Feeds:
Posts
Comments

What’s left out. . .

I know the tagline at the top of my blog says “Everything I need to know about history, I learned through children’s literature.”  And I stand by my claim that my reading of certain books (over and over and over again) helped form my love of history.  But in reading books like A Little Princess as an adult, part of me just feels icky.  Because I know that there’s a whole other side to India’s history that Burnett would never have even thought about.

Honestly, I don’t know much about Indian history–I’m almost ashamed to admit how much I learned after reading most of this wikipedia article.   But as I was reading Princess, there was always this nagging feeling in the back of my mind–”You’re being enchanted by this glamourous vision of India, but all of this really sucked for the Indian people.”  Sara’s father, who she loved so much, was one of those white men who occupied India–and later profited from its resources.  Diamond mines, as glamorous as they sound, are horrible places to work.  Even today.

So I read these wonderful passages, and part of me was enthralled.  Who wouldn’t be, with descriptions such as this?

She did not know what being rich meant.  She had always lived in a beautiful bungalow, and had been used to seeing many servants who made salaams to her and called her “Missee Sahib,” and gave her her own way in everything.  She had had toys and pets and an ayah who worshipped her, and she had gradually learned that people who were rich had these things.

Replace the word “servants” with “slaves” and “ayah” with “mammy,” and you could very well have a book about life in the ante-bellum South.  There’s the same hot climate from which the wealthy must escape.  And perhaps this book has survived because its about India, a story in history few knew about, rather than about the American South, of which most know at least the basics.

But I digress.  Am I blaming Burnett for not being more balanced towards the Indian people?  Not at all-she wrote about what she knew.  And in this time period, few thought that what was happening in India was wrong.  Quite frankly, the way she wrote about India always made me curious about their culture.  Ram Dass is such a fabulous character.  He is human–well, as human as a fairy godmother-type can be!–which is more than we can say about most minority characters created during this era. 

But to really know about history, we certainly can’t rely solely on the images that children’s literature have placed in our heads.  I know that Laura Ingalls Wilder is frequently cited as being insensitive to Native Americans.  She’s not insensitive per se, but she’s not balanced either.  And I understand concerns about her books–they are so popular and I know that most readers won’t ever try to find out more and get the bigger story.  She is indeed creating ideas in children’s heads about the past–ideas that aren’t entirely right.

And this is part of the reason I’m championing, in my own small way, the genre of Kidlit History.  For those books written in the time–that some classify as historical fiction, but were written before there was the distance to properly assess the big picture.  There are still plenty of lessons in them, but we must acknowledge that they are biased to that one author’s experience.  Little House is not the only story of the pioneer experience, though it seems that some folks believe that it is. 

My childhood reading had extraordinary bias in it.  Almost all of the books I read were about white, middle or upper class, protestant females.  Yet, as a historian, one of my specialities is African American history.  I can’t trace that interest back to childhood reading.  But I don’t have to.  My hope for kids that read kidlit history is that this is a first step into a life-long love of history.  So, if they don’t figure out that colonial India wasn’t all about being pampered until they’re adults, that’s okay.  When they do, though, there’ll be a spark of recognition as they realize they’re discovering the rest of Sara’s story.

I wish I was one of those people that could remember exactly how old I was when I read key books of my childhood.  I’ve been slowly reading Everything I Need to Know I Learned from a Children’s Book by Anita Silvey, and there are lots and lots of essays that include something like “I was 8 when I. . .” or “I discovered this book. . .” and they remember all the details.  My brain is just fuzzy around those kind of details. 

Consequently, I don’t remember when I first read A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett.  I do know it was post-Little House and pre-Anne.  I remember really liking the Shirley Temple movie and then seeing a two-pack of books in the Scholastic catalog–Princess and Anne.  I didn’t know who that Anne person was, but I had to read Princess.

However, unlike a lot of the other books I loved as a kid, I haven’t picked this one up in a very, very long time.  At least 15 years, probably more.  But I remembered really liking it–enough to see the more recent movie version and pick up interesting older editions of the book.  It was past time for a reread.

Because it can be more fun to read beautiful old editions rather than 1980s paperbacks, I pulled this version off my shelf.  And then I was completely blown away.  I had forgotten how good it was–how much was packed into this book.  How dark and scary it was.  How Sara, while incredibly good, is still far from perfect.

