The Doll’s House
Week of January 28, 2008

Chapters 8 and 9:

Marchpane is about to make a big appearance into the story. She will appear at the Exhibition for the Blind Children’s Fund.

Tottie arrives at the Exhibition and is surprised to see so many different types of dolls. Some were very handsome and imposing; all of them, without exception, were far, far larger than Tottie. She felt small and shy and wanted to go home but “I shall never go home again,” and her secret trouble filled her so strongly that if wood could have drooped, Tottie would have drooped. She longed for her little family and Darner.

She was picked up by a lady who said she must be “unique”. Not understanding the word, Tottie wanted to hang her head, but, of course, being wooden, she could not.

On the table opposite Tottie were four dolls under a glass-domed cover. Tottie discovers that the four dolls belonged to Queen Victoria. She remembered Queen Victoria.

Next to Tottie stood a wax doll with a satin dress, and a French walking doll dressed in blue satin with a bustle behind and white flounces. When asked by the French doll what she was made of, Tottie replied proudly that she was made of wood such as masts of ships, flagpoles, violins – and trees. She said she once knew a kid doll and did not like her. Suddenly Tottie hears a voice she recognizes. The voice was saying that she once knew a little doll made of wood and did not like her at all. She went on to say the little wooden dolls were sold in cheaper shops for a shilling a dozen or four for a penny. The children would waste their money on them. Tottie looked across to the opposite table and saw whom she expected to see, Marchpane. Marchpane looked back and said she was surprised Tottie had not been broken or thrown away long, long ago.

Marchpane is nasty to Tottie, pretending she can’t remember her name as there were so many of her. The wax doll nearby speaks up and says that Tottie is the only one of her kind in the exhibition.

There is whispering that dolls are to be sold out of their families. Not Marchpane, of course. Tottie’s secret trouble is revealed: Emily and Charlotte had sold her to Mrs. Innisfree and she would presently be sold again. She was filled with shame.

When the caretaker’s child appears at the Exhibition hall during the evening to look at the dolls, the wax doll falls in love with her. She is a thin little girl, with poor clothes and very respectful of the dolls as she keeps her hands behind her. However, she can’t help herself when she sees the wax doll. She just has to touch her satin dress. The wax doll who wants so desperately to have a child take her home and love her declares, “She is my child.”

The Queen officially opened the Exhibition. Marchpane and the haughty doll pull themselves up straight and tall for a good look. Surely the Queen is there to see them! She stops by Marchpane and says, “What a beautiful little doll. Surely she is the smallest in the Exhibition?” But Marchpane knew she wasn’t the smallest doll in the Exhibit. She almost cracked her china when Mrs. Innisfree said there was an even smaller doll, a little farthing doll. The Queen said she used to play with wooden dolls like this when she was a little girl. Marchpane could not speak for fear of really cracking if she did. The Queen asked if Tottie was for sale as she would like to buy her. Tottie whispered good-by to Birdie, Emily, Charlotte, Mr. Plantaganet, Apple, and Darner. But Mrs. Innisfree was saying Tottie wasn’t for sale! She is the “very dear possession of two little girls.” Her card said “Sampler, worked by a little girl in 1846. Farthing doll dressed by the same little girl in 1846. Lent by her great-granddaughters, Emily and Charlotte Dane, in 1946.” The Queen declared she must be a great treasure.

For the first time, Tottie’s wood felt weak, bending, and she fell over and rolled right off the table.

DISCUSSION:

Oh, poor Tottie--to think she is there to be sold! And to meet with she-who-must-not-be-named, when she had hardly thought of her at all. Quell horrible! (that, ladies and gents, is the sum total of my French). I was glad to read the end of the chapter.

I really wish the wax doll would get to go with the little girl. That would be a fitting side story. But, alas, I doubt it--as the caretaker's daughter, how could the family afford her?
______________________________

The discussion between the dolls about children was rather interesting. “It is children who give us life.” Sad to think a doll might be unhappy that no one plays with it. I have play dolls and then I have “cabinet” dolls. I do take them out, look them over, pay attention to them and love them all. I sure hope they don't have the personalities of Marchpane though. That haughtiness is a sure fire turnoff. I have never gotten any bad “vibes” off them. I would prefer to think of them with nice dispositions. My play dolls are a different species. They get dropped, tossed around, misplaced (sometimes). They are truly enjoyed.

