This is probably the third or fourth time I have read Louisa May Alcott's Little Women(ses) in my life, and once again I was entertained by it. A professor once told me you can tell it's a good book if you can read it over and over again and continue to enjoy it. I mean, you really can't read Danielle Steeel books twice.
As usual, I read about each of the little women and wondered which I identified with the most. I know we are supposed to sympathize with Jo, who is of course based on Louisa May Alcott in real life, but as you know, I can never empathize with a no-nonsense tomboy.
And she wasn't all that no-nonsense-y, with all those annoying ding-dang plays she put on. I blooped over the details about those plays, did you?
So, as usual, I identified with Amy, the youngest, who put on airs and was gettin' above her raisin, as they say here. I can't help it. I think I'm most like her.
I was a little annoyed by a few things this time. The characters were pretty one-dimensional. Beth was ALWAYS saintly. Couldn't we just once walk in on her warming up her vibrator or firing up a doobie? It would have been nice had the characters had some quirks and not been exactly true to form throughout.
The one thing I did like is that they were poor and not always stoic about it. I liked that they groused and envied and acted human about it, and I enjoyed hearing about how they made do, like when Meg and Jo each carried one bad glove and wore the good one. Like Michael Jackson, only poor.
Did you read the foreward and afterward in your book? It said the real-life mom was not one to walk away calmly when she was angry, as old mom told Meg to do in the book. ("Old mom." She's younger than me in this story. Crap.) She was prone to rage. Good for her. I'd be pissed too if we were dirt poor and my husband tore off for the Civil War, leaving me with four kids.
Also too, Louisa May Alcott and her whole family were considered pretty progressive and controversial in their times. Their religious and political beliefs were pretty advanced, and people didn't like it. I thought that was interesting, because they seemed so old-fashioned and quaint to me.
But speaking of their views, I got annoyed that the book so obviously preached moral lessons at me, and I was also annoyed that Louisa May Alcott had apparently not heard of an omnicient narrator. Most of the time the narrator told the story in third person, then all of a sudden she was in first person. "I will tell you the second part of the tale if this part is successful." Wait, what? That was jarring.
I did like it that she mixed things up and had Laurie marry Amy and not Jo, which you totally expected. That was pretty cool. And I found the character of Jo's husband, Behr, to be so unappealing. Could she have mentioned more often how chubby and hairy he was? Blech.
You know, in real life Louisa May Alcott didn't marry at all, so some readers were annoyed with her for marrying off her character. She was the first woman to vote in her state, and was a big suffragette, so early feminists wanted her to sort of drive home the "you don't need a man to be happy" thing. But she caved, for whatever reason.
Anyway, what did you think? Was this the first time any of you read this book? If so, were you pleased or disappointed? And for those of you returning to it, did you like it as much this time or less?
Tell all. Remember, now we're gonna read March by Geraldine Brooks. It takes place from the father's point of view. Let's get together November 14 to discuss.
