lotoazul 's review for:

The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott by Kelly O'Connor McNees

4.0

emotional funny hopeful inspiring reflective 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

---

i bought this book YEARS ago, and i have been pushing it further and further down my to-read list since then because i was afraid it would re-ignite nine-year-old me's little women heartbreak. (don't get me wrong-- little women is my favorite book of all time, but that doesn't mean it didn't break my heart into tiny little pieces haha.)

now i'm kind of kicking myself, because i really did love this book so much. i only really skimmed over the reviews before i read it, but i think a lot of what people dislike about this book is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what historical fiction is supposed to be, and what we should expect of real historical figures depicted in a historical fiction context. i believe once someone becomes a historical figure, and they're no longer around to object to a writer's characterization of them, they've basically become a "public domain" figure. their histories become the stories we tell ourselves about them, and short of inventing a time machine, we can't account for every second of their lives. so authors are allowed, for better or worse, to take some artistic liberties and fill in the gaps left by the historical record-- it's how we end up with stuff like hamilton, or abraham lincoln: vampire hunter, or a show that i watched recently that i really enjoyed, the law according to lidia poët. last year, i read about half a dozen fictional takes on alexander the great, all of which were very different from each other, and a few of them quite good and decently faithful to the historical record, while still weaving a compelling story. that's what historical fiction does.

as a writer myself and a book girlie in general, jo march has been a role model for me my entire life. as a woman who has remained single and childfree by choice into my early 40s, louisa may alcott's life and career resonates very deeply with me. and yet, the idea that louisa may have, at some point in her life, known romantic love does not threaten me in any way. it does not sully my image of her in any way. feminism isn't about women being one thing; it's about women having choices. and mcnees's version of louisa had that choice, and she chose

her career

. that was literally the whole point of the book. and this book communicated both her struggle with that choice and her reasoning behind her decision excellently. if you want to think of louisa may alcott, the real person, as being completely above physical attraction and romance, that's fine. but in fiction, a character who never wavers from their principles, who never struggles, who never grows, and who never learns from the curveballs life throws at them makes for a very bland story. mcnees gave louisa a plausible such struggle. you may think it not accurate to the louisa you've built up in your mind (you do you; mcnees never pretended that her narrative was anything but made up), but she has the right to do so. if this character were named anything but louisa may alcott, we'd be having a very different conversation, i'm sure.

which is not to say everything in the story was perfect. some people had an issue with louisa having an intimate physical encounter with her beau, and i have to admit i did as well. not because women shouldn't (or didn't) sleep with men before marriage in the pre-civil war period, or because this was meant to emulate the sweet, wholesome, young-adult tone of little women (it wasn't, and if you thought that it would, you probably should've done more research before buying it). but it did take me out of the narrative a bit because there were such dire consequences for women of that period when it came to having sex outside of marriage, and louisa in particular-- this version of louisa, the CHARACTER louisa-- didn't seem the type to throw caution to the wind so easily when there was the chance that choice could affect not just her own reputation, but her entire family's as well as her beau's. it does take me aback for a second in stories set this far back in time (think bridgerton, or the aforementioned lidia poët), and that brief moment of disconnect is part of the reason why this book isn't a 4.5-star for me. still, i recognize the conventions of the genre play a part, and as i don't cling to louisa's "purity of principle," i can roll with it and the drama it brings to the story.

all in all, it's not a stretch to imagine that this could be the jo march story louisa would have given us without her publisher's interference. joseph certainly felt a lot like laurie (except not rich, so can we throw that excuse out the window now, please), and it did sort of pull at that old thread of heartbreak at the pit of my stomach, but it wasn't as painful as i expected it to be. i wanted to see them fall in love, and now i have, in a manner of speaking-- without requiring

"jo" to choose romantic love over her writing

. my nine-year-old self is feeling quite satisfied today.