A review by lenorayoder
Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

  • Diverse cast of characters? No

3.0

I know Little Women is a beloved classic so this will ruffle some feathers, but I was so disappointed in this read. I grew up on the 90's movie and loved it, I toured the house when I was a kid, and I've heard enough cool things about Alcott that her letters/journals are on my TBR. But this book was a slog. If I weren't accounting for the first part/book being essentially a children's book and the whole thing being written in the 1800's, this would have been 2 stars. 

The first part has the issue of feeling more like a collection of short stories than a book. It felt like the kind of book that you would read to your kid a chapter at a time before bed. The formula of one or more sisters doing something "wrong," experiencing consequences, and then getting a little religious/moral lecture from Marmee and promising to do better was tiring. It doesn't leave room for any subtlety or nuance, and often Alcott is just telling us stuff instead of showing us. One of the books supposed strengths is it's characters, but they behave in such formulaic ways for so much of this first part that they feel more like caricatures than people. Jo is somewhat the exception to this, I suppose because she's the character based on Alcott herself. 

Some of my favorite bits of the first part are exceptions to the above. Notably, John's story in the Camp Laurence chapter about the
knight wanting to free a captive princess
gives us insight into his character, shows us
how he feels about Meg, and feels quite romantic
without out-right telling us that
John wants to marry Meg
. I love that the
story gets wildly off-track as the "Rigmarole" game continues, but as the last story-teller Laurie brings the story back to the knight
. Alcott manages to convey his
support for John, his love for the Marches, and that he thinks John should be more active about his feelings.
Unfortunately this is somewhat ruined in a few chapters when Alcott feels the need to outright tell us these things, but I loved the subtlety while it lasted. 

The second part felt more like a cohesive novel and I started it with a lot of relief, but it soon fell back into the short-story pattern of the first part. The messages about marriage feel very outdated, and Meg feels like a shadow of herself after
the wedding chapter
. I found Beth's quiet struggle to
accept her fate compelling
, and the talk she has with Jo when she finally reveals that
struggle is very moving
. 

Throughout the book Amy's portrayal has felt off to me, and I finally came to the conclusion that Alcott just... doesn't like Amy.
Laurie's proposal to Jo
being written so beautifully and emotionally while
his marriage to Amy
happens off-screen, Amy's chapters about
falling for Laurie
alternating with the chapters about
Beth dying, Laurie writing a last letter to Jo seeing if she'll change her mind before he decides to pursue Amy, Laurie thinking of Amy as a replacement for Jo, and Amy's only child being named after Beth only to end up being sickly and unlikely to survive childhood
all just felt malicious. Jo and Amy are the most realized characters of the book, but there's just this constant undercurrent of dislike. As children (when Amy is eleven, mind you) they seem to clash equally, but by part two, it feels like
Amy has moved on and likes/admires Jo, but Jo (and Alcott) has this contempt for her that doesn't feel deserved
. I could talk about this more, but it's just kind of unpleasant to read in a book that's supposed to be about the bond these women have. 

I have more Thoughts but this is long enough. I'm glad I read this, but I wish it lived up to the hype. I'm going to go watch the adaptations and try to find fan fiction about Amy. 
Expand filter menu Content Warnings