What disturbs you about the Little House books?

[oeccscclhjhn]

Ok, while I wasn't born under a rock, you think? Just heard about these books in Ryan Holiday's The Obstacle Is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph.

[K12144]

Honestly, I don't know that I've read all of them. I think I missed the Plum Creek / Silver Lake / Long Winter books. I need to go back and read them.

(Yes, I know this thread started a long time ago and some of what I'm quoting are old posts.)

Originally Posted by rodentraiser

Of course you should read them staring with Little House in the Big Woods. The books weren't meant to be a series, so the first book is written a little differently. It chronicles a lot of the ways people lived then, showing how they butchered hogs, made cheese, and got maple syrup. It's almost a how-to book and is very fascinating.

-------------------------------

I think that I started this discussion to get another view of how people see the books. I've read and reread them countless times, and yet I keep finding inconsistencies in them and inconsistencies between the books and the real life Laura Ingalls led. Sometimes I wonder if she wasn't writing about a world she wishes she could have lived in.

For instance, there's the part in Little Town on the Prairie where her Ma tells Pa that she won't have Laura working in a hotel among strangers. Yet, if you look at her real life, Laura did work in a hotel when she was eleven or twelve when the family was in Burr Oak.

Also, for all that Laura pushed the family togetherness thing, apparently her own daughter felt she was unloved and that her mother even told her that life is hard and she just needed to get used to it. This is something I've read in two places so far and I'm still trying to verify it.

There is also the fact that Laura believed people shouldn't depend on the government and should only rely on themselves, stating at one time she didn't believe in handouts. Yet Mary, despite all the things written about how the family scrimped and saved to send her to college, actually had her college paid for by the state of South Dakota.

These are things so at odds at what are in the books, I just had to bring them up.

I think this may be common for this type of book. Strangely enough, I don't feel as disillusioned by this as I do about James Herriot's books, another series I loved as a child (and still do).

Spoiler

Part of me sort of wishes I hadn't read a thing about him that was saying a lot of the stories were made up and such. It's not that it bugs me per se, but the stories were so much fun I kind of "want to believe," lol (I would feel differently if the books were written solely as made-up fiction). And I get that they were played up, combined, etc. (But, I think these are supposed to be considered to be memoirs of a sort, right, not fiction?) It does kind of make me wonder just how much was true. and it makes me wonder why he invented some of the things he did, like the whole bit about Siegfried and Tristan's names, that they allegedly had these "weird" names because their parents loved opera... I'm not sure what that was supposed to add to the stories since it was a total fabrication; their actual names were completely commonplace.

You know, it never occurred to me before to be really bothered by Pa and the moving around (though I seem to recall having thought about it a few times), but now that you mention it... I guess I just sort of assumed that's what people did back then, sucks but oh well. (I've read other fictional books dealing with "going West" where it bugged me more*.)


*One book I read a few times as a kid because I owned it was Kate's Book, by Mary Francis Shura.

Spoiler

In this one the "dad chooses to move" dynamic is worse because no one else in the family wants to do it, it estranges them from family (grandparents; I can't remember if her mother's or father's parents), estranges them from Kate's brother (he chooses not to go as he's adult age and currently in college studying medicine; understandable but then her father essentially disowns him for it-- he says something like "you may choose to say you still have a brother but I no longer have a son" which has Kate's mother in tears), and it is pointed out by others in the book that her father is essentially a dreamer type who will drag his family around on a whim.

Originally Posted by Coney

Laura doesn't mention in her books that the family lived illegally on land, but a poster on here mentioned that they did, presumably that is known after researching deeds and other land records.

I can't remember if she mentions it in the books (though it seems I do remember something about it), but I do remember specifically that the back summary of one of mine said something about how they settled the land, "but in the end the land belonged to the Indians, and the government made them move on again" or wording to that effect (it softens it, if it's truly that Pa deliberately did this).

Originally Posted by nightbird47

It was fascinating. This book is about her as a small child. And yet, for us, she doesn't seem it. She knows about the bad things, like sickness and death, but she sees them as part of life. She's a practical kid. She isn't the innocent we see kids as today, but she's still a kid. Just one who lives within a very different world than we can imagine.

But because she wrote them as an adult with an adult's understanding of those things, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to assume she was wise for her years rather than that the writing was flavored with an adult's maturity.

