Scan barcode
A review by jagisoffline
Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
2.0
Story: 2/5. This was quite a bit of a burden to get through. It's not that it's a bad story, but it is perhaps something for a very particular kind of reader and I am not that reader. It was laborious for me because it is full of so much lightness and has almost no tension or stakes to balance all of its levity and wholesomeness. It is an altogether wholesome tale of four sisters and their love for each other and their parents, and everything that then transpires over the course of a few years of their lives. It is, in a sense, a slice of their lives, but their lives are mostly riddled with small errors and lapses in judgement which are almost always immediately mended and forgiven. These characters come off as unnaturally understanding and patient with each other in a way that makes them feel as though they existed in an alternate utopia where people don't get angry or hold grudges or treat people badly. I just finished this after suffering through it at a snail's pace and I don't believe I can think of a single truly antagonistic experience in the story. Perhaps it was written for a dark time when people needed hope and to be reminded that goodness still persists, I don't know. But it left me feeling quite unsatisfied and begging for something to care about. In the end, it really was only some of its character work that kept me through it until the last dreadful page.
Characterisation: 3/5. This is the saving grace of this otherwise bone-dry experience. Though most of its characters are just the most perfect and consideration caricatures on the planet, Jo March and Amy March were its most fully-realised and realistic characters throughout. The chapters concerning Jo and Amy were the only ones I felt myself truly invested in and keeping up with (bar Amy's last handful of moments). Jo felt real and driven and conflicted and had beliefs which fluctuated realistically whenever certain events occurred. Her relationships with the other characters seemed to drive the narrative and she was followed in this very closely by Amy. Laurie had his moments, too, and Bhaer was a good and healthy addition to the story.
Language: 2/5. Herein lies my other problem with the experience of this read. I have read other books from the 1800s before and this was the sloggiest of all of them, by far. This writing style is the absolute example of why 'show don't tell' is a rule. We are told every fluctuating emotion of every character in every interaction and are never left to deduce any of it ourselves. Worse more, these fluctuations are usually conclusive and inclusive of their future actions. We are told resolutely that this is now what the character has decided and how they will be, moving forward. There is no mystery in the experience of this novel and it kills all excitement which could exist in its reading. It was utterly frustrating and also felt very much in its tone as though we were being spoken to like children or - in many of its moments - like young girls being taught how to live the most godly and conservative family-led lives. It felt very much like a product of its time in a very tiring and demeaning way and it was not a good experience. When sharing in its world, it was fairly vivid and had enough character to get by, which makes me believe that Louisa May Alcott had a beautiful world within her, but no such story to populate it with.
7/15: I have no desire to ever think about this again.
Characterisation: 3/5. This is the saving grace of this otherwise bone-dry experience. Though most of its characters are just the most perfect and consideration caricatures on the planet, Jo March and Amy March were its most fully-realised and realistic characters throughout. The chapters concerning Jo and Amy were the only ones I felt myself truly invested in and keeping up with (bar Amy's last handful of moments). Jo felt real and driven and conflicted and had beliefs which fluctuated realistically whenever certain events occurred. Her relationships with the other characters seemed to drive the narrative and she was followed in this very closely by Amy. Laurie had his moments, too, and Bhaer was a good and healthy addition to the story.
Language: 2/5. Herein lies my other problem with the experience of this read. I have read other books from the 1800s before and this was the sloggiest of all of them, by far. This writing style is the absolute example of why 'show don't tell' is a rule. We are told every fluctuating emotion of every character in every interaction and are never left to deduce any of it ourselves. Worse more, these fluctuations are usually conclusive and inclusive of their future actions. We are told resolutely that this is now what the character has decided and how they will be, moving forward. There is no mystery in the experience of this novel and it kills all excitement which could exist in its reading. It was utterly frustrating and also felt very much in its tone as though we were being spoken to like children or - in many of its moments - like young girls being taught how to live the most godly and conservative family-led lives. It felt very much like a product of its time in a very tiring and demeaning way and it was not a good experience. When sharing in its world, it was fairly vivid and had enough character to get by, which makes me believe that Louisa May Alcott had a beautiful world within her, but no such story to populate it with.
7/15: I have no desire to ever think about this again.