Chapters 23 (beginning of Part II) to 31(Our Foreign Correspondent)
I’m loving the discussion so far! Thank you!
From the journals of Louisa May Alcott about Little Women
Little Women was first published in October 1868. Louisa's publisher, Mr. Niles, had urged her to write a book for girls. She wrote:
“I plod away, through I don't enjoy this sort of thing. Never liked girls, or knew many, except my sisters, but our queer plays and experiences may prove interesting, though I doubt it. ... Sent twelve chapters to Mr. N. He thought it dull; so do I. But I work away and mean to try the experiment; for lively, simple books are very much needed for girls, and perhaps I can supply the need.”
~Journals of Louisa May Alcott, 1868
Seventeen years later, Louisa was able to write:
“The copyright made her fortune, and the “dull book” was the first golden egg of the ugly duckling.”
~Journals of Louisa May Alcott, 1885
On to the questions:
1) The lovely Grace wondered how we were going to get from the younger age of the girls at the beginning all the way through their early adulthood and early marriages. One way that Alcott does this is advance the beginning of Part II by several years. Do you think this works or doesn’t work? Why or why not?
2) The first part of this section deals a lot with Meg’s early marriage and the transition to being a wife. Why do you think that Alcott focused so much on this transition, and what struck you about it?
3) After using the structure of Pilgrim’s Progress in Part I, Alcott seems to have dropped it as a literary device and touchstone in this section. Why did she make this decision, and does it affect the book?
4)What does Amy’s failed party tell us about her outlook on life, and does she grow and change after the event?
5) Jo makes a decision that Beth is pining after Laurie, and actively pushes him away towards Beth. Do you think she read the situation correctly? Why do you think that Jo made this decision
posted by Mimi @ 8/08/2009 03:47:00 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
The lovely Grace wondered how we were going to get from the younger age of the girls at the beginning all the way through their early adulthood and early marriages. One way that Alcott does this is advance the beginning of Part II by several years. Do you think this works or doesn’t work? Why or why not?
I think the way that she did it makes it very obvious that the story was serialized, and that she’d tied it up enough at the end of the first part that if there hadn’t been a desire for it to continue, it would have been a solid book. It works for me to make everyone older and to advance the story that way.
The first part of this section deals a lot with Meg’s early marriage and the transition to being a wife. Why do you think that Alcott focused so much on this transition, and what struck you about it?
This section reminded me a lot of Anne’s House of Dreams from the Anne of Green Gables series. Parts of it stretched my incredulity, but I did like the scene where she’s trying to can (probably because I’ve been canning for the first time this summer) and her poor husband brings a friend home for dinner.
After using the structure of Pilgrim’s Progress in Part I, Alcott seems to have dropped it as a literary device and touchstone in this section. Why did she make this decision, and does it affect the book? I don’t know why she dropped it, but I think that the narrative bogs down in this section of the story, and I don’t know if her lack of structure is to blame, or if she was kind of coerced into writing this section and it shows.
What does Amy’s failed party tell us about her outlook on life, and does she grow and change after the event?. Ok, I admit, I didn’t get quite the subtext of the lobster in the carriage. Would someone clue me in? I thought that Amy’s trying to make her party be what the “richer girls” would have had, instead of putting her own touch on it, as Marmee spoke to her yearning to be richer. I think that she did learn a bit about not keeping up with the Joneses and realizing that she had a place in the world, and to live in it. But, I also don’t think the lesson came immediately, you could feel her exasperation at Jo when they are out visiting and Jo keeps talking about the way that Amy improvises. But, she’s growing and getting better.
Jo makes a decision that Beth is pining after Laurie, and actively pushes him away towards Beth. Do you think she read the situation correctly? Why do you think that Jo made this decision? I felt that Jo totally misread the situation as it pertained to Beth. But, it did allow me to glimpse the beginnings of why and how decisions were made later in the book. I think in a lot of ways my maturity at this reading is allowing me to see that Laurie and Jo weren’t intellectual equals, and were literally too close to be a couple. But, as a younger woman and older child, this part went straight over my head
#1. They almost feel like different books to me. Different tone, different pacing, even different phrasing. In some things I've read, and sorry I can't locate them online right now, Ms. Alcott hated writing about all the "married girls" and maybe that shows, I don't know. Eventually, I got into the second part, though.
#2. The most telling to me is when Meg went out with her friend and bought little things that added up in the budget, and then splurged on silk, and tried to justify it in her mind while keeping it a secret from her husband. Perhaps because this is m y particular struggle, too. TMI, right? But her humility was quite beautiful and didn't feel forced in the book. Her marriage, by the way, feels the most natural.
#3. She actually did write these as two separate books at separate times. That might account for the different feel.
#4. I don't know what it taught Amy necessarily, but I did think it was funny. The signicance of the lobster in the carriage was that only poor people did their own shopping of that nature, not the social young lady she was appearing to be when the young man was admiring her. I thought the indulgence the family showed her was indicative of her place as the youngest, though.
#5. Well, Jo clearly misread the Laurie/Beth thing, but it showed that she was desperate to push him away. Mimi, I too, used to weep a little when cruel Jo spurned Laurie, but reading it as a mature (I hope) adult, it's so easy to spot that he is younger in spirit than she is, and intellectually/emotionally not equal either. They were very unsuited to each other except as best of friends.
Also, on the religious theme again, did anyone notice how very religious (once again in a very Unitarian way) this 2nd section was? Perhaps because the ministerial Mr. March was home? I do like that in those days people were expected to change and grow and to wrestle with their passions. Nowadays, we name it and neuroticize them, come up with an acronym and a medication or something.
And wow, if I can find this much to say about a little book like this, imagine me in my IRL book group reading Don Quixote?? LOL
Well, here's the essay in the back of the book by Nina Auerbach: It does require you to log in to read though.
http://www.enotes.com/nineteenth-century-criticism/little-women/nina-auerbach-essay-date-1983
The edition I am reading ends after Chapter 23! In the "About the Author" section it says that the first volume of "Little Women" was published in late 1868 and a second part, "Good Wives" appeared the following year. Were these two publications maybe later joined and this edition has them still separate? I'm disappointed. (Just read Marsha's comment confirming that these were two different books-- Now I have to go find a complete edition.)
Rosemary! Oh no! I'm so sorry. What a disappointment.
Marsha - They almost feel like different books to me. Different tone, different pacing, even different phrasing. In some things I've read, and sorry I can't locate them online right now, Ms. Alcott hated writing about all the "married girls" and maybe that shows, I don't know. Eventually, I got into the second part, though. Definitely. I wonder how much writing she’d done between the two – as her writing style is changed. And, I think that perhaps she was reluctant to write the second half, and this comes through. I have read “Jo’s Boys” but it has been so long I’m not sure if I remember if she had kind of gotten over this, or if it is a weaker book.
The signicance of the lobster in the carriage was that only poor people did their own shopping of that nature, not the social young lady she was appearing to be when the young man was admiring her AH! Thank you! I knew there was something going on that I wasn’t picking up on.
Also, on the religious theme again, did anyone notice how very religious (once again in a very Unitarian way) this 2nd section was? Perhaps because the ministerial Mr. March was home? I do like that in those days people were expected to change and grow and to wrestle with their passions. I found this third section to be the *least* religious, but the last part (not to give away anything) is the *most* of the four parts. I don’t know if it had to do with Mr. March being home or not.
And, thanks, I’m off to look at the link!
Mimi, to the last point: ahem, I guess I meant the whole second half. You are correct, divided into quadrants this was the least religious of them. I got ahead of myself.
No worries, Marsha, I was dividing the sections in my head differently that you!
Better late than never!
1 - Lovely Grace! Excellent! :-) Anyway, that device where you turned to part two and (boink!) it's three years later seemed a little abrupt, but I thought it was such an intriguing thing for Alcott to do that I went with it. There seemed to me to be situations that wouldn't have taken three years to come to a head (Beth's health, Laurie's romantic intentions), but it was handy to fast-forward through the wedding and other stuff.
2 - I started to get restless with how things went in this section (what with the girls all going their separate ways), and was prepared to dislike this section. But man! The section about the early troubles in the marriage had to have come from her married friends' anecdotes. It wrung so true I didn't end up skipping it at all. I was very glad they had them find happiness in the end, and wondered if modern women would be disgusted at how old-fashioned Marmee's advice to her sounded.
3 - I think it was smart to drop it. It helped things along in the first part, but I think it only would have gotten in the way in the second.
4 - That was a rough chapter to read. I can still remember the heartbreak of throwing a party and not having friends show up. This chapter sort of sealed my opinion that Amy was Alcott's least favorite character.
5 - Don't know if that was a matter of Jo not reading people very well on matters of romance, or that no one wanted to really figure out what Beth's problem was. I found myself thinking that the idea that a person would just know for years that they were slowly dying sounded very silly and Victorian. But I suppose with the limits of medical science in those days, maybe it happened.
Re: how different the two parts are -- I was pretty darn sure that's what was going on here. There's just something about this whole second half that didn't seem nearly as fresh and interesting as the first part. I'm glad she didn't just pick up where she left off and have them grow one year older in the next book. But the meandering, uninspired pacing reminds me of Huckleberry Finn, which I always thought is a book that has about four great chapters in it and the rest should be thrown out.
Grace (and you are lovely indeed!) - I agree, as a child, I don't think the fact that the two sections were written separately struck me, but now both knowing how books were done at the time, as well as reading how she does it, it is very obvious. And, I also agree, she was able to advance several characters well, but some stories did feel strung out (especially Laurie and Amy)
Hi Mimi, thanks for welcoming my very late responses. It has been really fun to re-read Little Women.
1) I think jumping ahead works, because it's set up pretty well at the end of the first book/section by Meg's engagement.
2) I wonder why Alcott did focus so much on Meg's marriage--maybe because her struggles are the one's most readers could probably relate with the most? The other sisters have somewhat less conventional paths. Personally I find these the least enjoyable to read, perhaps for that very reason. As a child these sections seemed boring to me, and now they are too familiar--it makes one squirm a bit to read them.
3) Perhaps the device seems less appropriate for the sisters now that they are adults, since it was based on a game they played. I'm not sure how I feel about how it affects the structure--I kind of like the alternating chapters focusing on different sisters.
4)I agree with your summation of this, Mimi. I like that Alcott shows that Amy matures in this regard before she lets her marry her rich husband. Re: the lobster, I picked up on the subtext as an adult, but as a kid I thought there must have been something about lobsters that was embarrassing. I think I wondered if there was some kind of double entendre.
5) I always thought it seemed like Jo was reaching here--she saw what she wanted to see. I like Grace's point that this seems part and parcel of the family's denial about about Beth's health
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home