For those not familiar with the book (and seriously if you’re not–get to the library immediately!), it’s the story of a motherless little girl sent to a boarding school.  It’s not a horrible school, just not perfect.  However, she’s protected because her father is rich.  But he dies penniless and she becomes an overworked servant.  Burnett’s writing frequently carried me away.  I stayed up far too late one night, because once the Magic happens, I just couldn’t put the book down. 

This is a book that I really need to see if my neices have a copy of it.  They are obsessed with all things Disney Princess, which annoys me to no end.  But Sara’s thoughts about being a princess are very different from the schlock Disney puts out.  Check this passage out:

Sometimes, when she was in the midst of some harsh, domineering speech, Miss Minchin would find the still, unchildish eyes fixed upon her with something like a proud smile in them.  At such times she did not know Sara was saying to herself:

“You don’t know that you are saying these things to a princess, and that if I chose I could wave my hand and order you to execution.  I only spare you because I am a princess, and you are a poor, stupid, unkind, vulgar old thing, and don’t know any better.”

This used to interest and amuse her more than anything else; and queer and fanciful as it was, she found comfort in it and it was a good thing for her.  While the thought held possession of her, she could not be made rude and malicious by the rudeness and malice of those about her.

“A princess must be polite,” she said to herself.

Now, isn’t that a much better way for a Princess to behave, rather than waiting around for a Prince to rescue you?

As I read, I also couldn’t help but think of Anne Shirley.  Can you imagine if Anne and Sara had gotten together, what stories they could create?  Both girls used their imaginations to escape a harsh, unloved life.  But Anne’s time of escape is just a memory in her book.  For the reader, they’re right in the midst of Sara’s need to escape.  Terrifying things happen to Sara–she had known love and safety and privilege, and it’s all yanked out from under her.  Not only is she left by her father at boarding school and apparently doesn’t seem him again (even though 4 years pass before his death), but then the money vanishes and her entire world goes topsy-turvy. 

One of my favorite passages is when she meets the beggar girl, a girl in much worse shape than she is because at least Sara has a bed and a roof over her head. 

It was a little figure more forlorn even than herself–a little figure which was not much more than a bundle of rags, from which small, bare, red, muddy feet peeped out, only because the rags with which their owner was trying to cover them were not long enough.  Above the rags appeared a shock head of tangled hair, and a dirty face with big, hollow, hungry, eyes.

As an adult, my heart breaks for these children, just as I’m impressed that Burnett doesn’t just talk about Sara’s plight, but other poor, abandoned children.  But what would I have thought as a child?  This is what I wish I remembered.  I think I would have been startled.  Kids aren’t supposed to be in situations like that.  I was safe and warm and well-fed in the Dallas suburbs.

Postscript to Cold and Hot

Just ran across this NPR story, all about snow and literature.   The first literary piece featured?  What else but The Long Winter?

A nice p.s. to my previous post on weather in children’s literature.

Isn’t that romantic?

The Minnesota Post recently made a list of best Dynamic Duos–in movies, literature, history, etc.  And on it, much to the pleasure of the Betsy-Tacy Society and other BT fans is Betsy and Joe as “Literary Romantic Couples”–alongside some couples that are definitely not found in children’s literature.

And though I certainly adore the fact that Betsy and Joe are listed–after all, the last chapter of Betsy and the Great World is one of the greatest romantic cliffhangers of all time, I can’t help but think of some of the other great couples of kidlit history.  In no particular order:

Ma and Pa Ingalls.  She follows him across the midwest, each time hoping for a better life, making homes in places that must have been very, very lonely.  Until she puts her foot down.  He plays his fiddle, makes jokes, and fiercely loves his family.  As a kid, they never would have been on the list.  As an adult, I admire how they stuck together, never argued in front of the kids, and both made compromises for each other.

Anne and Gilbert.  Though they ultimately became a somewhat boring couple in the later books, the early stuff is fabulous.  From the teasing and the competition to pushing each other when both have college dreams deferred, it’s an incredibly satisfying friendship–at least for Anne.  Gilbert loves her from the beginning, and it is sometimes very frustrating how long it takes Anne to see what’s right in front of her nose.  But he’s always there–rescuing her and waiting patiently. 

