Certainly there is no objective truth when reporting history for every approach has a purpose and will be shaded by this purpose. Hollingworth as a biographer has envisioned his task as relaying the many facets of his deceased wife’s personality as a gifted child, loving wife, compassionate teacher, sharp researcher, and poetic woman. His view of course is distorted for he was her loving husband who had a preconceived idea of her greatness and what her influences were. His historical accounts are different than most because they rely on her old writings and conversations with him. Even though these are an interesting source they should not be the only source. More of what others could have added might have helped fill the story out.
All of the biography was very flattering coming from her loving husband. Was she really a person who hated no-one and made no petty mistakes or foul ups? The writer was more concerned in portraying the inner beauty of his wife and so everything she did was reported on with this loving opinion. She may very well have been wonderful but was that all she was? Her writing was used to portray her inner thoughts which seemed to always be so controlled and thoughtful. Was she really so contained? Leta S tetter Hollingworth is studied today because of her advancement to a women’s liberation, studies of gifted children, and accomplishments in applied psychology.
The Term Paper on To My Dear And Loving Husband Interpretation
... be a sincere love poem written from a loving wife to her husband. This literal perception makes the ... found. This interpretation of "To My Dear and Loving Husband" is quite ironic, because a totally different ... Anne Bradstreet's poem "To My Dear and Loving Husband" is capable of being interpreted in more ... Anne Bradstreet's poem "To My Dear and Loving Husband" can be understood literally, or it can ...
She must have passed her theories, practices, and opinions down to students, co-workers, and colleagues, but no reports of her chain of legacy is made in the book. Perhaps it is because she did not have grad students and she was a women, but her applied psychology was passed on and used by teachers, social workers, and nurses. What did these people and their respective fields have to say about Leta. Did anyone disagree or as her husband said was everything she ever did accepted because of the way her graceful mannerisms presented things? The author leaves out all personal love letters between the two, but he also leaves out any personnel interviews with family, professors, students, and co-workers. His opinion of her is a wonderful one but it needs to be contrasted and filled out with the views of others. Also the research she did was often covered loosely and not with professional consideration so the full picture is often not covered.
This book would be a good addition to other historical accounts of her life that are more focussed more on her professional work or even on her drive and discipline from another’s viewpoint. I think a compilation of a number of different people with her husband included might project a better picture than the single rose colored view of her husband.