Marchpane really has a nasty disposition. She is extremely mean and insulting and thinks only of herself and her own beauty. She is making a pain of herself amongst the other dolls.

I feel bad for the wax doll. She sounds so sweet. I would love to be able to take her home myself. She is always packed away and wants to be sold and be with children. When the caretaker’s child appears at the Exhibition hall during the evening to look at the dolls, the wax doll falls in love with her. The little girl just can’t help touching the dress of the wax doll. I wonder if somehow, by a miracle, the wax doll will eventually belong to the little girl.

I’m so happy for Tottie when she finally finds out that she will be returned to her beloved family. What will happen to Marchpane???
______________________________

I'm always bothered by books where a doll is stereotyped by her looks - it strikes me as mean spirited, and none of us would like it if someone wrote us that way, would we?

Being delicately made does not make a doll mean. If Marchpane was mean, it was not because of her materials. It was because of how she was regarded and treated by her humans. Perhaps she was really very playful inside, but years of being made to watch embittered her? I wish Rumer Godden had worked that kind of thought into the story.

The one thing I did not like about this book was the theme - the idea that the more humbly made, less 'valuable' a doll was, the nicer its personality; the more delicate and costly, the meaner she was. I've not found that to be true with humans or dolls!

Some dolls are not terribly approachable. I'm sure we've all experienced that, with both blow molded plastic ones with eyes that stare at nothing and a complexion too orange to look real, or else with fine and with costly works of art that somehow lacked soul. But Marchpane's pictures do not depict a haughty, unapproachable doll to me. From time to time as I read the book I'd look back at her picture and think - perhaps Marchpane is being set up and the woes that are attributed to her aren't as they seemed?

The dynamics between the two girls was interesting to me. They were not given individual gifts, but were always expected to share everything equally. That seemed to me to set up a power struggle between them, which got worse with each gift. One girl favored (but could never really have her for her own) Marchpane and the other, seemingly more passive one, preferred the humbler dolls. Could she possibly have created dangerous situations hoping to cause Marchpane's banishment?
______________________________

It is bothersome about the stereotyping but that's the way Rumer Godden wrote the story. She seems to be pitting the good versus the bad, the valuable versus the less valuable in this story. Maybe by the time we get to the end of the book Marchpane will have changed??? She truly is a beautiful doll and seems to have a sweet expression to her face.

Godden did give the wax doll a wonderful personality. I am anxious to see if Godden continues with something about her later in the book and doesn't just leave it alone like the bad ending to a movie where you never know what happens to the character.

I agree on the valuable/less valuable thing. I don't look at dolls like that. I like what I like, whether it cost $1 or many more dollars, whether it's beautiful or homely. If a doll speaks to me, that's the one I want regardless of value. I once bought a little plastic doll with a crepe paper dress for $.35 at a mini show. She is obviously (I hate to say it but . . .) a little cheapo doll, but the second I saw her, she was mine. I love that little doll and she is very happy amidst my dolls and bears.

You lost me on the two girls. Do you mean Emily and Charlotte sharing Tottie? They don't have Marchpane as of this chapter. Do they get her later? Is the power struggle you are talking about in a later chapter? I have not been reading ahead, but I have not noticed a power struggle between the two girls to this point.
_____________________________

Oh, but that is what stories and movies do. Most characters are a caricature which is why they are all so recognizable to us and we relate to them so well. I am sure you knew girls in high school just like Marchpane; and I bet they wore the expensive clothes, had all of the latest fashions and wore, if that was the time period, make-up a plenty to hide their flawless skin, and I bet they were just as prickly as Marchpane to those who did not rotate in their circle. I am sure you also know plenty who defied the stereotype, but these are literary characters not real people and the point is not really in painting a realistic picture but creating a story.
_____________________________

