What's in a Name?

I'm one of those people who coincidentally has so much in common with a literary character, even more than sharing a name.

I learned about the existence of "Little Women" when I was probably in early grade school, though I never actually read it until I was about 11. I always found it funny though that a female protagonist of a story set in the 1800's was named "Jo", because Jo was never a female name. I myself have always wondered how odd my name was, and for a time I had pondered what if I were named with a normal "Michelle" or "Angela"--introducing myself would have been much much easier. Heck, coffee and tea shops could spell my name right 90% of the time had I been a regular "Maria" (which is my Starbucks/Moonleaf name, btw). Of course I had already come to terms with my rather un-girly name. I love it; even if one time my roommate's mother momentarily flipped out when she heard that her daughter was in her dorm room with a "Joe Brian".

Even before I knew I was named after the most favorite March sister, I had really liked her from day one, and probably even identified with her even as a young girl. I only thought I was named after my mother Joanne, but she revealed to me later on (after I finished the book) that she also drew the inspiration from Louisa May Alcott's novel. In all aspects, I was Jo--the tomboy who idolized her father, the girl who wanted to go to war instead of growing old knitting stockings by the fireplace, the voracious reader and aspiring writer, the passionate adventurer with a hot temper. Jo was always rebuked for being "unladylike", but on the other hand was admired because of the strength of her character. It was uncanny, these parallels. I found it quite hilarious how Jo grumbles about their recent state of being  poor, which at the time I was reading the novel seemed like a very funny coincidence. Jo was geeky, and so was I, and drawing from these resemblances I was eager to finish the book and wanted to find out what the heck was going to happen with this girl I found myself so drawn to.


"It's bad enough to be a girl, anyway, when I like boys' games and work and manners! I can't get over my disappointment in not being a boy; and it's worse than ever now, for I'm dying to go and fight with papa, and I can only stay at home and knit, like a poky old woman!" -Jo March


And then came Laurie. Of course we'd all wanted Jo and Laurie to have ended up together. Bagay eh. Even the people back in Louisa May Alcott's time wanted them to end up together, kind of an 1800's form of shipping if you may. Quick run through, Laurie was the wealthy handsome charming neighbor best friend who falls in love with Jo, but was eventually turned down because she just didn't love Laurie the way he did. There lies yet another parallel, Jo the Friendzoner (not proud of this actually). Anyway, I was scared for her at the time because I wasn't so sure she'd end up with someone she deserved. After all, Laurie did end up with Jo's younger sister Amy, but that's another story I will gripe about sometime else. It was the 1800's and I knew that spinsterdom was definitely not cool at that time. But fast-forwarding the story: while pursuing a literary career in New York city (now THAT'S a parallel I would definitely want to happen to me), she met a German professor at the university. Fritz Bhaer was much older than Jo, and they became fast friends while bonding over critiquing her work and inspiring her to become a more serious writer. They eventually fall in love, get married, and have two sons Robby and Ted. Okay, I refuse to go Freudian on Jo, but back then I was adamant against her having a father-figure husband. But growing up, I realized her choices in love and marriage were actually just a manifestation of Jo growing up as a mature lady who had the best development of all the characters in the entire story. Or Alcott might have just wanted to mess with her fans by pairing Jo up with an unpopular dude, but well whatever floats her boat. The author did base Jo loosely off herself after all. Romance was never at the top of Jo's list, but she still married--not out of appearances nor age appropriateness, but out of deep respect and love (I think). Oh love, I would never understand you. Or the decisions I make about you. I have gone into times thinking 'What Would Jo Do?", but then eventually I get confused and mixed up with the names and personalities so I just stop.

I wouldn't want to pattern my life after Miss March's, although at times I do find myself looking up to her (which is odd. Who does that. She's a character in a book). But come to think of it, had Jo been living in the same time as I am, she would probably have been a career woman (she was actually in the book, sort of) who probably didn't have time for marriage and would be the "cool aunt in the family" with the most magnificent stories--eerily the future many envision me to be in. Fiction imitates reality, but it could be easier to live life as if it were a movie or a literature classic. Maybe. However I always wanted to make my own story. I'm not naive as to rely on parallels, but how much of life really isn't parroted from other people's stories? Hmm, I just lost my train of thought. Jo March never had these moments. Or did she?

Jo the Little Woman would always be one of the heroines of Jo the....well, little woman. I think it's strange thinking about wanting to live up to the name of a fictional character. After all, it is just a name. But then


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."


Right, Juliet. We have so much to discuss. Let's talk about you some other time.