Betsy and Joe.  Though mentioned above, they deserve their own paragraph.  Betsy, daughter of one of the world’s greatest families, falls in love with orphan Joe.  And there are lots of adjustments to be made, mis-understandings, the usual heartache in young love.  But the misunderstanding almost kill the reader as they wait and wait for what has to happen.  And when it does!  Again, one of the best romantic cliffhangers and resolutions Ever.

Miss Allen, the Library Lady and Charlie.  The sisters of All-of-a-Kind Family already love the Library Lady, as she is the one with the books.  And Charlie is the mysterious peddler that works with their father who brings them treats.  By accident, the girls bring them together again–discovering  a tragic love story that was rightunder their noses.  So satisfying–and a wonderful realization of childhood fantasies.  What kid wouldn’t want to help out some of their favorite adults in that way?

Mary, Dickon and Colin.  Sometimes, love triangles happen.  And though the kids in The Secret Garden don’t really get to that part of life where romance really takes off, there is definitely some jealousy going on for Colin and Dickon.  Both fall in love with Mary, for very different reasons.  But perhaps the true romance here is the garden itself and the story behind it.  Sigh.

So, what am I leaving out?  Any other fabulous romances?  And another question: how did these stories shape your own childish thoughts about romance?

When I was a kid, reading through Montgomery, I had this idea that true romance took years to develop.  Seriously, how long did it take Anne and Gilbert to finally get together?  And then there’s the story of Leslie Moore–talk about depressing.  And all the other minor characters throughout her novels and short stories–people that had to wait 10, 20 years to be with the one they loved.  Yikes! 

Or what about the unfortunate idea that the man you’re really meant for will marry your sister?  I am still not over the whole Jo/Laurie/Amy thing.  Luckily, I had no sisters.

So while there are some great models, there are some truly frightening romantic scenarios in kidlit.  Perhaps I should blame my childhood reading on my very practical attitude towards romance.  Even as I continue to believe that my Joe is out there somewhere. . .

For fans of Gone-Away Lake

Today, while doing incredibly domestic things like reorganizing my kitchen cabinets, I listed again to this episode of This American Life.

In “The House on Loon Lake,” a couple of kids find an abandoned house in the woods.  Inside, it’s filled with stuff–from food still  in the cupboard to letters to clothing.  Along the way, the kids bring their parents to see.  They return again and again.  And then the house is gone.  But the questions of what happened to this family and this house remain.

As I listened, I couldn’t help but think of Gone-Away Lake.  Both stories feature kids finding something abandoned, yet full of stories. It’s a summer adventure, one in which other grown-ups are brought into only relunctantly.   But Gone-Away Lake ultimately has a happy ending.  And Loon Lake just breaks your heart.  But it’s still a story worth checking out.

Cold and hot

When thinking about extreme weather, the kidlit fan naturally turns to The Long Winter.  The story of one of the worst winters ever just doesn’t seem to lose its appeal.  I know plenty of people that pick it up and reread whenever they’re snowbound.  Chapter titles like “We’ll Weather the Blast,” “Cold and Dark,” and “Not Really Hungry,” probably put any current snowstorms in perspective.  The imagery of it all–the snow taller than your head, twisting hay for fuel, and storms that seem to come out of nowhere and never end certainly stuck with me.  But I can’t understand cold like Wilder describes.  Check out this description:

It was terribly cold outside the bedcovers.  But the roaring and shrilling of the storm would not let Laura sleep again.  The frosted nails in the roof above her were like white teeth.  She lay under them only a few minutes before she followed Ma downstairs.

The fire was burning brightly in the cookstove, and in the front room the heater’s side was red-hot, but still the rooms were cold and so dark that it did not seem to be datytime.

Laura broke the ice on the water in the water pail.

Ice!  Inside the house!  Yikes!  But I’m a Texas girl, so the idea of snow over my head and temps of 40 below are just hard for me to really comprehend.  It almost doesn’t seem real, though I know it was–and still is.

