Laurie/Jo/Amy/The old german man

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balehead

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..

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!

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!)

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.

I agree with you. I remember that I was disappointed when they married.