Feminist criticism of "Gamma Rays"

Consider the portrayal of the female characters in The Effects of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds from a feminist critic's perspective. What do you notice?

The first thing that comes to mind when thinking of a feminist critique or reading of this play is the fact that Paul Zindel, a man, wrote a play that has almost exclusively female characters in it. This would make me want to look closely and try to figure out what he does which each of them-- how he constructs them to represent women or femininity in general. (My personal opinion is that none of the characters have enough depth, and what they do show us is not great).

For example, Beatrice and Ruth are contrasted with Tilly because they both wear lipstick, smoke, and talk about or are referenced as having relationships with men (in Ruth's case not terribly explicitly)-- in other words, they have characteristics that are "stereotypically" feminine or female, whereas Tilly is just interested in her science project, and shows no "typically" (or stereotypically) feminine characteristics. Although a brief and perhaps superficial examination, I feel that this is one example of what a feminist critique might show when thinking about this play.

Although this is certainly not all there is to these characters, I felt that there were no positively strong female characters, and that not of them are telling a "feminine" story that is distinct and unique. Perhaps because the feminist reading can be so diverse and can look at a work from so many angles there might be something in this play that would be positively read in a feminist critique.

What I noticed the most when thinking about this play from a feminist perspective was how flat all the characters were. I know this may be my personal opinion of the play getting in the way... Mostly the fact that it was written by a man and the lack of depth in the characters make me feel like a feminist critique would tear this play apart.

What makes Judy Blundell's book worthy of the National Book Award?

I thought that What I Saw and how I lied was well-written for the YA age group and that the story was compelling. Considering it's worthiness for the award, I would say that it was probably judged based on the way the story was constructed-- as a fairly dark coming -of-age story that has historical merit as well as romantic intrigue. I really enjoyed this book, especially because it was a little more adult in its content. Who wouldn't?! On a serious note, the message that the book sends isn't about just doing the right thing all the time, and it doesn't present clear, cut-and-dry situations that get resolved at the end. By the end of the book, there are still so many questions (as we saw in class). Evie learns so much and grows up a lot, but has to make an extremely difficult decision which is not necessarily the right or moral thing to do. Like we said in class, it shows how complicated life and relationships can be, while creating an intriguing and well-constructed story in a very interesting time period. I think it was well-deserving of the award.

Reactions to a novel written in verse (late because I got food poisoning last week and totally forgot!)

Reading a novel like Make Lemonade was interesting because I had never read a novel like that before, and had only enjoyed poetry in very different ways-- getting it in smaller doses for a class or just for fun. When I first heard it was going to be all in verse, I was nervous about the possibility of reading a bunch of rhyming, cheesy poems strung together to make a novel. I was pleasantly surprised to find this wasn't the case... Not that I thought we would read something bad, just that thinking about a YA novel written in verse makes me immediately think like that. I was a little suspicious. I think I have mostly been exposed to either classical poetry (I'm a French major, so a lot of 19th century sonnets come to mind) or really contemporary or more abstract poetry and verse. Make Lemonade is really great because it is just a bunch of free verse poems connecting together to make a whole story. Wolff didn't make it seem too contrived, which was a good thing. Her style seemed really innovative to me because I have never seen anything like that done. I loved it. It was not what I was expecting at all, and was very different from what I was used to. Having LaVaughn be the speaker of the novel also made all the poems have a really interesting feeling. I thought it was wonderful.

Likeable characters

I have found something very likeable in all of the main characters of the books we've read so far. First of all, I liked how inquisitive and mechanical Hugo was. I liked the fact that he was good at tinkering with gadgets because of what he learned from his father. I think this made him interesting and different for me, as I haven't read a lot of books about anyone who was mechanically inclined.

Secondly, H.F. and Bo were incredibly likeable because of the humor that they always showed and the love that they had towards each other. I could relate to H.F. because of her strong emotions and her humor, and Bo was just a great and lovable sidekick because of the grief and support that he simultaneously gave H.F.

Crispin was not quite as likeable as H.F. and Bo, but I did find him likeable because he was absolutely genuine. He was so ignorant at first, but so earnest. That, along with his caring nature, made him a great character that I was able to like and identify with.

Out of all of these characters, Bo and H.F. win the contest for most likeable in my opinion. They are just too funny, and because the setting that they exist in is much closer to my own, I was able to relate to them more easily, which made me like them even more.

Lesbian protagonist? fine with me....

I really enjoyed reading a story with a Lesbian protagonist because I had never read a book like that when I was growing up. I think that now, at a time when there are so many different types of people and lifestyles in our society, it's great to give young people exposure to difference in a positive way. Even then, the point of H.F's story is not that she likes girls, or that her friend Bo likes boys. The most important aspect of her story (and Bo's story) is that she discovers that it is important to be herself and respect herself for who she is, while doing the same for others. She and Bo also realize the importance of friendship. H.F's story is unique because of her sexual orientation, but at the same time, it is a classic hero(or heroine) story of her journey to find herself and to grow into her identity.

Current thoughts on Children/YA lit...

I think that comparing my thoughts about children and YA lit before this semester and now just shows me that I didn't really think about it that much. It has really become an exciting new genre in a way that I wouldn't have put much effort into finding out about before...
Especially in regard to YA novels, I find that now, I am excited to continue reading them and find out about more good authors and titles... Since high school I have been so caught up (like most other people at Agnes Scott, I'm sure) in trying to read the classics and novels that would be considered "high" literature, and then not reading anything but scholarly articles and textbooks. I am realizing now that children's books and YA novels are really opening up a whole new space for me to just read and enjoy good stories and illustrations (something that I am not too often exposed too when reading!)
Compared to what I thought before about children and YA literature, I would say I am developing a much deeper love and respect for this type of literature than I had before. I really believe in what this class is all about: reading, responding to, enjoying, and sharing great children and YA literature. Before this class, I would have thought of it as a thing of my past, or of the future only when and if I have my own children. Now, I know that I can just embrace my inner child or young adult, sit down with a good book and just enjoy.

What would you say to someone who might think of children’s picture books as “lesser” literature?

I think the first thing that I would do would be to hand them a copy of The Invention of Hugo Cabret then see if they still think that!
I would also try to explain to them that in my opinion, to be able to judge whether a work of children's literature is good or not they would have to read it keeping in mind the audience that it is written for. Children's lit is written so that children can understand it and enjoy it, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is not as high quality as a work of classic literature written for adults. To capture the minds of children, to entertain and to teach them is just as important as having a style of writing that is more difficult or complicated to understand. Getting children to read can be extremely challenging, and a great work of children's literature is one that is able to get children excited about reading...This isn't the only thing that makes children's literature good or important, but it is probably the most important thing to me.
I think I would ask that person to think about the books they read growing up, and see if the ones that they read and loved as kids were as important or exciting to them as the great works of literature they might have read as an adult... if so, then that would maybe help them to understand why children's literature is not "lesser" literature.