Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.37 AVERAGE
3.37 AVERAGE
If I had read this book when I was younger, I might be a different person now.
This is a touch dated (written in the 70s) with references to hooking rugs, albums, embroidered jeans, etc. but the overall message is timeless. Blume addresses teenage love and sex head-on, pulling no punches. A simple read, but a good one. Reading this was quite timely for me, as the main character goes to Planned Parenthood for her birth control and PP is all over the news right now regarding funding.
There's a first time for everything...
Katherine and Michael really round out what it is to be a teenager that's coming into their own sexuality. It's confusing and wild and clumsy and explorative. While the story itself was straightforward and slightly bland in some areas, I admired the story it was telling. There are so many important lessons regarding safe sex, pregnancy, and yes, love. A must read.
Full Review:
https://beentherereadthat.blog/2018/05/21/forevers-an-awfully-long-time-forever-a-book-review/
Katherine and Michael really round out what it is to be a teenager that's coming into their own sexuality. It's confusing and wild and clumsy and explorative. While the story itself was straightforward and slightly bland in some areas, I admired the story it was telling. There are so many important lessons regarding safe sex, pregnancy, and yes, love. A must read.
Full Review:
https://beentherereadthat.blog/2018/05/21/forevers-an-awfully-long-time-forever-a-book-review/
Considering how long ago this book was written it held up well. I mean yes, there are things that are definitely dated (All the decor that’s mentioned, phone booths, people able to drink at 18) but the basic book itself still is good thanks mostly to Judy Bloom’s writing skill. I will never look at the name Ralph the same way again though.
I read this many years ago,because even back then I loved to read about controversial things! Reading now for a book club!
Let's play 70's stereotype bingo, from "Forever..." by Judy Blume.
-Stereotypes of 70's feminists? check. (Kath's mom and Grandma).
-Weird, unnecessary decor descriptions? check. (hooked rugs, posters of monkeys on bicycles, mushrooms knitted on pants.)
-Gratuitous pot smoking? Check! (Michael's sister and brother in law)
-Painfully overt sex ed messages? Check! (Grandma, Planned Parenthood, pamphlets)
I could go on and on, but won't.
First of all, Kath's parents completely confuse me. One minute, they seem pretty cool and like 70's hippie -hangover stereotypes: Kath can bring boys home, has no curfew, mom is honest about sex, etc etc. Next thing we know, they are telling Kath she HAS TO go to camp as a tennis instructor because they are worried about her and Michael taking things too far too fast. Um, has to? Kath is 18. I would have told them to piss off at 18. What kind of parent forces a young adult to go to a job they don't want to try to separate them from their boyfriend? And what kind of teenager actually does it? That seemed like a flimsy plot device to separate the two.
Secondly, there seems to be no depth to Kath and Michael's relationship whatsoever . They might be teenagers, but they date exclusively ("going together") plus seem pretty serious. Yet, you have no idea who these people really are. What does Michael want to take in college? What are their similar interests? It's supposed to be more than a roll in the hay, but it seems that these two really have no depth. They are generally one dimensional.
Erika is another stereotype. The short, sassy, foul mouthed best friend who is fine about talking about anything and doesn't care who she embarrasses. She's overconfident and hip and trying to get her obviously uninterested and troubled date into bed. Erika was also one dimensional. other than that and the fact she has a famous mom, who the hell is this?
Some things I wondered reading the book:
-It was a little unbelievable that parents that were partly hippies and partly uptight about sex (weird)wouldn't question why Kath was in NYC for the whole day..even saying she was "going shopping" and lunch with Grandma would have seemed fishy. They were fine with her going to NYC on her own but not having a steady boyfriend? WTF is this? Kids aren't great at keeping secrets. She was able to hide a prescription for the pill? Her dad is a freaking pharmacist..how is she going to get past that? I think it's cool she got the help that she needed and was able to do so as a teen, but the fact she did this without the side eye from a parent had me laughing.
-The whole why Kath didn't give her parents the middle finger about choosing colleges and being forced to work over the summer.
-How any attachment Kath had had to Michael over the past year takes the pipe because she sees a hot guy at camp. Guess that proves it wasn't "Forever", but most 18 year olds aren't even this fickle in an exclusive relationship.
-Ralph. Good name, because it made me want to puke. Ralph the talking penis would have made me turn and run even at her age. People naming their genitals and talking through them during sex gives me the creeps. People can do what they want in their own home, of course, but doesn't mean I want to read it.
-Michael seemed coercive and like some guy out of an after school special. "I can feel how ready you are.." Yeah, guy speak for I'm horny and want to have sex. He keeps up at that and really pressures her. Kath is a smart girl and supposedly confident. She seems to give in out of worry he won't stick around. For a child of feminists, this is really disappointing.
-Fat shaming. Sibyl's weight is constantly discussed as the root of her problems. Meanwhile, Kath is described as 5'6 and 109 lbs or something like that. Yeah, some girls are that thin at that age or any age, but actually naming her height and weight and not describing her as skinny but describing Sibyl is fat could give a girl a complex.
-Who else didn't believe for a second that Michael's only encounter was with the girl in Maine that gave him "the clap?" (had to look up which STI that was, not my generation.). Or that he didn't still have it? I know it was the 70s but come on.
-And my favourite, the ellipsis. Those drove me CRAZY. Who edited this thing? "Kath...." "Michael..." "Denver...." etc etc etc on every freaking page. It was like the exclamation point in that Seinfeld episode. It was making me cross eyed.
