The Sweetest Reads

Thought I'd forgotten about my 30 days of books list? Um, yes I had.So without further ado let's delve back into the bliss of reading with my picks for the "Best Young Adult book". I confess, when I see people reading Harry Potter on the train, I'm always tempted to point out "You're reading a children's book!" in mocking tones, particularly if they've deliberately chosen the "grown-up" cover. But really, no matter what anyone says, there ain't no shame in reading a teen paperback. 

I love the delicious creepiness of Lois Duncan's back catalogue; Summer of Fear is such a perfect little chiller that I'm making notes on it for future reference. (In terms of novel-structuring I'm pretty sure it would beat any number of non-fiction how-to guides.)

But for true all-time-favourites, it's got to be the world of Sweet Valley High.

I first started reading these little gems when I was about 12: they are trash of the very highest form.

"Have you heard the dialogue the women characters on the soaps are given? They never use their brains! They misunderstand everything that anyone tells them, and they jump to absurd conclusions about the very people they should KNOW they can trust. It makes me sick to watch them."

So says Elizabeth Wakefield, when offered the opportunity to audition for a soap opera with her twin sister Jessica. Of course, Jessica concocts a scheme to force her to audition; they get the parts and spend a week attending swanky Hollywood parties, before returning to school with the brand new Jeep bought with their earnings. Then normal school life resumes, with regular misunderstandings, accusations of betrayal, and sudden relationship breakdowns. Could the writer "Kate William" be poking a teeny bit of ironic fun at our girls with this diatribe?

Jessica and Elizabeth are the most beautiful, perfect, lucky (albeit prone to sudden kidnaps and accident-prone loved ones) 16-year-olds who have ever lived. As these books never tire of informing us, Elizabeth is quiet and studious, had ambitions to be a writer, and prefers to spend time with her close friend (Enid the nerd) or her steady boyfriend (she always has one). Jessica, meanwhile, is wild and crazy. She's so wild and crazy, she has painted her bedroom chocolate brown, she often has clothes all over the floor, and she prefers shopping and sunbathing to studying. (Shocker!)

What the books tend to gloss over is the fact that Jessica is pretty much a psychopath: she has zero conscience, and will do anything to please herself even if involves stabbing her own sister in the back, lying, stealing, cheating etc. (Francine Pascal, the creator of the series, prefers to think of her as being a little bit mischievous).

Elizabeth is always described as being abnormally good, but despite her apparent devotion to whichever boyfriend she has (good old Todd Wilkins is the main man, although Jeffrey replaced him briefly when he (sob!) moved temporarily to Vermont), she has absolutely no hesitation in cheating on him, on a semi-regular basis. Every time she goes on holiday with her sister (which happens with alarming regularity for one school year) she finds a new beau and will have perhaps a moment's thought about how she misses poor Todd before she embarks on a torrid affair. No matter how many times this happens, it is always described as being something unusual and out of character for the "fair, honest and dependable" little angel of Sweet Valley. She's only four minutes older than Jessica, but "sometimes it felt more like four years!"

Francine Pascal originally pitched the idea of the Sweet Valley community as a TV show, but her idea was turned down and she was advised to write books instead: the rest is history. Sweet Valley, California is described as being the perfect place to live – glorious sunshine all year round, beaches, lakes, shopping malls and cool little cafés and discos. The kids always go to the Dairi burger after school – for skinny chicks, they sure do eat a lot. (They must spend half of their allowance on burgers.)

The books are a mix of everyday school life (albeit an improbably glamorous one) and slightly more zany stories – being lost at sea, foiling kidnappers, crashing airplanes, and winning nationwide competitions every so often.

Despite their silliness (or perhaps because of it?) these books have been popular since the 1980s (when they were first published) and were relaunched with an "updated" feel  in 2008. Would this mean all references to Burt Reynolds and Robert Redford being removed and replaced with Robert Pattinson and Ryan Gosling? Surely not – half the pleasure in these books is that they're of their time. (Jessica wears neon plastic earrings and leg warmers, and Elizabeth's favourite movie is Romancing the Stone.)

Don't forget those fabulous 80s fashions!

