are you there god? it's me, margaret. judy blume.

thanks to a flavorpill post, i learned that june 17 is blumesday, a day to honor author judy blume.  it's a play on june 16 which is bloomsday, a day to celebrate author james joyce; his work "ulysses" is set on june 16, 1904.  

since i loved reading judy blume books as a preteen (we didn't have the term "tween" back than), i decided to read "are you there god? it's me, margaret" to celebrate blumesday.  (and the copy in the photo is my original copy that i read when i was a preteen!)

as hopefully you all know from your own reading, "are you there god? it's me, margaret" is about a girl in sixth grade, margaret, and her journey through the tougher parts of being a girl: shopping for a first bra, waiting to get a period because everyone else already has theirs, discovering how catty girlfriends can be, and realizing the cute guy in class is not necessarily the best guy.  though, margaret has one other issue which is where the title comes from, a lack of religious identity.  margaret's father is jewish and his mother is catholic since their parents did not approve of their marriage, they decided to raise margaret without a religion and let her chose when she is older.  regardless of the absence of religion growing up, margaret still turns to god to help cope with the stress of growing up.

i think i read this book when i was in sixth grade, which would be prefect because it was the same age as margaret.  i believe it was sixth because i didn't have my period yet (i started in 7th).  as a result, i had to asked my mom and aunt about the whole sanitary napkin belt that maraget discussed.  they told me about the belts they had to use but thankfully i didn't have to worry about all that because my sanitary napkins would come (and still do) with adhesive so they would stick to my undies.   i mean tampon commercials demonstrate all the things you can do thanks to tampons, imagine all the things you couldn't do thanks to that belt.

and i am glad i read this book pre-period because sixth grader me needed the life lessons blume gave in this book.  blume gives such a honest portrayal of growing up that this should be required preteen girl reading.  i must admit that i when i read this book as a preteen, i dwelled on the parts about making your boobs grow (my breast came in high school, i can admit that i did "i must, i must, i must, increase my bust" a handful of times) and periods but i got that the girls were being catty for no reason and that the hot boy was a jerk, but i didn't take those stories to heart like i should have.  but i mean i was still young, life would see to it that i learned those lessons.  and in retrospect, it's sad because as a preteen you learn these lessons, but people don't really change.  at thirty, i still see women being catty and in all my years of existence, i have only met one hot guy who was actually nice.  i take back my earlier statement about this being required preteen girl reading, it should be required female reading!

a big portion of the book that went over my head was the religious part.  i got why  margaret didn't have a religon but i didn't really get it.  for one thing, judaism was an abstract idea for me then, i didn't met a jewish person until i was in college. i knew catholics so knew how their church went but didn't really get all of the parts about margaret's temple experience.  i did understand the importance of marrying within one's religion, but have never felt the pressure to do so. my family members have married all religons and ethnicities so i never felt the need to marry a specific kind of person.  for example, my grandfather was chinese-arabian and a muslim (he was really strict about the pork eating) and my grandmother is mexian-filipino who was raised catholic but converted to mormonism.  our family is one big melting pot (which i love) so if i married a jew or a catholic, no one would have an issue.  as a result, i probably was able to understand what was going on in but didn't really identify with margaret.

as an adult, looking back i that blume presents important points about spirituality versus organized religions for preteens.  even though margaret does not have a religion, she still has a relationship with god.  this provides two importance lessons.  first that ones relationship with god can and should  be personal and defined by onself.  growing up mormon, i believed that there was only one correct way (as instructed by the church) to worship god but as i grew up i realized that what is important is one's faith in god versus the rituals of organized religion).  the second lesson is one of tolerance, every time margaret goes to experience a new religion she speaks to god as a being that watches over all things and not restricted to one religion.  margaret is right in addressing the same god each time because essentially the jewish, catholic and christian god are the same god.  this is an important point to make so kids will not be prejudices against others due to their religion because at the heart of it all, judeo-christian faiths believe in the same god.

i am glad that i reread "are you there god? it's me, margaret" because it reminded me of what a wonderful author judy blume is.  i will have to reread some of her other books i read as a kid.

dracula. bram stoker. (4)

i never got on the vampire bandwagon.   i've never read (or have a desire to read) "twilight"; never watched "true blood" (again who has premium cable?), i will admit that i have sat through episodes of "vampire diaries" with my cousin erin but nothing in our vampire saturated culture caught my interest. i also never got caught up in the anne rice's work either. i was young when "interview with a vampire" came out and loved "queen of the dead" but mostly cos stuart townsend was hot. so "dracula" was my first vampire read and i mean where else does one start but with the original vampire book. (question: do all other vampire works acknowledge dracula as the og vampire? like does edward come from his line?)

the funny thing about reading "dracula" is that you have to read it with a clean slate.  you have to act as if you have never heard of edward, or buffy, even dracula himself (i mean you are meeting the guy for the first time, if its your first reading). if not, you will be frustrated with characters for their lack of vampire knowledge.  i first encountered this with jonthan harker, and what feels like his inability to instantly recognize the true nature of count dracula.  though i shouldn't be so harsh on jonathan, for someone who has never heard of vampires superstitions prior to his working with count dracula, he did well with recognizing that the lack of mirrors or his host's disappearance during the day and lack of appetite at dinner didn't add up to that of a normal human being.  i mean the weird group sex fantasies were a good red flag that something was up too, but he did well in trusting his suspicions. 

