Pioneer Days: The Works of Laura Ingalls Wilder

[Auroranorth]

I have not, but I've got it on hold at the library and will hopefully get a copy this week.

[lea1977]

I always thought that Caroline had some misgivings about her life.

[Auroranorth]

It couldn't have been easy being married to Charles.

[Deleted]

I'm almost finished the new biography of Laura, Prairie Fires by Caroline Fraser. It's an excellent book, the most definitive Little House book I've read.
She covers pretty much every angle you can think of, and doesn't shy away from anything. American history, economics, the myths of frontier life, Laura's collaboration with Rose, the family's poverty, and more. Which sounds like it would be dry and boring, but it's not!
The whole book is fascinating, but to me, her description of Rose is eye opening. I think it's pretty obvious now that Rose suffered from mental health issues, and was probably bipolar.
ETA: Ma had a terrible, poverty stricken childhood...she was kind of inured to the moving around, it didn't sound like she minded. As poor as the Ingalls family was, they were never in danger of starvation... in any case, they did have a loving relationship, just like Laura portrayed it.

[chonies]

The American Library Association has removed LIW's name from a prestigious children's book award. Link from the Guardian. Official statement from the ALSC website.

This decision was made in consideration of the fact that Wilder’s legacy, as represented by her body of work, includes expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness.

[Auroranorth]

Your links are taking me back to this page.

Is this the article?

[lea1977]

I have been rewatching the series. Caroline imo had more chemistry with Buck Rodgers(the Handyman) than she did with Charles.

[Ginger]

The @halfpintingalls twitter is a hoot. It's been so long since I've read Little House that the book excerpt in this tweet was startling:No way, Pa. I'm woke now!

I would hope that little kids reading the Little House books in school now are given a lot more contextualization about the Indian issues than I was given in second grade. I think there's a lot to be learned from the fact that the Ingalls's considered themselves a good and decent family in every way, and yet didn't consider the Indians real people and felt white people were entitled to "settle" the land. Kids should be taught a whole lot more about the reality of what happened to Native Americans because of white "settlers".

I agree with this:

"We believe it is not beneficial to the body of literature to sweep away her name as though the perspectives in her books never existed. Those perspectives are teaching moments to show generations to come how the past was and how we, as a society, must move forward with a more inclusive and diverse perspective.

The books were written about people living in the 1870s, and I hope that there's not a general backlash against LIW just because the characters don't think like people living in 2018. Taking her name off of the award as a symbolic gesture...I can see why that's a good thing. But it also feels like something is being sanitized into genericness. The Little House books are part of the fabric of my childhood, imperfect as those books may be. If I were a writer, I'd find it far more meaningful to receive The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award than the "Children's Literature Legacy Award."

[Nysha]

Do elementary schools even recommend the Little House books anymore? My kids graduated 2000 to 2007 and none of them were required to read that or Tom Sawyer, which were classroom staples when I was in school. Even "To Kill a Mockingbird" was left until 11th grade and parents could request an alternative reading unit. I think a lot of books that were considered staples are just going to be ignored because there are other, equally well-written books that don't require explanations about why things were okay back "then".

[Ginger]

I actually was never really taught Laura Ingalls Wilder. It was read to us in 2nd grade as a sort of treat, along with the Ramona Quimby books. But it was a series that was prominent in school libraries and bookstores, and a staple on most children's bookshelves. I read it much more often on my own than in school.

Jun 25, 2018 22:34:07 GMT -4 Nysha said:

I think a lot of books that were considered staples are just going to be ignored because there are other, equally well-written books that don't require explanations about why things were okay back "then".

I think I take issue with "equally well written", as if such books are a dime a dozen. I think it's only every few generations (if that) that a children's book or series comes along that has such a broad impact and stands the test of time. I think it's fairly safe to say that Harry Potter will be beloved for a long time.

Not that I'm incredibly well versed on current children's literature, but most of what's popular at any given time is soon forgotten. Books become classics for a reason, and to just dismiss them in favor of whatever else might be around at the time would be a huge mistake IMO. (Which is not to say that all classics deserve to remain classics - a lot of them eventually do and should eventually drop away as well.)