Scan barcode
ckeithjohnson's review against another edition
4.0
Abridged versions are good for very young folks. I'm not very young and I didn't find the adaptation to be very good. But how could it be. The beauty of Alcott's work is not in her plots, but in her wry and humorous prose. This is all plot.
manadabomb's review against another edition
2.0
FINALLY finished it.
This was not up my alley at all. I've surprised myself when I read Jane Austen - surprised as in I really enjoyed her works. The book club I'm in was reading Little Women and I thought it would be along the same lines. Nope. I did not enjoy this at all.
I started reading it, the actual physical book, but switched to Craftlit to get the audio and Heather's commentary. I feel like I did this because I wasn't interested in the story as I read it. I listened to the audio for a while and it wasn't bad, but I was still bored of the story.
The characters were not interesting to me. It was too sweet and too "Marry a rich man!" & "We're poor but we have a servant!" for me.
Jo wasn't a terrible character but I was annoyed by her as well (25 and a spinster!).
I tried. I really did.
This was not up my alley at all. I've surprised myself when I read Jane Austen - surprised as in I really enjoyed her works. The book club I'm in was reading Little Women and I thought it would be along the same lines. Nope. I did not enjoy this at all.
I started reading it, the actual physical book, but switched to Craftlit to get the audio and Heather's commentary. I feel like I did this because I wasn't interested in the story as I read it. I listened to the audio for a while and it wasn't bad, but I was still bored of the story.
The characters were not interesting to me. It was too sweet and too "Marry a rich man!" & "We're poor but we have a servant!" for me.
Jo wasn't a terrible character but I was annoyed by her as well (25 and a spinster!).
I tried. I really did.
belleakuvi's review against another edition
3.0
*2023 update*: idk why i read this when i was 12 lol... my rating is lowkey invalid i just didnt understand what i was reading
cryingcowboy's review against another edition
4.0
i can’t help imagine Florence as Amy while i read this. All that i need in life is that this whole thing should’ve been fruitier.
alexandra_ninelives's review against another edition
4.0
This was the book I was reading only at work, that’s why it took me 5 days to finish. It is only the Little Women part of the story. I have to wait a week to get Good Wives in the mail.
I don’t think I’ll review it separately so right now my only thought is that I love Jo so much. I hope she’ll be happy. She has the biggest heart out of all of them and she deserves the world.
I don’t think I’ll review it separately so right now my only thought is that I love Jo so much. I hope she’ll be happy. She has the biggest heart out of all of them and she deserves the world.
gabingy's review against another edition
5.0
Mi cariño por este libro es infinito. No hay familias de libros a la que les tenga más cariño que a las March. Me gusta mucho cómo la autora pudo caracterizar a cada una tan diferente de la otra pero a la vez que tengan tantas cosas en común, tal y como si fueran hermanas reales. Mentalmente soy parte de esta familia tan cálida (੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭♡
lgrunwald's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
3/5
I always tend to question my own taste when I read almost universally loved books like "Little Women" and just think..."it's fine". That's really one of the only thoughts I have too. It was fine. Not bad by any stretch but definitely not my taste. While some parts of it, particularly part one, were charming and heartwarming the majority of the book fell completely flat especially when I reached part two of the novel after a time skip. It was just...boring. I loved seeing the girls grow up and find themselves in this strange era of the American civil war but after the initial time of childhood the rest of the book seemed absolutely dull and, to be honest, this book really showed its age in regards to how women carry themselves and think for themselves. This stuff usually doesn't bother me as I've read many, many older books that show their age with themes that are just insulting to the modern social era but "Little Women" just got under my skin for reasons I hope I can explain in my character descriptions below.
My other main complaint before I jump into those said character descriptions is how preachy the book was. It was exceptionally annoying as all I could imagine was out author Alcott wagging her finger in my face and smacking me with a bible over and over again. Don't get me wrong, some of the life lessons here are great but the majority are incredibly sexist and lessons I'm not sure I'd want my daughter to learn if I had one. Being a kind and considerate spouse is one thing...but practically doting on your husband and being the better person just so he behaves himself is just rubbish advice really. Or how doing something you love for money is trashy for a young woman and other things I couldn't wrap my head around.
