What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane
Traces the life of Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter, describes her difficult relationship with her mother, and reveals her contributions to the "Little House" series of books
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
9 people are currently reading
923 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
August 30, 2016
This is the book that I mentioned in my review of Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder: The Woman behind the Legend, the one that contends that Laura’s daughter Rose ghostwrote the Little House series. I read it with the expectation that the author would provide documentary evidence for his thesis, but unfortunately, the excerpts comparing Laura’s manuscripts to Rose’s edits are shown only in an appendix at the end. These particular excerpts do indeed support his thesis - Rose’s edits gave the text life - but there were too few examples to come to a fair conclusion. I would have been happy to read a complete line-by-line comparison of all the manuscripts and books, but I’m an editor. Most fans would probably lose interest after a while. Possibly I would, too.
So while the author didn’t present as much documentary evidence I was hoping for, he did present a vivid and well-researched biography of Rose Wilder Lane. A running theme throughout the book is from the Christian myth of the wandering Jew. When Rose was a little girl, she was sitting with her pious grandmother Caroline Ingalls and remarked that she wished she had lived in the times of the man the Christians worship.
“Why, dear?” asked Grandma Ingalls, no doubt hoping to “shep some nachas” from the answer.
“So then I could curse him and become the wandering Jew.”
As Rose described it, Caroline was silent, but it was as though an explosion had gone off in the room.
That was Rose. Even at that early age, she was showing signs of rebellion. She left the farm as soon as she could, first by attending school in Louisiana where her aunt Eliza Jane was living and then emerging into adulthood with a job as a telegraph operator. She did have a short-lived marriage, but ended up disparaging the institution altogether: "Marry at eighteen, and get it all over with by twenty-five." Tragically, like Caroline and Laura before her, she lost a son in his infancy. After that, she had some sort of operation, and the author assumes that left her unable to bear children ever again. If she had remained tied to a husband and kids, her life and American literature would have been very different.
Even as a married woman, Rose was living a bohemian and literary life in San Francisco. After her divorce, she ran with it, fulfilling her dream of becoming a wandering "Jew." (Either that or it was the wanderlust inherited from her pioneer grandfather, not to mention “Flutterbudget” herself.) Rose lived in Greenwich Village for a time, then toured Europe and parts of the Middle East, settling down in, of all places, Albania, which she found wonderfully exotic. Rose was able to afford servants there, a far cry from the poverty of her early life. Rose had suffered both physically and emotionally on the family farm, no doubt the main reason she wanted to escape. She was seven years old when she first moved to the Ozarks, mocked for her shabby “country girl” clothes, her bare feet, and the donkey that carried her to school every day. It is easy to see how such life experiences could create the composite character of Nellie Oleson.
Throughout her stint in Europe, Rose financed her lifestyle by selling her writing. But even though she was living life on her own terms, her letters and journals, from which the author quotes extensively, give the picture of a manic-depressive. When she was not plagued by insecurities, she was busy throwing herself into some grand project with enthusiastic abandon. I didn’t respect her much, but I could relate to her, especially for this: “The truth is that for better or worse, no matter how hopelessly a failure, I am a writer. I am a writer. Nothing else in the world is so important to me – to my own inner self – as writing is.”
Rose’s European phase cast a whole new light on my favorite essay from Laura’s Missouri Ruralist column, which can be found in Little House in the Ozarks: The Rediscovered Writings . The essay is called “Are You Your Children’s Confidant?”
“A letter from my mother, who is seventy-six years old, lies on my desk beside a letter from my daughter far away in Europe. Reading the message from my mother, I am a child again and a longing unutterable fills my heart for Mother’s counsel, for the safe haven of her protection . . . But when I turn to the letter written by my daughter, who will always be a little girl to me no matter how old she grows, then I understand and appreciate my mother’s position and her feelings toward me.
“Many of us have the blessed privilege of being at the same time mother and child, able to let the one interpret the other to us until our understanding of both is full and rich. What is there in the attitude of your children toward yourself that you wish were different? Search your heart and learn if your ways toward your own mother could be improved.”
Laura of the Little House books did sometimes chaff against her mother, but her willfulness was nothing compared to Rose’s rebellion. Laura, after all, developed into a dutiful daughter, working selflessly to help pay for Mary’s schooling. Eventually, she settled down and became a proper farm wife, just like her mother. So Rose’s bohemian lifestyle must have come as quite a shock to her. Another of her essays mentions explaining Rose’s divorce to her neighbors. She seemed sympathetic to her daughter, but it couldn’t have been easy. So when Laura asks, “What is there in the attitude of your children toward yourself that you wish were different?,” she probably had a few things in mind for herself. And the tension between them was about to mount. Rose had seen Par-ee, but she had to go back to the farm anyway. She was an only child, and her parents were getting older.
Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder, written as a rebuttal to this book, also covers the period in which Rose returned to Rocky Ridge farm. Many fans were disappointed to learn that Laura had clay feet when it came to her relations with her daughter, but personally, I blame Rose. For example, Rose directed that a new house be built on Rocky Ridge Farm, and when it was finished, she had her parents leave the one they had built themselves and move into the new one while she moved into the old house. Now, I can see why Rose might have thought she was doing her parents a favor, but I can also understand why Laura reacted coldly to the whole project. What we think is best for our aging parents ain’t necessarily so.
One thing I do not blame Rose for, however, was the investment advice she gave her parents in 1929. The crash impoverished them all, but I don’t see that as a particular lack of foresight on Rose’s part. It happened to everybody. And then, strapped for cash, Rose advised Laura to do what she’d been doing for years: sell her writing. Laura’s first attempt was called “Pioneer Girl” and was actually meant for adults, but when one publisher suggested she turn it into a children’s story in novelized form, the Little House series was born.
As I said, it’s really hard to know for sure whether Rose was ghostwriter or editor. One quote the author uses to support his thesis is in a letter from Laura to Rose seeming to give her a free hand: “Do whatever you want with the d-n stuff. Just clean it up.” The author also cites several letters from Rose to her friends complaining about having to edit for her mother. Ironically, he comments, that work turned out to be the most important of her life, more lasting than anything that bore her own name. Her own novels, Let the Hurricane Roar and Free Land, were also based on the Ingalls and Wilder pioneer heritage, though neither won literary awards or became commercial successes the way the Little House series did.
And so Laura, who initially said she was more interested in the accomplishment of writing than the money it would bring her, ended up with a steady income of royalties through the Depression. She did a whole lot better than Carrie and Grace, the former of whom wrote a letter to Laura asking for any cast-off clothes she might have to give away and the latter of whom was receiving some form of New Deal public assistance. As I think I said in my review of Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder, the parallels between the hardships of pioneering and the hardships of the Depression, i.e. past and present for the author, never cease to fascinate me.
And this brings me to the political and economic values taught in the books, clearest in Farmer Boy, but definitely present in everything from By the Shores of Silver Lake onward. Rose, along with Ayn Rand, was a leading voice for libertarianism. The Little House series does have some definite libertarian elements, particularly in The Long Winter (see quotes here) and in this passage of Little Town on the Prairie, which the appendix cites as one of Rose’s additions:
“Suddenly [Laura] had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind and she thought: God is America's king. Americans won't obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own consciences. . . . Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means, you have to be good. ‘Our father's God, author of liberty.’ The laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God, for God's law is the only thing that gives you the right to be free.”
The appendix also notes a significant libertarian omission: Rose cut the sentence that reveals that Mary’s education at the College for the Blind was government-sponsored. All the money that Laura earned went for train fare, clothing, and other incidentals, not tuition.
All of this begs the question of how much of the books came from Rose’s influence and how much her views converged with her mother’s. Laura also opposed the New Deal, though it seems rather uncharitable to me; most of America didn’t have the benefit of royalties.
After Laura’s death, Rose spent more time on political activism than writing, and in many ways, this was the most interesting part of the book. Roger MacBride, who would later run for president under the libertarian ticket, became Rose’s “adopted grandson.” He also became her heir and eventually received the royalty income from the books. He then sold his rights and became co-producer of the TV series. What a fortune made from Rose and Laura’s efforts! It was more than either lived to see, and both had endured such poverty! But there are many ironies to Rose’s life story, not the least of which is that she etched a permanent place for her mother’s world in American consciousness even though she ran so fast and far away from it herself.
So while the author didn’t present as much documentary evidence I was hoping for, he did present a vivid and well-researched biography of Rose Wilder Lane. A running theme throughout the book is from the Christian myth of the wandering Jew. When Rose was a little girl, she was sitting with her pious grandmother Caroline Ingalls and remarked that she wished she had lived in the times of the man the Christians worship.
“Why, dear?” asked Grandma Ingalls, no doubt hoping to “shep some nachas” from the answer.
“So then I could curse him and become the wandering Jew.”
As Rose described it, Caroline was silent, but it was as though an explosion had gone off in the room.
That was Rose. Even at that early age, she was showing signs of rebellion. She left the farm as soon as she could, first by attending school in Louisiana where her aunt Eliza Jane was living and then emerging into adulthood with a job as a telegraph operator. She did have a short-lived marriage, but ended up disparaging the institution altogether: "Marry at eighteen, and get it all over with by twenty-five." Tragically, like Caroline and Laura before her, she lost a son in his infancy. After that, she had some sort of operation, and the author assumes that left her unable to bear children ever again. If she had remained tied to a husband and kids, her life and American literature would have been very different.
Even as a married woman, Rose was living a bohemian and literary life in San Francisco. After her divorce, she ran with it, fulfilling her dream of becoming a wandering "Jew." (Either that or it was the wanderlust inherited from her pioneer grandfather, not to mention “Flutterbudget” herself.) Rose lived in Greenwich Village for a time, then toured Europe and parts of the Middle East, settling down in, of all places, Albania, which she found wonderfully exotic. Rose was able to afford servants there, a far cry from the poverty of her early life. Rose had suffered both physically and emotionally on the family farm, no doubt the main reason she wanted to escape. She was seven years old when she first moved to the Ozarks, mocked for her shabby “country girl” clothes, her bare feet, and the donkey that carried her to school every day. It is easy to see how such life experiences could create the composite character of Nellie Oleson.
Throughout her stint in Europe, Rose financed her lifestyle by selling her writing. But even though she was living life on her own terms, her letters and journals, from which the author quotes extensively, give the picture of a manic-depressive. When she was not plagued by insecurities, she was busy throwing herself into some grand project with enthusiastic abandon. I didn’t respect her much, but I could relate to her, especially for this: “The truth is that for better or worse, no matter how hopelessly a failure, I am a writer. I am a writer. Nothing else in the world is so important to me – to my own inner self – as writing is.”
Rose’s European phase cast a whole new light on my favorite essay from Laura’s Missouri Ruralist column, which can be found in Little House in the Ozarks: The Rediscovered Writings . The essay is called “Are You Your Children’s Confidant?”
“A letter from my mother, who is seventy-six years old, lies on my desk beside a letter from my daughter far away in Europe. Reading the message from my mother, I am a child again and a longing unutterable fills my heart for Mother’s counsel, for the safe haven of her protection . . . But when I turn to the letter written by my daughter, who will always be a little girl to me no matter how old she grows, then I understand and appreciate my mother’s position and her feelings toward me.
“Many of us have the blessed privilege of being at the same time mother and child, able to let the one interpret the other to us until our understanding of both is full and rich. What is there in the attitude of your children toward yourself that you wish were different? Search your heart and learn if your ways toward your own mother could be improved.”
Laura of the Little House books did sometimes chaff against her mother, but her willfulness was nothing compared to Rose’s rebellion. Laura, after all, developed into a dutiful daughter, working selflessly to help pay for Mary’s schooling. Eventually, she settled down and became a proper farm wife, just like her mother. So Rose’s bohemian lifestyle must have come as quite a shock to her. Another of her essays mentions explaining Rose’s divorce to her neighbors. She seemed sympathetic to her daughter, but it couldn’t have been easy. So when Laura asks, “What is there in the attitude of your children toward yourself that you wish were different?,” she probably had a few things in mind for herself. And the tension between them was about to mount. Rose had seen Par-ee, but she had to go back to the farm anyway. She was an only child, and her parents were getting older.
Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder, written as a rebuttal to this book, also covers the period in which Rose returned to Rocky Ridge farm. Many fans were disappointed to learn that Laura had clay feet when it came to her relations with her daughter, but personally, I blame Rose. For example, Rose directed that a new house be built on Rocky Ridge Farm, and when it was finished, she had her parents leave the one they had built themselves and move into the new one while she moved into the old house. Now, I can see why Rose might have thought she was doing her parents a favor, but I can also understand why Laura reacted coldly to the whole project. What we think is best for our aging parents ain’t necessarily so.
One thing I do not blame Rose for, however, was the investment advice she gave her parents in 1929. The crash impoverished them all, but I don’t see that as a particular lack of foresight on Rose’s part. It happened to everybody. And then, strapped for cash, Rose advised Laura to do what she’d been doing for years: sell her writing. Laura’s first attempt was called “Pioneer Girl” and was actually meant for adults, but when one publisher suggested she turn it into a children’s story in novelized form, the Little House series was born.
As I said, it’s really hard to know for sure whether Rose was ghostwriter or editor. One quote the author uses to support his thesis is in a letter from Laura to Rose seeming to give her a free hand: “Do whatever you want with the d-n stuff. Just clean it up.” The author also cites several letters from Rose to her friends complaining about having to edit for her mother. Ironically, he comments, that work turned out to be the most important of her life, more lasting than anything that bore her own name. Her own novels, Let the Hurricane Roar and Free Land, were also based on the Ingalls and Wilder pioneer heritage, though neither won literary awards or became commercial successes the way the Little House series did.
And so Laura, who initially said she was more interested in the accomplishment of writing than the money it would bring her, ended up with a steady income of royalties through the Depression. She did a whole lot better than Carrie and Grace, the former of whom wrote a letter to Laura asking for any cast-off clothes she might have to give away and the latter of whom was receiving some form of New Deal public assistance. As I think I said in my review of Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder, the parallels between the hardships of pioneering and the hardships of the Depression, i.e. past and present for the author, never cease to fascinate me.
And this brings me to the political and economic values taught in the books, clearest in Farmer Boy, but definitely present in everything from By the Shores of Silver Lake onward. Rose, along with Ayn Rand, was a leading voice for libertarianism. The Little House series does have some definite libertarian elements, particularly in The Long Winter (see quotes here) and in this passage of Little Town on the Prairie, which the appendix cites as one of Rose’s additions:
“Suddenly [Laura] had a completely new thought. The Declaration and the song came together in her mind and she thought: God is America's king. Americans won't obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own consciences. . . . Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free. It means, you have to be good. ‘Our father's God, author of liberty.’ The laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow you with a right to life and liberty. Then you have to keep the laws of God, for God's law is the only thing that gives you the right to be free.”
The appendix also notes a significant libertarian omission: Rose cut the sentence that reveals that Mary’s education at the College for the Blind was government-sponsored. All the money that Laura earned went for train fare, clothing, and other incidentals, not tuition.
All of this begs the question of how much of the books came from Rose’s influence and how much her views converged with her mother’s. Laura also opposed the New Deal, though it seems rather uncharitable to me; most of America didn’t have the benefit of royalties.
After Laura’s death, Rose spent more time on political activism than writing, and in many ways, this was the most interesting part of the book. Roger MacBride, who would later run for president under the libertarian ticket, became Rose’s “adopted grandson.” He also became her heir and eventually received the royalty income from the books. He then sold his rights and became co-producer of the TV series. What a fortune made from Rose and Laura’s efforts! It was more than either lived to see, and both had endured such poverty! But there are many ironies to Rose’s life story, not the least of which is that she etched a permanent place for her mother’s world in American consciousness even though she ran so fast and far away from it herself.
January 26, 2021
So yes, after now having skimmed over some examples of Rose Wilder Lane’s pioneer themed novels such as Let the Hurricane Roar and Free Land (and noticing that much of their contents in fact seems to come straight from information and details first featured and presented by Laura Ingalls Wilder in her unpublished autobiography Pioneer Girl) and also knowing from Rose Wilder Lane’s letters to her parents that she often tended to rather resent them and was obviously also a bit ashamed of Laura and Almanzo being “just” farmers and enjoying and not ever really wanting to change this scenario, I do have to admit that personally, I have to very much consider William Holtz’The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane a truly horridly unbalanced and vitriolic smear campaign against Laura Ingalls Wilder specifically (with Holtz’ text accusing her not only of being a neglectful and verbally abusive parent but also categorically claiming that it was NOT Laura Ingalls Wilder but actually her daughter Rose Wilder Lane who wrote the Little House on the Prairie series).
For one, while Rose Wilder Lane is at least willing to admit in her letters, diaries etc. that she is often overly sensitive, with a tendency to easily become depressed and harshly negatively inclined (similarly to her mother in fact, as both Laura and Rose do seem to strongly resemble each other with regard to this but with both also usually quite ready to admit to this volatility of sentiment and feeling), in The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane, author William Holtz not only tends to massively and utterly despise Laura Ingalls Wilder on a very nasty and even deeply personal level, he also appears to think that ALL of Rose Wilder Lane’s issues with and negative attitudes towards her mother are simply because Laura Ingalls Wilder is obviously (according to Holtz) to be approached as some type of an emotionally distant, verbally abusive monster and this even though Rose herself always very readily admits that both she and her mother do have complex personalities, that they too often clash and that especially Rose’s over-sensitivity frequently makes huge mountains out of the proverbial molehills (that while Rose obviously did not enjoy her childhood, her parents were not ever in fact really abusive and that both Rose and her mother Laura often seemed to verbally spar because they just were too emotionally similar but with generally differing expectations and viewpoints).
And for two, with regard to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s writing as a whole, while I do strongly believe that Rose Wilder Lane’s editing skills are both front and centre in the Little House on the Prairie novels, considering that there are for example many to be expected and clearly shown thematic and content based parallels between Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Prairie Girl and her Little House on the Prairie series (and that Rose Wilder Lane also clearly thought her mother’s writing as being good enough and interesting enough to glean for her own, for Rose Wilder Lane’s own frontier novel projects), I seriously doubt that Laura Ingalls Wilder did not have the necessary penmanship skills, that albeit Rose Wilder Lane more than likely did a lot of editing and trimming for the Little House on the Prairie series, the basic plot and writing were by her mother, were by Laura Ingalls Wilder. And indeed, for William Holtz to suggest otherwise is at best quite ridiculous and at worst a total insult towards not only Laura Ingalls Wilder but also towards Rose Wilder Lane (since yes, William Holtz’ assertions have also lead to some rather vehement written nastiness towards Rose Wilder Lane, as some reviewers seem to think that she had personally asked William Holtz to pen The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane as a deliberate attempt to make her mother, to make Laura Ingalls Wilder look like an abusive harridan with no writing skills and no literary talents).
For one, while Rose Wilder Lane is at least willing to admit in her letters, diaries etc. that she is often overly sensitive, with a tendency to easily become depressed and harshly negatively inclined (similarly to her mother in fact, as both Laura and Rose do seem to strongly resemble each other with regard to this but with both also usually quite ready to admit to this volatility of sentiment and feeling), in The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane, author William Holtz not only tends to massively and utterly despise Laura Ingalls Wilder on a very nasty and even deeply personal level, he also appears to think that ALL of Rose Wilder Lane’s issues with and negative attitudes towards her mother are simply because Laura Ingalls Wilder is obviously (according to Holtz) to be approached as some type of an emotionally distant, verbally abusive monster and this even though Rose herself always very readily admits that both she and her mother do have complex personalities, that they too often clash and that especially Rose’s over-sensitivity frequently makes huge mountains out of the proverbial molehills (that while Rose obviously did not enjoy her childhood, her parents were not ever in fact really abusive and that both Rose and her mother Laura often seemed to verbally spar because they just were too emotionally similar but with generally differing expectations and viewpoints).
And for two, with regard to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s writing as a whole, while I do strongly believe that Rose Wilder Lane’s editing skills are both front and centre in the Little House on the Prairie novels, considering that there are for example many to be expected and clearly shown thematic and content based parallels between Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Prairie Girl and her Little House on the Prairie series (and that Rose Wilder Lane also clearly thought her mother’s writing as being good enough and interesting enough to glean for her own, for Rose Wilder Lane’s own frontier novel projects), I seriously doubt that Laura Ingalls Wilder did not have the necessary penmanship skills, that albeit Rose Wilder Lane more than likely did a lot of editing and trimming for the Little House on the Prairie series, the basic plot and writing were by her mother, were by Laura Ingalls Wilder. And indeed, for William Holtz to suggest otherwise is at best quite ridiculous and at worst a total insult towards not only Laura Ingalls Wilder but also towards Rose Wilder Lane (since yes, William Holtz’ assertions have also lead to some rather vehement written nastiness towards Rose Wilder Lane, as some reviewers seem to think that she had personally asked William Holtz to pen The Ghost in the Little House: A Life of Rose Wilder Lane as a deliberate attempt to make her mother, to make Laura Ingalls Wilder look like an abusive harridan with no writing skills and no literary talents).
June 27, 2008
By her own admission, Rose Wilder Lane was very often angry, bitter, and depressed. She was an incredibly intelligent, talented woman, as well, who had a lifelong love-hate, passive-aggressive relationship with her headstrong mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder. The author of this book seems intent on portraying Laura only as she was seen through the eyes of her frequently sullen, resentful daughter, and tries to convince his audience that it was Rose who wrote the Little House books. Anyone who has read Wilder's nonfiction (particularly that which preceded Little House) and Lane's own historical fiction (based entirely on her mother's experiences) can see that while Rose definitely had an editorial influence on her mother's works, the flavor, voice, and spirit of the Little House series came from Laura alone. Unfortunately, in his attempt to bring credit and acclaim to Rose Wilder Lane, the author succeeds only in showcasing her lesser qualities, such as her penchant for control and an inability to overcome lifelong unhappiness she attributed to growing up impoverished. Lane, in her own right a unique voice in American letters, deserves better...and so does her mother.
March 20, 2008
I'm a huge fan of the Little House Books, even more as an adult than I was as a child. I know that this book has met with a certain amount of disdain by other fans of Laura Ingalls Wilder, but I found it fascinating. The author makes a compelling argument that Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, did so much rewriting of her mother's books that she could actually be considered the author.
Reading snippets of Laura's writings, then the finished project, it's clear that a skilled writer was heavily involved. And reading other things that Laura wrote -- her newspaper columns and diaries -- it's also clear that Rose was a far more gifted writer.
There is one scene in These Happy Golden Years that always brings tears to my eyes. After Laura's wedding and the wedding lunch, as she and Almanzo were leaving Ma and Pa's house for Almanzo's claim, the new husband reached to help his bride into the wagon. But Pa intervened, telling him that although Almanzo would have that responsibility in the future, for now, it was Pa's day to help her. In other words, he was giving Laura away, but in a much more real and practical sense than happens in a wedding today.
After I read The Ghost in the Little House, that scene became even more poignant to me. Rose is writing about a moment in her parent's early life together and the idealized point of view seems just right for a child writing about her parents.
Reading snippets of Laura's writings, then the finished project, it's clear that a skilled writer was heavily involved. And reading other things that Laura wrote -- her newspaper columns and diaries -- it's also clear that Rose was a far more gifted writer.
There is one scene in These Happy Golden Years that always brings tears to my eyes. After Laura's wedding and the wedding lunch, as she and Almanzo were leaving Ma and Pa's house for Almanzo's claim, the new husband reached to help his bride into the wagon. But Pa intervened, telling him that although Almanzo would have that responsibility in the future, for now, it was Pa's day to help her. In other words, he was giving Laura away, but in a much more real and practical sense than happens in a wedding today.
After I read The Ghost in the Little House, that scene became even more poignant to me. Rose is writing about a moment in her parent's early life together and the idealized point of view seems just right for a child writing about her parents.
December 6, 2012
I guess I don't understand why this book has caused so much controversy. I love Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, but it doesn't really surprise nor offend me that she got narrative and other help from her journalist/novelist daughter. This biography of Rose Wilder Lane describes a life that is no less fascinating than her mother's well-known (though oft-fictionalized) journey.
July 16, 2025
I was curious about a lot of the controversy surrounding this book. Considering the mythos that has developed around Laura Ingalls Wilder and her family, a book that paints Laura as a cold and manipulative mother and dethrones her as the true author of the Little House books is going to rankle feathers. Of course, this book is not about Laura, but about Rose. After reading it, while I feel I have a good grasp of the development of her political theory, I fail to have an appreciation for a woman who was supposedly a brilliant conversationalist and writer. So much of the first half of the book was devoted to Rose's existential crisis and writings from when she was in a deep depression that it's hard to like her or see what drew other people to her.
Part of this is that beyond living in impoverished circumstances as a child, I'm still clueless as to what Laura did to her that made her childhood so miserable. Rose obviously felt responsible for the calamities that befell their family while they were living in DeSmet, even believing that at the age of 3 she had started the fire that burned their house down, but whether or not Laura did anything to make her feel that way is not clear. A lot of the times children think things are their fault even when they aren't and without an adult doing anything to imply it was. And considering that memory is highly reconstructive and Rose was 3 and Laura who was the only adult present when the fire started and she left no record that Rose had started it, I have to wonder if Rose's memory is even accurate here. Further, considering that Holtz admits she later exaggerated or made up events in her adult life...
To be fair, Holtz pants a good picture of the hard times that had befallen the nation and the Wilders at around the time of Rose's birth, postulating that raising a child during the good times is hard enough but when you're broke, homeless, and have suffered the death of another child in infancy even more daunting. And it could have been the due to poverty and grief that the Wilders were not as emotionally available to Rose as she needed them to be. Still, to make claims that Laura was manipulative and cruel to Rose and Almanzo without painting a picture of how this looked seems like mud slinging. And he also seems to interpret Laura's actions in a negative light. For instance, when she wrote a letter to her publisher asking that Rose get 10% of her royalties he caulked it up to her guilty conscious rather than considering other possibilities, such as that finally feeling financially secure she wanted to help her daughter out. Holtz could be right of course, but this tendency to give everything the most negative spin possible doesn't help much.
In short, I didn't feel like I came out with a good understanding of what was obviously a very complex mother-daughter relationship. And it wasn't until he briefly mentioned that Almanzo had died that he said that theirs seemed to have been a warmer relationship. Still, there was no mention of how Rose reacted emotionally to his death.
Considering that the family dynamics were what I was most interested in, the book was rather disappointing. In a lot of ways this book felt uneven. Some chapters I was glued to and fully interested in, others I sloughed through. I got annoyed with the use of the same quote being used repeatedly to illustrate something. I also felt my lack of connection with the times she lived in, as he would allude to works of fiction written around this time to illustrate something about Rose, but as I'd never read that book I had no idea what to draw from it. The lack of context was frustrating in several instances. Other parts felt like a Who's Who of the times.
It was interesting to read about her relationship with her informally adopted children, especially Rexh Meta. And she did live a very interesting life, which made wallowing through page after page examining her existential crisis all the more tedious. I am glad to know she came to terms with her life towards the close of it.
Which brings me to my final qualm, how much of a hand Rose played in crafting the Little House books and her feelings about them. The evidence Holtz presents seems to indicate that Rose was happy that her edits reflected her staunch individualism and that succeeding generations of children would be exposed to her ideas, yet Holtz seemed to think that Rose was shafted by Laura in taking full credit for them without giving Rose her due. While it does seem that Rose found editing them burdensome, Rose seemed to find everything burdensome. She had problems with hypothyroidism and possibly was suffering from major depression or bipolar. I can't say I have a good feel for how much credit is owed to Rose for shaping the books successfully. I would have liked more context into the nature of the argument of the changes needed for "By the Shores of Silver Lake" for example. However, Rose seems to have been happy with the ideology she plugged in there.
On the one hand, this was frustrating because it gave me little of the info that I craved, but there were parts of the book I genuinely enjoyed and found fascinating.
Part of this is that beyond living in impoverished circumstances as a child, I'm still clueless as to what Laura did to her that made her childhood so miserable. Rose obviously felt responsible for the calamities that befell their family while they were living in DeSmet, even believing that at the age of 3 she had started the fire that burned their house down, but whether or not Laura did anything to make her feel that way is not clear. A lot of the times children think things are their fault even when they aren't and without an adult doing anything to imply it was. And considering that memory is highly reconstructive and Rose was 3 and Laura who was the only adult present when the fire started and she left no record that Rose had started it, I have to wonder if Rose's memory is even accurate here. Further, considering that Holtz admits she later exaggerated or made up events in her adult life...
To be fair, Holtz pants a good picture of the hard times that had befallen the nation and the Wilders at around the time of Rose's birth, postulating that raising a child during the good times is hard enough but when you're broke, homeless, and have suffered the death of another child in infancy even more daunting. And it could have been the due to poverty and grief that the Wilders were not as emotionally available to Rose as she needed them to be. Still, to make claims that Laura was manipulative and cruel to Rose and Almanzo without painting a picture of how this looked seems like mud slinging. And he also seems to interpret Laura's actions in a negative light. For instance, when she wrote a letter to her publisher asking that Rose get 10% of her royalties he caulked it up to her guilty conscious rather than considering other possibilities, such as that finally feeling financially secure she wanted to help her daughter out. Holtz could be right of course, but this tendency to give everything the most negative spin possible doesn't help much.
In short, I didn't feel like I came out with a good understanding of what was obviously a very complex mother-daughter relationship. And it wasn't until he briefly mentioned that Almanzo had died that he said that theirs seemed to have been a warmer relationship. Still, there was no mention of how Rose reacted emotionally to his death.
Considering that the family dynamics were what I was most interested in, the book was rather disappointing. In a lot of ways this book felt uneven. Some chapters I was glued to and fully interested in, others I sloughed through. I got annoyed with the use of the same quote being used repeatedly to illustrate something. I also felt my lack of connection with the times she lived in, as he would allude to works of fiction written around this time to illustrate something about Rose, but as I'd never read that book I had no idea what to draw from it. The lack of context was frustrating in several instances. Other parts felt like a Who's Who of the times.
It was interesting to read about her relationship with her informally adopted children, especially Rexh Meta. And she did live a very interesting life, which made wallowing through page after page examining her existential crisis all the more tedious. I am glad to know she came to terms with her life towards the close of it.
Which brings me to my final qualm, how much of a hand Rose played in crafting the Little House books and her feelings about them. The evidence Holtz presents seems to indicate that Rose was happy that her edits reflected her staunch individualism and that succeeding generations of children would be exposed to her ideas, yet Holtz seemed to think that Rose was shafted by Laura in taking full credit for them without giving Rose her due. While it does seem that Rose found editing them burdensome, Rose seemed to find everything burdensome. She had problems with hypothyroidism and possibly was suffering from major depression or bipolar. I can't say I have a good feel for how much credit is owed to Rose for shaping the books successfully. I would have liked more context into the nature of the argument of the changes needed for "By the Shores of Silver Lake" for example. However, Rose seems to have been happy with the ideology she plugged in there.
On the one hand, this was frustrating because it gave me little of the info that I craved, but there were parts of the book I genuinely enjoyed and found fascinating.
November 7, 2019
Interesting story of the legacy the real Laura Ingalls Wilder--apparently very unHalfpint-like woman. Rather a stern and unfeeling woman .. very 19th century Protestant demeanor.
Rose Wilder Lane now, she was quite an interesting pioneer of the early 20th century Libertarian school of thought. She accomplished quite a bit with the handicap of depression, self-doubt and lack of formal education. I always believed she probably had a strong hand in what her mother did. LIW did write and was published prior to the Little House books but the books seemed more accomplished and polished with a good narrative line--the mark of a good editor which her daughter appears to have been.
The writing is a bit dense as the author is an Academic and writing for that audience rather than the general public. Too bad, I think the story makes for a good read for impressionable jr and high school girls who question how to live a life of their own amidst parental disapproval, lack of affection and societal pressures.
Rose Wilder Lane now, she was quite an interesting pioneer of the early 20th century Libertarian school of thought. She accomplished quite a bit with the handicap of depression, self-doubt and lack of formal education. I always believed she probably had a strong hand in what her mother did. LIW did write and was published prior to the Little House books but the books seemed more accomplished and polished with a good narrative line--the mark of a good editor which her daughter appears to have been.
The writing is a bit dense as the author is an Academic and writing for that audience rather than the general public. Too bad, I think the story makes for a good read for impressionable jr and high school girls who question how to live a life of their own amidst parental disapproval, lack of affection and societal pressures.
July 26, 2012
Despite the controversy surrounding this book and the author's assertions, I decided to give this book a try. I could not finish it, not because of the subject matter, but because the author's writing style was terrible. I hadn't made it to his arguments in favor of the idea that the Little House books were ghostwritten when I stopped, so I can't comment on the author's specific allegations. However, having read some of Laura Ingalls Wilder's Missouri Ruralist writings and a couple of Rose Wilder Lane's novels,and evidence presented in other Wilder biographies, there is no way that the Little House books were ghostwritten by Rose. Edited? Yes.
July 5, 2015
A bio of Rose Wilder lane. I read only the first 3 or 4 chapters since Laura has pretty much disappeared by then The author makes a lot of Laura & Rose's mother/daughter difficulties, putting a lot of emphasis {blame?) on Laura's (deliberate?) misunderstanding and neglect of Rose. The implication is that the problems were caused by Laura's bad attitude. In thinking about it, I get the feeling that when Rose was small, Laura was watching her dreams die even as she worked herself practically to death in order to keep the family together; life as an adult was a lot less of an adventure than Laura's books sound, but then those books are about her childhood anyway.
The author kind of goes on about how Rose did a lot of editing of Laura's drafts of the Little House books. The impression he gives is (although I didn't get this far in the book, but that is what the reviewers said) that Rose deserves more credit than she got, maybe even more than Laura; HAH! The IDEAS were Laura's, and anyway, Rose apparently didn't want credit or she would have seen to it that she got it--after all, she was a well-known journalist and writer herself at that point. HMPH!!
Can you tell I didn't like this book??
The author kind of goes on about how Rose did a lot of editing of Laura's drafts of the Little House books. The impression he gives is (although I didn't get this far in the book, but that is what the reviewers said) that Rose deserves more credit than she got, maybe even more than Laura; HAH! The IDEAS were Laura's, and anyway, Rose apparently didn't want credit or she would have seen to it that she got it--after all, she was a well-known journalist and writer herself at that point. HMPH!!
Can you tell I didn't like this book??
June 27, 2009
This was one of my first choices for book club this year, but alas, with only one copy in the public library, it just wasn't available enough to be a choice.
But holy cow, what a great book club book this would be! Rose was an amazing woman--she traveled extensively throughout her life, including visiting Baghdad in the early 1920s. The snippets of writing from letters, journals and published works reveal a strong, independent mind.
And oh yes, she's the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Their mother/daughter relationship was far from conventional, and that in itself was fascinating. Rose worked so hard to hide her part in the writing of the Little House book.
Though I know this book is about Rose, I would have liked a bit more about her parents. Both Laura and Almanzo (especially Almanzo) were shadowy. I thought periodically of Eden's Outcasts and how that dual biography worked. I would love to one day see a dual biography of Rose and Laura, because one woman's story can't be told without the other.
Highly recommended.
But holy cow, what a great book club book this would be! Rose was an amazing woman--she traveled extensively throughout her life, including visiting Baghdad in the early 1920s. The snippets of writing from letters, journals and published works reveal a strong, independent mind.
And oh yes, she's the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Their mother/daughter relationship was far from conventional, and that in itself was fascinating. Rose worked so hard to hide her part in the writing of the Little House book.
Though I know this book is about Rose, I would have liked a bit more about her parents. Both Laura and Almanzo (especially Almanzo) were shadowy. I thought periodically of Eden's Outcasts and how that dual biography worked. I would love to one day see a dual biography of Rose and Laura, because one woman's story can't be told without the other.
Highly recommended.
August 14, 2012
Excellent and thorough biography, but a bit hard to wade through
As anyone looking at my reading lists can see, I am currently in a "biographies of my favorite childhood authors" phase. I read this one right after reading "Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder" and becoming familiar with the collaboration between Laura and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, that gave the world the Little House books.
Despite the title of the book, the author does not spend extensive time weighing in on the ongoing and sometimes rancorous debate about the extent to which Lane influenced or even outright wrote her mother's book. Instead, it is an extremely detailed biography of Rose Wilder Lane herself and how the events of her life influenced her writing career and her political affiliations. Lane's writing work has not survived in the popular arena, and it was very interesting to see the wide variety of writing that she did, and dig some of those books out of the library.
Lane had an active writing career, spanning more than 50 years (~1915-1965) and 4 wars (WW I and II, Korea, and Vietnam). She wrote newspaper articles, propaganda, biographies, potboiler fiction, romances, and novels under her own name, was (if the excerpts are shown are any indication) an extremely engaging story-teller and letter writer, and ghosted several books besides any work that she did on her mother's manuscripts. The sheer output of her typewriter is staggering.
In this portrait, Lane comes across as a vibrant and sometimes contradictory woman who poured a lot of energy into her public persona, while struggling internally with a perceived gap between what she thought she could or should accomplish and be and what she did accomplish/was. Despite her staggering output, she felt that she was capable of something better. And it is extremely interesting, especially after reading the biography of L.M. Montgomery, to see that both authors felt that the Great Depression had the same effects-forcing them to increasing amounts of "hackwork" and giving them less time for "serious" work.
Leave plenty of time to read the book; it is clearly an exhaustive academic biography written in academic style, requiring some simultaneous reading and thinking, rather than something to rush through. But for fans of the Little House books, or anyone who wants to see a tumultuous half-century through the eyes of an excellent observer (Lane herself), it is worth the effort.
As anyone looking at my reading lists can see, I am currently in a "biographies of my favorite childhood authors" phase. I read this one right after reading "Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder" and becoming familiar with the collaboration between Laura and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, that gave the world the Little House books.
Despite the title of the book, the author does not spend extensive time weighing in on the ongoing and sometimes rancorous debate about the extent to which Lane influenced or even outright wrote her mother's book. Instead, it is an extremely detailed biography of Rose Wilder Lane herself and how the events of her life influenced her writing career and her political affiliations. Lane's writing work has not survived in the popular arena, and it was very interesting to see the wide variety of writing that she did, and dig some of those books out of the library.
Lane had an active writing career, spanning more than 50 years (~1915-1965) and 4 wars (WW I and II, Korea, and Vietnam). She wrote newspaper articles, propaganda, biographies, potboiler fiction, romances, and novels under her own name, was (if the excerpts are shown are any indication) an extremely engaging story-teller and letter writer, and ghosted several books besides any work that she did on her mother's manuscripts. The sheer output of her typewriter is staggering.
In this portrait, Lane comes across as a vibrant and sometimes contradictory woman who poured a lot of energy into her public persona, while struggling internally with a perceived gap between what she thought she could or should accomplish and be and what she did accomplish/was. Despite her staggering output, she felt that she was capable of something better. And it is extremely interesting, especially after reading the biography of L.M. Montgomery, to see that both authors felt that the Great Depression had the same effects-forcing them to increasing amounts of "hackwork" and giving them less time for "serious" work.
Leave plenty of time to read the book; it is clearly an exhaustive academic biography written in academic style, requiring some simultaneous reading and thinking, rather than something to rush through. But for fans of the Little House books, or anyone who wants to see a tumultuous half-century through the eyes of an excellent observer (Lane herself), it is worth the effort.
November 2, 2015
While Rose Wilder Lane was an interesting person, and a writer of books that was fairly famous during her productive period, this book is mostly a political defense of her personality, her rants against the New Deal (while accepting loans from her mother and friends that she kept quiet) and an argument that she was the real force behind what is most loved about the Little House book series by Laura Ingalls Wilder.
If you do want to read this book, I recommend pairing it with the new annotated manuscript of Pioneer Girl, which has gone into much better depth about what passages came from LIW's first draft of her childhood stories. Simply reading passages in Ghost in the Little House such as the one below leads the reader to wonder why things went so wrong for a freelancing writer who clearly disdained her mother.
[From page 337, referring to a time when LIW, referred to here as Mama Bess, was in her late 80s]
"A curious and revealing anecdote survives from this period, when Rose and Mama Bess and friends went out to dinner. Her mother slipped on the restaurant steps and fell down; Rose stood by, conspicuously not helping her as she struggled to her feet, embarrassed and apologetic."
It's helpful to know more about RWL, but this book is too one-sided in its critique. Prepare to be disappointed.
If you do want to read this book, I recommend pairing it with the new annotated manuscript of Pioneer Girl, which has gone into much better depth about what passages came from LIW's first draft of her childhood stories. Simply reading passages in Ghost in the Little House such as the one below leads the reader to wonder why things went so wrong for a freelancing writer who clearly disdained her mother.
[From page 337, referring to a time when LIW, referred to here as Mama Bess, was in her late 80s]
"A curious and revealing anecdote survives from this period, when Rose and Mama Bess and friends went out to dinner. Her mother slipped on the restaurant steps and fell down; Rose stood by, conspicuously not helping her as she struggled to her feet, embarrassed and apologetic."
It's helpful to know more about RWL, but this book is too one-sided in its critique. Prepare to be disappointed.
April 11, 2013
This is an exhaustive biography of Rose Wilder Lane, who had a long and complicated life. A lot of readers have problems with this book because the author postulates that Rose had a hand in writing the Little House books for her mother. I think people are missing the point. The author does give proof that Rose did edit sections of the books, but she had to have material to start with, and that was supplied to her by Laura herself. This question of the Little House books takes up about 20 pages of a much larger story. The book is dense and filled with quotes from Rose's letters and diaries about her travels, her friends, and her work as a writer. This is the real story. If you have an interest in reading about a woman who was fiercely independent in a time when women were not given the same opportunities they are today, this is the book for you. If the 20 or so pages where the author discusses Rose’s work on her mother's books is going to ruin your image of Laura Ingalls Wilder, steer clear.
December 21, 2008
I really didn't like this one. Holz's thesis that Rose Wilder Lane was the ghost writer of the Little House books is pretty extreme, and stretches a great deal of the evidence and ignores other things. He also seemed to be deadset upon portraying Laura Ingalls Wilder as a horrible mother, who was incredibly manipulative of her daughter. I wish this book had been written by a less-biased author.
May 27, 2011
This is an exhaustive biography, so if you read it, don't think you'll get through it quickly. RWL was a huge fan of correspondence, and the author and various libraries have managed to collect so many of her letters, that this could have almost been an autobiography.
I found myself alternating between complete admiration (her world travels, alone, as a woman, at a time when women didn't do that sort of thing...and the incredible danger of it all) or pity (she often seems so very alone, and so misunderstood). Her life as a writer became subsumed by politics in her later years, and it's a shame, because she seems to have been an excellent writer who never achieved the major success she craved (though I was quite surprised by the number of luminaries with whom she came in contact, often intimate in nature....and I mean intimate FRIENDS, so get your minds out of the gutter!). Some readers might be surprised at the level of input RWL had on her mother's books....it appears that she substantially rewrote and replotted all of them (don't skip the chapter comparisons that are an Appendix). And, trust me, you'll never read LITTLE TOWN ON THE PRAIRIE's Fourth of July chapter the same way again!
Definitely worth reading for fans of LIW who want more (but not if you're such a die-hard that you can't take some potentially ugly truths about the woman) or for anyone interested in the period. Rose Wilder Lane led a varied and interesting life, and it would be a shame if her memory were completely lost within that of her mother.
I found myself alternating between complete admiration (her world travels, alone, as a woman, at a time when women didn't do that sort of thing...and the incredible danger of it all) or pity (she often seems so very alone, and so misunderstood). Her life as a writer became subsumed by politics in her later years, and it's a shame, because she seems to have been an excellent writer who never achieved the major success she craved (though I was quite surprised by the number of luminaries with whom she came in contact, often intimate in nature....and I mean intimate FRIENDS, so get your minds out of the gutter!). Some readers might be surprised at the level of input RWL had on her mother's books....it appears that she substantially rewrote and replotted all of them (don't skip the chapter comparisons that are an Appendix). And, trust me, you'll never read LITTLE TOWN ON THE PRAIRIE's Fourth of July chapter the same way again!
Definitely worth reading for fans of LIW who want more (but not if you're such a die-hard that you can't take some potentially ugly truths about the woman) or for anyone interested in the period. Rose Wilder Lane led a varied and interesting life, and it would be a shame if her memory were completely lost within that of her mother.
March 6, 2015
Holtz wrote a fascinating book in which he suggests that Rose was really the writer of the Little House books. I have read almost all of Laura's work and atleast one of Rose's books. Laura's diaries seem very different from her storybooks but I would expect that. Rose's novel seems similar in plot to the Little House books but I did not find her storytelling as enthralling as Laura's. Maybe it was all by design. Regardless, They are all great stories of another time period that adults as well as children should know about.
The other revelations in this book are that Rose was a very unhappy person. She did not relish home life and her parents like the females of previous generations. I always saw Laura as a tomboy and a bit rebellious but those things were tempered by her love for her family. It seems that Rose was fighting the circumstances of her life all along and could not find contentment anywhere. Even in the Rocky Ridge series it is evident that there is not the same bond between Laura and Rose compared with depictions of previous generations in other series. I guess I should not expect cookie cutter women from one family over so many generations.
The other revelations in this book are that Rose was a very unhappy person. She did not relish home life and her parents like the females of previous generations. I always saw Laura as a tomboy and a bit rebellious but those things were tempered by her love for her family. It seems that Rose was fighting the circumstances of her life all along and could not find contentment anywhere. Even in the Rocky Ridge series it is evident that there is not the same bond between Laura and Rose compared with depictions of previous generations in other series. I guess I should not expect cookie cutter women from one family over so many generations.
December 4, 2013
This was a long read but extremely interesting. Of course, growing up, I had read all the Little House books and thought a lot of Rose's mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder. Imagine my surprise to learn that her daughter, Rose was actually more famous than she was in her time and that Rose had continued writing until her death. And that she lived in Connecticut! She was preparing to go to Vietnam to cover the conflict when she died. Rose was a spitfire who even stood up against the government and she is more the woman that our kids should be hearing about than her mother.
July 21, 2010
I'm readig this because of Borrowed Names. I'm intrigued by the idea that Rose was the true genius behind the Little House books. I'll let you know what I discover.
I only skimmed the last bit of the book. It's hard to believe that the Little House books wouldn't be what they are if Rose Wilder Lane hadn't edited and revised them.
I only skimmed the last bit of the book. It's hard to believe that the Little House books wouldn't be what they are if Rose Wilder Lane hadn't edited and revised them.
August 5, 2010
Amazing, tremendously underrated woman. Was she or wasn't she the ghostwriter behind the Little House books? Holtz makes the argument that she is. RWL's mother Laura Ingalls Wilder is portrayed as an imperfect human being with harsh sides of her personality which I think is understandable, given what she faced in her early life.
March 2, 2011
I absolutely adored this book. I came to it simply as a LHOTP fan but quickly became enraptured with Rose Lane. What an amazing life and writer. I am looking forward to reading some of her own writings next.
February 19, 2013
Did Rose Wilder Lane ghost write the Little House books as his book claims? In my opinion, no. Rose was a writer, she collaborated with her mother and edited her mother's work.
August 27, 2023
This was far more than I really wanted to know about Rose Wilder Lane, but it reveals the connection between her personal beliefs and her shaping of the Little House books. My only connection to her writing is her mother's books, so I have to say I'm a fan of it - the series enthralled me as a child and still exerts a pull. (Why else am I reading this biography?) But in her life, RWL morphs into a Libertarian crank and is fully insufferable by the time FDR and the New Deal roll around. She authored political polemics that influenced others and admired people who espoused racism and other abhorrent crap. She was oblivious to issues of class and race, denying they were relevant in America, land of the free.
