# Rant: Little Women (Spoilers! Enter at own risk!)



## cargalmn (Sep 29, 2010)

I just finished reading Little Women (parts 1 & 2 - ie, including "good wives" which was not originally published with the first half of the book)...and...I have to vent somewhere!!  I read the book when I was much, much, much younger but I think I only read part 1 - what I read was definitely not as long as what I just read and I don't remember the ending at all.  LOL

So here comes the rant....I think that Jo & Laurie should have ended up together!!  It's so random that it's leading up to that the entire book and then out of nowhere he ends up with Amy instead??  wth!   Grrrrrr   I think the book was really good, but truthfully, that "twist" rather ruined the book for me.  That's not to say that I won't go on to read Little Men and probably Jo's Boys - but I'm going to pretend that Jo and Laurie ended up together.  LOLOL

Who's with me?!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I see what you mean.  I also wanted Jo to end up with Laurie and to become a famous writer.  But I think that's Alcott's point.  Sometimes life doesn't have that fairytale ending you wish for... but you can make your own, different endings that are equally happy.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Much as I liked Laurie, and I didn't want him for Amy...Jo wasn't suited to be a rich man's wife....so I didn,t mind them not ending up together...just not with Amy, for goodness sake!  (and PeterLawford was a perfect Laurie, in that movie version....)

(I've added a spoiler alert to the subject.)

Betsy


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Much as I liked Laurie, and I didn't want him for Amy...Jo wasn't suited to be a rich man's wife....so I didn,t mind them not ending up together...just not with Amy, for goodness sake! (and PeterLawford was a perfect Laurie, in that movie version....)
> 
> Betsy


I re-read LW recently, too, and the Amy-Laurie things STILL smarted. At least with Rhett Butler walking out the door, you could still imagine she got him back the next week.

And I totally don't agree with Marmee that it couldn't work out. If you can work out as friends, you can work out as spouses, IMHO.

My funny LW story is that my book club was doing Geraldine Brooks' MARCH, so that's why I was re-reading LW--my childhood illustrated edition because that's what was on the shelf. Only when I got to the end did I notice it was an ABRIDGED version(!!!). Heaven only knows what happened in the real book because I've still never read it...


----------



## cargalmn (Sep 29, 2010)

Thanks, Betsy, for adding the spoiler to the title.  

There's a movie version with Peter Lawford in it as Laurie?!?  I *have* to check that out.  One of my favorite (and mostly unknown) movies of all times is a silly musical called "Good News."  I have the soundtrack and know all the songs.  I'd love to see him in Little Women!!

I've read the argument elsewhere that Jo's not suited to be a rich man's wife...but I'm not sure I agree with that.  Didn't she end up relatively well-off after all?  I think she & Laurie would have been happy philanthropists together (again, that turnabout in Amy's character happened too fast for me).  I think you can have similar personalities and be well-suited.  I agree with CNDudley that if you can work it out as friends, you can usually work it out as spouses (provided there's that extra somethin-somethin there!).  

Maybe I'll like Amy/Laurie and Jo/whats-his-name together better when I read Little Men?!  Tell me there's hope.  LOLOL


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

Another classic I'll have to revisit.


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

I agree with Betsy. Jo was so not a rich man's wife. They would have ended up misirable and estranged and hating each other. At least if Amy and Laurie end up hating each other because he really only married her to be close to Jo, I won't be upset.


----------



## Starearedkid (Jan 25, 2010)

It has been awhile since I read the book. I started it when I was 11 or 12, but didn't finish it until I was 18. LOL. I would re-read Part 1 all the time, but I couldn't handle the idea of Beth (my favorite character) dying--so, I just always closed the book at the end of Part 1. I also didn't want to see them all grow up either...


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

I haven't read this book in ages, but I did download it for free a few days ago because of a post on The Gloss: http://thegloss.com/culture/what-little-women-taught-me-about-love/
I remember when I read _Little Women_, I was upset Jo didn't marry Laurie. The article made me want to read it again to see if I would change my mind. I also remember trying to read _Jo's Boys_ and not being able to get through the first chapter.  So who knows how I'll feel?

I think no matter what, I'll still be annoyed Amy and Laurie ended up together.

Here's the one I got from Amazon:


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I think she ended up with someone more suitable for her.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> I see what you mean. I also wanted Jo to end up with Laurie and to become a famous writer. But I think that's Alcott's point. Sometimes life doesn't have that fairytale ending you wish for... but you can make your own, different endings that are equally happy.


Nicely stated. Jo was a bit of a maverick and grew up at a young age, so I understand why she ultimately didn't end up with Laurie but with an older man.

While I definitely saw the attraction between Jo and Laurie when they were younger and was disappointed at first when they didn't end up together, it seemed that Laurie's and Amy's maturity levels were more compatible.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

In my opinion, Jo always saw Laurie as a brother, so had no romantic interest in him.  She was a free woman with no interest in tying herself to any man.  She would not have been happy in society and would not have made a good wife for Laurie.  Amy, on the other hand, was always interested in that life, so she was a better match for him.


