The Man for Jo March

By Trix Wilkins

In The Courtship of Jo March, does Mr Bhaer ever come into the picture? Do Laurie and Jo’s marriage end up as dramatic as their friendship? Etain, A Homeschooling Life

We are into Post 3 of answers to questions from The Courtship of Jo March Comment Challenge, and I have to just say a big thank you to Etain for these particular questions – I really had fun with them! Having an excuse to delve into the love life of Jo March? It’s almost like getting to write the novel all over again 🙂 Writing this reply, I had to stop myself from waxing random like…now.

The best friend: Theodore Laurence

Theodore Laurence PIC
Photo courtesy of Columbia Pictures (1994)

I’m afraid that just as the original only lightly touched on Jo’s marriage, so does this variation. It opens on Laurie in college, Amy in Europe, and Meg having just had twins Demi and Daisy (and in order to have certain historical events available for the plot, it is set in the early 1870s instead of the 1860s). The novel closes exactly ten years after the events of the original Little Women chapter “Castles in the air.”

So no huge details on what Jo and Laurie might have been like married. What the novel does cover is that tense, ambiguous stage between friendship and matrimony – those tricky scenarios in which it would have been plausible for them to interact, to have the sort of conversations they needed to have, yet also conduct themselves within the bounds of propriety (or at most only a whiff of scandal).

The friendship

Jo laurie friendship PIC

In Little Women, as friends, Jo and Laurie had to learn to communicate effectively, negotiate conflict, and resolve tension and disagreements. They had passionate quarrels and misunderstandings, encounters which we were rarely given privy to witnessing firsthand although we were informed somehow that they happened.

Despite the turbulence, there was also repentance, forgiveness, and restoration of a deep and enjoyable friendship. Jo and Laurie remained fiercely loyal to and protective of each other no matter the quarrel.

I expect that in any relationship where there is open communication and a feeling of safety to be oneself without fear of losing affection, there are bound to be disagreements. No two people being identical in thinking, there are bound to be misunderstandings. And conflict being an inevitable part of any relationship, there is bound to be the need to develop skills to negotiate it lovingly and effectively.

The courtship

Jo Laurie courtship PIC

One of the main ideas of the variation was to place Jo and Laurie in the circumstances in which they would have grown and matured into people who not only fit well together, but struck the balance between challenging each other to greater heights whilst remaining a safe harbor for one another.

I would say that in one sense their relationship in the variation is even more turbulent than their friendship in Little Women, there being stronger emotions involved in a courtship than a friendship. In another sense, it is less. In Little Women, Jo and Laurie had been teenagers with very set plans for their lives and a general unwillingness to compromise. They wanted fame and fortune above all else.

In The Courtship of Jo March, Beth March and Frank Vaughn play a significant role in Jo and Laurie’s rethinking these ambitions, as well the ways in which they related to one another. How often it is that we can only imagine another way something can be done, when we see someone we love and esteem doing it first! So yes, Jo and Laurie have dramas – but they are better equipped to handle them well.

The Professor: Friedrich Bhaer

Photo courtesy of the Paris Review. I haven’t used the photo from the 1994 movie because Professor Bhaer has yellow hair. William Shatner doesn’t have yellow hair either, but it’s at least a bit lighter and he has the accurate build.

Does he come into the picture in the variation? Yes, he does. I should warn however that while his appearance is significant to the story-line, he does not play the sort of role that he does in Good Wives. What I can tell you is that Laurie and the Professor do discuss Jo; all three interact before anyone is married to anyone else; and all three happen to attend the same ball at a point in the story.

(I actually quite like Professor Bhaer, and it was a brilliant stick to the social establishment for Louisa May Alcott to have written her heroine’s lover as a man whose attractiveness was solely internal – he was all character; no looks, no wealth, no status. Still, despite the Professor’s merits, I thought Laurie suited Jo better. And so continues the hundred and fifty year old debate ;))

The fellow writer: Tommy Chamberlain

Photo courtesy of Miramax (2001). No, he wasn’t in the movie, this is of Hugh Jackman from Kate and Leopold, but I imagine Tommy would’ve looked like him.