It's funny that she downplayed her role in ghostwriting her mother's books and seemed to feel it was not as fulfilling as the other writing she did. And, to be fair, she didn't see any financial reward from it until much later in life, so she was putting aside paying work to help her mother. But her beloved ideas about individualism, the "pioneer spirit", American exceptionalism, and all that reached exponentially more people through the Little House books than anything else she did. That series has spread those ideas to children and adults for almost a century with a "true" story that was fictionalized to play up Rose's favorite themes.
I've had to deconstruct my own relationship to the series as an adult. I certainly received most of it as historical fact, and its power was reinforced by being similar to my own family's history near where she lived in South Dakota. I didn't recognize the propaganda in the story, or its racism. The cleanness and hopefulness of the stories is very engaging, and it was definitely a touchstone of my childhood.
But the series turns away from specific types of ugliness and obscures some parts of the Ingalls story that don't fit into the worldview of Rose and her mother. The books have contributed to erasure of Native American history, the lionization of so-called pioneers, false ideas about self-reliance and individualism, and more. Rose's loathing of the New Deal and other "government handouts" is rich given that her grandfather was given 160 acres of land by the government (through the Homestead Act and much cheating and killing of Native Americans), which is what sustained his family in South Dakota. These are the self-reliant pioneers you worship?!
I didn't really enjoy reading this book because Rose is unpleasant, and I didn't care for the author's writing. But it has helped me further break down the Little House influence on my life, which is a good thing.
It's funny that she downplayed her role in ghostwriting her mother's books and seemed to feel it was not as fulfilling as the other writing she did. And, to be fair, she didn't see any financial reward from it until much later in life, so she was putting aside paying work to help her mother. But her beloved ideas about individualism, the "pioneer spirit", American exceptionalism, and all that reached exponentially more people through the Little House books than anything else she did. That series has spread those ideas to children and adults for almost a century with a "true" story that was fictionalized to play up Rose's favorite themes.
I've had to deconstruct my own relationship to the series as an adult. I certainly received most of it as historical fact, and its power was reinforced by being similar to my own family's history near where she lived in South Dakota. I didn't recognize the propaganda in the story, or its racism. The cleanness and hopefulness of the stories is very engaging, and it was definitely a touchstone of my childhood.
But the series turns away from specific types of ugliness and obscures some parts of the Ingalls story that don't fit into the worldview of Rose and her mother. The books have contributed to erasure of Native American history, the lionization of so-called pioneers, false ideas about self-reliance and individualism, and more. Rose's loathing of the New Deal and other "government handouts" is rich given that her grandfather was given 160 acres of land by the government (through the Homestead Act and much cheating and killing of Native Americans), which is what sustained his family in South Dakota. These are the self-reliant pioneers you worship?!
I didn't really enjoy reading this book because Rose is unpleasant, and I didn't care for the author's writing. But it has helped me further break down the Little House influence on my life, which is a good thing.
July 12, 2013
As many of you know, I am a Laura Ingalls Wilder groupie. Her books were influential to me in becoming a reader, a teacher and loving history. And my oldest daughter was named...Laura (also after my Auntie Laura ). I read this a few weeks ago...Laura's daughter Rose was a woman ahead of her time...she left home at the age of 17 in 1904 to become a working girl, married for a short time then divorced, and lived her life being a writer and traveling the world. She was also very passionate about politics and an advocate for libertarian causes. The only parts of the book that I did not like where when the author went on and all about her political views and philosophies, etc. I skipped over some of those parts. I enjoyed the parts that discussed her travels, friends, relationships and life with her mother. They had an interesting relationship...dysfunctional at times but dependent on each other for many things.
A main part of her career was being a "ghost" or "fix-up" writer for other authors, including her mother. She was a HUGE influence on her mothers' books...Laura would give her her handwritten text in a Big Chief tablet and Rose would transform it into beloved children's books. So I owe them both a debt of gratitude!
A main part of her career was being a "ghost" or "fix-up" writer for other authors, including her mother. She was a HUGE influence on her mothers' books...Laura would give her her handwritten text in a Big Chief tablet and Rose would transform it into beloved children's books. So I owe them both a debt of gratitude!
June 12, 2010
A big step in my Ingalls-Wilder obsession - this is an academic biography of Rose. The author really glosses over her childhood to a great extent - I'd love to know how those years compared to the MacBride books, but there's nothing here. He casts the Laura-Rose / mother-daughter relationship as a very strained emotional tug-of-war, but on the other hand, doesn't really have a lot of insight into it. I found a lot of the travel and political sections surprisingly dull, actually. This is a nice start (in places) but didn't tell me nearly all the things I want to know. I did get the impression that Rose was not really a very pleasant person, though the author insists that she was great company and a terrific conversationalist.
September 7, 2012
This is a really tedious biography; however, I definitely feel like I know who Rose Wilder Lane was as a person.
This book is well-known for purporting that Rose ghost-wrote most of the Little House books. As its claim to fame, I expected this book to focus a little more on the writing process and producing evidence that this was the case.
If you pick up the book looking for that, you can skip to the epilogue and the appendix containing passages from the books as written by Laura, and then by Rose, as we know them.
Rose's view of her mother Laura is not a pleasant one. Recommended if you want to learn more about Rose. Not recommended for people like my mom, for whom the Little House books would be "ruined," I think.
This book is well-known for purporting that Rose ghost-wrote most of the Little House books. As its claim to fame, I expected this book to focus a little more on the writing process and producing evidence that this was the case.
If you pick up the book looking for that, you can skip to the epilogue and the appendix containing passages from the books as written by Laura, and then by Rose, as we know them.
Rose's view of her mother Laura is not a pleasant one. Recommended if you want to learn more about Rose. Not recommended for people like my mom, for whom the Little House books would be "ruined," I think.
August 8, 2015
Rose Wilder Lane led an interesting and far flung life. About that there is no doubt. It is also well documented that she, at the very minimum, heavily edited her mother's books and was instrumental in getting them published. Holt's portrayal of Wilder has cold and detached is based solely on Lane's diary entries. It appears that Lane had tumultuous relationships with almost everyone in her life and few intimate ones. Because of a mother's emotional abuse or a daughter's battle with depression? This book could have used some editing of it's own as it gets very tedious at times. I skimmed several sections as I didn't need to know every detail about every house remodel Lane did in her lifetime (spoiler: it was a lot)
March 24, 2008
I know this wasn't popular with LIW fans when it came out (Wilder isn't portrayed in the most positive light), but I found many of the Holtz's claims on authorship of the little house books to be fairly persuasive. I do think he had a tendency to take RWL's opinions as the gospel,so I'm not sure how accurate his depiction of Wilder was.
April 6, 2008
How growing up as the daughter of a famous historical fiction writer who used her own family's history as source material affected the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. What was Rose's life really like? Here's her answer.
May 31, 2010
This books supports the idea that Rose Wilder Lane actually wrote the Little House Books in addition to her mother and should be credited with authorship in addition to her mother. Her life as a reporter and writer is very fascinating as the author discusses her travels and writing.
August 14, 2015
Well worth reading if you are a Little House fan -- a very academic biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter, Rose. Rose herself led a very interesting life and, according to William Holtz, is the ghost writer that made the Little House books what they are.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews