Something that has always bothered me in the Little House books is the whole Eliza Jane debacle. I couldn’t figure out why Laura presented such a bleak picture of her sister-in-law.
Part of the reason for that is the timeline.
Let me back up. Through the eyes that Laura Ingalls Wilder, the author, allowed for us as readers, what do we know about Eliza Jane Wilder?
She was bossy.
She was a know-it-all.
She was a terrible teacher.
She was easily manipulated by her students (say, Nellie Oleson).
She was overly emotional.
She wanted to take over Laura’s wedding.
Does that about cover it? If I have missed anything, let me know.
Aside from smoothing over the blacking-brush situation in Farmer Boy, Eliza Jane Wilder is never redeemed. Even in Little Town on the Prairie, as an adult, she is presented as merely an exponential version of that bossy, unlikable big sister we first met in Farmer Boy.
And let’s remind ourselves: this is all through Laura’s filter. This is only what Laura chose to share about this person. I don’t know about your marriage, but if I published what essentially amounts to a character defamation of my husband’s sister, he’d have something to say about it.
Which leads me to think that either A) Almanzo didn’t read the books, or B) he didn’t care. Him not reading them seems plausible enough. But if he didn’t care, there had to be a good reason.
Let’s look at the timeline:
1881 (according to Little Town on the Prairie, which was off from the real date by a year): Laura is taught school by Eliza Jane Wilder, the sister of the man who will become her husband.
1885: After courting for three years, Laura marries Almanzo Wilder.
1899: James Wilder, Almanzo’s father, dies shortly after losing most of his fortune investing in rice crops in Louisiana on the advice of Eliza Jane.
1903: Laura and Almanzo send their daughter, Rose, to live with Eliza Jane in Crowley, Louisiana to attend and graduate from high school.
1904: Rose leaves home for Kansas City, MO, and is essentially gone for good.
1930: Eliza Jane Wilder (Thayer Gordon – she married twice) dies.
1932: The first book in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House series, Little House In the Big Woods, is published.
1933: Farmer Boy, the second book in the series, detailing the childhood of her husband, is published—this is where we first meet the character Eliza Jane.
1935-1940: The next four books in the series are published.
1941: Little Town on the Prairie is published; we meet Eliza Jane again, this time as an adult, teaching school to Laura’s class.
At the time of the writing of Little Town, Eliza Jane has been dead for about a decade. It’s been almost forty years since Laura and Almanzo entrusted Rose to her care for the girl’s last year of schooling. By all accounts, Rose grew to deeply respect and admire her unique, eccentric, and politically active aunt.
Why would Laura choose to defame her sister-in-law’s character in this way? It seems out of left field to me. A case could be made that it was Rose’s suggestions that led to EJ’s character development—but if Rose expressed any untoward feelings toward Eliza Jane, I’ve missed them. I’ve toyed with the idea that Laura and Almanzo, or even Rose, resented Eliza Jane’s meddling in the elder Wilders’ investments and blamed her for the drain of their fortune—and her father’s subsequent death. It wouldn’t be that hard to accept Rose being angry about her parents losing an inheritance, since she took such responsibility for her parents’ financial support. But the big loss happened in the late 1890s, before Rose was sent to Crowley.
Did Laura and Almanzo simply value Rose’s education that much? Or were they OK with EJ then, and only later on resented EJ’s influence on their young, impressionable girl—who would follow her Crowley stay by leaving home, for all intents and purposes, permanently?
I go around and around in my head. I simply cannot come up with a plausible explanation as to why Laura chose to turn her sister-in-law into a pariah. In the book series, even Lib “Mrs. Brewster” Bouchie has mitigating factors—you can almost understand why she acts as she does. And Nellie, ever the villain, is ultimately revealed to be a lot poorer than she lets on, which brings a different level of understanding to her behavior. (And let’s remind ourselves of one very interesting commonality these two characters shared: Their names were changed.)
We never get this understanding with Eliza Jane. In Farmer Boy, we understand her actions because we know she’s just a child, and later on we even like her when she tells Almanzo “You’re the only little brother I’ve got.” (Which he wasn’t, but I digress.) But Little Town, written just eight years later, gives us no such escape hatch. Instead we’re left with the enduring image of the incompetent teacher who then (in These Happy Golden Years) has to face the humiliation of her most troublesome student joining her family—and they won’t even let her help plan the wedding.
I’m out of ideas. Anyone else?
I don’t have any answers but I have often wondered the same thing. I wondered why Almanzo would let his sister be portrayed so badly unless he really didn’t care for her himself. I also wondered why Laura and Almanzo would let Rose live with EJ after EJ lost the families money and why Rose let EJ be portrayed the way she was (knowing that Rose had some input to the books and knowing that she admired EJ).
