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

[Mary13]

Cross posted with @Conformist1688!

@Conformist1688

There’s a chapter in Jo’s Boys which is all about her obessive fans coming to visit/steal souvenirs, and Jo masquerading as her own maid when one turns up unexpectedly.

Louisa May Alcott also pretended she was her maid when fans came to visit.

Here’s some more about that part in Jo’s Boys:

In fact, in the third chapter of “Jo’s Boys,” Alcott recounts a writing career for Jo in her later years that very much mirrors the author’s own experiences as a writer for children. After Jo, her husband and their school at Plumfield fall upon hard times, Jo “fell back on the long-disused pen as the only thing she could do to fill up the gaps in the income. A book for girls being wanted by a certain publisher, she hastily scribbled a little story describing a few scenes and adventures in the lives of herself and her sisters . . . and with very slight hope of success, sent it out to seek its fortune.”

The surprising success of Jo’s book, like the success of Alcott’s own “Little Women,” brings its author fame and financial security. The most valuable result of this success to Jo is “making her mother’s last years comfortable and serene.” https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/28/books/l-jo-march-s-literary-career-545092.html

[mathmom]

I knew it! Jo couldn’t stop writing forever. I read Little Men, but I don’t think I ever read Jo’s Boys.

[Mary13]

I started a new thread for December: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/2159873-the-calculating-stars-december-cc-book-club-selection-p1.html?new=1

[ignatius]

Okay - finished Little Women. For some reason, I enjoyed it more this time than the last time I read it. Maybe I needed the escape into the March girls’ world. So why not a robust discussion this time? Well, I find that - for me and despite my good intentions re going through the questions and adding my thoughts - I don’t want to. Some books just slide into a leave-it-alone slot. Does that mean I don’t recognize topics of discussion? Nope. It just means I don’t want to mess with the feeling. I’m calling heart over head on this one.

And litlovers should be ashamed of their discussion questions. What does #6 even mean?

2. What purpose does Beth’s death serve? Was Alcott simply making a sentimental novel even more so, or was this a play on morality and philosophy? Do you think Beth was intended to be a Christ figure?

1. Some critics argue that the characters are masochistic. Meg is the perfect little wife, Amy is the social gold digger, and Beth is the eternally loving and patient woman. Do you believe these characterizations are masochistic?

[mathmom]

Yeah, I’m not touching number six. That’s not the definition of masochism and except for Beth, I don’t think those are actually fair characterizations of the characters.

[Mary13]

@ignatius

So why not a robust discussion this time? Well, I find that - for me and despite my good intentions re going through the questions and adding my thoughts - I don’t want to. Some books just slide into a leave-it-alone slot. Does that mean I don’t recognize topics of discussion? Nope. It just means I don’t want to mess with the feeling. I’m calling heart over head on this one.

@ignatius, that’s exactly it. I liked returning to Little Women as literary “comfort food,” and couldn’t work up a desire to do anything but reaffirm my affection for Laurie and read up on Louisa May Alcott’s life.

@mathmom

Yeah, I’m not touching number six. That’s not the definition of masochism and except for Beth, I don’t think those are actually fair characterizations of the characters.

Agreed! The question was idiotic. I don’t think the person who composed it read the book or had any familiarity with Alcott’s biography (or a dictionary). Question #2 was equally dumb – Was Beth’s death “a play on morality and philosophy?” is a question you can read over and over without ever making sense of it.

[mathmom]

Yes, I think in the end the more interesting questions are more about the intersection of Louisa May Alcott’s life and their own.

So questions:
Many authors mine their own lives for characters in their books? Is this fair to the originals, especially when they are so identifiable?
Why did Louisa turn to her own biography so closely when she clearly was willing to come up with wild plots for her stories?
Is Professor Bhaer along with the little seen Mr. March the father she wished she had had?
Did you notice or care about some of the weird little political issues that made it into the book? (The one I particularly notice was a temperance message. )
Do you think the two part structure of Little Women works, where the first half is pretty much a kid’s book, but the second half seems much more aimed at adolescents? (Note the Harry Potter books had to deal with this same issue as well.)

[Conformist1688]

Overseas, Little Women’s two parts were and still are published separately and seen as two separate books: Little Women and Good Wives.

[mathmom]

@Conformist1688 Yes, and I think in many ways that makes a lot more sense. They were of course orginally two books in the US as well, but I think are always bundled together now by US publishers. In fact, now that I think about it, I think Louisa May Alcott did the same thing with Eight Cousins and Rose in Bloom and Little Men and Jo’s Boys. I get the feeling she wanted to write for an older audience and this was her way of sneaking in older readers.

[Mary13]

Many authors mine their own lives for characters in their books. Is this fair to the originals, especially when they are so identifiable?

It may not be fair, but it’s almost unavoidable, isn’t it? “Write what you know” will mean that many authors can’t help but include characters who are thinly disguised versions of real people in their lives. I suspect that if we had to toss out every book with characters inspired by the author’s real family and friends, we’d lose some masterpieces.

I suppose that modern authors have to worry more about libel than writers did in the old days.

[Mary13]

Did you notice or care about some of the weird little political issues that made it into the book? (The one I particularly notice was a temperance message. )

The overall temperance message didn’t bother me–that is, it wasn’t too intrusive–but I did think Meg took advantage of Laurie when she made him promise to never touch a drop. I also felt bad that all the good wine Aunt March sent to the wedding was dispatched to the Soldiers Home since “wine should be used only in illness.” Personally, I like a celebratory glass every now and then.

[mathmom]

I read up a little bit on the Temperance movement. Apparently a lot of it came out of feeling that immigrants were drinking too much and wasting their wages on liquor. I hadn’t realized how patronizing and paternalistic the movement was.

[Mary13]

Let’s blame it on the Irish.

You can sense the subtle cultural bias against immigrants in Little Women – not only with the depiction of the Hummels, but also in references to the Irish. The “little Irish children” are the “sworn foes” of young Amy and her friends, and Laurie and Jo walk through the countryside, populated by “two ducks, four cats, five hens, and half a dozen Irish children.” It’s not mean-spirited, and the description made me laugh, but it does show their second-class citizen status.

It’s not surprising, as this was during the Irish Need Not Apply era: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/insider/1854-no-irish-need-apply.html

Hmmm, looking at those ads in the above link, I wonder…If Hannah is Irish, maybe it was a way of showing how socially progressive the March family was. (Meg and John’s cook is also “an Irish lady.”)

More: https://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

And in March country–Massachusetts:

Buoyed by the war-cry “Americans must rule America!”, the [anti-immigrant American Party] … found their greatest success in Massachusetts, where in 1854 the American Party captured all state offices, the entire State Senate and all but a handful of seats in the House chamber…[They] mandated the reading of the King James Bible in public schools, disbanded Irish militia units while confiscating their weapons and deported nearly 300 poor Irish back to Liverpool because they were a drain on the public treasury. They also barred naturalized citizens from voting unless they had spent 21 years in the United States.

Sigh. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[VeryHappy]

New York Times article about the Greta Gerwig movie of Little Women:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/movies/greta-gerwig-little-women.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20191101&section=longRead?campaign_id=9&instance_id=13533&segment_id=18423&user_id=672b2a461c1ba9dee89327043ebd9a65&regi_id=7071460ion=longRead

I hope this isn’t behind a paywall.

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

^just read that article. So glad we read this ahead of this movie, and especially like that Greta is focusing Alcott, the author dealing with the commercial aspects of selling her novel, and compromising with Jo’s marriage.

She also reread the book at 36 and found new aspects, but it’s hard to believe that Greta doesn’t remember playing Jo in a play when she was 11 ? Huh ?

Gerwig, who is 36, was struck by how modern its dialogue felt once she brushed away the dusty surrounding material. “Things were jumping out at me that I felt like I’d never heard before,” Gerwig said, like Marmee telling her daughter Jo: “I am angry nearly every day of my life.” Gerwig said, “That’s not something you think of as Marmee saying, except that it’s right there in the book. She says it.”

Gerwig studied the story, and Alcott’s life, until she found what she calls “the thing underneath,” which is Alcott’s depiction of “all of these inappropriate emotions for young women to have.” Gerwig’s adaptation feels modern. But “I didn’t invent it,” she said. “It’s there.”

As our tour of the Met wound down, Gerwig led us toward the cafe, where we pushed two chairs onto the end of a crowded table. She bent over a banana and spoke about the ending of her own “Little Women,” which rips open the contradictions between life and art and commerce and reveals them plainly onscreen. Jo goes to Mr. Dashwood with a book based on her life and the lives of her sisters. The publisher insists that the Jo character become a wife by the end. They haggle, and finally Jo agrees to marry her off, for a price.

[HImom]

The trailer is gorgeous!

[ignatius]

I’ve meant to post the last couple weeks but a busy life intervened. I finally read Behind a Mask. I don’t think I liked it as much as others here seem to. The story itself is well-written though seemed somewhat far-fetched in that Jean Muir was able to pull off whatever - whenever she needed. The most interesting thing about it is that Alcott wrote it … and what a contrast to Little Women it is. I understand though why Little Women is the piece of writing that made Alcott famous. Despite any quibbles about the novel, girls identify - or want to identify - with the March sisters. Yes, it’s preachy but in many ways the sort of preachy that parents still use today. (Be kind to your sister. Forgive faults. And so on.) While I enjoyed Behind a Mask the characters remained just that - characters. The March girls felt real - perhaps because they were.

[mathmom]

The preachiness of Little Womne never bothered me when I was young, but I liked it less as an adult. Behind a Mask was fun - but not to be taken too seriously I think!

[ignatius]

@mathmom: I agree that Behind a Mask is Alcott’s escapist fiction.

[VeryHappy]

I just saw the movie, and loved it!! It would be very confusing if one didn’t already know the plot, since it jumps back and forth in time. But I thought it was fabulous.