I saw Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of Little Women last week.
Before we walked into the theatre, I wondered aloud to my friend whether or not this movie would change who my favorite March sister was. I’m pleased to say that it did not: Amy March has always been my favorite, and in my eyes, Gerwig’s adaptation finally gave her the depth and respect she deserves.
Amy March has been one of the most universally disliked literary characters since Little Women made its debut in the 1800s. Her famous petty little sister scene where she devastates Jo by burning her novel blacklisted her as worst March sister.
Maybe it’s because I have a tendency for liking the most disliked characters (Princess Azula was always my #1 ATLA character) but I never quite bought into the “We Hate Amy” trope. She always seemed misunderstood to me. So let’s talk; why is Amy March more than her sibling rivalry with Jo and her superficial desire to have Laurie know how dainty her feet are?
Disclaimer: despite the fact that this book has been out for like, 200 years, this is your spoiler alert. You’re welcome.
We’ll get this one out of the way first. The book burning incident because Jo wouldn’t let Amy come to the theatre. If you’re a Jo stan, this one probably cuts deep. To be fair, it was mean and petty: to retaliate against your sister by doing something you know will devastate her is undoubtedly cruel. Burning Jo’s novel she was writing for her father to read when he returned from war? Not awesome. But here’s the thing: Amy is 12. I don’t know if anyone else recalls middle school, but 12 year olds aren’t exactly mature and graceful when faced with an argument. Is what Amy did okay? Definitely not. But should her entire character be condemned for a mistake she made when she was TWELVE? You decide.
I think that the rivalry between Jo and Amy throughout their childhood and early adulthood is what has caused Amy’s reputation as least favorite. Jo is a great character, and is beloved by many. Jo often expresses how Amy always gets what she wants, and how she is left struggling to achieve her goals. We see Amy burn the novel, “steal” the Europe trip, and end up married to Laurie. But we also see a tremendous amount of growth from Amy throughout the story. To write her off as simply materialistic and conniving is a disservice to her character development.
To also write Jo off as the only ambitious sister is also a disservice to Amy. Amy’s ambitions are just different from Jo’s. She’s a talented artist, and often expresses her dream to be famous for her painting. She even goes all the way to Europe to pursue this passion after she “steals” the trip from Jo. Which, let’s be real, we all saw coming. Aunt March was playing a game from the get-go to see which of the sisters would be the most promising bachelorette. After all, why waste an expensive trip to Europe on someone who won’t even be a good ROI? Jo was never willing to play along and demonstrate to Aunt March that she was interested in marrying into wealth, because that would mean she would have to sacrifice her career aspirations. Which is totally fine! But Jo reading to Aunt March isn’t on the same level as Amy being clear about her desire to marry rich. It’s absolutely not surprising that Amy was chosen over Jo for a trip that we all know Jo would have absolutely hated. Can any of us picture her willingly going to large parties and being courted by men under the guise that she was in Europe to become a writer? Of course not. But Amy was totally down to do those things, and she got to paint while she was at it.
Amy didn’t “steal” Laurie either. First of all, it was clear to everyone throughout the story that Jo was not interested! She literally turned him down in the middle of a field and then moved to New York. Why would we want Laurie to be with someone he has to change for, and who has never been romantically attracted to him? We see him move on, and something sparks between him and Amy, who genuinely cares about and loves him, and who wants to see him be his best self. If we’re being honest, they’re perfect for each other.
I think the final key difference that people often miss when comparing Amy and Jo’s characters is the way they handle their ambition. Amy has her own ambitions too: be an artist and marry rich. But ultimately, she’s far more realistic than Jo. She knows that her desire to be a famous artist simply isn’t attainable; she’s talented but not extraordinary, and to support herself as a single woman at the time just won’t be feasible. But she also knows that she can absolutely marry rich, and has to do so in order to support her family. Meg is off the market, Jo has made her feelings about marriage quite clear, and Beth is dead. Amy works with the confines of being a woman during her time period, whereas Jo works against them. Which, again, is fine. But this key difference is ultimately why Amy is often triumphant in her goals while Jo has to work twice as hard for less merit.
Amy March is way more than just a shallow girly-girl whose life intention is to smite her sister. She’s an emotionally complex individual who demonstrates a tremendous amount of growth throughout the story. So stop hating on Amy. She’s just doing her best, despite not having her own pickled limes and hating her nose with a passion.