Did Laurie really love Amy?

[sandes]

(Little Women)

In honour of me watching it on E4
This is a debate I've had with people multiple times. I'd like to see the views of MN

Also worth noting that Jo would never have forgiven herself if, like Amy, she was unable to see Beth before she died. And she'd never have met Friedrich - I know some on this thread think that would have been a good thing, but personally I'd choose Friedrich over Laurie any day - and I've thought that since I first read the books aged 9, so that's not just middle-aged-me being naturally more attracted to a plump, beardy pipe-smoker!

After reading this thread earlier I looked up LMA’s father - I vaguely remembered reading that he was a nightmare to live with. I found this amp.theguardian.com/books/2006/may/06/featuresreviews.guardianreview6 - he was actually a fascinating person in his own right.
I tried to reread Little Women a couple of years ago but gave up at the point where they learn a moral lesson about never taking a holiday from chores, as they all end up grumpy and I think Marmee does a wise ‘told you so’ smile.

I definitely think he loved Amy, it was just a more mature love of the sort that comes from recognizing when you are really compatible with someone and can make a life
with them. Jo was a first love infatuation, but that would not have sustained a long term
relationship, and she knew that. She was right to refuse him. Jo was too independent and unconventional for Laurie, who loved her for her quirkiness and wit but also loved himself and his society lifestyle. I also think she reads a bit asexual (or perhaps closeted LGBTQ), hence the choice of the intellectually stimulating but physically ‘meh’ professor (instead of someone she knew would have high hopes for a dynamic physical relationship).

Amy, on the other hand… she and Laurie were both epicurean creatures at heart, standing together in juxtaposition to the rest of the March family’s more ascetic worldview. I always felt Amy was an outsider in her own family by virtue of her unapologetic love for beauty and comfort, and as such was far more similar to Laurie than anyone realised when they were younger. When they meet as adults in Europe, they both realise this. I think they are really compatible and I also imagine they had great sexual chemistry. 🤷‍♀️

I think they are really compatible and I also imagine they had great sexual chemistry.

Yes, definitely - Laurie said of their honeymoon:
'We were as happy as people are but once in their lives. My faith, it was love among the roses!' (or something like that!)

One thing I find fascinating about the March family books is the almost complete absence of Mr. March. In the first volume he's conveniently offstage serving as a chaplain in the war for the most part. But even after he returns, he's a vague figure in the background who is often referred to as wise or learned but never really takes shape as a fully realised character (in contrast to Marmee). While I hesitate to look too closely at a writer's life for explanations about her works, in this case I think that Alcott's complicated feelings about her father meant that she avoided writing much about the fictionalised version.

Bronson Alcott was an intriguing character but a bit feckless and unable (or unwilling) to support his family financially. One reason that Louisa May Alcott seems to approve of John Brooke is his reliability, the way he takes care of his mother and then later of his wife and children, on his death leaving Meg enough money to remain "comfortable and independent" (I think I have the quote right). Given her father's irresponsibility and the pressure it placed on her mother and herself, I understand completely why she admires John Brooke.

One reason that Louisa May Alcott seems to approve of John Brooke is his reliability

Yes. And in fairness, it was foolish of Meg to fritter away money they couldn't afford on clothes; I think most people even in this day and age would be annoyed at that sort of thing from their OH. From a novelist's point of view, LMA couldn't really have all the girls marry into money, or there would have been no story. It's a recurring theme for Meg to adjust to living in poverty and those chapters echo the 'Vanity Fair' episode of her youth.

This has been really interesting and informative thank you. I read the 4 books when I was around 12-14 years old, a long time ago! I remember feeling sorry for Laurie then he went off with Amy. Haven't watched any of the recent films, saw the one with Elizabeth Taylor years ago. Think it would be too sad now!