However, a peek at the re-edited versions on Amazon would indicate that they've been not so much "updated" as completely rewritten, which seems weird and sort of pointless. The only major era-giveaway from the original books is that nobody has a mobile phone, but as many of the twins' disasters are caused by not being able to get hold of someone, these storylines would need some severe tweaking anyway. (Maybe Sweet Valley would have to become a barren wasteland of lost signals and dead batteries instead.) I was also disgusted (in the style of the Simpson's comic book guy) to find that the twins had shrunk from their former "perfect size six" to a four. (I suppose we should be thankful that they weren't changed to "perfect size zeros" with lollipop heads.) 

Elizabeth may be a straight-A student and is allegedly intelligent, but she's not quite bright enough to figure out that her sister is a manipulative little minx, and not to be trusted. Over and over again, she blindly believes whatever Jessica tells her, despite ample past evidence that she is a big fat (size six) liar. The first book in the series describes Jessica as "The most adorable, most dazzling sixteen-year-old girl imaginable." Which may be more convincing when you are reading it as an impressionable 13-year-old, because my current experience of 16-year-old girls is that they are neither adorable nor dazzling, unless you're really into duckface selfies. 

Reading a SVH book is, to me, the literary equivalent of listening to the Beach boys (or maybe Neil Sedaka.) The stories have the same atmosphere of sunshine and good clean, innocent fun, 1950s style. Even though the twins are teens in the 1980s, their lives resemble Happy Days more than Beverly Hills 90210. In California, the kids don't drink or take drugs; these are crimes which inevitably result in death (Pascal is pretty clear on her teenage morals), and even though the girls date a succession of 16-year-old boys, only one ever attempts anything more than kissing. He is swiftly dispatched to the Youth counselling project for his abnormality. (I'm not kidding!)

SVH books generally follow a format – if the main storyline isn't about one of the twins, it will involve one of their classmates, who'll have a dire problem and confide in Elizabeth (even if they've never spoken to her before) while Jessica will provide the light relief in the side story, normally by being involved with a zany money-making / boy-attracting scheme which will backfire drastically, with "hilarious" results. 

Is it wrong that I really want to read this, given the enticing title and blurb?

The first 95 books are fairly standard school tales, but the mini-series leading up to the climax of the 100th book involves a deadly prom, a manslaughter charge for Liz, a dead boyfriend, and crazed murderer who happens to be identical to the twins, thus clearing the way for her to kill one of them and spend the rest of her life impersonating them. Winner!

I'm amazed that Francine has never been sued for plagiarism, for the books borrow freely from various films – Thelma and Louise, All about Eve, The Truth about Cats and Dogs etc. She's also a little bit sensitive about the fact she didn't actually write the books, bristling that the stories were mapped out in a "paint-by-numbers" style for her army of literary minions to follow. The books were ghostwritten by a number of anonymous writers – rumour has it (or, Wikipedia does) that some were Hollywood screenwriters. After the 100th book they gleefully veered off into the weird and wacky and lost the tenuous grip they had on reality: the twins are no longer worried about school tests, they are too busy hunting werewolves in London, defending their town from vampires, and becoming supermodels.

Numerous spin-off book series were produced to cash in on the series' popularity, not to mention the somewhat ill-conceived TV show in the 1990s. We have Sweet Valley Kids (aged 7), Sweet Valley Twins (aged 12), Unicorn Club, Sweet Valley Junior High, Senior Year, University. Francine Pascal personally penned the 2011 comeback series Sweet Valley Confidential (set when the twins were 26) and The Sweet Life (3 years later) but was ridiculed by fans who knew the stories better than she did and had no patience with manufactured shocks. (Just wait till Sweet Valley makes it onto Amazon's Kindle Worlds: I'll be all over it.) 

There were also special editions (which often created discrepancies within the series) and various family "Legacies" – in which The Wakefield's (and their friends') ancestors first arrive in America, dance up a storm in the Jazz Age, take part in 1960's political sit-ins, etc etc. Love 'em or hate 'em, you've got to admire the ingenious money-spinner that is a series that can go on forever in numerous different directions.