While I agree with you in theory (although I think your ideas stem very solidly from later 20th century thought rather than an earlier time period, when this book was written -- 1948 -- and perhaps an even earlier time period which it is meant to represent), I also think that Rumer Godden is using common literary convention. I realize I am probably stating the obvious but she uses the materials the dolls are made from as a reflection of the inner landscape of the doll. It is a common device in literature, usually taking the form of using weather or terrain to imply a mood, but I think it works the same way here. I doubt that Rumer Godden is trying to imply that the more expensive the doll or person, the nastier and less approachable they are in any real sense. I think she is just using it as a paradigm, and a paradigm that not only works but is quite interesting and gives the story a bit of depth. She uses this convention with all/most of the characters AND their names as well -- Marchpane, Birdie, Apple; all of these names have a second layer of meaning. I think we also need to keep in mind that Marchpane is made not only from cold china/bisque but decorated with delicate detailing that, while it's pretty to look at, is difficult to play with without ruining and is probably texturally quite prickly; imagine living your life dressed like she is in the book. She is unapproachable as much for her delicate details that are probably not soft and pliable or poseable, as she is for her body materials. You have to remember that Mr. Plantagenet is also made from china/bisque and so his structure is also cold and stiff, but he, as a character, is not. You can see THIS reflected in HIS clothing. They've changed his clothes to be more comfortable and someone has played with him enough to give him a fake mustache. Perhaps if Marchpane would just part with her fancy clothes, she'd be loved and become a softer more approachable doll, but she was made inside and out to be an object, something to be looked at and this consequently has made her emotionally unapproachable. Perhaps Godden is commenting as much on society's need to create such un-play-with-able toys as she is on Marchpane herself. If you had a doll like Marchpane, would you play with her as much as you do with Hitty? And if you say yes, do you think this would be a common choice or just one you made based on the disposition of the doll itself?

I contend that The Dolls House is a simple story written for children (although complex enough to engage an adult) that makes use of conventional literary devices in a successful and meaningful way. It builds in children the unconscious awareness of devices of this kind which will ultimately enhance their future ability to decode greater literature.
______________________________

For me, this is just it. Children are not simple - at least the ones I've met aren't. Protecting them, or talking down to them as if they can't think, runs against my grain. I despise trite literary devices, especially when they are shortcuts to character development, as they so often are in children's literature.

I most of all despise the sick/dead mother device, and living with a sick/dead mother is probably what made me aware of devices and to dislike them so from an early age. Only Hayao Miyazaki can write a children's story with a sick mother (My Neighbor Totoro is superbly written, for quite young children) and have it ring true, and that is because he lived it.

In my opinion the standards for writing a children's book should be the same ( if not higher) as for adults. Research the subject well, and don't use what you don't know. Children are keen observers who see through and dislike it when they're being lied to, storybook or no. On his first birthday my son demonstrated this! He received Go Dog Go. As I read it to him, at first he did not understand it; but as I explained it, he got mad. He'd correct me every time I said "Do you like this hat?" with "NO! Doggie not say hat! Ruff Ruff!" That book irritated him to no end. A lot of children are like this and dislike fiction as a result. I do literacy volunteering and the first thing I advise parents (and teachers) is don't force fiction on a child - give them a choice and lots of kids who think they hate to read will become bookworms overnight. That is the sort of simple idea that works for kids - not simplifying characters to stereotypes to make them easier to understand - kids understand complexities like character differences.

When I was growing up, the choice of maternal characters was between the dead mother and the unnaturally perfect one. There was nothing in between. I loved to read, but would get so frustrated looking for books I related to, and our librarian was no help at all. Her philosophy was that children should like what adults say they should like, not the other way around. Editors agreed with this until JK Rowling showed them a thing or two. Literature such as is written for children now, with all its complexity and honesty, is what I longed for then. There weren't books with characters like Harry Potter and Lyra Belaqua, who like me, lived a life full of complications. Now that I am grown and have collected children's books for decades, I know several I'd have loved ( Betsy Tacy and George MacDonald's Princess and Curdie are two) that didn't fit the mold then, but I didn't know them when I was young, and I think the reason was because adults had narrow ideas about what children should read and that is what they provided.
______________________________

