In Part I of Little
Women, almost every chapter possessed a moral lesson from Marmee to the
March sisters. For example, in chapter 11, Marmee gives Hannah the weekend off
and attempts an experiment by making Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy do all of the
housework for the day. When the girls complain about their workload, Marmee
explains how she wanted to teach the sisters to think of others and share
life’s daily burdens (114-125). This passage exemplifies the type of moral code
scattered throughout Part I of the novel as if Alcott felt it was her duty not
only to write an enjoyable story, but also to encourage her readers to uphold
the same moral obligations as the March sisters.
Considering
the theme of morality and the fact the book was originally written as two
separate stories, I was shocked by Alcott’s change of theme from Part I to Part
II. While I would not define Part II as a sensational story as described by Jo
in Chapter 34, I would agree that Part II provides fewer and subtler moral
lessons than Part I. I believe this change in theme may be attributed to
Alcott’s own writing experiences. In Chapter 34, Jo is speaking with Mr.
Dashwood about the edits to one of her stories and says, “But, sir, I thought
every story should have some sort of moral, so I took care to have a few of my
sinners repent!” (375). The book continues with Mr. Dashwood’s answer, “’People
want to be amused, not preached at, you know. Morals don’t sell nowadays’;
which was not quite a correct statement, by the way” (375). Why would Alcott
choose this dialogue considering the notion Part I was a collection of moral
messages disguised as a young adult novel? Based on the passage, it appears
that Alcott personally believes moral lessons are still popular in fiction, yet
choses to focus less on moral growth and more on storytelling in Part II. Can
this shift be attributed to the idea that the March sisters have reached
maximum moral development and now possess grand lives worthy of narration?
Based on
the context of the novel in Alcott’s life, I believe Alcott chose to write a
slightly more sensational novel (Part II) than moral novel (Part I) in order to
sell more books. She knew her audience well enough to ascertain that greater
adventure, such as Amy’s travels abroad, and emotional development, such as
Beth’s death, would entice more readers. While she still included moral
lessons, especially with Meg learning how to be a good wife, she preferred to
capitalize on the sensational aspects of the novel rather than the moral
aspects.
*Please note that I do not possess the Penguin edition of
the novel, so my page numbers may differ from yours.
I would agree with your interpretation of the differing representations of morals between the two parts of this novel, but slightly differently. I believe that they are both moral novels but Part I is written more so as an obvious guide so that young girls know exactly what morals they should be following in order to grow up into the best women they can be. On the other hand, I think that Part II contains more subtle or hidden morals to represent the idea that the young girls have matured into little women, allowing them to interpret the lessons society expects them to know from the experiences of others instead of having it spelled out for them. I think that this can be seen in the fact that most, if not all, of the chapters included in Part 1 of the novel ended with someone stating exactly what was expected of the young women, such as when Marmee asks the girls to remember to “have regular hours for work and play; make each day both useful and pleasant, and prove that you understand the worth of time by employing it well” as the girls all responded with “we’ll remember, mother!”, depicting the bluntness of what the reader should have learned from that chapter (118). This contrasts to the chapters in Part II of the novel which contain morals that are less forceful in their appearance, such as when Jo received some negative criticism about her book and was angry at first, but then learned to look more on the bright side and stated that she would “comfort [herself] with that”, displaying that young women should look for good in all situations and use that to comfort themselves (272).
ReplyDeleteOverall I think that the changing in expression of morals between Part I and Part II of Little Women is a very interesting concept and will continue to be a compelling trend to analyze as we dig deeper into the novel.
I agree that the moral lessons are fewer and further between as well as less explicit in Part II than in Part I, but I believe the cause may be the age of the protagonists and a natural progression of the story rather than a change in authorial style. In Part I all of the girls are considered to be children, whereas by the end of Part II the three surviving sisters are not only adults but also mothers.
ReplyDeleteIn Part II, with the exception of Beth, the younger the character is the more moral instruction she receives. Meg receives little if any. All of her lessons are more practical in how to be a good wife and homemaker. The implication is that she has already received the moral instruction she requires and doesn’t need to learn those lessons again. Jo gets one explicit moral lesson with regards to her sensationalist stories. This is clearly marked as a moral lesson in the style of Part I where it says, “Wrong-doing always brings its own punishment; and, when Jo most needed hers, she got it. (p. 350)” Amy, as the youngest, receives the most lessons, including not marrying for money and the failed party.
I think this storytelling strategy strengthens Part I as well, since after all those lessons if the girls still needed just as much moral instruction it would seem as if it had all done them no good. Instead we see them progress morally in a realistic and age-appropriate manor.