or by Wolfe's perception of it. -Larry Siegel

In my opinion, you, Larry Siegel, are a complete douche.-- Bob Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.135.65 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Reviews

The reviews seemed unneccesarily scathing. Many missing the point that the novel is fictional and therefore an exaggerated form of the truth. The novel was exceedingly poignant and clearly depicted the gradual defiling of a young girl (characature), cutting close to the reality of many students emotions and thoughts when introduced to a new/college situation. Wolfe attempts and succeeds at achieving an insightful relay of 'classic' events and scenarios that befall students and manages to convey the heroine's eternal struggle with 'who she is'. Far from destructing the minds of potential 'College-goers' it will act as a beacon and tower of strength to encourage them to be themselves and recognise situations within a college environment for what they really are. HPC.

• Wolfe claims at the start of the novel to have researched it carefully and thus presents it as being a realistic work, not an exaggerated or distorted one. (Personal opinion only: it's a violently misogynistic piece of trash, written by a man who's seen too much pornography). Vizjim 15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the "scathing" reviews are justified. The Onion AV Club said it well when they reviewed the book: "Wolfe seems to genuinely dislike and distrust all of his characters, and none more so than Charlotte, a shallow academic superstar who somehow lands a scholarship to one of the best schools in the country, though she appears to lack both passion and interpersonal skills. Wolfe makes her petty and weak, and puts her through more trials than the heroine of a Venerial Disease education film."

The people who like this book just seem to agree with it's conservative, judgemental (against my generation) message; You seriously think it's not judgemental about the would-be governor of California, bombastic Pr. Quat or Buster Roth the money-making coach ? --Anne97432 (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC) that kids today don't care about education, they only want to have sex and get drunk. Wolfe does not make any new or original observations about the freshman experience (even if he's never heard the term "sexiled" before, it doesn't make it clever when he uses the cliched term in a book) The novel struck me as alarmist and morally panicked. You say Charlotte was "defiled," but it seems like Wolfe has a negative view on young people having sex in general. Charlotte's roommate, Beverly, the female character that actually enjoys sex, is seen as a simple whore in Wolfe's view (he can't fathom a young woman who isn't forced into sex, but willingly engages in it). How is anyone supposed to identify with the main character if she is, as you say, a "charcature?" Charlotte is a ridiculously sheltered girl who most college kids can't relate to. What if Wolfe had written a book from the perspective of a 19 year old who had lost her virginity before college and was better versed in modern society (not some backwoods bible-thumper like Charlotte)? I think Charlotte does not reflect kids today, but instead reflects the views of an old man stuck in the past.

Here's some quotes from Wolfe, they appeared in a Chicago Sun-Times article. I think they reflect his prudish, old-fashioned thinking. I also think they give you a good idea of the judgemental mindset he was writing from:

Author Tom Wolfe, who spent a couple of years visiting campuses to research I Am Charlotte Simmons, was shocked by the "sexual carnival.

"It used to be that the worst slut in the world would put on a veneer of innocence or purity," Wolfe said. "No longer. The girl who is a virgin does not want to be known as a member of the Virgins Club. Sleeping with someone is a sign you're on the right track today. (So, Wolfe is pretty much anti-sex here. He's a member of the "cult of female" virginity, who think that all women should be 'pure' but men can do whatever they want).

Wolfe wonders, "Is this going to affect [their] attitudes toward relationships? Is this going to make sex, which is very powerful stuff -- it's volatile, it can break up marriages -- thought of as something random? Will husbands and wives think nothing of having little flings on the side? (Right, because that never happens within the baby boomers generation, right? There was no extra-marital affairs, no divorce, no spousal abuse, oh wait, yes there is!)

And later in the Sun-Times article...

"In the old days, when girls lived in their own dormitories and boys came for dates, the girl had to be back at the dorm by 12:30 a.m.," Wolfe said. "That gave her an out from anything the guy might want to do. I think, when the rules are gone, that can create a lot of unhappiness." (Yeah right, I wish I had a chaperone in college too, it would've really made my social life much better!)

I think these quotes from Wolfe give you a good idea of what Wolfe thinks college should be like. The days of "In Loco Parentesis" is over (college is not your parents, it's your life now, you can do what you want socially/sexually and your parents can't make every decision for you).Is that a subtle joke ? In loco parentis turned into in loco parentesis because college is a parenthesis in students' life ? Or a bona fide barbarism ? --Anne97432 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the above has a) little real sense of what college is like b) completely misunderstood the book, if he read it . . . despite "tepid" reviews, the book was well recieved, and most college students would agree that "Charlotte Simmons" isn't all that far from reality, even if it is a charicature. Besides, I think that point is that Charlotte herself does NOT come in as an ordinary college student and is NOT someone the average college student would relate to -- you above who thought that need to go back to 9th grade Language Arts.

As if something is not obvious alone by the fact that the person alleges Wolfe thinks women should be pure and men shouldn't, just because Wolfe points out changes in sexual more. His point is just that no matter how repressive things may or may not have been, there is now pressure to have sex (or social status, which is equivocated), which is now seen as important. The mores have reversed, and it isn't necessarily better. There's no reason to trash Wolfe on political grounds because he doesn't think all the consequences of sex in culture are positive. People need to understand Wolfe as both a sympathizer and critic of social movements in the 60s, which he documented.

Duke University

I read a NYT article about 2 weeks ago about the Duke scandal that made 3 seperate references to Wolfe interviewing at Duke. Please stop changing Wolfe's interviews information in the top section...he absoluetly interviewed students at Duke --> alumni/students/faculty at the school, please accecpt it and stop changing it.

JoJo's Character

I read the book and turned it in back to the library, but I'm pretty certain that JoJo is a JUNIOR and not a senior as the wikipedia entry states. If he were a senior he would probably be crapping in his pants much more about being benched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.43.252 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Iamcharlottesimmons.jpg

Image:Iamcharlottesimmons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jojo is a stock character?

I think that calling JoJo a stock character is POV, and I think that it should be cited if we're going to keep the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.226.236 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he's one of the few characters in this unsubtle book who isn't a stock character.70.31.30.169 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the plot synopsis is uncited analysis, rather than just objective summary. Take this line: "She no longer feels intellectualism is what is most important to her — rather it is being a person recognized as special, regardless of the reason.". I'm quite sure that this is just an interpretation of the book's ending. It definitely doesn't say anything to that effect in the book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.92.23 (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)