I went through such a big Little House period. But more than anything the food stuck with me, to the point that I no longer have any of the books, but I still have the Little House cookbook. I worry about how i would feel if I re-read the series and had to reckon with just how bad it is.
I am also curious about how the tv show has warped the way people view the story.
Yes! I mostly remember the food. And the book I read over and over was about her husband's childhood. I wasn't sure if I read The Cold Winter, but the excerpts reminded me I did. The TV show was likely a bigger part of my connection to Laura and her family than the books but that is likely due to my age. I also vaguely remember that the book and TV did not have the same logic for which color ribbons the girls wore in their hair and it bugging my 8 year old self to no end.
I read all these books with my dad growing up. (I suspect he censored some of the overt racism, because his method was either to read it as is and have a discussion afterward or to skip over parts and I don't remember having discussions about these books as we did about Tom Sawyer and Pippi Longstocking when she went to the South Pacific and some others, which I remember vividly.) Weirdly, I don't remember The Long Winter at all. The ones I remember best are Big Woods, Plum Creek and Farmer Boy and I suspect that's because what I liked about these stories were the procedural elements. The actual narrative of the stories is hazy, but I have vivid memories of how to tap a tree to make maple syrup and turn a bladder into a balloon and how to braid hair and bake various cakes and breads and how to trap different animals. From about ages five to 10 I was obsessed with survival stories, My Side of the Mountain and Hatchet and the like. And then in sixth grade I was sick of them and never looked back. I suspect it's because my family was pretty poor when I was really little and I always felt anxiety about losing everything. My parents got the jobs they kept until retirement when I was 10 (dad) and 11 (mom) and I think that when that sense of precarity disappeared, my interest in survival fiction went with it.
I also think the appeal of the cover art (at least on the set of which the photo here is a part) cannot be overstated. I don't know anything about the artist, but I'd stare at these covers for ages. They had so much rich detail. And such style. They weren't photo realistic. They were heavily stylized in a way that I guess recalls a magazine cover maybe, or something similarly heavily encoded with information. I honestly remember the covers better than the books and could describe each with a lot of precision.
I remember staring at so many of these covers, too — I think at least part of it is that you don't have a lot else to look at when someone else is reading to you! But they illustrations are so great, and the covers in particular are reminiscent of the highly detailed style of movie/fan magazines of the time, too
Garth Williams was one of the great American children's book illustrators, who also did work for Margaret Wise Brown. I think his art did play a role in the long life and appeal of the Little House books. The cover images for the books' first editions are very different, and haven't aged well.
I read the Little House series as a child in the early 1960s, and I also believe Ms. Wilder's attention to detail and how she felt during her experiences were why I was so drawn to them. I also purchased a set of the books at a yard sale and read them to my daughter in the 1980s. During the current pandemic, I checked "The Long Winter" out of the library as an ebook to remind myself what isolation and hardship could truly be like and that I didn't have it so bad, with my snug studio apartment and plenty to eat.
I do certainly agree that there is much racism in the books and I believe they should be read and remembered in the context of their time period. Pa's performing in blackface is particularly offensive, but this was considered socially acceptable up until the early 1960s. My high school in Ohio had a minstrel show with endmen in blackface every year up until 1965. Ma's extreme prejudice against American Indians, echoed by Laura as a young wife, is also offensive, but was the prevailing attitude in that time period.
Growing up, I spent a lot of time listening to my grandmother's stories as a girl in a large family on a farm in Georgia in the 1890s/1900s, when times and beliefs and styles of childrearing were very different from today. I could see, as I matured, how some of these attitudes and beliefs were no longer appropriate. I grew to become a liberal adult with a strong sense of social justice and my daughter did as well. To read books like the Little House series today requires explanation and disclaimers, to be sure, but I do not believe dismissing all of history, even the distasteful parts, helps children, and adults, to see where we've been, where we're going, and how far we need to go as a nation, and a people.
