1 Days Left to Support a Troper-Created Project : Personal Space (discuss)

History Headscratchers / LittleWomen

25th Oct '15 12:35:03 PM bombadilla
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Yes there is, and what I'm suggesting is, two years apart after spending half your childhood in a relationship akin to being brother and sister shouldn't be the foundation for a ShesAllGrownUp plot.
9th Oct '15 9:58:13 PM Helgatwb
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Two years not seeing each other at all. When Amy left, Laurie saw her as a little girl, when they see each other again, she's all grown up. Isn't there a trope about that?
28th Aug '15 2:13:59 AM K
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding' (yes, very much along the same lines as a pedigreed animal). These families thus felt an obligation to help the less fortunate... at the same time assuming that the less fortunate must also be less morally/intellectually/spiritually reliable. Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be thoroughly tried and tested before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly 'earn her welcome'.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding' (yes, very much along the same lines as a pedigreed animal). These families thus felt an obligation to help the less fortunate... at the same time assuming that the less fortunate must also be less morally/intellectually/spiritually reliable. Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be thoroughly tried and tested before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly 'earn her welcome'.welcome'.
** Meg is a bit of an overprotective mother. Remember, she's also totally against Josie's acting and Demi's newspaper beat. The common thread here -- Josie's acting, Demi's journalism, and Nat's music -- is that all of these jobs are just as much luck-based as performance-based. Being good isn't always good enough. Meg wants honorable stability and prosperity for her babies, but she'll settle for the former if she can't get the latter. In the case of Josie's acting, she admits to Demi it's entirely hypocritical, as she ''loves'' acting and very likely brought it upon herself because she often played with her kids by teaching them skits.
21st Jun '15 7:55:54 AM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding' (yes, very much along the same lines as a pedigreed animal). These families thus felt an obligation to help the less fortunate... at the same time assuming that the less fortunate must also be less morally/intellectually/spiritually reliable. Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness just waiting to bust out; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be thoroughly tried and tested before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly head out into the wide world to 'earn her welcome'.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding' (yes, very much along the same lines as a pedigreed animal). These families thus felt an obligation to help the less fortunate... at the same time assuming that the less fortunate must also be less morally/intellectually/spiritually reliable. Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness just waiting to bust out; weakness; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be thoroughly tried and tested before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly head out into the wide world to 'earn her welcome'.
21st Jun '15 7:54:27 AM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding'. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, most probably a character failing (laziness, amorality etc). Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly head out into the wide world to 'earn her welcome'.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the The Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding'. As such these breeding' (yes, very much along the same lines as a pedigreed animal). These families saw it as their thus felt an obligation to help the less fortunate... on at the tacit assumption same time assuming that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, most probably a character failing (laziness, amorality etc). must also be less morally/intellectually/spiritually reliable. Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness; weakness just waiting to bust out; you just never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy thoroughly tried and tested before he can conquer the exalted heights. See also Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phebe. Though Phebe is a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs, and she must similarly head out into the wide world to 'earn her welcome'.
31st May '15 3:46:48 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness'). If not in themselves--as per Nat's example--then in their background, ready to pop out at any time. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights, and even then, it's portrayed as a magnanimous concession on Meg's part. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe. Though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of reliably 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable.breeding'. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was most probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or amorality etc). Even decent-seeming offshoots like Nat could have some sort of hereditary weakness; you just general 'weakness'). If not in themselves--as per Nat's example--then in their background, ready to pop out at any time. never knew. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights, and even then, it's portrayed as a magnanimous concession on Meg's part. heights. See also 'Rose Alcott's later ''Rose in Bloom' Bloom'', in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe. Phebe. Though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe Phebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.costs, and she must similarly head out into the wide world to 'earn her welcome'.
31st May '15 3:40:12 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness'). If not in themselves--as per Nat's example--then in their background. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights, and even then, it's portrayed as a magnanimous concession on Meg's part. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe. Though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness'). If not in themselves--as per Nat's example--then in their background.background, ready to pop out at any time. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights, and even then, it's portrayed as a magnanimous concession on Meg's part. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe. Though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.
31st May '15 3:02:04 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, albeit based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... while tacitly assuming that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness') if not in themselves then in their background. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe; though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.

to:

