New Leaf February 2020 Discussion • Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

ALL of these, especially the parts that I bolded! I was so upset by the direction and criticism of the early posts in this thread that I had to walk away for a few days until I could decompress on the weekend.

I don't want the luster to go away of some childhood books, and I don't want to defend it. It takes away from the feelings that you had as a child when experiencing some stories for the first time. Those are happy and positive memories and sometimes character-shaping, and I don't want them to be tainted by adult feelings/knowledge which is why I try not to "delve too deep" or "lay them open to criticism". I still have after all these decades later my childhood box set of the first 3 books. Sometimes I just want to revisit a childhood book and try to relive the happy, naive/innocent memories of reading.

Probably very good reasons for not discussing books from childhood in a book club! However, especially for those of us who didn't read Montgomery when we were young, what else can we do but state our honest reactions to the book when it is put up for discussion?

[Bookworm_Girl]

People are free to discuss whatever they want. I’m just explaining my thoughts on the subject. It’s interesting how there are varied views on the matter.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

The issue of the teacher and pupil mentioned by some is I suppose an example of something which to our modern minds has more potentially sinister overtones than I think was intended by Montgomery at the time she wrote the book. Not that predatory behaviour didn't happen back then, but that it wasn't seen or expected.

I agree completely. I know I had a 9th grade English teacher who quite openly favoured the boys in the class. Everyone knew, but made sure to never know officially. I sincerely doubt that LMM intended any more than she actually wrote, and it wasn't the sort of thing that would have been picked up by most children at the time.

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Last year when we read The Graveyard Book, which I enjoyed very much, I was prompted to go back and read Kipling's Jungle Books to pick up on the way in which Gaiman had paid tribute to those books. I had read them as a child and loved them. I enjoyed rereading them after such a long time, perhaps with that childhood memory affecting me. These days of course Kipling is much criticised for his colonial attitudes towards "the natives", but I can accept that he was of his time.

I quite surprised myself by enjoying The Graveyard Book, given that Gaiman isn't one of my favourites. And I suspect it was the references back to the Kipling that was read to me at bedtime every night. (My father was an Anglophile, and a devoted reader of Kipling.) That being said, I haven't read Kipling since I was an adult, though I've been tempted. But even allowing for his time, I suspect I'd have some trouble with it. (OTOH, I read much about Colonial British East Africa before our trip to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania in the late 90's, and found much to enjoy, while understanding all too well what the costs were (and are). But I was able to put it in the context of the time.) IAC, I am glad the club finally got me to read Anne, and that I now have the Canadian context to enjoy it more than I would otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Probably very good reasons for not discussing books from childhood in a book club! However, especially for those of us who didn't read Montgomery when we were young, what else can we do but state our honest reactions to the book when it is put up for discussion?

As well you should! And, I might add, it's why I've often avoided re-reading some of my childhood books. Though some (not all ) that I have read have stood up to the test.

[issybird]

The conversation about revisiting childhood favorites ties in with me with books I wanted to mention in this thread anyway, the Little House books. Anne and the fictional Laura are exact contemporaries who are author surrogates, although the fictional Laura is closer to her creator. While in addition to the stories they tell both series reflect their times, I’d say it’s undeniable that the Little House books* achieve a level of greatness that Anne does not.

I loved the Little House books, especially the later ones, when Laura was an adolescent and teenager and roughly the same age as Anne in the first book. However, on the last read, I realized I was done with them. The politics were too irritating and it was absolutely a case where knowing more about the author and her intentions and where she altered the story to achieve them ruined it for me.

But, I don’t regret it. Greater appreciation, even when it’s to the detriment of my enjoyment and love and memories, is always a good thing for me when it comes to books. I wouldn’t trade the richness of a new understanding to go back.

I wasn’t interested in rereading Anne; as I said more than once I’ve got such a clear memory of the text anyway that it didn’t appeal. However, I see it as a gain that I picked up on such undercurrents as the attitude toward the Acadians and such flaws as character inconsistencies. Love altered in this cases, but interest didn’t.

*Anne has been much better served by her television interpretations, however. Michael Landon, ugh!

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

The conversation about revisiting childhood favorites ties in with me with books I wanted to mention in this thread anyway, the Little House books. Anne and the fictional Laura are exact contemporaries who are author surrogates, although the fictional Laura is closer to her creator. While in addition to the stories they tell both series reflect their times, I’d say it’s undeniable that the Little House books* achieve a level of greatness that Anne does not.