Thank you so much for this! I really love the way you're parsing through the Laura Ingalls Wilder books (and thank you for the podcast rec - I hope they cover the weird quartet of American Girl Mysteries boxset that I had at some point because the one about New Orleans and privateers is... whoo. Something else). Also, this struck me in particular and is so totally true: "But here’s the thing: the pleasure you’re remembering was pleasure just in reading, not necessarily the content. What’s precious was that time, either spent by yourself and in your mind, or with whoever was reading the book to you — not these books." Thank you!
I am currently reading the Little House series to my sons. We are loving them. We have had awesome talks about settlers and food that many did and things that now we realize weren’t so good. Same goes for American Indians. These books include good and also some not-so-good. We can’t distill history to we messed up and they were innocent victims or even we were just expanding and they were ruthless. As with all things of humanity, there are so many diverse stories to share. I am glad to include Native American stories and a visit to see exhibits as we Laura’s stories. I’m so glad I made the choice to read them and the boys love them too!
This is a great, thoughtful post, which I came to late. I want to push back, respectfully, at the idea that the books are inappropriate for children. The racism in the Little House books is very real, but so are their extraordinary qualities of empathy and the evocation of both interior and material life. A lot of great literature is morally compromised. Children, even young children, are able to grapple with moral complexity - in fact doing so is a vital part of their moral education. Anyway, I appreciate your analysis of "The Long Winter"!
I’m so glad a friend of mine pointed me to this. Great piece, Anne. I have studied LIW’s life and work for over 30 years, and have presented over 250 interactive public history programs on her around the US. Most of the time I present first person living history in her persona circa 1900. I have soooooo many things to say about her work that many people in the audiences don’t want to hear let alone acknowledge, especially about the racism. At this point I’ve completely reinvented my work, because I’ve found that the more we talk about the vile nature and implications of colonization, colonialism, and westward expansion in the immediate context of LIW, the more vulgar the resistance. That resistance manifests in racist folks redoubling their efforts to impose even more racism in the education and culturalization of the children in their care. In fact, I no longer present to groups compromised primarily of children for this reason.
I could, and often have, expounded on this subject at length, so the one thing I’d ask all readers to consider is this:
Whenever any attempt to face LIW’s racism head-on is made, there are always a lot of people at the ready to defend or downplay it with “It was a different time! That’s what people thought/said/wrote/acted/believed back then.” But this statement alone IS the problem. Because the only people who thought/said/wrote/acted/believed these things were the dominant culture: white racists. That’s it. Everyone else thought/said/wrote/acted/believed differently. But everyone else were largely the people being oppressed, so their voices and actions were ignored or silenced or halted with violence.
Still, BIPOC have always protested their oppression. White racists have fought to maintain racist systems.
As a historian, my job is to demonstrate how these racist beliefs manifested in laws and structures and systems that were inherently racist and caused widespread oppression, up to and including genocide; further, it’s my job to show how BIPOC resistance was met with violence and further oppression that continues today. It’s incumbent upon me as a white person and a scholar to examine my privilege and truly interrogate what happens when a subject is nearly always discussed from a white perspective, which is what has happened with LIW’s life and work. The BIPOC readers and scholars who have studied and responded to LIW’s work are too often dismissed and pushed aside. A good place to start understanding the harm LIW’s work has caused by perpetuating racist myths and stereotypes is to look at the work of Native scholars, such as Dr Debbie Reese (tribally enrolled, Nambe Pueblo) and to read works such as Dr Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (2014).
There’s so much work to be done. But I’m glad to see more people are willing to do the work, or at least talk about it with those who are. Baby steps, I guess.
A line that gets me about "It was a different time! Everyone was racist back then!" is looking at it from the minority perspective -- as a Jewish-American, I can promise you that not *everybody* was antisemitic in the 1930s -- certainly Jewish people were not! African-Americans were not in favor of Jim Crow laws because that was just the way it was! My Indian-American (from India) pointed out that she has *never* watched "The Simpsons" because of the stereotypical and clownish depiction of Apu the Kwik-E-Mart owner and operator -- SHE and her family were aware of Asian-American depictions in the media in 1989 and in the early 1990s!
