Alcott really WANTED to write about boys, but she's so much better at writing about girls; her "good man" characters in particular tend to be such sticks. John Brooke is dull (I think he's really only early twenties - just a few years older than Meg - but he feels much older), Mr. March is interesting only when the book pokes gentle fun at him (like the bit where it notes that he's been "ripening" his book for thirty years and it still hasn't appeared) and is mostly Sir Not Appearing in This Book, and Bhaer is Bhaer. The March sisters are so memorable and the boys at Plumfield are far less so.
At some point I want to track down contemporary reviews/reactions to Little Women; I'm so curious how they reacted to the characters, particularly Amy, because I think that her ambitions to be ladylike might have struck readers as more comprehensible and sympathetic in the 19th century and then come to seem SO old-fashioned and priggish in the 20th. (Although Jo actually CALLS her a prig in chapter one, so maybe 19th century readers saw her that way too!)
And now in the 21st century, there's been a minor renaissance in Amy appreciation (I'm thinking particularly of the Gerwig movie) - although that tends to focus more on her artistic than her social ambitions. Like Jo, Amy has multiple facets, and different eras focus on different sides of her.
And yes, "the artist has not let her artistic pursuits spoil her womanly graces or distract her from her womanly skills!" is SUCH a 19th century trope. (Ofc Gaskell had the additional incentive of defending her dear friend from those jerks who thought Jane Eyre was the product of a coarse mind. HOW DARE THEY, Charlotte only ever thought the highest and most beautiful thoughts.)
Amy does eventually settle down to painting, doesn't she? Earlier in the book she's making lots of "mud pies" (sculpting with clay) but painting IS so much neater and more ladylike. Although only by comparison. Leonardo must have been an extremely neat painter not to muss his nice silk outfit as he painted! (Maybe that's why he finished so few paintings.)
Amy/Laurie is interesting because in the first part of the book it's definitely Laurie instructing/cajoling Amy (or straight up bribing her: "I'll visit you every day if you'll stay with Aunt March while Beth is sick!"). But by book two, Amy is the one scolding him for wasting his talents, such as they are, and then they both... well, as we've said before, they don't really give up art, do they? But they stop pursuing it professionally; they remain content to be talented amateurs.
(And, speaking of our last artist: Beth basically stops playing in part 2 of the book, because of her illness, presumably. Maybe that's why people never think to include her when they talk about the book's conversation about art: by the time the book is really in the weeds with it, Beth has fallen silent.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2022-02-27 09:32 pm (UTC)At some point I want to track down contemporary reviews/reactions to Little Women; I'm so curious how they reacted to the characters, particularly Amy, because I think that her ambitions to be ladylike might have struck readers as more comprehensible and sympathetic in the 19th century and then come to seem SO old-fashioned and priggish in the 20th. (Although Jo actually CALLS her a prig in chapter one, so maybe 19th century readers saw her that way too!)
And now in the 21st century, there's been a minor renaissance in Amy appreciation (I'm thinking particularly of the Gerwig movie) - although that tends to focus more on her artistic than her social ambitions. Like Jo, Amy has multiple facets, and different eras focus on different sides of her.
And yes, "the artist has not let her artistic pursuits spoil her womanly graces or distract her from her womanly skills!" is SUCH a 19th century trope. (Ofc Gaskell had the additional incentive of defending her dear friend from those jerks who thought Jane Eyre was the product of a coarse mind. HOW DARE THEY, Charlotte only ever thought the highest and most beautiful thoughts.)
Amy does eventually settle down to painting, doesn't she? Earlier in the book she's making lots of "mud pies" (sculpting with clay) but painting IS so much neater and more ladylike. Although only by comparison. Leonardo must have been an extremely neat painter not to muss his nice silk outfit as he painted! (Maybe that's why he finished so few paintings.)
Amy/Laurie is interesting because in the first part of the book it's definitely Laurie instructing/cajoling Amy (or straight up bribing her: "I'll visit you every day if you'll stay with Aunt March while Beth is sick!"). But by book two, Amy is the one scolding him for wasting his talents, such as they are, and then they both... well, as we've said before, they don't really give up art, do they? But they stop pursuing it professionally; they remain content to be talented amateurs.
(And, speaking of our last artist: Beth basically stops playing in part 2 of the book, because of her illness, presumably. Maybe that's why people never think to include her when they talk about the book's conversation about art: by the time the book is really in the weeds with it, Beth has fallen silent.)