Jessica's review
Double Love (Sweet Valley High #1)
by Francine Pascal, Kate William
LOL. I was allowed to read Sweet Valley High, but preferred Sweet Valley Twins. No wonder I expected a boring adolescence.
i have been diminished; i now know the difference between sweet valley high and sweet valley twins. i used to wince, back in the day, whenever i saw one of these in your room, or you mentioned them, and i still wince whenever i see one where they belong (and, apparently, know it, 'cause there're about a gajillion of 'em), the goodwill. i, at least, was ruined by "the three musketeers", though i'm sure that was considered the sweet valley high of its time. i really have observed your struggle with overcoming the expectations these books gave you, but they turned you, so it would seem, into the wonderful bibliophile that you now are, so i have to give them some credit. i still feel dirty.
Those twins always wore such tight sweaters on the covers. Very well developed. And their hair was that distinct shade of "ashy" blonde that was so hip in the late-70s-early-80s. As a kid I never really felt mature enough to read these books, and by the time I did feel old enough I was reading the really juicy stuff like VC Andrews and "The Thorn Birds". I read the Babysitters Club series religiously, however. Those girls were SERIOUSLY lame.
When I was at the age to be reading these books, I just couldn't relate to the Sweet Valley High characters. And the Sweet Vally Twins books really didn't do it for me either. So I also read a lot of babysitters club books. And Laura is right, those girls were so ridiculously lame. And babysitting is lame. and thinking that babysitting is cool is the most lame. but I was addicted to them and they made me hate myself for it. Even as a 4th grader, I would hide them out of embarrassment.
I have now reviewed the Babysitters Club books. I'm probably going to get hate mail and book worms sent from strangers on the internet, because my review sounds kind of racist, not to mention homophobic and, even worse, I trash on this much loved series..... However, I have a mandate to be truthful in my Bookface reviews, even though the truth is sometimes painful.
Okay, I'm really going to go work on these papers now.
But don't you think your unrealistic expectations for a SVH-like adolescence is probably preferable to the kinds of expectations that the Baby-Sitters Club books planted in readers? I mean, the boringness of the BSC world is not just a snooze, it's also normative in a creepy way. The two series probably deal with a lot of the same issues, and even uphold the very same social values. But the over-the-top approach of SVH makes little girls long for something so silly, they might, as they mature, question the validity of the (ahem) hegemonic view. Because the BSC world is so "normal," little girls probably just internalize all the dubious values without thinking critically about anything.
BSC: Made little girls long for type one diabetes, color-coordinated accessories, and the opportunity to skirt child labor laws in an enterprising, cliquey, and extremely dull fashion.
SVH: Made little girls yearn to drive a convertible, write potentially libelous gossip columns, and be kidnapped and held hostage by creepy mustached boyfriends who drove muscle cars.
SVH loses points for making little girls want sparkling aquamarine eyes, wavy blonde hair, size six bodies, wealthy, perfect, happily-married parents, a split-level suburban ranch home, a pool, a red sports car, and thousands of clothes. However, in most other areas I agree with Rachel, because SVH created desire for a life which, though unattainable, was at least exciting (and yes, more obviously ridiculous). BSC taught girls to be nice and responsible, and encouraged the making of money and sustaining of healthy friendships. SVH presented a more complex menu of options, by offering the dichotomy of impulsive, shallow Jessica and disciplined, considerate Elizabeth. The conflict between these two modes of existence (and the advantages and problems associated with each) are not any less relevant for being predictable and trite.
SVH also had a very concrete and consistent philosophy of material wealth, which held that excessive privilege and conspicuous consumption was morally corrupting (as illustrated by snobby, spoiled Lila Fowler and egotistical, emotionally-stunted Bruce Patman). I'm not kidding at all when I say that the moral universe of Sweet Valley influenced the values I was developing as a third-grader. Whether this was ultimately a good or a bad thing is a topic for another post....
Did the Wakefield sisters have jobs? I totally can't remember.
OK, I know this site is about books, but in light of recent events and recent trips down memory lane via BookFace, I feel I must give props to the one piece of media that influenced my adolescence in an exceptionally positive way: Dirty Dancing.
Despite the hopelessness, self-loathing and boredom created by such wastelands as BSC and SVH, Dirty Dancing managed to teach me the important lessons of being myself, embracing my sexuality, and always beleiving in the good of humanity. God bless you Baby and your loss of innocence to the hottest man ever to grace the big screen!