Thanks for helping make sense of why this book stands out as my favourite in the Little House series, which I read avidly in the 80s. The big, middle and end, coupled with the overwhelming danger, add up to a complete story. I have reread countless times the chapters where Laura and Carrie struggled home from school in the terrible blizzard and where Cap and Almanzo risked their lives to get wheat for the town. Unparalleled drama.
The ending of this essay is just ... wow. So true. What we'll have left when this ends are the narratives we'll start to shape and how we've treated one another. And I love the Limerick quote (I hadn't read that review before), "When people embrace, trust, and act on the proposition that the United States is a land of opportunity, how are they to make sense of failure?"
Wasn't Sarah Palin a big Ingalls fan? I seem to remember these books coming up a lot when she and John McCain were running, and that was the first time I heard conversations about how the misleading self-sufficiency narrative of the books shaped a lot of conservative/libertarian thinking on the right. Also the first time I read bout the truths of the Ingalls' lives, like how dependent they were on the generosity of other people. They never "made it" but how much of that mythology plays into the sense of entitlement of homesteader descendants now, I wonder.
I don't know why I loved these books so much as a kid, but the sensory detail might be a big part of it. The hay-twisting scenes have always stuck with me, and how when the train of food and supplies finally arrived, Laura's hands were so chafed and ripped-up from twisting hay that they caught on the fabrics their friends had sent. But also I really didn't have a lot of book options growing up. We had a tiny town library and a lot of books in the house (most of which were not for kids), so I read what I had over and over. My kids have Raina Telgemeier and a zillion Warriors books, so these don't have much attraction for them.
Yes. I read these when I was quite young, in elementary school. I re mostly the Ingalls family's cheerful optimism. In 2009-2010 there was a series of blizzards in the Washington DC area and I was actually quite stuck in my suburban house with my husband and infant son, reliant only on neighbors with appropriate vehicles. I went back and read this book and was struck and surprised and struck at my surprise at the details that the family was clearly starving to death, running out of food and fuel, conserving calories by limiting movement, and still facing almost certain death by starvation if Manly & Cap didn't obtain wheat. It reminded me more of a Holocaust memoir or POW memoir like "Unbroken" where you can see the protagonist is dying in slow-motion. This book is truly terrifying and touched me as an adult
We received a collection of the Little House books for my daughter. My husband would read to her as I breast fed her before bed. Neither of us had read them before. Besides being appalling racist, they’re very harsh on children. It’s very “listen to adults because they know best” and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. We started to read the Anne of Green Gables books next, and it was a welcome contrast. Creativity and being different were lauded. Children were raised with love instead of fear. We understood pretty easily why the Little House books tended to be loved by conservative-leaning folks and the Anne books by more liberal-leaning.
Interesting analysis. I would also add that Lucy Maud Montgomery wrote from a very elite perspective compared to Laura Ingalls Wilder and Rose Wilder Lane. Lane was very much a libertarian, and an associate of Ayn Rand. Lane was famous and somewhat well-to-do but by the Great Depression was no longer as popular or as rich as she had been. Lane and Wilder wrote the "Little House" books as a tight collaboration in the 1930s, emphasizing the individuality of the Ingalls family and down-playing their reliance on federal land subsidies. Montgomery wrote in the late 19th and early 20th century for children and especially young girls and conveying a warm and comforting sense of nostalgia. If you read other Montgomery writings, including those taking place in and around the fictional world of Avonlea, you will come across many perspectives we now consider racist, against French-Canadians, Native Canadians, and, as Montgomery writes, "half-breeds". Usually these are from the perspective of an old grumpy person, but nonetheless do not go challenged by other characters with more enlightened perspectives. Clearly Ingalls and Lane wrote of day-to-day outside life of a family on the frontier of established United States and Native American lands, and Montgomery via Anne Shirley, Emily of New Moon, and Pat of Silver Bush, focused on the interior lives of characters in an established eastern seaboard section of Canada. That is to say, I agree with you the two series are very different and it is possible to like both; the authors were literally coming from different places physically and emotionally.
I was definitely more of an Anne fan that Little House even though I read them both obsessively. I loved the poetic language and the way that imagination was portrayed by LMM. This comment also reminded me that I used my favorite scented perfume ads from magazines as bookmarks for my Anne books! So that’s a different sensory approach I guess.
I read some of the Little House books as a kid, but I was more Nancy Drew and Boxcar Children. I hadn't read The Long Winter and after AHP's twitter thread and this post, I decided to check it out - I borrowed it and Birchbark House from the library. It's cold and dark here in Maine and it's the pandemic and I read most of The Long Winter from the bathtub and I loved it. I think all the sensory detail reminds me of the 5-4-3-2-1 meditation/grounding exercise and I like the simplicity of the books; there's not too much plot it's just these folks' lives.
I remember that I liked Little House in the Big Woods more than Little House on the Prarie though I didn't remember much about LHP; maybe even as a child I reacted to the racism and didn't like it. I've bookmarked Little Squatter on Osage Diminished Reserve -- I skimmed it a week or so ago -- but while reading The Long Winter makes me want to re-read Little House in the Big Woods, I don't have any desire to re-read LHP.
Agree that LHotP is one of the poorest books in the series -- the family is alone on the prairie with few neighbors and disliking their forced hosts, their local Native American tribe, and also the US government that subsidizes their pioneering. It is a long memorable year to Laura Ingalls but only vaguely interesting compared to Big Woods, Walnut Grove Minnesota (On the Banks of Plum Creek), or the Dakota territories of "By the Shores of Silver Lake" and "Little Town on the Prairie" and Laura's courtship and early marriage in "These Happy Golden Years" and "The First Four Years".
I loved the Laura Ingalls Wilder books growing up! Not gonna lie, what probably initially drew me to them was that the main character was a girl also named Laura who had brown hair! I used to watch the TV show, too. My grandparents were farmers, so these stories really helped me visualize through all of the vivid details about farming what it was like for my mom and aunts growing up (yep, a family of all daughters!) All of these personal connections really made the books extra special to me. Even weirder is that this Laura ended up growing up wearing her hair in braided pigtails more often than not, marrying a man 15 years older than her (Laura and Almanzo were 10 years apart), and having one daughter. When I hyphenated my name, I saw it as following in the tradition of women like Laura Ingalls Wilder who went by both names.
So imagine how awkward I feel as a far leftist now realizing how incredibly racist these books are...ugh...
I'm in the process of rereading the whole series - just now in the first book - and am hoping to figure out a way to introduce this series to my daughter one day where I can explain the context of the time period and how these are awful things that people used to believe and why we don't believe them now. Fortunately I have some years to figure it out.
Just remember the roman empire fell, and the dark ages took over; but in the end people survived. They also survived black plagues, smallpox, influenza pandemics, and other things like cholera, typhoid and dyptheria. Human beings still remain despite bad government policies, drought, famine, wars, depressions, pandemics...etc ..etc. John Lennon said "Where there is life; there is hope." He was born during a Luftwaffe bombing raid in world war II. During this covid pandemic please remember to keep your dreams alive! That is what makes the world a better place!
The racism in the Little House books has been expounded upon far better than I ever could but no one ever talks about how the books proved that female beauty standards are mutable and constantly changing with the times. When I read the books in the late seventies, the look that you were supposed to have was tanned skin, there were ads all over the place telling us to slather ourselves in oil to hasten the tanning (which is sun damage, whether you burn or not, the tan is the evidence that the damage has already occurred). To my shock, I read The Little House books and there's Ma telling Laura to keep her bonnet on so she wouldn't end up tanned like the Indians. Of course it was a class thing, the whiter the skin, the less time one had to spend out in the fields and it was unladylike for a woman to look like she worked outside even if her family depended on that work. The one that it took longer for me to parse was mentioning that Pa could span Ma's waist with both hands while they were courting. As a little girl, I couldn't see the point in hurting yourself (and those corsets were straight up torture) just so a man could put both hands around your waist. Of course, much later on I learned that women making themselves smaller was so that men could feel bigger and more powerful, I'm actually glad that little girl me didn't understand that. Some things should be learned much later on in life.
