As was Meg in general, the most irritatingly facile character in the novel.
“Victorian wasting disease”. But, as others have noted, more likely congestive heart failure and accompanying illnesses. They symptoms were certainly not those of tuberculosis.
I had this discussion with the coworker who forced the book on me (like a manly man like me is really going to voluntarily read a novel called Little Women :rolleyes: ); I was firmly convinced that she was a lesbian even before I read on the speculations that Alcott was. It’s not just that she’s not into Laurie–who is kind of fatuous and more of a pal than a lover–but the entire host of opinions, including her distress at her sisters getting married, and her lukewarm affections for the Professor, which was clearly more of an intellectual infatuation than anything driven by lust or romance.
Actually, Alcott (through Jo) writes heavily on the topic of writing for profit as opposed to strictly for her art, and of course, Jo ends up writing explotative stories to provide money for her family. I can see how it wouldn’t do to have Jo a permanent spinster, and marrying the Professor and “adopting” a houseful of boys is a way of mostly satisfying the need for Jo to be a material character while not really being too feminine or giving up autonomy. Despite the fact that Bhaer is significantly older than Jo and she has a great respect for him, she never really swoons over him or subordinates her will to him, as would be more typical in the pulpy chick-lit of the day. Not that this is a criticism; doubtless this is why (along with Alcott’s marvelous prose) while the novel continues in popularity while similar work has disappeared into the mildewed pages of forgotten literature.
I must say I always felt that Beth had Rheumatic Fever because I had it as a child, following a strep throat and I knew how she felt. I was lucky; I got away without serious damage to my heart. But the tiredness, not wanting to be bothered with anything or anybody is considerable.
But many thanks for the information about how it works which nobody ever told either me or my mum.
I have to say I identified with Jo the bookworm and I’d have been disappointed if she ended up with Laurie. She needed an older man who gave her stability IMO; Friedrich was perfect!
I need to re-read this again!
I was lucky that the copy I grew up with was ‘Little women and nice wives’ which belonged to my great grandmother. I have subsequently found this was an 1880 edition so fairly venerable; it’s a lovely book and one that is so nice to handle especially compared to my copy of Jo’s Boys which is an austerity edition.
I agree. And I’ve known quite a few younger siblings who were quite annoyed at ‘losing’ a sister to marriage; it really isn’t the same. (My own 8yo sister stomped on my new husband’s foot once out of annoyance at his existence!)
Somehow I’ve lived over 50 years without ever reading Little Women and just picked it up last week.
I’ve only just scratched the surface of the book but am fascinated by LMA’s idea of womanhood in 1868. I’m not a scholar of the society of the mid 1800’s but the common thought is that women were second class citizens whose most important thing is life is to catch and marry a well-heeled man. Mrs. March is clearly teaching her daughters a more “modern” lesson.
I’ve thought from the first few chapters that Jo was a closeted lesbian. Since it’s my understanding that LMA wrote the character Jo from her personal perspective, it only stands to reason that she may have “teh ghay” as well. She’s masculine in her manner and looks, prefers comfortable clothing over more girly things, hasn’t developed a serious relationship with the opposite sex, really loves her cropped hair cut, and seems to be the only one in the family that can tolerate unmarried Aunt March. She’s besties with the Laurie and she’s independent and wants a career in a man’s world. I absolutely love Jo!
I haven’t seen the films yet but I’m anxious to finish the book!
A woman who owned a bookstore once told me that one of her friends is the great-granddaughter of the real “Meg” but has never read the book! I could just cry for her ignorance.
For those of you who have the opportunity to visit Concord, Massachusetts, take the time to go to Louisa Alcott’s home. It won’t take you long to realize that you are in the March house. “Amy’s” paintings are on the wall in Beth’s room. She drew them there to entertain Beth when she was ill. There are countless other surprises. Be sure to visit the place where LMA is buried in the town cemetery. It was quite moving.
My husband and I met about 26 years ago over our computers on a BBS just before the internet got into gear. When he sent me a photograph, my first thought was “Oh, there’s my Professor Bhaer!” And he looked even more as I had imagined the professor when I met him in person.
I had one even though my closet was small. I’d just forgotten where I got the idea!
Did anyone here ever sleep it a clothespin on your nose to try to straiighten it out? I did! But it was too tight a fit.
My first exposure to Little Women was in 1949 when the movie came out. I just bawled when Beth died. I loved Margaret O’Brien. I went home and the next day picked out the little scarey piece that she played on the piano. That is the first thing that I can remember playing. I picked it out by ear.
I hope this particular thread keeps getting revived. May it never be completely a zombie!
Re LMA and ‘teh gay’, there’s an interesting quote on her wiki page:
I definitely think Prof. Bhaer/Jo relationship is the OTP. Laurie and Jo were buds, but he always seemed lightweight for Jo - she needed more someone who could ground her. Laurie needed the more social Amy to fit into his world.
I love love love Little Women. My uncle gave me an elaborate hardcover version when I was 12, and I still have it. Back then I couldn’t quite understand some of it (a charabanc? blancmange?) and popular-then references (Charles Dickens, Pilgrims Progress), and had to kind of guess. I wish my own daughter would read it but no go. her loss.
I wonder if people are still reading this book today, it seems it wouldn’t be of much interest to kids who tweet and text, unless they had to read it for school. Which movie version do you like? It’s said the one with Katherine Hepburn is the best, but I have a fondness for the later one with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy. Never saw the Winona Ryder one.
I think Beth died from heart failure after scarlet fever.
It all makes sense now! I can’t say I was the biggest fan of the novel, but I did like Jo’s character. When Alcott married her off, it was a big WTF moment for me. I agree, independent Jo should have remained unmarried.
Reviving to say as a result of the thread, I finished re-reading LW last week. I read it a few times as an adolescent and hated it (although I loved Meg Goes to Vanity Fair for the description of the clothes). I love Katharine Hepburn, but hated the movie. The version with Winona Ryder was o.k. And I was a member of the “I can’t believe Jo didn’t marry Laurie” camp. A few years ago I told my mother that I hated it because it was so sappy (although every year I sigh "Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents/serpents). And my mother would say “it’s such a good book” and be disappointed that I didn’t like it.
So I checked it out of the library 4 weeks ago and started a re-read. And I’m kinda ashamed to say I have apparently matured and really like the book this go round. I finally understood it (I’m 53, so it too a few years). I get why Jo didn’t marry Laurie, I get why I thought it was sappy, I was sad when Beth died. The writing was rather Victorian but it was good prose. I did skip a few parts like Pickwick Papers and Demi being naughty. Now I need to see the movies again. So thanks to this thread for giving the book another chance with me!
I remember reading the chapter where Amy was sent to stay with Aunt March while Beth was ill. I was pretty young and tried writing out my very own will, like Amy did! I left my collection of horse figurines to my cousin, my ruby ring to my best friend, and my savings account to mom. Though I adored Jo, I found Amy, who was materialistic, artistic, and aspiring-to-be-sophisticated, very interesting. I was shocked when Laurie married her and not Jo, but now I can see that he was sort of the answer to Amy’s dreams of leaving the middle class life. (still don’t see what Jo saw in her hairy-bear old German professor - maybe Jo’s being an author of thrillers was quite enough excitement for a woman, in Louisa May Alcott’s mindset, and remaining an independent spinster was asking too much.)
I thought Alcott wanted her to be a spinster and was forced by her editor to add Bhaer or whatever his name was so as not to be quite so scandalous. I always figured Jo’s frustration with chopping her stories up for editors to be Alcott’s own opinion of her work.
But, as others have noted, more likely congestive heart failure and accompanying illnesses. They symptoms were certainly not those of tuberculosis.
