After reading Daddy Long Legs sometime in the last couple years, I ordered this 1915 edition of Dear Enemy from eBay. I've just now gotten round to reading it.

If anything, this is a good "time capsule" story---one of those that wouldn't be nearly as popular or innocent as it likely was in its day. Several political and social ideologies are presented without any hint of a 21st century politically correct filter---even I, who usually roll my eyes at what some call "snowflakes", found a few things to be seriously offended by.

The main character is pretty harsh on racial and intellectual minorities; even going so far to insist society would be better off if these "feeble minded" ones were segregated into concentration camps. In context, this was her way of being sarcastically humorous---but it's a horrible suggestion and nothing any decent person today would find funny in the least.

The story was also an "interesting" look at eugenics from a perspective very different from my own. I've developed no sympathies for the philosophy, but I feel like I've made an excuse for their more "primitive" understanding. These are concessions I would have a very difficult time making for people today, and in the grand scheme of things, 1915 was not that long ago. I think I must just resign myself to the fact that this author had some really yucky views on the sanctity of life (a point I later confirmed when researching her biographical info.)

I did enjoy her humor though, for the most part, and epistolary novels like these always remind me of the "summer camp" books I used to read as a kid where the campers were always writing home (ex. Yours 'Til Niagara Falls, Abby).

New to me word: clishmaclaver. She uses it twice and I've never heard that before. It's a Scottish word for gossip or silly talk. ( )

This was written using a very dated and disturbing point of view about orphanages in general. I didn't care for the title either, as it sounded so negative before I even cracked open the book. Granted it is a fictional novel but unfortunately it lacked the charm of the first novel in the series, Daddy Long Legs. ( )

This is the lesser-known sequel to Daddy Long Legs. In this epistolary novel, Judy, a rich socialite with lively and original ideas takes over the orphanage that the Daddy Long Legs heroine grew up in. I was charmed to learn that the orphanage is in Dutchess County, where I live. The orphanage is cheerless and unhealthy when Judy arrives, but she manages to transform it into a place where the children can have nice clothes, affection, a gentle education, up-to-date (for the period) medical treatment, and the chance to play outdoors. It’s understood that Judy will just run the orphanage for a little while, and then marry her rich boyfriend and stop working forevermore, but later Judy is not so sure. Judy comes into conflict with the orphanage’s crabby Scottish doctor, the “Enemy” of the title. However after a while their animosity turns to friendship and then to...? But the doctor is guarding a sorrowful secret.

This part of the book mirrors Jean Webster’s real life. I don’t know much about her, but I did read her Wikipedia page from top to bottom. In addition to being a supporter of women’s suffrage and various reform movements and education for women, she had a boyfriend who couldn’t divorce his wife because she was mentally ill. (I hear this story over and over, and yet I never hear about the undivorcable mentally ill husband.) Webster’s boyfriend also had a “mentally unstable” child. And it sounds like the boyfriend was not the picture of mental health himself.

Anyway, the least appealing part of Dear Enemy is the lip service granted to the eugenics models of Galton and Goddard, with discussion of the feebleminded Jukes and Kallikaks. Judy eventually concludes that there’s nothing in this heredity business, but because it was the “scientific” idea of the age, Webster gave eugenics quite a bit of air time. It does seem that the whole question of inherited mental illness was one that she had a real personal interest in, and I think she was honestly trying to figure it out rather than just being sensationalistic.

This is one of the books of 1915 that’s still read today, as a fluffy fun book for young people, not as a towering literary classic assigned in school. I think the reason for its endurance is that the main character is spunky and is more like a contemporary woman in terms of her attitude toward education, career, and love.
( )

Enjoyable sequel to Daddy Long Legs. Not as good as the original, but that would be a high bar to reach.

Sally McBride takes over the orphanage and writes her experiences to Judy and to the doctor (with whom she has many arguments).

It's partly of interest because it was written in 1915, rather than by a later writer trying to emulate the period. This can be annoying to some readers, as there are views expressed that don't always mesh with modern ideas on things, but I find refreshing as I hate it when characters in modern historical novels are only allowed to hold modern views, which they would not have held at the time.

eg. Sally is a great believer in fresh air, whereas I think the kids would freeze to death!

The effects of hereditary vs environment at that time were greatly influenced by a particular book (which has since been discredited to a large extent), but it was very influential at the time. Sally isn't 100% convinced by it, but it certainly affects many of her letters. ( )

Some extremely likable parts. See the quote about Sallie’s experience of freedom. Not so much the belaboring of genetic inheritance, Kallikaks, etc. Really, not a light-hearted romance as my cover would have it (although had I thought that was what I would be reading I would not have bothered). And I would have enjoyed just occasionally someone else’s voice. ( )