PERSONAL MUSINGS ON A CONTROVERSIAL FAVOURITE
I do indeed have very many fond reading memories regarding Judy Blume's 1975 novel Forever. It has (ever since my first perusal of Forever at the age of fourteen in 1980) been a novel for me to appreciate and to also read over and over again, and especially so since Forever is even today (in 2025) still often considered so controversial and problematic with regard to Blume's thematics and contents that an unfortunately high number of IGNORAMUSES (often the puritanical religiously fanatical types, helicopter parents, brainless politicians, school board members etc.) continue to desire Forever to be universally banned (and sadly also often succeed), namely that these vile dicktators (sic, spelling is a very much and totally deliberate pun) want not simply their own children, their own teenagers to NOT be allowed to read Forever, but that they basically strive to undemocratically and dictatorially deny (like a bunch of Nazis or Stalinists) ALL children, ALL young adults across the board so to speak the basic right of freedom of choice, the freedom to read. And please do bear with me if this review of Forever might not be as coherent and as "organised" as some of my other offerings (as I often do have issues posting about my personal favourites and that with many of my favourites books, I actually am much happier and as such also more comfortable presenting general musings and my personal, my emotional reactions).
Now I remember first reading Forever in 1980 when I was in junior high school (in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to be exact). It was all the rage in my class and since some of our teachers and even more parents were categorically against us reading Forever at school (or at all), this of course not only made Forever incredibly enticing, this also naturally made us clandestinely take copies of Forever to school, not only to read on the sly so to speak, but of course also to allow those classmates who were not allowed to read Forever at home the chance to do so at school (and I did get my first dose of respect from my erstwhile rather bullying classmates when they realised that I had actually managed to entice my mother to purchase a copy of Forever for me). But well, my mother truly believed that Forever was simply a novel about first love (and I definitely made sure not to mention in any way that Forever was considered quite massively controversial by many, including many of my teachers, because while my parents were generally not all that worried about my reading choices, as Germans of the immediate post WWII generation, they also at that time still had the unfortunate tendency to consider books deemed controversial by especially one's teachers to be at best potentially problematic).
Indeed, truly, I do strongly (and with a sense of annoyance that has indeed lasted for decades) remember how everyone (from my teachers to even many of my classmates) were constantly talking and pontificating about all of the sexuality presented and featured by Judy Blume in Forever and especially the fact that Michael had named his phallus, almost as though the whole book, the whole novel was only, solely about sex, sex, and more sex. But to be honest, when I finally did read Forever, I really did not understand (and still do not quite understand) what all of the fuss was about. For Forever is most definitely NOT primarily about sex, it is about two teenagers falling in love, engaging in their first heavy duty relationship, and while sex is an important part of that relationship, it is by no means the only theme presented by Judy Blume. And in fact, I think the main points of consideration in Forever are the many interpersonal relationships, Katherine's relationship with Michael, her relationship with her friends and immediate family, and also importantly, the loving and sweetly nurturing, emotionally sustaining relationship Katherine has with her grandparents. And the silly and yes, majorly and utterly frustrating part about all these so-called do-gooders (well, they are actually quite the opposite, they are in fact do-badders) who wanted to and still often continue to want to ban and/or censor Forever, is that their rantings somehow made (and continue to make) Blume's text appear as though it was (it is) some pornographic trash, when Forever is, in fact and for the most part, a tender and compassionate love story about teenage relationships, feelings, school, personal choices (puberty and all the ups and downs this can easily cause for both girls and boys). And after perusing a number of comments from individuals (parents, politicians etc.) and moronic "special interest" groups desiring to universally and categorically ban and censor Forever (and many of these unfortunately being nothing but rather offensive and braying rabidly creepy tirades) one of the main points of contention on which the latter always seem to harp like a bunch of squawking seagulls, is the possibility (and for them actually the absolute probability) that the sexuality, the sexual relationship between Katherine and Michael could (and generally would) entice especially female teenage readers into similar such relationships. But personally, I for one more than realised after reading Forever the first time, that my teenaged self was not in any way ready or even willing to engage in that kind of emotional, heavy and problematic sexual relationship, or any intense interpersonal non platonic relationship for that matter (and yes, even with those very few boys at school whom I actually found physically and emotionally attractive and interesting). For indeed, the candid way Judy Blume describes in Forever the ups and downs of Katherine and Michael's relationship, the massive responsibility required to prevent unwanted pregnancy (condoms, but particularly how the use of birth control pills is really seen as the sole responsibility of the woman, of the girl), and in particular Erica's cousin Sybil (an actual teenage pregnancy), this all made teenaged me totally realise that I absolutely wanted and needed to wait more than ANY sex education class, than ANY adult preaching abstinence, than ANY condemnation from conservative church groups could even REMOTELY have achieved.
