[ SECRET POST #2862 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2862 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #409.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random textless image ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. http://i.imgur.com/pOXrDQZ.png

[nayance]

This secret is sweet. As long as you like it, you should enjoy it. To each their own and all that.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm genuinely curious, what about the marriages/romance appeal to you in the book? The ultra-traditional John/Meg marriage doesn't really appeal to me, because I don't really crave to be a homemaker quite like that. Bhaer/Jo doesn't appeal to me because he seems so weirdly paternal and a little condescending. Laurie/Amy is the lesser of the evils but other than the nifty fact that she's pretty and he's rich, it feels sort of bland.

[(Anonymous)]

Because not everyone has to relate to the characters to enjoy them? I sure as hell don't want to be anything like Meg or have a relationship anything like Meg/John, but their storyline was real-feeling and often hilarious.

Also, Laurie/Amy has that tiny bit niftier fact of being a subversion of the "I CAN NEVER LOVE ANYONE EEEEELLLLLLSE" unrequited-romance trope. You know, the one that fandom is STILL wanking about today because HDU NOT BE CLICHE.

[(Anonymous)]

No need to get defensive, I was only curious and never implied that you wanted to emulate any of the relationships.

The whole John/Meg conflict is meant to be hilarious, but I admit I don't find it funny to see someone get married at a really young age, struggle with housework and then told that in order to be a good wife, they need to cook, clean, coddle their husband, mother two young children AND look immaculately pretty while doing it. For me, that's more upsetting than amusing.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not the OP, dude.

And well, yeah, lots of people find upsetting what other people find funny.

But it seems like you do understand what other people see in it perfectly fine -- so why did you ask?

[(Anonymous)]

I asked because I was curious about what the OP thought. Knowing how some readers might respond to some of the marriage scenarios in the book doesn't tell me what the OP thought, because knowing generalities doesn't necessarily mean you know the specifics. For someone who claims not to be the OP, you're awfully belligerent upon their behalf.

[(Anonymous)]

Was that really the moral of her story though? Granted, it's been a while, but I recall that the only one who thought Meg had to be a perfect housewife was Meg HERSELF. Her mother and husband would often try and tell her that such a thing was impossible, and the moral of her story was her learning this for herself.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, not really. Neither Marmee nor John tells Meg her ideal is impossible. This is what Meg has as her ideal of how married life should be:

Now, in the first flush of the new life, she had often said, "My husband shall always feel free to bring a friend home whenever he likes. I shall always be prepared. There shall be no flurry, no scolding, no discomfort, but a neat house, a cheerful wife, and a good dinner. John, dear, never stop to ask my leave, invite whom you please, and be sure of a welcome from me."

A little unrealistic, I agree, which is why things go so badly wrong when Meg has a disaster with her jelly-making AND her husband brings home a surprise guest without warning. Now, sensible people ought to know that surprise dinner guests aren't really a good idea, and at NO point does John realize this himself. Why would he? He's not the one who does the cleaning and cooking, so he somewhat naively takes Meg's word for it. We can take the moral of that story from how it resolves: Meg makes the first move to apologize, and then has her husband's friend over for that delightful perfect dinner served by a perfect pretty wife, meeting the ideal she set out to do in the first place. There is no adjustment for reality, the only exception is that Meg invites the guest, so he's not unexpected.


The chapter ends with Meg having babies, "the deepest and tenderest of a woman's life". We pick up their domestic life again ten chapters later, when Meg's twins are 1 year old and she's worn out, no longer dressing prettily, and (surprise!) most of her life is kid-focused. John feels neglected, so he starts spending more and more time at a friend's house, where it's noted his friend's wife is "a lively, pretty girl, with nothing to do but be agreeable". And the advice Marmee gives her? DON'T NEGLECT YOUR HUSBAND.

"You have only made the mistake that most young wives make—forgotten your duty to your husband in your love for your children. A very natural and forgivable mistake, Meg, but one that had better be remedied before you take to different ways, for children should draw you nearer than ever, not separate you, as if they were all yours, and John had nothing to do but support them. I've seen it for some weeks, but have not spoken, feeling sure it would come right in time."

Yes, despite the fact that she's got twin 1 year old children, Meg's still supposed to make the home "pleasant" so that her husband isn't tempted to ditch her and the crying babies. Meg takes the advice to heart, so she sets up an evening where she puts the kids to bed early, cleans up the parlour, "dressed herself prettily" and plays happy wife for her husband.

Now, there are good parts to this chapter. John takes on a more active role in childcare of the twins, and Marmee is right to suggest that part of being a good mother isn't to lose yourself in devotion to the children. Marmee and Meg come to the realization that Meg needs help caring for the twins, which is sort of a "duh" moment, if you ask me. But how does it end? That's right: pretty, well-dressed Meg in the parlour, faking an interest in politics to please her husband and the chapter ends with the lesson Meg learns: "... that a woman's happiest kingdom is home, her highest honor the art of ruling it not as a queen, but as a wise wife and mother."

The perfect housewife, in other words.

[(Anonymous)]

HDU NOT BE CLICHE

Sure, you couldn't be annoyed about a relationship that came out of absolutely nowhere.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes this book.

[(Anonymous)]

Me too, OP! I've never had anything against romance, but otherwise me too!

[ibbity]

I love LW too. It has its issues but it's a period piece from the 1860s, there's no way it wouldn't. I also liked how it totally tossed aside the "first love = only real love" cliche, and actually brought up the concept of being COMPATIBLE in a relationship rather than depending on feelings alone, and how Jo went off to have her own life as a single lady before she got interested in a guy. Compared to most of its contemporaries (and I've read a few) LW was actually kinda ahead of its time in some ways.

[(Anonymous)]

I really like that interpretation! Thank you for sharing it. That makes the book feel progressive and empowering instead of "ship-sinking angry author LOLing" the way some people seem to feel.

I think I learned something from you. Thanks! :-) (NOT OP!)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I also think the book, within its constraints, kind of pushes at the idea of asking yourself what kind of relationship would make you happy, even if it's in kind of a preachy way (which, again, time constraints.) I mean, Jo ends up not only with someone she has more of an intellectual connection with, but someone who gets that married for her isn't going to mean a life of Meg-and-John domesticity, hence opening their transcendental hippie school.

(also, Meg and John are kind of adorkably awkward in part one, although the Eric Stoltz overlay may help with that.)

[(Anonymous)]

I swear, there's been an influx of talk lately about people who hate romance or hate romance in all but one form or used to really hate romance, and it's getting tiresome.

[(Anonymous)]

IA. But at least we have the satisfaction of going into threads like these and complaining that other peoples' secrets don't meet our high standards, so there's a silver lining!

[(Anonymous)]

Unless you're just referring to yesterday's post, I think you're mixing up "people who hate romance" and "people who think romance is overexposed/overused in fiction."

There's a BIG difference between the two. You can really love romance and still be annoyed that it's all over the place and that there's not enough of anything else.

[(Anonymous)]

not sorry to say, but i hate that fucking book and every pairing in it.

[(Anonymous)]

Same.

[tabaqui]

My aversion to romance in tv or movies *or* books is pretty well honed, but i've always loved Little Women (and Little Men, and Jo's Boys). I guess I just like the characters, even if i did root for Jo to stay single and go have adventures (which she did, a bit.)

But then, i like 'The Secret Garden' and 'A Little Princess', too, so.....
Yay the March Girls!

[(Anonymous)]

This is a bit off topic, but I heard that contemporary readers' reactions to the ending of this book were basically Ye Olde Shipping Wank, since everyone was upset at the endgame pairings the author went with. This knowledge amuses me to no end.

[(Anonymous)]

Some if it may have been, but I for one have no ships in this war and I still didn't care for the romances in the book.

[(Anonymous)]

I enjoy the romances in "Little Women", too. And reading the following books only increased that. I didn't find anything wrong with Meg and John's relationship because they were almost dead on my own parents. I find it hilarious now that I know Louisa May Alcott wrote Professor Baehr as a "screw you" to the fans upset with her for not having Jo marry Laurie. Why? Because I've always identified with Jo, and she married the kind of man I tend to be attracted to (older, educated, not traditionally handsome). I wasn't sure about Amy and Laurie first, but seeing their relationship progress, they're just as vain and silly as each other, so I think it's a good match.

So you're not alone, OP!