Added: Annetta Procter - Date: 11.11.2021 11:54 - Views: 37356 - Clicks: 1289
See Featured Authors Answering Questions. This question contains spoilers… view spoiler [Am I the only one who thinks that jo and laurie should have fallen in love?
To answer questions about Little Womenplease up. Trix Wilkins This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [Definitely not the only one - but Laurie should've either waited a bit longer before asking Jo to marry him eg: worked out what he was doing with his life first, what he was doing after college. All we know is that he doesn't want to take up his grandfather'sor after she rejected him the first time, really courted her and asked her again eg: Fitzwilliam Darcy.
I think there was a lot of potential for them to have grown as people together, to have matured and to have spurred each other in their respective passions - she loves writing, he loves music - and it was a shame that wasn't explored in the book. View all 5 comments.
Write a comment Book lover This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [The author said that she wouldn't do it just to please others which is fine and she also said that she didn't want Jo to marry anyone. I swear that what makes it so wrong that Jo would have been happy with Laurie but she didn't want Jo to get married then she off and marries Jo to that other guy. That guy, I really don't care about. Like give me a break. I was so mad I almost didn't finish the book.
Glad I did though. View all 4 comments. Karina As reading the story I agreed that up until the point where Jo points out that her needing to write irritates Laurie and her need to be independent where he wants to feel needed and loved and admired and she's not that type of person. I know enough of that time period that any wife of someone of Laurie's class would need to host parties, look pretty and generally make him look good, something that Jo was not cut out for.
Karen Miller It is a little heartbreaking, but only because we've come to like Laurie so much! I love the fun Jo and Laurie have together and I grieved the loss of it, but Laurie did not contain the depth to touch the innermost part of Jo's soul. Professor Bhaer did. He drew Jo out with appreciation, and their transcendentalist backgrounds brought each other together. Jo would have never been able to fulfill her greater destiny with Laurie. Pat Both Professor Bhaer and Amy read like substitutes. I can't see any great passion of Jo for Bhaer, and nor of Laurie for Amy.
LMA obviously had her heart in Jo and Laurie's friendship. So that's why the marriages are unsatisfactory to so many readers. View all 3 comments. Erika No, you're not the only one. Unfortunately, I was so disappointed, I will probably never re-read this novel. I should have stopped reading after the first part. I will say, in general, I think the main issue is that Ms Alcott spent SO much time building up their relationship that as readers we felt is so powerfully. Then, out of the blue, she concocted him confessing his feelings, Jo's rejection, a couple of "conveniently" placed trips to Europe, and then the reversal of relationships that ended the book.
But because those secondary relationships weren't well developed or spent much time on, it felt incomplete and fake to me. I may try reading the alternate ending someone else posted earlier because I am literally so disappointed, but let me just say My eye is on you, so mind what you do, or I'll come and bring you home.Never Felt Like This - Jo O'meara
I sincerely believe they would have worked out, relationships are so flexible and open minded when you truly love someone. Jo and Laurie are best friends and they loved each other, she would have come around and loved him romantically had they been given a chance and that frustrates me to no end!
Layla Wu Alcott spent so much time building up their relationship that as readers we felt is so powerfully. There's too many the Alcott spent so much time building up their relationship that as readers we felt is so powerfully. There's too many their little stories, and I suspect Jo rejected Laurie due to her mamma's suggestion and has a idea of Beth loves Laurie.
There's a article: Alcott knew her ending was unsatisfying. It was a deliberate choice on her part. Jordan This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [Louisa May Alcott based the character of Jo on herself. Alcott never married and died an "old maid.
Alcott being told that Jo and Laurie needed to get married was equivalent to being told that her life was meaningless and she shouldn't be happy alone. Unfortunately, Alcott's editor commanded her to marry off Jo like the remaining girls, so she created the professor to meet this demand. I think Jo's relationship with the professor feels a little weird, and I wish Alcott had been allowed to give Jo the ending she wanted and deserved.
Regarding Jo and Laure not living happily ever after It made perfect sense that they would not be together at the end, they were to much alike, and therefore, would have made each other miserable. As a hopeless romantic, I prefer the classic happy ending, where the boy gets the girl, but Jo and Laurie just didn't fit. IMHO, the ending that we got made much more sense, even if most fans of the book hate it. Sarah I suspect that, had Jo and Laurie ended up together, Little Women might have had some short-lived success as a predictable romance, but would not have become the classic it is.
Bryn This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [I think it was necessary that Jo and Laurie not get married in order for Alcott to make her point in the novel.
