Little Women by Louisa May Alcott tells the story of the March's, a family of six consisting of four daughters. The story revolves around the growth of the daughters, with each of them acting on improving a flaw as the story progresses. In recent years, critics have voiced their disdain over the character Margaret "Meg" March. Meg is often described as the most womanly from the start of the novel, and the most idealized woman. Today's media, however, critique her for her lack of independence and general complacency. Her life is by far the most ordinary, and in my eyes she is unfairly criticized for having a normal life.
To preface my argument, Meg is by no form my favorite character. However, I find myself confused as to the general hatred towards Meg. While not to say Meg has no flaws, her flaws dwarf those of Amy and Jo. Amy is a complete brat in the first part, with her own mother even acknowledging that she is "getting to be altogether too conceited and important" for her own good (Alcott 61). She initially refuses to spend as much money as her sisters on their mother's Christmas gift, and even burns Jo's manuscript in the end. In Jo's case, she has a nasty temper, so much to the point that she let Amy fall through the ice while skating, even thinking in her head that "'No matter whether she heard or not, let her take care of herself'", showing her awareness at letting Amy fall through the ice (Alcott 66). To me, those flaws are more of a negative than Meg's complacency.
Meanwhile, I found myself liking Meg as a character. While I do understand the argument that she is a very simple and non-independent character, I don't agree that she is to be hated for it. There are plenty of people in today's world who don't place heavy emphasis on independence and aren't criticized for it. In fact, with Meg being such a loving mother, she holds many positive traits as well. Her care is shown from the beginning of the story, and she is introduced as the daughter who suggests the daughters ";make our little sacrifices, and ought to do it gladly. But I am afraid I don't'" (Alcott 11). She thinks of her loved ones before herself, and is a genuinely pleasant person as well. She possesses a "sweet mouth" (Alcott 13) and is described by Major Lincoln as "'the fresh little girl, with the beautiful eyes'" (Alcott 74), and is also generally well-liked by other characters. With her transition to a complete motherly character in the second half of the novel, her transformation into the perfect little woman she wanted to be is completed, and I don't think Meg can be faulted for being a genuinely nice person.
These are my thoughts, and it is very possible I am wrong. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this topic.
I completely agree with your defense of Meg. I take issue with some facets of her character and her immediate willingness to submit to John and her tendency to fall to the role of “docile daughter” (392). A few parts of the novel, like the jam fiasco and Meg’s concerns about being “wife enough” for John on pages 390-394, make me uncomfortable within the context of today’s social climate and my own feminist tendencies, but I think a lot of people underestimate the sincerity of Meg’s desires. Just because what Meg wants is seen as socially acceptable doesn’t negate the possibility that she genuinely wants it. This point of view is enforced when she defends John Booker to Aunt March on 229-232- if Meg was solely conforming to typical societal desires, she would have succumbed to the societal standards of marrying someone well-off instead of a poor lowly tutor. She married John because she loved him, and she loves Demi and Daisy with her whole heart because her “maternal instinct was very strong” (388). I think the whole point of feminism is to let women choose the life they lead, whether that be as a housewife or in the White House, emphasis on the word “choose” (it’s not a choice if women don’t feel empowered to go with the other option, but that’s a whole other discussion). Shaming Meg for her (mostly) openly willing choices invalidates the women today who willingly choose to be full-time moms. Just because someone doesn’t make the choice you would, doesn’t mean it’s not a valid option.
ReplyDeleteI agree that by modern standards, Meg may seem more traditional and as a character that conforms to the views of what a woman in society should look like in the 1860s. She would certainly not be seen as a feminist in her time, or in ours. However, I do find Meg to be a likable character, and one that shows more independence than she is given credit for. Initially, she tries to fit into upper society by allowing herself to be dressed up and paraded around like a doll. She feels ashamed after this, and strives to avoid trying to be something she is not as she moves forward. I think one of her more independent decisions was to marry John. Her aunt is furious and says, “Don’t expect anything from me when you are married; your Mr. Brooke’s friends must take care of you. I’m done with you forever” (Alcott, 231). It is at this moment that Meg realizes that she does have feelings for John. She decides to follow her heart, and marry for love, rather than wealth as her aunt desires. This is a decision Meg makes for herself. She does have her parents support, but no one pushes her towards marriage. She independently chooses love and happiness over wealth, and I think that is something that people then, and people today can admire.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Meg’s personal flaws and “bosom enemies” seem less severe than those of her sisters, but she still experiences much growth and character development throughout the novel (Alcott 10). Albeit, there are a few specific life lessons she must learn and relearn more than once. Meg’s fondness of luxury plagues her relationships with other people, because she can “remember a time when [life was] full of ease and pleasure, and want of any kind unknown” (35). When she experiences life in the lap of luxury in the company of the Moffats, she finds herself lamenting her family’s poverty in comparison to the wealth and perceived happiness of “the big house.” But when she returns home, a lesson from her mother helps her to realize that money really cannot buy happiness, and that love is what truly makes a family rich and happy.
ReplyDeleteWith this epiphany, it seems that Meg has learned her lesson. Yet, following this revelation, she faces many more challenges where she must learn – or rather, relearn – to accept and embrace her lot in life: most notably, her marriage to John Brooke. Meg marries this poor but hard-working man because she truly loves him, but after some extravagant spending, she tells John she is “tired of being poor” (283). This triggers their first major argument as a married couple. Once they reconcile, it seems that Meg has finally, officially learned her lesson: that love and hard work make a happy life, not wealth or luxury.
In the previous class, I defended Meg stating that she has grown from being one of my least favorite characters in the novel to on of my favorites. However, when my viewpoint was challenged I had a very hard time naming exactly what was so honorable about Meg. I found myself agreeing that her uninteresting personality and lack of obvious flaws make her an unlikable character. The way you worded your defense of her fits very well into the perception I have of her as a character.
ReplyDeleteOne point I would like to add to your overall argument, which you touched on in your third paragraph is how Meg breaks some of the conventions used in Little Women. Alcott argues that independence is something that everyone should strive for, primarily through Jo. Jo always craves independence and when she finally achieves some of it through her writing, it ends up helping the family financially. Additionally, it could be argued that if she never found her independence through writing, she wouldn't have met Professor Bhaer. Overall, independence is a must-have for all sisters, except for Meg. Meg finds her happiness through her relationships rather than through her own independence, which I believe is a perfectly respectable way of living your life. I would compare Meg's journey to that of Dick in Ragged Dick. The quality of their character allowed them to find the success they deserved through the people they met and the lessons they learned from them.
Unfortunately it won't let me edit my response, but I would like to add one small thing. One of the most cited lines from the book is Jo's line: "'I’d rather do everything for myself, and be perfectly independent’”(Alcott 297). Jo is revered for her independence by critics, but I would argue that Meg deserves some praise as well for her kindness and ability to grow.
Delete