How dated is Judy Blume to you?
Ookasan
I never met anyone born after the early 60's who would admit to liking "AYTG?
IMM". Sure, I liked some of her other books pretty well as a kid. However,
Landsberg's book "Reading for the Love of It" has pretty compelling criticisms
of her and her inherently selfish, unpleasant characters. I also remember
hearing groans at a gathering for Sue "Adrian Mole" Townsend when I mentioned
Blume's name, maybe because unlike her, Townsend forces the reader to
acknowledge that being a self-centered teen makes you more laughable than
sympathetic. So, how has your perception of Blume and her characters changed
over the years?
Lenona.
delane...@my-dejanews.com
Delurking to add my .02.:
My perception of Judy Blume has only changed for the better over the years.
What I thought were really good books as a child, I now think are amazingly
perceptive and sympathetic portraits of teens and preteens. I still can't
believe that an *adult* got all the "kid stuff" right.
I was born in the late sixties, and I loved "Are You There God? It's Me,
Margaret." The book was like the Bible for girls when I was in fifth grade.
Everyone passed it around, and we all did the bust building exercises at
recess. And we all got training bras right around that time, and I remember
going shopping with my mom and thinking, "this is just like Margaret."
Judy Blume books were never assigned by a teacher, or read out loud in class,
but one great thing about them is that kids who would never usually pick up a
book *always* read her books, because (IMO) they are so realistic and hit
upon the things that kids are concerned about. I always found Blume's books
to be much more realistic than a book like Robert Cormier's "I Am the Cheese"
(not to slam Cormier, who had written some wonderful books that I love),
which was a book that teachers were always pushing. I think Cormier's style
appealed more to adults than to kids, and I remember a kid in my class
telling our teacher that "I Am The Cheese" was just "not real."
I read her new book, "Summer Sisters" last summer, and when I was done, I
went back and reread many of her YA books, which I still have, and I have to
say, I thought they stood up very well. I'm not sure I'd describe the
characters as selfish and unpleasant, though. They *are* self-centered, but
again, that's realistic, because that's the way teens and preteens are. Kids
that age are just starting to become independent from their parents, to make
their own choices and their own decisions without their parents' advice and
input, or sometimes, against their parents advice and input. That's why teens
are so dedicated to their friends ("they're my friends, not yours!"), and why
almost every event in their lives has the potential to become a melodramatic
crisis (and all teenagers' lives are very melodramatic, which is the reason a
TV show like "Beverly Hills, 90210" struck such a chord with teens, back when
it was actually set in a high school. The TV show took every day teen
problems and inflated them to the importance that they have in teens' eyes).
Check out Judy Blume's "Blubber" for a very realistic portrayal of childhood.
It's not about teenagers (I think the kids in it are around 10 or 11), but it
completely captures what kids that age go through, in school, with their
families, and socially. The kids in this book are cruel. They make fun of one
of the girls in their class, viciously at times. She's a heavy girl and the
call her "Blubber." The twist that Blume put on it is that she made the
narrator (I think her name was Jill) of the book one of the tormenters, not
the victim, and even though she's being very nasty at times, Jill is still
sympathetic. Over the course of the book, the kids in the class turn on her,
and put her in the same position she put "Blubber" in. The book doesn't end
with Jill and "Blubber" uniting against their tormenters, the way other kids'
books might. Jill doesn't have a big scene where she admits she's learned her
lesson and will never be mean to anyone again, either. Jill *has* learned a
lesson, but her life goes on, as does everyone else's in the book. And that's
the way it is in real life. A kid is tormented horribly for a while, then the
other kids get bored and move on to a new victim. No one ever forgets about
it, though, and labels (or "nicknames") stay with you for life. I first read
"Blubber" when I was in sixth grade, and I completely identified with
everything in the book. It was like Blume had come to my school and sat in my
class to write it. She certainly wasn't looking at kids through rose-colored
glasses and giving them the required "happy ending." I could give tons of
examples of how realistic Blume's books are: "Forever," "Deenie," "Then
Again, Maybe I Won't" (a must read for boys!) all hit various adolescent
nerves. Even her newer books, like "Just As Long As We're Together" are right
on target.
