|
When I read this book, it's sort of like taking a break from the awful lives people live in this time period. After reading some of the 1 star reviews on this book, I know that some people might not like it because of how nice and perfect and possibly unrealistic the family is. While I have no problem with this viewpoint, I think otherwise. It feels nice to just sit back and relax and imagine how nice life would be if, even though there may be arguements, they are small and unimportant compared to the hapiness that you can share with people. Yeah, that might have sounded pretty cheezy, but it's still nice to read some books like that.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT DESCRIBES THIS BOOK. LITTLE WOMEN BY LOUSY LOUISA MAY ALCOTT( I THINK THAT'S HER NAME ) IS THE UTMOST WORST BOOK YOU WILL EVER READ IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. IM GOING TO CALL lOUISA lOUSY. lOUSY WRITES A LOUSY 1800'S BOOK THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BORING. THIS BOOK IS VERY INFORMATIVE AND IS NOOO FUN TO READ.
Amy goes to Europe with the desire to become a famous artist, but on being confronted with the splendors of Rome, realizes that she's aiming too high and instead choosing to focus on helping other people realize their goals (though to be fair, Laurie comes to the same conclusion in regards to his music). Ultimately the story, not counting the two later sequels Little Men and Jo's Boys, covers a twenty year span, as Jo (the unofficial protagonist) grows from a fifteen year old to a thirty-five year old. The four girls are more or less counterparts of Alcott and her own sisters, and the author presents four distinct personalities to the reader: Meg, the motherly eldest, who struggles the most with poverty; Jo the tomboyish book-lover (an almost autobiographical portrayal of Alcott herself) who harbors ambitions of becoming a writer; Beth, the angelic and shy homebody; and Amy, the youngest: spoilt, pretty, and artistic. Though in many ways Amy is the only one who doesn't seem to grow as much as the other girls; that is we are *told* of a change, but do not *see* it in a particularly vivid way. But often they're completely unnecessary, particularly in the earliest chapters in which the girls learn a valuable lesson, only for Marmee to reiterate what's obviously just been learnt. Alongside the girls are a range of supporting characters, including their mother (called "Marmee" by the girls; a name that is often pronounced phonetically, though in keeping with the New England accents of the time, it would have been pronounced "Mommy"), the housekeeper Hannah, sharp-tongued Aunt March, and a range of possible suitors for the girls, including their next door neighbor, the mischievous Laurie.
In any case, Alcott's general wit and warmth makes this a book that is accessible to a wide range of readers - it would be a shame for the title to prejudice readers against it when there's so much to be learnt and enjoyed from it. No wonder I didn't understand anything.So it was a little odd settling down with the proper version of Lousia May Alcott's most famous book, knowing the basic structure of the story, but now having the chance to read it in its entirety. Requests for a sequel were inevitable, and so "Good Wives" was written, a story that is usually combined with "Little Women" in most copies available today. Despite her ambition to become a writer (and the hope that she'll one day write a famous novel, which she eventually does in "Jo's Boys"), Jo ends this particular tale as the mistress of a boy's school, married to a much older man. Although the title may naturally imply that it is only for girls, Alcott has some very astute things to say about gender relationships, and male readers may discover a thing or two about the opposite sex (boys, have you ever wondered what girls get up to behind closed doors. Ironically, Alcott wrote "Little Women" solely at her publisher's request for "a book for girls", with Alcott herself writing for purely monetary reasons and with no expectations whatsoever at to how popular it would become. I inherited my mother's copy of "Little Women" when I was young, but always had a bit of trouble reading it. After the immense popularity of "Little Women" Alcott was inundated with letters from young readers who requested a sequel, simply because they wanted to see Jo and Laurie get married.
At the end of part one, in which Mr March looks at Jo and says: "I see a young lady who pins her collar straight, laces her boots neatly, and neither whistles, talks slang, nor lies on the rug as she used to do," one can't help but be slightly disappointed at the change.Another bad side-effect is the fact that Alcott can often slip into sentimentality and moralizing (something she apologizes for a couple of times in the text itself: "I dare say my reader has fallen asleep during this little homily"). In this case, marriage does not come at the end of the story, but the middle, and there is no such thing as a "perfect happy ending" - only life in all its joys and disappointments.Of course, despite all this, there may still be some dissonance between the book's values and a contemporary audience. That Jo was not an idealized heroine, but quite literally the girl next door; and that the girls did not deal with melodramatic adventures, but rather the day-to-day trials of ordinary life, was quite an innovation in the mid 19th century. Meg is ultimately expected to be a good little housekeeper, and any discord in the household is naturally placed on her shoulders. By the end of the story, she seems a little too perfect, and the fact that she ends up marrying a very wealthy man doesn't do much for the "marry for love, not money" tract.On the one hand, it is rewarding to see the girls overcome their faults and become wiser, more contented young women, yet at the same time, it is their flaws that make them such loveable characters in the first place.
