Louisa May Alcott
Page 1
ALSO BY SUSAN CHEEVER
Desire
American Bloomsbury
My Name Is Bill
As Good as I Could Be
Note Found in a Bottle
A Woman’s Life
Treetops
Elizabeth Cole
Doctors and Women
Home Before Dark
The Cage
A Handsome Man
Looking for Work
Simon & Schuster
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
www.SimonandSchuster.com
Copyright © 2010 by Susan Cheever
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. For information address Simon & Schuster Subsidiary Rights Department, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
First Simon & Schuster hardcover edition November 2010
SIMON & SCHUSTER and colophon are registered trademarks of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-866-506-1949 or business@simonandschuster.com.
The Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors to your live event. For more information or to book an event, contact the Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau at 1-866-248-3049 or visit our website at www.simonspeakers.com.
Designed by Jill Putorti
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Cheever, Susan.
Louisa May Alcott / Susan Cheever.
p. cm.
1. Alcott, Louisa May, 1832–1888. 2. Authors, American—19th century—Biography. I. Title.
PS1018.C47 2011
813’.4—dc22
[B] 2010005879
ISBN 978-1-4165-6991-6
ISBN 978-1-4165-7024-0 (ebook)
For my daughter, Sarah.
Contents
Preface: A Trip to Concord
1 Trailing Clouds of Glory. 1832–1839
2 Concord. Louisa in Exile. 1840–1843
3 Fruitlands. Family in Crisis. 1843–1848
4 Boston. “Stick to Your Teaching.” 1848–1858
5 Orchard House. 1858–1862
6 Fredericksburg. At the Union Hospital. 1863–1865
7 The Writer. 1861–1867
8 Little Women. 1868–1872
9 Success. 1873–1880
10 Lulu. 1880–1888
Epilogue: 2009
Acknowledgments
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Preface: A Trip to Concord
For more than a century, the portrait of Little Women’s Jo March, a young woman who is as rebellious as she is talented, has offered readers a kind of sympathy and guidance that didn’t seem to be available anywhere else. I was twelve when my mother handed me Little Women, and the book electrified me. It was as if this woman from long ago was living inside my head. Here was a story about girls doing the things I did; a story about being obsessed with how a dress might look, or trying hard to be a good girl and then finding that, somehow, one’s actions were those of a bad girl. Jo got so angry at her pesky little sister Amy, who had thrown Jo’s manuscript into the fire, that she almost let Amy drown.
The younger, prettier Amy is the voice of conventional wisdom in Little Women. “I detest rude, unladylike girls,” she sniffs at Jo who retorts, “I hate niminy piminy chits.”1 Like Jo, I was uncomfortable with the pink trappings of conventional girls, the lipstick and the curlers that my classmates wielded with mysterious teenage panache. Like Jo, I disdained the efforts by niminy piminy chits to look feminine and elegant; at the same time I yearned to look feminine and elegant anyway.
Jo lived with women who delighted in food (the popovers) and clothes (the soiled gloves and turned dresses) and determinedly navigated all the familiar scrapes and potential shipwrecks in the treacherous world of flirtations and true love. At home with my parents, I also lived in a world where women cooked and cleaned and tried to look pretty. The sexual stereotypes of the 1950s were our family standard. Any divergence from those stereotypes—my brother wearing an apron, my appearance in black pants and flats—was a cause for trouble. In Little Women, I discovered the same kind of rigid world with petticoats and gloves in place of the curlers and garter belts my mother bought for me. In Jo March I found the antidote to that world.
I went on to read Little Men and the rest of Alcott’s novels (or what I thought were the rest of her novels), but I came back to Little Women, rereading it so many times that I needed a new copy. I even persuaded my father to take me to Concord, Massachusetts, to see Orchard House, where the fictional Jo March had lived and where Louisa May Alcott had written Little Women in one spring and summer back in 1868.
