Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. One of these March sisters is not like the others. While we all want to believe we’re Jo (because she’s the greatest), some of us admit to ourselves that we’re actually more of a Beth or a Meg. Nobody wants to confess that deep down they’re an Amy. Because Amy is the worst.
One of my only beefs with the beautiful newly released film adaptation of Little Women is that none of the scenes from the book highlighting Amy’s growth are included in the series. She turns out looking even more terrible than her book character. Amy will always be the worst March sister, but I have a vested interested in her not seeming even more selfish and immature than she has to.
When re-reading the novel as an adult, I realized that I had been kidding myself all my life that I was a Jo. Dear reader, I am not a Jo. I might be a writer and I might have a temper, but I do not measure up to Jo March. I’m not painfully shy and selfless like Beth. And I’m not sweet domestic Meg, happy to sit on the knee of John Brooke as he lectures her about financial responsibility (I mean, gag me).
Nobody wants to be the selfish, silly, littlest sister, but despite how much I try to convince myself otherwise, I am Amy March.
I am decidedly selfish. I care too much about what other people think of me. I know how to read people and charm them if I so desire. I have no talent for the visual arts, but I doubt not that I would have tried to weasel my way into my sister’s trip to Europe and the heart of Theodore Lawrence given the chance. Like Amy, “me first” is my natural bent.
I also sympathize with Emma Woodhouse–the most hated of all Austen heroines. And when I read Mansfield Park, I know that I’m no virtuous Fanny Price, I’m probably more like horrible, manipulative Mary Crawford.
But in the end, Amy and Emma turn out very different from Mary Crawford. There’s hope for them. And it isn’t just because they try harder not to be despicable human beings.
As the brilliant Jane Austen reveals time and time again in her novels, the people we surround ourselves with can make or break who we become. In Sense and Sensibility Austen notes that the Dashwood girls’ half-brother, John, who fails to carry out his promise to his dying father to care for the women left behind, might have turned out alright had he married “a more amiable woman.” Instead he marries someone more selfish than himself who exacerbates his worst tendencies.
Amy March and Emma Woodhouse are saved by emulating people who are better than they. And that’s probably why I didn’t turn out to be a complete monster: I married a Mr. Knightley, a Prof. Bhaer, someone who does the right thing even when it costs him, someone who treats people with kindness and service without a thought as to whether they can benefit him, someone who doesn’t have a manipulative or selfish bone in his body. My husband is just a decent human being and I’m still trying to figure out what he saw in me when we started dating as teenagers. But I thank my lucky stars he saw something worth loving because otherwise I could have been an Amy March forever.
You can’t be around a Mr. Knightley or a Prof. Bhaer day after day and not lose some of your Amy Marchishness and Mary Crawfordishness. And thank goodness, we’re not doomed to act according to our natural bents! We can rise above them and conquer them. I will always struggle with being selfish and trying to impress other people because that’s how I’m wired. But I don’t have to let those tendencies define me. And day by day I can be re-wired to love other people first, to do what’s right because it’s right, and to serve when it costs me. There’s a little more Jo in me after 12 years of marriage and a little less Amy. And that’s a happy thought.
If there’s hope for me, maybe there’s hope for Amy March, afterall.
Which March sister do you most identify with? Let’s chat in the comments!
Related content:
You can find my review of the new Little Women adaptation over at America Magazine.
You can listen to our Fountains of Carrots podcast all about the romantic relationships and personalities in the original novel: Should Jo Have Married Laurie? and Other Thoughts on Little Women
I love this! I apply the characters of Little Women to my life on the regular. Before I read your post, I would have said I am a Meg- mostly because I’m not energetic enough to be Jo, sweet enough to be Beth, or charming enough to be Amy.
It never occurred to me how self-centered Amy truly is, and in a world where some people are gardeners and some are flowers, I am most definitely a flower. This post is a paradigm shift in my 21-year relationship with the March family, and I think I have to say that maybe I’m an Amy too. Whoa.
Thanks, Amanda! LW applies to everything 🙂
I really enjoyed this post. I related with the topic much more than I care to admit, and I thank you for the very honest and hopeful message that “we’re not doomed to act according to our natural bents!” Bless you!
<3
I am not really like any of them – I’m painfully shy like Beth but nowhere near as sweet and selfless! And I have a temper like Jo but she is so bold and confident…
I think it’s definitely possible to be a hybrid!
Of the four March sisters, I am most like Meg, the responsible older sister who can be a little bit vain (protecting her soft, white hands instead of working hard).
I know lots of wonderful Megs!
Oh wow, I related to this post so much. I’ve always disliked Amy – as somebody who writes fiction as a hobby, I NEVER could forgive her for burning Jo’s book, and I hated that Jo ended up feeling bad about being angry. And I was so disappointed that she ended up with Laurie instead of Jo. I’ve always liked to think I was more of a Beth, with a little mix of Jo and Meg – I’m painfully shy, but with a temper, and I like writing, domestic work and hope to be a stay-at-home mom someday (right now, it’s not in the cards financially).
Yet, if I’m truly being honest with myself, I’m really an Amy. I’m the youngest in my family, spoiled, selfish, and vain, and I tend to overrate my own talents. In my younger days, I was probably just as petty as she was, although, thank goodness, I don’t think I ever destroyed anyone’s creative work.
And somehow, I married a decent, kind man who makes me want to be better every day. With his help, I can strive to be a little more like Meg and Beth, who I always thought were the best of the sisters, character-wise (I mean, Beth was basically a saint, and Meg, while maybe a little TOO into the submissive housewife role, had a much better temperament for marriage than Jo, who was fairly prickly). I’m so grateful for him every day, and I 100% agree: surround yourself with people who make you want to be better!
As a side-note, I disagree with the Amy/Laurie pairing, because I don’t think Laurie would help Amy be better. He had too many of his own character flaws. I kind of think they would bring out the worst in each other, not the best. It would have been a lot better for Laurie to marry someone he admired and looked up to (*cough* Jo *cough*), because then he could have become a better person, too. Then again, Laurie probably wouldn’t have helped Jo be better, because she was already better than he was, so maybe he should have married someone else entirely.
I haven’t seen the new show, but I didn’t think Alcott did the greatest job of showing how Amy was a better, more mature person in the book, either. She seemed like the same old Amy to me, just a little less selfish. Paired with Laurie? Disaster for them both. It also came across to me as Laurie settling for the younger sister, because he couldn’t have Jo, especially since the Amy/Laurie engagement was kind of sudden and there wasn’t much build-up of the love between them. For all Amy’s flaws, she deserved to have someone who loved her first and foremost, and not in an “I guess you’ll do” way. Anyway, that’s how it came across to me, I’m sure there are differing opinions!
Just wanted to add on, because I keep having thoughts: I had a huge crush on Laurie when I read the book as a kid, but from an adult perspective, he seems exhausting. I hate to admit it as a die-hard Jo/Laurie shipper, but maybe Jo was right to turn him down. Amy is exhausting, too, and together they seem like a couple I wouldn’t want to hang out with.
And is it just me, or do Alcott’s relationships seem weirdly paternalistic? Both Meg and Jo marry older men who like to preach at them. Their father, too, is super preachy and does things like putting his finger to his lips (in public!) when he thinks his wife is going to lose her temper. Frankly, I can’t imagine my husband doing that to me in front of other people (or at all), and if he did, let’s just say it wouldn’t help me keep my temper. Laurie, at least, isn’t super preachy (one of the reasons I liked him the most), but he is older and in charge of the relationship with Amy. That’s not to say that men shouldn’t be in charge in marriage, just that Alcott overdoes it (especially with Meg and John, ick).
Jo especially seems too independent to put up with Prof. Bhaer’s lecturing (I mean, really, policing her writing because there’s not enough moralizing in it? The girl’s just trying to make a buck and help out her family! Not everything has to be a sermon). I’ve heard that Alcott really didn’t want Jo to marry at all, and the more I think about it, the more I agree with her. Jo just didn’t seem to fit into that Victorian style of marriage.
Lucy, I laughed out loud at your “ and if he did, let’s just say it wouldn’t help me keep my temper” !! 🙂 I so wholeheartedly agree!
I grew up on LW too and I just recently revisited it this past winter. It had been at least 12 years since the last time I read it! Reading it as a grown woman who has been married for 8 years and has 4 kids… was a very different experience from back when I was a little homeschool girl! Like you (and Haley!), I gagged at all the John and Meg marriage scenes. The patronizing attitude over her jam; the role she took on as the obedient little wifey who “can’t do numbers well” with money… him TAKING HER ON HIS KNEE after HE sulked in the corner!! Horrible.
I love and appreciate the novel so much as a dear piece of American culture; but I found a lot of flaws in the Alcott views of marriage! Is this the Trancendentalists view c/o Emerson and Bronson Alcott? [ps how cool is the name Bronson?!]
Just watched the first part of the new miniseries and AHHH you’re right Haley – so good! Maya Hawke may be more gifted than both her famous parents! (But Laurie’s acting! – is it just me, is it just an unfair contrast next to Hawke’s genius – or does he, actually, suck?)
Whew, that’s a tough one. I think it’s a combination of Maya’s brilliance overshadowing him, not being a super great actor, AND being more like Laurie in the book and less like Christian Bale. Laurie in the book just isn’t as likable as Christian Bale and I think this series shows Laurie’s flaws more faithfully which makes him just seem lame compared to Jo as portrayed by amazing Maya Hawke. But I think poor casting, too.
He looks the part! Love his dimples (though nothing next to Christian!) But the scenes in the garret when he was playing with the rat, and then later when he tells Jo about the glove… I kind of cringed! His delivery was so “Hi I’m an actor and I know my lines!” You know? ?
Some GREAT insights here!
I’m really enjoying the new adaptation! I was hesitant because I love the 1994 film so much, and I’m wary about other adaptations of some of my favorite books. (I’m 100% with you on your opinion of the 2008 Brideshead. As gorgeous as the scenery and the men were, it was a huge abomination.) I love the Marmee adaptation here — the scene where Jo reveals her cut hair always gets me! — and she’s much easier to relate to than other Marmees.
I think I’m most like Meg — I’m not as physically vain, but I do rely an awful lot on my husband for most things, and I like to keep things proper.
SO glad you’re enjoying it! I think it’s great. 🙂
Thank goodness this Marmee is WAY more historicaly accurate!! I get soooo annoyed with Sarandon’s not-so-subtle feminist insertions that, while possibly related to Marmee’s general disposition, are just NOT things she ever would have said. This Marmee is so human. Love her.
I totally agree about Laurie/ Bales. OMG…just no comparison in the acting. Jonah fell so flat, despite his cute and boyish looks. Bales, while still young at the time, just had such a gift for expression, emoting, a certain energy.
And I missed sweet and tiny Kirsten Dunst so much!! She was the perfect young Amy. This one is poorly cast and hard to watch,and looks and acts much too old to pass for 12. Jo is pretty good though I think Winona Ryder really captured Jo well, but I’m only one episode in. 🙂 To me, the best improvements we’re Meg and Mr. Brooke, and uncle Lawrence and Aunt March.
Also, a super tiny quibble…the soundtrack doesn’t hold a candle. But I do LOVE the authenticity and attention to detail in set and costume…more realistic!
I’m absolutely with you on the soundtrack! It was forgettable or worse, sometimes distracting. The 1994 soundtrack is SO GOOD.
When I saw the title of this post, my first thought was “Well, it has to be better than being an Emma!” And then I got to the bit where you confessed to also being an Emma.
Honestly, I’ve always thought that I’d rather be Amy than Beth; Beth doesn’t feel like a real person to me.
Beth is the hardest sister for me to identify with! Definitely my opposite.
What a mix…shy like Beth, Jo’s temper, Meg’s maternal nature, and a bit of Amy’s selfishness. To be sure, my selfishness isn’t quite the same…it is more subtle, and easier to dismiss…the wish for peace and quiet, to have things done the’right’ way, and a desire to make people happy/like me. But it is still there. And my most difficult flaw to get a handle on.
I always loved Beth, even as a girl, I think I see her spirit more fully now. So sweet, so other worldly.
Here is a link to PBS’
Which march sister are your quiz
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/little-women-quiz-which-sister-are-you/
I’m a Jo
I really identified with Jo when the 90s movie came out because I was just about to leave home and go to college and I thought I was the only one in my family who enjoyed things like travel and culture, etc. I wanted to see the world and get out of my sheltered bubble.
Now, though, as an adult, I can definitely identify my Amy tendencies too. I’m definitely not Meg or Beth, but can’t claim to be as courageous or selfless as Jo.
Great, fun post!
Almost completely Meg, but with a touch of Beth’s shyness and Jo’s opinionatedness.
All Meg over here! Including all of her vanity and bad spending habits. With all my heart I want to be like Marmee! I am loving the new adaptation and really enjoyed your take. I agree that poor Amy gets no character development at all!
Great post!
The pbs link shared a few comments ago said I`m Jo. I loved all the books when I read them many years ago and intend to reread them some time soon. I`ve only seen the 1994 movie and enjoyed it. I`ve never considered myself a Jo, always wanted to be more like Meg. I think I have traits from all the sisters, though I have begun to see a bit more Jo in me over the past few years.
I could live on a deserted island if it had a good library. And an intelligent, calm husband to discuss the books with. I`ve even started to think it would be great to start my own tiny school. In ideal, the said intelligent husband would be involved with the school 🙂
I couldn`t charm anyone into anything and wouldn`t want to. I err on the side of sincerity, though sometimes it can be interpreted as naivety, and lack of tact is probably one of my weakest points. Letting someone else get something I wanted or changing my plans for someone else`s benefit happens too often. There`s a lot of room for selfishness, too, I think it applies to everyone.
The PBS quiz tells me I’m most like Beth, but I am and always have been a Jo. I know everybody wants to be a Jo because she’s “cool” and tomboyish and the story centers around her, but that’s not why I’m a Jo. I’m a Jo because I’ve never, ever fit in. I grew up feeling like I didn’t belong in my body or in the time period I was born. I do have an element of Beth’s shyness but I have much more of Jo’s impatience and stubbornness. And it took me many years to realize that I didn’t have to go searching far and wide in order to find meaning in my life. In fact, it was the death of my younger sibling that triggered my long-delayed introspection, breaking my habit of looking at my life as lacking because I hadn’t achieved a particular career goal, or gotten a certain degree, or spent a summer wandering around Europe. Loss shed a whole new light on my world and my life. I still feel like I don’t fit in with most of my generation, but there’s no doubt that I’ve found my groove.
Hey all!
I am here to defend Amy! I haven’t read the book in years nor seen any film adaptions, but here we go!
First of all, she starts out the book being rather selfish; I’m pretty sure she is about twelve when the book starts and personally, I’ve never met a twelve year old who wasn’t a bit selfish (also her father is gone, her mother and older sisters work, so she is basically on her own for a lot of the time…I’m discounting Beth because she is a bit of a push over). But even at the beginning she is trying to learn to not be selfish (she gets up super early Christmas morning to switch her little bottle of whatever it was for a big bottle for her mother).
Second, we cannot hold her temper against her unless we hold it equally against Jo. Amy is aweful when she burns Jo’s book, there is no doubt about that. But Jo wasn’t going to rescue Amy when she was drowning (Jo says herself that Laurie is the one who galvanized her to action, not the sight of her sister drowning). Also, Amy seems to outgrow her temper by the end of the book, but Jo still really struggles with it.
Third as a young adult, does a very good job of not being selfish. She participates in an art fair and puts a ton of work into it then doesn’t get to man the table she wanted and deserved. But, she remains a good sport and even tells Laurie and his friends to go buy the stuff from the girl who unfairly took her table (personally, I am not that heroic).
Then Amy goes to Europe (as someone who has lived in Rome for four months I can attest to how much growth happens while living abroad). Jo does not go because she is brusque and has a difficult temper (according to Aunt March who is those things herself and so is able to recognize them). Amy leaves fully prepared to marry for money (she likes the rich guy…Frank?….well enough, but doesn’t love him); but when the moment comes, she says “no” because she realized that money isn’t the most important thing and she doesn’t love the guy.
Laurie seeks her out there in Europe and is hoping Amy will coddle him for Jo’s refusal. But does Amy sympathize? No! She tells him to get over himself and go do something with his life. (This is one of my favorite scenes.) Laurie leaves, gets over Jo when he realizes that she was right that they would tear each other apart if they were married. But he doesn’t go back to Amy until after Beth dies and he goes to comfort her. During that period, they are together for months. Amy has grown up, held Laurie to a higher standard, he rose to it and then proposed to her in a boat they were rowing together (this is both super sweet and I’m pretty sure a Victorian symbol of equality in marriage).
Once they are married, they work out all sorts of charitable schemes and do stuff. So, Amy and Laurie are two of my favorite characters (though I didn’t realize it until just now when I felt the need to defend Amy :D).
The age differences in this book are much less weird to me than the difference between Marianne Dashwood and what’s-his-face-that-she-marries in “Sense and Sensibility” where he has a ward who is the age of Marianne, or the difference between Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester who is literally double her age!
As far as which March girl I am…I don’t know, I don’t particularly identify with any of them. I don’t have a temper like Jo or Amy, but Meg and Beth drive me crazy. Maybe I’m like adult Amy except with an interest in the outdoors…
I do tend to take issue with people blaming Amy for going to Europe. Jo behaves poorly on purpose during a visit and that is why she doesn’t get to go. Period. It is her fault. Amy behaves like a polite lady, and Jo is a jerk and has to accept the consequences. I do agree that all of the film adaptations are unfair to Amy also. She really does show a great deal of maturity by the end, especially calling Laurie out for his lazy and selfish behavior (prior to their marriage) and getting him to go home and work for his grandfather’s company as he always should have. Honestly though, I think all of the films give an unfair amount of time to Jo, making her the main character, when there are really four stories and four main characters all intertwined.
By the way, the quiz says I’m a Jo, and I may be, given the diatribe above. But as much as I love this book, I’ve never really identified with any of them.
Finally, I really like the book Little Men better, I think. And the Little Women musical isn’t a fabulous adaptation, but it does have some lovely songs, everyone should check it out.
I have to admit I am absolutely most similar to Jo… but I don’t know that it’s entirely a good thing in my case. In fact, one of my sisters doesn’t like Little Women because she related Jo’s domineering exuberance/strong willed nature and relationship with Beth to… my domineering exuberance/strong willed nature and relationship with her when we were kids. 🙁 Fortunately our relationship is much better and more egalitarian now, but yeah… Jo has her flaws too.
Unfortunately, I also have Amy’s selfishness…
But I love all the March sisters, and find them all the more adorable for their flaws. If only it were so easy to see ourselves that way…!
What is so funny to me in looking at this is that I never liked Jo that much! She had a terrible temper and she reminded me way too much of myself as well as all the parts of myself I didn’t like. I think I am definitely a Jo but I always wanted to be an Amy. The parts of myself I always wrestled with are exactly what Jo does as well and it’s hard!
I think I’m something of a combination between Jo and Meg. I’ve never fully identified with just one March sister, but I can see myself with some traits of these two. I’m like Jo in the way that I don’t usually fit the mold of “typical womanhood.” I’m not as tomboyish as Jo, but I’ve never been very interested in fashion and I tend to feel very awkward in social gatherings. The scene of Jo at the Christmas party early in the book reminds me a lot of myself in my teenage years. I’ve also always been a reader and love absorbing new stories and information like she does. I also have her desire to be active outside the home and make a difference in the world. However, I’m not impulsive or hot-tempered like she is though.
I’m like Meg because I’m the oldest in my family (oldest sibling AND oldest cousin). I have a lot of Meg’s motherly qualities and understand the pressure she feels to be responsible, reliable, and set a good example. I also worry a lot about what people think of me, the way she does. I’m a teacher now (K-8 computers) and my combination of Meg and Jo traits (motherly, responsible for others, enjoying learning, desire to make a difference) definitely drew me to this career and has helped me be successful. I’m getting married this summer and will hopefully become a mother in the next few years. We’ll see which March sister traits tend to come out more as I move in married and family life.
I was just having a conversation the other day with my husband about how I think God puts us in our marriages for sanctification of specific parts of our personalities. Like if I had married someone else I would be growing in different, good ways I’m sure, but maybe not in the ways that I really need to. (Haley, our husbands are very similar, farmers, lovers of the land etc.) Being married to him is slowly, so so slowly, dispelling my vain Meg-ness and my selfish Amy-ness…(so much dirt, so much laundry, constant projects. But the man can heroically fix anything and looks good in carharts *heart eyes emoji*)
I appreciate everyone’s thoughts about how Jo and Laurie wouldn’t have been good together. Because one of the greatest tragedies of my life occurred the summer I read all three of the books and had to accept that they didn’t end up together. Thanks for this, I’m loving the new series!
Im sorry, but I am a total meg through and through XD I was just born that way. every time my sisters and I watch or read little women together its so weird because there are four of us , Im the oldest and my middle name is Margaret! My younger sister has beautiful long hair and is very athletic and sporty. My next younger sister used to be extremely shy and quiet as a child and her middle name is Elisabeth! And then there is our youngest sister Avila… Avila is nine years old and is the very embodiment of Amy she looks exactly like her in every way she has a bubbly personality and can be very vengeful and is a total flirt and her nickname is Avi which sounds like Amy! I love my sisters so very much and have always loved little women because i can relate so much! ??
I never identified with Jo. Or wanted to. Jo was rude, she was rough, she was pathetically stupid about life, she made her life more difficult than necessary simply by refusing to consider other people. I have never understood why everyone else is so enamored of her. Yes, I know I just offended umpteen Jo-ites. But are you really looking at Jo? So she likes to write- so did both Anne of GG, and Emily of NM, and they managed to be eccentric without being obnoxious. She feels awkward and doesn’t fit; newsflash- every adolescent and teenager from time immemorial has felt awkward and out of place. They do not all go out of their way to be rude (granted, some do.) She feels repressed by social expectations- ditto my previous remark. I don’t hate Jo, and I frequently feel sorry for her in her predicaments- which are predominantly of her own making. But really….
I idolized Beth (didn’t identify with her either, not being on the ladder to sainthood.) Beth was wonderful. And none of the films have portrayed Beth well at all. As a matter of fact, Claire Danes played Beth as if she was mentally challenged, and the actress in the new film (of which I managed to watch 20 minutes) seemed to be following her lead. Why? Does the modern mind think it’s only possible to be “good” if one is mentally deficient?
I like Meg; and I do like Amy. So she was a bratty twelve-year-old; many people are. But she grew up. And she was sincere about improving herself, and she understood life lessons about respecting other people and being a lady that Jo never did learn. Rereading the book as an adult (I first read it when I was 8, not sure how many times since,) I have come to really appreciate Amy. I think she is the most successful of the sisters, actually- and I don’t mean financially. She recognizes her flaws and her strengths, and works with them to achieve her vision for her life; without deliberately marrying for money, and while holding a standard of morality.
And actually, my impression is that Amy is the one Louisa May Alcott envied, and her grace and beauty contrasted with Jo’s comedic happy ending is LMA’s bitterness about her own life.
Oh, and I actually was always struck by Jo’s selfishness, not Amy’s. She, in common with many gifted people, was rather single- minded and blind to those around her. As a matter of fact, if she wasn’t so blind to those around her, she might have figured Professor B out a little sooner.
I say I have Meg’s domesticity, Jo and Amy’s personality blended, and Amy and Meg’s taste blended.
I think my dislike of Amy is that Alcott seems to unfairly make her and Jo foils of each. And Amy gets everything she wants without trying while none of the rest of them do. And quite frankly, Amy’s rather boring.
I’m very frilly and not a tomboy, but I so often most identify with tomboy personalities in groups of sisters (see also, Penderwicks) (dominant, independent), why do authors think all frilly, girly, domestic people are sweet, companionable people?
As far as JA, I also have Emma traits, but I’m definitely Marianne. The traits I share with Emma are also seen in Marianne and overall I’m Marianne.
I taught this book to freshman in high school this year and thought they would all dislike Amy, but to my surprise they all despised Laurie!
Their read was he wasn’t masculine enough and he needed more male friends. They thought neither Jo nor Amy should end up with him. I have to say some of their essays lambasting Laurie as a character made me laugh out loud.
Most of the girls wanted to be Amy because she got to go to Europe and was the prettiest/most charming, the selfishness made her more real to them. I’ve always had a place in my heart for Amy, I can’t blame them !
I have to post in defense of Amy. I am the youngest of four, with two older sisters, five and six years older, respectively. I was the baby of the family, and probably spoiled a bit. I was the blonde, at least when I was little. I was into theater and music, not art (my sister is the artist in the family). And yes, I was probably kind of bratty at times. But remember that when the book starts, Amy is a kid. She is maybe 11 or so. Jo and Meg are 15 and 16, and Beth is….well, Beth. What she does to Jo’s book is unforgivable, but then she pays for it by almost drowning, so. And while Amy is indulged, she is also left out, for lack of a better term. Being the youngest sister and child, there is very often a sense of being left behind, of being dismissed, even belittled. It hurts. Granted, Alcott should have shown Amy’s growth more than she did. I tried hard to be taken seriously, by working hard and doing very well in school. I was never and never will be as good a person as my second sister, but almost no one is. And unlike Amy, I married someone who always tries to be the right thing and make me do it. Which has made me a better person. Though my husband frankly can be patronizing, and when he is, I call him out on it. But he is certainly no John Brooke, who is dreadful. More like a cross between Laurie and Baehr, ok, with a tiny bit of Brooke. I am just saying, there seems to be a tendency in 19th century classic novels (Austen, Alcott) to portray the younger sisters as idiots and brats. And most of us are certainly not idiots and brats. We just seem that way when we are little kids, because we aren’t as mature as our older siblings. I would posit that the worst March sister in some ways is Meg. Meg is maternal and self disciplined, but she’s also, frankly, a bore. Her husband is a bore. Her marriage is tedious. Amy at least is charming and kind of fun, and has a hobby.
I really need to read this book. My name really was Amy March! 🙂 My birth certificate says Amanda March, but my parents decided they would call me Amy. Neither of them have read the book either! Turns out Jim March was not my biological father after all. I just found the real guy and 4 siblings I didn’t know I had about 3 years ago. I’m the youngest of them all. I suppose I ought to check back here when I’m finished reading! Enjoyed the blog post – thank you! (The “ellee” name below is my radio name, as if my name situation is not already complicated enough! LOL!)