Customer Reviews

Little House, Long Shadow: Laura Ingalls Wilder's Impact on American Culture

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

It is sad to me that a book as thoughtful, as quiet and as tolerant as this attracts readers such as the first reviewer. This is both a very scholarly and a very personal and self-reflective study. I was most moved by the fact that Prof. Fellman begins with a confession about her own connection to the 'Little House' series as a young reader and then as a mother, touching on that soft spot reserved in all our hearts for primordial experiences, for our `madeleines.' She then goes on to analyze the political and cultural implications of their impact--as cultural historians would do with such popular books for young people as 'Little Women,' 'Harry Potter' or the fiction of C.S. Lewis. If anything, the first reviewer is representative of the insidious message that Fellman reveals as inherent in a certain kind of political libertarianism, of the animus on which it feeds. She bases her conclusions on vast amounts of archival research, her own interviews, and many contemporary theories--and weaves them into a seamless narrative so that for those who don't want to bother, the endnotes are just embellishment...It is really a tour de force. Fellman brings a feminist perspective to bear on the roles of women, the perspectives of woman, etc., but again, without becoming strident. Her insights on the mother-daughter relationships between Laura and her mother and then Laura and Rose are equally instructive. (Perhaps the most enlightening fact is that Laura did not visit her mother from 1902 till she died in 1924!!!) Finally, the chapter on `Revisiting the Little Houses' with its discussion of the expanding frontier, the effaced Native Americans and `Manifest Destiny' is extremely powerful and informed by immense scholarship. This book is a must for all those interested in popular culture, American culture and the power of fiction on the historical imagination.

When Wilder and Lane declared that the books were "true," they meant that the books represented Wilder's experiences as she remembered them (and as Lane "ran them through her typewriter" for publication), not that everything happened in the order in which incidents appear in the book. It's too bad that some commenters don't understand that Fellman is not attacking Wilder and that Wilder's books are aiming at an emotional rather than a literal truth. This is apparent to anyone who has read their letters and the "Pioneer Girl" manuscript on which the books are based as well as the books.

Fellman has done her research well, and this book is a good complement to other works on Wilder (and Lane). It sorts out the themes of Wilder's work, discusses the ways in which people have responded to the novels, and devotes a chapter to linking individualism with the Reagan neoconservatism of the 1980s (not attacking conservatism, by the way). If you'd like to read a nuanced, serious, and scholarly treatment of Wilder, try this book.

The first reviewer seems to have forgotten some things about LIW--such as the fact that she refused to have the word "obey" used in her marriage ceremoney to Almanzo, the fact that she stated she did NOT want to get married and settle down but wanted to be free to do as she pleased, that she did not want to be a farmer's wife as it was "a hard life for a woman", and was hardly the submissive little domestic goddess she makes her out to be. And just because a book differs from you politically, does not make it "trash".

I appreciated this book and found it to be insightful and interesting.

It is not too much of an overstatement to say that many political and social conservatives hate this book. One only has to go to Internet sites devoted to the work of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and read comments left here, to realize that many see Anita Clair Fellman's work as an attack on both traditional American values and the much loved author of the Little House series. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. The author clearly states several times how much she loved these books as a young mother reading them to her boys, and how she still loves them. This is one way of determining if a critic has actually read Ms Fellman's book -- those who haven't consistently accuse the author of hating the books.

Ms Fellman thoughtfully analyzes the series, how they were written and edited, how they have been used in the classroom, in private homes, and in the public forum. She makes a good case that Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, worked together on framing stories that reflected their conservative political philosophy: they might feel right at home today in the contemporary Tea Party movement. A careful reading of the Little House series shows that in nearly every case where government is mentioned in the books, it is in a negative light. The Ingalls family is shown frequently as an isolated unit, even when there is much documentation to indicate they often lived in town, took in boarders, and their geographic distance from settlements was greatly exaggerated. When the oldest daughter Mary, permanently blinded by a childhood illness, needed an education it was partly funded by the state govenment, which is not mentioned in Ingalls works. It is made to appear that the family paid for her college, and that Laura sacrificed her own education to supply most of the money.

I find it fascinating that libertarians, who are often not social conservatives, have alligned with those who are upholders of more traditional roles for women, for prayer in public schools, etc., to condemn this book. The author takes great pains to state that she is not passing judgement on Wilder or Lane, nor does she take a particular political stance in the book. So then, why is it so disliked by politcal and social conservatives? I suspect it is partly due to the author looking at how historically inaccurate the Wilder stories are in portraying the way the west was won. Many readers over the years have taken these stories as gospel in regard to westward expansion,ignoring that they are works of fiction. I am an amature genealolgist, and I work with historical records on an almost daily basis; the contention that the Ingalls family isolated itself from the rest of civilization, and that is the typical pioneer experience, is just not true. It is about as valid as the story of three brothers coming to American and immediately going their separate ways -- for the most part, people stayed together.

