I would love to get my hands on a new and old copy and do a side by side comparison- it would be another excellent way to avoid writing my paper.
But without the old book or the press to guide me, I'm not sure that I'd actually note the changes. I read Sweet Valley High, but I wasn't devoted to it like The Babysitter's Club. It was just easily available.
Growing up my friend/neighbor's father bought her every and any book she wanted to read, a priviledge that made me twitch with envy. Any and every book. I begged my parents to offer me the same deal but they said, and rightly so, that my then early bibliophilia would put them out of house and home. My friend needed incentives to read. I did not. And the books she chose were The Babysitter's Club, followed by Sweet Valley High.
As they were there, I shrugged and read some of them. The only ones that stick with me today are the specials, such as the Wolfman trilogy, which I loved so much that I went out and bought my own copies (the very realistic installment where the Wakefield twins get summer internships in London and end up dating minor royalty and a werewolf- brilliant. If they'd all been like that, I would've been hooked). I related more to Elizabeth- the good and studious twin. I wonder if everyone did; to me, Jessica generally seemed very unlikeable.The Sweet Valley books were not particularly well written, steeped in cliche, and, if I remember correctly, not very exciting (except the aforementioned specials). I can't think they'll be well-received in today's book market, with the Children's Literature Renaissance we are experiencing at the hands of such geniuses as JK Rowling, Rachel Cohn, David Leviathan, and Scott Westerfeld. Even Gossip Girl, arguably today's Sweet Valley High, is far racier and has a television show to accompany it. Why would anyone pick up a Sweet Valley High book when there are so many better alternatives for today's preteen?