another character i wanted to kick because of her lack of vampire 101 was lucy's mother, i know garlic smells gross (i personally associate it with food so love the smell of it) but she should have never removed that garlic garland from around lucy's neck.  but i have to remember she didn't know better.  and in addition to this, why was mina the only one that noticed the two red marks on lucy's neck and in what world would anyone see vampire marks on their neck and think they pricked themselves with a pin!?!? (that is like girls trying to convince themselves that their hickey looks like a curling iron burn!) but i guess their lack of knowledge is in line with the tradition of horror, where we, as the viewer, always know better than the victim (and would have never ran in that direction.)

as much as i was upset with their naivete, i was impressed with their, well primarily, van helsing's medical knowledge.  (and yes, as i read, i totally envisioned huge jackman as van helsing.  swoon.)  what amazed me was that van helsing performed blood transfusions!  "dracula" was published in 1897 so i guess it isn't as old as i thought it was.  but still blood transfusions seem like a modern (granted "dracula" is turn of the century.) phenomenon.  maybe i'm biased because i'm a chicken (fear of needles) when it comes to giving blood and think the current way of giving blood isn't that sophisticated, so i can't imagine what people a hundred years had to endure. so when van helsing suggest that they perform a transfusion for lucy. i immediately googled on my phone and it turns out (thanks to wikipedia) that the first successful blood transfusion was performed in 1818 by british obstetrician dr. james blundell.  pretty impressive!  and how create of stoker to use it as a means to try to combat the dracula's converting of lucy to the darkside! 

blood, obviously is very important throughout all of "dracula".  that is his source of life, (it's our source of life too).  but there was one blood issue that i figured would arise especially with dracula's female victims, but it was never addressed.  (and if stoker really wanted to push victorian buttons he should have talked about this.)  but what effect does menstruation have on vampires?  a small amount of blood could provoke a vampire, when jonathan nicked himself while shaving, the count reacted with "eyes blazed with a sort of demonic fury" and he "made a grab" at jonthan's throat.  imagine what a woman bleeding for 3-7 days could cause a vampire to do? does twilight even address bella's cycle?  i mean it seems like a good deal for edward.  we, women throw out that blood each month, so bella could start using a diva cup and save it for him.  that sounds gross but i think it's thoughtful.  i mean did buffy the vampire slayer ever discuss that in the movie or in the series?  i mean at the risk of sounding like a perv, this could be the premise for a great twilight parody porn.  i know, inappropriate!  but is it . . .

it's not.  that joke would be in stoker's vein of humor, if he told jokes about oral sex, not sure if he did, but he did write about it.  i was shocked when i read mina recounting her interaction with the count:

With that he pulled open his shirt, and with his long sharp nails opened a vein in his breast.  When the blood began to spurt out, he took my hands in one of his, holding them tight, and with the other seized my neck and pressed my mouth to the wound, so that I must either suffocate or swallow some of the--Oh my God!  my God! what have I done?

when i first read it, i thought i was a bit of a pervert for thinking inappropriately about what i had read but after reading the intro written by brooke allen, it is to mimic fellatio. vampires were sex-driven creatures. and if one googles there are tons of essays on sexuality and "dracula". i came across one that explained how the two dots on lucy's neck were suppose to resemble a vagina?!?! that seems to be stretching it for me!

there are also tons of essays on stoker being sexist and his portrayal of female sexuality in "dracula" as well. but without getting too deep into the topic. i will say that i did not find "dracula" sexist. the sad reality for us women is that we have to be both the virgin and the whore, this dichotomy has plagued us throughout all of history and our current mass media only endorses. so yes we are the orgy loving vampire trio along and virginal lucy needing men to keep us safe. it's like luda says "he wants a lady in the streets but a freak in the sheets."

also i did not find stoker to be sexist due to the fact that mina was a strong female character. i would add her to my canon of amazing females. i found it interesting how she criticized the "new woman" and their unconventional views of marriage yet her own involvement to stop dracula was unconventional. it's her intelligence and brilliance that pieces together the accounts that lead to the exposure and ultimately destruction of dracula (sorry for the spoiler but for a split second when i was reading, i thought he was going to survive). in this light mina to me is a true feminist, one that is not embarrassed to hold on to conventional female roles yet still has the open-mindless to embrace new ones.

all in all, is dracula worth a reread? i enjoyed it, so yes. it's clever, and i enjoyed how it was told from different perspectives. and if it's a choice between this and "twilight", go for this!

ps i was also upset with "twilight" because in "dracula", dracula and the wolves get along? was there some great schism that stephenie meyer included in "twilight" to explain the team edward/team jacob hatred?

quotations:

"if ever a face meant death--if looks could kill--we saw it at that moment."

(is this where the phrase come froms?)

pss- i have included a little film
short by spike jonze that features mina from "dracula". enjoy!