"The cultural level suggested by Friedrich’s profession and more specifically by his knowledge of Goethe also helps to validate the connection between him and Jo. Louisa had scribbled a quote from her copy of Margaret Fuller´s Woman in the Nineteenth Century regarding Wilhelm Meister’s female connections.

As Meister grows in life & advances in wisdom, he becomes acquainted with women of more & more character, rising from Mariana to Natalia who expresses the Minerva side of things, Mignon, the electrical, inspired lyrical nature …

It seems that this passage in Goethe´s work made a deeply profound effect on Louisa and it represents Jo´s transference of affection from Laurie to Friedrich through her own growth and advancement in terms of character. Laurie is the fascination of her youth who will always be regarded with affection, but Friedrich has more character. Laurie is always a “boy” to Jo, but Friedrich is a man. Laurie possesses charm and culture; Friedrich, as we see, is cultured but also steady and well-grounded.  He speaks both to her down-to-earth practicality and to her imagination" 

Christine Doyle, Singing Mignon´s song, German literature and culture in Little Women

It is uncanny how some people are obsessed with the love life of Jo March and Louisa May Alcott and refuse to see Friedrich as a character in his own right based to an assumption that the writer might have been gay. There is multiple evidence which shows that Lucy Maud Montgomery might have been a lesbian (and many Montgomery scholars believe she was) and a great deal of Anne of green gables was based on the author´s life so in a way it´s also semi-biographical. 

Yet no one is tearing Gilbert and Anne apart because of that. 

In the 19th century relationships between women were more sentimental (we see this with Anne and Diana). In our modern-day perspective, it can feel strange and even romantic but in those times the world between men and women was strictly divided. 

Reminds me of what @ajedisith said about Fritz possibly being bi. LMA grew up in the transcendentalist circles, do some research and you´ll find out that there was lots of gender fluidly among them. There were also rumors back then that both Henry-David Thoreau and Emmerson who Louisa had crushes on (and was possibly in love with) and to whom she partly based Friedrich´s character were also bi´s (not that there was a term for it during those times). 

Sexual orientation is a spectrum same way as gender. The queer theory only tends to be about Jo (maybe we should broaden it up) and there is lots of speculation that Jo was trans/gender fluid. LMA liked to dress up as a boy the same way as Jo. Friedrich has zero problems with the fact that Jo is not traditionally feminine. I see Jo as gender fluid and Fritz as someone who accepted her as gender-fluid (and maybe Fritz was also gender fluid) but at the same, it is an assumption, not something that we or I can prove.  

Some people say Jo was asexual which would make LMA ace. It definitely seems that LMA was on the spectrum but in her adult works there are sexual themes (read “long fatal love chase” everyone) and there are records which show that she had sexual feelings towards some of her male friends which rules out her being an ace but that doesn´t mean that she was not on the spectrum. 

What it comes to Jo and Friedrich, the girl was lusty over the professor. She checks him out from head to toes multiple times.

Then there are cultural differences. You´ll hear some people calling Fritz emancipated because he has feminine/nurturing features (the argument is quite silly since Jo is attracted to them). I was quite baffled when I heard people using this argument against Fritz for the first time. The way Fritz plays with kids is not too different from the way Swedish, Norwegians, Germans and Russians for example act with children. This goes back to the “little women controversy” Jo has a boy´s name, Laurie has a girl´s name, Jo wants to be a man, both Fritz and Laurie possess feminine qualities, but these “feminine” qualities are also cultural differences (for example Laurie being very emotional is seen as a feminine quality, he is also half-Italian, so it can be in his heritage).
​
In the end, does Louisa May Alcott´s sexual orientation matter? she wrote excellent thought-provoking books that we still read today.

I just saw Frozen II (literally an hour ago) and I had to write about the connections to the Sámi culture and Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish myths and folklore.

Let´s start with the Sámi culture (also known as Sami, Sapmi and Saami. As a Finnish speaker I´d refer a Sámi person as "saamelainen" or "saami" and the language as "saame") I have written a lot about Sami mythology here in myblog. I have Sámi ancestry from the Lapland of Finland and Sweden. 

The Sámi´s are native people of Scandinavia. There are about 20 000 people in this world who speak Sámi languages. These days you can find Sámi´s all over the world (and people with Sámi ancestry) but in general most Sámi´s live in the Lapland of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Kuola Peninsula in Russia. This is why, for example in Finland, Lapland is sometimes called as "Saamenmaa" the land of the Sámi. Sámi´s were nomads and reindeer herders and still today many Sámi´s are reindeer herders.  Already in the first Frozen there was Sami influences, because Kristoff´s character was inspired by Saami culture. Kristoff´s outfit is similar to traditional Sami outfits. Different Sámi tribes and regions have their own outfits and designs. The pointy shoes and outfits made of reindeer skin are common (sorry Sven). ​

​ There are several Sámi tribes and Sámi languages. Most common Sámi language is northern Sámi, which is sort of universal Sámi language that Sámi´s who speak different Sámi languages use to communicate with each others.

A joik or yoik also named luohti, vuolle, vuelie, or juoiggus in the Sámi languages, is a traditional form of song in Sámi music performed by the Sámi people. Joiks do not have any words. They are pure sound that captivate emotion. There are different types of joiks. Joiks for love, friendship, family, reindeer's, winter, northern lights..you name it. I was impressed how many new joiks there was in Frozen II and I loved the sound of the shaman drums. 

In Frozen II we meet the Northuldra tribe and they are based on Sámi people. One of the Northuldra´s mentions that they worship the sun. Sámi´s followed a nature based belief system and since in Lapland winters are dark and long they did worship the sun as the giver of all life. 

You´ll be sad and disappointed to know how much discrimination there is towards the Sámi culture in Finland. There has been some progress recently, especially what it comes to cultural appropriation being questioned. I was sitting on the movie theater and some teen age girls were making fun about Northuldra´s/Sámi´s worshiping the sun since they are from Lapland...

This is the Sámi flag. It has a sun in the middle. Sometimes I am genuinely worried about the lack of education of our own history in this country (several Finno-ugric tribes shared a similar belief system). Sun is also often portrayed in the center of Sámi shaman drums. 

In autumn 2019 Walt Disney Studios made a historical agreement with the Sámi population of Norway, Finland and Sweden so that the Sámi culture in the film was portrayed with respect and they had Sámi experts with the developing the story and the characters. Frozen II is also translated into Northern Sámi (Jikŋon II). 

​The way Ahto-Hallan was described in Frozen it actually reminded me of Finnish and Sámi myths about the land of the dead. I don´t know if that was the intention of the film makers but hear me out;

Ahto-Hallan is in far north, a place where the spirits live, home of magic and that is where Elsa finds the spirits of the people who lived before her.

Somehow this connection makes Frozen feel much darker 

Ahto/Ahti is the name of the sea god/spirit of the sea and god of the depths in Finnish mythology (Ahtola is the place where all the merfolk lives). Ahto-halla is Finnish. It refers to "ahtojää" packed ice. Halla is also Finnish, it means frost/frozen. 

In Finnish mythology there is a place called Pohjola (combined from the words pohjoinen- north and pohja-  bottom). Pohjola is the underworld, place where the spirits of the dead live. Pohjola was located in far north in the land of eternal winter. In this old world view, the world was made of three layers. Upper layer (ylinen) was the place where the highest spirits resided, the middle world was the world of the animals and humans, underworld the bottom, was the land of the dead. These worlds were not really seen so much as physical places but different layers of human conscience. 

Sámi myths have lots of elements from Scandinavian and Finnish mythology and vice versa. In some Sámi myths, the land of the dead is called as "Rotaimo" and it can be found from the bottom of a bottomless lake. In Lapland there are lots of lakes that are very deep and have fake bottoms (goes back to Ahto being the spirit of depths). 

In Frozen II Elsa tames a beautiful water horse called The Nokk. The water horse is a common character in Scandinavian folklore equivalent to Scottish Kelpie. In Swedish folklore it is known as bäckahäst/näcken and in Norway as nøkken. 

In the folklore the water horse was usually a large, white and a beautiful horse. It would walk in the shore and lure people to climb on it´s back and then it would drown them. It was possible to tame the majestic horse with tricks but I guess Elsa and the Nokk also have a natural connection since they both have ice magic.

btw this is epic af

​Which brings us to the Finnish water horse myth. What it comes to Finnish mythology there is one horse above all others and he is Iku-Tihku. How would I explain his name, Iku comes from the word ikuinen meaning eternal and tihku means dripping water.

A freaking eternal ice horse that drips water! I rest my case!

Here is the story of Iku-Tihku. Iku-Tihku was made inside a mountain by trolls. He was made of fire and ice and he was the first horse ever created. Because he was partly made of ice he could not visit the human world during the summer and the warm months because he would melt. He could however, visit the human world during the winter time and because  Iku was partly made of ice, he had the ability to travel between the human world and Pohjola, the north/the underworld and deliver messages from humans to the spirit world. 

Not too different to the way Nokk takes Elsa to Ahto-hallan.

​I am starting to see why so many non-Finnish speakers consider Finnish language as some sort form of elvish.

​Trolls saw that Iku-Tihku was a mighty creature so they used him as a model to create the first horses, but they were not made from ice and fire but from iron, and they could travel between all the worlds and seasons.

Trolls are not very common in Finnish folkore but you can find LOT´S of trolls from Swedish, Norse and Sámi myths. They often live in mountains and are connected to stones and minerals and they are more than often giants.

Here are some sleeping stone giants from Frozen II

Here is a picture from my family´s summer cabin from northern Finland. Do you see what I see?

Mother of Elsa and Anna is Iduna and in Frozen II we find out that she was a northuldra. In Norse mythology Iduna is name  of the goddess of health and rejuvenation. Her symbol is the apple and she is connected to autumn season (have you seen the color palette in Frozen II?). I have heard quite a few Americans complaining that Iduna doesn´t look native. (I must say I have hard time understanding the obsession some Americans have with race).

What does a native look like? 

I think the most straight forward explanation is the fact that when the first Frozen movie was made, makers were not planning to do a  sequel and didn´t though of Iduna´s backstory then.

But even if they did, despite of the fact that Scandinavian countries and Sámi´s have a sad and violent history, there has been many mixed marriages between Sámi´s Finns/Swedes/and Norwegians and you can come across  all kinds of looking Sámi´s. There is variety in hair color, skin color and eye color. The the way people look can also vary in different areas. Lapland is a wide place, my friends. Our genetic make up is always a mixture.

Last but not least THE SEITA.

​Seita´s are stone formations and ancient worshiping places. The Sámi´s went to the seita to leave gifts for the gods, make requests and meditate. Stone formations are common all over the world (Stone Henge probably being the most well-known one).

​Why stones?

They are ancient, and the higher they are, the closer they are to the sky and the spirits. 

​If you'd like to participate in constructive online conversations about this essay, please do leave comments and share in your social media networks.

I re-read Little Men last summer and I had not read it for ages. It was much more touching than I remembered. Some of the students in Plumfield had disabilities and some of them would probably fit into the Autism spectrum. Children with disabilities did not have the easiest life in the 19th century.

In Little Women, Hummels are Germans and grateful for Marches from all of their help. Yes, Beth catches scarlet fever but Marches never blame the Hummels, and it was not their fault that they are poor and diseases were very common and spread easily. Louisa always writes about them with sympathy.

The lack of conversation is similar to Friedrich and immigration themes.  90% of the conversation still seems to be about why Jo didn´t marry Laurie. It only proves that Louisa May Alcott and her radical acceptance is too radical for modern-day filmmakers. She was an abolitionist, supported orphans and immigrants, a humanitarian.

“Education and self-culture would balance and limit the predatory, expansionist impulse of modern trade and technology of through a turn that would "league” all nations into a global civil society. What Kant called a “cosmo-political state”. Rather than militarize national citizens for expansion and conquest, Kant´s proposed a new ethic of “universal hospitality” would forbid any nation to conquer or assault any other (Kant had in mind French and British empires). This was not, in Kant´s view, a hazy utopian dream, but entirely practical, “a necessary completion of the public law of mankind”.

Following Kant, generations of idealist sought to realize his cosmopolitan ethic. “New philosophy” transformed the American intellectual landscape. Sprouting into informal reading groups. Critics dubbed the most famous of them as “transcendentalists” using Kant´s term to sneer at their strange and foreign ideas. But these very ideas inspired America´s first great movement in literature, philosophy and reform, which in turn carried cosmopolitan thinking around the globe as books by Emmerson, Thoreau, Fuller, Louisa May Alcott and others travelled the Atlantic back to Europe and beyond. Cosmopolitanism offered an ethical response that tried, not to privilege the near and familiar by excluding or demonizing the “Other”, but rather to value the Other and work toward connection and dialogue, even global political solidarity, across national boundaries and differences of race, class and gender.
​
Jo falls in love with a poor German philosopher, from an anglo-American perspective such choice has seemed bizarre, but from Louisa May Alcott´s transnational perspective it is inevitable. Germany was the fountainhead of the new philosophy, and all of the transnational literature available to Louisa, the German was by far the most important to her. As Christine Doyle has detailed, the influence of German literature on the March trilogy was deep indeed making, as she says “much more explicable the match between Jo March and Friedrich Bhaer”. (The cosmopolitan project of Louisa May Alcott by Laura Dassow Walls)

I am happy and delighted to share my thoughts on Lorraine Tosiello´s brand new book "Only Gossip Prospers".

Lorraine Tosiello read Alcott’s Little Women in the first grade—and re-read it again and again throughout most of her childhood.  The book equipped her to set off on a journey of motherhood, traveling, rabble-rousing and work as a physician devoted to medical education and primary care medicine. Rereading Little Women in later adulthood rekindled her Alcott enthusiasm, and years of happy study resulted in her first novel, Only Gossip Prospers. She lives with her husband in midtown Manhattan and at the New Jersey shore.

Only gossip prospers takes place in 1875 and centers around a very little known time period in Louisa May Alcott´s life. A winter that she spent in New York. Book is filled with intriguing references to the Alcott family, historical fiction that intertwines Louisa´s circle of friends and family members, transcendentalist philosophy, cultural and feminist ideas of the time to a cavalcade of fictional and historical characters. It is also a beautiful time jump to the 19th century New York in the peak of industrial revolution. 

I enjoyed this book tremendously. Not only it has tons of surprises and plot-twists like the best Alcott novels but this book is quite possibly the most full-rounded and insightful description of Louisa May Alcott as a person that I have ever come across. She was a very complicated woman. Alcott who we meet is in the top of her fame, rich and wealthy but poor in health, deeply dedicated to the humanitarian work that is close to her heart, constantly creating plot-lines for the new stories and at the same someone who feels a constant need to protect her reputation. Louisa is funny and witty. Prone to mood changes. She can be the light of the party and someone who longs her family and misses home dearly. She is international, bold, brave, moody, insecure and thrives in a company that challenges her intellectually.

Tosiello´s background in the medical field gives the reader wider understanding of Louisa´s struggles with her health (most widely accepted cause for her health problems is mercury poisoning. During her American Civil War service, Alcott contracted typhoid fever and was treated with a compound containing mercury). Book is a great glimpse to different holistic healthcare treatments of the time not to mention the mental healthcare practices (or should I say the lack of them). 

This book is so filled with twists and turns and the plot only thickens towards the end I did find it difficult to put it down while reading the last chapters. I especially appreciated the wonderful, rich way author describes Louisa´s inner world with all it´s contradictions. There are multiple references to Louisa´s literal works such as Little Women, Little Men, Eight Cousins and Moods. I did enjoy the wonderful twist in the Fritz/Laurie debate and greatly appreciated how the author points out Louisa´s fascination and knowledge of the German culture (a topic way too often dismissed by the scholars) but it was truly the gender swap themes that took me by surprise.

​Five stars and I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested to find more compelling and nuanced takes on this fascinating author.

Think of you! I do not think of you; you are always before my soul -Goethe

FAIR USE All multimedia clips included in this video constitute a 'fair use' of any copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of U.S. Copyright law, which allows for criticism, comment and scholarship. Here in Finland similar purpose is driven by the quotation law https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitaattioikeus
(If you do like my videos consider subscribing to my channel and hit the bell button. I make in-depth video essays on little women). 

Poet Ezra Pound said that literature does not exist in a vacuum and semi-biographical novels are exactly that, semi-biographical. A work of fiction strongly influenced by events in an author's life. Writer Janet Manley describes Fritz Bhaer as a perfect mystery. A perfect crush. He is the perfect text: a space offering up multiple interpretations. 

​In this essay I explore Friedrich´s historical and cinematic evolution through gender studies.  His and Jo´s relationship, and the development of their romance and how it correlated with Louisa May Alcott´s own life. Louisa´s adoration towards Germany and German culture. I will touch the fan culture and how certain themes that have been repeated in the movies affect to the way people see Jo and Friedrich and how some of these themes are different to the book´s narrative. 

I´ll be using names Friedrich and Fritz simultaneously. For those of you who have not read the books, Fritz is the nickname Jo uses on her husband. For the American readers, here in Finland first Little Women book is published in two parts, so for me March trilogy is not a trilogy, it has four books. If you find me referring to Jo´s boys as the fourth book, this is the reason. 

​Writing in-depth character analysis of the male characters has it´s challenges, because they have way more subtle character arcs than the female characters. In many ways writing aboutLaurie was easier because I know something about his youth, but with Fritz I had to take much more creative approach; dig up my history books, all the LMA biographies I own, Finnish-German dictionary and take a time-trip to 19th century Berlin, New York and Concord.

This my friends, is everything you have ever wanted to know about Fritz Bhaer and more. ​

​The key ingredient in understanding Friedrich´s character lies within Louisa May Alcott´s love for Germany, German people, German language, German philosophy and most importantly German literature. We might even refer Louisa May Alcott as a germanophile, a person who has a great interest towards German culture.

​There are multiple references to Germany in Little Women:

On the very fist chapter of Little Women Jo wishes a copy of Undine and Sintram as a Christmas present.  Undine and Sintram is a collection of Scandinavian and Germanic fables written by French-German author Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué. This book appears again in the last Little Women book, Jo´s boys.

Marches help the poor Hummel family who have immigrated from Germany.​ ​Beth and Marmee are especially close to them. ​Beth catches the scarlett fever which is terrible, but the Marches never blame the Hummel´s. Epidemic diseases were rather common back then and Louisa always writes about the Hummel´s with a great sympathy.

In the chapter "Camp Lawrence" John Brooke translates a German song for Meg and reads her parts from "Mary Stuart", a play that was written by German poet and philosopher Friedrich Schiller.

​On Meg´s and John´s wedding Laurie suggest that they dance like the Germans do. 

When Jo stays in New York, her hostess in the boarding house is Mrs Kirk. "Kirk" is an anglicized last name from German word Kirche, meaning church.

What it comes to the 19th century German culture and the influences of German immigration into American culture March trilogy is consistently favorable towards it. 

Goethe´s House in Frankfurt

​One of Louisa´s favorite authors was the German poet Goethe and Goethe was one of the models for Friedrich´s character. In Little Women, on her grand-tour in Europe with aunt March, Amy visits Goethe´s house, writes home and tells about it. On her first trip to Europe Louisa herself made a pilgrimage to Goethe´s House.

Went to Wiesbaden first, a pleasant, gay place, full of people. Saw the gambling hall and people playing, the fine grounds and drives, and then went on to Frankfort. Here I saw and enjoyed a good deal. The statues of Goethe, Schiller, Faust, Gutenberg, and Schaeffer are in the squares. Goethe's house is a tall, plain building, with each story projecting over the lower, and a Dutch roof; a marble slab over the front door recording the date of Goethe's birth. I took a look at it and wanted to go in, as it was empty, but there was no time (Cheney, Louisa May Alcott, letters and journals). 