The majority of my problems with the book were character specific so I'll try and just go through and give short descriptions of my issues. I'll start with the March sisters oldest to youngest then move on to the secondary characters.
*Meg: Meg was really great at first. As I mentioned the first part of the novel was where everyone really shined and Meg was no different. She's the oldest sister of the Marches and she's exactly how I imagine a young woman who's poor in this time period to be. She's spoilt but she's a great older sister. Beautiful and intelligent and kind natured. She didn't rock the boat in regards to being a fascinating character but she was sweet...until Mr. Brooke came along. After her marriage to that absolute loser husband of hers, who I will rant about later, Alcott completely dropped her from the novel. She had only a couple of sections dedicated to her of her basically getting knocked up and no longer having a life and being given the worst advice from her own mother about being a good wife and then...nothing. Thats it. Guess Alcott thinks womens lives begin and end with marriage and children.
*Jo: This was my least favourite of the sisters by far and that seems to be an unpopular opinion here but eh what can you do? I also here this is the character Alcott based off herself so...that may be telling as I find most of Alcotts morals and ideas questionable. She was just so irritating. I felt Megs frustration like my own when Jo would act "manly" and "boyish". Like I get it...you want to be different. Cool. Can you just be a tomboy and not bring it up every five minutes? She's all about wanting to be a free spirit and independent and make money off of her writing...until a man comes along. (I'm seeing a theme here) The German professor who's twice her age and convinces her that writing for money without any morals to the story (or morals he agrees with at least) is bad and she shouldn't do it anymore. You know what happens then? SHE ACTUALLY LISTENS??!? What the...Jo?? Ms screaming about needing freedom and independence gives up all of those things and then actually marries him?!? That's just...wild and very disappointing. At least she didn't marry Laurie...but we will get to that can of worms in the Amy section. Basically Jo was just a brat and a snob and thought she was better and smarter than everyone. I'm glad, however, her ending with the professor turned out well. It put him in a much better light than I initially saw him in and it seemed he and Jo had a beautiful life. I just wish that Jo's writing passion could have remained and that she didn't go down the path that she seemed to fight against through the whole novel. It just seemed odd to have a character shift that dramatically on the last section of the book. All in all I guess I can't complain too much. It ended well for both Jo and the professor and if they are happy then...oh well.
*Beth: Her story is that she's very nice and sweet....then she dies. The end. That's it that's the plot. She's barley in this book and has no personality and does nothing. I will say however that the chapter of her death called "The Valley of Shadow" was stunningly well written and probably the best in the entire book. It was beautiful and heartbreakingly gut wrenching. I have come to understand that Alcott based Beth on her own sister that passed away around the same age. If this was her way of honouring her sister and grieving her then she did a magnificent job. I would be happy with that if I were here sister. She gave her one of the most dignified deaths I've ever read. Very, very well done.
*Amy: She was actually my favourite character in this entire book. I adored her! I mean how could I not love her? She had the most character development out of all of the sisters and, to me at least, and is genuinely very likeable. She was only twelve years old in the first section of the book and she very much acted like it. She was spoiled, self absorbed, and just sort of selfish in general as most children are but she fought against it with every fibre of her being. She wanted to be good and not selfish and everytime she made a mistake or did a selfish action she would do everything in her power to remedy it. Like when they were all buying their mother Christmas gifts and Amy got her a small bottle of perfume and kept the leftover money for herself. However, when she saw all the nice things her sisters got her mother and talked about the love they had for her she felt guilty over getting her something so small. So, she went back to the perfume place and exchanged the small bottle for a large one and used all of the leftover money to get it. She also put a lot of effort into being kind and being the bigger person when she was slighted after burning Jo's book as a child. She took that lesson she learned and applied it later to dealing with those snooty upper class girls she associates with and everyone learned to love her all the better for it despite her poverty. She works hard at practicing her art and learning about culture and language and also has quite a talent and making her dresses and there clothes stunningly beautiful with cheap items. Making the best of her situation. She's just very admirable in every way...then she gets stuck with Laurie. I eye rolled so hard when this happened. So, let me get this straight, Laurie proposes to Jo and she says no (like duh we all saw that coming and Laurie should have to. Idiot. She literally went away to New York to get away from you, you weirdo.) and then he ends up married to Amy because "when he couldn't have had one sister he took the other". I...wanted...to...scream. Amy is probably the best person in this novel. As I said before, she had the most character development, and was able to drop her own vanity and selfishness and become truely good in every sense of the word. She was practical and worked hard to achieve her goals, and took each misstep and hardship with a grace of character I can't help but admire immensely. What is her reward? A sloppy second hand husband her sister didn't want. It was the most frustrating thing I've ever read. Amy deserves better.
*Laurie: Don't get me wrong Laurie is...okay despite what I said in the Amy section. However, he's just kind of sad. He absolutely falls head over heels in love with Jo through the majority of the novel, gets told no, and runs off to Europe and ends up settling and marrying Amy as his second option. He just wanted to be a part of that family so badly and I feel for him but at the same time...come on. That was just sort of messed up. I would have been much happier if Laurie married outside the March family and still loved the girls as his friends. His ending with Amy just put him in a bad light.
*Mrs. March: She started off AMAZING...then wasn't so amazing by the end. She was a wonderful mother to the little girls. Always giving them love and affection, telling them they don't need to marry rich men or even marry at all to be happy, letting them persue their goals and dreams, teaching them good morals, and just being an extremely admirable parent. Until her girls get married or course then her advice goes in the bin especially with Meg. She kinda makes it out that it's Megs fault that her husband goes out to the neighbours every night because she is focusing on being a mother rather than babying her husband. Sounds to me like her husband just needs to be a parent and actually stay home and help out no matter what Meg says. He's a husband and father for goodness sake step up! That was such garbage advice.
*Mr. March: Barley in the story. Nothing worth mentioning.
*Mr: Brooke: Aka Megs loser husband. He whines and moans and groans about everything. Doesn't help Meg in the slightest even though she's a young and new mother (with twins may I add) until she "shows him respect". He literally ditches her to stay at work as late as possible and go to the neighbours because he can't deal with her. I was baffled at his behaviour and then how the family would just preach about how much of a good man he was! I'm sorry what?!?! If that had been me I would have kicked him to the curb in a minute and told him to go live at the neighbours for all I care and I'll take care of the children alone. What an absolute useless waste of space husband.
*Professor Bhaer: He is probably the best out of the March sisters husbands. Other than what I mentioned about pushing his own morals on Jo a little bit he was pretty great. He was loving, compassionate, smart, playful, eloquent, and just a very gracious human being all around. His goals were ideal, he patience was endless and his love for Jo genuinely was a beautiful thing to witness. I just think with the way Alcott wrote Jo initially that this relationship wasn't supposed to happen. In fact I don't think Jo really was good enough for him! Or maybe I'm just jealous because I fell in love with him a little bit (haha). Either way he and Amy really were the saving graces of this book for me.
All in all this book was good for the first half and then really fell off the second. Some of its moral lessons it was attempting to convey were great and some were not. Personally, if I had a child this would not be a book I'd give them to teach them any sort of lessons to learn from. As the basic premise of this book says, in my opinion, goals and dreams are selfish and the true value of life and way to live is not to live for yourself but for others. That's fine and all but I think you should strike a balance between the two. You should have your goals and dreams and work hard to achieve them but at the same time to not forget your fellow humans around you. Love another as you'd love yourself. Charity and selflessness are admirable qualities but that doesn't mean it isn't okay to be a little selfish for yourself sometimes. Its healthy and very human of us to do. Alcotts morals grandstanding really stood in the way of her telling a good story and presenting the girls in a realistic fashion (other than Amy). Also Alcotts promotion of a married life with children and giving up your dreams are really ironic considering she didn't do these things in her own life and stayed single and wrote novels for money. Which, is the exact opposite of what she did for Jo in the story and preached at us. That was just odd. Unfortunately, this novel just wasn't for me.
My other main complaint before I jump into those said character descriptions is how preachy the book was. It was exceptionally annoying as all I could imagine was out author Alcott wagging her finger in my face and smacking me with a bible over and over again. Don't get me wrong, some of the life lessons here are great but the majority are incredibly sexist and lessons I'm not sure I'd want my daughter to learn if I had one. Being a kind and considerate spouse is one thing...but practically doting on your husband and being the better person just so he behaves himself is just rubbish advice really. Or how doing something you love for money is trashy for a young woman and other things I couldn't wrap my head around.
The majority of my problems with the book were character specific so I'll try and just go through and give short descriptions of my issues. I'll start with the March sisters oldest to youngest then move on to the secondary characters.
*Meg: Meg was really great at first. As I mentioned the first part of the novel was where everyone really shined and Meg was no different. She's the oldest sister of the Marches and she's exactly how I imagine a young woman who's poor in this time period to be. She's spoilt but she's a great older sister. Beautiful and intelligent and kind natured. She didn't rock the boat in regards to being a fascinating character but she was sweet...until Mr. Brooke came along. After her marriage to that absolute loser husband of hers, who I will rant about later, Alcott completely dropped her from the novel. She had only a couple of sections dedicated to her of her basically getting knocked up and no longer having a life and being given the worst advice from her own mother about being a good wife and then...nothing. Thats it. Guess Alcott thinks womens lives begin and end with marriage and children.
*Jo: This was my least favourite of the sisters by far and that seems to be an unpopular opinion here but eh what can you do? I also here this is the character Alcott based off herself so...that may be telling as I find most of Alcotts morals and ideas questionable. She was just so irritating. I felt Megs frustration like my own when Jo would act "manly" and "boyish". Like I get it...you want to be different. Cool. Can you just be a tomboy and not bring it up every five minutes? She's all about wanting to be a free spirit and independent and make money off of her writing...until a man comes along. (I'm seeing a theme here) The German professor who's twice her age and convinces her that writing for money without any morals to the story (or morals he agrees with at least) is bad and she shouldn't do it anymore. You know what happens then? SHE ACTUALLY LISTENS??!? What the...Jo?? Ms screaming about needing freedom and independence gives up all of those things and then actually marries him?!? That's just...wild and very disappointing. At least she didn't marry Laurie...but we will get to that can of worms in the Amy section. Basically Jo was just a brat and a snob and thought she was better and smarter than everyone. I'm glad, however, her ending with the professor turned out well. It put him in a much better light than I initially saw him in and it seemed he and Jo had a beautiful life. I just wish that Jo's writing passion could have remained and that she didn't go down the path that she seemed to fight against through the whole novel. It just seemed odd to have a character shift that dramatically on the last section of the book. All in all I guess I can't complain too much. It ended well for both Jo and the professor and if they are happy then...oh well.
*Beth: Her story is that she's very nice and sweet....then she dies. The end. That's it that's the plot. She's barley in this book and has no personality and does nothing. I will say however that the chapter of her death called "The Valley of Shadow" was stunningly well written and probably the best in the entire book. It was beautiful and heartbreakingly gut wrenching. I have come to understand that Alcott based Beth on her own sister that passed away around the same age. If this was her way of honouring her sister and grieving her then she did a magnificent job. I would be happy with that if I were here sister. She gave her one of the most dignified deaths I've ever read. Very, very well done.
*Amy: She was actually my favourite character in this entire book. I adored her! I mean how could I not love her? She had the most character development out of all of the sisters and, to me at least, and is genuinely very likeable. She was only twelve years old in the first section of the book and she very much acted like it. She was spoiled, self absorbed, and just sort of selfish in general as most children are but she fought against it with every fibre of her being. She wanted to be good and not selfish and everytime she made a mistake or did a selfish action she would do everything in her power to remedy it. Like when they were all buying their mother Christmas gifts and Amy got her a small bottle of perfume and kept the leftover money for herself. However, when she saw all the nice things her sisters got her mother and talked about the love they had for her she felt guilty over getting her something so small. So, she went back to the perfume place and exchanged the small bottle for a large one and used all of the leftover money to get it. She also put a lot of effort into being kind and being the bigger person when she was slighted after burning Jo's book as a child. She took that lesson she learned and applied it later to dealing with those snooty upper class girls she associates with and everyone learned to love her all the better for it despite her poverty. She works hard at practicing her art and learning about culture and language and also has quite a talent and making her dresses and there clothes stunningly beautiful with cheap items. Making the best of her situation. She's just very admirable in every way...then she gets stuck with Laurie. I eye rolled so hard when this happened. So, let me get this straight, Laurie proposes to Jo and she says no (like duh we all saw that coming and Laurie should have to. Idiot. She literally went away to New York to get away from you, you weirdo.) and then he ends up married to Amy because "when he couldn't have had one sister he took the other". I...wanted...to...scream. Amy is probably the best person in this novel. As I said before, she had the most character development, and was able to drop her own vanity and selfishness and become truely good in every sense of the word. She was practical and worked hard to achieve her goals, and took each misstep and hardship with a grace of character I can't help but admire immensely. What is her reward? A sloppy second hand husband her sister didn't want. It was the most frustrating thing I've ever read. Amy deserves better.
*Laurie: Don't get me wrong Laurie is...okay despite what I said in the Amy section. However, he's just kind of sad. He absolutely falls head over heels in love with Jo through the majority of the novel, gets told no, and runs off to Europe and ends up settling and marrying Amy as his second option. He just wanted to be a part of that family so badly and I feel for him but at the same time...come on. That was just sort of messed up. I would have been much happier if Laurie married outside the March family and still loved the girls as his friends. His ending with Amy just put him in a bad light.
*Mrs. March: She started off AMAZING...then wasn't so amazing by the end. She was a wonderful mother to the little girls. Always giving them love and affection, telling them they don't need to marry rich men or even marry at all to be happy, letting them persue their goals and dreams, teaching them good morals, and just being an extremely admirable parent. Until her girls get married or course then her advice goes in the bin especially with Meg. She kinda makes it out that it's Megs fault that her husband goes out to the neighbours every night because she is focusing on being a mother rather than babying her husband. Sounds to me like her husband just needs to be a parent and actually stay home and help out no matter what Meg says. He's a husband and father for goodness sake step up! That was such garbage advice.
*Mr. March: Barley in the story. Nothing worth mentioning.
*Mr: Brooke: Aka Megs loser husband. He whines and moans and groans about everything. Doesn't help Meg in the slightest even though she's a young and new mother (with twins may I add) until she "shows him respect". He literally ditches her to stay at work as late as possible and go to the neighbours because he can't deal with her. I was baffled at his behaviour and then how the family would just preach about how much of a good man he was! I'm sorry what?!?! If that had been me I would have kicked him to the curb in a minute and told him to go live at the neighbours for all I care and I'll take care of the children alone. What an absolute useless waste of space husband.
*Professor Bhaer: He is probably the best out of the March sisters husbands. Other than what I mentioned about pushing his own morals on Jo a little bit he was pretty great. He was loving, compassionate, smart, playful, eloquent, and just a very gracious human being all around. His goals were ideal, he patience was endless and his love for Jo genuinely was a beautiful thing to witness. I just think with the way Alcott wrote Jo initially that this relationship wasn't supposed to happen. In fact I don't think Jo really was good enough for him! Or maybe I'm just jealous because I fell in love with him a little bit (haha). Either way he and Amy really were the saving graces of this book for me.
All in all this book was good for the first half and then really fell off the second. Some of its moral lessons it was attempting to convey were great and some were not. Personally, if I had a child this would not be a book I'd give them to teach them any sort of lessons to learn from. As the basic premise of this book says, in my opinion, goals and dreams are selfish and the true value of life and way to live is not to live for yourself but for others. That's fine and all but I think you should strike a balance between the two. You should have your goals and dreams and work hard to achieve them but at the same time to not forget your fellow humans around you. Love another as you'd love yourself. Charity and selflessness are admirable qualities but that doesn't mean it isn't okay to be a little selfish for yourself sometimes. Its healthy and very human of us to do. Alcotts morals grandstanding really stood in the way of her telling a good story and presenting the girls in a realistic fashion (other than Amy). Also Alcotts promotion of a married life with children and giving up your dreams are really ironic considering she didn't do these things in her own life and stayed single and wrote novels for money. Which, is the exact opposite of what she did for Jo in the story and preached at us. That was just odd. Unfortunately, this novel just wasn't for me.