Little Women

1868, 1990 Dell Yearling Classic edition
Louisa May Alcott
Little Women
Bought new for $3.99
Worn paperback with spine starting to break
A-


Reading Little Women right after Alcott's weak "adult" novel, I appreciate this story more than ever.  Amusingly, there's a passage about the various ethnicities in Nice, including "ugly Russians, meek Jews, free-and-easy Americans," that's lifted right out of A Long Fatal Love Chase.  There's also a servant named Baptiste, although presumably not one who helps his master stalk his estranged "wife."

It is weird to see how Jo is scolded, by her future husband and by the narrator, for writing "sensation stories."  Was Alcott feeling guilty for her own sensation stories?  (Some of them, unlike LFLC, were published at the time.)  Or is this part of the moralizing of what she herself called "moral pap for the young"?  The thing is, Little Women, despite the overt Christianity and the constant urging to be submissive (to God, to your parents, to your husband, to your temper), is a fun, lively, and complex novel.  Alcott and Jo shouldn't have wasted their time on sensation stories when they're so good at the children's fiction.

This is a children's book, despite taking the "little women" from adolescence into adulthood.  There is death (more on that below), but there's nothing inappropriate for a reader above say nine or ten.  The exact number of years covered is fuzzy, because Alcott suddenly loses control of her math skills in Part Second.  Is Amy really away in Europe for three years?  How is Laurie a 21-year-old college graduate a few months before he's 23?  How is it that 6-month-old Demi can walk downstairs and speak in complete (if cutesy) sentences?  Why is Jo suddenly pushing 25 when by my math she's 22?  Of course, Part First has the will that Amy dates 20 November 1861, even though the previous Christmas her father had gone away to the war, and the Civil War broke out in April 1861.

Math aside, there's a realism to this novel that continues to startle.  With Jo in particular, these are believable girls.  Jo uses slang, loses her temper, and is clumsy.  Even saintly Beth (actually called an "angel in the house," which has strong Victorian resonance) has faults.  Heck, even Marmee is "angry every day of her life."

Yet, yes, she urges submission.  To some extent, this makes sense.  There are things you can't change, particularly if you're a girl in the 1860s.  But it does hurt to see all the March girls, and Laurie, give up their dreams.  Even Beth, who wants to just stay at home, do housework, and take care of her pets and dolls, has to give up what she wants because, well, she dies.

Apparently, it has always been a great shock to readers to get up to the part where Beth dies.  That is, unless they got spoiled like I did when I was 12 and read an article on dyslexia, where the writer tells of how her sister accidentally spoiled that plot twist.  This isn't like (forgive me if you didn't know) hearing that Rosebed was the sled.  You can enjoy Citizen Kane with having that McGuffin ruined for you.  But Beth dying, and all the things related to her death, before and after, is central to Little Women.  And yet, I decided to read Little Women anyway.  And here I am reading it for the umpteenth time more than 30 years later.  I know what happens to these characters, but I still care.

The other thing about many readers and this story is that starting at the time the first part was published, Jo/Laurie shippers came into being, much to Alcott's annoyance.  I can't remember ever shipping them myself.  (And remember, I shipped grown-up Heidi/Peter, so it doesn't take much.)  Jo seemed asexual or maybe lesbian, and she didn't love Laurie the right way.  I sort of hoped for Beth/Laurie, if she hadn't died I mean.  They both like music, and he's sweet to her.  But Amy/Laurie, shrug, I don't mind it.  I used to think Mr. Bhaer was too old for Jo, but I guess it's not any worse than Emma/Knightley.

I do remember thinking it weird on the first reading that Laurie doesn't like to be called Theodore, because the fellows call him Dora, so he goes by Laurie Laurence.  Um, Laurie is a girls' name, like Laurie Partridge.  Maybe it wasn't in the 19th century, like Shirley.

There have been several adaptations of Little Women over the years of course.  I like the Katherine Hepburn 1933 one best, although I still need to see the Winona Ryder version.  As far as I know, none of the adaptations has included my favorite sequence, where Amy makes Jo pay calls on the neighbors, and Jo acts inappropriately, including doing a spot-on imitation of a girl they just visited.  Jo's disastrous dinner party is also good but omitted, although the "salt for sugar" mistake has definitely passed into cliche, if it hadn't already at the time.

Since today is Dickens's 200th birthday, I should note that the March girls adore Dickens, and he's referred to as a celebrity that Amy sees in Nice.  I think Alcott owes an equal debt to Austen, conscious or not.  Austen had paved the way in portraying sets of very different but loving sisters, as well as in showing that young women needed to cultivate their hearts and minds.  There are some interesting cultural differences between 1810s England and 1860s America, such as that handshaking is still considered masculine but in a much more negative way.  (It's part of Jo's gauche boyishness, rather than Marianne's gesture of friendship.)  There's more acceptance of women working for a living, even if it's still considered as inferior to keeping the homefires burning.  I was pleased in reading the sequels to see that, even after becoming a wife and mother, Jo didn't give up her writing.  And yes, Little Men and Jo's Boys are on their way, along with less well-known Alcottian pap for the young....