#anna alcott pratt | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

littlewomenpodcast · 2 years

Note

Hi, what are your thoughts on John x Meg? Of all the Little Women couples I see them discussed the least, and I feel like I am the only one who loves that ship best. Thank you <3

Oh, “heart eyes” thanks for the question <3 I do love John and Meg.

Films don´t really put that much focus on John and Meg. I feel like they are so focused on romanticizing Jo and Laurie and then often, quite lazily handle Jo and Friedrich and Amy and Laurie, and everything else seems to be overshadowed by that.

In the novel I think, the Vanity Fair chapter captures the way Meg begins to understand character. It kinda parallels Jo in New York, at the symposium.

Meg likes to be pampered by these rich girls, but then she also feels that she is more of a toy for them and is there to amuse them. The Vanity Fair leaves sort of a bad taste in her mouth, but it does make her consider what kind of person she wants to be and what qualities she admires.

Once they get married, they face the same struggles that a lot of married couples do when adjusting to a new situation. John is the sweetest when he gives up on getting a new coat so that Meg can get a dress, but then she doesn´t feel right about it (followed by the sex scene lol).

We will be discussing this in the third season of the podcast, both John and Friedrich felt that they weren´t worthy of these women, because they were poor. I think a lot of people mischaracterize Meg as somebody who just wanted to be pretty and rich (they say the same about Amy) and envied her rich friends.

I think in the novel when the girls tell their mother that they just want to do an experience not working for a while, it actually shows that Meg has very high work morals, because quite soon she feels that she is not being productive. Marches used to be wealthier and Meg remembered how it was, but she never was somebody who was afraid of work. The modern narrative often wants to portray her as the least ambitious housewife. In the 19th century context that she stayed at home taking care of the kids was pretty normal and John (and Friedrich as well) is very hands on with raising their kids, which was not at all usual during that time.

You can see their admiration for one another in “Camp Lawrence”, when John goes defending Meg being a governess. It´s a bit sad and weird when people now say that Meg didn´t have ambition, maybe it is a bad reading of the book, or people don´t realize that not all ambition needs to be artistic, because Louisa May Alcott´s sister, Anna also worked as a teacher. Being a governess in the 19th century wasn´t a very fashionable thing to do. Female education was still seen as very suspicious and there were schools for teachers but women were not always allowed to become teachers and professors, but john obviously admires Meg, because they are in the same situation. He is teaching Laurie, who always doesn´t have the greatest respect for him and he is poor and sends money to his family. Meg was a private tutor and sometimes the children in the family gave her a hard time as well. She also worked hard and parts of her salary went to support her family (you can´t really blame her for wanting a new dress time to time). It is interesting that both Jo and Meg ended up marrying teachers. Jo ran the school, but she was more of a mother than a teacher and was more than happy to let Fritz do the teaching.

March family was always very pro-women´s education. Even Amy teaches painting in the Bhaer academy.

I think one of the reasons people don´t really get Meg and John that much might be because John is more an introverted character whereas Friedrich and Laurie are more extroverted but that also makes John an interesting character. I don´t remember have I said this before here but I think Friedrich was John´s best friend in Concord. Of course ,Laurie and John were friends, but Laurie would always see him as his old tutor as well and then John was good friends with older Mr Lawrence but then part of him always sees him as his boss. In the March family Jo and John, were only ones who spoke German, so Friedrich could speak with them in his native language and John was also a teacher. In Little Men there is also the scene where Fritz says that he and Laurie would go to John for marital advice since he was the one who had been married for the longest (I can see that scene so clearly).

These were some of my thoughts. I´m sure there will be more to come when I cover more of Meg and John in the future.

#meg and john #meg march #john brooke #little women #anna alcott #louisa may alcott #john pratt #anna alcott pratt

48 notes · View notes

the-other-art-blog · 3 years

Text

Little Men thoughts part 8: The Brookes

This is such a sad post.

John Brooke

John dies and it’s the most heartbreaking thing that happens to the family after Beth’s passing. I just would have like to see more of him in this book. Although, Louisa had a hard time writing about the people who were gone so I understand why she couldn’t include him more.

Fritz does say he lost his best friend.

Mr. Bhaer went hastily away quite bowed with grief, for in John Brooke he had lost both friend and brother, and there was no one left to take his place.

I would have also liked some words from Laurie. He wasn’t the best student and yet John had to bear it cause he needed the money. But he also played a part in making a man out of Laurie. And both Fritz and Laurie learned a lot from John’s parenting. I would have liked seeing the men interacting more.

I found in an article about Alf Whitman this extract from a letter that John Pratt (real life John Brooke) wrote about his marriage:

Our life together has been so beneficial, so satisfying, so peaceful so pure & happy that it seems to me almost as if we were designed by Providence for one another, & the hopes and wishes I used to recount to you have far more than been realized, so much so that there is nothing left for me to ask for, our life is one long day of sunshine.

The boys called him “the best” and he certainly was. Meg won the lottery by marrying him. He was such a hard working man and he really gave Meg everything she needed, even leaving her free of debts. I suppose he always knew he would die soon.

Meg

That letter, previously quoted, was supposed to be sent by Anna (real life Meg), but since she did it late, she added,

John and I plod along happily in our little home, daily finding how very little is necessary when one has plenty of love in the cupboard. My dear old man grows gooder & handsomer & happier every day and I really can’t see that we have much left to desire in this world.

When you have someone like that, losing them must be unbearable.

Meg is such a strong woman. Honestly, I hate every time people say she (and Amy) contended herself with a domestic life. In reality she got everything she wanted. Not every woman wants to participate in a revolution and that’s ok! Some dream of a cozy home to share with a partner and kids. It doesn’t make their lives any less relevant.

