#also professor bhaer is not as good in the books

[letteredlettered]

honestly when searching for romance I think it is great to have both Anne Shirley and Jo March as role models. Anne Shirley thinks love is something out-of-this-world and beyond her own reality and goes out searching for it, only to find that love is familiar and friendly and comfortable and kind. She goes out into the world and then says it's not what the world holds for you but what you can bring to it. Meanwhile Jo March already has a love that is familiar and friendly and comfortable and kind and says we would be like old crows, fighting all the time, and goes out to find someone who is new and different who can challenge her and help her forge a path to a new life that isn't what anyone expected.

I think the point is that love can be different for different people, and that no one can tell you who to love or how. You have to look within yourself to understand what can bring you happiness, and then you have to work for it.

[notmoreflippingelves]

For the pairing ask meme: Jo/Laurie from Little Women (really curious about it!) And Carla/Mateo from EoA (because kinda love your Mateo roasting and takes 😁)

Jo/Laurie (????)

This is hard, because I don't know whether I ship it or not. I do but I don't. I think if I were to guess I'd say overall, I primarily don't except for Winona Ryder!Jo/Christian Bale! Laurie from Little Women (1994). I guess I'm going to go with "no" overall, because honestly as much as I love that adaptation, Christian Bale Laurie is arguably too "cool"/suave compared to book!Laurie (who tbh is more than a bit pathetic sometimes). Like I'm genuinely a little "What are you thinking?" when Winona!Jo turns Bale!Laurie down but I am mostly okay with it in all other incarnations. I do also mostly like Amy/Laurie and Jo/Bhaer as much if not more , so yeah I'm not really cut up about it Jo/Laurie not being endgame.

Why don’t you ship it?

For me, it's largely that there is a sense (more pronounced in some adaptions than others) that Laurie wants to be a March Girl™ (gender-neutral) more than he wants to be Jo's life-partner which is not really the idea ship vibe--even if I can't exactly blame him as I too would do almost anything to be a March Girl. Like sure Jo was his first choice by far and I do believe that his eventual relationship with Amy is genuinely based on more than "settling"--but I also feel relatively sure that he might have hypothetically settled for Beth or Meg under other circumstances. And that's just not a solid start for a relationship, if your s.o. could've hypothetically is always low-key considering your sibling as a backup plan if things go south with you too. (I mean you could say that the same is true of Laurie/Amy, but I do think it's less bad b/c Amy has literally been in love with Laurie since she was 12 and because overall their personalities "mesh" a little better than Jo/Laurie).

I also worry a bit about how Laurie's wealth might hypothetically impact the Jo/Laurie relationship. I do think that he would continue to be supportive of her writing and theatrical dreams, but I can also see him overcompensating/supporting her "too much." Unlike Bhaer, I don't think Laurie is capable of offering her constructive criticism that is necessary for her work to improve. He's too much of an inherent simp who thinks Jo March is already the most amazing human to ever exist (again can't totally blame him for that) to even conceive of the possibility that she has genuine strengths and weaknesses. I can also see him throwing his money and influence around a little in order to get her published/earning favorable reviews. Jo is fiercely independent and so achieving her dreams on her own terms/by her own merit is supremely important to her--arguably more important than her achieving them at all. Laurie interfering in her career even positively/with good intentions would inevitably cause a lot of conflict between them and create some self-doubt of Jo as to whether she really "earned"/"deserves" her success at all.

What would have made you like it?

As I mentioned I do sort of like it even as I also dislike it. I guess I would like it more consistently/wish it was endgame if Laurie was just a wee bit less eager/obsessed/convinced they were "meant to be." Also if we had a stronger sense that Jo herself wanted the romance specifically as opposed to just Laurie staying in her life. Another thing that makes me a little wary about Jo/Laurie is the meta-aspect of knowing that Louisa May Alcott was very adamant about not wanting them together. Her publisher pretty much insisted that Jo needed to find love in Part 2 and so she created Professor Bhaer in order to give Jo an alternate love interest

Despite not shipping it, do you have anything positive to say about it?

A lot, especially since I don't not ship it even if I don't ship it. Their "meet cute" scene at the ball is one of my favorite scenes in the book and arguably one of my favorite "character introduction scenes" in all of literature. I think that the two of them have great chemistry and a really supportive dynamic. They care deeply about each other and have so much fun together. (You see this as well in the sequels. Even though they're both romantically with other people, they are still go-to confidants and partners-in-mischief for each other).

I also think that narratively Jo/Laurie has to "work" on some level in order to justify the direction that story takes. The first time that you encounter the story, the reader/viewer needs to really like them together and assume that them being endgame is inevitable. It gives Jo's decision to reject his proposal more poignancy and agency. She needs to love him deeply and know that he loves her--even if they can't love each other in the same way--in order to fully be able to choose herself and her goals over him. If he's not an otherwise desirable option, her choice not to choose him isn't a real choice. She needs to be conflicted, tempted even, if her decision to prioritize her own dreams and needs over his and her family's is to hold any real weight.

And Alcott (and most of the adaptions) do a fantastic job of making Jo/Laurie seem plausible/desirable so that the rejected proposal emotionally fulfills its narrative purpose for Jo's character development (and a lesser extent Laurie's and Amy's as well).

Carla/Mateo (I ship it albeit very low-key though Carla probably deserves better)

What made you ship it?

Probably their interactions in late S3 most of all (especially the finale). I think there is clearly attraction and chemistry between them. They seem to have similar, slightly dorky and clumsy personalities that seem like they would mesh well. And shallow , I know, but their character models are also attractive and look good together.

What are your favorite things about the ship?

Is it bad if I say that I like how easily Rita!Carla was able to make Mateo look like the biggest fool in all Avalor?

I think there is a lot of potential for the two of them to bond. They're both very family-oriented, and I think there's a lot of potential for them to grow closer as being the only (and a little coddled/spoiled) children of very loving but somewhat smothering single parents (Victor and Rafa)--as well as missing their absent other parents (Ash and Mateo's father).

They are also arguably THE characters (well them, Victor, and Olivia) who are most actively interested in learning magic. (Gabe and Elena express some curiosity but specifically in the context of magic being a tool to protect the kingdom as opposed to something they want to learn just for itself). So it's nice to think of magic being another way that they can grow closer/flirt/have fun together.

I also adore the Delgado father and daughter relationship and enjoy thinking about how Carla/Mateo would impact Victor and his relationship with his daughter. Whether he's supportive (most likely) or hesitant (my personal head canon), it has the potential to be really fun/funny and heartwarming.

Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship?

Carla/Mateo is one of the only Mateo ships that I can tolerate. Sorry not sorry. It's this and like two non-existent rare pairs . And even then, I don't think I am ever doing more than casually enjoying it, since my Mateo indifference is so strong. (I do really like Carla though and have a few more ships with her).

[joandfriedrich]

I don't think that Jo is demisexual. Her reaction to meeting Fritz is "Hnnngh; I liiiike. No wait. He's not remotely conventionally attractive. WTF me."

This ask is honestly bewildering to me. If you don’t think she is demisexual, then what do you think she is?

The way you worded it make it seems like Jo is only interested in conventionally attractive people, and I am not sure what makes you think that, especially since she is described, even by her own words, that she is not conventionally attractive either, and we know she isn’t vain in that way. If this was the case, how come she didn't see Laurie like that when he was described as being conventionally attractive? It’s again that weird idea that only conventionally attractive people can only be desirable, and if you find someone sexy that isn’t attractive then there is something wrong with you.

For those who do not know, demisexuality is when a person does not feel sexual desire for a person unless they have developed an emotional connection to the other person, and only after that connection is made will they feel a sexual desire for that person. Looks do not play a part in the demisexual’s feelings of desire, so the “He's not remotely conventionally attractive. WTF me” doesn’t work because she never desired anyone before him.

The first time she ever sees the professor, though it was not their official meeting, it was him doing something that immediately touched her and made her like him.

“As I went downstairs soon after, I saw something I liked. The flights are very long in this tall house, and as I stood waiting at the head of the third one for a little servant girl to lumber up, I saw a gentleman come along behind her, take the heavy hod of coal out of her hand, carry it all the way up, put it down at a door near by, and walk away, saying, with a kind nod and a foreign accent, ‘It goes better so. The little back is too young to haf such heaviness.’

Wasn’t it good of him? I like such things, for as Father says, trifles show character.”

After that, she begins to learn more about him before properly meeting him, and finds that he is a good man despite his unconventional looks. Just as it is said in the novel, she questioned why people liked him, not he’s unattractive and therefore can’t be liked.

“Why everybody liked him was what puzzled Jo, at first. He was neither rich nor great, young nor handsome, in no respect what is called fascinating, imposing, or brilliant, yet he was as attractive as a genial fire, and people seemed to gather about him as naturally as about a warm hearth. He was poor, yet always appeared to be giving something away; a stranger, yet everyone was his friend; no longer young, but as happy-hearted as a boy; plain and peculiar, yet his face was beautiful to many, and his oddities were freely forgiven for his sake. Jo often watched him, trying to discover the charm, and at last decided that it was benevolence which worked the miracle.”

“ ‘That’s it!” said Jo to herself, when she at length discovered that genuine good will toward one’s fellow men could beautify and dignify even a stout German teacher, who shoveled in his dinner, darned his own socks, and was burdened with the name of Bhaer.”

Does this sound like Jo is thinking to herself “WTF me?” No, it’s her understanding why everyone else likes him, and through what she observed of him. Also, here is the passage in which she writes to home about her first time of seeing him, and this is one of quite a few moments in which Jo is checking out the professor.

“I was thanking my stars that I’d learned to make nice buttonholes, when the parlor door opened and shut, and someone began to hum, Kennst Du Das Land, like a big bumblebee. It was dreadfully improper, I know, but I couldn’t resist the temptation, and lifting one end of the curtain before the glass door, I peeped in. Professor Bhaer was there, and while he arranged his books, I took a good look at him. A regular German—rather stout, with brown hair tumbled all over his head, a bushy beard, good nose, the kindest eyes I ever saw, and a splendid big voice that does one’s ears good, after our sharp or slipshod American gabble. His clothes were rusty, his hands were large, and he hadn’t a really handsome feature in his face, except his beautiful teeth, yet I liked him, for he had a fine head, his linen was very nice, and he looked like a gentleman, though two buttons were off his coat and there was a patch on one shoe.”

“...she coolly turned round and studied him—a proceeding which would have much surprised him, had he known it, for the worthy Professor was very humble in his own conceit.”

Jo was totally checking him out, and not at all thinking “Ugh, he’s not attractive, why do I like him?” She ends her letter with “On reading over my letter, it strikes me as rather Bhaery, but I am always interested in odd people...”

So, yes, I maintain Jo is demisexual, and she very clearly is into the professor, even if she doesn’t quite know it or even willing to admit it until much later. He may not be attractive in the same way that Laurie is, but that doesn’t stop him from being perhaps the most attractive male in the book, as his good heart and gentle ways enthrall not only the other characters, but to many readers everywhere.

[mytly4]

A good way to write realistic-seeming characters in historical fiction who are both grounded in their time period and yet have forward-thinking ideas for their time is to read actual fiction from the time period you're writing about (preferably good fiction!) and see how the authors of that time write sympathetic forward-thinking characters. How do such characters differentiate themselves from the more conventional characters around themselves?

To take a simple example, look at Jo March in Little Women (the book, of course, not any of the movie adaptations), and contrast her to her sisters and other girls of her society. What are her interests and ambitions, her personality, the rules she obeys and disobeys? And how do these differ from those of her sisters' and other girls? Jo is presented as an individualistic, ambitious, and forward-thinking girl who doesn't want to be hemmed in by the restrictions on women in her times (the 1860s) and society (specifically, New England, USA; more broadly, Western society). How does she go about defying those restrictions?

In Jo’s time, all women are expected to want to be nothing but devoted wives and mothers, and have no ambitions of their own. But Jo doesn’t want that, and she wants to be a writer. She pursues her dream of writing, and is fortunate enough to have a family who supports her in doing so. Her sisters, on the other hand, have much more conventional ideas for their lives. Meg never wants to be anything other than a devoted wife and mother, and that’s what she becomes. Amy does harbour some ambitions about becoming an artist, but she quickly abandons those ideas when she realizes that she isn’t particularly good at it, and marries a rich man instead (that’s not my interpretation – the novel literally frames it that way). Beth is interested in music, but has no particular ambitions regarding it; you don’t get the impression that if she had lived to grow up, she’d have pursued any life path other than the conventional one. The other girls the March sisters know also pursue conventional lives. This makes Jo stand out as an independent and ambitious woman, considerably ahead of her time.

But in other ways, Jo is pretty conservative, at least from a modern perspective. For example, she’s a fairly devout Christian – for example, one of the March girls’ favourite pastimes is to read and enact scenes from The Pilgrim’s Progress, which is an extremely preachy Christian novel. In a brief scene in the book (that tends to be left out of the movie adaptations), one of the reasons Jo becomes enamoured of Professor Bhaer is that he defends Christian ideas at a party full of intellectuals who are questioning these ideas (this book was written just a few years after Darwin’s The Origin of Species came out, and its ideas were very much a current topic at the time). And of course, ultimately, Jo too chooses life as a wife and mother, albeit on her own terms.

So what can a modern writer trying to write a historical novel set in the 1860s learn from Little Women and Jo March? For one thing, you can write a female protagonist who’s ahead of her time and questions the ideas of her society, but it should be within the specific bounds of that society. Jo questions the restrictions on women on her time; she is a feminist in the sense that she supports the right of women to make their own decisions about their lives. She’s not classist (none of the Marches are, except, to an extent, Amy; they all willingly help people poorer than themselves). There are no non-white characters in the book (which is typical of its time), but the Marches are not actively racist; their father fights in the Union army during the Civil War, so he’s presumably against slavery, as are the rest of the family (yes, the bar was that low at the time). But would Jo March ever celebrate racial diversity the way a 21st-century person would? Would she be in favour of queer rights? Even if she ever heard of such a thing, it’s likely her knee-jerk reaction would be horror and disgust towards queer people, considering her Christian ideals. Over time, she may become reconciled to the idea, especially if she met sympathetic queer people. But it’s unlikely she would ever speak up for queer rights, because such a thing was simply not done in her time.

In other words, a character who is ahead of her time (by most metrics) in the 1860s, would still pretty conservative by modern standards.

Genuinely 90% of historical fiction would be so much better if more writers could get more comfortable with the fact that to create a good story set in a different time period you do actually have to give the characters beliefs & values which reflect that time period

[nerdyrevelries]

Little Women (1994)

I know this movie is a favorite of many, and I can see why it is. It has a lovely, cozy atmosphere throughout, generally very good costumes, and generally good acting. It’s very pretty, and I think it accomplishes what it’s trying to do, but what it’s trying to do is not what I would want out of a Little Women adaptation. 

As I watched the movie, several things about it nagged me. Obviously when making a two hour movie out of a forty-seven chapter book, there have to be some sacrifices made. This is completely understandable, but there should be great care when choosing what to sacrifice. Some of the things that were sacrificed in this movie left me mourning for a lack of context. 

The biggest example of this is in the scenes around Amy falling through the ice. In the book, Laurie has sounded the ice, and he’s pointed out to Jo where the ice is too thin to skate upon. It’s mentioned clearly that Jo is the only one to see Amy coming up and Jo thinks to herself that it doesn’t matter whether or not Amy heard Laurie’s warning, let her fend for herself. When the actual crisis comes, Jo is horrified, but she’s unable to move and it’s only because Laurie is there and acts quickly that Amy is saved at all. 

In the 1994 version, we don’t hear anything about Laurie sounding the ice or that there’s a part of the lake that’s too thin to skate on. Laurie also sees Amy and is perfectly fine ignoring her when Jo tells him to. When Amy falls through the ice, Jo immediately rushes to help. We still get the same conversations afterwards about it being Jo’s fault and it being a good thing that Laurie was there, but they make no sense without the missing context. 

How was it Jo’s fault if she didn’t know about the ice and purposefully kept that information from Amy? Why was it necessary for Laurie to be there when Jo did just as much to save Amy as he did? The reason this scene is so important in the book is that it highlights the consequences of Jo’s temper and leads her to make a resolution to conquer it. 

Part 1 of Little Women is framed around the Pilgrim’s Progress, a classic Christian allegorical novel about a young man who takes up his burden and goes on a journey that ends with his arrival at the Celestial City. In Little Women, each of the girls are mentioned to have burdens and to be on a journey to overcome them, so showing Jo’s temper and her struggles to overcome it are very important in a Little Women adaptation. 

Speaking of faults and a lack of context, Beth getting sick is partially the fault of the other girls in the book as it’s all of the girl’s duties to look after them while Marmee is away. Beth is the only one who doesn’t neglect this duty, which leads to her getting sick. It’s noted that this could have been avoided if Meg and Jo had kept up with visiting the Hummels because they had had scarlet fever before. However, in 1994, Marmee specifically tasks Beth with looking after the Hummels while she’s gone, which absolves the other girls of any responsibility. They weren’t neglecting their duty if it was Beth’s job in the first place. 

These are little changes, but they do a lot to change the story, as do several other bigger changes. There are quite a few characterization changes. John Brooke is all wrong, and while I do like the Professor Bhaer of this movie, he’s not the Professor Bhaer of the book. His romance with Jo has little resemblance to their romance in the book. Jo seems much more self-possessed when it comes to romance than she ever was in the book. Another issue was with the fight. 

In the book, Jo doesn’t start out writing stories with lots of blood and gore. She writes fairy tales and Shakespearean style dramas. She turns to the sensational because that is what sells, even though she feels uncomfortable writing it and ashamed of the work she produces. Professor Bhaer does comment on the types of stories written in publications like the Daily Volcano, but he never lets on that he’s realized that Jo writes these types of stories, and it is Jo who goes up to review the things she has written and decides that they are trash. 

In the movie, she’s already writing sensational stories prior to ever trying to sell her work, which implies that Professor Bhaer’s words really are stifling her rather than reminding her that she has more worth than she’s allowing herself. The fight robs Jo of a lot of her agency, which was something I felt several times throughout the movie. Not going to Europe isn’t a result of Jo’s actions here. She doesn’t even get to have the idea of creating a school for herself! Marmee has to suggest it for her. 

This review is already getting very long, but I have a few more points I would like to make. The first is that Kirsten Dunst is lovely, and I think it was very brave of this movie to double cast the role of Amy so that we can realize that her actions like burning the book are those of an impulsive child rather than a malicious adult. Unfortunately, I don’t think the actress change quite works. Samantha Mathis does her best with the part, but she can’t match the magmatism and screen presence of Kirsten Dunst, and it creates a major disconnect. 

My final issue with this movie is the way it equates Louisa May Alcott’s life with Little Women. Obviously, Little Women did have some autobiographical elements, but it was ultimately a work of fiction. You wouldn’t know this from the movie, which indiscriminately inserts details from Alcott’s life that you won’t find reading Little Women including anti-corset talk, the closing of Bronson Alcott’s school when he admitted a person of color, the writing of Little Women, Transcendentalism, and an aversion to wearing silk.

The Marches not wearing silk is especially grating because details like silk gloves or the silk dress that Marmee has saved in the attic to one day give her girls are explicitly mentioned. In the movie, when Meg goes to the ball, she tries to wear an afternoon dress without a corset. In the book, she has a “tarleton” (more commonly spelled tarlatan, which is a type of muslin) dress that’s old but appropriate for the circumstances she would be wearing it in even if it is plainer than what the other girls are wearing. The Marches are poor, but they aren’t stupid. They don’t throw out clothes that have already been made and can be handed down for the sake of principles and they also know what is appropriate dress to match the circumstances. 

All this said, do I hate the movie? No, I think it’s lovely when viewed on its own. It’s just simply not Little Women for me. In my opinion, it belongs with movies like 1939’s The Wizard of Oz. It’s a good movie, but it’s not a good adaptation.

[irhinoceri]

finally watched the Greta Gerwig version of Little Women. It was.... interesting.

In many ways it was very good. I particularly liked Saoirse Ronan’s acting (the last shot of Jo’s face going from proud happy shining smile to fighting back tears back to a bittersweet faraway look and stiff-upper lip smile was... really good. On point. I felt that face journey.)

It did a good job of making me agree that Jo and Laurie were a bad match which I’ll give it props for because I was always one of those annoying people as a child who thought they should be together. But in doing so it made Laurie unlikeable? Which I’m not sure I recall being the case in the book or other adaptations I’ve seen. I don’t remember him being categorized as a ne’r do well whom Amy had to whip into line. I did like how it projected the eventual Laurie/Amy relationship throughout the movie though, which I don’t feel like any other version of the story has done. It made it feel less like an afterthought because it didn’t focus so heavily on Jo/Laurie. So in that sense I did like how the story went between the “present day” of them being grown up and the “past” memories of them being children.

The cons... the offhand efforts to make the Marches abolitionists felt weak... even if Alcott’s actual father was an abolitionist, she didn’t put any of that into the novel, so adding it into the movie still felt like shoehorning just to make us feel like it’s ok to like the movie because the Marches are not racists. The feminism felt too weirdly modern: while it tried to at least acknowledge the economic reality of women’s lives rather than looking down on Meg and Amy for wanting to marry while Jo did not, it felt like historians commenting on the past rather than characters experiencing society in the present. Perhaps it’s because, unlike a Jane Austen novel, where characters do not have to explain to each other  the importance of a good match even though it is often a topic of discussion, characters in Little Women kept stopping to monologue to each other about the economic and societal facts. Also, towards the end the obvious nods to the real life writing process behind the novels took me out of the story. Having read a little about Alcott’s life I recognize that Little Women was highly autobiographical and she based Jo on herself (and she herself never married) but I was still left confused about whether we’re supposed to believe that Jo March actually married Professor Bhaer, because those end scenes have a different, less realistic tone to them. The actors behave in more showy, “false” way, like we’re meant not to take it at face value, but rather as Jo writing something overly romantic and sentimental for her editor. And having it cut between scenes of her negotiating the ending with her editor added to that feeling. Like I get that it’s a nod to Alcott marrying Jo off just to appease fans who didn’t want her to be a spinster, but to have Jo herself say that... about her own marriage... it’s weird mmmmkay.

[sincerelyrachelr]

Get to Know Me Tag

Thank you for tagging me @writerjuliannaf

MUSIC

Favorite genre(s)?

Movie soundtracks, classical, acoustic/folk, hymns, some 60s.

Favorite song(s)?

For the Beauty of the Earth, Photograph and A Little More by Cody Fry, South by Sleeping at Last, Look At the World by John Rutter, the Overture to the Sound of Music, Winter from the Four Seasons by Vivaldi, anything by Chopin, currently Ballade No. 1.

Most listened song recently?

'Non So Piu' from the Marriage of Figaro, sung by Cecilia Bartoli - but that's for studying! Other than that, Sunflower by Glen Cambell.

Song currently stuck in your head?

Handel's Water Music, Suite No. 2 in D Major, II. Alla Hornpipe. Because I'm currently listening to it and studying it.

5 favorite lyrics?

"Still, still with Thee, when purple morning breaketh, When the bird waketh, and the shadows flee; Fairer than morning, lovelier than daylight, Dawns the sweet consciousness I am with Thee." Harriet Beecher Stowe - Still, Still With Thee

"If I could see through anger, would I discover people that are broken, or hurting? Oh, I think that that would change my whole view, and probably change yours too." Cody Fry - A Little More

"Some truths, over time, can learn to play nice Some truths are sharper than knives Some truths we only see in the corners of our eyes Some truths we wish we could hide Some truths can save us, some take our lives Some truths are fire and some truths are ice." Sleeping At Last - South

"Think of the spring, Think of the warmth of summer Bringing the harvest before the winters cold Everything grows, everything has a season Til' it is gathered to the Father's fold" John Rutter - Look at the World

"If i had my way time would just stand still wait for me until I find some magic film to take a photograph and live inside" Cody Fry - Photograph

Pick!

radio or your own playlist | solo artists or bands | pop or indie | loud or silent volume (quiet) I slow or fast songs | music video or lyrics video | speakers or headset | riding a bus in silence or while listening to music | driving in silence or with music playing

BOOKS

Favorite book series?

'Hands of Time' by Ashley Nikole.

Comfort book(s)?

'The Princess Bride' by William Goldman and anything by James Herriot. 'The Little Women Letters' by Gabrielle Donnelly is one that is highly underrated and I want someone to discuss it with!

Favorite book(s)?

'The Pilgrim's Progress', 'Little Women', 'The Princess Bride', 'The Little Women Letters' by Gabrielle Donnelly.

Perfect book(s) to read on a rainy day?

'The Enchanted April' by Elizabeth von Arnim seems like a good choice, especially for a rainy April day. Or, 'To Live & To Breathe' by Katelyn Buxton.

Favorite character(s)?

Ellie Daniels & Tom Holt from the 'Hands of Time' series, Jo March, Marmee, Professor Bhaer, Westley, Fezzik, Buttercup, James Herriot, Christian, Christiana and Mercy.

5 favorite quotes from your favorite books?

“History is alive. Who are those of the future to say the past is silent? Let history speak for itself, and may those who have ears, listen. For many hear, but few listen. Even fewer still are those who understand.” Ashley Nikole - Present History

“I am your Prince and you will marry me," Humperdinck said. Buttercup whispered, "I am your servant and I refuse." "I am you Prince and you cannot refuse." "I am your loyal servant and I just did." "Refusal means death." "Kill me then.” William Goldman - The Princess Bride

^ There are so many good ones, but this one highlights Buttercup's actually having a backbone. ^

"A man there was, though some did count him mad, the more he cast away the more he had." - John Bunyan - Pilgrim's Progress

"the wilderness of books, in which she could wander, where she liked, made the library a region of bliss to her.” Louisa May Alcott - Little Women

“I think most places can be interesting to live in if you find a way to make them so.” Gabrielle Donnelly - The Little Women Letters

Pick!

hardcover or paperback | buy or rent | standalone novels or book series | ebook or physical copy | reading at night or during the day | reading at home or in nature | listening to music while reading or reading in silence | reading in order or reading the ending first | reliable or unreliable narrator | realism or fantasy | one or multiple POVS | judging by the covers or by the summary | rereading or reading just once

TV AND MOVIES

Favorite tv/movie genre(s)?

Historical Drama, Drama, and also offbeat clean comedies.

Comfort movie(s)?

'Cold Comfort Farm' 1995, 'The Princess Bride', 'Harvey' 1950, 'The Grand Seduction'.

Movie you watch every year?

'The Princess Bride'

Favorite movie?

'Little Women' 1995, 'The Sound of Music', 'The Princess Bride', 'Amazing Grace' 2006,

Favorite tv show(s)?

'All Creatures Great & Small' 1978-, 'Get Smart' 1965-

Comfort tv show?

Definitely 'All Creatures Great & Small'.

Most rewatched tv show?

Probably 'Little House on the Prairie.'

5 Favorite tv/movie characters?

Jo March, Caroline Ingalls, Helen Herriot, Westley, and then I'm going offbeat to say Siegfried from Get Smart - because he makes me laugh. There are so many more!

Pick!

tv shows or movie | short seasons (8-13 episodes) or full seasons (22 episodes or more) | one episode a week or binging | one season or multiple seasons | one part or saga | half hour or one hour long episodes | subtitles on or off | rewatching or watching just once | downloads or watches online.

I tag: @lettersfromavonlea @lauricia and anyone else who wants to join in on the fun

[no-where-new-hero]

Okay so of course I’m passionately committed to this question so essay time here we come.

For years, I thought it should have been Dean. Then I both grew up and also interacted with fandom more and realized that there are some ships that work better if they don’t end in marriage. A part of me will always like the idea of them together, but that was very clearly not the book LMM was writing, and she’s intentional about it. She sets it up so that Dean sins, haunts Emily, and eventually is…ambiguously redeemed? He executes his function as the Gothic anti-hero, but part of that means a commitment to unhappiness and unfulfillment.

Teddy Kent is also Gothic, which I’m realizing more and more through people’s remarks and analyses about Mrs Kent (and @daydreamingandprocrastination’s journey to blorbofy him). He’s also haunted by his past and haunts Emily in turn, he is parted from her unhappily, but he is connected to her. He belongs to her, in many ways echoing the language that Emily refuted over Dean. To me, both of them are bound up together in the same problems. The one open door about Teddy is that he can support Emily’s commitment to writing. If she DOESN’T write after marrying him, as scholars want to argue, then he gives me nothing. Emily still succumbs to patriarchy as she was succumbing with Dean.

The twin allures of Perry (Emily would have status and money, and her writing would probably not change) and Ilse (they likely understand each other the best, and also kiss) are phantoms from other novels—one where Emily becomes close to living out her daydream from EoNM, when she impersonates Lady Trevannion: famous novelist, member of Parliament, wife of important man—and another where heteronormativity doesn’t exist, where Ilse and Emily can be kindred souls working together for their art. This is likely the future Maud envisioned re: Teddy. But it’s much harder to feel than with Ilse. Extremely viable, but only in different stories.

In some ways, no one is really good enough for Emily, not because she’s perfect but because she’s so immensely complicated. If it were a modern novel, of course she’d stay single, but LMM of course felt the same pressures as Louisa May Alcott did about marrying off her scribbling heroine. Because of that parallel, I conflated Dean with Professor Bhaer, but of course Jo does stop writing after marriage. And Louisa herself stayed a (almost certainly lesbian) bachelorette her whole life. So there’s something inverse fairy-tale like about the allure of Emily remaining single—it could happen in real life, but not in fiction, or not the fiction that Maud wrote.

The idea for this question came to me, when I saw "The Least Favourite Love Interest" question's results. I am extremely curious about who is going to be chosen here.

Thank you so much for voting!

[princesssarisa]

Fictional Character Ask: Amy March (Little Women)

For @littlewomenpodcast. I’m sorry this has taken me so long, but I wanted to read the complete, unabridged novel first and not base my answers on an abridged children’s version or on the adaptations.

Favorite thing about them: Her fundamental goodness and eagerness to do right. Yes, she has flaws (as do most of the characters) and has a lot of maturing to do over the course of the book. But even at her least mature, she truly wants to be generous and unselfish, truly loves her family (yes, even Jo), and doesn’t just want to be a lady in the worldly sense, but in dignity and nobility of character too. It’s a shame that so many readers only see her flaws and overlook her constant underlying good intentions.

Also, her tough-love lecturing of Laurie in Europe and its positive effect on him is fantastic. It provides a good counterbalance to Professor Bhaer’s steering Jo away from writing sensation stories. The only reason why readers ever feel uncomfortable with the latter is because of the gender role implications of a man “correcting” his female love interest’s life choices, but the fact that Amy also mentors Laurie with constructive criticism (and much less gently than Friedrich does to Jo) shows that Alcott didn’t mean it to be gendered, but shows it as healthy whether from men to women or from women to men.

Least favorite thing about them: In Part I, the burning of Jo’s manuscript. That probably goes without saying. In Part II, I find her almost too perfect and share Jo’s envy of her.

Three things I have in common with them:

*I love visual beauty.

*I was temperamental as a child.

*After an upsetting incident at school, I was homeschooled from then on.

Three things I don’t have in common with them:

*I can’t draw or paint very well.

*I have no interest in being a refined lady.

*I’m not blonde.

Favorite line: “Lovely weather so far; I don’t know how long it will last, but I’m not afraid of storms, for I’m learning how to sail my ship.”

brOTP: Her sisters, especially Meg.

OTP: Laurie.

nOTP: Any member of her family.

Random headcanon: Not in-universe, but about real-world views of her. I still think the reason why readers dislike her is because she’s in the awkward position of being too much of a proper lady and not being enough of one at the same time. She’s the least traditionally warm and nurturing of the sisters, since even Jo grows in those traits through caring for Beth. Yet she’s also a very girly girl, who excels at traditional social graces and who reaps the benefits of being ladylike, thus earning envy both from Jo herself and from readers who relate to Jo. If Meg or Beth were chosen to go to Europe and then married Laurie, I’m sure their sweetness would make readers begrudge it much less, while if Amy were a tomboy struggling with gender expectations like Jo, I’m sure her conceited, selfish streak and even the burnt manuscript would be more easily forgiven.

Unpopular opinion: This is about assigning a Myers-Briggs personality type to her: I don’t think she’s an ESFP. I think she’s an ESFJ. With all due respect to @funkymbtifiction and to others who have typed her as an ESFP, that typing seems to be based on the assumption that because her main childhood flaw is selfishness, her Feeling function must be Fi, not Fe: a cliché that needs to die. I know a few ESFPs, and they’re some of the least affected, least “stately” people in the world: they’re authentic, free-spirited, and sometimes adorably scattered and chaotic, much more like ENFP Jo. Amy’s insistence on displaying ladylike manners, her “instinctive sense of what was pleasing and proper,” her eagerness to be sophisticated and (as a child) to show it off, her efforts to be popular, her sensitivity to shame, her choice not to pursue art professionally after she realizes she’ll never be seen as a genius, and her interest in and keen observation of “other people’s experiences and inconsistencies” all point to high Fe, with its outward focus and its concern about others’ opinions. I think a big part of why she and Jo clash so often is that her Fe clashes with ENFP Jo’s Fi: Amy sees Jo’s staunch authenticity as rude and selfish (which admittedly it sometimes is), while Jo sees Amy’s efforts to please society as prissy and fake (which is sometimes true too). I’m sure fewer people would type Amy as an ESFP if the chapter “Calls” were adapted in the film versions, because that chapter throws her Fe and Jo’s Fi into especially sharp relief. Of course she’s not the first character I’ve typed as an ESFJ, yet whom others have typed as an ESFP, and of course it’s very hard to assign a definitive MBTI type to fictional characters.

Song I associate with them: “The Most Amazing Thing,” her duet with Laurie from the 2005 musical where they reveal their engagement to Jo. Not the best song in the score, nor is it fully true to the book (Alcott’s Laurie proposes to Amy in Vevey, not Venice, and they announce their engagement by letter and then come home already married), but it’s still a cute song, and it provides gentle humor that’s much needed after the heartbreak of Beth’s death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-cbB2yPL68

Favorite picture of them: This classic illustration of young Amy by Jessie Wilcox Smith.

Adult Amy and Laurie, also by Jessie Wilcox Smith.

This illustration of the same scene by John Andrew.

This illustration by Frank T. Merrill.

This illustration by M.V. Wheelhouse – a rare picture showing her as a mother in the final scene, holding little Bess.

Joan Bennett in the 1933 film.

Elizabeth Taylor in the 1949 film.

Kirsten Dunst as young Amy in the 1994 film.

Samantha Mathis as adult Amy and Chrisian Bale as Laurie. Whether or not this version does full justice to their romance, they look beautiful together.

Florence Pugh as adult Amy in the 2019 film.

[joandfriedrich]

Also top 5 JoxFritz quotes? :D

OOOHHH BOY HERE WE GO!

All of these are from Little Women, counting down to my most favorite.

5. "By the second week, everyone knew perfectly well what was going on, yet everyone tried to look as if they were stone-blind to the changes in Jo's face. They never asked why she sang about her work, did up her hair three times a day, and got so blooming with her evening exercise; and no one seemed to have the slightest suspicion that Professor Bhaer, while talking philosophy with the father, was giving the daughter lessons in love." Chapter 46 "Under the Umbrella"

4. "But she would have consented if he had proposed to sing a whole opera, and warbled away, blissfully regardless of time and tune. It didn't much matter, for Mr. Bhaer sang like a true German, heartily and well, and Jo soon subsided into a subdued hum, that she might listen to the mellow voice that seemed to sing for her alone." Chapter 43 "Surprises"

3. "She had smiled at first, then she looked thoughtful, next sad, and when she came to a little message written in the Professor's hand, her lips began to tremble, the book slid out of her lap, and she sat looking at the friendly words, as if they took a new meaning, and touched the tender part of her heart. Wait for me, my friend. I may be a little late, but I shall surely come. 'Oh, if he only would!..." Chapter 42, "All Alone"

2. "If she had seen his face when, safe in his own room, looked at the picture of a severe and rigid young lady, with a good deal of hair, who appeared to be gazing darkly into futurity, it might have thrown some light upon the subject, especially when he turned off the gas, and kissed the picture in the dark." Chapter 43 "Surprises"

And of course....

1. " 'Ah! Thou gifest me such hope and courage, and I haf nothing to gif back but a full heart and these empty hands," cried the Professor, quite overcome. Jo never, never would learn to be proper, for when he said that as they stood upon the steps, she just put both hands into his, whispered tenderly, 'Not empty now,' and stooping down, kissed her Friedrich under the umbrella." Chapter 46 "Under the Umbrella"

[joyful-patient-faithful]

Okay Part 2, now about Little Men and Jo's Boys.

Little Men (book)

Not as good as the first two books in the series, but still delightful. I loved reading about the boys and their adventures.

2. Jo's Boys

I enjoyed this book slightly less, but I also listened to it on audio, which I have a harder time focusing on. It was still quite good though.

3. Little Men (1998)

This movie was quite delightful and I would like to watch it again sometime. Very accurate to the book. Although, once again, I must point out that I do really enjoy tv movies.

Bonus:

Little Women II: Jo's Boys

This is in the same vein as the two little women anime adaptations. It was entertaining and fun, but really had a mind of its own.

Little Men (1998)

Yes there were two completely unrelated Little Men adaptations in 1998. Yes, this is the weird one. This is a tv show, in which I only watched the first episode. In the opening scene we see that Professor Bhaer dies. The characters have the same names, but wildly different personalities and backgrounds. It introduces some random man in which I can only assume Jo falls in love with and they save the school. I think about this at least once a week. It is so wild.

There are also Little Men movies from 1934 and 1940, but I could not find good quality versions of them anywhere.

I am absolutely convinced no one else has seen these adaptations, so if you have, let me know.

Little Women Ranked

One of my favorite books of all time is Little Women. Last fall I watched and read everything related to the series. Here's a simple ranking of all of that.

The Book (obviously)

Whether you consider the book just Little Women or with Good Wives, there is no deny this is the absolute best version of the story.

2. Little Women (1978)

This is, in my opinion, the best adaptation of the novel. The characters felt real and accurate and it was just a delight. It had so much heart. Also I am a Greer Garson as Aunt March stan. William Shatner did his absolute best at Fritz. I just adore this version. I will say that I am a sucker for tv movies though.

3. Little Women (2017)

I love this version. In accuracy, it's not always the best (especially character wise) and the third episode feels very rushed at times, but I still love it. I'm absolutely obsessed with Meg and John in this version. Meg and Beth are my profile picture lol. I just really enjoy this version.

4. Little Women (1994)

In terms of movies, this one is the best. This is the one I recommend to everyone and despite my (minimal) issues with it, I still watch it all the time. It's just so lovely. Also this one just has a more distinctly Christmas feel than any of the others.

5. Little Women (1933)

While not my favorite, I still enjoyed watching this version. Katherine Hepburn played a great Jo and I would love to watch this again sometime.

6. Little Women (1949)

This has the same script as the 1933 version, however, I am not a fan of a few small changes made, such as Beth being younger than Amy. June Allyson is not my favorite Jo, which also lowers this one slightly. Margaret O'Brien played an amazing Beth and was definitely the best thing about this version. I also just recently listened to the Lux Radio Theater adaptation of this movie and it just solidified my opinions of this being a mid adaptation.

7. Little Women (2019)

The Most controversial version on this list, I cannot say that I enjoy it. It makes so many changes from the novel, that it honestly makes me mad. However, this one places so high on the list do to it's watchability. Every other entry under this one I would never watch a second time. This one at least has the benefit of being high quality. Plus all my friends love this one (none of them have ever read the book and it makes me sad), so if I try hard enough I can separate this version from the book and at least watch a decent movie (although it is hard).

8. Little Women (1970)

I wanted to like this version, I really did, it was so extremely book accurate, but it was also really boring. This does have the most book accurate portrayal of Laurie in my opinion, though.

9. Little Women (2018)

This just overall was not that good. Jo was very mean and aggressive and Laurie was kind of creepy, in my opinion. I also disliked that this was made by a Christian company and did not include any of the Christian themes and statements made throughout the novel.

10. Little Women Meg's Story and Jo's Story

This two parter was hard to watch. It made it so love story heavy, and was also just not good quality or fun to watch. Everything was so rushed. I did like the focus on Meg and John in the first part though. I also enjoyed the random 1950 commercials throughout the version on youtube.

11. The March Sisters at Christmastime

This was just bad. Nothing really redeemable about it. It was a very hard watch.

Bonus:

These were some adaptations that I watched, but find hard to rank, due to them not being movies or tv shows.

Little Women (1958) Soundtrack

This is the soundtrack for the the 1958 CBS tv musical, which is not technically lost media, but is not available to the general public. The first half of the soundtrack is songs from the special, and the second half is covers of some other songs from musicals or were popular at the time. The songs are quite fun, but what I hear from reports of what happens in the special, it is not accurate to the novel at all.

Little Women (2005) musical

I am not really a fan of Sutton Foster, nor am I a fan of this musical. It is a classic case of not understanding Jo March, her writing, and her relationship with Professor Bhaer.

Little Women Ballet

This was fun to watch. I don't know much about ballet, so I cannot really judge it. If I remember correctly, this is just an adaptation of the first half of the novel.

Tales of Little Women

Little Women (1981)

These are both anime adaptations of the novel. I only watched the first episode of each, and from what I know they kind of make up plot lines. I enjoyed them for what they were, but I will probably not watch them again.

I unfortunately did not watch the Little Women Opera or the March Family Letters as Operas and vlog series are not really my thing, but maybe I will get around to them.

Anyway, this concludes my ranking of Little Women. If you see this please let me know your thoughts on any of these adaptations.

[rachelreviewspopculture]

Little Women (2019)

A first for the blog: a guest post! The following is a review of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women (2019) by Carly Henderson.

---

When creating a film version of a classic novel, one often wants to justify its existence by approaching the story with a new lens that appeals to its contemporary audience and differentiates it from previous film adaptations. The temptation with this approach, however, is to take a sub-theme and make it the overarching theme, or to misinterpret a theme altogether. The resulting film, then, is either off the mark or entirely antithetical to the source material. This is often what happens in modern adaptations of classic stories (Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice and Anna Karenina, Julian Jarrold’s Brideshead Revisited, and Netflix’s Anne with an E, to name a few), and is also the case for Greta Gerwig’s Little Women.

My opinion will be unpopular, as Gerwig’s adaption of Little Women has been widely received with praise for its creativity, innovation, liveliness, direction, and attention to the novel and its fresh resonance with a modern audience. And it’s true: it’s lovely to watch, overall well-acted, has an excellent score, and, I would argue, is the most bold and creative take on the classic story by Louisa May Alcott yet. Many commenters at the film’s release said that every generation deserves its own Little Women, and this version of Little Women is one that only a modern feminism could create and deserve (the film opens and closes with a salary negotiation between Jo and her publisher, the first scene ending with her acceptance of an unjust wage from her publisher, and the last ending with her fair negotiation, making her an equal player with the man). Even so, what makes it distinctive also makes it a denial of itself. Its modern lens overlooks and destroys the heart of the story, and its bold, artistic rendering ends up being a beautiful but empty shell, lovely to behold, but easily cracked and hollowed of its substance. And this is what we get with Gerwig’s Little Women: it’s a coming of age story that focuses on women’s empowerment, equal wages, opportunity, and creative genius at the expense of the growth and maturity of its characters. Alcott’s Little Women is certainly empowerment and creativity, but it is much more than this—it is at its core a story about growth, virtue, and a certain open receptivity before life that allows one to truly be creative and fruitful.

Though I may have criticism of the film overall, the acting in it is a masterclass: Saiorse Ronan is a force to be reckoned with; Florence Pugh makes the ever controversial Amy loveable (perhaps even more lovable than Jo, which is quite the feat), and Timothee Chalamet is a good Laurie, perhaps truer to the novel’s Laurie than Christian Bale’s portrayal in the 1994 adaptation (though his Laurie for me remains superior to all other Lauries). The film is not linear. It starts in “present” adult life, as Jo is in New York and Amy in France, and shifts back to childhood in flashbacks. This has a dizzying effect and can be difficult to follow, even for those familiar with the story. The advantage of this is twofold: on the one hand, the film seeks to take the adult versions of these characters seriously, where other film adaptations tend to give more time to their childhood; on the other hand, it bends the audience to favor a Laurie/Amy pairing from the beginning. This is a victory for sure, overcoming the long-held resentment about Amy, as many continue to think that Laurie should have ended up with Jo. And there is no doubt that Gerwig is technically excellent: the cinematography is beautiful, the music is beautiful, the costuming is beautiful.

But the film gets a great deal wrong about the novel, which should matter if one thinks that a film adaptation should try and capture the animating force of its original material, even if it is impossible to illustrate every aspect. I will limit myself to three points.

First, the film gets Beth all wrong. In the novel, Beth is the heart of the story. She is warm, sweet, and gentle, the one who has a special bond with Jo and the only one who can temper and correct her. Gerwig’s Beth is an odd recluse—apparently also a concert pianist—who is abnormally childlike and random, and without the warmth that is one of the defining traits of Beth’s character. She is often called “sweet one” by her sisters, but little is done in the film to communicate her sweetness. She whines and complains when no one will join her to visit the Hummels; she speaks like a 4 year old before the horses. And, above all, the warmth between her and Jo is not felt. Jo needs Beth to be herself to temper her fire and refine it to something more true, strong, and gentle. It feels as if Gerwig must reconstruct Beth because Beth’s quiet, gentle, and demure personality is not consistent with the idea of femininity as creative self-determination that Gerwig favors. Beth can’t be herself in this film because for Gerwig Jo needs no character arc: she has nothing to learn other than to be more forceful and direct. In fact, Jo seems to be the best of womanhood, forging her creative path and destiny with no need of anyone—not her father, not Prof. Bhaer, and not even Beth, which is in striking contrast to the book.

Aunt March’s character is similarly sacrificed to Gerwig’s particular ideal of femininity. Interestingly enough, Aunt March in this film becomes the aspirational model. In contrast to the book, in Gerwig’s film, Aunt March is the sister of Mr. March. This means she is not only unmarried and rich; she also has never been married, which for Gerwig means she has freedom and means. Let’s side step the question of how an unmarried sister inherits and keeps the family wealth, and note that the real problem here is that Gerwig’s Aunt March represents the only path to freedom for the March girls: money. Are we really prepared to declare that freedom simply is access to capital? That none of the girls’ artistic endeavors mean anything unless they indeed capitalize on them? Here it seems to me particularly clear that Gerwig unknowingly submits Alcott’s work to the architecture of late-stage capitalism.

Additionally, Streep’s Aunt March is a one-dimensional character, surprisingly enough for Streep. In the novel (and in the 2017 BBC adaptation by Helen Thomas), Aunt March is a tragic figure: a widow whose only child died in her youth, and one who says stupid things, but then later realizes it and has the humility to apologize. She therefore is a character of depth—that is, in the novel, she too grows and matures, whereas Streep’s Aunt March has no arc. Streep’s Aunt March is the woman to be: nothing to learn and dependent on no one.

These first two misinterpretations are ultimately the consequence of Gerwig’s misunderstanding of the novel, or perhaps better, her imposing her own (capitalist?) framework on Alcott’s work. In Gerwig’s Little Women, feminine agency is pure self-determination, self-construction, choice, and ambition (which is agency simply in a liberal, capitalist society). This is why Jo and Amy stand out in this film, and Meg and Beth only awkwardly fit in until they ultimately fade away (figuratively and literally, respectively). Indeed, the film’s overarching framework of women as creative, ambitious, self-directing and -constructing, cannot explain the beauty, dignity, meaning, and fruitfulness of both Meg and Beth’s lives apart from choice, precisely because their lives are very hidden, normal, and for all intents and purposes, without fiery ambition. Indeed, choice is the only way to understand Meg’s character in this framework (and which Emma Watson attested to in various interviews): Meg has chosen to be a wife, and this choice gives her life’s path purpose, meaning, and reconciles it with Gerwig’s feminism. Being a wife and mother in and of itself is not what gives her life dignity and purpose—rather it is her choice to do so that does. This problem also stands out in dramatic effect in Amy’s monologue (penned for this film) of marriage as an economic institution that depersonalizes women, as well as Jo’s similar understanding of marriage. Granted, marriage is an economic institution and this aspect of it was particularly felt in this time—but it is not solely an economic institution. It is a good in and of itself, formative for the person, and, above all, the form of love itself. In promoting the almighty reign of choice, the reality of love is undermined, and, ultimately, the true dynamism and variety of femininity is undermined.

But if domestic life is worthy of art and importance, as the characters reflect on at the end of the film, it isn’t because it is something merely chosen by women. We can make poor choices after all. It is rather because there is something inherently important and meaningful about domestic life itself. But if Gerwig were to admit this, it would undermine her framework of feminine agency, freedom, and choice, equality, and thereby, the whole theme of her film. We see this in the meta ending, which, despite the popular interpretation of the novel, is not ambiguous: in Gerwig’s retelling, Jo does not marry Bhaer. Why? Because she is told that she loves him; Gerwig’s Jo would never let anyone tell her how she feels and then stake her life on that (it is interesting to note that, in the book, Jo comes to realize, on her own, that she loves Bhaer, and her family gives her the space to discover this).

And while we are on the subject, I will add one final thing that the film gets wrong: Professor Bhaer. Sure, Louisa May Alcott may have written this character with tongue in cheek to stick it to her publisher for marrying Jo off at the end of the story—i.e., instead of a young, handsome man, Jo falls for an older immigrant, who is bear-like, awkward, yet sweetly endearing—but he is still a good and important character for Jo’s arc as both a woman and a writer. In casting (the strikingly beautiful, might I say) Louis Garrell as Professor Bhaer, Gerwig plays into the cliché ending that Alcott intentionally avoided. Gerwig’s point is clear, but made without the nuance and depth that Alcott gave both the character and the ending.

Whatever the case of Alcott’s original intention, the fact is, Jo becomes a true artist when she allows herself to be affected by others: i.e., when she allows Beth’s nature to temper hers, allows herself to be guided by the wisdom of her father, and allows herself to be moved by the wisdom and love of Professor Bhaer. This isn’t to say that she isn’t creative or independent; it is to say that creativity is always the fruit of relationship. Creativity does not come out of nothing; much like virtue and fruit, it is pruned out of us, sometimes painfully, by another and by life itself. This is what Gerwig’s tale misses, and this is ultimately why it is a deeply dissatisfying adaption.

[mercurygray]

I just finished re-reading Little Women, and on the list of things I'm incredibly glad Greta Gerwig changed in her Little Women adaptation: Jo and Friedrich's criticism scene. 

I might have been indignant at Jo's treatment in the movie, but in the book, it's...so much worse. Bhaer has never even read her stories - he just disagrees with them outright on principle, and says so, to Jo's great dismay and shame.

He knew that Jo wrote, and had met her down among the newspaper offices more than once, but as she never spoke of it, he asked no questions in spite of a strong desire to see her work. Now it occurred to him that she was doing what she was ashamed to own, and it troubled him.

So, in the great paternal tradition, he just magically knows what's good for her, and they have a very roundabout conversation about writing 'gunpowder', and Jo slinks away shamed. 

As soon as she went to her room, she got out her papers, and carefully reread every one of her stories. Being a little shortsighted, Mr. Bhaer sometimes used eye glasses, and Jo had tried them once, smiling to see how they magnified the fine print of her book. Now she seemed to have on the Professor's mental or moral spectacles also, for the faults of these poor stories glared at her dreadfully and filled her with dismay.

In the movie, Jo invites Bhaer to read her work, he does so, and, while his critique is...incredibly blunt, he also (in his roundabout way) is telling her that she can and should aspire to something bigger and better - which she eventually does, in the form of her novel for Beth. In the book, after Bhaer's condemnation Jo turns her hand to writing high-handled moral tales, and when she can't find a market for them, gives writing up entirely, and turns her mind to more domestic things - a change which is presented as being entirely for the better.

"I don't know anything. I'll wait until I do before I try again, and meantime, 'sweep mud in the street' if I can't do better, that's honest, at least."

...Not only did he guess it by the fact that the second finger of her right hand was no longer inky, but she spent her evenings downstairs now, was met no more among newspaper offices, and studied with a dogged patience, which assured him that she was bent on occupying her mind with something useful, if not pleasant. 

So, Greta, thank you for giving Jo back a little of her dignity, and for presenting us with a (potential) spouse for Jo who isn’t interested in reshaping her to some feminine ideal, and allows her to be her own person in her own way. It’s a change that I think Alcott herself would have enjoyed, since at the end of Jo’s Boys it’s revealed that she’s still been writing all these years.

[princess-of-songs]

Little Women 2019

Positives: I liked Florence Pugh as Amy- I might be one of the few who slightly identifies more with Amy than Jo and it was nice to see her be treated with such care instead treated as a full-on villain because of the burning of the manuscript and marrying Laurie. We've all acted like brats at one point of our lives and I typically relate more to female characters like Amy or Sansa Stark *book version more than tv version*. This movie had pretty good performances.

Middle of the road: Professor Bhaer was gorgeous. But in general, I didn't think Louisa made him out to be what a lot of people perceive him to be this hideous man in comparison to Laurie. She based Friedrich off of qualities she liked in men, specifically European men. I don't think Greta gave us enough time to buy into the relationship and why Jo likes him so much. I also missed the German aspect of him, since Louisa was known to be fascinated with Germany in general.

Negatives: I didn't like that it was told out of order. For example, Beth's death didn't impact me as much as it usually did when I read the book and watched 90's adaptation. I feel mixed about the ending.

Random tidbit: I wonder if they thought about giving Emma Watson's Meg blonde or red hair, because her dark copper-colored hair is kind of a stark contrast to her two blonde sisters and red-headed sister but perhaps that's done on purpose. Jo and Amy the blondes are the creative and artistic ones, Beth is the sweet and musical one, and Meg is the wise motherly one who loves pretty things.

[twentyghosts]

@xxx-cat-xxx tagged me in this and that is so appreciated because I’m at work this weekend and eager for distractions!

Rules: tag 9 people you’d like to get to know better

Top 3 ships: Bruce/Tony, Tony/Pepper, Pepper/Natasha, and permutations thereof

Last song: I’ve been listening to the Dolly Parton’s America podcast and its accompanying Spotify Playlist all week. I think the last song specifically was “Mule Skinner Blues.” 

Last movie: Last night I saw Little Women! I loved it; the hype is legit. (NB I loved the book as a kid but somehow never saw the Winona Ryder movie that so many of my age are attached to. Greta Gerwig is a feminist icon for making Professor Bhaer hot: “I also felt like I was allowed to take liberties because I feel like for the history of cinema men have been putting glasses on hot women and calling them awkward.”)

Reading: Well, I just finished House of Earth and Blood by Sarah J. Maas (which I semi-livetweeted if any SJM Hive are interested; in short, although I generally prefer urban fantasy to more traditional fantasy, I don’t know that SJM is cut out for urban fantasy, and indeed I am left wondering if she herself lives in present-day Earth at all.) So I started reading Chosen Ones by Veronica Roth (the premise--following up on teen Chosen Ones 10 years after they battled a Voldemort-style evil--is good; so far I’m a bit uncertain of the execution). Also I’m re-reading The Diviners by Libba Bray in preparation for the last book in the series to finally come out in February!!!  👻 (The Diviners series is so good y’all, diverse crew of supernaturally gifted teens in the 1920s fighting evil and also the government!!! I’m furious that it’s not getting more attention and a prestige television adaptation.) 

Tagging: @godlessondheimite @sallyidss @ellewritesfiction @kimmycup @rhysiana @cygnaut aaand anybody else working a desk job on a Saturday! (Or if you’re working some other kind of job and can do this on your phone I guess? Whatever, you do you.)

[mygreatadventurehasbegun]

Little Women Film Adaptations, Part Three

1994

Meg: Trini Alvarado

Jo: Winona Ryder

Beth: Claire Danes

Amy: Kirsten Dunst/Samantha Mathis

Laurie: Christian Bale

Marmee: Susan Sarandon

Professor Bhaer: Gabriel Byrne

Even though I’ve seen this movie multiple times and could do an actual written out review, I’m going to stick with my bullet point format....it’s just easier while I’m watching the film!  :)

~I really like the score for this film.  The main theme really gives me Christmas vibes.

~This movie does a good job of adapting the book dialogue, rather than just transplanting it from the book as earlier adaptations did...which worked for those, but I don’t think would have worked for this film.

~Jo has a writing cap!

~Like the ‘49 version, the girls have the idea to donate their breakfast, rather than Marmee asking them.

~Pickwick society!  I like that they include the girls’ stories (like Beth’s The History of the Squash)

~Jo burning off Meg’s hair

~Meg spraining her ankle at the Gardiner’s party and Laurie offering to take them home

~Amy’s clothespin makes an appearance!

~Random lines about Mrs. March being against corsets...I don’t remember any mentions in the book about her being against them.  I feel like this was added due to more modern sensibilities.  And possibly to make Meg’s transformation more noticeable with her wearing one at Sallie’s.

~Mr. Brooke is such an awkward dork and I love it

~Meg giving Amy money for limes and the punishment Amy receives because of them

~Even though they don’t discuss it like in the book, I am glad that they gave Marmee a temper.  After Amy has been struck by her teacher, you can see her pacing around the house, trying to keep herself calm.

~A mention about the fact that Beth does her lessons at home

~I love that they have a bunch of kittens!

~The girls rehearsing their play and inviting Laurie to join their club.  And the post box in between their homes.

~Jo and Meg’s trip to the theater (without Amy)

~Amy burning Jo’s manuscript

~Amy falling through the ice 

~Referring to the March home as Orchard House

~I love Mary Wickes as Aunt March!  She’s the first one of the three that calls Jo “Josy-phine”

~Meg’s trip to Vanity Fair and being dressed up by the girls in a silk dress.

~I find it interesting that Meg (and the Marches) are against wearing silk...Meg talks about the fact that the silk mills used children for labor and she seems offended by the idea of buying silk.

~Laurie not liking Meg’s fancy look....though Christian Bale really plays up the creepiness....but I’m glad they kept the scene between them afterwards.

~The scene with Marmee, Jo and Meg after Vanity Fair...

~Jo crying about her hair

~The scene when Beth visits the Hummels always breaks my heart.  The way that baby cries is so sad...it really makes me think the baby is sick or in pain, poor thing.  

~So, Christopher Columbus is no longer Jo’s catch phrase...instead it’s Jehoshaphat.

~Alluding to Amy’s will, but without her actually making it.

~I wish they could have included the scenes with Mr. Laurence and Beth from the beginning...him showing up with the doctor does kind of come out of nowhere.  This also changes how Beth gets her piano...but I don’t mind too much, because the scene still makes me cry.

~The way Meg becomes engaged to John is changed from the book, though I like that they mentioned how he visits Mr. March in the hospital.

~Amy falling at her father’s feet when he comes home.

~I like that they acknowledge the fact that a few years pass before Meg’s marriage.  The earlier films don’t really do this...And of course, it helps in the switching of actresses for Amy.

~I’m not sure about how I feel about Laurie kissing Jo when he proposes...and wow does Christian Bale’s accent keep slipping in this scene.  

~I like how Amy wears Meg’s old blue dress and Beth wears Jo’s old dress...hand me downs!  

~Gabriel Byrne as Professor Bhaer...this time we have an Irishman, although he can do a decent German accent!  

~Jo mentioning that her father read German poems to her as a child, and that they’re Transcendentalists

~I like that they included Jo’s letters home

~Still including the Professor playing with the kids...I hope they keep that bit of adorability in the new film

~Never really been a fan of the scene where they discussing suffrage...that’s always been a “go to the bathroom” scene

~Jo writing under a male pseudonym...it’s an interesting choice.....especially since she didn’t need to do that in the book

~I’ve also never been a fan of Jo and Bhaer kissing at the opera....just because it most likely would have never happened in those days.  And the way they look at each other like they can’t help themselves....they’re really laying on the romance.

~We get scenes of Amy and Laurie in Europe!  And Laurie acting like a douche

~I do like that Amy refers to Mr. Laurence as “Grandfather”....showing how close their families are.

~This version moves things around in the timeline....like when Meg is pregnant in relationship to Jo leaving/returning NY at when Beth dies....

~Beth’s collection of dolls...all tattered and worn, but well loved and cared for. :(

~THEY SHOW JO’S POEM ABOUT BETH IN BETH’S TRUNK!  I’ve never noticed that before!!

~I like how when Jo is writing her book, we get voiceovers of the sisters reading lines directly from the book.  

~The passing of Aunt March and her leaving Plumfield to Jo and Jo wanting to turn it into a school.

~Delivery of Jo’s book “Little Women”...changed from the book, but I don’t mind it.

Of the three adaptations I’ve watched, this one is probably the most liberal with the source material...more changes in dialogue, rather than lifting the text straight from the novel.  This one does include a lot more scenes from the book, though they do occasionally change the order of events.

I love the look of this film.  Everything has a very warm and inviting look, but at the same time, it’s very lived in.  The inside of Orchard House isn’t spotless; there’s clutter and work piled throughout...and the costumes, while beautiful, don’t look perfect and that’s what I like about them.  The only time they do is when the character is wealthy, like when Amy comes back from Europe.  But at the beginning, the clothes aren’t suctioned onto the girls bodies, they share and hand down outfits, and they can get messy when needed (usually Jo getting her hem wet).  They look like their clothes, rather than costumes; which is an improvement over the 1949 film....and I love the costumes in that film, but everything looked too perfect.  

All the actors are great.  Once again, they all had great chemistry and felt like a real family.  And this is the only adaptation that uses two Amy’s!  A smart decision, I think...especially considering how much more is included in this movie.  I don’t think two actresses would have been needed for the older versions, since Amy doesn’t have as much of an arc in those two.  And the amount of time passed isn’t as clear in the older films.

I don’t want to say which version is my favorite yet...I think I’m going to do a separate post for that.  But this is a fantastic adaptation of the novel and is definitely a classic.