When the first Sweet Valley High book was published in 1983, Jessica and Elizabeth Wakefield, identical twin heroines of the soon-to-be wildly popular teen fiction series (and subsequent TV spinoff), were described as blonde, beautiful, and a "perfect size 6." Now bid welcome to a new, thinner, Sweet Valley High: Random House is reissuing 12 books from the original series with a few small editorial tweaks, one of which involves the slightly awkward issue of the Wakefield waistline. The twins’ "perfect size 6" has been reduced to a "perfect size 4." Kudos, Random House, for not only introducing body-image issues to a whole new generations of young fans, but proudly trumpeting this point in the press release.
To that end, if you can’t manage to (or afford to) physically alter your body via starvation or plastic surgery, you may still create your own anorexic cyber-waif with a little help from Miss Bimbo.
Comments (1-30) of 45 Add your comment
Sweet Lord, the books were annoying enough when I was in high school and the girls were a perfect size 6. In the next reissue, watch for the Wakefield twins, “blonde, beautiful, and a perfect size 0 with a natural 36DD rack.”
I remember reading that series when it first came out and I wore a size 8 and thought that if I could get into a size 6, I would be perfect too!! It is a shame that they are reducing their size to a size 4 – why not just NOT mention their size and say they are healthy???? How very disappointing.
That’s so great. Let’s continue to damage young women’s self-esteem. Fabulous.
I say forget SVH, and stick with Judy Blume. You don’t get sticky sweet cardboard cutout characters like you would with the SV books, but real human beings who aren’t perfect, or a “perfect” size 4.
This really makes me angry. I was a huge fan of the series back in middle and highschool (in fact I still refuse to let my parents throw away my large collection of books which is taking up an entire corner of the attic). While they were sometimes silly in their plotlines (evil twin, anyone?) I always felt they balanced the “reality” of highschool well between the bookish Elizabeth and the wild Jessica. Im not saying they were realistic, but the fact that they were a normal size 6 (which is still quite small) was encourgaing to all normal sized girls out there. Why do the editors feel the need to change their size at all? To fit in with the “Gossip Girl” world? Ridiculous.
I used to love the SVH books and, in fact, still have some of them. I don’t ever remember the books mentioning their size, so you can see that it did a lot of damage to me! But yeah, it is appalling that they changed their size from a “Fat” 6 to a “perfect” 4. They should have just done away with any mention of size at all.
I was outraged at first, and then I thought about how much “vanity sizing” has affected mainstream sizes. I would guess that in “inches” a 1980s 6 and a 2008 4 are probably the same. However, it is still tacky for them to trumpet it, none-the-less.
My sister once borrowed some from the library at the cottage and I found one. PURE COMEDY GOLD. So far removed from reality SVH boardered on sci-fi/fantasy. It was good for a laugh but not much else.
Ah man, now I feel like I need to build a bonfire out of my rather large vintage SVH collection in protest. OK, they were never the most well written (or realistic) books on the planet but they were harmless fluff…and now I find myself wondering if, in another 15 years or so, they won’t be down to a “perfect size 0″ and making all of their young readers feel inadequate by comparison. Well done, Random House.
Jerks.
Isn’t a size 4 today the same as a size 6 in 1983? I thought they have been adjusting the definition of fashion “size” as Americans have been getting heavier on average…
Great. Now the twins are Kate Moss, or are they now the Olsen twins?
Wouldn’t be surprised if they had silicone-injected lips along with 80 inch busts. How realistic!
Em, I’m right there with you. I swore to my mom when I first moved out that I would come back for my boxes of books from my youth (SVH most definitely included)…too bad that was five years and states away ago. Oops!
It’s not like they’re saying “A Perfect size 0.”
4 is totally reasonable.
Too skinny isn’t good but big isn’t good either.
Why is Lily from All My Children on the cover?
Great, now a new generation can be scarred by comparing themselves to those dang Wakefield sisters. Thank you EW for calling attention to this.
I vividly remember them being a perfect size six. To this day, I want to be a perfect size six.
I don’t see the point of saying their size at all! If the book just says they are beautiful, girls will picture them thin anyway. Why does Random House feel the need to tell middle schoolers what is perfection these days, can’t they decide for themselves?
@ sari, a size 6 is big? well.
Is there a petition to Random House to stop this change? I would certainly sign it. I don’t like the idea that they mention (much less decided to change) the twins size, but telling girls what the “perfect size” is can be dangerous. You would think taking out THAT would be the needed update.
Wow. First that Wal-Mart suing that woman story, now this. Shameless evil everywhere.
I hope that groups like Troll and Scholastic don’t carry these books in their in-classroom sales at schools across the country.
I too remember very clearly that they were a “perfect size six”. At least when I was reading the books (10-15 years ago, I guess), size six was perfectly healthy, not anorexic or anything. I think that the size fours are a more accurate representation of where they fall in today’s sizes… Though it’s unfortunate that they’re publicizing it so widely. But maybe seeing the Wakefield twins as a “perfect size four” will give girls in the appropriate age group some confidence in themselves even if they don’t happen to be size zero, like the cheerleaders.
serina van der woodsen would never stand for this #$%!
serina van der woodsen would never stand for this #$%!
This does make me sad. I used to enjoy those books, and while I can’t remember what “size” the girls were, I just remember that they had fabulous lives! I agree that the really tacky thing is the publisher trumpeting this change like it’s a good thing to be pointing out. I’m a size four and that makes me more perfect than… no one.
OK, first of all, the size issue is ridiculous… I’ve worked in high schools and have seen what a negative body image does to young girls (and gee, I was one myself once upon a time). Simply dangerous, people.
Now on to the larger (ha!) issue: changing the stories at all… did Francine Pascal herself approve these changes – is she now the George Lucas of YA fiction? What’s next: Little House on the Soon-To-Be-A-Strip Mall Prairie? Are You There, Generically Non-Offensive Deity? It’s Me, Margaret.
I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this, but a size six in the 80’s is probably what a size 2, or yes-4, is now. Most clothing companies have done size inflation so we feel prettier. =-) Lord knows I can’t squeeze into my mom’s skirts that she wore in the early 80s, even though they’re a size 8, which is my size. So, I think the Wakefield twins may have actually gained a little! =-O Also, does anyone remember in Sweet Valley University (book #1, I think), how Elizabeth ate her way all the way up to a (*sarcastic*) “perfect size 8″? Oh, the horror!
Okay I just said what El said earlier. Sorry!
Seriously, why is Lily on the cover of SVH? Weird.
Anywho, it’s a shame that they felt the need to change the size to somewhat compliment what the kiddies these days yearn for. But if they don’t want any backlash or bad media press, they should just cut out that size thing all together.