Little Women and Behind a Mask, or A Woman’s Power - October CC Book Club Selection

[ignatius]

I wasn’t aware of the “preaching” when I read the book as a young girl. I am the youngest of four girls. (No Amy jokes, please.) Actually I was the youngest by far with the twins age 16 when I was born and my other sister age 15. I could observe the rivalries, etc., while not a part of them. My mother used to say that it was always two against one with my sisters and the pairing of the two changed on a regular basis. I probably understood sister dynamics on a visceral level. Unfortunately, our particular household never ended whatever “chapter” on as uplifting a note. Well, I shouldn’t say never … sometimes I’m sure it did but still …

I’m thoroughly enjoying the book this time around. I’m not sure exactly why.

I also am playing around with Invincible Louisa since I discovered a copy around here. Jo - I mean Louisa - really did draw from her own life when she wrote Little Women.

I find it interesting that so many of you like her other story. I put off reading it because I thought it might be schlocky. Now I’m looking forward to it. Who knew?

[AnAsmom]

IIRC, the publisher (he had approached Louisa to write books for girls) who published Little Women didn’t like it when he first read it but luckily for all the fans of LMA out there, he gave it to a young girl in his family to read. He was advised by the girl and her friends that it was just what they enjoyed reading. And the rest is history.
I wonder, though, if he influenced some of the preachy and socially acceptable overtones in the book. Louisa is a feminist and an intellectual influenced by such thinkers like Emerson and Thoreau amongst others.
She wanted to write serious books but wrote the novellas and the books for girls for the money because she wanted to take care of her family.

About the autobiographical note in the book, she said about herself that she wrote best about things she knew and what she could draw from her own experiences. Hence, the parallels to her life: She was Jo, Ladislas was the inspiration for Laurie, Amy was based on her sister May, Aunt March drawn from her own great aunt, Beth’s death came from her sister Elizabeth dying young and probably many other similarities.

[mathmom]

Some have speculated that Laurie’s father is based on Emerson.

I guess the reason, I have a soft spot for Amy is that she feels so real to me. She does grow up, but part of her really does still like pretty things. I think being the youngest often means you are never old enough to do the things your siblings are doing (going to parties, helping support the family). She both envied and wanted to emulate her sisters. It takes her a while to figure out herself.

[AnAsmom]

@mathmom I do think that Laurie’s grandfather is based on Emerson. Both were kind family friends, dispensing advice and material help as the occasion required.

Amy seems to get everything without much of a struggle whereas Jo had to struggle for everything. I wonder if Louisa’s relationship with her sister May was conflicted because of similar reasons.

I firmly believe, notwithstanding what was said by Laurie later on, that Amy was the one who insisted on marrying before they left Europe. She was afraid that that she would lose Laurie to Jo if they weren’t married.

[Mary13]

Here’s everything you always wanted to know about Professor Bhaer – a fun three-part series in the Paris Review. (Part 3 is especially for those who have read Little Men and Jo’s Boys, and also addresses the “creepy” element of Little Men that @mathmom referred to in our previous thread when we were picking this month’s selection):

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/22/getting-to-know-professor-bhaer-part-1/
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/23/me-wants-me-bhaer-part-2/
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/24/professor-bhaer-in-his-element-part-3/

[stradmom]

@Mary13 that link is a gold mine! Apparently, I"m on Team Bhaer, having always thought that Laurie was a wonderful but superficial person not really suited to Jo. I always thought the Amy connection was a consolation prize.

[mathmom]

That was a nice analysis.

[Mary13]

Here’s another good article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/27/how-little-women-got-big

So many interesting tidbits:

Alcott wrote in a letter to a friend: “Jo should have remained a literary spinster but so many enthusiastic young ladies wrote to me clamorously demanding that she should marry Laurie, or somebody, that I didn’t dare refuse & out of perversity went & made a funny match for her.”

And

…[Alcott] left a lot of confused feminists in her wake. Even more displeased were the queer theorists. In an 1883 interview, Alcott said, “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body . . . because I have fallen in love in my life with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with a man.” Hmm. And so we are not surprised that she herself did not marry, but then why did she have to force a husband on her most Louisa-like character, and one who had expressed similar sentiments? (“I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy,” Jo says, in the novel’s first scene.)

Lots of biographical info which was new to me (I haven’t read much about Alcott — am busily trying to correct that now):

In time, Louisa seems to have forgiven her father. At the age of fifty-five, she went to visit him at the convalescent home where he was then living (at her expense, no doubt). Kneeling at his bedside, she said, “Father, here is your Louy. What are you thinking of as you lie here so happily?” “I am going up,” he said. “Come with me.” She obliged him. Three days after their conversation, Bronson breathed his last. But Louisa never knew of it; she was in a coma, after a stroke, and died two days after him.

[Mary13]

@AnAsmom

I wonder, though, if [the publisher] influenced some of the preachy and socially acceptable overtones in the book.

Could be, but interestingly, the publisher in Little Women, Mr. Dashwood, actually does the opposite–“make it short and spicy and never mind the moral.” He tells her “morals don’t sell,” and Alcott as narrator throws in her two cents:

“But, Sir, I thought every story should have some sort of moral, so I took care to have a few of my sinners repent”…

“People want to be amused, not preached at, you know. Morals don’t sell nowadays.”

Which was not a correct statement, by the way. (p. 461)

[mathmom]

“I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body . . . because I have fallen in love in my life with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with a man.”

Umm. I’m pretty sure there is a lot of evidence that she fell in love with Ladislas Wisniewski, though apparently her journals from that time period are confusing, and sometimes changed after the fact. We know she spent two weeks in Paris, going out with him and that they left each other with tender kisses.

[Mary13]

^ Who knows? I’m learning there was a complex human being behind a “simple” children’s story. I guess nothing is ever simple. Louisa May Alcott’s version of events “changing after the fact” is something I keep sensing as I read about her. For example, Alcott’s quote above about perversely making a “funny match” for Jo may not be quite accurate. The author of the New Yorker article found the match to be both carefully constructed and not particularly “funny” at all:

…[some] interpretations assume that Jo, by marrying someone old and fat—a foreigner, too!—doesn’t so much take a husband as find a nice person to room with. I think that the situation is exactly the opposite, and that a “diminished” girl does not go running through the town, under so many horse noses, to find a booby prize. The heavens do not burst open when Meg says yes to John, or Amy or to Laurie, but only when Jo and Bhaer, these two souls with no money or beauty or luck, come together.

There are other clues that Bhaer is a character very close to Alcott’s heart.

The New Yorker author calls the “Under the Umbrella” scene “riveting” and “one of the most satisfying love scenes in our literature.” Conversely, the Paris Review author says, “I have never wanted to kiss a character less than I do Professor Bhaer in this scene; you want to avert your eyes.”

Lol, the debate rages on through the centuries.

[Mary13]

“Old Fritz” is 39 by the way, maybe even a little younger. Once you hit 30 in Alcott’s books, it’s pretty much the end of the road .

Just kidding…I know that was a consequence of living in the 19th century – average life expectancy in 1860 was 45 years, per the stats.

I wonder what Professor Bhaer would think of Jean Muir? Not much, I suspect.

[mathmom]

I think Louisa May Alcott like jerking people’s chains. I think it’s very funny that some biographer’s think the “real” Louisa is the one who wrote the thrillers, while others think it’s the one who wrote children’s books. We do know that while she wrote two other adult novels later, both were based on plots from earlier works.

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

Still reading ( and enjoying Little Women) and read some of the posts above about Jo’s sexual identity.
So many times she has reminded me of Idgie Threadgood, from Fannie Flagg novel “fried green tomatoes at the Whistle stop cafe” a feisty spunky, gay character so full of life.

“It’s a great comfort, Jo. I always feel strong when you are at home, now Meg is gone. Beth is too feeble and Amy too young to depend upon, but when the tug comes, you are always ready.”
“Why, you know I don’t mind hard jobs much, and there must always be one scrub in a family. Amy is splendid in fine works and I’m not, but I feel in my element when all the carpets are to be taken up, or half the family fall sick at once. Amy is distinguishing herself abroad, but if anything is amiss at home, I’m your man.”

[HImom]

Really loved Behind a Mask! Am going to try to read LIttle Women next. Haven’t read LW in decades!

[Caraid]

I am all caught up. Excellent discussion!

I enjoyed Behind the Mask a little more than Little Women, but still didn’t love it. I guess I am just not a fan of Alcott’s writing. I appreciate the books a lot more after reading the comments here.

When reading Little Women I thought there was hope for the book with Jo’s character. I liked that she was bold and not like the other girls of the time. As the book went on, I was disappointed. I realize I was watching Jo mature and prioritize important components of her life, but felt like she surrendered too much of herself. I saw the match up with Prof. Bhaer coming as soon as his character was introduced. She was enthusiastic about him, told her family about him, and quickly appeared to be falling in love without realizing it. One line from the links @Mary13 shared above was perfect in decribing Jo and Bhaer’s relationship.

The impending romance bears down like a particularly dreary train at five miles an hour.

I agree! Their romance was very slow and painful!

Other thoughts:

I also thought Hannah was African American.

Amy and Laurie’s relationship never seemed genuine to me. I could feel it starting to happen, but was never happy about it, or liked it as part of the story.

Beth’s bedside deathwish to Jo bothered me.

You must take my place, Jo, and be everything to Father and Mother when I’m gone. They will turn to you, don’t fail them, and if it’s hard to work alone, remember that I don’t forget you, and that you’ll be happier in doing that than writing splendid books or seeing the world, for love is the only thing that we can carry with us when we go, and it makes the end so easy.

Beth's view of the world was narrow and it was wrong of her to ask Jo. The promise changed Jo's life.

[Mary13]

@ignatius, I am also the youngest of four girls, but we are all relatively close in age (and as different from one another as Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy!).

@ignatius

I find it interesting that so many of you like her other story. I put off reading it because I thought it might be schlocky.

Well, I won’t lie to you, I did find it a little schlocky — in that there is minimal character development and a lot of histrionics. But it’s enjoyable, and I believe Louisa May Alcott is making an important point or two between the lines.

I read an academic essay about Behind a Mask that had a few good insights. I say “a few” because, to be honest, I don’t care much for the academic papers — they flail about with too much academic lingo for my tastes. For example, in the paper I’m referring to, the thesis statement is, "I contend that in Behind a Mask, Alcott emphasizes the instability of ethnicity, specifically Jewishness, and class, specifically governesses, in order to challenge the dominant, Christian and patriarchal social order.”

I’m not even sure what “emphasizing the instability of ethnicity” means. But I digress. I come not to bury this writer but to praise her. She points out that Alcott compares Jean Muir to Rachel (the actress, aka Eliza Félix): “Miss Muir was just before them, apparently listening to Mrs. Coventry’s remarks upon fainting fits; but she heard, and looked over her shoulders with a gesture like Rachel. Her eyes were gray, but at that instant seemed black with some strong emotion of anger, pride, or defiance" (p. 6).

I looked up Rachel (knew nothing about her!): https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/rachel-eliza-rachel-felix

This line jumped out:

Known for her slight build and burning eyes, Rachel’s passion and technique made her seem larger than life and her riveting authority on stage (as well as off-stage) was often described as “masculine.”

The “slight build and burning eyes” description fits Jean Muir to a “T;” whereas, the “masculine” part belongs to our other heroine, Jo. In any case, it’s easy to see why Louisa May Alcott might have found Rachel fascinating. The essay author writes: "By portraying Jean as Rachel, Alcott assigns her character a unique mission: Jean accomplishes her goals through her conscious performances both on and off the stage, proving that women’s will and agency are reliable tools in their struggle for a place in patriarchal society.”

The author adds that having Jean portray Judith in one of the tableaux was a deliberate choice, as Judith "decapitates Holofernes without being punished for her crime (Chapman 1996, 32-38, 43).” It both foreshadows Jean’s triumph and also expresses some rebellious commentary on the patriarchy.

There’s more…the paper’s rather uneven in my opinion, but if you want to skim through it for the highlights, here it is: http://www.otherness.dk/fileadmin/www.othernessandthearts.org/Publications/Journal_Otherness/Otherness_4.2/3_Nevena_Stojanovic_-_Alcott.pdf

[Marian]

I reread Little Women and was shocked by it.

Amy burns Jo’s manuscript. Jo lets Amy fall through the ice. Beth’s pet bird dies of starvation because she didn’t feed it, and Marmee does nothing to prevent this from happening. Beth catches scarlet fever because neither Meg nor Jo is willing to go visit the Hummels, never recovers completely, and eventually dies from her illness (presumably she developed rheumatic heart disease).

And all of that except for Beth’s prolonged illness and death happens in the first section of the book, which seems aimed at a younger audience than the second section.

Little Women is not all sweetness and light.

[VeryHappy]

And don’t forget the Hummels’ baby died of scarlet fever.

[Marian]

Not just the baby. When Beth visits the family on the day the baby dies, it’s mentioned that two of the children, one of whom is a girl named Minna, have sore throats. Presumably they are coming down with the same disease. Later on, Mrs. Hummel comes to the Marches “to get a shroud for Minna.” So apparently she died, too.

Of course, kids died left and right from infectious diseases in those days. Perhaps this wasn’t at all shocking when first written.