This evening I finished reading a children's classic that had somehow escaped my attention these many years: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" by Kate Douglas Wiggin, first published in 1903.You would think that I would have come across this book (first published 107 years ago) at some point during my childhood, but this is the first time I've ever read it. And I have to say, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's an fun little tale with a very likeable heroine. And the book itself is a perfect example of the shift taking place in children's literature at the turn of the century. The rather moralistic and pious tales that had been popular in the late Victorian era were slowly being replaced by novels featuring more realistic children, without having quite as strong an emphasis on "improving" their young readers.When I reviewed "Pollyanna," I mentioned that it had surely been inspired in part by the superior "Anne of Green Gables," which had been published five years previously. Well, in the case of "Rebecca" (published five years before "Anne"), I have to wonder if it in turn was an inspiration for writer Maud Montgomery. There are some extremely strong similarities between this book and "Anne," from individual characters and situations, to the general characterisation of the heroine herself. As far as I have been able to figure, this book was published two years before Montgomery started work on "Anne," so I suppose there is definitely a possibility that Montgomery read this, and it influenced her own work---though such an influence may have been subconscious.Now, I have to say that "Anne" is easily the best of the three books, with "Rebecca" coming in second and "Pollyanna" a distant third. This book covers Rebecca's life from about the age of ten through seventeen. And while she is an appealing character, she never really comes to life in the way that Anne does. Still, this is a pretty slice of nostalgia, and I'll happily recommend it to those interested in vintage children's literature.The book has, by this time, gone into the public domain, so anyone can feel free to do whatever they wish with the text. In some cases, this has meant abridging the work to make it more palatable for modern readers---which is nonsensical, in my opinion. This is NOT a difficult book; I can't imagine why it would need to be simplified.In another case, a company called Bethel Publishing has re-written the book to fit more religion into the text. I'm assuming that they felt it wasn't pious enough? I'll admit to being a bit curious as to what changes were made, but overall I have no interest in reading this ridiculous adaptation; I'm willing to bet that my own brand of Christianity is not at all in sync with the publisher's. By all means, if you read this, make sure to stick with the original text.My own copy of the book is crisp and clean; looks very attractive on the shelf. I'll upload an image to the product page here on Amazon. This particular binding was the standard for this title for many years, from the initial publication date through many reprintings.... I do like the decorative boards and spine, though I'll be all nit-picky here for a moment and say that I've never grown any hollyhocks that look like that! (Hollyhocks, far as I am aware, have rounder leaves on long stems; the leaves don't look a bit like those on the spine. Or maybe these aren't supposed to be hollyhocks at all?)