Mary’s back at college, and Ma and Laura get started on Laura’s sewing. Remember how awesome it was in Little Town when they made all of Mary’s new things for school? Now it’s Laura’s turn to be outfitted for a new life. Not just with clothes, but with linens, too—including those dreaded muslins that have to be sewn together into sheets, which is totally the Chore of Doom in Laura’s book, even worse than pulling up turnips.
Throughout the books she’s had to contend with all kinds of seam-sewing FAIL—everything from woefully inferior stitching skills (compared with Mary’s, which are tiny, and neat, and perfect, and ugh) to needle-through-the-thimble injuries (again, UGH). But this time Laura has a little something called The Industrial Revolution on her side. Now that there’s a sewing machine in the household, Laura realizes, she can just overlap the edges of the muslin and machine-stitch the whole business, can’t she?
Ma agrees, though she points out that “our grandmothers would turn in our graves.” What would the dead grandmothers be objecting to here? Were sheet seams such a simple task that it seemed absurd to do them by machine—like ridiculous overkill, like using a blender to beat an egg? Who knows. Still, Ma admits, “after all, these are modern times.” So Laura runs the sewing machine on the muslins and quickly dispenses with an old girlhood misery.
Then she turns to the “white sewing”— the pillowcases and underthings that need to be trimmed—and uses the machine to sew on the lace that she’s crocheted and knitted by hand. It’s a detail I never really noticed before but now appreciate, because it shows us just what kind of woman Laura’s decided to become. I can’t help but think this is the same woman we’ll meet, years later, in the pages of the Missouri Ruralist columns and whose presence we can feel in the farmhouse in Mansfield. She has an electric stove in her kitchen but she won’t give up her old dash churn; she’ll gladly leave behind drudgery but understands the value and self-expression in the skills she learned from Ma—skills that she in turn passes on to Rose, who would go on write a definitive book on American needlework in the same decade she flew to Vietnam on assignment. I know, I’m going on, but it feels like so much is happening in those moments with the handmade lace and the flashing needle.
Together Ma and Laura decide that Laura needs only two new dresses, a nice black cashmere dress and then something pretty for the wedding. Meanwhile Almanzo is building their house on the tree claim, and Laura gets to see it under construction exactly once before it’s finished. “I’ll get a roof over it before the snow flies,” he says. (You’d better, Almanzo, because getting snowed on in bed is no fun. Just ask Pa.)
They all think they have several months to get ready for the wedding, until Almanzo drops by with this doozy: it turns out his sister Eliza has been making plans for them to have a big church wedding, and despite Almanzo’s objections, she’s got their mother set on the idea, too. Now he’s gotten a letter saying Eliza and Mother Wilder are heading out to De Smet to take charge of the wedding. “Oh, no!” Laura says.
Oh, no is right. Supposedly she and Almanzo don’t want a big wedding because neither they nor Pa can really afford one, but I’m sure Laura is also wondering what kind of wedding good old Lazy-Lousy would plan for her. Will she loosen the bolts on all the church pews so that they rock during the ceremony? Give the bridesmaids slates to carry instead of flowers? The horror!
So Laura and Almanzo consider getting married sooner—like by the end of the week. If they do, Laura points out, she won’t have a wedding dress. Of course Almanzo thinks the calico dress she’s wearing is pretty enough for a wedding, because he’s sweet, and also, because he’s a guy.
But Laura has something else on her mind. “Do you want me to promise to obey you?” she asks Almanzo. Of course not, Almanzo says, since it “is only something that women say” in the standard ceremony but nobody ever expects to abide by it. What follows is this exchange:
“Well, I am not going to say I will obey you,” said Laura.
“Are you for woman’s rights, like Eliza?” Almanzo asked in surprise.
“No,” Laura replied. “I do not want to vote. But I can not make a promise that I will not keep, and, Almanzo, even if I tried, I do not think I could obey anybody against my better judgment.”
Oh yes, these lines. I think Laura’s refusal to obey says a lot of things here—that she’s got Pa’s spirit, that her experience growing up on the American frontier has taught her a lot about individual freedom (right, Rose?), and that times are changing.