I wonder if there are any letters between Rose and Laura during the time she wrote LTOTP that may shed some light???
Is it possible that it was just true? That she was annoying and meddling? Maybe they didn’t see it as defamation because maybe (who knows) they used to talk about that horrible school experience and heck, maybe Eliza Jane would say, “I know, I was AWFUL!”
I’ve always thought that Rose suggested portraying Eliza Jane that way because it would provide a good storyline. I’m sure it was true to an extent, but she probably wasn’t as horrible as she was made out to be. Laura probably felt guilty about the way she was written, but she did allow Rose to make quite a few of the literary decisions. It’s an interesting topic, regardless of what the real truth may be.
Ooh, this is a good one.
I think it’s very possible that Almanzo didn’t read the books, or didn’t read much of them. From what the biographies say, he doesn’t seem like much of a reader, and seeing as how Laura didn’t read much of Rose’s work (or so Rose believed), he might not have ever seen the objectionable passages at all. If there’s anything he would have objected to, that is.
I agree with Kim: there are some pretty good narrative reasons for having Eliza Jane stay Eliza Jane in LTOTP. From the start it’s pointed out that Miss Wilder is related to the dashing guy with the fancy horses, which makes both Laura and Nellie hope that they can be friends with her (and as a reader, don’t you have high hopes yourself?). And then, when Miss Wilder and Nellie become close around the same time that Almanzo starts to pay attention to Laura, there’s certain level of complication that wouldn’t have existed had the nasty school teacher simply been Miss Bossy-Fictional-Character.
There’s no telling whether this was a deliberate decision on Laura’s (or Rose’s) part, but maybe Laura felt that something would have been lost by giving EJ a fictional stand-in, whereas there was really nothing to lose in changing Mrs. Bouchie’s name and making Nellie Oleson a composite character. I tend to think she had more reason to change the names of unrelated people like the Bouchies and the drunk guy walking down Main Street (her best friend’s dad!), than of the people in her family. She might not have wanted to chance upsetting whatever unknown Bouchie descendants were out there, but she when it came to Eliza Jane she probably knew the extent of the risk involved in mischaracterizing her a bit. By the time LTOTP was written, Eliza Jane was gone, and there were must have been only a handful of people who knew her, all of whom either agreed with Laura or else Laura felt she could contend with them.
Also, while we look at the books and see a (somewhat fictionalized) account of people who once lived, I wonder if Laura and her family saw it a little differently, that what Laura was doing was just writing stories, not recording people for posterity. (Certainly Ma and Pa were, but they were central enough to be fully fleshed out.) Maybe it didn’t occur to Laura or Rose that these stories would endure the way they have, or fully grasped that the version of Eliza Jane that appears in the books would be the one that has lasted.
I think it’s important to consider a couple of things:
EJ was long gone before she was immortalized as the bossy big sister, teacher, and later sister-in-law.
It’s not unreasonable to think that perhaps she DID posess these qualities?
Perhaps they were magnified to promote the character of Eliza Jane for the books?
I have a brother with similar qualities and while I love him, he rubs everyone the wrong way at times. He would make a terrific character for a book… perhaps as a cantankerous cowboy in a western? I don’t think it would surprise anyone in my family to see him written out in ink. It’s hard to defend someone who is outward about their behavior.
On the other hand, perhaps Rose simply saw an opportunity for the type of character that was needed to set the stage for Laura’s needs?
Good question!
Kelly
Sandra, you bring up such good things to think about, I don’t have any answers, but I like the questions. Thank you for this post.
I have wondered about this through the years as well, and think that RWL must have had some impact on Eliza Jane Wilder’s character development. Perhaps she explained the necessity to her parents for a complex character that helped the storyline, and EJ was certainly that in real life. I think that Almanzo must have trusted Rose’s literary judgement just as Laura did.
There is a lot of food for thought with this question and probably we will never know for sure.
Reading this I find myself wondering if that’s just how Almanzo saw EJ, too…sibling stuff…and if that’s how he saw her, then chances are that’s how Laura saw her..as far as schooling…sometimes we overlook stuff for opportunities, right?
Thanks for asking a question about which I’ve always wondered myself.
This is a great question. I guess I’ve always beleived that Almanzo had some input about EJ’s character since the first time we meet her is in Farmer Boy – his story. I always thought Laura would’ve asked Almanzo questions, or at least runthings past him, when telling about HIS life! Also, I’ve read Free Land, and Rose alone did a number on the character in that story based on EJ. I, too, would think that any letters between mother and daughter about this character would be interesting to read. Great question!!!
