I think it's good that Laurie and Jo didn't marry because they are too similar. And Laurie realised that he thought he loved Jo because they were such good friends and got on so well.
Printable View
I think it's good that Laurie and Jo didn't marry because they are too similar. And Laurie realised that he thought he loved Jo because they were such good friends and got on so well.
that is what i was thinking too. i mean, good for Amy, but why did Jo choose the old guy? its sad
Don't diss Prof. Baer, he loved Jo very much and she loved him. He was smart, funny, and loved kids. They had that in common, yet they were able to give each other something that they didn't have on their own. He kept Jo grounded and she gave him adventure. They were willing to accept that from each other. Laurie's affection for Jo was too proud.
i agree. i was so upset when Jo kept refusing his proposal.
Laurie did not really love Jo, it was just a childhood crush. And " the old German Man" did not have to be handsome. That isn't everything. Remeber, the Marches were just normal people themselves, not strikingly beautiful, either. Like I've said before, Jo wasn't suited for the rich life, but Amy was. Laurie was well suited for Amy, and they had a beautiful life together. In Little Men and Jo's Boys, you will read about their child, and about Jo's children,too.
i think that jo and laurie should have married becuase of their similarities. its always best to be married to someone who is so much alike you and knows you very well. jo and laurie were made for eachother. they were such good friends and would have been perfect for eachother.
I thought Amy and Laurie made a good couple because Laurie could dote on Amy. Jo wouldn't have liked that kind of attention from him.
Has anyone here read Charlotte Bronte's Villette? If so, doesn't it seem that Lucy's relationship with professor Emmanuel is very much like Jo's with her"professor?" I wonder if Louisa May Alcott read Villette and if she was influenced by it.
I agree Jo and Laurie should have gotten married that is the part of the book that I don't like. Jo and Laurie were made for eachother I can't believe he married Amy!
I agree. I think Teddy and Jo should be together in the first place too. It's such a pity. :(
Yes i must say, i was quite angry that Jo and laurie did not end up together. They would ahve made a perfect couple because they loved each other alot. But Jo did love Baer too. The way things turned out did make sense cause the Jo and laurie did mature in two different directions. Despite it all i still think Jo and laurie belong together. I think it would be really great if someone wrote a spin off as to "if Jo said yes to Laurie" ;)
That is so right I mean the German guy he was OK but like he was old and so not Laurie. And I bet he was like ugly too. I think she should have married Laurie I mean he sounds HOT!!
I quite agree that Laurie and Jo should've ended up together! Laurie's love for Jo was portrayed very realistically, his behaviour was so deeply felt you could really relate to him. His love for Amy felt artificial and too quick to be true. Certainly she is more fitting in regard to his station, but I kinda though that what the Alcott was trying to say in the book was that station isn't half as important as character and kindness...<br>Also, as someone mentioned above, Amy is just too boring for Laurie. Jo calling him 'my boy' and 'Teddy' and having all those little fights with him was so much more life-like and interesting.<br><br>As to Prof. Baehr, he sounds more like a fatherly figure, not only because of his age, but also because of all his laid-back behaviour and need for somebody to look after him... I'm not sure Jo really knew what love is when she decided to love and marry him.
i think JO and Laurie should have gottin together and got married and had children. But i was happy at the end when Jo found the German guy and they fell in love.
I agree, I think that Jo and Laurie would have made a great couple, they were made for eachother. Of course I think that Laurie should have kept on asking, like Gilbert in Anne of Green Gables. I really did not like that part of the book when she refused him...I'm sad, they would have made such a great couple, instead of Jo and that old profesor guy....
I think that the ending was great even though laurie and amy ended up together.I cried sometimes or just laughed out loud.I loved the part where Laurie told Jo he liked her.It was so touching.It was a pity they didn't end up with each other.I was sad when Jo refused laurie's love.