However, last night, while reading Thimble Summer by Elizabeth Enright there was a description of summer’s heat that I definitely understood.  At the very beginning, the oppressive heat is a presence: “Garnet thought this must be the hottest day that had ever been in the world.”  With a temperature of 110, I have felt her pain (unlike the 40 below above).  Later, in the same chapter, there is this (another bedroom related scene):

Garnet said good night and tiptoed up the stairs to her room under the eaves.  It was so hot there that the candle in its holder had swooned till it was bent double. . . . Garnet blew out the candles and lay down.  It was too hot even for a sheet.  She lay there, wet with perspiration, feeling the heat like heavy blankets and listening to the soft thunder, the empty thunder, that brought no rain.

This is weather I know.  And though I thank God every summer day for the miracle of air conditioning, I have certainly experienced heat like this.  One summer, we returned from a glorious vacation in Colorado (where the high had been about 75) to a house with no air conditioning.  That was the summer it didn’t dip below 90 at night for a month.   It was a very rude return.

There’s a list of questions that we get over and over again at the museum.  One of them is “What did they do before air conditioning?”  (for some reason, heat is never really a question here in Texas!)  When I’m feeling sarcastic, I say “They were hot.”  And though that’s true, you see some of the common ways of coping in Thimble Summer.  They go swimming, they do as many chores as possible in the morning, they cook less.  And when the rain finally comes–they enjoy it and get thoroughly soaked!

A lot of writers gloss over the weather and nature descriptions.  And quite frankly, I’m one of those readers that usually skims over such descriptions.  But when it comes to weather extremes, sometimes you pause just a minute to shiver with the cold or wipe your brow from the heat.  But then, it’s on to the rest of the story. 

Any other memorable extreme weather moments in kidlit?

As a public historian in Texas, there are certain subjects that you just have to deal with on a regular basis.  The Alamo.  Cowboys.  The frontier.  I have attended conferences where it feels like every single session is pre-1900 history and mostly about the Texas Revolution.  These are all fine topics for historical study, but I must admit: they bore me.  It’s just all been done Too Much. 

Now, try finding engaging history for kids that’s about Texas but not about the above subjects.  It’s hard—really, really hard.  Though we certainly have frontier-y stuff at the museum, it’s not the majority of the museum.  Our earliest structure dates to 1847, after our Republic days were over.  We’re really all about that shift from rural to urban that begins to happen around the turn-of-the-century.  But it’s so hard to find good books that talk about this time period for children.  So, I borrow from other states like Minnesota (Betsy-Tacy) and Utah (The Great Brain).  And it works, but it’s not Texas.  And I am a bit biased about Texas.

The Evolution of Calpurnia TateWhen I first heard about The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate by Jacqueline Kelly, I was intrigued but cautious.  The jacket copy reads “The summer of 1899 is hot in Calpurnia’s sleepy Texas town, and there aren’t a lot of good ways to stay cool.”  I become more intrigued–something set at the turn of the century?  Seriously?  But will it actually be any good?  There are so many pitfalls in historical fiction.  So many ways in which I could be disappointed.    But I had heard good things from people I trusted.  It became our museum book club’s first selection (partially at my insistence, but they agreed!)  So I started to read.

Folks, I am completely head over heels in love with Calpurnia.  It is an almost perfect work of historical fiction.  Calpurnia becomes curious about the world around her–in particular, the grasshoppers.  Her curiosity takes her to the library for Origin of the Species, and the librarian refuses to give it to her.  And then she realizes that right under her nose is another naturalist/scientist–her grandfather.  Together, they explore the land, make observations, continue experiments with pecan liquor (this really made me giggle), and discover what just might be an unknown species of plant.  In the mean time, there’s a lot of humor, a wonderful family, and great historical details.  The kinds of little things that thrill me in so much of kidlit history–Calpurnia’s first experience with coca-cola, the first car seen in that tiny town, the first telephone.  These are the kind of details that aren’t Big Events–like, say, The Fall of the Alamo–but are events that readers are much more likely to connect to.  And possibly fall in love.

But the reason why I am still so thrilled about this book, even though I finished it over a week ago, is that it is a wonderful introduction to some of the key ideas of women’s history.  Unlike some other books (that post is linked to above), this book sums up the challenges of being a woman at the turn of the century without being heavy-handed about it.  There is Calpurnia’s mother–who with seven children and a large household to manage–is known to take more than a few swigs a day of Lydia Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound, “known to be the Best Blood Purifier for Women” and also known to be mostly alcohol.  But if I had seven kids and was stuck in a small town in Central Texas during a drought. . . yep, I’d be drinking something as well.  There’s Lula, Calpurnia’s best friend, who is really good at all the “womanly skills” such as sewing and cooking and such.  Lula does not understand Calpurnia’s interest in bugs and such–and only slightly understands why three of Calpurnia’s brothers always want to walk her home (another giggle scene).

