#may alcott nieriker

[princesssarisa]

It's interesting that in Little Women, Louisa May Alcott narrowed the age gap between Amy and her three older sisters compared to their real life counterparts. May Alcott Nieriker was a much later addition to the Alcott family than Amy is to the Marches: five years younger than Lizzie rather than Amy's one year younger than Beth.

I'd like to ask @littlewomenpodcast, @thatscarletflycatcher, and other fans: do you think this shows in Alcott's writing? Do you think in Part I at least, Amy sometimes seems as if she's many years younger than her sisters rather than just a few years younger? Or do you think Alcott narrowed the gap convincingly?

[littlewomenpodcast]

I just thought of this a few days ago: we talk a lot about how Beth is an idealized version of Lizzie, but do you think the same could be said for all the Marches and their real life counterparts?

I do believe so. In reality all the family members were somewhat more unconventional than their book counterparts. Louisa had more struggles in her personal life and relationships. I personally believe that Jo's father in the book, is more inspired by Emerson than Bronson (going back to the idea of wish fulfillment, Louisa wished that her father would have been a more stable person). May Alcott married a man 10 years younger than she.

I think idealization is also part of the 19th/ early 20th century writing style especially what it comes to children's books. For example Susan Warner's Wide Wide World, is a book that Jo reads in Little Women. It is a love story very similar to Jo and Friedrich. The language is very sentimental and the characters are very much idealized.

[the-other-art-blog]

Reading why Louisa didn't write more about Amy is understandable. What do you think she'd write if May would've lived?

Interesting question!

I would actually love to know what others think about this question.

This is all speculation. But I think she might have gone more in-depth into Amy's role as an art teacher. Louisa and May lived together in Boston, and I believe that's where she taught female students, so she could have known how May taught. Bronson and John also adapted a little house they had next to Orchard to make it a studio for May where she taught when she had to go back home.

Maybe she would have written more about Bess and Dan's story from AmyxLaurie's pov. Maybe a little bit more about the plans they had for their only daughter, a discussion about Dan's infatuation.

I think she would have spent more time talking about whatever happened in Parnassus.

[sunfang]

May Alcott Nieriker, Still life with Owl, 1879

[lgbtqreads]

April 2023 Deal Announcements

Adult Fiction Linda Epstein, Ally Malinenko, and Liz Parker’s‘s THE OTHER MARCH SISTERS, pitched as a queer feminist take on the lives of Jo March’s sisters, set in the world of LITTLE WOMEN, inspired by details from the very real lives of May Alcott Nieriker (Amy), Lizzie Alcott (Beth), and Anna Alcott Pratt (Meg), with each author enabling these women to finally tell their own stories, to Wendy…

[jocastasilver]

May Alcott Nieriker

-Very loosely the basis for Amy in Little Women, May Alcott’s illustrations for Little Women were panned by critics. After studying in Europe, her paintings were twice selected by the famous Paris Salon. 

-In addition, she wrote and published a book called, Studying Art Abroad and How to Do It Cheaply, which gave advice to aspiring American artists (particularly women) on how to learn to paint in Europe while on a budget. 

-She was praised for being a talented copyist of J.M.W.Turner, and also specialized in still life paintings. One of these still life paintings was selected by the Paris Salon in 1877.

-Unfortunately, she died shortly after giving birth to her daughter Louisa May “Lulu” Nieriker in December 1879. Lulu was raised by her aunt Louisa May Alcott until the author’s death in 1888. She was subsequently raised by her father Ernest Nieriker. 

-In 2002 there was an exhibition of her work titled “Lessons, Sketching, and dreams: May Alcott as Artist”.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

I'm curious about an issue that is never adequately addressed by Colonel Brandon fans. IF it's completely fine for Brandon to be infatuated with Marianne because he's emotional, romantic, and has so much in common with her, WHY isn't he interested in Mrs. Dashwood, who is just as romantic as Marianne and happens to be only five years apart from Brandon in age? Is he that emotionally/mentally immature?

I'll give you the easy answer first:

Because it is an Austen novel with a marriage plot, about two sisters, the unromantic one persevering in a dramatic, impossible love, the romantic one, discovering that it isn't gold all that glitters, and that true love, even passionate, tender love, comes softly and ordinarily sometimes. That way the sisters grow a little more alike, reach a more nuanced approach to life, and therefore grow closer to each other.

To the structure of the novel it makes as much sense for Brandon to marry Mrs Dashwood as it does for Mr Knightley to marry Miss Taylor in Emma.

In terms of Austen times, men rarely ever married a woman older than them. In her novels you find 27 year old Charlotte Lucas marrying 25 year old Mr Collins. In Victorian literature you'll find Helen Graham also marrying a man 2 years younger than her. May Alcott Nieriker married a man 12 years her younger. It did happen, but it was infrequent. Specially between the social class to which Austen characters belong, men were supposed to get settled in life and marry a younger woman who could have children at a younger age and maybe take more care of him when he got old. Hey, even nowadays people in general are more likely to be in relationships where the man is several years older than the woman than the other way around.

So it is both a matter of the structure and theme of the novel, and a matter of the customs of the time in which it was written. You cannot really yank characters out of the context in which they were written and judge them that way, as if you were analyzing the behavior of a real life person from the present.

[joandfriedrich]

I always felt sad about Amy's future, she gives up her art because she's not 'good' enough and no one tells her otherwise, no one tells her to put herself out there it's like no one even cared, and then she marries a rich man that wasn't interested in her at all until her sister rejected him and then she became a housewife who only did her art as a hobby. When you put it that way, there is just something so utterly depressing about her fate.

First I would recommend checking out the story behind the real-life Amy March, May Alcott Nieriker.https://open.spotify.com/episode/56x7YDg0n58U4Hm7Y6kqqw

When it comes to Laurie, he was never in love with Jo either. In the book Laurie wants Jo to be more of a Nanny to him. He was incredibly selfish, he took his privileged position as granted. He didn't have to worry about money. He didn't like work or school. Amy literally woke him up, and that started a process of self-discovery within Laurie and that self-discovery eventually led him to fall in love with Amy. This could not have been started by Jo, because Jo saw Laurie more as her child.

Amy's art parallels Laurie's storyline. He realizes that "not everyone who liked music was meant to be great composers". Amy realizes that she has talent, but she is not a great artist, and what I mean by great is that her style probably did not fit the current art trends.

As an illustrator myself I can say that the artist themselves are most critical about their own art, but it is also true that, especially in the world of high art, there is always a level of elitism. In some ways, I see Amy's behaviour, as a reflection of its time. Louisa May Alcott herself, was often quite embarrassed when people talked about her works and she never stopped dreaming of writing "a masterpiece". She couldn't see Little Women as a masterpiece.

What Amy ends up doing is just as admirable. She decides to help young female students to get their careers going. This is something that May Alcott Nieriker also did. She wrote a book to encourage young female students. In Bhaer Academy Amy was in charge of the art department, or at least that was the impression I got reading "Jo's boys" so she never was "just a housewife". Amy also says in the very beginning that she is going to marry a rich man, and the only reason why Amy got to Europe to paint in the first place was thanks to aunt March, but especially during those times, if Amy did not have her aunt to support her financially, she could not have become an artist, as sad as it is, and even if a person does not make art for a living, but still makes art every day, I would still call that person an artist.

-Niina/ Little Women Channel

-------------

And I would just like to add in my utter confusion and disbelief in this question. All I could think of was this gif:

Like, I'm sorry, but did we not read the same book? Sure it can sound depressing if it was actually written like that, but it isn't like that at all! I highly suggest you re-read (or maybe read, can't tell if you had actually read the book in the first place) and stop reading into the fandom's version of the story. You'll find a much better and happy story than something like Gerwig's version provided.

-mysoftboybensolo

[princesssarisa]

Some thoughts on "Little Women" and the "Little House" books

In the endless discussions by Little Women fans of the issue of "Jo vs. Amy," I've noticed a slight recurring theme, both when Amy's defenders discuss Jo and when certain Jo fans put Amy down. It's the idea that the books' narrative inherently favors Jo and is biased against Amy. That Jo is the character whom readers are clearly "supposed to identify with," as if Louisa May Alcott expected most of her young girl readers to be free-spirited, ambitious tomboys who struggle with gender expectations. And that Amy's portrayal is "negative," or at least that we're supposed to view her femininity and love of refinement as slightly silly and annoying.

Not too long ago, I found similar sentiments in an essay by a woman writing about her childhood experience of Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books. She wrote that she never identified with spunky, tomboyish Laura, but as a girly girl and as an eldest daughter who felt pressured to be "the responsible one," she related more to Mary. Then she complained that the books seem to expect readers to identify with Laura, and that we're "not supposed to like Mary."

I'm not sure those claims ring true for either of these literary works.

Both Little Women and the Little House books are autobiographical. Louisa May Alcott based the March family on her own family and Jo on herself, while Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote explicitly about herself and her family without changing the names.

In Little Women, I don't feel as if Alcott expected readers to identify more with Jo than with the other three sisters. Yes, Jo gets the most emphasis of them all, but that's because Alcott personally identified with her. Likewise, in the Little House books, Laura is the protagonist because she was the author. It's only natural that she wrote about her childhood from her own viewpoint, not because she thought readers would relate more to her than to her sisters.

Nor do I think Little Women is overly biased against Amy. Is her portrayal complex, and does it reflect Alcott's complex relationship with her sister May? Yes. Does Alcott use Amy to make fun of May's childhood foibles? Yes. Does she make it clear that May often drove her crazy when they were young, and does her envy of May's charms and social life sometimes bleed through the text? Of course! But none of it seems really mean-spirited; her affection and respect for May also come through clearly. Besides, she's just as willing to use Jo's foibles to make fun of herself.

And in the Little House series, do we really think Wilder set out to insult the memory of her beloved and by then deceased sister Mary? Just because she was honest about their childhood sibling rivalry and made readers feel for her envy of her "perfect" sister doesn't mean she wanted the readers to dislike her.

Maybe I'm giving these authors too much benefit of the doubt. But "An author writes about her own family, makes herself the protagonist, and honestly portrays both her closeness and her sibling rivalry with a sister who was very different from herself" doesn't inherently mean "The author expects all readers to identify with her self-insert and dislike her sister."

[princesssarisa]

A few more big differences:

Abigail May Alcott (Nieriker) was a later addition to the family than Amy was to the Marches. She was nine years younger than Anna (Meg), eight years younger than Louisa (Jo) and five years younger than Elizabeth (Beth), while Amy is just four, three, and one year(s) younger than her sisters.

Elizabeth Alcott was twenty-one years old when she contracted scarlet fever, not fourteen, and she died just two years later, not seven years later.

Anna Alcott (Pratt) married her husband John after Elizabeth died, not several years before.

Differences between Little Women and real life

Bronson Alcott, unlike Mr. March, was not a minister and was not from a rich family.

Louisa May Alcott never had a manuscript burned – the description of Jo’s manuscript, “half a dozen little fairy tales,” matches Flower Fables, LMA’s first published book.

In a journal entry LMA wrote that she was $40 in debt and could pay it by selling her hair, but there is no following entry mentioning whether or not she did. And she had all her hair cut off when she had typhoid while nursing during the American Civil War.

Abigail May Alcott didn’t fall through ice and nearly drown, although according to Julian Hawthorne’s autobiography she once fell out of a boat they were in.

[the-other-art-blog]

I don’t know how many people knew this, but May Alcott illustrated LMA’s first edition of LW. Unfortunately, her drawings didn’t receive the same praise as her sister’s writing. Apparently, critics were very harsh with May. That’s why she didn’t illustrated Good Wives.

Honestly, they weren’t good. Check out this drawing of Meg at the Vanity Fair chapter.

Now, to be fair, May hadn’t received much anatomical training as an artist of the era should. This is one of the main arguments from feminists when it comes to female artists. How the hell were they suppose to excel at drawing/painting human figures if they didn’t have access to the right training?!

May Alcott herself complained about this in her book Studying Abroad and How to Do It Cheaply. That is why she studied at Monsieur Krug studio who allowed models.

And it shows! In 1879, she painted La Nègrese. AND, it got into the Paris Salon of that year!

Look at her progress in 11 years!

I just think it’s such a fantastic story. How she went from that drawing of Meg, to this portrait!

Her story is also an example of what a woman could achieve with equal opportunities.

There is a lost portrait of a man. She called it “Prince of Timbuktu”. In her letters, she mentioned being praised by her teachers.

May could have been discouraged by the critics. She could have given up her art. But instead, she looked for better education, traveling to Boston and Europe to get the best training.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Now that the full Little Women trailer is out I’m curious to know your more of your opinion on the costuming? Like I barely know anything about that time period and the hair is killing me in some scenes. Also Greta gerwig is great but she called the marches “hippies and ahead of their time” for making their own clothes and I’m a little nervous for the liberties she’s taking with Jo’s character

Just watched it. 

Loose hair everywhere

Beating you over the head with hyper-modern feminist language instead of actually taking the time to research how the women of the time chafed against and found happiness in spite of their oppression and contextualize the characters within that struggle in a way that’s faithful to the book.

They’re really giving equal screen/story time to Jo, Amy, [squints at smudged writing on hand] Maggie, and Biff

Why is Amy never allowed to be 12 anymore

This scene:

The Concord “Cypress Gardens Southern Belles C. 1985″ Ball, 1862, colorized

Why are their gloves long? Why do their gloves match their dresses? Why is their hair a mishmash of early 1860s, late 1860s, and (for Meg) Pirates of the Caribbean? There’s an attempt at variations in the gown styles and trim, but the matchy-matchy colors of every single element are extremely not period. Are they plastic bridesmaid figures on a wedding cake?

The overhead lighting is really good in this big, old house at night in 1862!

I love Saoirse Ronan in waistcoats and cravats, but…no. Just no. It looks so jarring.

Did I mention the loose hair?

I think the designer thinks hair up = Fashionable Normal GIrl and hair down = strong independent Hippie™ who sews her own clothes. instead of hair up = girl or woman over age 16 and hair down = actress on stage, child/young teenager, sick or institutionalized woman

The sewing your own clothes thing. That’s not “hippie”. That’s normal poor or middle-class 1860s. It’s just How You Get Clothes.

They seem to be setting up Amy and Laurie as a thing earlier in the story, which isn’t very faithful to the original (where, yeah, he kind of DOES marry her to be part of the March family; deal with it)

Amy is more like what I’ve heard of her real-life inspiration, May Alcott Nieriker. I’m not mad about it, but it’s not exactly true to the book

Yes, technically the word “O.K.” had been invented by then. Yes, it still sounds deeply out of period because I’m not sure it would be used like that. But I could be wrong.

In conclusion, I won’t be bothering to see it. Nobody’s touched the ‘90s movie yet, and I don’t think that’s about to change.

[19thcliteraryblog]

Louisa May Alcott (November 29, 1832 – March 6, 1888) was an American novelist, short story writer, and poet best known as the author of the novel Little Women (1868) and its sequels Little Men (1871) and Jo's Boys (1886). She was raised in New England, and she grew up among many well-known intellectuals of the day, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau.

It is also known that Alcott's family suffered from financial difficulties, and while she worked to help support her family from an early age, she also sought an outlet in writing. She began to receive critical success for her writing in the 1860s. Early in her career, she used pen names such as A. M. Barnard, under which she wrote lurid short stories and sensation novels for adults that focused on passion and revenge.

Alcott's most popular work published in 1868, Little Women is set in the Alcott family home, and is loosely based on Alcott's childhood experiences with her three sisters, Abigail May Alcott Nieriker, Elizabeth Sewall Alcott, and Anna Alcott Pratt. The novel was well-received at the time and is still popular today among both children and adults. It has been adapted many times to stage, film, and television.

Alcott was an abolitionist and a feminist and remained unmarried throughout her life. All her life she was active in such reform movements as temperance and women's suffrage.

[dazedandlucid]

hyperallergic(.)com(/)450023/little-women-louisa-may-alcott-may-alcott-nieriker/ it talks about may alcott nieriker (the real amy) struggles with being recognized as an artist. i thought maybe you'd like it

oh wow thank you so much for sending me this and the other link! this was fascinating to read thank you for thinking of me 💖

[itsbonny05]

Being bored on a lazy Sunday, I tried my hand at #watercolour; not being a #painter, it is quite a hard task to get the shades properly and especially when the feathers of the original looks so beautiful. This is almost a replica of the painting made by Abba May Alcott Nieriker painted on the mantle in the room of #louisamayalcott. (at Bhowanipore) https://www.instagram.com/p/B4sPO4pgPXX/?igshid=1dgchymuqc9eo

[usstudiesonline]

Conference Review: Recovering May Alcott Nieriker’s Life and Work, Université Paris Diderot

Conference Review: Recovering May Alcott Nieriker’s Life and Work, Université Paris Diderot

This special guest review comes to us from Amelia Platt, a fifteen-year-old student from Litcham Comprehensive High School and a participant in the Brilliant Club, a charity that employs PhD students to tutor pupils from low-participation backgrounds. Amelia would like to thank her mentor, Azelina Flint, a doctoral candidate and AHRC CHASE Award Holder at the School of American Studies,…