Some people point this scene as evidence that Laura is a feminist. I don’t think she was—not in the way women who believed in woman’s suffrage in 1885 would have been. Unlike someone like Eliza, who worked for a time in Washington DC and was friends with controversial women like Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, Laura isn’t exactly bucking convention. She’s insisting on equality within her marriage, but not in the wider world. Really, she’s not even asking for much—all she wants is to omit a vow that “no decent man” would hold his wife to anyway, according to Almanzo.
And yet it’s precisely for that reason that her refusal to say “obey” is so very important.
As with the hand-knitted lace and the sewing machine, Laura is conscious of the ways the world is changing, and negotiating for herself what those changes mean to her. So even though her fiance claims that nobody takes the “obey” vows literally anymore and Reverend Brown doesn’t believe in saying them either, Laura still states her own terms. She’s a modern, self-determined woman in that she believes her actions are truly meaningful, whether it’s the things she makes with her hands or the words she says at her wedding ceremony, and a feminist I can admire and appreciate that.
I think I finally figured out why I’m such a stickler about whether or not to call Laura a feminist based on this scene. Because much like Laura with the word obey, the word feminist means something specific to me—the fight for certain rights (yes, including the right to vote.). The word can describe a lot of strong women I admire, but not all of them. I don’t need Laura Ingalls Wilder to be a feminist in order to be inspired by her, to love that she insists on marrying word with deed at the same time she’s marrying Almanzo.
With the “obey” issue out of the way, Laura and Almanzo decide to avoid a big wedding and to get married as soon as Almanzo finishes the house. But there’s one more war of words to be fought, and it involves Ma’s old sayings. Laura thinks Ma’s going to object to the quick ceremony with the “marry in haste, repent at leisure” line. But instead Ma trots out the “married in black, you’ll wish yourself back” saying, since the wedding dress hasn’t been made yet and only the black cashmere dress can be finished in time.
But Laura has an old saying of her own. She’ll wear “something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue” by wearing the new black dress with her old blue-lined bonnet and Ma’s borrowed pin, making a nod to tradition in a way that suits her—again, like the modern woman she’s become.
It used to drive me nuts when Ma would finally give in and say, “I don’t suppose there’s truth in these old sayings” right after she just went and spouted off an old saying. But maybe the point is that Ma is wrong: there is truth in those old sayings when you give them meaning, as Laura is doing.
Still, Ma will be Ma, and her final bit of resistance is to insist that the ceremony with Reverend Brown take place at home. But Laura, who I imagine would love nothing more than to have a little wedding on the homestead, points out that they can’t, not without Almanzo’s mother there. Even a small wedding is a wedding, and Laura stands by her words.
It’s decided: she’ll be married in black, with hand-knitted lace-trimmed machine-sewn underthings. She won’t obey anyone against her better judgment—not her husband, not her in-laws. She won’t repent at leisure. She won’t wish herself back. It’s on.
Comments28
Funny and interesting review! I never thought about Laura being worried that Eliza Jane would sabotage the wedding! She might want to get up and make some embarrassing speech about birds in their nests!
What does it matter what kind of dress that Laura is married in if no one is going to see her other than Almanzo, the preacher, and a couple of witnesses? Isn’t the point of a fancy wedding dress that everyone will be looking at you? I guess getting dressed up showed that it was something they took seriously and the dress was something she could wear again later, unlike most modern wedding dresses, but the whole debate over the dress seems a little excessive considering the situation!
I also wondered why the grandmothers would “turn in their graves” at the thought of doing sheets on a sewing machine. Were they that intractable that they would be convinced that doing something the hard way has always got to be better? I have known people like that. My former supervisor always balked when I looked for ways to do things more efficiently, even though she sometimes came around, she had to be dragged there!
I always admired Laura for sticking to her guns on the obey issue. It would be easy for her to decide that she could say it and not mean it, but she is a woman of her word and if she made that vow, she would feel obligated to live up to it!
My grandmother ( my father’s mother) dyed her wedding dress after her wedding & it was her party dress for years.
I think the point Ma is making when she says “I don’t suppose there’s truth in these old sayings” is to poke fun at herself, or at least give herself a reality check–she knows she just spouted one.
With the sheets, it’s my impression that they wouldn’t be quite as nice machine-stitched as hand-stitched, and that’s why the grandmothers wouldn’t like it–a shortcut that results in a lesser product. Laura and Ma have decided the small benefit isn’t worth the large amount of extra work (particularly a piece of work they both hate). So it isn’t just about using traditional methods.
I do think of Laura as a feminist, but that’s because to me the word “feminist” just means “someone who believe men and women are equal”.
I had the same thoughts as you about Eliza Jane planning the wedding–not being really sure what a church wedding of the time would entail when I was a kid, I had a vision of Eliza Jane forcing Laura to have bridesmaids in fluffy, frilly dresses with giant puffed sleeves, something out of Laura Ashley in the 1980s.
I love this, Wendy. I never thought that Laura wanted to be a feminist in that way either and you explained it exactly how I would, except you did a much better job of putting it all together than I ever could.
Regarding the sheets: I thought that the method Laura proposed to constructing the sheets with the machine was different than the way the sheets were constructed by hand. I don’t have my copy of These Happy Golden Years handy, but it seems it was the difference between lapping the seam down the middle or something else (sorry) – THAT was what would make the grandmothers roll in their graves, but MIGHT make the sheets even more serviceable.
Good review, though. And funny you mention the feminism – Laura might not have been a feminist, but in some ways I kind of thought Almanzo might have been the teensy,tiniest bit hen-pecked. I say that with all affection. My own husband has probably got some “beak bites” as well.
As described in, IIRC, TLW, the traditional way of sewing sheets was to sew them ‘edge-to-edge’, with just enough of an overlap that the stitches wouldn’t pull through. (The trick, she explained, was to make the seam deep enough to hold the stitching without it being so deep that there would be an uncomfortable ridge down the middle of the bed. ) She called it an ‘over and over’ stitch; it’s more commonly called an overhand stitch. Demonstrated here at 2 minutes 30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJIWmUTe-4
Her ‘new way’ would have to been to overlap the edges and sew a seam down the center. Which would indeed have made a stronger AND flatter join, but would have been a harder to rip to turn the sheet.
The sheets: By the mid-1890’s you could buy wider muslin that only had to be hemmed to make the sheet. (You could also buy muslin just the right width for pillow-cases. I wonder if it was unavailable 10 years earlier, simply not available in Dakota Territory, or too expensive.
And I can see one disadvantage to using the sewing machine. Sheets would eventually be ripped and turned, as they started to wear out. As one who has ripped many a machine-made seam myself, it was probably faster to rip a hand-sewn seam.
The dress: I too have wondered about the need for a fancy dress for a small wedding ceremony. But remember that these WERE more formal times, when upper class folks ‘dressed for dinner’ even at home, and the Ingalls girls themselves had to dress up for Sunday, even when Sunday was spent at home.
But I also have to wonder why she didn’t wear the pink lawn. It was PRACTICALLY new, and was certainly cooler and more practical for an August wedding than a heavy, lined woolen dress.
The Wedding rather puzzles me too. (Maybe I’m jumping ahead just a bit here.) There would surely have been a happy medium between ‘a private ceremony and dinner with the folks’ and ‘a big church wedding with all the trimmings.’ A typical rural/small town wedding would likely have been held at the bride’s home, followed by a party and dance with simple refreshments. And given the difficulty of long distance travel, it would NOT have been unreasonable for them to not expect Almanzo’s rather far-away family to attend. So it does seem a bit sad that they weren’t even going to get a real party to celebrate this huge milestone in their lives just to spite Eliza-Jane.
I think the key is that they wouldn’t be WAITING for Almanzo’s mother, who is willing and able to come. If she were back in New York State, or couldn’t afford it, perhaps they would have gone ahead with a small home wedding.
The pink lawn always puzzled me, too, but I think it just must not have been “nice” enough.
Dear Mother,
Bess and I have set the wedding date for such-and-such. The house is almost done and we very much want to be married before the wheat is ready for harvest. We do hope you’ll be able to make the trip out, though I know it’s short notice and we’ll understand if you and father can’t attend.
Love,
Manly.
(Naomi here again — the bride’s family WAS the one to set the date and make the plans, since they were the hosts.)
About the wedding, I honestly think it was the difference between having their own wedding their way, and having it turned into a never ending battle. If Eliza was as horrid and bossy as she was earlier in the stories, it seems to me like she would try to take over every detail. It would maybe be a fight over every little thing. More if an Eliza wedding than a Laura and Almanzo one.This was a way to make sure it was their wedding and theirs alone, with no input from the “peanut gallery”. 🙂 Also, by just those two going into town, they possibly avoided an endless litany of “remember when you got married and only Laura’s family was there?”
Great post, lots of interesting comments. Gosh, I love these read-a-longs!
One thing I have not seen addressed here is the one thing that has always bothered me the most about this chapter: Laura saying she did not want to vote. In real life, both Laura and Rose were ardently in support of women having the vote, so I cannot fathom why this line is in the book. Thoughts?
Hmm… Good point. Perhaps at 18 she didn’t want to vote and that was something that she changed her mind about over time. Or maybe the publisher wanted that line put in to prevent some parents from getting upset that the book was trying to turn their daughters into political feminists. It would be interesting to know for sure!
I meant to address it (indirectly)… it’s why I don’t agree with people who call Laura a feminist in this scene.
I think her feeling about the vote here was not uncommon for the time—lots of women felt that they were represented by their husband’s vote and that it wasn’t necessary for them to vote. I think Laura’s Missouri Ruralist columns on the women’s vote were written around the time the nineteenth amendment was ratified, and she wrote about what it meant for women to now have the vote and what a responsibility it was. I don’t ever recall her writing about women’s voting rights before they were granted, though. She supported the vote at a time when most people did.
I actually appreciate that she was willing to show how her 1885 self felt about the women’s vote. There’s a troublesome tendency in some historical novels, especially children’s novels, to portray the heroines as being incredibly enlightened and forward-thinking and rebelling against their roles in society. But then we lose our sense of how different the attitudes really were, and how hard it was to change them.
I’m glad this scene shows the truth about how some people felt back then, even when—especially when—they don’t have quite the same views I do.
Sonya, I can almost guarantee that the editor at Harper (who I think by then was Ursula Nordstrom) would not have asked to change the political viewpoint. By the time the books were published, women had been voting for decades and it was not a radical notion.
Well, yes, I know it was published about 25 years after women got the vote and I started to mention that, but some people in some parts are conservative. But no, I doubt a female New York editor would have been catering to those customers.
Wendy, do you mean like a pre-Civil War novel when the Southern belle is teaching the slaves to read? I don’t really want to read something racist, but honestly, I think it would be more accurate for the heroine to be oblivious than to always be the renegade. Or it’s just my pet peeve. 😉
As for the sewing machine, I think Ma had an ancestor that was a seamstress so that she was commenting that they would be shocked that what they spent hours doing Ma and Laura could accomplish is a few minutes. I didn’t read disapproval in the statement. I liked Laura countering Ma’s saying. Ma is gentle, Ma is wise, Ma is patient, Ma is never wrong. EXCEPT now she is, and she admits it!
I’ve always wondered about the pink lawn as well. In August who wouldn’t rather be wearing cotten instead of wool?
The wedding seems odd to me in that Almanzo’s mother doesn’t seem to come afterwards in The First Four Years. Yeah, she missed the wedding but wouldn’t she want to meet the new daughter-in-law (and sort out if Almanzo or EJ was correct in describing her.)? I remember reading that someone talked about going to the barn dance to celebrate the wedding. Maybe there was one when the Wilder’s came and it didn’t make the books? Besides if they would have snuck off for just a ceremony wouldn’t everyone have wondered about those drives and how the first one can come any time; it’s the second one that takes nine months.
I love these read a longs, and I’m sure Laura and Rose didn’t think people would be gathering around some weird improvement on the radio to discuss the books with people from across the world.
Ha! Yes, the Southern belle who teaches the slaves to read is a PERFECT example.
And the only girls you ever read about in children’s books about the Revolutionary War are these feisty girls who just so happen to drop their sewing, put on breeches, and ride through the night to warn Washington’s Army that the redcoats are coming. They can’t ALL have done that.
I’ve “argued” with you about this point before, Wendy, and I’ve come around to your point of view. She really can’t be compared to the feminists of her time, or even an extension of the feminists of the 60s and 70s. I think I was applying my own current definition, which doesn’t work. Today, the term “feminist” rankles me, because I think it implies something I don’t ascribe to, like being loud and opinionated and only of a certain political persuasion. Today I equate “feminist” with choice, to having the choice to do and be whomever you want, whether it’s considered the “feminist” choice or not. Thus, the stay-at-home-mom who is truly doing what she wants to be doing is just as feminist as anyone else, as long as she’s doing what SHE wants. A radical idea, mayhaps, but it’s mine.
Awesome post. I wish you did more of them. You write like a dream, as always.
You might be surprised to learn that most feminists agree with you! 🙂 even the radical third wave type. In this case, it once again stands true that the craziest ones among us scream the loudest, which may be the reason you’ve gotten that impression!
Wendy, I’m so glad you covered this chapter. This has always been a reading that portrays mother and daughter as growing adult equals, I think. Laura is still respectfully learning from her mother, but definitely has formed and is formulating her own opinions. The amount of dialogue is precious to me because it reminds me of talking with my own mother and grandmother (who both taught me sewing and handwork, old sayings, and how to do things around the house – although I’m not as good a housekeeper as they are/were!). I was 39 when first married and definitely had opinions about what I wanted in life, but I certainly was not as firm at age 18 as Laura shows in this chapter. “Obey” was never a question. 😉 By the time Laura and Manly were to wed, Wyoming Territory (and soon in the 1890s Colorado, Utah and Idaho) had already granted women the right to vote. It certainly was a topic ‘back East’ with the major women’s organizations. I find it interesting that Laura wasn’t interested in voting – yet – but she wanted to share equally in the marriage commitment.
Also I love the sewing details, of course, and am always in awe of the skills needed to clothe a family and to make linens for a home. Sewing on a treadle machine is truly time-saving after one’s sewn or quilted by hand – and we have electic sewing machines today (even though I’m still using my 1972 Singer which seems ancient by today’s standards).
Enough for now. I’ve got to get back to my real life of house and home and husband rather than this virtual one online. Great discussion!
Just caught up on the read-along. Yep, I always wondered if it was the threat of EJ coming to take over the wedding, but then never showed up? Certainly it would take a day or two to arrive from Spring Valley to DeSmet by train, which means they could’ve made it to the wedding. I think I would’ve liked to have been witness to the scene of Laura meeting her mother-in-law. And really, also seeing the look on EJ’s face when she found out the news that her little brother went off and got hitched to Laura Ingalls, without her input on a proper wedding.
I find it interesting that the EJ wedding take-over threat was repeated at the beginning of First Four Years, but the language used is harsher. Did Rose gloss over/edit some of the wording in the same scene in THGY?
I just realized that you didn’t comment on one of my favorite lines in the chapter — Laura’s emphasis that the new nightgowns being trimmed with lace were all ‘high necked/long-sleeved.’ No racy lingerie for THIS new bride … no fiddler to be paid any time soon …
I always thought a wedding dress was supposed to be new, so that’s why she didn’t wear her pink lawn. And as for the “feminist” thing, sorry not to pick a fight but as a Canadian I always find it somewhat funny yet irritating how upset people get over that term (we have had an “ERA” in Canada for getting on to 30 yrs now without the world coming to an end) but in my book the best definition of “feminist” is Rebecca West’s: “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” Sounds like Laura to me.
Ma just said she should get a ‘pretty’ wedding dress. It would have been her formal, church, going to weddings, baptisms etc dress as a married woman, not the one wear only, white bridal gown we think of today. It didn’t have to be fancy, Ma just wanted to see her girl have a pretty dress for her wedding.
As rural and frugal as the Ingalls family was, Ma was at heart, a city girl who was refined and traditional. Having a nice dress to be married in was just the way things were done. The pink lawn had already been worn and been seen by Almanzo. Ma would not have approved. You wear a new dress to get married, plain and simple.
I think the fear of the big wedding with family was Laura’s mention of the Wilders being wealthy. That was something she was not used to, had no reference for, or any idea how to deal with. To the Wilders, a formal wedding would be no big deal–a church wedding with a cake and a reception, decorations and fancy dress…because they could easily afford it–however they weren’t footing the bill, and even if they offered, Laura and Pa would be insulted.
Almanzo and Laura were practical and simple at heart. I do think that having the wedding at the house with her family would have been a fine idea as Ma suggested and offered, however if the Wilder family had shown up and learned there had been a “wedding” of any kind, it would have been insulting. I also think Laura wanted to avoid any kind of display of emotion and that was a big reason behind her refusal to have the home wedding–she seemed uncomfortable even with Ida and Elmer being there…and having her post wedding dinner at home. She had been taught to keep her emotions in check and having to attend an emotional event would have been hard–for anyone.
Marybeth, that is an interesting idea about the difference in wealth between the families, and one I hadn’t considered. It seems logical to me, though I don’t think Laura and Pa would have been “insulted.” I think Ma and Pa (and Laura) might have been ashamed or embarrassed.
Sarah, I think the difference in tone between THGY and TFFY in regards to Eliza Jane might simply be because one was written for children and one was envisioned as an adult story. I don’t think of Rose as at all a “softening” influence. Her depiction of Eliza Jane in FREE LAND is fairly tough.
The original editor of the Little House books at Harper was Virginia Kirkus in the early 1930s, who oversaw the first four books. Ida Raymond became head of the department in the mid-30s and oversaw the second four. Ursula Nordstrom was an assistant in the children’s books department and in 1940 became head of the department in turn; she reigned for decades and oversaw the uniform Garth Williams editions in the 1950s. Still, Nordstrom remembered the production of the originals in the 1930s. “None of the manuscripts ever needed any editing. Not any. They were read and then copy-edited and sent to the printer.”
I always felt sad for Ma that she didn’t get to see Laura married – some of the pressure she applied was because she simply wanted to be part of the ceremony watching her daughter get married. Poor Ma never asked for much, and she certainly didn’t get out much… I get the impression she was extremely reclusive and not comfortable socialising outside her home. But she was keen to have a wedding for Laura at home, so expense wasn’t an issue. (She could have whipped up some vanity cakes, and maybe Rev Alden would have sent a frozen turkey with cranberries)
At the very least, why couldn’t she and Pa go along to Rev. Brown’s and stand there quietly during the ceremony?
This might sound off, but I have always wondered if Laura was actually pregnant already when they married, and that was the real reason it was a rushed wedding. And the fact that she just selected a black simple dress instead of making a wedding gown? I mean, she and Almanzo spent lots of time sledding around alone. And they are both human. Not meant to be disrespectful at all!
In 2002, one of my younger cousins got married and she and her husband used the word obey in the ceremony in relation to each other. I thought that was interesting!
I figured that the voting situation was a simple change of mind. It's interesting in Farmer Boy to read that Mother Wilder took the butter money to the bank herself. And in "Whom Will You Marry?" Mrs. Wilder writes that people have forgotten that
"farm women have always been businesswomen, and no one has protested against it. No one has even noticed it.
Yet I remember well my husband's mother, undisputed head of her household and fully a partner in all the business of the northern Minnesota far, where I lived for a few months many years ago. She was not a 'feminist'; I never heard the words 'economic independence' on her lips, and when her daughter, who went to the city and worked in an office, came back to talk of these things, she listened with an indulgent smile. She was too busy to bother her head with such notions, she said. But her husband was never so rash as to sell a herd of hogs or turn meadowland into cornfields without consulting her, and the butter money went into her own purse without question" (Wilder, Laura Ingalls. "Whom Will You Marry?" p. 134, A Little House Reader, ed. William Anderson, New York: HarperCollins, 1998).
I'm glad to have found the read-alongs again. Will there be a read along of Little House in the Big Woods, Little House on the Prairie, On the Banks of Plum Creek, and By the Shores of Silver Lake, and the anthologies, such as A Little House Reader and A Little House Traveler which includes On the Way Home and West From Home and the journal from the Wilders' 1931 trip to De Smet?
Comments are closed.