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I read them all as a child, and am having a little bit of difficulty sorting through what was on the TV show vs. what was in the books.

The tv show seemed much more light-hearted and frankly, viewed the time with rose-colored glasses.

Even as a child, a few things stood out to me. Of course, I could be wrong on these memories and they were from a different book besides the Little House series.

1. They needed a barn cat to rid the property of vermin so Pa paid 50 cents for a not quite yet weened kitten. Fifty cents then was a kings ransom, and why in the world would you pay THAT MUCH for something that even now is free? Some neighbor's brood of barn cats has yet another littler, maybe make them up a batch of cornbread or trade a dozen eggs for one of the many kittens? I remember thinking was that really true - were kittens ever at a premium?

2. There was an adopted girl or maybe stepchild in Laura's school. It became a fad for the girls to have some kind of name card things printed at the Olsen's store, and Nellie was the first to start the fad. Many girls joined in and got namecards, except the adopted girl who cheerfully said I don't need any, I'll just enjoy looking at yours. And that got the approval of everyone, because this girl clearly knew her place and was grateful she wasn't on the streets. That seemed so typical of the time - that a child who had no control over her circumstances and ended up losing their parents dare not ask for anything besides the most meager subsistence and should be cheerful and appreciative.

3. Laura was sent away to work as a teacher and was housed in a home that had some kind of really uncomfortable undertones. The specific complaint was a narrow bed that Laura was afraid of falling out of, but there was more to it - and I couldn't gauge exactly what. Something lurking below the surface. Like in Nancy Drew's Sign of the Twisted Candle, and The Bobsey Twins and Baby May, there was something lurking below the surface that I knew was more disturbing than was actually brought to light.

I admit I'm not a fan of TV shows made from books and movies because they need to add so much filler to get a series out of it. (why I'm bothered that they had to make up a bunch of stuff for the show that wasn't in the books, when the books aren't 100% accurate, I don't know, but there you go, lol.

1. I guess I never thought about it in those terms, but I assumed that not very many people actually had cats, so they maybe weren't as ubiquitous as you might think?

2. I think I probably thought of that more in terms of, they admired that she didn't complain about her circumstances... but... isn't that something we value even now? Nobody wants to hear someone talk about their problems, they just want them to say "Oh I'm doing great." I think this was probably more valued back then, and by that culture.

3. Didn't she wake up one night and the wife was standing over her bed with a knife, and she found out the wife wasn't 100% mentally healthy? And then she moved out of that house? Or am I misremembering something? It seems I also remember the couple was having marital problems which made an uncomfortable atmosphere, they weren't very welcoming (I think Laura notes this and explains it to herself as "oh they just don't want to have to board the teacher"). I never read more into it than that, but now that you mention it, I need to read it again and see if she might have been alluding to something.

[dynamicjson]

Originally Posted by rodentraiser

However, there are many people today who are taking a closer look at the books. Obviously, some things in the books would never have made it to the printed page today simply because of the times these books were written in.

thats a huge problem.

why should we ever not allow books that tell things realistically? why do marxists want every story, work of art or utterance amended so that it fits their cookie cutter ideal of reality? oops, answered my own question.

"you cant say that word in there."

"its a book about the jim crow era."

"doesnt matter, youre perpetuating the problem and GIVING IT A PLATFORM. this should be banned from schools, its oppressive to have this sort of racist filth here."

"youre copyediting history."

"hey youre white, you wouldnt understand."

"youre white too, and you went to yale. im a line cook."

"check your privilege, im a proud gay trans female midget."

"oh im sorry your highness, i mean your lowness, i-- oh, **** it why do i ever talk to you people?"

[netwit]

Marxists?

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

thats a huge problem.

why should we ever not allow books that tell things realistically? why do marxists want every story, work of art or utterance amended so that it fits their cookie cutter ideal of reality? oops, answered my own question.]

Marxists? Huh? Publishers want to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Of course, that's absurd.

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

"you cant say that word in there."

You know, you can write any word in a book and get it printed. In the days when Wilder was writing, you couldn't. Literally, you could not. American publishing houses would not touch them, and there were bans on their import. An example is Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn. The ACLU attempted to import copies in 1950. They were seized by U.S. Customs and declared obscene. The ACLU sued and courts upheld the seizure. It wasn't until a series of cases before the United States Supreme Court in the late 50s and early 60s resulted in obscenity laws being ruled unconstitutional that freedom in publishing exploded.

