I don’t remember the Little House books as being especially “cool” or “fun”–although I did read them many times.
For those with kids, why not read them? Then read some books showing other sides of the story. And actually discuss things with your kids…maybe when they are bit older than 6.
(Concerning “South’ren” matters–there are the Elsie Dinsmore books. I read the first one as a kid & found it dreadful–saccharine & prejudiced. Not just racist but anti-Catholic. There’s a series–and they are popular with some of the more regressed homeschoolers. * These* are the books not-to-be-read. Because they suck.)
But if you remember, when the two Indians came to the house while Pa was gone, they were wearing fresh skunk skins.
I recently re-read the books and frankly, I agree that the claims of racism etc. are overblown, and this is the wrong series of books to bash. If what literature is really supposed to do with minority groups is portray them as real human beings, then the Little House books do that in spades. There is Soldat du Chene, who is dignified and saves the Ingalls’ skins. There is Big Jerry, who has a heart of gold and also saves the Ingalls’ skins. There are a lot of Indians who keep to themselves. And there are also Indians who are mean, who break into the house and steal supplies. Because humans are like that. They’re all different.
Is Ma afraid of Indians, and does she not care to know them? Yep. And her point of view, if you care to read characters as real people with real fears and motivations and failings, is 100% understandable.
Does Pa move the family onto Indian territory before the Indians have left? Yep. And if you read between the lines, there are a lot of subtle gradations of feeling about that: the Indians will be forced off anyway so why not settle; later, if he’d known they wouldn’t be he never would have crossed into their territory; and the unforgettable scene when the Indians ride away and the Ingalls spend all day watching them. It’s one of the great moving scenes in literature, IMHO. If you don’t weep, you aren’t reading carefully.
Does Mrs. Scott express some vile but very common and historically noteworthy opinions about Indians? Yes, that too. History is seldom pretty. That doesn’t mean we should ignore it.
Isn’t there a scene in one of the books where Laura sees a black man for the first time?
I haven’t read these books in decades. I wonder if they’ll still interest me at nearing 50. I loved them as a kid and use the Ingalls family when I teach genealogy workshops to show how interesting “plain simple farm folk” can be to people who are often hoping to find their grandma’s story about being the descendants of Bonnie Prince Charlie and a Cherokee princess are true (which they never are and most people have a lot more poor farmers in their ancestry than wealthy folk).
Yes. Also in Little House on the Prairie. Dr. Tan is “a doctor with the Indians,” but he’s called in when the white settlers are down with malaria. Laura’s first impression is post-fever, as he’s giving her a dose of medicine, and she likes him.
Yep. There are two kinds of books, with respect to reading or presenting to my kids: those I can present honestly, and we can talk about; and, those that they’re not ready for.
ETA: OK, three kinds, counting the ones not worth spending time on at any age.
Thanks for the thanks, guys. I don’t know what I was thinking, writing a dissertation like that at crazy-o’clock in the morning, but this is tied for my favorite book series ever, and it’s close to my heart.
The one that upset me most is probably her choosing to push her parents out of the lovely house they’d built (Rocky Ridge Farm) so she could live there, convincing them to move into a smaller house nearby that she’d had built for them. It’s kind of surprising that the Wilders let themselves be guilted out of the house they loved, but while Laura was definitely unhappy about it, the parents gave in to Rose’s plans.
Rose was a strange character. Admirable in many ways, and certainly talented, but I think she had some quirky psychological issues that made her a somewhat bitter person.
Exactly, and that was kinda typical of her relationship with Laura. It must have galled her when her mom’s writing turned out far more popular and feted than her own works–which were, to be fair, quite significant in their time.
It’s understandable that you note this, because you probably don’t remember the scene and the way the earlier post was worded, it does sound like a hygiene issue. But to back up Sattua’s memory, the bad smell was indeed specifically described by Laura and even Ma as being the direct result of the fresh skunk skins they wore (which was all they wore); there were no negative implications about their personal hygiene.
Another positive mention (or “pos-men,” to quote 30 Rock) I didn’t refer to is the incident at the start of The Long Winter, in the first non-Laura POV scene in the entire series–well, not counting Farmer Boy. Which is another kids’ book with a huge emphasis on food. If you don’t come away from that craving apple pie or maple syrup-covered pancakes and bacon, you’re made of sturdier stuff than I am!
Anyway, back to TLW: Almanzo, Pa and other men are in the general store shooting the breeze when an old American Indian walks in to warn them about the tough winter that’s ahead of them. Most of the men brush it off but Pa has enough respect and trust in the old guy’s knowledge that he decides to act on the warning at once, moving the family off their barely built shanty in the country and into a much more secure building in town that he’d built.