I went through such a big Little House period. But more than anything the food stuck with me, to the point that I no longer have any of the books, but I still have the Little House cookbook. I worry about how i would feel if I re-read the series and had to reckon with just how bad it is.
I am also curious about how the tv show has warped the way people view the story.
Yes! I mostly remember the food. And the book I read over and over was about her husband's childhood. I wasn't sure if I read The Cold Winter, but the excerpts reminded me I did. The TV show was likely a bigger part of my connection to Laura and her family than the books but that is likely due to my age. I also vaguely remember that the book and TV did not have the same logic for which color ribbons the girls wore in their hair and it bugging my 8 year old self to no end.
I read all these books with my dad growing up. (I suspect he censored some of the overt racism, because his method was either to read it as is and have a discussion afterward or to skip over parts and I don't remember having discussions about these books as we did about Tom Sawyer and Pippi Longstocking when she went to the South Pacific and some others, which I remember vividly.) Weirdly, I don't remember The Long Winter at all. The ones I remember best are Big Woods, Plum Creek and Farmer Boy and I suspect that's because what I liked about these stories were the procedural elements. The actual narrative of the stories is hazy, but I have vivid memories of how to tap a tree to make maple syrup and turn a bladder into a balloon and how to braid hair and bake various cakes and breads and how to trap different animals. From about ages five to 10 I was obsessed with survival stories, My Side of the Mountain and Hatchet and the like. And then in sixth grade I was sick of them and never looked back. I suspect it's because my family was pretty poor when I was really little and I always felt anxiety about losing everything. My parents got the jobs they kept until retirement when I was 10 (dad) and 11 (mom) and I think that when that sense of precarity disappeared, my interest in survival fiction went with it.
I also think the appeal of the cover art (at least on the set of which the photo here is a part) cannot be overstated. I don't know anything about the artist, but I'd stare at these covers for ages. They had so much rich detail. And such style. They weren't photo realistic. They were heavily stylized in a way that I guess recalls a magazine cover maybe, or something similarly heavily encoded with information. I honestly remember the covers better than the books and could describe each with a lot of precision.
I remember staring at so many of these covers, too — I think at least part of it is that you don't have a lot else to look at when someone else is reading to you! But they illustrations are so great, and the covers in particular are reminiscent of the highly detailed style of movie/fan magazines of the time, too
Garth Williams was one of the great American children's book illustrators, who also did work for Margaret Wise Brown. I think his art did play a role in the long life and appeal of the Little House books. The cover images for the books' first editions are very different, and haven't aged well.
really enjoyed the “just trust me.” thanks for sharing!
I read the Little House series as a child in the early 1960s, and I also believe Ms. Wilder's attention to detail and how she felt during her experiences were why I was so drawn to them. I also purchased a set of the books at a yard sale and read them to my daughter in the 1980s. During the current pandemic, I checked "The Long Winter" out of the library as an ebook to remind myself what isolation and hardship could truly be like and that I didn't have it so bad, with my snug studio apartment and plenty to eat.
I do certainly agree that there is much racism in the books and I believe they should be read and remembered in the context of their time period. Pa's performing in blackface is particularly offensive, but this was considered socially acceptable up until the early 1960s. My high school in Ohio had a minstrel show with endmen in blackface every year up until 1965. Ma's extreme prejudice against American Indians, echoed by Laura as a young wife, is also offensive, but was the prevailing attitude in that time period.
Growing up, I spent a lot of time listening to my grandmother's stories as a girl in a large family on a farm in Georgia in the 1890s/1900s, when times and beliefs and styles of childrearing were very different from today. I could see, as I matured, how some of these attitudes and beliefs were no longer appropriate. I grew to become a liberal adult with a strong sense of social justice and my daughter did as well. To read books like the Little House series today requires explanation and disclaimers, to be sure, but I do not believe dismissing all of history, even the distasteful parts, helps children, and adults, to see where we've been, where we're going, and how far we need to go as a nation, and a people.
