But today is different. Today, I'm reviewing a book I loved but most people wouldn't give the time of day, a real immediate one star moment on Goodreads. Today, we're talking about Jo & Laurie by Margaret Stohl and Melissa de la Cruz.
Not ringing a bell? No? It released last June with a decent-sized audience. (If it helps, Goodreads recommends Elephant and Piggie: Listen to My Trumpet and Grandma's Purse, so it's probably a book mostly read by parents—or three year olds!) With two huge names attached to it, the book wasn't too hard to find on shelves, especially if you knew to look for it, but I didn't get my hands on a copy until a few months ago. I thought it would be my favorite book. It's a rewrite of Little Women set after the real-world first half of the book released (as a novel by Jo March) and while Jo is writing the second half (the thing is, she altered their lives, so what is canon in our world and canon in the book Jo writes in Jo & Laurie aren't actually always canon in the Jo & Laurie world—I know, confusing to explain). Stohl and de la Cruz's writing quality was decent and the fresh look on the characters really elevated the entire story, but because of a little stress around the midway point, it only got four stars from me.
First, however, I want to talk about the controversy. Many readers hated Jo & Laurie before they'd even read it. They believed Stohl and de la Cruz were disrespecting Louisa May Alcott's wishes by changing the story. But do they actually know what happened?
Alcott history lesson, for those of you who didn't read my six page Little Women analysis. Louisa May Alcott released the first half of Little Women in September 1868. She loosely based it off of her own family life, and it became clear that independent heroine Jo was supposed to be a fictionalized version of Alcott herself. The novel was a huge hit, and many readers wrote to Alcott asking what happened to the characters after the book. Alcott had wanted the focus to be on Jo's strength, but instead, readers were more concerned about whether Jo and Laurie ever get married. This angered Alcott, who didn't want her own life to be entirely about marriage.
In real life, Alcott never married, but in the second part of the novel, which released about half a year later in April 1869, all of the living March sisters are paired off. Jo ends up with an old German man named Friedrich Bhaer who not only insults her writing style but is also just an all-around creepy dude. He's the kind of character you block out and pretend never existed. It's the kind of romance that makes the reader want to focus on anything but romance.
There's a theory that Alcott was forced to introduce a love interest for Jo, or it wouldn't be published. Considering the time period, that sounds reasonable. Especially when you consider that Laurie and Amy, of all people, end up together. Laurie literally never gave Amy a second glance in the first novel, and then the reader is supposed to accept that they magically fell in love while he was looking for a rebound in Paris? Yeah, right. Had Alcott written for a modern audience that could accept a female protagonist with both a strong career and a compelling love interest, it wouldn't be so far-fetched to say that she would have put Laurie and Jo together.
I understand feeling a responsibility to respect deceased artists, especially artists who weren't given full opportunities because of gender, race, religion, etc. But I also think that we need to accept both that deceased artists may not have actually had the control we thought they did and that we're allowed to interpret and reimagine all art as we see fit. This is how Little Women spoke to Stohl and de la Cruz—great. It's not like they entirely ignored Jo's other qualities. On the contrary, actually; her writing shines more in Jo & Laurie than it ever did in the original. Writing off this novel immediately because of some perfect fantasy you have about Alcott's real-life writing process and beliefs is weird and kind of gatekeeps Little Women. Fanart is fanart, whether that be a comic strip on Instagram or a reimagined version of a 150 year old novel.
Now onto actually reviewing the book, yeah? Instead of discrediting the criticism I brought up myself.
The writing quality was good enough. De la Cruz is best known for her middle grade (Descendants, anyone?) and middle-to-YA transition novels (the Hamilton trilogy that wasn't actually associated with Hamilton, remember those?), while Stohl's claim to fame is her Meg-Cabot-meets-Twilight early-2010s Beautiful Creatures YA novels. So, you know. Neither the greatest nor the worst top-selling authors. Somewhere in the middle, which is exactly where the writing quality in Jo & Laurie fell: easy and straightforward, if a little predictable. I looked on Goodreads to find just one meaningful quote from Jo & Laurie to prove that sometimes, this novel really could wow, but the best I could find was, "while life is not fair, it is logical." They're no Louisa May Alcotts when it comes to wordsmithing. (Some of the best Little Women quotes: "I like good strong words that mean something," "I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship," "I'd rather take coffee than compliments just now," "let us be elegant or die," "love is a great beautifier," and more and more and more. She's a true artist.)
