Little House on the Prairie – Laura Ingalls Wilder
Harper Collins, 1994 (originally published in 1935)
When I started rereading this series (or part of them are rereads, others I had never read) this was certainly the book I thought I would remember best. Turns out, that I did not remember most of it. Somehow, my memories of this series turned into images of landscapes and Laura running and working and thinking and um.. not much else?
I did enjoy this book a lot more than Little House in the Big Woods. I think this book might have been aimed at older readers? The language and the whole story felt less “simple”. But maybe that is all part of the story? Little House in the Big Woods describes a time when life was relatively uncomplicated. There aren’t a lot of struggles mentioned in that book. Only in the end, Laura’s father mentions that the woods are becoming too crowded and that there isn’t any game left, so that they have to move. The stories about the house in the big woods seem to be about family time, working together for each other. There is little to no story besides that. But I think it was a necessary first step, a starting point, to see what held the Ingalls family together through all their travels later on. Because this family time, this working together and making the best of things, and the singing songs when you’re cheerful or to keep courage, are common themes in all the book. They are, so to say, a basis to fall back on.
Now for Little House on the Prairie. I think most of you are familiar with the story. Laura’s family moves to Kansas, or as they call it “Indian Territory”. According to Laura’s father (I have no knowledge of the particular history, so I’m aiming for the safest option here) the US said that this territory was to be settles by Americans, only to revoke that promise at the end of the book. So basically, what happens is that we follow the Ingalls family traveling to this land, settling there, working hard to set up a home, and in the end, leaving that home behind.
There are a lot of things I could say about this book, but there were two things that need to be said. First, there is the “pioneering spirit” of Laura’s father. Don’t get me wrong, I can see that maybe this was the expected attitude of men at the time, but it got to me. Who is this man who just takes his family on a journey to settle in an uncertain territory and lets them face so many dangerous situations? Apparently, this comes with the attitude that father, or husband, knows best. In the book there is a repeated interchange of dialogue along these lines:
“This creek’s pretty high,” Pa said. “But I guess we can make it all right. You can see this is a ford, by the old wheel ruts. What do you say, Caroline?”
“Whatever you say, Charles,” Ma said.
I know, I know, this is how things were like, back then. But that does not mean that the complacency of Caroline, Laura’s mother, didn’t sting me at times. Or that I was often annoyed at Charles complete trust in his own judgement, even if it led to dangerous situations.
Second, and I bet you saw this coming, is the image of the Native Americans in this book. The descriptions of the “Indians” really got to me (I am unsure at this point: Indians is not the right word to use right, Native Americans is seen as “less judgemental”? Terminology is so important, but often very complicated). Where Charles sometimes would defend their lifestyle towards Caroline, when she proclaimed her utter disgust of them, he would never fully approach them as equals. Once again, I know this might have been normal at the time, but it is impossible not to notice. And in Little House on the Prairie especially. Actually, it is the one thing I remember most poignantly about reading the novels in childhood: I liked Laura, I felt for her more than anyone. And I felt sympathy for the Indians. I always thought, looking back, that this must have meant that there were passages in the books that treated Indians with respect, but I admit that in this particular installment, I could not find one. Maybe it was the disrespect that got to me? Rereading this installment in the series as an adult, I think I understand what was going on a little better. However, I am still quite shocked by how explicit the references to “Indians” were. Especially because the books were published in the 1930′s.
Apart from these two things, I did enjoy this installment. More so now that I have read the rest of the stories, it really feels like all the installments are falling into place, forming part of one grant “life story”. There are other themes I would like to explore from this book and the other books in general, but I am saving some for my posts on the later books. I will say, that because there is more of a story apart from the “home setting” of the first book in the series, I started to feel more for the characters in the books. That became especially clear when Jack, their dog, had disappeared when they crossed the river. There was an awful lot of foreshadowing of this happening, but it was effective. Where before I felt almost indifferent to any of the characters, the episode about Jack made me feel.
It’s so interesting to read all of these adult rereads of these books.
I’m not sure I want to go back!
Interesting what you picked up reading it this time around! Are you going to read the whole set again?
I never read these books as a child, Iris, but I did watch every single episode (it was on at 12.00 every Sunday when I was a college student so perfect timing for me crawling out of bed with a hangover!).
I think the language is just a sign of the times – most books written in 1930′s (Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie) have the same terminology and stereotypes. I find it interesting rather than shocking as I think it’s important to remember how we were and how we thought rather than sweep it under the carpet because it doesn’t fit nowadays, so that we can see how far we have come.
I must admit to being tempted to pick these books up now.