Orchard House, when we finally got there, seemed smaller than the house in my imagination. The actual rooms where Little Women had taken place were somehow less inviting than the warm, lively household of my dreams where a wild, rebellious girl named Jo was loved just as much as if she had been ladylike and obedient. Not for the first or last time, I was confronted with the differences between fiction and life.
Still, I was thrilled to be in the presence of the real thing, the place where the writing of Little Women actually occurred. While the tour guide was distracted by a literary question of my father’s about Ralph Waldo Emerson, I secretly stroked the little desk where Little Women had been born, as if some alchemy in the wood might pass into my own restless spirit. I couldn’t wait to get home to the book.
As a naughty, rebellious girl in the throes of puberty, I needed help, and it seemed to come from the pages of Little Women. What did it mean to be a woman, anyway? Should I do as my parents suggested and aim at being pretty and popular and having my pick of desirable men? Should I become a woman whose identity was a wife and mother as my mother had; should I be some man’s Little Woman? Or should I strike out like Jo March and have great adventures and live alone in a house I paid for and risk being lonely?
With the character of Jo March, Louisa May Alcott gave words to the dialogue between woman as sexual, domestic creature and woman as successful professional. How can a woman avoid the trap of dependence and still have family satisfactions? How can she enjoy the rich satisfactions of good work and earning money without missing out on a domestic life? Little Women seemed like a guide through this morass of feminine questions, many of which I could not articulate in those days.
Last summer, decades after my first trip to Orchard House, after a life that has only imperfectly answered the questions I had as a girl, I sat and watched as crowds of young girls walked up the path to the pretty brown house where Alcott wrote her masterpiece. Now lovingly restored and under the directorship of Jan Turnquist, a woman so in tune with Louisa May Alcott that she sometimes portrays Louisa by dressing in the clothes Louisa would have worn, Orchard House is backed by a stand of trees and sits near the Lexington Road about a mile away from the center of Concord. Walden Pond, where the Alcotts’ friend and teacher Henry David Thoreau built his famous hut, is another mile on through the trees. The white house where their friend Ralph Waldo Emerson lived with his family and ran a brilliant rotating literary salon is down the road in the other direction.
The thousands of women who visit Orchard House each year seem to be looking for guidance. Many of them have read Little Women; some of them have only seen one of the excellent movies made of the book that star, in chronological order, Katharine Hepburn, June Allyson, and Winona Ryder, but they are there for the same reasons. The house gets as many as 100,000 visitors a year. They patiently listen as local guides begin in the Alcotts’ dark kitchen, with its soapstone sink and woodstove, where Abba Alcott a
nd her daughters did the cooking and washing with water from the well. They troop into the small dining room with a cupboard filled with Abba’s green and white May family china. Fiction and fact are overlaid in this small room where the Alcotts ate their vegetarian meals and the fictional Marches also ate meals. The March meals were spare but conventional. There was no meat because they were poor. The Alcott meals often consisted of graham meal and apples. Meat was not just expensive; it was one of Bronson Alcott’s many personal devils.
Although Louisa May Alcott set her story in Orchard House, and the rooms coincide with the scenes in Little Women, the actual events of her teenage years occurred in a different house, a yellow clapboard place called the Wayside a hundred yards down the road, where the Alcott family lived when the sisters were growing up. That house, in which the young Louisa experienced her actual adolescence, is more rarely visited than Orchard House. It is run by the National Park Service and is frequently closed. By the time the Alcotts moved into Orchard House in 1858, Louisa was a young woman, her beloved sister Lizzie was dead, and her older sister Anna was engaged to John Pratt.