Thank you so much for this! I really love the way you're parsing through the Laura Ingalls Wilder books (and thank you for the podcast rec - I hope they cover the weird quartet of American Girl Mysteries boxset that I had at some point because the one about New Orleans and privateers is... whoo. Something else). Also, this struck me in particular and is so totally true: "But here’s the thing: the pleasure you’re remembering was pleasure just in reading, not necessarily the content. What’s precious was that time, either spent by yourself and in your mind, or with whoever was reading the book to you — not these books." Thank you!
You will *love* the American Girl podcast!
I am currently reading the Little House series to my sons. We are loving them. We have had awesome talks about settlers and food that many did and things that now we realize weren’t so good. Same goes for American Indians. These books include good and also some not-so-good. We can’t distill history to we messed up and they were innocent victims or even we were just expanding and they were ruthless. As with all things of humanity, there are so many diverse stories to share. I am glad to include Native American stories and a visit to see exhibits as we Laura’s stories. I’m so glad I made the choice to read them and the boys love them too!
This is a great, thoughtful post, which I came to late. I want to push back, respectfully, at the idea that the books are inappropriate for children. The racism in the Little House books is very real, but so are their extraordinary qualities of empathy and the evocation of both interior and material life. A lot of great literature is morally compromised. Children, even young children, are able to grapple with moral complexity - in fact doing so is a vital part of their moral education. Anyway, I appreciate your analysis of "The Long Winter"!
I’m so glad a friend of mine pointed me to this. Great piece, Anne. I have studied LIW’s life and work for over 30 years, and have presented over 250 interactive public history programs on her around the US. Most of the time I present first person living history in her persona circa 1900. I have soooooo many things to say about her work that many people in the audiences don’t want to hear let alone acknowledge, especially about the racism. At this point I’ve completely reinvented my work, because I’ve found that the more we talk about the vile nature and implications of colonization, colonialism, and westward expansion in the immediate context of LIW, the more vulgar the resistance. That resistance manifests in racist folks redoubling their efforts to impose even more racism in the education and culturalization of the children in their care. In fact, I no longer present to groups compromised primarily of children for this reason.
I could, and often have, expounded on this subject at length, so the one thing I’d ask all readers to consider is this:
Whenever any attempt to face LIW’s racism head-on is made, there are always a lot of people at the ready to defend or downplay it with “It was a different time! That’s what people thought/said/wrote/acted/believed back then.” But this statement alone IS the problem. Because the only people who thought/said/wrote/acted/believed these things were the dominant culture: white racists. That’s it. Everyone else thought/said/wrote/acted/believed differently. But everyone else were largely the people being oppressed, so their voices and actions were ignored or silenced or halted with violence.
Still, BIPOC have always protested their oppression. White racists have fought to maintain racist systems.
As a historian, my job is to demonstrate how these racist beliefs manifested in laws and structures and systems that were inherently racist and caused widespread oppression, up to and including genocide; further, it’s my job to show how BIPOC resistance was met with violence and further oppression that continues today. It’s incumbent upon me as a white person and a scholar to examine my privilege and truly interrogate what happens when a subject is nearly always discussed from a white perspective, which is what has happened with LIW’s life and work. The BIPOC readers and scholars who have studied and responded to LIW’s work are too often dismissed and pushed aside. A good place to start understanding the harm LIW’s work has caused by perpetuating racist myths and stereotypes is to look at the work of Native scholars, such as Dr Debbie Reese (tribally enrolled, Nambe Pueblo) and to read works such as Dr Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (2014).
There’s so much work to be done. But I’m glad to see more people are willing to do the work, or at least talk about it with those who are. Baby steps, I guess.
A line that gets me about "It was a different time! Everyone was racist back then!" is looking at it from the minority perspective -- as a Jewish-American, I can promise you that not *everybody* was antisemitic in the 1930s -- certainly Jewish people were not! African-Americans were not in favor of Jim Crow laws because that was just the way it was! My Indian-American (from India) pointed out that she has *never* watched "The Simpsons" because of the stereotypical and clownish depiction of Apu the Kwik-E-Mart owner and operator -- SHE and her family were aware of Asian-American depictions in the media in 1989 and in the early 1990s!
Thanks for helping make sense of why this book stands out as my favourite in the Little House series, which I read avidly in the 80s. The big, middle and end, coupled with the overwhelming danger, add up to a complete story. I have reread countless times the chapters where Laura and Carrie struggled home from school in the terrible blizzard and where Cap and Almanzo risked their lives to get wheat for the town. Unparalleled drama.
The ending of this essay is just ... wow. So true. What we'll have left when this ends are the narratives we'll start to shape and how we've treated one another. And I love the Limerick quote (I hadn't read that review before), "When people embrace, trust, and act on the proposition that the United States is a land of opportunity, how are they to make sense of failure?"
Wasn't Sarah Palin a big Ingalls fan? I seem to remember these books coming up a lot when she and John McCain were running, and that was the first time I heard conversations about how the misleading self-sufficiency narrative of the books shaped a lot of conservative/libertarian thinking on the right. Also the first time I read bout the truths of the Ingalls' lives, like how dependent they were on the generosity of other people. They never "made it" but how much of that mythology plays into the sense of entitlement of homesteader descendants now, I wonder.
I don't know why I loved these books so much as a kid, but the sensory detail might be a big part of it. The hay-twisting scenes have always stuck with me, and how when the train of food and supplies finally arrived, Laura's hands were so chafed and ripped-up from twisting hay that they caught on the fabrics their friends had sent. But also I really didn't have a lot of book options growing up. We had a tiny town library and a lot of books in the house (most of which were not for kids), so I read what I had over and over. My kids have Raina Telgemeier and a zillion Warriors books, so these don't have much attraction for them.
Yes. I read these when I was quite young, in elementary school. I re mostly the Ingalls family's cheerful optimism. In 2009-2010 there was a series of blizzards in the Washington DC area and I was actually quite stuck in my suburban house with my husband and infant son, reliant only on neighbors with appropriate vehicles. I went back and read this book and was struck and surprised and struck at my surprise at the details that the family was clearly starving to death, running out of food and fuel, conserving calories by limiting movement, and still facing almost certain death by starvation if Manly & Cap didn't obtain wheat. It reminded me more of a Holocaust memoir or POW memoir like "Unbroken" where you can see the protagonist is dying in slow-motion. This book is truly terrifying and touched me as an adult
Please read or correct to: "I recall mostly the Ingalls family's cheerful optimism."
We received a collection of the Little House books for my daughter. My husband would read to her as I breast fed her before bed. Neither of us had read them before. Besides being appalling racist, they’re very harsh on children. It’s very “listen to adults because they know best” and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. We started to read the Anne of Green Gables books next, and it was a welcome contrast. Creativity and being different were lauded. Children were raised with love instead of fear. We understood pretty easily why the Little House books tended to be loved by conservative-leaning folks and the Anne books by more liberal-leaning.
Interesting analysis. I would also add that Lucy Maud Montgomery wrote from a very elite perspective compared to Laura Ingalls Wilder and Rose Wilder Lane. Lane was very much a libertarian, and an associate of Ayn Rand. Lane was famous and somewhat well-to-do but by the Great Depression was no longer as popular or as rich as she had been. Lane and Wilder wrote the "Little House" books as a tight collaboration in the 1930s, emphasizing the individuality of the Ingalls family and down-playing their reliance on federal land subsidies. Montgomery wrote in the late 19th and early 20th century for children and especially young girls and conveying a warm and comforting sense of nostalgia. If you read other Montgomery writings, including those taking place in and around the fictional world of Avonlea, you will come across many perspectives we now consider racist, against French-Canadians, Native Canadians, and, as Montgomery writes, "half-breeds". Usually these are from the perspective of an old grumpy person, but nonetheless do not go challenged by other characters with more enlightened perspectives. Clearly Ingalls and Lane wrote of day-to-day outside life of a family on the frontier of established United States and Native American lands, and Montgomery via Anne Shirley, Emily of New Moon, and Pat of Silver Bush, focused on the interior lives of characters in an established eastern seaboard section of Canada. That is to say, I agree with you the two series are very different and it is possible to like both; the authors were literally coming from different places physically and emotionally.