I always seem to be disagreeing with you...it makes me feel quite cantankerous...sorry about that...however...I don't think it is trite at all, I think it is quite complex, if not done quite as successfully as a "grown up" writer. But big writers use devices like this as well and not all of them do a good job either. I don't think that Rumer Godden is at all dumbing down anything for kids and that is not what I meant to imply. I think she is using allegorical devices to make a point. Take Birdie for example. Birdie is lightheaded; she can hear the rattle of loose plastic in her head and yet it is Birdie who goes against the grain at the end and the one who makes the sacrifice. So while her character is light and airy, there is something very substantial about her. Even while using the literary devices, Rumer Godden contradicts them. She sets you up with expectations like with Birdie and all of the references to light, Bird, feathers, and then turns in the other direction and gives Birdie's character weight. No, this is not Harry Potter; it is not high literature, but there can be poignancy and meaning in sweet and simple stories as well as highly detailed ones. And if you don't think J.K Rowling used any highly iconic characters in Harry Potter you had better look again. What is Snape, throughout the entire series but a rather flat stereotype of a character; he is incredibly predictable, but doesn't that predictability and flatness make for a better turn of events and give far more meaning to what you find out about him and what happens in the end? Now granted, J.K. Rowling spent a lot more time creating and defining her characters, used a lot more pages to tell her highly complex and detailed story, but she does use literary devices. They are everywhere and they do factor into how we read the things presented to us in commercials, TV shows, movies, stories, novels, poems... The Doll's House is a short, sweet book that is as light as the fluff in Birdie's head, but it does have its own meaning. And I think there is room for all kinds of reading in a child's life as well as an adult's.
______________________________

In almost the same vein as the dolls in the book discussions, I do adhere to dolls having their own personalities. Perhaps it only applies to dolls that are played with as opposed to display dolls. In my case, each Hitty has a personality. I can't imagine, for instance, HittyBelle writing the Journal instead of Hitty Robertson. Frankly, neither can she, and the notion is certainly never expressed around here! When it came to creating a 'role' for Hitty Beth (Fifer/Robertson hybrid) when she was first finished I thought of her as delicate and always liking to read. I took her to lunch with me with two friends, both into miniatures, not play dolls, and before stating my thoughts, asked them to tell me theirs. Each held her, and BOTH came up with nearly the same idea!

Sometimes it takes a bit of time (like some don't get their names immediately) and others just tug at your heart and become a 'person' instantly.

In this house, the children have long since moved on, the poodles that came next are no more (can't find dog sitters when we are away) and so the Hittys add life.
______________________________

Perhaps Marchpane suffered the same fate that my Madame Alexander Cissy suffered. I received Cissy one Christmas when I was about 10. I had play dolls and dolls that I was expected to keep like new as they were collectible. Cissy was the most expensive doll at that time that I had. But I loved her and wanted to play with her. Every time I took her out of the box I remember my mom hollering at me. Then came the day I took her outside to do a photo shoot like the magazine ad (I think it was for Ponds). I don't remember the punishment I received but I never played with Cissy again. When a financial problem caused me to sell some dolls, she was the first sold. Perhaps Marchpane was not allowed to bring joy to any child and that is what spoiled her. Cissy Is my Marchpane.
______________________________

Yikes, maybe Marchpane and your Cissy do share the same fate. I remember a beautiful doll I got for Christmas when I was probably about the same age as you. I don't know if she was a Cissy but I am leaning towards it. She had the most beautiful dress. I sure did play with that doll though. My mother made me quite a wardrobe for her. I wish I still had the doll and the clothes today.

I don't recall ever getting a doll which I was not supposed to play with. My mother always told me to take care of every doll I received, but she never said I couldn't play with it. That seems so unfair to a child. It's like giving a child a piece of candy and telling them not to eat it. How long can they resist?? You probably have bad memories about Cissy dolls to this day!! Maybe some children can resist and keep a doll as a collection piece, but I'll bet they are not the norm.

I love that you took the doll out for a photo shoot for Pond's!! Good for you!!
______________________________

I think the comparison to people here is unmistakable. Some dolls just don't like children and some dolls love children. People are the same way. Besides she has to have an antagonist to match against her protagonist. I think the hard thing to accept here is they are dolls and all dolls should be loveable and love children.
______________________________

My daughter has received several nice porcelain dolls from adult friends. She seems to understand that these dolls are too delicate and fancy to play with. She puts them on a shelf in her closet. One day I was looking for her and couldn't find her anywhere in the house. Eventually I heard some quiet talking in her closet. She was in there talking to her special dolls. I never told her that she shouldn't play with them, but she sensed that they were delicate and needed special attention.
______________________________

That is what a good doll mommy is all about -- caring and spending time with them.

I know how you feel about the delicate dolls. I was so afraid of Logan playing in my doll room but I said to myself she has to learn. So now, when we play in the room, I let her know that this is Logan's and that is Nana's and she doesn't bother it.