I also believe that the fact that Ingalls and Lane worked closely together on these books hit the more devoted fan base the same way that a fanatic Jane Austen fan would react if it were suddenly discovered that she wrote her works with the aid of her sister Cassandra. For some reason, this is totally unacceptable to those who idolize Laura Ingalls Wilder. As for me, I still love the books. I read them now with as much enjoyment as I did when I was first introduced to them in third grade. Analyzing the works does not spoil my enjoyment, but rather it enhances it. Thank you, Ms Fellman, for a long overdue analysis of the political aspects of the Little House series.

It's too bad the earlier reviewer appears not to understand the nature of fiction. The Little House books are wonderful, but, yes, they are fiction. Readers with an understanding of westward expansion in the US know that the stories are embellished. Fellner's examination shines an interesting light on these favorites and for those with an interest in Wilder's impact on literature and society, it's an interesting read. For those who simply want to love the books for what they are -- cherished childhood favorites -- they may want to stick with Wilder's writings alone.

I opened this book expecting to dislike and disagree with it, but I have to admit that Fellman won me over with her scholarship. I have read more than my fair share of books by and about Wilder, and it is no surprise that the Little House books are not the literal truth, and that Rose was an unacknowledged co-author. (And I'm one of *those* fans, I confess: I've even made fan-girl pilgrimages to De Smet and Mansfield.)

I did not know that Rose was such a rabid Libertarian, a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, and that Little House royalty money helped finance Roger Lea MacBride's 1976 presidential bid. (Does anyone else get the impression that he scammed the impressionable Rose?)

Much of the tome is taken up with documenting the history and spread of the books by teachers and librarians, the lengths to which fans will go, and the subtle infiltration of all things Laura into American culture. (I write this sipping tea from my DeSmet surveyor's house mug)

As is the case with most of the biographical books I have read, I learned things about the subject that rather left me wishing I had not. Laura is portrayed as passive aggressive and Rose as a pathetic flake. (Wilder worshippers will be foaming at the mouth.) If you want to skip 250 pages, you can read Fellman's afterward, it sums up her assertions in a few pages.

The most enduring impression I have after closing this book is sadness; because I realize that political correctness and the availability of American Girl books may spell the end of Little House's popularity.

The author has it exactly backwards, which is not suprising
as the book is simply an attempt to impose her liberal politics
on the readers.

Read the "Little House" books for yourself, and bask in the
warmth and light of the people who, with God's help and their
own hard work, courage and sacrifice built our nation- which
the author despises.

Read any of the many good biographies and on-line sources for the details
of the lives and times of the Ingalls, Wilders etc.

Leave this bitter bit of marxist revisionist propaganda in the shadows-
where it belongs.

jR

The author of this book has NO CLUE what she is talking about. Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote about the TRUE historical events of her family's life on the prairies of the Midwest. Yes, some of her stories were somewhat embellished, but the Little House books are basically true, nontheless. The author is obviously a left-wing women's libber who can't quite comprehend that people actually lived the way Laura Ingalls Wilder describes life on the prairie. (And yes, Anita, women actually did a lot of housework back then, content to stay at home and raise their children, instead of donning "Hillary-clone" pantsuits and trying to climb the corporate ladder at the office - SHOCKER!!! - it sounds to me like you have a BIG problem with that). This book disgusts me. It's an obvious slam against conservatism - a view that is sorely lacking in our country. I am a HUGE fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder, to the point of naming my beautiful daughter Laura Elizabeth. I greatly admire LIW and all she stands for - home, hearth, and family - but with an independent spirit as well. I'd like to see today's feminists attempt to survive living the life that LIW and many other families like hers endured. We owe them a great debt - if it weren't for their endurance of the hardships of life on the prairie in the 1800's, we wouldn't be here today. The author of this book has never seen a child's eyes light up when the Little House books are read aloud to her or him, or has never visited one of the sites of the Ingalls homesteads, closed her eyes, felt the prairie breezes on her face,and imagined hearing the sound of the covered wagons. I have. I could go on (and on and on), but I won't. To sum up.......DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME ON THIS TRASH. Instead, buy the set of the Little House books, snuggle up with an afghan and a cup of hot cocoa, and no matter how young or old you are, totally immerse yourself into Laura's world of life on the 1800's prairie. You have a real treat in store. And please, please, read the Little House series to your children and grandchildren, so her way of life will not be lost on future generations.