It's not until you're an adult that you can look back on your adolescence and
laugh, and realize how ridiculous you may have seemed to adults at the time.
I've never read the Adrian Mole books, but maybe they're intended for a
different audience: adults looking back and laughing. I can't see teens
enjoying a book that makes fun of them, because to teens, everything is
deadly serious. That's why Judy Blume's books are so well received by kids.
She doesn't make fun of them, she writes about their problems with compassion
and understanding. If her characters are unpleasant, well, teens *are*
unpleasant, for the most part. Ask any parent of an adolescent, and I don't
think you'll hear what a bundle of sunshine their teen is. Even the most
well-adjusted teenager can be completely obnoxious on a daily basis. You may
love teenagers, but often, you can't stand them.
If Judy Blume is dated, I think it's only in the sense that a lot of her
books were set in the seventies, although this doesn't seem to hurt their
sales. I work in a bookstore, and Judy Blume is still one of the bestselling
YA authors. And I do know that she recently updated AYTG?IMM, to make it a
little more current to '90's readers.
Wow, this is very long for a first post. Sorry to ramble on, but as you can
tell I have some very strong feelings about Judy Blume.
Delaney Jones
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
SkeptiJess
"AYTG?
IMM". Sure, I liked some of her other books pretty well as a kid. However,
Landsberg's book "Reading for the Love of It" has pretty compelling criticisms
of her and her inherently selfish, unpleasant characters. I also remember
hearing groans at a gathering for Sue "Adrian Mole" Townsend when I mentioned
Blume's name, maybe because unlike her, Townsend forces the reader to
acknowledge that being a self-centered teen makes you more laughable than
sympathetic. So, how has your perception of Blume and her characters changed
over the years? <<Lenona
I was born in 1960 and the only Blume book I read when I was age-appropriate
for them was _...Margaret_. I read some of her others later (in high school
and beyond). I rather liked _...Margaret_, but found the rest (especially
_Blubber_) to be rather mean-spirited and nasty. I read Landsberg's criticism
of Blume's work a few years ago and agreed with her completely despite my
lingering fondness for _...Margaret_. Now. My 11 year old daughter LOVED
_...Margaret_, and _...Sally Freedman..._, but has not liked the rest of
Blume's books. Like me, she found _Blubber_ rather funny but so ugly it
erradicated the humor. Dori is disabled (with cerebral palsy) and, as a
result, is very aware of unfair stereotyping in books. She found the
portrayal of the fat girl in _Blubber_ to be unkind at the least and possibly
discriminatory. She (and I) recommend a book called _The 7 1/2 Sins of Stacy
Kendall_ as a MUCH better look at an outsider (also a fat girl, in this case)
through another girl's eyes. _...Sins..._ is also very funny, without the
ugliness of _Blubber_. When Dori first read _...Margaret_, she wished that
Blume would write a book about a girl with CP. Now, having read more of
Blume's work, she's glad Blume never did -- it would be bound to be as
depressing as _Deenie_!
Wendy E. Betts
Ookasan <ook...@aol.com> wrote:
>I never met anyone born after the early 60's who would admit to liking "AYTG?
>IMM". Sure, I liked some of her other books pretty well as a kid. However,
I was born in 1965, does that count? I liked her books okay, though I
suspect now I mostly read them because my older sister really liked
them. I think they do, or at least did, really fill a need for kids
like my sister. However, as an adult I found _Here's To You, Rachel
Robinson_, which I reviewed for VOYA, just ludicrous... my take on it was
that she is not an intelligent enough writer to create an
exceptionally intelligent character.
--
Wendy E. Betts, Editor, "Notes from the Windowsill." web at armory.com
"among them was a particularly hideous little monster, a so-called
book grump...these little spirits normally spend their lives grumping
about books. Research has not yet determined why such creatures exist."
KING9089
did. Her characters were popular kids who couldn't even bother to be happy, or
nice, or intelligent. As an unpopular kid, I couldn't sympathize with the
little problems those characters had.
Deenie was the worst.. Oh sad, she knows she DESERVES cheerleader but can't
have it because of her brace. And oh no, the cute boy can't feel her up
because of her brace. Ugh.. Please.
I had a back brace myself, and I didn't think Blume had even donel her research
all that well.
Needless to say (but I just said it, didn't I?) I didn't care for her work...
In my experience, kids didn't actually care for her work either, they just read
her for the info about sex, menstruation, etc. They didn't read for the
story.
Cara
Gwen A Orel
Details are dated, yes, because Blume provided so many.
But I agree that she was one of the few writers who
really did capture much of the petty cruely of pre-teens.
I personally think she does less well on the actual teens.
I liked Margaret and I think it was called Sheila the Great,
Fourth grade Nothing, etc.
But in general I often liked books where the atmosphere was
a trip away, and I especially liked books with children I
*wanted* to meet, not the ones I already knew.
I do remember finding a description of a twelve year old girl
in an older book ridiculous because she was described as a *child*.
I remember feeling just terribly old as a pre-teen, and Blume gets
that right.
Gwen
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
If one tells the truth one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
--Oscar Wilde
Veruca Salt
> I read her new book, "Summer Sisters" last summer, and when I was done, I
> went back and reread many of her YA books, which I still have, and I have to
> say, I thought they stood up very well. I'm not sure I'd describe the
> characters as selfish and unpleasant, though. They *are* self-centered, but
> again, that's realistic, because that's the way teens and preteens are.
I agree as far as her adolescent characters go, but I have to admit, I hated
"Summer Sisters". I don't know if that means I've outgrown Judy Blume. I'm
sure I could go back and read "Margaret" or "Then Again, Maybe I Won't" and
enjoy them as much as I did at age 9. I think in the case of "Summer Sisters"
Blume's writing was lazy and simplistic, to appeal to a younger age group
than the so-called "adult" category that it's supposed to be in. Basically,
she was trying to hook the same audience that reads the "dirty" parts in
"Forever"--the 9-13 age group. Plus, the characters, to put it bluntly, were
awful: one was a selfish bitch, the other was bland and boring. Of course,
that's just my opinion.
The only way some of these are "dated" are the references to sex and certain
slang words, but hell, these books are 20 years old! SHOULDN'T THEY BE DATED?
I don't see people tossing "Catcher in the Rye" or "The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn" into the garbage for being too dated. If the person who
started this subject means "Is Judy Blume dated NOW more than she was 20
years ago?", well, like I said before, I thought "Summer Sisters" reeked
because of the lame attempt to recapture the 70's and 80's with songs,
events, etc. It just seemed like a poor copycat of Danielle Steel to me. I'm
sure her children's books still hold up well; those were always my favorite
anyway.
There are a few things that I remember as a kid about Blume's books. In
"AYTGIMM", I remember being puzzled by the reference to a "belt" with the
sanitary pad, since those had already been phased out. And there was a
character in "Deenie" who actually used the word "swell" and I thought, huh?
Isn't this supposed to be the 70's? But the stories themselves were timeless,
so it didn't much matter. "Summer Sisters" was so self-conscious about trying
to recreate the time, place and everything except actual characters, that it
failed miserably, in my estimation. Oh yeah, did I mention how disappointed I
was in that book? I can't trash that book enough. IT SUCKED. (And I consider
that a kid's expression, but that's just how the book was written.)
>
> If Judy Blume is dated, I think it's only in the sense that a lot of her
> books were set in the seventies, although this doesn't seem to hurt their
> sales. I work in a bookstore, and Judy Blume is still one of the bestselling
> YA authors. And I do know that she recently updated AYTG?IMM, to make it a
> little more current to '90's readers.