The only thing realistic was that they were not ready for forever. And that sex was not all it was cracked up to be at first.
Walk away.. ... ...
-Stereotypes of 70's feminists? check. (Kath's mom and Grandma).
-Weird, unnecessary decor descriptions? check. (hooked rugs, posters of monkeys on bicycles, mushrooms knitted on pants.)
-Gratuitous pot smoking? Check! (Michael's sister and brother in law)
-Painfully overt sex ed messages? Check! (Grandma, Planned Parenthood, pamphlets)
I could go on and on, but won't.
First of all, Kath's parents completely confuse me. One minute, they seem pretty cool and like 70's hippie -hangover stereotypes: Kath can bring boys home, has no curfew, mom is honest about sex, etc etc. Next thing we know, they are telling Kath she HAS TO go to camp as a tennis instructor because they are worried about her and Michael taking things too far too fast. Um, has to? Kath is 18. I would have told them to piss off at 18. What kind of parent forces a young adult to go to a job they don't want to try to separate them from their boyfriend? And what kind of teenager actually does it? That seemed like a flimsy plot device to separate the two.
Secondly, there seems to be no depth to Kath and Michael's relationship whatsoever . They might be teenagers, but they date exclusively ("going together") plus seem pretty serious. Yet, you have no idea who these people really are. What does Michael want to take in college? What are their similar interests? It's supposed to be more than a roll in the hay, but it seems that these two really have no depth. They are generally one dimensional.
Erika is another stereotype. The short, sassy, foul mouthed best friend who is fine about talking about anything and doesn't care who she embarrasses. She's overconfident and hip and trying to get her obviously uninterested and troubled date into bed. Erika was also one dimensional. other than that and the fact she has a famous mom, who the hell is this?
Some things I wondered reading the book:
-It was a little unbelievable that parents that were partly hippies and partly uptight about sex (weird)wouldn't question why Kath was in NYC for the whole day..even saying she was "going shopping" and lunch with Grandma would have seemed fishy. They were fine with her going to NYC on her own but not having a steady boyfriend? WTF is this? Kids aren't great at keeping secrets. She was able to hide a prescription for the pill? Her dad is a freaking pharmacist..how is she going to get past that? I think it's cool she got the help that she needed and was able to do so as a teen, but the fact she did this without the side eye from a parent had me laughing.
-The whole why Kath didn't give her parents the middle finger about choosing colleges and being forced to work over the summer.
-How any attachment Kath had had to Michael over the past year takes the pipe because she sees a hot guy at camp. Guess that proves it wasn't "Forever", but most 18 year olds aren't even this fickle in an exclusive relationship.
-Ralph. Good name, because it made me want to puke. Ralph the talking penis would have made me turn and run even at her age. People naming their genitals and talking through them during sex gives me the creeps. People can do what they want in their own home, of course, but doesn't mean I want to read it.
-Michael seemed coercive and like some guy out of an after school special. "I can feel how ready you are.." Yeah, guy speak for I'm horny and want to have sex. He keeps up at that and really pressures her. Kath is a smart girl and supposedly confident. She seems to give in out of worry he won't stick around. For a child of feminists, this is really disappointing.
-Fat shaming. Sibyl's weight is constantly discussed as the root of her problems. Meanwhile, Kath is described as 5'6 and 109 lbs or something like that. Yeah, some girls are that thin at that age or any age, but actually naming her height and weight and not describing her as skinny but describing Sibyl is fat could give a girl a complex.
-Who else didn't believe for a second that Michael's only encounter was with the girl in Maine that gave him "the clap?" (had to look up which STI that was, not my generation.). Or that he didn't still have it? I know it was the 70s but come on.
-And my favourite, the ellipsis. Those drove me CRAZY. Who edited this thing? "Kath...." "Michael..." "Denver...." etc etc etc on every freaking page. It was like the exclamation point in that Seinfeld episode. It was making me cross eyed.
The only thing realistic was that they were not ready for forever. And that sex was not all it was cracked up to be at first.
Walk away.. ... ...
This was an easy book to read in the kitchen while I was getting foodstuffs ready for Thanksgiving. How come no one ever recommended any of Judy Blume's books to me when I was a kiddo? All I ever heard about them was that they were "bad" and "not appropriate for kids". So I wanted to catch up and see what I had been missing. I thought this was a terrific book for teens. Pretty realistic and honest, although the main character was almost TOO good to be true and seemed to always do absolutely everything right. But I guess that is the point, to show how you can make certain, somewhat "controversial" choices and experience a positive outcome as long as you act responsibly.
Overall, I thought this book was great! I would've give it 5 stars if Blume had left out the entire "Ralph" thing, eek.
Overall, I thought this book was great! I would've give it 5 stars if Blume had left out the entire "Ralph" thing, eek.
dark
emotional
fast-paced
SO BAD DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME
I’m sure when this book was released it was revolutionary, but rlly not a good read considering all the other romance novels you could read instead. The characters had no depth and no chemistry, and no scene felt fully fleshed out.
I’m sure when this book was released it was revolutionary, but rlly not a good read considering all the other romance novels you could read instead. The characters had no depth and no chemistry, and no scene felt fully fleshed out.
I read this again as an adult, and it is still a classic. I feel like I lived many of Judy Blume's books when I was growing up, and this is one of them. Judy was right there with me, guiding my adolescence and answering the many questions I had along the way.