nerdyrevelries - Tumblr blog

[nerdyrevelries]

It is very close between John Thorpe and Mr. Bennet because John Thorpe is every single terrible frat boy stereotype in a single person, but ultimately I went with Mr. Bennet because I think I would murder a man who told me a guest was coming to stay for two weeks the morning of.

John Thorpe? Drop him off at a car show and he's out of my hair for the entire day.

Just randomly thought, huh, we tend to discuss which Austen men we'd marry, but what about the opposite?

[nerdyrevelries]

Please reblog my stuff and add your thoughts! I do a lot of long posts about things, and it's so much fun when you can discuss your interests with some, especially if those interests are really nerdy or niche.

i genuinely hope that boop day inspires everyone to interact more with other tumblr users. because it’s clearly way more fun this way!! even once the boop button is gone, there’s still asks, tag and ask games, comments, dms, fuck it let’s bring back blog rates i don’t care. part of the reason that tumblr is dying is that its way less social than it used to be. let’s fix that!!

[nerdyrevelries]

i think the REAL test of personality is which influential piece of fiction you instinctively think of whenever you see chess motifs in a story. for me it is of course the Alice in Wonderland sequel Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, because (to me) (and objectively) it invented chess.

[nerdyrevelries]

Meg March: The Nurturer

Every time I reread Little Women, I find Meg March more relatable. This isn't because I am a wife or have kids but because I think Meg represents issues all women face and her story has only gotten more relevant since the book was released. 

Meg gets three chapters focusing on her struggles: “Meg Goes to Vanity Fair” in Part I and “Domestic Experiences” and “On the Shelf” in Part II. “Meg Goes to Vanity Fair” appears in most adaptations and involves Meg going to visit rich friends for a fortnight and getting her head turned by luxuries the Marches can't afford. The other most commonly adapted scene is one from “Domestic Experiences” where Meg buys $50 of silk that she and her husband can't afford. 

Even in the novel, I’m not fond of this scene because it doesn't do anything to give us any new insights into Meg that we didn't already get in “Meg Goes to Vanity Fair.” Going off these two scenes, it seems like her main struggle is that she hates being poor, but I think a fuller picture starts to form when you look at all the Meg-focused chapters together. 

“Domestic Experiences” starts with the lines, “Like most other young matrons, Meg began her married life with the determination to be a model housekeeper. John should find home a paradise; he should always see a smiling face, should fare sumptuously every day, and never know the loss of a button.” It's clear that Meg has some decided ideas on what a proper wife should be, and those ideas leave very little wiggle room for the mistakes and accidents that are part of everyone's life. Meg even tells John he should feel free to bring a guest home for dinner without sending word home to her first! 

One day, Meg is trying to outfit her house with homemade preserves. Try as she might, the jelly won't jell. She and John have promised not to go home to ask advice for every small trouble, so Meg goes it alone until she is so frustrated that she sits right down on the kitchen floor and starts sobbing. 

To make matters worse, John forgets that today is the day Meg is working on the jelly and invites a friend over for dinner. He is not met, as usual, by a smiling wife but instead finds a house devoid of life until he finds Meg still crying in the kitchen. John is so worried that she has been seriously injured or received terrible news that when Meg tells him what really happened, he laughs with relief, tells her not to worry about the jelly, and that he and his friend don't need a fancy dinner, just some cold meat, bread, and cheese will do. 

Alas, in the 1860s, the charcuterie did not have the same air of sophistication it enjoys today! Meg is horrified at the idea of treating a guest in her home to a meal like that and hurt by how lightly John seems to be treating the matter. She lashes out, which leads to the couple’s first fight. Eventually they are able to reconcile and their marriage is made stronger in the mending. 

The scene from “On the Shelf” features some very similar circumstances, this time pertaining to motherhood. When Meg gives birth to twins Demi and Daisy, she becomes completely absorbed in motherhood, spending all her time with her children and thinking about little else. She even refuses to let John in the nursery and tries to do everything on her own. 

As a result, John begins to feel like an interloper in his own home and starts spending more time away from it. Meg is extremely worn out and feels neglected, imagining that the changes in her household are a result of her becoming unattractive and John losing interest in her. 

Fortunately, Meg gets some excellent advice from Marmee: Practice self-care, give the kids to a sitter sometimes so she and John can go on dates and have adult conversations and interests, and let John help out with the babies. The advice works and peace is once again restored.  

When viewed together, we see Meg’s trouble isn't so much a love of luxury as it is perfectionism and a tendency to put too much stock in the voices telling her what it means to be a good woman, a good wife, and a good mother. Now, isn't that relatable? What woman hasn't felt like they were simultaneously too much and not enough? Who hasn't compared the shiny pictures of our friends’ lives that we see on social media to the less than perfect parts of our life that don't get posted on Instagram? 