The most obvious and most important German influence in Little Women is of course, the love of Jo´s life, Friedrich Bhaer. ​

Little Women takes place in the feminine sphere which is one of the biggest reasons why I and millions of other readers love it. What it comes to the main three male characters Laurie, Fritz and John, Louisa did not write explicit background stories to any of them. To explore Friedrich´s character to get a better understanding of him, we need to explore Louisa, her personal life philosophy, values and of course love for Germany.

Friedrich is introduced quite early on in the second novel and Jo is curious about him the moment she sees him and she finds him to be a kindred spirit.

As I went downstairs soon after, I saw something I liked. The flights are very long in this tall house, and as I stood waiting at the head of the third one for a little servant girl to lumber up, I saw a gentleman come along behind her, take the heavy hod of coal out of her hand, carry it all the way up, put it down at a door near by, and walk away, saying, with a kind nod and a foreign accent, "It goes better so. The little back is too young to haf such heaviness."

Wasn't it good of him? I like such things, for as Father says, trifles show character. When I mentioned it to Mrs. K., that evening, she laughed, and said, "That must have been Professor Bhaer, he's always doing things of that sort."

Mrs. K. told me he was from Berlin, very learned and good, but poor as a church mouse, and gives lessons to support himself and two little orphan nephews whom he is educating here, according to the wishes of his sister, who married an American. Not a very romantic story, but it interested me, and I was glad to hear that Mrs. K. lends him her parlor for some of his scholars. There is a glass door between it and the nursery, and I mean to peep at him, and then I'll tell you how he looks. He's almost forty, so it's no harm, Marmee.

There is a bit of a debate about Friedrich´s age (wait until I get to the ages of all the actors!). Jo is about 23-24 when she travels to New York. Fritz is about 16 years older than Jo, which would mean that Friedrich is 38-39 when they meet.

In Little Women musical Fritz is slightly younger. When he goes to court Jo we find out that he has just had his 35th birthday. In the book Friedrich returns to Jo´s life in late spring,  some months after Beth´s passing. If we combine the two, we can make an assumption that Fritz was born in the spring. 

​If Fritz is almost forty after the American civil war this means that he was born  sometimes between 1825-1826. Friedrich is very extroverted. He enjoys lively conversations, makes friends easily, sees beyond cultural boundaries, he is deeply religious, honest, cultured but also quite a romantic. It is not a coincidence that Friedrich is from Berlin, by the time Alcott wrote Little Women, Berlin was gaining more importance and would become the capital of the new German Empire in 1871 (Armknecht). 

While being born and living in Berlin Fritz would have absorbed all that the city had to offer. Architecture, literature, philosophical circles, symposiums, markets and Biergartens. It is mentioned in the book that Fritz speaks several languages, and in the books he speaks French few times. Berlin was one of the most multi-cultural German cities in the 19th century and there was a large French-speaking immigrant population. Fact that Fritz speaks several languages indicates that he has done some traveling and is in that sense as much of a cosmopolitan as Amy and Laurie are.

​We learn that Friedrich used to be a respected professor in Berlin and this only increases Jo´s interest towards him.

Jo valued goodness highly, but she also possessed a most feminine respect for intellect, and a little discovery which she made about the Professor added much to her regard for him. He never spoke of himself, and no one ever knew that in his native city he had been a man much honored and esteemed for learning and integrity, till a countryman came to see him. He never spoke of himself, and in a conversation with Miss Norton divulged the pleasing fact. From her Jo learned it, and liked it all the better because Mr. Bhaer had never told it. She felt proud to know that he was an honored Professor in Berlin, though only a poor language-master in America, and his homely, hard-working life was much beautified by the spice of romance which this discovery gave it.

It is very likely that Louisa had Humboldt´s university in her mind. During the time when Louisa did her first visit to Germany it was known as the university of Berlin (Universität zu Berlin). University was established in 1809, which makes it only fitting that Friedrich would have studied and worked as a professor there. University is known for producing some of the most well-known German thinkers and philosophers.

We are not told a lot about Friedrich´s family. We find out that he had a sister, Minna, who married an American and on her death-bed she asked Fritz to take care of his nephews and raise them in America. It is not part of the canon, but I have read couple fan fics where Minna´s husband was an American journalist who abandoned his family and Minna was also quite possibly a journalist. This would explain why Friedrich does his best to look after the boys, wants to be a good role-model and someone who never abandons them. Book does imply that Friedrich and Minna were very close. This is a common narrative pattern in Louisa May Alcott´s novels. In Work story of experience protagonist´s love interest David, has lost the connection with his sister, and is filled with joy when he finds her. In Moods the character of Geoffrey Moore takes care of his ill sister until she passes away. A devoted Little Women reader might even notice that in Greta Gerwig´s film Friedrich says it is hard to lose a sister. 

In the 19th century German immigrants were the second biggest group of immigrants in the US only surpassed by Irish immigrants. March family (and the Alcott´s in real life) were descendants of Irish immigrants. Between 1847-1855 German immigrants came to US in large numbers. Many came in the hopes of better way of life, others because of individual curiosity, economic hardships, political struggles or religious persecutions. Many escaped the crop failure and famine. When we first meet Friedrich we find out that he has been living in New York for five years, which means that he arrived in 1860. In the early 1860´s main transportation across the Atlantic was made with sails and the trip could last one to three months. This would mean that Fritz would have arrived with a sailing ship that was designed for a cargo carriage. These ships were quite hazardous and the accommodations were small and dark. The second wave of German immigrants arrived in the end of the 1860´s escaping the German wars. 

Jo and Fritz in one of New York´s Biergarten´s. 

Friedrich´s reasons for leaving his home country are family-related. There are couple occasions in Little Women that do give an impression that Fritz has faced oppression and discrimination and Jo does make a note to herself that he must have had a hard-life. It is not a coincidence that Jo and Friedrich meet in New York of all places. Many of the German immigrants moved into the cities in north, like New York, which already had established German communities. These communities were tight. When Friedrich comes to visit Jo in Concord the reader finds out that he has German friends there. 

​Louisa May Alcott was born into the New England´s transcendentalist movement. Transcendentalism was very much an American movement but it´s roots were within German philosophy and romanticism. Especially in the transnational ideas of Immanuel Kant and his new ethic of "universal hospitality". There are couple basic principles within transcendentalist philosophy; Human beings are inherently good and pure. Nature  was the ultimate mediator and expression of god who was present all around. Self-reflection and being true to-one self was encouraged. From a very early age Louisa practiced self-reflection and observance and from her novels Little Women and Old Fashioned girl have biggest transcendentalist influences.

Little Women film from 1994 is one of the rare adaptations with clear references to transcendentalism. When Jo meets Fritz they talk about German philosophy. Jo mentions that her parents were part of "rather unusual circle in Concord" and she mentions that she adores Goethe. Friedrich quotes a poem from another transcendentalist, Walt Whitman and Jo joins him. Transcendentalist believed that it was through the observation and appreciation of nature that the human soul was enlightened. The idea of being true authentic self becomes part their conversation. Transcendentalist love for nature can be seen in the movie in the presence of flowers and plants in outdoors and indoors. Proposal scene in the movie and in the book takes place in nature and it correlates the way in the book Friedrich has kept Jo´s poem.

"Be worthy, love, and love will come," In the falling summer rain.

Louisa May Alcott was  surrounded by the greatest thinkers of her time, Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emmerson, Henry David Thoreau and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Her father, Bronson Alcott, showed her an idealistic and ultimately unworkable version of the movement. Throughout Louisa’s childhood, Bronson pursued philosophical ideas by establishing the Temple School where he sought to teach children according to his transcendental ideas. Some of Bronson´s ideas were too radical for the parents and eventually he was forced to resign when he took a black child as a student. Soon after the closing of the Temple School, the family moved to a farmstead to establish a Utopian society called Fruitlands. There, they attempted to live off the land, follow a strict vegetarian diet, and more fully implement the ideas that Bronson deemed important.  Fruitlands was a terrible failure. The Alcotts were subjected to backbreaking work but barely survived the winter. After a little less than a year on the homestead, they left  Although Louisa had seen her father’s transcendentalist projects fail, she still believed in the philosophy as much as he did, and blamed the setbacks on poor planning and execution. In her books, she would correct his mistakes (Matteson). 

It was after this that they moved to Concord, Massachusetts, where the transcendentalist movement started to take shape. Emmerson was good friend of Bronson and Louisa frequently borrowed books from Emmerson´s library and learned about nature from Thoreau. Margaret Fuller made an ever lasting impression on Louisa with her philosophy and feminist ideas. It was unusual for the time for mother work outside the home but Abba Alcott did. Bronson had determination to give his daughter a proper education, also unusual for the time. Abba had less interest towards the ideological side of transcendentalism but more in what practical tools transcendentalism offered.  Alcott has mixed emotions about Transcendentalism. Intrigued and inspired by the ideal of self-reliance, she still knew from first-hand experience that ‘self-reliance really meant reliance on others and required the self-sacrifice of family members’” (Boyd). Louisa wanted to tie the two opposite knots of her parents ideas. 

This drew her to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s theories and ideas, as they presented a more complete way of living out the transcendental philosophy. Her journals illustrate her love for his philosophies, calling him “the man who has helped me most by his life, his books, his society”. Emmerson´s philosophy on how good deeds bring happiness and satisfaction to one´s life deeply effected Louisa and her written works. Louisa was as well heavily effected by Goethe´s ideas of self-reliance. Topic of self-reliance is a constant theme in Little Women and essentially important when getting to know the characters.

As a German immigrant, Professor Bhaer understands and experiences hard work and struggle. He bares in mind the responsibility he has in caring for a woman if he is to marry. He is more grounded and stable than Laurie, whose idealized hopes of marriage remind me of Louisa’s own descriptions of her imprudent father (“…he was a man in a balloon, with his family holding the ropes trying to hold him down to Earth”) (Rhone) 

In a minute a hand came down over the page, so that she could not draw, and Laurie's voice said, with a droll imitation of a penitent child, "I will be good, oh, I will be good!"

But Amy did not laugh, for she was in earnest, and tapping on the outspread hand with her pencil, said soberly, "Aren't you ashamed of a hand like that? It's as soft and white as a woman's, and looks as if it never did anything but wear Jouvin's best gloves and pick flowers for ladies" (Little Women, Chapter 39).

Amy being a working class girl she doesn´t have any problems reminding Laurie that he has not worked a day in his life.

Margaret Fuller was an American journalist, editor and a women´s rights activist. Fuller´s writings on love and marriage had a huge impact on Louisa.  In her novel Dial Fuller expresses her almost gender neutral understanding between men and women. Fuller´s writings are considered the first American feminist writings, at the time when feminism as a concept and as a social movement did not exist yet. Louisa knew Margaret and greatly admired her and was deeply effected by her radical ideas about gender. ​

Male and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism. But, in fact, they are perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman. ​​

​Following transcendental idea of duality, Fuller sees Man including both sexes those being the two sides of the same entity. Fuller underlines the fact that we can not separate the well-being of either but what is good for one sex is, good for both, equality between sexes is beneficial for everyone. At the time these ideas were revolutionary. 

​Many Alcott scholars believe that the poor nutrition in Fruitlands might have effected on Louisa´s hormonal balance. Same way as Jo, Louisa was a tomboy. Louisa was very protective over her mother who she adored and her love for her family was fierce. From very early on she took the role of the provider or the way Jo describes herself as the"man of the house", some Alcott scholars believe that this was something that effected o Louisa´s gender confusion. Anna Alcott was 11 years older than her literal counterpart Meg March, when she married. Same way as Jo grieved Meg marrying, so did Louisa. Not because John, real and the fictional was a bad person but because it meant the change in the family dynamics. In the book Jo says that she´d rather marry Meg herself, which has led many to believe that Jo is a lesbian, but with Jo, there is no context for her fear because Jo´s childhood was quite safe and idyllic, where as Louisa´s was more unstable and turbulent, family went through a lot together.  Louisa was upset when Anna announced that she was getting married. Anna was 28 and Louisa was 27 at the time.  It happened only three weeks after they had lost their sister Lizzie, so Louisa´s wish to keep the family together and fear of loosing it is understandable. ​​

​If you do research on transcendentalist you´ll soon find out that there was a great deal of gender fluidly and I personally believe that Louisa May Alcott was gender fluid, but it is an assumption, not something I can prove. I would highly recommend Susan Bailey´s article on 19th century female relationships in Little Women. I also found an article of the 19th century male friendships and recommend to read that as well.

We live in a culture in which it is common not to try and understand what the other says and means, in this case, the author, but to assume it is some preconceived idea or trope we have in our heads of something we hate, we love, or we want to think that we are.  It is a pity that it is so, because when we erase the fragility and faults of characters, we deprive ourselves from seeing the reflection of our own in them, and learn and grow (@thatvermillionflycatcher).  The several Little Women adaptations have participated to the confusion and caused misconceptions because the film makers have reflected their own ideas and desires to the characters.

Masculinity and femininity are social structures made of biological and cultural factors. Jo struggles to find a balance between the two during a time when the world between men and women was separated. 

​There is a stereotype that Jo is quite adventurous. Is she? She is quite adventurous inside her head and she is good at making up stories and likes acting. Writing is a safe escape to live vicariously because she can do that from a safe place. With Laurie she can live in boys world through his masculine energy. Jo likes to speak about sports and such but because of her gender she is prevented to join any teams. 

In the first book after Laurie pretended to be John Brooke and forged love letters and deeply hurt Meg (never included in  movies) he asks Jo to go to Washington with him and surprise Mr Brooke. Jo is tempted by the idea, but she sees that such trip is Laurie´s way of getting away from his grandfather. Jo likes to dream but she knows that reality would be completely different, and Laurie never grows if he doesn´t learn from his mistakes.

​There are certain elements within Jo that in the 19th century context and even today are considered traditionally "feminine" and some of the modern day readers like to ignore them. Louisa´s attempt however is not make certain habits in a person clearly masculine or feminine, but to blurry the lines. Jo is good at sewing, in fact she is a good dress-maker, likes to knit and mend clothes. Louisa herself liked sewing. We see all the girls sewing together in the beginning of the 1933 film and in the 1949 film Jo sews and knits. In the book Jo sees that Mr Bhaer is mending his own socks, and she is both surprised and impressed about it. She is impressed how self-reliant he is. Some readers have found it odd how Jo wants to start a school for boys. When Jo sees the hungry look in Laurie´s eyes when he looks at her family and she practically adopts him. Louisa in her personal life was devoted to charity work and she worked as a nurse in the civil war. Taking care of others was something that came naturally to her. 

Gender fluidly continues in the sequels. Character of Nat is very sensitive, musical and a lot like Laurie. Dan is almost "too masculine" and doesn´t want to show his vulnerability. In Little Men Jo´s niece Daisy complains how boys won´t include her into their games and Jo privately thinks that in the house that is filled with boys the only girl is the most difficult to please. She gets Daisy a small toy stove and teaches her to cook while turning it into a play. This is not the 15 year old Jo who thinks that everyone should be like her, instead she supports Daisy´s individuality. Daisy´s femininity is balanced by Nan, who is another tomboy. Even her name is a mixture between Nat and Dan. ​

Jo doesn´t like to go parties or social events like Meg and Amy do. She rather stays at home and writes.  Jo doesn´t fit well to Concord or to the traditional female role. She is allowed to be herself in her home. In the first book she does compare herself to Meg and the way she is treated differently for being traditionally feminine, same happens with Amy in the second book. Jealousy Jo sometimes feels is caused by the fact that sisters are better accepted than she because of her non-conformity, and this causes Jo feelings of isolation. 

In Chapter Calls she rather speaks to pets and plays with the children of the house than talks with the adults. Jo makes the assumption that the aunts take her to Europe, even after when she has blurted to aunt Carol that she hates French, neither she seems to have put much effort to study languages, which would be quite important if she would have seriously wanted to go to Europe with the aunts. Jo dreams about the foreign, but if she was abroad, especially with people like aunt March who she had a difficult relationship, Jo would be rather homesick. 

In New York Jo hesitates in the door of the Newspaper quite a while when she tries to sell her first story. She rather spends time with Friedrich than goes to seek new acquaintances and in her letters to Marmee and Beth she writes that she feels shy among strangers. This was also included in the 1994 film.

​To explore the development of Jo´s and Friedrich´s romantic relationship in the book, I am going to use historian Karen Lystra´s studies on 19th century romantic love and courtship as a comparison. ​ 

Three stages of 19th century courtship

(1) Love comes by a multitude of reasons (2) shared looks enact a mutual transaction of interior lives, and (3) this leads to an identification of selves, or mutual recognition of persons.

Jo spends quite a long time in New York, about 8 months.  When she sees Fritz for the first time she is immediately attracted to him, in fact she checks him out multiple times during her first day at Mrs Kirke and she continues doing that throughout her stay. 

​when the parlor door opened and shut, and someone began to hum, Kennst Du Das Land, like a big bumblebee. It was dreadfully improper, I know, but I couldn't resist the temptation, and lifting one end of the curtain before the glass door, I peeped in. Professor Bhaer was there, and while he arranged his books, I took a good look at him. A regular German--rather stout, with brown hair tumbled all over his head, a bushy beard, good nose, the kindest eyes I ever saw, and a splendid big voice that does one's ears good, after our sharp or slipshod American gabble. His clothes were rusty, his hands were large, and he hadn't a really handsome feature in his face, except his beautiful teeth, yet I liked him, for he had a fine head, his linen was very nice, and he looked like a gentleman.

Based on Jo´s first impression on Fritz she seems to be completely enthralled by him. This is what Little Women fan, actress Melodie Ellison has to say about Jo and Friedrich;

I think part of why people act like Friedrich is not attractive is because of the well known Louisa May Alcott quote about intentionally making a funny match for Jo. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she didn’t quite mean that. Laurie was conventionally attractive. There are men in our current times that fall into that same category—men like Zac Efron, for example. If you were to ask me what I think of Zac Efron I’d tell you he’s handsome, but.... I’m not personally attracted to him. Like Jo, I prefer my men bearded and a little stout, but most importantly intelligent, hard working, and kind. I think folks who cant accept an older less hot version of the professor failed to understand his and Jo’s relationship. She respected him and he her, and for her that was the ultimate in sexiness. 

When Jo writes her letter home she says that the letter is rather "Bhaery" and that she is always interested from "odd" people. We can interpret-ate this that Jo is fascinated by Friedrich´s eccentric-sim, and this is where Jo finds her kindred spirit because all her life she has considered herself as "odd" and "not fitting". One of the reasons why Jo´s and Laurie´s relationship can never be a relationship between equals is that Laurie was looking for a mother figure in Jo, and Friedrich being older and more mature than Laurie is a paradox of that. 

I was in our parlor last evening when Mr. Bhaer came in with some newspapers for Mrs. Kirke. She wasn't there, but Minnie, who is a little old woman, introduced me very prettily. "This is Mamma's friend, Miss March."
​
"Yes, and she's jolly and we like her lots," added Kitty, who is and `enfant terrible'.
We both bowed, and then we laughed, for the prim introduction and the blunt addition were rather a comical contrast.
​
Like their creator Jo and Fritz share their love for children. Already in the first novel Jo escaped the female society and ran out to play with boys. In New York Jo is more interested from the doings of Friedrich´s nephews Franz and Emil than her female charges Kitty and Minnie. ​

Love truly does come with multitude of reasons. The more time Jo spends in New York, more attractive Fritz becomes both physically and intellectually.  When spring arrives she makes notice on the "pleasant curves about his mouth", "his eyes that were never cold or hard,  his big hands that had a warm strong grasp, that was more expressive than words. 

