What do you think?
Rate this book
Libertarians on the Prairie: Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, and the Making of the Little House Books
This myth-busting book finally reveals the true story behind the beloved children's classics.
Generations of children have fallen in love with the pioneer saga of the Ingalls family, of Pa and Ma, Laura and her sisters, and their loyal dog, Jack. Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books have taught millions of Americans about frontier life, giving inspiration to many and in the process becoming icons of our national identity. Yet few realize that this cherished bestselling series wandered far from the actual history of the Ingalls family and from what Laura herself understood to be central truths about pioneer life.
In this groundbreaking narrative of literary detection, Christine Woodside reveals for the first time the full extent of the collaboration between Laura and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Rose hated farming and fled the family homestead as an adolescent, eventually becoming a nationally prominent magazine writer, biographer of Herbert Hoover, and successful novelist, who shared the political values of Ayn Rand and became mentor to Roger Lea MacBride, the second Libertarian presidential candidate. Drawing on original manuscripts and letters, Woodside shows how Rose reshaped her mother's story into a series of heroic tales that rebutted the policies of the New Deal. Their secret collaboration would lead in time to their estrangement. A fascinating look at the relationship between two strong-willed women, Libertarians on the Prairie is also the deconstruction of an American myth.
Skyhorse Publishing, along with our Arcade, Good Books, Sports Publishing, and Yucca imprints, is proud to publish a broad range of biographies, autobiographies, and memoirs. Our list includes biographies on well-known historical figures like Benjamin Franklin, Nelson Mandela, and Alexander Graham Bell, as well as villains from history, such as Heinrich Himmler, John Wayne Gacy, and O. J. Simpson. We have also published survivor stories of World War II, memoirs about overcoming adversity, first-hand tales of adventure, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.
Generations of children have fallen in love with the pioneer saga of the Ingalls family, of Pa and Ma, Laura and her sisters, and their loyal dog, Jack. Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books have taught millions of Americans about frontier life, giving inspiration to many and in the process becoming icons of our national identity. Yet few realize that this cherished bestselling series wandered far from the actual history of the Ingalls family and from what Laura herself understood to be central truths about pioneer life.
In this groundbreaking narrative of literary detection, Christine Woodside reveals for the first time the full extent of the collaboration between Laura and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane. Rose hated farming and fled the family homestead as an adolescent, eventually becoming a nationally prominent magazine writer, biographer of Herbert Hoover, and successful novelist, who shared the political values of Ayn Rand and became mentor to Roger Lea MacBride, the second Libertarian presidential candidate. Drawing on original manuscripts and letters, Woodside shows how Rose reshaped her mother's story into a series of heroic tales that rebutted the policies of the New Deal. Their secret collaboration would lead in time to their estrangement. A fascinating look at the relationship between two strong-willed women, Libertarians on the Prairie is also the deconstruction of an American myth.
Skyhorse Publishing, along with our Arcade, Good Books, Sports Publishing, and Yucca imprints, is proud to publish a broad range of biographies, autobiographies, and memoirs. Our list includes biographies on well-known historical figures like Benjamin Franklin, Nelson Mandela, and Alexander Graham Bell, as well as villains from history, such as Heinrich Himmler, John Wayne Gacy, and O. J. Simpson. We have also published survivor stories of World War II, memoirs about overcoming adversity, first-hand tales of adventure, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.
292 pages, Hardcover
First published August 2, 2016
156 people are currently reading
1480 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews
August 6, 2016
I honestly can't say whether fans of the Little Hous books will want to read this or not. The author has meticulously researched the collaboration through which Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane created the books. Woodside makes a strong case that part of Lane's contribution to the books was the development of libertarian themes throughout the plots and frameworks of the stories. Further, she illustrates the personal cost of the collaboration which eventually led to estrangement between the two women.
As someone of decidedly liberal political views who has been a devoted fan of the books since I was six, I found Woodside's case both compelling and depressing.
As someone of decidedly liberal political views who has been a devoted fan of the books since I was six, I found Woodside's case both compelling and depressing.
July 18, 2020
TLDR: Great book if you like Laura and Rose. But I thought it really weak on the libertarian front. Woodside doesn’t understand libertarianism, so I cannot trust her to give me a valid view of Rose as a libertarian.
Yet another book exploring how much of the Little House books were written by Rose, and how much by Laura. I didn’t find some of her arguments persuasive, but I enjoyed reading her speculations. This is the first author I’ve read who seemed to like Rose more than Laura at times, which was different. Too many fans demonize Rose while sanctifying Laura; I’d say they were both difficult and complicated human beings.
But, despite the title, I’d have to say the author does not even remotely understand Libertarian thought. Reading through most of the book, I had a nagging feeling that the author was mis-characterizing Libertarianism by trying to make it fit neatly into the conservative box. That was the only explanation I could think of for her complete bewilderment over things that make perfect sense from a libertarian perspective. Or from an independent perspective, which would perhaps be a more accurate description of where I’m coming from.
Then, in the last chapter, she makes it clear that this is her problem. She says,
“The answer may lie in the evolving ideas of the Libertarian Party itself. Founded on the idea of individual freedom and small government, the movement has (to this observer’s mind) wavered from an ultraconservative party standing against taxes and government programs to a radically progressive one that wants to end drug laws. I don’t think it’s clear to many people what being a libertarian, small “l”, means today.” p. 202
But libertarians have not “wavered” from one position to another. They simply don’t fit neatly into this author’s “conservative versus liberal” mindset. Woodside keeps trying to push them into the “conservative” box, but libertarians have long been socially liberal, while also being fiscally conservative. Libertarians disagree with conservatives when conservatives want to use the government to bully people into behavior the conservatives like. Libertarians disagree with liberals when they want the government to take people’s money in support of programs liberals like.
Conservatives and liberals may disagree on the goals, but conservatives and liberals, both, want to use the government to accomplish their goals. Conservatives want the government out of business and economics, but are fine with the government telling people how to live their lives. Liberals want the government to keep its social opinions to itself, but often want it to take control of business and economics. Libertarians want the government out of everyone’s business, social or economic, and think government’s rightful place is very limited. In one sense, libertarians are the modern-day anti-Federalists.
