I discovered this book because I had watched the TV series that was based on it and the reason that I watched the TV series was because when I was flicking through a computer magazine (when I was a kid) I found an add for 'The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, aged 13 ½'. I guess that is how advertising is supposed to work because the only reason I read the book was because I had watched the TV series, and the only reason I watched the TV series was because somebody had written an adventure game based on it and I like adventure games (though I didn't actually buy the book – I borrowed from the library). Come to think of it I went through the same process with regards to The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy (and I watched the show to see if I could get any hints for the game – I didn't). Though for some reason I think that the reason the computer game was written was so that Sue Townsend could cash in on the popularity of her books rather than sell more books (and since I borrowed the book from the library, I didn't actually buy it, so in the end she didn't sell more books, or at least sell another one to me).

The story is written in the form of diary entries (which is not actually all that original since Bram Stoker did something along those lines about a hundred years before, though his diary entries were by multiple people and also included newspaper clippings) as a young teenager travels the road of high school (not sure what it is called in England, but here in Australia it is high school). During this year he gets his first girlfriend, struggles with his O levels (whatever that is, though I suspect it is some form of standardised testing, though we didn't have them in Australia), and I believe he watches his parents get divorced.

I guess this is one of those books where we get to see inside the head of a teenager and are meant to realise that he goes through the same struggles as we all do. He deals with puberty, but also shows himself to be a bit of a geek by reading Peer Gynt (nothing wrong with that, I quite liked Peer Gynt). In fact, he sets himself a goal to read Peer Gynt.

I wonder if this book is actually a more modern version of Peer Gynt. I don't think so because Adrian Mole does not go through the turmoil that Peer Gynt goes through, and we are only privy to Mole's teenage years, not his whole life, as is the case with Peer Gynt. I also do not believe that Mole earns the entire enmity of the town in which he lives by getting drunk at a wedding, running off with the bride, and then dumping her on some high mountain. However, one thing that we can consider is that Adrian Mole does seem to live in a dream world similar to Peer Gynt.

Could this book be a handbook on surviving puberty? Maybe, maybe not. It is clearly targeted towards those of Adrian's age, though I suspect much has changed in society since the days in which this book was popular. However, despite all of the changes in our society (especially the interconnectedness we now have with mobile phones and the Internet) there are still many things that are the same. However, I am unsure whether this is supposed to be a guidebook because everybody's experience of puberty is different. Still, it was a fun book to read, and in a way I did relate to Adrian Mole, and it did not matter that he was in England and I was in Australia, high school culture, somehow, seemed to be much the same.

I was originally going to trash this book for being boring and pointless, but I as I think about it more, and also read some of the reviews of it, I guess I have come to a better understanding of the purpose behind this book. The story is about a young boy who steals a motor bike for a bit of a joyride, however he cannot actually ride the bike, loses control, and kills an old lady. Then, in a fit of panic, he runs off with the bike, effectively getting away with murder. Mind you, when I first read this book I was in year 9, which means that I was 14 years old, so it was a very long time ago. I guess in a way I am glad I did have a glance over some of the reviews of this book, because I probably should not simply write it off as being pointless.

We read this book in English and I am sort of wondering why it was a book for English Literature since it seems to deal a lot more with ethics than it does with literature. However, when we consider a lot of the books we will read in English Literature a lot of them will deal with conflict and conflict resolution as well as ethical dilemmas. That is the nature of literature and I guess this is what sets what one of my teachers called 'airport trash' apart from true literature. As I have said myself, a book is worth reading if it teaches you about yourself or the world around us, and this is something that this book certainly does, despite it being targeted at a young audience (there are a lot better books out there that deal with similar themes).

The idea behind this book is the concept of guilt, and I guess this is what sets the book apart from a lot of other books we encounter. A cardboard character, in a similar situation, is likely to ignore the fact that he killed somebody. The main character in this book is torn apart by it. Granted, nobody actually knows that he did the deed, but he does, and he struggles with his guilt over the fact that he did kill somebody. However the catch is that he not only committed manslaughter (depending on the jurisdiction that you are in – this is England – in some places killing somebody on the road, and then running off is actually a lesser charge. In South Australia the charges are Cause Death by Dangerous Driving, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Mind you both are serious charges, but they do not hold the same seriousness as does manslaughter). Oh, the difference between manslaughter and murder is that murder is intentional whereas manslaughter is not, however for a manslaughter charge to stick, one has to demonstrate what is called gross negligence. While there will be a court hearing if through your actions somebody dies, the court needs to be convinced that you were so negligent in your actions that you had no concern whatever over the effects of your actions on other people. Oh, and murder carries a mandatory gaol term whereas manslaughter does not.

I guess in a way I wish I listened to the theme in this book back then, rather than ignoring it and running off on my own little adventures. Okay, an adventure is not really an adventure unless there is danger, but that is beside the point. The school that I went to was a Christian School, and obviously they were attempting to teach us to recognise that there are consequences to our actions. Further, it is never the case that we can truly get away with murder. Okay, there are people out there who have no concern over their actions and can kill people without feeling guilt, however it is likely that these people have become so twisted and torn inside that they are merely shadows of humanity.

While I have not returned to the play Herakles yet (and will be doing so shortly) I will use this as an example to continue my exposition. While people may be monstrous in war, that does not mean that they can easily return to civilian life and live the life of a civilian. What Herakles demonstrates is that when one has been torn and corrupted by war it is difficult to truly settle back down into a life of peace. While it may seem good in one case to be desensitised to murder, it has its drawbacks, and some very serious drawbacks at that. Once a murderer, always a murder, unless there is some intervening event that will purify your heart and turn you away from your wicked past and create in you a new and moral person. How we come to that I will not outline here: I have done so elsewhere.