​Jo´s favorite past time is reading and one can spot a great deal of references to 19th century world literature, especially German, from Little Women. Before Jo goes to New York she has been quite frustrated with the way Laurie is not interested from his studies, Jo can not attend university because of her gender. Friedrich sees Jo as his intellectual equal. 1994 film captures the meeting of the minds perfectly. Pbs series from 2017 is so far the only adaptation that has included the symposium (well..leaving the symposium) and there is another reference to transcendentalism when Fritz and Jo talk about Kant´s theories. ​

Symposium is important because the reader finds out that Jo´s and Friedrich´s morals go together. In the symposium Jo meets famous poets, writers and philosophers. Some who she has kept in high value but her opinions are about to change. 

Her reverence for genius received a severe shock that night, and it took her some time to recover from the discovery that the great creatures were only men and women after all.

Turning as from a fallen idol, she made other discoveries which rapidly dispelled her romantic illusions. Imagine her dismay, on stealing a glance of timid admiration at the poet whose lines suggested an ethereal being fed on `spirit, fire, and dew', to behold him devouring his supper with an ardor which flushed his intellectual countenance 

The great novelist vibrated between two decanters with the regularity of a pendulum,  the famous divine flirted openly with one of the Madame de Staels of the age, who looked daggers at another Corinne, who was amiably satirizing her

specimen of the British nobility present happened to be the most ordinary man of the party. 

Already in the first novel we find out that Jo doesn´t always enjoy the higher class social gatherings. Now that she is in the circles of writers, poets and intellectuals which is the world she longs to be part of, she is disappointed by her own illusions that she has created about that world. 

Before the evening was half over, Jo felt so completely disillusioned, that she sat down in a corner to recover herself. Mr. Bhaer soon joined her, looking rather out of his element and presently several of the philosophers, each mounted on his hobby, came ambling up to hold an intellectual tournament in the recess.

Friedrich also seems to feel as he is in a wrong place. Jo becomes distressed when she is following the debate and one of the young philosophers puts intellect above God. After some hesitation Friedrich keeps his speech defending religion. This speech leaves an ever-lasting impression on Jo and I would even argue that this is when Jo starts to realize that her feelings for Friedrich are more than friendship. 

She began to see that character is a better possession than money, rank, intellect, or beauty, and to feel that if greatness is what a wise man has defined it to be, `truth, reverence, and good will', then her friend friedrich Bhaer was not only good, but great.

Little Women is a Bildungsroman. Bildungsroman is a literally genre that originated from Germany. Goethe´s novel Wilhelm Meister´s apprenticeship was the first Bildungsroman and I shall make multiple references to Wilhelm Meister in this article because this novel had a deep significance to Louisa and a huge effect to the development of Little Women. English translation could be "coming of age" - novel. The focus of a Bildungsroman is in the moral and psychological development of the characters. Jo in the first book is filled with contradictions. She is childish and very immature at times but still more mature than Laurie. Jo´s two defining character features are her anger and her fear of change. In the first book Jo makes a conscious attempt to control her temper because it often leads her into troubles. It is natural that a person calms down a bit when they mature but still in the fourth book Jo´s boys, where Jo is in her 50´s reader finds out that she still at times struggles with her temper. 

In movies and in all tv adaptations so far scene where Fritz expresses his opinions about sensational literature has been turned into a conflict. I guess it´s supposed to create more drama? but this is not the way things go in the book, because Jo already has labelled her sensational writings as rubbish way before she even thinks of traveling to New York.  She has assured herself that her intentions are good because she would use the money  to help her family. This inner conflict that Jo has, begins in  chapter 27. Literary lessons. 

In this chapter Jo attends to a lecture about pyramids. There she bumps into a young man who is reading a thrilling story written by Mrs. Nortbury. Jo is amused by boy´s admiration of the "trash", that is how she calls this type literature which emphasizes her wish to disdain herself from those stories, so Jo´s negative views towards sensational stories is clearly identified. When Jo hears how much Mrs Northbury makes with her "Stress and Thunder" tales Jo begins to change her mind and soon starts to write them herself. 

"Stress and thunder" tales originate from Goethe. In German this genre is called "Sturm und Drang" Drang refers into deep emotional stress. Sturm und Drang was a movement in literature and music in the late 18th century Germany and was vastly influenced by Goethe´s writings and plays. There is a great emphasis on faith for the individual and the movement was highly influenced by Shakespeare. Goethe´s Sturm und Drang plays were about very masculine Teutonic heroes which is probably what fascinated Louisa as an author. 

Jo´s first stories are poor attempts to capture the spirit of Sturm und Drang. 
​
Her story was as full of desperation and despair as her limited acquaintance with those uncomfortable emotions enabled her to make it

Jo takes in consideration all the advice she gets from everyone around her, instead of seeking advice from someone who could help her to improve as a writer. She goes against her own judgement, when she knows that some of the advice she receives does not improve the story. 

So, with Spartan firmness, the young authoress laid her first-born on her table, and chopped it up as ruthlessly as any ogre. In the hope of pleasing everyone, she took everyone's advice, and like the old man and his donkey in the fable suited nobody.

After submitting to bunch of magazines Jo writers her first novel which is a romance and it receives mixed reviews. Jo appreciates the feedback and learns from it. 

Her family and friends administered comfort and commendation liberally. Yet it was a hard time for sensitive, high-spirited Jo, who meant so well and had apparently done so ill. But it did her good, for those whose opinion had real value gave her the criticism which is an author's best education, and when the first soreness was over, she could laugh at her poor little book, yet believe in it still, and feel herself the wiser and stronger for the buffeting she had received. 

In Chapter 34 when Jo enters to the publishing world in New York she enters to a world that is male dominated. Her sensational story is cut from third of it´s original length. Jo is frustrated the way Mr Dashwood wants to cut out all the morals away from the story and the morals are what Jo wishes to keep, eventually Jo agrees to these alternations to  be made. 

Despite of her "masculine shield" Jo is quite emotional internally even though she doesn´t like to show it and writing thrilling tales becomes distressing. 
​
She was living in bad society, and imaginary though it was, its influence affected her, for she was feeding heart and fancy on dangerous and unsubstantial food, and was fast brushing the innocent bloom from her nature by a premature acquaintance with the darker side of life, which comes soon enough to all of us.

Fritz knows that Jo writes and he is curious about it but Jo is ashamed of her writings. She is adamant about using a pseudonym and she doesn´t tell anyone at home what she is doing and neither she has showed her stories to Fritz. Friedrich never criticizes Jo as a writer, he is criticizing the genre. Friedrich is honest. He wants Jo to take herself seriously as a writer. The book Jo does not shout or argue with Fritz unlike the movie Jo does, because Friedrich expresses what Jo has been thinking all along. Jo is mortified when she realizes Friedrich thinks her writing is trashy. It is mortifying to realize our writing is bad (Manley) especially when it´s said by someone who we really want to like us. 

As a result Jo burns her trashy novels. Then the book Jo tries to write for children, it doesn´t feel right. Then she writes stories that only have moralities, that does not feel right either. She jumps from one literal genre to another. 

Friedrich does turn out to be indeed a friend, like the title of the chapter suggests. He encourages Jo to study real-life people so she can develop her characters and as a Christmas gift he gives her a set of Shakespeare´s novels. Goethe, Louisa´s idol. would have had similar thoughts towards sensational stories that Friedrich had.

"Bhaer is trying to help Jo become a genuine writer instead of one who caters to the whims of the crowd. This is something Goethe would have done. He disliked superficiality in people and in art and “was through life frequently offended by the shallow pretensions, the false aims, of writers who, because they have some poetic sensibility and some gift of expression" (Megan Armknecht, Jo Marries Goethe, Dr Bhaer  as Louisa May Alcott´s representation of the Goethean ideal in Little Women)

​Louisa credited Goethe being  the one author who has taught me the most about creating and understanding characters 

In the 1994 film, Jo argues with Fritz about her writings. Film kinda portrays Jo as an ultra-feminist, when Jo says  too bad  her writings are not good enough for Friedrich´s high morals. This is complete opposite to the book Jo because the book Jo and Fritz, have always shared the same morals. 

Some viewers of the 1994 film have taken Jo´s side on the argument undoubtedly because of it´s "ultra-feminism" but in reality Louisa herself stopped writing sensational stories when her children´s novels became more popular. 1994 film is historically accurate in that sense that Friedrich has connections to the publishing world and in the 19th century an unknown writer, especially a woman, needed a man to represent them. 

Here is a quote from a person who joined #TeamBhaer after becoming acquaintance with Friedrich for the first time through Greta Gerwig´s film and they got inspired to read the book.

Never read nor watched Little Women before this, but I am so phenomenally fond of Friedrich. Just. In general. But this is coming from someone who watched 2019 first and had no context prior to this! As a writer/cinema-saavy person, I was made aware of the Gerwig’s cinematic parallelism of past and present during my watch, and I could tell that there must have been something taken out of the equation as a means to balance out Gerwig’s vision. Yet, I took fondly to the man who was basically void of existence mid-movie, purely on the fact that Gerwig’s method of narrative essentialism still had me appreciate his weight? In the same way 2019 Jo summarized the entirety of her loneliness in a single sweep (as I later found out she dedicated an entire chapter to such somber chills), I found that Friedrich’s ‘clean sweep’ came down to lines that could be easily overlooked if one came for acting instead of script: “But do you have anyone to take you seriously? To talk about your work? He was essentially the one meant to simply see her. That in a single line Greta Gerwig had ‘essentiallized’ his character. This correlates with the book Fritz. 

Of course, as I’ve actually admitted 2019 Friedrich was my first version of Friedrich, and he still managed to catch my attention for all he was worth– it was nice reading book two and finding out that Alcott wrote him in as a worthy addition (rather than a cop out, as I’ve had the misfortune to read criticisms as of late.) Fleshed him out so thoroughly that I was shocked at all that anyone would argue otherwise (@defaultyhero) 

This makes me wonder why Greta has spend so much time and energy bashing the book Friedrich while promoting her film. With just that simple line he is established as someone worthy of Jo´s love, it´s not something that Laurie would do. Jo has desire to improve, but at the same she doesn´t want to admit that the other person was right. Gerwig´s film has it´s focus how much Jo has discomforts with change, and the feedback scene doesn´t promote the ultra-feminism but Jo comes out more childish. She yells she never speaks to him again and it is not something that the book Jo would do. Unfortunately Greta Gerwig being dismissive on Friedrich´s character erases Jo´s growth as a person. The argument does show the differences in Jo´s and Friedrich´s temperaments and same happens in the 2018 adaptation. 2017 pbs series also plays the "ultra-feminist" card when Jo defends her sensational writings and calls out poor Fritz, and like in the 1994 he apologizes. ​​

My favorite Fritz-gives-Jo-feedback-in-the-movies goes to Rossano Brazzi in the 1949 film. Somehow he manages to be stern and sincere at the same time. Scene happens right after Jo has been told that she can´t go to Europe (which in the book happens much earlier) so she is quite upset and when Fritz sees this he runs to comfort her and keeps an uplifting and encouraging speech that Jo should write from her heart. 

The Attic web-series is inspired by Little Women. Not a big budget show but I thought it was very clever the way it turned Weekly Volcano into a Buzzfeed type of website. Bhaer who is a student at NYU is doing a world a favor. Sites like Buzzfeed or in this case Weekly Volcano steels content from independent  bloggers and youtubers at the same while destroying our last remaining brain cells (am I salty? as a blogger and a content creator, yes).

Here is another quote from chapter 27 literary lessons:

"that's just it. I've been fussing over the thing so long, I really don't know whether it's good, bad, or indifferent. It will be a great help to have cool, impartial persons take a look at it, and tell me what they think of it."

The whole chapter is about how Jo learns to define her craft from the feedback she receives, way before she meets Friedrich, and it foreshadows the arrival of Friedrich´s character. There is a longing to find a person who can not only give her constructive criticism but also encourage her to explore her capacity as a story teller.  The 2018 film did pretty good job by making Bhaer Jo´s editor and a professor of literature, and so far it is only film where Jo listens and embraces the feedback she receives same way as the book Jo does. 

Louisa was always a creature of moods; and it was a great relief to work off certain feelings by the safe vent of imaginary persons and scenes in a story. She had no one to guide or criticize her; and the fact that these gambols of fancy brought the much-needed money, and were, as she truly called them, "pot boilers," certainly did not discourage her from indulging in them. She is probably right in calling most of them "trash and rubbish," for she was yet an unformed girl, and had not studied herself or life very deeply; but her own severe condemnation of them in "Little Women" might give a false idea. The stories are never coarse or immoral. Yet, she unquestionably recognized that she was not doing the best work of which she was capable; and she looked forward still to the books she was to write, as well as the fortune she was to make. She did not like any reference to these sensational stories in after life, although she sometimes re-used plots or incidents in them; and she was very unwilling to have them republished (Cheney) 

I have read some of Louisa´s sensational stories that she wrote under pseudonym. I have enjoyed them and I agree with Cheney that they are not as horrible as Louisa framed them to be and if you ask me, even in those pot-boiler stories there is always a moral, usually within warning examples but mine and Cheney´s perspective is a modern perspective. We see those stories today as harmless, because that kind of sensationalism is no-longer shocking to us, but in the 19th century context they were extremely shocking. Louisa wrote about murderers, lunatics, racial conflicts, cheating wives, obsessive husbands and drug users.  Back when Little Women was published, it was actually considered too liberal in comparison to other children´s literature available,  so it is easy to imagine why Louisa wanted to disdain herself from the sensationalism. 

Both Jo and Fritz are extensions of their creator, sensational story episodes in Little Women seems to be more about the inner reflections of Louisa May Alcott´s views about her own writings than anything else. One of my perceptive blog-readers pointed out that Friedrich´s views on religion would probably effect on his views on sensational stories, perhaps Louisa, who was deeply religious herself had similar thoughts.

There has been lots of unnecessary stereotyping made towards Friedrich´s character. I will point out some of them, partly because they are truly ridiculous but also because they show how long journey we have to understand Louisa May Alcott´s world view. 

In one supposedly "feminist" study that I read, the author pointed out that Bhaer having Shakespeare, Milton, Plato and Homer in addition to his German Bible in his bookshelf represent the way Jo is now a captive of the male power.

Apparently if a fictional male character who happens to be a teacher of philosophy has books about philosophy in his bookshelf that must make him a sexist. In most "feminist" studies Friedrich is demonized because of his sex which is a juxtaposition for celebrating Jo who has such huge admiration for the masculine.

In her excellent article German literature and culture in March Trilogy - Christine Doyle points out that throughout the book series Friedrich´s character represents the positive aspects of the German culture that the new immigrants embodied.

Well-read and well educated—Friedrich´s shelf contains volumes of Shakespeare, Milton, Plato, and Homer in addition to his German Bible—he is nevertheless remarkably unpretentious, darning his own socks, for example. He is deeply religious, standing up for the importance of religion at the gathering of intellectuals he and Jo attend. This is a particularly important detail since, unlike the working-class German immigrants, the German intelligentsia were highly suspect for their “godlessness,” and it is actually against proponents of Kant’s and Hegel’s intellectualism that Friedrich launches his defense of religion. Even the great supporters of German literature, the Transcendentalists, sometimes found it difficult to come to terms with what they read as immorality and even atheism among the German writers (Doyle).  

In 1933, 1949 and the 1994 films Fritz tells Jo that she can do much better than the sensational stories.  Pbs series from 2017 is the only recent adaptation so far that doesn`t pay much attention on Fritz encouraging Jo with her writing, in fact it is the only adaptation that doesn´t include Jo publishing her first successful novel. In an interview script writer Heidi Thomas said that she never understood why Jo married a man who disapproved her writings? Greta Gerwig and Saoirse Ronan have said the same (Little Women 2019 movie guide). The books narrative is completely opposite to this strange view. Friedrich encourages Jo to write from her heart and study characters. He wants Jo to take herself seriously as a writer. People over-identifying with Jo is very problematic, because while doing they become selective readers and unfortunately the interpretation of Little Women and Jo and Fritz as characters greatly suffer from this. Jo never stops writing and Friedrich is always encouraging her. 

Here is quote from Jo´s boys.

'I hope the day will go well with thee, my dearest,' answered her husband, and smoothing the worried lines out of her forehead with his good-bye kiss, the excellent man marched away, both pockets full of books, an old umbrella in one hand, and a bag of stones for the geology class in the other.

'If all literary women had such thoughtful angels for husbands, they would live longer and write more"

"I wish people would understand that they don't actually understand these characters better than the author. Only Louisa May Alcott knew what was best for them, what went through their "minds" etc. It's not really possible to see them as entities completely separate from the author. So if she decided on Jo falling for Fritz, thats' whats best for Jo, period. And I say this also because some people say stuff like 'the characters are way more complicated that the author wanted them to be or are their own thing' and like, don't they know what a fictional character is?" - Little Women fan, Clarisa Olguin

When Little Women part 2 appeared it wasn´t viewed as a children´s novel but it was more suitable for teen agers. In fact Little Women 2 was quite risque because of Jo´s sexual awakening. Anyone who has done any research on Louisa May Alcott´s life knows that she had a crush on Waldo Emerson and was in love with Henry David Thoreau. Both were transcendentalist philosophers. 

Sometimes the movies have been criticized for focusing too much on the romance. Robin Swicord who wrote the screenplay to the 1994 film said that because Louisa herself didn´t care that much about adding all the moralities, she wrote the script the way she imagined Louisa would have wrote a story if it was meant for more mature audience and not for children. ​

If you are like me and you have watched a fair amount of movies with Gabriel Byrne in them you probably don´t mind smooching in the opera scene and after having read some of LMA´s more spicy stories that even include sexual undertones, very often between older men and younger women (just saying) I understand what Swicord means. It could have been something that Louisa had written, but at the same it is out of character for both Jo and Fritz because Little Women is not that kind of book. 

First looks begin when Jo enters to the boarding house. Both Jo and Fritz are interested from each others doings and well..spy on each others. Jo originally intended to stay in New York way longer but when news from Beth arrived she had to shorten her stay. When Jo is telling Fritz and the children that she is leaving she is exited of the idea of introducing Fritz to her family, then she remembers the unsolved matters between her and Laurie, the attraction she feels for Fritz makes matters even more confusing, she flushes and feels the need of hiding her face. In the following evening we get a glimpse to Friedrich´s mind. 

That night, he searches about the room “as if in search of something he can not find.

​Reader finds out that Fritz has been thinking of Jo for a great deal, and he wonders what life with Jo would be like. This is something that for example, Laurie in the book, never thinks or dream about. But for Friedrich it is something much bigger. He is missing a place where he can belong to. Narrator mentions that Friedrich has Heimweh, he is homesick. But it is not just about Friedrich missing Germany (and he does sometimes) but he dreams about being a part of a family, he misses having an actual home. As an immigrant, Fritz is part of two worlds,  but he does not wholly belong to either.

In German romanticism there is a concept called Heimwech nach dem Frendre which freely translated means longing for the foreign. Longing for the foreign is something that pops up in Jo´s writings. Her stories take place in faraway countries and her heroes have exotic names and they speak with accents. It is more about dreaming adventures than living them. 

​Louis Garrel captures the dynamics between the two perfectly.
​
“He is from a world that she desires, the world of books and intellectuals. He is a teacher. He is from Europe, and I think she can dream about the world he comes from. Sometimes when two people meet, suddenly something happens. There is no explanation. It´s passionate and very deep relationship between them”

There are lots of indications in the book that Jo wants love and a family, even at the same time when she wants to be a famous author. Friedrich´s isolation is a topic that hasn´t never really been explored in the adaptations. 1949 film is the only adaptation, where Friedrich is sometimes lonely. The book Fritz is in a quite desperate situation. For the past five years he has been working in job that he is not very exited about and his nephews are his only immediate family. When he moved to the States he had to leave a steady job and all his friends behind.  Jo is  breath of fresh air for him and because of her Friedrich starts to dream again. Dreams about a life outside these walls. Song How I am from Little Women musical captures Friedrich´s feelings of longing and his passionate nature. Song is about fear of rejection which is something that the book Friedrich is experiencing. 

