we stan.
https://youtu.be/KREaj07OEfU

|| 4.0 stars ||

Oh, what a lovely book this was. It’s a classic, but somehow doesn’t suffer from the same afflictions that would make it a boring, pretentious and drawn-out read like so many other “classics” are. Is it because this was written by a woman, unlike most other older classics? Well, I won’t say so in fear of sounding a little offensive, but secretly I think: Yes, duhh.

This story really had such pure warmth and feeling with such lovely and tender characters, you truly couldn’t help but love every person that appeared on the page. Everyone had a special little something about them that made them uniquely sweet and endearing; even the characters that were only there for a little while.
I can’t quite explain it, but every person just felt so fleshed out and real, yet better somehow: This book showed quite an idealistic world since I don’t think everyone is quite so fair and good in real life, but it was a very idyllic and peaceful world to reside in for a while!

The sisters were all probably a little too good to be true, but I didn’t mind it too much and just decided to admire them for their sweetness and humbleness:
I couldn’t help but be charmed by Meg’s pretty and calm poise, I couldn’t help but laugh at Jo’s wild and unabashed antics, I couldn’t help but feel affection for Beth’s selflessness and purity, and neither could I help but adore Amy’s charming and graceful nature.
I have to admit to having a secret favourite in Amy, whom I personally thought had the most fun and interesting scenes and personality; she was so funny to me as a child and so perfectly lovely as an adult. Her growth was really nice, and I just loved everything about her.

[SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT]:

I know there’s quite a debate about who Laurie should have ended up with as many people are not happy with the author’s choices, but I personally think all ended as it should have.
Jo and Laurie were never more than friends, and neither do I think they could have successfully been anything more. Their friendship was very brother/sisterly and well-suited in that way, but it never, not once, felt romantic to me.
Opposingly, Laurie’s interactions with Amy always seemed more tender and gentle to me, even when they were young. There were already quite a lot of little scenes that showed how well he cared for her and wanted her to feel good. And of course, when they grew older it became even more apparent that they would make a good match. Especially the way they acted with each other when they were abroad truly settled the matter for me and showed me that Laurie could find no better match for him than Amy. What they had was romantic love, while him and Jo had pure platonic love. It was very obvious to me. And I admire the author for making the right choice, despite knowing it would upset a lot of readers.

However, although an entirely different matter, I did have one big complaint:
I personally think Beth should have died in part 1 instead of part 2. I don’t quite understand why the author let her survive her illness in the first place if she was simply going to ignore Beth’s existence after that, just to kill her anyway, only now when we don’t care as much for sweet little Beth as we used to when we knew her well. It was just an odd choice, since it really limited the emotional impact her death could have had for me.

All in all though, this was a really nice and warm book that I treasured reading. Even if it could be a little preachy and sanctimonious sometimes.

My first re-read of one of my very favorite classics!

This story will always make me feel nostalgic, cozy, and full of joy!

Although this story is quite “traditional” in some ways, I love how it was also very much ahead of its time.

Even though this book was written about the lives of four girls living in the early 1800s, I relate to, and see myself in, each one of the March sisters. I resonate with Jo’s desire to do more with her life than what is expected, with Amy’s passion for art, with Beth’s love for her family, and with Meg’s happiness in being a mother and wife. That is why this book has stood the test of time and why so many readers, including myself, love it so much.

1868?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?! I don’t read things like this NOW!! The topics they broach. The candor. The AUDACITY.
Joe and Marmee are queens and I won’t hear a single slander on their names.
This is going down as one of the only classics that has both touched my heart and captured my curiosity. I was enthralled with this family of women while they just lived their daily lives. How did Louisa May Alcott do it?
Joe is transcendent. We don’t see characters like her in our modern times, much less in the 1800s. I’m so impressed and happy to have read this.
A favorite for sure.

Veamos, entiendo que se escribió en 1868, de verdad que lo entiendo. Soy muy consciente de la época y del rol de la mujer en ese momento. Pero Jane Eyre es previo a esos años y es algo por completo diferente. No los voy a comparar porque no es justo, son historias distintas. Solo quería ejemplificar que aun dentro del rol de la mujer en ese momento, se podía hacer algo que no fuera tan moralista.

La historia narra la vida de las hermanas March a lo largo de los años desde que son adolescentes, casi niñas, hasta que están casadas y con hijos.

Sé que me demoré mucho en leer este libro, pero la verdad es que mientras la primera mitad fue divertida la segunda se me hizo eterna y aburrida. Terminé leyendo en diagonal porque ya no aguantaba más y solo quería terminarlo. No digo que el libro sea malo, sino que para mí en este momento fue demasiado aburrido. Es que en realidad el libro no tiene trama, es la historia de las hermanas creciendo, aprendiendo y enamorándose y eso está bien. Es perfectamente válido.

Adoro la relación de hermanas, el cariño que se tenían y que tenían con Laurie y su abuelo. Me pareció muy tierno todo y adorable. Es muy lindo que el eje del libro fuera la relación de hermanas de ellas, algo que se suele dejar de lado por el amor, que fue más o menos lo que sucede al final cuando cada una está por su lado, quizá por eso me gustó mucho menos.

El libro es bueno. Muestra relaciones sanas y muy bonitas, ya sea de familia y de pareja. Es cierto que por momentos parece romantizar un montón la pobreza y la vida simple. A lo que se suma el tono moralizador que tiene el libro y parece ser una biblia de como ser una buena mujer en el sXIX, aprender a respetar al esposo, a ser buena madre, a aceptar la pobreza y sacar el mejor lado de ella. Creo que eso es lo que más me chocó, repito que entiendo el año en el que está escrito, pero es tan evidente que es un libro para mujeres para que sean felices con lo que tienen y aprendan a ser buenas madres y esposas que no puedo evitar molestarme.

Incluso con Jo, que es esta chica liberal y con pensamientos modernos todo el final, todo el tema de que está sola, de que su sueño no se cumple, y termina casada con un hombre que le dobla la edad y es pobre, pero ¡vaya! está enamorada... No lo sé. De verdad lo detesté, creo que me gustaba más en las películas, ahí era más soportable, pero aquí no. Por momentos incluso me daba la sensación de que la autora intentaba decir que no deberíamos ser como Jo, porque al final miren como terminó. Jo siempre era la torpe, la fea, la que no podía controlar la lengua, la menos femenina. Vamos, que es el estereotipo de feminista que la gente tiene.

Sí, detesto a Amy, pero como personaje me gusta. De hecho, cuando Amy decide que tiene que casarse con alguien con dinero para mantener a sus hermanas lo encuentro super noble. Amy adoraba el status quo de esa época, le encantaba ser mujer y los roles creados para ella, pero al mismo tiempo era inteligente y fría al respecto. Incluso con su sueño sobre ser artista, encuentro notablemente ambicioso que decidiera que las opciones eran ser una genia o ser mediocre. Suena tonto o drástico, pero era su sueño y ella lo quería en su máximo esplendor o no lo quería. Y me gusta eso.

Por cierto, encuentro terrible que ninguna de las hermanas consiguiera su sueño y que eso al final se usara como moraleja de que eran sueños infantiles y que lo importante era lo que tenían ahora... FAMILIA. Sí, Jo y Amy dicen que quieren seguir intentando vivir su sueño de alguna manera, pero me sigue pareciendo terrible.

Sé que estoy sonando sumamente amargada y drástica porque al final el libro tiene más de 150 años y no puedo andar pidiendo feminismo en obras así cuando otras modernas todavía son increíblemente machistas. Lo sé. LO SÉ. Sin embargo, he leído grandes personajes femeninos en obras de Shakespeare, está la maravillosa Jane Eyre, están las obras de Jane Austen. Entonces, tampoco era pedir mucho que este libro me diera algo un poco más moderno, pero solo era una obra moralista sobre lo bueno que es el trabajo bien hecho, la romantización de la pobreza, como ser madre es lo mejor de la vida de la mujer, sobre los roles de la esposa y sobre como algunos sueños no son tan importantes cuando se tiene familia.

¡Terminada la relectura!
He vuelto a caer rendida ante la capacidad de la señora Alcott para emocionar a los lectores hasta límites insospechados.
Cierto es que a veces el tono moralizante puede chocar (sobretodo porque muchas de las lecciones que intenta enseñar la autora no tienen sentido hoy en día), pero hay que ver más allá...
Mujercitas es un libro enternecedor, divertido y sorprendente del que nunca me cansaré.

Pd. SIGO ODIANDO A AMY CON TODA MI ALMA
PD2. Aquí mi vieja reseña del 2011... Sigo pensando exactamente lo mismo: http://cronicasenferrocarril.blogspot...

Little Women is the story of March girls - Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy and spans from their teens to adulthood, matrimony, and motherhood. Modeled after her family, Alcott weaves a charming story with a truthful and accurate account of human characters and human relationships. This realistic approach so sincerely done has captured the hearts of millions of readers across the globe and throughout centuries to become one of the most enduring classics.

These four sisters are very different from each other. But the sisterly love and the family bond, firmly instilled in their hearts by their wise and kind mother, makes them close and united. The girls are not perfect; they have their virtues as well as flaws. But the readers fall in love with them because they feel real. Their characters develop through the book and once carefree girls become responsible and dutiful “little women”. I first read this in my teens and loved Jo more than others. Her tomboyish ways resembled me and I found a comrade in her. But this time around, I can safely say that I learned to love them all, though a slight partially remains for Jo.

Although the story mainly revolves around the March girls, Little Women is not a “girlish” book. It is rather a “domestic” book full of morals and life lessons. The insightful advice which is thrown throughout really does benefit the reader of any age. Most of these things were overlooked in my first read, for I took it for a mere romance. But the depth of the book pleasantly surprised me this time around.

In all my love for March girls, I shouldn’t forget their “dashing young neighbour”, Laurie. This headstrong, quick-tempered, and moody boy added the much-needed male contrast to the dominating female characters. As was with the girls, the author takes care to develop Laurie’s character too from the willful boy to a patient and responsible young man.