But writing quality isn't exactly what any readers are coming for when they pick up a copy of Jo & Laurie. I'd even go so far as to say the writing quality doesn't matter once it's sufficient enough to read easily, partly because the story is well crafted, partly because the only thing the reader cares about is the outcome, and partly because they're all already whole characters created by Louisa May Alcott, one of the greatest writers of all time (as we've already established).
Let me elaborate. Stohl and de la Cruz change core parts of the original story in order to make it more personalized for their novel. In Jo & Laurie, the first Little Women book exists as Jo's fictionalized version of their real lives. She's changed many parts of their lives in order to cope with her emotions and reality. Some notable changes: Meg and Mr. Brooke have never even spoken, let alone married; the aunt doesn't exist; and Beth passes away the first time she gets sick.
These changes make it easier to separate Jo & Laurie from Alcott's novel, especially because of how much they change the characters' arcs. Take Jo, for example. That last change, the one about Beth, is super important for Jo's development as the book progresses. She keeps trying to figure out what to do with Beth's character, the girl who deserved everything and got nothing, as she writes what will become the second book in the real-world Little Women series (AKA what is widely considered the second half of Little Women). As she comes to terms with her grief, she's able to accept Beth's fate and kill the character Beth in her novel (just as Beth dies in the real world version—is this making any sense?). This also ties into Jo being unable to come to terms with how much she loves Laurie. What if she loses him, like she lost Beth? In the second Little Women book, she pairs him off with Amy, who he would never love in that way (I don't care what Alcott says, it just wasn't like that), and creates an old German professor for herself when her publisher doesn't let her character live out the rest of her days alone. The changes make the novel all the more powerful, giving the reader the sense that this is not the fanfiction many wrote it up to be. Instead, it's a reevaluation of a part of a character that a nineteenth century writer couldn't afford to explore.
But even if Jo & Laurie were just a carbon copy of the second half of Little Women other than a few key changes, I'm not sure I would have minded. It would have been skeezy, sure, but all I wanted to see was the ship Alcott built up to be finished, or at least not mocked with an outrageous new relationship and the complete dismissal of the original. I remember the dance scene. I remember the New York trip. It hurts to see that be destroyed, especially being a modern reader because had the book been published a couple hundred years later, it would have been fine. Alcott would have seen people valuing both Jo's relationship with Laurie and her work.
Back to the book I'm actually reviewing. My biggest problem with Jo & Laurie was the anxiety-inducing middle. I am not joking when I say Stohl and de la Cruz need to be certain you want this before giving it to you. It's downhill into downhill into downhill: first Jo thinks Laurie and Meg will get married (and she even gets the reader to believe her!), and then Laurie is engaged to a super mean rich girl who he's pretending isn't awful to the entire March family. I am a hundred percent serious when I say that this book made my anxiety worse until I finished it. Like I'm really not exaggerating; this book made me spiral and disassociate and forget how to be responsive to anything except Jo & Laurie. It was definitely not healthy for me (but would I have stopped myself from reading it, had I known? Probably not). If this review convinced you to read it, make sure you're not expecting Carry On levels of lightness! Be ready to suffer before that final satisfaction.
Before I go, I want to also clarify how much I credit the greatness of this novel to Louisa May Alcott. Without what she created, this novel wouldn't exist. It's not controversial to say that she's one of the greatest writers to ever live, and Little Women is her masterpiece. I have never read a book that shows as well as this book does what a close sister relationship looks like. The way I see my family in the March family's happiest moments—Meg's wedding, the trip to the beach, all of it—is something that I will always cherish. Although I've been complaining about a relationship decision this entire review, Little Women is not about that. It's about family. I hope if today's review convinces you to read anything, it's Little Women. And then, if you're as angry and betrayed as I was, you can read Jo & Laurie. Until next time, keep reading, readers.