I, too, was so silly in not playing with some of my Hittys, but Esther and Josie help me realize that they all need to have fun.
______________________________

I think it's very important for children to understand that some things are delicate and important and not to be disrespected. We've always let JJ and Tom play with expensive stuff (under supervision) and they have a lot of respect for expensive and fragile things. Years ago I read Thomas Hoving's book "False Impressions". He was the curator of the Metropolitan Museum so had a very refined understanding of precious things. In his book he said that the best way to teach oneself to spot forgeries was to handle the best stuff possible as much as you could. I've taken this to heart and I often let Tom and JJ handle things that make my nerves tingle - but they are always careful and respectful. Their cousins, however...

Yikes!
______________________________

Marchpane was born bad, in my opinion. No excuses for her, she-who-must-not-be-named is bad. Some dolls are like that. I have bought dolls, and sold them later because they just felt unhappy or troubled and didn't fit in here. Weird, but dolls come with their disposition from the day they get facial features, painted or not!

HAUNTED DOLLS???:

Just for a kick look up "haunted doll" on ebay. Last time I looked there were many entries, many of which looked very Marchpaney to me.
______________________________

Do people believe the dolls have powers - are haunted??? There are quite a few porcelains listed on the haunted doll ebay site, but a cabbage patch???? I'm not checking that category on ebay again!!! The less I know about that, the better, ha ha.
______________________________

From what I can tell, someone channels a spirit into the doll. One seller was talking about taking a carload of dolls to "spiritually active" places hoping to come home with a haunted doll. I was excited at first as I thought it might be an antique doll or something interesting, but who wants a cabbage patch that is mischievous...they are creepy enough as it is, especially after that Geico commercial.
______________________________

Speaking of evil, who here had read Helen Morgan's Witch Doll? Now that is one truly evil doll!
______________________________

Ooooh! Brrrrr! I read the synopsis and that was enough for me!
______________________________

Don't know about people believing the dolls are haunted, but I did hear one doll maker talk about a doll (Queen) she had made and sold to someone she knew. The buyer decided she couldn't afford all the accessories (chair and floor base), so bought just the doll. A few days later, the maker got a call that the Queen demanded the chair, so she sold it too. A little later another call saying, "The Queen needs her floor." Later yet, another call saying, "The Queen doesn't like the table she is sitting on so I have to go shopping." And later yet, "The Queen needs the room redecorated." The doll maker thought it was simply a way for the purchaser to justify buying the rest of the pieces and redecorating, but she happened to meet the professional decorator who claimed the Queen definitely rejected many of his ideas and was pleased with others.

QUEEN VICTORIA’S DOLLS:

I 'spose what caught my attention were the references to Queen Victoria's dolls in the glass case within Tottie's view. I believe the Princess had a large number of peg woodens that should have given our dear Tottie a run for her money on "farthing-ness". I would have assumed that those sweet dolls would have found their way into the exhibition. There is a book - a catalog of sorts - of Queen Victoria's dolls printed in 1894. It's quite out of my price range at the moment. Would anyone on this list have one? Below is an excerpt from the 1903 biography "In the Days of Queen Victoria" written by Eva March Tappan. I think all of we Hitty and Tottie lovers will appreciate Victoria's efforts in meeting the demands of her wooden dollies. I believe Mrs. Plum will find she has a kindred spirit in "Mrs. Martha".

"To turn from royal salutes and mayors' addresses and the laying of corner-stones to playing with dolls is a little startling, but such was the course of the Princess' life. She was heir to the throne, and she could bestow prizes and receive delegations and meet the eager gaze of thousands without being at all troubled or embarrassed, but she was a child for all that; she was not allowed to sit at the table when her mother gave an elaborate dinner party for the King, and she still retained her liking for the dolls that her lack of playmates had made so dear to her. There is now in existence a little copybook on which is written "List of my dolls." By their number and their interest, they certainly deserve the honor of being catalogued, even at the present time, for there were 132 of them, and they were often dressed to imitate noted persons of the day. Most of them were little wooden creatures from three to nine inches high, with sharply pointed noses, [64] cheeks red as a cherry in some one spot-wherever the brush of the maker had chanced to hit-jet black hair, and the most convenient joints, that enabled the small bodies to be arranged in many attitudes. The men dolls had small black mustaches, and the women dolls were distinguished by little yellow "back-combs" painted on the black dab which represented their hair. The baby dolls were made of rags, upon which comical little faces were
painted.

