Prairie Fires: The American Dreams of Laura Ingalls Wilder Hardcover – November 21, 2017

I have no argument with Fraser's research skills and that is why I gave her two stars rather than one. However, I find huge fault with the very premise of her research. How convenient for her to assail the Ingalls' family for their lack of "politically correct" sensibilities when it was our greatest American President, Abraham Lincoln who urged American settlers to go West with the Homestead Act. This book inspired the American Library Association to strip the name "Laura Ingalls Wilder" from its award, renaming it the Children's Literature Legacy Award. And why? Because of the "inconsistency between Wilder’s legacy and its core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness through an award that bears Wilder’s name." It is a little incongruous that any body would apply 21st century values to those of the 19th century, but worse than that, Laura clearly was the most inclusive of individuals who discussed her sadness over the lot of the American Indians. Whom next does Fraser wish to destroy? Would anyone like to do a deep dive on her? I hope so!

Laura Ingalls Wilder's books tell a story that is both true and misleading, the product of a strange and tortured collaboration between Laura and her daughter Rose. Told in full, it would have been a tale full of misery, mistakes and tragedy, relieved by stoic endurance and loyalty. It wouldn't have been published. Wilder struggled to turn her family's pioneer story into the inspiring, heart-warming, heroic tale that fills the Little House books. Caroline Fraser adds context beyond the much-discussed question of the true authorship of the books, placing the pioneer epic in the larger frame of conflicts between settlers and Indians, and North and South, then exploring the later role of the pioneer story in the politics and myth-making of the nation and the world. The reaction against Wilder's books that has led to her name being taken off at least one school named in her honor shocks the books' fans, but Fraser shows how Rose used the stories for her own political purposes, and the US promoted them as propaganda after World War II. Wilder herself slanted the books to bolster the image of the settlers as an ideal model for America. And yet, Fraser's affection for the books and their author shows through her admission of their myopic worldview, omissions, and outright fabrications. Her sympathies clearly lie with Laura rather than with Rose, and she provides evidence against later claims that Rose was the true author of the books.The surprises of the book for me are in the details of Rose's life and politics and how she leveraged Laura's books to further her Libertarian views, even beyond her death.My own grandmother was born in a log cabin in Wisconsin, and she married my grandfather, whose family homesteaded not far from Walnut Grove. Another grandfather was born in a sod house in Nebraska. My mother grew up in circumstances as difficult as much that Wilder described. When Wilder presents the pioneer story while minimizing or totally ignoring the plight of the displaced and murdered Native Americans, she is telling the tale as my family would have told it. Fraser expands the view to encompass what we must admit if we are honest: our success and wealth were built on the suffering of real people. These sections of Fraser's book aren't comfortable to read, but they are necessary to put the controversy about Wilder's books in context.Fraser doesn't hide her own political leanings, as she weaves her rejection of Ayn Rand's philosophy into the discussion of Rose's friendship with Rand and Rose's editing of Laura's later books to introduce Randian themes. I found that enlightening and interesting. Some people won't agree.Read this book if you are a fan of Wilder's books. If you know Wilder only from the TV series, read Wilder's books first. (I thoroughly enjoyed Fraser's take-down of the TV series, which I never saw but did read about.)I enjoyed Prairie Fire. It didn't make me dislike Wilder's books, or even have a lower opinion of Laura - - though it certainly didn't make me like Rose. I'm giving it four rather than five stars because of a little discomfort with how openly the author's biases, most of which I actually share, are expressed.