Unlike the afformentioned series, the Nancy Drew books, and detritus like Judy Blume's "Forever", Dirty Dancing managed to convince me that there was a love life beyond the lame crushes and wimpy boyfriends depicted in the books I read (why was Nancy ever with Ned?!!). Dirty Dancing was proof that there were hot guys with raw emotions out there somewhere ready to sweep me off my feet. I was no longer convinced that my first sexual experience had to be painful and awkward (although it eventually was) and my sheltered world was rocked by the gritty realities of abortion and kids that dance the cha-cha for a living and then grind out their frustrations in sweaty back rooms while the boss isn't looking.
"Dirty Dancing" is bad in the best way possible and I love it. If it were not for that movie I would be an anorexic mother of three in a bad marriage reading romance novels right now. Amen.
Laura, I totally disagree with your characterization of DD in that final paragraph; Dirty Dancing isn't bad, it's GOOD in the best possible way! I really disagree with the view that this is a kitschy movie or that it's got a certain charm despite its flaws. I do not think Dirty Dancing has any flaws. I truly and wholeheartedly believe it's the best coming-of-age/romance/dancing movie ever made, straight up, no qualifiers attached! It has an amazing script, an incredible cast, and a superlative soundtrack (okay, there are a few misses, and "She's Like the Wind" really IS bad in the best possible way). It is my favorite movie ever!
However, I must call out Dirty Dancing for setting up unrealistic and deeply flawed expectations for what my romantic interests and relationships should be like when I got older. If it were not for that movie I would be a mature and responsible mother of three in a wholesome and supportive marriage to my loving husband Ned Nickerson right now.
Amen.
I agree that Dirty Dancing is a straight-up damn good movie. My problem with it is it made me expect men to look like Patrick Swayze.
No I mean bad as in not wholesome. Like bad to the bone.
I'm really glad you didn't marry Ned Nickerson, Jessica.
Me too. Sadly, the fact that I will never make passionate love to Johnny Castle while Solomon Burke croons means that I will have to devise a way to reproduce myself asexually. Maybe one of my scientist friends will invent a solution....
Apologies for misinterpreting your use of the word "bad" -- I should have known better!
Also, I still maintain that it is better to have dangerously high expectations than pitifully low ones. Especially when you are nine years old.
I love Johnny Castle. I don't care if I can't ever have him.
Laura, you are so, so, so right. Thank you for reminding me of that. Sometimes I despair, but you're right. You're really right. It is so much better not to be dirty dancing with Mr. Castle, than it is to be watching Letterman as Mrs. Nickerson....
do you really all find patrick swayze attractive?!
Is that a real question?
YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES!
Woah, Matthew, you must have read my mind. That was what I was about to type in response to your question.
i feel dirty, now. ugh.
What was the boy equivalent of Sweet Valley High? That is, what was the unadulterated crap that taught boys how to read?
Crappy sci fi? Penthouse Forum? I seriously have no clue at all. There were all these girly series books, but after the Hardy Boys, my mind's just a blank.
Anyone know?
I would guess that for a lot of boys it was the trashy sci-fi/fantasy series where the hero always got the buxom babe... My brother-in-law has an entire closet (literally - there is a bookcase in one of his closets) full of "questionable" works of this genre...
Mad magazine. My boyfriend still has a subscription.
Ah, right! But Laura, Mad had pictures -- and it was for everyone, girls and boys both! I still have all my old issues in a box at my mom's, and can fake my way through conversations on a large number of eighties movies and TV shows I never saw, because I've still got the parodies memorized....
Did you know Mad has ADS now?? Totally has me worried....
True, Mad had pictures, but comic books are mostly pictures and I think that's probably another big introduction to reading for a lot of boys, especially the geeky ones I typically hang out with.
But, then again, I didn't have any brothers and most boys really didn't want to have anything to do with me until my late teens when I finally stopped perming my hair and wearing acid washed jeans, so I'm no authority on this subject.
What about those choose your own adventure books? I guess those were kind of for boys and girls, too.
When do girls read sweet valley highs? I actually read some Hardy Boys when I was pretty young. There's an amusing overuse of 'ejaculate' in that series. I always hated comic books because there weren't enough words in them, but I was a little unusual in that respect.
Jessica's review
Double Love (Sweet Valley High #1) by Francine Pascal, Kate William
Jessica's review
rating:
bookshelves:
california-über-alles,
chicklits,
wee-ones-and-bored-teenagers
recommended for: little girls with appropriate protective/educational influences in their young lives
"Francine Pascal," or whoever actually wrote these books, taught me how to read. Nancy Drew was my angel in first grade; by third, the Wakefield sisters were my guiding light, and if it weren't for them, I'd be television literate today. As it is, I cannot hold an informed conversation with members of my cohort about the Snorks or Family Ties, and I spend all my free time on a book-themed social networking site....