If Meg was alive today, I think she would get really into mommy blogs telling her that she needs to make her own baby food from scratch if she wants to give her children the best life possible. She would watch Marie Kondo videos on YouTube and cry because her living room often looks like a disaster zone after her two toddlers are done with it. 

This was what I tried to bring to the adulthood character role I based on Meg, the Nurturer. I didn't want a role that implied that becoming a homemaker is settling because I think that Meg legitimately loves her life and being a stay-at-home spouse or parent is just as valid a choice as becoming celebrated for a career. 

Instead, what I tried to do was take the cares and the joys of Meg March and turn them into something that would be fun and compelling to play. The main points I wanted to focus on were the amount of unsolicited advice that homemakers commonly get and the perfectionism and fear of failure that often lead to burnout. 

The positive conditions for the Nurturer involve receiving love and support from your family and being seen as a model for perfect home management. The negative conditions are about being completely worn out and being the subject of your neighbor’s criticisms. I'm very proud of the role I was able to create, and I think it's a good example of a type of character you can play that will feel very different from one you might make in Good Society. I hope that you will enjoy playing as the Nurturer, too.

This is part of a series on the literary inspirations behind game elements for my upcoming tabletop RPG based on the novels of Louisa May Alcott and L.M. Montgomery, Castles in the Air. To see a complete list of the posts I've written thus far, check out the master post. If you would like more information, visit the game's website!

[nerdyrevelries]

Castles in the Air

I'm extremely excited to announce that the game I've been working on for the past 4 years is coming to Kickstarter! Castles in the Air (CitA) is a tabletop RPG inspired by the novels of Louisa May Alcott and L.M. Montgomery. Players start as children with boundless dreams who will change over the years based on the relationships they form and choices they make. I think it's a really special game, and I'm looking forward to being able to share it with everyone.

For more information or to sign up to be notified when the Kickstarter launches on May 14th, please check out the game's page on the Storybrewers Roleplaying website. If that name sounds familiar, Storybrewers is the company that created Good Society: A Jane Austen RPG. I feel very honored that they reached out to me about publishing Castles in the Air. While Castles in the Air is a standalone game, its mechanics are inspired by Good Society, and if you like Good Society, I think you'll like CitA too as it allows you to tell similarly compelling stories.

I will be creating some blog posts talking about the literary inspirations for different parts of the game in the weeks leading up to the Kickstarter and during its run. I will be using this as a master post to keep track of all of them, so make sure to check back here or follow my blog if you are interested.

Blog Posts

Meg March: The Nurturer

[nerdyrevelries]

Is there somewhere we can read this? Because that sounds great.

Look, I know that we all love Jo and Amy, and Beth is an absolute angel, but I think the Little Women fandom is really sleeping on how relatable Meg is for being the only one of the March sisters to respond to having a bad day by sitting down in the middle of the floor and bursting into tears.

[nerdyrevelries]

Look, I know that we all love Jo and Amy, and Beth is an absolute angel, but I think the Little Women fandom is really sleeping on how relatable Meg is for being the only one of the March sisters to respond to having a bad day by sitting down in the middle of the floor and bursting into tears.

[nerdyrevelries]

Jane Austen heroines exist on a sliding scale of "You are always right, and no one ever listens to you" (Fanny Price) to "You are never right, and everyone always listens to you" (Emma Woodhouse.)

[nerdyrevelries]

I only read Lord of the Rings for the first time last year, and it took me out of the book whenever one of the Rohirrim were called blond because they are so clearly Mongolian-coded. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one rejecting this part of Tolkien's canon and replacing it with my own.

❝ These are the Rohirrim, as we name them, masters of horses, and we ceded to them the fields of Calenardhon that are since called Rohan; for that province had long been sparsely peopled. And they became our allies, and have ever proved true to us, aiding us at need, and guarding our northern marches and the Gap of Rohan. ❞

[nerdyrevelries]

please reblog for sample size!! and tell me specifics in the tags if you like, people's responses are fascinating

[nerdyrevelries]

It was definitely a thing before Greta Gerwig. A couple of years back, I watched and reviewed almost every English-language live action Little Women adaptation for something I called Alcott Adaptation August.

By villainize, I don't mean so much that Amy and Jo don't reconcile. I mean that Amy's bad traits tend to be heightened while Jo's get downplayed. The two worst adaptations for this are 1950 and the March Sisters at Christmas.

