C. (Comment, never msg).’s Comments (group member since Jan 30, 2014)

C. (Comment, never msg).’s comments from the Gentle SPECTRUMS group.

Kerri, wasn't your Mom a working single parent? I wondered how she organized her schedule, or what you did until she was back. Many posts ago, I asked you and Leeanne for firsthand experience and she gave hers.

Did Jermaine and LaToya publish their autobiographies after Michael's transition? I would read them.

Kerri, do you generally pick up clues and recall details? During Anne & Gilbert's wedding, I wondered if readers should assume there were photographs, dancing, a banquet supper, throwing a bouquet. Maud skipped a lot. There were certainly important photos and formal portraits in the early 1900s at LEAST.

However, I wondered seriously after Owen "snapped a picture of Captain Jim", with his own camera. Don't you remember that? It made me mad that she had not discussed wedding photographs too.

Oh, I am happy you were interested in my baby count historical parade! Yes, I am grateful our families told us about all their children, including babies mourned by both Great-Grandparents. Thereafter, I am glad I stay focused and remember qhat they told us.

Leeanne, have you seen my engagement or moving stories, in e-mail or discussions before? If this is new to you, I look forward to your feedback. Kerri knows that background.

The other personal aspect I put a lot of sensitive care into writing and organizing here, is the family histories. I would appreciate comments on that from both of you, pretty please.

Discussing the children from my Great-Grandparents to Ron and me, was to confirm Maud never needed Susan in any story. However, being a personal addition and a large writing effort to boot, I'd like a nod to them please.

Kerri, you missed a few posts back, that reviewer Gundula said Susan is prominent in the next book!

You know I am a series finisher and Leeanne likely knows that too. I say I am not buying the last novel, even if it cost a quarter, because it is too horrible to read. Who could stand a novel about children trying to keep their Parents from cooking animals? Who would want to, series or not?

Do we expect the outcome in the 1920s, in a farm community, to give us relief with "Okay Darlings, we won't". My guess is the conclusion is a fucked up justification for killing and eating living beings, which I survive very well without, a cruelty free lifestyle a farmer's Son mainly shares along with me. There's finishing a series and there is knowingly reading shit you would hate, which I am wise enough not to do.

It is interesting to wonder why Maud minimized Anne's & Gilbert's parts later. I disagree with Kerri that they were minimized now. This entire novel is about Anne as much as ever and about Gilbert, more than ever before in any novel. I would say he appeared as much in the previous, epistolary novel as he did in person in the other novels; which was little.

Kerri, I hope you jump in on the wedding photography question. I also wanted both your views several posts back, on how single parents handled children after school, who certainly had to work and whose hours were probably longer than school. Leeanne, I value what you shared about that. I had a Mom who stayed home while Dad worked, so your perspectives were ideal to my previous long contribution. I'd have to read back to remember how it came out of this novel, ha ha! It pertained to maternity leave.

I suggest again that we leave out what we heard about the authoress in reality. Leeanne, you a few times said your Mom thought Maud disliked Anne but after reading her autobiography with you, I observed nothing of the kind. It makes no sense: you don't dislike a character you created. You create what you WANT to see, or a reflection of yourself WITH SYMPATHY, that you want to work out.

In any case, let's leave her world out and focus on her purpose with the stories themselves. Why would she retire her principal character, related to by everyone? How did she see her books and what was as the public's viewpoint? Am I thinking of a different author, or did Maud not write "Anne Of Green Gables" as a children's stories but it got popularly presented that way?

One explanation for putting Anne Shirley in the background is if she did think they were children's stories, or come to call them that after they were appreciated like that. Might she think children only wanted to read of young protagonists? Was she so unimaginative as to overlook that children grew up with the series and would enjoy seeing Anne become a woman? The span of years was ample, wasn't it, for a teenager to match Anne at age 28? I am thrilled to watch Anne as a Mom.

I don't want the perspective to go directly to her children, as Gundula wrote that it did. Less patient reviewers (believe me, Gundula is a big one for telling it like it is) said that the kids were annoyingly pious or perfect and unenjoyable to follow.

Enjoying some of Anne's adventures does not mean they won't dim or flatten by being repeated on extraneous characters. I deem it a gross cliché to presume everyone likes "trouble". I never liked it when there were mishaps. I preferred when Anne took charge of successful adventures that she would not get in trouble for. Indeed, I prefer older ages when no one would give trouble about anything anymore. I like child protagonists and heroes but adults, teachers, authority figures must be left out so the adventures and activities are undisturbed.

That's it from me. The more we write, the harder it can be to catch everything. I'm just popping in to encourage you to discuss some things I look forward to and don't want overlooked.

We already discussed that the "Emily New Moon" stories looked abusive and I won't tolerate that. I have individual books to enjoy: "Along The Shore", "Among The Shadows", "The Blue Castle". I don't need a more detailed autobiography, especially if it was written by an outsider. What good would that be but the inaccurate heresay we aim to avoid? If Maud wrote more about herself, I would be glad to read that.

Leeanne, I wrote a letter to Kerri this morning about being emotionally moved by Michael Jackson's last documentary "This Is It". It is his personal concert building footage, which is all we have, because he died a week before débuting in London. I didn't dare attend a concert in a foreign country (and tickets were sold out in an hour) but thought it was neat that I was going to be there at the same time as him!

The way this applies to what we are saying, is that last year, I brought home a hardcover about Michael's last years or days. It was in my parents' apartment building's free library room. I read the back and the fourth-hand gossip style turned me off. When I stayed with Dad this April, I put it back into his massive apartment building's library room. I am not going to read a compilation of headlines about anyone. I will only read about Michael from his family. Their family members are numerous. There is no excuse to be so shallow or disrespectful as to accept hersay from an outsider.

A Jackson likely wrote about Michael in a book I didn't notice. I don't know when Goodreads opened. I became a member in 2012. A book about Maud could only be guessing or making too much of speculation from outdated news articles, unless family or a friend wrote it long ago.

Leeanne, have you seen my engagement or moving stories, in e-mail or discussions before? If this is new to you, I look forward to your feedback. Kerri knows those histories of mine. The other personal aspect I put a lot of sensitive care into writing and organizing here, is the family histories. I would appreciate comments on that from both of you, pretty please.

Discussing the children from my Great-Grandparents to Ron and me, was to confirm Maud never needed Susan in any story. However, being a personal addition and a large writing effort to boot, I'd like a nod to them please.

Kerri, you missed a few posts back, that reviewer Gundula said Susan is prominent in the next book!

You know I am a series finisher and Leeanne likely knows that too. So when I say I am not buying the last novel, even if it is only a quarter, it is because it is too horrible to read. Who could stand a novel about children trying to keep their Parents from cooking animals? Who would want to, series or not?

Do we expect the outcome in the 1920s, in a farm community, to give us relief with "Okay Darlings, we won't". My guess is the conclusion is a fucked up justification for killing and eating living beings, which I survive very well without, a cruelty free lifestyle a farmer's Son mainly shares along with me. There's finishing a series and there is knowingly reading shit you would hate, which I am wise enough not to do.

It is interesting to wonder why Maud minimized Anne's & Gilbert's parts later. I disagree with Kerri that they were minimized now. This entire novel is about Anne as much as ever and about Gilbert, more than ever before in any novel. I would say he appeared as much in the previous, epistolary novel as he did in person in the other novels; which was little.

Kerri, I hope you jump in on the wedding photography question. I also wanted both your views several posts back, on how single parents handled children after school, who certainly had to work and whose hours were probably longer than school. Leeanne, I value what you shared about that. I had a Mom who stayed home while Dad worked, so your perspectives were ideal to my previous long contribution. I'd have to read back to remember how it came out of this novel, ha ha! It pertained to maternity leave.

I suggest again that we leave out what we heard about the authoress in reality. Leeanne, you a few times said your Mom thought Maud disliked Anne but after reading her autobiography with you, I observed nothing of the kind. It makes no sense: you don't dislike a character you created. You create what you WANT to see, or a reflection of yourself WITH SYMPATHY, that you want to work out.

In any case, let's leave her world out and focus on her purpose with the stories themselves. Why would she retire her principal character, related to by everyone? How did she see her books and what was as the public's viewpoint? Am I thinking of a different author, or did Maud not write "Anne Of Green Gables" as a children's stories but it got popularly presented that way?

One explanation for putting Anne Shirley in the background is if she did think they were children's stories, or come to call them that after they were appreciated like that. Might she think children only wanted to read of young protagonists? Was she so unimaginative as to overlook that children grew up with the series and would enjoy seeing Anne become a woman? The span of years was ample, wasn't it, for a teenager to match Anne at age 28? I am thrilled to watch Anne as a Mom.

I don't want the perspective to go directly to her children, as Gundula wrote that it did. Less patient reviewers (believe me, Gundula is a big one for telling it like it is) said that the kids were annoyingly pious or perfect and unenjoyable to follow.

Enjoying some of Anne's adventures does not mean they won't dim or flatten by being repeated on extraneous characters. I deem it a gross cliché to presume everyone likes "trouble". I never liked it when there were mishaps. I preferred when Anne took charge of successful adventures that she would not get in trouble for. Indeed, I prefer older ages when no one would give trouble about anything anymore. I like child protagonists and heroes but adults, teachers, authority figures must be left out so the adventures and activities are undisturbed.

That's it from me. The more we write, the harder it can be to catch everything. I'm just popping in to encourage you to discuss some things I look forward to and don't want overlooked.

We already discussed that the "Emily New Moon" stories looked abusive and I won't tolerate that. I have individual books to enjoy: "Along The Shore", "Among The Shadows", "The Blue Castle". I don't need a more detailed autobiography, especially if it was written by an outsider. What good would that be but the inaccurate heresay we aim to avoid? If Maud wrote more about herself, I would be glad to read that.

