Jo in Little Women

Plenty of things one could talk about in this classic (and you're welcome to), but... who did you want Jo to marry?

When I first read Little Women at 16, I was so, so regretful that she rejects Laurie and I was just weirded out by her choice of Professor Bhaer. I mean, she and Laurie are so absolutely adorable in Book 1. Laurie is described as shy, almost sickly from staying in all his days, then Jo comes and brings him out of himself; and she's a wonderful influence in the formation of his character. He basically enters the March family through Jo. And in turn, Jo finds an outlet to express her boyishly playful side through Laurie. And because of his inquisitive and mischeivious nature, he often gets to know Jo's secrets even before the rest of the family. They are natural and playful confidants.

Well, of course, Laurie really does throw a most childish temper tantrum when Jo tells him no... but hey, it's Laurie, he can't seem to do anything without being somehow comedic at the same time. Re-reading the chapter he proposes to Jo and knowing how it all ends, it almost comes off as tragicomedy to me now. Like, I feel Laurie so badly when he says:

"Don't tell me that, Jo; I can't bear it now!"
"Tell what?" she asked, wondering at his violence.
"That you love that old man."
"What old man?" demanded Jo, thinking he must mean his grandfather.
"That devilish Professor you were always writing about. If you say you love him, I know I shall do something desperate;" and he looked as if he would keep his word, as he clenched his hands, with a wrathful spark in his eyes.
Jo wanted to laugh, but restrained herself . . .

But it is hilarious.

As for Jo and the Professor... I got more father-daughter vibes off them in the time that she gets to know him in New York. :/
(Also, he's described as capitally unhandsome XD)

Jo marrying Mr Bhaer just comes off like Jo feeling lonely in the old house with her favourite sister gone and the other two married/getting married. Feels like Alcott arranging things for the express purpose of frustrating her readers. 😂

On the other hand, the funny thing is that I always kinda felt okay-ish about Amy and Laurie getting together.

Hello,

not sure how this appeared in my posts- but here goes.

I haven't read this in years- so memories are of childhood fondness and I have been afraid to mess with that particular joy.

I, too, was at first heartbroken by Laurie- but I understood it from a particular vantage point. Because of the two main movie productions of my time-period, Hepburn and Allison somebody- which I love- but they both kind of ruin Jo for me, especially Hepburn. (okay not a great sentence- but, bear with me)

In the book, I sort of identify with Jo. She was tomboyish for her day, but not crass or without upbringing. She is not ready for marriage and to leave behind her childhood joys. She wants it all to stay the same. She wants Laurie for her always friend. She is resistant to the demands of womanhood of her time. She isn't just rejecting Laurie; she is rejecting the constraints of womanhood. She also recognizes Laurie's faults and the social demands that will be placed on her by an alliance with him, given his "station." She is being wise and unselfish to know that which he does not- that when he matures, he will be trapped by their friendship and will want/ need someone that can adapt to his social regime. Likewise, she does not want that for herself. She is not ready for womanhood, but she doesn't plan on being a woman of society when she is.

She wants to be herself as she has been permitted to be in childhood, but, she lives in a society in which women don't have that luxury. To properly fill her feminine duty, she must submerge herself into the ideals of her society (and ultimately, the will of a man as husband, master, and only person with rights and identity.)

That had to give any woman pause about the unknown and possibility of being abused. (which is not addressed directly, but i think understood by all female readers.)

I think the conundrum was so well ingrained that her readers understood this and as a New England writer with Transcendental leanings, she treated the topic with all the insight and freedom of her time and locale. (I dont believe European women were granted as much freedom) She provided the best outcome for all. Laurie keeps his place in society and she finds trust to not be bullied, but treated as an equal.

Another facet is the age difference. This is to be expected. Men had to be mature before marriage and women had to be in their prime childbearing years. There was always going to be the age difference. Bhaer, by being older and a professor provides the societal expectation. He has helped "instruct" her in wisdom without shaming her. (gag me right?!?!)

By Amy marrying Laurie, there is an age difference, but she can keep nLaurie as her friend.

Once I got over Laurie, I was glad for Bhaer. The reader knows him to be kind and judicious- which is more than her readers would have found in reality. (Alcott's father was kind- but not necessarily pragmatic; so, I think she understood what marriage really had to offer and that women and their children were stuck with those choices.)

The fact that he is not dashingly handsome is her precise message; other qualities are of much greater substance.

What is amazing to me is that her comprehension of the not willing to grow-up dilemma could reach down to me all the way into the 1960's. Although, I would know much greater freedoms, many of those social structures still existed enough to be comprehended. I feel sad that my own children and grandchildren can never love and connect to this book exactly the way that I did but not necessarily sad that it is because their roles/ expectations have finally altered. (I'm not saying that is a proven positive.)

>1 Majel-Susan: Feels like Alcott arranging things for the express purpose of frustrating her readers. 😂

I've seen things talking about how Alcott didn't want Jo to marry, but was pushed to have it happen. So she set about to do as you stated above.