Little Women, Big Men
Feb. 29th, 2004 05:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mayhapI nicked a copy of Little Women from work to reread on the train. It was one of those books that were very important to my childhood -- I read and reread it (starting in second grade, if I remember correctly, but I might very well not), watched each of the film versions and critiqued them, read everything by and about Louisa May Alcott that I could find, including both sequels.
I read it all the way through the first time -- it was one of those editions that combines Little Women and Good Wives, by the bye, which I understand are common but not entirely ubiquitous -- but, probably owing both to a still-youthful disposition and to my own feelings about proper character development, I failed to register certain plot points from the second part as ever having happened. I seem to distinctly remember a reread where I knew all about Meg and John Brooke and Daisy and Demi and Beth dying and the whole bit, but was unpleasantly surprised yet again by Jo and Professor Bhaer and Laurie and Amy. (Nonetheless, I could have written better copy than whoever this is on the back cover who asserts that "Meg, the oldest, is the sensible writer.")
To gratuitously and anachronistically apply the language of fandom, these events refused to become canon to me. I was a Laurie/Jo shipper to the end. (I didn't, in fact, write fanfic, but I almost certainly would have done if I had found anyone else doing it.) I formulated the theory, once I had read a bit more about how the books had been written and published, that Good Wives and everything that was published thereafter was a sort of "fuck you" to Alcott's readership, who kept harassing her for more of this story that she had begun reluctantly enough in the first place. Good Wives was, "Fuck you, Jo doesn't marry Laurie after all, so nyah." Little Men was "Fuck you, I'm writing about pretty much all boys this time, and you're going to like it." Jo's Boys was, "No, I'm not writing any more of this, fuck you very much. Actually, after this, you're not going to want me to. Also, I will make fun of your fangirl ilk."
Beth's death is prefigured in Part I by her illness. Meg and John's relationship is not just prefigured but actually established in Part I. Jo and Amy's relationships with Professor Bhaer and Laurie respectively are manufactured out of whole cloth in Part II, which makes them, certainly to my mind, relatively unsatisfying, although I thought the chemistry between Amy and Laurie turned out surprisingly well, considering. I never really bought into Jo's fighting Laurie off with a stick, though, and as that note is introduced at the beginning of Part II and hammered on like a drum until the great refusal scene, it made the whole reading experience a bit unpleasant for me.
In retrospect, however, regardless of how "meant 2 b omg!!!11!" Jo and Laurie are, their relationship has no place in the Littlewomenverse, where marriage of equals has been forbidden and all girls must mate with imposing father figures.
Exhibit A: Mr. March and Marmee. Although Mr. March is conspicuous by his absence throughout, even when he is supposed to have returned from his service as a chaplain, we surely learn all we need to know about their relationship from Marmee's description of how he helped her to keep her temper and otherwise practice virtue.
Exhibit B: Meg and John Brooke. Second verse, same as the first, although note that that Brooke, like Professor Bhaer, is an instructor, and tutelage forms part of their courtship. After marriage, the chapter "Domestic Experiences" in particular reads like post-Civil War "I Love Lucy."
Exhibit C: Jo and Professor Bhaer. Could he be any older and practically asexual? Could he spend a little more time lecturing Jo about her morals? Kthx, I don't think I can say any more about this.
Exhibit D: Amy and Laurie. Poor Amy. Laurie, while older than her, is not yet ready to step into the role of father figure, because he isperfectly-justifiably immaturely mourning the untimely end of his relationship with Jo. Therefore, she gets to reform him in order that he be in proper shape to take on the role, insofar as he is capable of it, which mostly involves being the indulgent papa who gives her everything she wants. I think their relationship comes off best, though--until the sequels where it degenerates into the most conflict-free fluff imaginable, that is.
Any marriages of equals here? Nope, I didn't think so. Ah well.
I read it all the way through the first time -- it was one of those editions that combines Little Women and Good Wives, by the bye, which I understand are common but not entirely ubiquitous -- but, probably owing both to a still-youthful disposition and to my own feelings about proper character development, I failed to register certain plot points from the second part as ever having happened. I seem to distinctly remember a reread where I knew all about Meg and John Brooke and Daisy and Demi and Beth dying and the whole bit, but was unpleasantly surprised yet again by Jo and Professor Bhaer and Laurie and Amy. (Nonetheless, I could have written better copy than whoever this is on the back cover who asserts that "Meg, the oldest, is the sensible writer.")
To gratuitously and anachronistically apply the language of fandom, these events refused to become canon to me. I was a Laurie/Jo shipper to the end. (I didn't, in fact, write fanfic, but I almost certainly would have done if I had found anyone else doing it.) I formulated the theory, once I had read a bit more about how the books had been written and published, that Good Wives and everything that was published thereafter was a sort of "fuck you" to Alcott's readership, who kept harassing her for more of this story that she had begun reluctantly enough in the first place. Good Wives was, "Fuck you, Jo doesn't marry Laurie after all, so nyah." Little Men was "Fuck you, I'm writing about pretty much all boys this time, and you're going to like it." Jo's Boys was, "No, I'm not writing any more of this, fuck you very much. Actually, after this, you're not going to want me to. Also, I will make fun of your fangirl ilk."
Beth's death is prefigured in Part I by her illness. Meg and John's relationship is not just prefigured but actually established in Part I. Jo and Amy's relationships with Professor Bhaer and Laurie respectively are manufactured out of whole cloth in Part II, which makes them, certainly to my mind, relatively unsatisfying, although I thought the chemistry between Amy and Laurie turned out surprisingly well, considering. I never really bought into Jo's fighting Laurie off with a stick, though, and as that note is introduced at the beginning of Part II and hammered on like a drum until the great refusal scene, it made the whole reading experience a bit unpleasant for me.
In retrospect, however, regardless of how "meant 2 b omg!!!11!" Jo and Laurie are, their relationship has no place in the Littlewomenverse, where marriage of equals has been forbidden and all girls must mate with imposing father figures.
Exhibit A: Mr. March and Marmee. Although Mr. March is conspicuous by his absence throughout, even when he is supposed to have returned from his service as a chaplain, we surely learn all we need to know about their relationship from Marmee's description of how he helped her to keep her temper and otherwise practice virtue.
Exhibit B: Meg and John Brooke. Second verse, same as the first, although note that that Brooke, like Professor Bhaer, is an instructor, and tutelage forms part of their courtship. After marriage, the chapter "Domestic Experiences" in particular reads like post-Civil War "I Love Lucy."
Exhibit C: Jo and Professor Bhaer. Could he be any older and practically asexual? Could he spend a little more time lecturing Jo about her morals? Kthx, I don't think I can say any more about this.
Exhibit D: Amy and Laurie. Poor Amy. Laurie, while older than her, is not yet ready to step into the role of father figure, because he is
Any marriages of equals here? Nope, I didn't think so. Ah well.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-29 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 12:58 pm (UTC)