L.M. Montgomery has always felt to me like a part of my family. I don't remember when I first "met" her - as a somewhat feisty "carrot-top" growing up, there were comparisons made to Anne but I don't remember when I first read her books. She was always part of the family lore as my grandfather roomed with her younger son at Queen's. I knew of her books before the t.v. series came out because I couldn't ever enjoy it - Anne was too real to me and no matter how wonderful the casting or the acting, these people just weren't "right". I do remember being engrossed in, first the Anne books and then, individual titles. My absolute favourites were "The Blue Castle" and "The Tangled Web."
I know that L.M. Montgomery's work has been criticized by many as being trite, overly romantic, lacking of substance, etc. Yes, they do have happy endings (which, quite frankly, seems to immediately relegate a book to being "shallow" in supposedly intellectual circles these days). Yes, they aren't filled with angst and cruelty and yes, the characters can be somewhat shallowly portrayed at times. Personally, though, I think that those who feel this way are missing something.
To truly appreciate Montgomery's gift for telling a story and for painting portraits, you need to understand her world. While I didn't live in her time, I am the daughter, grand-daughter and great-granddaughter of Presbyterian minister's wives. The women who raised me came from her world and knew the oppressive forces at work. Yes, people can be wonderful but often, there is something about the church, especially in small towns, that brings out the petty, the mean and the shallow. L.M. Montgomery's world was tight and closed, she had little control and given her husband's issues with depression, she must always have been living on the edge, knowing that everything could be lost. Here she was, brilliant and with a gift for seeing beauty, trapped in a world that asked her to be small and plain. Her novels gave us insight into what the world could be like, even in the context of such smallness. I love the fact that she painted portraits of people, particularly in the context of tight families and while she showed them with all of their faults, I don't think she was ever cruel in her portrayals.
I LOVED this last book. In some ways, it was more bittersweet than many of her other books. The shadow of the war and the loss of Gilbert and Anne's son Walter looms over the Blythe family but there is still hope and love. I love the fact that we rarely get direct insights into Anne and Gilbert and their family. They are merely mentioned by others in conversation or appear very briefly (e.g., in the context as guests at a wedding). It was wonderful to revisit these wonderful characters and the world in which they lived. It has made me want to go back and reread all of her books - there is nothing like going back to visit old friends.
Thank you so much, Kittenpie, for reminding me of an author I loved so much.
So glad you liked it! I had heard it was not as happy as the others and tackled some tougher issues, so I wasn't sure how you'd feel about that, knowing how much you loved her more child-friendly books.
ReplyDeleteThere was so much talk about some of the themes of the book being darker but I really didn't find it that way. The write up made it sound like she was exploring all kinds of sordid and riske topics - I didn't find it that way at all. I mean, come on, this is 2009 and the book was finished in 1942. How riske could it be???
ReplyDelete