I’ve always wondered about it, too, and came up with the kinds of reasons that have been posted here… It’s interesting to see others wondering the same thing!
:^)
Wow, 11 posts before mine. I think this is a record here on BLH.
I don’t have any answers either but I have always admired the real life EJ. While she was teaching school in town, she was doing her best to hold down a homestead claim. A lot to tackle for a single woman.
Interesting subject! I didn’t have time to post yesterday, but my thoughts are pretty well covered here in everyone else’s posts. Like Cheryl, even though I disliked the book character, Eliza Jane, I had to admire the independent way she lived her life.
Also, I like to think that Laura would not have portrayed her in such a way if Almanzo did not approve.
I have always questioned why, if the disliked her, did they send their only daughter to live with her? I would wonder if they thought it was the only way for her to finish her education.
Excellent question.
My thoughts are that although Laura sent Rose to live with Eliza Jane, she may then have resented EJ’s influence on Rose. Rose never returned home. She became a very independent woman, as was EJ. Was this due to EJ’s example and influence? Did Laura resent this? Would Laura have preferred it if Rose had had a more traditional life – and more children?
However – if Rose had such an influence on the content of the books, why would she have allowed her aunt to be portrayed so negatively?
All three of these women seem to be angry characters to me. And I think their anger gives them energy and determination. Maybe it’s an outlet for Laura’s anger to depict EJ as a meddling, bossy girl and woman with poor judgment.
And I don’t think one of my brothers would stick up for his sisters and not defer to his wife’s opinion!
Katherine
I too think that the Eliza character was important to the plot development in LTOP and later in HGY. She brings depth to the school house scenes and provides an ally for Nellie that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. To me it heightens the romance between Almanzo and Laura because of the conflict between Laura and EJ. We also know that Laura did exaggerate characteristics sometimes and we also know that she was describing EJ as a teacher from a child’s memory–I’d hate to see how I will be described as a principal in some child’s memoir.
Also, I would agree that there are many families that have difficult relatives. I have some in-laws that I wouldn’t want to be around for any length of time but I wouldn’t hesitate to let them care for my child. I think EJ had opportunities available where she lived that weren’t available in Mansfield. Additionally, Rose was miserable in Mansfield. I think it was a salvation to Rose to have an aunt to go to that could provide her with a more cultural progressive education. I’m guessing that she may have seen her aunt as someone she could look up to at a time when she was clearly embarrassed by her parents and her circumstances–so could it have been jealousy on Laura’s part as well?
Finally, do we know what Almanzo’s mental state was in 1941? He died only a few years later and was quite old. Perhaps he wasn’t aware or just flat didn’t care. He may have underestimated the depth of popularity of the books and of course probably couldn’t imagine that 68 years later people would be discussing his feelings on that new fangled Internet!
So, no answers, no scholarly thoughts, just speculation on my part.
Dr. Laura
I read in one biography that Laura and Almanzo were at their wit’s end before they sent Rose to live with EJ. Did EJ hold it over their heads afterwards?
We have a family situation now where if anyone wrote a book, one person and spouse would wish they were characterized like Eliza. While I can’t imagine any of “the boys” writing it, I can’t see them preventing it as it would be more true than not, if that makes any sense.
I look on the question as being about fiction writing. Laura was writing, and Rose was helping her to shape, fiction. Fiction based on true life, but fiction, a long children’s novel, that subtly developed in degree of difficulty. There can be no question that they knew exactly what they were doing. By then Laura was a seasoned writer and Rose a seasoned writer and editor. They were professionals. They knew their market. Their great work was no accident, but something they rewrote and honed endlessly, on Jane Austen’s artistic precept that “an artist does nothing slovenly.” They discussed and pondered over everything in it, down to the most minute details, not all of which were factually accurate, but fictionally appropriate.
