History Headscratchers / LittleWomen

16th Apr '17 8:31:37 PM Helgatwb
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The reason Jo and Laurie can't get together isn't because they're LikeBrotherAndSister, it's because they are too much alike. They both have hot tempers, and hold grudges. Jo's afraid that if they get married, and have to live together, they'll kill each other.
9th Mar '17 1:50:21 AM BB8ForPresident
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Do we get an exact date for when Lawrence College opened? While there's 10 years between the two books, Mr Lawrence probably died soon after ''Little Men'' (he was mentioned being sick and elderly at that point) and the college would have been established soon after that. And Jo and Bhaer seemed to stop taking in boys to help teach and run the college. So it's possible the college started being planned/built/established only a couple of years after ''Little Men'', they focused on that rather than taking on new boys. Especially as Jo implied they'd reached their limit with 12 - even if a few of the older boys finished, they might have kept on with a slightly smaller number.
21st Jul '16 11:01:01 AM Laina1312
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** LMA believed she was ill from mercury poisoning, but modern theories include that she had lupus.
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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 40. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.LittleWomen