I didn’t read this when I was younger like a lot of others did. But seeing it referenced and talked about so much I can’t not read it (and I want to, don’t get me wrong). But the main reason is because of a Friends episode. The one where Rachel and Joey swap their two favourite books: Rachel’s book being Little Women and Joey’s The Shining (which I also want to read for the same reason). In the episode they do spoil a lot of the book, but when it’s a classic you can’t really avoid spoilers Have any of you read it? If so did you like it? (And although I’ve being spoiled some of the content, I still don’t know that much, so don’t say anything more in the comments please )
(this person is insistent to the point of refusing to call her by her name, using instead her family nickname Lou, and using only he/him pronouns for her)
(and by the way, Lou was a common nickname for Louisa. it was not inherently masculine, and the fact that her family called her that is irrelevant)
like. dude. there’s definitely a discussion to be had about LMA and gender. as with many 19th century women who expressed desires to be men for greater social freedom and/or evinced enjoyment of presenting in a masculine way, we cannot be certain that she would still be a woman presented with the modern range of gender determination options
but like. she wasn’t. and given the options available in her day, she chose to continue living as a woman. which is still significant and cannot be dismissed with a mere “they had no choice back then,” because…some people did. there are known trans people from that era, who socially and aesthetically transitioned. that doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t couldn’t have been trans, but it does mean that experiences have to be looked at with a great deal of nuance
take the quote they open with: “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body.” sounds pretty trans- but the second half is, “… because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” in answer to an interview question about why she never married. which is a very Victorian idea: the conflation of one’s gender and sexuality.
is she saying she’s gay? is she saying she’s trans? and what are to we to make of a Victorian woman who calls herself “Papa” to her adopted daughter but nonetheless lives as her birth-assigned gender? who expresses a desire to be a man so she can join the Union army, but enjoys sewing and describes women’s gowns in lavish detail in her books? butch woman? artistic trans man? genderqueer? cishet but gender-nonconforming and a product of her time? like so many historical figures living on the edge of the rainbow, she evades firm categorization
that’s a conversation worth having, for certain. but in the absence of surety, all we can do is use the terms she used in life- and converse
however. if you have to cherrypick this hard, and ignore a lot of evidence that runs contrary to your theory, she is definitely not up there with Charley Parkhurst and Dr. James Barry in the ranks of For-Sure 19th Century Trans Men
sharing again for the evening crowd, since the original Twitter thread seems to have gone viral. with three additions:
1. Twitter OP’s pronouns are he/him. I had trouble finding them on his Twitter, but some helpful folks tipped me off
2. it has been pointed out to me by Alcott researchers I know that LMA went by “Aunt Weedy” with her family as well as Lou, by her own choice. they also say that LMA’s niece and nephews didn’t actually call her their uncle or father. apparently, when that terminology was used in correspondence, it was in reference to her financial support of the aforementioned children, not a display of preferred titles
while my friends agree that it’s possible LMA might have been trans given modern options, they do not feel the assertion that she was “trans, period” is supported by the evidence
3. I did not emphasize enough how creepy I find it to ignore the actual pronouns someone used and use different ones purely based on attributes about them you think fit another gender better. I don’t care how many times she said “I wish I was a man so I could [fight in the Civil War/go out adventuring/wear pants/etc.],” she used she/her pronouns. As far as I know, she never made a concerted effort to change that. “Respect their pronouns” is retroactive, too.
Good this has been all over my FB feed and annoying the shit out of me.
Today’s episode is on beloved 19th century author Louisa May Alcott. Irene, Alice and Jason, who between them have read the 1868 novel Little Women, watched the 2017 movie Little Women, and read a good number of Louisa May Alcott’s letters, diaries and papers, discuss the times when fiction might be more honest than autobiography, the ways that gender identity and gendered social roles interact, and the appeal (or lack thereof) of cold baths.
Thank you to our Patreons for voting on this episode! It was fun to research and record.
Have you ever wanted to know more about your favorite classic authors? Each month, we share various facts about the lives and works of our Author of the Month.
During December, we honored Louisa May Alcott as our Author of the Month to tie in with the latest adaptation of #LittleWomen, released last month in theatres. Alcott was born on November 29th 1832 in Pennsylvania and some of the most interesting things we learned about her this month were…
Louisa May Alcott was the daughter of transcendentalists, abolitionists, and early feminists. While growing up in poverty, the author worked as a seamstress, servant, governess, and anonymous writer in order to help support the family.
She was neighbours with the Hawthorne’s, the Emerson’s, and Henry David Thoreau.
Alcott had her breakthrough after publishing ‘Hospital Sketches’ in 1863, working as a nurse for the Civil War. The collection of letters depicted her experiences as a wartime nurse and later several abolitionist interracial romances and war stories.
Her most notable novel, ‘Little Women’ remains as a popular piece for women’s lives throughout the centuries. Revolving around female characters that aspire to achieve successful careers and loving families, Alcott’s revolutionary novel shows the complications of trying to maintain professional dreams and societal norms.
Aside from her literary career, Alcott was one of the founders of the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union in Boston. It was March 6, 1888 when Alcott passed away from a stroke at the early age of 55, just two days after her father’s death.
For the month of January, we are exploring the life and work of Anne Brontë. Be sure to follow the #ClassicsInContext hashtag on TwitterandFacebook to learn more!
(this person is insistent to the point of refusing to call her by her name, using instead her family nickname Lou, and using only he/him pronouns for her)
(and by the way, Lou was a common nickname for Louisa. it was not inherently masculine, and the fact that her family called her that is irrelevant)
like. dude. there’s definitely a discussion to be had about LMA and gender. as with many 19th century women who expressed desires to be men for greater social freedom and/or evinced enjoyment of presenting in a masculine way, we cannot be certain that she would still be a woman presented with the modern range of gender determination options
but like. she wasn’t. and given the options available in her day, she chose to continue living as a woman. which is still significant and cannot be dismissed with a mere “they had no choice back then,” because…some people did. there are known trans people from that era, who socially and aesthetically transitioned. that doesn’t mean anyone who didn’t couldn’t have been trans, but it does mean that experiences have to be looked at with a great deal of nuance
take the quote they open with: “I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man’s soul put by some freak of nature into a woman’s body.” sounds pretty trans- but the second half is, “… because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.” in answer to an interview question about why she never married. which is a very Victorian idea: the conflation of one’s gender and sexuality.
is she saying she’s gay? is she saying she’s trans? and what are to we to make of a Victorian woman who calls herself “Papa” to her adopted daughter but nonetheless lives as her birth-assigned gender? who expresses a desire to be a man so she can join the Union army, but enjoys sewing and describes women’s gowns in lavish detail in her books? butch woman? artistic trans man? genderqueer? cishet but gender-nonconforming and a product of her time? like so many historical figures living on the edge of the rainbow, she evades firm categorization
that’s a conversation worth having, for certain. but in the absence of surety, all we can do is use the terms she used in life- and converse
however. if you have to cherrypick this hard, and ignore a lot of evidence that runs contrary to your theory, she is definitely not up there with Charley Parkhurst and Dr. James Barry in the ranks of For-Sure 19th Century Trans Men
I loved Greta Gerwig’s version of Little Women, I literally saw it twice back to back in the cinema. There are many reasons why it is a great movie (the structural approach that Greta takes and its fluidity, the fusion of Jo and Louisa herself, the realness of each character), and these reasons have been explained endlessly already, but I was really fascinated by Greta saying in many interviews that to her it’s about being a woman and making art and reconciling that with the need for money and independence. And to me that right there is why Little Women is a great movie: it speaks to everyone on a personal level. To her that is the main theme, and I imagine it’s because it’s relevant to her and to her career and what she is going through right now. I see those themes and I understand them, but to me that is not what the movie is mostly about. To me, it is about growing up, and being in that period of your life when the dreams and hopes you had as a child should start becoming realities, and whether they do or they don’t. It’s about reconciling the person you thought you would become and the person you actually became, and intertwining 1861 and 1868 enhances the vividness of the comparison. It’s about relationships changing, and grieving not only for the relationship itself or for the other person, but for the person you once were when you were with them. It’s about self-doubt, and not knowing whether what you feel you need to contribute to the world is actually valuable, and it’s about making your own way in the world but also wanting to be loved. To me, it’s about all of those things, because this is how I feel right now in my own life. To someone else, who is going through other experiences, it might be about something different. And that’s why this is a movie I can’t wait to watch again as I get older.
Do you believe you have the best mom? Compare to these standout literary moms! #MothersDay #motherdays2022
Happy Mother’s Day! As we celebrate and give the love and affection our own mothers rightfully deserve, let us take the time to celebrate the great moms of literature ( what would we do without their comforting thoughts and words): (more…)
Do you believe you have the best mom? Compare to these standout literary moms! #MothersDay #motherdays2022
Happy Mother’s Day! As we celebrate and give the love and affection our own mothers rightfully deserve, let us take the time to celebrate the great moms of literature ( what would we do without their comforting thoughts and words): (more…)
no, i’m not watching little women (2019) because i’m anxious about my future and career in a tough industry and wishing that i could feel the warmth and joy and security of my childhood, it’s on netflix now ???