But most of all, there’s Calpurnia.  She realizes she wants to be a scientist.  She very timidly begins to express this idea to some, but not all.  Meanwhile, her mother is upping the lessons on sewing and knitting and cooking, which frustrates Calpurnia to no end.  But she does it, because she knows she has to, even as she begs to spend more time with her Grandfather.  She thinks, rather hopes, that her parents understand.  At Christmas, she writes:

I peeled back the stiff paper to reveal the word Science printed in curlicues.

“Oh,” I exclaimed.  Such magnificence!  But even better than the solid reality of the book in my hand was the gladsome fact that my mother and father at last understood the kind of nourishment I needed to survive.  I beamed at my parents with excitement.  They smiled and nodded.  I ripped the paper off to reveal the whole title:  The Science of Housewifery.

“Oh!” I stared in befuddlement.  It made no sense to me.  What could it mean?  Was the writing even English?  The Science of Housewifery, by Mrs. Josiah Jarvis.  This couldn’t be right.  My hands turned to wood. . .

Conversation trailed off, and the room became silent except for the monotonous thwacking of J. B. riding his rocking horse in the corner.  All eyes were on me.  . . .

She said, “What do you say, Calpurnia?”

What does Calpurnia say?  What could I say?  That I wanted to throw the book–no better than kindling–into the fireplace?  That I wanted to scream at the unfairness of it all?  That at that moment I could have done violence, that I could have punched them all in the face?  Even Granddaddy.  Yes, even him.  Encouraging me the way he had, knowing that there was no new century for me, no new life for this girl.  My life sentence had been delivered by my parents.

 Calpurnia’s eyes open to the world around her, but her world hasn’t changed.  She’s caught between what she wants to be and what she is expected to be.  Like most women that came of age during that time period.  The ending is not wrapped up in a pretty bow–Calpurnia is frustrated.  There’s no afterword, fast-forwarding a few years to show her at the University.  Her life is in flux.  She accepts her path, but is not resigned to it.  She accepts it because she doesn’t have much choice.

So often, in historical fiction with a “spunky” or “modern” heroine, the heroine winds up defying the odds.  She’s one of the ones that breaks through all of those historical barriers.  With Calpurnia, you just don’t know what happens to her.  And I love that.  That uncertainty can start such wonderful conversations about college education for women, suffrage, careers, etc.  In a way that kids can hopefully connect with, without such topics being an Issue that requires a Historical Note.  So yeah, I love this book and would love it even if it wasn’t set in Fentress, Texas.  But that setting is a wonderful, delightful bonus.

So, Jacqueline Kelly, I know you’re still basking in the glow of the Newbery Honor Award.  And I’m thrilled for you!  But get back to work and keep writing.  We need more books like this.  They don’t have to be about Calpurnia (and a big part of me hopes that things are left ambiguous).  But we need more historical fiction like this.  A lot more.

For me, it was dangly earrings, curly hair and contacts.  For Anne Shirley, it was upswept hair and long skirts.  For Betsy Ray, it was no freckles and curly hair.  And for Mona, it was a bob and red nail polish.  Those beacons to girls of what it might be to be grown up.  And even more importantly, to be pretty.

When I was young, I first desperately wanted curly hair.  Little did I realize how fabulous my straight glossy hair was–and I was even less aware that once I hit puberty, that straight hair would vanish.  So, I got a very classic 1980s perm in 4th grade.  Pierced ears were next.  Mom thought this was crazy talk–she doesn’t like needles, so the idea of having one pierce your ear just for fun?  Yep, not on her list of things to do.  But she relented, with the caveat that I could not have any earrings that dangled.  One birthday, my friend Jennifer gave me dangly earrings.  I begged and begged for mom to let me wear them–because then I would be fashionable and stylish.  Eventually, she did.  I still have those earrings.  They really aren’t terribly dangly–maybe an inch long.

But what I seriously pined for was contacts.  I was one of those lucky kids who got glasses in 3rd grade.  And remember, this was in the mid-1908s–not exactly a decade known for good glasses.  Once I hit junior high, I would sometimes just take off my glasses and look in the mirror.  Without those silly glasses, I was almost pretty.  Maybe I would finally have a boyfriend.  And be pretty.  And be grown up.  My 8th grade graduation present was contacts, and I wore them for the first time on the last day of school.  Some people barely recognized me.  I felt vindicated in my longing for contacts.  And I knew high school would be better.  It was, but not because of the contacts.

Looking back, we refer to those years as my ugly duckling years.  Not sure that I’m all that swanlike now, but things are definitely better.  If I was truly a bare-your-soul blogger, I would post one of those truly bad pictures from those years.  But I’m not going to do that.  Because this is a blog that is about books and history.

So about those books and history–or at least history other than my own.  As I’ve mentioned previously, I’ve recently fallen in love with the Melendy family.  In The Saturdays, set in the 1940s, one of my very favorite chapters was about Mona’s Saturday.  She does what I think every other awkward, teenage girl has longed to do–she went out on her own and did what she thought was necessary to be pretty.  And grown up.  She knows exactly what she’s doing:

“After all, nobody ever asked me not to,” she told herself.  “I never promised I wouldn’t.”  But all the time she knew that she was quibbling; the corner of her mind that never let itself be fooled was well aware that neither Father nor Cuffy would approve of what she was about to do.

So, she goes into the beauty shop and for $1.50, she takes an important step toward becoming grown up.  She has her hair cut and her nails manicured.  She loves the way she looks.  But she also knows that when she gets home, her family may not feel the same way.

Rush said, “Jeepers!  You look just like everybody.  Any of those dumb high school girls that walk along the street screaming and laughing and bumping into people.  Why couldn’t you have waited a while?”

“What in heaven’s name has got into you, Mona?” inquired Father, red faced from choking.  “I never thought you were silly or vain.  When you’re eighteen years old if you want to go in for that sort of thing it will be all right, I suppose.  But not now.  There’s no way we can bring your braids back, but at least we don’t have to put up with those talons.”

And so Mona eventually gets the red nailpolish off and is properly chastised for growing up too fast.  But though I had never done a similiar thing, I understood her motivations so well.  And I began to think about previous kidlit history heroines and their own steps towards trying to be pretty and grown up.

Anne Shirley, set in the late 1800s, longs for puffed sleeves.  But there are other mile-markers on the road to being grown up.  On Anne’s 13th birthday, she and Diana discuss how close they are to being grown up–Anne is convinced “that in two more years I’ll be really grown up.”  Diana declares:

“In four more years we’ll be able to put our hair up,” said Diana.  “Alice Bell is only sixteen and she is wearing her hair up, but I think that’s ridiculous.  I shall wait until I’m seventeen.”

Fast forward, twenty years or so, and you meet Betsy Ray.  When Betsy is 13, Anna comes to live with the family.  And Anna brings two very magical things into Betsy’s life: Magic Wavers and freckle cream.  Both quickly become an integral part of her new beauty routine. 

After supper, Betsy telephone Tacy and Winona for prolonged conversations, then went upstairs to wind her hair on Magic Waers, take a warm bath some of Julia’s bath salts in it, and rub the new freckle cream into her face.  Wrapped in a kimono she sat down to manicure her nails.

But Betsy still doesn’t feel like she’s pretty.

“Oh, Tacy!” she said in a lowered voice.  “I wish I was prettier.”

“Why, Betsy, you’re plenty pretty enough.  You’re better than pretty.”

“I don’t want to be better than pretty.  I’m tired of being better than pretty.  Sweet looking!  Interesting looking!  Pooh for that!  I want to be plain pretty like you are.”

These girls, generations apart, are all struggling to be 13–right on the edge of being grown up, but not there yet.  Feeling not yet comfortable in their own skin, and definitely not pretty.  And everyone wants to grow up faster–to get through those awkwards years and on to the glamorous future.  And I think these struggles are a very large part of why these books remain popular today.  Who hasn’t been snarky about another girl’s fashion choices?  Who hasn’t wished they weren’t just one step closer to being grown up?  And though the standards of beauty have changed–from rogue being unheard of in Anne’s time, to only on one woman in town (Miss Mix) in Betsy’s time, to being something expected when you’re grown up in Mona’s time, the emotions and the feelings are the same.   A 13 year old girl just wants to be pretty.  And grown up.

