Little Women Saturday
Mar. 5th, 2022 11:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerWe’re rushing in Little Women, because I want to finish it before I leave for NYC. Therefore I’ve got a lot of chapters to cover, so today I’ll talk about Meg and Jo and Amy, and tomorrow will post In Memoriam Beth March, Requiscat in Pace.
In Meg’s chapter, Meg has gotten so wrapped up in her twins that she’s started neglecting her husband, and Marmee tells Meg that she needs to get out more - leave the babies with a babysitter and go on date nights with your husband, hon! - but also let John take part in rearing the children. Co-parenting their children will make them stronger as a couple and also knit them together as a family! I would say, “That’s so modern!”, but in fact nineteenth century children’s literature is littered with involved and loving fathers. I think often we call things “modern” when in fact we mean “this is the part of the past that we like.”
Meanwhile, Jo has stumbled into one of literature’s more bizarre love triangles. Last time I read this book I had no strong feelings re: the shipping question; this time, I have joined legions of readers in shrieking “LOUISA, HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO US?” Alcott admitted that she “made a funny match for Jo” on purpose to annoy the readers who inundated her with letters begging for Jo and Laurie to get together, and the juxtaposition of these chapters seems designed to rub in the contrast between middle-aged censorious Bhaer and young passionate Laurie…
Who, yes, certainly has a lot of growing up to do, based on his reaction to Jo’s rejection. But they’re both so young! They could both do with some time and life experience to grow them up before they settle down.
At the beginning of this sequence, Jo, in search of life experience, and also hoping to leave the field free for Beth (whom she believes is in love with Laurie, although in fact Beth is preoccupied with her impending death), goes to New York City. She makes a pile of money from sensation stories, and then given up scribbling after a scolding from Professor Bhaer.
In the book - I had forgotten this - Bhaer never actually reads any of her stories. In movie adaptations she often gives him her work for criticism; here, he’s simply inveighing against sensation stories as a category, because they lead readers astray, presumably by offering a false and misleading view of human character, although neither he nor Alcott spell it out. Anyway, Jo is so abashed that she gives up not only sensation stories but writing altogether.
Then in the very next chapter Laurie confesses his love to her, and proposes, and Jo turns him down, and tells him (among other things), “You’d hate my scribbling.” But we never see Laurie say a word against Jo’s scribbling. It’s Professor Bhaer who is “satisfied” to see that “she had given up writing.” Louisa, are you having a jolly time thumbing your nose at us all?
Anyway, Laurie is SO crushed by Jo’s rejection that he runs away to Europe, where he begins to spend a lot of time hanging out with Amy. There’s an Extremely Symbolic exchange where he tries to pick a red rose and gets scratched on the thorns, and Amy tells him “Try lower down, and pick those that have no thorns.”
AMY IS THE LOWER ROSE WITHOUT ANY THORNS. DO YOU GET IT? DO YOU GET IT? Alcott spends the next few paragraphs expanding the analogy just in case you don’t.
I really wonder how Alcott’s real life youngest sister May felt about the portrayal of Amy. Fortunately this love triangle is not drawn from a real-life incident, but May really did have artistic ambitions, and she must have felt some kind of way about Louisa making Amy say, “talent isn’t genius, and no amount of energy can make it so. I want to be great, or nothing. I won’t be a common-place dauber, so I don’t intend to try any more.”
(Admittedly, Amy is saying this while in process of sketching Laurie, so what she really means is “I’ve laid aside my professional ambitions,” not “I will never draw again!” But still.)
I suppose the real-life Meg might also have objected to her portrayal in the books, but she didn’t have generations of readers baying for her blood after her character broke up their OTP. I really wonder if May sometimes thought, oh God, Louisa is truly the Bad Art Sister.
In Meg’s chapter, Meg has gotten so wrapped up in her twins that she’s started neglecting her husband, and Marmee tells Meg that she needs to get out more - leave the babies with a babysitter and go on date nights with your husband, hon! - but also let John take part in rearing the children. Co-parenting their children will make them stronger as a couple and also knit them together as a family! I would say, “That’s so modern!”, but in fact nineteenth century children’s literature is littered with involved and loving fathers. I think often we call things “modern” when in fact we mean “this is the part of the past that we like.”
Meanwhile, Jo has stumbled into one of literature’s more bizarre love triangles. Last time I read this book I had no strong feelings re: the shipping question; this time, I have joined legions of readers in shrieking “LOUISA, HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO US?” Alcott admitted that she “made a funny match for Jo” on purpose to annoy the readers who inundated her with letters begging for Jo and Laurie to get together, and the juxtaposition of these chapters seems designed to rub in the contrast between middle-aged censorious Bhaer and young passionate Laurie…
Who, yes, certainly has a lot of growing up to do, based on his reaction to Jo’s rejection. But they’re both so young! They could both do with some time and life experience to grow them up before they settle down.
At the beginning of this sequence, Jo, in search of life experience, and also hoping to leave the field free for Beth (whom she believes is in love with Laurie, although in fact Beth is preoccupied with her impending death), goes to New York City. She makes a pile of money from sensation stories, and then given up scribbling after a scolding from Professor Bhaer.
In the book - I had forgotten this - Bhaer never actually reads any of her stories. In movie adaptations she often gives him her work for criticism; here, he’s simply inveighing against sensation stories as a category, because they lead readers astray, presumably by offering a false and misleading view of human character, although neither he nor Alcott spell it out. Anyway, Jo is so abashed that she gives up not only sensation stories but writing altogether.
Then in the very next chapter Laurie confesses his love to her, and proposes, and Jo turns him down, and tells him (among other things), “You’d hate my scribbling.” But we never see Laurie say a word against Jo’s scribbling. It’s Professor Bhaer who is “satisfied” to see that “she had given up writing.” Louisa, are you having a jolly time thumbing your nose at us all?
Anyway, Laurie is SO crushed by Jo’s rejection that he runs away to Europe, where he begins to spend a lot of time hanging out with Amy. There’s an Extremely Symbolic exchange where he tries to pick a red rose and gets scratched on the thorns, and Amy tells him “Try lower down, and pick those that have no thorns.”
AMY IS THE LOWER ROSE WITHOUT ANY THORNS. DO YOU GET IT? DO YOU GET IT? Alcott spends the next few paragraphs expanding the analogy just in case you don’t.
I really wonder how Alcott’s real life youngest sister May felt about the portrayal of Amy. Fortunately this love triangle is not drawn from a real-life incident, but May really did have artistic ambitions, and she must have felt some kind of way about Louisa making Amy say, “talent isn’t genius, and no amount of energy can make it so. I want to be great, or nothing. I won’t be a common-place dauber, so I don’t intend to try any more.”
(Admittedly, Amy is saying this while in process of sketching Laurie, so what she really means is “I’ve laid aside my professional ambitions,” not “I will never draw again!” But still.)
I suppose the real-life Meg might also have objected to her portrayal in the books, but she didn’t have generations of readers baying for her blood after her character broke up their OTP. I really wonder if May sometimes thought, oh God, Louisa is truly the Bad Art Sister.
no subject
Date: 2022-03-05 05:26 pm (UTC)lol!
I don't remember having particularly strong feelings on the Jo/Laurie vs. Amy/Laurie question when I read this as a child - possibly because, although I re-read it countless times, I generally only read the first half, before things got sad and/or boring (to child!me, anyway) - but my most recent re-read........ I'm actually quite fond of Bhaer? (Possibly I just doubled down on Jo/Bhaer to tease my friend who was strongly on the side of Jo/Laurie; this sounds like something I would do.)
whom she believes is in love with Laurie, although in fact Beth is preoccupied with her impending death
I completely forgot about this. Jo really is convinced that all of her sisters should end up with Laurie except her...?
no subject
Date: 2022-03-05 06:32 pm (UTC)The first time I read it, I was feeling contrarian about all the Jo/Laurie shippers, which may have contributed to my "meh" reaction on the whole Jo/Laurie vs. Jo/Bhaer thing. This time around, Jo goes to such lengths to tell Marmee how unattractive Bhaer is - which could be a "the lady doth protest too much" thing, except she almost starts laughing when Laurie accuses her of having feelings for Bhaer - I just felt, "Do you really love this one, either, Jo? Do you REALLY."
no subject
Date: 2022-03-06 02:17 am (UTC)I suppose the real-life Meg might also have objected to her portrayal in the books, but she didn’t have generations of readers baying for her blood after her character broke up their OTP.
I was curious about this while reading Little Men a few months back— I know that Alcott wrote it basically to raise money for the real-life Meg sister's family after her husband died, and I wondered how "real Meg" felt about Alcott killing off her counterpart's husband in the story. Would it be harder to see the fictional version of him live on, or to see her own grief turned into a plot point? I suppose you could ask the same thing about Beth, too, although— like, John is just kind of there, especially in Little Men; surely it wouldn't have that much of an impact just to leave him?
no subject
Date: 2022-03-06 05:56 pm (UTC)I wonder if someone has written a book about the Alcott family's reaction to Little Women. Not to mention the extended family! If there was an original for Aunt March, you have to imagine she'd be pretty steamed...
no subject
Date: 2022-03-06 05:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-06 06:32 am (UTC)I remember liking him.
no subject
Date: 2022-03-05 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-05 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-07 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-08 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2022-03-07 06:37 am (UTC)I've been reading along with interest, especially the comments, and I'd had no idea even that LW was based so heavily on Alcott's real life. And I'm SO CURIOUS now too.
no subject
Date: 2022-03-07 01:22 pm (UTC)At some point I should poke around to see if there's a sort of Alcott sister biography which details the life stories of all four of them...
no subject
Date: 2022-03-07 07:49 pm (UTC)