Alcott didn't like the expectations on female behaviors in her day and used Jo as a way to demonstrate how a woman can be loved and accepted by being herself. Laurie also didn't want to conform to society in that he wanted to pursue music and not business like he was expected to do. Amy, on the other hand, had to change herself and make herself appear wealthier than she really was in order to get society to like her. Laurie and Amy complimented each other as opposed to Laurie and Jo who were too alike and had the same struggles with society.
View 2 comments. Lady Willpower No, you're not the only one.
Jo and Laurie could've grown into the perfect mates for each other, given time. If he had waited a little longer, and been more persistent, it could've worked. I could also see them supporting each other's artistic passions. You might enjoy it. I think I'm going to give it a try. Jennifer This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [I read this book for the first time about 25 years ago and have since read it many times, so my answer doesn't come as a new reader. I would have been so disappointed if Laurie and Jo had ended up together.
As friends they were perfect, but as husband and wife they would have been miserable. How many times throughout the first half of the book did Laurie want to do something crazy and Jo encouraged him even though she knew she shouldn't. They were too much alike and would have fought constantly, hated the roles the other demanded from them, and encouraged each other in wrong pursuits. Amy on the other hand was the perfect balance for Lauries impetiousness and could fulfill the role society demanded of her and was happy in that role.
On the other hand, just as Alcott said, Jo needed a mature man, not given to impatience and rash behavior to wait until she was ready and teach her how to love. If you've read the sequels you'll see even more how wonderfully suited Jo and her Bhaer are to one another and what a wonderful friend and patron Laurie is to them. I don't think the story would have been what it is or as well loved or long remembered as it is if it had ended in any other way.
Except for maybe Beth hide spoiler ]. Arifa I always wanted laurie to marry beth and not amy. I also firmly agree that marmee is right about jo and laurie being to alike and they could not do anything about it. RoyS Yes, Laurie and Jo, they both loved each other. But Jo was unable realize her actual feelings for Laurie I have expected that Jo and Laurie would be together at the end.
According to meit would have been better if Jo remained unmarried and had a great life. View 1 comment. Gina This answer contains spoilers… view spoiler [Laurie seems the ideal husband and I'd say the sensible choice because he's from a wealthy and important family and he's young, talented and handsome. But Laurie isn't really passionate or romantic for it seems like bruised pride, vanity and anger rather than passion came over him after being rejected by Jo. Just as he said or was it implied?
Jo choosing to marry Laurie would be so inconsistent with her literary tastes and convictions. For me, of course Jo to be true to her character and to L. Sabrien Abdelrahman Me too. I just think she did but didn't know it- Laurie didn't try hard enough. She is an independent person from the beginning, and Professor Bhaer allows her to be independent, she also wants guidance which Professor Bhaer can give due to his age and experience. The most important thing is: Jo did not love Laurie, and she should NOT have to marry someone whom she did not love!
Even if he loved her, even if he was rich, etc etc. She should not succumb to societal pressures, and she did not, which is great. Female empowerment - something that was very relevant at that time. Laurie ended up marrying Amy, which is good because that way at least he'll still be connected to the Marches for the rest of his life.
Brenda Feldman No. I thought Jo was dumb for not liking Laurie. He was always there for her when she was crying over Beth being sick. I thought they were perfect for each other since they have a lot in common. I get that they both have a temper, but it was not like they were violent. Hyo Jung Hong In an idyllic world, they would have but Jo was already adamantly opposed to the idea of falling in love as well as leaving her delightful sisters and mother. To her, the thought of marriage was too distant, something that would not have crossed her mind had it not been for her older sister.
Being a tomboy and quite independent herself, she could not see Laurie as more than a dear friend. I do believe that Louisa May Alcott did try to keep this suspense alive throughout the book, something that just makes Little Women all the more delightful to read. I like the fact that Jo and Laurie love, care and support each other, as best friends and not as lovers. Romance would just spoil their friendship, if you ask me.
Priyanka I think if Jo and Laurie did get together then they would have never been able to bring the best in each other. The way the heart break and Amy's words helped Laurie be the man everyone thought he would be makes justice to why Jo and Laurie would not have worked. Also the Professor was the influence by which Jo stopped writing silly stories which made her a great writer in the long run;Laurie would never have made such influence in Jo's life.
TheBohemianBookworm Yes! I think she loved him but was just not ready when he originally asked her to marry him. I think if she had been given time she definitely would have accepted.Just want to be j o
email: [email protected] - phone:(510) 445-1750 x 3716
The power of Greta Gerwig’s Little Women is that it doesn’t pretend its marriages are romantic