In the 1950 version, Amy plans from a young age to ingratiate herself with Aunt March so that Aunt March will leave all her money to her and she won't have to be poor. When Beth gets scarlet fever and Amy is told she's going to be sent to Aunt March's to keep her from getting sick, Amy's response is not to be upset that she is being sent away but to yell, "Oh good!" Later she schemes to be the one who Aunt March takes to Europe in spite of knowing how much Jo wants to go. Yikes.

In the March Sisters at Christmas (a modern day reimagine with a truly bizarre mix of good ideas for adaptation and truly some of the worst adaptational choices I have seen in any version of Little Women period), instead of burning a book, Amy's act of revenge against Jo is to post nudes on the celebrity Twitter account that Jo ghost writes for!

Those are just the two very worst examples. Adaptations heightening Amy's faults is the norm rather than the exception. As you said, 2017 and 1970 are also guilty of this, but I would argue that even 2019, which professes to be incredibly pro-Amy doesn't entirely avoid this.

Think about the incident of Amy's foot getting stuck in plaster when she's trying to make a mold of it. In the book, this happens in part II where nothing especially grave or serious is going on. In 2019, this happens while Marmee is away at Washington attending their sick father, which makes Amy look pretty silly and shallow. They also make Amy jealous of Jo because Jo is everyone's favorite apparently? Even though there's literally no evidence for that in the book and in fact the opposite could probably be argued.

As far as adaptations downplaying Jo's faults, this is also pretty rampant. Most adaptations include Amy going to Europe rather than Jo, but very few of them include the context for this. It's not a snub of Jo or favoritism towards Amy. It's because Jo was incredibly rude and thoughtless in her words and made it sound like she would find a trip to Europe paid for by someone else burdensome.

As far as the Amy almost drowning as a result of Jo's temper scene, this frequently gets softened, too. In 1994, Laurie never sounds the ice or warns Jo about it being dangerous to skate in the middle, which means that Jo doesn't have this knowledge and intentionally chose to keep it from Amy because she's angry. Sure, the following scene pays lip service to the idea of Jo blaming herself and her temper for what happened, but if you haven't read the book, it would be rather confusing as to why she thinks this because Jo literally didn't do anything wrong in the matter of the pond. She didn't keep back important information that would keep Amy safe and when Amy does fall through the ice, she immediately rushes to help.

And all of this isn't to mention how hard a lot of the fandom can be on Amy. Like, I have seen memes that suggest that Amy is off having a good time in Europe with no worries while Jo is taking care of her dying sister. Some people think that Amy is so selfish that she doesn't feel upset that her sister is dying. They think that her love for her sisters amounts to out of sight, out of mind!

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

There have been many adaptations of "Little Women", Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. And I have seen most, if not all of the live-action versions. But the first adaptation I have ever seen was NBC's adaptation that first aired back in 1978. If I might be honest, I ended up developing a rather high opinion of it.

Since my first viewing of 1978's "LITTLE WOMEN", I have seen other adaptations. And over the years, I had developed this belief that this television production from 1978 had not been good as I had originally believed. It took many years for me to give this two-part miniseries a second chance. "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of Josephine (Jo) March and her three sisters during the 1860s - Meg, Beth and Amy. The two-part miniseries opened during the Christmas holidays in December 1861 and follow the sisters, their other family members and friends throughout the Civil War and the early post-war years. Because Jo is the main character, despite being the second sister, this adaptation of "Little Women" has the distinction of being the only version that allows her to serve as narrator.

After my recent re-watch, I could see why my opinion of "LITTLE WOMEN" had diminished over the years . . . at least from a superficial point-of-view. To be blunt, I was not that impressed by the miniseries' production values. The entire production was shot on the Universal Studios backlot and one could sometimes see the California hills in the background. Granted, I still believe set decorator Richard G. Goddard, art director Howard E. Johnson and cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc did the best they could to recreate 1860s Concord, Massachusetts, New York City and Italy. But I did have a problem with the miniseries' costume designs. On the surface, they seemed . . . serviceable for a television production set during the 1860s. But if I must be frank, the costumes also looked as if they had been taken from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions. Even worse, all or most of the actresses seemed to be wearing mid-to-late 1970s shoes underneath their mid-19th century dresses and gowns. I was shocked to discover that one of Hollywood's most iconic costume designer, Edith Head, had created the miniseries' costumes. So . . . what on earth happened? Head had created the costumes? "LITTLE WOMEN" was not even Head's first or last period drama. So, what happened?

Did I have any other problems with "LITTLE WOMEN"? Well . . . I did not care for leading actress Susan Dey's hairstyle in the second part of the miniseries. I realize her character, Jo March, had cut her hair to raise funds for her mother's journey to Washington D.C. But her hair never grew back. Never. Instead, it remained shorter than it originally was and styled into a bob. Why? And I had a problem with two particular performances. I will discuss one of them later. The other involved leading lady Susan Dey serving as the miniseries' narrator. Do not get me wrong. Dey is a fine actress and did the best she could. But I found her narration a bit clunky and unnecessary, thanks to the words provided to her by screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's teleplay.

Despite my quibbles, I found a lot to admire about "LITTLE WOMEN". I believe its status as a two-part miniseries, instead of a movie, screenwriter Suzanne Clauser had plenty of opportunities to fully adapt Alcott's novel with less shortcuts and more depth. I have always believed that Alcott's novel was basically a coming-of-age story for Jo March and her three sisters. To me, this made any adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN" a major character study. And if there is one thing that the two-part miniseries did well was explore its characters and their situations with great depth.

This especially seemed to be the case of Jo's relationship with her neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, his personal relationship with his grandfather James Laurence, Amy's European trip and her romantic travails, and Meg's relationship with Laurie's tutor John Brooke. I was especially impressed by the production's handling of Jo's relationship with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it very dynamic, thanks to Suzanne Clauser's screenplay, along with the performances involved. Some, but not all of the adaptations of Alcott's novel tend to forget - at times - that part of it spanned most of the U.S. Civil War. Fortunately, this adaptation never forgot. And as much as I seemed critical of the miniseries' narration, it also reminded television audiences that . . . yes, part of "LITTLE WOMEN" was partially set during the Civil War.

Speaking of performances, "LITTLE WOMEN" had the blessed luck to feature a first-rate cast. I may not have been impressed by the narration provided by Susan Dey (for which I blame another), I was more than impressed by her portrayal of the story's leading character, Josephine "Jo" March. I though she did a superb job in capturing Jo's mercurial personality and obsession with her developing profession as a writer. Meredith Baxter gave an excellent performance as the oldest March sister, Margaret "Meg" March. She conveyed Meg's vanity and obsession with the family's social status and stubborn refusal to give up her love for John Brooke. My only issue is that I believe the actress may have been a bit too old portraying a character that aged from 16 to her early 20s. Eve Plumb portrayed the shy, yet musical Elizabeth "Beth" March. I thought she did an excellent job of combining Beth's emotional, yet retiring nature and in the end, gave a very poignant performance. Ann Dusenberry was roughly 24 to 25 years old when she portrayed the youngest March sibling, Amy. Before my recent re-watch of "LITTLE WOMEN", I had assumed she was too old to portray a younger Amy. But upon my viewing, I realized that she actually managed to give a rather convincing and skillful performance of Amy during the war years (between ages 12 and 16) without to resorting to exaggerated histrionics. And I also admired her portrayal of the older Amy who found herself drawn between two men during her European trip.

I cannot deny that most of the actors who have portrayed Theodore "Laurie"/"Teddy" Laurence over the years gave some pretty damn good performances. But I believe that Richard Gilliland's portrayal of the emotional and moody "Laurie" has to be one of the two best I have ever seen, hands down. His only equal - at least in my eyes - is Jonah Hauer King's performance in the 2017 BBC miniseries. But if I had to choose my favorite portrayal of Laurie's stern, yet warm grandfather, James Laurence, it would be the one given by Hollywood icon Robert Young in this miniseries. May I be frank? I believe both actors provided some of the production's best dramatic moments in their depiction of the developing relationship between grandson and grandfather.

Dorothy McGuire gave a fine performance as Mrs. March aka "Marmie", the four sisters' mother. Thanks to the actress' performance, her Mrs. March seemed more like a well-rounded human being, instead of an archetype. Greer Garson was in fine form as the March family's tart-tongued, yet wealthy matriarch, Aunt Josephine March. William Shatner was excellent as the German-born professor who befriended Jo in New York City, Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Although I found his German accent a bit questionable, I cannot deny that he managed to provide a great deal of energy and complexity to Friedrich's relationship with Jo. Cliff Potts gave a solid performance as Meg's love interest and Laurie's tutor, John Brooke. I can say the same about Virginia Gregg, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah Mullet. I wish I could provide a better opinion of William Schallert's portrayal of the sisters' father, John March, but his presence in the miniseries seemed very limited, aside from one scene that featured the birth of Meg's children. One performance really failed to impress me and it came from John de Lancie, who portrayed Laurie's English-born classmate from Harvard and Amy's suitor, Frank Vaughan (Fred in the novel). Quite frankly, I found his performance a bit off. Knowing de Lancie for the first-rate actor he truly is, I suspect that between Alcott and screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's writing, the character ended up as a flat, one-note plot device - a situation that not even de Lancie could rise above.

Yes, I had some issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". I found some of the production values questionable, especially some of Edith Head's costumes, the hairstyles and one particular character. But overall, I believe it proved to be a first-rate adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. If I must be frank, thanks to David Lowell Rich's direction, Suzanne Clauser's screenplay and a superb cast led by Susan Dey, I consider the 1978 adaptation of Alcott's novel to be among the three best I have ever seen.

[nerdyrevelries]

I have been procrastinating on finishing up the final two Alcott Adaptation August reviews because they are both going to be long for entirely different reasons. For 2019, I have some complicated and mostly negative feelings that I want to dig into. For 1978, it's because it's quickly become my favorite adaptation.

I watched it together with a friend, and we both expected it to be meme-worthy in a bad way because the only thing we really knew about it was that it had William Shatner as Professor Bhaer, and that seemed like a very odd casting choice. However, while I don't think his performance is perfect (I think he plays Professor Bhaer too angry at times when one of the reasons that Jo is a good match for him is that he helps calm her anger because he always keeps his temper himself) and the German accent is not good, I was very impressed overall. Wow is the chemistry between him and Susan Dey great.

The adaptation also avoids a lot of pitfalls that other adaptations fall into. It doesn't devote more of its runtime to part 1 of the novel than part 2. It doesn't majorly villainize Amy. It doesn't forget about the Civil War. It doesn't downplay Jo's temper and her struggles with it. It doesn't ship tease Jo and Laurie (it is always very clear that Jo is uncomfortable whenever Laurie tries to get romantic.) It doesn't ignore that Laurie has faults and needs to grow. It doesn't entirely drop Meg once she's married.

It's a very smart script and some excellent performances. Now, the production values are not good, as you said. (There's one scene where Amy has each half of her hair in a different style as if they were going to change it and got halfway done but then they decided they didn't have time and needed to shoot right away.) But as long as you can look past that, it's an excellent adaptation. No other adaptation is so true to the themes and characters of the book.

I hope that more people out there can give it a chance.

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (1978) Review

There have been many adaptations of "Little Women", Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. And I have seen most, if not all of the live-action versions. But the first adaptation I have ever seen was NBC's adaptation that first aired back in 1978. If I might be honest, I ended up developing a rather high opinion of it.

Since my first viewing of 1978's "LITTLE WOMEN", I have seen other adaptations. And over the years, I had developed this belief that this television production from 1978 had not been good as I had originally believed. It took many years for me to give this two-part miniseries a second chance. "LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of Josephine (Jo) March and her three sisters during the 1860s - Meg, Beth and Amy. The two-part miniseries opened during the Christmas holidays in December 1861 and follow the sisters, their other family members and friends throughout the Civil War and the early post-war years. Because Jo is the main character, despite being the second sister, this adaptation of "Little Women" has the distinction of being the only version that allows her to serve as narrator.

After my recent re-watch, I could see why my opinion of "LITTLE WOMEN" had diminished over the years . . . at least from a superficial point-of-view. To be blunt, I was not that impressed by the miniseries' production values. The entire production was shot on the Universal Studios backlot and one could sometimes see the California hills in the background. Granted, I still believe set decorator Richard G. Goddard, art director Howard E. Johnson and cinematographer Joseph F. Biroc did the best they could to recreate 1860s Concord, Massachusetts, New York City and Italy. But I did have a problem with the miniseries' costume designs. On the surface, they seemed . . . serviceable for a television production set during the 1860s. But if I must be frank, the costumes also looked as if they had been taken from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions. Even worse, all or most of the actresses seemed to be wearing mid-to-late 1970s shoes underneath their mid-19th century dresses and gowns. I was shocked to discover that one of Hollywood's most iconic costume designer, Edith Head, had created the miniseries' costumes. So . . . what on earth happened? Head had created the costumes? "LITTLE WOMEN" was not even Head's first or last period drama. So, what happened?

Did I have any other problems with "LITTLE WOMEN"? Well . . . I did not care for leading actress Susan Dey's hairstyle in the second part of the miniseries. I realize her character, Jo March, had cut her hair to raise funds for her mother's journey to Washington D.C. But her hair never grew back. Never. Instead, it remained shorter than it originally was and styled into a bob. Why? And I had a problem with two particular performances. I will discuss one of them later. The other involved leading lady Susan Dey serving as the miniseries' narrator. Do not get me wrong. Dey is a fine actress and did the best she could. But I found her narration a bit clunky and unnecessary, thanks to the words provided to her by screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's teleplay.

Despite my quibbles, I found a lot to admire about "LITTLE WOMEN". I believe its status as a two-part miniseries, instead of a movie, screenwriter Suzanne Clauser had plenty of opportunities to fully adapt Alcott's novel with less shortcuts and more depth. I have always believed that Alcott's novel was basically a coming-of-age story for Jo March and her three sisters. To me, this made any adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN" a major character study. And if there is one thing that the two-part miniseries did well was explore its characters and their situations with great depth.

