Whereas Amy's artist talent is always referred to as talent, and when she gives up her art, she comments, "talent isn’t genius, and no amount of energy can make it so." And then Laurie straight-up quotes her when he decides to give up his composition.
Although clearly they both do keep up their artistic endeavors as a hobby! So in the end their quitting didn't really stick. In the 2019 adaptation, Amy gives this speech with a certain crabby "I should've become an accountant!" energy, as any artist may when the art isn't going well; she's venting, not seriously giving up her art.
Whereas Jo does give up her writing at least a couple of times, IIRC (after not!Moods is published I think, and after Bhaer's scolding, and so on) and has the success when she just basically writes something for herself. Jo not being a writer is sort of impossible. Which is totally different from what happens to Laurie and Amy! I wonder what May felt about the book, since it helped send her to Europe but also basically says she doesn't have the real genius to make it.
It strikes me that looking at Alcott's musing about Art and Artists solely through a feminist lens can have a flattening effect: given the parallel journeys of Laurie and Amy, she's clearly talking about Artists in General rather than just Women in Art, and yet modern critics tend to read her argument as gendered.
Yeah, I personally think that partly happens because as the feminist interpretations rose, the historical background of a work ethic you couldn't dent with a missile -- and even the Puritan background of NE, altho Alcott's circle was so boho -- faded out. And honestly Laurie seems like a lesser character? He's vivid -- emotional, musical, sensitive, temperamental, teasing, very generous and good-hearted, &c &c -- but he is def a part of the sisters' story, not the other way around. So nobody really cares much about him giving up his grand dream of being a famous composer, altho in any other novel he'd probaly angst for many chapters about it!
And Beth tends to get entirely left out of these conversations, even though she's part of the talent/genius circle, too; Laurie himself, the other musician, tells her that she has a really remarkable talent, and everyone listens to her playing as eagerly as Jo's stories. But she has no professional ambitions for her music.
OMFG I can't believe I forgot about Beth's piano playing, when it's so much a part of her. And she doesn't bring it up at all! And neither does anybody else! I guess she's just seen as such an invalid there's no question of her having a career, or even just practicing to get good. And that was also a period where a lot of people sang and played instruments at home for entertainment, at an amateur level, from what I remember, so perhaps she doesn't stand out that much.
Beth is just so eerily posthumous. Everyone's basically waiting for her to die young, and then she gets horribly sick, and then it still takes a while for her to die young, and she's such a perfect angel after she dies. Did you ever read this? https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/08/29/the-real-tragedy-of-beth-march/
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2022-02-16 12:21 am (UTC)Although clearly they both do keep up their artistic endeavors as a hobby! So in the end their quitting didn't really stick. In the 2019 adaptation, Amy gives this speech with a certain crabby "I should've become an accountant!" energy, as any artist may when the art isn't going well; she's venting, not seriously giving up her art.
Whereas Jo does give up her writing at least a couple of times, IIRC (after not!Moods is published I think, and after Bhaer's scolding, and so on) and has the success when she just basically writes something for herself. Jo not being a writer is sort of impossible. Which is totally different from what happens to Laurie and Amy! I wonder what May felt about the book, since it helped send her to Europe but also basically says she doesn't have the real genius to make it.
It strikes me that looking at Alcott's musing about Art and Artists solely through a feminist lens can have a flattening effect: given the parallel journeys of Laurie and Amy, she's clearly talking about Artists in General rather than just Women in Art, and yet modern critics tend to read her argument as gendered.
Yeah, I personally think that partly happens because as the feminist interpretations rose, the historical background of a work ethic you couldn't dent with a missile -- and even the Puritan background of NE, altho Alcott's circle was so boho -- faded out. And honestly Laurie seems like a lesser character? He's vivid -- emotional, musical, sensitive, temperamental, teasing, very generous and good-hearted, &c &c -- but he is def a part of the sisters' story, not the other way around. So nobody really cares much about him giving up his grand dream of being a famous composer, altho in any other novel he'd probaly angst for many chapters about it!
And Beth tends to get entirely left out of these conversations, even though she's part of the talent/genius circle, too; Laurie himself, the other musician, tells her that she has a really remarkable talent, and everyone listens to her playing as eagerly as Jo's stories. But she has no professional ambitions for her music.
OMFG I can't believe I forgot about Beth's piano playing, when it's so much a part of her. And she doesn't bring it up at all! And neither does anybody else! I guess she's just seen as such an invalid there's no question of her having a career, or even just practicing to get good. And that was also a period where a lot of people sang and played instruments at home for entertainment, at an amateur level, from what I remember, so perhaps she doesn't stand out that much.
Beth is just so eerily posthumous. Everyone's basically waiting for her to die young, and then she gets horribly sick, and then it still takes a while for her to die young, and she's such a perfect angel after she dies. Did you ever read this? https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/08/29/the-real-tragedy-of-beth-march/