O, Jessica! O, Elizabeth! How unjust it seemed at the time that I must share my name with the wanton airhead twin, while brainy, responsible, wonderful Elizabeth wrote for the school newspaper, and clearly had all her kind, charitable, writerly priorities in perfect place. Elizabeth would never have been friends with cruel, spoiled, predestined cocaine addict Lila Fowler! Elizabeth's finer nature meant she hung around with poor bespectacled Enid, even though she was ugly and boring. In retrospect, Jessica's teenage life looks like a lot more fun, while Elizabeth...more
O, Jessica! O, Elizabeth! How unjust it seemed at the time that I must share my name with the wanton airhead twin, while brainy, responsible, wonderful Elizabeth wrote for the school newspaper, and clearly had all her kind, charitable, writerly priorities in perfect place. Elizabeth would never have been friends with cruel, spoiled, predestined cocaine addict Lila Fowler! Elizabeth's finer nature meant she hung around with poor bespectacled Enid, even though she was ugly and boring. In retrospect, Jessica's teenage life looks like a lot more fun, while Elizabeth...more
LOL. I was allowed to read Sweet Valley High, but preferred Sweet Valley Twins. No wonder I expected a boring adolescence.
i have been diminished; i now know the difference between sweet valley high and sweet valley twins. i used to wince, back in the day, whenever i saw one of these in your room, or you mentioned them, and i still wince whenever i see one where they belong (and, apparently, know it, 'cause there're about a gajillion of 'em), the goodwill. i, at least, was ruined by "the three musketeers", though i'm sure that was considered the sweet valley high of its time. i really have observed your struggle with overcoming the expectations these books gave you, but they turned you, so it would seem, into the wonderful bibliophile that you now are, so i have to give them some credit. i still feel dirty.
Those twins always wore such tight sweaters on the covers. Very well developed. And their hair was that distinct shade of "ashy" blonde that was so hip in the late-70s-early-80s. As a kid I never really felt mature enough to read these books, and by the time I did feel old enough I was reading the really juicy stuff like VC Andrews and "The Thorn Birds". I read the Babysitters Club series religiously, however. Those girls were SERIOUSLY lame.
When I was at the age to be reading these books, I just couldn't relate to the Sweet Valley High characters. And the Sweet Vally Twins books really didn't do it for me either. So I also read a lot of babysitters club books. And Laura is right, those girls were so ridiculously lame. And babysitting is lame. and thinking that babysitting is cool is the most lame. but I was addicted to them and they made me hate myself for it. Even as a 4th grader, I would hide them out of embarrassment.
I have now reviewed the Babysitters Club books. I'm probably going to get hate mail and book worms sent from strangers on the internet, because my review sounds kind of racist, not to mention homophobic and, even worse, I trash on this much loved series..... However, I have a mandate to be truthful in my Bookface reviews, even though the truth is sometimes painful.
Okay, I'm really going to go work on these papers now.
But don't you think your unrealistic expectations for a SVH-like adolescence is probably preferable to the kinds of expectations that the Baby-Sitters Club books planted in readers? I mean, the boringness of the BSC world is not just a snooze, it's also normative in a creepy way. The two series probably deal with a lot of the same issues, and even uphold the very same social values. But the over-the-top approach of SVH makes little girls long for something so silly, they might, as they mature, question the validity of the (ahem) hegemonic view. Because the BSC world is so "normal," little girls probably just internalize all the dubious values without thinking critically about anything.
BSC: Made little girls long for type one diabetes, color-coordinated accessories, and the opportunity to skirt child labor laws in an enterprising, cliquey, and extremely dull fashion.
SVH: Made little girls yearn to drive a convertible, write potentially libelous gossip columns, and be kidnapped and held hostage by creepy mustached boyfriends who drove muscle cars.
SVH loses points for making little girls want sparkling aquamarine eyes, wavy blonde hair, size six bodies, wealthy, perfect, happily-married parents, a split-level suburban ranch home, a pool, a red sports car, and thousands of clothes. However, in most other areas I agree with Rachel, because SVH created desire for a life which, though unattainable, was at least exciting (and yes, more obviously ridiculous). BSC taught girls to be nice and responsible, and encouraged the making of money and sustaining of healthy friendships. SVH presented a more complex menu of options, by offering the dichotomy of impulsive, shallow Jessica and disciplined, considerate Elizabeth. The conflict between these two modes of existence (and the advantages and problems associated with each) are not any less relevant for being predictable and trite.
SVH also had a very concrete and consistent philosophy of material wealth, which held that excessive privilege and conspicuous consumption was morally corrupting (as illustrated by snobby, spoiled Lila Fowler and egotistical, emotionally-stunted Bruce Patman). I'm not kidding at all when I say that the moral universe of Sweet Valley influenced the values I was developing as a third-grader. Whether this was ultimately a good or a bad thing is a topic for another post....
Did the Wakefield sisters have jobs? I totally can't remember.
OK, I know this site is about books, but in light of recent events and recent trips down memory lane via BookFace, I feel I must give props to the one piece of media that influenced my adolescence in an exceptionally positive way: Dirty Dancing.
Despite the hopelessness, self-loathing and boredom created by such wastelands as BSC and SVH, Dirty Dancing managed to teach me the important lessons of being myself, embracing my sexuality, and always beleiving in the good of humanity. God bless you Baby and your loss of innocence to the hottest man ever to grace the big screen!
Unlike the afformentioned series, the Nancy Drew books, and detritus like Judy Blume's "Forever", Dirty Dancing managed to convince me that there was a love life beyond the lame crushes and wimpy boyfriends depicted in the books I read (why was Nancy ever with Ned?!!). Dirty Dancing was proof that there were hot guys with raw emotions out there somewhere ready to sweep me off my feet. I was no longer convinced that my first sexual experience had to be painful and awkward (although it eventually was) and my sheltered world was rocked by the gritty realities of abortion and kids that dance the cha-cha for a living and then grind out their frustrations in sweaty back rooms while the boss isn't looking.
"Dirty Dancing" is bad in the best way possible and I love it. If it were not for that movie I would be an anorexic mother of three in a bad marriage reading romance novels right now. Amen.
Laura, I totally disagree with your characterization of DD in that final paragraph; Dirty Dancing isn't bad, it's GOOD in the best possible way! I really disagree with the view that this is a kitschy movie or that it's got a certain charm despite its flaws. I do not think Dirty Dancing has any flaws. I truly and wholeheartedly believe it's the best coming-of-age/romance/dancing movie ever made, straight up, no qualifiers attached! It has an amazing script, an incredible cast, and a superlative soundtrack (okay, there are a few misses, and "She's Like the Wind" really IS bad in the best possible way). It is my favorite movie ever!
However, I must call out Dirty Dancing for setting up unrealistic and deeply flawed expectations for what my romantic interests and relationships should be like when I got older. If it were not for that movie I would be a mature and responsible mother of three in a wholesome and supportive marriage to my loving husband Ned Nickerson right now.
Amen.
I agree that Dirty Dancing is a straight-up damn good movie. My problem with it is it made me expect men to look like Patrick Swayze.
No I mean bad as in not wholesome. Like bad to the bone.
I'm really glad you didn't marry Ned Nickerson, Jessica.
Me too. Sadly, the fact that I will never make passionate love to Johnny Castle while Solomon Burke croons means that I will have to devise a way to reproduce myself asexually. Maybe one of my scientist friends will invent a solution....Apologies for misinterpreting your use of the word "bad" -- I should have known better!
Also, I still maintain that it is better to have dangerously high expectations than pitifully low ones. Especially when you are nine years old.
I love Johnny Castle. I don't care if I can't ever have him.
Laura, you are so, so, so right. Thank you for reminding me of that. Sometimes I despair, but you're right. You're really right. It is so much better not to be dirty dancing with Mr. Castle, than it is to be watching Letterman as Mrs. Nickerson....
do you really all find patrick swayze attractive?!
Is that a real question?
YES! A THOUSAND TIMES, YES!
Woah, Matthew, you must have read my mind. That was what I was about to type in response to your question.
i feel dirty, now. ugh.
What was the boy equivalent of Sweet Valley High? That is, what was the unadulterated crap that taught boys how to read?Crappy sci fi? Penthouse Forum? I seriously have no clue at all. There were all these girly series books, but after the Hardy Boys, my mind's just a blank.
Anyone know?
I would guess that for a lot of boys it was the trashy sci-fi/fantasy series where the hero always got the buxom babe... My brother-in-law has an entire closet (literally - there is a bookcase in one of his closets) full of "questionable" works of this genre...
Mad magazine. My boyfriend still has a subscription.
Ah, right! But Laura, Mad had pictures -- and it was for everyone, girls and boys both! I still have all my old issues in a box at my mom's, and can fake my way through conversations on a large number of eighties movies and TV shows I never saw, because I've still got the parodies memorized....Did you know Mad has ADS now?? Totally has me worried....
True, Mad had pictures, but comic books are mostly pictures and I think that's probably another big introduction to reading for a lot of boys, especially the geeky ones I typically hang out with. But, then again, I didn't have any brothers and most boys really didn't want to have anything to do with me until my late teens when I finally stopped perming my hair and wearing acid washed jeans, so I'm no authority on this subject.
What about those choose your own adventure books? I guess those were kind of for boys and girls, too.
When do girls read sweet valley highs? I actually read some Hardy Boys when I was pretty young. There's an amusing overuse of 'ejaculate' in that series. I always hated comic books because there weren't enough words in them, but I was a little unusual in that respect.