Little Women
discussion
Who was better. ? Laurie or Mr.bahaer
It is spelled Bhaer. And I don't think it matters about their age. They loved each other and were perfect for each other and Laurie was too flighty for Jo. When you find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, usually age isn't a huge problem (unless they are under 18 of course).
I have not read this book for years and years and when I did I was still a teen and could not understand when she rejected Christian Bale....I mean Laurie. I think though it would be interesting now to read and see if I was still vexed at her choice.
I agree with the others, Mr. Bhear and Jo were perfectly suited to each other. Laurie was like a brother to her, not like a lover. He and Jo would never have worked as a romantic couple - he's too all over the place while she was not (she was unusual but not changeable by any means). Besides, marrying him would have put Jo in a position she could never have managed without going crazy or coming to hate Laurie - a society wife. With Mr. Bhear, she had a companion and lover who understood, respected and celebrated who she was and for whom she could always do the same.
Oh, Mr. Bhear was just right for Jo. It was right that Laurie ended up with Amy. They were much more suited to each other.
Jeni wrote: "Mr. Baer loved Jo for who she was and respected her too much to ask her to change for him. I adore his character. Laurie was too flighty for Jo.[Sorry for the typo: Mr. Bhaer!]"
Agree!
Wren wrote: "Oh, Mr. Bhear was just right for Jo. It was right that Laurie ended up with Amy. They were much more suited to each other."Totally agree with this. Jo needed someone more mature to accept her as she is. Laurie and Amy were perfect for each other, I always thought they were the best match out of all the sister's marriages.
Tirzah wrote: "Gretchen wrote: "I have not read this book for years and years and when I did I was still a teen and could not understand when she rejected Christian Bale....I mean Laurie. I think though it would ..."Anyone who would reject Christian Bale is crazy! lol
But seriously, I honestly thought Jo would end up with Laurie and was very surprised that it didn't turn out that way. Laurie is one of my favorite characters, so of course I'd want Jo to choose him over anyone else.
I found the latter books disappointing, as the creative and active Jo becomes a matronly dispenser of platitudes. She changes from the March girl you want to be, to a person who you might have tea with, but certainly not a full dinner.It's not that Mr Bhaer is so unsuitable, as that the switch (Laurie moving from Jo to Amy, bang!) is so unbelievable.
Brenda wrote: "I found the latter books disappointing, as the creative and active Jo becomes a matronly dispenser of platitudes. She changes from the March girl you want to be, to a person who you might have tea ..."I agree!
WHAT HAPPENED TO AWESOME TOMBOY JO?! I miss the old Jo. I prefered Laurie, but I saw Mr Bhaer as a stand-in, just so Jo could have someone to marry. My point, but I think it's cause I know Laurie better
I have read this novel multiple times and when Jo rejects Laurie, I cry every time. As a teenager, I liked the happy ending of Jo marrying Mr. Bhaer (even if the age difference did creep me out), I liked that there was someone for her. If she had married Laurie, I think that after a trip to Europe and enjoying not having to worry about money for a few years, she would have gotten very restless and bored. Jo hates doing society things and Laurie would have been obliged because of his status. Jo would have gone crazy. Amy on the other hand craved being a part of high society and relished the position. I didn't have a problem with Mr. Bhaer because he did really love her and she did return his affections. But I do wish that there would have been more of a build-up. There is so much that happens from the time you leave him to the time he appears on the March's door that you almost forget about the character and sometimes (I re-read this novel a lot, I love it) their courtship feels rushed.
I think Laurie is better! The age difference in kind of creepy with Mr.Bhaer. We barely know him. And why would Laurie marry Amy? Her and Jo are sisters! You don't do that! I think he's just mistaking his love for Jo as his love for Amy. And deep down I think that Jo had romantic feelings for Laurie at some point. I see an affair coming up...
Plainly Alcott saw where the plot was going, and decided to force a change. Having Jo and Laurie marry would, essentially, be the fantasy fairy tale ending -- she marries the Guy Next Door and becomes wealthy and happy. Nothing more to write about! Whereas pulling Laurie out of the picture allows for many more pages of fiction; Jo unattached can have many more adventures. And the proof is that when Jo does marry, the books change and become much more dull. Alcott then is forced to shift the focus of the works to the various children and pupils (I forget who they all were). There is a long, long tradition of marrying off your characters, either deliberately or on the fly, and having the fiction dry up. There is a reason why fairy tales end with 'and they married and lived happily ever after.'
I had to picture that Mr. Bhare dad a George Clooney or Richard Gere charm (I know, i know, she said he wasn't a looker...but) to help make it less distasteful.
When I first read Little Women as a kid, I thought it made perfect sense that Jo would not marry Laurie (for all the reason Jo listed), and then fell in love with Mr. Bhaer right along with her. As an adult, I also rejected a better match with a good friend, to go on to marry someone poorer (although my hubby is younger than I am, rather than older).
So I was not as much of a tomboy as Jo was, but apparently we're very alike in our unconventional approach to romance. Heh.
I do think books that follow an unconventional character from childhood tend to lose steam when that character marries and settles down. Look at the Anne series -- there are plenty of books written after Anne is married, but either you like the non-Anne characters the author follows (Anne's friends, Anne's children), or you're not going to like the books.
Unless they're strongly autistic or something, people work out their own quirks and find a way to fit into society as they get older, so if the childhood books center on the friction between the character and her social environment, that center is going to be gone. Some authors manage to find new characters that charm the reader (or at least many readers) as much as the original, some don't.
If Jo had married Laurie, the series might have been more interesting reading for moderns, because they would have clashed and she would have been miserable! But since she married sensibly, and since adults have more opportunity to shape their world to their needs than children do, she was doomed to become a less interesting character in that sense.
Jeni wrote: "Mr. Baer loved Jo for who she was and respected her too much to ask her to change for him. I adore his character. Laurie was too flighty for Jo.[Sorry for the typo: Mr. Bhaer!]"
I Agree with you!!! Laurie also became a drunk and a womanizer :( BAD
I always liked Laurie better – I remember when I first read Little Women, I was probably....twelve-ish? and I was completely heartbroken that Jo didn't marry him. I agree now that she was right, in a sense; she and Laurie wouldn't have worked out (I think Laurie liked her too much and she didn't want to be idealized), but I still can't say that I have any liking for Mr. Bhaer. (Frankly I think Jo deserved someone infinitely more physically attractive.) Something just never felt right about their relationship. She likes him because he treats her like an intelligent human and he shows her the opera and blah blah blah but it just feels a tiny bit wrong. If that makes sense? Maybe it's just because I wanted Jo and Laurie to be together that anything else is just a disappointment.
I visited Louisa May Alcott's home this summer and there I learned that fans had begged for her to marry Laurie and Jo but she had no intention to marry Jo to anyone. She gave in and created Mr. Bhaer as what she saw to be a strange match. I prefer Laurie myself but I can accept Mr. Bhaer.
Laurie was immature and more infatuated with Jo than in love with her. He and Amy were better suited. Both could be immature and a little narcissistic at times. Jo needed someone who was on her level of maturity. Yes, Laurie and Amy did both shape up, but that was long past the point where Jo and Laurie would have married. Laurie grew up during his travels, travels that he would not have taken had Jo accepted his proposal of marriage.
Mr. Bhaer was cool. I hated him back in the day and for some reason I still kind of hate him now but only because I can't believe that Jo would do such a thing.
I can't blame her, actually. She needed someone who would understand her imagination and her career, and who would make life comfortable enough but not so comfortable she would be bored and have nothing to do.
But the young fangirl in me always melts when it comes to characters like Laurie. I was soooo angry when I read the book I felt like throwing it out of a window. But it wouldn't have been true love. Just like a friendship that would be forced over time. On Jo's part anyway.
I can't blame her, actually. She needed someone who would understand her imagination and her career, and who would make life comfortable enough but not so comfortable she would be bored and have nothing to do.
But the young fangirl in me always melts when it comes to characters like Laurie. I was soooo angry when I read the book I felt like throwing it out of a window. But it wouldn't have been true love. Just like a friendship that would be forced over time. On Jo's part anyway.
Meghan wrote: "I visited Louisa May Alcott's home this summer and there I learned that fans had begged for her to marry Laurie and Jo but she had no intention to marry Jo to anyone. She gave in and created Mr. Bh..."
That's interesting. I knew that fans wanted her to pair up Jo with someone else, like Laurie. But I didn't know that she chose Bhaer because it would be considered strange.
That's what her personality was like, I guess. Stubborn and ever-changing. Made me furious sometimes but I loved her the more for it. :D
That's interesting. I knew that fans wanted her to pair up Jo with someone else, like Laurie. But I didn't know that she chose Bhaer because it would be considered strange.
That's what her personality was like, I guess. Stubborn and ever-changing. Made me furious sometimes but I loved her the more for it. :D
What I found unconvincing was Laurie's rapid switch from Jo to Amy.
Brenda wrote: "What I found unconvincing was Laurie's rapid switch from Jo to Amy."
Me too! And while watching the recent film, I thought, "is this even possible?"
It almost seems like he was using Amy to comfort his pain of losing Jo. But then again, the book covered more time than the movie.
Me too! And while watching the recent film, I thought, "is this even possible?"
It almost seems like he was using Amy to comfort his pain of losing Jo. But then again, the book covered more time than the movie.
I liked laurie better for Jo
to tell the truth i never saw jo and laurie together. I think jo wouldn't have wanted to stay grounded with laurie but baher was perfect. But putting laurie with amy 50/50
Does anyone know how much older the Professor was than Jo? I think one of my daughters must have my copy of my favorite book from my youth, so I cannot look it up, but I don't remember the author telling the reader that detail. I too cried each time I read about Jo and Laurie, but I found Jo's match to be very satisfying. I also cried about Beth every time. The marriage I never got was Meg's; that one seemed to be least filled out in the story. Oh, not that I'm prejudiced now, but my professor husband is six years older than I am, and he wanted me to be what God called me to be sometimes more than I wanted this. Sorry for the autobiographical remarks, but my husband of 45 years has had Alzheimer's Disease for the last six or seven years.
I'm very grateful to have access to many, many books to read; I can have all kinds of adventures from my recliner!
I don't believe it ever says, but if you consider movies this could be cast to really minimize the age gap. As I recall the prof. is supporting a sister and a couple nephews (Franz is the one I remember). To become a professor, even if he is really smart, must have taken at least several years after he got an undergrad degree at a precocious age. Let us say he graduated from Harvard at 20; this would make a full professor at least 25, wouldn't you think? I forget how old Jo is when she meets him, but is she not referring to herself as an old maid? This would make her at least 21.
It doesn't say. The movie made him look around 5-10 years older than Jo AT LEAST. I saw an old drawing from an older copy of Little Women. Not sure but I think some of the drawings of that version were drawn by Louisa's sister. But maybe that was another version.
Anyway, in that drawing Bhaer looked like an older gentlemen with a beard and white hair. I don't mind if he's a little bit older than Jo, but I would really prefer it if the age difference was only about 10-15 years, not more than that.
@Brenda: she calls herself an old maid because she never planned on getting married, and some of the girls at that time were probably expected to marry earlier than 20 even. That's what I'm thinking, anyway.
Anyway, in that drawing Bhaer looked like an older gentlemen with a beard and white hair. I don't mind if he's a little bit older than Jo, but I would really prefer it if the age difference was only about 10-15 years, not more than that.
@Brenda: she calls herself an old maid because she never planned on getting married, and some of the girls at that time were probably expected to marry earlier than 20 even. That's what I'm thinking, anyway.
This was after the Civil War. So yes, girls were expected to get going with serious courtship in their teens and be hitched before 20. (Think Scarlett O'Hara. Or (not quite in period) Elizabeth Bennett.) However, nearly all men at that time had face hair. If you were a babyfaced young man, a big ole bush of beard would age you nicely and make people take you seriously. There was no cult of youth as we have it today. It was BETTER to be older, if you were a man.
And it was far more accepted for a quite older man to marry a very young woman. She would be at peak childbearing age, and he would have the money to support a large family.
Our modern perceptions are distorted firstly by our youth obsession, and secondly by the entire child-abuse dynamic, which makes a big age gap suspect in our minds. Victorians had no such concerns.
In other words, this may be an issue for us. It sure wasn't anything Alcott worried about.
Brenda wrote: "This was after the Civil War. So yes, girls were expected to get going with serious courtship in their teens and be hitched before 20. (Think Scarlett O'Hara. Or (not quite in period) Elizabeth Be..."
:) Yeah, many period dramas and books that I've read have ladies getting married to, or very nearly getting married to, older men.
I have to say that if such a thing were to happen nowadays there might even be a riot. Mr. Bhaer is not one I would be suspicious of knowing his personality, but today people tend to think of it as being weird.
In ancient times, such relationships would have been normal, even if the girls did not wish to marry older men.
I suppose it's safe enough to say that I have not yet gotten over my crush on Laurie and feel like he was subjected to being a third wheel.
*Truthfully he was kind of immature, though. Laurie and Jo were more of the sibling or the friends*Puppy Love type, not more than that.
:) Yeah, many period dramas and books that I've read have ladies getting married to, or very nearly getting married to, older men.
I have to say that if such a thing were to happen nowadays there might even be a riot. Mr. Bhaer is not one I would be suspicious of knowing his personality, but today people tend to think of it as being weird.
In ancient times, such relationships would have been normal, even if the girls did not wish to marry older men.
I suppose it's safe enough to say that I have not yet gotten over my crush on Laurie and feel like he was subjected to being a third wheel.
*Truthfully he was kind of immature, though. Laurie and Jo were more of the sibling or the friends*Puppy Love type, not more than that.
May-December marriages are by no means unknown in our time. Look at Hugh Hefner, a geezer marrying 20 year olds. (I forget what wife he is up to now, but there have been many.) But we make fun of him, and do not really respect his wife (wives). You have to be a celebrity, or very rich, and you can get away with it.Remember too that the girl might not have as much agency as a modern woman. Her father had to consent to the union and 'give' her to her spouse. He might not bestow her hand upon a young whippersnapper, preferring to give her to somebody who can support her. (If you have read THE WOMAN IN WHITE by Wilkie Collins, the heroine is in this situation; that was set at this same period.) This is by no means unknown in the modern era either. This account of an arranged marriage appeared today:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/fa...
I have always found the union between Jo and Mr. Bhaer to be strange and not very lovely. I always thought there was romantic tension between the characters of Laurie and Jo and always wanted them to marry. Remember how Laurie dances with her in the hallway at the New Year's Party. It is Meg who begs to be driven home early at that party, not Jo, leading one to conclude that Jo can enjoy a social event after all. As to why she refused him her hand in marriage, I think it was just her own anxiety. Wasn't she grief sticken about then with Beth's illness and subsequent death. Laurie is just guilty of bad timing. Remember his proposal was a bit abrupt. If he had just stepped in and really romanced her a bit, or waited patiently for her to make up her mind for certain, then the story would have had a better ending. I feel Mr. Bhaer was just a contrivance to continue the story, but Jo's character changed over time as the series continued to where she's almost a minor character and acts so 'grown up' and traditional that the reader may not even recognize her in the two sequels. Also, to everyone who suggests that she would have found society life such a bore, I don't find that argument plausible. She could have used Laurie's money to further her causes. Since he was truly rich, I think she could have picked and chosen which society 'events' she could have attended. Also, I have always thought that Amy just swooped in and got Laurie when he was feeling rejected, which is a good allusion to the Cain and Able story in the Bible, except the jealousy between two sisters this time, and not two brothers. As it turned out, Jo did not become the writer she dreamed of being and instead ended up running a school for other people's children. The book has a quasi-tragic ending if you ask me, but perhaps it does make it more realistic at that.
They are very different and I think that Jo would have gotten a bit annoyed with Laurie after a while because unlike Amy, she seems to not treasure riches and wealth, and might get impatient if Laurie boasts a lot. Mr Baher is more quiet and I think that he suits Jo's personality better. I really thought that it would be Laurie though and was some disappointed at first, to find out that they Jo rejected Laurie.
Mariah wrote: "I think Mr. Bahaer wast too old....."I agree. I preferred laurie
To further my argument that there is in fact, a romance between Laurie and Jo, consider how they met. She threw snowballs at his window, brought him a basket full of kittens. Then, as their friendship continued, he insisedt on watching one of her theatrical productions, and then danced with her at the New Year's Eve party. He later takes her ice-skating and helps her rescue Amy when she falls through the ice. He sends for the March girls' father when he is injured in the war and provides a piano for Beth, and many other things that are too numerous to list. In short, he is always at the ready for anything Jo March, and additionally, her sisters, require. Clearly, Laurie is in love with Jo. He does everything he possibly can to put himself in Jo's favor.The big question is does Jo truely love Laurie? I think the answer to that is yes, she does. If she does not, then she spends a major portion of the book in a relationship with a man whom she considers a brother. I would say that she has too many sisters to want or desire a brother relationship. And finally, what about the scene where Laurie hides in the closet at Jo's request during the Pickwick Papers meeting? Even as I read this book as a child, I sensed that there was something more symbolic or archetypical in this scene. I mean, who hides a man in her closet? I think this represents symbolically that Laurie (outwardly) is in love with Jo, willing to hide himself and his love for her. On the otherhand, Jo is symbollically (inwardly) in love with Laurie, unwilling to outwardly show her love for him, and must 'hide' it and literally him.
That she returns his love is further evidenced by the fact that she never completely rejects him until his marriage proposal. The major theme for this book is growing up, and where the other characters embrace what changes come with growing up, Jo consistently rejects them, even though she above all the other characters outwardly promotes growing up. She is the one, afterall, who plans the theatrical productions and aspires to be a writer; hence have an adult career. Jo's rejection of Laurie's marriage proposal is the climax of the book which indicates an aspect of the romance novel. However, unlike the typical romance novel, the ending is not happy. A major character dies, the main character does not marry the leading male character, and yet, the final scene in the book has the family gathered around in a 'happy' scene. I personally never felt that final scene was truly happy, but bittersweet, as much of life oftenuly is.
Little Women is an often underated piece of American literature. There is much to be discussed in this book.
Jschwabenland1 wrote: "To further my argument that there is in fact, a romance between Laurie and Jo, consider how they met. She threw snowballs at his window, brought him a basket full of kittens. Then, as their frien..."
"Who hides a man in her closet?" Haha. Yeah, I always felt like Jo did love Laurie, but it was her first real crush so she was too scared to admit it and told Laurie (and herself) that she didn't love him more than just a brother. Either that or she really wanted a brother so just hung out with him more....
"Who hides a man in her closet?" Haha. Yeah, I always felt like Jo did love Laurie, but it was her first real crush so she was too scared to admit it and told Laurie (and herself) that she didn't love him more than just a brother. Either that or she really wanted a brother so just hung out with him more....
Glad someone agrees with me.
Although it has nothing about the Laurie-Jo relationship, I hope fans of LW pick up MARCH by Geraldine Brooks. It won a Pulitzer (as I recall) and is essentially the back story behind LW.
I on it--can't wait to read MARCH. Thanks for the info.
You get quite a thrilling sidelight upon Marmee, who (in LW) seems like a complete pill.
I had a crush on Laurie when I read it in 5th grade <3
Bhaer was amazing. I loved him. Laurie was cool, but, at least when he thought he loved Jo, immature. He and Jo would have argued too much. Bhaer was just awesome.
How was Bhaer awesome? He was poor, he was awkward, he was old. I don't see that as better than Laurie or "awesome." Mr. Bhaer was the go-to mate when the romance didn't turn out so well in the end.
Actually, Bhaer could be considered "awesome." I mean, he liked Jo for what she really was. I don't think he's better than Laurie, of course. (laurie is my bias) But I do think he seems a bit more mature.
@Jschwabenland1: yeah, he seemed kind of last minute.
BTW, has anyone thought it weird how Jo ends up with Bhaer even though she and Laurie are more alike in personality? It just seems way too weird to me.... But as I've said, it's probs just Lousia May being stubborn again... lol.
@Jschwabenland1: yeah, he seemed kind of last minute.
BTW, has anyone thought it weird how Jo ends up with Bhaer even though she and Laurie are more alike in personality? It just seems way too weird to me.... But as I've said, it's probs just Lousia May being stubborn again... lol.
I can point out a real contrast between the two men. You will recall that Laurie absolutely supported Jo in the writing of 'trash'. You remember when the swashbuckling story appeared in The Spread Eagle and everybody is thrilled when Jo reveals she wrote it. However, when she becomes acquainted with Mr. Bhaer he does -not- approve. He reads the cheap thrillers and convinces Jo that her writing should be more uplifting, more upmarket, more highbrow, of better moral tone. (More BORING, but whoops, that's the writer in me judging the situation.) She goes along with his critique and writes a book of that type which becomes a success. But gradually -- certainly in LITTLE MEN and JO'S BOYS -- she seems to give up writing altogether. Certainly we never hear about it any more.
And what does this say to us, the modern readers? It says that Jo had a voice, material, things to write. And she let this bearded dude talk her out of it.
Here, Here...very well put. Another example of how she 'settled' for love.
They were two different people. I don't see one as "better"(?) than the other.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
[Sorry for the typo: Mr. Bhaer!]