The merging of real and fictional during the Orchard House tour heightens the sense that it is a kind of spiritual journey. Visitors aren’t there to see the real place where the Alcott sisters came of age. If they were, they would walk down the street to the Wayside. They are there to visit the fictional sisters who lived and thrived and laughed and cried in Louisa May Alcott’s imagined Orchard House. They chuckle when the guide points out Jo’s “mood pillow,” a horsehair rectangle which was horizontal when the fictional Jo felt like talking and vertical when she was best left alone. The tour guide usually explains that the March family hung a curtain between the parlor and the living room for Jo’s theatrical productions. The audience sat in the front parlor; the actors and actresses—the March sisters—could use the back stairs for costume changes. The Alcott sisters never used the Orchard House parlor for their theatrical performances; the March sisters did.
The visiting young women and their parents, classmates, and friends climb the narrow staircase and crowd into the upper bedroom where Louisa May Alcott slept and worked. They learn that May Alcott, a talented artist, was allowed to draw anywhere she pleased, and the upstairs walls are adorned with her flowers. Lilies twine up the wall next to Louisa’s desk. In her own room, May decorated every inch of wall space with portraits and landscapes. Across the landing, the master bedroom is the nicest, sunniest room in the house. The Alcotts lived in a world where parents were adored and respected just for being parents. Bronson and Abba Alcott were far from the perfect, loving guides Louisa wrote about in Little Women, but it didn’t matter. Everyone stops to read Bronson Alcott’s “Order of In-door Duties,” posted on the wall. In it the Alcott children are urged to do their chores with “prompt, cheerful, unquestioning obedience.” In the 1850s, as in the 1950s, parents were obeyed, and children were not invited to question their authority. As I watch mothers and daughters shuffle through the Al-cotts’ world, I wonder if they are also yearning for this old order. A reproduction of the “Order of In-door Duties” is a bestseller in the Orchard House gift shop.
Many tourists these days come to Concord for Orchard House, but the town is the place where American literature was written in the 1850s, the home of a cluster of genius writers who were Louisa May Alcott’s friends and neighbors and mentors. She was taught by Henry David Thoreau, who later wrote Walden after living there, and she discussed writing with the great essayist and lecturer Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was Concord’s elder statesman and who helped the Alcotts financially at every turn. Nathaniel Hawthorne and his family lived next door at the Wayside. Herman Melville and Henry James came to visit.
The 1840s and 1850s were a time of liberation when the colonial settlers’ great adversaries—the Native Americans, the brutal force of nature in New England, the aggressive British and French colonial powers—had been tamed or eliminated. Suddenly nature was a beautiful friend, and European and English literature inspiring and fascinating. It was a time like the 1960s, when the rules seemed to be changing fast and everything from the past was questioned. “Why should we grope among the dry bones of the past?” asked the young Ralph Waldo Emerson in his first essay, Nature. “The sun shines today also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, and new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.” Louisa May Alcott’s father would step up to be one of Emerson’s new men, but it was Louisa herself who would change the way we think about young women.
Written twenty years after the first women’s rights conference at Seneca Falls in 1848, Little Women also provides a spirited alternative to conventional marriage ambitions—the pretty girl in search of a wealthy husband. A lot has changed since the nineteenth century, but not everything. At a party recently, I asked a friend what she was looking for in a man. Her reply? “A reliable income stream.”
Alcott never married: “Liberty is a better husband than love,”2 she wrote. Jo March’s rejection of a marriage proposal from the adoring Laurie, with his very reliable income stream, inspired generations of women to look for something more than resources in a marriage. Alcott, pressured by readers and editors to have Jo end up with Laurie after all, refused. “Girls write to ask who the little women marry, as if that were the only end and aim of a woman’s life,” she wrote indignantly in her November journal while working on the second half of Little Women. “I won’t marry Jo to Laurie to please anyone.”3 In Little Women, it is Amy with her feminine airs and ambitions who ends up marrying Laurie.
Louisa May Alcott
1
Trailing Clouds of Glory.
1832–1839
She had gone back to Concord to write, but instead she wasted time. Louisa May Alcott arrived at Orchard House to join her parents in February of 1868 while there was still snow on the ground; now she noticed crocuses and daffodils. The elms in Monument Square were spring green; the lilacs were about to explode into blossom. She had left her steady job as a children’s magazine editor in Boston to write, but she wasn’t writing.
Many mornings Louisa settled her aging mother happily downstairs in the parlor. “She sits at rest in her sunny room and that is better than any amount of fame to me,” the thirty-five-year-old wrote in her journal.1 Then she found a hundred excuses to avoid her own desk upstairs. There was so much to do besides writing! She had to visit the Emersons down the road to borrow the latest Dickens novel; she had to gossip with Mr. Emerson about Dickens’s disappointing reading in London and his farewell reading in Boston, and play blind-man’s buff with the Emerson children. She had to deliver a gift of her father’s Sweeting apples to Mrs. Thoreau in town. She had to get some lamp oil. Her father’s blue shirt had to be mended.
Some days she still felt too sick to work. The dizziness was mostly gone, but the effects of what had happened four years earlier when she was a Civil War nurse at the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C., were still with her. Her right hand hurt so much when she wrote in her journal that she had to switch to her left for a few sentences. She wanted to write. She was a writer. She put it off. The truth was that she didn’t want to write the book that her editor and publisher Thomas Niles had first suggested almost a year ago. She had pretended she didn’t really hear him. “Niles, partner of Roberts, asked me to write a girls’ book,” she wrote in her journal. “Said I’d try.”2
Still, she hadn’t tried, even when her father had brought it up more than once. She did not want to write a girls’ book. After everything she had been through—the war, her illness, the death of her sister, the decades of gritty poverty, the dozens of melodramatic stories written to make money, the serious novel, Moods, and then Hospital Sketches about her nursing experience, the magazine jobs and advice columns—hadn’t she earned the right to choose her own project? After being published in the Atlantic Monthly and reviewed by young Henry James she wasn’t about to happily churn out some kind of simpl
e book for young ladies. Would they ask Emerson to write a girls’ book? Or Dickens?
Thomas Niles hadn’t given up. He kept asking about the book she didn’t want to write, and he even got her father to pressure her by offering to publish Bronson’s book Tablets if Louisa wrote the book for young women. Her father had been thrilled, and he happily told Niles that she was hard at work on the book and would be done by September. Not true. Writing the kind of story Niles had in mind, a story about a family like her own and their domestic trials and tribulations, was the last thing she wanted to do. She didn’t think the “Pathetic Family,” as she called the Alcotts, were a good subject for stories. She had asked everyone’s permission, hoping they would say no. They all said yes.
It was the middle of May already! Time was wearing down her resistance. She had run every errand she could think of. Her mother, Abba, was comfortable, and sometimes she could hear her father chopping wood in the distance. The family of owls in the elm outside her bedroom window had built a nest, and perhaps there would be owlets soon.
Finally, just to see how it would feel, she sat down at the little half-moon desk between the windows. From there she could see between the elms over the road toward the meadows where Walden Pond sat like a watery jewel in the landscape. There she had spent afternoons idling with her friend Henry David Thoreau in his little boat on that pond. He had played the flute; she had gazed at the sky. But Thoreau had been dead for six years. She still thought of him every time she took a walk toward Walden. Walks became a way of avoiding the book she was supposed to write. She had enough paper; the quill and ink were next to her. Maybe she could write just one scene before lunch.
She reached for the happiest times she could remember, the childhood times of visiting Thoreau in his hut on Walden Pond, the times of haunting Mr. Emerson’s library, the times when her father called his four girls the golden band of sisters. A reluctant invalid sitting at the cramped desk, she remembered Christmas in Concord when the family was young and bursting out of their ramshackle house—a house that, coincidentally, was next door to the house where she sat writing twenty years later. “‘Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents,’ grumbled Jo,”3 she wrote. Jo March would be the leader of the golden band, the smart sister with the plain face who was always in trouble. Meg would be the ladylike one. Amy would be the prissy artist. Sweet, lost Beth would be the one who was always happy with what she had.