The Green Gables Letters: From L. M. Montgomery to Ephraim Weber, 1905-1909

In 1960, when it was first published, it would have been quite fresh and insightful to read when there was such a dearth of printed material available regarding the life of Montgomery. But today when we have such a wealth of published resources available to us, in the Journals, letters to Macmillan, and biographies, it loses something of its value. It's a long time since I read the letters to George Boyd Macmillan so I am not sure how they compare or contrast with this collection to Ephraim Weber. The letters are thoroughly readable, but perhaps have little to add to what we can learn elsewhere.

My main grumble, if I have any, is the general price of the book. The second edition (1981) contains 114 pages, of which 38 are taken up with preface, introduction and epilogue by the editor - much of which felt very repetitive, and much of which has been superseded by all the information subsequently made available to us. Only 72 pages consist of the actual letters of Montgomery to Weber - about fifteen letters in total. It would have been straightforward enough to combine these letters with those contained in the sequel (After Green Gables) so that all the letters were together in one volume, instead of publishing this slim volume separately. Or alternative, all of Weber's letters to Montgomery could have been included, to show more fully the exchange of dialogue between the two. The editor of this first volume does a good job of providing a summary of some of the important elements of Weber's letters, to help put Montgomery's responses into context, but if the original letters exist, why not include them in full? [20 Dec 2015: Having read the sequel, I discover that all of Weber's original letters to Montgomery were subsequently lost - which makes it even more sad that they weren't published while it was still possible.)

The prices of the two volumes of letters to Weber suggest that they are intended more for libraries and academic research than for the general public. The cost will be prohibitive to many would-be buyers, and I think they would be right to be cautious. The first volume of the Selected Journals provides much better value for money than this first volume of letters, and is far more insightful into what was going on in Montgomery's life at that time - and is told more honestly too.

Though she valued this correspondence so highly, to me it feels like it was for mere fun and refreshment. It feels quite shallow and superficial, never deep, never truly personal. She didn't really speak openly or honestly about anything going on in her life from an emotional perspective. She just enjoyed the chance of being able to voice opinions which she couldn't say to those closer to home where she had to keep up the appearances. It's obvious from reading her Journals that she wasn't a Christian. Here in the letters it comes across in a more concise manner as she openly speaks to Weber about all the essential elements of Christianity which she didn't believe and detested. As an expression of the direction churches were drifting in, she is probably fairly representative, and not as unique and thoughtful as she would have liked to have believed herself to be.

She regarded Weber as a kindred spirit, but as I view it, the friendship was rather shallow, (in so far as it can be read out of these letters at any rate). Maybe in her imagination Montgomery simply attached to it more importance than the correspondence in itself was truly worth - it was representative to her of friendships which she could never find in real life - she could imagine him to be a kindred spirit because she rarely saw him, where she might have grown disillusioned with him had they met on a regular basis. Habit and nostalgia, clinging on to remnants of her past and a need for some constants in her life, might also explain why she attributed so much importance to the correspondence. To my mind these letters don't actually express anything of a true 'kindred spirit'.

Oh, dear.

The more I know of LM Montgomery the person, the less she appeals to me. I came to her books comparatively late, and while I did find "Anne" a bit gushing and starry-eyed, most of her fiction is OK. I was curious to listen in on her letters to a friend/fan.

I know Montgomery had a history of depression, but that's OK, so do I. However, she goes from gushing over Nature like Anne Shirley in her worst moments, to waspishly biting the character that feeds her (to mix a metaphor). Most of the letters reproduced here are full of the fact that yes, she writes for the money, and is mostly interested in her "juvenalia" for the money it will bring in. By the end of writing Anne of Avonlea (title chosen by the publisher) she is so "horribly tired of that detestable Anne that I could wish in all truth and candour that I had never written her." Which doesn't stop her gleefully telling her correspondent the exact amount that the first year's royalties came to--and then in a PS asking him not to divulge it to anyone else!

Reading some of the now out-of-print short stories in Chronicles of Avonlea and Further Chronicles of Avonlea, I remember being startled to discover just what a nasty little snob and racist Montgomery could be, particularly toward French Canadians and Indians, but not excluding anyone who isn't PLU, culturally or intellectually. This is borne out by her attitude toward the girls in her real-life Sunday School class, whom she finds "stupid and unimaginative." There's worse to come. At that time, the position of Sunday School teacher was sometimes paid, just as choir soloists and organists were paid. Maybe that was the attraction for Montgomery, who rejects all idea of the divinity of Christ, writes of God in the past tense (!) and refers to the idea of being cleansed of sin by the blood of Christ as "hideous cant": "To me, that phrase always summons up a disgusting physical picture that revolts me!" She can spiritualise Nature and gleefully embrace superstition, thought transference and "mental healing", but not blood redemption! She claims in the letters to have "discovered the Bible" in about 1906, and to have begun "really reading it", but apparently her mental filter blocked out the message. She finds the Israelites interesting, but is more interested in phrases from the KJV that passed into common language than anything else.

Montgomery apparently dedicated Anne of Avonlea "to kindred spirits" precisely because she abominated fanmail from grateful readers who felt themselves to be soul-sisters of Anne Shirley, and wished she'd never mentioned them. Don't worry, Miss Montgomery, I never thought of you as a kindred spirit--and now I know you never could be.

This may rank as the most delightful read of the year. Every page offered gems of beauty, humor and intellectual strength.

It’s as if Ms. Maud is talking to me. Fantastic!

I don't know how to rate this, so... weird. I think I'm leaving the stars out of the equation. How do you give points or subtract points for someone's correspondence?

"I give her a five for interest but a two for consistency?" Come on...

On the other hand, I suspect I would remove a star if I were certain that all of Weber's letters were available to show the entire correspondence. Enough was that we got bits and pieces, so...? IF that were possible, I would consider it foolish not to show both sides of the thing. I also suspect that Montgomery would agree.

Still, it was a delight to see just how much of Anne was in those letters--even when she became "stale" (totally burned out!) as Anne did. I think her criticisms of Anne come because of seeing her own (sometimes perceived) faults in the girl. Just like parents are often hardest on the child who reminds them of themselves most.

It has a sad tone to it - I think that is the part in where they search for truth and hash out Christianity, but never find it - and yet it also is a reflection of youth and the path toward success and life fulfillment. I am glad I read this, not just the letters but the preface and epilogue. I want to read their later letters too. I found out I have another thing in common with L. M. Montgomery - favorite flower. I wish I could have met her. This book was we'll put together and I am glad I read it, but I cannot help but turning over the last page and feeling sad and taking on the emptiness they never struggled out of.

As a lifelong Anne devotee, all I wanted and expected from this book was an insight into one of my favorite authors while she was writing some of my favorite books. I was delighted with Montgomery's voice, and it was a pleasure to get to be a voyeur on her communications with a friend. The letters follow the time from when Montgomery was a struggling author receiving rejections and small fees for poems and stories published in various magazines, to the publication of Anne and its successor, all the way to the "pestering" of her devoted fans.

All this I expected, but what I didn't expect were the discussions of:

theology,

As for the Bible, the same limitations must apply to it. You know to be frank, I do not look upon the Bible as a book inspired by God. I look upon it as a book much of which is inspired with God--a collection of the myths, history, poetry, ethics, and philosophy of a singularly spiritual (taking into account the period in which they lived) people whose superior conception of the Great Intelligence fitted them to be the mouthpieces of that Intelligence.

mortality,

What a strange thing this death is. We all know we are going to die sometime but the knowledge never worries us or clouds our happiness here, as a general thing. Theologians have done much to surround death with horror and dread. If we listened to Nature's teachings we should be happier truly believing (I hold) that death is simply a falling asleep, probably with awakening to some happy and useful existence, at the worst an endless and dreamless repose.

what Montgomery had been reading lately,

Have you ever read Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde by Stevenson. It is well worth reading and enforces a strong lesson. If it ever comes your way read it.

writing advice,

There is no power that so speedily rusts as that of expression. So to work at once, stick to it, write something every day, even if you burn it up after writing it. Otherwise you'll atrophy to a certainty.

and suffragism,

As for "spheres," I believe anyone's sphere--whether man or woman--is where they can be happiest and do the best work. The majority of women are happiest and best placed at home, just as the majority of men are in the world. But there are exceptions to both. Some women are born for a public career, just as some men are born to cook in a restaurant. Yes, they are! And each has a right to fulfil the purpose of their birth. Sex seems to me to enter very little into the question.

This left me not only hungry for more of Montgomery's letters (thanks Amazon one-click!), but also longing for a time of letter writing and the slow reflection required to achieve it. I'm envious of it and nostalgic for it. Anyone need a pen pal?

I'm a fan of the Anne of Green Gables books and love L.M. Montgomery's writing, but this collection of personal letters between her and a fellow Canadian, Ephraim Weber, didn't capture me. I realize it's sometimes best to just enjoy literature for its own sake rather than delving into the personal lives of those who create it.