The fact that the author can’t seem to get her brain around that kind of worries me. One problem I think the author faced is the fact that Rose Wilder Lane was not a consistent libertarian. For example, Rose apparently idolized Herbert Hoover, and the author seems to see Hoover as a conservative in contrast to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But every libertarian I have read on the subject likes Calvin Coolidge, and despises Herbert Hoover as FDR-lite. Rose’s personal feelings for Hoover trumped her politics on that one, I’m thinking.
But since many non-libertarian text books portray Hoover as a conservative, maybe Rose’s appreciation for him confused Woodside. There’s also the fact that the “libertarian” section of Woodside’s bibliography is laughable; a page and a half document from the Cato Institute; a book that’s a selection of readings by famous libertarians, and two books by outsiders on “the radical right” and “the Conservative Movement.” Granted, some self-proclaimed conservatives do identify with a lot of libertarian positions, and both libertarians and conservatives appreciate authors like Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, but that’s as far as it goes.
Again, from the libertarian perspective, libertarians are just as liberal as they are conservative, yet they fundamentally reject both liberals and conservatives, because they see liberals and conservatives as fighting over who the government controls, while they don’t want the government controlling anybody. I may disagree with libertarians in a lot of ways, but they are logically consistent, sometimes brutally so, and, because of that firm foundation, they are not nearly so flexible as either liberals or conservatives.
It is dead easy to understand the foundational principles of libertarianism – small and limited government; pro-capitalist but anti-cronyism; anti-war but pro-self defense – because that is essentially what defines a libertarian. The only reason libertarianism is difficult to understand is when the person exploring libertarianism is blinded by their own perceptions. A crony capitalist, who believes the government should interfere in business to support big business, can’t understand what libertarians mean when they say they’re capitalist. A pacifist can’t understand how the libertarians can hate war while not having any problem with shooting someone breaking into their house.
And Woodside is apparently so devoted to the liberal perspective (or the liberal versus conservative dichotomy), she can’t understand why it makes perfect sense for libertarians to be against big government programs, and also against drug laws. It boggles my mind that anyone who has so little understanding of libertarianism would write a book entitled Libertarians on the Prairie. Woodside rightfully condemns Rose Wilder Lane for her refusal to stick to the facts – but Woodside didn’t even bother to learn the facts before she wrote her own book!
Kind of ironic.
And to my astonishment, her “select bibliography of excellent studies and discussions that cover aspects of the American frontier during Laura Ingalls Wilder’s time not addressed in her books” includes Wisconsin Death Trip, which is a collection of photos taken by Charles Van Schaick, a photographer and justice of the peace in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, interspersed with unrelated newspaper clippings focused on death and crime. The author of Wisconsin Death Trap has said that he goal was to “create something that’s a puzzle that can be worked but that always leaves the person unsatisfied, leaves him wanting to work it again, to solve it better.”
The problem is, most people who read this book – and, it seems, Woodside herself -- seem to think the newspaper articles are all about the town of Black River Falls, or about local events. They are not. The stories take place all over Wisconsin. Erin, for example, is 170 miles from Black River Falls on modern roads. Prairie du Chen, 100 miles. Two Rivers, 184 miles. So while the stories were pulled from a particular paper, they cover a large area over a number of years. You could probably sit down with just about any paper of the time, from about any state, and come up with much the same thing.
The author of Wisconsin Death Trap has said his book failed “because people are just, in spite of everything, left-brained. They read text—and the text overwhelms what they see. The text had one message—but it was meant to be combined with the messages of the images.” He meant to talk about life as a whole, about how terrible things happen in the midst of wonderful and ordinary things, but because people obsess on the gruesome stories, they missed the point.
To Woodside’s credit, I think she does see the underlying loyalties and decency of Rose Wilder Lane, and I think a lot of Laura-loyal fans miss them, due to the fact that Rose tended to over-focus on the negative. But when it comes to libertarianism, Woodside misses the point. She “gets” Rose better than some other authors I have read, but I don’t think she really understands Rose. And she definitely doesn’t understand libertarianism.
Yet another book exploring how much of the Little House books were written by Rose, and how much by Laura. I didn’t find some of her arguments persuasive, but I enjoyed reading her speculations. This is the first author I’ve read who seemed to like Rose more than Laura at times, which was different. Too many fans demonize Rose while sanctifying Laura; I’d say they were both difficult and complicated human beings.
But, despite the title, I’d have to say the author does not even remotely understand Libertarian thought. Reading through most of the book, I had a nagging feeling that the author was mis-characterizing Libertarianism by trying to make it fit neatly into the conservative box. That was the only explanation I could think of for her complete bewilderment over things that make perfect sense from a libertarian perspective. Or from an independent perspective, which would perhaps be a more accurate description of where I’m coming from.
Then, in the last chapter, she makes it clear that this is her problem. She says,
“The answer may lie in the evolving ideas of the Libertarian Party itself. Founded on the idea of individual freedom and small government, the movement has (to this observer’s mind) wavered from an ultraconservative party standing against taxes and government programs to a radically progressive one that wants to end drug laws. I don’t think it’s clear to many people what being a libertarian, small “l”, means today.” p. 202
But libertarians have not “wavered” from one position to another. They simply don’t fit neatly into this author’s “conservative versus liberal” mindset. Woodside keeps trying to push them into the “conservative” box, but libertarians have long been socially liberal, while also being fiscally conservative. Libertarians disagree with conservatives when conservatives want to use the government to bully people into behavior the conservatives like. Libertarians disagree with liberals when they want the government to take people’s money in support of programs liberals like.
Conservatives and liberals may disagree on the goals, but conservatives and liberals, both, want to use the government to accomplish their goals. Conservatives want the government out of business and economics, but are fine with the government telling people how to live their lives. Liberals want the government to keep its social opinions to itself, but often want it to take control of business and economics. Libertarians want the government out of everyone’s business, social or economic, and think government’s rightful place is very limited. In one sense, libertarians are the modern-day anti-Federalists.
The fact that the author can’t seem to get her brain around that kind of worries me. One problem I think the author faced is the fact that Rose Wilder Lane was not a consistent libertarian. For example, Rose apparently idolized Herbert Hoover, and the author seems to see Hoover as a conservative in contrast to Franklin D. Roosevelt. But every libertarian I have read on the subject likes Calvin Coolidge, and despises Herbert Hoover as FDR-lite. Rose’s personal feelings for Hoover trumped her politics on that one, I’m thinking.
