Jo or Amy?
I could always relate to Jo
writing because her voice was feminine and therefore
largely silenced.
Selling her words
and even her hair
because the thrill of immediate practical gain
was far more worthy to her than her "one true beauty".
Amy however--
she understood art.
both as a creative
and of the harsh truth
that she was herself a piece of art
for anyone of status and culture
who desired to size her up.
Sketch and canvas, travel to Paris, wearing fine clothes
and the weight of responsibility, too.
Maybe Jo rejected Laurie because she did not love him
or maybe Jo could not bear
to view Laurie
as a sound economic decision
when her heart yearned for passion
and knew that it was absent.
Amy was judged as shallow,
petulant and vain.
Audacious, even.
Yet only let it sharpen her shrewdness
and further
her ambitions that much more.
Jo openly rejected the submission of femininity
yet Amy covertly did just the same.
Both women were ambitious in their own way
and neither was willing
to settle.
When I was little, I saw entirely too much of myself in Amy
and I didn't like it.
As an adult, I saw myself in Jo
proud of swimming upstream
reveling in righteous struggles.
Now, tho, I recognize how similar they really are.
There's no shame in wanting what you want.
What if
ease and effortlessness were not so maligned
or bad for wanting?
What if we all gave ourselves permission
to fully and indulgently want things
sans struggle?