Jo has hardly settled back home when Laurie proposes her. Laurie´s proposal is all about him. He is not very exited about Jo´s writings. Little Women never was a romance novel but a coming-of-age story. Laurie´s and Jo´s relationship is characterized by childhood innocence. Jo is never in love with Laurie and Laurie is not in love with Jo, he is in love with the idea of being a romantic lover. Laurie doesn´t want to change or take responsibility of himself. By marrying Jo he would have someone who would keep telling him what to do with his life. When Jo refuses Laurie threatens to kill himself and keeps guilt tripping Jo. So far Greta Gerwig´s adaptation is the only film which clearly shows that Fritz was way more mature than Laurie and Laurie´s proposal dialogue is lifted from the book. 

Movies have swapped the time line. In the book Laurie´s proposal happens after Jo has left New York and she has opened her heart for Friedrich and she gets angry when Laurie makes fun of him. This has never been adapted. 

One of the biggest problems in little women adaptations is the way they idealize Laurie and erase all the controversial things he does in the book, like when he is cat-fishing Meg and the erasure of his temper and the inability he has to see how harmful his actions can be, not only does this take away from Jo´s and Friedrich´s romance but also Amy´s and Laurie´s dynamics and the way Amy has positive impact on Laurie´s growth as a person. 

​In both 1994 film and 2019 film Jo and Friedrich part in bad terms but in the book they part as friends both wondering if it could lead into something more in the future. Jo and Friedrich spend the next two years writing letters to each others. 

Taking care of Beth  forces Jo to re-evaluate her life. After Beth´s passing she goes through a period of depression, grief and loneliness. In the book right after Beth´s death Laurie sends Jo a letter from Europe and proposes her again, this happens the moment Laurie has realized he has feelings for Amy. Jo sends him a polite answer and refuses again. Laurie´s second proposal has never been adapted.

In the book Jo confesses to Marmee that she could marry Laurie because she is  lonely not because she loves him. In the 1994 film Jo writes to Laurie and asks him to come and comfort her (which doesn´t happen in the book). In Greta Gerwig version there is this wonderful scene delivered by Saoirse that shows how Jo want´s to have a career but also to find someone to love. Scene in the movie where Jo writes Laurie a letter saying that she would accept his proposal completely decreases Jo as a character because it is not something that the book Jo would do. She is more mature, not that childish. 

​In the book shared looks continue when Fritz comes courting. 

Though a very social man, I think Mr. Bhaer would have gone decorously away, and come again another day, but how could he, when Jo shut the door behind him, and bereft him of his hat? Perhaps her face had something to do with it, for she forgot to hide her joy at seeing him, and showed it with a frankness that proved irresistible to the solitary man, whose welcome far exceeded his boldest hopes.

The moment he steps into her door step, Jo´s face lights up like the sun. I personally really liked the way this was made in Gerwig´s adaptation (Jo shoveling food to her mouth being far from graceful when he arrives).

In the book when Jo took a good look at Friedrich for the first time she liked his handsome-but-not-handsome looks, now Friedrich is, indeed handsome.

A stealthy glance now and then refreshed her like sips of fresh water after a dusty walk, for the sidelong peeps showed her several propitious omens. Mr. Bhaer's face had lost the absent-minded expression, and looked all alive with interest in the present moment, actually young and handsome, she thought

Shared looks were a big part courting, and one can trait similar patterns with Amy and Laurie and John and Meg, and the way their romances are developed. When Jo comes to the realization that Fritz has truly come to court her Jo flushes, she becomes fully self-aware and she is quite pleased and thrilled by the idea, which also shows how much she has longed for his company.

Courting is usually rushed in the films because of the time frame. Friedrich in fact comes visiting the Marches for two weeks and during all this time he is hoping to see signs of love from Jo. The most significant part of the courting, the identification of selves, is of course the umbrella scene. 

For a fortnight, the Professor came and went with lover-like regularity. Then he stayed away for three whole days, and made no sign, a proceeding which caused everybody to look sober, and Jo to become pensive, at first, and then--alas for romance--very cross.

The idea of possibly loosing Fritz has become petrifying. Jo March is having a heartache. She goes to the German quarter to look for him, but he is no where to be found. It starts to rain and Jo is ready to burst in to tears and then he is there. 

"I feel to know the strong-minded lady who goes so bravely under many horse noses, and so fast through much mus. What do you down here, my friend?"
"I'm shopping."
​
Mr. Bhaer smiled, as he glanced from the pickle factory on one side to the wholesale hide and leather concern on the other, but her only said politely, "You haf no umbrella. May I go also, and take for you the bundles?"
"Yes, thank you."

Jo's cheeks were as red as her ribbon, and she wondered what he thought of her, but she didn't care, for in a minute she found herself walking away arm in arm with her Professor, feeling as if the sun had suddenly burst out with uncommon brilliancy, that the world was all right again, and that one thoroughly happy woman was paddling through the wet that day.

Jo doesn´t have lots of experiences with men, so it makes sense that she is quite clumsy and awkward around him. In an earlier version of the script of Greta Gerwig film, Jo actually pulled down a chair when Fritz came to visit and he fixed it in a very calm manner. At least they included the part Jo setting herself on fire and the viewer finds out that Fritz is just as clumsy. 

Back to the book.

"We thought you had gone," said Jo hastily, for she knew he was looking at her. Her bonnet wasn't big enough to hide her face, and she feared he might think the joy it betrayed unmaidenly. 

Once again Jo flushes, and is very aware of his presence. The sharing of the interior lives happens while trying to interpreter the other person tone of voice and gestures. When Friedrich tells her about the new job and that he can now provide a better home for his nephews Jo is encouraged by the prospects of not losing him. 

"Indeed you should. How splendid it will be to have you doing what you like, and be able to see you often, and the boys!" cried Jo, clinging to the lads as an excuse for the satisfaction she could not help betraying

"Ah! But we shall not meet often, I fear, this place is at the West.

"So far away!" And Jo left her skirts to their fate, as if it didn't matter now what became of her clothes or herself.

Mr. Bhaer could read several languages, but he had not learned to read women yet. He flattered himself that he knew Jo pretty well, and was, therefore, much amazed by the contradictions of voice, face, and manner, which she showed him in rapid succession that day, for she was in half a dozen different moods in the course of half an hour. When she met him she looked surprised, though it was impossible to help suspecting that she had come for that express purpose. When he offered her his arm, she took it with a look that filled him with delight, but when he asked if she missed him, she gave such a chilly, formal reply that despair fell upon him. On learning his good fortune she almost clapped her hands. Was the joy all for the boys? Then on hearing his destination, she said, "So far away!" in a tone of despair that lifted him on to a pinnacle of hope, but the next minute she tumbled him down again by observing, like one entirely absorbed in the matter...

Narrator points out the difficulties of the mute courting - the narration of love, how to verbalize it through non-verbal clues. 

Now, I don´t care what anyone else says, in the book Fritz courting Jo in Little Women is pure magic, there is almost Captain Wentworth level half-agony, half-hope intensity in the umbrella chapter because of the  the muteness of their interaction. It is clear that these two are madly in love. 

When they go shopping Jo is very clumsy and Friedrich starts to see how Jo indeed goes by contradictions. In the store she hides her cried face to shawl and the next moment  she rummages the counters like a confirmed bargain-hunter. Jo´s pattern is to hide vulnerabilities into action, but Jo has gotten into a point, where she is ready to let down all her walls.

​For now the sun seemed to have gone in as suddenly as it came out, and the world grew muddy and miserable again, and for the first time she discovered that her feet were cold, her head ached, and that her heart was colder than the former, fuller of pain than the latter. Mr. Bhaer was going away, he only cared for her as a friend, it was all a mistake, and the sooner it was over the better. With this idea in her head, she hailed an approaching omnibus with such a hasty gesture that the daisies flew out of the pot and were badly damaged.

Why should we not recognize in the lightning, the thunder, and the storm, wind, the approach of an overwhelming power, and the scent of flowers and the gently rustling zephyr the presence of being full of love - Goethe

The culmination, the mutual recognition of one another. 

"I beg your pardon. I didn't see the name distinctly. Never mind, I can walk. I'm used to plodding in the mud," returned Jo, winking hard, because she would have died rather than openly wipe her eyes.

Mr. Bhaer saw the drops on her cheeks, though she turned her head away. The sight seemed to touch him very much, for suddenly stooping down, he asked in a tone that meant a great deal, "Heart's dearest, why do you cry?"

Liking someone is scary and these two have liked each others quite a long time now. When you first time bring somebody in your life it is scary because you have to admit yourself that you are fully open. Taking the step forward and tell that you love them is like standing on the edge of a cliff. Jo and Fritz are both standing on that cliff, and when Jo opens up, Fritz tells her that he has already fallen hard. 

Now, if Jo had not been new to this sort of thing she would have said she wasn't crying, had a cold in her head, or told any other feminine fib proper to the occasion. Instead of which, that undignified creature answered, with an irrepressible sob, "Because you are going away."
​
"Ach, mein Gott, that is so good!" cried Mr. Bhaer, managing to clasp his hands in spite of the umbrella and the bundles, "Jo, I haf nothing but much love to gif you. I came to see if you could care for it, and I waited to be sure that I was something more than a friend. Am I? Can you make a little place in your heart for old Fritz?" he added, all in one breath.
"Oh, yes!" said Jo, and he was quite satisfied, for she folded both hands over his are, and looked up at him with an expression that plainly showed how happy she would be to walk through life beside him, even though she had no better shelter than the old umbrella, if he carried it.

Friedrich wants to go on to his knees but they are on the middle of the street covered in mud which makes it difficult so they express their love by looking at each others, and they no longer care about the surroundings. Louisa seems to imply that love beautifies a person because neither Jo or Fritz are conventionally beautiful.

Jo calls Friedrich by his first name for the first time, which delights him. He says that his sister was the last person calling him Friedrich (which was 5 years ago).  Fritz also calls Jo as Jo and not as Mees March anymore. Conversation is now open and tender. Louisa´s love for Germany continues when Friedrich asks Jo to use the word "thou" instead of English "you". For those of you who don´t speak German, there is "Sie" which is how you address another person formally, then there is "Du" which is informal and in the 19th century context much more intimate. In old English "thou" was the more intimate form of "you". 

Friedrich show´s Jo the poem that brought him to her. Poem is called "in the garret" and Jo wrote it after Beth´s death while feeling very lonely. In most adaptations Friedrich has come bringing Jo her new book, but the poem shows that Fritz has taken the time to follow Jo´s career. 

When Jo asks what kept him away for so long we find out that he has been looking for a job so that he could provide a home for Jo. This highlights Friedrich´s self-reliancy which is a value Jo appreciates. Chapter ends into very famous "not empty now line". 

"I'm glad you are poor. I couldn't bear a rich husband," said Jo decidedly, adding in a softer tone, "Don't fear poverty. I've known it long enough to lose my dread and be happy working for those I love, and don't call yourself old--forty is the prime of life. I couldn't help loving you if you were seventy!"

The Professor found that so touching that he would have been glad of his handkerchief, if he could have got at it. As her couldn't, Jo wiped his eyes for him, and said, laughing, as she took away a bundle or two...

"I may be strong-minded, but no one can say I'm out of my sphere now, for woman's special mission is supposed to be drying tears and bearing burdens. I'm to carry my share, Friedrich, and help to earn the home. Make up your mind to that, or I'll never go," she added resolutely, as he tried to reclaim his load.

"Ah! Thou gifest me such hope and courage, and I haf nothing to gif back but a full heart and these empty hands," cried the Professor, quite overcome.
​
Jo never, never would learn to be proper, for when he said that as they stood upon the steps, she just put both hands into his, whispering tenderly, "Not empty now," and stooping down, kissed her Friedrich under the umbrella.

“While Meg and John are the down-to-earth couple (Meg arguably even more so after John dies), Amy and Laurie are the Romantics, the artists. Jo and Friedrich combine the two. One of Friedrich’s most compelling qualities is that he combines domestic and romantic heroism (Doyle)

Most nineteenth century courtships restrained from crossing the line until marriage, but that did not necessarily mean that all relationships lacked passion. For example, Lystra mentions that middle to upper middle class couples often did not undertake physical consummation until marriage; however during unchaperoned courtship they would. Primary sources tend to suggest that during the nineteenth century sex became linked to the sentiment of love - especially for women. While women were supposed to be pure by nature, Lystra asserts that, “Victorians joined the sexual and spiritual and the moral in the concept of true  love”.

In the professor Jo found a candidate for a kind of marriage she had not considered possible: a union between two people where freedom and partnership intertwine. In such a relationship she didn't have to sacrifice anything, as a matter-of-fact, she was able to realize a dream that she otherwise may not have had been able to achieve, and in later books, she finds success as an authoress as well as providing a home for boys. Her liberation is complete and no sacrifice has been required of her (East). 

The umbrella symbolizes the equality of their relationship, in many ways it parallels to Amy and Laurie and the symbolism of rowing the boat together. 

Adaptations have soften aunt March a great deal within recent years. She is a nasty piece of work in the book. The way I always read it, she left Plumfield to Jo because she did regret being harsh on her. Jo was the one who came up with the idea of a school, not Fritz, though lot of people, seem to think that Fritz somehow forced Jo to marry him and forced her to be a teacher? people who have not read Little Women have lots of opinions about it. Jo wanted Fritz to be a teacher in their school. Jo herself has way too quick temper for that kind of work. It actually makes a lot of sense why Jo wants to start a school. Both she and Fritz love children, and their views on education are very similar. 

Now, my dear people," continued Jo earnestly, "just understand that this isn't a new idea of mine, but a long cherished plan. Before my Fritz came, I used to think how, when I'd made my fortune, and no one needed me at home, I'd hire a big house, and pick up some poor, forlorn little lads who hadn't any mothers, and take care of them, and make life jolly for them before it was too late. I see so many going to ruin for want of help at the right minute, I love so to do anything for them, I seem to feel their wants, and sympathize with their troubles, and oh, I should so like to be a mother to them!"

"I told my plan to Fritz once, and he said it was just what he would like, and agreed to try it when we got rich. Bless his dear heart, he's been doing it all his life--helping poor boys, I mean, not getting rich, that he'll never be. Money doesn't stay in his pocket long enough to lay up any. But now, thanks to my good old aunt, who loved me better than I ever deserved, I'm rich, at least I feel so, and we can live at Plumfield perfectly well, if we have a flourishing school. It's just the place for boys, the house is big, and the furniture strong and plain. There's plenty of room for dozens inside, and splendid grounds outside. They could help in the garden and orchard. Such work is healthy, isn't it, sir? Then Fritz could train and teach in his own way, and Father will help him. I can feed and nurse and pet and scold them, and Mother will be my stand-by. I've always longed for lots of boys, and never had enough, now I can fill the house full and revel in the little dears to my heart's content. Think what luxury-- Plumfield my own, and a wilderness of boys to enjoy it with me." (Little Women, chapter 47, Harvest time)

Many people don´t know this about Louisa May Alcott but she had a soft spot for orphan children, especially boys, and did charity work to support them. 

This is what Little Women fan Kymberly East has to say about Jo´s and Friedrich´s relationship:

I have been reflecting on how there seems to be an agreement among film makers about which parts of the book are relevant enougt to bring to the screen. The industry has borrowed from all the same parts! There are so many moments in the book never brought to movie versions that bring out more of the characters: help to capture their time period, their poverty, their humor, and most importantly their evolution. The book allows them to mature both physically and emotionally, while the movies struggle especially with repressing the book-Jo´s growth, in an accurate way. The majority of the movies tend to reduce Jo´s ambitious, energetic nature into an emotionally stunted, defensive brat. This caricature of supposed creative, spunky, independence unfairly tarnishes the more self-aware book- Jo´s ability to learn and hone her craft-to take criticism seriously and well, tragically, to diminish the quality of their entire relationship, which in the book is depicted as quite incredible in it´s feeling of mutual respect, support and concern for each other´s abilities, interests, and circumstances. They learn from and help one another! Strangely, the book versions of Jo and Fritz´s relationship are more revolutionary than are the modern re-enactments. I enjoy the movies, despite these cliches and overs simplications, but something always feels missing to me after a viewing, and so then I must always return to these dear old friends through the best version of all, which is the one written by Louisa herself. 

Jo is often portrayed as a feminist icon and this has been only highlighted by the movies but the book Jo does fall into misogynist behavior more than once, especially in her younger years. There is a lot of talk about toxic masculinity, in her friendship with Laurie both Jo and Laurie adapted behavior patterns that we might now day refer as sexist, they fed each others with misogynist ideas. They made fun of the feminine girls Laurie was flirting with. Jo mocked both Amy and Meg for wanting to fit to the female circles. When Jo lost her trip to Europe, it happened because she made fun of the feminine labor. when Laurie proposed to Jo he took a position was demanding. In comparison to Jo, who is very blunt, Laurie was very emotional and became easily offended. For Jo showing emotions was weakness. This is something that Laurie even calls her out in the book. In the 2017 series, after Marmee goes to Washington Jo tells her sisters not to cry. 

​In her relationship with Friedrich for the first time Jo allowed herself to be completely vulnerable with another person. After Beth´s passing the novel that Jo writes, is not "Little Women" and neither is it a thrilling story. It is a story about Beth, a book about home. She took Friedrich´s advice to write from her heart and it becomes Jo´s first big hit.

When Amy marries Laurie Jo is genuinely happy for them, but she does envy their happiness. She does not envy Amy for marrying Laurie, she envies their happiness. The book Jo misses Friedrich a great deal. Loneliness she was afraid does happen because it is inevitable. 

When Jo falls in love she embraces all the emotions, including the romantic ones which are the ones she has been afraid of because of her fear of commitment. According to Jo´s early experience love and marriage destroyed families. Fear of not being accepted as  she is (outside of her family) is tied into Jo´s fear of being alone. Friedrich doesn´t want Jo to change and once Jo realizes this she let´s go of her fear. 

Friedrich has an emphatic world view which is often seen as a more feminine trait. He is also kind and soft-spoken. For some people this makes Friedrich emancipated. Insisting that Friedrich is not "masculine" is more indicative of someone being tied up in their own binary views of gender than anything else. Same way it is misogynist to condemn Amy because of her femininity. 

Some people, usually younger ones, admire Laurie when he tries to blackmail Jo to marry him. It is a complete juxtapose that shies away from Louisa May Alcott´s very intentional attempt to tear down gender stereotypes. Jo´s feelings of being an outsider and her struggles with non-conformity come at ease when she meets Friedrich who embodies those feminine traits that she admires in a man. 

In the earlier version of the script, where the ending wasn´t ambiguous, Greta had written this union quite beautifully. 

Interpreting Little Women from our modern day/fourth way of feminism can be problematic. The controversial concept of feminism is a relatively new term that began to be employed at the end of the 19th century and it is under a debate still today what the term actually includes. To understand Louisa May Alcott´s views on marriage we need to be aware of her transcendentalist and women´s right movement ideas and laws regarding marriage and property. In Little Women 2019 adaptation Amy says that marriage is an economical proposition and she was right. Back in the 19th century most marriages were made because of economical reasons,  but what we often miss is that it was during Louisa May Alcott´s life time out of the women’s rights movement a growing sense of equality, an ideal of companionate marriage grew. Marriage no longer was a choice made by person´s parents but an individual choice with love and courtship increasing their presence. Alcott rejects a marriage of convenience, calling it along with any other endeavor to love without the true feelings a mere “shadow”. 