But since many non-libertarian text books portray Hoover as a conservative, maybe Rose’s appreciation for him confused Woodside. There’s also the fact that the “libertarian” section of Woodside’s bibliography is laughable; a page and a half document from the Cato Institute; a book that’s a selection of readings by famous libertarians, and two books by outsiders on “the radical right” and “the Conservative Movement.” Granted, some self-proclaimed conservatives do identify with a lot of libertarian positions, and both libertarians and conservatives appreciate authors like Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, but that’s as far as it goes.
Again, from the libertarian perspective, libertarians are just as liberal as they are conservative, yet they fundamentally reject both liberals and conservatives, because they see liberals and conservatives as fighting over who the government controls, while they don’t want the government controlling anybody. I may disagree with libertarians in a lot of ways, but they are logically consistent, sometimes brutally so, and, because of that firm foundation, they are not nearly so flexible as either liberals or conservatives.
It is dead easy to understand the foundational principles of libertarianism – small and limited government; pro-capitalist but anti-cronyism; anti-war but pro-self defense – because that is essentially what defines a libertarian. The only reason libertarianism is difficult to understand is when the person exploring libertarianism is blinded by their own perceptions. A crony capitalist, who believes the government should interfere in business to support big business, can’t understand what libertarians mean when they say they’re capitalist. A pacifist can’t understand how the libertarians can hate war while not having any problem with shooting someone breaking into their house.
And Woodside is apparently so devoted to the liberal perspective (or the liberal versus conservative dichotomy), she can’t understand why it makes perfect sense for libertarians to be against big government programs, and also against drug laws. It boggles my mind that anyone who has so little understanding of libertarianism would write a book entitled Libertarians on the Prairie. Woodside rightfully condemns Rose Wilder Lane for her refusal to stick to the facts – but Woodside didn’t even bother to learn the facts before she wrote her own book!
Kind of ironic.
And to my astonishment, her “select bibliography of excellent studies and discussions that cover aspects of the American frontier during Laura Ingalls Wilder’s time not addressed in her books” includes Wisconsin Death Trip, which is a collection of photos taken by Charles Van Schaick, a photographer and justice of the peace in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, interspersed with unrelated newspaper clippings focused on death and crime. The author of Wisconsin Death Trap has said that he goal was to “create something that’s a puzzle that can be worked but that always leaves the person unsatisfied, leaves him wanting to work it again, to solve it better.”
The problem is, most people who read this book – and, it seems, Woodside herself -- seem to think the newspaper articles are all about the town of Black River Falls, or about local events. They are not. The stories take place all over Wisconsin. Erin, for example, is 170 miles from Black River Falls on modern roads. Prairie du Chen, 100 miles. Two Rivers, 184 miles. So while the stories were pulled from a particular paper, they cover a large area over a number of years. You could probably sit down with just about any paper of the time, from about any state, and come up with much the same thing.
The author of Wisconsin Death Trap has said his book failed “because people are just, in spite of everything, left-brained. They read text—and the text overwhelms what they see. The text had one message—but it was meant to be combined with the messages of the images.” He meant to talk about life as a whole, about how terrible things happen in the midst of wonderful and ordinary things, but because people obsess on the gruesome stories, they missed the point.
To Woodside’s credit, I think she does see the underlying loyalties and decency of Rose Wilder Lane, and I think a lot of Laura-loyal fans miss them, due to the fact that Rose tended to over-focus on the negative. But when it comes to libertarianism, Woodside misses the point. She “gets” Rose better than some other authors I have read, but I don’t think she really understands Rose. And she definitely doesn’t understand libertarianism.
June 15, 2017
Honestly, picked this up because I thought it said "Librarians". Though a bit disappointed (in my eyesight and the real subject of this book), I always have been interested in the "real" Laura Ingalls Wilder. This book is filled with information I didn't know previous to reading it.
February 22, 2018
First I tried to read the "Prairie Fires" biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/bo.... It had a glowing book jacket blurb by a biographer I admire, Linda Lear. But it had too much on gruesome frontier history and not enough about writing, editing, structuring, collaborating. So I tried "Libertarians on the Prairie," about the fraught collaboration of mother Laura Ingalls Wilder and daughter Rose Wilder Lane on the Little House books.
This biography suited me much more, but I think it would have benefited from a timeline. I couldn't keep track of what happened when. Some of that was inevitable because the women's writings (of which the Little House books were only a part) kept going back to Laura's early memoir "Pioneer Girl," plumbing it for details suited to children and details for adults, reshaping and adding to the events.
But part of the problem was author Christine Woodside's paintbrush technique, sweeping back and forth like a video camera used by a newbie. For example, it was confusing when daughter Rose made her last trip from Texas to Connecticut. Woodside says she stops in Virginia, then talks a while about her being in Connecticut, then goes back to what happened in Virginia, sweeping back and forth for no apparent reason.
It was pretty fascinating, though, to see how Rose, the professional writer, shaped the children's books increasingly around her growing admiration for pioneers and her developing libertarian philosophy, her reverence for independence, limited government, and fierce self-reliance. Both women believed in pioneer independence and hated FDR's social programs, but Laura was more realistic about the frontier hardships and bitter disappointments. Rose, on the other hand, was busy creating an optimistic myth for Americans feeling helpless in the Depression.
I would have welcomed more insight about why the mother-daughter relationship broke down in childhood. After all, Rose was sent away at 2 for what must have seemed like too long when her parents had diphtheria. What happened next?
I don't think it detracts from the happy Little House books that the Koch brothers admire Rose as a founder of US libertarianism, although a hippy woman in a restaurant looked askance at me for reading about libertarians! Funny how many prejudiced assumptions we liberals can make.
This biography suited me much more, but I think it would have benefited from a timeline. I couldn't keep track of what happened when. Some of that was inevitable because the women's writings (of which the Little House books were only a part) kept going back to Laura's early memoir "Pioneer Girl," plumbing it for details suited to children and details for adults, reshaping and adding to the events.
But part of the problem was author Christine Woodside's paintbrush technique, sweeping back and forth like a video camera used by a newbie. For example, it was confusing when daughter Rose made her last trip from Texas to Connecticut. Woodside says she stops in Virginia, then talks a while about her being in Connecticut, then goes back to what happened in Virginia, sweeping back and forth for no apparent reason.
