Watching Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Little Women for the second time (I suspect that I will see it again), I cannot help but see it as a writer’s movie—a movie about a writer and her craft. Jo March wants to write a good story (or novel). She succeeds by writing commercially viable stories the contain murder, betrayal, and scandal; they are “short and spicy.” However, when she faces the impending tragedy of Beth’s death, she begins something new: a story about domestic struggles and joys.
All romance aside, writing is a domestic struggle and joy.
Jo’s life as a writer defines how she lives her domestic life. At first, her writing helps support her family. It gives her independence from the economic reality that women face, and the film paints a clear picture of those economics. Amy’s assertion of what she would give up—property, children—if she married is bracing, as it should be. There is an economic reality to writing as well, and one of the joys of the film is watching Jo negotiate with her publisher. In a triumph, she decides to hold on to the copyright of her novel, instead of taking an upfront payment in exchange for those rights.
Here is one of the significant places that the film takes liberties with the source material. Gerwig knows the story of the novel’s author, Louisa May Alcott—a woman who never married. Gerwig turns Jo into a version of Alcott and allows Jo to understand the bargain Alcott will make—forgoing married life for a writing life. Jo relents only when she feels the pangs of loneliness and allows her family to goad her into chasing her Professor. When Jo chooses Professor Bhaer, the film cuts between Jo’s discussion with her publisher (who insists, “If you decide to end your delightful book with your heroine a spinster, no one will buy it. It won’t be worth printing.”), and Jo’s consummation with Bhaer.
Gerwig has things both ways when this occurs. The film flows out in two directions afterward—one with Jo and her family opening the Plumfield School, and the other with editions of Little Women coming off the press with Jo’s name, not Alcott’s on the cover. It gives us two happy endings, one in which Jo is married and living an honorable and acceptable purpose, and another where she is a successful author.
Do I believe that the endings are exclusive of each other? They were exclusive of each other in Alcott’s life—for whatever reason. For the rest of us, I am not so sure.
I am sure that it takes a crisis to force the writer to come to compel the writer to mine—and compulsively mine—the deep sources of the story they will tell. John Gardner recommends, “[a] psychological wound is helpful, if it can be kept in partial control, to keep the novelist driven.” Jo’s grappling with Beth’s death, and the outpouring of work that follows seems true enough. She props up her notebook, open to one story, “For Beth,” and it opens her up to her novel. It pours out across her attic floor.
How long a wound can fester before it scars over and prevents the writing is another question entirely. How many wounds, how many crises can the nascent writer face before the fountain cracks, and the story dribbles away in dust? But that is not the story of Gerwig’s Little Women; it is gloriously hopeful and shows the way ahead.
One thought on “Little Women and the Writing Life”
As Emerson once said, for every loss there is a gain, according to the laws of compensation. It is interesting to consider Jo’s writing about her childhood and family as her compensation for the loss of Beth, sparked as you say, even by the prospect of her sister’s death when she first starts telling stories to her on the beach. For Beth–a telling dedication. By writing for and about Beth, Jo keeps her sister and her own childhood memories alive and imaginatively possesses a lost past. Beth may be more interesting and compelling a character in fiction than she was in real life. Interesting take on “the two happy endings”–domestic married bliss and a writing career, as Jo seems to have her cake and eat it too, unlike Alcott. You pose the question whether writers today can have those two irreconcilable things? I would say personal relationships/marriage wedded to writing are still easier for men than for women. And when I look back on my own writing, such as my dissertation and first book, the drive to write was actually fueled by heartbreak. Willa Cather once wrote that a writer has to refuse life to write life itself, and sadly, I fear that is still true. One’s autonomous power as a writer depends on social isolation. Yet the inescapable conclusion is that writing, like reading, is escapist.