Little Women
discussion
Who was better. ? Laurie or Mr.bahaer
message 51:
by
Marte
(last edited Aug 22, 2013 10:56AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 22, 2013 10:56AM
There was only one guy for Jo, and that was Laurie. Mr. Bhaer seemed like a character you mix in to make it all go around. Still, I liked him as well!
reply
|
flag
Exactly! And while I think Bhaer is a good man, I don't understand why Jo would do for Bhaer what she said she couldn't for Laurie. I mean, think about it. She said she wanted to be free to write and live a good life, and yet by Little Men she doesn't really seem like much of a writer. And she seems no longer the same girl we knew in Little Women. Even though she's older and more mature, it just seems like the change is a little too much.
Silverpiper wrote: "They were two different people. I don't see one as "better"(?) than the other."
Not better, just more preferred. I guess you could say we're talking about which one is better for JO.
Not better, just more preferred. I guess you could say we're talking about which one is better for JO.
Laurie. Bhaer was WAY too old for Jo! I was so disgusted when they got married.
It was quite common for older men to marry younger women 100-200 years ago. If fact, if you read fiction from that time period, the man was usually MUCH older than the woman. Laurie was way too immature for Jo.
This book was lovingly written by Alcott using her own life in so much of it. I think Jo ending up with Mr. Bhaer is a glimpse into the true L.M.Alcott. In my opinion he was a perfect match for Jo.
Laurie at first but he disappoints and Joe needed someone to keep her in line (just a little :p) Mr. Bhaer...lol took me a few tries to spell that
Catherine wrote: "This book was lovingly written by Alcott using her own life in so much of it. I think Jo ending up with Mr. Bhaer is a glimpse into the true L.M.Alcott. In my opinion he was a perfect match for Jo."Interesting opinion - thanks for trying to get behind the author's "intentionality" in her writing.
Perhaps. I mean, I guess you can't deny the fact that Alcott went through a lot in her life and was definitely a lot different from what the general public thought her to be.
No, that is what C.S. Lewis called the personal heresy -- the idea that everything the writer writes about is about the writer, or autobiographical in nature. To some extent this is true, but in other senses it cannot be true, otherwise Stephen King would be a horrible person and many mystery writers would be in jail.
Brenda wrote: "No, that is what C.S. Lewis called the personal heresy -- the idea that everything the writer writes about is about the writer, or autobiographical in nature. To some extent this is true, but in ot..."
Lol. I do think that Alcott had some dark moments in her life, but I do understand what you mean. If Charles Dickens was like Scrooge during his productive life I don't know what people would think. Same goes for Tolkien. I highly disagree that he ever encountered a dragon or a group of dwarves.
Lol. I do think that Alcott had some dark moments in her life, but I do understand what you mean. If Charles Dickens was like Scrooge during his productive life I don't know what people would think. Same goes for Tolkien. I highly disagree that he ever encountered a dragon or a group of dwarves.
If we are still talking about "Little Women," it is well known that it is semi autobigraphical.
Let's just say both are nice, both have their own good points.......
Still, I would've chosen Laurie if I were Jo. But I guess it wouldn't have been a good book if LW were cliched.
Still, I would've chosen Laurie if I were Jo. But I guess it wouldn't have been a good book if LW were cliched.
Brenda wrote: "No, that is what C.S. Lewis called the personal heresy -- the idea that everything the writer writes about is about the writer, or autobiographical in nature. To some extent this is true, but in ot..."True, true.
Mr. Bhaer! Laurie is just an immature boy, but Professor Bhaer... he is just so sweet. He is smart, foreign, and has facial hair! Also he is caring and sensitive, as well as a sentimental romantic (kissing Jo's portrait in the dark).Confession time - Professor Bhaer was my first fictional crush (I was 13... which explains a lot, I guess).
Okay I agree with the people who say that Bhaer was just right for Jo.. but I still love Laurie!!!!
I think we all love Laurie :)
Gretchen and Val, I completely agree. :)
I guess I should say that Laurie looked good in the beginning, but as Val stated so well, he really was not the best choice for Jo. Sorry it was just a quick answer. If you go back in the thread you will see that is how I have always felt about Mr. Bhaer.
Ok, I'm about a year too late for this conversation but still...First off, L.M.A. tells why Laurie and Jo are not suited to each other for marriage, when Marmee tells Jo that they are both too volatile; their marriage would be a lot of fighting and eruptions of their mercurial temperaments. Not advice young people want to hear, but Jo instinctively agrees, as she valued Laurie as a companion in her quest to live outside the women's sphere of her day. Professor Bhaer, whom I think of as being about 12-15 years older than Jo, was stable and sure enough of his own manhood to allow Jo the freedom she needed to be herself, while also allowing her to function as a woman and mother, a role the 19th century valued highly. L.M.A. herself never married, and became the chief breadwinner for her family, which was a very mixed blessing.