It was pretty fascinating, though, to see how Rose, the professional writer, shaped the children's books increasingly around her growing admiration for pioneers and her developing libertarian philosophy, her reverence for independence, limited government, and fierce self-reliance. Both women believed in pioneer independence and hated FDR's social programs, but Laura was more realistic about the frontier hardships and bitter disappointments. Rose, on the other hand, was busy creating an optimistic myth for Americans feeling helpless in the Depression.
I would have welcomed more insight about why the mother-daughter relationship broke down in childhood. After all, Rose was sent away at 2 for what must have seemed like too long when her parents had diphtheria. What happened next?
I don't think it detracts from the happy Little House books that the Koch brothers admire Rose as a founder of US libertarianism, although a hippy woman in a restaurant looked askance at me for reading about libertarians! Funny how many prejudiced assumptions we liberals can make.
January 4, 2017
fast, straightforward read about rose wilder helping her mom, laura ingalls wilder, write the "little house" books. i have never read any laura wilder books.
also, rose wilder turned into a public philosopher of sorts in the service of libertarian ism (a political philosophy i loath btw) and how some of that world view was inserted into the kids books.
this brief barley touches on many interesting story lines within this book. but i liked it anyway
also, rose wilder turned into a public philosopher of sorts in the service of libertarian ism (a political philosophy i loath btw) and how some of that world view was inserted into the kids books.
this brief barley touches on many interesting story lines within this book. but i liked it anyway
August 11, 2017
I’ve read so much on the tense collaboration between Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane in the production of the Little House series that most of the material in this book wasn’t new to me, but if you’re brand new to it, this might be a good starting point. It’s a clear, chronological account of their process throughout the whole series. But what I especially appreciated about the book was in the latter half, specifically, the chapter on Roger Lea MacBride.
Roger MacBride was Rose’s “adopted” grandson and he inherited her rights to the series (which contradicted Laura’s own will and sparked a whole lawsuit later). He began to monetize his rights almost immediately after Rose’s death, first with the publication of The First Four Years, which includes the birth of Rose and made fans aware of her existence, and then with the creation of the TV show. I don’t know the precise details of the financial arrangement, but MacBride was credited as “co-producer,” so presumably, he made quite a bit of money on it. The TV series first aired in 1974, and he ran as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1976. The author does not say so, but I have always assumed that the TV series funded his campaign. What she does say, however, is that Charles Koch of the Koch brothers, who was a young man then, worked on the MacBride campaign and is very much the transitional figure who brought Rose’s libertarianism into the political mainstream.
Rose’s libertarian philosophy is all over the series, too, and for specific quotes, see this discussion. It really does beg the question: were all of us Little House fans brainwashed into libertarianism? The author’s conclusion is no, and I have to agree. It’s no accident that my dream house is a cozy wood cabin with a fireplace and that I’ve always been attracted to farm life, but I am decidedly not a libertarian. Literature is a limited form of indoctrination when weighted against parental and environmental influences.
The book also tipped me off to a televised interview Roger MacBride did with William Buckley (available on YouTube). I didn’t think his arguments held water, but I was pleased to hear him mention the Little House series and the town of De Smet. His love and admiration for Rose came right through.
For me, one book on the Rose/Laura connection always seems to lead to another. I’m probably still not finished with this subject. But if you loved Little House, and you don’t know much about Rose yet, this might be the best one around.
Roger MacBride was Rose’s “adopted” grandson and he inherited her rights to the series (which contradicted Laura’s own will and sparked a whole lawsuit later). He began to monetize his rights almost immediately after Rose’s death, first with the publication of The First Four Years, which includes the birth of Rose and made fans aware of her existence, and then with the creation of the TV show. I don’t know the precise details of the financial arrangement, but MacBride was credited as “co-producer,” so presumably, he made quite a bit of money on it. The TV series first aired in 1974, and he ran as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1976. The author does not say so, but I have always assumed that the TV series funded his campaign. What she does say, however, is that Charles Koch of the Koch brothers, who was a young man then, worked on the MacBride campaign and is very much the transitional figure who brought Rose’s libertarianism into the political mainstream.
Rose’s libertarian philosophy is all over the series, too, and for specific quotes, see this discussion. It really does beg the question: were all of us Little House fans brainwashed into libertarianism? The author’s conclusion is no, and I have to agree. It’s no accident that my dream house is a cozy wood cabin with a fireplace and that I’ve always been attracted to farm life, but I am decidedly not a libertarian. Literature is a limited form of indoctrination when weighted against parental and environmental influences.
The book also tipped me off to a televised interview Roger MacBride did with William Buckley (available on YouTube). I didn’t think his arguments held water, but I was pleased to hear him mention the Little House series and the town of De Smet. His love and admiration for Rose came right through.
For me, one book on the Rose/Laura connection always seems to lead to another. I’m probably still not finished with this subject. But if you loved Little House, and you don’t know much about Rose yet, this might be the best one around.
January 1, 2024
This review originally appeared on my blog, Leeanna.me.
==
The first books I remember buying as a kid were the Little House books. I still have them; they’ve been read so many times I had to tape the spines. In the 1990s, I read the books about Laura’s daughter Rose, and kept going to the books about Laura’s mother and grandmother. But Laura’s stories were always my favorite, and I loved Laura’s plucky attitude and pioneer spirit, and the knowledge that the Ingalls family would survive any hardship because they had each other.
Essentially, I’ve been a huge fan of the Little House books and Laura Ingalls Wilder all my life. I even embody some of that pioneer spirit. I’m a farmer. I love the land. I like being self-sufficient. After reading LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE, I have to wonder if I absorbed the intended messages of Rose Wilder Lane, the themes she slid into her mother’s books. The author deconstructs the “new” pioneer myth Rose built, shaping her mother’s stories into a vehicle for her political beliefs of freedom, love of nature, self-sufficiency, and so on.
I’m not sure if LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE will appeal to all fans of the Little House books. It can be hard to see the layers peeled back on childhood favorites, to learn that Rose carefully edited the books, picking which of Laura’s experiences best fit the ideal she wanted to portray. But I geeked out over learning more about Laura and Rose, their writing process, and their relationship, as well as how their personal beliefs and politics influenced the books.
LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE is, in part, a biography of Rose’s adult life. At first I didn’t know why Woodside was including information on Rose’s travels through Albania or her writing career. But it made sense as the book went on, showing how those travels and experiences shaped Rose just as much as her early life on the farm did. I also learned quite a bit about libertarianism; for example, I never knew Rose was one of the founders of the movement.
Overall, I found LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE interesting, educational, and eye opening. For the most part it was easy to read, laid out chronologically and written almost in a conversational manner. But I do have one quibble. Sometimes the author referred to a person by their first name, then their last name, or sometimes both names, and I didn’t always know who she meant. Or a person wouldn’t be mentioned for chapters, so when they showed up again, I didn’t remember who they were. I wish the book had a summary of important figures for reference.
==
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
See more of my reviews:
==
The first books I remember buying as a kid were the Little House books. I still have them; they’ve been read so many times I had to tape the spines. In the 1990s, I read the books about Laura’s daughter Rose, and kept going to the books about Laura’s mother and grandmother. But Laura’s stories were always my favorite, and I loved Laura’s plucky attitude and pioneer spirit, and the knowledge that the Ingalls family would survive any hardship because they had each other.
Essentially, I’ve been a huge fan of the Little House books and Laura Ingalls Wilder all my life. I even embody some of that pioneer spirit. I’m a farmer. I love the land. I like being self-sufficient. After reading LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE, I have to wonder if I absorbed the intended messages of Rose Wilder Lane, the themes she slid into her mother’s books. The author deconstructs the “new” pioneer myth Rose built, shaping her mother’s stories into a vehicle for her political beliefs of freedom, love of nature, self-sufficiency, and so on.
I’m not sure if LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE will appeal to all fans of the Little House books. It can be hard to see the layers peeled back on childhood favorites, to learn that Rose carefully edited the books, picking which of Laura’s experiences best fit the ideal she wanted to portray. But I geeked out over learning more about Laura and Rose, their writing process, and their relationship, as well as how their personal beliefs and politics influenced the books.
LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE is, in part, a biography of Rose’s adult life. At first I didn’t know why Woodside was including information on Rose’s travels through Albania or her writing career. But it made sense as the book went on, showing how those travels and experiences shaped Rose just as much as her early life on the farm did. I also learned quite a bit about libertarianism; for example, I never knew Rose was one of the founders of the movement.
Overall, I found LIBERTARIANS ON THE PRAIRIE interesting, educational, and eye opening. For the most part it was easy to read, laid out chronologically and written almost in a conversational manner. But I do have one quibble. Sometimes the author referred to a person by their first name, then their last name, or sometimes both names, and I didn’t always know who she meant. Or a person wouldn’t be mentioned for chapters, so when they showed up again, I didn’t remember who they were. I wish the book had a summary of important figures for reference.
==
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
See more of my reviews:
March 22, 2017
You'd think there would be a limit to how many books one person could read about the making of the Little House books, but I haven't reached it yet. This one had a lot of detail about the mechanics of Laura and Rose's collaboration, and Libertarian history.
February 10, 2020
I came into this knowing that Rose Wilder Lane was an active participant in the creation of the Little House books, and this book works to detail exactly how that collaboration worked, and how it affected the relationship between Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter.
This was short and straightforward, and I think I wanted it to be different than it was. First of all, there's a fair amount of biographical information here that I'm not sure was totally necessary to support the main thrust of the book. I suppose Woodside wanted a person who knew nothing about either woman and had only read the Little House books to be able to pick this up, and to understand how the books differed from actual events in Laura's life. But it was a long time before we reached the info about the collaboration.
Second, given the title, I thought there was going to be a deeper analysis of Rose Wilder Lane's libertarian beliefs, how they appear in the texts, how they may have influenced other writers or movements, and how Laura herself felt about them. Certainly Woodside offers examples of Rose's additions to the text or drawing out themes, and discusses some of Rose's participation in the movement, including her relationship with Roger Lea MacBride. But I feel like I know as much about Rose's time living in Albania as I do about her libertarianism, and that's not what I picked up the book for.
Finally, it's clear that Woodside loves the Little House books, and respects both women. In a few instances, I felt like she was an apologist for them, rather than looking at their lives holistically. (For example, Rose probably didn't oppose accepting Jewish refugees to the US prior to WWII because she was ignorant about their global status; she probably shared the extremely common and widespread anti-Semitic views of the time.)
Anyway, if you'd like to read about how the Little House books came to be, pick this up. If you're interested specifically in how libertarianism shaped the books, rather than how Rose and Laura collaborated, skip this one.
This was short and straightforward, and I think I wanted it to be different than it was. First of all, there's a fair amount of biographical information here that I'm not sure was totally necessary to support the main thrust of the book. I suppose Woodside wanted a person who knew nothing about either woman and had only read the Little House books to be able to pick this up, and to understand how the books differed from actual events in Laura's life. But it was a long time before we reached the info about the collaboration.
Second, given the title, I thought there was going to be a deeper analysis of Rose Wilder Lane's libertarian beliefs, how they appear in the texts, how they may have influenced other writers or movements, and how Laura herself felt about them. Certainly Woodside offers examples of Rose's additions to the text or drawing out themes, and discusses some of Rose's participation in the movement, including her relationship with Roger Lea MacBride. But I feel like I know as much about Rose's time living in Albania as I do about her libertarianism, and that's not what I picked up the book for.
Finally, it's clear that Woodside loves the Little House books, and respects both women. In a few instances, I felt like she was an apologist for them, rather than looking at their lives holistically. (For example, Rose probably didn't oppose accepting Jewish refugees to the US prior to WWII because she was ignorant about their global status; she probably shared the extremely common and widespread anti-Semitic views of the time.)
Anyway, if you'd like to read about how the Little House books came to be, pick this up. If you're interested specifically in how libertarianism shaped the books, rather than how Rose and Laura collaborated, skip this one.
April 25, 2017
This book was fascinating. It is both a biography of a complex mother-daughter relationship and a look at the development of libertarian and conservative politics. It's slightly repetitive in parts, and occasionally the chronology is hard to follow. Overall though, a great look at the writing of the Little House books and how they were shaped by and shaped American politics.