The Laura who wrote the book was not the girl who, when she had a bad time in her first school and wrote to Mary, “of course she did not write of anything unpleasant.” She was not writing nice letters to family. She was not even *being* nice. She was writing a deceptively simple book that was actually underneath the surface very artful and sophisticated, with elements balanced just so, by both her thoughtful production and Rose’s editorial rearrangements. They knew very well that a children’s book with only “nice” characters is a bland bore. What children, in reading the series, don’t absolutely delight in the meanness of Nellie, the nastiness of Eliza that makes Almanzo throw the blacking brush at her, and later, the boringness and craziness of Preacher Brown who makes Ida feel like “only” an adopted child? These character shades are memorable, and add an infinite amount of color. What’s more, they even make the “nice” characters seem nicer! What if everyone was sweet like Mary? But even Mary has her undercurrents (“I was being vain and proud and I deserved to be slapped for it”). Even the controlled, mature “good” woman Ma isn’t always perfect. She was unpleasantly prejudiced against Indians, she thought Laura should wear her corsets all night, she could often be a priggish pain (like Mary, who is “her” daughter, as Laura is Pa’s). These books would not be the same without the spice of enjoying Eliza as the bullying big sister whom we all recognize, and Eliza, the wrong-headed schoolteacher who clashed with the strong-willed adolescent Laura. What is a novel without conflict? Laura and Rose knew this very well. Laura the writer actually shows some moments of sympathy for Eliza: remember how young Laura felt in her first term of teaching school, when the recognition came to her that this was how Miss Wilder, who failed to teach the school in De Smet, felt. And she determines not to let that happen; it’s a maturing moment. Eliza actually taught Laura by bad example.
Why did Laura sacrifice Eliza on the altar of lively fiction, when she was a family member? Well, clearly she had never liked her. She didn’t like her bossiness, the way she took charge of people and situations and made things happen, right or wrong – and when Eliza’s judgment and bossiness were the direct, devastating cause of the Wilder family losing their fortune, this must have seemed the catastrophic final proof of her faults. Having been exasperated by Eliza all her life, she didn’t feel constrained to be “gentle” to her in writing, or rein it in. What came out when she wrote about Eliza, reflected how she felt about her. Almanzo had suffered from Eliza too. We don’t know how Rose suffered from her when she was her student, but she certainly didn’t stop the unpleasant portrait of Eliza from being written – so we may guess. Plenty of resentments there, both old, and comparatively recent.
If your question, then, is why did Laura send Rose for education to a woman she disliked so much, there may have been some good reasons. Rose at that age was, I gather, an almost unprecedented handful. She writes she was experimenting with sex at an early age. She ate up all the learning available to her in a stunningly short time. She was wild. She was headstrong. Laura, who had been brought up by Ma and learned how to curb herself, how to behave, how to conform, how to be a lady, and Almanzo, who probably left the “hen” department to his wife, doubtless were at their wits’ end knowing what to do with this out-of-control girl. And they had few options. Rose was bursting to get off the farm and out into the world. She was an uncontrollable force. They had no money. What to do with her? It’s not a stretch that they might have thought, “Send her to Eliza. Eliza is strong-minded enough to deal with her, plus she can offer her more education than we can. Let her try.” I would imagine Eliza was used as a kind of desperate, “tough love” school. After all, Laura knew that Eliza would be a decent teacher (“She is a good scholar. She knows what is in the books”), and might, at best, provide an educational opportunity and some discipline for Rose. It’s the kind of thing you do when you’re beside yourself with a problem child who’s too much for you!
And Laura herself actually learned a lot from Eliza, even if it was only by negative example. (“If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek…”) Maybe she wanted Rose to get a dose of that, to show her what could happen when a strong minded woman didn’t have good judgement. Laura may have seen Eliza all over again in Rose, and wanted to show her the dangers – consciously or unconsciously. But I bet she knew what she was doing, all right.
And thirty years later, who was left to care if Eliza was unflatteringly portrayed? Not Laura, Almanzo and Rose. Was Eliza’s son still around?
I see I’m pretty much just repeating what others have said, but I was pondering, too, and wanted to send this off!
One question: did the incident with Carrie and the thumping chair really happen? If so, I can understand Laura never really forgiving her for that bit of cruelty.
And I would imagine that Almanzo probably had quite a few stories to tell Laura during their marriage about how difficult his sister was, to build upon the negative first impressions Laura had of her.
By the way, I’ve been lurking here for awhile, but had not felt motivated to comment until now.
I think that the dislike for EJ stemmed more from the Carrie incident than anything else. Laura flamed with resentment then and carried it since. I can understand that. Remember Laura is not writing objectively. What bugged me though is Ma and her treatment of Laura. I don’t know if any of you got the feeling that Laura was being used. Every time something was needed for Mary, Laura was expected to work and fulfil that need. Even when it came to housework, Laura was expected to pull her weight more than anyone else. Everytime help was required in town Ma, who by the way appeared as though she hardly left home,would volunteer Laura’s availability. Even with clothes Laura had the other end of the stick. The only time Laura was summoned back home from a job was Mary came home and She was in need of Laura’s company.