>
Does this refer to the "belt", I wonder? I hope she doesn't tamper with the
actual story too much--some things are better left alone. "Forever", on the
other hand, needs to be updated with lots more relevant sex information, since
that's what the story emphasizes.
Veruca Salt
Veruca Salt
king...@aol.comnospam (KING9089) wrote:
> I was pretty much the generation who liked Blume (born 1966) except I never
> did. Her characters were popular kids who couldn't even bother to be happy,
or
> nice, or intelligent. As an unpopular kid, I couldn't sympathize with the
> little problems those characters had.
>
> Deenie was the worst.. Oh sad, she knows she DESERVES cheerleader but can't
> have it because of her brace. And oh no, the cute boy can't feel her up
> because of her brace. Ugh.. Please.
>
> I had a back brace myself, and I didn't think Blume had even donel her
research
> all that well.
>
I have to admit that I laughed about the "tragedy" of Deenie not getting a
brace-less grope from the eighth-grade boy who is just so much more MATURE
than those silly seventh-graders. Even at age 10, I thought it was silly of
Deenie to cry just because she didn't make cheerleading, but I realize there
were, and are, girls who WOULD cry over that. I guess the point Judy's trying
to make is that adolescents are obsessed with being popular, accepted, etc.
Plus, once you get past Deenie's seemingly shallow character, you realize
that the reason she's so obsessed with looks and perfection is because her
harpy mother is always nagging her to get more rest and eat healthy so she
can become a famous model. At first, Deenie won't be friends with the
"Creeping Crud" girl who has eczema, because, gosh, it could be catchy or
something, and she avoids a handicapped former friend (nice attitude, babe)
because she "wouldn't know how to act". I don't think I was like that at age
12, but there were girls who were so image-conscious that they wouldn't even
be seen talking to anyone other than their own little clique. Oh, but Deenie
learns her lesson when people start treating her like she's handicapped, and
she's just a regular person, damn it! Overall, I liked the book, although I
could have done without the cheesy references to "Splendor in the Grass". I
also would have loved to smack Deenie's mother, "Patsy Ramsey", around.
A side note: as a kid who sympathized with "Blubber" (I wasn't fat, just very
socially unskilled, shy & awkward), I wished that Judy had chosen to tell the
story from Linda's point of view, rather than Jill's. I didn't like Jill, and
I didn't feel much pity for her when she became the outcast. In fact, I
thought even Deenie was a more sympathetic character, because in spite of
being repelled by people who were different, she didn't go out of her way to
trash them.
Ookasan
Veruca Salt wrote:
>The only way some of these are "dated" are the references to sex and certain
>slang words, but hell, these books are 20 years old! SHOULDN'T THEY BE DATED?
>I don't see people tossing "Catcher in the Rye" or "The Adventures of
>Huckleberry Finn" into the garbage for being too dated. If the person who
>started this subject means
Yes, I started it, and "dated" probably wasn't the right word to use. What I
meant was, are they really timeless in the way that "CITR" or "Huck Finn" or
Beverly Cleary books are, or is there a certain embarrassment when one reads
these books to one's kids because of the painful Me Generation attitude among
the kids that we're just beginning to struggle away from? For example, I liked
"Tales of a 4th Grade Nothing" best of all of Blume's, but the mother is almost
just as much of a burden to Peter as Fudge is because she's too
"child-centered" in a way Dr. Spock never intended. Not to mention awful people
like Deenie's mother and the female teachers in "Blubber". Whereas Ramona's
mother doesn't always say "I understand what you mean" before saying "no", but
that's because she knows that it's better to be a little to strict than a
little too lenient - knowledge that I HOPE is timeless.
And I do know that she recently updated AYTG?IMM, to make it a
>> little more current to '90's readers.
>>
>Does this refer to the "belt", I wonder? I hope she doesn't tamper with the
>actual story too much--some things are better left alone.
That's all she changed - I wish it had been the "Keeper" though. (
www.thekeeper.com ).
Lenona.