This especially seemed to be the case of Jo's relationship with her neighbor and friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, his personal relationship with his grandfather James Laurence, Amy's European trip and her romantic travails, and Meg's relationship with Laurie's tutor John Brooke. I was especially impressed by the production's handling of Jo's relationship with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it very dynamic, thanks to Suzanne Clauser's screenplay, along with the performances involved. Some, but not all of the adaptations of Alcott's novel tend to forget - at times - that part of it spanned most of the U.S. Civil War. Fortunately, this adaptation never forgot. And as much as I seemed critical of the miniseries' narration, it also reminded television audiences that . . . yes, part of "LITTLE WOMEN" was partially set during the Civil War.

Speaking of performances, "LITTLE WOMEN" had the blessed luck to feature a first-rate cast. I may not have been impressed by the narration provided by Susan Dey (for which I blame another), I was more than impressed by her portrayal of the story's leading character, Josephine "Jo" March. I though she did a superb job in capturing Jo's mercurial personality and obsession with her developing profession as a writer. Meredith Baxter gave an excellent performance as the oldest March sister, Margaret "Meg" March. She conveyed Meg's vanity and obsession with the family's social status and stubborn refusal to give up her love for John Brooke. My only issue is that I believe the actress may have been a bit too old portraying a character that aged from 16 to her early 20s. Eve Plumb portrayed the shy, yet musical Elizabeth "Beth" March. I thought she did an excellent job of combining Beth's emotional, yet retiring nature and in the end, gave a very poignant performance. Ann Dusenberry was roughly 24 to 25 years old when she portrayed the youngest March sibling, Amy. Before my recent re-watch of "LITTLE WOMEN", I had assumed she was too old to portray a younger Amy. But upon my viewing, I realized that she actually managed to give a rather convincing and skillful performance of Amy during the war years (between ages 12 and 16) without to resorting to exaggerated histrionics. And I also admired her portrayal of the older Amy who found herself drawn between two men during her European trip.

I cannot deny that most of the actors who have portrayed Theodore "Laurie"/"Teddy" Laurence over the years gave some pretty damn good performances. But I believe that Richard Gilliland's portrayal of the emotional and moody "Laurie" has to be one of the two best I have ever seen, hands down. His only equal - at least in my eyes - is Jonah Hauer King's performance in the 2017 BBC miniseries. But if I had to choose my favorite portrayal of Laurie's stern, yet warm grandfather, James Laurence, it would be the one given by Hollywood icon Robert Young in this miniseries. May I be frank? I believe both actors provided some of the production's best dramatic moments in their depiction of the developing relationship between grandson and grandfather.

Dorothy McGuire gave a fine performance as Mrs. March aka "Marmie", the four sisters' mother. Thanks to the actress' performance, her Mrs. March seemed more like a well-rounded human being, instead of an archetype. Greer Garson was in fine form as the March family's tart-tongued, yet wealthy matriarch, Aunt Josephine March. William Shatner was excellent as the German-born professor who befriended Jo in New York City, Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Although I found his German accent a bit questionable, I cannot deny that he managed to provide a great deal of energy and complexity to Friedrich's relationship with Jo. Cliff Potts gave a solid performance as Meg's love interest and Laurie's tutor, John Brooke. I can say the same about Virginia Gregg, who portrayed the family's housekeeper, Hannah Mullet. I wish I could provide a better opinion of William Schallert's portrayal of the sisters' father, John March, but his presence in the miniseries seemed very limited, aside from one scene that featured the birth of Meg's children. One performance really failed to impress me and it came from John de Lancie, who portrayed Laurie's English-born classmate from Harvard and Amy's suitor, Frank Vaughan (Fred in the novel). Quite frankly, I found his performance a bit off. Knowing de Lancie for the first-rate actor he truly is, I suspect that between Alcott and screenwriter Suzanne Clauser's writing, the character ended up as a flat, one-note plot device - a situation that not even de Lancie could rise above.

Yes, I had some issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". I found some of the production values questionable, especially some of Edith Head's costumes, the hairstyles and one particular character. But overall, I believe it proved to be a first-rate adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. If I must be frank, thanks to David Lowell Rich's direction, Suzanne Clauser's screenplay and a superb cast led by Susan Dey, I consider the 1978 adaptation of Alcott's novel to be among the three best I have ever seen.

[nerdyrevelries]

Muppets Around the World in 80 Days. Kermit is Fogg, Gonzo is Passepartout, Miss Piggy is Aouda, and Fix is either played by Sam Eagle or is played by a human actor.

