A Different Kind of Pioneer Story: Racism and Empathy in PRAIRIE LOTUS
In PRAIRIE LOTUS, Linda Sue Park explores a time and place similar to the world of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books…but also very different. Guest blogger Michelle describes the strengths and weaknesses of the latest book from the 2002 Newbery Medalist:
PRAIRIE LOTUS deserves serious Newbery Award consideration because it satisfies the criteria of being distinctive and excellently crafted.
This story is distinctive because it features Hanna, a fourteen-year-old pioneer girl who is half-Chinese and half-white. There are obvious parallels to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE books, such as the setting of Dakota Territory during the 1880s. In her author’s note, Ms. Park shares that she grew up writing fan fiction inspired by Ms. Wilder’s books (though she surmised that as a Korean-American, she would likely not have been welcomed by people in this world).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
A striking difference between PRAIRIE LOTUS and the LITTLE HOUSE books is that characters in this book exhibit empathy instead of contempt for the American Indians who were the original pioneers. I appreciate that the author did research to learn more about the Native peoples from the local area by visiting important sites and consulting with members from the nations who live there. This resulted in her correcting an accidental error in the way she described Wichapiwin’s communication with Hanna so that she motions with her lips instead of pointing with her finger. Ms. Park also deliberately included Dakota dialogue in the text to acknowledge language that has been ignored in children’s literature.
There are several people in town who exhibit obviously racist behavior (such as the white parents who object to having Hanna attend school with their children) or speak thoughtlessly to Hanna (e.g. her classmate Dolly asking if it’s hard for Hanna to see with her different shaped eyes). However, there are also characters who have more nuanced thinking, such as Philip Harris, the justice of the peace who defends Hanna’s right to get an education and listens to her when she advocates for the Indian women and children she meets out of town.
Besides a fresh perspective, this book offers beautiful prose. There were several sentences that I reread immediately with admiration. The dialogue sounds like actual spoken language, which is always a relief (I can’t stand when authors write dialogue that is overly eloquent or serves more to exposit plot than reveal character). The language is lovely and clear, advancing and never distracting from the story.
One criticism I have is that Hanna is so fully sympathetic a character that she’s almost too likable. We learn early on that she has lost her mother at a young age due to illness, which predisposes the reader to have pity for her. Hanna is kind, as evidenced by her sharing soup with a group of Indian women and children—even though she doesn’t know them, and her family has little food. She is competent–a strong student as well as a creative seamstress with business acumen (she cleverly strategizes how to entice more people to shop at her father’s dress goods store). She demonstrates courage by persisting in going to school even when classmates harass her and challenging Dolly and Mrs. Harris when they say things that reveal their prejudice and ignorance. Hanna also seems very aware of the unjustness of the United States government breaking their treaties with Indian nations, which stretched my credulity (though perhaps having being discriminated against makes her more sensitive to the plight of others).
Overall, I found this story fresh and thoughtful in its portrayal of Hanna as she misses her dead mother and deals with the microaggressions, outright aggressions, and loneliness she faces as a biracial girl living on the prairie. As fond as I was of the LITTLE HOUSE series growing up, I am glad to have a new recommendation for families who are looking for historical fiction in the same time and place.
Guest Blogger Michelle currently works as a branch manager in a public library, and she will always be a children’s librarian at heart. She has two daughters with whom she would like to read PRAIRIE LOTUS together one day.
Filed under: Book Discussion, Guest Blogger, Heavy Medal Mock
About Steven Engelfried
Steven Engelfried retired from full-time library work a couple years ago and now works as a part-time Youth Librarian at the West Linn Public Library in Oregon. He served on the 2010 Newbery committee, chaired the 2013 Newbery Committee, and also served on the 2002 Caldecott committee. You can reach him at sengelfried@yahoo.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Surprise! Announcing 1000 HORSES FOR THE KING
Fuse 8 n’ Kate: Wee Winnie Witch’s Skinny by Virginia Hamilton, ill. Barry Moser
The Night Mother | This Week’s Comics
Talking with the Class of ’99 about Censorship at their School
In School Library Journal: Good Grief: Middle Grade Authors Normalize Loss
ADVERTISEMENT
I agree 100% that Prairie Lotus deserves serious Newbery Award consideration for all of the reasons you’ve stated. Well done!
I wholeheartedly agree that PRAIRIE LOTUS is an expertly crafted book. While my copy is out in the world, my recollection is also that the writing is both lyrical and convincing.
I didn’t read any of Little House books until Graduate Library School, but I loved history as a child and still do. Like Michelle, I appreciated the historical details here, including around sewing, even though I’m not skilled at or knowledgeable about it at all.
I think Hanna’s Asian heritage is Chinese and Korean, but correct me if I’m wrong. Related to that issue is the set-up for the book and how Park gets Hanna and her father to the Dakotas. It didn’t make sense to me that the Chinese community in San Francisco would have rejected Hanna after her mother’s death, nor that her father, based on what we see of him in the story, would have married an Asian woman in the first place.
While we certainly see an attack against Hanna coming, I was surprised by the sexual nature of it. Perhaps, because the core of the story revolves around Hanna being in school, she seemed younger to me until after she completed her education and went to work behind the scenes at the store.
In a story that is both homage and corrective to the Little House books, I found the triangulation around Mr. and Mrs. Harris and their daughter with regards to their attitudes surrounding race and ethnicity to be similar to those of Pa and Ma Ingalls and Laura in the Little House books; that is, the fathers are not racist, but their wives are. Again: a splendidly crafted — and paced — book.
Hi Julie,
You’re right that Hanna is actually one-fourth Chinese and one-fourth Korean, but it sounded awkward to state that. Since I don’t think it changes the overall analysis of the story, I said she was half-Chinese and half-white as the book is marketed. I appreciated the author’s note that this more complex identity for Hanna allowed Ms. Park to realistically picture someone like herself living in the Dakota Territory in the 1880s.
I also found the sexual assault at the end of the story jarring, but I think it seems logical given that the men were drunkards and the characters hinted at Chinese women being associated with that role.
Interesting point that: “Hanna is so fully sympathetic a character that she’s almost too likable.” That seems true to me. But at the same time, that may have been the most effective way to introduce the issues to readers who might not have encountered them much before, especially in a historical setting. Hanna’s general good-ness makes it easier for readers to put themselves in her shoes, then wonder what it would be like to face those challenges. It could be interesting to compare Hanna to Mary from SHOW ME A SIGN. Both are engaging, well-drawn characters, with maybe just a bit of a modern perspective. That can increase accessibility and understanding for the reader, but detract a bit from the sense that we’re completely in that time and place.
And I don’t think that’s necessarily a flaw: both authors are writing for readers on the younger side, and this could be seen as a way of showing “respect for children’s understandings, abilities, and appreciations,” as the Newbery Criteria state.
I found the presentism in SHOW ME A SIGN more off-putting than in PRAIRIE LOTUS. I think there was — no pun intended — more telling than showing in SHOW ME A SIGN; that is, there was a lot of exposition around the issues of racism and discrimination. While I found it a concern in SHOW ME A SIGN, in general, when it came to the Irish — who aren’t the focus in the same way as Free Blacks and the Wampanoag are — readers are told that they are discriminated against; I don’t think we ever see it. As Steven notes, both books have “engaging, well-drawn characters” (full agreement) and are for “readers on the younger side,” which is one reason the sexual assault in PRAIRIE LOTUS seemed out of place. It’s not that I object to such content in younger end middle grade fiction (I’ve expressed my love for FIGHTING WORDS here), but it’s not the focus of this story, as it is in other titles. At the same time that contemporary attitudes are expressed in both books, I’ve also heard them characterized as “old-fashioned.” Any thoughts about that?
I’m just now reading this one, so I can’t speak to the whole thing, but I think I can agree with both Michelle’s original comments on Hanna’s character as well as Steven’s thoughtful response. One area that I’ve found somewhat lacking is setting. There are a few lovely sentences in the opening section that evoke the plains nicely, but now that they are “settled” in LaForge, I find the descriptions less vivid or absent all together. Anyone have a similar feeling? Of course, given that I’m only about 60 pages into it, please take my comment with the appropriate grain of salt. I may find my opinion changes as I read.
PS: to clarify Hanna’s background: her father is white, mother is Chinese, but just before she died, her mother revealed she was actually half Chinese, half Korean.
Park’s writing is evocative; I had no problem picturing either the natural landscape or the physical town. I think she provides just the right amount of historical detail; it’s engaging and informative, without being overwhelming. In addition, Steven wrote earlier that setting “can also include the mood or feel of the world the author creates,” as well as how it enhances other elements, such as theme and character. Thanks to Park’s depiction, I felt I understood how Hanna felt in a hostile environment where she was largely judged by how she looked on the outside as opposed to who she was on the inside.
I could also picture the setting pretty well. Especially when she goes out to pick the prairie turnip. I agree with Julie and Steven about the mood used as part of the description of the setting.
Hi Sara, I thought the setting was strong enough–I felt like I could picture the prairie, especially during the scene where Wichapiwin shows Hanna how to pick prairie turnip. And I got a sense of what a prairie town would be like and how it would gradually grow. I liked learning what Hanna and her dad could infer about the town’s population by what shops were already established.
I loved Prairie Lotus very much, particularly how Parks was respectful of the Little House books while writing a story that was totally her own. I read the book at breakneck speed my first time through. Then I tried to slow down on a second read to savor the story more fully. On the second read through, I did discover that some aspects seemed a bit problematic to me. I will discuss the aspects I loved first.
I loved the scenes in the schoolhouse and Hanna’s kindness in helping the Harris girl. Their friendship was believable and lovely. I also loved the scene where the mother came to visit and Hanna served her tea. This scene was an effective way to address the racism issue without being too didactic. I enjoyed how Hanna found strength from the inner conversations with her mother. Her determination to prove that she could become a dressmaker was wonderful.
I did find the assault scene a bit jarring and too quickly resolved. I also had difficulty liking Hanna’s father. I found him to be rather uncaring in places. Perhaps this is just me.
I apologize for expressing these criticisms as I do feel the book was excellently written and well needed. I love how the book honors Laura Ingalls Wilder while pointing out the need for a more well-balanced look at history. It will be interesting to see if this book receives Newbery recognition as two of Wilder’s books won honors: On the Banks of Plum Creek and Little Town on the Prairie. It’s interesting that the latter book was mentioned in Parks’s author’s note.
This was an excellent post that I thoroughly enjoyed. Great analysis of the material.
You’re doing exactly what the actual Newbery committee is doing, Meredith: re-reading books and making discoveries. No book is perfect. It’s more about how things shake out on the whole and in comparison with other books under consideration. As Emily writes “Some of the other characters and plot points had weaknesses, but not enough to detract from the powerful impact of the book.”
I was quite impressed with this book. I found Hanna’s character to be believable. Some of the other characters and plot points had weaknesses, but not enough to detract from the powerful impact of the book. I don’t think that readers were expected to like Hanna’s father, and I found the assault scene jarring, but that is exactly the effect the author would have intended. Abuse of women, including cases entangled with racism, were only too common. Only at a few moments in the narrative did I feel that a 21st century perspective was creeping in a bit, as a response to the racism both of the time and of the Little House books. One of the aspects of the novel that impressed me the most was its active dialogue with Wilder’s novels. In fact, the opening scene is clearly a response to a specific passage where Laura feels overcome with grief while watching the Indians leave; she feels an almost desperate attachment to an Indian baby. I would also like to point out that often criticisms of Little House ignore the parts where Laura undermines the concept of manifest destiny which is generally unquestioned in her community. When she persists in asking Pa why, if they are taking the Indians’ land, should they not expect that the Indians will be angry. Her father tells her to go to sleep and stop asking questions.:
https://imaginaryelevators.blog/2020/10/05/a-different-perspective-on-the-prairie/
I’m usually a spectator on Heavy Medal, but as a 5th grade history teacher who has taught Prairie Lotus, I thought I’d chime in.
Steven, your blog is excellent and reflects many of the opinions of my students. On the whole they really enjoyed the book and we had meaningful conversations about the racist characters and attitudes. Students found Hanna an engaging and likable character. A few of them felt she was a “Mary Sue,” which I think aligns with your observation that Hanna may be almost too likable. I agree that the writing is beautiful, which we’ve come to expect from Park, but certain passages were surpassing.
As far as a bit of a modern perspective… as it happens I also ordered Show Me a Sign for the class. Thanks, BookPage, for featuring the two novels together. I feel both authors wanted to show that people at any period of time have different levels of prejudice, which is good lesson. When I look at recent historical novels that have won Newbery Honors, like Murdock’s The Book of Boy and Gidwitz’s The Inquisitors Tale, they also contain anachronisms (and a dragon that farts fire), which doesn’t bother me because they’re successful. Johnny Tremain sounds ye olde to me but it probably sounds more like Forbes than Paul Revere.
Since the two books were compared, I think Show Me a Sign has greater historical interest and accuracy. We took the discussion in many more directions. I’d like to point out because of my profession and Irish heritage that the wave of Irish immigrants to Boston started mainly in the 1820s. I take the one minor character in SMAS as foreshadowing.
I have my opinions, but I’d prefer Native people speak to the portrayals of their tribes.
I’m not sure what I’d consider the right amount of historical detail. For decades, I’ve argued that a certain Newbery Medal novel can absolutely be made appealing and fascinating to kids even with the extensive historical detail, sometimes rendered necessarily and creatively in exposition. That great book is… A Single Shard! I know we’re not supposed to compare works by an author, but…
What used to be called An Author’s Note and is now back matter in A Single Shard is the kind that is helpful to teachers (who else reads it?). I find the Prairie Lotus back matter odd. Am I the only one?
I hope this is seen as useful rather than annoying feedback.
After reading both of the books, I also found SHOW ME A SIGN to be more historically grounded. I found the back matter incredibly informative, and I felt it added even more to the book. While I do not think PRAIRIE LOTUS’ back matter was necessarily “odd”, I did not find that it added as much to the historical content of the book. It did give Park a chance to share her personal experiences and create that connection. It also continued to explore the themes of racism and prejudice and even challenged our notions of classic favorites.
Definitely useful, Mr. Mike. While the actual Newbery Committee is instructed to consider only books from the current year, that applies to their nominations, in-person discussion, and ultimately the decisions they make while balloting. But up to that point, Committee members are likely doing some of the same kind of thinking you write about. A reader looking at the year’s best historical fiction books could certainly think about the qualities of excellence in that genre, with real examples from past years. That can help to articulate the strengths and shortcomings of a book from this year.
Your A SINGLE SHARD example is perfect: A Committee member might think of that exemplary book from another year, recognize that it stands out because it’s “appealing and fascinating to kids even with the extensive historical detail, sometimes rendered necessarily and creatively in exposition.” And that can help to identify those qualities in this year’s books. Within a Newbery discussion, a member wouldn’t be able to say “This book is as good as A SINGLE SHARD in these ways…” but could keep those high standards in mind as the current year’s books are being discussed.
Are you saying, Steven, that the actual committee wouldn’t be able to discuss the Little House books at all, even though PRAIRIE LOTUS is in direct conversation with them? As a past chair, how do you imagine you might handle this issue?
I think the committee could (and should) discuss the Little House books. I would just want to frame that discussion first by reviewing criteria’s direction to “consider only the books eligible for the award.” A reminder that we would bring the Little House into the discussion to allow us to fully explore the qualities of PRAIRIE LOTUS…but that we would need to make sure that we’re not comparing the books in terms of literary quality. We’d want to avoid any thoughts like: “This book isn’t as good as the Little House books…so it’s not Newbery worthy.”
Also, you couldn’t expect the whole Committee to have read (or recently read) Wilder. You would expect, though, that most or all of the group will be familiar with the series’ place in children’s literature, and a discussion of the “conversation” between the new book and the older ones would be helpful for the whole group. As with any book, some members might have more background knowledge than others and could bring that into the discussion. Emily’s comment above, where she identifies a direct connection, is an example: “the opening scene is clearly a response to a specific passage where Laura feels overcome with grief while watching the Indians leave; she feels an almost desperate attachment to an Indian baby.”
One comparison from past years is THE GRAVEYARD BOOK. I imagine that Committee must have addressed the influence of THE JUNGLE BOOKS to some degree.
Finished this one yesterday in one big gulp! Park is such a reliable writer. Every time I hear her speak, I am amazed by her power, equanimity, and clarity. Her books are the same. There is a quietness about them despite the electrical current of strength running underneath. I agree with all who see this one as likely to get lots of conversation around the Newbery table. I did struggle somewhat with Hanna’s age (15). Probably because of the intentional overlaps between the Little House books, AND definitely because of the MG formatting (larger font, more space between lines), I kept reading her as younger than she was. At 15, she was very much a young woman, and I’m struggling just a little with how this could be packaged as a YA novel, and how differently (and I think more successfully) it would read to me if it were.
Thanks very much for clarifying, Steven. It sounds like a wise approach.
Another consideration with bringing the “Little House” series into a Newbery discussion of PRAIRIE LOTUS: Though we might find some strengths in the specific parallels, we would also have to consider how those moments in PRAIRIE LOTUS work with readers who don’t know the earlier series, or maybe do, but don’t see the parallels. So that opening scene that Emily notes may have one kind of impact on the reader who remembers the scene from the Wilder book, and a different impact on one who doesn’t, it should still be an effective scene for both, if that makes sense…
That makes perfect sense. I agree with that conclusion. I have read “Little House” so I cannot speak for someone who has not, but I feel that Park’s writing is strong enough to elicit a response in either case.