I have read through other "negative" reviews of the book, to see what it was that people disliked about it. Most I noticed, or at least the ones I read, seemed to feel that the author was too politically motivated, spent too much time on Rose, attacked Laura's politics, contained too much history, and basically was too hard on Pa. I guess I differ from many readers in that I'm not a big Laura fan per se. I read all the Little House books in grade school, and I did over the years read more here and there about the Ingalls family.What I find a little ridiculous is the idea that somehow Laura "lied" in her books. Well they are for young children, and so of course they are going to be watered down. And especially when they were first published, children's books did try to be happier and did not contain themes that you might see now. Plus the whole fantasy of the west was portrayed very much like her books, on TV and movies. The old westerns mostly showed gunfights, grown men getting drunk in saloons, fighting the Indians (who were always evil), and so on. People were never starving, crops sometimes failed but there was always a happy ending. The Little House TV show was ludicrous--Pa even had fresh orange juice for his girls on winter mornings! So I don't see anything wrong with the Little House books as they were written. They gave a little bit of a glimpse into a way of life long gone.What I disliked about this book was primarily the writing style. It was dry and tedious, and boring. I admire her research efforts, but she crammed in way too much background and the Laura story drowned in it. A paragraph or two of what was happening at the time would suffice, and to weave it into the story, ie, Pa lost his land because of the recession when 10,000 farmers lost land...something like that. Then paragraph or two, and then move on. A good third of the book can easily be removed and you wouldn't notice. There was no emotion in this story, not even when Laura's baby died and her house burned down 2 weeks later. It was so flat and dry.But I think that the author may have added in so much filler is that Laura simply isn't all that interesting. As a person, she was quite ordinary. Her family took to the road as did many pioneers, and they endured incredible hardships, and that I find one of the good points of this book. She really explained what life was often like--locusts, drought, starvation, debt, lost land--death of infants and young children due to infection and injury was quite common. So were children working to help out their families. I realize that the author is limited by the availability of papers and records about the Ingalls family, but unless you're writing a novel, this all gets very tedious. The story is basically one hardship after another, one move after another, and Laura working at different jobs, going to school, growing up, etc. Very little is said about her sisters, other than Mary. Her claim to fame are her books written well into adulthood, but that's it. I finally stopped when they got to Missouri as the story really became boring. The insight into life on the frontier was the most interesting, but not about Laura raising poultry or apples.There are a lot of comments about Rose, and obviously she needs to be in the story. But again, I think the author wrote so much about Rose is that she was eventually leading the more interesting life. Or perhaps, a better idea would be to shorten the book, mention a little bit about Rose and then move into the writing of the books. I bought this book on kindle and I'm going to delete it because I doubt I will open it again. So again, I am reading this because I love history and thought this would be a nice overview of pioneers intermingled with Laura's "real life," but a book that could have been great and interesting turned out differently. A good editor would have helped tremendously. I would say this story could have been told in about 300 pages.

This is a wonderful book, full of insight and interest, and written in such a way that it becomes a compulsive read. So fascinating to learn of the politics behind the pioneer movement Westward, and the effect of so many unfulfilled dreams. It explains something of Trump's America as well as the America of the late C19th and early C20th. Of course it is also interesting to learn more of the human stories of Laura and her family. And for a writer like me it was an insight to learn how those Little House books evolved between writer mother and editor daughter; not at all the simple natural tellings they read as. Thank you, Caroline Fraser. I shall certainly re-read and also loan and give this book to friends.

I bought this for my Kindle and it's so good that I had to order the hardback too (I usually buy 'disposable' books for the Kindle, and 'keepers' for the bookshelf, and this is definitely a keeper). It is brilliantly written and extremely informative, with enough references to follow up to find out more. It has kept me very occupied as I recover from the 'flu. One of my favourite books ever.

The first part of this is interesting, up to when the Wilders move away from their parents. Then it is mostly about Rose, Laura's daughter, who is flamboyant, manipulative, controlling, cavalier, inconsistent, and a thoroughly nasty person. Who wrote what is impenetrable, and both authors were not at all concerned with portraying the truth. The book is overloaded with politics and is very tedious, very, very long and reptitive. The actual narrative ends at 62% on kindle and the rest is notes, index and a few pictures. The author describes several photographs she has seen which are sadly not included. The whole thing needs editing and cutting by half.

The first few chapters were interesting with the Ingalls pioneering story but then concentrated on the life of Laura's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane who was not a very nice person and the politics of the day. It became very dull and laborious but saw it through to the end only to see what happened to Laura.

I haven't read all the book yet, but I am enjoying it so far. I think that while it is a biography of Laura WIlder, it has to be about Rose Wilder Lane, as well as Laura, because she had an important role in getting her mother's books written and published. I am not sure about the author's attitude to Rose.. but I think there is evidence from other sources that Rose was a difficult stormy arrogant individual and while her political attitudes were not unique, she was overly vehement in the way she expressed them and seemed obsessed by them. Her hatred of the New Deal seems excessive.. or her attitude to her "adopted sons". Even if one does not agree with Caroline Fraser altogether.. I think that Rose's political attitudes were extreme and she herself was a hardened rather cold individual....