EXTRA: What actor and what character would you want to be the sole human?

[nerdyrevelries]

Teddy is like red flags personified in the March Sisters at Christmas.

And yet... It's a movie I still think about a lot because it's such a bizarre mix of really good ideas and great understandings of characters combined with some of the worst adaptational choices I have ever seen.

This movie has a pretty good understanding of Meg and Beth! Which is odd because they are frequently the ones who are given the least love in adaptations. This movie understands that Meg's entire deal is being a perfectionist and it leads to the lovely subplot between her and Beth with the career board where Beth stands up for herself and Meg realizes that just because something is right for her doesn't mean it's right for everyone.

And there are some very clever changes when it comes to Jo's plot as well. One of the things that people often struggle with about Jo's plot in the modern day is that we just don't view gothic literature as that bad anymore and, for some, that can make Professor Bhaer seem like the bad guy who is stifling Jo's creativity.

But in the book itself, you see that Jo isn't proud of her "pot boilers." She gets prickly when anyone says they liked a story she wrote. She publishes her stories in New York anonymously because she's ashamed at the idea of her family seeing them. Professor Bhaer is just reminding Jo of what she already knows: She's capable of better.

So, having Jo be a celebrity ghost writer feels like a perfect parallel. And the idea of Marcus being her publisher and thus having the right to critique her writing also helps it come across better to a modern audience.

But then there's the bad parts and they are so bad that they could be said to be character assassination. The Teddy, Mr. Laurence, and John stuff is all awful, as you already said. And somehow the way Amy's plot gets treated manages to be even worse.

The whole thing is baffling. It feels like the movie had multiple writers even though it only had one. I have such curiosity about the process of making this because the whole thing feels inexplicable. I would pay good money to get some behind the scenes information about how this movie came together.

THE MARCH SISTERS AT CHRISTMAS:::

Am I supposed to find teddy cute? He is fucking toxic. He's supposed to be the "best friend" to jo and helplessly in love with her, but he continuously ignores her boundaries. When he declares his love for her and she very gently turns him down - he storms out, gets drunk with her baby sister who he then tries to kiss, gets caught sleeping on the couch with by jo - and when Jo's editor shows up at the door, he makes a fool of himself by acting like a bastard, once again ignoring jo who asks him to leave - even picking her up and moving her. He is every warning sign there is.

[nerdyrevelries]

Edward Rochester and Howl Pendragon at a bar in modern Wales: Chugging drinks! Yelling at ref calls in the rugby game on the telly! Playing drunken rugby outside! Coming back in to buy everyone a round! Crying about how much they love their wives!

Meanwhile, Jane Rochester and Sophie Pendragon, drinking tea

Jane: So, he dressed up as a fortune teller! Trying to get me to confess my feelings for him!

Sophie: That's nothing. Let me tell you about the time Howl had a mental breakdown because he dyed his hair the wrong color.

One long story later...

Sophie, sipping her tea: Love him, tho

[nerdyrevelries]

It gets worse because that quote in Little Women 2019 is supposedly based on a similar one from Rose in Bloom, but Rose in Bloom is not only dealing with the opposite circumstances (a rich girl dealing with suitors who are only interested in her money) but also comes to the opposite conclusion.

It was impossible for [Rose] to help seeing, hearing, guessing [that her fortune was her chief attraction] from a significant glance, a stray word, a slight hint here and there, and the quick instinct of a woman felt even before it understood the self-interest which chilled for her so many opening friendships. In her eyes love was a very sacred thing, hardly to be thought of till it came, reverently received and cherished faithfully to the end. Therefore, it is not strange that she shrank from hearing it flippantly discussed and marriage treated as a bargain to be haggled over, with little thought of its high duties, great responsibilities, and tender joys.

— Louisa May Alcott, Rose in Bloom

The place where Little Women does get closest to this type of speech is in one of Amy's letters back home.

Now I know Mother will shake her head, and the girls say, “Oh, the mercenary little wretch!”, but I’ve made up my mind, and if Fred asks me, I shall accept him, though I’m not madly in love. I like him, and we get on comfortably together. He is handsome, young, clever enough, and very rich—ever so much richer than the Laurences. I don’t think his family would object, and I should be very happy, for they are all kind, well-bred, generous people, and they like me. Fred, as the eldest twin, will have the estate, I suppose, and such a splendid one it is! A city house in a fashionable street, not so showy as our big houses, but twice as comfortable and full of solid luxury, such as English people believe in. I like it, for it’s genuine. I’ve seen the plate, the family jewels, the old servants, and pictures of the country place, with its park, great house, lovely grounds, and fine horses. Oh, it would be all I should ask! And I’d rather have it than any title such as girls snap up so readily, and find nothing behind. I may be mercenary, but I hate poverty, and don’t mean to bear it a minute longer than I can help. One of us must marry well. Meg didn’t, Jo won’t, Beth can’t yet, so I shall, and make everything okay all round. I wouldn’t marry a man I hated or despised. You may be sure of that, and though Fred is not my model hero, he does very well, and in time I should get fond enough of him if he was very fond of me, and let me do just as I liked.

— Louisa May Alcott, Little Women

As opposed to the example in Little Women 2019, it seems to be about:

Amy knowing that her family would object and feeling like she has to explain.

Reassuring her family that it isn't completely mercenary in nature because she likes Fred well enough and doesn't think they will be unhappy and that they can fall in love in time.

Amy perhaps feeling a little bit guilty about doing something that goes against the way she was raised and feeling like she has to justify her actions not just to her family but to herself.

Whereas the example in Little Women 2019 is fully about the ways in which women had it tough back then and their lack of options. But it doesn't feel like a narrative that rings completely true because while she is correct about, "Even if I had my own money, which I don't, it would belong to my husband the minute we were married. If we had children they would belong to him, not me. They would be his property," we can't just ignore when she says, "And as a woman I have no way to make money, not enough to earn a living and support my family."

And the reason for that is that Louisa May Alcott herself did work her entire life to support her family. And I don't just mean with her writing. She worked in service, she did some acting, she did sewing, and many other things. In fact, Amos Bronson Alcott was famously not a good earner for his family. The family lived on the work of his wife Abigail and then his daughters as well as the charity of their friends.

Would she be able to earn as much as a man in these non-writing jobs? Of course not, but to act like women had no options when this was an age of women going to work in unprecedented numbers feels disingenuous. Especially since Louisa May Alcott made a ton of money during her lifetime. She would have been a millionaire in today's money. It feels odd to erase that in this particular speech when the movie seems to otherwise be so focused on equating Jo March with Louisa May Alcott.

Translating Period Dramas for Today

I finally got around to watching Little Women (2019) directed by Greta Gerwig and there was a scene that felt very familiar.

When Amy March is giving her speech to Laurie, talking about how marrying just for love isn't a practical option for her, it reminded me a lot of Charlotte Luca's words to Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice (2005).

"So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition, because it is. It may not be for you but it most certainly is for me." - Amy March

"I'm twenty-seven years old, I've no money and no prospects. I'm already a burden to my parents and I'm frightened. So don't you judge me, Lizzy. Don't you dare judge me!" - Charlotte Lucas

Both are from more modernized versions of period dramas where the book is written by an author that was actually from the time period.

Both feel like the characters are anachronistically defending themselves against modern day feminists, saying "Don't judge me! I'm making the smartest decision I can given my opportunities in society in this time period!"

Which is fair I guess, but it feels out of place. Maybe a woman from that time would say that, but they wouldn't have been defending themselves as much against our modern-day sensibilities of "Marry whoever you want! It's completely your choice! Or don't marry at all! You can do whatever you want with your life!"

It feels like an attempt by modern producers and writers to translate the period drama character's circumstances to a modern audience.

But it still feels weird.

Book!Charlotte never seemed like she was defensive. She was just like, "Hey this is who I am, Lizzy. I got a sweet deal and it works for me."

It's like modern period dramas are afraid to be period dramas. Granted, I do appreciate the little bits of expositional dialogue that helps explain historical things to the audience that they might not know, like how Longbourne can only be inherited by the next male heir, but I wonder if there's a better way to translate stories to audiences today without characters having to give speeches about how you shouldn't judge a woman for lack of agency when the patriarchal society of that time period has left her little to none of it. (Still a fair point though.)

What do y'all think?

[nerdyrevelries]

My kingdom for an adaptation of something Louisa May Alcott wrote other than Little Women. I would kill for an adaptation of Behind a Mask.

i think that jane austen really is unique in that nearly all of her novels get pretty fair-handed treatment by her fandom. yes p&p probably has the most adaptations and general populace knowledge but i think a lot of people would know emma (especially after the recent movie) and (depending on how old you are) sense and sensibility.

whereas i wonder how many average jane eyre enjoyers know about villette and shirley. or viewers of anne with an e know lm montgomery wrote about 3 other series with similar themes. or louisa may alcott wrote several other novels under her own name and a pseudonym.

and of course it does have to do with the fact that very few of these other books have adaptations.

i’m salty about that.

NB: this is in no way shading jane austen. i grew up on the bbc productions of p&p and emma and made me like classic literature a lot more than otherwise. but still. but still.