[ SECRET POST #3890 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3890 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Harry Potter and Pretty Little Liars]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Crown]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Me Before You (novel)]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Little Women, Jo/Laurie, Jo/Professor Bhaer]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Supergirl, Wynonna Earp)


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Defenders]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. http://i.imgur.com/I1Q9UQi.jpg
[Little Women, Jo/Laurie, Jo/Professor Bhaer]

[(Anonymous)]

I agree completely with this secret, I always thought Professor Bhaer was very condescending to Jo about her writing and ideas.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. I found his moralizing extremely irritating. How is it any of his business what she's writing?

[(Anonymous)]

DA, and I completely agree. He honestly really pissed me off.

[(Anonymous)]

The age difference alone was enough to put me off, tbh.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Same here!

[(Anonymous)]

I love them. They're especially
adorable in the sequel. Actually, I love all the couples. Louisa May Alcott is the only author that writes romance I like reading.

I've been seeing a lot of criticism towards older/younger pairings lately. Where did that come from? Was there a specific fandom that sparked it?

[(Anonymous)]

I think those criticisms have been around for such a long time that you can't even pinpoint a specific fandom. Some people just don't like older/younger pairings, especially if the age gap is wide. It might be that the people who don't like it have gotten louder though.

[philstar22]

For some reason, I love them. They aren't usually something I like. But after watching the Movie with Winona Rider, they made it adorable for me. I ship it because of the movie. He was shy and awkward enough that it didn't feel paternalistic to me.

[(Anonymous)]

Agree. They were just okay for me in the books, but like every movie/tv/musical version (esp the Winona Ryder movie and the musical with Sutton Foster) of them I've seen are so sweet and adorable, that I just love them.

[(Anonymous)]

This!

[tabaqui]

This!

I was mad, the first time i read LW, that Jo and Laurie didn't marry, but Professor Behr had his own charms, and in the end, it sorted out all right. I was the least enthused by Meg and John, but still - enjoyable.

And i very much liked Little Men and Jo's Boys, and seeing how everything played out.

[(Anonymous)]

In general, I like older/younger pairings, but like OP my objection isn't the age difference, it's the type of relationship they have initially where he's playing Moral Police over Jo in a way I find patronizing and a bit gross. Obviously attitudes were different back then, but when you combine that the fact that he's old enough to be her father AND he's acting like her father... nah. Not cute or romantic to me.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this is kinda the same problem I have when writers put Colonel Fitzwilliam and Georgiana Darcy together in Pride and Prejudice writings so I get it.

[arcadiaego]

The current wank is from Voltron fandom.

[rosehiptea]

Normally I like age differences OK in fiction but I agree with this secret. He was really patronizing to her.

[philstar22]

The book is so tied to the movie adaption in my mind (the one with Kirsten Dunst, et. al.), i can't seem to separate him. And in the movie, he was less patronizing and much more awkward and shy and kind of adorable, so I started shipping it. That version of the professor seemed a good match for her bold, take charge personality.

[tabaqui]

I dunno. People say that, but Jo herself was unhappy with what she was doing/writing, and when she really gave it some thought and read over her published stuff, she didn't like them.

I don't think him talking about the sensational stuff in papers in general (he didn't know she had written them), was patronizing at all, and he was very unsure of his welcome with her, and so doting on his little adopted children.

I just liked him.

[(Anonymous)]

The issue I take with that is that she wasn't writing those stories because she loved writing them, she was doing it to support her family. It's one thing for her to decide on her own that she can no longer stomach writing sensationalist stories even if it's for a noble cause but it rubs me the wrong way that Bhaer lectures her about it even though they're barely acquainted at that point. A woman didn't have as many options back then for earning a legitimate living. It seems a bit high horse to criticize someone who's working really hard to feed and clothe her siblings just because you disagree with the content of her fiction.

Also if you look back with the benefit of hindsight, he's making a hilariously over the top fuss over how bad for you those stories were - one of the attitudes that really dates Alcott's work. It's like the Christian groups who campaign to ban Harry Potter because of the occult influence.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. I never read that far in the series to find out. My impression was the authors writes husbands as older and patronizing, and that's somehow a good thing because it helps women regulate their unruly passions and those pesky emotions/feelings. A quite normal view at the time, I know, but still annoying.

Seriously, even in the first book, the way the mother talks about her husband, her dear, older husband (not present in the book), and how he guides and molds her and some shit. Bah. Left a bad taste in my mouth.

Perhaps because I grew up in what I'd call the Christian right, where women have to submit to their husbands and dress modestly and not have strong opinions out loud.

TBH, our home life didn't always reflect that, but it's still what I heard held up as the ideal or "godly" marriage, and it left emotional marks.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, that was definitely a thing. It plays out in Meg and John Brooke's marriage as well where the scenario is a silly, frivolous young girl who is gentled and domesticated by her older, wiser partner. The flip side of that is Amy and Laurie's marriage, where she (as the woman, natch) is supposed to be the pure, moralizing influence upon Laurie. The book is very much steeped in traditional gender roles when it comes to marriage.

[(Anonymous)]

I always found this really funny, because Alcott herself never married (and never wanted to, her goal in life was to be financially independent and support her family) and yet she's remembered as writing these quite morally correct books that are pro-marriage and family.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm glad that Jo/Laurie didn't happen.

I always put Jo/Bhaer down to the times (although, I do tend to like the pairing in movies) so I'm not bothered by it.

But, OMG, I cannot stand Amy/Laurie. At all.

I say this having never read anything but the original so I don't know if I would have liked them later.

[(Anonymous)]

I could have created this secret myself. I couldn't agree more, OP.

[(Anonymous)]

I loved all the pairings in this book and the sequels. I was genuinely shocked to learn that people thought Jo/Laurie should have ended up together, because Jo/Bhaer and Laurie/Amy were such good matches.