tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post4968753911239013600..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Caroline Fraser, "Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder"Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-80425759110046312122020-07-13T10:28:59.735-04:002020-07-13T10:28:59.735-04:00I think a good marriage will contribute much to a ...I think a good marriage will contribute much to a good life in most any circumstances. If that's really the sort of point you were making--good marriage, a fertile imagination, a little resilience can make for a good life on the prairie or in the suburbs--then I'm all with with you.<br /><br />I guess I'm just paranoid about "suffering builds character" cant.<br /><br />I once read Mari Sandoz's "Old Jules," a memoir of her sodbuster father. It's been years, and all I really remember about it is the bizarre laudatory introduction by Linda Hasselstrom, which essentially said, "Both Mari and I had fathers much battered and beaten about by the prairie experience. Both were free with venting their hostility on their children. This made Mari and me strong. I (heart) my abusive father!"<br /><br />An antidote is the underrated pop song "Wildfire," in which the singer tells us he longs to ride away to the great beyond with the girl and her pony, and never sodbust any more.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-15197581634040375842020-07-13T09:20:22.423-04:002020-07-13T09:20:22.423-04:00Oh, I wanted to ad at some point that to Fraser th...Oh, I wanted to ad at some point that to Fraser the thing that made life endurable for both Ma Ingalls and Laura was a good marriage: whatever else happened, the couples had each other. The way they held each other up is quite impressive, and is, I think, another pointer toward what really makes for a good life.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-79761328009293080902020-07-13T09:14:24.952-04:002020-07-13T09:14:24.952-04:00If we assume that pioneer life was miserable, why ...If we assume that pioneer life was miserable, why did people keep going? It's not like they didn't know; the whole culture was saturated with lore about how hard pioneering was, from Indian massacres to crop failures. In 1890 a large percentage of Americans knew a failed pioneer. They went, I think, because 1) the only alternative they could see was unemployment and dependence at home, and 2) because they felt like giving it a try.<br /><br />David and I have been arguing for decades now about how much longing for security and comfort there is among humans, and how much longing for heroic struggle. I see the longing for that struggle as a great driving force of human history. They had pioneers; we have people determined to create tech start-ups even if it means working 80 hours a week for years. And people who want to be astronauts or special forces snipers or whatever hard thing you can name. Many people want hard lives with the potential for big rewards, not middling ease. Yes, most of them fail, and many end up bitter, but even the failures among people of that mind-set still usually end up idolizing the heroic path. That is, to me, the most historically significant thing about the prairie pioneers, the way their cult of self-reliance was passed down to modern America. I think the collision of that mind-set with modern economics and modern government policy still defines politics from Texas to Montana.<br /><br />You can say, they were lied to, they were victims, but most of them didn't see it that way and neither do their great-grandchildren.<br /><br />A big part of American politics is a struggle between the (as I see it) myth of heroic self-reliance and (as I see it) a more realistic belief that nobody is self-reliant in our world, so we might as well work together to help all of us do better. But what seems realistic to me is bitterly resisted by millions of Americans (and others). They resist, I guess, because believing in self-reliance makes them feel better about themselves and helps them make sense of their world. <br /><br />I think they are wrong, but I also think that life is hard and sad for everyone and I am reluctant to attack any set of beliefs that reconciles people to the sadness and hardship. The more experience I have of humanity the more I think that most people either can't face or are just not interested in a life without an overlay of myth, often heroic myth. We all use mythic models to understand our world. Self-reliance, if you ask me, is a myth. But that doesn't mean believing in it hasn't helped many people come to terms with existence, or that it isn't very important to understanding Americans.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-43433915188315108942020-07-13T07:49:14.613-04:002020-07-13T07:49:14.613-04:00Hamlin Garland’s *A Son of the Middle Border* prov...Hamlin Garland’s *A Son of the Middle Border* provides a nice contrast to the romance of Ingall’s stories of pioneer life. ArEnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13839182981389019243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-78997747619978681232020-07-12T18:06:53.472-04:002020-07-12T18:06:53.472-04:00"Does a good life mean a safe and prosperous ..."Does a good life mean a safe and prosperous one, or does it mean something else?"<br /><br />I have to say, I'm pretty much with G. on this one. And, is it really so hard to accept that what a good life might be is pretty much determined by the makeup of the individual? LIW was clearly an extraordinary person. Most people aren't like that, and they're not going to be. I'm sure even a lot of the survivors got very little out of the prairie experience except exhaustion, disillusionment, bitterness, alcoholism, domestic abuse, and suicide. Some of those folks would doubtless have found the same misery living in modern suburbs, but others might find contentment and peace in a life of comfort and prosperity.<br /><br />Lyndon Johnson grew up in very similar circumstances, and his conclusion was not, "I sure am glad I and everyone I know grew up with a lot of bracing, vivifying misery, so we could all be extraordinary!" His reaction was "Damn, we need electricity!"Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-10921416429799545092020-07-12T16:23:39.383-04:002020-07-12T16:23:39.383-04:00"I am left wondering what really makes for a ..."I am left wondering what really makes for a good life. Pa Ingalls failed over and over again, but his daughter remembered her girlhood as a long adventure, and then she made it into stories that have brought joy to millions. If Pa had stayed in Wisconsin on his farm and never done anything else, Laura might have avoided a lot of hardship, but would that have been a better life? Does a good life mean a safe and prosperous one, or does it mean something else?"<br /><br />Beware falling prey to survivor bias. Wilder was lucky enough to not starve to death - others in her family's circumstances were not that fortunate. The eventual literary amusement of millions is no comfort to the forgotten dead.<br /><br />And those very millions who enjoyed reading a work born from the deprivation and suffering of innocent others, were themselves "safe and prosperous". Secure in their own "good lives", they took satisfaction in reading the "adventure" of the difficult lives of others they would never meet, while remaining wholly ignorant of the countless anonymous deaths of those who were not fortunate enough to have the chance to write books about their experiences.<br /><br />Everyone deserves a safe and prosperous life. If that isn't enough for them, they make choose to do without it, if they wish. But to celebrate adversity forced upon innocent people, and to glorify those fortunate enough to escape it and profit by it while consigning the forgotten victims of it to oblivion, is utterly reprehensible.<br /><br />You too often sweep the victims of history under the rug, John. I would gladly erase Wilder's books from existence if it meant the innocents who didn't live to write their own books could have had safe and prosperous lives of their own. The amusement of millions of affluent readers does not compare to the suffering of a single starving child. And how many of those who didn't make it might have gone on to write their own books about something else, or otherwise contributed to society? We can never know.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com