Jo/Laurie Goodness
So everyone, this is my very first attempt at posting on livejournal. I find this site pretty confusing overall, so lets see how it goes! But I figured, why not make my first post Little Women and Jo/Laurie related as currently its my fav fandom and my fav couple :)
The first entry is re: a kiss between my fav couple...and the second is a ridiculous ( Read more... )
Hold the stoning, please! Let me explain! :P
All jokes aside, I understood that Jo and Laurie didn't mean to be together, even before Brooke and Meg married. I love the proposal scene, part of me was hurt when Laurie asked the question, because, even at 8, I knew that the answer was to be "No, thank you, but no"; Jo was strong, she had ideals, she had goals: She need no husband! Of course, she must refuse Laurie. The heart wrench I felt was for poor Laurie. I even sob a little in the library, and I shouted at the book in the part about the umbrella, I felt betrayed. That was my little 8-y-o self.
I refuse to pick up Little Women again until I was 14 when Little Men came to my way. I had to re-read Little Women and I saw things different, Wow! Jo and Laurie had chemistry! there was intimacy, there was passion, there was... I lack a better word: élan; but, by then, I knew that was not enough. I felt warmer about Bhaer, though.
Of course, at that age, I knew nothing about literary analysis, tropes and plots. My reactions are mostly visceral. It was until college that I saw it with another light, and all the pieces felt in place. I read that article and find it surprisingly well written, it was relaxing or maybe it was just professional deformation. *shrugs* Still, even when is the twentieth time I read it -the novel, not the article- I'm convinced that the answer was right: "No, thank you, but no".
One kiss was too much, I think. One kiss pushes the things too far and forsake everything that Jo was in that moment. A kiss is more than passion, is wantonness, is desire. And LMA surely was aware of that.
About the book, I have not read it, nor I have seen it, but that is not a surprise; my country is really behind in editorial releases, but here is a preview (I just love the galley proofs)
Reply
The way I see it is that Louisa wanted to create a beautiful and close friendship between Jo and Laurie, which she did in LW Part 1. She just didn't expect to write Part 2 (didn't expect the success), and have to deal with the romance part of it all...so why not create an ideal friendship that could have lead to romance, when she didn't expect to ever have to address it?
I found the article "Why Jo didn't Marrie Laurie" interesting, but not 100% convincing. B/c ultimately its all purely speculation...I myself think that Laurie was mostly inspired Ladislas Wisniewski (but not wholly based on him) and her friendship and romance with "Laddie". Thus I do think she wanted to capture the friendship aspect in LW Part 1. Since it "couldn't be" with Laddie (for multiple reasons I'm sure...but mainly b/c she had to remain independent), she wouldn't let Jo fall for Laurie, the way she had for Laddie...
Another reason I think the romance part of it wouldn't have worked was Louisa was very much writing a moral children's book. There was no place in LW to really wrestle with more adult themes of love and romance and marriage vs independence, unconventional marriages of equality etc...Certainly she couldn't have had Jo and Laurie test out their romance (as she herself did with Laddie when she spent two full weeks unchaperoned with him in Paris)...it would have all been considered extremely inappropriate...
But once again, all pure speculation...its all what makes it so facinating!
As for the kiss in the proposal scene, well it was Laurie kissing Jo and I'm sure she pulled away. I also think it might have been too much which is likely why Louisa cut it out...(still it would be intriguing to see the manuscript!) but still I'm quite surprised that she had initially written it in the first place...
Reply
It is true that we all write what we know and we wrote to those who we know, But, hypothetically speaking, if Laddie and Louisa had "improper relations" in those two weeks without a chaperon in Paris, remorse had made her flatly reject the idea that Jo was romantically involved, if the sense of decorum won the battle. And, even if Louisa considered those two weeks all the romance she need in her life, perhaps by adverse reaction, she decided to make Jo a pillar of virtue, in order that no one suspected her. That hypothetical scenario makes me question what right do I have to speculate on her life.
"A moral children's book" the idea is still disturbing to me, because once again, is to speculate in her life. She describes that book thus: because she really feel it? To spite its success? Because editorial constrains made her do it? I don't know, I'm not her. I think, primarily, LMA was writing a story to make money; and, in the second instance, I think LMA was ahead of the stream of American realism and by one hundred years. Realism can contain romance, but is not romance.
About that strikeout kiss in the manuscript: I write -to much less than her- and when something makes me miss the point I want to get, I erase it without mercy. In my opinion, getting carried away is to make bad literature.
Reply
Re: Louisa calling LW a moral story for children, well I think there is quite a bit of evidence here and we don't have to speculate. Louisa preferred to write passionate, sensational, and dramatic novels for adults but they just didn't sell as well as her children's books...from her letters and journals its clear that she wasn't all that happy with the direction she felt she had to take in LW Part II in order to try and satisfy her publisher and her fans...I do think its fun to think about how LW Part II would have differed had she not had those external influences...
I think what we can all agree on is that overall we find the novel pretty amazing and enjoyable and that it generates lots of very interesting discussions!
Reply
Sorry, speculation is not as fun for me, as to understand the characters. I, personally, don't care about LMA and Laddie or any other suitor. I think the same about "moral pap for the young", since in my country LW was considered a 'scandalous reading' and 'unsuitable for children' because it was too romantic (yes, grandma had a hissing fit when she found out). The information extracted from speculation is good and useful for understand the process and to get some interesting AUs from canon but is just not fun for me. Although, I had fun seeing you having fun!
Must be that little Beth in me... ;)
Agreed that we all found LW amazing and enjoyable. And I love interesting discussions.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment