March. (So insignificant is Mr. Marchrnthat one reviewer referred to the familyrnas a “single-parent household”). Otherrnmale characters violate the conventionsrnof polite behavior, at least by 19th-centuryrnstandards: as if they were cohabiting,rnBhaer enters Jo’s bedroom withoutrnknocking, kissing her familiarly on thernback of her neck.rnEven Laurie (peculiariy called “Teddy,”rnwhich he rarely is in the book) doesrnnot escape feminist revision. His firstrngaze at the girls is salacious, and he professesrninterest first in Meg, then in Jo,rnand then in Amy, without ever makingrnthe reasons for these changes in his affectionsrnclear; one expects Marmee isrnnext in his apparent determination tornwed a March girl, any March girl. Whilernin Europe, Laurie is reduced to a level ofrndegradation undreamt of by Alcott: hernswills liquor from a flask and associatesrnwith women of ill repute (as the barernlegs of his overdressed companion suggest).rnIn an act of ultimate absurdity,rnchildren’s writer Laurie Lawlor has producedrna novelization of Robin Swicord’srntin-eared screenplay of Alcott’s novel.rnApparently, Columbia Pictures seesrnnothing peculiar about novelizing a novel,rnnor anything wrong with re’ising onernwoman’s vision to advsmce another’s politicalrnagenda. Only 133 large-type pagesrn(in contrast to the 449 small-tvpe pagesrnof the unabridged Signet Classic),rnLawlor’s dreary little polemic lacksrnAlcott’s style but mamtains Swicord’srnshrillness. It is, if anything, a parody ofrnAlcott. Like the pre-Bhaer Jo, Lawlor isrnwasting her talent by pandering to herrnleast informed readers’ prejudices.rnBy reducing the roles of Alcott’s menrnwhile artificially inflating the roles of thernwomen, both movie and novelization attemptrnto bring Alcott’s characters intornaccord with politically correct feminism.rnWhat are produced, however, are shallowrncaricatures rather than complexrnhuman beings, for diminishing thernmale characters diminishes, correspondingly,rnthe female characters. Concernedrnabout the unwillingness of men tornattend this movie, director Gillian Armstrongrnmused, “We could change therntitle.”rnPerhaps Columbia Pictures shouldrnhave changed the title to somethingrnmore appropriate—Littler Women.rnLaurie Morrow is a professor of Englishrnat Louisiana State University.rnPGP CULTURErnMailer onrnMadonnarnby John LoftonrnYears ago, in an article he wrote forrnthe New Yorker titled “My Philosophy,”rnin a section subheadlined “EschatologicalrnDialects as a Means of Copingrnwith Singles,” Woody Allen wrote: “Werncan say that the universe consists of arnsubstance, and this substance we willrncall ‘atoms,’ or else we will call it ‘monads.’rnDemocritus called it atoms, Leibnizrncalled it monads. Fortunately, therntwo men never met, or there would havernbeen a very dull argument.”rnWell, Democritus has, alas, finallyrnmet Leibniz, sort of. Norman Mailerrnhas interviewed Madonna. He talkedrnabout this talk on national TV. And itrnwas indeed very dull. In fact, what H.L.rnMencken once said about Thorstein Veblenrncan also be said about Mailer blabbingrnmindlessly about Madonna, thern”most famous woman in the world,” ifrnwe can believe the recent televisionrnmovie about her life: he does indeedrnhave unprecedented talent for sayingrnnothing in an august and heroic manner.rnWhen asked on Good Morning Americarnwhy we should find Madonna fascinating,rnMailer said: “I respect her becausernshe’s not predictable. She’s one ofrnthe few artists we’ve had in America whornis not predictable.”rnGet serious, please! WhateverrnMadonna does, she is totally predictable.rnAnd what’s totally predictatile is that shernwill do whatever a slut does. The womanrnis predictably vile.rnMailer: “What she does is alwaysrninteresting and very severe. She’s gotrnsevere talent.”rnAlways interesting? I don’t think so—rnunless you’re a sex pervert and a voyeur.rnSevere? Again, not the best word to describernthis wretch, since my dictionary,rnthe last one I trust—Noah Webster’srn1828 American Dictionary of the EnglishrnLanguage—dehnes “severe” as “not . . .rnindulgent… sometimes perhaps, unreasonablyrnstrict or exact; giving no indulgencernto faults or errors… sober, sedaternto an extreme . . . not lax or airy . . .rnnice.”rnMailer: “She’s not giving it [herrn’severe talent’] to us for too little.”rnTrue. It costs a lot of money to attendrnMadonna concerts. And her pornographicrnbooks are insanely expensive.rnMailer: “In other words, what she’srnsaying, what she’s always saying, whichrnthe others don’t do, is that life is veryrndifficult.”rnGosh.rnMailer: “[What she’s saying is that]rnthere are extraordinary elements, therernare profound contradictions, that werndon’t know our own natures andrnwe have to search for them.”rnOn the contrary, what Madonnarnproves is that John Calvin was rightrnwhen he said our human natures are totallyrndepraved until we are born again,rnmade good by God. Indeed, Madonnarnproves that, if anything, Calvin understatedrnthe depravity of human nature.rnA little later, Mailer says with arnstraight face that Madonna has tried torn”fill the void” that Andy Warhol merelyrncatered to. He says: “She has this feelingrn—when I speak of the void what Irnmean is that everybody has—you rememberrnwhen Jimmy Carter made thatrnspeech about American malaise. Andrnwe’re beginning to feel it now, thatrnthere’s something wrong that we all feel,rnthat there’s something wrong withrnAmerican life. It’s not what it used tornbe. There isn’t that certainty we all usedrnto have. We used to have a feeling 30,rn40, 50 years ago that this is a great countryrnand we’re gonna do marvelous thingsrnand now that confidence is no longerrnthere. And that’s what I call the void:rnthis empty feeling inside that things arernnot right and not going well.”rnAh, yes, malaise. 1 know the feelingrnwell. In fact, I felt it at the precisernmoment I listened to Mailer blatherrnon about Madonna. And yes, there isrnsomething wrong with American life.rnProof of this fact is that Madonna isrnsuch a celebrity in our country, which,rncontrasted with 30,40, or 50 years ago, isrnnot great. If we were great today, no onernwould have ever heard of Madonna. Shernwould have been deported years ago.rnMailer (for this one you should bernseated): “Madonna is trying to find outrnwhat the nature of truth is. That’s why Irnthink she’s a great artist.”rnMadonna searching for truth?rnMadonna a “great artist”? Sure, likernMAY 1995/47rnrnrn