Splenda replaces sugar in the new 'Sweet Valley High' series

Emily Wed, May 7, 2008 at 04:06 PM EST

Well, I recall reading these books starting in the 5th grade and up through 7th (I think). For whatever reason, I didn't internalize "perfect size 6" as meaning that they were perfect BECAUSE they wore a 6 but rather that they perfectly fit into that size. However, the fact that people are sitting here messaging about it is proof that that were right in making the change. People are paying attention, aren't they? Without something like this for the masses to discuss only librarians would be talking about the reissue of a 20 year-old book series!

pinda Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 08:10 AM EST

I think the Daniels twins were so much better for the part than this new girl. I really don't think changing the size the twins wear is such a big deal. I grew up with these books and it didn't make me want to be a perfect size 6.

GeeMoney Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 09:59 AM EST

Wow. It's 2008, and women have to be a size 4 to be considered pretty, unlike in the 1960's, a 14 was acceptable. So, in about 10 years or so, what size is going to be considered acceptable then? A size -6?

Basically, instead of sending models down the runway, in the future, designers will just send hangers. And women pretty much won't exist - we will all die off trying to attain that elusive size -6. Whoo hoo!

And I thought the economic crisis in this country was bad...

Martha Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29 PM EST

Winona, too funny. How about "Tales of a Fourth-Grade Perfectly Acceptable Boy," "Husky" (formerly known as "Blubber") and "Forever...or at Least Until We Text Message Break Up"?

LisaMama Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:57 PM EST

I would love to know why the publisher changed it at all -- it seems so random. I agree that they could just describe the girls as "healthy and pretty". Why do we need an exact size? This whole thing makes me sick, especially when I think of my young nieces, growing up in this extreme culture where every little part of someone's appearance is picked apart.

Lindsey Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 02:04 PM EST

wow, that's completely screwed up!

Oh and Winona? Your comment about 'Are You There, Generically Non-Offensive Deity? It's Me, Margaret'

ROFL!

Chelsea Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:22 PM EST

Is that Leven Rambin (Lily from All My Children) on the cover? WTF?

Katy Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:46 PM EST

I grant that the new, smaller Wakefields issue is alarming. But please don't lose sight of the fact that this series also teaches readers a lot of important lessons about personal responsibility, self-respect, and good judgment. I would argue that it's critical for young girls to have an Elizabeth Wakefield to compare to a Jessica Wakefield...or a Blair Waldorf or the lot!

Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40 PM EST

There was NO reason to move from a size six regardless of the argument about vanity sizes--seriously. And vanity sizes aren't in every brand so that argument is a moot point. Size 4/Size 6 calling it "perfect" showing that they have to adjust is just ridiculous. And is there no mention of the lavalier necklaces? are those still around?

Snarf Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:15 PM EST

Victoria(Posh Spice)Beckham would still say a size 4 is too big.

AEA Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM EST

Aside from shrinking the twins and (again) linking the size with the word perfect, they're also driving a gas guzzler that likely emits more emissions. Way to go, Random House!

Vivi Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM EST

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.

amah Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08 AM EST

Okay I just said what El said earlier. Sorry!

amah Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM EST

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!

Winona Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 AM EST

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.

Lise Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44 AM EST

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.

NineDaves Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:21 AM EST

serina van der woodsen would never stand for this #$%!

NineDaves Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:21 AM EST

serina van der woodsen would never stand for this #$%!

Sara Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:18 AM EST

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.

Elizabeth Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:07 AM EST

I hope that groups like Troll and Scholastic don't carry these books in their in-classroom sales at schools across the country.

Nix Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:57 PM EST

Wow. First that Wal-Mart suing that woman story, now this. Shameless evil everywhere.

Action Needed Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:45 PM EST

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.

really Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33 PM EST

@ sari, a size 6 is big? well.

Sandra Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM EST

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?

Bec Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:58 PM EST

I vividly remember them being a perfect size six. To this day, I want to be a perfect size six.

Holly Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:39 PM EST

Great, now a new generation can be scarred by comparing themselves to those dang Wakefield sisters. Thank you EW for calling attention to this.

Cece Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:21 PM EST

Why is Lily from All My Children on the cover?

sari Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:19 PM EST

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.

Diana Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:07 PM EST

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!

Susan Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08 PM EST

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!

Jason Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 08:00 PM EST

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...

Silv Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:51 PM EST

Jerks.

Andrea Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:33 PM EST

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.

Snarf Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:32 PM EST

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.

El Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:29 PM EST

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.

Marci Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:13 PM EST

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.

Em Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:48 PM EST

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.

Zod Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:36 PM EST

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.

Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:17 PM EST

That's so great. Let's continue to damage young women's self-esteem. Fabulous.

Krystal Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:13 PM EST

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.

Martha Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 04:12 PM EST

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."