History Headscratchers / LittleWomen

* Hey there, OP here. I understand why grown up Amy's personality would be attractive to Laurie, if they hadn't been as close as they were when she was a child, but I don't agree that Laurie's relationships to Jo and Amy were in any way similar. They were very different from the beginning. Jo and Laurie were the same age and already in their mid-teens when they met, so they were always more like buddies rather than brother and sister, and most of their interactions contained some playful flirtation (usually initiated by Laurie and received somewhat ambiguously by Jo). Whereas Amy, being the youngest, was universally seen and treated as a mere child. I simply couldn't wrap my mind around the idea that one could fall in love with someone they viewed as a child and not as their peer. In my opinion, the perception of that other person being like a little sibling wouldn't change however attractive they became later on, as it doesn't change for cousins and other family members. But perhaps it's just that the Westermarck effect is particularly strong with me.

[[WMG:Just what does Beth die of?]] She had Scarlet Fever, but she got over that. It's said that Beth is "weakened" and frail after her illness, but people don't just die for no reason. Did she have cancer? Did she have a bad heart? Did the fever cause her immune system to fail? What exactly did her in?

* The "real" Beth died a bit more quickly, but like Beth in the book, it was a lingering illness (though she was substanially less a PuritySue in the process--like with the rest of her family Alcott did a lot of whitewashing there) as a result of never quite recovering from Scarlet Fever. The most likely culprit would be secondary infections of weakened systems (cardiac or pulmonary would be especially nasty.) But another possibility is the medicine itself. LMA herself is now considered to have probably died as a result of long-term complications of mercury poisoning. The mercury was part of the medicine she was given when she contracted typhoid as a Civil War nurse. Medicines commonly contained calomel (mercury), lead, and other poisons that we now know could kill you quickly or kill you lingeringly just as easily as the original disease.

** Propriety. Calling him by his given name would be too informal, but calling him "Mr. March" would be too formal, or possibly show him more respect than she intends. Remember, Aunt March has a soft spot for Mr. March and his daughters, but she spends a loooot of time pretending not to. The parents in ''PrideAndPrejudice'' always address each other as "Mr. Bennet" and "Mrs. Bennet."

** 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'.

** 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'.

** 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'.

** 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.

** 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.