Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Laurie/Jo/Amy/The old german man

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendij View Post
    I thing the reason why Jo got together with Friederick, is because not only Friederick was funny or good with children, he could teach Jo as well. Not just the German language, but also about her character. Friederick was able to see, what Jo (like her hot temper) could not see about herself.
    Jo and Laurie would be useless, because Laurie could not offer of what Jo needed the most. Jo does not just need money or 'larks', she needs a bit more then that.
    The thing I hate the most is not just the fact that she said "no" but the reasons she give: "I agree with mom that we are too similar...we are both bad-tempered."; "we fight all the time" (too lazy for exact quotes). They kind of implies that "good couples don't fight (or only does so rarely)", which is total b******t.

    People will always fight, but they will find ways to works it out if its worth it. Jo once wrote to her mother talking about how she and Laurie had just fought, and than run into each other on their way to each other's house because they both decided to apologize at the same time which I thought was so adorable and exactly how I want my relationships to be. I don't want to just pick someone who's older and more mellow to avoid conflict - I don't think having spouses that's more like a father/mother to you, instead of your equal, is healthy. I don't just want my boyfriend/husband to teach me how to live; I want to learn it together with him.

    And I know that Alcott wrote that Jo doesn't love Laurie, and I think it's nice that she and the professor share the same interests and way of living (although I would have hated Amy - and her marriage to Laurie either way). But it's Alcott's reasoning for such an ending and the messages she send out by it that I don't agree.

    I also know that Alcott probably wanted Jo's choice to be rebellious, but I see the five young people’s entire ending as very conformist. Pretty much nobody followed their dreams, especially Laurie - although I can understand how he didn't want to disappoint his grandfather, but when did he start to “like elegant society" and "hate my (Jo's) scribbling" like she said he does? They met because they were both hiding from party guests for god sakes! I mean, even if he did change, why did Alcott had to write it that way? Does conforming to your expected job means that you have to change all of yourself to fit the norms? Couldn't Jo still wrote if her husband was a businessman? Couldn’t they have not gone to those upper-class parties if they didn't want to?

    What Alcott was saying with the ending is that your station in life does matter, and you should marry "those of your own kind" and that bothers me.

    PS: I know if it was up to Alcott Jo would have been a spinster – which reflect how things at that time works truthfully: women who are independent and thoughtful and not obsessed with her looks, money or men would likely not have families. But that would be way more reality than I’d like in a book like “Little Women”.
    Last edited by Marionette71088; 10-25-2007 at 08:44 PM.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    12
    I totally agree with you, Marionette :P
    Anyway, I have an edited version of Little Women where Jo actually seems to like Laurie as more than a friend. She blushes around him O_O well,at least once xD. I explained it all in another post. You can go read it ^_^
    JO/LAURIE RULZ!!!
    For all you Jo/Laurie fans, you should visit Heartache, a fansite for that pairing ^_^

  3. #33
    I agree that you can find someone too similar to yourself to love them. The things you hate most in others are the things you hate most in yourself. I'd agree with Jo's refusal, how dare Laurie smugly believe that since he has the money and knows the family that Jo will have to marry him. She doesn't need the soft, lovey-dovey sexual attention from him, their relationship is pure and honest. I think that to become romantically linked would have ruined their relationship. To have married Laurie would have ended her growth, to be with 'the old German man' she has to grow. As for his attractiveness, Jo would hack of her one beauty (her hair) for love, I can't see her choosing a pretty face over a deep, intelligent and gentle man.

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandra Mc View Post
    A piece of info. for u guys, The book was almost representing the life of Louisa M. A. and the whole of the Alcott family. If u didn't Know, Louisa was actually a spinster, and so Jo (who was made in the likeness of the authoress) was supposed to be kept unmarried but the book was returned back to Louisa from the publishers to make Jo married. Come on, Louisa can't change the whole book can she so she just had to make Jo marry that man (I must confess that personally I HATE that combination and would have preferred Jo marrying Laurie however sweet and nice the professor is!!)
    Hmm . . . almost makes me wonder if the publishers weren't shipping Jo/Laurie, too, thinking, "Well, if we make her marry Jo to someone, surely Alcott will make Jo marry Laurie!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Marionette71088 View Post
    The thing I hate the most is not just the fact that she said "no" but the reasons she give: "I agree with mom that we are too similar...we are both bad-tempered."; "we fight all the time" (too lazy for exact quotes). They kind of implies that "good couples don't fight (or only does so rarely)", which is total b******t.

    People will always fight, but they will find ways to works it out if its worth it. Jo once wrote to her mother talking about how she and Laurie had just fought, and than run into each other on their way to each other's house because they both decided to apologize at the same time which I thought was so adorable and exactly how I want my relationships to be. I don't want to just pick someone who's older and more mellow to avoid conflict - I don't think having spouses that's more like a father/mother to you, instead of your equal, is healthy. I don't just want my boyfriend/husband to teach me how to live; I want to learn it together with him.
    I know what you mean. Personally, I like to argue. Not that Bhaer was a "Yes, dear" kind of guy, but he was "mellow" to the point of being wooden. Laurie may have been as argumentative as Jo, but at least he had passion.

    And I know that Alcott wrote that Jo doesn't love Laurie, and I think it's nice that she and the professor share the same interests and way of living (although I would have hated Amy - and her marriage to Laurie either way). But it's Alcott's reasoning for such an ending and the messages she send out by it that I don't agree.

    I also know that Alcott probably wanted Jo's choice to be rebellious, but I see the five young people’s entire ending as very conformist. Pretty much nobody followed their dreams, especially Laurie - although I can understand how he didn't want to disappoint his grandfather, but when did he start to “like elegant society" and "hate my (Jo's) scribbling" like she said he does? They met because they were both hiding from party guests for god sakes! I mean, even if he did change, why did Alcott had to write it that way? Does conforming to your expected job means that you have to change all of yourself to fit the norms? Couldn't Jo still wrote if her husband was a businessman? Couldn’t they have not gone to those upper-class parties if they didn't want to?

    What Alcott was saying with the ending is that your station in life does matter, and you should marry "those of your own kind" and that bothers me.

    PS: I know if it was up to Alcott Jo would have been a spinster – which reflect how things at that time works truthfully: women who are independent and thoughtful and not obsessed with her looks, money or men would likely not have families. But that would be way more reality than I’d like in a book like “Little Women”.
    I thought the same thing. It's almost enough to make me break my suspension of disbelief, the way Laurie went from being a shy, bashful boy to a man who needed a wife to be today's equivalent of a trophy wife. Who said businessmen need to be social? Just look at J.P. Morgan -- look at Calvin Coolidge!

    Being described like in the book, though, I can see how Amy would make a better wife than Jo; however, Amy can in no way take Jo's place as a better "soul mate" to Laurie.

    Was it possible for Jo to see Laurie merely as a brotherly figure? Maybe. From real life, though, I can confirm that I've known quite a few couples that started out as friends, and many of whom are together to this day (and to my knowledge).

    A bond like the one shared by Jo and Laurie might be found between any two people, but it's the norm to declare the bond official, as with marriage, if there is a catalyst. Such a catalyst might take the form of physical attraction. It's clear Laurie felt this, and Jo might have, in time (especially since from canon we know Laurie to be handsome).

    I have no way of knowing what Alcott was thinking when she wrote the book, but this is the way I see it -- perhaps had Laurie been more patient and waited for Jo, they would have been together in time. Jo was not ready for marriage at the time and Laurie was so on the rebound when Amy came along! I love the book, but Alcott herself was quoted as calling Little Women "moral pap for children", and in the opinion of many, preferring the sensational stories she wrote. I like to think that perhaps she wanted her audience to "sensationalize" Jo and Laurie's relationship.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3
    Laurie married amy because jo didnt love him and amy would like to go to vanity fair

  6. #36
    Registered User balehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tassie, Australia
    Posts
    336
    Blog Entries
    1
    I'm a staunch supporter of the Laurie+Jo match, and nothing can change that. Has anyone seen the 1994 movie version of Little Women??
    Check out my music blog! <http://lilac-skies.blogspot.com/>

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond Hill
    Posts
    4
    Amy is given so much less credit than she deserves! We are all prejudiced because we still see her as the annoying, immature 11 year old girl, but out of the four girls, she changed most dramatically over the four years. If you read carefully, she is really a very admirable person! She is clever and sensible, but not too reserved like Meg, and fun-loving, but not as wild as Jo. She is kind, works hard, is friends with everyone, and is good at everything. I love Jo, and I was crushed at first that she did not love Laurie, but Amy does deserve him! They work out so much better. Imagining Jo and Laurie walking down some aisle with her in a pretty white dress is just wrong. They wouldn't have been happy together. Jo always wanted a "free" sort of life, where she could do whatever she liked, and she couldn't have with Laurie. They were better of as friends. The professor could guide her without judging her and make her happy, and Laurie would behappy with Amy. Be fair to Amy! She got the boy, after all!!!
    Last edited by Bunny; 10-18-2009 at 01:11 PM.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunny View Post
    Amy is given so much less credit than she deserves! We are all prejudiced because we still see her as the annoying, immature 12 year old girl, but out of the four girls, she changed most dramatically over the four years. If you read carefully, she is really a very admirable person! She is clever and sensible, but not too reserved like Meg, and fun-loving, but not as wild as Jo. She is kind, works hard, is friends with everyone, and is good at everything. I love Jo, and I was crushed at first that she did not love Laurie, but Amy does deserve him! They work out so much better. Imagining Jo and Laurie walking down some aisle with her in a pretty white dress is just wrong. They wouldn't have been happy together. Jo always wanted a "free" sort of life, where she could do whatever she liked, and she couldn't have with Laurie. They were better of as friends. The professor could guide her without judging her and make her happy, and Laurie would be happy with Amy. Be fair to Amy! She got the boy, after all!!!
    I agree with most of what you said, but I was happy that Amy married Laurie and Jo married Frederich from the first time I read the book.
    Last edited by JosephineMarch; 01-10-2010 at 09:07 AM. Reason: Error in age in quote.
    "We'll all grow up someday, we might as well know what we want."

    Amy March - "Little Women" (1994)

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    12
    I admire Louissa, because she didn't married Jo and Laurie. Not because there're too alike, or cause Marmee didn't like that. That nonsenses about that a main hero must marry her/ him closest friend is boring. But I don't understand why Laurie has to marry Amy? Beth/ Laurie are quite perfect.Not for Louissa. Another stupid literature law- good dies young, and they can never be married with mains hero bf.
    Btw proff is too boring for Jo in my humble opinion. She should have to stay single.
    Oh, maybe professior has a midle age crisis
    Last edited by Mrs.Dormer; 10-19-2010 at 09:51 AM.

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    114
    I read that Louisa May Alcott was born in Germantown, Pennsylvania. Was she around a lot of germans growing up? It seems to me that it would explain the way she wrote about germans in her novels.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2

    /Little Women/ -- Amy's marriage to Laurie

    @Bunny, I agree about Amy. She wasn't necessarily all that good at everything she tried to do (for example, many of her paintings looked kind of weird), but she was industrious (as all the sisters were), kind, tactful, and eager to please everyone. I loved spunky Jo at first, but she was kind of prickly at times. Remember the pillow she used as a barrier when she was a teenager? Amy at first seemed to lack imagination, but she loved beautiful things and, despite living in a family of only modest means, did what she could to fit in with the neighbors she admired. (I thought that Jo's performances when she and Amy visited the fancy neighbors were screamingly funny, even if the neighbors themselves didn't.) And even sweet Amy could show a bit of spunk at times, as when she told Laurie in France what she thought of his idleness. Amy's sometimes not-very-successful art projects didn't discourage her from continuing to try to do better, and I thought her persistence was admirable. (Of course, Jo worked hard as well to improve her writing.) I found myself admiring Amy more and more as her personality developed.

    Incidentally, even though Laurie didn't marry Jo, he became her brother-in-law and lived nearby, so the families could continue to interact and have fun together, including not only with their own kids but with the students at Jo's school as well.

  12. #42
    Stan/Loretta Brielle92's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Beirut
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by balehead View Post
    I'm a staunch supporter of the Laurie+Jo match, and nothing can change that. Has anyone seen the 1994 movie version of Little Women??
    I saw your picture on another thread and wondered if you had watched it. I did and I did like it, Christian Bale was perfect in it! (Have you noticed the spit during the Jo/Teddy kiss?)

    Anyways, about Villette, WOAH, never compared the two and come to think of it, I also thought that Lucy should've been with John, just as I think Jo/Laurie should've ended up together.

    I imagined M. Immanuel in Villette to look like Mario Cantone, and just always angry..
    Took my batteries out my mysticism and put em in my thinking cap

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    We certainly have a shipper war going on here! Jo and Laurie vs. Jo and Bhaer...lol if you haven't checked this out, do so...its hilarious... http://www.heroesandheartbreakers.co...-or-team-bhaer

    And check out this article about Little Women shipper war - between Louisa and her fans, lol! http://ship-manifesto.livejournal.com/237830.html Clearly, Louisa would have preferred neither Laurie nor Bhaer and wanted Jo to remain an umarried spinster...