While studying Louisa´s life I have become more skeptical whether her relationship towards Little Women was really as spiteful as it has been framed to be. According to Alcott Scholar Susan Bailey Louisa was a natural-born storyteller who often exaggerated things. Here is a quote from Alcott Scholar Daniel Shealy,  who has done some extensive research on Louisa´s views about egalitarian marriage. 

“In her personal letters, Alcott often made fun of the marriages in part two of Little Women. She wrote to her friend Elizabeth Powell in March 1869 that “‘Jo’ should have remained a literary spinster.” However, despite her preferred ending, Alcott declared: “[P]ublishers wont [sic] let authors finish up as they like but insist on having people married off in a wholesale manner which much afflicts me.” In the same letter, she even claims that she expects “vials of wrath to be poured out upon my head” when she does not marry Jo to Laurie (Selected Letters 124–25). Did Alcott specifically craft her letter to Powell, believing that her friend would appreciate the more independent, self-reliant version of Jo March? Powell, nine years Alcott’s junior, was both a Quaker and, as early as age sixteen, an activist in abolition. Like Alcott, Powell had also taught school in the early 1860s. She then trained with Dr. Dio Lewis, the physical culture advocate, who operated a school for girls in Lexington, Massachusetts in the mid-1860s.

In April 1864, she came to Concord to teach gymnastics, which Alcott and her older sister Anna joined (Journals 129). A year later, Powell became the gymnastics instructor at Vassar College, founded in 1861 as the first institution of higher education for women in the United States. In 1869, the year part two of Little Women appeared, Powell, unmarried at the time (she would later marry in 1872 and eventually, in 1890, become dean of women at Swarthmore College), was clearly the type of woman whom Alcott admired: a strong, independent activist and champion of woman’s rights and racial justice. Did Alcott think Powell would approve her insistence that Jo March not marry and that the author only acquiesced to her editor’s desires? No known letters among the Niles-Alcott correspondence suggest that the publisher had any say here. The marriage decision was all Alcott’s.”

I went to read more about Elizabeth Powell. Her life was surprisingly similar to the book Jo. She wasn´t a writer but there are parallels. Based on what I´v found her marriage with her lawyer husband was a happy one. She was devoted to the educational work and same way as Jo, promoted coeducation (both male and female students). She became a dean of the university, like Jo who becomes the matriarch of the Bhaer academy in Jo´s boys. Like the Powell´s Jo and Friedrich had two sons together. This idea that Jo as a character is only based on Louisa, is not entirely true. Meg in Little Women gets often dismissed as being the least ambitious of the sisters. In real life Anna Alcott started a school, which is what Jo does in the book. There were many women who Louisa admired that she has inserted into Jo´s character, and many Alcott scholars believe that with Jo and Friedrich Louisa created her own ideal relationship. 

​If Louisa was known for one thing that was her intense need to protect her reputation. Same way as she detached herself from her sensational stories, she destroyed and censored nearly all her diaries and family letters. We know that Louisa did fell in love and she captured the feeling into the pages of Little Women. The men who Louisa loved there was something unconventional in all of them.

This passage from "under the umbrella chapter" shows how mortally afraid Jo/Louisa was about loosing her reputation. 

Jo couldn't even lose her heart in a decorous manner, but sternly tried to quench her feelings, and failing to do so, led a somewhat agitated life. She was mortally afraid of being laughed at for surrendering, after her many and vehement declarations of independence.

We are currently living the fourth wave of feminism, which at it´s best promotes equality no matter gender, race or nationality. The issue/paradox with feminism now is that we have allowed extremist such a platform that their views are leaking over. But it comes from both sides the same women who are preaching man-bashing and exclusion are just as bad as the women who are denouncing any form of feminism to be accepted by the male population.

In Greta Gerwig´s film, there is some active erasure of the male characters. When Jo is talking with Marmee about her anger Marmee tells how she has learned to control it, all by herself. In the book, she mentions that her husband has helped her on the way. In the movie aunt March is a rich spinster (and much sweeter than in the books, recent adaptations have really toned her down). In the book aunt March was married to belated uncle March. Jo had very found memories of uncle who was a Fritz-like character, he was kind, liked kids and had a big library.  In fact his and aunt March relationship was quite similar to Jo and Fritz. Same way as Jo aunt March has a sharp tongue and a quick temper, she doesn´t get along with Jo, because she sees so much of herself in her. Friedrich´s character is reduced. He was not included in the trailer. In the earlier version of the script there was more of him + he was German. Louisa May Alcott loved men. I doubt she would have been very happy about erasing male characters. There is the famous quote from her  when she was asked to write Little Women and she said that she never liked, cared or understood girls, only her sisters. 

This is what it´s said about uncle March:

“I suspect that the real attraction was a large library of fine books, which was left to dust and spiders since Uncle March died. Jo remembered the kind old gentleman who used to let her build railroads and bridges with his big dictionaries, tell her stories about the queer pictures in his Latin books, and buy her cards of gingerbread whenever he met her in the street. The dim, dusty room, with the busts staring down from the tall book-cases, the cosy chairs, the globes, and, best of all, the wilderness of books, in which she could wander where she liked, made the library a region of bliss to her.“
​​
Louisa was part of the movement that later on developed into what we now call as the “first wave of feminism”. The egalitarian marriage based on love was a radical act, because it supported the autonomy and mutual growth and development of both parties, whereas a marriage based on economic reasons was the opposite, and prevented women´s autonomy. Most of Louisa´s novels are in fact, semi-biographical, and in her texts she promotes her form of radical marriage,  The plays she wrote in her  adolescence period shows that she had similar relationship goals for herself. Quote from Louisa paddling her own canoe and not being afraid of storms, is in fact said by Amy in the book. Louisa wrote it soon after her sister Anna got engaged. The family falling apart had a big effect on her. During the next eight years her views about marriage did became more favorable. Witnessing John’s fulfillment of his roles as husband and father clearly impacted the way she portrays marriages in part two. (Shealy)

When Louisa was commissioned to write Little Women in 1867 neither she or May Alcott (Amy) weren´t married, May did eventually marry a decade later but she did not marry any real-life Laurie´s. Did Louisa meant to keep things according to reality in the part 2, since neither she or May were not married at the time? The end of part 1 is left open which shows that Louisa has part 2 in her mind, and she was a fast writer. She wrote part 1 in three months, three months later it was published, and she began to write part 2. 

I would argue that Louisa was very open to the idea of giving both Amy and Jo a love interest. Amy and Laurie do have interactions in the first part of Little Women which is easy to see as foreshadowing, but there is in fact a great deal of foreshadowing which suggests that Louisa planned to give Jo a love interest as well. In part one there are all those references to German writers and philosophers who´s first name is Friedrich. 

Perhaps the most convincing evidence of this is the story that Jo is reading in chapter 11. She spends the afternoon reading and crying over The Wide, Wide World, up in the apple tree.
​
Wide Wide World is a novel written by Susan Warner and it was published in 1850. It was one of the first American books made for girl-readers, and it was one of the first novels that touched the subject of marriage. Story is about a young woman called Ellen Montgomery and it has a heavy emphasis on Christian morals and the growth of the protagonist. There are many striking similarities between Wide Wide World and Little Women. Ellen´s mother is very ill and her father takes her to Europe to live with her unkind aunt who is very hard on her, same way as aunt March is towards Jo. Ellen falls in love with a man called John Humphrey. He is a teacher and a priest. After many trials Ellen ends up living with John and his sister Alice. John must move away to take care of a sick relative (sounds familiar) and the two separate. Ellen moves to Scotland to live with her relatives and she misses John a great deal. When John returns Ellen´s relatives welcome him to their family (same way as the March family welcome´s Fritz). In the end of the novel they separate again. John must soon return to America, but not without promising Ellen that they will be together forever soon.

The two do not marry in the original 1850 novel. In a chapter unpublished until 1978, Ellen returns to America already married to John, who has great wealth to lavish on his bride. In their new home, he tells her that they will attempt to perform “the work of life together and help each other be faithful” Ellen requests her new husband to assist her “when I am in a puzzle” and confesses that “I often launch out upon a sea where I dare not trust my own navigation … but now I will take the pilot along. Such an idea of a husband as “pilot” is far from the egalitarian marriage championed by Alcott. (Shealy).

​One of the main themes of the novel is about finding strength in religious devotion, so love story is not the center of it but there are some striking similarities between Ellen and John and Jo and Friedrich. There is the age-gap and John is an absent-minded teacher with a big library. Ellen is portrayed as someone who is intellectually curious. There is even a similar waiting period for the couple to get together. When Wide Wide World was published it explored the social limitations that women had in the 19th century and furthermore promoted the egalitarian marriage. Book was published 18 years prior to Little Women. I read wide wide world and from my modern perspective she is quite submissive around John, and yet 170 years ago this book was one of the first examples of feminist literature. In Little Women Louisa took the egalitarian relationship to the next level.  When Jo and Fritz confess their true feelings to one another, they discuss about the importance of being each others equals. ​

In another Alcott novel Modern Mephistopheles Gladys and Felix have a conversation about equality in a relationship. Same with Mac and Rose in Rose in Bloom, which appeared 10 years after Little Women. In an early tale “The Lady and the Woman,” published in the Saturday Evening Gazette (1856), addressed the topic of marriage for the first time in her canon handsome, eligible Edward Windsor claims that the “style of woman” he most admires are those “such as claim our protection and support, giving us in return affection and obedience. Beautiful and tender creatures, submissive to our will, confident in our judgement; and lenient to our faults—to be cherished in sunshine and sheltered in storms.” Kate Loring, a young woman of twenty-four, “with no pretensions to beauty,” who has raised her four orphaned brothers, replies: “You have given your idol a heart, but no head. … I would have her humble, though self-reliant, gentle, though strong; man’s companion, not his plaything; able and willing to face storms, as well as sun shines, and share life’s burdens, as they come” (35).

​Finding Kate’s ideas “dreadfully peculiar,” the beautiful and popular Miss Amelia confesses to Windsor that she herself is “willing to be led. … Somebody says, ‘Man is the head and woman is the heart,’ and it’s quite true.” Kate, however, warns her friend: “Hearts are often shipwrecked, passions and feelings are an unruly crew. So let me advise you to take head as pilot, for you may find, as I have done, that the voyage of life is not quite a pleasant trip” Kate, however, replies, “I would not be above you as I now am, nor yet below, like poor Amelia in the garden. But here where every woman should be, at her husband’s side, walking together through life’s light and shadow” (56). Alcott, in this early tale, begins to develop her concept of marriage as a partnership, an idea she would explore more fully in her most famous novel (Shealy)

​In Little Women there are characters with certain real life counterparts; For example Marmee was based on Abba Alcott and Meg on Anna Alcott. Both Friedrich and Laurie are mixed characters that are based on several people in Louisa´s life.  
​
Laurie had several real-life counterparts. Louisa´s good friend Alf Whitman who acted with her in the Concords Theatrical society. Alf was a good friend with Louisa´s sister May as well. Next-door neighbor Julian Hawthorn is also considered to be one of the real-life Laurie´s (he had a teen-age crush on May). Ladislas Wisniewski was a 22 year old composer who Louisa met in Poland when she was working as a companion to an invalid woman called Anna Weld. Ladislas has been described to be a flirtatious prankster, and he referred Louisa as his "little mama". Ladislas had tuberculosis and Louisa nursed him. It would seem that there was something romantic going on, and there was a conflict for the diary markings are violently scratched. Some Alcott scholars have speculated that he flirted with Miss Weld. There is very little known about Ladislas. He did beat the tuberculosis and end up marrying and had two children.

What is noticeable is that all the real-life Lauries were much younger than Louisa. Even though the book Laurie is few months older than Jo, for Jo he always remains as a boy. As an adult Laurie refers himself as the first boy Jo ever raised. 

There is very compelling case to be made that Henry David Thoreau was the real-life Friedrich. Although Louisa once called Emerson “the god of my idolatry,” it was Thoreau who especially merited her lifelong affection. The ties between Henry and the Alcott´s are more extensive than one might expect. From the time when the Alcott´s moved to Concord, in March 1840 until Henry´s passing in 1862. He was a frequent guest in the Alcott´s home, taking tea or dinner with the family. Bronson who admired the young man´s intellect often visited him in his hut at Walden´s pond. If the connection between Henry and the Alcott´s was strong, the connection between Louisa and Henry was even stronger. As a child she attended the Concord academy that was operated by Henry and his brother (Erisman). As a teenager and well in to her 20´s Louisa visited his Walden cabin and took long nature walks with Henry that she remembered well into her maturity. 

Age difference between Jo and Friedrich, is exactly the same as there was between Henry and Louisa, 16 years. 

On her first day in New York, right after meting eccentric Friedrich Jo writes into her journal “I hate ordinary people!” Transcendentalist as a group had controversial reputation, but Henry had a reputation of an "odd person" even among the transcendentalist. Man lived in a hut in the woods for two years and (still)has a reputation of a loner but this is a misconception. During his stay in the woods, he frequently entertained guests and visited friends. People may have all kinds of ideas about Henry´s philosophies. His works like  On Civil Disobedience probably open up better for American readers than a Finn. Same way as Fritz, Henry was teacher of moral philosophy. What drew Louisa to Henry? probably his kind side. He was gentle and soft spoken. Had no problems lay down to the floor and play with children and was firm in his principles. 

There is a re-occuring character in Louisa May Alcott´s novels, let´s just call him as the Friedrich Bhaer archetype. This character is soft-spoken, good with kids, bit nerdy, absent minded and is usually older than the female protagonist. In Little Women saga Jo and Friedrich go on regular walks together. In New York they go to the parks with the children. When Fritz comes courting they take long walks and they continue this habit when they are married.  Friedrich keeps his lessons outside in nature and quite many of Friedrich´s teaching methods come from Henry. The metaphor of "gods garden" that Friedrich uses, is from Henry as well. Louisa and her family even lived in Thoreu-house and that is where she finished Little Men and wrote Jo´s boys. 

Beside being model for Fritz, Henry was the model for Dan Kean in Little Men and Jo´s Boys. In Rose in Bloom he is Mac, mild-tempered bookworm who Rose, the protagonist falls in love with. In one of Louisa´s first novel Moods he is Adam Warwick and in her last novel Work story of experience Henry is appropriately named David Stirling, a mild-tempered gardener, who embodies Henry´s inner complexity and love for simplicity (Bailey). 

When I read Little Women part 2 for the first time there was something that always puzzled me in Friedrich´s last name. I speak German and Bhaer is not German. Bhaer doesn´t mean anything. Baer without "h" is an actual German last name and means a bear. For years I actually thought that Bhaer was a typo, but if it was a typo why no one hasn´t fixed it for the past 150 years? unless

..it was intentional

For the 1880 edition of Little Women Louisa went back correcting some of the German phrases. For example “Das ist gute!” in the first edition of the novel to “Das ist gut! but she does not touch on Friedrich´s last name and she knows it is written incorrectly. Every single feature that Fritz has that for some readers, especially the younger ones have come-out as horrendous, they all come form Henry. Henry and Fritz both had a last name that Americans had difficulties to pronounce. This is what Henry´s good friend, Edward Emmerson wrote:

 “We always called my friend Thó-row, the h sounded, and accent on the first syllable and other friends called him “Mr. Thorough.”

This is what Jo write´s about Friedrich´s last name:
”Now don´t laugh at his horrid name; it isn´s pronounced either Bear or Beer , as people will say it, but something between the two, as only Germans can do it”.

​TeamBhaer people raise your hands if you have ever been asked do you prefer bearded or beardless Fritz? In the 19th century beards were very common, and they have made a comeback recently. When Henry was in his 40´s he indeed had a bushy beard, same way as the book Fritz. Films so far have preferred beardless Fritz. The only recent adaptation where Fritz has a beard is the 2017 series.

Friedrich´s looks seem to be a constant conversation topic. Most people seem to forget that Jo in the books is not that great looking. They both look average to say the least.  In fact considering the time, Jo is quite unattractive. Jo has sharp, androgynous features and she is quite skinny. Meg who is described to be "plumpy" fits to the ideal of the 19th century female beauty. When Jo meets Fritz for the first time, he is handsome-but-not-handsome but when Jo falls in love with Fritz, in her eyes he is now truly handsome. 

Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry´s neighbor describes him "as as ugly as sin, long-nosed, queer-mouthed….

​Louisa´s views on Henry were quite different. In Moods the protagonist Sylvia describes Adam as the "manliest man she has never seen,  not only in demeanor but in stature, standing a head taller than Moor.

again in Little Women..
​
His bushy hair had been cut and smoothly brushed, but didn't stay in order long, for in exciting moments, he rumpled it up in the droll way he used to do, and Jo liked it rampantly erect better than flat, because she thought it gave his fine forehead a Jove-like aspect.

​Henry passed away in 1862 at the age of 44. Louisa was 28 at the time.

​Jo goes into great detail when she describes Friedrich´s clothes, they are all shabby and need mending,  but for Jo Friedrich´s homely looks are nothing else than inviting.  Henry was drawn into simplicity. He writes in Walden, “Perhaps we should never procure a new suit, however ragged or dirty the old, until we have so conducted, so enterprises or sailed in some way, that we feel like new men in the old…."

All of this would explain the "funny match" but at the same it is not at all a funny match. Louisa knew Henry all of her life. Did she ever told him how much she loved and adored him? Difficult to say, Louisa destroyed her journals.

​Things that Jo and Friedrich see in each others are not necessary flattering but deeply personal (@this-thrown-out-gentleman). They are connected by their desire to be unconventional. ​

​33-year-old Thoreau ripped out 4 pages from his journal just before this romantic, passionate entry:
(thanks Diane for sharing this with me)

“My dear, my dewy sister, let thy rain descend on me. I not only love thee, but I love the best of thee, that is to love thee rarely. I do not love thee every day. Commonly I love those who are less than thou. I love thee only on great days. Thy dewy words feed me like the manna of the morning. Thou art as much my brother as my sister. It is a portion of me and a portion of thee which are of kin.

Thou dost not have to woo you. I do not have to woo you. O my sister! Oh Diana, thy tracks are on the eastern hill. Thou surely passed that way. I, the hunter, saw then in the morning dew. My eyes are the hounds that pursue you. Thou canst speak, I cannot. I hear and forget to answer. I am occupied with hearing. I awoke and thought of thee; thou wast present to my mind. How camst thou there? Was I not present to thee likewise.'

Same way as Fritz Bhaer, Henry was a fan of using the word "thou".

 I am as much thy sister as thy brother - that´s some serious gender fluidly there. 

They were both quite secretive about their private lives and they had always known each others. One clue is Henry mentions of seeing her tracks (they often took nature walks together). He also says that she can speak (about him?) which she obviously did in many ways but he cannot speak (about her?) He had played the role of mentor since she was a child – she could speak of him as someone that she admired but any mention of her in kind might have been considered socially unacceptable and maybe even scandalous.

He says that he thought of her and wondered if she simultaneously thought of him. They did appear to spend one-on-one time together beyond family gatherings, so they might have developed this type of telepathic rapport. Even if the love was unrequited it is likely that some sort of stable bond existed between the two.

In "Under the umbrella" chapter when Friedrich proposes, Jo says that the first love is the best. ​

The poem that Friedrich reads from a magazine, is about Jo´s loneliness. The poem “In the Garrett” was first published in The Flag of Our Union (18 March 1865) but with a number of differences. It discussed the chests of Nan, Lu, Bess, and May, rather than Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy. 

Poem appears again in  Little Women. In the version from 1869 text it says: 

A woman in a lonely home,
Hearing like a sad refrain,
“Be worthy, love, and love will come,”
In the falling summer rain.