(It would be dishonest not to note that the dialogue written for the Indian is cringeworthy, e.g. “heap big snow come” and “many moons” etc. Again, typical of the times.)
Which reminds me that that here’s a good instance of Pa being pretty smart, entrepreneurially. The Ingalls were literally the first settlers of the town that would become De Smet, South Dakota (which earned Charles a place on the city board or equivalent, something not discussed in the series). When he saw the land rush coming along with the railroad, he hurried to buy either one or two lots on the main street of town and put up a building, which would bring in rental money.
And it was damn lucky he did, because during the infamous 1881 winter, it meant his family had a sturdy, ceiled refuge that was close enough to school (although classes were pretty much cancelled for most of the winter) and neighbors, supplies, etc.
Spoiler for one of my favorite scenes in The Long Winter:
He was also smart enough to figure out Almanzo’s secret stash of wheat, and assertive enough to take what he needed despite Almanzo’s initially selfish protests. (Apparently a true story–before I read Pioneer Girl I was certain this was something Laura added. Almanzo must have given her the details for the scene, which again was told from his point of view.) Almanzo proves to be a bit of a hypocrite, though understandably so I guess, when despite his insistence that his seed wheat is his and absolutely necessary for the coming spring, he later negotiates to purchase several bags of seed wheat from a stranger, using the same exact arguments that both his older brother Royal and Pa had used on him. (That is, “people are starving” and “money in the hand is better than hoping you’ll get a good crop this spring,” etc.)
Jerry is a great example of an unusually complex character, one who taught young Laura a lot about the gray areas of human behavior. Ma didn’t approve of him, not just because of his half-breed status, but because Big Jerry is a gambler and a reputed horse thief. Pa, on the other hand, thinks that despite this stuff Big Jerry is a friend, and Laura describes him somewhat reverently when she watches him riding his horse without a saddle. But then he also seems to betray Pa, which makes Laura feel awful inside. And he uses “rough language,” a big no-no. In real life he was probably a murderer and definitely a thief, but Laura wrote him much more positively.
(As an aside, Laura’s judging people by how they treat their horses is one of the most consistent characteristics we see throughout the series. She notes someone in a race who whips his team–unlike Almanzo, who only speaks gently to his Morgans; she notes when another guy acts like an idiot and scares a horse by shooting a gun too close to it; and she gives the Indians tons of credit for the respectful, comfortable way they interact with their horses.)
Very well said, Sattua! And for that matter, I think the writing makes it pretty darn clear that we’re not meant to approve of Mrs. Scott’s pronouncements. The tone is disdainful and Mrs. Scott comes across as a small-minded woman, even if she too is simply repeating things she was told.
Yes, backing up Sattua again. The doc with what may seem like an embarrassingly ‘on-the-nose’ name of Dr. Tan is the guy. While Laura is at first surprised by his dark skin, she likes him and credits him with saving her family.
George Tann (the actual spelling) was a real-life figure, and there’s an interesting podcast discussing Tann’s life/career if you’d like to hear more.
I’m your exact age (well, if “nearing 50” for you is “49”) and I say give ‘em a re-read! Coming to them as an adult, one starts to appreciate the parents’ struggles a lot more. I think by the time of the books they’re only in their upper 30s.
Ha, yes–it’s like the way people who believe in “past lives” are always descendants of emperors or ancient queens, never Marcus the Sewage Trench Digger.
Yes, though it’s an interesting question whether the journal will be as interesting to those who haven’t read the books. I think it is, even though there’s not nearly the level of character depth that makes Laura and her family so endearing, the historicity and Laura’s plainspoken observations (sometimes snarkier or less generous than in the published books) are worth it. As are Ms. Hill’s detailed research notes.
It’s expensive, but probably less so than buying the entire book series. (Unless they’re on sale, of course.)
I know of the existence of the " Rose v. Laura: who really wrote Little House?" debate, but I haven’t really studied it. From this thread and from choie’s posts it sounds like Team Laura has the most evidence: is that correct? ( I hope so; I find it reassuring that somebody can hit their creative peak in their 60s and 70s.)
Read a little more on the subject. Apparently Rose was very resentful that her only real commercial success came from retelling her mother’s stories and felt her mother was too naive about publishing to make it herself. Did she herself claim to have ghost written the series? (She certainly doesn’t seem the type who would have graciously never mentioned it if she did.)
I found this letter from Rose to Laura and it’s a shocker. I’m so disappointed to learn that Rose is a clueless, nasty idiot. Her tolerance for sexual predation is astonishing.
Just as an aside. I live in the same county De Smet is in (Kingsbury) and have been to the Courthouse many times to conduct business. As it says, it was built in 1898 and is a really neat old building. I also have driven around town and see the Loftus Store and other Ingalls related stuff all the time. I should actually go in them some time. I have also been out to the cemetery and seen the grave sites when I was doing other photo requests for Find-a-Grave. It’s really a neat and different cemetery. I find it interesting that on the Wikipedia entry for Charles Ingalls it has ‘Citation Needed’ by the statement that he is buried in the De Smet Cemetery.