I was definitely more of an Anne fan that Little House even though I read them both obsessively. I loved the poetic language and the way that imagination was portrayed by LMM. This comment also reminded me that I used my favorite scented perfume ads from magazines as bookmarks for my Anne books! So that’s a different sensory approach I guess.
I read some of the Little House books as a kid, but I was more Nancy Drew and Boxcar Children. I hadn't read The Long Winter and after AHP's twitter thread and this post, I decided to check it out - I borrowed it and Birchbark House from the library. It's cold and dark here in Maine and it's the pandemic and I read most of The Long Winter from the bathtub and I loved it. I think all the sensory detail reminds me of the 5-4-3-2-1 meditation/grounding exercise and I like the simplicity of the books; there's not too much plot it's just these folks' lives.
I remember that I liked Little House in the Big Woods more than Little House on the Prarie though I didn't remember much about LHP; maybe even as a child I reacted to the racism and didn't like it. I've bookmarked Little Squatter on Osage Diminished Reserve -- I skimmed it a week or so ago -- but while reading The Long Winter makes me want to re-read Little House in the Big Woods, I don't have any desire to re-read LHP.
Agree that LHotP is one of the poorest books in the series -- the family is alone on the prairie with few neighbors and disliking their forced hosts, their local Native American tribe, and also the US government that subsidizes their pioneering. It is a long memorable year to Laura Ingalls but only vaguely interesting compared to Big Woods, Walnut Grove Minnesota (On the Banks of Plum Creek), or the Dakota territories of "By the Shores of Silver Lake" and "Little Town on the Prairie" and Laura's courtship and early marriage in "These Happy Golden Years" and "The First Four Years".
I loved the Laura Ingalls Wilder books growing up! Not gonna lie, what probably initially drew me to them was that the main character was a girl also named Laura who had brown hair! I used to watch the TV show, too. My grandparents were farmers, so these stories really helped me visualize through all of the vivid details about farming what it was like for my mom and aunts growing up (yep, a family of all daughters!) All of these personal connections really made the books extra special to me. Even weirder is that this Laura ended up growing up wearing her hair in braided pigtails more often than not, marrying a man 15 years older than her (Laura and Almanzo were 10 years apart), and having one daughter. When I hyphenated my name, I saw it as following in the tradition of women like Laura Ingalls Wilder who went by both names.
So imagine how awkward I feel as a far leftist now realizing how incredibly racist these books are...ugh...
I'm in the process of rereading the whole series - just now in the first book - and am hoping to figure out a way to introduce this series to my daughter one day where I can explain the context of the time period and how these are awful things that people used to believe and why we don't believe them now. Fortunately I have some years to figure it out.
Just remember the roman empire fell, and the dark ages took over; but in the end people survived. They also survived black plagues, smallpox, influenza pandemics, and other things like cholera, typhoid and dyptheria. Human beings still remain despite bad government policies, drought, famine, wars, depressions, pandemics...etc ..etc. John Lennon said "Where there is life; there is hope." He was born during a Luftwaffe bombing raid in world war II. During this covid pandemic please remember to keep your dreams alive! That is what makes the world a better place!
The racism in the Little House books has been expounded upon far better than I ever could but no one ever talks about how the books proved that female beauty standards are mutable and constantly changing with the times. When I read the books in the late seventies, the look that you were supposed to have was tanned skin, there were ads all over the place telling us to slather ourselves in oil to hasten the tanning (which is sun damage, whether you burn or not, the tan is the evidence that the damage has already occurred). To my shock, I read The Little House books and there's Ma telling Laura to keep her bonnet on so she wouldn't end up tanned like the Indians. Of course it was a class thing, the whiter the skin, the less time one had to spend out in the fields and it was unladylike for a woman to look like she worked outside even if her family depended on that work. The one that it took longer for me to parse was mentioning that Pa could span Ma's waist with both hands while they were courting. As a little girl, I couldn't see the point in hurting yourself (and those corsets were straight up torture) just so a man could put both hands around your waist. Of course, much later on I learned that women making themselves smaller was so that men could feel bigger and more powerful, I'm actually glad that little girl me didn't understand that. Some things should be learned much later on in life.