Laura Ingalls Wilder and submission

[GenerationCedarchip]

You know what I believe the 5 little peppers or maybe Pollyanna make the cut for approved books for these families.But if you want a charming read 'All of a Kind' series,often called the Jewish 'Little Women'.At the turn of the century five little Jewish sisters live and make mischief in a Brooklyn Tenement with lots of Jewish history and culture thrown in.Obscure but a classic.

I LOVED those books! I still have all of them. And I have to admit that I liked those sisters more than Little Women (never could finish that darned book).

[mirele]

My understanding is that the idea of "delicate womanhood" is entirely an upper-class Victorian affectation.

Most of the women throughout history have been sturdy peasants.

(Also, did anyone here read Caddie Woodlawn?)

I did, but the only thing I remember from it is how they used pins (you know, like straight pins) as the equivalent of money. It's only as an adult and after some thinking that I realized how valuable a straight pin would be.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Hey, y'all, I'm a new member, but I've been lurking for a while.

I've been reading The Little House on the Prairie recently, and reached These Happy Golden Years today. In one of the later chapters, Almanzo and Laura are talking about their wedding, and Laura asks Almanzo whether he wants her to promise to obey him. His reponse: "Of course not. I know it is in the wedding ceremony, but it is only something that women say. I never knew one that did it, nor any decent man that wanted her to."

I wish Almanzo were around today to straighten out some of these fundie dudes.

[DistantStar]

The show was, well, awful. As far as I'm concerned it takes place in another universe from the books, which are in something of a parallel universe to ours as it is -- I am of the school of thought that while largely based on actual events, they're probably fairly heavily fictionalized. Still great, though! I read those books to pieces as a kid and really really need to buy a new set. There's a reason I live in a log cabin, though one that is equipped with power and plumbing!

Though the book by Alison Arngrim, who was Nellie on the show, is hilarious. Also totally not fundie-approved. :)

[PennySycamore]

I LOVED Caddie Woodlawn!

I loved Caddie Woodlawn, too! I really ought to re-read it, and Magical Melons, as well.

tabitha2, I'm another fan of the All of a Kind Family series. We fans of the book should edit the wikipedia article on Sydney Taylor to give more information. At the moment, it's a stub. The same goes for Caddie Woodlawn page although it's not so sparse.

Generation Cedarship, count me as another who never finished Little Women. I'm a voracious reader, but I just couldn't get through the book.

[Maul the Koala]

Actually, it was rich families who married their daughters off early- poor families kept their daughters around as long as possible, because they needed the help around the house. By the time Laura married, Caroline had had two more daughters (and a son, but he died in infancy), and they were still quite young when Laura left home. Do you really think that if Laura was married off at 16, her family would have been better off for it?

Laura was also another source of income for the family. She was teaching and working as a seamstress to help the family as much as possible. Didn't Laura take the teaching jobs to help pay for Mary's expenses at the School for the Blind?

I find it interesting that Carrie (3 years younger than Laura) waited a long time to get married. She was about 43 years old and had filed her own homestead claim long before the marriage. Carrie seemed to have an independent streak a mile wide so that's probably why she waited so long.

I refuse to watch the Little House TV series. Someone told me that a mime raped someone and I just couldn't.

[O Latin]

Actually, it was rich families who married their daughters off early- poor families kept their daughters around as long as possible, because they needed the help around the house. By the time Laura married, Caroline had had two more daughters (and a son, but he died in infancy), and they were still quite young when Laura left home. Do you really think that if Laura was married off at 16, her family would have been better off for it?

Plus, multiple generations/extended families didn't commonly live in the same house. I think Almanzo was about 10 years older than Laura, so he was already more established, but couples closer to the same age had to save up enough money to set up their own household before they could get married. I think by the late 19th century marriage ages had gone down a bit, so getting married at 18 probably wasn't really all that strange, but throughout most of western history the average age of first marriage was around 23 for women (and I think usually about 25 or 26 for men)

[Confused_by_religion]

I have the strongest feeling that Laura Ingalls Wilder would have hated the things that many of our most extreme fundies say, so maybe it's fitting that they hate her books.

She hated the sunbonnets, so she wouldn't be one for headcoverings. Besides, she tried to dress as stylishly as she could (-> These happy golden years) and wouldn't be seen dead in a frumper if she could help it. :-)

[tabitha2]

I think it depended on the place and the need.I was reading a bio of TY Cobb-his mother was 12 when she married her teacher and 15 when she had him and no one thought a thing of it as it was common for a farmer or share cropper to choose a hard working girl near puberty for a bride.Her Father did say, though, he did not want his kid ''spliced'' so young so he forced them to refrain from sex for a few years after the marriage.

[Destiny]

This article plus some of their others will be interesting reading:

http://www.keepersofthefaith.com/catego ... irieSeries

ETA: Ooops, sorry, I see it was already linked! :oops:

Oh WOW! I've read almost all the books that they say are not fit for proper Christian girls. I wonder if this is the reason I turned out to be a pagan, feminist adult who didn't change her name when she got married, let alone promise to obey? :lol:

I honestly don't understand this way of thinking. Only letting your kids read stuff that is exactly what you believe is so limiting. If you don't agree, why not sit down and have an honest discussion with little Suzie or Johnny about why you feel that character x was wrong and use it as a life lesson? Teach your children to THINK and truly understand their beliefs, not just repeat things they have been taught with no context. (note: I do not have kids myself, so I am not qualified to give parenting advice, but it seems like common sense to me)

[Joykins]

I know, those poor girls. I want to take them aside and give them a library card with full access and a free hour a week.

[FaustianSlip]

You know what I believe the 5 little peppers or maybe Pollyanna make the cut for approved books for these families.But if you want a charming read 'All of a Kind' series,often called the Jewish 'Little Women'.At the turn of the century five little Jewish sisters live and make mischief in a Brooklyn Tenement with lots of Jewish history and culture thrown in.Obscure but a classic.

I adored those books (and concur that, with the possible exception of Jo, the All of a Kind girls were much more fun than the Little Women- loved the book Little Men, though). They were just great- I found them by accident as a kid while surfing through the library looking for new stuff.

Also, did anyone else ever read The Happy Hollisters? My mom loved them when she was growing up, and we read through every one our library had. They were kind of like the Bobbsey Twins, but not nearly as goody-goody. I've probably read the Little House books a hundred times by now (and whoever said that Farmer Boy was her favorite, me too!).

That awful website is just depressing. It's bad enough that they write off Little House, C.S. Lewis and the American Girls books, but the fact that they even dump on Henty and Elsie Dinsmore just blows my mind. I mean, if a fundie kid can't even read those, what's left, exactly? There's literally nothing else out there. I guess you just keep reading the cards in your chore packs over and over.

[Kaylee]

I mean, if a fundie kid can't even read those, what's left, exactly? There's literally nothing else out there. I guess you just keep reading the cards in your chore packs over and over.

Why, all the books they sell, of course.

Besides, who has time to read when your mom is keeping you busy with their wannabe scouting program?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Yep! I read the Happy Hollisters and also the Bobbsey Twins (we had quite the stash of old hand-me-down English books at our house). Also "Little House on the Prairie." I had some pictures of the actual Ingalls family that someone had cut out of a newspaper article for me taped into the front cover, and I remember being amazed at how different they looked from the TV images when I found the show much later.

I also like the "All-of-a-kind Family."

Anyone else here read "The Great Brain" series by J. D. Fitzgerald? Also "Half-Magic" and the related books by Edward Eager. Oh, and Beverly Cleary! I particularly like the illustrations in the early books by Louis Darling, I know someone here uses one as their avatar and I've been appreciating that! :)

Oh and "B is for Betsy" and that entire series by Carolyn Hayward. Looking them up on Amazon it seems they've been quite updated on the covers, ours were from 1940 or so.

[kaetrin]

Yep! I read the Happy Hollisters and also the Bobbsey Twins (we had quite the stash of old hand-me-down English books at our house). Also "Little House on the Prairie." I had some pictures of the actual Ingalls family that someone had cut out of a newspaper article for me taped into the front cover, and I remember being amazed at how different they looked from the TV images when I found the show much later.

I also like the "All-of-a-kind Family."

Anyone else here read "The Great Brain" series by J. D. Fitzgerald? Also "Half-Magic" and the related books by Edward Eager. Oh, and Beverly Cleary! I particularly like the illustrations in the early books by Louis Darling, I know someone here uses one as their avatar and I've been appreciating that! :)

Oh and "B is for Betsy" and that entire series by Carolyn Hayward. Looking them up on Amazon it seems they've been quite updated on the covers, ours were from 1940 or so.

Yay Edward Eager! No one really ever says "go jump in a lake" in my presence nowadays, but if they did I would always think of forgetting to wish it twice and making the person get stuck in a mud puddle instead.

I loved "Ivanhoe" so I was particularly delighted with "Knight's Castle."

[Hane]

Yay Edward Eager! No one really ever says "go jump in a lake" in my presence nowadays, but if they did I would always think of forgetting to wish it twice and making the person get stuck in a mud puddle instead.

I loved "Ivanhoe" so I was particularly delighted with "Knight's Castle."

