Love is
an interesting concept in the novel Little
Women, as Meg determines both her love and marital commitment in a single
conversation with Mr. Brooke. In the case of Jo and Laurie, it almost seems to
be a pre-determined fate: Jo was the first to offer him true kindness by
bringing him to her family, they have similar values and hobbies, and they have
the same mixture of kind and mischievous actions. However, when Laurie
professes his love, she refuses him with unbridled determination and sends him
straight to the friend zone. How is it that Jo couldn’t find love in a life
with Laurie?
The
first event which shows Jo’s aversion to Laurie’s love is Beth’s apparent love
for Laurie. Although this later is disproven by Beth, the concept is still
upheld; Jo can’t like Laurie because he has such an impact on all her family
and is nearly considered to be a sibling to all the March girls. Jo has a great
respect for how her family is and almost always opposes change to routine, as
she states, “Here’s Meg married, and a ma, Amy flourishing away at Paris, and
Beth in love. I’m the only one that has sense enough to keep out of mischief,”
(Chapter 32, pp. 323). She feels that if she loves Laurie, it will change her
current perception of her family by not only keeping Laurie from Beth and the
rest of her siblings but keeping her from them in turn.
Another
more direct reason for Jo’s denial is that the two are simply two similar for
each other, in ways that wouldn’t befit a marriage. A common saying is that
opposites attract, which seems to be even more true in the mid-1800’s society
that it is today; if one spouse is lacking in a certain quality or
characteristic, the other completes the marriage by providing it. In the terms
of Laurie and Jo, they have very similar characteristics that developed in unison
throughout their four years as good friends. Even Marmee explicitly states, “You
are too much alike, and too fond in freedom, not to mention hot tempers and
strong wills, to get on happily together,” (Chapter 32 pp. 330). Simple
characteristics such as freedom and stubbornness could likely grow through
small actions in their marriage to result in a catastrophe in which neither side
is any better off than if they were alone.
Though
their friendship indicates a level of affection between the two characters, the
love was never meant to be, and the novel quickly and resolutely ends their romantic
relationship. Sometimes the person that seems to be the one quickly loses that
status whenever you analyze the details of the situation.
I think part of the reason Jo rejects Laurie is because she is independent, and marrying someone like Laurie who has a dominant personality would curb that independence. While Jo and Laurie are good friends, the fact of the matter is that Laurie has more societal status. Laurie is a wealthy young man who has more power and means than Jo. Even though Jo is the one who first introduces Laurie to her sisters and makes the firsts overtures in their friendship, if she married Laurie, the power dynamic would be skewed in his favor. As Kevin stated, Jo is afraid if she marries Laurie, it will change the dynamics of her family, because she would be keeping Laurie from her sisters just as Laurie would keep her from her sisters. Jo sees that a marriage with Laurie would isolate her from her family which is that last thing that she wants.
ReplyDeleteThis goes along with the model that each marriage has to be complimentary. A marriage with Laurie would overshadow Jo. Meanwhile, with Mr. Bhaer, Jo does lose some of her independence, as any married woman in this time would, but Mr. Bhaer has a "warm heart… [and] wise head" and encourages Jo to learn and write (343). While Jo does become more conventional she still retains more independence than any of the other sisters.
In considering Jo’s relationships and character, I think it’s helpful to consider the ways Jo is a reflection of her author. Like Louisa May Alcott, Jo is free-spirited and tomboyish writer. They both loved to run and were reluctant to marry. In many of the articles about the book I’ve read for historical context, there is a scholarly consensus that Jo and Louisa were more or less equivalent, though of course Alcott was a more complicated person than Jo March.
ReplyDeleteHere a quote from Alcott gives me some idea of why Jo didn’t want to marry Laurie. In an interview, Alcott said “‘I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul, put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body … because I have fallen in love in my life with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” While ideas of gender and sexuality are complicated, and Alcott may not have used the same terms that are currently popular, this seems to be a fairly clear cut way of her saying that she was a lesbian.
If Jo and Alcott are the same person, perhaps Jo’s disinterest in the otherwise fairly ideal Laurie is because he is simply the wrong gender for her to love. He is in “the friend zone” because she isn’t attracted to him– no matter how nice a man is, he isn’t entitled to a woman’s love. She finds every excuse not to fall for him. Her relationship with the older Bhaer may simply be a tactical way to avoid the scorn that people at the time felt towards unmarried women, while not committing to as passionate a relationship as Laurie would expect from her.
Although Laurie and Jo’s similar personalities and companionship may make them seem compatible for each other, Jo’s relationship with “The Boy Next Door” was ultimately meant to be more platonic than romantic.
ReplyDeleteJo and Laurie share similar forms of “rebellion”, with Jo always acting too boyish for her sisters’ liking with her foul language and disregard for proper manners and pretty things. Furthermore, Laurie’s desire to pursue a musical career, much to his grandfather’s dismay, also represents a form of rebellion since music is not seen as masculine. His nickname is also more feminine than his given name, Theodore. Their rebellious personalities and playful companionship make them great friends, but part of this rebellion involves Jo’s refusal to marry Laurie simply because they grew up together. Marmee even states on page 330 that “I fear you would both rebel if you were mated for life.” Marmee is evidently aware of their noncommittal nature, as is Jo. Even though Jo cares deeply for Laurie as evidenced by how she begged Beth to take good care of him when she left, she would rather not sacrifice their friendship for a commitment that may not last.
Furthermore, Jo and Laurie are inherently in different “classes”. Although the Marches are not necessarily poor, Laurie’s grandfather is significantly wealthier than the Marches are. There are different expectations for how Laurie’s wife should act than how Jo is expected to act around her family, and Jo is simply too rebellious and unladylike to marry Laurie. Laurie may not care much for money or nice things, but he was born into a wealthy family and is thus used to living that way. Marrying into that much money would be troublesome for Jo since she does not care for nice things or acting proper. Overall, Jo is not fit and does not want to marry into money due to her rebellious nature.
In conclusion, Jo and Laurie’s relationship is better off platonic due to their rebellious personalities and differences in handling wealth.
I agree with Kristina that the relationship was intended to be more platonic. However, I wonder if between the publishing of part 1 and the writing of part 2, there was a change of heart on where the relationship should go. The singularly emphasized male-female relationship in part one was Jo-Laurie, and Louisa seeds part 1 with hints that they may end up together. When Laurie crashes the Pickwick Club and is voted for induction, Jo is a strong advocate for induction. There is no long-term contention between the two, even though they often have quarrels. And as a reader with no knowledge of the book beforehand, there was a noticeable change in tone and writing between novels, with time jumping quarters ahead in chapters versus the clear months in the first part, and adventure for all persons becoming grander. So I wonder if their relationship not ending in love is less about what the characters were, and more about the author's desires.
ReplyDelete