September 26, 2018
I was so excited to read this book, but i couldn't bring myself to finish. Reading this is like listening to a bad book report that simply chews up original sources and spits them back out in bits and pieces while telling you what the author thinks they mean. I kept waiting for more depth and better writing - it just never came. And it is a shame, because I think the topic has a lot of potential.
August 8, 2022
Libertarians on the Prairie dives into the working relationship between Rose Wilder Lane and her more famous mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder. Rose was one of the ‘furies of Liberty’ mentioned in Radicals for Capitalism, along with Isabel Paterson and Ayn Rand, as she became increasingly concerned about the state of the American republic as it was deformed by Roosevelt’s new deal and World War 2. Libertarians opens with a biography of Laura Ingalls, whose nonfiction version of her story formed the basis for the children’s series that she would write at her daughter Rose’s urging and with her help: Rose served as typist and editor, and regarded the stories as a way to make Americans remember who they were – inheritors of the rugged, self-sufficient pioneers, and not Old Word serfs, bowing before the State. The book is fairly critical of Rose and labors under the strange idea that she invented the rugged-free-farmer idea. Interestingly, she didn’t think much of Ayn Rand, regarding her fans as pseudo-intellectuals.
September 17, 2017
As a lover of the Little House books, I was intrigued by this book. Overall, I really enjoyed it. Was slightly disappointed in the editing as Almanzo Wilder's date of death was incorrect - but otherwise found the book extremely interesting and a fascinating read.
July 13, 2020
I had heard a little bit about both the collaboration between Wilder and her daughter Rose, and about Rose's libertarianism, but had never read anything.
Very interesting.
First, Rose is regarded by the Libertarian Party as one of its "Three Founding Mothers," so there's that. Capital-L Libertarian. (Ayn Rand being one of other two.) She also had as a kind of adopted grandson the man who was the LP's 1976 presidential nominee. Rose did praise Rand, but not uncritically by any means, saying she was helping lead pseudo-intellectuals away from liberalism but "making a cult of pseudo-individualism." (Rose also got at least one economics prof blackballed during early Cold War years.)
On the personal side, she was such an anti-government wingnut that she refused to apply for a ration card during WWII. Yes, really. So, no sugar, coffee, cheese or meat, as Woodside notes.
Laura was not that. She was stoic, but wasn't interested in all of this politics.
And, the writing collaboration?
Rose had achieved a moderate degree of fame, on novelistic short stories, essays, etc., before the ida of Laura writing even popped up. That said, as Little House book fans know, as was shown by Laura's one belated book, Laura did NOT have a pie-eyed version of Libertarian rugged individualist optimism from her real life on the prairie. She had stoicism — and a certain degree of realism about what actually happened, though she appears to have pulled an occasional fudge herself.
Roger McBride, Rose's quasi-adopted "grandson," gave us the TV show. Woodside estimates the entire Little House "enterprise" may be worth as much as $100 million.
An interesting read indeed.
There are two reasons I didn't go five-star.
One is that it didn't really "grab" me. That said, as a kid, I was never a fan of the books, or the TV series.
The other is that Woodside didn't have more on the Rose-Laura dynamics than she actually did. Now, there simply may not have been more to find, but that's still something to be noted.
Very interesting.
First, Rose is regarded by the Libertarian Party as one of its "Three Founding Mothers," so there's that. Capital-L Libertarian. (Ayn Rand being one of other two.) She also had as a kind of adopted grandson the man who was the LP's 1976 presidential nominee. Rose did praise Rand, but not uncritically by any means, saying she was helping lead pseudo-intellectuals away from liberalism but "making a cult of pseudo-individualism." (Rose also got at least one economics prof blackballed during early Cold War years.)
On the personal side, she was such an anti-government wingnut that she refused to apply for a ration card during WWII. Yes, really. So, no sugar, coffee, cheese or meat, as Woodside notes.
Laura was not that. She was stoic, but wasn't interested in all of this politics.
And, the writing collaboration?
Rose had achieved a moderate degree of fame, on novelistic short stories, essays, etc., before the ida of Laura writing even popped up. That said, as Little House book fans know, as was shown by Laura's one belated book, Laura did NOT have a pie-eyed version of Libertarian rugged individualist optimism from her real life on the prairie. She had stoicism — and a certain degree of realism about what actually happened, though she appears to have pulled an occasional fudge herself.
Roger McBride, Rose's quasi-adopted "grandson," gave us the TV show. Woodside estimates the entire Little House "enterprise" may be worth as much as $100 million.
An interesting read indeed.
There are two reasons I didn't go five-star.
One is that it didn't really "grab" me. That said, as a kid, I was never a fan of the books, or the TV series.
The other is that Woodside didn't have more on the Rose-Laura dynamics than she actually did. Now, there simply may not have been more to find, but that's still something to be noted.
June 30, 2020
Am wrapping up my Laura Ingalls Wilder reading during the time of pestilence (In Tempore Pestilencia AD2020) and found this book.
In response to the title... "Libertarians on the Prairie", my reply is "Good for the prairie!" Better than socialists in the suburbs or communists in the cities.....
So I'm not sure if this book was written in the deconstructionist approach, "let's show everyone how NOT nice and how warty the characters in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books really were"..... or what. Laura Ingalls Wilder's books kind of stand on their own. They are stories of childhood and growing up in a time period of our country that was frankly not to be repeated. I find them wonderful stories. I don't see a political leaning in them at all. So why pursue the Libertarian theme? Yes, Rose Wilder Lane was a founding member of what became the Libertarian party. Good for her. Why aren't we appreciating her "GRRRLLLL" power in doing that? Yes, both Laura and Rose disliked Roosevelt's New Deal. They were not alone. Why not admire these strong women for having opinions and stating them in engaging ways?
Is it surprising that Rose helped her mother write the stories down? Not surprising to me, it seems kind of logical. Is it surprising that Rose wanted to escape the farm and do something different? Not surprising to me... it is a very common theme in people's lives. Is it surprising that when Rose's life kind of came falling down, she would return to the farm and recover? No, not surprising again.
This book is interesting (a little) because of the letters and research. But the drama of "oh no, LIBERTARIANS" or "oh no, LAURA AND ROSE DISAGREED!".... is really not that compelling.