I have read the “Little House” books since I was in elementary school, as well as Roger Lea McBride’s historical fiction “Rose Years”, and supplemental books by “Little House” scholar William Anderson. In McBride’s works, he portrays Eliza Jane as an annoying and intrusive woman, but not one that Laura loathed. McBride was Rose’s adopted grandson and inherited the rights to the “Little House” books. They were very close and she told him many stories of her childhood that he based his series on.
Eliza Jane could be described as the or sister-in-law from Hell, but I don’t think she was deliberately portrayed as a nasty and irredeemable person. She had certain ideas of how other people should live. Like Rose in her later years.
Oh, what an interesting question, and what an interesting site this is, new to me! I am a Swedish Little House-fan and, like some other commentators above, have always disliked the EJ of the books but liked the person one gets to know in e.g. William Anderson´s “A Wilder in the West”. Personally, I think both Laura and Rose might have been a bit jealous of EJ! In a time when most women were largely dependant on their parents or husbands, EJ made a home of her own, had an interesting career in Washington, then married and had a son at the age of 44. Neither Laura nor Rose got both a working life and a family of their own. Despite her hard struggles, EJ can be said to have got the best things out of life. Also, she seems to have had a better financial position than Laura and Almanzo.
Even if we like our relatives, it is easy to make comparisons and find life unfair. Both Laura and Rose had lost a baby son, while EJ got one despite marrying so late in life. Who would not be jealous? Probably EJ was not the best of teachers, and probably Laura and she did not get on very well, both being headstrong. But I still think there is more to it than that.
We know Laura wrote to schoolchildren that ‘I never did like Eliza Jane much’, but does anyone know if Eliza actually disliked Laura in real life? It could have been just a personality clash, from all accounts EJ had a strong personality and someone like that is easier to demonize in fiction. People probably either really liked or really disliked Eliza, and for a woman of that time to have a strong personality would have stirred particularly strong reactions in people. So many events in LIW’s books were altered or fictionalized that I wouldn’t take anything Laura wrote as historical fact! The desk-switching incident in LTOTP was probably invented, as “Nellie” (Genevieve Masters) had actually shown up in town a year or two prior to Eliza’s teaching term. Also, Laura’s father was only on the schoolboard for a month, and again that was 2 years before EJ was teaching there. So that takes away the basis for ‘Nellie’s’ lies to Miss Wilder that initiate her animosity towards Laura. The changes make a great story, but I agree with the character defamation post here. Whether Laura did it maliciously or simply saw it as a writing technique is anyone’s guess. As for the desk-rocking thing with Carrie, I have to say that reading that again as an adult made me laugh it was so over-the-top! We’ll never know for sure but to me it sounded a bit too Southern Gothic to be true. Anyone read Rose’s story about the little girl in Florida nearly being poisoned by her strange backwoods Aunt Molly? Rose really did have an Aunt Molly in Florida! Maybe Eliza Jane got off easy! Whatever LIW’s intentions, she has created stories so interesting we are still pondering them, and her depiction of her sister-in-law has inspired us to find out about the real-life Eliza Jane, a person who I find incredibly interesting and admirable.
I agree the assault on character of Eliza was intentional, by the time Little Town was written, Laura’s books were wildly popular and folks were often asking about the characters. My guesses are that there was lifelong resentment for the loss of the Wilder fortune, capped by Eliza encouraging Rose’s independence. I’ve often wondered if moving in with Eliza was really Laura and Almanzo’s wish or if Eliza set it up with a young teenage Rose in her own communication with the girl and without Laura and Almanzo’s blessing. Nothing will anger parents more than someone else meddling in the raising of their children.
I also find it interesting that Laura chooses to make a character of Eliza in her books but not Almanzo’s sister Laura, who as I understand also lived in DeSmet and worked with Laura sewing for some time during These Happy Golden Years.
There are other real characters that don’t benefit from fond Ingalls Wilder memories…Mr. Foster to some extent, the Brewsters for sure, but especially Reverend Brown and his long, stupid sermons…with Laura wishing he’d say something interesting. Who else did Laura not like?
I too, have thought about this for many years, but here is my take on it. Every family has a difficult aunt or uncle or cousin or sibling. Some people are just difficult. Every family has someone you dread seeing at Thanksgiving and Christmas and pray you don’t get stuck next to them at the dinner table. It may not be that they are bad, or evil or even that you don’t respect them or trust them, they are just difficult.
Look at the history of both families. If I’m not mistaken, both are direct descendants of Mayflower Pilgrims. I don’t have time to page through all of Deb Houdek’s work on the geneaology right now, but I believe I remember seeing that some time ago. http://www.dahoudek.com/LIW/ingalls/aqwg03.htm#1441C
So you’ve got two families who descend from people who are willing to take on tremendous risk and hardship to live out what they believe. If Eliza Jane inherited that backbone, that would be something that would both make you respect and trust her highly, and something that would make you not want to sit next to her at Thanksgiving dinner.
Now take a look at Rose. Rose is famous for having had a highly successful career at a time when most women didn’t. She was a founder of the Libertarian movement and a friend of Ayn Rand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane She is also notable for having divorced at a time when most women didn’t. This is another strong-willed, out-spoken woman cut from the same cloth as Eliza Jane. They were two of a kind. This is also a woman who built a house on her parents farm, for her parents, against their will. It was the very latest style in Connecticut, I’m sure, but it wasn’t their style. They lived in it for a while, then quietly moved back into their own house and abandoned it. Rose used it when she was home.
Lastly, take a look at Laura. She is hardly a shrinking violet herself. What kind of a woman would slap an Indian in the Dakota territories in the 1880′s? She’s lucky to have walked away from that alive, but I think perhaps the reason was first, that the Indians were so startled and second, that they recognized her fierce bravery and respected it. It is notable to that Almanzo and Laura competed with each other all their years in Missouri to see who could make the most money off their part of the farm, Laura with her chickens and eggs, Almanzo with the dairy cows. That is how Laura came to be a writer: by writing about her success as a farm wife in the Missouri Ruralist.
My take on it is that poor Almanzo, who was no coward himself but seems to have been a gentle soul, first was bossed around by his sister, then he married someone rather like his sister, and then he had a daughter perhaps even more out-spoken than his sister. The relationship between he and Laura seems to have been affectionate, based on her letters while she was visiting Rose in San Francisco, but I would imagine she could be a bit sharp when riled too. Understand that I’m saying this with a great deal of affection for Laura, but with an understanding too that she was human, and all humans have flaws. I would also note too that Laura had a fierce loyalty toward people she loved. This is most notable in that she fell for Cap Garland first (I’ve read this elsewhere, but you can also see it in the way she describes him), but when Almanzo came courting her and Cap courted Mary Power, she kept it to herself. Later, when Mary rejects Cap, Laura decides to stick with Almanzo anyway. She was too loyal to both Mary and Almanzo to risk hurting someone. But what I find rather sad was that when Rose was interviewing him late in life, he told her that his life had been mostly a disappointment to him. What a sad thing to say to your daughter. But he’d intended to be a prosperous and well respected farmer like his father, and weather, poor soil, bad economies, poor health and lack of sons had all been against him having any success.
I find it interesting to note that for three generations in Laura’s family, no boys survived early infancy. Her only brother died at five months, her only son died at three weeks and her only grandson, Rose’s son, died in infancy too. It makes me wonder if there was a lethal gene on the Y chromosome in that family. Ma had a brother, but that was the last male in the family to survive to adulthood. I guess we’ll never know, since the family died out.
I am 43 years old and reading the LH books to my children now, after having read them myself as a child. These questions regarding EJ have been haunting me, and I am so glad to see that others are wondering about them, too! I think there may have been some embellishment to EJ as a villain, but I also think there is a lot of truth and that EJ must have done something really bad (like the rocking desk incident and/or the rice farm failure) to cause a lifelong dislike and resentment on Laura’s part. But I cannot help but wonder about Almanzo’s take on it. He seems much more easy-going than Laura, and perhaps, as others have mentioned, he just didn’t care. It’s hard to imagine writing about a relative that way, though. Even if they were already dead and gone!
Ladies, thank you all so much for this little education!
Like the previous commenter, I am now reading the story to my daughter, after having read it to my sons a few years back, before I was a regular Google user.
Tonight, after reading “These Happy Golden Years” to her, I got curious about both EJ and Nellie Oleson, adn I am so glad there were other curious fans out there.
I have nothing new to add, but thank you
There’s a lesson here — don’t piss off a writer!
I believe events happened as Laura portrayed them. While EJ was alive, Laura might have been too intimidated to bring up the school days, but as we older, we get bolder… and those school-era resentments have a way of bubbling up later in life. Laura said she’d never forgive Miss Wilder for what she did to Carrie (rocking the desk). And she never did forgive her! As for Almanzo, what could he say? He probably knew better than to get in the way!
Imagine my shock when I discovered that a dear friend of mine during my early teenage years who died in an accident when we were in our twenties was the great-granddaughter of Eliza Jane. I was a huge fan of the Little House books, but somehow I never mentioned it to Claire. My friend was Claire Lynn Thayer. Her father was T J Thayer. He was Walcott Thayer’s son. After reading all these posts, I wonder if her family resented Laura’s portrayal of their ancestor.
