Little Women
discussion
Who was better. ? Laurie or Mr.bahaer
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
Monica
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Dec 21, 2013 12:33PM
Good question!
reply
|
flag
Leigh,Yes, considering her health issues, lazy was a poor word choice on my part. And not a good choice outside of that, really, since I didn't mean she was being a slacker so much as that she was thinking, "eh, if I *have* to do it, might as well make it as painless as possible."
I love Laurie x Amy. I have read this book dozens of times and recently I re-read it again. I found their blooming romance in Europe captivating, sweet. I love this couple a lot. I have a crush on handsome Laurie since I was little. As I grow older, the more I appreciate Amy who returns his love. Their love is beautiful. Love it.
Jo respects Professor Bhaer. I think their relationship is touching. Jo is so lonely after Beth dies. It's not a fairy-tale ending, but she does find someone who truly cares for her. Of course, Laurie is Laurie. I can't honestly say I like Mr Bhaer better, but I always accepted the ending.
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..."Execellent point!
I never felt comfortable with Mr Bhaer as he feels so much older than Jo, and we only learn later that it's a less than twenty(?) years age gap.
Still, Mr Bhaer had a too fatherly appearance to make a good love interest in my opinion.
I mean, she already has a father, right?
Laurie on the other hand is too much of a good friend, and I think Jo's reasoning regarding him was right, taking him as a lover would have spoiled their friendship all the more and would have been in the long run the greater loss.
So, in answer of the question, neither.
Laurie
Gerd wrote: "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 appear..."Really? I have to say that I was with Jo all the way. Teddy was the best friend that I wanted to keep forever, but when he brought up marriage I was a little unnerved. That's not to say that had they not given it a chance it wouldn't have worked out, but when you're friends for so long and someone brings it up rather then lets it unfold, you can overthink and push it away. But with Bhaer I had goosebumps the whole time. I was begging him to act on his feelings for Jo. And at the end when he finally does I was dancing around with joy.
And that's the difference between the two. Teddy never gave her butterflies, never made her second guess her thoughts or feelings. He was as steady as a rock. But Bhaer had Jo's feelings and thoughts all over the place. He made her look at life a completely different way and it was exciting for her.
Yes, really. :)I guess if Alcott had mentioned Mr Bhaer's actual age earlier, I may have felt less discomfort at the idea of him falling in love with Jo, but I tend to stick with my first impression of a character - then again he still would have been a teacher and acted like a father figure to her, and so his falling in love with her would still have felt wrong for me.
On top of that, Jo is such a great independent character early on (she's fast friends with a guy and never shows any romantic interest in him, how novel!), I just kind of hoped she would stay that way.
Her falling in love with Bhaer doesn't minimize her independence. She still writes and runs a school. They even agree to wait to be married after they've vocalized their feelings for each other. And the age gap didn't bother me. I didn't think it was weird and I certainly didn't think that he was a father figure to her. He was a wise older man yes, but the key word there is wise. Jo trusted what he said and thought because he had experienced so much life already. I loved that he was older. Jo would never feel comfortable with young men because they would all inevitably remind her of Teddy.
At first I thought that Laurie was better and was shocked that Jo would reject him, because it was clear that Laurie really loved her and even through quarrels, they would always remain an amazing couple. However, after reading it a few more times, I realized that Jo and Laurie would always be friends, not lovers. They would contrast too much and would get into many fights, and based on Jo's personalities and Laurie's "flightyness' as the others commented, it wouldn't end up well. I think that Jo should've remained an unmarried character, because I don't like the thought that she married someone around 20 years older than her, because it isn't like her to respect someone and stuff.
Kristin wrote: "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 t..."Lol I agree.
deleted user wrote: "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 usi..."
I know. I think the 1994 movie version shows this really well. When Jo comes home at the end and Laurie shows up her face lights up, but when he introduces Amy as his wife she looks really disappointed. And then afterward they seem just really lost around each other and they keep looking at each other like they were wondering what went wrong?
Emma wrote: "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 so..."
You're the only one to pick up on this! Jo herself even thought that Beth loved Laurie and maybe he liked her too. Unfortunately she couldn't see the truth which was that he was actually in love with her!
i>Linda wrote: "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..." I totally get what you're saying. I really thought that Laurie and Jo should be together. For the entire first part of the book, Laurie was totally in love with Jo. She was his favorite of the March girls, always joining in schemes with him and reading with him. Then when she rejects him, all of a sudden Amy starts looking pretty good. Seriously? Before this time he had been totally elderly-brother like to her, so this sudden change of interest doesn't really make sense. All she did was give him a stern talking to and he falls for her, which is weird because Amy told him to make Jo love him. I also felt that Laurie and Amy were both at periods of their life where they were too vulnerable to start a meaningful relationship: Laurie had been rejected, and Amy's sister had just died. It seemed like Amy was really lonely and because Laurie reminded her of home, which she missed, she fell for him. Also, until this point, Laurie had said himself that he preferred honest, frank girls to society girls. Amy's not a bad person or anything, it just seems like she's the opposite of what Laurie had said he wanted in a wife. They were also WAY too hasty, already being married when they return home, not even asking their parents' consent. THEN there was thing where Laurie would tell Jo that he had his eye on her, and that they would be together, and that Jo would be married next. Well, this doesn't even happen, as he marries Amy first, so I'm not sure Why Alcott would put fake foreshadowing in; did she just want to confuse us, or show how immature Laurie was?I thought that Bhaer was a great guy, a wonderful father to his niece, a moral & conscientious defender of the truth, but he seemed to me WAY more of a father figure to Jo than romantic. Mr. March isn't really a primary, or even a secondary character in the book, so it makes sense that Bhaer would fill this gap. His best moments with Jo are when he is defending her from evil & preventing her from lowering her standards of her writing. He also is not in the story for most of it; it’s annoying that some dude comes in and takes Jo when Laurie has been here for the whole journey, even if said dude is a great guy. He also seemed a bit too old for her; because they were both poor, they would need to be doggedly persistent and energetic to succeed, which younger people often are more than elder people. Laurie was full of energy, not to mention had a great sense of humor, and loved to tease Jo, something which I would have thought Jo would like in a life-mated.
I really thought that Jo and him would make a great couple, but not as they were there. I think that maybe Lawrence and Amy could have been together for a while, both of them getting more mature in the process, and then when they were done, Lawrence would be ready to be with Jo. Then they could have been together without having their tempers clash too much. Jo matured enough so that she could control it (most of the time), so I think they could have gotten on together well. I thought that the Bhaer & Amy substitute was not completely satisfying and that Alcott could have done better.
Hannah wrote: "deleted user wrote: "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 ..."
I didn't think she was disappointed with the Amy Laurie Marriage. She was just surprised. She hadn't seen either of them in a really long time and then all of a sudden her best friend and her sister return home and they are married. That's a lot to take in out of the blue.
I love Bhaer and think that he was the only man Jo could ever truly give herself to, even if it's only in small parts. The Amy and Laurie pairing I was less okay with even though I try to see the good in it. I was hoping Beth and he would marry, but of course Beth dies so...
I agree that Laurie and Jo were better as friends than husband and wife. But I feel like Bhaer was randomly thrown in just to give Jo a husband at the end of the story. I wonder how the book would have been received if Jo had remained single, and yet she was happy doing her own thing?
Chelsey,I think leaving Jo single but happy was Alcott's original intent, however the publisher insisted she marry Jo off. So in that sense Bhaer did exist "just to give Jo a husband," however IMHO Alcott was too good a writer not to make him an appropriate partner for Jo. Alcott wanted to follow her publisher's requirements, while at the same time making it clear that Jo was not your standard, romantic heroine, who wanted your standard, romantic hero.
Plus Jo is to some extent a stand-in for Alcott, and I think Alcott was kind of craving a more fatherly kind of husband, who would swoop in and provide both a support and a reliable guide. Her father was frankly more of a drain than a support; much as she loved him, in a husband she certainly wanted a much more stable character who took his responsibilities seriously and lived up to them, someone who took good care of the females in his life, which is Bhaer to a T.
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."From what I understood, Alcott didn't want Jo to marry anyone. The publisher forced her to write it in and she created Bhaer for that purpose.
Beyond the fact that he was contrived solely for the purpose to marry Jo, which was ridiculous, I think my biggest problem with Bhaer is that, the way I see it, while he wanted to encourage Jo's writing to be all it could be, to be more than what she was settling for, Jo had never explicitly been seen to want to write for more than to support herself. She enjoys it, yes, that's undeniable, but it's always underlain by the mention that she wishes to support herself. He has no regard for what she enjoys writing. Even if it isn't great literature, even if it isn't her 'best work' she enjoyed what she was writing. And even if she wanted to write those stories and make some money as the main point that's fine. She would have ended up writing something 'worthy' somewhere along the line anyways. I think that despite his regard for her profession, Bhaer doesn't regard her in the way she deserves. True, it would have been a mistake for her to marry Laurie (at the time he first asked) but he most surely mellowed out, as we can read in future books. I would have loved for Jo to marry Laurie, but if she couldn't marry him, then it should have been as LMA originally wanted it. Jo shouldn't have married at all.
The one thing I really don't buy is Laurie and Amy. There's really so little evidence behind it, that I think he settled for becoming a member of the March family by any means possible, even if it meant marrying someone he didn't love.
Jo would not have worked with Laurie because Laurie and she argue often, she would have been miserable as a society wife, and she never seems to love him romantically. But I find Mr. Bhaer in the book far too paternal for a husband. I like that he's unconventional and intellectual and mature, but not how he keeps trying to wisely guide her. And he needs a better sense of humor. They changed a lot of that in the 1990s movie -- he didn't seem so much like her dad in that version.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