The earlier version reads: 

A woman musing here alone,
Hearing ever her life’s refrain 
“Labor and love, but make no moan”
In the drip of the summer rain.
​
At least during the time of writing the poem and (carefully estimated) perhaps when writing Little Women, this idea of being a literal spinster with a pen as a spouse was not very tempting. Alcott troubles the divide between author and narrator to claim herself, if problematically, as character, as the “Lu” to whom she has given a version of her own name in this earlier rendering of the poem. And this woman’s fate differs from that of Jo: no love waits for her except the love that she must give, second only to labor; neither of which, it seems, can make her happy (West). 

Many Alcott scholars believe that Louisa fell in love at least once, maybe twice. When a person destroys their journals that usually means that they wish to hide something. Louisa was very careful to protect her reputation, almost paranoid about it. Still today women can have thousand different reasons for not marrying. When Louisa was in her early 20´s she considered marrying for money and she had way more suitors than Jo March ever had (Reisen) but her mother reminded her that love was more important. How many modern readers can imagine Jo even considering marrying for money? Louisa is not Jo. Jo is fiction.

If  Louisa would have married later in life, she would have married for love. Based to the very little that we know about her love life, it would seem that she was either jaded by love, or that the person she loved had passed away. 

Family friend Julian Hawthorne ponders in his 1922 essay, "Louisa May Alcott: The woman who wrote Little Women" - "Did she ever have a love affair? We never knew; yet how could a nature so imaginative, romantic and passionate escape it?" 

One of the Little Women fans who I chatted with said that if Friedrich is based on someone who Louisa truly loved, that would explain why she was frustrated by the little girls who were demanding her to marry off Jo to Laurie. 

-In April 1868 around the time when Louisa has been asked by Niles to write a novel for girls, Louisa published an article called Happy Women. If love comes as it should come, accept it in God’s name and be worthy of His best blessing. If it never comes, then in God’s name reject the shadow of it, for that can never satisfy a hungry heart”.  (Shealy).  

Louisa is saying that if love does not come, there is nothing wrong of being a happy spinster and yet her belief for love is strong, the only marriage that is worth entering is a marriage between equals.

Here is a part of Jo´s and Friedrich´s conversation: 

"I read that, and I think to myself, She has a sorrow, she is lonely, she would find comfort in true love. I haf a heart full, full for her. Shall I not go and say, "If this is not too poor a thing to gif for what I shall hope to receive, take it in Gott's name?" (LW, Under the umbrella)

In November 1868 when Louisa began writing part 2 she has clearly made up her mind.

“Girls write to ask who the little women marry, as if that was the only end and aim of a woman’s life. I won’t marry Jo to Laurie to please any one”. Little Women becomes a different type of marriage novel, on for the modern woman in the 19th century (Shealy). She expects the "vials of wreath" which means that Louisa is fully aware how radical and different the new novel is. 

In my Little Women circles I have been following a thought provoking conversation started by the scene in the 2019 film that captures the central question of growing into womanhood, wanting love and equality but struggling to compromise your ambitions and having to face the fact that it can leave you alone. There is shame and a stigma admitting that even today. Especially if one has reputation of someone who has been preaching about independence. For the loners that might suit just fine, but Jo is not a loner. She is extremely attached to her family (like her creator).  

Friedrich makes a compromise by giving up the teaching position in the West and agreeing to Jo’s idea of opening a school for boys at Plumfield. That he never wants to take Jo away from her family is telling. 

Based on research made about Louisa´s interaction with her publisher Thomas Niles. Louisa and her publisher very consciously created her public persona (Shealy). The brand called "Louisa May Alcott". This public persona was a "spinster aunt who wrote stories for children", and Louisa hid herself behind it. Jo in the books can be more complex and even fall in love, like real-life Louisa did. But the public persona could not do that.

The 1933 film is so far the only major movie where the looks of the actors are somewhat close to the books. Katherine Hepburn as Jo and Douglas Montgomery as Laurie both have androgynous looks like their book counterparts. Paul Lukas who plays Fritz is not very attractive. My only problem with him and Katherine is that there isn´t really chemistry between them (or if there is I just can´t see it). Lucas was 39 at the time. So far he is the only actor who´s age is exactly the same as the book Fritz.  He has one of the best German accents, but I am always annoyed by the opera scene when he asks if he could write to Jo´s father (to ask her hand, not that he says that to her). This is not true to Friedrich´s character. 

The 1949 film begins the era of sexy Friedrich´s and we are still on that road. Fritz is played by Italian heart throb Rossano Brazzi. To be fair, most men in this film are good looking, even Mr March is good looking and John Brooke looks much younger than Laurie. Rossano is one of the youngest actors who have played Fritz. He was 30 at the time. June Allyson is the oldest Jo´s being 31. In both 1933 and 1949 films there are references to Goethe and we see Fritz singing Kennst Du Das Land like he does in the books. Friedrich is also absent minded and in both of these films, that is shown in the way Fritz keeps loosing his buttons (it´s actually really cute). Rossano´s accent is clearly Italian.  However this was his first English film so I forgive the lack of German accent. One of my friends who adores this film said that they love Rossano as Fritz because same way as the book Fritz, he is a perfect old-fashioned gentleman. Rossano is one of my personal favorite Friedrich´s because he captures his gentle nature perfectly. 

1970´s was good time for...  Amy and Laurie. Not so great for Jo and Friedrich. In the bbc series from the 1970s Fritz was played by German-English actor Frederick Jaeger. He was 42 when he played the part and somehow they managed to make him look like he is in his 60´s. Most actors in this productions are older than their book counterparts. I heard that Angela Down who played Jo was cast because she looked like Louisa May Alcott. This is really interesting because it makes one wonder is that the way Louisa would have liked Jo and Friedrich to look like. Unfortunately story wise this series doesn´t work. In the book Friedrich is the most feminist of the male characters. Here all his feminist lines from the book are turned into something sexists. This is also the only adaptation that has included scene from the book where Laurie is cat fishing Meg sending her forged letters, but unlike in the book, now Meg is framed to be the cause of the problem. ​

In the series from 1978 Friedrich was played by the one and only William Shatner. My sister who is a trekkie, told me that this happened before Star Trek and I take her word on that. When I think of Friedrich, William Shatner is not what comes to my mind, but I think this adaptation is better than it´s reputation. This series and the series from 2017 are the only ones where Friedrich´s nephews Franz and Emil appear and only ones where we can actually see Jo and Friedrich writing letters to each other after they have left New York. Fritz in this version really does have a positive impact on Jo´s writings because her stories end up being published in the New York Post. There is also an adorkable scene when Jo is leaving and Fritz runs to stop the carriage to give her copy of Shakespeare. We get a scene where Friedrich gets an invitation from the university to become a professor and he is torn wondering if he should travel to Concord instead. Jo is very submissive around Laurie in this version, and both Jo and Friedrich are very argumentative with each others which is very off-character.

It is all pretty good until the umbrella scene. Jo is crying when he is leaving, and extra points, he calls her Liebchen (my love)  but after the "not empty now" it´s all ruined. Jo says she would like to travel to Ohio with him and they could work together but he is like "man must do it alone, it is his duty".

What was there in the water in the 70s?

Fritz is still today modern and liberal and I can´t believe Louisa wrote such a character 150 years ago. If you read "feminist" studies made about Little Women from the 70´s most of them are extremely misandry and misogynist with huge amount of hatred towards Laurie, Friedrich and John (and Amy). I wonder if the adaptations have had anything to do with it. ​

In the 1994 film Fritz was played by Gabriel Byrne and for many people Gabe is the one and only Friedrich. Gabriel is the oldest actor who has played Friedrich. During the time of filming he was 44. According to casting director Carrie Frazier there was bit of a debate on hiring Gabriel and the role almost went to Hugh Grant who was much younger at the time. “I was looking for depth, a little more of a poet, and Gabriel Byrne just had all of that,” Frazier has said. Winona was also more in favor having Gabriel as Fritz, for she  believed that he had the certain warmth that was essential for the role. According to director Gillian Armstrong when Gabriel came to read for the part he was the only actor who had actually read Little Women and was fan of the book. 1994 film has the intellectual connection that Jo and Fritz have in the book and something that I realized while doing this research, Gabriel Byrne looks a lot like Goethe. 

Still today there are lot of people who wonder why Jo didn´t marry Laurie because Laurie was rich and good looking. Read any novel from Louisa May Alcott, rich people are usually the unhappiest ones and the only acceptable wealthy people are are the philanthropists. In Louisa´s world self-reliance is the key. Jo can not marry Laurie because he does not share this value. Friedrich does and he pushes Jo to be better in her craft and she gives him recognition as a teacher. In the 1933 film Fritz takes Jo to opera and they have pretty good seats so I don´t know if Friedrich is poor or not. The 1949 film celebrates commercialism. In the beginning of the film March sisters go to buy Christmas gifts. In New York Fritz takes Jo to the opera and to the circus. Hard to say how wealthy he is. It´s the same with Greta Gerwig´s film, we don´t know if Fritz is rich or poor. 1994 film does show very clearly that both Jo and Friedrich are poor. Jo doesn´t have an opera dress but that doesn´t matter because their seats are modest. The book Fritz patches his own clothes. His most eccentric flaw is that he is not good with money, not because he drinks or gambles but because he likes buying gifts for the people he loves. Laurie on the other hand likes to buy things for himself and gives useless gifts for his friends as a joke, and that is something films have never included. 

In the pbs series from 2017 Mark Stanley played Friedrich and he is the youngest Fritz so far. Mark was 29 during the time of filming.  Based to the interviews of the screen writer Heidi Thomas she is a Laurie-fan and that explains why Laurie in this series is some sort of manic pixie dream boy. He doesn´t have a character arc and the book Laurie´s constantly changing temper is missing. Amy´s portrayal is villanization and Fritz gets very little screen time with Jo. Somehow these two actors still managed to sell the ship for me. I have heard that some people absolutely love Mark Stanley as Fritz and others hated his performance. I personally liked him a lot as Fritz. He managed to be that goofy adorable child magnet from the book and someone who would take Jo to a symposium on a date-night. One of the best things about this adaptation is that Friedrich read Jo´s poem and that brought him to Concord and he has kept the poem close to his heart which has been sore for her.

In the modern Little Women adaptation from 2018 Ian Bohen played Fritz but he is not Fritz in this version. He is Freddy Bhaer. Neither he is German but American (German descendant I suppose). Ian was 43, but Jo in this version is a bit older as well, she is 29. Lot of people have had problems with the time jumps in Greta Gerwig´s film, which I understand. 2018 film also has time jumps (imho in the 2018 film time jumps work well because the transitions are much clearer than in Gerwig´s film). 

I personally think that time jumps in the movies work as favor for Friedrich´s character. When Fritz is introduced very early on for the viewers and they end up liking him it is more satisfying when Jo falls in love with him. This is a modest film and more people should know about it. This is the only movie that uses the Pilgrim´s process and I thought their way of using it was very clever since for Jo it is a way to control her temper just like in the book. She wants to take herself seriously as a writer and same way as the book Jo, movie Jo appreciates the feedback she receives. Jo really has anger management problems in this movie but she does not argue with Fritz about writing (sorry I can´t call him Freddy) it is more about her fear of commitment and fear of change. This also one of the very rare films where Friedrich has same amount of screen time that Laurie has. 

There is nothing new about "sexing up" both Jo and Fritz. Rossano Brazzi, Gabriel Byrne, Ian Bohen and Louis Garrel are all very good looking men. Rossano is often refereed as the "beautiful professor Bhaer". Back in the days hiring Gabriel Byrne as Fritz caused similar discussion, like there has been now on hiring Louis Garrel. Gabriel Byrne has been voted as the sexiest man of Ireland multiple times. He has been listed by People as one of the "Sexiest Men Alive and just this month readers of Glamour voted him as the sexiest actor in the word. Gabriel turns 70 this year. Louis Garrel has been voted as the sexiest man in France. As you can see, there has been very conscious effort hiring good looking actors to play Fritz.

This goes back to the old debate does hiring a good looking actor to play a character who in the story is handsome-not-handsome affect to the story? What it comes to the book and knowing that Fritz not being very good looking was intentional, this makes the whole debate about the looks of the movie Friedrich tricky. Movies are a different platform. They are here to tell a story and to make profit and the easiest way to get viewers is to hire good looking actors.

In the 1949 film having beautiful man, like Rossano, to play Friedrich works because it does the same mistake as most Little Women films have done. It doesn´t give Laurie a character arc or book Laurie´s complicated personality. In this version especially, Laurie has been made almost too likable and all the questionable things he does in the books are missing. Greta Gerwig´s film is the only film that has given Laurie bits of his character arc. In all these films having a good looking actor to play Fritz makes it easier for the viewer to understand why Jo wants to be with him, because Fritz is always compared to Laurie and unfortunately most people don´t read the books and don´t know that the pre-Amy Laurie was as immature as can be. At least there are more good portrayals of Friedrich in the films than there are bad ones.

Movies have been criticized for having attractive actors to play Jo as well. Louisa was commissioned to write Little Women in 1867 and it brought her wealth but also life-long fame. She was always frustrated by the devoted Jo-fans who were disappointed by her looks, since they imagined Jo to be pretty. Louisa herself wasn´t very attractive, and her illness must have effected her body image. Most widely accepted cause for Louisa´s health problems and early death is mercury poisoning. During her American Civil War service, Alcott contracted typhoid fever and was treated with a compound containing mercury. For instance Jo´s boys took 12 years to finish because of Louisa´s poor health. 

What Louisa does with both Jo and Fritz she is criticizing the shallowness, people who are not that attractive to the outside world are worthy of love. ​Love is, truly, in the eye of the beholder. Love is so much deeper than surface beauty.

I guess as a demisexual person I always adored and cherished the fact that Jo passed over the Hot Boy for, well, this frumpy, disheveled philosophy nerd who’s good with kids. I liked that she has this whole set of criteria for what’s sexy that only Jo really understands, because only Jo really *has* to understand, it’s only Jo’s business" (@spiders-hth-is-an-outlier)

Bettina Von Armin

Let´s talk about Louisa´s love for the older men and I would argue, that Louisa May Alcott truly had a fascination towards relationships with age-gaps. In the 19th century, marriages between younger women and older men were very common and in general women married much younger than these days. Even today marriages with age-gaps are not that unusual (here in Finland our president is 28 years older than his wife. I didn´t vote for him but they seem happy). 

There easily is uncertainty around the topic, same with older women dating younger men which is usually considered more shocking. Many read Little Women when they are children and they are horrified when Jo marries an older man. When they are adults and read the book again Fritz being almost forty suddenly doesn´t seem that old, and reader finds out that Laurie was quite childish and Fritz was perfect for Jo, and in the best case, they end up loving Amy and Laurie and Jo and Fritz as couples. This phenomena is known as the Little Women passage to adulthood ritual. 

In Little Women all the marriages have age gaps. John Brooke is 9 years older than Meg. Laurie in the book is 4 years older than Amy and Fritz is 16 years older than Jo.  Louisa´s fascination for the younger woman and older man - dynamics is there. In all of her novels where the female protagonist falls in love, she marries an older man. In reality Anna Alcott was 2 years older than John Pratt. Meg is 21 when she get´s married, Anna was 28, which at the time was very late age for a woman to get married. Anna, Louisa and May were all off-the shelf so to speak. Most women of the time were much younger when they married, often under 20. Louisa was very much against women marrying too young.

In Little Women Mr and Mrs March are quite strict that girls need to be over 21 when they marry. May Alcott Nieriker was 38 when she married and her husband was 22-years old Belgian, Ernest Nieriker. Amy was about 24 when she married Laurie. Jo was 28 when she married Fritz. In Little Women all the couples spent a fair amount of time getting to know each others before marrying. John and Meg were engaged for three years. Laurie and Amy spent about a year in Europe together (but they already knew each others). After their time in New York Jo and Fritz spent 2-3 years writing letters to each others. Louisa also seems to be encouraging young girls to marry someone who they know well. 

rest in peace Alan Rickman, Sense and Sensibility 1994

Now days Louisa´s fascination for the age-gaps can seem creepy or weird but during the time there was a trend among  female authors to write about relationships with age-gaps. This is a very common theme in Jane Austen´s works; Colonel Brandon and Marianne, age difference 19 years. Emma and Mr Knightley, age difference, 15 years. Charlotte Bronte´s Jane Eyre is 18 years younger than Rochester.

​In her youth Louisa adored writings of Bettina Von Armin. She was a German romantic writer and a social activist. Exactly the type of person you could imagine Louisa to admire. Bettina´s most popular novel "Goethe´s correspondence with a child" was very popular during Louisa´s time especially among female writers. I have read this book and it is strange to say the least. Bettina writes love letters to her idol Goethe, but Bettina is not in love with Goethe. She is in love with the idea of love. She doesn´t want an actual relationship with Goethe but a way to vent her emotions. Goethe only occasionally responded to these letters, with minimal brevity. In her letters Bettina does not ask any questions, letters are not about Goethe, they are all about Bettina. Bettina´s hero-worship affected whole generations of female writers and it was seen as something romantic. Our modern view is opposite. Bettina´s actions would qualify as harassment. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson was Louisa´s childhood literary paragon and lifelong friend. “The god of my idolatry,” she records in 1860. In her youth Louisa did made Emerson her Goethe, wrote him love letters but never sent them and sang Kennst du das Land in poor German under his window. It is not a secret that Louisa had a teen-age crush on Emmerson. Emerson was 29 years older than Louisa. Some Alcott scholars have suggested that Emerson was the model for older Mr Lawrence rather than Fritz. I´d say there are elements from Emerson in both characters. More than once Emerson saved the Alcott´s from desperate situations and prevented Bronson pursuing his more unrealistic plans. 

​Louisa adored Goethe. She was born the same year Goethe passed away. Her father´s library included Goethe´s biography that was translated by Margaret Fuller and later in life Louisa collected all Goethe´s published works. Goethe was highly respected writer in the transcendentalist circles. During his lifetime Goethe was a spoke-person of self-reliance which was something that Louisa practiced in personal life.

Lot´s of research has been made between Louisa´s writings and Goethe´s works. Long Fatal Love chase and Modern Mephistopheles have similarities with Goethe´s Faust. Less research has been made on Goethe´s influence on Little Women. There are some striking similarities between Goethe and Friedrich. Friedrich embodies great deal of Goethe´s philosophical ideas. Goethe was not from Berlin, he was from Weimar. Berlin and Weimar are about 100 miles away from each others in the same region in Germany. Friedrich is from eastern Germany and growing up in the intellectual environment where Goethe set the cultural benchmark for educated Germans. If Friedrich is about forty years old at the close of the Civil War, then he would have been born around the time when Germans began to revere Goethe and his works.

Friedrich´s and Goethe´s personalities are very much a like. In a contemporary biography written by George Henry Calvert (who had met Goethe) records Goethe’s friend, Jung Stilling, as saying that it was a “pity that so few are acquainted with this noble man in respect of his heart.”For example, when Goethe’s friend Moritz broke his arm on a trip to Rome, Goethe nursed him back to health. Similarly, Goethe was described by Herder as being a “great child” all of his life, eager to learn and willing to give “whatever he had” to make others happy. Friedrich willing and able to comment on every subject, just as Goethe was highly sought after by members of his society. Calvert observes that there was so much life in Goethe that he “awakened and attracted life. He was a centre about which congenial men liked to move. 

There has been speculation if Louisa wrote Friedrich to be her own ideal man. Teutonic heroes seem to be those who she favored. Goethe and Friedrich look a lot a like. Both tall, solidly build men with brown hair. There were times when Goethe also had a beard. This is how Friedrich Schiller describes Goethe:

"The expression of his countenance is serious, at the same time that it is benevolent and kind. He has brown hair, and appears older than I should say he really is. His voice is exceedingly pleasing, and his conversation flowing, lively, and amusing. It is a pleasure to listen to him" (Armknecht)

During her civil war service as a nurse Louisa took care of the wounded soldier John Suhre. John who was a German descendant made an ever-lasting impression on Louisa and she captured his character to her first successful novel Hospital sketches. What we know about John is that he had a very mild-temper, Louisa describes him as the "prince of patients" and he looked a lot like the book Friedrich. Tall, stout, brown hair and a bushy beard. Some Alcott scholars have speculated if there was a romance between them. I don´t know about the romance but in her letters Louisa describes him as "manly" and "handsome" which indicates that she found him attractive.  "The real-life John had a profound effect on Alcott’s sympathies and memory. As he lay dying, Alcott told her journal that John possessed “all that I could expect or ask from the first gentleman in the land. Under his plain speech & unpolished manner I seem to see a noble character, a heart as warm & tender as a woman’s, a nature fresh & frank as any child’s” (Matteson)

Wilhelm Meister´s Apprenticeship is one of Goethe´s most well-known novels. Louisa received her own copy of the novel from Emerson and she filled it with scribbles and notes. In the novel there is a female character called Marina, who likes to dress up as a boy. In Little Women Jo likes to dress up as a boy. There is also an important character called Friedrich. Louisa transformed this infatuation with Goethe by incorporating Goethean themes in her own work. First thing Jo hears from Friedrich is his singing "Kennst du das land" (Do you know the land) himself, this is the opening line of Mignon´s love song in Wilhelm Meister´s Apprenticeship. When Friedrich comes to court Jo, they sing this song together. 

​By having Friedrich sing Mignon´s song to himself, Louisa not only draws a direct connection between Fritz and Goethe but also an emotional connection between herself and Goethe (Armknecht)

Another Goethe´s novel that effected on Louisa was "The Sorrows of young Werther". "Werther" is a semi-biographical novel, loosely based on Goethe´s life. Same way as Laurie, Werther grows up wealthy but he doesn´t know a lot from life. He falls in love with Charlotta who is marrying another worthy man, Albert. Werther makes Charlotta the only reason for his happiness. He dwells in his misery, enjoys it and is comforted by it. He embraces the part of the romantic hero so much that he eventually drowns himself. What kills Werther is toxic self-centeredness . Goethe meant "Werther" as a criticism towards destructive self-absorption but the book was greatly misunderstood and it caused a wave of suicides in Germany, where young readers romanticized Werther´s character. 

When Laurie proposes to Jo, proposal is all about him, not about Jo. Same way as Werther Laurie even threatens to take his own life. Unlike Goethe´s Werther, Laurie get´s a chance to redeem himself.  Laurie´s redemption arc through Amy is similar to Wilhelm Meister, who after the heart break, decided to turn his life upside down and as a result grows to be a better person. 

Once Amy and Laurie are married, Laurie is grateful to Jo for refusing and the two of them go on to have a close friendship even in the later books and Laurie becomes one of the most involved people in Jo’s school, constantly sending and sponsoring kids he thinks Jo would like, and actively shipping Jo and Bhaer which  he could have done if he had ever really been in love with Jo. Also it is very telling when he tries to vent his over his pain about Jo and his mind keeps wandering to write happy and fluffy things about Amy... I just don’t think he is ready then to admit that his feelings for Jo weren’t real, that’s why he justifies his attraction to Amy by claiming it is only because she is Jo’s sister (@szonklin)

Connections to German literature continue in Little Men with references to Brother´s Grimm fairytales. In Jo´s Boys Wilhelm Meister is present once again, this time in Nat´s character arc. Nat travels to Germany to study music. He moves to Leipzig, which is the city where Goethe lived as a young man. Nat is almost a liminal character who often has his head in the clouds. Nat begins to see life in it´s great variety but becomes distracted by all the new temptations, and like Wilhelm of the story, he begins to see the emptiness of that world. 

Wilhelm travels with a theater company and spends most of his time in the group of actors, he also reveals that he originally became enamored of acting when his mother arranged for some Christmas theatricals. Alcott’s own copy of Wilhelm Meister at the Houghton Library contains extensive textual markings on the pages wherein Wilhelm’s troupe prepares and presents a production of Hamlet. At one point, she even writes a comment in the margin about a bit of the staging referred to: “Was it a trap door?” (Doyle) It seems that the theatricals in Little Women, Little Men and Jo´s boys were inspired by Goethe´s novels and reaffirm Alcott’s connection to her idol. Adaptations often nod to this. For example in 2018 film Jo and Fritz are watching a play and debate about Shakespeare. 

"The cultural level suggested by Friedrich’s profession and more specifically by his knowledge of Goethe also helps to validate the connection between Friedrich and Jo. Louisa had scribbled a quote from her copy of Margaret Fuller´s Woman in the  Nineteenth Century regarding Wilhelm Meister’s female connections. 

As Meister grows in life & advances in wisdom, he becomes acquainted with women of more & more character, rising from Mariana to Natalia who expresses the Minerva side of things, Mignon, the electrical, inspired lyrical nature . . .

"Passage represents Jo´s transference of affection from Laurie to Friedrich through her own growth and advancement in terms of character. Laurie is the fascination of her youth who will always be regarded with affection, but Friedrich has more character. Laurie is always a “boy” to Jo, but Friedrich is a man. Laurie possesses charm and culture; Friedrich, as we see, is cultured but also steady and well-grounded.  He speaks both to her down-to-earth practicality and to her imagination (Doyle) 

Louisa was a teenager when "Meister" made Goethe her "chief-idol. In Goethe´s novels there is heavy emphasis on spiritual transformation.  In the end of Little Women Jo has not one but several castles in the air. 

“The life I wanted then seems selfish, lonely, and cold to me now. I haven’t given up the hope that I may write a good book yet, but I can wait, and I’m sure it will be all the better for such experiences and illustrations as these [family and Plumfield]” It is between "Little Men" and "Jo's Boys" that Jo writes her own version of Little Women and like her creator it brings her wealth with the cost of loosing her privacy. 

Louisa inserts positive reminders of the values of Friedrich’s German heritage throughout the March saga. In Little Men, Sunday breakfast does not begin until Rob, “standing next to his father at the head of the table, folded his hands, reverently bent his curly head, and softly repeated a short grace in the devout German fashion, which Mr. Bhaer loved and taught his little son to honor”. 

Friedrich´s love for Thanksgiving festivities is also explained with his German background “Being a German, he loved these simple domestic festivals, and encouraged them with all his heart, for they made home so pleasant that the boys did not care to go elsewhere for fun”

Alcott Scholar Elaine Showalter points out that Louisa inserted habits of European men to Friedrich´s character that she wished that American men would posses.

When Friedrich´s nephew Emil returns from his sea voyage: he “kissed all the women and shook hands with all the men except his uncle; him he embraced in the good old German style” 

In the fourth book Jo´s boys Jo´s and Friedrich´s sons Rob and Ted have an escapade with Dan´s dog  (Ted had teased the dog until he attacked, and Rob, trying to protect Ted, had been bitten), “The good Professor opened his arms and embraced his boys like a true German, not ashamed to express by gesture or by word the fatherly emotions an American would have compressed into a slap on the shoulder and a brief ‘All right. Mrs Jo sat and enjoyed the prospect like a romantic soul as she was’”. 

Friedrich´s nephews are the two least troublesome of Jo´s boy. Jo´s favorite Franz is a lot like his uncle. Bit nerdy, bookworm with a mild-temper. Emil, the exuberant though restless younger brother, eventually becomes a sailor. Neither the boys or Friedrich himself never denies his heritage even as he embraces his new country:

​“If I had not come to America for the poor lads, I never should have found my Jo. The hard times are very sweet now, and I bless Gott for all I seemed to lose, because I gained the blessing of my life”. ​

In Louisa May Alcott´s cosmopolitan circles the response to the global changes was not to privilege the near and familiar by excluding or demonizing the "other" but value "the other" and work towards connection. Louisa by-passed her own English-puritan inheritance entirely. Jo falls in love with a poor German philosopher, from Anglo-American perspective such choise has seemed bizarre but from transnational perspective it makes perfect sense (Walls). 
​
Expedition of American scholars to Germany in 1815 eventually resulted in Harvard’s efforts to acquire a collection of German literature and to hire its first instructor of German, Charles Follen, in 1825. Historian Laura Dassow Walls has made an extensive research on Charles Follen´s influences on Friedrich´s character. Charles was a good friend of Louisa´s uncle Samuel May. Everyone in Louisa´s circles knew the remarkable story of Charles (Karl) Follen. As a young man in Germany he was the leader of Giessen Blacks - a radical student group and became an axe of revolution. He was hounded out from German to Switzerland where he became a honored professor of law and philosophy. From there he fled to Paris and finally immigrated to America in 1824. Charles was known from his deep learning and unbending integrity, very much like Friedrich Bhaer. Same way as Fritz, Charles also spoke multiple languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, Italian and German). Charles was drawn to ministry. Maybe this is why Jo´s and Friedrich´s youngest son Ted becomes a priest?

His full name was  Karl Theodore Christian Friedrich Follen
(I rest my case) 

Charles was very liked. He shared similar religious and educational ideas with unitarian preacher William Elley Channing and this was the birth of transcendentalism. Louisa’s father, Amos Bronson Alcott, consulted him about German schools before founding his own school in Boston. Louisa met Charles when she was 8-years old. He was in fact, the first person who introduced German Christmas tree-tradition to Americans. As all Little Women fans know, Louisa loved Christmas, Little Women begins with Christmas. Charles had a gentle, sweet presence and self-deprecating humor. Same way as fellow transcendentalists, Charles was an abolitionist, and because of his views he lost his professorship at Harvard and eventually his principles cost him his life. 

Louisa´s knowledge about Charles most likely came from her uncle and biography that his wife Eliza wrote and published after her husband´s death. Friedrich´s speech at the symposium nearly reprises his speaking presences as reported by the contemporaries. Eliza describes the courtship and marriage of her and Charles.  Louisa seems to have been impressed by both Eliza and Charles as people and their egalitarian relationship. Follen´s open up their homes to all, very much the same way as Marches and Jo and Friedrich. 

One of the narrative patterns in Louisa´s work is that her romantic heroes tend to have high interest towards social justice. Friedrich has elements of romantic radicalism that Louisa connects with Europe and at the same she is fascinated by Friedrich´s domestic side. She is clearly attracted to the idea of transnational family. Foreign becomes something protective. All the main couples in Little Women are multi-cultural. Amy is American, Laurie American-Italian, Meg is American, John is from England, Jo is American and Fritz is German.

If the German immigrants represented a generally stable, hardworking, religious addition to America, and the German writers suggested a glorious, independent, imaginative, if somewhat dangerous element, the combination of the two strains in her work allows her to blend the practical and the romantic—to create characters who embody some of the best of both aspects of what “German” represented to her (Doyle)

I am going to be brutally honest, don´t go all ballistic on me. When I read the earlier version of Greta Gerwig´s movie I was really exited. I thought it was pretty good and I was happy because we were finally going to get a version that was loyal to the books and does good job with both Jo and Friedrich and Amy and Laurie as couples. Then I read the final version of the script and suddenly Amy was the only who´s character arc was fully developed. 

There were many things that I liked in Greta Gerwig´s final version but because this essay is all about Friedrich I can´t really ignore the controversy surrounding the 2019 film. Greta Gerwig has been very vocal with her dislike over Friedrich´s character. She had said to the producer Amy Pascale "are we seriously going to include Mr Bhaer?".  Gerwig has been fat-shaming his character, made fun of him  being old, having a German accent and complained that he prevents Jo from writing.  Knowing that Gerwig herself has German ancestry the xenophobic comments are odd. 
​
Here is quote from Little Women fan Angela Gordon:

Friedrich could have so easily went down to the level that Jo was at just to please her if he had complimented her writing. He wouldn't have lost her at first, but he knew she could do better. He expected more of her. He called her to higher intellectual and moral plane where he knew she would be happier and more content. Laurie never could have done that for Jo. He never would have been able to encourage her to grow as Friedrich did.

Anyone who has said that Fritz prevents Jo from writing or that Jo stops writing completely, what is this book you have read? Read Laurie´s proposal. It comes pretty clear he doesn´t care about Jo´s writings and is not supportive  of it. Louisa makes it very clear that Fritz wants Jo to write from her heart because he cares about her. Greta herself have said that she heavily identifies with Jo and her hate over Friedrich´s character has puzzled many Little Women fans since she herself is married to man 15 years older than her. 

This film is being promoted as the most unique and truthful version of the story that outshines all the previous versions. Meryl Streep said that it should be celebrated for having female director, female script writer and female cast. Little Women film from 1994 had a female director, female script writer and a female cast, so was the 2018 little women movie and the pbs series from 2017.  It is a modern trend to include lgbt and trans themes into 19th century fictional works, you can see this in shows like Anne with an E and Dickinson. There is always a possibility that Louisa was bi or trans but the conversation usually misses the historical contest. Sex was supposed to occur only within marriage, and the approach towards sexuality during the era was labeled by chastity and any talk about sex in general was a taboo. 

Still today those who have problems with Friedrich´s character complain about him being German and about his accent. Little Women has been adapted into a film several times. Friedrich has been played by Hungarian, Italian, Irish, American and French actors, not once he has been played by a German actor. What I have heard from my German friends, Germans in Hollywood are only cast as villains. Stereotypes are very strong.  In  Gerwig´s film his entire nationality has been erased.

​Friedrich´s German accent remains throughout the March novels. In Little Men and Jo´s boys he occasionally drops German words and phrases such as "Mein Sohn" and "Vaterland" into his speech. In Jo´s boy "haf" has turned into "have". In the earlier version of the script Friedrich was German.

Movie includes Louisa´s gestures and sayings and yet, her values and life philosophy that she inserted into Jo and Friedrich are not included. 

Some of the biggest criticism towards Gerwig´s adaptation has been how it is promoted to be "woke and feminist" and at the same time it ignores the book themes about immigration and to some extent ethnicity. Louisa May Alcott´s feminism was not so called "white feminism" but inter-sectional feminism, which doesn´t look at gender, race or ethnicity but equality. When Little Women part 2 came out, the outrage towards Friedrich was largely caused by the fact that he was German. This would also explain why Louisa was widely disappointed to her readership. If you want to get an accurate picture of the level of xenophobia, imagine modern day Jo falling in love with an older Mexican or a Latina professor. Movies, including the modern adaptations have shied away from the immigration themes. Same goes with Laurie. In some editions Laurie´s book description "curly black hair, brown skin" has been erased. For example in my Finnish edition of Little Women there wasn´t any mention of his skin color and Laurie in the book cover illustration is a blonde man (definitely not-Italian) In the 19th century, treatment of the Italian immigrants was not the greatest and it explains Laurie´s feelings of isolation when he moves to Concord.  Even if Friedrich is non-German in a film, the immigration themes should be included. Jo and Friedrich as a couple were not nearly as developed compared to Amy and Laurie. We still don´t have an adaptation that does good job with both couples. ​

​How do you know the difference between a really good and really bad Jo and Friedrich fan fiction?

In the best fan fics Friedrich uses the word "thou".

​Greta has said that she hated how stuffy and demanding professor Bhaer forced Jo to use the word "thou"

As I explained earlier in German there is formal and the informal ways to address the other person. In old English "thou" was more intimate and closer to the German "du". Fritz being a 19th century German gentleman wanting to use the word "thou" when speaking to Jo makes perfect sense. 

 Say `thou', also, and I shall say your language is almost as beautiful as mine."

"Isn't `thou' a little sentimental?" asked Jo, privately thinking it a lovely monosyllable.
​
"Sentimental? Yes. Thank Gott, we Germans believe in sentiment, and keep ourselves young mit it. Your English `you' is so cold, say `thou', heart's dearest, it means so much to me," pleaded Mr. Bhaer, more like a romantic student than a grave professor.

Does that sound stuffy and demanding to you? As you can see there wasn´t any research made on Friedrich´s character and neither there was any kind of attempt to understand him, or the historical context. Friedrich uses "thou" throughout the March saga. 

This is what Goethe´s poems sound like when translated into English:

By what yesterday obey'd thee.
Can that world by thee be worthy held
Which so oft betray'd thee?
Which, 'mid all thy pleasures and thy pains,
Lived in selfish, unconcern'd repose?
See, the soul its secret cells regains,
And the heart—makes haste to close.
Thus found I thee, and gladly went to meet thee;
"She's worthy of all love!" I cried,
And pray'd that Heaven with purest bliss might greet thee,
Which in thy friend it richly hath supplied.

Yes, Friedrich is sentimental,  but so is Louisa May Alcott.

TeamBhaer, Bhaerophiles, Fritz fans, #JAER.......For a character who received rather mixed reactions when the book was published Friedrich has redeemed himself. Go to any literature blogs that have Friedrich vs Laurie polls and they are always 50/50 though now with Greta Gerwig´s film showing that Friedrich truly is more mature than Laurie and way better match for Jo (just like in the books) hopefully we get rid of the stupid debate.

I noticed that after #metoo there was a change in attitudes in the way readers saw Friedrich´s character. Readers, female readers especially have become more critical about the way male characters treat female characters in literature. Laurie´s possessive behavior over Jo is finally being questioned and Friedrich´s respectful steadiness and egalitarian courting praised and appreciated.

Louis Garrel is 36 years old so his age is pretty close to the book Friedrich and he and Saoirse have good chemistry together. He is not German in the movie but still an immigrant. When Jo meets him she first introduced herself with fully feminine Josephine and then as Jo.  She wants him to know and remember her, and there are the constant looks between the two. She is clearly attracted to him. Laurie shakes Jo awake from her dream of her first meeting with Friedrich only for it to resume when Fritz actually shows up. She is incredibly happy when he comes to visit and can´t hold back her smile when she denies loving him (@that-thrown-out-gentleman). Jo is pleased that everyone in her family likes him. 
​
“KISS HIM WITH LOVE” cit. Amy, encouraging her sister to go after her awkward professor (@titaniae)

There is a moment when Jo is taking care of Beth and looks out from the window and smiles when John and Meg are kissing. Reminds me of this scene from Little Women: 

In the chapter “All Alone,” Jo sits with Meg and marvels at how “improved” her sister has become since marriage: “how much she knew about good, womanly impulses, thoughts, and feelings, how happy she was in husband and children, and how much they were all doing for each other.” Jo confesses to Meg, “Marriage is an excellent thing after all. I wonder if I should blossom out, half as well as you have, if I tried it”

In the earlier version of the script there was more Friedrich in it (remember what I said how this adaptation erases the male characters?)  I actually feel sorry for Louis Garrel. What was the point of hiring a "hot professor Bhaer" and not use him. Meg had way more scenes and a stronger character arc and there was a bigger emphasis on Jo´s and Beth´s relationship and Beth´s passing. Jo went through all those emotions, loosing Beth, falling in love and grew through that both as a person and as a writer. 

There was a scene from the book, where Friedrich wonders for a moment if Jo married Laurie.

Tell me, why is Laurie always more mature in this book scene than ever in the movies?

He forgot himself still further when Laurie said, in his most gracious manner, at parting..."My wife and I are very glad to meet you, sir. Please remember that there is always a welcome waiting for you over the way."Then the Professor thanked him so heartily, and looked so suddenly illuminated with satisfaction, that Laurie thought him the most delightfully demonstrative old fellow he ever met.

In my honest opinion, this earlier part of the script that addressed the immigration issues was better than in the final version, where it was turned into a joke. ​

Scripts go through all kinds of changes. I don´t know which version this was but there were so many things that I liked that were edited. Here is the earlier ending. I heard a rumor that this was filmed. If I find it and if I like it I might make my own edit. 