The sublime book covers were painted by James Mathewuse. I know I was not the only teenage girl who derived great satisfaction from laying out all the books on the floor (in numerical order, of course) to admire them. The depictions of the twins and their friends were burned into my psyche and forever defined how I imagined them to look. Having checked out Mathewuse's website, I see he does portraits for a fee – it is now my ambition to one day undergo a Sweet Valleyfication. (How sad am I??!!)

As these books probably influenced many teenagers around the world, it's fortunate that they at least attempt to promote positive messages. By creating an entire community of teenagers, most hot topics are covered: racial tension, the dangers of being mean sorority cheerleaders (you may h̶u̶r̶t̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶f̶e̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ cause rejects to attempt suicide...) sibling rivalry, parental divorce, violence (occasional only), and I think maybe once a story revolved around that rarity, a teenager insecure about her looks.

There's even one character who thinks he might be gay. (And is rarely featured after that, but never mind.) Other storylines included a GIRL trying out for the football team (yes, you heard me right, a girl!), several car crashes (always caused by other people's drink-driving), and some accidents which cause inexplicable injuries – temporary blindness, psychosomatic paralysis, even one for Elizabeth where she basically transforms herself into Jessica. (Of course, this is Jess's finest hour, as she has to be just as responsible as her twin normally is! Oh, the irony!)

One early-ish highlight of the series is "Miss Teen Sweet Valley" – in which Jessica enters a beauty contest (if you have any doubt at all that she will win, you need to read MORE Sweet Valley books) and Elizabeth protests and tries to get the contest banned – because "it's wrong to judge women on their looks". Which is a bit rich really, considering Francine never tires of telling us how stunningly perfect-looking everyone in the town is. Anyone who's considered unattractive undergoes a radical transformation (fat Robin Wilson, poor and scruffy Roger Barett) or is gradually dropped from the series and rarely heard from again. (Fat Lois Waller, poor and style-free Sally Larson).

The Wakefield parents are described as being perfect – their mum is often mistaken for their sister, apparently, although this never actually happens in the books. They do need to step up the parental supervision though. Their children are forever being held hostage, attempting to elope, cheating on school tests, or being arrested. Still, at least Liz has turned out all right: she has a "special bond" with everyone from her siblings to pretty much every kid on school (after she has single-handedly averted disaster from their lives). 

However, her concern for others does make her a really boring date – almost every time she and Todd go out, she will be quiet because she is worrying about some other kid in school, and Todd will just know something is wrong, and have to be manly and reassuring as only a 16-year-old boy can be. (Even Pascal has admitted he is dullsvillle.) But you're nobody at Sweet Valley High if you're single! The teens ALL have steady partners, so their high school dances somewhat resemble middle-class, middle-aged country clubs. 

                                        

                                                          But they did have the best theme tune!

Francine Pascal is a genius. While the 21st century high school series Gossip Girl essentially sticks to the same list of characters – Blair is a cross between Jessica and Lila, Serena a more rebellious Elizabeth, Dan is Todd Wilkins, Chuck Bass is Bruce Patman etc –  putting beautiful twins right in the centre of the formula was inspired. As well as automatically heading up any social group they are in, there is no end of mix-ups, pranks and identity-swapping to fill out the stories. Jessica often pretends to be Liz in order to escape an awkward situation and Liz is often forced to impersonate Jessica to cover for the fact that her twin has left the house after curfew, is missing a school test, or occasionally for her own means. For instance, when she is caught cheating by her boyfriend. Kind of makes you wish you had a doppelganger to blame stuff on, doesn't it?

No wonder we all want to be a Wakefield twin!

Where We're Going, We Don't Need Roads

The future of manicures

So here's my long-awaited article on the success / failure of the predictions of Back to the Future II, over at the wonderful Den of Geek. I say "long-awaited" because I started it ages ago but I got a little bit carried away with the research. (At one point it ran to about 10 pages!) It was awesome watching all these films again and being reminded of how utterly awesome they are. No wonder Secret Cinema sold out so fast!

#YesAllWomen

 

I've been meaning to write a blog about sexism for a while, and now seems as good a time as any. Elliot Rodger's stabbing and shooting spree left seven people (including Rodger) dead, and 13 injured, but this time the discussion provoked has been more about narcissism and misogyny than gun control. Elliot is a poster boy for the entitlement generation, spending the weeks before his "retribution" against the world making whiny and pretentious youtube videos veering from "I'm awesome" to "Why do girls hate me so much?" Well, Elliot, it's probably because you also expressed the opinion that "women are flawed. There is something mentally wrong with the way their brains are wired, as if they haven’t evolved from animal-like thinking... They are beasts themselves. Beasts should not be able to have rights in a civilized society.” Contrary to popular belief, you can't keep thoughts like this hidden; they'll show in your demeanour about as subtly as a neon sign. 

The funny thing is that lots of people, male and female, don't think that sexism exists anymore. In their minds it was all stamped out circa 1970 and everything has been lovely ever since. Let's have a recap of recent events, shall we? (This is going to be link-heavy, but they're all worth reading, especially if you're happily pottering along thinking that all these crazy feminists are making a big fuss about nothing.)

Back in 2010, we had the rape case which ended in acquittal because the judge decided that the man couldn't have removed a girl's skinny jeans without her help. (Perhaps he believes all women have personal maids to help them get dressed every day?)

In 2012 we met the Muslim cleric who simultaneously annoyed and insulted all men, women, and Muslims when he suggested that if women don't want to get raped, it should be illegal for them to dress provocatively. And the female judge who told a woman who had been sexually assaulted by a police officer, "If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you."

George Galloway defended Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, explaining that having sex with a sleeping woman wasn't rape, just "bad sexual etiquette". Whatever happened to "Consent is too low a bar. Hold out for enthusiasm"? (Incidentally, in the last decade several men have been cleared of rape after it was ruled they were suffering from "sexsomnia". Sympathetic as I am to anyone suffering from a genuine sleeping disorder, might I suggest that the law should hold us all responsible for our actions anyway? It might encourage men to warn housemates to lock their doors at night, and discourage copycats who have found the perfect defence.) 

Although it saw the beginning of the No More Page 3 campaign, 2012 was a particularly trying year for the non-sexists among us: This would-be-hilarious-if-it-wasn't-our-reality article runs down some of the highlights, including the hate campaign which exploded when a woman dared to suggest that some video games were a tad misogynistic, and the Republican who claimed women wouldn't get pregnant if they'd been "legitimately" raped. A police poster campaign informed men that if they rape women, they'll be arrested, could lose their job and be placed on the sex offender's register. (The fact they might have also ruined someone's life wasn't worth mentioning.)

By 2013, things weren't much better; a State Representative for New Hampshire referred to women as "vaginas", and couldn't understand why people were upset with that. (More shockingly, nobody called him on his grammar; he actually wrote "vagina's". I don't know which is worse.)

Our culture is full of insidious little examples of sexism that go unnoticed. Like the Daily Mail articles which describe business women as "blonde and pillow-lipped." (Run any article through regender.com for a giggle.) Then there's the way we teach little girls that it's flattering if a boy picks on you because it means he likes you. The obsession with dividing children by gender seems harmless but has enormous impact. (I've actually come across this frequently at work; if we're shooting a commercial with children, someone will always use the old "Let's show 'em that boys / girls are the best!" when trying to get an enthusiastic performance out of a 7-year-old. Not to mention those annoying warm-up acts at pop concerts where the audience is encouraged to "beat" the opposite sex at something as mundane as singing along.)

The media recently blew up at the BBC, apparently for the overly-politically-correct act of cutting the word "girl" from a Commonwealth Games documentary. Unfortunately the reports had largely got the wrong end of the stick – it wasn't the word itself that was considered dodgy, it was the fact that presenter Mark Beaumont said "I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old-girl." Because it's shameful for a non-Judo-practising man to be beaten by a young champion of the sport if said champion is female. Obviously. 

Mark explained: "Maybe the editor thought it was sexist – it wasn’t." Of course not! It's never sexist to imply that women should be inferior and it's embarrassing when they're not. In 2014.  

To be fair, considering that ads like this were fairly standard back in the 1960s, it's not that surprising that the attitudes have survived... and we should be grateful that they've changed as much as they have.

It's not just sniggering university newspapers "satirising" rape or the TV shows with a fetish for nubile young flesh on the morgue slab which create the "War on Women" that is supposedly non-existent. Proms in the USA seem to be a particular hotbed for patriarchal rules; from the girl who wasn't allowed to attend unless she had a date, to the young woman who was sent home because she was too hot for the dads who were chaperoning. 

Then there's the music scene, starting with the time Katy Perry actually apologised to a rapper who threatened to "Smack The Shit out her" (sic) when she dared to voice an opinion on one of his tracks. While it seems a bit dated to talk about Eminem (he did release an album in 2013, but he and Avril Lavigne really need to start a club for has-beens who haven't developed or matured in the last ten years), this précis of what's wrong with him still stands. Robin Thicke, R Kelly etc are keeping up the grand tradition of objectifying women, although at least R Kelly doesn't try to hide his disgustingness, with lyrical gems like "Gonna beat the pussy til its blue" and "Break your back, crack it open like a lobster". (Who wants to make him a "Sex: You're doing it Wrong" meme?) 

Popular websites like unilad constantly excuse their most offensive offerings with the classic "It's just a joke... where's your sense of humour?" line beloved of everyone who knows they have no other defence for being a total wanker. No wonder so many horrific rape stories come out of schools and colleges, from the now infamous Steubenville case to a similar story this May.

Which brings us full circle to the sad tale of Elliot Rodger: possible narcissistic personality disorder aside, why is his behaviour horrifying but not that surprising? His opinion that women "are incapable of reason or thinking rationally. They are like animals, completely controlled by their primal, depraved emotions and impulses" sounds familiar because it was pretty standard opinion back in the days when votes for women was a distant dream.

And some people are having trouble getting rid of the old ideas.

The #YesAllWomen trend has given a horrific glimpse into the experiences of women, but for me the most poignant tweet was "Because a lot of you are reading these and thinking 'ugh yeah, we get it. Calm down.'"

The Everyday Sexism Project makes harrowing reading; but, you might ask, does it reflect reality? Or is it simply "shrill petulant whines by pathetic insecure people who consider themselves victims because someone once said something they didn’t like"? (Interestingly, this Men's-Rights- supporting, female writer also asserts that "Many of (the entries) are obviously fictional", which is an interesting way of dismissing anything you don't like.)

I'll admit that I've had the odd moment of "Oh, come on!" when reading the site; one story about a woman walking into a motorbike shop and the men in there saying "Sorry, we don't sell kittens" had me chuckling for weeks. I enjoy a bit of banter with the chaps at the garage when I hand them my Hello Kitty keyring; not every bus driver who calls you sweetheart is a perpetrator of patriarchal dominance, and not every woman is going to get offended if you open a door for her. (Hopefully NOBODY would be rude enough to reject simple good manners.) 

Watch any comedy about a man disguised as a woman – Some Like It Hot, Mrs Doubtfire, Tootsie – and you'll find that much hilarity ensues from the amorous attention they attract from other men. 

The trouble is, it's not so funny when it happens every time you venture out of the house. (Or whenever you open your front door, if your delivery man is particularly pervy, and yes, I speak from experience.) Most of us manage to pop out occasionally without being groped, but we all have a few hair-raising tales of being followed, flashed at, or at the very least, lectured for being a cold bitch if we just want to use public transport or drive a car without being sexually harassed.

Clue: They're not calling your car a slut.

And you never know whether the guy will be happy to leave it at making kissy noises as if you were his escaped budgie, or will turn nasty: every day we face the reality of Schrödinger's Rapist. So why is it so hard to make other people understand that this stuff actually happens?

 

Some men believe that they're getting the raw end of the deal. (Reading Reddit's Red Pill site is a fascinating, if depressing way to spend an hour.) It's true that some things are stacked against men: one of the most painful inequalities is the fact that fathering a child gives you far fewer rights than giving birth to one. Commercial for cereals that "mums AND kids love" might suggest that mums are chained to the kitchen, but they also insult men by suggesting that dads don't give a toss what their kids eat. There's also the oddly schizophrenic way society responds to crimes against men: check out the disparate responses from bystanders when the victim of domestic violence is a man (it's Jay-Z and Solange all over again): 

There's a similar nudge nudge, wink wink attitude if a teenage boy gets involved with a predatory older woman; the kind of "relationship" which would horrify society if it involved a young girl is considered a rare treat for an equally vulnerable young man. Likewise, the kind of casual control-freakery some women indulge in with their partners ("No, he's not allowed to go out with the boys / keep that old shirt he likes / have another beer") elicits cries of "You go, girl!" when a similar display of dominance from a male partner would be met with horror and disgust.