Most people pay attention to either Amy&Laurie or Jo&Fritz. I know I did, but after reading those letter I won’t make the same mistake. Meg and John’s story is equally important and epic!

I suppose that just as John was a model for Fritz and Laurie, Meg was a model for her younger sisters. They also had Marmee but a sister is a different kind of connection.

Meg became a widow at 30 years old (maybe 31 or 32) with three kids, one of which will barely have memories of him. And I’m sure she’s dying inside and at times she wants to actually die.

When John died, Anna wrote to Alf,

All looks dark to me, and at times I feel that I cannot live.

But the way she composed herself during the funeral was remarkable.

"Dear Jo, the love that has blest me for ten happy years supports me still. It could not die, and John is more my own than ever,"

In my experience, funerals are the moment when you’re numb. The loss has just happened and there’s so much happening. There’s preparation to be made and you have be polite to the attendants (and then the mass and the rosaries in Catholic tradition), and everything just moves so fast. It’s the days that follow that are horrible. It’s when you actually feel there’s someone missing.

It’s in moments like this where religion really helps people and why it’s never going to go away. That belief that they’re going to be separated for a while, but they’ll meet again must have help Meg to accept his death and find comfort in her kids and family.

Daisy and Josie

I already talked about Daisy in Part 2, and I repeat I would have liked to see her grieving, but I understand why the focus in on Demi. There’s an episode in Modern Family where Alex’s boyfriend confesses that his biggest worry is to not be as good as Phil, cause he is such a wonderful man and dad. Oh boy, John really set the bar incredibly high for Nat and Josie’s future husband.

Josie is really only mentioned here, thought she must be a year younger that Bess, so like 3 years old. So, to correct my post from a few weeks ago. The March women were pregnant in consecutive years!!! Can you imagine that?! First Amy, then Meg and lastly Jo. Jesus, those poor men haha.

Demi

In Little Women Chapter 45 it is stated that the twins are advanced. Demi became a bookworm, sure her aunt Jo is super proud. Plus, he definitely uses Sherlock’s technique of a ‘mind palace’! And he bonded with his grandfather because of this.

All the times where he mispronounces something is so cute and reminded me so much of Amy in LW.

“a sackerryfice”

“an arrygory”

It’s really fun. Honestly, not just him, but every time a kid mispronounces something :3

There this idea of “the man of the house”. So John’s death really forces him to grow up, especially when he has a mother and two sisters to take care of. There’s no brother who might help him. He has cousins and uncles but it’s not the same. It breaks my heart when Jo finds him crying at night.

Part 1: Jo and Fritz,

Part 2: the girls at Plumfield

Part 3: Nat Blake

Part 4: Laurie

Part 5: Jo and Laurie

Part 6: Bess Laurence

Part 7: Amy Laurence

#little women #little men #louisa may alcott #meg broke #john brooke #meg x john #demi and daisy #josie brooke #anna alcott pratt #john pratt

14 notes · View notes

marzipanandminutiae · 4 years

Text

one of the most annoying arguments I see for why the costumes in L*ttle W*men (2019) are Good Actually is that “the Alcotts were hippies”

this goes back to an interview with the costumer before the movie came out, in which she called the Alcotts hippies because they made their own clothes. which, of course, didn’t make you a hippie. it made you a lower- or middle-class woman living in Concord, MA in the mid-19th century who wanted to have clothes. but the Bad History seed had planted

someone in a historical fashion FB group I’m in brought this up a few days ago, saying that the costumes in the movie were MORE accurate than “slavish devotion to accuracy” because the Alcotts surely wouldn’t have worn prim and prissy Actual Victorian Clothing(TM)! they were free spirits! they were rebels! they

(Louisa May Alcott, probably 1870s or 80s. She is definitely wearing a corset in both photos.)

(Anna Alcott Pratt, right, the inspiration for Meg.)

wait a minute

(Abigail May Alcott, left, Louisa’s mother. At right is Louisa as a young woman. Note very precise curls and most of her hair pinned up.)

well those are just formal photos! surely only May and Anna, the inspirations for Amy and Meg, cared about silly things like clothes!

In the evening Louisa and I walked through the lane and talked about how we should like to live and dress and imagined all kinds of beautiful things. (Anna’s adolescent diary, emphasis mine.)

hold on. it’s almost like...someone can dress conventionally AND have radical thoughts about social issues?

like Louisa and her sisters and mother could write letters about trimming bonnets and going to balls (which they did) AND be active, groundbreaking proto-feminists?

it’s almost like there’s a scene in part 2 of Little Women that movies always leave out where Jo is happily working on a dress for one of her sisters and gets cross when Amy makes her stop and go calling?

but sure, loose hair and prairie dresses are “more accurate to the family”

#louisa may alcott #again if everyone wasn't trying to claim the LW19 costumes were objectively accurate it wouldn't bug me as much #I'd still hate them but at least it would be honest #if the team had said 'hey we went with an artistic Julia Margaret Cameron fantasy interpretation of the 1860s' I'd grudgingly accept it #lw19

258 notes · View notes

isfjmel-phleg · 3 years

Text

March 2021 Books

Little Women: An Annotated Edition by Louisa May Alcott and edited by Daniel Shealy

This one had more of a textual focus. I didn’t know that Little Women had been subject to considerable revisions of wording--the version of the story that I and most other readers are familiar with isn’t the original text, and these word choices do make a striking difference.

The Annotated Little Women by Louisa May Alcott and edited by John Matteson

This one had more of an autobiographical focus. I especially enjoyed the photographs of Orchard House and many of its artifacts (including Anna Alcott Pratt’s wedding gown!).

Torch by R. J. Anderson

For the first time, I’ve had the pleasure of reading an early draft of a novel and then the final version. Seeing this book go from an already strong draft to a beautifully satisfying finished work increases my respect for @rj-anderson‘s writing process and dedication to making this final installment the best it could be. The close of Ivy and Martin’s story and respective arcs is exactly what one could hope for them. Well-worth the wait, much enjoyed, and highly recommended.

Melinda Takes a Hand by Patricia Beatty

Backstory: this was a book my mom found for me at the library when I was very young (her tastes for me at that age gravitated toward girls’ historical fiction), and I couldn’t get into it and never finished it--something I seldom did. After figuring out the title, I was curious how it would read for an adult.

I can see why my six-year-old self wouldn’t have been able to get much out of the book’s plotline or brand of humor. It was light and enjoyable, with an interesting author’s note regarding her historical research (which seemed pretty thorough, aside from “women back then fainted, like, all the time because corsets, just read their literature”--citation needed?)

The Complete Mapp and Lucia: Volume 1 by E. F. Benson

This was pitched to me a long time ago by a former classmate as “Wodehouse, but with a focus on the ladies.” I found one of the volumes of the complete set in England and have been dragging my feet getting to it ever since. I wanted to like it, and there were situations and characters in Queen Lucia (the first book) that were rather amusing. But Miss Mapp (the second, with a completely different cast) was a painful slog to read, even though it wasn’t very long, and by the time I got about three-quarters into Lucia in London, I gave up.

It was social satire and humorous antics among upper-class(ish) people in 1920s England, but the resemblance to Wodehouse ends there. Wodehouse approaches his characters and fictional world with an attitude of affectionate mockery, generally not mean-spirited, and even his ridiculous characters have something human and likeable about them. Benson, on the other hand, presents the reader with characters who are nearly all deeply unpleasant, full of pettiness, pretension, and social rivalry. They’re not likeable and probably not intended to be, and the worldview overall is deeply cynical. Chapter after chapter of “aren’t these people awful and worthy of ridicule” got rather grating for me. I do not deny the literary quality of Benson’s work, but I regret I found it disappointing to come expecting a refreshing metaphorical glass of lemonade and get straight lemon juice instead.

The Professor by Charlotte Bronte

I like the Brontes on the whole, but I fully understand why this one was initially turned down by the publisher (leading Charlotte to write Jane Eyre instead, a much, much, much better piece). It was interesting to see the roots of themes that would turn up in her later work, but the narrator, with his pronounced bigotry and judgments about people’s (especially women’s) characters based solely on physical appearance, wasn’t as easy to root for as the text seemed to expect the reader to find him.

Emma by Charlotte Bronte and “Another Lady” (i.e. Constance Savery)

Since this is based on a fragment (just a few chapters) of Bronte’s, most of the book was Savery’s. While she never quite captures Bronte’s tone (a perhaps impossible feat), the story she creates from Bronte’s setup is enjoyable and charming in its own right.

The Clockwork Crow by Catherine Fisher

This one had such a charming, atmospheric premise and setting! But it was all so underdeveloped that I felt like I was getting only half a book. Fisher seemed to be aiming for the lower end of middle grade, which might account for the length, but I think readers around the intended age could handle a book about twice this one’s length. This was a story that deserved more realization than it got.

Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons

At some point, I’d like to properly get in on the discussions jellicoelodge is doing, and since I didn’t have the mental energy or philosophical whatsit to handle Lewis’s The Great Divorce any time soon, I thought I’d try the alternate reading. And I’m so, so sorry, but I didn’t care for it at all. Some of the content was a little much for my taste, I didn’t care for the characters, and the humor was lost on me. Except for that one academic guy’s theory that the Brontes’ brother was the real author of their work because such great books couldn’t have been written by a woman, and the knots he ties himself into trying to prove it--which was hilarious because I have encountered a very similar mindset in real life, and it deserves all the satire it can get.

Winterhouse by Ben Guterson

I think I’d need to reread this one to decide if I loved it, but the characters and atmosphere were a lot of fun.

The Garden of Lost Secrets by A. M. Howell

Not quite as suspenseful as I was expecting, but the setting was lovely and the protagonist engaging.

The Bookwanderers by Anna James

Loved the premise. Wasn’t crazy about the execution. Anne Shirley and Alice made multiple appearances and felt out of character each time, not only because their dialogue didn’t ring true for their respective eras (and was inexplicably peppered with the cloying phrase “ever so”?) but also because the attitudes felt off. This Anne seemingly couldn’t mention Diana without saying something along the lines of “she’s my best friend, but she’s so unimaginative”--even going so far as to claim that it’s a trial to her to have such a friend. Excuse me? Canon Anne is nothing but genuinely loving toward and appreciative of her bosom friend, and anything else does her character a disservice.

ALSO a big twist has some downright weird implications and I won’t spoil it but...yikes.

Father’s Arcane Daughter by E. L. Konigsburg (reread)

Reread because I wanted to rewatch the film adaptation.

Song of the Abyss by Makiia Lucier

Although the characterization in this one wasn’t as strong as in Isle of Blood and Stone (and Lucier tends to overuse fragments that would do better as clauses--not important, I know, just something I found distracting), the worldbuilding continues to be very striking, this time featuring some rather chilling twists.

Creatures of Light by Emily B. Martin (reread)

In preparation for a reread of Sunshield, in preparation for reading Floodpath.

The Flight of Swans by Sarah McGuire

Gorgeous, heartfelt retelling of the relatively lesser-known fairy tale “The Six Swans”/”The Wild Swans.” I enjoyed it more than I expected to.

The Good Ship “Red Lily” by Constance Savery

Savery loves plots about family members on opposite sides of an ideological conflict, and she handles them so well that I gladly read every variation I can find. Although this one might not be the strongest example of this style of story for her, it was a fun read.

Magic in My Shoes by Constance Savery (reread)

Reread on a whim.

Tenthragon by Constance Savery

This is Savery’s only novel for adults. Although the protagonist is a child, the heaviness of the themes (a highly dysfunctional family, abuse in numerous forms, and intense revenge) calls for an older audience. Apparently some critics when this book came out thought Savery had taken on more than she could handle.

But whether that’s the case or not, I was riveted. Savery combines her gift for compelling characterization with a plot that speaks to my shameless Gothic-loving sensibilities for a result that feels like Wuthering Heights without the love story and with a far more satisfying ending that leaves open the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness, themes common in Savery’s work.

Unfortunately for me the book is out of print and no one seems to have read it since roughly 1930, so I am alone with my feelings on this.

Hollowpox by Jessica Townsend (reread)

Enjoyable, as all the Nevermoor books are, although after the reread I think this one is my least preferred of the three. Supporting characters took a backseat to a plot with some rather heavyhanded themes, and the characters and their relationships are much of what gives the series its heart in the first place. Hoping for more of that in the next installment!

#random personal stuff #once again I have Strong Opinions #I read a lot of things I enjoyed this month and a few that just didn't do it for me

9 notes · View notes

mygreatadventurehasbegun · 4 years

Text

Yet another post discussing the costumes of Little Women.

Don’t worry, this is a small one, and there’s not too much criticizing....it’s a little bit more of a retrospective.

And of course, it’s about Meg.

Here we go!

A while back, I was browsing on Instagram and something was filtered to me through my recommendations. It was a snippet of the behind the scenes from the Little Women DVD, this particular one focusing on, you guessed it, the costumes.

They started showing pictures of Jacqueline Durran’s costumes and something caught my eye. So much so, that I took a screen cap of it so I could look at it more closely:

Now, at first glance, I thought this was Meg’s Vanity Fair dress, and I thought: “Oh my God, this looks so much better than what we got! The neckline and trim look more appropriate to the era, the gloves are shorter, etc. Why did we not get this dress?”

And then I looked at the upper left hand corner to see that this was meant to be her wedding dress.

And honestly, I was confused. To the point that I thought maybe the sketch had been mis-labeled and it really was the ball gown. Because it made no sense, otherwise. Why would you design a ball gown wedding dress for a lower class girl who’s getting married outside in the afternoon? Especially since young women of that social/economic standing usually didn’t wear “wedding dresses” as we know them, they tended to wear their best dress (or maybe a newer dress that could become their best dress). Things just didn’t gel for me.

But no matter what was originally intended, that sketch did not end up in the final film as Meg’s wedding dress. (Though am I the only one that is getting Belle ‘17 PTSD flashbacks right now? Maybe they realized that they couldn’t have two movies in a row where EW wears a gown with a layered skirt like that)

But it got me thinking about Meg’s wedding dress and how is was portrayed throughout the film adaptations....and what I think of them, of course.

First, here’s a look at Anna Alcott Pratt’s actual wedding dress, which is displayed once a year at Orchard House:

First, I’d like to note that the website said she was married in 1860, which is before the events of the book began. The dress is made of gray silk and has a simple lace collar and buttons down the front of the bodice. A very simple dress, that you can easily imagine being a dress that would be re-worn for other occasions.

Now, onto the adaptations!

There are no pictures of the dress from the 1933 film...I couldn’t even find a clip of the scene online, so I’ll have to describe it. The film is B&W, so there’s no guarantee that the dress is pure white, though it does look like it while you watch it. Like Anna’s dress, it is very simple....with a crew neck, no lace around the collar, and sleeves that puffed a little at the cuff. Frances Dee as Meg wore a delicate crown of flowers and a very thin veil with a blusher. In looking at it, no matter what the color of the dress was, I could see someone from that era re-wearing it.

Again, the 1949 film has no decent pictures online from this scene! There are only two that I could find, but are very low quality...one was so blurred I could barely make out who was who, and the other, Meg was so far in the background that you couldn’t see any detail of the dress. So, I’ll have to describe this one, too. Janet Leigh’s Meg wore an off-white or possibly very pale taupe dress with a lace collar that went around her neck rather than laying flat on the bodice. The dress had a slightly patterned fabric that did give it the air of something that would be considered a “best dress”. The film has the only Meg that does not wear flowers in her hair. Instead she wears a very simple veil that goes just past the shoulders. I used to remember this veil as a cap or a bonnet, actually...the fabric is very opaque and the way it lays on her head (sitting very high, only revealing about an inch of her hairline) does resemble a bonnet at first glance. I wish there was a picture of the dress, it’s actually very pretty!

*It’s also worth noting that Walter Plunkett designed the costumes for both the 1993 and 1949 film! And he didn’t copy himself at all in the second film.*

Moving on to the 1994 film, and I finally have a visual aid!

First of all, this dress is beautiful! But it is the first dress we’ve seen before that reads more “wedding dress” than “best dress”. Though I’m sure an argument could be made for Meg turning this into a best dress. The dress has a small v-neck, with subtle ruching going down the bodice. She’s also wearing white eyelet gloves and her sleeves seem to be a little bit sheer; though I don’t think it was intentional, the fabric just wasn’t 100% opaque. And it’s hard to see in this picture, but it almost looks like the skirt is bustled more in the back vs. wearing a full hoop skirt. Now this could be the angle of the photo, I couldn’t find a wide shot to confirm. But, given when the story takes place, with the beginning somewhere around 1863 (I’m pretty sure there’s a title card, but I can’t remember what it says), and Meg’s wedding takes place 5 years later around 1868, the silhouette of skirts was shifting from large hoop skirts to putting the volume in the back. I think it was a very smart choice by the costume designer, Colleen Atwood. Trini Alvarado’s Meg is the only one to not wear a veil, which personally, I like.

Even though I haven’t seen the 2017 miniseries all the way through, I wanted to just take a peek at their Meg’s wedding dress.

Of all the adaptations I’m covering, this one is probably the “fanciest”, as it does resemble a ball gown at first glance. I think that’s mostly due to the neckline and possibly the fabric used....I think it’s silk? If it is, it’s the only one of these adaptations to have Meg wear a silk dress like Anna did. The dress is cream or possibly very pale gold in color with a boat neck (though that is hard to see in this picture) and pleats going along the neckline. The sleeves are also made of a different fabric than the rest of the dress and seems to be deliberately made to be sheer. For me personally, I don’t like the sleeves. I feel like if they weren’t sheer, I’d like them better, but they look like a weird last minute addition in some shots. This Meg wears a very subtle crown of flowers and long floor length veil. The veil was another thing I didn’t love about this version....at least looking at this picture, it looks a little too modern, but that’s just me. I think the flowers would have been enough. But this is a version of Meg’s dress that is more distinctly a “wedding dress”, but with the possibility of being re-worn (helped, I think by the fact that it’s not white). If Meg had a ball to go to after she was married, I could see her wearing this again.

And finally, the 2019 version. *sigh*

Now, it’s no secret that I’m not a big fan of this adaptation, but I’m going to try and be fair. First of all, if the last one seemed like it seemed like a “wedding dress” that had a chance of being re-worn, this version is 100% wedding dress. I could not see Meg re-wearing this dress again. This is a wedding dress in the modern sense of you wear it, pack it away in a cedar chest and take it out to show your daughter when she’s grown. And I’m sure there were women back then who never re-wore their wedding dresses, but it was more likely for a poorer woman to reuse their clothes as much as possible. ANYWAY. The dress, objectively, is pretty, though it does look a bit too modern for my tastes. There is a simple v-neck with buttons going down the bodice and a wide lace collar. The sleeves are very sheer (which is think lends to the modernity) and I believe that the dress has the ability to be bustled. I can’t remember if there was a train during the wedding scene, but you can see in the second picture the gathering of fabric at the bottom. And this Meg wears both a crown on flowers and a veil that gets removed after the wedding. She is also the only Meg not to wear gloves at her wedding. While I don’t personally care for the dress, I think if just a couple changes were made, it could have (maybe) worked in an historical context. First: PUT YOUR DAMN HAIR UP. I WILL SAY THIS OVER AND OVER THE FACT THAT MEG’S HAIR WAS DOWN IN HER YOUNGER YEARS IS AWFUL AND THERE’S NO EXCUSE. *ahem* Second: wear a small hoop. I’m not saying she needs to go all Scarlet O”Hara, but even a small one would give a more appropriate shape for the era. Third: change the flower crown. I’m not sure what it is about this crown, but it just doesn’t work for me. I’m not sure if the flowers are too big or if the placement on her head is weird. Or both. While I don’t love this dress, I do prefer it to the sketch shown above.

Now, what was the point of all this?

No real point, I just thought it’d be interesting to go over this.

What I do find interesting while looking over the dresses in chronological order is how, over time, they shift closer and closer to being “wedding gowns”, in the modern sense. Yes, women in Victorian times did wear white wedding gowns (a trend, I believe, started by Queen Victoria), but they tended to be wealthier, not working class women like the March family (not always, I’m sure, but most of the time). And yet, as this story keeps getting adapted, we steer closer to what the general audience knows as a wedding dress. Is that because the farther we get from the time period, less people know that white wasn’t always the traditional color for a bride? Possibly. I mean, think about it...the 1933 film came out less than 70 years after the Civil War ended. Even if the people in the audience weren’t alive that long ago, their parents were....so certain traditions may have been more common knowledge then than it is now. Plus, the filmmakers are using a shorthand language...so even if the scene was played in silence, if we see a woman wearing a white dress and a veil, we know she’s getting married.

If I had to pick my favorite out of all these?

It’s a tie between the 1949 and 1994 dress. I think the ‘49 dress works in the historical context of it being the “best dress” and as something that can be re-worn (I wish I had a picture of video to share!). But I think the ‘94 dress is beautiful, too...I think it’s a good example of meeting in the middle....between the historical accuracy and modern sensibilities.

*And I just want to close this out by stating that I am in no way an expert. All of my knowledge is stuff I’ve picked up over the years from costume design classes and following certain blogs.*

#little women #historical fashion #this was also the thing i tried to write yesterday that got deleted for no reason #costume design

68 notes · View notes

louisamayalcottismypassion · 6 years

Text

Highlights from Jo’s Boys by Louisa May Alcott

As part of the Louisa May Alcott reading challenge hosted by the In the Bookcase blog, I pledged I would read and post on Jo’s Boys and Anne Boyd Rioux’s latest, Meg, Jo, Beth, Amy: The Story of Little Women and Why It Still Matters. This post will be about Jo’s Boys.

I am fortunate enough to own a first edition copy of Jo’s Boys. Knowing that this book existed while Louisa was still alive gives…

View On WordPress

#Anna Alcott Pratt #Jo&039;s Boys and How They Turned Out #Louisa May Alcott Reading Challenge

0 notes

19thcliteraryblog · 3 years

Text

Louisa May Alcott (November 29, 1832 – March 6, 1888) was an American novelist, short story writer, and poet best known as the author of the novel Little Women (1868) and its sequels Little Men (1871) and Jo's Boys (1886). She was raised in New England, and she grew up among many well-known intellectuals of the day, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry David Thoreau.

It is also known that Alcott's family suffered from financial difficulties, and while she worked to help support her family from an early age, she also sought an outlet in writing. She began to receive critical success for her writing in the 1860s. Early in her career, she used pen names such as A. M. Barnard, under which she wrote lurid short stories and sensation novels for adults that focused on passion and revenge.

Alcott's most popular work published in 1868, Little Women is set in the Alcott family home, and is loosely based on Alcott's childhood experiences with her three sisters, Abigail May Alcott Nieriker, Elizabeth Sewall Alcott, and Anna Alcott Pratt. The novel was well-received at the time and is still popular today among both children and adults. It has been adapted many times to stage, film, and television.

Alcott was an abolitionist and a feminist and remained unmarried throughout her life. All her life she was active in such reform movements as temperance and women's suffrage.

#louisa may alcott #little women the novel #female writers

0 notes

therehavealwaysbeenbutterflies · 4 years

Text

http://archives.nypl.org/brg/19220

This is a collection of documents related to Louisa May Alcott.

“This is a synthetic collection consisting of manuscripts, correspondence by the author, and legal documents. The manuscripts include essays, stories, and poems in holograph, as well as a manuscript copied in Anna Alcott Pratt's hand. The correspondence, dating from 1865 to 1884, includes letters from the author to Edward Henry and Bertie Barton, Moncure Daniel Conway, Dean Grey, Mary Elizabeth Channing Higginson, and others.”

It is not available digitally.

#louisa may alcott #archive #primary source #mine

0 notes

geniogirgentano · 6 years

Photo

#Repost @alcotts_orchard_house ・・・ “And the images of loved ones/ Warmly to your heart shall come...” from Louisa May Alcott’s poem, “To Anna.” Anna comes warmly to our hearts today! She was born on this day in 1831. Happiest of Birthdays to you, Anna Alcott Pratt!!!! #happybirthday #birthdays #love #joy #celebration #toanna #nan #family #theater #friends #sisters #happy #days #moderncinderella #sweet #birthday #lovelouisamayalcottsorchardhouse

#nan #happybirthday #theater #birthday #love #birthdays #family #repost #friends #happy #moderncinderella #sweet #lovelouisamayalcottsorchardhouse #joy #sisters #toanna #celebration #days

1 note · View note

cakane463 · 6 years

Photo

#LouisaMayAlcott 🎄 📯”We have a holiday "gift from the heart" for you! Discover, "How the Alcotts Celebrated Christmas in 19th Century Massachusetts." This piece (below), by our Director of Education, Lis Adams, recently appeared in the Concord Journal. We hope you enjoy it! Happy Holidays to you & yours.📯 ~~~~~ Christmas was a holiday which the Alcott family always celebrated with gifts and festivity. Simple, handmade “gifts from the heart” were lovingly prepared and greatly treasured. Eleven-year-old Louisa May Alcott wrote in her journal on Christmas Day, 1843: “I rose early and sat some looking at the Bon-bons in my stocking. This is the piece of poetry which mother wrote for me Christmas is here Louisa my dear Then happy we’ll be Gladsome and free God with you abide With love for your guide In time you’ll go right With heart and with might.” Filling stockings was essential to the celebration, and even grownups participated in this tradition. When the Alcotts were living on Pinckney Street in Boston, 22-year-old Louisa wrote this note to her mother, accompanied by a copy of her very first published book, Flower Fables: “Dear Mother, Into your Christmas stocking I have put my ‘first-born,’ knowing that you will accept it with all its faults (for grandmothers are always kind), and look upon it merely as an earnest of what I may yet do….Whatever beauty or poetry is to be found in my little book is owing to your interest in and encouragement of all my efforts from the first to the last…” Even when away from home during the holidays, family members were never forgotten. In 1856 when Louisa was living on her own in a rented room in Boston, she wrote back just after Christmas to sister Anna in Concord: “Got home cold, tired & low in my mind, & the first thing I saw was a box from home. I clutched it, swept up stairs, & startled the family by dancing a hornpipe with it in my arms….You dear good souls to think of me in the midst of your hustle! If you’d sent diamonds & side saddles you couldn’t have pleased me more…” The Alcott sisters typically performed “theatricals” as part of their Christmas festivities, just as the March sisters did in Little Women,. Louisa wrote to her friend Alfred Whitman, in 1858: “I am spending my Christmas in Concord….We (performed) in the Pratt parlor after a nice little tree full of gifts & goodies had been stripped, & had no stage or properties but…we were applauded copiously by a large & brilliant audience of fifteen.” In 1860, when the family had been settled for two years in Orchard House, and tensions between South and North were rising in the country, Louisa wrote soberly in her journal: “A quiet Christmas; no presents but apples and flowers. No merry-making; for Nan (Anna) and May were gone, and Betty (Elizabeth) under the snow. But we are used to hard times, and, as Mother says, ‘while there is a famine in Kansas we mustn’t ask for sugar-plums.’ ” Two years later, at the age of 30, Louisa signed up to serve as a nurse in the Civil War, spending the holidays on a hospital ward in Washington, D.C. In her short story, “A Hospital Christmas,” Alcott describes how the staff tried to create as homelike a celebration as they could to cheer up the soldiers. “When breakfast was done,…and as many of the disagreeables as possible well over, the fun began…..To the weary invalids prisoned in that room, it was quite a whirl of excitement….and soon, …a green bough hung at the head of each bed, depended from the gas-burners, and nodded over the fireplace….Healths were drunk in currant wine, apples and oranges flew about as an impromptu game of ball was got up, Miss Hale sang a Christmas carol, and Ben gamboled like a sportive giant as he cleared away.” One of the men, receiving a box from home, generously shares his gifts with everyone on the ward. Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 classic, Little Women, opens at Christmas time. In chapter two, “A Merry Christmas,” she wrote: “Jo was the first to wake in the gray dawn of Christmas morning. No stockings hung at the fireplace, and for a moment she felt as much disappointed as she did long ago when her little sock fell down because it was so crammed with goodies. Then she remembered her mother’s promise, and, slipping her hand under her pillow, drew out a little crimson-covered book. She knew it very well, for it was that beautiful old story of the best life ever lived, and Jo felt that it was a true guidebook for any pilgrim going the long journey.” Later that morning, at the urgent request of their mother, the March girls give away their Christmas breakfast to a suffering family who lives down the road, a scenario based on a true incident from the Alcotts’ early days in Concord in the 1840s. After making her fortune through writing, Alcott continued her charitable giving. In 1875 she brought armloads of dolls, toys, and candy in person to Randall’s Island, New York, a refuge for homeless, neglected, mentally and terminally ill children. She spent her Christmas day distributing gifts and enjoying the pleasure it brought the children. Alcott declared that, though it was sad “to see such suffering laid on such innocent victims and to feel how little one could do to lessen it,” their singing was “a sweeter music to my ears than any Latin hymn I ever heard…” During her career Alcott wrote dozens of Christmas stories, often featuring a privileged child who realizes the great pleasure that can be had in bringing Christmas cheer to others less fortunate. Her uplifting tales show the influence of one of Alcott’s favorite authors, Charles Dickens, whose Christmas stories were avidly read and frequently fashioned into plays and performed by the Alcott sisters. Like Dickens, Alcott knew the sting of great poverty in her youth, but the lessons in charity taught by her parents stayed with her throughout her life. “A Little Women Christmas” living history program is available at Louisa May Alcott’s Orchard House on Saturdays and Sundays, December 2 – 17. Tickets may be purchased online at www.louisamayalcott.org or by calling 978-369-4118 x106. Orchard House will be collecting donated goods for City Mission Boston during December.” The Concord Historical Collaborative coordinates efforts and activities in Concord to present its rich history through diverse educational opportunities and fosters an appreciation and stewardship for Concord’s historical resources. ~~~~~ http://www.louisamayalcott.org/ *Image is an illustration by Frank Merrill for the 1880 Little Women Happy Holidays! Please note, while our holiday program has ended for this year, do keep it in mind for next! And, while it is over for now, we are still open for general tours, and the home is decorated for the holidays!

#LittleWomen

0 notes

littlewomenpodcast · 4 years

Note

Do you have any quotes on Louisa’s love for Emerson and Thoreau? I am very interested about it but I would love if you could give me some example of what she wrote about them

Thanks for the ask anonymous! I share this interest with you :D

Here is a quote from Megan Armknecht´s essay “Jo marries Goethe, Dr Bhaer as the Goethean ideal

“when Anna Alcott married John Pratt, the Emerson family was present. Alcott, then twentyseven, wrote in her journal that “Mr. Emerson kissed her [Anna Alcott]; and I thought that honor would make even matrimony endurable, for he is the god of my idolatry, and has been for years.”53 Emerson’s kindness and friendship toward the Alcott family only deepened Alcott’s love for him. She looked to him in everything and regarded his advice as “the best inspiration of [her] life.”54 Their relationship was like that of father and daughter, since he was twenty-nine years her senior. When Emerson died, forty-nineyear-old Alcott described him as “the man who has helped me most by his life, his books, his society. I can never tell all he has been to me from the time I [was] . . . a little girl.”55

Finding quotes about Henry has been harder because of Louisa´s high level of self-censoring.

One book on my reading-list is Susan Cheever´s “American Bloomsbury” which is all about Louisa and the transcendentalists and what I have heard she writes a great deal about Louisa´s and Henry´s relationship.I´v been told that her books can be a bit gossipy at times but we´ll see.

This is from Cheever´s book. In one of her journals this is what Louisa has written about Henry.

"Beneath the defects the Master’s eye saw the grand lines that were to serve as the model for the perfect man.”

If you read Louisa´s novel Rose in Bloom, Rose and Mac have a conversation about Thoreau´s poetry and Mac as a character is loosely based on Henry.

Then there is “Thoreau´s flute” a poem that Louisa wrote after´s Henry´s passing. You can easily find the poem online.

Another book with Louisa´s diary markings is Edna Cheney´s “Louisa May Alcott´s Life, Letters and Journals”. It is one of the early biographies, some of the modern Alcott scholars have criticized Cheney for nit-picking parts she liked, but when you read them carefully you can see that Louisa herself as an older woman, went back re-writing some of her journals and destroyed others like she knew that her journals would be read. Afterwards, she belittles her teen-age crush on Emerson, so it is difficult to say what was the true nature of her feelings towards him.

There were few entries there that I thought was quite interesting. In one of them she writes to her journal how Mr. E (Emerson) had said to her to write something that pleases her (Louisa) and not for the crowds and Louisa writes “I might as well do that”. It reminds me of the way Friedrich encourages Jo to write from her heart. In her journals, Louisa usually refers to Henry as Mr H or H (looks like they were on a first-name basis) and there are couple entries where she has shown her writing for Henry as well.

I rather enjoyed this take on Henry´s appearance and Louisa´s marks about it.

http://airshipdaily.com/blog/9232013how-ugly-was-henry-david-thoreau

Kevin Dann´s Thoreau biography “Expect great things The life of Henry David Thoreau” includes a eulogy that Emerson had written about his friend. Although Louisa thought it was a good portrait, she didn’t think it was appropriate for a funeral since it seemed critical at times. Which can indicate that Louisa and Henry had an affair.

In both David Harding`s and Dann´s Thoreau biographies there are mentions of “unnamed” lover Henry had. In Harding´s book she is described as someone who shared her life-philosophy and on Henry´s journal this unnamed person is compared to goddess Diana, which fits to Louisa´s description (it is the poem I´v read on my real-life Friedrich Bhaer video essay).

So far my favorite notes from Harding´s Thoreau biography are that

- Henry always carried an umbrella with him

- His favorite past time was singing (like Friedrich´s in Little Women)

-There was also a long paragraph how Henry and his family members hated gossip and false pretense, which reminds me the part in Little Women, when Jo is in the symposium.

I haven´t read Dann´s book myself yet, it was recommended to me by a friend of mine who is a Thoreau-researcher.

I hope this helps!

#louisa may alcott #henry david thoreau #ralf waldo emmerson #little women #literature #jo and friedrich #jo march #friedrich bhaer #real life friedrich bhaer #literal crushes #based on reality #ask fairychamber a question #queue of the umbrellas

25 notes · View notes

mygreatadventurehasbegun · 5 years

Video

youtube

All right, the trailer is here.

I have watched about four times and spent some time thinking about it.

I do not think it looks like a bad movie, but I’m unsure of how great it will be.

From the things I’ve read, they are saying that Florence Pugh is the big scene-stealer of the movie, and you can tell just based on how often Amy features in the trailer. They’ve also said that Emma Watson is miscast....and seeing how little she features into the trailer, it makes it look like they are cutting around her performance. And with the American accent, her voice has this weird monotone...the one line she has is actually a good line (just because my dreams are different than yours, doesn’t mean they’re not important), but it’s so dully read that it takes the importance out of the line.

And I find it odd that we saw not one shot of Professor Bhaer...I understand not showing a lot of John Brooke (though it would have been nice, just cause I’m a fan of James Norton), but not even one shot of Friedrich? And with the bookends of the trailer, it got me thinking....are they going to change the ending?? I know they’ve cast Friedrich, so he’ll be in the story, but are they going to have it so Jo doesn’t get married? I understand why the bookends are there, asking about who the main female character marries (a nod to Lousia May Alcott, who had to add on to her original story because editors wanted Jo to marry), but adding to the fact that we don’t see the Professor, and the line of Jo’s about being sick of women only being fit for falling in love, makes me wonder if there is going to be a change. And I’m not sure how I feel about that.

I also wish whoever edited the trailer had focused more on the sisterhood aspect. There doesn’t really seem to be a clear focus to the trailer at all....it feels like it focuses more on romantic relationships (or the idea of them) and women being more than just wives....which don’t really mesh together. But to me, the story is at it’s best when it’s about the relationships between Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy, and how how they grow up and change....but there’s very little of them just being sister...there’s a quick scene at the beginning, but then it jumps right into Jo/Laurie and then Amy/Laurie and then it’s “women shouldn’t just want to fall in love”. There’s a weird flow to the trailer, and it struggles to make an impact (at least to me). As I’ve been writing this, I’ve had to keep going back to re-watch things because I couldn’t really remember what happened.

*Oh, and I know that I’ve been nitpicking on the costume and hair design when all we had were pictures...for the most part, everything looks all right, costume-wise...not ideal, but not terrible. But I’m still annoyed about the hair....honestly, it’s really just Meg’s hair. Couldn’t they just put her damn hair up? And not have bangs? I looked closely, and I’m pretty sure the scene where she, Jo, John Brooke and Laurie are at the theater, her hair is in pigtails. *fumes* She is out in the evening on what is essentially a date, any proper young woman of the time would have their hair swept up off their neck. And Meg is a proper young woman...or at least she’s supposed to be. And I know that they are trying to make the March family seem more poor than they are drawn in the book (closer to Louisa May Alcott’s real life), but not having money would not stop you from putting up your hair. And I’m not a fan of the wedding look. Again, the hair...you are getting married, put your hair up. And the dress....it just...looks wrong....too modern...why are the sleeves shear?! If you’re curious, this is what Anna Alcott Pratt (the real-life Meg) wore on her wedding day:

http://alcottorchardhouse.blogspot.com/2014/06/anna-alcott-pratts-1860-wedding-dress.html

I am probably splitting hairs, but I feel like they are trying to have it both ways: wanting to make them seem poorer, but you still need to have them look pretty.

OK, I better stop myself. I know I’ve come down a lot on this movie and have seemed very negative, but I still have hope that it will be an enjoyable film. I’m not normally this picky about movies I haven’t seen, but I love this book and would love to see another great adaptation. The 1994 film is probably the best we’ll ever get, but I am curious to see how this one fares at adapting the book.

I will say a couple nice things before I go: I think Saoirse Ronan will be a good Jo (though I did hear her accent slip, which is surprising cause she’s usually pretty good at accents) and Eliza Scanlon will be a good Beth. I just wish we had seen more of them in the trailer, but they must be saving that for the theaters so they can rip our hearts out. Because I know no matter what I’ll think of the film up to that point, I will still cry my eyes out.

#little women #little women 2019 #don't come for me #these are all just opinions #i wonder how they managed to get EW into a corset after all the fuss she made during BATB

4 notes · View notes