It isn’t a betrayal of Jo to go to Europe--it was something they both wanted, and the relatives made it clear that they would rather spend that time with Amy than Jo, since Jo couldn’t pretend for a single visit that she would be an agreeable travel companion. And since Jo made it clear she didn’t want to marry…

I mean, if we are being critical, it didn’t even really end up working for Jo. She ended up a wife and mother who didn’t write anymore by the end of the series. 

Indeed. Her later characterization is nearly saintly. And sainthood is most easily given to the dead.

I personally did not want any of them to marry Laurie, as I thought his obsession with being part of the family was gross

But the Winona version definitely made it all more palatable by giving her Gabriel Byrne as her old man. I mean, when I was 13 I definitely was like WTF over saying no to Christian Bale, but Byrne could definitely get it in the early 90s!

Also- the Alcotts were sort of insane! I mean they were lots of good things - but they refused to eat root vegetables because they grew downwards (they only ate “aspiring” vegetables that grew towards the sun). The girls were also schooled in self denial as a virtue so I’ve always assumed that Amy is just rebelling…

Very few 19th C depictions of women hold up well.

Thank you! I always thought the ‘poverty’ of the family overblown.  They were poor, but still had servants, wealthy friends and a way to get to Europe if they played their cards right.  Not quite the same as another heroine of Civil War era novels who had to pick her own cotton and swear she’d never be hungry again. 

“She knew when she married him that she wasn’t going to end up living in a barn with a bunch of strange boys and a middle aged German telling her to give up her artistic aspirations.” r e t w e e t

But Amy didn’t “take” Laurie, Jo turned him down. Was Amy supposed to refuse him (and his wealth) because Jo didn’t want to marry him?

Considering that marriage was pretty much inescapable at the time once you got into it, I think Amy was also pretty smart for going with the devil she knew over the one she didn’t. Laurie might not be the brightest bulb, but he does genuinely love her family, seems willing to accept her criticisms of his character and…

The Hummels! Not Hubbles. It’s like Moors/Moops.

Yes. Thank you! I am neither #teamBhaer nor #teamLaurie for Jo, but I always think it is a tragedy when she lets Bhaer convince her that she should give up writing stories her way, and instead write them his way. It sucks.

And truly, a talent for friendship is not to be underestimated. It makes life richer--especially important when your family is so insular and tightly-knit as the Marches. It also has the potential to open professional doors, something Jo didn’t appreciate until she lost out on the chance to go to Europe. 

Amy would be fine except she burned Jo’s manuscript. I would never have forgiven that little bitch. But the real trash is Marmee and the girls’ dad. You are too old to fight in a war sir come home and take care of your family so they don’t starve. And let Amy have a fucking orange on Christmas, Marmee. Ah, I feel…

Seriously. The Marches/Alcotts were a lot of very good things (abolitionists!), but they also come across as just horribly self-righteous and self-important. You can hardly blame Amy for wanting to get away from her buzz-kill relatives every now and then.

Team Amy all the way! I loved this piece. All Amy wanted was a few nice dresses, some pickled limes, and a different nose than the one she was born with. I have such a soft spot for Little Women, but the older I get the more I get annoyed with Alcott’s dismissal of Amy. Amy had a talent for friendship, something Jo…

I feel like I understand LW a lot better now, having learned a bit about Alcott. All of her disdain of feminine things, all of her euphoria over having some free time to write... I think a lot of it makes sense when you figure in the abject poverty her family lived in, how her father’s Thoreau-like philosophy landed…

I remain confused about the numerous movie remakes of this book...wasn’t there one a year or two ago? And eight others before? I guess I never thought about the book after about age 11 so it always surprises me that it is a touchstone for so many. I always found Louisa more interesting than her books.

I always hate when people write hot take articles projecting The Most Recent Trends In Modern Feminism against characters written decades ago with 0 self awareness or examination of what the characters’ arcs were or what the world was like at that time, or you know, what the author’s own life was like.

Newsflash: Amy…