----------



## angelmum3 (Sep 12, 2010)

This is a hard book for me to read, I have a hard time with Beth and Jo's characters - but, I read that Alcott did originally have Jo and Laurie getting together, but the book was written in chapters in a magazine, and Alcott didnt like the readers telling her how her book was going to end - so she started thinking of alternative ways for her characters to develop - thus Laurie ended up with Amy - again to surprise the readers...


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

I remember the first time reading this and I too was disappointed.  I love a happy ever after ending.  
But as I got older I too saw that Jo was a more independent woman than most women of that era.  
And the Peter Lawford version is my favorite version.  
deb


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

May I ask a question in all seriousness? How is Jo ending up with the Professor less of a "happy ending" than if she ended up with Laurie?

Would you have wanted Amy marrying someone else just for his money? Having her marry Laurie redeems her selfishness in my eyes.

I've always felt that the book would have read more true if


Spoiler



Jo never married


.


----------



## terryr (Apr 24, 2010)

scarlet said:


> In my opinion, Jo always saw Laurie as a brother, so had no romantic interest in him. She was a free woman with no interest in tying herself to any man. She would not have been happy in society and would not have made a good wife for Laurie. Amy, on the other hand, was always interested in that life, so she was a better match for him.


I so agree with this. Well said, Oh Queen.

I also would have liked it if Jo stayed a free woman. Although the Professor seemed like a kindred spirit... however overshadowed he'd be with Jo's temperament and personality. I guess that's where they balance out, though.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Now I want to read it again. I read it when I was a teenager and remember being disappointed when Laurie and Amy married, but being cool with it when I saw the Susan Sarandon/Winona Ryder adaptation in the 90s. I wonder now why that is? And I agree with Scarlet here: "I've always felt that the book would have read more true if


Spoiler



Jo never married.


" I wonder if that idea was too advanced for Alcott's time?


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

Scarlet, you're right, Jo marrying the Professor is a very happy ending.  
deb


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Angelmum3, what a fascinating anecdote--thanks for sharing that. It's interesting how interactions with readers can shape an author's work--and not always in ways one would expect.

And I agree with Scarlet as well--


Spoiler



as Florence King once wrote, for most women writers it holds true that she who travels swiftest travels alone, at least in that time period.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

drenee said:


> Scarlet, you're right, Jo marrying the Professor is a very happy ending.
> deb


Yep. Maybe this was the start of my attraction to unconventional heroes.

Another interpretation is that Jo might have needed a girl named Laurie more than a boy named Laurie.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Another interpretation is that Jo might have needed a girl named Laurie more than a boy named Laurie.


That has definitely also crossed my mind.


----------



## Shayne Parkinson (Mar 19, 2010)

Oh, I remember that bothered me even in childhood, as Jo and Laurie seemed so right together. Now that I'm absurdly happily married to my best friend (and have been for decades), the idea that friendship and marriage are such separate things is even more unconvincing to me.

I read a quote from Alcott recently (and of course can't  find it now) in which she told a dissatisfied reader that the biggest obstacle in her mind to Jo's being happy with Laurie is that Laurie wouldn't take her writing seriously, and would discourage her from taking it further. That was the first time I'd read an argument I could take on board!

I did like Professor Bhaer, and could believe that he made Jo happy (and vice versa), but I'm not so sure about Laurie and Amy.


----------



## cargalmn (Sep 29, 2010)

LOL, ok, let me clarify my rant.  I guess I'm old-fashioned (older than this book apparently??) and was expecting an expected ending and not a twist.  I thought, how nice & romantic the ending will be if somehow Laurie & Jo still end up together!  Then it became clear that wouldn't happen when Laurie & Amy were overseas together, and I was so bummed out!  I don't think the character of the Professor was fully developed enough for me to consider him one of the protagonists.

Jo marrying the Professor might have been "a" happy ending; it just wasn't the one I was hoping for!  Since most don't agree with me on that and like Amy/Laurie together, let me toss this out there - perhaps Jo falling in love should have been saved for a sequel where a new love interest for her could be more fully developed??

Re who I'd prefer to have Amy end up with?  I actually had it run through my mind for a moment that maybe she'd end up with Frank (or was it Fred?  the one with the crutches) and learn to care deeply and fully for something/someone other than herself.

Shayne - I hadn't heard that re an obstacle to Jo being happy, but you're right - I think that's one I can take under consideration as well (I agree friendship & marriage go hand in hand, and similar temperaments are not necessarily an issue).  I'll have to think on that further.  

Thanks, everyone, for listening to my rant (even when most clearly don't agree with me).  I just finish LW yesterday and will read Little Men (assuming it's good!) and will try to keep an open mind re Jo & Laurie...perhaps the second book will convince me of the pairings made in the first.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Wasn't it also said that Jo's character was actually based on Louisa's own life? Perhaps she had this twist in her own life?

But my opinion, I was feeling the sting when she said no to Laurie. I love the Christian Bale/Winona Ryder adaption, and it stung watching it there too (they really did appear to be, so compatible).


Spoiler



I also don't like Kirsten Dunst, and I didn't want to be reminded that Amy (the spoiled brat) got the 'man' in the end.


 But that's another topic.