But yes, when I was recently rereading Forever for something like the tenth time or so, I immediately did notice that while I am still absolutely loving and engaging with Katherine as a character, I do tend to now find Michael (and actually many if not even most of the presented teenaged male characters, including Michael's friend Artie) more than a bit lacklustre, basically stock-like, stereotypical, rather flatly conceptualised, less nuanced and developed, and thus also much less interesting and intriguing than particularly Katherine and her best friend friend Erica (and indeed, even Erica's cousin Sybil appears more fleshed out in Forever, and no pun is intended here). And I am not sure if this is a relevant or even a correct (and acceptable) observation, but I have actually always had somewhat of a feeling that Judy Blume often seems to do a better job depicting, writing about female characters than male characters, that her literary girls (such as Katherine, Margaret, Deenie, Karen etc.) are on the whole more nuanced and wholly believable than the majority of her male characters. And even as much as I have always enjoyed reading about Peter Hatcher and his annoying little brother Fudge in Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, I actually do tend to now think that Peter's nemesis Sheila Tubman is a much more interesting, more nuanced, albeit I agree, also massively and painfully annoying and infuriating character (and one I really do love to hate). Therefore, in Forever, both Michael and by extension his often depressed and lonely friend Artie are not nearly as complex and interestingly depicted, presented as Katherine, Erica, and even Katherine's kid sister Jamie. And then, when a basically flat and cardboard like character such as Artie is described by Judy Blume as having tried to commit suicide, you do end up with a bit of a potential problem. For Artie is simply not developed enough as a character; there is just not enough to him (and not enough of a backstory), and Artie’s suicide attempt in Forever, it thus does have the unfortunate tendency to feel a bit as being at least somewhat a tacked-on afterthought (which I actually find more potentially problematic and unnerving in and of itself than ANY of the scenarios in Forever dealing with sexuality and love making, and which I also only realised recently and not when I read Forever as a teenager).
So my original copy of Forver was a white paperback with a girl's picture encased in a simple locket as its front cover (but unfortunately it fell apart due to multiple rereadings), and in the more recent, more current paperback version I have now (and am reviewing) one can see that the cover image has two sets of legs on a bed (Katherine's and Michael's, I assume). And personally, I do tend to find said particular cover rather, no actually very much unfortunate and problematic, as it strengthens the presumption that the whole and entire plotline of Forever is about what goes on in the bedroom, that the novel is ONLY about sex, when it so clearly is not (it is about Michael and Katherine falling in love, and later falling out of love, and sexuality is simply part of that equation). And with regard to Judy Blume's featured themes and the issues presented in Forever, I tend to actually think that Katherine and Michael for the most part have a much healthier relationship than what is depicted in many more recent YA novels, certainly a lot healthier and normal than many of the rather shallow romances featured in series like Sweet Valley High and especially (and creepily) Twilight. They are perhaps a little too much into each other, but that is not abnormal and actually rather common in teenage romances. Neither Michael nor Katherine are (and fortunately) depicted Blume in Forever as being either monsters of depravity or paragons of virtue; they are just a pretty standard teenage couple experiencing their first heavy duty relationship (I think Michael is perhaps a bit more emotionally immature, as well as being a bit more sexually experienced than Katherine, but that is rather standard as well, unfortunately). Katherine and Michael thus (at least in my opinion) certainly do not have an inherently unhealthy relationship in Forever; they have a relatively normal teenage romance type of relationship, a love that in the end proves not to be as long-lasting, not as forever as both protagonists originally and fondly thought and hoped. Also and furthermore, I am (personally) unfailingly glad that Judy Blume has written Forever realistically, that she has not attempted to make either Katherine or Michael into some kind of teenage role models. For sometimes (and for me in fact often) you just want to (and need to) read a realistic story, an account that also does not shy away from showing the ups and downs, the problems and joys of being a teenager and experiencing love, lust and hormones. And this was (indeed) one of the main reasons I enjoyed Forever so much as a teenager (it presented an interesting and engaging narrative, spoke realistically to me, and covered areas and issues about which I would have felt massively weird and uncomfortable approaching and asking my parents, areas and issues that my parents also likely would not have enjoyed discussing with me either and in particular not in English).
Finally (and perhaps also repetitively), I would like to just again reiterate the following once more. While I personally very much consider Judy Blume's Forever a wonderful and in many ways even an important novel, I do recognise the fact that it is controversial and that many actually despise Forever and consider it majorly anathema. But while I can both understand and even albeit a bit grudgingly appreciate this, I can NOT and will NOT accept in any manner, in any way, those individuals, those so-called special interest groups who (that) have over the years (and still) challenged the novel and attempted to have Forever banned, to have it removed from library shelves and so on and so on. Everyone has different tastes, and everyone also has different levels of reading comfort, of what he or she can textually handle, can accept in a book (and elsewhere). However, while a parent, while anyone might indeed have the right to monitor and even restrict his or her own child's reading choices, he or she does NOT or rather should NOT ever have the right (or even the presented legal opportunity) to impose this on others (book censorship, book banning, these are simply and profoundly dictatorial, and those who attempt to get books banned and censored are basically and for all intents and purposes undemocratic bullies, Fascist, Stalinist, you name it). So and frankly, those who want to have Forever censored or banned are a collective and dangerously ignorant threat (and they are basically profoundly and dangerously undemocratic in every way). And I will both gladly and with no shame or guilt whatsoever loudly call anyone in favour of censoring or wanting Forever universally banned or removed from schools and libraries are raging Nazi or Stalinist and right to their bigoted, ignorant faces as well (and since I also am of the firm opinion and belief that once children reach their teenage years, parents really should no longer have all that much of a right to restrict reading choices anymore anyhow, I also totally do not feel at all guilty in any way about during high school letting friends whose parents were actively preventing them from reading Forever at home peruse my personal copy of Forever at school, yay for rebellion, and I also encourage today's teenagers to actively and collectively rebel against not only their parents, but also against politicians, lawmakers, teachers, school board officials etc. who are banning books and more and yes this includes the POTUS and book banning happy governors).