    My preference? I'm definitely Team Jo and Laurie. I think if Louisa had lived today she'd definitely have put them together...Society being what it was during her time, AND the fact she was writing a children's novel ("moral pap" as she dismissively states), she believed she couldn't let Jo be fully independent and and also marry someone like Laurie. That being said, I would have 100% preferred that Jo remain unmarried and independent and successful rather than marry Professor Bhaer.

    I can't stand Bhaer. Yah he's a nice enough guy. But completely a father figure. Alcott herself admitted that she created a "funny match" with an old German guy for Jo because her publishers didn't want her to remain single. And she totally modeled him off of her own father, with him being much older, bookish, and a teacher.

    GAH, I think the reason Bhaer drives me crazy is that he's a symbol - Louisa's creation to make Jo settle down and become a "proper" little woman. Someone to patiently guide her and teach her society's rules. The inherent inequality of their relationship is pretty obvious. So I have a hard time understanding people when they say Professor Bhaer allows Jo to be herself and maintain her independence. Really? By the end of Little Women and certainly Little Men and Jo's Boys (the sequels I'll admit I only skimmed), Jo is a pale shadow of herself. She is no longer her independent, vibrant, feisty, complicated self. Instead she’s conformed to society's rule and confined herself to a domestic role, and sadly barely ever writing - except for one book (Jo's Boys).

    Amy and Laurie's marriage also worked to conform both their character to society's expectations. I’ll admit I found their romance in Europe to be very sweet, even though it seemed a tad contrived. But then they got married and become the most boring couple ever. My Lord and Lady - that chapter in Little Women was dull beyond words and Laurie and Amy had become societal archetypes...Gary Stu and Mary Sue...Very sad, because May Alcott (Louisa's younger sis who served as the model for Amy), was also quite independent and went to Europe to study art and became a pretty successful artist. Too bad we don't see that in the novels.

    All in All I really would have love to see what Alcott would have done with these characters if her publishers had just given her the freedom to do as she willed. It would have been awesome in Part 2 to see Jo becoming a successful author and then going to Europe and then with her earnings sending Amy to Europe for Art lessons and then Amy marrying a European guy younger than herself (all of wich happened in Alcott's real life). Ah well, I guess I’ll have to be grateful for the wonderful novel she left us despite her compromising with her publishers. Overall its fascinating how much discussion a novel written over a century ago stil inspires in all of us!

  14. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2
    Would've loved to have seen adventurous Jo traipsing about Europe as a single, as Louisa May Alcott had done herself - and had initially planned for Jo. But if she had to marry someone - yes, I completely agree that it should not have been the professor... Not because I dislike his character, but the relationship felt quite forced. It was hard to believe that Jo really fell for the professor, when she had years of history with her best friend, and had resolved not to marry anyone (also, I'm just biased towards best friend pairings).

    What really bothers me about the ending however is that Laurie did not fight for Jo! He asks her to marry him upon graduating from college - she turns him down, he writes a couple of letters from Europe (and she still says no - but seriously, of course she would, she's busy thinking about saving Beth, and has no heart for such a thing at the time), and what does he do? Instead of pulling up his socks and making something of himself and really courting Jo (even Amy tells him, "why don't you do something splendid and make her love you?" Yes Laurie, why not indeed?), he whiles away his time and money, then asks her younger sister to marry him - all the while, he is not there for his best friend, and supposed love of his life, when her sister dies. (And yes, maybe even after he does all this chasing, Jo could still say no, because she might not feel that way towards him, but at least do some serious courtship, because Jo is such an awesome woman and deserves it!)

  15. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    27
    Laurie's love for Amy didn't seem the real thing, as it had done for Jo. It just felt wrong and as if it only happened because Amy needed to marry and Laurie needed to remain a character in the heart of the March family. Alcott was quite determined not to marry Jo to Laurie but I don't think that she had planned for Amy to marry Laurie from the start, which is why the marriage doesn't seem to have the right buildup of feelings.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. German Literature?
    By Schiller in forum General Literature
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 12-24-2014, 04:25 AM
  2. German original
    By Lisa Huffaker Gus in forum Siddhartha
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  3. the language instinct
    By simon in forum General Chat
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-21-2004, 04:04 AM
  4. Is there a site like this for Italian lit? French? German
    By pjohna in forum The Literature Network
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-16-2003, 02:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •