First, I'm offended by the notion that this article--on Are You There, God...--is merely for the middle class or the wealthy. I was raised POOR, by a single, teenaged mother on welfare, and I adored Judy Blume. I had my period--still do--and I worried about it. Now, I find it interesting that the book has been changed, and the article asks good questions about the purpose and handling of fiction, its function. People who make these "no more middle/upper class women" complaints are perhaps not aware that they're being offensive. That is, who are YOU to say what's interesting to any member of any socio-economic class? And why would we want to encourage the age-old assumption that what happens to women is marginal while what happens to men is universal?

But there's a legitimate reason for putting it in Books; it touches on the whole questionable project of not putting anything unfamiliar before the public. I'm sure the article would have been better if it had been broadened from just one book by Judy Blume. But in the meantime, if you want something more "serious" from the Books department, how about the new book on eugenics?

Over and over, I read the complaint that Salon has been taken over by the trivial interests of women. Get some perspective, people! One blog, even if linked from the home page, does not a takeover make. The news and politics articles are still there; there's plenty for you to read about the imperial ambitions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest, and it actually takes up more space on the home page than Broadsheet does. If you're getting only Broadsheet when you visit Salon, you have a technical problem; e-mail Salon about it. Or check that your security software is up to date (you should do that anyway). Maybe you have a virus that blocks everything at Salon except Broadsheet.

Trust me on this one, readers, if you're not from the Chicago area...but based on what I saw in the local drugstores, "belted" or "tabbed" feminine products were still plentiful well into the 1990's.

I guess if it were up to me, I'd leave the book in its original version, because as Traister points out, it is practically a historical novel now, reminding us what hassles women used to go through with that ancient equipment. Anyway, these days girls don't read that book for instruction and information--they use the Internet for that!

But the bottom line is, it's Judy Blume's choice and why should we second guess her if she wants to update her own material? May she write and revise in peace.

Those who claim an article about AYTGIMM is pandering to women are way off base. I loved that book, but I loved equally "Then Again, Maybe I Won't" which was pretty much Blume's male equivalent. The point is, Blume wrote coming-of-age books that BOTH sexes read over and over (sometimes secretly so my mother wouldn't notice how often I reread the fascinating nocturnal emissions passages). Anyone who was an adolescent in America at a certain time will relate to Traister's story.

Our book group took note of this as we've been discussing reading a book from our childhood. All of this might have been solved by leaving in the original reference and then notating it (at the end of the book or at the bottom of the page) to explain that this was the 1970 equivalent to the current maxipad). The original reference is certainly Greek to me!

I don’t like the idea of going back and making changes to a well loved book – but Judy Blume is still alive. This is her book and it’s her business how she wants it to read.

This article reminds me of that SNL skit where Chris Farley plays the interviewer who starts out every question with ‘do you remember when…’

I do remember when I wondered what Margaret was clipping to that belt around her waist. I also had a ‘My Friend Mandy’ doll and I remember all the words to ‘Miss Lucy had a Steamboat.’ So what? I’m just not interested in sitting around all day with a bunch of women (all from the same background it seems) remembering this kind of stuff. It’s just too easy and it makes me feel icky.

I read the referenced book when I was a pre-teen, I liked it, read possibly all of Blume's other works. I certaintly do not remember the whole book well and frankly I don't care that the belt has been changed to the modern stick um pads. But I have to ask, why couldn't an article be written regarding why or why not it may be necessary to change the text of a classic, or if footnotes should be used and this book be used as an example. Instead it's two pages on something that happened 10 yrs ago! Ack, I agree, I am tired of all the middle class women stories. Can I have some interesting male stories once in a while too? Sheesh has the whole site turned into Broadsheet? How about poor ladies or men who had a crappy life and turned it around? Something else please!

In the current edition of "Forever" Blume begins with an author's note describing how times have changed since the birth control exam the teenager receives in the book. She points out, for example, that the book was written before AIDS hit the scene and today health professionals would take every opportunity to insist on latex condoms, condoms, condoms.

Why not do the same thing in AYTG?

>>No one actually disagrees that Salon.com has chosen to pander to upper middle class women>>

I was not aware that only upper middle-class women menestrate (sp?).

It's a novel, not a textbook. It's about growing up, like most YA literature is.

It may not be great literature, but it obviously struck a nerve with a lot of readers over the years. So what if they're middle-class women? Is there something wrong with that?