history of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON

Since this short story is my all-time favorite, then I thought I should compile all the versions into one posting, so that we can cut down on the separate postings asking about other versions.

*****

History of "FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON" (a.k.a. "Charly") by Daniel Keyes.

1.) 1959 - Short story, "Flowers for Algernon" (published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction).

2.) 1961 - Television screenplay, "The Two Worlds of Charlie Gordon."

3.) 1966 - Novelization (extension of short story) by author, due to popularity of short story ("Flowers for Algernon").

4.) 1968 - Film, "Charly." (deliberate mis-spelling)

5.) 2000 - Made-for-television film, "Flowers for Algernon."

6.) 2000 - Autobiographical behind-the-scenes book about the short story and the film, "Algernon, Charlie and I: A writer's journey."

*****

Personal observations.

You may look up the titles in IMDb and in Rotten Tomatoes, and read for yourselves what people had to say about those particular versions.

The book (see #6 above) explains why there was no stage version. I recommend the book to fans.

I first read the short story in an anthology of science fiction which I bought around eight grade (approx. age 13). It made me cry. I've never read a short story that made me cry, before or since. To this day, when I read the final two pages of the original short story, I still weep at the sense of loss and injustice.

I read the full novel many years later. I thought the novel was a significant let-down from the original short story. The deeper psychological problems of Charlie, and his brother, and especially his mother, are presented in the novel. But I think that this added background psychology is closer to being distracting-filler than truly gestalt-completeness of WHY Charlie Gordon got into this condition and his current situation. (Sorry to say that.) Thus I highly recommend the original short story, and do not recommend the novel.

I considered the 1968 Cliff Robertson movie ("Charly") acceptable, but not as fulfilling as the original short story. It has a different spin than either version of the written works. The movie has the new-improved Charlie Gordon more bitter, more skeptical. That is probably the best slant Hollywood could have done with it. Hollywood could not have made it as touching as the original, as I've seen film adaptations done of books. Tragedy is hard for Hollywood to make. Bitterness is the probably closest emotion a screenplay gets to actual loss and actual injustice.

I have never seen the 1961 "Two Words of Charlie Gordon."


_________
"The Shadow knows." -- Lamont Cranston