...and that is a tragic mistake.

"Anne of Green Gables" was indeed the start of a publishing phenomenon that has lasted a century. Her character was appealing in large part as a reaction against the smarmy nonsense that the Victorians had decreed was suitable for young girls. (I suspect that a large part of her appeal in Japan comes from a similar backlash against the strictures of a male-dominated society, but that's another story.)

I loved Anne. Most of us did. She was a stark contrast to the simpering wimps in stories like "Little Women" and boring tripe like "The Secret Garden". I admit to being different from a lot of little girls on this subject, I also loathed the "Little House" series and I thought that "Heidi" was silly.

However, we must never forget that "Anne of Green Gables" made a terrific amount of money for its publisher. So much, in fact, that the author was constantly pressed to come up with another "Anne" story, to the exclusion of anything else she wrote.

Mara commented below that it seemed Montgomery lost interest in Anne as she grew older, which is correct. Montgomery became the victim of her own success, and her writing career became the subject of blackmail by a publisher that refused to even consider other, more accomplished stories by her.

By the time the series ended, the characters had become wooden puppets in a plot line that was embarrassingly trite. The author was dispirited and saddened by the commercializing of character that she'd created. Of course, the publisher didn't care about that. They only cared about the bottom line, and the bottom line for them was Anne.

I think it is a dreadful mistake that we celebrate a well loved character and ignore the circumstances of her creation. It must have been extremely frustrating for a talented author like Montgomery to have to pander to the tastes of men with money and parents who liked to see rows of books in their children's rooms.

BenK posited that marriage and children were what made Anne a fully realized character. I have to disagree, only because I think the marriage and children were nothing but a device for the author to get rid of Anne once and for all.

Montgomery's lack of interest in her later "Anne" books may very well be true.

However, it's not exactly fair to Montgomery to portray her as a victim of some 'greedy' publishers. If Montgomery chose to exploit her creation for financial gain, there's nothing wrong with that - the woman's got to live, doesn't she. At worst, we can say that her later "Anne" books had less artistic merit than her earlier ones. It's not a crime or tragedy.

You're forgetting the historical context in which the books were written. I failed to mention that this is also a subject upon which Montgomery waxed eloquent in letters both to friends and to her publisher. The situation she found herself in frustrated and infuriated her. Her later "Anne" books did not measure up to the first, and that was a deliberate act on her part.

The publishers dangled the carrot of seeing her new stories in print for years, if only she would write another "Anne" book, and they got away with it because they had a contract that made them the owners of every word she wrote for publication anywhere. Such contracts were considered normal at that time. Why do you think there are so many "Oz" books?

At the time "Anne" was written, women were not persons under the law. They could not vote, sign contracts without the consent of a man, purchase a house or piece of land under their own name, enter a lawsuit, own a business, buy alcohol, enter a university, and a myriad of other things that we take for granted now.

I think it's a travesty, but at the time, it was perfectly normal to conduct business that way.

"Dangling a carrot" implies some agency on Montgomery's part. As opposed to some form of negative coercion, such as someone's threatening her with physical or financial harm if she didn't put out another book.

Women's ability to enter into contracts at the time is irrelevant - unless you are stating that (1) Montogomery was forced into a contract against her will (the negative coercion I mentioned earlier), or (2) Montgomery was subject to a type of contract not the industry standard - for men and women.

As a side matter, those types of contracts might seem unfair through the eyes of someone who has achieved riches and fame. However, it might be seen very differently through the eyes of an investor or business person bearing all the financial risk of a book that doesn't sell. I'm not saying that it was, in fact, a good contract or industry custom - just that I doubt the issue is a black-or-white issue. More likely, it is the result of a balancing of the risks and rewards of the book publishing business at that time. For every Montgomery, how many [insert unsuccessful author here] were there, I wonder?

What part of "women could not enter legal contracts on their own without the consent of a man" did you miss? Having trouble with the concept are we?

Ms. Montgomery was a writer. She entered, with her husband's consent, a contract with the one and only publisher that would even consider her work. That contract forbade her from submitting work to any other publisher, effectively forcing her to write what they wanted her to if she wanted to see print. They owned every word she wrote and would until all copyrights were expired, and at that time it meant that for 50 years after her death her words were their property.

She could not have sued them even if she wanted to because at that time women were not considered to be persons under the law. Are you being deliberately dense? Once that contract was signed, she no longer had any intellectual property. There was NO volition possible for her.

As for dangling a carrot, that is precisely what they did. As I stated before, she was a writer. You might as well ask someone to stop eating as stop a writer from writing. She was coerced into writing more "Anne" storied by the (false as it turned out) promises of a group of men who lied to her about considering her other work for publication.

Next time, do a little research before you start spinning fantasies.

Oh, and as for "wealth and fame"...she only got the money that her husband saw fit to give her, whether it was earned by her or not. Her livelihood depended 100% on his good nature.

The Secret Garden, Little Women, the Little House books, and even Heidi (though it's not in the same league for me as the others) all have heroines who are more or less fully realized, strong, even subversive, and hardly boring.

Aside from Anne, Victorian pap to a one. Designed to train little girls that obedience is the best policy, that Papa or Husband know best, and that failure to keep one's place is the worst possible sin a woman can commit. I particularly loathed the Little House books for that very reason. I suggest a re-reading on your part.

I didn't like Black Beauty, either. SPCA nonsense designed to inspire insipid, sloppy sentimentality. Oh, and The Velveteen Rabbit? One long death metaphor. Yuck. The Cool Niece will get none of them from me.

No, the Boo will be getting Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Tolkien, "My Friend Flicka", anything by Robert Louis Stevenson and others of that sort, all of the original text with none of the pathetic infantilization of literature that has overtaken the children's publishing industry of late. She can read "The Count of Monte Cristo", "The Man in the Iron Mask", and whatever else her little heart desires.

When she wants them, she can read my first edition collections of Nancy Drew - did you know in the first couple of books that Nancy carries a revolver? - and the Hardy Boys and any other mysteries that strike her fancy. All written before Political Correctness dumbed them down. Compare the originals to the new ones, if you dare. She can have my Everyman editions of Kipling.

Want to strike a blow for feminism? Get girls reading anything that strikes their fancy, whenever they want to. Let their imaginations go beyond the trite, silly, television-inspired commercial nonsense of "The Babysitters Club" and the "American Girl" books. How about Poe? What about Shakespeare? Let them take back their imaginations!

Who decided that kids are too stupid to read these things in the original English? Why is it that ten-year-olds of my generation were free to tackle Tolkein and now teachers will tell them that it's "too advanced" or "too scary" for them? Bah! Stuff and nonsense.

This rant courtesy of Messy, who finds that children are smarter than adults can possibly comprehend.

I guess we'll have to disagree, but a rereading on my part isn't necessary. I'm super familiar with the books I'm talking about.

I agree with you that keeping children safe from literature is about the most dangerous thing an adult can do. As an 8 year old wannabe autodidact, I read my mom's Dostoevsky and natural childbirth books (freaked me out!), Dickens, Tolkien, and the Just So Stories, as well as Narnia and Little House in the Big Woods.

I've read several of the original editions of Nancy Drew, and, in addition to carrying a revolver I thought she was a bit of a classist snob. Woman of her era, I suppose.

MessyOne, I agree that looking at LM Montgomery's life is fascinating - and informative - as regards the Anne series, and just in general.

She was a great woman and writer - someone feminists should be proud to claim, although she, herself, probably would have laughed at any sort of extremism - that is, feminism, or any movement, taken too far.

Where I diverge from your thinking is with The Secret Garden, primarily. That book is filled with a magical realism, as regards nature, quite similar to how LM wrote about nature in the Anne books.

Moreover, Mary Lennox is a feisty, unappealing, angry little girl at the start of the book - and also orphaned, just like Anne.

Mary grows and becomes more calm, but she never loses her spirit. She rages at Colin and dares to confront him when he is out of control with terror and tantrums.

I truly love The Secret Garden and urge you to take another look at it. I don't like the other Burnett books as much, although A Little Princess has some beautiful writing in it, as well, and also a Dickinsian realization of how cruely children can be treated when they are thrown out on their own.

As for the Little House books - the tv series ruined the entire concept - but the books, themselves show Laura Ingalls to be very strong, intelligent, and courageous. Plus, one learns alot about frontier life.

Anne, however, has her own brilliant sparkle that, more than the others, translates very well for today's reader.

Nancy was a bit of an oddity, wasn't she? There was an article here on Slate about her last year. I don't think she was as much a snob as a product of popular imagination.

On the one hand, her father was a well-off lawyer and she wanted for nothing. On the other, much is made of the fact that she had no mother. It was a fantasy for young women of that era, I think. Nancy had no need for a job, was finished school, and had no real responsibilities, but she helped people and made friends of all backgrounds.

The Hardy Boys - similar. Wealthy parents, famous father, able to buy whatever they needed that would figure into the stories etc. They had a mother, but when do we see her? Hardly ever.

Note that Judy Bolton, another girl detective, came from humble roots. Her father was a country doctor, they live in an ordinary house with not a lot of money and everyone had to work. Much is made of the idea that she's happier than her wealthy friends...and now, virtually no one remembers the series.

What a daring woman this author was. During her lifetime, women were not allowed much freedom. They were told what to think, how to behave, and they were taught to believe they were "owned" by their husbands (or fathers first)

Today we American women have an "invisable bhurka" which we wear in the work place and actually everywhere. The glass ceiling was almost cracked by Hillary Clinton, but some women and most men prefer the security of letting men rule them.

Montgomery must have suffered a great deal for her "stepping out", like the suffragettes, and other women who make a difference in our lives, none are given enough credit. Our daughters and young women today do not know how women could not even own property or vote until strong women stood up and demanded rights.

Messy,

You still never rebutted my original point - that you gave no example of coercion.

I asked if the contract she was under was either (1) entered into against her will or (2) different from contracts male writers regularly entered into at the time.

You respond with the fact that a married woman could not enter into a contract without the consent of her husband - it's called "coverage." I'm a lawyer - yes, I know this. That does not answer the question. Are you saying that Montgomery's husband forced her to sign the contract? That would answer my question.

You rant about the contract's lack of fairness, though I gave a perfectly plausible reason why that contract would be reasonable and necessary for the publishing business at the time. An illustration, if you will:

Bob is a new, unknown writer. Publisher thinks Bob has talent and so agrees to publish and publicize Bob's new book. Say that publisher spends a thousand pounds publishing Bob's book and publicizing it. If the book fails, the loss is entirely the publisher's, no? They can't get that money from Bob, can they? There's *risk* on their part. On the flip side, if the book succeeds and Bob becomes famous. Without a long-term contract, Bob can take his new -found fame and go to some other publisher for better money - though the first publisher bore all the initial risk and made the critical first investment. Is this fair to the publisher? Or the little old lady investors in the publisher? Thus, one needs some reasonable long-term exclusivity contract for the system to work for both parties. I don't know how long Montgomery's was - and perhaps her's was unfair or poorly negotiated or whatever.

But you must do more than merely assert that she sold out due to coercion, and not merely out of financial self-interest.

This is a topic I know something about. Unfortunately I don't have the references in front of me, but if you do some research you'll find out the details. What I can say for certain is: 1) Montgomery published Anne of Green Gables and at least one other novel before she married. I am not aware that any man had to give approval for her to enter into a publishing contract in 1908. 2) She pursued a lengthy lawsuit against her original publisher which ended favorably for her, perhaps not in all particulars but at least some (I don't remember off the top of my head what exactly she sued for or how long it took to settle.) 3) Her income as a writer was quite a significant asset to her family. Her husband, a clergyman, could not have afforded to buy a family car or send their sons to college without her income. And her income was kept separate from his, in part because he was the subject of a lengthy lawsuit himself (a trumped up business over a minor car accident; I get the impression that the plaintiffs were hoping to get their hands on some of the rich writer's money.)

For info on Montgomery, the woman and the writer, the best source to go to is the published version of her life long journal (5 volumes!) It's a great document of social history and domestic life, as well as a good read in its own right (she intended for it to be published after her death.)

Thanks for the details, Wasteland.

I wasn't emotionally invested in the outcome, oppression or none. I just didn't like the original poster's leap that 'later books were likely more for monetary rather than artistic benefit' = Montgomery was a slave to some stock-villain wicked publisher.