In my first read, I was disappointed that Laurie and Jo were not as united as I hoped. But after this read, I feel Alcott did right by coupling Laurie with Amy and Jo with Professor Bhaer. Overall I believe Alcott matched the couples well taking in to consideration their vibrant personalities.

With its beautiful prose, charming story, realistic and compelling characters, Little Women is a complete work in itself. Even with my disappointment, I remember liking this book very much. However, this second read clearly showed what a rare piece of classic this book is; and I couldn’t help but fall in love with it deeply and dearly.

Una historia conmovedora y enérgica que se mueve a través del tiempo, la pérdida, la ilusión y la madurez para funcionar no como adoctrinamiento moralizante sino como testimonio de la juventud y del pensar de una época.

Louisa May Alcott toma elementos de su propia vida y enredándolos con hilos de ficción teje una novela compleja, emotiva y profundamente viva cuya influencia no merma gracias a la profundidad de sus personajes y la honesta humanidad de los recorridos de sus mujercitas que lejos de poseer perfiles intangibles, borrosos y espíritus unidimensionales poseen una amalgama de virtudes, defectos, ambiciones y anhelos que las vuelven reales y verosímiles tiñendo de la misma autenticidad sus vínculos entre sí y con otros.

Las hermanas March representan cuatro personalidades abismalmente diferentes. Meg, la mayor, es prudente aunque vanidosa y vive atormentada por lo material que no posee. Jo, intrépida e intelectualmente inquieta, rehuye de su condición de mujer mientras persigue un sueño literario. Beth, descrita por todos como un ángel, es la encarnación de la bondad y la abnegación. Y Amy, la pequeña, resulta por momentos egoísta y ambiciosa aunque aprende a combatir sus defectos por medio de la misma singular lucha que se propone cada una de sus hermanas para tratar de crecer y ser mejor.

Pero nuestras mujercitas no están solas. La amistad con Laurie, un jovencito de una riqueza material muy superior a la suya pero prisionero de una imperturbable soledad hasta que las conoce, acaba influyendo y cambiando sus caminos tanto como ellas el de él. La amistad, el encaprichamiento juvenil, el verdadero amor y el afecto fraternal acaban matizando sus lazos en medio de una historia que nos permite acompañar sus dudas, su ingenuidad, sus fracasos y sus aciertos en un contexto que espera mucho de ellos y familiares que pretenden proveerlos con los elementos necesarios para iniciarse en un mundo que nunca será tan seguro o confortable como el hogar.

La autora nos lega una historia emotiva que no decae jamás en chantajes emocionales pese a no ser ajena a la tragedia y que permanece relevante incluso en una sociedad temporal y culturalmente distinta a aquella en la que fue concebida porque hay destellos inmortales en Meg, Jo, Beth y Amy que puedo y siempre podré ver en mí misma y todas las jóvenes mujeres que me son queridas.

ALL TIME FAVORITE CLASSIC

I was considering writing a lengthy review for this novel, but I just can’t find the words to express how much I enjoyed this.

❤️

This is a beautiful classic embedding everlasting wisdom whilst it allows its reading enthusiasts participate in the joyous as well as sorrowful moments of four sisters.

Elaborating the emotional process of becoming adults, the book inevitably holds a mirror that reflects one’s personal growth.

I have come across that most of my bookish friends identify themselves with Jo. First, I was also convinced that her character is aimed for me until I realised that I may have elements of every sister depending on the situation I face.

Cheers to all who pave the way for others to make their own choices in life!

Btw: I have just watched the screen adaptation with Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, Kirsten Dunst and Christian Bale. Quite a neat movie, but it would have been dull, if I hadn’t read the book.

Find me on instagram

Read as part of The Infinite Variety Reading Challenge, based on the BBC's Big Read Poll of 2003.

The one thing I'm not going to do is apologise for not liking this. I hold no truck with that: stop apologising for having an opinion that is different to the majority.

Little Women was relatively written well in the grammatically correct sense, but I found it to be a very slow and dull read. It is definitely of its time and even though there are small points of seeing the necessity of having strong, independent female characters, inevitably they always end up having to rely on men or indeed other women in order to survive within the narrative.

There was no clear and concise plot, just a bunch of little stories that all fit together in a relevant manner, but altogether it was pretty much a huge heap of Nothing Happened. I liked the differences of the sisters, but found their outward appearance-differences rather far-fetched and they didn't seem to look like sisters in my mind, nor did their personalities really shine through as being particularly familial. In fact, it felt more as if they were just friends and not sisters and I didn't see any of the sibling love as anything but friendship. I also didn't like how they were very different to each other, as if none of them shared even one particular trait, or indeed any similar hobby or desire.

I think it'd be fair to say that this is a definite children's tale, though perhaps quite the preachy kind. I disagree it's one you can only really enjoy if you read it as a child, however, because there are plenty of children's books that are just as enjoyable for the first time as an adult. Little Women had never actually struck me as a book to ever be read anyway, and it was mostly just a get-it-out-of-the-way kind of read.


Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Pinterest | Shop | Etsy