The comment that Almonzo wasn’t much of a reader is belied by the facts. Look up, ‘A Little House Sampler’ to get some perspective on LIW and AJW’s later life. The time that Rose was sent to EJ’s was one year after Charles Ingalls’ death. Perhaps they considered having her go to South Dakota, but wanted to spare Caroline’s feelings and stress level. Almonzo’s health may have been a factor as well. The stroke left him with good days and bad…it could’ve been a bad year. BTW, Rose returned home regularly, between trips and jobs. Her letters show a close devotion to her parents, not the assumed estrangement alluded to in some of the above posts.
Rose didn’t like her either! In Freeland, Rose’s best novel, and the one to read if you are in any doubt who could write in the family ( it was Laura), Eliza pops up again, all fancy frocks, resentment, and manipulation. She is accompanied by a dodgy character called Gaylord who I think must be a version of Thomas Thayer crossed with poor old Royal. Rose does let her Eliza escape Dakota and go West, but it is very striking that she doesn’t bother to change Eliza’s name anymore than Laura did. The betrayal of the family patriarch – he’s a hero in ‘Freeland’ – clearly cut deep.
I wondered about this, too. But when you read “Farmer Boy”, you notice that Eliza Jane is always trying to do the right and responsible thing. When the Wilder parents go off on vacation and leave the children to tend the house, the other three children want to make ice cream, while EJ is saying, “No, first we have to make the beds and wash the dishes.” It says a lot about her character that her parents trusted her enough to run the house in their absence, and later take financial advice from her. In spite of her bossiness, this portrait of her as a child is actually very favorable.
In DeSmet she comes off as more of a pathetic character, obviously losing control of the schoolhouse situation. Funny…re-reading the stories as an adult, one sees characters and situations in quite a different light. How lonely must she have been to share that “Lazy, Lousy Liza Jane” story with someone like Genevieve Masters/’Nellie Oleson’?
Another thing: I wonder if there may have been some jealousy between Laura and Eliza Jane. The latter was, after all, another woman in Almanzo’s life, and one with long-standing authority over him. EJ had besides distinguished herself as a homesteader, teacher, feminist, professional, businesswoman. Laura was only a farm wife, at least until her stories brought her fame. Maybe her characterization of EJ was her way of wittling this dominant woman down to size.
Good insights Lois.
First, i would ask you to excuse my english (i’m french).
I’m glad to have found this website! I’m asking the same question for years.
My question is: Is anybody asked Laura when she was alive? She met (as well as Rose) a lot of media people (the press) at the time, talking about her books.
I would also like to say that it seems to me that Laura was a very independant woman too. But, unlike EJ who was avant-gardist, Laura was very conservative. Maybe the clash comes from there.
Au plaisir,
Elaine B. – Montréal.
One thing that always cracked me up was the difference in the way EJ was portrayed in the book and in the television series. In LTOTP, the students can’t wait to get rid of her. In the series, the kids rally to save her job when the class bully tries to run her out because they “didn’t want to lose a good teacher.”
I kind of think that EJ was basically a good hearted individual, but as the eldest daughter she was expected to be one of the more responsible children. Consequently, I think she learned to be bossy, overbearing, meddlesome, and had a way of getting on nerves (I remember being a kid reading the series and just wanting to smack her). Her mother evidently wasn’t shy about putting her in her place when she needed it, as illustrated by the cups and saucers story. And I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons Almanzo started courting Laura was to piss her off.
My own take is that Eliza Jane Wilder was a very strong personality. Not always wise, but very very bright, accustomed to command, and practically fearless. I too adored the portrait of her in Rose’s novel FREE LAND. It is of a piece with all the other stories. Almanzo (David in the book) is driven crazy by her. I laughed out loud several times.
I didn’t think Laura or Rose made her a villain. I thought they made her a character. From all accounts Eliza Jane WAS a character.
I also believe that Laura, Rose, and Eliza Jane were, in very different ways, very strong, very intelligent women and not surprisingly there were tensions among all three. Laura, raised by Caroline to suppress her feelings, was the most able to “pass” as your average farm wife. However none of that means they didn’t also love each other. To me there is no question why Rose would be sent to live with Eliza Jane for 9th grade. Those two were peas in a pod! Smart and difficult and not interested in farming!
I have been reading Little House all my life it seems, my daughter also reads LH, in addition Martha, Charlotte, and Caroline and the Rose years.