Does anyone recall Tommy Chamberlain from the original Good Wives? He is mentioned only once during a conversation between Jo and Amy, and for some reason I have always been curious about this character. Why was he mentioned at all? What sort of friendship did he and Jo have and how did she come to know enough of his character to approve it?

Since details were scanty, just about everything about Tommy Chamberlain in The Courtship of Jo March is my speculation as to the sort of character Louisa May Alcott intended him to be. All Good Wives tells us is that he was poor and the grocer’s son – as well as the fact that Jo liked him. He plays a significant role in this variation as Jo’s friend, a fellow writer and an aspirant journalist.

related posts:


    • I disagree that Laurie is the man for Jo. She says it herself when she talks to Meg after Beth dies; “Boys go nutting, and I don’t care to be bagged by them.” Jo and her mother agree that she and Laurie aren’t suited to one another temperamentally, that Laurie is too much of a “weathercock” to be relied on at that stage of his life, and that their quarrels would be more serious if they were marriage partners. Jo realizes that she is not the elegant and refined mate that could grace Laurie’s home and position in life, and she quite clearly states that “she couldn’t bear a rich husband.” She knows instinctively that she and Laurie do not “fit” together.
      On the other hand, Jo is immediately attracted to Bhaer because of his kindness, his love of people, and his intellect. She doesn’t realize it at the time, but her hero worship of him in New York gives birth to her falling in love with him after Beth dies and she is lonely for a man to love. Perhaps the reader is disappointed in the physical plainness of Mr. Bhaer (that’s why movies always clean him up a little) but Jo takes pleasure in his oddities, and she admires the fact that he is a German. She has always been “topsy-turvy” and so is he. She finds his nephews more interesting than her female charges at Mrs. Kirke’s, and she just can’t help regaling her folks with his activities when she writes home.
      Jo needs Bhaer’s maturity, and Bhaer needs her youth, and they just “fit” together as Jo and Laurie never would have. Bhaer helps her to fulfill her dream of taking in boys and being a mother to them. On the other hand, Laurie helps Amy to fulfill her dream of being rich enough to help struggling artists by sharing the Laurence wealth. Jo is very happy with her life as “Mother Bhaer,” and Amy is very happy playing “Lady Bountiful.” With the exception of Bhaer, the other characters have grown into their eventual roles in life, especially Jo, who never thinks twice about giving up her liberty for this “mortal man.”
      Since Jo cares nothing for Laurie’s good looks or wealth, she can find only friendship in her heart for him; besides, she has played “mother” to him for years, and mothers don’t generally fall in love with their sons. By no stretch of the` imagination can Jo be the woman Laurie needs for his place in society, but Laurie sees that Amy fits the role perfectly once he is away from Jo for awhile. Since Alcott makes it very clear that all parties are infinitely happy at the end of LITTLE WOMEN, why not quit debating the Laurie/Jo question and just enjoy the book? I do hope the MASTERPIECE version coming out in 2018 won’t completely dissect the novel and make it into something quite different than what Alcott wrote. At least, I hope they get Jo and the Professor right.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks so much for commenting, what an incredible argument indeed for Jo and the Professor! I think one of the ways I enjoy books is to debate what happens to who and why, and think about the what ifs and the things that are uncertain or could have been different (though that’s not everyone’s cup of tea undoubtedly!). I too am looking forward very much to the new version of Little Women – I agree, I hope it is faithful to the narrative in capturing the wonderful connections between all the characters, the emotion, and dare I add the morality of the novel.


        • Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You mentioned the morality of the original story. I just finished reading JO’S BOYS, and I was struck by the many references to the Lord and quotes from Scripture Alcott used. In this novel, Jo and the Professor even have prayers together. As a mater of fact, the ending had me tearing up because one of the boys had ruined his life and, although possessed of a great love for Laurie’s daughter Bess, could never hope to have her. He repented, of course, but his consequences were truly heartbreaking. He ended up being a missionary to Indians in the West and died trying to defend them.
          Mark Stanley, a 29-year-old actor, will be playing Bhaer in the Masterpiece series. I had never heard of him, but he apparently is popular in England. I’ve heard him speak in an interview on YouTube, and I believe putting on a German accent will be challenging for him, as well as looking and acting about fifteen years older than Jo. We shall see.
          I live in Southeast Texas, where Hurricane Harvey dumped –I think they said 33 trillion
          gallons of water, flooding and doing terrible damage to lives here. Our home was spared, thanks be to God, but during the days of unrelenting rain I amused myself by binge-watching five film and TV versions of LITTLE WOMEN. I was so vexed that Bhaer was limited in his screen time that I wrote my own “screenplays,” adding plausible scenes that would flesh out the Jo/Professor relationship. If I were able to talk to a Christian producer, I would propose a screenplay for a more “Christian” film using the material often overlooked when others have tried to adapt the novel. Great ideas but, alas! no outlet for them!
          Thanks again for your comment. Blessings!


          • Ohhhh Jo’s Boys made me cry too! Thank you so much for this comment and for sharing so openly about how things are going – what a relief to have your home spared, and at the same time how heartbreaking to also know how many homes weren’t, and also that we can come to the Lord with both gratitude and grief, even when there are no words that can be said to express the pain, the anguish.

            I’ve always wondered what a screenplay of Little Women – or even a play on stage! – would be like were it to retain more of its Christian ideas, particularly Marmee’s speeches and letters to her girls. I’d be curious to know what you made of Jo and Professor Bhaer’s interactions, especially of the time that Jo relates through her letters before Laurie’s proposal. (I always feel Jo and Laurie don’t get enough screen time, but I think this shows our “bents” in regards to those relationships! ;)) Any takers for say a local production, maybe a Christmas play by a local school or even a Christian school?


            • I’m afraid the screenplay I have in mind would be rather long for adaptation into a stage play–and I believe there is a stage play already done. I’ve never seen it, and I don’t know if one can check it out of the library. Music would be a major part of my screenplay; I’ve researched the songs Beth mentioned, and they seem to all have the theme of going to Heaven, which Beth mentions several times in the novel. One of my pet peeves is that the screenwriters like to rearrange the chronology of the novel when it really doesn’t have to be altered. The chapter where the girls take an “all play and no work” vacation could be hilarious if done correctly (remember, Jo cooks dinner, and it turns out really bad.) Beth is the most heavenly minded of the girls, and she can also show how she is Jo’s “conscience” in various scenes. I just don’t really know how to contact anyone with the power to actually make a Christian LITTLE WOMEN happen. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Masterpiece product looks like. But I have a feeling………

              Liked by 1 person

              • I love that chapter of all play and no work actually and yes that could be really hilarious! I also am longing to see someone include the chapter in which Jo visits Laurie when he’s sick and when she goes over and helps make peace between Laurie and his grandfather. That’s a huge question about contacting someone in the industry…Do you happen to have a website by any chance? Or if you’re willing to do an “interview” it would be an honor to feature your work on the play and passion for Little Women on this blog 🙂


        • As far as the Masterpiece adaptation is concerned, I am a little uneasy about the fact that LITTLE WOMEN is an American work, and the British may not capture the American spirit in their version. The made-for-tv piece done in the ’70s was just a little shrill, and rearranged some of the action. One thing I can say for it, however, is that they had the most accurate presentation of Professor Bhaer of any of the filmed versions I have seen. Unfortunately, Bhaer doesn’t get enough screen time in most films; we don’t see how their relationship develops. Just for fun I have written “scenes” that would put more meat on the bones of the relationship that would explain how the Professor could fall in love with Jo–and she with him finally. Anyway, I wish there were a way to hurry up the American viewing of the Masterpiece LITTLE WOMEN. The suspense is making me nervous!


          • Ahhhh I admit I’m extremely curious as to how this new adaptation will make for a different rendering of the story! I’m not surprised a young actor was cast for Professor Bhaer – in books the emphasis can’t help but be on the words he says, the things he does, what Jo thinks of him, rather than his looks or the figure he cuts, and for producers to follow Louisa’s exact description of a portly forty year old might feel like too much of a risk.