When I first read the book, I was dissapointed when Jo refused Laurie too. But when Professor Baer came in, all my dissaproval of Louisa May Alcott was swept away. I agree that Baer and Jo were meant for eachother because they were different and similar at the same time. And yes, I think Laurie's affection for Jo was proud.<br>Just a personal opinion, but I've also always liked romances between a younger girl and an older man. That's one reason Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is my favorite novel.
I absolutly love Jo and Laurie together, they awsome and perfect. They did not really fight that much, but in a way kept each other in check. And why Amy, I mean she may have been suited for the rich life and the parties and all, but Laurie is more adventures and free spirited, as is Jo. They would have had such a wonderful life together, if it worked out.
I wish i could change the fact that Jo and Laurie didn't marry. Despite the fact that they both had big tempers they would've made the best couple ever. And Laurie looks so much better than that old german man. And Amy was pretty well suited for Laurie but they just didn't click. Amy didn't have enough michevious spirit in her to marry someone like Laurie. And Laurie loved Jo so much...how could he just throw it behind him and marry Amy. It is so not fair.
In real life people that have so much in common are not always the best couples. I have been married 3 years and my hubby is so different from me, but we are happy that way. I believe the way Louisa May Alcott wrote the book is great and lead to the other books about their lives. As to the Villette theory i'm not sure could be but i doubt it
I find the old german man more fascinating than Laurie.
And you can't love someone by considering him a brother, as Jo considered Laurie...
Moreover, as Shortysweetp said, they were too similar.
Agreeing with Jo,
Sally
i went and looked at the dates the two books where published (villette and little women) and villette was published first but everything that I have read says that Little Women was based on her family therefore not having anything do with Villette. I really dont see the similarity between the two. i mean yeah they both married a teacher (who was supporting other people and living a simple life) but the circumstances are completely different. But then again it could be possible that Alcott had read Villette.
Or it could just be that they had similar ideas about such.
What would Jo think if she saw so many people who wanted her to marry Laurie? She knew it would of been a mistake to marry Laurie. And she was so happy with Mr. Bhaer, you needn't rain on her. What they do with the boys is wonderful. It's just the sort of thing Jo wanted.
When Laurie was in love with Jo, he may of been in love with being in love. I don't know.
Laurie and Amy were so happy together. And living with an artist is not dull! I seem to remember their artistic plans. Laurie needed a woman who wanted to keep house, liked that sort of thing, Jo's boys need her.
I personally loved how everything ended up. Jo and Laurie were to similar in my opinion but the had the perfect best friend, brother/sister relationship. I actually always thought Amy and Laurie would be together from the beginning. I got of figured it when Amy said she would marry for money.
Though I know Amy did not marry Laurie for his money, I mean, she turned down a man who had more than he did and she had told him she despised him at one point, I think in Nice. I loved how they ended uo together. I also love how Alcott went about getting them together. Laurie had been confused about his feelings, thinking he should be "faithful" to Jo but loving Amy as well. In the end he realized that his love for Jo was that of a sister and Amy was the woman he loved.
Also, Jo and Bhear were , in my opinion, perfect for each other. They were similar but they were also different as well. Bhear was more down to earth while Jo was more spirited. They evened each other out. Age wasn't a matter back then, in a way it still isn't now, I mean, it wasn't unusual for a girl in her 20's to marry a man in his 50's or something (though, I think Bhear was younger than that.)
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.
I was sad that Jo and Laurie didn't marry,
but Bhaer seems more better for her. I didn't like the idea of Amy and Laurie marrying though...
im so in love with teddy and when you read the books, you think you're jo so i was ever so disappointed in her
Well, I really don't know if I wanted them to be a couple or not.
I just know I missed their playful companionship from the first book in the sequel TT
I read Little Women & I was glad that Laurie ends up with Amy. I loved Jo with Professor Baur. Excuse my spelling of it.
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!!)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendij
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:yawnb: 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”.
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 ^_^
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.
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 Sandra Mc
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marionette71088
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!Quote:
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”.
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.
Laurie married amy because jo didnt love him and amy would like to go to vanity fair
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??
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!!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
I admire Louissa, because she didn't married Jo and Laurie.:iagree: 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.
:idea: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 :D
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.