However, that whole "women nitpicking and emasculating their men and then being surprised when they stop finding them attractive" thing is an issue for a whole other blog. While men do experience some of the same issues women do (why, just the other day I was told off by my pals for ogling some young men in very small vests) there is one huge difference, and that is the fact that few women can physically intimidate a man. As Margaret Atwood pointed out, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." Men forget that they enjoy the carefree privilege of being able to go about their everyday business without feeling like an antelope walking around in lion country.

The now-classic Cracked article "5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women" says it best. Misogyny is deep-rooted in our society; when we dismiss killers like Rodgers as simply being mentally ill, we're missing the point. Arthur Chu of The Daily Beast explains that Rodger's rants were "a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto, except for the part about mass murder." Jezebel's Erin Gloria Ryan spent time in the PUAHate (Pick-Up Artist) forum and discovered that Rodger's views were far from unique. 

 

Meanwhile, Natasha Devon of the Telegraph says feminists have got it all wrong: "In Britain in 2014, girls are entitled to the same education as boys, they can then go on to get any job they want and be paid the same as a man." Try substituting "black people" and see if you still agree. ("What do you mean you're still discriminated against? You don't have to sit at the back of the bus any more, what's your problem?") I suspect being a person of colour in today's society has some similarities with being a woman; nobody can quite "get" the level of everyday microagressions unless they experience it too.

Sadly many people seem to be confused by the very word "feminist" – Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry et al have all spoken out to distance themselves from the very idea – Lady Gaga memorably scoffing "I'm not a feminist, I love men." Oh, Gaga. Let's just remind ourselves of the dictionary definition:

Feminist: a person who advocates equal rights for women.

Unfortunately even our Prime Minister isn't sure if he can commit to the f-word, telling Red magazine: "I don't know what I'd call myself … it's up to others to attach labels." (Oh, don't worry Dave, we certainly will.) He later confirmed that "What I should have said is, if that means equal rights for women, then yes. If that is what you mean by feminist, then yes, I am a feminist." Well that's nice. But what the flipping heck did he think was meant by the word?

The media likes to team the word "feminist" with "man-hating" and "angry". Lots of people seem to think that feminists aren't satisfied with equal rights, but want special privileges instead. Sure, there are some women (and men) who support the idea of all-female shortlists for jobs, or female tennis players being given equal prize money for fewer hours spent on the court, but MOST feminists would agree that true equality is the way to go.

 

We don't want the moon on a stick – just the basics of feeling safe in our everyday lives. This amazing article takes an in-depth look at how to deal with a creepy dude, especially when nobody else wants to acknowledge that he's creepy because it would inconvenience them. The comments are eye opening for anyone who DOESN'T have to deal with this on a regular basis. Here's my favourite: 

"We had so many unproductive conversations about feminism and sexism in which he said that. “I understand that you’re angry, I really do. I get why women are angry. But don’t you see you’re driving men who might be sympathetic away with that anger?”...

I wound up talking without pause for about twenty minutes, telling him to picture a world in which he was seen as subhuman – every issue of ignorance he’d had to withstand as a vegan, but that the word “VEGAN” was stamped all over his body, and most of the world believed he was less of a person for it. That he could be denied jobs, that people would target him for violent crime, that people would demand sex and favors from him and treat him like shit if he said “No,” that people would never take no for an answer. That he could never, ever get away from that prejudice, and people would defend it, that authorities would look the other way if he was victimized. That he was asking for it; that he would be blamed for crimes that targeted him. That there were people who wanted to kill him because he didn’t act the way they expected him to. People who were trying to pass laws to make it okay to kill him if he didn’t. Places in the world he could never, ever go without risking his life, just because of one tiny fact – that he couldn’t change – about his identity. But he wasn’t allowed to be angry about it. I was crying by the time I finished.”

After reading some of the atrocities which are happening now, in the 21st century, the question can no longer be "Why are feminists so angry?" – it's got to be "Why AREN'T you?"