kaleb-is-definitely-sane reblogged
Meg/Jo/Laurie: You tolerate me.
John/Friedrich/Amy: I love you.
kaleb-is-definitely-sane reblogged
I saw your answer to @fandomsarefamily1966's question whether Meg is "vain" or not, and it made me wonder. Do you think Alcott shows some internalized misogyny in portraying Meg's desire for pretty clothes and status as "vanity"? Do you think subconsciously at least, Alcott was being anti-femininity and judged Meg more harshly than she deserved?
That is a good question. I have never seen Meg as a vain character, I always thought that the "Vanity Fair" chapter name, was intented as criticism for the Sally Moffat's and the likes, and I love that Meg is having inner conflicts.
There is a part of her who enjoys being pampered, but she also feels (and knows) that these girls are not real friends, they speak gossip about her, they make fun of her being poor and spread rumors about her and Laurie.
I have read quite a few times that Louisa May Alcott, enjoyed beautiful clothes, and when she had extra money she liked to buy new clothes and hats. It doesn't sound like a person, who is against having nice clothes and material things (in reason).
Also, Louisa loved to write about clothes. She is often describes the fabrics and laces (Rose in Bloom is another example where this happens).
I do think there is some unconscious criticism against femininity. It's almost like there is guilt for liking pretty clothes, when you have a reputation of someone who is "not like the other girls" type of tomboy.
In the "under the umbrella" chapter, it's almost sad, because Jo feels guilty for having romantic feeligns for Friedrich, she is afraid that people are going to laugh at her, when she is going back on her words of being above marriage and all kinds of romantic feelings.
Another thing that I believe is unconscious, is the religion. The transcendentalist believed to the idea of person constantly transcending and evolving as an individual. Thoreau has some criticism of men and women who were bragging with their clothes so much, they were being ridicilous. Louisa has some similar statements, when we see Jo mockering the way how much money Laurie spends on gloves. They believed that person's value should not only be based on their wealth or how much money they have, but on their actions and how they treat others. This is an idea that we can find already from early Christianity and especially from Protestant Germany, which is where transcendentalism originates. This is also why in Little Women poor characters such as Fritz and the Hummels are portrayed in a good light. They maybe poor but there is richness of the heart.
Having money is not directly seen as a bad thing, but bragging with money is condemned in the Alcott's world. Even when Louisa herself became rich, she continued to be critical of other rich people who bragged with their money or were "vain". In London she saw Charles Dickens, her former idol, but she was dissappointed, how dandy he was.
kaleb-is-definitely-sane reblogged
So I’m not sure if it was Greta Gerwig herself or a movie reviewer but I once read a criticism of the men in Little Women, saying that the March women’s husbands are all varying degrees of useless or disrespectful. Saying that John belittles Meg and her housework and that Friedrich has no respect for Jo’s work. And I have to say… what??
Meg and John are a great example of a healthy couple. Yes, he laughs when her jelly doesn’t turn out, but is he belittling her? No! He just finds it amusing because it is, at least to an observer. And he gets miffed that the house isn’t in order, but in fairness, she did say he could bring a friend whenever and dinner would be ready. They go through rough patches, but they always talk it out and keep on pulling as a team.
And the big one that everyone is mad about, Friedrich criticizing Jo’s writing. I think these people didn’t read the book because Fritz never reads Jo’s sensational stories. He finds a story in a newspaper — specifically stated to not be one of hers — and broadly criticizes that kind of story. This isn’t directed at Jo, it’s directed at writers of these stories in general (again, Friedrich doesn’t know Jo is one of them). But Jo takes his words to heart because he’s spoken to her conscience, and then she makes the decision to burn them all up and quit writing that genre of story. She listens to him because she knows him to have a strong moral compass, which is a big part of why she likes him so much. He helps her grow and become a better person and writer without having to give her direct advice!! And that’s beautiful!! And I’m sick of people who wanted Jo to stay single taking their disappointment and turning it into “all the husbands in Little Women were bad husbands and the second half is a commentary on how terrible it is to be married.” No. Stop it. Read the book. Cut it out with the cynicism.