I fell in love with Edward Eager's wonderfully clever books back in the early '60s, as a fifth and sixth grader, and was happy to share them with my daughter. Funny and quirky stories for smart kids!

We also loved all of Cleary's books, and Lois Lowry's. I once (as an adult!) wrote fan letters to all three authors, and got lovely personal replies--well, one was from Eager's daughter Jane, as he had passed away.

[Letgo]

Thanks to all for the reading ideas! I love kids' books and really enjoyed reading them when mine were in elementary and middle school. I'd read their books at night after they went to bed. Now I am going to have to find The Happy Hollisters. :) I also loved Carolyn Hayward and Edgar Eagar. And Beverly Cleary. Little Women is one of my favorite books; not sure why some of you could not finish it. After this thread, I am going to need to go back and reread some of the oldies and try some new new books.

Only letting your kids read stuff that is exactly what you believe is so limiting. If you don't agree, why not sit down and have an honest discussion with little Suzie or Johnny about why you feel that character x was wrong and use it as a life lesson? Teach your children to THINK and truly understand their beliefs, not just repeat things they have been taught with no context.

Destiny31, you may not have kids, but I think this is excellent advice. Many books have behavior or conversations that parents would not want their children to emulate. This is where parenting comes in. Talk to your child about Bella's relationship with Edward. What does she think of it? Why? Has she considered whether his behavior is controlling or appropriate for a teen dating relationship? Discuss Harry Potter's rule breaking and lying. Were these okay? Did he have alternatives? Book content can open up some great conversations and teachable moments for parents. Parents do have to use some judgement about reading material for children; I had one child who was years ahead in his reading level (and who had OCD) and some books were simply not okay for him due to content. (He easily memorized parts of books and I just didn't need him repetitiously reciting certain things in public!) But for the most part, let kids read!

I recall the Maxwells not using some textbook because it contained Greek mythology. They did not want their children exposed to it. The key word here is MYTHOLOGY. Can't they even present that as, say, silly stories the ancient Greeks believed? I would think most people could spin the subject so it could be acceptable. Not that family, though. I really don't think there is any fiction book they would read. Or many non-fiction ones, except scintillating reads on HTML. History has lots of bad stuff. How do they even read the Bible when there is so much violence in it? How do they handle David seducing Bathsheba and then sending her husband, Uriah, out to his death in battle? Sex AND violence!

[Hane]

Generation Cedarchip, count me as another who never finished Little Women. I'm a voracious reader, but I just couldn't get through the book.

Warning: LONG!!!

As a lover of Alcott and Dickens, let me say a few words in defense of their (by 21st-century standards) overblown writing styles: Think of the way folks lived back in the mid-1800s, compared with today. There was no such thing as instant information (except for conversation or gossip), or really instant gratification (except for, maybe, sex). People had to wait for things: for food to be planted, grown, harvested, cooked; for reading materials to be printed, shipped, and made ready for purchase--heck, even most clothes couldn't be bought off the rack. Transportation of people and things took an enormous amount of time, by our standards. So writing and reading were more leisurely pursuits, and people weren't in as big a hurry for a story to get to the point as we are today.

I've seen our attitudes toward reading-as-entertainment change in the last generation or two. When I was a kid in the '50s and '60s, we had nowhere near as great a selection of children's and YA reading materials as exist today, so we made do with what was available--a lot of it the product of Victorian writers.

I am one of the few people I know who defend the Victorians, because they were among the first who recognized children as children, and not as miniature adults. They recognized the concept of developmental stages more than prior generations did. The Victorians brought us many social advancement programs--public schools, libraries, hospitals--and were instrumental in integrating subjects like music, art, and physical education into school curricula.

So, many of my favorite childhood books came from a different world than ours. Not long ago on the train, I overheard a young woman of about 20 talking about one of my favorites (Austen or one of the Brontes--can't remember). She rolled her eyes and said, "I kind of like it, but I wish she'd just get to the point and get on with the plot!" I was too far away to mention that she was reading a 19th-century book with 21st-century eyes.

The End.

[demgirl]

Plus, multiple generations/extended families didn't commonly live in the same house. I think Almanzo was about 10 years older than Laura, so he was already more established, but couples closer to the same age had to save up enough money to set up their own household before they could get married. I think by the late 19th century marriage ages had gone down a bit, so getting married at 18 probably wasn't really all that strange, but throughout most of western history the average age of first marriage was around 23 for women (and I think usually about 25 or 26 for men)

Heh. I love the internet. Journal of Economic Perspectives (who knew such a thing existed?) says 26 for men, 22 for women in 1890. bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/JEP_Marriage_and_Divorce.pdf

[gardenvarietycitizen]

How do they handle David seducing Bathsheba and then sending her husband, Uriah, out to his death in battle? Sex AND violence!

Wait... he didn't just sink to his death in the asphalt up in Canada? I maybe have the wrong version of the Bible here... :D

[tehfanglyfish]

Re the opening anecdote here: Makes me all the more surprised when Laura said, in one book, "I do not want to vote."

I haven't read through all the comments, so apologies if this is a repeat, but there were actually some late 19th/early 20th century women feminists who didn't want suffrage rights as they believed that other issues important to women (more equitable treatment in marriage, temperance (b/c their husbands were drunk & abusive), worker protections, etc.) would become tied up in politics and that this would so of make their issues less prominent. (And today I sort of see their point - for example, look at how candidates give a nod to being pro-choice, etc. during campaign season, but then don't really push on these issues.)

I don't know if Laura would have identified herself as a feminist, but I know she certainly wouldn't identify as a fundie. I read some of her newspaper columns after her daughter was divorced and she had one where she essentially said that yes, people did get divorced, and she was tired of others gossiping about it. Also, she worked outside of the home (because it helped support her family), admitted to being terribly bored during church (I could always identify with that), and in many instances her mother had to tell her to behave more ladylike. Also, she HATED sewing. (And she liked flattering clothes - no frumpers for Laura.)

I loved Laura when I was little and as I've been getting to know her again over the past year or so, I have to admit that I've become quite the Laura Ingalls fangirl.

[Deleted12]

I think one of the things that people did back then that we totally don't do now is that they would read a chapter (often aloud to the whole family!), then they would go to bed or go do something else. Then the next day they would have a whole day sitting behind a plow or milking goats or whatever it was people did back then and they would have time to reflect on what they had read. They would also reread books in a way that most people don't today. (Like, seriously, how many books did the average middle-class family have 150 years ago?) Reading a book was way more of a long-term process than it is for us today.

I'll sit down and bang a book out in a sitting or two. If I'm sitting there for an hour and nothing is happening in the plot, I'm not a happy reader. (This is why I just can't do Jane Austin. I read too fast and all the subtleties are totally lost on me.)

On ye olde boardde, I recall a discussion where someone who was a fundie said that she LOVED Jane Austin growing up because her life was so much like a Jane Austin character's. She had a tiny social circle, church was the social highlight of the week, her sisters were her best friends, and some day a dashing man would come and marry her.

All that being said, this "Keepers of the Faith" site is appalling. I don't think sheltering kids does them any favors, and her pseudo-sleuthing on where kids come up with bad habits is alarming. If kids never read fiction, they're going to turn into very dull adults.

[Kitty]

If you look up pictures of LIW, you can very clearly see that her clothes are pretty fashionable for her time. And they all at least accentuate her waist, something modern fundy women would have a fit over. In a picture with her husband her coat is quite form-fitting.

Yeah, LIW would loathe "modern" fundy fashion, which is absurdly anachronistic. It looks like it's out of the 1800s or early 1900s, either that or the 1980s and 1990s. Is it really so bad to look like you live in the 2010s but with a little more skin covered? ffs... Then again I'm not entirely certain LIW would approve of modern fashion, would be WAY too different for her.

Personally I think even average folks back in LIW's time would wonder what the hell was wrong with fundies today.

[JesusFightClub]

That keepers of the faith person is mental. It is better never to read for enjoyment so you can have "a happy godly marriage" ? It is a mindset I cannot even begin to understand.

And reading things I disagree with happens a million times a day, doesn't it to anyone who can read? Who agrees with everything in any text? Nonfiction only won't help with that, it will in fact make it worse. So I guess her argument is Bible and that's your lot?

This argument reminds me a bit of some Maoist ones I have heard, but even they didn't say you weren't supposed to enjoy what you read - quite the reverse!

(And is she implying the Bible isn't a joy to read? Hmmmm. Not precisely the line there, eh? ;) )

[PennySycamore]

Hane,

My problem with Little Women lies with me and not with Louisa May Alcott. I really should try reading the book again. I do like Dickens. A Tale of Two Cities is one of the best books I've ever read and I loved David Copperfield. There are a few books where I can remember the very first sentence or two: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times". "I was born with a caul" (which, IIRC, is the first line in David Copperfield) and "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit".

I'm not at all a Victorian basher. Many Victorians believed in doing and building things for the public good. I am also familiar with the invention of childhood. We discussed this in my Western Civ class at my request.

I think the fundies like the Victorian era because prior to the industrial revolution there was little to no separation of work and home. The homemaker is very much a Victorian invention as is the putting the woman on a pedestal bullshit. Women were to devote their time to hearth and home while men had to go out to face the harsh world of the factory or office. The factory was indeed harsh -I don't know about the office, though.