Alas Poor Beth, We knew Her Well....Well, Kind of

Reading Beth’s death once again landed with me differently. We discussed in class that each March sister could possibly represent a path a woman may take in the 19th century. If that is true, what does that mean for Beth? She is the most passive of the sisters, and I would argue the least interesting. Even her flaw is timid- shyness. With a character that is so passive and sweet, I find it difficult to develop any emotional connection to her. Furthermore, Beth does nothing but suffer. “It was not fair, for she tried more than Amy to be good, but never got any reward - only disappointment, trouble and hard work” (Page Number). The other four sisters grew are at least gained something from the efforts they made towards maturity. Beth on the other hand, continually suffers and then dies. So when Beth dies I found myself much more upset for Jo than Beth. This is absolutely awful. Reading it now, I see Beth as more of a companion to Jo rather than a sister with her own plot line. I don’t remember exactly what I thought reading the novel as a child, just that I would read her sections very quickly because Jo was the “exciting sister”
What exactly do we know about Beth? She is sweet, virtuous and selfless to the point of her destruction. I hadn’t really learned anything about Beth besides the fact that she was just good. I wasn’t “rooting for her” or eager to know her story because Beth always suffers and in the way she is written as a ghostly figure, I can see now she was always doomed to die. Even her function in the novel is somewhat selfless. She essentially is Jo’s inspiration. I’m having a hard time mapping out exactly how Beth grows as a character.
So now I am asking myself, “Why Alcott?” I’m assuming she did this on purpose because the other sisters are written so vividly with action, so it could not just be her style of writing. Am I missing something reading this in the 21st century? Is there something I am not getting reading this as an educated adult? I’m getting less and less attached to the idea that Alcott was idolizing the idea of pure and chaste women. If she really believed this, why are the other sisters focused on more and written in a much livelier fashion?
Now I wonder how different the novel would be if Beth did not exist. Exactly how much would the novel change? I think the only character that would be devastatingly affected would be Jo. But still even without Beth, I think Jo would just have an attachment to Marmee and still be passionate and ambitious. That fire is so strong and present inside her that I think it is essential to her character and would exist even without Beth. As much as I want to focus on the happiness of the rest of the sisters I cannot help but be sad for Beth. Not necessarily because she died, but because she did not have something truly fantastic and exciting happen to her. She is doomed to be the ghostly subplot to the stronger more action packed characters.