Let me ask you something, and you can totally be frank with me. What’s your favorite family sitcom? I know, its an odd ball question, so I’ll go first. Mine is The Simpsons and Full House. I’ll even go so far as to say that Full House is a guilty little pleasure that I’ll indulge when no one’s looking. And whenever I’m feeling blue, I’ll turn on earlier seasons of The Simpsons and feel right as rain. Recently, I’ve been experiencing this new family sitcom. In a way, it reminds me of Full House. It has a widowed father. It has three sisters. Sadly there aren’t any wacky uncles. Plus. Its set in the early twentieth century. I’m talking about Ernest Poole’s His Family.
Now I’m sure there are literary purists who want to burn me alive for putting a Pulitzer Prize winning novel right beside a family sitcom. I agree that does sound sacrilegious, but hear me out on this. Now I’m not denying that Poole’s writing style was special. I’ll also add that some of his plots were controversial for its time. Case in point: (spoilers dead ahead!) Laura, the youngest of the three daughters, wants a quick wedding but also doesn’t want to have any children. Now that doesn’t sound bad. In fact, there are couples who choose not to have any children at all. So why am I giggling at that? I’m not laughing at that scene per se. I’m laughing because it was considered a big deal once. The way they acted made you think the world would have ended if Mrs. So-and-So didn’t pop out some brats, but if you’re reading this, then world made it—yay! Such notions don’t fly anymore because the times have changed. Hell, everything changes when given enough time—including stories. Sometimes they get better and sometimes they get worse. They might get silly or just go flat. It all depends on what else has changed.
Case in point: a few years ago, the streaming service Max had taken down Gone with The Wind, causing fans to lose their minds. The movie was eventually brought back with a couple of changes. A disclaimer was put at the beginning of the film that explained how Margret Mitchell and David O. Selznick got slavery wrong. A round table discussion group was added after the film’s conclusion where historians explain the realities of slavery. I know some will say—but no one had any problems with it before so why now? Its because African Americans today have a stronger voice than they did yesterday. The movie is still considered a classic, but it had lost its status as a beloved classic. The same can be said for the book, which incidentally won the Pulitzer Prize in 1937. It was immensely popular when it first came out, but that changed given the passage of time and our understanding of history. Gone with The Wind today just mixed reviews.
Aging poorly doesn’t necessarily mean the story has turned offensive. It could mean the story has gone flat. It happens. You leave open a 2-liter of Coca-Cola and within a couple of days and it loses its fizz. That happens with stories as well. The older they are the less impactful they become. That’s the power of age. However, books aren’t supposed to age well nor are they suppose to be meaningful. They’re supposed to provoke. I can’t comment much on how Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with The Wind has aged since I haven’t read it yet. Many have said that it hasn’t aged well at all, but I think that nearly everyone would agree that it still has the power to provoke. People have spoken out about it. People have written their own stories in similar veins. Its when a book has failed to agitate that it should be considered dead. Is that what happened with His Family? Not really. It has gone flat of course, but it still has the power to provoke and even inspire, but that influence is only relegated to the land of footnotes and obscurity.
There’s a bit that stands out to me when reading the first few chapters. During a conversation with his father-in-law Roger, Edith’s husband Bruce express dismally the amount he has to pay each year for his children but cheerfully wishes to buy a car. I don’t know why that bit stood out to me. I think it might have had to do with Edith having to stay at home after having given a difficult birth. As I mentioned before, Bruce may be the money maker but Edith wears the pants in the family. There’s a bit in there where she stops Bruce from proposing and demands he gets her father’s permission first. I think I might be missing the mark, but I believe the car might represent some sort of escape.
Deborah and Laura who live with Roger do love and care for each other, but they have problems with Edith. Their eldest sister does love them but I got the sense that Edith was rather disappointed in them. Edith is not invited to Laura’s wedding not out of anger or disgust but because Laura just can’t wait. So, in a bit of retribution, she tells Roger about Laura’s desire to not have children. Roger tries to have a talk with Laura against Deborah’s wishes and Laura pretty much gets angry which forces Roger to retreat. Roger of course is frustrated like you wouldn’t believe but God bless him—he tries his best.
After all, its what Judith wanted.
One criticism I have is that that all three daughters are cut from the same cloth—in that they’re stubborn as mules. Now I can understand why. Poole was trying to capture a certain feeling from that time when women fought for equality. But I wouldn’t mind having some differences between three to help them uniquely stand out more. That’s just me though. Still, their stubbornness only makes me respect Roger even more given how he’s able to put up with it. Whats more is that he’s making some headway. After a very expensive wedding at the house, Laura departs leaving both Deborah and Roger behind. The two decide to continue living together at the family home.
I’m a quarter way through the book now, and even though it feels like a family sitcom, I still find myself liking the characters as well as the story. I know deep down in my heart that I’m going to hate it when its over and done with. More to come.
