Forever

I finished reading Forever, by Judy Blume last night, and after reading it I was forced to down a glass of wine and watch a bit of Conan O'Brien before going to bed just so I could forget what I had just read. Dramatic? Maybe. Let me explain.

Forever is about an 18 year old girl, Kath, who is a high school senior involved in her first, dare I say meaningful, romantic relationship. The book explores Kath's decision to have sex with her boyfriend, Michael. Taught in the classroom, I think the book succeeds at opening the conversation about sex between adolescent girls. And this is where the problems begin.

First- the book opens conversation about sex for girls. What about the boys? I don't know how any male could possible make it through this book. What male wants to read about a teenage girls inner conflict about sex? Unless you're teaching at an all girls school, exclude this book. Not to mention that the questions the book raises about sex are questions that girls already discuss anyways- when to have it? Who to have it with? How do you NOT get pregnant? The big questions that require a level of maturity that only an adult can introduced are mentioned in the book when Kath's mother gives her the pamphlet with the four important questions about sex on it, but I feel that the rest of the book minimizes the importance of these questions. Only once, at the end when Kath has discovered that she has feeling for Theo, do we find these questions being explored again.

Also, alot of the language surrounding sex is outdated- VD? I definately laughed outloud when I read this, because when I was in high school we joked about VD since it was an outdated term then (late 90's if you're wondering).

Not to mention all of the other problems that I have with the characters in the novel. Kath is well off and so are her friends- a ski lodge in Vermont, Erica's beach house, how many students are wealthy enough that they can relate to this kind of lifestyle? Kath also mentions that she knows that people from happy homes with happily married parents are more likely to have happy marriages. WHAAAATTT?!?! What message is this sending to our students, many of whom come from broken homes? They are destined for a life of solitude or unhappiness? Also, Kath is so completely one dimensional. The whole book never really develops the relationship between her and Michael- most of their interactions include him trying to persuade her into having sex, her saying no, and then her finally giving in only to discover that she loves it. Yeah, that's a healthy message to send to teenage girls. Oh wait, did I mention Sybil, who has sex with lots of guys to give herself a sense of self-worth, gets pregnant, and after giving birth says she is still not giving up sex. Wow. Later on in the novel, Erica briefly mentionst that Sybil got more than she bargained for with the birth of her baby, but I still get the overall message that sex is so much fun that not even the unplanned pregnancy can stop it.

I think it's crucial to start a healthy, open conversation about sex with students, only because the conversation that should be taking place with the parents most likely isn't. However, Forever is outdated and sends all the wrong messages. The overall message of the book is that your first love won't last forever, so don't let them pin your wings down. I have to say it, I hate this book.

Entwicklungsroman and The Chocolate War: What a Disappointment!

Among various other themes, Robert Cormier's novel, The Chocolate War, explores how adolescents react when confronted with the existence of evil. There was alot about the book that I liked- the melodrama surrounding otherwise mundane events that occur in the life of the high school boys reminded me of how it felt to be a teenager. Everything was a big deal, even if it wasn't, and Cormier really took me back in time and reminded me of how teenager's look at the world. I also liked the way in which he wove HUGE questions into the everyday workings of a typical high school- How, why, and when do we leave the herd mentality behind? Or more succintly- Do we dare disturb the universe?

I have learned that when presented with the truth about the corruption of an institution (be it government, church, a job) that most people have the cliched "flight or fight" response. They either choose to ignore it, hoping that by being apathetic and forgetting about the problem that the problem will in turn, forget about the individual and leave that person out of the path of their corruption. Or, an individual becomes enraged by the corruption and fights against it. I love Jerry Renault's reaction in The Chocolate War- he doesn't want to use violence so instead he stands his ground and accepts the consequences of challenging the school and the Vigils. Jerry chooses the most noble path that was available to him, and I love that Cormier wrote the novel this way. What I don't love is that he chose to end the novel in a way that in my opinion, does not validate Jerry's choice. The message Cormier is sending is that the individual can choose to fight, which may get him respect for a while, but in the end, the institution is bigger than the individual and will crush him. Cormier's ending may be appropriate for an adult novel (though I still love the happy ending promised by most Bildungsromans!), but the message I think it sends to adolescents is that it's not worth fighting the power of an institution. The ending trivializes what little power Jerry had at his disposal and sends the message that he really has no power at all. To be a little more accurate, the ending conveys the message that Jerry didn't have the power to save himself, nor did he have the power to save Goober. Disturbing the Universe argues that Goober knows that Jerry died for his sins, but does Goober become empowered by this act? Will the individual triumph over the institution in the end? No one knows since Cormier ends his novel before I have a chance to enjoy the warm fuzzies that come with a romantic ending.

Really Cormier? I don't think we should force our children to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, but I do think that we should allow them to maintain some hope and sense of justice. Creating a story where good battles evil and good always wins big is a bit lame, I'll agree. But it's the way in which the evil is confronted that makes the story interesting; and it's the way in which good is validated, no matter how minimally, that reminds the reader why fighting back is always worth it. I was with you 'til the end Cormier, but this is where I jump ship.