begin anew

[wisdomeagle]

Well, the tale's at a finish, and Ms. Alcott assures us all the good people were rewarded and the naughty ones punished roundly, so let's fly forward a year or ten, and swim North, and begin the sweetest tale that was e'er penned, that begins with a certain Mrs. Rachel Lynde, who is surprised.

Oh, Anne.

Comments

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Oh, Anne.

*happy sigh*

[wisdomeagle]

Oh yes.

[polyartamorous.livejournal.com]

You know, I recently re-read those books, and aside from the pleasant nostalgia they provided they actually began to intrinsically bother me, especially the latter ones. I think it's Alcott's conception of "good" and "bad" as they pertain to all aspects of life, from marriage to profession to personal characteristics to body image etc etc etc. I was further concerned by the unrealistic portrayal of human struggle as something that is always resolved by some small blessing, which I'm fairly sure is not the truth: although one may and often does take comfort from small blessings, they can't actually eradicate true worldly problems. Maybe that's another problem of mine with the books: they don't involve true worldly problems.

Hm. Just thoughts --

[wisdomeagle]

Yeah. I don't have much nostalgic attachment to Alcott -- I did read the books when I was younger but they weren't really favorites of mine -- and Alcott's morality definitely struck me, as, um, well. You know. But it mostly amused me rather than upset me, because, product of her time, etc. And while it's terribly... cheery and utopian and unrealistic, I think there *is* some grain of truth in her most basic themes, especially her focus on charity.

I was further concerned by the unrealistic portrayal of human struggle as something that is always resolved by some small blessing,

I don't think I read it that way. I think that the characters who are truly reformed - Nat and Dan, mostly - are reformed by many hours of patient labor rather than one particular moment of kindness. Not that that's any more realistic, just, that's how I read it.

But yeah. Not disagreeing with the central point, i.e., 1880s morality = creepy.

[mayhap]

all the good people were rewarded and the naughty ones punished roundly

Oh, did you get the copy where Nat and Dan go off and live happily ever after together? Me too! *still in denial like whoa*

And yay, I just reread Windy Poplars and House of Dreams! I look forward to the Anne squee!

[wisdomeagle]

Really? In my copy it was Demi and Dan, (shipwaromg?!) and Bess and Josie, and Amy died tragically and Laurie and Jo got married finally and had a row every day which was made life terribly interesting.

Oh, Anne. At least you marry the boy who makes you break your slate over his head in rage. ! *adores her*

[mayhap]

Demi and Dan

Oooh, I like. They would be a brilliant and fascinating couple!

and Bess and Josie

Well, obviously!

and Amy died tragically and Laurie and Jo got married finally and had a row every day which was made life terribly interesting

I might allow Amy to live, if and only if she ran off to Europe to pursue her art after all and fell in love with somebody unsuitable and caused all kinds of scandal and was generally interesting. I did actually like her once, before she turned into Saint Amy the Incredibly Dull, not to mention the evil Laurie-stealer. *spits*

[wisdomeagle]

I did like her in Little Women, when she was so selfish and malapropy and cutely evil, but yeah. Saint Amy, indeed -- and she made Laurie the same as her as often as she could. *seethe*.

I'm now plotting all sorts of crossover mayhem for Amy.

*writes Demi/Dan that has been in head for days*