** As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, albeit and based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Even laying aside Meg's naturally conventional nature and fierce protectiveness (understandable in a single mother) of her pretty daughter, the Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... while tacitly assuming on the tacit assumption that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness') if 'weakness'). If not in themselves then themselves--as per Nat's example--then in their background. Hence it's understood even by sympathetic, unconventional 'Aunt Jo' that Nat will be forced to prove himself worthy before he can conquer the exalted heights, and even then, it's portrayed as a magnanimous concession on Meg's part. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe; though Phoebe. Though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.
31st May '15 2:57:20 PM Shoebox
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In 'Jo's Boys' what exactly is Meg's problem with Nat? She's utterly opposed to him marrying Daisy, while the rest of the family thinks he's a perfectly good guy. (They agree it would be wise to wait a while, but otherwise imply Nat and Daisy would be very happy together). Meg is fine with Demi (who is the same age as Daisy) proposing to Alice, so what's this dislike of Nat? Dan and Bess were justifiably a no-go because she didn't love him and he was a wanderer, with no real skill and committed accidental murder, but Nat's case is nothing like that! He's a hard-working, kind-hearted guy whose been raised by Meg's sister and is practically part of the family. Yes, he has his faults but name a character who doesn't. If it's that he used to be a homeless orphan - which Meg mentions - that seems harsh and out of line with the March's usually charitable views. (And does no one remind her that ''she'' chose to marry a poor man instead of a rich one - and her parents supported that.) Yet she makes Daisy horribly unhappy because she can't marry the man she loves, right until the end. Why?

to:

* In 'Jo's Boys' what exactly is Meg's problem with Nat? She's utterly opposed to him marrying Daisy, while the rest of the family thinks he's a perfectly good guy. (They agree it would be wise to wait a while, but otherwise imply Nat and Daisy would be very happy together). Meg is fine with Demi (who is the same age as Daisy) proposing to Alice, so what's this dislike of Nat? Dan and Bess were justifiably a no-go because she didn't love him and he was a wanderer, with no real skill and committed accidental murder, but Nat's case is nothing like that! He's a hard-working, kind-hearted guy whose been raised by Meg's sister and is practically part of the family. Yes, he has his faults but name a character who doesn't. If it's that he used to be a homeless orphan - which Meg mentions - that seems harsh and out of line with the March's usually charitable views. (And does no one remind her that ''she'' chose to marry a poor man instead of a rich one - and her parents supported that.) Yet she makes Daisy horribly unhappy because she can't marry the man she loves, right until the end. Why?Why?
**As you say, it's made very explicit in the book: Nat may well be a great guy, but his background means he's also a totally unknown quantity--not only in terms of social standing but character. In the time and place at which these books were set, class distinctions were very real, albeit based around a complex moral doublethink that's nearly inconceivable today. The Marches are an old and socially prominent family, hence of 'good breeding', ie. reliably respectable and honourable. As such these families saw it as their obligation to help the less fortunate... while tacitly assuming that the less fortunate had to have done ''something'' to deserve their fate, and that something was probably a character failing (laziness, drunkeness, amorality, or just general 'weakness') if not in themselves then in their background. See also 'Rose in Bloom' in which this entire scenario plays out much more explicitly when Rose's cousin Archie falls in love with her maid, the former poorhouse orphan Phoebe; though romantic Rose protests, and Phoebe is to modern readers a paragon of beauty and goodness to the point of Sue-ness, the 'old family name' must be kept pure at all costs.
9th Apr '15 3:49:59 AM hiphiphu
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In 'Jo's Boys' what exactly is Meg's problem with Nat? She's utterly opposed to him marrying Daisy, while the rest of the family thinks he's a perfectly good guy. (They agree it would be wise to wait a while, but otherwise imply Nat and Daisy would be very happy together). Meg is fine with Demi (who is the same age as Daisy) proposing to Alice, so what's this dislike of Nat? He's a hard-working, kind-hearted guy whose been raised by her sister and is practically already part of the family. Yes, he has his faults but name a character who doesn't. If it's that he used to be a homeless orphan - which she mentions - that seems harsh and out of line with the March's usually charitable views. (And does no one remind her that ''she'' chose to marry a poor man instead of a rich one - and her parents supported that.) Yet she makes Daisy horribly unhappy because she can't marry the man she loves, right until the end. Why?

to:

* In 'Jo's Boys' what exactly is Meg's problem with Nat? She's utterly opposed to him marrying Daisy, while the rest of the family thinks he's a perfectly good guy. (They agree it would be wise to wait a while, but otherwise imply Nat and Daisy would be very happy together). Meg is fine with Demi (who is the same age as Daisy) proposing to Alice, so what's this dislike of Nat? Dan and Bess were justifiably a no-go because she didn't love him and he was a wanderer, with no real skill and committed accidental murder, but Nat's case is nothing like that! He's a hard-working, kind-hearted guy whose been raised by her Meg's sister and is practically already part of the family. Yes, he has his faults but name a character who doesn't. If it's that he used to be a homeless orphan - which she Meg mentions - that seems harsh and out of line with the March's usually charitable views. (And does no one remind her that ''she'' chose to marry a poor man instead of a rich one - and her parents supported that.) Yet she makes Daisy horribly unhappy because she can't marry the man she loves, right until the end. Why?
This list shows the last 10 events of 37. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.LittleWomen