​The ending of the final film is a roschark test. A fourth wall experience and everyone can have their own take on it. In the final script it says in the ending "is this true or fictional". I suppose the reason for this was money. I read that Greta wanted to please all three teams #TeamBhaer, #TeamLaurie and #TeamSpinter and I believe this was the case. 

In the book after Beth´s death Laurie proposed Jo again, at the same time when realized he had feelings for Amy. Jo is very clear that she doesn´t want to marry Laurie, and during the period of loneliness she is experiencing it is Friedrich who she is missing. In Gerwig´s version Jo sending a letter to Laurie saying she has changed her mind is completely out of Jo´s character and I suppose this was left to please Jo and Laurie fans. This sudden change of attitude erases the power of the conversation she just had with Marmee about Fritz, and when Marmee asks if Jo truly loves Laurie...

Then Jo writes a letter and says she would accept Laurie´s proposal if he would ask her again. Jo is not this childish. This takes away from Jo´s growth and it has been inserted to please those who have problems with Friedrich´s character  and the whole ambiguous ending/  is this fiction or not is suppose to please everyone and to be "woke". 

I am beginning to realize that perhaps the Laurie Problem is merely a reflection of our own level of maturity. Not even a culture or a filmmaker can hide behind a script. An adaptation seems to reveal as much about an attitude and belief of a writer as much as it goes about the job of organizing the retelling of a pre-existing story--even a beloved classic like Little Women. Between that and the tendency the industry has to "update" a storyline to satisfy a "modern audience," well...that is a revelation unto itself, perhaps? Perhaps that tendency can reveal a trust issue between a writer and the audience. I feel that audiences are more astute about gender and relationships now. I feel there is room for a mature account of growth in a character arc. Hell! Why not actually HAVE an arc? Unfortunately, that in itself feels entirely absent in too many Little Women screen adaptations of one or more critical roles (Kymberly East)

Scenes from the final script. "Seeing as the language of love" These go back to the earlier references on courting and shared looks, but the final part the "recognition of one another", that is beautifully written in the book (and many other Louisa May Alcott´s novels), is it in the film or isn´t? 

Fellow Little Women fans have shared their thoughts about the earlier ending. 

Omg this ending? It’s giving me serious p&p 2005 vibes! Ten times more emotional and fulfilling than the infinitely long book-binding sequence and bargaining with the editor. I truly hate how this new performative wokeness is ruining everything. The early ending was so joyful a so spot on when you think about the rest of the movie! I would have probably teared up watching it, instead I was mildly bored with the one I actually saw. I honestly don’t understand why Gerwig chose such a condescending ending that completely ruined the mood and themes set in the previous 2 hours! She sacrificed a coherent storyline for the sake of being woke™️ Also the shift in tone is VERY noticeable also because she didn’t bother to change what came before the ending as seen in the screenplays (which are about 80% identical), so you go from hopeful and romantic to gritty and realistic and bittersweet and in the span of about 2 minutes and it feels like a betrayal. She should have honestly waited to make another movie about LMA’s life (@titaniae)

There are element´s of nihilism in Gerwig´s film and that was something that the 2017 series was also criticized. Fair enough postmodern take is the current trend.

Alcott Scholar Jamie Lynn Burges writes:

I am interested in why Gerwig thought it was so important to include anecdotes and quotations from the Alcotts’ lives without giving the Alcotts a place in the film. “Everyone wants ‘Little Women’ to be about the Alcotts,” says Eve LaPlante, author of “Marmee and Louisa. We are greeted by this fact at the very beginning of Gerwig's film: "I've had lots of troubles, so I write jolly tales," the quotation reads, as an epigraph. Yet in some ways, this film seems to disregard those real troubles, instead choosing the easier Little Women as a vehicle for Louisa May Alcott’s real life.

Louisa May Alcott experienced the bizarre world of fame in her lifetime. She was asked to stand on a stage and turn in a complete circle for her adoring audience. Fans caught grasshoppers out on her lawn as souvenirs. But when she answered the door, she disappointed her readers. She was not Jo March; she was not spry or youthful. When Jo lamented, "I can't get over my disappointment in not being a boy," because she wanted to go to war, we have to realize that Louisa May Alcott did go to war, and in the end, it cost her her life. In fact, her own father said that if he had known the cost, he would never have let her go.

I can think of many ways to represent Alcott in the film and keeping her separate from Jo. I can imagine a narrative voice, hands writing in a cold house. Maybe that wasn't the story Gerwig meant to tell, yet she included so many of the details of the Alcotts own lives, that it seems she wanted to.

I wonder if any of this helps us understand Little Women any better. Little Women can stand alone as art, without Louisa's life (and the other lives of the Alcotts) as a crutch. I’m not saying I disagree with the use of some Alcott details—like the owl on the fireplace, or May’s lilies painted on the wall—but I am interested in where we draw the line, in how and why we want to mislead the audience into a blurry line between life and fiction.

​Everything that is told about the Marches effects to what is told about the Alcott's. 

​Jo publishing the book isn’t in the novel. It was done more than once to help structure, but it isn’t how the novel goes. Jo starts writing again slowly, as one does, by writing poetry.

Fritz also isn’t an afterthought. When Jo is in the garret after Beth’s death, she finds books and notebooks from her time in New York, and one of them is signed by Fritz with
​
 “wait for me, my friend, I may be a little late, but I shall surely come”. 

Which is later on paralleled in In the Garret: 
“a woman early old, hearing in a lonely home, like a sad refrain "be worthy, love, and love will come, in the falling summer rain”. 

​The fact that he came to read that poem means that he had been following her writing (again, he doesn’t dislike that she writes, on the contrary).

There’s nothing of hallmark romcom cliches in Jo and Fritz’s relationship. It isn’t Pride and Prejudice, and Jo doesn’t leave New York because he was mean to her, because that doesn’t happen either. He never attacks her writing directly, just the morality of sensation stories (and everyone now is like “there’s nothing wrong with sensation stories” well, yes, but for those characters in their time was. Our equivalent would probably be writing racist or sexist stories. And Fritz doesn’t give her Fordyce’s sermons to study, he gives her Shakespeare.) Jo and Fritz part in good terms and Jo thinks of returning (and then life happened, as it happens to all of us. Nothing cheesy about that).

It is hopeful, it is romantic, but it isn’t cliched or dismissive. Reading some reviews of Greta’s movie, it’s common the impression that Good Wives is a grey story, that Greta chooses to portray it as the unfairness and meaninglessness of reality versus the rose tinted world of Little Women. And that is a postmodern take on a modern story.

You may say all those common places about LMA being forced to marry characters etc etc, but her view of the world is modern because she lived in a Modern world, and existentialism and nihilism weren’t the dominant cultural mindset as they are now. The modern people believed in progress, in a better tomorrow, that History had a meaning, our lives had a meaning and a purpose, and that we could find it if we looked for it.

The postmodern world is nihilistic: nothing has meaning, every choice we make diminishes our freedom; we have been thrown in a nasty, unkind, meaningless world and the only way to survive is to create a fictional meaning for ourselves. That’s why childhood is so valued as ideal, because the child is authentic, and a will that creates a fictional world strong enough to live in it, and adulthood means leaving all that and embracing conventions that tie us down and the meaninglessness of the world.

That’s also why I think Greta thinks Laurie wants Jo to become an adult by marrying him, instead of the other way around (Jo not wanting to marry Laurie because otherwise he’d never grow up).

Nihilistic view of the story isn’t more authentic to Louisa’s thought and concepts: it is more of what we think she’d be like if she were a postmodern woman, but that is history fiction, not accuracy.

The message isn’t “the world is awful and we have to manage to barely survive in it”; it is “growing may be painful, but there’s always a better tomorrow after today’s toil and grief” (@that-vermillion-fly-catcher)

Nihilism contradicts with Louisa´s own views on Little Women 
​
"It is meant to be honest and not a bit sensational, but simple and true, for we really lived most of it"

Lupin and Tonks from Harry Potter are the magical version of Jo and Friedrich. She is younger and temperamental. He is older and mild-tempered. He carries chocolate and they had a son named Ted. I rest my case. 

​I have collected thoughts people have had about Friedrich in the film and the ending. Some people hate the end, others love it, others don´t know it was written to be vague (bless them).  As a Friedrich fan I am happy that the new film has made lot of people to like his character and read the books. Even thought the ending is very subtle, I feel that the reasons for making it that way were wrong.

If you have read this essay this far now you know that Fritz was not an afterthought or an anomality (which has been all over the movie´s promotion). He was a carefully considered character and Louisa seems to have been quite found of him..and his German accent. Authors know what they put into their books. If you ask me, woman falling love and marrying a man who´s from a marginalized group is pretty damn woke.  Fritz was not written in malicious way. He is very kind and understanding man. We are meant to like him, not the other way around.

Unlike in any of the earlier films, Gerwig´s film doesn´t hate Amy and Laurie, which is wonderful. Film still does make it very clear that Friedrich is much more mature compared to Laurie and therefore way better match for her. Here is a review from a person who used to root Jo and Laurie and now they are on board with Jo and Friedrich. 

This is from a person who has jumped into #TeamBhaer but they still dislike Amy (in this house we stand for Amy March okay).​

"I wanted to touch on the Jo/Bhaer relationship, since that seems to be the biggest complaint among fans of the novel. I personally wasn’t a fan of the way it was portrayed on film, as there was really no development in their actual relationship. You don’t see their friendship really at all, and that was something I really enjoyed when I re-read the book as an adult. And the attempt to merge Jo and Louisa May Alcott at the end really didn’t work for me. Partly because it made the umbrella scene confusing, to the point where I was wondering if it actually happened in the narrative we’d been watching for the past two hours, or if we were watching Jo’s characters, who look just like the people in the narrative…it’s a weird book within a movie within a book thing that was too circular for me. And I know it was intentionally written to be vague, but I think it was too vague."

if there was a LMA framing device, we wouldn’t have Jo writing “Little Women” during the course of the story!  Which seems to be the norm for film adaptations…."(@mygreatadventurehasbegan)

Preach it sister!

someone hacked into my brain

source   also #timotheechandelier

I read Little Women religiously and each time it opens up differently. Saying that I like Friedrich is an understatement. It is no offence to any Laurie fans and maybe it´s my personality I always found Friedrich million times more interesting. (I´m a canon fan. I love all the couples Amy and Laurie, John and Meg, Jo and Fritz).  I never saw his relationship with Jo anything else but sweet, cute, loving and extremely passionate.

​In Jo´s boys his flirt game is so strong Jo get´s all flushed even when they´v been married for years. Rob and Ted caught them spooning behind a fan and they were totally making out. Jo is in her mid-fifties and Fritz is in the ripe age of seventy! I had chat with an Italian lady who was a massive Jo and Fritz fan and they said that Little Men was the first LW book they read and it was their favorite. What a unique approach they must have to Little Women. 

Since there is this trend to pull elements from the real-life people why not give Friedrich a backstory, maybe something from Goethe, Henry-David Thoreau or Charles Follen.  Little Women would work best as a series, that way all the character arcs could be included. Here is idea for my dream adaptation. In my Laurie essay I complained how the film portrayal of Laurie is one-dimensional, and he is there only pinning on Jo or Amy. The book Laurie has other interests in life like his music. We would see Laurie as a young boy being isolated in European boarding schools and bonding with his grandpa. Friedrich working as a teacher in Berlin. Relationship with his family, sister marrying an American and the immigration hurdles. More in-depth exploration on sisters. Maybe showing Meg working as a tutor,  John´s time in the war, how it effects on him since he is quite sensitive. Jo wanting to marry off Laurie first to Meg, then to Beth and to Amy (she really does this in the book). 

I never believed that Louisa would have created Friedrich´s character as a cop-out since his and Jo´s love always felt very genuine for me. Now, after doing this research for the past year and half, it seems that the egalitarian relationships were on Louisa´s mind all along and I have become convinced that she planned Friedrich´s character pretty early on.  When I wrote my essay about Laurie I struggled finding impartial character analysis made on him (I still haven´t found any). With Friedrich I had a bit more luck but even those can be counted with one hand´s fingers.  It is in contradiction to the 5000 studies written about Jo that includes hatred for other characters, and constant ignorance to the fact that in a coming-of-age novel characters actually grow.  Scholar Matteson points out that anything that Louisa has written should be taken with a grain of salt because she had a tendency to exaggerate and censor her journals. Shealy makes another interesting point about the one-dimensional take the early biographers took on Louisa and how much more material there is to discover. She was a very complicated person. 

Here is a quote from a fan who makes an excellent point about readership. ​

​I wonder if the reason certain characters get so much dislike (Amy, Fritz, Meg) is because their arcs, backgrounds, personalities and interests are so different from what the average Alcott reader wants. A lot of them are middle/upper middle class tomboyish teens/young adults who don’t want to read about “prissy” girls like every non-Jo character, they’re not poor enough to understand Meg’s money trouble and desire for nice things, too young to be married and sometimes even date.

​What is it that I love about Jo and Friedrich?

Everything

Louisa goes into great detail describing how unromantic the setting of the love story is and yet, their love is big, it´s huge. Both Jo and Friedrich are surprised by joy. Still today it is the most beautiful and realistic description I have ever read about falling in love to another. 

​If we are lucky, we are seen: “Jo, such a little name for such a person,” Friedrich says in the end. ​

If you'd like to participate in constructive online conversations about this essay, please do leave comments and share in your social media networks.

Special thanks to Angela, Melodie, Sam, Elizabeth Anne,  Lorraine, Diane, @spiders-hth-is-an-outlier, @renee561, @ozqueen, @this-thrown-out-gentleman from excellent and thought provoking conversations and Megan, Laura, Susan and other Alcott scholars for sharing their research and taking the time to answer my questions.  

Becca, @ajesidith, @that-vermillion-fly-catcher, @zlonkin and @rorylgilmore and their encouragement is to be blamed for me becoming a door-to-door Friedrich Bhaer missionary. Send your thank you notes to them. ​

Credits from the gifs go to @titaniae and @that-vermillion-fly-catcher

Say Hi on social:
Instagram (my official illustrator page)
Instagram (my pro-canon little women account)
Tumblr (my little women love rant corner) 

 Little Women, Louisa May Alcott, Penguin Classics edition with Elaine Showalter´s introduction

Little women 150 years edition

Little Men 150 years edition

Jo´s Boys 150 years edition

​Jo marries Goethe, Dr Bhaer as Louisa May Alcott´s representation of the Goethean ideal in Little Women by Meghan Armknecht

Singing Mignon´s song, German Literature and Culture in March Trilogy by Christine Doyle

The Sorrows of young Werther by J.W.Goethe 

Wilhelm Meister´s Apprenticeship by J.W. Goethe

The cosmopolitan project of Louisa May Alcott by Laura Dassow Walls

Wide Wide World by Susan Warner 

Wedding Marches, Louisa May Alcott, Marriage and the Newness of Little Women by Daniel Shealy  

Louisa May Alcott and the Transcendentalist Tradition by Roberta Pardi-Oláh

Louisa May Alcott, The woman behind little women by Harriet Reisen 

Louisa May Alcott by Harriet Reisen 

Finding private Suhre: On the trail of Louisa May Alcott´s "Prince of patients" by John Matteson

Louisa May Alcott, her life, letters and journals by Ednah Cheney

Margaret Fuller, The Dial

Little Women 150/ Under the umbrella 

Facts and Fiction in Little Women by Jamie Lynn Burgess

Thoreau, Alcott and the mythic west by Fred Erisman 

Rose in Bloom by Louisa May Alcott 

Rose in Bloom, Endings and Beginnings (Louisa May Alcott is my passion) 

Getting to know the principal characters in moods (Louisa May Alcott is my passion)  

Long fatal love chase by Louisa May Alcott 

Moods by Louisa May Alcott 

Work story of experience by Louisa May Alcott 

"Fun forever?" Toys, Games and Plays in Louisa May Alcott´s Little Women by Anne. K. Phillips

19th century German immigration to America by Tina Marie Schrader ​​
 
Contradictions Between Thought and Action as a Source of Tension in Louisa M. Alcott’s Little Women by Jane Mattisson  

Louisa May Alcott and Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué 

Why Friedrich is better for Jo than Laurie is 

"Little Women," Laurie, and the Argument for Racebent Casting 

Highschool crush: On literary longing and mis-direct lust 
​
Why Laurie and Jo don´t end up together

Not Just Passionlessness- Alternate Views of Sexuality in Victorian America By Kelsey Shober

Little Women official movie guide (published by Absram books 2020) 

Jo March makes a choice by Kailey Rhone

..................
My (recent) Little Women videos are created withFilmora Wondershare (that I am absolutely in love with) 

Article related videos. There are more coming up. 

I drew the whomping willow. Markers on sketchbook. 

Video is in Finnish. You can get the English subtitles from the lower right corner. Filmed when I was between apartments and stayed couple weeks at my friend´s guest room (thanks Katie, you saved me).

In Finnish folklore one of the most common elements that you can find is that everything in nature is personified. Pakkanen (Frost) or Pakkas-Poika (Frost boy) is one of these things. Within the folklore Frost is a mischievous young boy. His parents are most often told to beLouhi, the goddess of winter and shamans and his father is Puhuri (cold, powerful wind) or Pakkasukko (The Frostman).

Parents of Frost and Frost as a character can also simply work as a metaphor. Back in the days practising of wind magic and shamans who were devoted to that particular craft were very common. This leads back to the shamanic concept of emuu. Emuu is an old Finno-ugric word for a mother (emo is an old Finnish word for a mother but now days it refers to an animal mother, äiti which is modern Finnish word for mother has Baltic origins). but it is also a gender neutral word and refers to a creator. Someone who can light the sparkle of life into non-living things (such as snow, stones, rocks, sunlight). 

In Finnish folk magic when a person knew the origins of a disease they had greater chances to heal the disease. When performing the healing ritual they would sing or chant the origin words connected to the disease or the injury they were about to heal.

If a person had severe frostbites they would chant the words of the frost. One could also say the words aloud before they went outside to protect themselves from the Frost. Words were used to scare the Frost and prevent them from touching the person.

Sharp Frost, the son of Blast (Puhuri), ice crusty, wintry boy, now hast thoug hurt a human skin, hast sorely injured a mother´s son, destroyed a woman´s progency, for sapless has the man become, the stalwart man insensible. Sharp Frost, the son of Puhuri, come now to recognise thy work, to remedy thine evil deeds; if thou hast bitten, heal the bite, if thou hast touched, undo the harm, or else thy mother shall tell, to thy father I shall make it known. Enormous trouble a mother has, when treading her sons footsteps, effacing traces he has left, anointing sores that the he has made.

Sharp cold, the son of Näräppä, hard-frozen wintry boy, where shall I exorcise thee now? Thee do I exorcise forthwith to distant limits of the North, to the flat, open lands of Lapps. There is it nice for Cold to live,  for Chilly Weather to abide. There thou will level trampled ground, wilt slay a reindeer out at grass, wilt eat flesh lying close at hand, wilt gnaw the bone that´s near to thee. 

Since thou dost pay no heed, thereto, I exercise thee forth into the belly of Pakkanen (sharp cold), the fervid paunch of the frosty blast. As there thou mayst not find a place, depart to where I order thee, flee to the clouds above, thou wintry weather, to the sky, cease injuring a christened man, destroying one that is baptised. 

- The Magic songs of the Finns by Elias Lönnrot

As you can see from the poem it has Christian and Pagan elements combined. Time when the chants were collected started rather early on, already in the 17th century and for a very long time different belief systems lived side by side. 

Similar characters to Pakkanen can be found from other myths as well. Check my post onJack the Frost.

​If you'd like to participate in constructive online conversations about this essay, please do leave comments and share in your social media networks.