In response to the title... "Libertarians on the Prairie", my reply is "Good for the prairie!" Better than socialists in the suburbs or communists in the cities.....
So I'm not sure if this book was written in the deconstructionist approach, "let's show everyone how NOT nice and how warty the characters in Laura Ingalls Wilder's books really were"..... or what. Laura Ingalls Wilder's books kind of stand on their own. They are stories of childhood and growing up in a time period of our country that was frankly not to be repeated. I find them wonderful stories. I don't see a political leaning in them at all. So why pursue the Libertarian theme? Yes, Rose Wilder Lane was a founding member of what became the Libertarian party. Good for her. Why aren't we appreciating her "GRRRLLLL" power in doing that? Yes, both Laura and Rose disliked Roosevelt's New Deal. They were not alone. Why not admire these strong women for having opinions and stating them in engaging ways?
Is it surprising that Rose helped her mother write the stories down? Not surprising to me, it seems kind of logical. Is it surprising that Rose wanted to escape the farm and do something different? Not surprising to me... it is a very common theme in people's lives. Is it surprising that when Rose's life kind of came falling down, she would return to the farm and recover? No, not surprising again.
This book is interesting (a little) because of the letters and research. But the drama of "oh no, LIBERTARIANS" or "oh no, LAURA AND ROSE DISAGREED!".... is really not that compelling.
October 21, 2016
Slightly rambling discussion of the mother and daughter Ingalls-Wilder relationship and writing team. The author believes Rose Wilder edited and crafted the juvenile novels that sprang from her mother's recollections of the family journey west. Intriguing final chapter that links the Little House books to the Koch brothers and conservative America.
May 13, 2022
An interesting book about the collaboration between Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose in writing the Little House on the Prairie series. I was especially interested to see how Rose edited Laura’s stories to create a positive Pioneer myth that furthered Rose’s Libertarian views.
Politics aside, I will say that I walked away from this book feeling that both Laura and Rose were unpleasant women. For that reason, I might hesitate to recommend it to gung-ho Little House on the Prairie fans. Sometimes it’s better to live with your fictional illusions.
Politics aside, I will say that I walked away from this book feeling that both Laura and Rose were unpleasant women. For that reason, I might hesitate to recommend it to gung-ho Little House on the Prairie fans. Sometimes it’s better to live with your fictional illusions.
July 22, 2025
super well-researched & interesting background on books i loved as a kid! i had no idea about rose wilder lane's involvement in the writing of the books, and definitely no idea about her libertarianism (and how much of her political ideas found their way into the finished series). gives me an interesting new lens to think about the little house books now as an adult (and maybe an excuse to re-read them....)
May 4, 2022
Very interesting review of the Little House collaboration, the ideological development of the Wilders, touching on the wide range of varied political and commercial impacts of these works. The concluding chapters felt a bit hasty but covered so much interesting ground. [That reminded me of my own writing on the LIW/RWL collaboration back in 2000. When I read 21st century scholarship on these women, I realize I was on the cusp of something, but it would have required more than 5 months of research and writing. Oh, to view our alternate timelines.]
September 20, 2020
#LauraRoseReadathon on Litsy - September 2020
September 27, 2016
A well-written literary, historical, and political analysis of the writing of the Little House series. (Also, much easier to read than the amazingly detailed—but intensely crammed full of information—Pioneer Girl: The Annotated Autobiography...which I still haven't finished...)
Fun facts from this book: Roger Lea MacBride, Rose Wilder Lane's protege, ran for president on the Libertarian party ticket in 1976—and Charles Koch (of Koch Industries) supported MacBride's campaign (p. 183, frustratingly not footnoted or cited).
Woodside's closing words:
Fun facts from this book: Roger Lea MacBride, Rose Wilder Lane's protege, ran for president on the Libertarian party ticket in 1976—and Charles Koch (of Koch Industries) supported MacBride's campaign (p. 183, frustratingly not footnoted or cited).
Woodside's closing words:
Why do the Little House books particularly inspire political conservatives, on the one hand—Tea Party members, and homeschoolers—people who hold up the self-sufficient simplicity of the stories as evidence that America's unique soul comes from frontier hardships? On the other, why do the Little House books inspire progressive left-wing advocates of back-to-the-land independence in the wilderness?
The answer may lie in the evolving ideas of the Libertarian Party itself. Founded on the idea of individual freedom and small government, the movement has (to this observer's mind) wavered from an ultraconservative party standing against taxes and government programs to a radically progressive one that wants to end drug laws. (p. 202)
September 14, 2016
This was a very interesting book recounting the partnership between Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane in creating the Little House series. Woodside describes the conflicting relationship between mother and daughter and how the series brought them closer together, yet eventually drove them apart. Woodside also discusses the themes of individual freedom and basis of the Libertarian political movement within the Little House series and how this developed through Rose's emergence as one of the three female spearheads of the Libertarian party. A must read for anyone interested in Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, the Little House series of books, or the Libertarian political movement.
January 10, 2017
This is a clearly written and interesting biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder and her daughter Rose Wilder Lane. While it focuses on their joint life, rather than Laura's life, it's a novel viewpoint on the writing of the famed Little House Books.
I've read a lot about these two, so wasn't much new here, but I appreciated Woodside's occasional discusions of Almanzo and what his life was like outside of the Little House Books.
I'd recommend this joint-biography as a good place to start for those who are curious about who Laura and Rose really are--plus how the books were really written.
Clearer and easier to read than Prairie Girl.
I've read a lot about these two, so wasn't much new here, but I appreciated Woodside's occasional discusions of Almanzo and what his life was like outside of the Little House Books.
I'd recommend this joint-biography as a good place to start for those who are curious about who Laura and Rose really are--plus how the books were really written.
Clearer and easier to read than Prairie Girl.
August 23, 2018
Devoured this meticulously researched book while waiting for my library copy of Prairie Fires. Look forward to companioning these two as both explore the relationship between Laura and her daughter, writer Rose Wilder Lane, Lane's political and philosophical leanings, Lane's involvement in writing the books, the Ingalls family as symbols of pioneer identity, and the ideals of Manifest Destiny which gave license to "divine rights" such as squatting on Native land.
August 31, 2017
I had not considered how a socio-political worldview had influenced the retelling of these stories for the Wilders. I think "Pa" certainly was depicted more favorably than perhaps an objective viewing would have allowed him to be. But...it's fiction!!!
March 23, 2019
Though I'm not a libertarian myself, I definitely want to read more of and about Rose and her works after this informative insight into the Little House books and the tense relationship between Rose and her mother. Great read.
January 6, 2023
Totally uncooborrated speculation by an author with MASSIVE and prevalent agendas.
Give it a skip and spend your time more profitably by stabbing yourself in the eye with a big sharp stick.
Glad I could help.
Sincerely,
Laura-Lee
Give it a skip and spend your time more profitably by stabbing yourself in the eye with a big sharp stick.
Glad I could help.
Sincerely,
Laura-Lee
July 31, 2018
Much of what was written I knew from other works on Wilder. It was interesting to learn about the political influence in the Little House books and how the Libertarian movement got its roots.
December 15, 2018
Not as good as Caroline Fraser's "Prairie Fire" but very interesting none-the-less.
February 21, 2020
Am re-reading a favorite book from 2016. Libertarians on the Prairie: Laura Ingalls Wilder, Rose Wilder Lane, and the Making of the Little House Books by Christine Woodside.
Growing up my parents taught me early on the difference between Fiction and non Fiction books and to seek out Non Fiction since Fiction is make believe, or someones endeavor to create fantasy that will make the reader feel as if they are in another world. While I read the Little House on the Prairie books I knew they were mostly fictional.
There is no way I would want to live in the 1800's (or even the early 1900's) because my Grandma Katy Johnson grew up in western Minnesota (family owns the last original homestead)in the state), and eastern North Dakota and told of how harsh the winters were and how so many children died before the age of five and women died in child birth.
That providing oil for the oil lamps was hard because money wasn't always available.And being in a prairie state fire wood was something you did not waste.
And how some days they ate oatmeal for the two meals they had, breakfast and dinner. She shared how they had chickens yet come winter if money was scarce and her mom hadn't been able to buy enough feed some of the chickens died. Having a horse and buggy was a huge investment.
Coffee, flour, sugar, salt were the things they bought when they went to town every SIX months. There was NO down time. In the evening they only used the oil lights for an hour at which time her mother would be mending clothes or reading and doing the weekly budget. Grandma Katy said you had to have 2-3 ways of earning money.
My mother and her sisters who died twenty years ago, shared how when growing up in Montana in the summer they would wear leggings over their heads because the mosquitoes were so bad. They shared of friends who because there was no modern plumbing were sick with diseases that today are rare. Polio, TB, smallpox.
And how in the summer heat the out house even with plenty of wood ash to cover the human waste would smell horrid, and swarms of flies were horrid. When the new out house was being built Auntie Ann when she was around four fell into the old one and it took my Grandma Katy hours to heat the water to both bathe Ann and wash her putrid smelling clothes.
Aunt Olive mothers oldest sister shared how hard it was pumping water for cooking,doing laundry, and bathing any time of the year but come winter with two feet on the ground it was almost impossible. Their father had died and Grandma Katy who was a teacher,raised the three girls,
Thing about Little House on the Prairie is its mostly fictional with some non fiction intertwined. Laura who was not a good writer relied on her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane to do the manuscripts that would pass muster with the publisher.Thus it was a secret collaboration
As the book notes Rose hated farming and fled the family homestead as an adolescent, eventually becoming a nationally prominent magazine writer, biographer of President Herbert Hoover, and a very successful novelist, who shared the political values of Ayn Rand and became mentor to Roger Lea MacBride, the second Libertarian presidential candidate.
The author Christine Woodside spent years researching the family, reading the original manuscripts and letters which shows how Rose the professional writer reshaped her mother's story into a series of heroic tales that rebutted the policies of the New Deal.
Growing up my parents taught me early on the difference between Fiction and non Fiction books and to seek out Non Fiction since Fiction is make believe, or someones endeavor to create fantasy that will make the reader feel as if they are in another world. While I read the Little House on the Prairie books I knew they were mostly fictional.
There is no way I would want to live in the 1800's (or even the early 1900's) because my Grandma Katy Johnson grew up in western Minnesota (family owns the last original homestead)in the state), and eastern North Dakota and told of how harsh the winters were and how so many children died before the age of five and women died in child birth.
That providing oil for the oil lamps was hard because money wasn't always available.And being in a prairie state fire wood was something you did not waste.
And how some days they ate oatmeal for the two meals they had, breakfast and dinner. She shared how they had chickens yet come winter if money was scarce and her mom hadn't been able to buy enough feed some of the chickens died. Having a horse and buggy was a huge investment.
Coffee, flour, sugar, salt were the things they bought when they went to town every SIX months. There was NO down time. In the evening they only used the oil lights for an hour at which time her mother would be mending clothes or reading and doing the weekly budget. Grandma Katy said you had to have 2-3 ways of earning money.
My mother and her sisters who died twenty years ago, shared how when growing up in Montana in the summer they would wear leggings over their heads because the mosquitoes were so bad. They shared of friends who because there was no modern plumbing were sick with diseases that today are rare. Polio, TB, smallpox.
And how in the summer heat the out house even with plenty of wood ash to cover the human waste would smell horrid, and swarms of flies were horrid. When the new out house was being built Auntie Ann when she was around four fell into the old one and it took my Grandma Katy hours to heat the water to both bathe Ann and wash her putrid smelling clothes.
Aunt Olive mothers oldest sister shared how hard it was pumping water for cooking,doing laundry, and bathing any time of the year but come winter with two feet on the ground it was almost impossible. Their father had died and Grandma Katy who was a teacher,raised the three girls,
Thing about Little House on the Prairie is its mostly fictional with some non fiction intertwined. Laura who was not a good writer relied on her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane to do the manuscripts that would pass muster with the publisher.Thus it was a secret collaboration
As the book notes Rose hated farming and fled the family homestead as an adolescent, eventually becoming a nationally prominent magazine writer, biographer of President Herbert Hoover, and a very successful novelist, who shared the political values of Ayn Rand and became mentor to Roger Lea MacBride, the second Libertarian presidential candidate.
The author Christine Woodside spent years researching the family, reading the original manuscripts and letters which shows how Rose the professional writer reshaped her mother's story into a series of heroic tales that rebutted the policies of the New Deal.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews