Sign in with Facebook
Rory's Reviews > Little Women
Little Women (Little Women, #1)
by
by
** spoiler alert **
I hated this book.
I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I dislike this novel. It's dull and preachy through out most of it--aside from Jo who is a truly inspired character. But everyone else seems one note, most of the chapters come off as morality plays than solid scenes or plots. And just when Miss Alcott has something seemingly interesting she breaks it for no other reason than to do something.
Whether its the pairing of Amy and Laurie (huh?), the point made CONSTANTLY that Beth's life isn't useless because she is an angel and showed them that angels do exist and is a total Mary Sue(Really? Cause I'm glad she died before I died of boredom), the forced pairing of Jo and the Professor (Why? I mean--really... Just keep her single) there is also the message that pursing art is selfish. (Jo giving up her writing, Laurie gives up his music, Amy gives up her sketching...)
It's not a message I expected--this book is always lauded as one that has inspired countless girls... To do what? Because outside of Jo's sipirt I dont really see much to aspire to in this tsory? The overall message seems to be that as a good Christian one should sacrifice being an artist, being in love with who you want and any hope of independence...
It's not because I'm from the modern era that I dislike this book. (Or that I'm an adult reading it.) If you look at other works being done in the same time period you will see that there were stories with less moralizing being done--including by Miss Alcott herself. I was just really disappointed
I can't even begin to go into all the reasons I dislike this novel. It's dull and preachy through out most of it--aside from Jo who is a truly inspired character. But everyone else seems one note, most of the chapters come off as morality plays than solid scenes or plots. And just when Miss Alcott has something seemingly interesting she breaks it for no other reason than to do something.
Whether its the pairing of Amy and Laurie (huh?), the point made CONSTANTLY that Beth's life isn't useless because she is an angel and showed them that angels do exist and is a total Mary Sue(Really? Cause I'm glad she died before I died of boredom), the forced pairing of Jo and the Professor (Why? I mean--really... Just keep her single) there is also the message that pursing art is selfish. (Jo giving up her writing, Laurie gives up his music, Amy gives up her sketching...)
It's not a message I expected--this book is always lauded as one that has inspired countless girls... To do what? Because outside of Jo's sipirt I dont really see much to aspire to in this tsory? The overall message seems to be that as a good Christian one should sacrifice being an artist, being in love with who you want and any hope of independence...
It's not because I'm from the modern era that I dislike this book. (Or that I'm an adult reading it.) If you look at other works being done in the same time period you will see that there were stories with less moralizing being done--including by Miss Alcott herself. I was just really disappointed
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Little Women.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
July 1, 2007
–
Finished Reading
July 30, 2007
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 134 (134 new)
message 1:
by
Natalie
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jan 25, 2009 06:33PM
I thought it was interesting that you felt that there was a message about the pursuit of art being selfish with Amy, Jo and Laurie giving up their arts. You might have missed it but none of them gives up these things, in fact, in the 2nd and 3rd books they pursue these talents further and even establish a college in which they teach those arts. Just thought I would clarify.
reply
|
flag
I had no idea there was a second and third book. I thought the book was lovely because of all the preachyness (sp?). I didn't like that Jo didn't end up with Laurie, but overall I thought it was a very sweet book.
I don't know why you read this expecting to like it. This is the kind of book that girls with sisters can say, "Awww, that reminds me of when..." And, for the record, after reading this book as a ten-year-old, I decided that I wanted to be like Jo, and I started writing. Nowhere in that book did I get the message that to be a good Christian I needed to give up "the arts". This is a sweet, feel good, girl book. If you can't read it for that, then of course you won't enjoy it.
Dude, you gave Twilight 5 stars...
Couple of historical facts that might shed light. Little Women was in fact two books originally. Miss Alcott ended the book when Meg got engaged and Jo turned down Laurie. She received so much mail about what was going to happen to Jo that her publisher told her she had to write a second installment. This may explain why the book seems long now because the two installments are generally printed as one.She also had no intention of having Jo get married, but again remember the time and that she was contracted to write this book for "girls" so her publisher said Jo must get married. So her compromise was to create the professor whom she said was a composite of her father and Ralph Emerson who was a friend of the Alcotts.
I learned all this during a visit to their family home in Concord, MA. Definitely worth going if you are in the area.
that's the reason why it's called a classic.
Amy wrote: "Dude, you gave Twilight 5 stars..."The Twilight I gave five stars to was the play about the LA Riots... Thanks for providing so much insight on my review with a comment that makes no sense
Siera wrote: "I don't know why you read this expecting to like it. This is the kind of book that girls with sisters can say, "Awww, that reminds me of when..." And, for the record, after reading this book as a t..."So this book should only be read by girls? Its considered a classic which is why I read it--and I found it lacking. I didnt realize having a penis made me incapable of enjoying it.
so sorry
Alyssa wrote: "I'm going to second Amy's comment "Dude, you gave Twilight 5 stars".. and add to it "which means your opinion is negligible "."The Twilight I gave five stars to was the play about the LA Riots... Thanks for providing so much insight on my review with a comment that makes no sense
I loved this book as a young girl, but I do remember agreeing with a few of your points (especially the part about Amy and Laurie ending up together). I think people are drawn to this story because the characters are so lovable despite some being one-dimensional (such as Beth).
I totally disagree with just about everything you said, however I do like your honesty very much. Too many times books are held up like holy relics just because they've been read for generations. I hatehatehate it when people feel like they have to really like a book just because it's a classic. It is a very feminine book though, and it surprised me that a man would have even given it the time of day, let alone write a review on it (be it good or bad). Have you read any other of her novels?
Thanks for respecting the review! I try to read as many classics as I can... I will read more of her novels... I have heard they do address some of my issues
Sorry people are telling you you can't enjoy it because you're male - I'm glad you're standing up for yourself. Have you seen the movie version from the early '90s? You may like that, as it preserves the story with no preaching.If you're looking to read more Alcott, I would recommend Eight Cousins. Most people don't know about it, but I think I actually like it better as a book than Little Women (though I love the LW movie I mentioned). Eight Cousins is much less moralising - actually, generally when the characters try to be moralistic they are shown the emptiness of their intentions, or the folly of trying to control other people.
Thank you for standing up to the Establishment of classics! I can agree that it can seem pretty underwhelming if you read it with a lot of hearsay in the back of your mind. Reading this book as an adolescent, was nothing remarkable. I wasn't impacted by the author's words, and it's nice to finally hear someone else break the taboo- just because its a classic doesn't make it the equvivalent pf literary God. There was some good messages, but the biggest thing I walked away thinking was "Really?! The Professor and Jo?!"
I agree with Kelduiniel about Eight Cousins, which I recently re-read. I also feel bound to point out that Beth is not exactly a Mary Sue. Most people agree she is based on Louisa's short-lived and beloved sister, May. So some of the idealizing may be forgivable...
Sorry, as soon as I wrote that I thought twice. Beth is not based on May (Amy) but on Louisa's sister Elizabeth, whom Louisa often called Beth. I guess Louisa felt that in this case there was no need to change the name to protect the innocent. :-)
Oh. My. God. You took the words right out of my mind!I went through an adolescent Alcott phase, and even then, I hated it!
I mean, what is her problem with individuality? She starts with four unique women, and then ends up with clones. No, growing up is not about giving up things you like! It is not about getting married and having babies!
Also, I agree that pursuing anything you might be passionate about is selfish and isolating... but I think that creating something beautiful and important is worth it.
I don't think Jo is sacrificing "being in love with who you want" -- while it's true she always loved Laurie, she didn't love him romantically. Little Women was never my favorite Alcott, and I'm now re-reading it for the first time after thirty years or more, but one of the few scenes I remember (I haven't re-read the "Good Wives" part yet) is the umbrella scene with Jo and Mr. Bhaer, which I found terribly romantic. A lot of people thought she should have ended up with Laurie, but Jo herself says, first, that they are too alike, and second, that she just doesn't feel "that way" about Laurie. You can't make yourself feel romantically about a guy you've always seen as a brother, just because he wants you to.
This book is rubbish. Good review!
You had me at dull. "Beth's life isn't useless because she is an angel and showed them that angels do exist and is a total Mary Sue(Really? Cause I'm glad she died before I died of boredom)"
Hilarious!
I have always loved this book, but as I grew older, I began to wonder some of the same things. I recently listened to The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott, and while it does include quite a bit of speculation, it does shed some light on why LMA chose to write the Good Wives portion of Little Women the way that she did.
I am a male young adult Asian, that must be the reason i lost at your words there :) Sometimes try to become the smartest person in the room actually a big hint for the opposite, well with no disrespect I stated that sir. thank you
Perhaps the following point has been made in comments. If so, I apologize for being repetitive. This work was published in 1868. The nation had recently suffered the greatest loss of life of its history. Over 600,000 men died in that conflict - a number barely matched by all the other wars in the countries history. Countless more were maimed. Men who missed an arm or leg were familiar sights in everyday life.
An author who had spent a childhood in poverty exacerbated by a frivolous father and who had herself seen the misery of the wounded during her time as a nurse, might well have thought that some healthy self-discipline and self-denial was a good thing.
Spencer wrote: "Perhaps the following point has been made in comments. If so, I apologize for being repetitive. This work was published in 1868. The nation had recently suffered the greatest loss of life of its ..."
I see,
It actually gave me some new perspective about this book.
Thank you for your respond sir.
Have a nice day.
I hated this book & I have no penis!!!
You know that this is a semi biography of Louisa May Alcott's life. Her younger sister actually passed away. These characters were actually based on real people and the story features real life events. This is not pure fiction.
kan die man niet weg met zijn lelijke commentaar, ik heb genoten van dit boek, het is een onschuldig romantiscg meisjesboek, wat moet hij met zo'n boek in zn handen?laat hij lezen wat geschikt is voor oude sjacherijnige oude mannen,en niet afkatten op een heerlijk meisjesboek
Well I loved the first half of the book but everything went down-hill after Jo turned down Laurie. I HATE the fact that Laurie and Amy get married; it seems unnatural.
And Jo. If she didn't want to marry Laurie she shouldn't have married at all. It all seems so wrong. I guess this was due to the publisher though so we can't blame the author.
But the book wasn't as bad as your review makes it out to be. It was a sort of enjoyable read, especially the first half as I said before.
Omg there are more books. Ugh. So pious and irritating. Hated Amy.
I completely agree with you. I couldn't find anything... inspirational in Little Women which I'm really disappointed in.
I found it really interesting when I read it in fifth grade. I think you need to read it again
the book seems to be fine for the time it was written, i think people don't like because they are in different time, basically it the real story of the auther.
I totally agree!!! Such a dull book!! I wanted to quit reading it but I pressed on because it was such a "beloved" book! Eek! Well, at least I can say Ive read it.
Truly spoken!It was so dull I almost stopped reading it.But unfortunately I have this habit of finishing a book that I've started.Can't believe I even started it!
I got through 1/3 of the book and had enough. I enjoy classics but this is not one of them.
I got through 1/3 of the book and had enough. I enjoy classics but this is not one of them.
Thank you for this review. I came on here to see if others agreed with my opinion (and I don't have a penis, and usually enjoy "feminine books". I am about 25% done the book and I feel like I am making myself continue just because it's a book people think you should read. I also hated Pride and Prejudice, but absolutely adored Anne of Green Gables. I just can't figure out whether I should keep reading or give up. (I already knew what happened before reading your review)
look if you didn't like why say anything at all
Read the book one more time
I really couldn't put my finger on why I didn't love this book. I even thought I missed the point when so many generations have raved about it. And now, reading your review, you hit the nail on the head! Aside from Jo, all the characters are forced moralistic, saccharine, and one dimensional. I agree re: pushing Jo and Fritz together out of no where. And I am also confused about Amy and Laurie. How did that happen? Why did that happen?! And when/how/why did Amy go from being a self-centred narcissist to a charity worker (i almost had reflux when her and Laurie talked about sharing their wealth with less fortunate people, not beggars, so they don't feel too bad about being filthy rich). I did like some of the preachy bits, especially what mother March imparted, but otherwise, I was left feeling really numb from the brainwashing: give up all your hopes and dreams to be a mother. And don't grow your talents. And if you are pretty (and have fair hands), everything will work out gravy.
I completely agree with you. I started this book really hoping I'd like it, but it was so preachy and at times, so random (Amy and Laurie / Jo and the professor). This book could've been relevant when it was written but now it's so outdated, you can't even understand why some characters are doing the things they did.
That's one book I'm never suggesting anyone to read.
I can't agree more! I find this book not worth reading! And i am so pissed off when i read amy married Lori, seriously i don't know why this can happen,why should it happen. And also Beth's death, she's a angel but why let her die? I don't like Amy at all, she seems can always what she wants. Of all the characters i love Jo most, she's inspiring.
I like the book, but you made me literally lol saying you were glad Beth died before you died of boredom.
The novel is realistic and it's based on Alcott's autobiography. Well, you can easily resist the preaching and focus on the universal good morals such as stopping being selfish, managing your time properly, putting the others' shoes on, etc and if you're interested in a literature with no instruct then this novel isn't suitable for you because actually it is a children's literature aimed at girls specifically and the sociocultural and historical context then was different from now. For me, I liked it although I'm not Christian myself for the book parallels in some way "The pilgrim's progress." Well, in the end that's your review.
This review was perfect! I also hated this book, and I'm a girl! I don't need a book to preach to me about being "good". That is not why I read. and everything you said about the characters was spot on. Good review sir!
Hah! Thank you! I was starting to worry I was all alone in despising this book. I was okay with the first part, though it was heavy on moralizing and sexism (but I figured, different times, and let it pass for a while). And then part two came along, and I just couldn't keep my mind on the story. By the time Amy and Laurie (?!) happened, I was laughing out loud, thinking, Dude, he's soooo going to cheat on you with your sister... Well done, girly, you're the consolation prize. Ugh.
I’ll tell you how Amy/Laurie and Jo/Fritz happened, it’s very simple psychology. We all know Alcott is Jo and that Alcott didn’t mary, for reasons unknown and of no interest to us, but bottom line is she didn’t find the typical happy ever after, that’s why Jo didn’t have it either. The reason the plot seems so forced is because she forced it to suit her needs. If Jo, popular beloved Jo, didn’t mary hot good rich Laurie who loved her and made an example of it, then it would be ok that she didn’t mary either. So through her book, a powerful means because it was very popular at the time and people were asking to see Jo and Laurie get together, she can appease her doubts and disappointment. Have you ever seen a woman be generous with a woman that has more than herself? No. She couldn’t have left Jo find happiness when life has been “bad” to her. So she was a bitter old spinster who killed her own creation and broke the hearts of millions of readers in generations to come. Cause that’s people do fellows.
I loved the book and the story but see it as a product of its time and that’s how people were then,
