‘We know Charlie’: A case of epistolary education and brave space in The Perks of Being a Wallflower fanfiction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes up epistolary writing and the chronicling of experiences with and the impact of sexual violence in an example of fanfiction written in response to the classic young adult (YA) trauma novel, Stephen Chbosky’s The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Because this novel explores the impact of childhood sexual abuse, this project posits that two particular fanfiction stories (a fic and its sequel) offers a theorization of Charlie’s letters as a kind of ongoing victim impact statement, which then produces a unique narrative opportunity to create brave space for witnessing experiences of sexual trauma in community. As such, the fanfiction represents a kind of epistolary education wherein Charlie’s letters are positioned as a learning tool and source of feminist development through co-created emotionally supportive experiences. Specifically, how Charlie’s epistolary trauma testimony is responded to by allies and friends Patrick, Sam and Mary Elizabeth in the fanfiction is educative, particularly through their collective employment of two key practices: being generous and being generative in their responses to Charlie’s letters. Their epistolary education then positions them to uniquely process and prepare to reunite with and show up for Charlie as ethical witnesses to his trauma testimony. Thus, these two fanfiction stories function as significant sites for learning about sexual violence, ethically supporting victim-survivors of it, as well as strengthening the characters’ senses of community and selves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".