ETA: Last night, after posting this, I was lying in bed, trying to sleep and realized that I had forgotten one of the best, funniest incidents of a teen girl struggling to be pretty: Anne dying her hair green!  How could I forget this?  I blame the cold.  At any rate, one of the recurring themes in Anne is her hatred of her red hair.  But when the peddler’s potion turns it green, it is one of the funnier moments in the books. 

“Dyed it!  Dyed your hair!  Anne Shirley, didn’t you know it was a wicked thing to do?”

“Yes, I knew it was a lilttle wicked,” admitted Anne.  “But I thought it was worth while to be a little wicked to get rid of red hair.  I counted thecost, Marilla.  Besides, I meant to be extra good in other ways to make up for it.”

The things we’ll all do, in those desperate attempts to be beautiful.  And yet, one of the signs of Anne growing up, besides talking a bit less, is that she comes to accept her hair.  It deepens a bit as she enters adulthood and becomes a “lovely shade of auburn.” I suppose patience is a virtue (I certainly got my curly hair), but boy, it certainly is hard to wait.

I saw this post on the National Museum of American History’s blog when it first came out.  Entitled “My Tweenage Historical Bookshelf,” I got all excited.  And then I read the post and I was no longer as excited.

My roommate sent me a link to the post earlier this week and we had the following conversation via e-mail:

L:   A short blog post from the Smithsonian – seemed like a subject you might enjoy.  I haven’t read any of the books she lists, but I didn’t scroll through the comments – there may be some there that were my favorites too.

Me: I saw this back when it was first posted.  In my opinion, the entire quality of the post is diminished when she mentions the American Girl books.  Those books are terrible!

L: I have to admit, I can be pretty snobby about them too.  But they’re SO popular.  Sigh.

Me: They’re like a gate-way drug to real historical fiction.

L:  This made me laugh.   But I think maybe they’re just bad like drugs – real historical fiction is good-for-you/rehab, maybe?

So, what are your thoughts?  Are we complete book/history snobs? 

And a note: I’m just talking about the American Girl books, not the dolls.  As a kid, I would have killed for one of those dolls but thought the books were incredibly boring.  Heck, as an adult, I would probably still kill for a one of the dolls.

Just spotted this article: Jo March Was Born Here, all about literary historic sites.  It also includes a slide show (though I was unable to read the complete captions-not sure if that was the website or my computer).  Some favorites of kidlit history are mentioned: Laura Ingalls, Jo March, Anne Shirley (though not in the slide show), Betsy-Tacy and Ramona Quimby (who I need to revisit).

However, I do have to respectfully disagree with the following statement: Do we know Anne Shirley better if we see her Green Gables with our own eyes? Does the building that occupies 221B Baker St. today say anything about the character of Sherlock Holmes? The easy answer: Of course not! If fiction is about imagination, these places are at their most authentic first in the minds of the writers who elevated them and then of readers who keep them alive. The pedestrian gables and attics and apartments themselves—in Prince Edward Island and London, respectively—are just a shell. To think they have any greater meaning is tragically middlebrow.   She later goes on to mention that she took a trip that included visits to several sites related to her childhood reading, concluding: The experience was alternatively transportive and underwhelming.

I’ll never forget the chill than ran up my spine when my friend Amber and I first glimpsed Prince Edward Island.  I’ll never forget gazing in amazement at the tiny desk Alcott used to write Little Women.  And I’ll never forget the day I dipped my toes in both Murmuring Lake and Plum Creek. 

Could I have continued to love these books without visiting these key places?  Absolutely!  Does the “real” thing not always match up with what’s in my own imagination?  Sure.  Have I ever been disappointed in any of these pilgrimages?  Absolutely not.  Does something in the book change after the visit?  Yes, but in a very good way.    I know these characters and their creators better after walking the land and halls that they walked.  It’s too bad the author of this slide show doesn’t feel the same way. 

Are you a fan of literary pilgrimages?  Or would you rather stick to the book world?

Older Posts »