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

"its a book about the jim crow era."

What on Earth are you talking about? Lots of books about the Jim Crow era are published. Lots of them use 'that word' that you're obviously talking about.

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

"doesnt matter, youre perpetuating the problem and GIVING IT A PLATFORM. this should be banned from schools, its oppressive to have this sort of racist filth here."

You're not describing the publishing industry. You're describing the opinion of some people. And 'some people' have every opinion imaginable.

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

"youre copyediting history."

"hey youre white, you wouldnt understand."

Now you're just being ridiculous. The publishing industry is extremely white.

Originally Posted by dynamicjson

"youre white too, and you went to yale. im a line cook."

"check your privilege, im a proud gay trans female midget."

"oh im sorry your highness, i mean your lowness, i-- oh, **** it why do i ever talk to you people?"

Are you done embarrassing yourself?

You know what would've tanked Wilder's attempts at publication? If she'd written about gay characters. Or transgender people. And I'm sure the irony of that fact, in light of your rant, is completely lost on you.

Right now I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. It wasn't published all that long ago. 1963. One of the characters uses the word 'fugging'. Why? Because at that time, he was unable to write the obvious word that he would have otherwise used. Hemingway sometimes used the word 'profanity' because no publisher would publish his novels if he used actual profanity in them. What you refer to as 'the word' is frequently used in modern literature. Cormac McCarthy uses it repeatedly in Blood Meridian, considered his magnum opus. Stephen King uses it and numerous other ethnic slurs. Toni Morrison. Thomas Pynchon. David Foster Wallace. Phillip Roth. Beyond that, all sorts of sexual content that was prohibited both legally and practically now is depicted in books.

The idea that the publishing world is not far, far more accommodating to terminology and ideas today than it was in years gone by is utterly baseless.

Originally Posted by netwit

Marxists?

My feigned confusion above notwithstanding, I suspect this refers to 'cultural Marxism', which is just a term for political correctness for people who see the machinations of Trotsky and Mao behind everything. Note that this only applies to political correctness that they dislike and which is made by those on the left. For example, 'freedom fries' and 'homicide bomber' and demanding that people kneel during the pre-game song and countless other examples of political correctness? They're never called cultural Marxism - or, for that matter, political correctness - because those who are fixated on political correctness like those cultural norms (and political correctness is nothing more than a term for cultural norms).

[jmcahacker]

I personally think it's foolish to judge something written in the 50's or 60's by today's standards and I don't just mean Little House. Certainly there was a laundry list of things considered ok then that are not now but in the time that it was written and talked about it was the norm and many people didn't know any better because they were not taught any better. If it were written today then certainly the feelings of the author would be different and it would be written differently but that's not an option in most cases. What we think is correct even today will probably be viewed quite differently 80 or 100 years from now but that shouldn't automatically make us all bad people for all time because of what we thought today. We learn and evolve as we grow both individually and as a society and writing should be allowed to reflect that.

[jmcahacker]

Originally Posted by slowlane3

The Little House TV series, which is still shown in reruns, has some anachronisms.

It's set in the 1880s, when telephones were barely invented. Only a handful of phones existed, in very large east-coast cities. Certainly, rural doctors in Minnesota did not have had telephones until several decades later. It's also unlikely that Nellie Oleson would have a voice-recording machine, which had also been barely invented, and use it to capture Laura's embarrasing gossip.

It's unrealistic (in one of the last episodes) that Laura would have traveled to Arizona to take a college class, or that the great Ralph Waldo Emerson would have lectured there. Arizona then was a wild frontier territory, and a train ride from Minnesota would have been extraordinarily long, complex and probably involve several changes of trains.

One episode was called "Jonathan's Mountain" with Ernest Borgnine. There are no mountains in southern Minnesota.

The people producing the show were not interested in authenticity. Half the time they couldn't even be bothered to pronounce the names of towns correctly.

No, there are no mountains in Southern MN but if you get close to the Mississippi River valley and Lake Pepin there are some sizable hills and valleys that could possible pass for someone who's never had the privilege of seeing the Rockies or the Ozarks. Walnut Grove in in South central which is pretty darn flat.