create what for nearly 70 years have beenrnrecognized as classics of American children’srnliterature. Holtz’s claim that Lanernfunctioned as Wilder’s ghostwriter madernhim a minor literary celebrity overnightrn—especially in his home state ofrnMissouri —but, while some readers enthusiasticallyrnaccepted his conclusions,rnothers (including long-standing Wilderrnscholars like William T. Anderson) demurred.rnFive years later, the same pressrnhas published a full-fledged rebuttal tornf^oltz’s work, in the form of a biographyrnof Mrs. Wilder by John E. Miller, a professorrnof history at South Dakota StaternUniversit}’ at Brookings and author ofrnLaura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House:rnWhere History and Literature Meet.rnWliile the central aim of Miller’s book isrnto delineate the personal and artistic developmentrnthat transformed a pioneerrngirl and Missouri matron best known forrnher success at raising chickens into an internationallyrnacclaimed author, a secondaryrnagendum is the refutation of thernoverweening claims of The Ghost inrnthe Little House in favor of what was —rnuntil William Holtz came along —thernobvious.rnMiller’s work is competent and interesting;rna well-researched, well-written,rnand sensible book. A major obstacle tornWilder studies has always been Laura’srnneglect in retaining letters and other usefulrndocuments, but Miller has done hisrnbest to fill the gaps in the record —frec[rnuently resorting to Rose Lane’s lettersrnand journals. The early chapters lay outrnthe historical narrative serving as backdroprnwith which what Miller insists onrncalling the “novels” —in spite of the factrnthat a considerable portion of his biographicalrninformation derives from thern”fictional” account of Mrs. Wilder’s lifernthey provide —may be compared. Thernrest of the book attempts, plausibly andrnwith considerable success, the delicaternand difficult task of accounting for thernmaking of a genius. Genius is perhapsrnthe most egalitarian term in the Englishrnlanguage, all geniuses, however different,rnbeing equal, and Laura IngallsrnWilder was one, her taste for Zane Greyrnand Luke Short novels nohvithstanding.rn(“People probably wonder why this is myrnh’pe of reading, but they are easy to hold,rnand I just enjoy them.”) The essence ofrngenius is simplicit)’, elevating it to the statusrnof a miracle which by definition canrnnever be adequately explained or accountedrnfor. To the extent that explanafionrnis possible John Miller has done anrnexcellent job, from scanty resources.rnWilliam Holtz’s task, given his exaggeratedrnclaim, was to demonstrate howrnRose Wilder Lane, whose own novels arernat best pedestrian and today almost unreadable,rnmanaged to “ghost” eight othersrnexhibiting such warm humanity,rndeep insight, narrative and dramaticrnpower, and poetic luminosit)’. He failedrnat this, as almost anyone not subject tornhis own peculiar idee fixe could have toldrnhe must. Holtz, it seems fair to say, wasrnblinded by an uncritical affection forrnRose Wilder Lane and a dislike of herrnmother, Laura higalls Wilder. Rose andrnLaura’s relationship was one of love-hate,rnor love-resentment, not uncommon betweenrnmothers and daughters — strongrnmothers and strong daughters, in particular.rnHoltz, like Miller, understoodrnthat, in the case of Wilder and Lane, therntension arose from a power conflict,rnthe desire on the part of each woman torncontrol the other. “[My mother] madernme so miserable when 1 was a childrnthat I’ve never got over it,” Rose, anrnonly child, wrote. “I’m morbid. I’m allrnnerves. I know I should be more robust.rnI shouldn’t let her torture me this way,rnand always gain her own ends, throughrnimplications that she hardly knows she’srnusing. But I can’t help it.”rnUnlike Miller, Holtz accepted thisrnself-pit)’ing view at face value. Actually,rnRose was a not very talented bitch andrnneurotic who by her own admission wasrnalso a “monster,” incapable of normalrnhuman affection. Since an attractivernpersonality has little or nothing to dornwith creative genius (except, usually, inrnan inverse way), one may ask what thernsubject has to do witii the authorship ofrnthe Little House. The answer, of course,rnis, “Nothing,” except for Mr. Holtz’s attemptrnat making it everything —thernmainspring of his misguided and foolishrnliterary theory. Miller, like Bill Anderson,rnRosa Ann Moore, and CarolinernEraser before him, has surveyed the samernevidence available to Holtz and arrivedrnat conclusions quite different from his.rnSkeptics considering The Ghost in thernLittle House wondered at the time whyrnMr. Holtz had not considered the possibilityrnof intermediate drafts betweenrnLaura’s famous holographs, handwrittenrnon lined yellow tablets, and the finalrntypescripts prepared by Rose for thernpublisher. It appears now that thesernin-between drafts really are crucial to anrnaccurate evaluation of their collaborationrn—assuming common sense requiresrnsophisticated literary detective work tornconfirm the books’ authorship.rnMiller’s own investigations reveal thatrnLittle House in the Big Woods andrnThese Happy Golden Years [thernfirst and last volumes in the series]rnreceived the lightest editing fromrnRose; ‘The Long Winter and LittlernTown on the Prairie probably werernedited the most. Significantiy,rnRose spent less than a week on thernfirst book. The first pages thatrnWilder wrote, and other large sectionsrnof the book, stand largely intact,rnindicating that from the startrnshe possessed a talent for narrativerndescription. Wliat is most surprisingrnin considering the work thatrnRose did on her mother’srnmanuscripts is not that she had torndo so much to get them into shapernbut that she had to do so little.rnHe concludes:rnHer daughter’s hand in encouragingrnher [mother] and collaboratingrnwith her on the preparation ofrn[the] manuscripts was demonstrablyrncrucial to the success of thernbooks. Ultimately, the genius ofrnthe novels lay in their author’srnpowers of perception as a girl, inrnher detached insight into humanrnnature including her own, and inrnher abilit}’ as a mature woman tornsift the memories of her childhoodrnthrough a dramatic lens that chosernwhat was illuminating and interestingrnto people and discarded whatrnwas dull and uninspiring.rnLaura Ingalls Wilder was already inrnher 60’s when she began to write the novelisticrnmemoirs that made her famous;rnshe was not quite 44 when, invited tornspeak on chicken-raising, she wrote outrnher speech to be read at an agriculturalrnmeeting attended by, among others, therneditor of the Missouri Ruralist.rnIn between she persevered in her longrnliterary apprenticeship, certain of thernpowers she discerned within herself andrndetermined, as she put it, “to try to dornsome writing that will count.” She gotrnthe job done, of course, and the greatrnvirtue of John Miller’s book is to help usrnto see how she did that.rnChilton Williamson, Jr., is the seniorrneditor for books at Chronicles.rnNOVEMBER 1998/31rnrnrn