#jonuary

[fictionadventurer]

I'm fascinated by how Alcott makes a distinction between talent and genius. At first it seems like she's saying something like, "If you can't make something on the level of Mozart or Michaelangelo, why even bother?" Because that's the arc that leads to both Laurie and Amy giving up their dreams of artistic careers. They realize that just loving something and having a bit of talent for it doesn't mean you'll make anything worthwhile, so they should devote their lives to other things and leave art to the true geniuses.

But then it turns out that Alcott's saying something more like, "You have to get enough life experience before you can create anything that expresses something worthwhile." Jo gives up her writing when she decides to stop writing derivative adventure stories--but after the experience of caring for and losing Beth, she has real emotion to tap into, and she's able to write things that resonate with audiences and capture her own unique voice. Amy takes up sculpture again after she starts caring for her sickly daughter, and the love and sorrow make it better than anything else she's ever made.

It's interesting that Alcott's not advocating "art for art's sake". She's not advocating for art as "self-expression". She's not saying that youth is a requirement for genius, or that only the young are fresh enough to truly innovate. She's actually saying that youth is an obstacle to artists. Genius isn't something you're born with--it's something you can mature into. Genius isn't an innate quality, it's inspiration, and the longer you live, the more experiences you have to draw inspiration from. Talent is what allows you to make the thing, but genius is what gives you something to say. It's a fascinating distinction that seems to flip a lot of the usual ideas about artistry on their heads.

[fictionadventurer]

My take on Jo/Laurie is that having them not be endgame was absolutely the right choice, however, if a significant portion of your readership is upset by the canon romantic couples, you probably made significant mistakes in presenting the romances, and I want to figure out what they were.

I think Alcott does a good job at presenting Bhaer as someone who fits Jo's shabby, homey, honest and heartfelt vibe. I love how Jo meets Bhaer only after fleeing to New York to let Laurie get over his crush on her. It's fine that Jo's just not attracted to Laurie, and that she likes a different type of person. (Bhaer is so very much the opposite of Laurie that if he's Jo's type, we can absolutely see why she didn't fall for Laurie). We see Jo interacting with Bhaer a lot and finding a lot to like about him, so this isn't even one of those classic romances where the main character spends the whole book with one person and marries a different person who they don't even speak to on-page.

I think the main problem is that we're told more than shown that Jo and Laurie fight too much to be happy as husband and wife, and that Jo would not be able to adapt herself to Laurie's elegant lifestyle. He seems to like Jo's personality whenever he's with her, and could very well adjust to her lifestyle--it's not like he's super enthusiastic about elegant society. I can't agree that they would necessarily have made each other miserable--these are fictional characters who will do or say whatever the author needs them to do to make her point, so it's not impossible to imagine a world where these two characters are a happy married couple.

What I'm saying is that we need to see them fight. Not just in the "Teddy said something stupid and we'll make it up by the end of the day" way. We need to see where their personalities and philosophies clash. We need to see Laurie objecting to Jo's writing instead of Jo just saying that he would come to disapprove. We need to see Laurie taking Amy's side in saying that Jo doesn't behave well at society events. It would be so easy to have even one scene where Laurie scolds Jo for her behavior (maybe he observes some of the May Chester debacle), in a way that makes it clear that he wants her to fit into a world that she doesn't like.

Long story short, if you want people to believe that Jo and Bhaer are a good fit for each other, you need to make it clearer why Jo and Laurie aren't.

[fictionadventurer]

Hey, Word Cloud Classics, that is an insane quote to choose for the back of the edition of Little Women. Of all the heartwarming family love quotes you could have chosen, you pick the speech by a character preparing to die??

[fictionadventurer]

I'd love to see a modern adaptation of Little Women modernize the Pickwick Club. Being fans of Dickens means something much different in the 2020s than it did in the 1860s, and I think it's much more interesting to make the girls theme their club, not around Dickens, but around "extremely popular story that came out 20-30 years ago".

I get that it's safer for a modern adaptation to stick with Dickens because of copyright, but since we aren't making a movie, we can pick whatever story most makes sense, and the idea that's most compelling to me is: The Lord of the Rings.

The movies came out in the early 2000s, putting it in the correct time frame

It's got a group of different well-defined personalities that the girls can name themselves after

They're all male, like the Pickwick Club

The group has a name. Instead of the Pickwick Club, the girls can go to a meeting of the Fellowship

Instead of publishing a newspaper, the girls can record their adventures in the Red Book of Westmarch

(And now that I've written that, I see that the "March" in the title is very fitting)

While a Tolkien club implies a different kind of nerdiness than a Dickens club, we already know that they're fans of quest fantasies thanks to their Pilgrim's Progress obsession.

(Since Pilgrim's Progress is so central to the story, I'm willing to assume they're the weird homeschooled Protestants who like that story even in the modern day, but you could make an argument that modern-day Marches would replace that fantasy novel with Lord of the Rings, too)

So then the question is, which characters do they name themselves after? I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but my first instinct is:

Meg is Gandalf. The leader of the Pickwick Club becomes the leader of the Fellowship. (It would be a very easy costume to make, and I think the girls would have fun with it).

Jo as Aragorn, because I can see that very masculine lost king being the kind of character that appeals to her (though I'd be willing to accept Legolas or Gimli)

Beth as Sam. No question about this one. The home-loving March has to be the home-loving hobbit.

Amy as Pippin. The youngest and most naive of the hobbits who manages to do pretty well out in the wider world. (I can see Jo getting a lot of mileage out of "fool of a Took")

Laurie as Legolas, because of the matching first initial, and because there's a certain glamour to the one elf in the Fellowship. Though the main reason I hesitate over Jo as Aragorn is because Laurie would also fit well in that role, as someone who's been wandering the world and trying to find a home.

[fictionadventurer]

Alcott is weirdly coy about what book the March girls get for Christmas. They're copies of a book about "the best life ever lived" that will be "a good guide" for the year ahead.

Just say it's the Bible.

But since she doesn't say what it is, is it the Bible?

I'm leaning toward it just being the Gospels, because it's specifically the story of one life. Since there are four March sisters, I like to imagine each of them getting a different Gospel (whether or not they'd have been printed this way in the 1860s).

I'd assign them like this:

Meg: Matthew. It comes first in the order, and is written to the Jews who remember their rightful heritage, which fits with Meg identifying with past days

Jo: Mark. It's second in the traditional order, it's the most straighforward and action-focused, and it has a controversial ending to the story

Beth: John. The point of view of "the disciple who Jesus loved", a very soulful and heartfelt person who rested upon the Lord at the Last Supper, and who stayed at home with the Lord's mother, feels very Beth

Amy: Luke, because it's the only one left, and because of the tradition that Luke was an artist

[fictionadventurer]

Episodic narratives are so underrated. Maybe sometimes every subplot doesn't have to be given to us piece by piece over the course of the entire long novel. Maybe it's nice to have each individual chapter feel like a short story with its own beginning, middle and end. You can have an ongoing plot in the background but also have complete little stories that you can judge as individual pieces. It's so nice and calm and engaging and a satisfying way to experience a novel.

[fictionadventurer]

“You don’t give her up. You only go halves,” said Laurie consolingly. “It can never be the same again. I’ve lost my dearest friend,” sighed Jo. “You’ve got me, anyhow. I’m not good for much, I know, but I’ll stand by you, Jo, all the days of my life. Upon my word I will!” and Laurie meant what he said. “I know you will, and I’m ever so much obliged. You are always a great comfort to me, Teddy,” returned Jo, gratefully shaking hands.

Louisa May Alcott really can't complain that people expected Jo and Laurie to get married when she puts an exchange like this at the end of Volume One! You can have Jo and Laurie just stay friends. You can have a plot where Laurie falls in love and Jo doesn't. You can make them marry other people. They're your characters and you can do what they want with them. But when you publish this in two separate volumes, and put such obvious ship bait in the last chapter of volume one, of course people are going to spend the next seven months assuming they'll become a romantic couple.

You can't have Laurie say, "I'll stay with you forever," while they're talking about Meg's wedding, and not have both him and the audience read something romantic into it. Even if something like this had been at the beginning of Volume 2, it could have worked okay--it can tie into that volume's plot of Laurie expecting something romantic and Jo not seeing it at all. But when you give the audience time to make assumptions, they're going to make assumptions, and the romantic reading of that passage is very obvious, so I can see why people were upset.

[fictionadventurer]

What most girls mean when they say they relate to Jo March: I'm a feisty independent tomboy who loves writing and don't need no man!

What I mean when I say I relate to Jo March: I'm irritable, socially awkward, and live in terror of a life of loneliness and the inexorable march of time.