I'm in the midst of reading a memoir of a person who followed the travels of Laura Ingalls Wilder. I'm enjoying it. Every "Laurafan" seems to have his/her own story and I like learning of how others discovered Wilder and how that impacted their lives.
Spend enough time in Lauradom and you'll find distinct camps of "Laurafans"--those who love the classic family television show,
Little House on the Prairie, and those who wish it never happened. At some point, I wish we could all shake hands and get along.
Why do those who don't care for
Little House on the Prairie and how Michael Landon and his producers portrayed historical figures and events feel the need to rip it to shreds? Isn't the show just one more way to honor the legacy that Wilder left behind? Despite its historical inaccuracies, didn't the show capture the romantic, little girl view that Wilder portrayed in her books? I feel it did.
The book I'm reading has so far spent two pages decrying how television Laura wasn't anything like real Laura. Reverend Alden, Mr. Edwards and Charles didn't look like the real people any more than TV Laura did, and there was too much "histrionics and tragedy." Maybe the author gets it right about the histrionics, but I'm fairly sure the life in which the historical Laura lived had tragedy up the ying-yang, so is the problem with the show that it's not authentic enough or that it's too authentic? The author compares
Little House on the Prairie to a soap opera. I've watched both genres of television. They are only alike in the fact that television allows you to suspend common sense if you're creating a great storyline. Remember in Season 9, Royal Wilder returns to Walnut Grove with a daughter named Jenny in tow and Almanzo tells Laura he hasn't seen his brother in 10 years. I guess he forgot that time right after Laura and he were married when Royal and his wife Millie dropped off their two sons (or should I say monsters) for the newlyweds to watch while they went off on a trip? But, Millie was dead by Season 9 and Royal was dying and they needed somewhere for daughter Jenny who no longer will have any family once Royal passes away (I guess Myron and Rupert died too) to live. Look at all that tragedy.
Perhaps it's because I discovered the books after the show and those books sparked my interest in Laura and Almanzo's real life that it doesn't matter to me that
Little House on the Prairie and its creators went off into their own world to celebrate Wilder. Maybe I'm too forgiving of a medium that depends on action more than description and internal thought to propel the plot forward. I think they'll have to figure out peace in the Middle East before we can expect it in Laura World.
4 comments:
I agree with you Cheryl. I found the books after finding the show first so I appreciate them both. But those people who think that the books are the truth are in for a rude awakening. The events that Laura wrote about are not all true either. There were some stories changed because the books were to be read by children and the real stories were too frightening to tell as they really happened. People who get hung up on Michael's view of the story should also in turn be upset at Laura for not telling the whole truth.
For me, I appreciate the real story as told by LIW historians, the books and the show. Each is a different view of the story lived by Laura and her family.
Marilyn B
While a lot of people realize the books are fiction, I guess I don't understand why the creative license taken by Michael Landon is such a big deal.
I guess I'm a bit biased. I don't mind that Michael took creative license to film the episodes of the show. He did put the note at the beginning of the show that it was BASED on the LH books. But I cannot read Tedrow's books. I read one and hated it. It bothered me that he took creative license and used the names and lives of actual people to write books and make money. Like I said, I guess I'm biased. I love the show but "hate" Tedrow.
Marilyn B.
That's so funny, Marilyn. We talked about that before too. I remember loving Tedrow's books when I read them 20 or so years ago, but I think that was before I read more about the real lives of the Wilders. I'm not sure what I would think of them now.
At some point, I think Tedrow gave them another child. I might be wrong. If it is true, I would draw the line there. That was such a painful part of their past, it's safer to stay away from that altogether.
Post a Comment