            I am now really curious too as to how these scenes you write of between Jo and the Professor go! (Have you read Gabrielle Donnelly’s Little Women Letters by any chance? She fleshes out that concept a bit in her novel also and I suspect you might enjoy it :)) Any chance of a peek…? Or please do let me know when the production of your play/movie comes out!!


  1. Oh Friedrich all the way. He has always been my favorite character in Little Women and the most interesting one. Yes, sometimes it frustrates me how little Louisa actually writes about him in good wives. Funny thing is I´ve never imagined him looking ugly. I was 17-18 when I first time read the good wives and I loved that when they meet Jo has a crush on Friedrich and then she spends all that time writing about him to her family and there is attraction between them and when Jo´s feelings become deeper she sees him more and more handsome. To me that was always very beautiful and realistic way to portray how it is to fall in love with someone. I recently wrote about my Friedrich-love but it might not be suitable for hardcore-Laurie fans lol I like Laurie but I thought he was way too flicky for Jo.


      • It is always about personal preferences. Sometimes the whole Fritz/Laurie debate frustrates me when some individuals just choose to hate certain characters. Their faults make them human. Another one of my favorites is Amy. I think she has one of the best story archs in LW the way she grows from a vain child into a kind caring woman. Too many people ignore that. I´ve always had bit love/hate relationship with Laurie. He wasn´t very supportive on Jo´s writings and it bothered me that he didn´t want to go college. Even when he met Amy in Europe he wasn´t very supportive on her artistic talents either (but he was quite bitter at time). Sometimes I even wonder could it have been Laurie´s influence that Amy thought that she wasn´t good enough to be a professional artist. She doesn´t have to be one since she is married to a wealthy man but as a reader I think it would have been more satisfying to see her reaching higher. I´d rather have a guy like Fritz or even John Brooke. I recently re-read Little Women and there was a scene where Meg was made fun of for being a governess and John supported Meg and said that being a governess was a respectable job for independent ladies (I think it was the camp Laurie chapter). Too bad Meg didn´t really have much ambitions of her own.


        • Hi, Nina! I read your comments with interest. I’ve read LITTLE WOMEN countless times over about 50 years, and I find that it cleans and refreshes my spirit when the world gets too nasty. When I read it at first, I couldn’t understand why Jo wasn’t head over heels in love with Laurie, but now I realize why she didn’t fall in love with him. When they met she was a tomboy whose fantasy world was full of romance, but she wasn’t ready to think of boys romantically herself. Laurie, on the other hand, was a lonely boy who yearned for the love and comfort the March girls and their mother offered. Jo soon became more than a friend to him because of her special attentions to him. She herself thinks of him in motherly terms (she refers to her having ‘raised’ him). I think the text supports his interest in all the girls’ activities, but he gets frustrated at times with Jo because she prefers to write instead of go out with him.
          Meg wants to be rich, but she always puts this desire in the context of having a husband, home, and children–like Marmee. Remember, Nina, being a really good wife and mother is a calling, too. Someone once said, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Meg grows into a mature, loving mother who tries to be the best homemaker she could be–and she is honored for it.
          Amy is just a little girl when Laurie comes on the scene. It takes years of Amy being away from home and the refining influences of the European culture upon her to make Laurie see her in a totally different way. Laurie is still interested in her art but, by this time, even Amy realizes that she has no genius for creation of art, so she turns her attention to marrying well. If Laurie hadn’t come along, she could very well have married Fred Vaughn; luckily Laurie arrives just in time to save her from making the worst mistake of her life and, in Amy, he finds the lovely girl who adores him and fits in with his wealthy, cultured world–just like Jo had predicted.
          When Jo goes to New York she is absorbed in her writing and in making money to send home. She comes to admire and respect Bhaer very quickly, but she still isn’t concerned with romance. Not until she realizes that she is missing something in her life, that she is truly lonely– even in the midst of her loving family– does she begin to think of Bhaer as a man she can love and be loved by. One fault in the novel is that Alcott neglects to inject that Jo and Bhaer must surely have been writing to one another; at least a couple of years have gone by before Bhaer shows up at her door. By this time Jo is making a living with her writing, but she has also outgrown the more tomboyish aspects of her personality, and the death of Beth has given her a depth of character that she’d never had before. At 25 she is “old” by her own description, and she and Bhaer are actually more suited to one another.
          I hope this tome hasn’t bored you to death! Keep re-reading LITTLE WOMEN and I think you will continue to make new discoveries about it. God Bless You!—Karen White


          • It’s a joy to read of another Little Women fan, and what you wrote about Meg’s doing the role of wife and mother well being a worthy ambition (not to mention a multifaceted demanding job!) is an important point to make. Some of the most admirable and talented women I know are full-time wives and mothers whose families thrive because they do it well :). It may not look great on a resume but its worth – short and long term, and not only for their families but society at large – is incalculable.


          • Yes Karen, sorry for the late reply. Indeed being a mother and having a husband can be a great richness. I always saw Meg as the most romantic of all four girls and John is definitely one of the greatest guys in LW. The way I see it Laurie was jealous of Jo´s attention which is why he didn´t always appreciate her writings. Laurie was also quite unaware of his privileged position and he didn´t understood Jo´s need for writing, which is opposite to Friedrich who understands that Jo has the same passion for writing that he has for teaching. Laurie and Jo were brothers. How many times in the books she said she wish she could have been born as a boy. Countless times. Such term as gender fluid was not used back in those days but Jo is clearly a gender fluid character. The models of masculinity that she was surrounded with though had lots of misogyny. She and Laurie make fun of the femme ladies he flirts with, they talk about running away and having all kinds of adventures but it is also the toxic side of masculinity that Jo is absorbing not only from Laurie but also from her father and older mr lawrence at times which makes her despise those traditional roles of women that her sisters are conditioned to follow. Laurie breaks the brotherly bond when he develops feelings for Jo and up to that point Jo has seen their relationship as equal but then Laurie becomes possessive over her and his behaviour is extremely intrusive. Tender side of Laurie comes out more with his interactions with Beth and Amy than it does with Jo since they are both alpha´s. When Jo meets Friedrich the traditional gender roles that she is familiar with are turned upside down since he breaks all of them. I also find it so interesting how LMA makes Friedrich the complete opposite of Laurie. He is older, poor, has more self-control and he has more emotional intelligence. (Laurie does get there as well but through Amy who does not mother him the way Jo does). LIke the book says Jo forgot to compare Fritz to Laurie like he did with most men. She is extremely fixated on Fritz physically and mentally. He has all those qualities that are traditionally considered feminine that Jo appreciates in a man. He loves kids, he is honest, he practices radical kindness and he is also just as independent as Jo is and he respects her. For me the best example of this is the proposal where he doesn´t even ask her to marry him, he asks if she could love him, and by that he gives Jo all the power. Friedrich is also very comfortable in his own skin and that inspires Jo not to change, he inspires her to be just as unconventional woman as she wants to be. In Little Men I see Nat as a continuance of Laurie and the whole gender identity theme. He is refered as more of a “girl” because he is sensitive, plays music and his features are more similar to young poetic Laurie and it is referred how Jo prefer more “manly” boys. Friedrich is differently built than Laurie since Fritz is stout and has a beard which at least in the 19th century context was seen more manly outlook. This happens again in Jo´s boys where Meg doesn´t consider Nat manly enough for Daisy but when Nat returns from Europe and is more jacked he is suddenly seen more “manly”.

            As much as I love little women Hollywood in general tends to romanticise Jo and Laurie simply because it is the Hollywood narration that love only belongs to young and attractive people and the film and tv adaptations tend to ignore the gender identity themes of the books and turn it into some tragic love story which is silly since Jo didn´t have romantic feeling over Laurie in the books. I am exited to see Greta Gerwick´s version since I heard that it is going to focus more to the gender identity theme like the books do. This came really long but this what happens when I start to write about Little Women I guess you can both understand the way it is.


        • I’ve always seen Laurie as supportive of Jo’s writing – though I definitely agree with you that it would have been more satisfying to have seen Amy reach higher in terms of her artistic talents in Little Women (we get to see it more in the sequels though :)). John Brooke I think is my favorite of the LW men and I love that you referenced that scene in Camp Laurence between him and Meg, that’s a favorite of mine too 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s