It is the relationship between the sisters as well as their bonds with parents, friends and lovers that is the true heart of the book, and it is Alcott's ability to write with realism, wit, and understanding that made "Little Women" so distinctive, particularly for its time. Basing the March family on the Alcotts and her own experiences, Alcott's novel sold two thousand copies (the entire print run) in just one month. Likewise, although the girls eventually marry, Alcott is careful to give them husbands that are complimentary to their natures, and with whom the girls often have disagreements with (some of the best and funniest chapters involve the tiffs between Meg and her husband John). A feminist herself, Alcott remained a self-described "literary spinster" throughout her life, but although she tells us that for Jo: "To be independent, and earn the praise of those she loved, were the dearest wishes of her heart," she also has Marmee, that font of wisdom, tell us that: "To be loved and chosen by a good man is the best and sweetest thing which can happen to a woman." Yet it is in these seeming contradictions between the freedom of a career and the warmth of a family, (as well as the rewards to be found in both of them) that the interest in "Little Women" lies. In all cases, romantic love trumps ambition, and though there's certainly nothing wrong or invaluable about being a loving wife and mother, they are deemed incompatible with having a career; something that may not sit well with today's "have it all" readers.There are certainly some mixed messages at work in the book, perhaps born out of Alcott's own uncertainty over the issue. When the story opens just before Christmas, each of the girls receives a present of John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a story that is often alluded as the girls learn to master themselves through facing the various obstacles in life.Each girl has their flaws as well as their virtues, and each struggle with their foibles as they grow: Jo's literary ambition, Meg's experiences with the ups and downs of marriage and motherhood, Beth's struggle with her failing health, and Amy's growing maturity and attempts to overcome her desire for marry for money.
Though the sincerity of the girls is inspirational, the preaching gets on one's nerves. Alcott was disappointed with what we call "shipping" today, but which Alcott herself termed "lovering", writing in her journal:"I don't like sequels, but publishers are very perverse and won't let authors have their way, so my little women must grow up and be married off in a very stupid style." In a letter to her friend, she expressed her frustration with the mindset of her readers, all of whom were simply interested in: "who the little women marry, as if that was the only end and aim in a woman's life." She went on to say: "I won't marry Jo to Laurie to please anyone.Jo should have remained a literary spinster, but so many enthusiastic young ladies wrote to me clamorously demanding that she should marry Laurie, or somebody, that I didn't dare refuse and out of perversity went and made a funny match for her. It wasn't until many years later that I noticed the words: "modern abridged edition" on the cover, and realized on comparison with the full text that my version had been all but chopped to pieces. Throughout the course of "Little Women" the two best friends seem destined for one another, sharing the same interests and fun-loving spirits.but as it turned out, Alcott had other plans for them. But possibly the one aspect of the book that sparks the most debate is the relationship between Laurie and Jo. I expect vials of wrath to be poured upon my head, but rather enjoy the prospect."So if you were upset at the fact that Laurie and Jo didn't end up together, then you can blame the scores of female fan "shippers" of the early 19th century, who wrote in so many letters to Alcott asking when the two of them would marry that she eventually wrote something else out of spite.
This may be set over one hundred years ago, but the essentials haven't changed). In a time when women were still expected to be subservient and obedient, Alcott created female characters that were not wilting flowers nor passive damsels in distress, but realistic women who were each deeply flawed in their own way, with their own dreams, goals and ambitions. Quite episodic in nature, the story itself is rather straightforward, concerning four sisters dealing with the family's poverty and their own adolescence whilst their father is fighting in the Civil War. The popularity and endurance of "Little Women" speaks for itself. Being written as a "girl's book", which were naturally meant to extol womanly virtues, it's only expected that some sermonizing would be present. As strange as it may seem by today's standards, "Little Women" was considered a revolutionary novel in regards to the feminist movement of the age.
Later in "Jo's Boys", the character of Nan plays out Alcott's original plans for Jo: as a female character who has no interest in marriage, but rather forges out a successful career and happy, independent life for herself.
St. Jo inspired me to write St.
Reading it was a life altering experience. I remember reading parts of it to my mother in the kitchen while she was cooking dinner.
When I was in the 7th grade, my mother gave me Little Women for Mother's Day from my dolls (yes, I still played with dolls in the 7th grade). I ended up having 4 daughters myself, daughters whom my family refers to as my "Little Women." One of my girls even calls me "Marmee.".
When Beth died, tears poured down my mother's face and into the stew. Even though I am 62 now, I still remember how Jo gave me the desire to be a writer with a passion that still burns today.
James Place. James Place
How to review a beloved classic such as Little Women. I have been considering this question since finishing the book a few days ago.Hailed as one of the best books written for children, Little Women has stood the test of time and is still read by many today, clearing showing that most love this book.however, I did not enjoy it that much. This brings us to the difficulty in reviewing, as book critics, schoolteachers, and children the world over disagree with me.The writing is beautiful with descriptions of the girls, their home, and their lives.but I didn't really relate to any of the characters, even Beth or Jo, which would be the two most memorable of all the girls. I also wasn't caught up in the plot and found it easy to walk away from the book for days at a time.I would still recommend this novel as it gives a glimpse into another time and is an important piece of classic literature, but just don't expect it to be too riveting.
|
