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”.