I would be good with this if the portrait of Jo in the later books (JO'S BOYS and LITTLE MEN) was not so depressing. Admittedly neither of these are told from her viewpoint, so we see nothing of her inner life. But she seems to be nothing but a housekeeper and and applier of bandages to the knees of rambunctious boys. The prof and the nephews do the teaching. If Jo does any writing in the later books we don't see or hear of it.
Hmm. I think the success of the original book was because it was based on LMA's real family life. Although in the books the rational for her marrying Jo off to Professor Bhaer works, in reality, she had no experience of married life. The drawing of the boys is excellent (in Jo's Boy's and others) because she understood boys (and girls) better than she did men and women and their relationships. Not bad for her time and place and understandable. I've read Little Women Abroad: The Alcott Sisters' Letters from Europe, 1870-1871, and Edna Cheney's biography ("Life, Letters and Journals) and both give wonderful insight into this complex, astonishing and admirable woman.Oops, sorry for the long post!
I don't think around 30 years old is "old"! Think Richard Gere, Sean Connery, Johnny Dep, etc. Yes he was a little bumbly, but that is rather endearing than not. And there *was* no romance between Laurie and Jo. There was just romance in Laurie's eyes. I'd take a mature man over a boy any day; and I thought that when I was 18 too!
I read this book perhaps 300 times. As a teen, I really loved Laurie and wanted Jo to be with him. He's a great character. When I got older, however, I realized that as wonderful as Laurie was, Jo needed a man who was her intellectual equal. I read somewhere that Alcott didn't want Jo to marry at all. It was her publisher who pushed for a wedding. And that Bhaer reflected all the qualities that she admired in her friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Pamela wrote: "I read this book perhaps 300 times. As a teen, I really loved Laurie and wanted Jo to be with him. He's a great character. When I got older, however, I realized that as wonderful as Laurie was, Jo ..."I can believe that.
honestly i ship jo and laurie. mr. bae is too old for her. but then, mr bae's personality suits jo more. but my heart still aches for laurie. remember when he confessed to jo about his feelings. well that part broke my heart into pieces.
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..."wow. i would love to read your whole analysis on this book. ive never thought about those kinds of things. but i do feel like the ending was more bittersweet than a happy ending. which makes me love the book even more. tho i prefer jo ending up with laurie. awwww how i wish they married instead of mr.bhaer
Brenda wrote: "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 Sprea..."by the way you put it, "bearded dude" hahahahahhahahahah i think i lost all my respect for mr. bhaer for a moment and just imagned him as a dirty old man with no fashion sense.
Brenda wrote: "If Jo does any writing in the later books we don't see or hear of it. "We do know that Jo wrote some sentimental books for girls ( I always imagined something along the lines of Little Woman and Alcott's other classics) in between Little Men and Jo's Boys. This is mentioned to set up the chapter "Jo's Last Scrape" in Jo's Boys. Incidentally I always felt that that chapter failed to live up to its name. I had pictured a glimpse of the old Jo behind her matronly form getting into something reminiscent of her old "scrapes." Instead we were treated to Jo pretending to be a maid while admiring readers made assumptions about Jo the athuress.
This from Alcott's journal: “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 to refuse & out of perversity went & made a funny match for her.”
I loved the movie with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale, and the old version with Liz Taylor and June Allyson, which are among my favourite movies.I just finished reading the book for the first time and found it an amazing book! I laughed, cried, felt like I was part of the March family and it was kind of a hard process to come back to reality after finishing it.
I think Jo & Mr. Bhaer are a good match, as are Laurie & Amy. Becoming an adult means taking responsible mature decisions, leaving immaturity and impulsiveness behind, but oh what a difficult path it is... Saying no to Laurie is a huge step for Jo toward adulthood, and very wise, but so sooo sad! I am sure she was in love with him, but her sense told her it wouldn't be good decision.
Taking decisions when heart and mind are not in harmony are horrible. She made the decision with her good sense and it was a good decision, though very heartwrenching.
Jo and Laurie are both very passionate BUT so is Mr. Bhaer, in a quiet way! That's why I think Jo and he suit each other very well. He understands her passions and her inner fire, but doesn't show it so much himself and he is much more mature than Laurie.
Amy and Bhaer are able to 'tame' Laurie and Jo. Laurie and Jo together would do silly and stupid things, led by their fire and passion and it would lead to a huge explosion.
Bhaer respects Jo and lets her be herself without taking part himself in the silliness of her actions, as Laurie would do.
So, Mr. Bhaer is a good, mature man, nice character and right for Jo.
But I like Laurie more myself! I just loved him. Passion, kindness, loyalty, silliness... It's that kind of guy I would fall in love with. I think that's why I was so sad when Jo rejected him although I knew Bhaer was better for her. I'm happy Amy got him, I liked her character better and better. She ended up being one of my favourite characters, like Laurie and Jo.
It's been probably 25 years since I read this book, so it's difficult to remember everything. I do remember being surprised when I saw the movie and she ended up with Bhaer, so I guess I thought Jo and Laurie would be together. Maybe I forgot the ending because I hadn't liked it.Anne wrote: "I Agree with you!!! Laurie also became a drunk and a womanizer :( BAD"
Maybe he became that because he lost the love of his life?
I think they both were too young and Jo especially was too young (and scared?) to recognize romantic love and maybe unwilling to grow up. For me Bhaer seemed more like a father figure (my own father was 14 years older than my mother).
But I think Laurie and Jo would have made a better match (because they were such a good friends), after a few years, but then he had to marry Amy. That was too fast for me, too.
Neither. Laurie only wanted to be a part of the family and didn't care who he married to get there. Baer was better but only slightly so. He was still overly critical of Jo's writing style and judged her on it while telling her she should write from her heart. Not bad advice but no one should tell a writer how to write. We write what we enjoy reading. At least, that's my opinion.
Sarah wrote: "Mariah wrote: "I think Mr. Bahaer wast too old....."YES! I found it creepy, but at least he's a nice guy....
I liked Laurie better :)"
In those days, it wasn't uncommon or even unusual to take a wife younger than you. It happened all the time. What's weird is that Baer wasn't married already. Unless he was widowed. I haven't read the book in awhile so I may have forgotten that part.
I think it's mentioned that Professor Bhaer hadn't married because he was busy raising his orphaned nephews, but it's been a while since I read LW so I could be making that up. :pI think it wasn't uncommon then for guys who were working for the money to immigrate to the US to remain unmarried then. With married couples there was often a separation while one partner went to the US to earn the money to bring the other partner over, so waiting until after the move and then finding a partner state-side was more sensible.
Not that most people are that sensible when it comes to marriage... ;)
Suge wrote: "Neither. Laurie only wanted to be a part of the family and didn't care who he married to get there. Baer was better but only slightly so. He was still overly critical of Jo's writing style and jud..."Well, he criticized only because he could tell she wasn't writing her best work. She was writing for the magazines and catering to their desires, which didn't match her own. Mr. Bhaer saw that and called Jo on it. Of course it was frustrating to Jo. She was probably already frustrated enough having to write for her editors instead of herself, and then having to hear that even those efforts weren't working. Grrr! I think it's important that Mr. Bhaer (who I think was a good match for Jo) saw Jo's potential and didn't want her to lose sight of it.
Laurie was a nice guy. He was Jo's friend, he was handsome, romantic, la de da de da, but did he really know Jo? I mean, did he actually see her as the intelligent and passionate woman she was, or did he only see his fun and exciting friend who was also beautiful and cared about him and made him feel important? Mr. Bhaer saw the real Jo and appreciated her.
The age difference between Jo and Mr. Bhaer may seem. . . different. But it felt right. And as many have said, it wasn't unusual for that time period. If I were the writer, I would have made the age difference less. Make him maybe late twenties instead of late thirties. But it did work.
I liked Bhaer because he was a man. He did what he loved, he took care of his family and he taught her how to be a grown up. Laurie is great, don't get me wrong. But he was too childish for Jo. She would never have understood her heart and what she truly wanted out of life if she would have tied herself to him. Although, sometimes I wish she would have given him a chance I'm glad she chose Mr. Bhaer. Perhaps he was too romantic for her but overall he was just what she needed and I adored him.
I never saw Laurie and Jo together. I even thought for a moment that Laurie would marry Beth. Mr. Bhaer at the other hand was a perfect match for her.P.S.: Everybody who thinks it's strange for someone to marry an older guy... it's not that creepy. I have a lot of friends my age (tomorrow 22) who are having a relationship with someone who is 11, 12 or 13 years older.
For those saying that Professor Bhaer criticized Jo's writing, I'd like to point out that he criticized her type of writing and not her specific writing. Furthermore, he never knew Jo wrote that type of story. In the later books he is very appreciative and supportive of Jo's writing.
Rosella wrote: "For those saying that Professor Bhaer criticized Jo's writing, I'd like to point out that he criticized her type of writing and not her specific writing. Furthermore, he never knew Jo wrote that t..."Right, Rosella.
You mean who was better for Jo? I definitely think Mr. Bhaer is perfect with her. I think it's an example of the type of relationship in which they balance eachother out in just the right ways... I don't think he was just there because it didn't work out with Laurie. Of course everyone loves the "young best friends grow up and get married" story, but I don't think Laurie and Jo would have went well together. Like someone said earlier, Jo would have become annoyed with being out in high society so much after a trip or two, and would have fought with Laurie alllll the time, whereas Amy is great with him because that's the life she always wanted.
Jessica wrote: "You mean who was better for Jo? I definitely think Mr. Bhaer is perfect with her. I think it's an example of the type of relationship in which they balance eachother out in just the right ways... I..."I could not agree more, and yet, I felt that Amy did not deserve Laurie. That's what bothered me about the book. I thought, like Emily did (4 up) that Laurie would end up with Beth. Amy was the youngest and so pampered and spoiled and I thought she got a "free ride" with falling in love with Laurie. Her life was definitely the easiest of the four sisters.
Iris wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Amy was the youngest and so pampered and spoiled and I thought she got a "free ride" with falling in love with Laurie. Her life was definitely the easiest of the four sisters. "Laurie was also a little spoiled and pampered. Maybe that's why they worked as a couple.
Bhaer or Laurie, for me was not the issue. The issue was the weaving of the ending. It amazed me that Jo even married. I was disappointed with Little Women in many of the situations. For me, it was more of a "scripted" read than a "natural flow of events, perhaps with a surprise twist". Perhaps, one perspective would be too view the characters as "in development", in other words, we watch them mature. However, the indication where Jo was concerned, was that eventually, it would be her and Laurie. Perhaps, we can consider that it was Jo's radical nature that had her marrying Bhaer. What did weigh on my mind, was that Laurie married another of the March girls. It didn't make sense, since he always seemed to love Jo. I didn't enjoy the complexity or the attempt at it.
It interests me how many people read the book assuming Jo and Laurie would get together. I never saw that, and it's clear that Alcott never intended it (she meant for Jo to stay single). Laurie loved Jo in a romantic way, certainly, but Jo always recognized why that wouldn't work, why they were great friends but would make poor married partners.I think by the time she and Laurie get together, Amy has matured considerable. The problem is that she does much of this outside of the main thread of the story -- she most matures while staying with Aunt March while Beth is ill, and then she matures while traveling. In both cases we are told about this more than actually seeing it, so I think for some it doesn't feel so real.
I also think a lot of people never forgive Amy for burning Jo's book. I don't. But I also don't see Laurie as all that wonderful; I share Jo's feeling that he's immature and a bit shallow, and also her disinterest in the kind of life he wants to lead, so I don't have any that "Amy's not good enough for him" thing going.
Sheryl wrote: "It interests me how many people read the book assuming Jo and Laurie would get together. I never saw that, and it's clear that Austen never intended it (she meant for Jo to stay single). Laurie l..."I never saw Jo ending up with Laurie either, but at first I thought she would remain single, so it took me by surprise when she grew so attached to Bhaer.
I just didn't think Amy was mature enough to be in a relationship period. Yes she matured and yes we didn't get to see just how much because for the most part we follow Jo but still, it just was such a cop out. I think I would have preferred if maybe the book ended and Amy and Laurie were closer/engaged but not full on married. Their courtship seemed more in her head and a rebound for him to me. I don't know. I didn't like Laurie that much because he was too emotional for my liking and Amy doesn't know when enough is enough so their pairing was, to me, the most annoying character in the book.
Iris wrote: "Sheryl wrote: "It interests me how many people read the book assuming Jo and Laurie would get together. I never saw that, and it's clear that Austen never intended it (she meant for Jo to stay sin..."I seem to remember reading somewhere, perhaps in one of LMA's journals or letters, that she didn't want to marry off Jo at all, but that the publisher insisted that the fans expected it. It would certainly lend more credence to the theory that Jo was a thinly disguised version of LMA herself. And of course you meant "Alcott" and not "Austen"?
Iris,Yah, I agree Alcott didn't do a good job of presenting Amy's growth, and I would also say she did a better job of it in "Little Women" than in "Good Wives." But of course, she really wasn't that interested in the Wives aspect of that story in the first place. It was her fans and her publisher who were demanding that. So she came up with Professor Bhaer almost as a joke, but her love of Jo and her writing skills make him into a rounded enough character to convince most of those who hadn't seen Jo as ending up with Laurie (and some who had).
When it came to Amy and Laurie, though, IMHO she got lazy.
Erin:
You are quite right about the Alcott not wanting to marry Jo off when her publisher requested it. And also about the fact that I meant "Alcott", not Austen! Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out.
Yep, Alcott married Jo off at the insistence of the publishers. However, when she wrote Jo's Boys, the main female character (Nan) goes to medical school and never marries, so Alcott got the last laugh. I don't that Alcott got lazy, I think she got tired. By then, she was famous but she was also tired and ill. The ending of Jo's Boys is REALLY rushed and sloppy, makes the ending of Little Women look polished by comparison.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