I loved the Little House books, especially the later ones, when Laura was an adolescent and teenager and roughly the same age as Anne in the first book. However, on the last read, I realized I was done with them. The politics were too irritating and it was absolutely a case where knowing more about the author and her intentions and where she altered the story to achieve them ruined it for me.

But, I don’t regret it. Greater appreciation, even when it’s to the detriment of my enjoyment and love and memories, is always a good thing for me when it comes to books. I wouldn’t trade the richness of a new understanding to go back.

I wasn’t interested in rereading Anne; as I said more than once I’ve got such a clear memory of the text anyway that it didn’t appeal. However, I see it as a gain that I picked up on such undercurrents as the attitude toward the Acadians and such flaws as character inconsistencies. Love altered in this cases, but interest didn’t.

*Anne has been much better served by her television interpretations, however. Michael Landon, ugh!

Unfortunately I didn’t read the Little House books as a child. But in terms of television interpretations, Colleen Dewhurst was the ultimate Marilla for me. I thought she was wonderful. It was her voice I heard when rereading the book.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Unfortunately I didn’t read the Little House books as a child. But in terms of television interpretations, Colleen Dewhurst was the ultimate Marilla for me. I thought she was wonderful. It was her voice I heard when rereading the book.

Colleen Dewhurst was fantastic. She’s really all I remember from that series. I think I lost interest in it somewhere along the line, but like you, I can still hear that unique voice.

[Victoria]

This month and the discussion has changed my ‘thoughts’ about AGG. I can now see the limitations in the writing (vignettes vs novel), and how characters like Diana don’t evolve. However, it hasn’t changed my ‘feelings’ one iota. I still treasure it, and think the world, and generations of children are richer for it.

I think that’s because I didn’t agree with much of what was said about Anne’s character. I don’t think she was portrayed as manipulative, etc. And I don’t believe Marilla and Matthew would have mistreated a boy. LLM was clear they intended to do well by him. I think ‘adopting him’ meant he would have inherited the farm, vs the status he would have somewhere as a hired boy. That’s today’s cynicism creeping into the book where it’s not there in the text. So just nah!

It was disappointing to me to see the prejudices. In particular I hadn’t picked up on the references to Acadians as a child and I’m glad I didn’t. I hate to think my French friends were probably hurt.

However, I’m not surprised to see the attitudes. I was listening to a radio spot this morning on Hidden Figures. (https://www.amazon.ca/Hidden-Figures...s=books&sr=1-1) Black female mathematicians at NASA hand calculated the work that sent Armstrong into space. Yet, the 1960s in Virginia they had to work in separate ‘coloured staff’ sections, and use separate bathrooms. And they weren’t invited to staff briefings because they were female.

It’s not that I think two wrongs make a right. Rather, I think AGG reflects attitudes of its time, but its intention wasn’t to advance or exploit those attitudes. And for me, that makes a huge difference in how I assess an older book, and whether or not I can read and enjoy it.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I think that’s because I didn’t agree with much of what was said about Anne’s character. I don’t think she was portrayed as manipulative, etc. And I don’t believe Marilla and Matthew would have mistreated a boy. LLM was clear they intended to do well by him. I think ‘adopting him’ meant he would have inherited the farm, vs the status he would have somewhere as a hired boy. That’s today’s cynicism creeping into the book where it’s not there in the text. So just nah!

I agree with you that Anne wasn’t manipulative, she was just highly dramatic for the enjoyment of it and, very importantly, because it helped her cope with the stresses and abuses of her early childhood. Similarly, I don’t think M&M would have mistreated a boy (although I don’t think he would have been treated as a son of the household, either. That bed off the kitchen!). However, what I did pick up about Anne this time and which I found off-putting is that she was almost universally regarded as wonderful, Josie Pye and Mr. Phillips being the sole exceptions. That got tedious. It’s not realistic; certainly some of her posturings must have irritated some.

Here’s just a random quote, one of Anne’s fancies:

Do you know what I think Mayflowers are, Marilla? I think they must be the souls of the flowers that died last summer and this is their heaven.

That’s the kind of comment that Bertie Wooster detested in Madelyn Bassett; Bertie was as thick as two planks yet even he had the penetration to detest that drivel. Was there no one who did an eyeroll when Anne came out with comments like that, as she frequently did? Who found her boring? I can’t imagine I would have liked her if I had been her contemporary. Not that I’d have disliked her, but she certainly wouldn’t have been a kindred spirit of mine.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with you that Anne wasn’t manipulative, she was just highly dramatic for the enjoyment of it and, very importantly, because it helped her cope with the stresses and abuses of her early childhood. Similarly, I don’t think M&M would have mistreated a boy (although I don’t think he would have been treated as a son of the household, either. That bed off the kitchen!). However, what I did pick up about Anne this time and which I found off-putting is that she was almost universally regarded as wonderful, Josie Pye and Mr. Phillips being the sole exceptions. That got tedious. It’s not realistic; certainly some of her posturings must have irritated some.