The fascination of these dolls does not lie in their beauty, but in their wardrobes. Most of them were dressed between 1831 and 1833, or when the Princess was from twelve to fourteen years old. One group represents the play of Kenilworth, which she had evidently seen. The Earl of Leicester is gorgeous in knee-breeches of pink satin, with slashes of white silk. His tunic reverses the order and is of white satin slashed with pink. He wears the blue ribbon of the Order of the Garter and a wide black velvet hat swept with yellow and white plumes. Queen Elizabeth appears in cloth of gold with enormous puffed sleeves. From her shoulders [65] hangs a long train lined with bright crimson plush and trimmed with ermine. She wears crimson plush shoes and a heavy girdle of gold beads.

There are all sorts of characters among these little wooden people. There are court ladies, actors, and dandified young gallants. Perched on a table is a merry little ballet-dancer in blue satin trimmed with pink and yellow roses. There are mothers with their babies, and there is "Mrs. Martha," a buxom housekeeper, with a white lawn frock, full sleeves, and purple apron pinked all around. She wears a white lace cap adorned with many frills and tied under her small wooden chin with pink ribbons. She stands beside a home-made dressing table of cardboard covered with white brocade.

The conscientious little owner of these dolls marked carefully which ones she herself dressed and in which she was helped by the Baroness Lehzen. The wardrobes of thirty-two were made entirely by the fingers of the little girl, and, remembering the schedule of studies, it is a wonder how she found the time; one hopes that at least the hour marked "Needlework and [66] learning poetry by heart" was sometimes devoted to this purpose, though how any dressmaker, old or young, could learn poetry with a court costume on her hands is a mystery.

It is equally a mystery how even the most skillful of childish fingers could manufacture such tiny ruffles and finish two-inch aprons with microscopic pockets whereon were almost invisible bows. Handkerchiefs half an inch square have drawn borders and are embroidered with colored silk initials. Little knitted stockings beautify the pointed wooden feet; bead bracelets adorn the funny little wooden arms that hang from the short sleeves; coronets and crowns and wreaths glorify the small wooden heads.

The Princess had a long board full of pegs into which the feet of these little favorites of hers fitted, and here she rehearsed dramas and operas and pantomimes. Even in her play with dolls, however she could not be entirely free from the burden of her destiny, for sometimes they were used by the state governess to explain court ceremonials and teach the etiquette of various occasions. When the Princess was fully [67] fourteen, the dolls were packed away, though no one guessed how soon the little owner would be called upon to decide, not the color of a doll's gown, but the fate of men and women and the weighty questions of a nation."
______________________________

I have the book Queen Victoria's Dolls; and I just treasure it. My daughter found it on e-bay for me some years ago and it was in New Zealand. Ever since I first heard of the tiny wooden dolls the Princess loved, I wanted to see them. On two trips to England, I didn't get to! The last trip in 1998, they'd been on display for six months and just put away to rest (the clothing needs the rest, more than the wood!), but one was still out. The kindly docent let me take some pictures through the glass of the one. When the picture of the book was on e-bay, that very doll picture was shown.

I once contacted the museum and they sent me several transparencies for a program I did for my doll clubs. I dressed a little Eric Horne wooden like the doll I'd seen, and the photograph of the mannequin wearing one of the little Princess's dresses, and holding the doll, is beside her.

I made a shelf doll, (cloth doll perched on a boat) and named it "Memories of London". In it are the wonderful little things I bought there, plus the little Eric Horne doll, dressed to copy the one the Princess and her governess did.
______________________________

We found the docents at St. John's to be equally as kind with photographs. They helped us even to find the "museum setting" on our camera. Julie has some of the pictures at the Book Discussion site. I wonder if Eric Horne would entertain a visit? I love his dollies, too.

Do you think time, attention and patience were the keys to Victoria working such remarkable clothing or simply talent? When I think of a drawn-thread and embroidered hankie for a wee peg wooden, my fingertips start to tingle...
______________________________

I have a couple of different doll history books with photos of a few of Queen Victoria's dolls. One has them in color, which is nice. They are modern books, not the 19th century book. I sure hope someday someone will do a book that shows all 132 of her dolls that would be so inspirational.

HOME