Leeanne, I wrote a letter to Kerri this morning about being emotionally moved by Michael Jackson's last documentary "This Is It". It is his personal concert building footage, which is all we have, because he died a week before débuting in London. I didn't dare attend a concert in a foreign country (and tickets were sold out in an hour) but thought it was neat that I was going to be there at the same time as him!

The way this applies to what we are saying, is that last year, I brought home a hardcover about Michael's last years or days. It was in my parents' apartment building's free library room. I read the back and the fourth-hand gossip style turned me off. When I stayed with Dad this April, I put it back into his massive apartment building's library room. I am not going to read a compilation of headlines about anyone. I will only read about Michael from his family. Their family members are numerous. There is no excuse to be so shallow or disrespectful as to accept hersay from an outsider.

A Jackson likely wrote about Michael in a book I didn't notice. I don't know when Goodreads opened. I became a member in 2012. A book about Maud could only be guessing or making too much of speculation from outdated news articles, unless family or a friend wrote it long ago.

Leeanne, have you seen my engagement or moving stories, in e-mail or discussions before? If this is new to you, I look forward to your feedback. Kerri knows those histories of mine. The other personal aspect I put a lot of sensitive care into writing and organizing here, is the family histories. I would appreciate comments on that from both of you, pretty please.

Discussing the children from my Great-Grandparents to Ron and me, was to confirm Maud never needed Susan in any story. However, being a personal addition and a large writing effort to boot, I'd like a nod to them please.

Kerri, you missed a few posts back, that reviewer Gundula said Susan is prominent in the next book!

You know I am a series finisher and Leeanne likely knows that too. So when I say I am not buying the last novel, even if it is only a quarter, it is because it is too horrible to read. Who could stand a novel about children trying to keep their Parents from cooking animals? Who would want to, series or not?

Do we expect the outcome in the 1920s, in a farm community, to give us relief with "Okay Darlings, we won't". My guess is the conclusion is a fucked up justification for killing and eating living beings, which I survive very well without, a cruelty free lifestyle a farmer's Son mainly shares along with me. There's finishing a series and there is knowingly reading shit you would hate, which I am wise enough not to do.

It is interesting to wonder why Maud minimized Anne's & Gilbert's parts later. I disagree with Kerri that they were minimized now. This entire novel is about Anne as much as ever and about Gilbert, more than ever before in any novel. I would say he appeared as much in the previous, epistolary novel as he did in person in the other novels; which was little.

Kerri, I hope you jump in on the wedding photography question. I also wanted both your views several posts back, on how single parents handled children after school, who certainly had to work and whose hours were probably longer than school. Leeanne, I value what you shared about that. I had a Mom who stayed home while Dad worked, so your perspectives were ideal to my previous long contribution. I'd have to read back to remember how it came out of this novel, ha ha! It pertained to maternity leave.

I suggest again that we leave out what we heard about the authoress in reality. Leeanne, you a few times said your Mom thought Maud disliked Anne but after reading her autobiography with you, I observed nothing of the kind. It makes no sense: you don't dislike a character you created. You create what you WANT to see, or a reflection of yourself WITH SYMPATHY, that you want to work out.

In any case, let's leave her world out and focus on her purpose with the stories themselves. Why would she retire her principal character, related to by everyone? How did she see her books and what was as the public's viewpoint? Am I thinking of a different author, or did Maud not write "Anne Of Green Gables" as a children's stories but it got popularly presented that way?

One explanation for putting Anne Shirley in the background is if she did think they were children's stories, or come to call them that after they were appreciated like that. Might she think children only wanted to read of young protagonists? Was she so unimaginative as to overlook that children grew up with the series and would enjoy seeing Anne become a woman? The span of years was ample, wasn't it, for a teenager to match Anne at age 28? I am thrilled to watch Anne as a Mom.

I don't want the perspective to go directly to her children, as Gundula wrote that it did. Less patient reviewers (believe me, Gundula is a big one for telling it like it is) said that the kids were annoyingly pious or perfect and unenjoyable to follow.

Enjoying some of Anne's adventures does not mean they won't dim or flatten by being repeated on extraneous characters. I deem it a gross cliché to presume everyone likes "trouble". I never liked it when there were mishaps. I preferred when Anne took charge of successful adventures that she would not get in trouble for. Indeed, I prefer older ages when no one would give trouble about anything anymore. I like child protagonists and heroes but adults, teachers, authority figures must be left out so the adventures and activities are undisturbed.

That's it from me. The more we write, the harder it can be to catch everything. I'm just popping in to encourage you to discuss some things I look forward to and don't want overlooked.

We already discussed that the "Emily New Moon" stories looked abusive and I won't tolerate that. I have individual books to enjoy: "Along The Shore", "Among The Shadows", "The Blue Castle". I don't need a more detailed autobiography, especially if it was written by an outsider. What good would that be but the inaccurate heresay we aim to avoid? If Maud wrote more about herself, I would be glad to read that.

Leeanne, I wrote a letter to Kerri this morning about being emotionally moved by Michael Jackson's last documentary "This Is It". It is his personal concert building footage, which is all we have, because he died a week before débuting in London. I didn't dare attend a concert in a foreign country (and tickets were sold out in an hour) but thought it was neat that I was going to be there at the same time as him!

The way this applies to what we are saying, is that last year, I brought home a hardcover about Michael's last years or days. It was in my parents' apartment building's free library room. I read the back and the fourth-hand gossip style turned me off. When I stayed with Dad this April, I put it back into his massive apartment building's library room. I am not going to read a compilation of headlines about anyone. I will only read about Michael from his family. Their family members are numerous. There is no excuse to be so shallow or disrespectful as to accept hersay from an outsider.

A Jackson likely wrote about Michael in a book I didn't notice. I don't know when Goodreads opened. I became a member in 2012. A book about Maud could only be guessing or making too much of speculation from outdated news articles, unless family or a friend wrote it long ago.

Home safety is important to us. We live in a forest. After the priority to human and animal life: we value family mementoes. My parents are recently gone to Heaven and I am comforted by their belongings for me to hold.

Do not underestimate the value of items that are personal or dismiss it. What California is going through, where people can only be glad animals and humans are safe, is a terrible thing that we pray stops now.

Losing homes is a big deal. Evacuating for your lives is worse. We pray for all of them, dealing with this awful situation. We send our comfort and love to anyone who lost homes and keepsakes like Billy Crystal, Eugene Levy, Paris Hilton, James Woods, Anthony Hopkins: all of you. We are sorry and give you all the respect and support we can send you, from our souls. Love, Carolyn & family.

Happy new year 2025, my friends!

I thought of Mom all day yesterday, five years since she went to the afterlife. Marigold & Spirit joined her in 2021 but Spirit lived to see Marigold's birthday. We will remember that on January 7, sweet, bright orange Mother to all our younger kitties. Of course, Dad has only been in Heaven four months. I did get wonderful photographs of the last daylight. Over a few days, Ron & I watched a few movies and played a few of the million used CDs we have bought.

We talked about "Anne Of Windy Poplars" in detail. Kerri looked up why her version was "Anne Of Windy Willows" instead of the Canadian edition. We found nothing wrong with it. We did not think Maud was dour. She discussed the cemetery in more detail, that characters had visited.

Kerri, I said "Rainbow Valley" is the last book I have and will read. I said I am not going to buy the last one, which I did not name. If we are okay with venting and outrage, we can read "Anne Of Ingleside" in unison. Or we can read that solo to see how we feel and finish with "Rainbow Valley" in harmony. Yes, several books were published out of order but I like aging the characters and events properly. Don't you?

Kerri & Leeanne, you were appalled, disgusted, and outraged by Susan's audacity to threaten a cat and tell people their baby couldn't go near his own pet, weren't you? You must have found Susan far past "annoying". I gather you questioned Anne & Gilbert not saying: "If you want to work for us, you will never threaten an animal, or tell us how to raise our Son, again!

Three stars makes sense for how much you enjoyed the rest of the novel. Susan's disgustingly inappropriate scene made two stars lucky. Didn't it piss you off that Susan's violent, overstepping remark spoiled a sentence, where the cat was finally being adored and appreciated!?Let one book compliment a cat: plainly and simply!!!!

Without that outrage, I would have reluctantly given two stars, because there were too many heavy-handed clichés, tropes, and hardships. I did not go as low as one star because I had loved the early chapters and some of the descriptions honouring feelings realistically.

It is too bad Maud's attitude hardened or dropped. I did not know she committed suicide. So did Margaret Laurence, after being told she had "incurable" cancer (according to mainstream medicine, poor thing). As we know from "The Stone Angel" and many other families in her Neepawa, Manitoba and African stories, her characters fought to live and succeed. She had a great attitude all through life. What a difference, from clinical depression or perhaps Maud had "situational depression"; unhappy current scenarios that are understandably upsetting. Like Leslie, she needed to change them. We didn't get the sense from her biography, even if behaving privately, that she was nuts about her marital partner.

When I asked how old Cornelia felt, it was to see if your impressions were incongruous to the revelation. We are told her age: we are not guessing. She was 8 years older than her Brother, who died when he was 20, fifteen years ago. Give or take a couple of years since that false preacher was in town.

I had a feeling one of you would state the "old maids used to be young" quip but I wasn't talking about being single. I sought other clues about Cornelia seeming like an elder of the town. I felt that she talked to Captain Jim in a way only an older contemporary would; at least elderly, in the 70s. A sixty year-old is young enough to be his child.

Finding out she was 43 years-old, nine younger than me (I am like a kid), was startling. It made me wonder if Maud was sloppy about back history, similar to forgetting Rachel's family and making cardboard cut-outs of Anne's Sister and Brother. Yes, Maud sure forgot Anne's hard origins.

I appreciate the importance of writing about hardship with care and grace. Fiction is the one place where all the miracles and hope we want to, can be true. Unless a book is about hardship or grief, or by someone who wants to convey what that was like; unwanted endings should be avoided. Reward the reader, create joy, show the outcomes we want and deserve to see in the world!

When I see difficulty in characters, you bet I think of animals and people who dealt with it. My care extends to fictional characters. I feel for creatures and people, including a flock of ducks (or whatever their creative group word) and certainly Anne's newborn baby. I don't feel sad only while I'm on that page, Kerri. This and other things I have read, bother me for years after. Don't put readers on emotional rollercoasters heedlessly, without proper preparation and handling afterwards.

What you said, Leeanne, is how I feel but you put more into words that makes me feel seen, heard, understood, and related to in solidarity.... thank you! I could hug you! You are brilliant: and when Canadians say this, we don't mean "clever". Brilliant is the synonym of a Stephen Hawkins "GENIUS". You described even better and farther, what I have started feeling for a way to put into words.

Further to all this, Joyce not living was unquestionably wrong. This was not a book about grief or hardship. What I tried to convey along with this, is that we were led to believe this was an enormously happy book about good days; never mind the synopsis Kerri got. I might expect it later but not in this series at all and not without preparation, a build-up. The title itself is "Anne's House Of Dreams". It is not a proper name of a house but promises joy and getting what we pray for: the safe life of Joyce topmost among prayers, miracles, and bliss!

Yes, Kerri, the newborn's brief presence was written about powerfully but Maud could have used her talent somewhere else. The death should not have happened at all. Negative situations should not exist for touching descriptions, or to shake jealously out of Leslie. I hope you weren't saying "the sorrow was worth the pretty description". It ruined the book for me and trust in Maud as a writer of books free of stress. Leeanne knew things about the author that I didn't.

Mentioning pregnancy difficulty would have made things a little better but Joyce should have lived. I explained, hinting made it sound like the author was hiding something pleasant to surprise readers with. The title, the series until now, hiding a big event.... that is not where you place a tragedy. I felt misled, which increased my shock and anger. Little was written well, plot wise.

There were astute descriptions of nature and feelings, including Anne leaving. Yes, there needed to be pain discussed longer for Gilbert & Anne. The author shouldn't have forced a good-bye to their house on top of the other struggles.

Captain Jim was healthy. He didn't need to die merely because he was 80 years-old. Never mind "people at that time" or I will fly wherever you are and throw a tomato. My Dad felt great at that age, until cancer abruptly ruined his kidneys. His Dad (born early in the 1900s) walked daily in his early 80s. My Dad felt great before cancer and was not an active lighthouse keeper, climbing stairs and breathing fresh air outdoors every day.

Yes, Captain Jim got his sunrise on the way to Heaven. Yes, he read his autobiography. I thought it was cringingly predictable and an immensely fabricated cliché, that Captain Jim went to the afterlife the day he was reading it and died exactly when he finished it. We would have enjoyed his passing much more of it had been natural. Read the book, discuss it, meet Anne's baby, James Matthew; have a few more walks and suppers together. Then may he have his sunset.

I am glad there was a photograph of him. How about of Anne's wedding? Any of her childhood with Matthew, Marilla, Dora, Davy? Gilbert may merely be a man making assumptions about a shy girl. All girls are shy in their teens and when they begin to date! It does not make us hurry marriage; it makes us cautious, even in present day! Religion had people marrying early. Society frowned on living together, spending a night, or sexuality at all.

To this day, religious girls marry early in relationships because they are guilted out of intimacy. You married to freely experiment with a beau, except you were stuck with it. I don't believe in sleeping with anyone without being a monogamous couple but testing chemistry and hard times, matters in our choices of mates.

Ron proposed when we were together 7 years and we savoured our engagement. We accepted a wedding invitation in England and had to see Scotland. We got back and Timmy was engaged too but married right away, in Ontario. Six month later, my favourite band, A-ha was playing only in Toronto. We had three plane tickets and hotels to pay off.

That year, we were told our apartment building was cancelling pets after a big renovation (as if animals sullied residences instead of brightening them with LIFE). We had to buy our first house that same summer.... and decided common-law marriage was good enough. Sigh.

I sure can tell you about the early 1900s in Canada! No, we have never heard of anyone having hired help in our vast, eclectic family trees!!!! If anyone had money to spare; you got new clothing, plumbing, perhaps a radio, record-player, or car. You both read my family history tribute to my beloved Dad. His Grandma had seven Sons and a Daughter in the early 1900s: on a farm. Dad's Mom is among seven siblings in the 1920s: both families did all the work. My Parents and Ron's are from the 1940s: no outside help, throughout three provinces. Ron was among five farm children in the 1960s and I was among three city kids born in thec1970s. In all these extended family branches, we took care of ourselves.

I wondered if Maud was elite. Going to university is less rare but still a luxury among many today. I am the only one who did in my family. Mark did business community college (our only form of saying "college"). Timmy's high school was vocational, with advanced training. My relatives who moved to Prince Edward Island said it is more rustic and old-fashioned; not modern or glamorous. The dignified, lovely old house they bought took work and had no plumbing: in the 1980s.

Kerri, it is nice to hear from you. Leeanne, thank you for the joy of blowing my mind, twice! It is a pleasure and revelation to receive other points of view and also find ourselves in harmony with each other's feelings and perceptions.

I am joining Ron for breakfast. It is good to say "hi" and look forward to e-mails between us. I hope Leeanne had a good bus ride to university and wonder when her next trip home is. I have a birthday / Christmas package to make. :) Hugs, Carolyn.

Kerri, pulling ourselves up after hard times is inspiring and touching, yes. It is NOT "the best part"! You don't need death and grief to write emotionally! The problem is, I am certain Maud did not write this staggering tragedy for the reasons you are granting her. The cost for Anne & Gilbert was too high. Their author should choose a different way to show strength, not a life permanently gone. You couldn't be more polite and gracious about disagreeing viewpoints and I hope I convey the same. I respectfully challenge one aspect.

I think you are applying the same "Oh well, tragedy builds character and gives readers a dramatic tear to wipe" that you do to every book you read. The extremeness of the "sad moment" does not belong in THIS series. How nicely terrible parts are written is meaningless. Maud can write poignantly about something besides someone's first baby not making it! Kerri, it felt squeezed in to great artificial effect and truly wrong. Your quote from Captain Jim about stopping, not going to far in writing, is apt.

You both know I admire you for tolerating subjects I will not. I prioritize a positive environment; the good Lord knows upsetting circumstances sometimes toppled real life. I grant you the same right to learn from it, cry. I don't want us to be the same. Sometimes, I read Patricia Cornwell, the thriller genre I avoid, or grim crime mysteries, which works at thickening the skin, as the saying goes. Good? Here we go.

Kerri, when I finish what I wanted to write at our Maggie Stiefvater conversation, one item is that I disagree negative characters are "more interesting". I am going to discuss how amazing it is when someone is able to be friendly, calm, fun - and that it takes WORK. It is like saying action films are more complicated, emotional, or interesting. It is falsely amped up. I live in a place where there are no oceans or mountains. I know where to look for vibrancy in subtle life.

Candidly put: you would not dare say how "educational", or "poignant" the physical deaths of my family are. Why dismiss it as acceptable to people's stories in writing? I appreciated and enjoyed my loved-ones while they were living. I valued Mom's keepsakes and little things in common with Dad and both their moments of fun humour. However, would you privately think: "The physical loss of five of Carolyn's closest family made her stronger. It is the most significant part of those years"? No, I know you would not think or feel that. The "best part" of anyone's life is when a miracle and prayer intervene and we are relieved.

For the most part, I tip my hat to you for being very clinical about stories that are far from anyone you know. You are like those Academy Award judges who can watch violence like "Precious" and praise those actors for skill in portraying depravatity. It is a talent. When I read stories, I know they aren't real, even though I invest passionate emotions. I **never forget** how such a situation might feel for a real family. I wondered if you might try it, to understand an I think you were missing. Imagine expecting your first baby, nothing is wrong, delivery day comes.... they don't live? Every time I read, I am impacted. I hope the bad things do not face me or anyone else. Anne's stories aren't real but I consider the impact of people who faced it in reality.

I have written very powerful things after the ascensions of Love but I felt sick and was traumatized by his early transition. The great writing and spectrum of emotions was not worth it, Kerri. I would rather that Love and all the rest of our loved-ones had survived! I gained and learned nothing, that were worth Conan vanishing. It shouldn't have happened. I am upset by the years we have not shared. I am sad that no matter how great his return, he is not in time to see his Mom or Dad's again; or my Mom & Dad. It is not "bittersweet" or "worthwhile" or "entertaining", no matter how talented and honest my words about it were. I can write passionately, with the honesty of all my heart, about something GOOD.

THIS is how I feel about some subjects that are wrong and off, in some stories. It did no good. It wasn't worth it.

I sure do admire the beautiful writing, except in parts when extraneous adjectives and adverbs toppled the pleasure of some sentences. I think likewise about Leslie's uselessness but see what you are saying: about it feeling good for her to embrace happiness and freedom now. I grant you that.

Giving up the house was overdone addition, as if this author wants everything to be about wistfulness and good-byes and forgot how to be poignant with hapy things. Joy and fun and permanence exist in adulthood, amid whatever needs to change. The logic for the new house was there but it was too much in a book full of ducks, cats, dogs, and people who died.

It is hard to enjoy a setting that keeps shifting. Something needs to be central and we let the author introduce us to new communities, homes, and friends numerous times. Enough.

Leeanne: yes to everything you have written, with relief for not thinking the same way alone! Not only do we agree every inch but you expressed things I did not think of that instantly make sense to me. I did my best to express why the dear infant Joyce living one day, felt wrong and false; different from the majority of novels in which Kerri rightfully accepts it as "the good and hardness of life". You dug up more reasons to support what I tried to identify and I am amazed and grateful.

Fresh insight is my greatest joy in reading with you, my friends! I am glad you both took to the idea of writing what you want to first and answering posts later.

Leeanne's revelation is staggering and instantly strikes me as being true. Maud lowered herself to ruining a happy, light series so that Anne might be more relatable to the self-despressing Leslie! That is terrible but I can see that is what she did! I think Anne said her life wasn't always happy or easy but all she needed to do was tell a bit of her early life story. Needing to find a new home because both her parents went to Heaven is hard. As a grown-up, it is hard enough and I am finding new family in a smaller way.

I felt the same way about Anne's early life and I am of the same mind of most of what Kerri writes and contemplates as well. I didn't write all of it out because we are in harmony a lot and sometimes, leaving one of you to say it was enough. Also, when we started, I only had a cell phone to type a little bit on with difficulty. Please know I appreciate all of your beautiful quotes and personal stories as well, even if I could not always write back about them immediately and directly.

Happy new year to you and your family, Kerri! Leeanne and I are having our turn in Manitoba and Ontario tonight, starting with her province! I need to bathe, dress, eat vegetarian breakfast with Ron. Then I am going outside to photograph the last daylight of my Dad's last year of life here on Earth with us. It is cloudy, in fact snowing, so there might not be a sunset later. However, the light of the sun is bright everywhere.

I will photograph our yard in this daylight and get a sunset later if there is one. If not, I have our home scenery and perhaps Ron will take a few photos of myself in our snowy yard on this New Year's Eve day. I will write Dad's name in the snow like I did for Mom, on her cloudy New Year's Eve. This time, perhaps I will write their names together in a heart afterwards and snap a photograph of that too. They are together and I am happy about that at least.

May my parents always be with me as well. I am saying good-bye today, to the last I had one of my beloved parents on Earth. It is a tradition I started with my baby cat, Love in 2014, that is something I need to do to handle a loved-ones's going. May I not say good-bye to anyone else's last year for a long time. May I simply enjoy New Year's Eve for fun.

I am grateful to both of you friends, for having you to tell these thoughts about myself and of books. Leeanne, I received a birthday card from you yesterday! I will tell you in e-mail as well: thank you, dearest Leeanne! Prairie seems to have a twelve hour delay, locally. Love always, your friend, Carolyn and family.

I am acquainted with a vocal reviewer, whom I appreciate speaking her mind thoroughly. She must have read everything pertaining to Maud Montgomery but they aren't all five star grades. The next volume, called "Anne Of Ingleside" is one I suggest we read solo, because it sounds like I would detest it and I don't want my contribution to be vents.

Gundala detested the housekeeper, Susan and warned she was in the novel a lot. That means skimming it for anything enjoyable! It is the end of my second box set and I have the next story in hardcover, "Rainbow Valley". You know I protested the animal killing synopsis of the last book and will not buy it at all. I hope Anne & Gilbert didn't move again. The original settings were almost as important as Anne Shirley.

Many reviewers graded "Anne Of Ingleside" low, saying Anne is hardly in it and her children are too perfect to believe. Others said they were annoying. Gundula straight-up hated Susan but wrote that she did not mind the children. I hope I enjoy them.

The characters I loved from previous novels - we met a LOT of them - right up to the new ones we love in this one, moved or don't appear. Maybe we will love the children but Anne is who we are here for and I don't like Maud phasing her out. If any personage HINTS at disliking cats or terminating an animal, volume 6 will instantly get one star. My patience reached the end for those offenses.

Please know, I am annoyed with people who are sappy about any first book / film / season, or only read / watch that one. I usually like later evolutions much better.

I avoid the first couple of "Friends" seasons, when Phoebe was a throat clearer. I am uninterested in any of the reruns, until Chandler falls in love with Monica and Ross gets rid of that bitch, Emily. I've heard enough people claim they like Star Trek but only watched the two oldest, commonest series. I finally tired of a waterfall of new casts and concepts and am skipping "Strange New Worlds". I watched and loved the other seven Star Trek shows. I am berserk for the "Picard" film to be made.

Be assured that reduced enjoyment is about downhill contents. Note that I gave five stars to the previous book, volume 5. If there weren't cat attacks in volume 3, it would have received five stars. I reveled in the AMAZING moment of Anne standing where her young parents lived, inherited their letters, and felt blessed in the room where she was born. I go into all of these books hoping to inhale wonderful moments like these.

I am glad I didn't spoil it, not that it was worth being shocked about. I would have felt frusrtated by "Oh well, bad things sometimes occur". I wanted to know if other readers were shattered out of the pleasure this novel had been.

The passing of Leslie's beloved dog shocked me, another needless and horrible one. I wrote in my update about that: "Geeze, Maud, do you have to fabricate everyone dying"? I did not expect it but afterwards, put it in the angry category of "Of course, Maud would do that". Your aim was true on everything I found entirely predictable.

Oh, you'll hate how Leslie's situation is resolved. It it way more "Deux-ex-machina" than it looks regarding surgery. She does nothing to act on her future's behalf for that or afterwards. You and Leeanne would have looked up that Greek expression, or I wonder if you knew it already.

I was offended by casually inventing the deaths of numerous ducks. Dick "chased them too much"? They could hide, fly, or speed away and Leslie and Cornelia stop him before an implausible extreme. Wild animals are chased with the threat of death by nature and are equipped to evade and out endure preditors. Animal death is casual to Maud and I lost respect for her the instant I saw that, in book 2.

Maud doesn't keep track of her book history and make sense. This is supposed to be a sometimes frustrated, bored, or angry man but harmless. Being childlike or mentally disabled does not necessarily equal being capable of or unaware of scaring or harming animals or being shut off mentally about causing damage. Cornelia announced "killing several ducks" as if it was only too bad, not horrible. I can give her a pass for not seeing her face and trust she said it with a sigh of "we can't help them now".

Yes, Rachel was going to live near some of her children but preferred to live in her neighbourhood when Marilla offered a partnership in her home. I appreciate that Rachel is family nowadays who helped rear Dora & Davy.

Unless Dora had school, I wondered at her not accompanying Marilla to Anne's births. Marilla had only travelled once prior but perhaps she got used to it.

Maud did not seem to know natural behaviour, development, or personalities either. Being prim and not physically affectionate when we met her does not mean she did not learn after raising two Daughters and a Son. At least, she would be moved by her Daughter, Anne having a baby and admiring the arms, legs, and perfect face and little bundle in her arms. Maud wrote Marilla as uninterestedly saying "Yes, those are hands and fit". What a way to ruin a moment by thinking a poised woman wouldn't enjoy the miracle of birth with her Daughter.

Anne never called her Daughter "white lady". It was only in Maud's sickeningly frivolous descriptions. I hate the verb "peeping". That is what birds do. Authors should use "peeking / peering".

I am certain Dora and perhaps Davy wrote to their Sister. Even though our previous novel was entirely epistolary, I guess Maud Montgomery wanted us to assume the family wrote, the same as not sharing pregnancy excitement.

Yes, telling Leslie and letting her decide about the operation is a must. It would be assuming that there was no solution for an unwanted marriage than keeping a person in something comparable to a partial coma. I was forced to come to that conclusion and am angry at myself for having to think about it at first. Truth and fairness to everything is who I am and what I believe in for every living creature.

The implications of Dick healing (ha ha, that sounds funny to write, as did a naughty sentence earlier that I'll try to remember for fun) were a good discussion to read and consider. It was contrived and portrayed Leslie as a wisp who does nothing to improve her own life. Otherwise, it was a great topic of consideration and conversation herein.

You are very right that Dick could discuss their marriage. What I didn't think of and love reading, is that he showed evidence of not wanting it either. Maybe he planned on travelling and seeing little of her, not thinking far enough about decently exerting legal freedom for her as well. Or, as a thinking person, he would not need supervision and Leslie could petition for a divorce he would understand.

How many stories have we three watched or read, wherein someone is disturbed over one predicament and one solution and did not look at far better ones as resolutions? You want to shake them, don't you? I don't believe in cheating and don't think there is any excuse. Set the other person free, then conduct another relationship. However, if you there is no relationship and something made it hard to change or retire the legal piece of paper, perhaps your right to move on is right and true under God and the law.

How old do you and Leeanne feel Cornelia is? Are we viewing a lady of 1917 as older than we should because she is judgemental and cranky, or was the author sloppy here as well? Cornelia seems to be a contemporary of Captain Jim's but younger. However, I did the math after her Brother was discussed twice and she adds up to be much younger than me; hardly older than Kerri. It doesn't seem right to me, how about you two? She said she knew Leslie since she was born but Leslie is 28, making Cornelia 7 years-old. She spoke like she knew Leslie and her family while she was an adult.

We get our impressions from a lot of information, not only our impressions of the lady's personality. That part might be biased and incorrect but the math does not work out with the history, to this clue solving mystery buff! See if you can find this part.
Cornelia names hers and her Brother's age differences, perhaps in an earlier chapter. She said he died at age 20. She told off that whacko conman impersonating a preacher that he had been gone 15 years and he was the only one she was calling her Brother.

I believe Petal & Angel want out on another miraculously warm day. Suggest to your friends that they photograph their Mom's last light in her last year, like I am for Dad tomorrow, New Year's Eve.

I glad you are still loving the writing and scenery. I did too. Yes, the clichés got worse than you are listing! Of course Owen falls for Leslie and she has that pointless struggle with a bond or commitment that isn't there. Of course he writes Captain Jim's book.... you are seeing them as clearly as I knew you would. It sounds like you are at three stars by now. Wait until that damn Susan, who I was indifferent about, threatens to harm a cat for approaching his own family! Two stars, Maud: suck it.

I looked forward to replying to your wonderful writing in this thread, as well as to yours and Shirin's magnificent understanding and impressions of "Blue Lily, Lily Blue". With a full keyboard and desktop computer before me: here I am! I am starting with your penultimate write-up of October.

Overlap on books with my Mom was so rare that it meant a lot. I didn't know what Grandma Adella read. She was a masterful musician, who had to have been self-taught or by a family member. I had Grandma Riedel until your age and didn't think of asking what she read, besides answering a gospel devotional workbook. I wonder what she would have read for pleasure after Grandpa retired and had plenty of time. I wonder what she read as a girl. Sometimes people love reading but forget to start. If I had queried her about her tastes of fiction or non-fiction, I could have brought books to try and see what preference arose.

Your Mom & Nana only need to tell you if they mind grim mystery cases. Anne Perry's characters and compassionate worlds, with intelligence and humour, are easy to love. Even for someone who dislikes historical fiction: me. My Mom preferred true crime, which is famous in podcasts now. Like most caring people, it disturbed her and she looked over her shoulder and did not go out alone. She was one who should not have been reading it. It is for people who can shake it off after they read or listened to it. Mom felt she was doing a duty to victims by lending an ear, which is true and I understand, for those who can handle it.

Mom & I had few genres or books in common but I cherish the ones that were in common for us. Donna Eden would have meant the world to her and made a difference for her. You already know I am certain Mom would be here if I had known the basics before 2019. Dad respects Mom's judgement and her faith shared the religious style in common with his. I'll bet she would amaze him with what she learned and tested about energy healing. In time to balance his moods that made so much difficult. Perhaps it would have deflected cancer for him altogether and for our baby Spirit as well.

I love your responses to what I appreciate about Anne Perry: handling family death and difficulty well. I did want to see Charlotte's & Thomas's wedding at the beginning of the second novel, or end of the first! It need not have been detailed but it was a point of interest to me that I don't think the authoress should have skipped. Seeing Thomas approach Charlotte's Dad might have been funny. Or perhaps it would be inspiring in how unselfishly and well they trusted that this was the right person for their Daughter. Like you, I enjoyed seeing them a year or two ahead but they could have smoothly moved to that after their wedding.

I might find careful clues in my review and will look at it. I can't recall why the first or more babies were buried. I think they died before or near birth; no one was killed. I don't think they were all still births. Coincidentally, I was correcting that baby Joyce lived all day, in our "Anne's House Of Dreams" discussion. Hers was not a still birth.

I can guess a Mom was unmarried or had the baby with someone else. I don't remember why more infants buried privately. This is the ideal place to tell me.

Ah, yes, this is the original Jemima! It is nice to be reminded whence she comes. You remind me she was a housekeeper of a primary victim or suspect in the second novel. Her name lives on. :) She might be still alive but I only saw Charlotte visit her once afterwards, in the scenes written for readers. We imagine family & friends visit off & on.

Yes, caring about the babies, Mothers, and women was a relief in that rigid circle of people. Charlotte is also right that fear of telling the truth or shocking anyone, creates lies or crimes. The need to question people uncovers things that aren't related, which people might not need to know. Police need to be sure to glean the information that does solve the mystery and combat a crime. Other private matters can be let be. The sooner people stop judging one another, the better off they are.

Yes, Charlotte's and Emily's help is the highlight for me, made plausible thankfully. I was not likely to have any interest in a male policeman solving anything and hardly read male authors at all, as a matter of fact. There is a reason gothic mystery authors of the 1940s to 1990s hid themselves with female pen names. I have no time for "John Dickson Carr" but eagerly collected "Doroth Daniels", who turns out to have been a male. Authors like Anne Perry knew that.

I like Thomas and the principal males in this series very much, however. I corrected this post for writing "William" by mistake a few times. I have always pictured Yannick Bisson's "William Murdoch" when I acquainted Thomas Pitt, even though I had not watched Yannick's shows or read Maureen Jennings' books. I have seen his face in previews for years and my parents loved and watched the early part of the series. I updated Dad a little and he was pleased William married and had a baby, in the TV version he knew. :)

I most notably savour and relish your impressions of these books, Kerri. Receiving replies to my writing is divine but you showing me a new reaction or interpretation is an abolute gift and pleasure. I look forward to you having that with your Mom and Grandma, in whatever you mutually read.

Ron is handpicking parts of "Energy Medicine" to read; whichever chapters interest him for now. He was encouraged to start at the beginning but I said "Whatever gets him reading and interested, is great". He was so happy to find Donna Eden's latest "Tapping" for me, his interest rose sky high and I am immensely grateful. He has not been miserable for a long time but his moods need balancing all the way. He needs to smile, laugh, joke, and be the first one to offer affection more. There is a little baggage to shake off and this is one great way to do it.

Anne's books are compassionate and realistic, made accessible through relatable people and humour. One thing her books do very well is show that wealthy people were neither uncaring nor selfish. They did not know what the poor or middle class dealt with; how they lived. These women surprisingly were not always educated, or exposed to what they might read. Charlotte, Emily, and later Aunt Vespasia, and Caroline, the girls' Mother learn this. They are sad but glad to know because now, they will help.

The next matter is for high society, law enforcement, and the government to decide: how do we best end huge neighbourhoods of poverty, illness, and crime? The first step is that people show compassion and lend a hand wherever they know of someone in need. The next is good men enter politics and vote on bills to abolish practices that do not work well. Later, whether or not it is in this series, good women need to add their force to voting too. End prejudice and entitlement, increase positive, useful benefits and laws. These, Anne teaches so that readers do not hate petty criminals or the wealthy. I think that is valuable and that her work is more worthwhile than as fiction entertainment.

I want to ensure my message of this tragedy feeling out of place and wrong, is not misunderstood. You understand me if there are no stating-the-obvious, simplistic retorts "bad things happen, I guess she was showing a negative side of life". I hope you get that I was saying this was not a fit for the the novel that progressed naturally. There was a heavy-handed, deliberate marring of the happiness, which ruined the rest of it for me. It had been five star reading for me before that.

It bothered me in a way that Matthew's adult, self-induced stress did not. I loved Matthew and wished that had not happened, as did his author. This tragedy however, of an innocent young life, who did nothing wrong and was ready to live. An elder passing away is terrible but can be dealt with. A child is a pain that doesn't go away; someone who is always missing, a tragedy always felt. I am disgusted with Maud for doing something permanent, rather than a challenge that Anne would put in the past.

I want to arrest the idea that it was no shock. I hinted around something that was dreadful and upsetting and you said, for some reason you were already braced for something sad. I was annoyed we weren't treated to Gilbert & Anne secretly discussing their pregnancy in any language couples most certainly used. Maud was thinking she was surprising readers and got in the way of letting us anticipate the joy. No matter what period, we were supposed to be in the protagonst's head and heart.

"Still birth" is to stop living in the whomb. It must be equally heartbreaking to parents and Grandparents who know them and look forward to their arrival in their families. It is different, however, from a child who was expected to live. Baby Joyce lived for a day.

The tragedy was not obvious, Kerri. I was shocked, hard. I didn't know why Gilbert announced his child's birth "sadly" and was pissed off about that. I thought it a horribly insensitive writing indulgence of Maud's, alluding to something instead of plainly saying it. I knew Anne had a hard birth, which is normal in any period. I had no thought of a baby not making it, in this happy novel. In rural Canada of 1917 and in our middle and lower economic groups up til now, we do not need "an example of finding happiness after hardship". However, there were sorrows in this novel, without the permanent loss of a baby.

Many readers LIVE in novels and take the pages as they ARE. We should not be thinking of what we know about the author and if fiction expresses anything about her life. This was a lovely novel of beautiful descriptions and minimal challenges, that were a joy for those reasons. I have mystery crime novels for sorrow or dismay. No, this felt tacked-on. It was like an alien appeared in a todder's board book of happy, colourful, baby animals.

I look forward to both your impressions. I hope you can decide if you would have been shocked or horrified, if you had not expected something sad. It was the best I could do to write at all, taking care not to reveal much. You both were far behind me, even though I haven't read much either. I did not want to stop posting my feelings for large stretches.

Put it this way: whatever an author wants readers to ponder; their goal is not to ruin a novel. She did: I hardly cared to read it after that, so surely it was a misstep. I can't stop thinking of that beautiful infant, who is fictional. Imagine the Mother, in their world. I know people who lost babies or children. It is too big a cost, as a way to show "how to get through hard times". It is never forgotten, a face who should be there always missed. It didn't belong in this seres, where money, illness, elderly passing, and opinionated townspeople were hurdles enough.

It slapped me as an undoable add-on, wrong for everything written around it. Don't compare this series, free of terrible fates, to grim things you have read. I acknowledge that they fit elsewhere. I felt sharply that they do not fit here. Maud suddenly thought her novel was too happy and second-guessed the power and benefit of that for readers.

I don't mind if we disagree in any areas. I only want what I am saying to be understood. This was a blotch on the novel that felt wrong. Perhaps Maud would subtract it, like she would for Matthew if she could. That bothered me far less, for his stubbornness caused his heart attack for ruining their finances.

Newborn Joyce was a gift from God for her parents and readers. A misscarriage would be hard enough in a novel and unforgotten by parents. Bringing a baby in and taking her out is different. There was no reason but to force a situation to make us sad. Fiction can be as happy in the world as Maud wanted to make it.

I think I am most shocked and mad because of Maud's stupid hinting. It made me feel like she was going to make Joyce's arrival triumphant and a HAPPY, POSITIVE surprise. Yes, I am disgusted about hardly referring to Joyce as Anne's & Gilbert's Daughter, or as herself, Joyce.

That was a thunderclap to the face. Everything afterwards lost points for being so awfully predictable. I won't spoil those but expect you will see them a mile away. I groaned at how predictable every outcome was. I would have predicted them if our chapter pace was even.

Second to a baby's loss, the worst damage for a story is a "Deux-ex-machina". Are you guys familiar with that Greek term? Something is resolved in an outrageous, "Come on, as if!" way, reducing an author's credibility. It reveals that they were lazy, not smart enough to think of something logical, or did not give the person it involved a chance to be a hero. "Plunk! Here is the resolution in a tidy, socially acceptable way".

I am grateful Leeanne filled in Canadian things: kilometers, child care (what did you do after school having single parents?), the well-remembered Eaton's. In cities, they were huge department stores, like the Bay! In small towns, they were dependable order catalogues, as Leeanne said. I thought they went out of business; did not know they were bought by Sears.... another famous catalogue and store.

Leeanne dear, I hope you remember I normally give food for thought as well as answer your posts. I typed more than I thought I would as it was. It isn't so much the tiny typing; it is annoying to not have easy to use keys to rise up & down editing screens. I most missed opening multiple tabs and typing where my history was retained and could be clicked on. My cell phone gives me "popular searches" instead of key words bringing up pages I opened before.

It took ages for one of you to answer about very helpful things to make it better, like cut & paste and the forward button. I am glad but am leaving smart phones for what this internet can't open - often enough!

I also share with Leeanne what we worked out at our Maggie Stiefvater discussion threads. If you don't have much time to post, don't worry about writing and answering. It is a greater pleasure for us and a better record for yourself, to prioritize posting your reading notes. Come back later to reply. We'd rather have each person's feelings and topic proposals.

Finally, even if you have only read a tiny bit, that is marvellous and gives us plenty to say or guess about. We don't want to tackle a bunch of chapters. Small is fun, easy, and rewarding. However, there is always the freedom to read like the wind, or finish if you like, if reading time appears for us.

I loved the first half as much as you did, was shocked by a horrifying part, became fed up with Laurie, and Cornelia is a judgemenal bitch, even if funnier and more likeable than most of Maud's personages. The excess adjectives and adverbs rotted lovely descriptions that ought to have gone without compound sentences, or maybe it was me.

I do love Captain Jim, who wouldn't? I only hated to hear he & the other men hunted birds, with the fish I expected. I am more annoyed with Maud for not being able to write about cats without some stupid attitude removing the compliment a few words later. Jim does own a moment I dislike. He said he could not like cats as much as dogs; no matter how wonderful and loyal Matey was in his present life. It was not about how long he had a previous dog, Leeanne. It was prejudice, which was shitty for Matey. Yes, he was a better cat warrior than what usually got into Maud's novels. He was a gem.

Yes Kerri, you had to bring a man home to his people. It is short-sighted to think hiding a person would solve any problems. Go to his relations, send him to jail or court for abandonment, ask for an anullment, or as Kerri suggested live apart. If was kind that Laurie cares for the injured man, whom she liked better. Government facilities needed no payment (even before medical care in the 1960s) and remember the banker relatives. The whole situation came from Dick's Dad owning or managing the bank with the mortage on Laurie's family's house.

Besides some nice moments, the rest of the novel went downhill. My private update near the end read "This gets three stars because I loved the first half, unless Maud screwed it up". She did. You will know the instant the stars sank to two.

What bitch threatens to hit a cat with a fireplace poker, for going near family members; with whom he belongs???? Anne & Gilbert said nothing; who doesn't fire the vile housekeeper?

What pissed me off as much as that, is that Maud could not shut her trap and let one sentence be printed to compliment a cat. She wrote that a cat was beloved by Gilbert, Anne, and Laurie. That sentence had not ended when that bitch of an author added that Susan disliked cats and thought they sucked out souls. All her employers told her in warning or chastisement to straighten out, is that she was quoting outdated superstitions.

Anne & Gilbert did not need this "Susan". She was only supposed to help for a time. She seems to have become a household character. Meanwhile, Dora did not get one sentence in the whole book. Oh, there is one other mistep when Captain Jim annoyed me. When the twins were there visiting, the same age and athletic level, the same interest in seeing oceans and lighthouses.... he only invited Davey to see it! Women went to Captain Jim's lighthouse all the time and counted among his friends.

The only other mention of Dora in this entire book was a letter from *someone else*, of all things, saying she was dating. Could Dora not send her adopted Sister letters, so that we got her voice at least once? Maud made them cardboard characters. Even though the focus was on making new friends, as it always is in each book; give a few pages to Anne's central family.

This author also forgot logic. Rachel had ten children she bragged about raising well. She only lived with Marilla because she didn't want to leve the town. Marilla's vision illness needed help while Dora & Davey were young. Rachel had children to constantly visit at Christmas or entertain at Green Gables, her shared home. When she went with Marilla and the voiceless cardboard twins, to Christmas in Four Winds; I thought: "Hello! Rachel has ten kids"! Authors need to remember the worlds they built and be logical in them.

Finally, spoiling nothing for you ladies, I'll just say that except a bad shock; everything took place as predictably as I imagined it, down to the detail, with one exception. That isn't good. It was saccharine and lame. Surely even in 1917, such fanciful drama must have been overdone and old news.

So three stars were on thin ground, prior to hired help of all people; threatening a beloved cat with violence if they dared to approach human family members. Touching and loving family members is the point of having cats! Please know I don't expect anyone to feel the same about the effect for you, of the bulk of this book as a whole. If you are able to like it better, I am glad for you. Please by all means, suggest your own subjects and give your pleased reactions if any. I am here for it.

Joseph is Jesus's Dad of course. It is an old expression you can tell Maud expected some people to have heard. My Grandparents did not use it but my interpretations are similar to what Anne imagined. "Being in the house of Joseph" is being part of the same family of beliefs, thoughts. We are all in the family and house of Jesus but there are petty religions that think Heaven is earned by church membership and our behaviour, rather than being the realm where all our spirits naturally go.

It is being "birds of a feather" and "my kind of person". The way we three friends love animals, are balanced about politics, learning, reading, and having fun. We would get along well in person due to our shared interests, passions, friendly personalities, and similar morals.

Gee, it is nice to type freely and easily. Also, Protonmail has deigned to open on our desktop computer and internet too. I am savouring the pleasure of alll of your gradual pieces of mail, including yours, Leeanne. :) Love, your friend, Carolyn.

On page 142, of chapter 24.

I am writing on my PC's keyboard, with access to all possible movement and buttons, freely. Loading webpages is slow but what a relief the freedom of two-handed, ten-fingered typing and using a mouse is.

I think you both are at the same stage. It isn't so much a novel, the feeling "Anne's House Of Dreams" gives me, as a patchwork of stories in Anne's new adulthood and marriage. It doesn't feel like a jerky, uninvolved short story suite either but a snapshot sojourn in between them. I loved it, until now. Out of nowhere, pain is needless in fiction we can invent with any glorious outcomes. It marred the joyous contents of the series I loved.

It needs no stating that pleasant stories can have challenges. THIS sorrowful event is something else. It is so out of place and made-up, I KNOW Maud did it because the analytical side of a writer thought: "This has been happy. Let's ruin it". It is the feeling Kerri & I got in "The Sisterhood Of The Travelling Pants" except those characters' challenges were not as permanent or sorrowful as that was. It was robotic, the way Ann Brachares deliberately said "Okay, let's make the next chapters rocky"; then worked everything out for all four of the teenagers too coincidentally.

After the most negative event, Leslie who was closed to emotions and dialogue for eleven years, suddenly outpours everything she thought and felt? Analyzed in a way most people don't identify what was stirring? Concluded with a tidy bow that her ugliness, barriers, and jealousy will not stir-up again? How I wish one wonderful conversation with a spouse or relative meant they were fully aware and had utter control of never being cold or injust again.

The beautiful descriptions are a talent but their double or treble adjectives and adverbs are grating. I didn't have an explanation for disliking that until I read "On Writing" by Stephen King years ago. "A swirling brook" is pretty. Don't add more. Take care that there are no long, compound sentences. I am angry at Maud for making up an awful circumstance that permanently mars this family's story, no matter how many similar opportunities appear. When a quaint description is too frilly or long, I say "Shut up".

I say the same about Leslie now, too, whose present situation is far less bad or insurmountable than Anne's and except Leslie losing her Brother and Dad, of course. Anulment and divorce were uncommon but they were possible and someone that unhappy (even prior to Dick going to sea) would look into it; including the cheapest way to do it with or without representation. Leslie was also surrounded by wise elders who would have told her: "Shit or get off the pot". Find a way to be happy, or find a way to change the situation.

There are so many possibilities that a woman who did nothing but dwell over them, would think of and investigate. You could file a petition that you were forced into marriage in financial duress. You could petition you had been too young. You could prove a special needs victim incapable of marriage and not a functioning adult.

You could tell the Four Winds community to fuck off, send Dick to a government care facility or his bank family, and start a new life independently on your terms. You might also find romance when you were ready and the community knew very well that you tried to anul or divorce a situation that you needed getting out of. In any case, sympathy and tolerance for Leslie whining instead of doing numerous things to resolve it (even in the year 1917), is at its end for me. Shut up.

After the awful outcome I'm talking around until you have read it, nothing angers and annoys me more than Maud making up "White Lady" as a nickname. This precious, sacred being should be called by name. Maud's nickname is offensive, disgustingly tries to make something quaint or fanciful out of tragedy she invented pointlessly, and it has the aggravating timbre that Madison King used in her animal healing tutorial. For goodness sakes, call people and beings what they are, who they are.

This Holy, powerful event was not referred to by name, as a grown-up would talk. It was hinted, instead of openly looking forward to it. Anne's life was full of frank people and whether it is 1917 or 2057, there were always expressions as well as plain terminology, for referring to natural things. I thought hinting was so stupid before it was spoiled. It made me extra upset afterwards, trusting Maud did dumb hinting to surprise readers who couldn't figure it out. It was obvious to all ages.

I wrote in our first book's thread that I was only going go up to "Rainbow's End", because I saw the sypnopsis of the last novel and it disgusted me to the core. I am not going to read about children trying to keep animals from being killed. What the hell is wrong with this author? Using outhouses was "acceptable then" but no one wants to read of that either.

I will push through the rest of this novel tonight and perhaps tomorrow. I hope there is pleasure and relief around the permanent sorrow. My investment is deflated. I no longer trust Maud to be a safe place of happy reading.

Naturally, I respect it if anyone else is able to enjoy the rest of this novel. I will read your own musings and reply. There were things I was going to gush over but they were ruined by where the novel went. Perhaps your writings will include what I liked previously and I will chime in that way. To meet my quota, I want to get reading another novel as soon as possible but will continue following you and writing here.

Leeanne, we girls had a thorough conversation at our thread "Blue Lily, Lily Blue" about how we read and what we look for; why some negativity is acceptable or entertaining to some people. For a start, we read for different reasons. I learned that Kerri accepts most contents, as if she were reading an encylopedia; you don't fault a dictionary for describing negative things. I read for joy, laughter, humour. If I choose literature that is layered or darker, I don't complain about finding it.

Here, I feel betrayed and I am not alone in that. I have the fortune of finding a new copy of Phyllis A. Whitney's "Guide To Fiction Writing". She said a bad outcome made her throw a book across the romm and not buy that author ever again. Most books have trials (which is why I value the rare series that are almost all positive). Phyllis warned writers, however, to "Never disappoint the reader".

Secondly, I am an empath who feels the emotions and predicaments of other beings - plant, animal, people - even if they are fictional. I can't brush a story off as "interesting" or "that was too bad" like Kerri does. The terrible parts take a long time to shake off of me. I am worse during movies, yelling at the screen and asking Ron if he is at outraged as I am. During books and films, I invest in the experience as if I were listening to someone's real story. It isn't "just a book" to me, so it has to be good.

If you understand this, it says a lot about why I felt sorry only for Leslie ending up marrying Dick; not for her staying frozen. If I think something can be done about a situation, I do not worry for the character; they frustrate me, or are dismissed. If Leslie resolves to stay married on paper, or take care of Dick in her home; find a way to make delicious lemonaid of those lemons.

Captain, retired, has Dick by day and so can other people. When home; give him a useful task to do, let him run around in the yard supervised or go swimming - we know he needs watching. You certainly know what toys interest him. His mind is easy to occupy and exercise is also a healer and soother. What was less common for a woman in that day was to have utter control of home and activities. The night was hers to socialize, play music, dance, read, draw, paint. Leslie had a right to feel trapped and angry before: not anymore. She was free since age 17 to choose a different course.

Thank you for lovely wishes.

The landline and modem ARE our internet. When the telephone was back, the internet was back. Prairie loads as easily as usual; just don't attach files there. Protonmail doesn't want to load at dial-up speed ~ also typical ~ but I no longer care. I can read Protonmail via cell phone and reply with Prairie for full-fingered ease! Write at Prairie because it is usually accessible and easier.
Attachments to Protonmail.

I said my twelve Christmas cards include the one you got with your parcel a month before the postal strike. I look forward to birthday cards for me and Jesus from the two of you. :) (You know I am back on my PC when all you get for decoration is a keyboard smiley face, hee hee)! I believe you are mailing it today, which is December 27 in New Zealand - yay!

It might be a day or two before I have time to resume typing here and at "Blue Lily, Lily Blue". You and Shirin are awaiting my freely typed, thorough replies to your expressions of book finishing glee.

In our Anne thread, I am past page 100 and beginning chapter 17 momentarily. I will not blow this off; even though Ron gave me almost the rest of the "Mr. Lemoncello's" series, "Bassoon King" by Rainn Wilson, and Donna Eden's new healing! Ron is so excited about its scientific presentation and choosing it for me without being asked, that he is convinced to give "Energy Healing" a chance first!

It is still Christmas Day in snowy, amazingly warm Manitoba (0 C!) and only midnight in Ontario. There, Leeanne is continuing the novel at the same pace we are but presumably partying too much to post. Merry Christmas my friends, Leeanne and Kerri! Ron receives your greetings with pleasure and returns them to you all, Izzy included.

I am almost at chapter 11.

Aren't you both appalled by this author's and Captain's attitude about cats as a rule? Maud not writing of cats without strife or minimizing? Captain not thinking one individual among them as blanket prejudice, is as close as dogs in sweeping generalism? I am removing a star. I had felt impressed that Captain rescued animals, told off thoughtless people, and seemed to adore Matey, the orange beauty.

I retired, furious at people's cluessness and did not excuse the rampant prejudice, even though these belittlers obviously have not acquainted and viewed felines properly. I went to bed cuddled by my two cats, absolutely wrapped in their love for me. Do you know what? One of our precious faces disliked being picked-up but he was powerfully loving and affectionate too. Our family has never had kitties who did not love us powerfully and loyally. They ate the reason I am loyal and passionately protective too.

Animals vary like people from experience and their education. Kerri's family has three sweet dogs of different ages and types. These sweethearts needed to be protected from dogs in the street and park. Matey cat earned love and reverance.

Leeane, my young trip to Nova Scotia was to three places: visiting a family friend and meeting two internet pals. All of it was wonderful and different. Their province felt like Manitoba by the sea. I did not know Oak Island was there, or Titanic history. Winnipeg's old buildings are appreciated, so I asked one friend why Halifax's downtown looks new. She must have mentioned the December 1917 explosion but I did not focus on history I did not know, while taking this beautiful new city and the ocean in. Me, in front of an ocean! A city beside an ocean!

There is so much I would look for now in Nova Scotia, popular Peggy's Cove doesn't come close. The boat ride Tracey & I took (hoping to see my first whale), embarked beside a little island with a lighthouse: that was my first sight but sailing by. My first lighthouse approach that summer in 1998 was in Digby. I was over the moon.

It would take until the year 2009 to see two more lighthouses: both in Cornwall, England. I could touch the Truro lighthouse but the one Ron & I stepped inside was Land's End!

I loved every other page of Anne's story, all with spectacular scenery described majestically. I will quote a few unforgettably pretty parts when I can type in full again. The landlines should be restored by December 27, where I hope I have not missed e-mail at Prairie. I will read posts again but imagine our focus is on our homes and loved-ones for awhile.

Kerri, I want these days to feel like Christmas and for my perception to be balanced and immersed in warmth and fun. Of course I must hear how everyone celebrates. Chatting about Jesus's big birthday occasion helps me feel happy and puts me into the spirit of it. I baked pumpkin loaves last night and wrapped Ron's gifts.

I have mailed 11 Christmas cards, plus your early one, Kerri: 12, by the December month it matches.

Leeane, I will make a prepaid box of books after I check your previous list, in the new year. I also glance at your Goodreads profile, even though we input few of our books there. As Mom would ask when doing something fun for us: How does that grab you!

Merry Christmas to my two sweet, intelligent, compassionate, inspiring, warm friends Leeanne and Kerri! May God bless you both always. Love, Carolyn. 🍁🌲🪷🐑🐏🐫🐪🌟

I am at chapter eight.

There is a common misconception that was caused by the mass production of fake historical fiction. Readers never doubted before that book eras are around publishing time, unless authors write a date to put us elsewhere. My document where I save book lists and review URLS has 1917 but my edition only referred to a 1922 printing, which is sloppy.

Trust that stories are near publishing years. I know war history. I am against war fiction and love these novels for staying positive. Surmise that Maud chose pleasantness! Kerri might not know the fighting was in Europe and Asia, not here. Our hardship was worry for loved-ones and supplies.

You both have your own copy of "Barometer Rising" from me, about the Halifax Explosion. Prince Edward Island likely saw and felt the blast and desperation of Nova Scotia's people, just before Christmas. Maud might mention that in a later novel. If not, it confirms she kept everything happy.

I sometimes watch a few minutes of "Y & R" at lunchtime. The pandemic did not exist there and I am glad.

I know the history of the metric system, just asked which measurement Maud had written. Mom said people learned both in school going way back.

I see Kerri's math but 7 hours from here to the city feels wrong. The train seems too slow too. Anyway, it would be a brief ride to a train station. We are talking about Marilla or Diana with kids, not Anne or a trunk. I hardly have visitors at this distance that takes 1 hour. I am sure rarity is about Marilla and Diana needing to organize a week away, to make a grand visit of the occasion.

I am glad to plunk out a bit of typing. I will share my impressions, rather than replies, when can use my PC keyboard again.

I must get some Christmas packages and cards ready, even though there are only a few. I will have time to do a few more in January. Canada Post went back to work too late and Bell MTS couldn't care less either.

It is a relief to at least check an alternate e-mail address and enjoy a little bit of the internet, like seeing each of you at Goodreads.

Some of the smart phone help I need is back & forward buttons on this keyboard. The app back button for the smart phone generally is obvious but not a forward one, if we unintentionally back out of a webpage we need. I certainly look for closing menus or Xs at the top of programs but rarely get them. There must be an individual way, better than "close all".

I need "undo" in the keyboard. I also need to know how to slide around to any sentence in this typing box. So far, I am using the editing arrow to do it. I can only slide and reposition the webpage around message boxes. There might be a click selection that I need to know how to do. E-mail is fine again for instructions if you prefer. A manual would take wading to locate what I want. Thank you. 🍋

I was happy that this novel gives us an island environment. Afterwards, Anne shared my observation. Hers & Gilbert's honeymoon entirely exploring their new home, was absolutely lovely. A great idea that the finest memories are at home.

I left plenty of writing, which was not easy without back & forward buttons or cut & paste, never mind ten-finger typing. I have started chapter seven.

Gee, even in 1922, 60 kms (or 60 miles, 0.62 × 1 km), is not far or hard for a horse to ride! I was sure Kerri would say that and tell us how fast they trot, compared to speed limits that limit cars anyway. It dawned on me that a non traveller or small country perspective might be skewed. See again: with the kilometers to miles conversion, this is Ron's daily drive - each way - to work.

It might take more time in 1922, with people needing arrangements for family animals and farms, or for rides if Marilla or Diana did not have horses and carriages, that is all. They would need rides to trains or public coaches, that is all. Don't miss what I said, that after motors were better and more common in the 1940s, 60 kms were no different from today. I see and maintain fewer friends since I lived in the country. I have demonstrated well that it is about setting aside time for the trip.

People easily came and went for birthday evenings and Christmas with us. All Marilla and Diana are thinking is that Anne won't be next door any more and they need to carve out time to stay with Anne for good visits; just like holidays.

Yikes, you surprise me, Kerri; changing horses for 60 kms or less than double miles? They are barely getting a workout! It is two hours for those powerful beauties at the most, cantering comfortably, including with luggage. They didn't bring furniture. Of course they would load what they had on the same trip. Anne's mementoes and household trousseau are light. Gilbert likely brought his marriage trousseau supplies prior.

No, it us nuts to think a two-hour horse ride or shorter train were too far for a leisurely house shopping trip. I normally defer to Kerri on horse details. I go on rare, glorious trail rides with horses and an hour or two must be common. This is Anne's travel duration.

Maud was making the unveiling dramatic. Misleading readers into thinking it was too far for Anne to decide on their house (very clearly *theirs*, not rented) annoyed me. The dramatic first look, though, was poignantly described. I notice in "compare books" that most Goodreads members stop after book one; sometimes after two or three. For the fans who went this far, Maud wanted a memorable moment of discovery, just like Anne's introduction to Avonlea, which was famous and treasured.

I know a bit about early costs but can't type anymore and it is a sinch to look up. Make sure you get CANADIAN 1920s prices; a big difference. Stamps were a penny, our tiniest currency and people bought sheets to write Christmas cards and zipped off letters for anything else too.

Guys, I can't be retyping. I said I hardly recalled any characters, including Jane, except the main university folks. I clued into their rented house Sisters when they gave the present of Gog and Magrog. Please remind me of everyone else. I already wrote: if we read about Anne's teaching year, a year ago (and were there two years at home before this sequel?); it was two or more since we met Avonlea characters. I already wrote (come on, typing is rough!) that I otherwise only remember Leonora (horrible to subsume her own identity as "Charlotte"!), Paul, Lavendar, Rachel, and the Harrisons. Please introduce me to the other Avonlea people. Was Lavendar at the wedding? There was no dialogue.

It was weird that best friends did not stand up for them at weddings as matrons of honour. Maids were illogical because friends and relatives marry and remarry anytime.

Guys, I hope you read which buttons or functions I don't know on smart phones. Hoping you'll answer doesn't necessarily come in the form of a question mark. Help is requested!

One of the worst misophonia freak-outs: calling lunch by a "D" word! That fucking Jim did it twenty times! Shut up, man and say LUNCH for me to enjoy reading this!

I would enjoy reactions to how much lighthouses mean to me, like those I visited and why. I wonder if you appreciate that I live as far as can be from lighthouses and oceans. There is a "centre of Canada" sign close to us that is a popular posing spot.

I look forward to meeting all the other neighbours and the goose walking woman. The home origin stories are nice but immediately afterwards, chop chop. Leave. This is the wedding night of newlyweds! For the religious even today, it is the first time some folks dare to be intimate. We didn't get a wedding kiss! Do you think there will be a juicy sex scene? 🐰🐇

Up to chapter three.

I am grateful there is so much for us to write, me before starting our story and Kerri only as far as I am now. Savouring the first two chapters in bed allowed me to climb onto the magic carpet with you, of this lovely 1922 place. This authenticity is partly why I dislike faked 'historical ' fiction but love the real tableaux of bookd that aged. Oh, I just thought! We are precisely 100 years from the author's real time for her Prince Edward Island people! I loved learning its real name. I knew the royalty of the English name was not old.

Reaching two chapters fewer than Leeanne allowed me to cautiously read more than half of her post, until something new loomed up about Charlotte and I went "crap" and stopped. This is how our headings help. We are free to discuss whatever comes to mind and know how openly we dare read the entries.

It is a relief to know Leeanne shares my puzzlement of one character. I don't remember anyone mentioned so far except Diana, Gilbert, Marilla, Rachel, and a couple of university friends. I don't recall how Anne knows Jane or why Cordelia is among Diana's toddler's names. Kerri knows but let me ensure Leanne does too, that my memory is exceptional. I might not recall a person or event I was uninterested in and it has been years since Avonlea or other personages were mentioned. I can't fly between tabs on this smart phone butvit must be a year since we read our previous novel and it introduced a new place.

Everyone who has met me knows my love of trees. I grew up with a single one who is very happy. Much younger ones were in seeing and root hugging distance from him around our parents' and our family home. Up above, he and many other old trees could see each other with ease, they tower so regally. My tree has my love to this day. My adult home is a forest now andi speak with love to our trees here too. I loved Anne's priority for trees as much as Leanne did. No era is an excuse to buy a house without showing your partner however.

I am intrigued with lighthouses and visited my first in Nova Scotia, outside, followed by England, inside! Manitoba is the farthest from coasts possible, in the precise centre of the second largest country. As soon as I read that our novel would introduce lighthouses, I smiled and thought, "Yes"!

Use our group's photo album, Leeanne. I asked Shirin to add caves to it too, for our Maggie Stiefvater adventures. I will write more there too when our landline and dial-up internet are back, to write with two hands via PC.

Kerri, phones were not for "check-ins" but to use fully and talk as personally as my Grandparents and country relatives wanted. Their rural street respected an easy etiquette. Your conversation was leisurely unless you heard someone pick up a receiver. No one needed to say anything unless it was pressing. You signed off, or told your relative you would talk more later. The neighbour hoping to use the phone knew it would be free a few minutes after their pick-up had been heard. The etiquette worked well.

The challenge was calling anyone on a party line. It would stop callers with a busy signal from any resident using it. You could not reach that phone line to warn "This is important. Would you free the line please?" Thankfully, party line sharers could hear and call each other. Each family had their own ring signal.

My beloved Manitoba Grandparents and all the country family you met in my history tribute for my dear Dad, used party lines until at least the 1980s! I am familiar with it and so is Ron. Gratefully, I never had to live with it, as a city girl. I can see in 2024 that rural residences are still served last generally!

Here in bed, I have asked Ron about our third question, hereby participating more than I hoped to!
Did our Canadian Maud use kilometres or miles? Although the dear horse can take us far, distance was only farther in their period of main locomotion. After motors worked efficiently in the 1940s, our highway speed of 100 kph is similar. Ron confirmed that his work ride is 65 km each way. We are under 1 hour from the city.

After a short e-mail to Kerri, I am exchanging this smart phone for the fresh, new "Anne Of Green Gables" book! Let's see how many chapters I drink in!

Kerri posed two questions whose answers I know personally. As a homemaker who will return to writing, now that death and strife are done, I am judged for not hustling outside the home. I gathered a wise rebuttal: do not judge females anymore! These rebuttal details answer Kerri's first question passionately.

Ladies first replaced men in WWII. The workplace (besides nurses and teachers) became available to them, if they chose. Homemaking remained our choice too! However, it is wise to build our own finances and I choose writing as the way, a career to create from home. Women did stop working after marriage until the 1980s! It was less expected each decade but I remember the unspoken opinion of "not being a full-time wife".

Until the 2000s, that "not devoted enough" judgement (hidden behind a hand) was made of ladies who had careers when they became Moms. " What kind of person leaves their children in daycare, or as latchkey children?" My Dad asked my Mom if she would be a full-time Mom when they married in 1971. She had ambitious goals and might not have become agoraphobic if she had done a little something after we were teenagers but she agreed. We loved having a Mom welcome us home and meals, especially since Dad was stuck with shift work.

Until the 2000s, we children were trusted to watch ourselves for a few hours and go places on our own more. We lived in a scary "don't talk to strangers" era where there were kidnappings or murders but we were taught to be careful and smart outside of the house, not fear going out altogether. It is similar to not avoiding nature: learn how to be safe, calmly regain your direction, or carefully back away from a wild animal if you had to. Above all, avoid danger.

The fashion this decade is to judge anyone for *not* working outside of home. The intrusion must end. Canadians still are only paid for 1 year of maternity leave. One of my Cousins stayed home until her third child was in full-time school, which is grade 1 at age 6. Nursery and kindergarten are a half-day.

Leeanne recalls that full school lets out at 3:15 PM, as recently as this June! Most kids go in their neighbourhoods and can bike, walk, or bus home before 4:00 PM. I don't know full-time jobs that get parents homevin time for that, for full-time students still too young to be unmonitored. It is unideal for career parents and must be challenging for single parents.

I will answer our second subject in a third message, to avoid losing this typing. There is a back button on this cell phone but I don't see a forward one, nor wow to close individual screens. I only see a "close all" option; which is what I do.