Here’s just a random quote, one of Anne’s fancies:



That’s the kind of comment that Bertie Wooster detested in Madelyn Bassett; Bertie was as thick as two planks yet even he had the penetration to detest that drivel. Was there no one who did an eyeroll when Anne came out with comments like that, as she frequently did? Who found her boring? I can’t imagine I would have liked her if I had been her contemporary. Not that I’d have disliked her, but she certainly wouldn’t have been a kindred spirit of mine.

I can see this point of view, and appreciate why many people would find her speeches it a complete turn off. They just struck me differently. I thought the flowery language from Anne was supposed to invoke poetry, which had a far greater role in people’s lives at that time. My father was from a generation later, but was still expected to memorize huge swaths of poetry in school.

But I’m sure people did roll their eyes; Marilla frequently told Anne to hold her tongue. Other passages report that village people talked about Anne and thought she was odd. I wouldn’t enjoy someone speaking that way today either. I skipped through some of those passages, seeing them as dated. But I could appreciate the point that they were meant to convey - that Anne loved flowers, and exploring, and was passionate about the natural world. That was something that would have made us kindred spirits.

It’s a children’s story. It’s an idealized portrait of girlhood and a charming portrayal of village life in simpler times. It won’t stand up if we ask it to be more realistic or more profound than that. It’s just not that kind of story.

And considering the strife in the world at that time, I don’t think LMM intended it to be profound. She says in her diaries that she found it difficult to concentrate on writing because of the pending wars. I think she was offering a spunky girl who overcame great odds, with doses of humour, in a setting of gentle human kindness. If I sound defensive, I don’t mean to be. That’s just my take on what LLM set out to write.

[4691mls]

+1 to what Victoria just said in post #114.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

I agree with you that Anne wasn’t manipulative, she was just highly dramatic for the enjoyment of it and, very importantly, because it helped her cope with the stresses and abuses of her early childhood. Similarly, I don’t think M&M would have mistreated a boy (although I don’t think he would have been treated as a son of the household, either. That bed off the kitchen!). ..

Just wanted to add that Matthew slept downstairs too, and hadn’t been upstairs in three years. I think those passages were meant to be about gender. The house and home were the women’s domain; the men’s world was outside.

My take on M&M wanting a boy vs girl was that they regarded girls as more delicate and their needs more complicated. Males’ needs seemed simpler, so taking care of a boy felt more straightforward to them. And Matthew had gotten to the stage of needing help in his domain, whereas Marilla still had her domain in hand. Their belief that boys’ needs were less complicated was wrong, but it doesn’t mean they would have valued him less than Anne once they got to know him, and care about him. They greatly underestimated Anne’s needs too, but then rose to the occasion.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't normally participate in the book clubs but came into this thread because of my memories of reading the Anne series. I probably should have stayed out of here and just continued to remember it fondly.

Well, we’re glad you popped on; we love company!

[Catlady]

Re the Little House books--I enjoyed the TV series immensely, at least for the first few years. (I'd been a fan of Michael Landon since the Little Joe years on Bonanza.) I didn't attempt to read the Little House books until long afterward, and gave up after the first two, I believe, though I did read a bit about LIW and the books. I was amazed to learn that some of what I thought were dramatic inventions for TV (e.g., Mary going blind) were in the books.

I've never seen any movie or TV adaptation of Anne. I did know that Colleen Dewhurst played Marilla, and as I was reading Anne I tried to hear that voice for Marilla's lines, but couldn't quite do it.

[Bookworm_Girl]

I wondered if/when someone was going to mention Little House. I don’t think I read the books although my friends did, but I loved the TV show as a child. I do know that there were some inventions for TV not in the books. Like Mary marrying her teacher at the blind school at the age of 16. In real life she did not fall in love with her teacher and never married or had children.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

I wondered if/when someone was going to mention Little House. I don’t think I read the books although my friends did, but I loved the TV show as a child. I do know that there were some inventions for TV not in the books. Like Mary marrying her teacher at the blind school at the age of 16. In real life she did not fall in love with her teacher and never married or had children.

Funny - I did not like the TV show at all when I was a kid, but the excellent Ingall's biography Prairie Fires: The American Dream Cars of Laura Ingalls Wilder by Caroline Fraser was in my top 10 of 2018.