#marmie

Update to Marmalade, she's softer, sweeter, more simple design, and has new Form Break transformations. Eidols usually only have a couple of Form Breaks available, but her specialty is having access to a bunch of them.

Little Women (2019), dir. Greta Gerwig

the idea of marriage has always been strange.

for me, well i'm bisexual, and i never thought that marriage would be a prospect to me because i didn't think i'd ever be capable of loving one person for the rest of my life. then, i watched Little Women (2019). it wasn't this epiphany, but a slow realisation about how i'd been brainwashed to believe that marriage was the way to fulfilment. while there are many things about Greta Gerwig's adaptation that i'd like to discuss, sisterhood, womanhood and youth being few to mention, i would like to focus on this concept of marriage as it is represented through the eyes of Jo, who up until my tenth watch, i identified with the most.

Jo March, as self-described, is frumpy, homely and unlike any woman, Theodore Laurance would ever want to marry. i too have always felt like that. never be the one to be asked out, or even noticed by boys in school, and when i realised i liked girls too, it became a taboo subject that left me with slurs and various degrees of internalised homophobia. growing older, I've realised that perhaps it is me being a poc in a majority-white setting that has made it so difficult to feel the right to be loved by others romantically. or maybe it's because i've been stagnant in my approach to sexuality that it's scared others away. enough self-evaluation: Jo sees marriage like a prison, and that makes sense. or does it?

a perfect home life, yes. a nuclear family, the husband, the wife, the children, the white picket fence and a warm hearth to surround when it gets cold outside. even though the love between marmie and father is one to be idolised, it is caring and unconditional love that surrounds Jo, and yet she finds herself opposed to the very notion of marriage.

the setting that the march family sit in is quiet, a cottage core aesthetic (to use contemporary reference) where the only people they interact with are the Laurences, the Hummels and one Mr. John Brooke. when Teddy and Jo pair off and become quick and steadfast friends the natural conclusion is that they'll get married and have a hoard of children while living a mildly happy life. it works for Meg and Mr. Brooke, so why wouldn't it work for Teddy and Jo?

to me, it's very clear. it's clear for the moment Jo leaves her family home and moves to New York to work in a boarding house. meeting the foreign professor is this sign shouting "THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN WHAT YOU KNOW!" he applies a different school of thought and challenges her in a way that Laurie and her family never did. the challenges she faces, the rejection from the publishing house, not being chosen to go to France with Aunt March, and most significantly the death of Beth, all push her to the conclusion of finishing her book and getting it published.

but the question becomes, why was i more satisfied with the ending of Jo and Friedrich (the professor) than with her getting her book published? i guess it becomes the conversation of what romantic films have periodically presented us with the 'happy ending', which has been, falling in love, getting married, having oodles of children and then dying. to be honest, it's not just romantic films, it's the disney princesses that surrounded me in childhood. its stereotypes that are perpetuated even further into media, and are ingrained into young girls from a young age. even now, as I'm meeting adulthood for the first time, the questions of marriage, kids and the future keep on cropping up in conversations. i don't think i was ever conscious of my own bias when watching films, but watching Little Women for what seems to be the 100th time makes me wonder what it really means to be married, what that commitment really means. Is it like Jo says, an 'economic proposition' or is it something much more than that?

author note:

I love Beth and Jo. All the March sisters are my favorite, but they're my favorite favorite. And I can't stop my brainrot about Little Women in a 2021/modern setting.

So here, take my modern Little Women brainrot:

Beth: She would be anxious about the pandemic, but she would love quarantine, what with everyone at home and staying inside together. She would irritate her siblings with her piano playing 24/7, but I don't think she'd care much. She would also volunteer at the vaccine sites as soon as they opened and help people as much as she could. Aroace, but she's got the biggest heart of anyone you've ever known. Definitely has anxiety and is autistic. Chronically ill (but she doesn't die because ~modern medicine~). Probably agender, but she doesn't care enough to figure it all out. Never swears, but doesn't mind when her sisters do.

Jo: She/they, first of all. Second of all, crossdresser ("If I were a man, I'd want to look just like that"). She would also absolutely be an AO3 writer who gets published later on. Then gets diagnosed with anxiety, depression, ADHD, the whole lot. Asexual queen. Biromantic icon. (No, I'm not projecting, why do you ask?) Moves to the city, loves the city life. Rooms with Laurie, who moves out of the country to the city with them. Doesn't swear regularly, but when she does, it's quite colorful. They and Laurie both go to college in the city (likely NYC). They have the time of their lives even though they both eat ramen for every meal. They both get ~therapy~ too.

Meg: Straight, but an ally. Stays out of politics, but secretly smiles when the people her sisters vote for win elections. Marries an accountant (a real accountant, NOT the TikTok kind), but she enjoys the simple suburban life. The only devout religious one of the sisters, but she doesn't push it on her sisters. Has a classic little American family and frowns when her sisters swear. Although she does fit into the classic Republican setting, she secretly doesn't like it very much. She and her sisters (and Laurie) all grew up doing theatre, and although she would never admit it, she misses it very much.

Amy: (Y'all are gonna hate me for this one) TERF. I said what I said. However, once Jo comes out as she/they when Amy is a teenager, she rethinks her whole view of it and comes out a better ally than ever. Becomes the loudest ally of the sisters and ends up leading them in pride marches. She only ever dates men, and was insistent that she was straight before she rethought everything, but now she refuses to put labels on herself. They just don't fit, she says. Rarely swears, except for the occasional F-bomb when she's cursing out homophobes (or when her favorite TV ship doesn't get together).

Laurie (I know he's not a March sister but I like him anyway): I think he and Jo would stay best friends and never develop romantic feelings for each other. He would actually be a brother to them all, not some weird brother/romantic interest for them. He would definitely be pansexual and probably very demiromantic, if not completely aro all together. Realizes that he's definitely he/they soon after Jo comes out. He and Jo get up to all sorts of crossdressing shenanigans, especially when people get mad at Jo for "trying to be a boy." They go out to brunch on random Tuesdays wearing each other's church clothes, with Amy (before Laurie and Jo moved out to the city) having done Laurie's makeup flawlessly, glitter and all. They're a Gay Theatre Nerd, just like Jo. And Beth. And Meg and Amy (although those two aren't exactly gay).

Marmie: Ultimate Queen in Literally Every Way, Just Like in the Movie. Supports her lovely children in every way she can while still fighting "in her own way," as Beth says, against racism and homophobia/transphobia and gender inequality. I love her so much y'all don't understand. Religious, like Meg, and when her children live at home, she has them go to church with her, but she doesn't force it on them in any way other than that. She simply wants her girls to have good morals and a strong belief in doing what's right.

I’m back, sort of! I posted this rant over on my book blog and wanted to share it here, because I think it’s incredibly important. 

I’m angry and frustrated.

Little Women is one of my favorite stories. It was my favorite movie of 2019. It’s an iconic book with incredible characters and a strong female presence. Today, I particularly want to speak about Jo and Amy March, and their relationship to Laurie. One of the things that frustrates me is that people want Jo and Laurie to be together, so much so that there’s a book being released–a retelling of Little Women–called Jo and Laurie, by Margaret Stohl and Melissa de la Cruz.

Now, let me preface this with saying I don’t have a problem with retellings. In fact, I love them, especially when they are loose. That way, the author can tell their own story, one that’s simply inspired by a fairy tale or classic novel.

Here’s the thing, though. Jo and Laurie isn’t a loose retelling. It is, essentially, changing the outcome of the Little Women story. I haven’t read the book, but based on the description and the title, I think we all know how it’s going to end.

And I have a problem with that.

In changing the love pairing of the book, not only is Jo’s identity erased in lieu of a romance that would never work, Amy is going to come across as even more of a villain, as not only is she one of the “meaner” March sisters, she is in love with Jo’s (now apparent) love interest. This completely undermines Louisa May Alcott’s original story and is a blatant means of disrespecting Little Women.

Let’s talk about Jo March. She is an independent, headstrong, stubborn woman who prizes her writing over all else. She isn’t concerned with romance or marriage, and she gets criticism for it. For Jo, she doesn’t have room for more love in her life; her love is for her writing and her family. So, it makes absolutely no sense for Jo’s character to want to be with someone like Laurie. Yes, she does mention towards the end that she is lonely and wants to be loved, but that is not the same as being in love, as Marmie cleverly points out. Sure, it may be easy to get love from Laurie, but at the end of the day, she cannot love him back. Her heart is already taken by her writing. Ultimately, yes, she does marry by the end, but, as Greta Gerwig’s fantastic adaptation pointed out, marriage and a happy ending is what made books sell.

Even though Alcott had her married by the end, it’s still very clear that Jo was never really destined for marriage. Again, this makes sense, because Jo is Louisa May Alcott, who never married and continued her passion for writing. See the similarities? So makes no sense for Jo to be with Laurie, or even want to be with him. She doesn’t want or need romance.

Also, Jo isn’t necessarily into men. The energy she gives off is big lesbian vibes, much like Louisa May Alcott herself. However, the concept of being a lesbian wasn’t in the forefront of anyone’s minds at the time of publication, so it’s not like they had a word for it or understood it. By putting her with Laurie, this part of her identity is erased and frankly hurts the people who see themselves in Jo. It invalidates their identification with her character, which can be damaging and disheartening. Plus, erasing a character’s identity (particularly a character who already exists) only to replace it with what you want is a disservice to the legacy of Little Women.

Also, Jo and Laurie just don’t make sense together. As my friend Rebecca rightly pointed out, sure they love each other, but it’s platonic love. It’s the kind of love that childhood friends feel for one another, not the kind that leads you to marriage. Jo likes to spend time with Laurie because he’s her friend and they have fun together, not because she wants to kiss him, like Amy. If anyone does belong with Laurie, it’s Amy, but I’ll get to that later.

Jo and Laurie don’t make sense together. Jo even said as much in Gerwig’s adaptation, when she explains her reasoning to Laurie as to why they wouldn’t work as a couple. And her reasons are legitimate!! They wouldn’t work, not when Jo’s life is dedicated to her writing. Again, she doesn’t have the time to focus on romantic love when she’s an aspiring writer.

Forcing their romance in Jo and Laurie just doesn’t work. And here’s some more reasons why. It’s out of character for Jo. It’s a retcon of the actual story. Laurie realizes they wouldn’t work, too. They are best friends, and that’s that. Truly, I don’t think anyone should mess with that.

Okay time to talk about Amy March, one of my all-time favorite characters. In the book, Amy and Laurie get together. It’s the perfect outcome: Amy saves her family by marrying rich (marriage is an economic proposition during this time, after all) AND she gets to marry the guy she’s been in love with for forever. Amy is the only one in Little Women who understands the plight of women, made extremely clear in Gerwig’s adaptation when she speaks with Laurie of marrying Fred. Obviously she marries Laurie instead, but the result is the same.

Again, as my friend pointed out, Amy is the hero of Little Women. She’s the one who gets married, brings money into the family, and, essentially, saves them from poverty. It’s heroic.

If Jo ends up with Laurie, though, like we can assume in Jo and Laurie, then Amy isn’t a hero. She’s a villain who’s in love with Jo’s man and the antagonist in the March family. We’re already given negative perceptions of Amy by some of her actions, the most significant being the burning of Jo’s writing. This is one of the most heartbreaking moments, particularly in the film as you must watch the pages burn and know that Amy is responsible.

This paints Amy as Jo’s antagonist and also turns her into a villain who doesn’t want her sister to be happy. So, when she ultimately marries Laurie, gets her happy ending, and also saves her family? It redeems her! She’s not this selfish girl who steals her sister’s man; she’s saving her family by marrying a rich man she just so happens to be in love with, which works because Jo isn’t in love with him romantically, anyway. She just wants a BFF.

So, Amy isn’t an unlikeable character; she’s just a sibling who fights with her sisters and wants to ensure they have enough money to survive. Little Women allows us to understand this. I doubt, however, that Jo and Laurie will give us this same character development.

Let’s think about some hypotheticals here: Jo likes Laurie. Laurie likes Jo. Amy likes Laurie. Jo and Amy fight over Laurie. Amy does something bad and becomes the villain. Jo and Laurie end up together, leaving Amy’s character in the dust and her development completely erased. See the problem?

And I know that might not be what happens, but even if the book only focuses on Jo and Laurie as characters, it’s still a disservice to such an incredible character like Amy, who goes through, arguably, the most transformation in the story. She’s also one of the strongest characters, and by taking her out of it, you’re erasing her contributions to the March family entirely.

I could talk about Jo and Amy March forever, but I now want to switch to the subject of fanfiction, because it’s blatantly obvious that Jo and Laurie is a fanfiction retcon of Little Women.

I don’t think it deserves space next to Little Women, not with the way it’s anticipated to end. It completely erases the story of Little Women, especially for younger people, who may pick up Jo and Laurie and assume this is how the story ends. Unfortunately that leaves readers unaware of the strength of Alcott’s work.

Also, why are you trying to be Louisa May Alcott? These are her characters and her story. I understand that the copyright is long gone and it’s public domain, but still, don’t you have some creativity? Why not write a story with your own characters and plot, instead of retconning an iconic work and completely butchering it? I’m so frustrated at the lack of creativity. Like, if you want to write Little Women fanfiction, I’m here for it and I’ll support you, but don’t try to publish it and make money off of it. It’s not your work, it’s not your characters, and it’s not fair to Alcott and her legacy.

No is allowed to make money off of fanfiction, and that’s completely justified. I’m a fanfic writer myself, but even I wouldn’t dare to try and publish a story using someone else’s characters. I mean, it’s illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong. They are the original author’s characters, and no one should be making money off of them but the author. Again, if you want to put it on Archive of Our Own or Tumblr or on social media, go for it, but trying to sell it is just plain wrong. And Jo and Laurie is no exception. These are Alcott’s characters; if you want to write about them and change their story, go for it, but if you try to get it published? Shame on you.