Yeah, her tone is grating and the way she dismisses the event between Laura and Charley (which I’m pretty sure isn’t mentioned in Pioneer Girl*, although during the Burr Oak years Laura relates another, much more disturbing event when she stayed over at a couple’s home to look after their child).
The husband is a drunk and one night enters Laura’s bedroom, looming over her. She threatens him and fortunately he decides to leave.
Speaking as a developmental editor (the same sort of work Rose is doing for her mother), I’d say many of Rose’s instincts here are correct–and ended up in the book. For example, regarding making By the Shores of Silver Lake start at Plum Creek and avoiding the Burr Oak move does add continuity to the series. Each book starts where the last one left off–geographically if not chronologically–and keeping them in Plum Creek even for just the beginning makes everything tie in neatly. Starting in Burr Oak, without having mentioned the intervening four years and how the heck they got there, would have felt choppy.
She was also right in mentioning that Laura should get to see the railroad being put together herself, even though that never happened. But the compromise (Pa and Ma forbidding the girls to go near the construction site, but Pa himself taking Laura with him so she can see the construction) works far better than it would have been with Mary along. It’s yet another bonding moment between the two, and Laura simply wouldn’t have understood what was going on without Pa’s description.
On the other hand, she was wrong wrong wrong in advising her mother to cut Docia and Henry’s, uh, hijinks regarding their revenge on the railroad company. If nothing else, this book is where Laura learns of the follies of adults, and how good people can do bad things (Docia/Henry) for a good reason, as well as ‘bad’ people doing good things (Big Jerry taking the railroaders away from threatening Pa, but only to cause trouble over at a different camp).
Rose’s condescendingly telling her mother that the men wouldn’t have caused a ruckus over delayed pay was not only rude, it was incorrect; that’s simply what happened. If we’d missed out on that scene, we’d miss one of the most effective, character-defining moments in the entire series.
[spoiler]After the angry men are drawn away from threatening Pa–who was the paymaster/bookkeeper for the railroad camp–and everyone is going to sleep that night, Mary says to Laura how much she dislikes being out in this rough area and wishes they’d go back to Plum Creek. Laura doesn’t answer, but we see her remembering what she witnessed–Pa standing up to the crowd, the menace in his voice, the anger in the men’s stances. She is privately excited to be in such a new, thrilling (if scary) world. She never wants to return to sleepy, dead Plum Creek.
This revealing scene, and it’s only about a paragraph long IIRC, shows us Laura’s adventurousness, her taste for new experiences, even though she’s only a witness to the event. It’s a fantastically efficient way to show her spirit.[/spoiler]
Interestingly we do meet Cousins Louisa and Charley, albeit very briefly, and Charley’s only described as a young man who seems to have grown up very well despite being such a brat back in the Big Woods.
BTW, I have to admit that Rose’s politics is one of the things that makes me dislike her. I didn’t want to mention that earlier because I know it’s a petty thing and besides it’s not something that had a negative impact on Laura or her writing.
(Laura was quite anti-Roosevelt/New Deal herself, and while not officially a Randian sort, she’s certainly a “let me do my own damn business myself” sort. For a pioneer daughter of a pioneer, that’s not surprising.)
All that said, I have to acknowledge her skill for editing/storytelling on display here, even though there are some poor judgments along with the good. She does continually talk down to her mother, and that’s shown in the Pioneer Girl book (but gradually Laura stands firm on her recollections and her own instincts), but aside from her bizarre dismissing of the potential danger and the actual events that disturbed Laura**, she makes some good points among the bad. I’m glad Laura went with some, and ignored others.
I’m going to dig up Pioneer Girl again to double-check whether that Charley incident is there. I have the feeling I’d remember that if it were, it’s such a creepy implication.
That’s crazy re: “citation needed” – aren’t the photo and data from Find-a-Grave enough proof? (Is that yours?!! How incredibly cool!)
My dream is to take a road trip along the Ingallses’ route and end up in your neck of the woods. I envy you! Are the winters still blizzardy, if not as awful as 1881?
Not really. I could take a photo of a grave in Tanzania and put it in De Smet cemetery on find a grave. Or I could photoshop a gravestone in De Smet cemetery, changing the name and dates.Or the gravestone may be of completely different Charles Ingalls and whoever posted it made an honest mistake.
Proof would be a record from a reliable source, not what some anonymous person on the internet claims. A grave registry from the government body would be good, but even a mention in a published book or a newspaper would suffice. Anything but an anonymous claim on the internet.