I do think the professor complimented Jo perfectly, especially when you read Little Men. You see how their relationship plays out with the boys they teach.

Man ... I've got to read these two books again ... it's like seeing an old friend and trying to remember all the great times you had.


----------



## angelmum3 (Sep 12, 2010)

Louisa led quite the life, imho - you should google and check out the biography PBS made!


> In "Little Women," Alcott based her heroine "Jo" on herself. But whereas Jo marries at the end of the story, Alcott remained single throughout her life. She explained her "spinsterhood" in an interview with Louise Chandler Moulton, "... because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man." However, Alcott's romance while in Europe with Ladislas Wisniewski, "Laddie," was detailed in her journals but then deleted by Alcott herself before her death. Alcott identified Laddie as the model for Laurie in Little Women, and there is strong evidence this was the significant emotional and likely sexual relationship of her life.[


I also like the write up at wikipedia... they bring in that Louisa probably didnt pass from mercury poisoning...


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> Now that I'm absurdly happily married to my best friend (and have been for decades), the idea that friendship and marriage are such separate things is even more unconvincing to me.


Same here.


----------



## angelmum3 (Sep 12, 2010)

add me to the list of happily married to my best friend, and I'd like to add my bestest lover!  (and for 3 decades come August!)


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

See, I never felt that Jo saw Laurie as a friend, but as brother.  So the idea of her falling for him would not have sat well with me.  And so I don't see her falling for the Professor as a "twist", it was a logical extension of who she was and what she wanted in a partner.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

cargalmn said:


> Thanks, Betsy, for adding the spoiler to the title.
> 
> There's a movie version with Peter Lawford in it as Laurie?!? I *have* to check that out. One of my favorite (and mostly unknown) movies of all times is a silly musical called "Good News." I have the soundtrack and know all the songs. I'd love to see him in Little Women!!
> 
> ...


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041594/. PL was sooooo dreamy...

And for me, no problem being friends (my hubby is my best friend) but there has to be something else, too...i just never saw it between them...

I read Little Men first...then I had to read Little Women. Then Jo's Boys... And I thought the whole thing with the Professor was incredibly romantic... Ya'll are making me want to re-read this...

Betsy

Betsy


----------



## cargalmn (Sep 29, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041594/. PL was sooooo dreamy...
> 
> And for me, no problem being friends (my hubby is my best friend) but there has to be something else, too...i just never saw it between them...
> 
> ...


OMG - thanks for the link!!! Now I also see that June Allyson (who sadly passed away a few years ago) was Jo?!? I ***have*** to watch this version of the movie - she was the leading lady across from PL in my favorite musical, Good News!!! How cool!!

Here's a link to Good News for those who want to check it out (corny but catchy songs, LOL): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039431/


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041594/. PL was sooooo dreamy...
> 
> And for me, no problem being friends (my hubby is my best friend) but there has to be something else, too...i just never saw it between them...
> 
> I read Little Men first...then I had to read Little Women. Then Jo's Boys... And I thought the whole thing with the Professor was incredibly romantic... Ya'll are making me want to re-read this...


I wish I'd come at them in that order. Then I too might have rooted for the professor. Reading LW first sets you up to care for Laurie. And--I think I'm at the actual root of the problem here--my sadly-abridged, illustrated version had a VERY handsome Laurie and a truly unappealing, BEARDED professor. Ick. Cause I'm all about the pictures.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I guess it's something I've never analyzed and I've read romance novels all my life, but I think I don't have a need to be in love with the "hero" as long as I like him and the heroine is happy. I think some authors are good at making you feel a love or an attraction for the characters and others excel at making you like them enough to want them to find whatever they need to be content. Obviously, LW is not a romance novel, but this discussion is crossing over into that area. It wasn't written as if Jo was compromising (although I think Alcott was compromising in given Jo a version of the only happy ending expected for a female back then) and so I find myself happy for her. Also, I honestly can't say that Laurie did it for me either.


----------



## A_Hamm (Oct 8, 2010)

I was probably 14 or 15 when I read Little Women and I remember being upset that Jo didn't end up with Laurie.  But I remember being most disappointed that she ended up with the OLD guy.  Now I'm wondering how old he actually was.  Those of you who have read it more recently, does it give the Professor's age?  I'd have to laugh if he was like 40 and I considered him practically at death's door.


----------



## cargalmn (Sep 29, 2010)

A_Hamm said:


> I was probably 14 or 15 when I read Little Women and I remember being upset that Jo didn't end up with Laurie. But I remember being most disappointed that she ended up with the OLD guy. Now I'm wondering how old he actually was. Those of you who have read it more recently, does it give the Professor's age? I'd have to laugh if he was like 40 and I considered him practically at death's door.


When Jo wrote Marmee, I believe Jo told her that the Professor was "around 40, so don't worry" -- or something like that. So when you first read it, Jo made it sound old but it's really not!! You're as old as you think/feel you are!!


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

For a girl her age, 40 IS really old!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Yep. I must have been 11 or so when I read a romance with a heroine who was 36 and all I could think is how old she was and how her life was mostly over. There might have been some judgments about sagging too.


----------

