April19

I have always loved the Little House books, by Laura Ingalls Wilder. I read them many times as a child; I especially loved Little House in the Big Woods, with its holiday stories of peppermint stick candy and rag dolls and dresses with buttons that look just like fat juicy blackberries. And the pig’s bladder balloon! And the stories-within-a-story of Pa’s childhood, a trillion years ago. That must be the one, too, where they make maple sugar candy in the snow, because the dress is at the sugaring party at their relatives’ house through the woods. There’s a lot of great food in that story.
And I LOVE reading @HalfPintIngalls on twitter. (The “@” is just how usernames show up on Twitter.) It’s someone’s hilarious rendition of what it would be like if Laura Ingalls Wilder, as she is portrayed in those books, were Twittering. She has the slightly sarcastic bite of teenage Laura, a good dose of historical parody, and a lot of just plain funny. “Pa says if the blizzards keep up there’s going to be a ‘donner party.’ Whatever that is, it’s high time we had some FUN around here. Hurrah!”
So today while I was catching up on some of HalfPint’s twitter posts, I ended up at the Wikipedia article on Wilder and found that, although her daughter Rose Wilder Lane helped write the Little House books, Laura did quite a bit of writing on her own – in large part as a columnist for The Missouri Ruralist (which still exists!), writing a regular column called “As a Farm Woman Thinks.”
(She wrote it as “Mrs. A. J. Wilder,” which confused me until I remembered the olden days less than a century ago, when otherwise perfectly normal sane women took not only their husbands’ last names but their WHOLE ENTIRE NAMES as their married names. So you’d call someone Jane because you knew her, but when you invited her to your formal dinner party it would be “Mrs. Albert E. Hannigan.” I used to work for my college’s alumnae association – it was a women’s college, so we got to spell it like that, even though technically that leaves out the boy graduate students and the trannyboy alums of all kinds – and even in 1999, we’d still frequently have to address thank-you notes that way. It was just What Was Done, for so many women; Tradition, disconnected from any sort of rights or oppression. But that’s another story….)
I googled her writing, of course. And I found one of her columns so far, which I thought was so excellently suited to the subject matter at hand, and tied so well in with the last entry here, that I would like to share it with you in its (short) entirety. It is, in part, about the way in which we judge others is really a reflection of where we are. Which is very recovery.
In 12-step programs, the fourth step in large part involves exploring our resentments and fears, and what part we play in them; in doing that work, I’ve repeatedly found that my resentment of others is just me projecting my self-judgment onto them. Like, if I internalized the idea, growing up, that I shouldn’t take up space, it just plain riles me up when other people barge around the supermarket aisle with their enormous carts, taking up not only their own space but the little space I thought I was allowed. Of course, that’s not what I think is going on at the time – I just think “how rude! That person is in my way! I hate them! I hate this store! Damn yuppies! Taking up all the space! Why don’t you leave your cart in one place and walk to find things like I do! I am in a hurry! Get out of my way!” And in reality, they’re probably just doing the best they can to navigate the store – maybe it didn’t occur to them that they could leave the cart off to the side, or maybe they have a good reason not to right then. But when I look at them through the lenses of my own abuse history, all I see is red.
But what struck me more about this article, the first time I read it, was the way that our vision of the world around is different when we are “blue” than when we are happy, even though we are looking at the same situations, people, and objects. It is so easy to focus on just the negative, and find it everywhere – in fact, it is so easy to choose to focus on the positive too, but when we are stuck on the negative it’s very hard to see that. And our negative thinking argues, “If it’s easy to find the negative everywhere, why would I look at the positive? That’s just self-delusion! The bad stuff is just as prevalent as the good, and if I focus on it, I will know where to find it and how to avoid it!” Sounds perfectly logical, but in fact it is madness, because it’s not a matter of knowing both of them are there, equally: framing the world as a series of pitfalls and crises poisons our lives and obscures all of the good stuff. What we focus on grows: whether it’s the good or the bad, what we see and think about spreads out like ink on wet paper, slowly eliding anything else from our experience.
But you don’t have to take my word for it; here is Laura Ingalls Wilder’s own insights on the matter, with enormous thanks to DakotaGirl for finding and sharing it. I hope she shares more. And if you are at all interested in these books or that historical time, I think you too will love her blog. She has some amazing stuff on there – but I guess that is obvious, since she seems to be the only one on the web with copies of this writing!
As a Farm Woman Thinks
BY MRS. A. J. WILDER
February 1, 1922
A WONDERFUL way has been invented to transform a scene on the stage, completely changing the apparent surroundings of the actors and their costumes without moving an article. The change is made in an instant. By an arrangement of light and colors the scenes are so painted that with a red light thrown upon them, certain parts come into view while other parts remain invisible. By changing a switch and throwing a blue light upon the scene, what has been visible disappears and things, unseen before appear, completely changing the appearance of the stage.
This late achievement of science is a good illustration of a fact we all know but so easily forget or overlook-that things and persons appear to us according to “the light we throw upon them” from our own minds.
When we are down-hearted and discouraged, we speak of looking at the world thru blue glasses; nothing looks the same to us; our family and friends do not appear the same; our home and work show in the darkest colors. But when we are happy, we see things in a brighter light and everything is transformed.
How unconsciously we judge others by the light that is within ourselves, condemning or approving them by our own conception of right and wrong, honor and dishonor! We show by our judgment just what the light within us is.
What we see is always affected by the light in which we look at it so that no two persons see people and things alike. What we see and how we see depends upon the nature of our light.
A quotation, the origin of which I have forgotten, lingers in my mind: “You cannot believe in honor until you have achieved it. Better keep yourself clean and bright; you are the window thru which you must see the world.”