I remember when EJ shows up at Rocky ridge farm and Rose finds Laura hiding in the barn. EJ is driving Laura nuts. I had a sister in law that drove people nuts. I don’t think they do this on purpose, it’s the way they are. If you read the Rose years, where Rose goes off to Crowley to live with EJ and Wilder you get a different angle. Here EJ is a caring sort, a great Mom to Wilder, raising Wilder without the benefit of a father in his life. You really see EJ as a brave fearless woman, who tells of living on the claim with two pistols under her pillow at night, as DE Smet claim area is ruthless and wild. EJ claims she almost killed herself trying to keep up the claim. And she suffered ill health (as her brother Manzo did as well) for the rest of her life. EJ was kind to her servants and for civil rights way long before that was fashionable in the South. You kinda forget your reading about the same woman. She truly feels it is her duty as an older sister to educate Rose in an Academy. EJ believes that it’s her cross to bear for loosing her father’s fortune in LA. In the Rose books Pearly does make the rice fields profitable with new irrigation methods. So profitable that Pearly invites Laura and Manzo to visit and stay as the weather is warmer in the winter than in the Ozarks. I wouldn’t call EJ lazy, just misunderstood.
Guys, “Big Woods” was written as a book for children. Rose contemptuously called these “juveniles” in her correspondence. To me it isn’t such a mystery…she made for an interesting character and these were children’s books. Rose, and probably Laura, and certainly Almanzo, likely never considered that anyone would be parsing over these books 40-50 years after they both left us, much less blogging, conferencing and writing books about our experiences with their books!
Thanks, Jessica. Does it bother you, for some reason, to find that many of us “guys” do get pleasure from thinking about these issues?
This is a fascinating message string. I wanted to clarify a few things various members have said. First, Eliza Jane wasn’t the eldest daughter; Laura Ann was. Second, Eliza jane didn’t teach/school Rose in Louisiana; Rose attended an academy that taught Latin and went all the way to 12th grade – mansfield schools only went to 8th grade at that time. Rose merely lived with Eliza Jane.
Also, still waters run deep. Meaning that Almanzo was more involved in the character development of his family members than many think. He may not have been an avid reader, but he was smart, and loved to tell stories himself. Laura piqued his brain extensively for Farmer Boy and for the way of life on big, prosperous farms. The Ingalls and the Quiners never achieved that level of success, so Laura couldn’t describe them from memory or personal experience. Same holds true for describing farm machinery. She did help Pa and Almanzo with farm work, but the intricate details of machinery and farming methods weren’t something she had extensive first-hand knowledge of either.
I think there was a lot of resentment in Laura and Almanzo towards Eliza Jane, for different reasons – laura for the school episodes, Almanzo for dealing with her growing up. I also think the loss of the family fortune would have affected Almanzo more than Laura. Almanzo knew the life of prosperity and successful farming; Laura did not.
I think they sent Rose to school in Crowley simply because there was nowhere else to send her (cheaply) to get an extended education. If they had had another choiuce, I’m certain they would have utilized it.
I think Almanzo played a big part in the way Eliza jane was portrayed. He wasn’t in school being taight by his sister, so he would have to defer to her version of events. But the way Eliza jane had treated him over the years, and done the family wrong at the turn of the 20th century, I am sure he had no problem backing up Laura’s version of his sister.
There, my 2 cents’ worth
Rose is basicly responsible for E.J.’s (fictionalized) charcter in these books. In real life, Eliza wasn’t THAT bad. E.J.’s charcter was definately fictionalized, because Laura would not want to talk (or write) anything negative toward her sister-in-law. I think it was done to enhance the excitment and charcter of the books. Rose loved E.J. dearly, and they had great times together in Crowley. And, Rose did not attend a special academy or anything like that in Crowley, but it was a simple, normal, regular high school, CROWLEY HIGH SCHOOL. This school DID however offer subjects that were not offered in Mansfield, Missouri’s school. Rose also mastered 4 years of Latin, in just one year there. She translated a story from English to Latin, which she read during the 1904 graduation exercises at the Grand Opera House in Crowley, where she also worked and helped out at. At one point or another, someone mislead people by saying that Rose ‘wrote’ a story in Latin, but she only translated a story in Latin. I personally think that E.J. had alot to do with Rose growing up to being the amazing, gifted person that she was! After staying with E.J., Rose realized there is MUCH MORE to life than boring Mansfield. Although, she called Mansfield home, forever. But, me too — why Lazy, Lousy Liza Jane? Rose? Was it that amusing? And striking? Definately fictionalized charchter! -John Bass (IWL)