Summary:This less-read work by the author of The Secret Garden follows the fortunes of young Cedric Errol, an American boy whose English father died when he was very young, leaving him and his mother to get on as best they can. But when Ceddie is seven, an astonishing thing happens: it is revealed (to him; his mother knew all along) that his father was the youngest son of the Earl of Dorincourt. Further, it seems that his father's two older brothers have both died without having sons, and Ceddie is now Lord Fauntleroy, heir to the earldom. Transplanted to England and the home of his crusty, selfish, self-indulgent grandfather, Cedric is too pure and innocent to see anything but good in others (even his dreadful grandfather), and so brings about a miraculous transformation, with a little more help from fate.Review:As you can tell from my summary, the book is in some ways deserving of the reputation it has, though it by no means deserves it all. I grew up knowing that a "little lord fauntleroy" was an over-dressed kid and probably a stuck-up prig into the bargain. Actually, neither is true taken in context of the book. Cedric's mother dresses him as nicely as she can, in the fashion of the time for a boy of good family, and this is continued when he comes to England. But little of the book's focus is on his clothing.It is Cedric's pure nature that is the focus of the book, and here the criticism is somewhat more deserved. No child ever was or could be so pure, innocent, and good. He's not awful; I've seen worse in the literature from the period, but he lacks that imperfect humanity that makes Mary in Secret Garden someone we can like and relate too. The only reason Cedric isn't too perfect to live is that he is so naive. I mean, really. He lived seven years on the tough streets of New York and never noticed that not everyone is good?And yet. I can't despise him. I can't like him as well as I like Mary, because he's just not enough of a human being (being only 7 is probably part of that. He's just too young to be that interesting, especially as Burnett wrote his naivete more like he was five). But I can't despise him. I still rooted for him, and was glad when he got to keep his title and his inheritance. Besides, unless he's totally spoiled, which is definitely a possibility (and no wonder the Earl's own sons mostly turned out badly if his idea of parenting is to give a boy whatever he wants, and no school as far as I can tell!) he'll be an improvement over his grandfather as manager of the estate.Of Burnett's three books, this one does the least for me, largely because not only does Cedric not have a personality developed as fully as Mary or Sarah Crewe (A Little Princess), but he doesn't really have any adversity to overcome. And that, more than his too-good nature, I think is the root of the problem of this book. It might almost stand as a cautionary tale for those of us who hate to make our characters suffer. Because, as our mothers all told us, suffering builds character(s). Without some kind of challenge that the protagonist himself must overcome, you just have a bunch of things happening to a bit of fluff in the wind.
I must admit I much prefer Frances Hodgson Burnett's classic SECRET GARDEN to this somewhat lesser known work, Little Lord Fauntleroy -- Burnett's first children's novel. However, this rags to riches sentimental story was hotly popular in its day (serialized in 1895-1896 before being published in book form.) In fact, the book was popular enough to impact the fashion for young boys in America! Little Lord Fauntleroy, Cedric, is an idealized, perfect (COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY PERFECT) 7 year old boy whose goodness, generosity, kindness, pureness, innocence, and trust in others transforms his crusty 70 year old grandfather (the Earl). The rags to riches theme may have had special appeal to the author whose family experienced financial hardship when her father died suddenly, leading eventually to the family's immigration in 1865 to Tennessee, where her maternal uncle lived. Frances used her talents at writing to help support the family through those hard times, although later she was successful enough to be able to maintain a more lavish life as part of Washington society. For a number of years, in fact, she was able to travel back and forth between America and England, where she lived in a grand manor house with a walled garden (the garden that inspired her beloved classic THE SECRET GARDEN). Ah, but that is another story.
What do You think about Little Lord Fauntleroy (2006)?
Somehow I never put together that this book was written by one of my favorite childhood authors. I saw it on the shelf and did a double take. Guess at that age, I didn't go searching for everything written by an author I liked. This one wasn't as engrossing as the Secret Garden and A Little Princess. And yes, every paragraph we seem to hear again how angelic, innocent, or beautiful Cedric was. It made me think of Pollyanna and I had to look up the copyright just to see which came first. Yes, it was this one. I didn't have the urge to kick Cedric like so many people seem compelled to do. I can forgive him since it's not him intentionally being holier than thou. Also reminded me of that joke about the kid digging through a pile of horse poop given to him as a gift, because with that much poop, there's bound to be a pony somewhere. Anyway, what I really wanted to see was more of the Earl being tested in a situation where he wouldn't be kind, but wants to appear so, other than passing the buck to Cedric to handle. And I wanted to see what hapoened later, when Cedric was old enough to understand the reality of his parent's situation with the Earl. But that might have been too adult, too much reality pressing in on the fantastic nature of the tale. For a kid's book, I'm okay with Lord Fauntleroy forever being the perfect child in the perfect world.
—Jill Furedy
I wasn't expecting to like it, although was a tad curious to read Burnett's other works. Memorable parts of the story was the friendship between Mr. Hobbs ("i'll be jiggered!") and Cedric. You will undoubtedly fall in-love with the little lord and his Mom, whom he fondly calls "Dearest," since in his 7 y/o mind, she should rightfully be called as his father did before he died. Quite insightful was the time when Fauntleroy was writing a letter that his Grandfather, the Earl, has asked him to do. Fauntleroy (child that he was, made a lot of spelling mistakes) and so he remarked, "...You see that's the way with words of more than one syllable; you have to look in the dictionary. It's always the safest. I'll write it over again."I laughed out loud at this bit: Fauntleroy has successfully secured his post as a lord and was showing his grocer friend around the castle's picture gallery and the former thinking that he's in a museum of some sort:"N--no!" said Fauntleroy, rather doubfully. "I don't think it's a museum. My grandfather says these are my ancestors.""Your aunts' sisters!" ejaculated Mr. Hobbs. "All of 'em? Your great-uncle, he must have had a family! Did he raise 'em all?"Book Details: Title Little Lord FauntleroyAuthor Frances Hodgson Burnett Reviewed By Purplycookie
—PurplyCookie
Little Lord Fauntleroy is a set book for my children's lit course, I think. It's the second book I've read by Frances Hodgson Burnett -- although I own A Little Princess too, and plan to read it soon. They all seem to start the same way, describing the child and then having a sudden change in circumstances, especially location (e.g. India to Yorkshire, America to , usually due to the death of a parent. In The Secret Garden and Little Lord Fauntleroy, there is some kind of amazing change in circumstance due to love or friendship -- in The Secret Garden, both Mary and Colin are changed, as well as Colin's father; in Little Lord Fauntleroy, the old Earl is changed while Little Lord Fauntleroy himself stays more or less the same throughout.I'm sure I would have liked it more when I was younger. I suspect when I go back to The Secret Garden, I'll still find some of the old magic in it. But I'm a little too grown up and cynical for the simplicity of the journey through this book. It's interesting, though, to think about what kind of children's book it is, what kind of things the author had in mind. Sentimentality, evidently, and a story that can interest a child in it, but still moralising throughout -- it's not as overt as some books for children, but it's there. "Literature should improve your mind" kinda thinking.
—Nikki