I have revisited this series a couple of times as an adult, but it’s been a while. As I recall, I found this book to be the most uncomfortable one in the series regarding the treatment of American Indians. The topic just doesn’t come up as much in later books. (And regarding which term to use, if you know the individual tribe name, that’s the best choice.If not, my understanding these days is that both Native American and American Indian are acceptable. For a time, Native American was definitely the preferred term, but that seems to have shifted. And American Indian is preferred over just Indian because Indian could refer to people from India. Alas, whichever term you use, someone may take offense, not realizing that’s there’s dispute even among American Indians as to which term is preferred. As you say, it’s complex.)
It’s always interesting re-reading books from our youth, we find some interesting things in them! I’m glad that you kind of liked this one at least and started feeling for the characters. Native American is a more proper term you are right, though yes, very complex.
I remember watching the series as a child in the 80s and reading the books as a young teenager (I went to an international/American school in Japan), but like you, I think I’ve forgotten most of what happened and my memories are that of the TV series. I can imagine re-reading books as an adult that you had read as a children may often be shocking purely because as child there are so many issues you wouldn’t be aware of (I certainly wasn’t). But it makes for an interesting reading experience, right?
I’ve always wondered this about the American frontier; perhaps it’s because I’m a homebody myself, but who would willingly put their family through all those risks?
I enjoyed Little House in the Big Woods more, as I felt the family seemed isolated on the prairie alone. I loved reading about the family gatherings in the first book more.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder | Iris on Books -- Topsy.com
I loved reading this series recently, but this was my least favorite book I’ve read all year, for all the reasons you outline above.
Having finished the series, looking back on this book as one part of a whole, I like it. But on its own, it’s too harsh and ‘uncomfortable’ for me.
Yes, exactly!
I loved these books when I was a child! If I read them now, I might have reactions similar to those you describe. Though in defense of these books, at least they present the attitudes of the time in a way that hasn’t been dressed up to be acceptable to modern sensibilities. This is more or less how people perceived things at that time. I am often suspicious of books that present the “good” characters as being unaffected by the racism and sexism that was so prevalent in their era. I think they make it difficult for kids to really understand history.
My grown daughter (she’s a new mother so will probably be introducing these books to her daughter down the line) is a big fan of Laura Ingalls Wilder, her life and times. For Christmas I’ve bought her a bio of Wilder which I’m hoping she doesn’t have and with it, I’m giving her a First Edition (with dustjacket) of LITTLE HOUSE IN THE BIG WOODS. The book is not in mint condition, the cover’s torn a bit and it’s been knocked about – I picked it up in an antique shop a while back. BUT it has the original illustrations which are just wonderful. I think my daughter will get a kick out of it.
Is Little House on Plum Creek the next one? That one was always my favorite. A bunch of stuff happens in it, including that Mary and Laura get to roll down haystacks! How fun and awesome does that sound?
I read this recently too and the Indian thing bugged me too. Whether it’s Indians, women or other people being treated as second-rate, I can’t seem to be ok with it just because it was ok during the time the book takes place in. It always really, really bugs me.
I love how the books require more maturity–both reading wise and emotion wise–as Laura matures. I read most of the books at just the right time in my life, too. My son did the same with Harry Potter, reading one per year for years. This is a book grows with you.
Glad to see that none of us have been emotionally traumatised by reading this series as children!
I loved Little House in the Big Woods! I enjoyed these so much growing up but I’m not sure I would now. I do wish I had kept my copies.
I don’t remember Jack from the book but I remember when he died in the series and I bawled my eyes out!
Man, I know I read these as a kid, and one of my best friends has them almost memorized, but I remember almost NOTHING about any of them. Churning butter by hand? Some kind of blizzard? That’s all I’ve got.
The things you point out would bother me too, and as I seem to have lost the protective haze that comes from having loved something as a child, I don’t see myself revisiting them. Interesting to read your thoughts, though.
My grandmother traveled west in a covered wagon when she was a little girl. She had a photograph of her family sitting in the wagon together. From what she told me about it, the attitudes in the Little House Books are very commong. Her own family moved because he father had a new teaching job to go to.
But, I don’t think Caroline is emblematic of the women of the time. She is so passive, so accepting of all that her husband does and puts his family through, they move many, many times, that she becomes challenging for modern readers. Not all women of her day were like that. Sometime you should read My Antonia or Oh, Pioneers by Willa Cather. It’s about the same generation of American women and their experience as settlers on the northern prairie. And both are wonderful books, too.
Pingback: Book Review: “Little House on the Prairie” « The Cheap Reader