Laughing at Jack Reacher becoming domesticated and agree this was often the fate of the wild passionate female protagonist. Anne lost all her creative edge. Jane Eyre settled down as a carer to Rochester. Etc

There was a 2005 novel, basically fan fiction but it won a Pulitzer, looking at Mr March's back story.

March by Geraldine Brooks

Wikipedia description

As an aside, Frances Hodgson Burnett also had an interesting life. Persephone books have published her more successful in her lifetime The Marchiness which was a Radlett /Nancy Mitford favourite.

John Brooke is very dull but it’s revealed after he dies that he’d quietly been putting money aside so Meg and the children would never go without. His death is really sad with his head on Meg’s breast 🙁

Love these books so much and the film versions too, the end of the Winona Ryder one always has me in bits although both she and Gabriel Byrne are way too attractive for their parts! But when he says ‘Jo, such a small name for such a person’ then she holds his hand and says ‘not empty now’ I’m in floods 😢

My DD is named after one of the sisters 😊

This inspired me to watch that scene again (Sniff. Snivel) I know Gabriel Byrne is far too attractive to be accurate, but you really don't come away thinking that she "settled" after Laurie It is still my favourite of the adaptations I've seen.

In book terms, I think Jo and Laurie would have been unhappy long term, too different. I believe he did fall in love with Amy and for all her words about "not being cut out to be a poor man's wife", she did with him.

@5zeds well maybe because she had a point?! Where is the lie?

@MoreTeaLessCoffee I don’t think it’s “a lie” but there are other truths and other ways to live “happily ever after” that don’t involve that sort of matching. I feel deeply sorry for Amy if she ever grew up.

No. I actually always thought he married Amy as second choice and in a warped sort of way to pay Jo back for rejecting him.

Gabriel Byrne is such a hottie in that film version and I would absolutely have picked him over Christian Bale. Let's not forget that Laurie was still a boy when he proposed to Jo, before setting off on his Grand Tour and it was probably at least two years later before he hooked up with Amy.

The heart wants what the heart wants.

But in that time what were those other ways to live happily? What other ways were there for a poor young woman to ensure she never lived in poverty with her children?

In those days, marrying someone you liked and had known for years and knew not to be cruel or unkind, and lifting yourself socially in the process, was a happy ever after. Applying modern sensibilities to it is silly.

I agree. Laurie had faults (many of them due to being young) but he was a kind decent man who she knew well and I think they both grew up quite a lot during the Europe sojourn. The fact she would enjoy a good, financially safe lifestyle, important to her, was a plus.

Plus his nose was such a comfort to her.

I think Laurie loved Amy, and he wasn't shallow. He was musical and spoke French and Italian, and had graduated from college. I always felt Amy had a hard task, living up to Beth's saintliness, never mind the rest of her family. And she was much more fun than was generally admitted- she was the only one in the family with outside friends. I liked the way she harnessed and saddled the old branch of a tree for a pretend horse, and painted her boots to match her dresses, and straightened her nose with a clothes beg and longed for pickled limes to share with her friends like the other girls at school. It was a great shame what happened to those limes, and that she had to wear her cousin's old dress, that was purple with yellow sky rockets.
Anyway, Jo had Plumfield and all the little boys, and got her books published, and Prof Bhaer was certainly better than Meg's fate with gloomy old John Brook.

Just re-opening this thread (because I'm watching the recent film version) to say that he did love Amy but in a more mild and sensible way. She's a beautiful and sophisticated wife befitting a man of his station. But he doesn't love her with the passion he felt for Jo. I always found him quite irritating though so never dreamt of an alternate ending where the two ended up together.

I think he admired her & found her attractive.

His love for Jo was more a rebellion against his circumstances. Amy was an acceptance of them.

Bhaer was well under 40; maybe 12-13 years older than Jo. It's not as though she married a decrepit old geezer.

This is so funny! I always thought Bhaer would smell too! It must have been mentioned at some point or WHY did so many of us think it?

Bhaer was introduced as a pipe smoker, that's probably why.