My copy of this is probably 55 years old -- I've probably read it at least twenty-five times. One of my all-time favorite books. One of my favorite authors ever. Yes, it is old-fashioned -- it was old-fashioned fifty-five years ago. But that is the point pretty much in my opinion. This is a story of times past, of a family which functioned in a particular way in a particular time. This is also a story of what one person in a family might have wished were so all of the time in the family but wasn't. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nov 2008/Dec 2008 rereading for the ??th time. Reading my Centennial Edition -- priced at $5.95 in 1968 -- pretty amusing that. I believe I bought this book second hand which surprises me as I thought I'd splurged and bought it the minute it was out -- perhaps in a fit of being good, I'd refrained and later bought this used copy to appease my Little Woman penchant retroactively.

Only 156 pages in and I'm as thoroughly hooked as always. Something peaceful about this story, speaks to me in a very profound manner. A bit of treacle is apparent but the story's truths are also as apparent as ever.

خوبی کلاسیک‌ها اینه خوندنشون مثل دنبال کردن رد تاریخ می‌مونه. از داستان‌های خودشون صحبت نمی‌کنم که اون‌‌جا هم تکه‌های تاریخ دیده می‌شه، از اینکه معروفیت و محبوبیت این کتاب‌ها در مورد خواننده‌هاش، طرز تفکر زمانه و اون کشور چی میگه حرف می‌زنم

زنان کوچک هر چه که نداره، نشان دهنده‌ی اینه که جامعه پذیرای یک داستان با محوریت زنانی بوده که همشون دست به انتخاب‌های یکسانی نمی‌زنند و به طور واضحی متفاوت زندگی می‌کنند. ۱۵۴ سال پیش که این کتاب نوشته، دیده و پذیرفته شده، ایران کجا بوده؟ ما چی می‌نوشتیم و می‌خوندیم؟ مسیر ما و اون‌ها از همین‌جا در حال شکل‌گیری بوده

بی‌دلیل نیست که حالا یک قرن و نیم بعد فهمیدیم که چه شعاری باید سر بدیم تا به جلو حرکت کنیم، کلماتی که در تک‌تک صفحات این‌ کتاب ساده دیده میشه
«زن، زندگی، آزادی»


پی‌نوشت‌
یک. این کتاب در دو بخش چاپ شده که کتاب کامل در واقع در برگیرنده‌ی هر دوی این بخش‌هاست. کتابی که نشر جنگل چاپ کرده در واقع نصفه هست

دو. کتاب صوتی دراماتایز شده و توسط مجموعه خوانده شده که بسیار جذابه

کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتاب‌ها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books
۱۴۰۱/۸/۲

Relentlessly captivating story of sisters doing it for themselves. Alcott is a master of character, pacing, and creating page-turning suspense within a context of moderately low stakes. I admire everything about her, from her writing talent to her personal life as an abolitionist and feminist. Much of her personal advocacy makes it into the pages of Little Women. Sometimes in subtle ways, and sometimes not. I'm glad to see that the new movie appears to spotlight the feminist undertones because its groundbreaking depth is easily hidden behind a wall of nonstop entertainment.

A true landmark of American literature, everyone should have this on their list of must-read classics. And for audiobook fans, Barbara Caruso's unabridged performance is one of the best of all time.

PS: Don't stop here! Alcott's bibliography is full of expertly-written tales. Including some horror and supernatural. I'm a huge fan of her 1866 Gothic novel A Long Fatal Love Chase, which launches into action with the heroine willing to sell her soul to Satan "for a year of freedom."

I was given this more than 30 years ago, and it never appealed, but I gave it a go when it was selected by my book group in 2009.

As most people know, it's Louisa May Alcott's semi-autobiographical account of four teenage sisters growing up in slight poverty, while their father is away at war.

The opening words alerted me to the tone:
"'Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without any presents'... 'I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls to have nothing at all.'"

Despite this, they are virtuous and generous girls (albeit, each has a little quirk: Jo is a tomboy, Amy a bit prim etc). If that doesn't tug at the heart strings enough, it is peppered with sentimentality, such as:
"Very few letters were written in those hard times that were not touching, especially those which fathers sent home."
and
"Tell us another story, mother; one with a moral."
Too much cheese/saccharine for my taste, so I gave up 1/3 of the way through.

Victorian YA

The book is of its time, but, perhaps because it was written for young adults, there is a simplicity of language and structure that exacerbates the self-conscious self-righteousness of it. It lacks the depth, breadth and moral grey areas of more adult writers of the time, such as Dickens. That may be an unfair comparison, as he was writing for a different audience, but it nevertheless reflects my reaction.

The book begins:


"Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents, grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.

It's so dreadful to be poor! sighed Meg, looking down at her old dress.

I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls nothing at all, added little Amy, with an injured sniff.

We've got Father and Mother, and each other, said Beth contentedly from her corner."

There's an undercurrent of anger in this book and I think Louisa May Alcott would have gone much further with it if her publisher had allowed it and if it weren't a children's book.

Louisa herself was fiercely independent and didn't marry. Of course, Jo, her doppelganger and the heroine of the book, did marry. I think the struggle for girls and women to be themselves while following convention is an experience that resonates today. I also think that, ironically, when people today want to return to the simple life, they all forget that there was no simple life. Although youngest sister Amy carries her books to school, writes with an inkwell and fights over pickled limes, her father is fighting a real war fought for ideology and national unity. Martha Stewart has us searching for the "good things" and harkening back to garden bounties but nineteenth century girls and women were nearly bound to the home.

Young boys and girls might find the domesticity in the book offputting but it was necessary for people to have domestic skills or they could not survive. The working poor in the 1860s, like the working poor today, could not afford maids. Louisa May Alcott's family occasionally made money from making and mending clothing just to get by. I think there was just as much screaming as crying going on in the Alcott household, but Louisa tones things down for the March family.

The March family and the sisters made me yearn for my own sisters which never materialized. I also realized that wanting to draw, paint, play music, perform plays and write were interests that I shared with people of another time period. The book itself was written after the Civil War and has a purposeful nostalgic tone.

Jo scribbles in the attic and relishes the time she has to write but she is expected to work as a caretaker for her elderly aunt. None of these girls are independently wealthy and the poverty that Alcott writes about in the book mirrors the poverty of her own life but she softens the reality for her fiction. Alcott's father Amos Bronson Alcott was not a soldier, yet he was often away from home. He was a dynamic lecturer and a revolutionary educator who was disillusioned by public reaction to some of his innovations and was often jobless.

While a good portion of white northerners were against slavery and wanted more rights for black Americans, they did not go as far as the Alcotts did in their support. I wish that she had written more about their anti-slavery positions.
It's also not widely known that Bronson Alcott was shunned for educating black students.

Reading Little Women in fourth grade caused me to work as a historical interpreter at the Orchard House for six years many years later. I visited Fruitlands, the Old Manse, the Wayside and the House of the Seven Gables. I studied transcendentalism and learned about the contributions of Elizabeth Peabody and other great female intellectuals of the nineteenth century. I was forever changed after reading the book and I've reread it too many times to count.

Louisa was a master marketer akin to J.K. Rowling. She also had a strong survival instinct like Rowling. She desperately needed to make money and writing was her one marketable skill. Notably, she was able to write the book under her own name and not use a gender neutral pseudonym.

The book is written for a younger audience and older readers reading it for the first time might not feel a connection with the book because all Victorian children's books were infused with a heavy dose of morality. Girls especially have always been told to endure hardships while remaining happy. My grandmother Ethel, who grew up in the 1930s, told me her mother said to her: "It's easy to be happy when life rolls along like a song. But it's the girl who's worthwhile who will smile when everything goes wrong."

I hate this book. I hate hate hate hate hate this book. This book is INSIPID. This book makes me feel like I need a trip to the dentist after merely looking at the cover.

I hate this book.

I hate Jo, and her supposed tomboyishness, and the fact that she is the most flat, and dull, and stupid character I've ever come across. I hate Amy, because she's a vapid idiot who contributes nothing to the story. I hate Meg, even though I don't remember anything about her. I HATE Beth more than them all combined because she is so holy-holy, and meek, and perfect, and then she goes and dies (except in the versions where she doesn't) and everyone loves her even MORE afterwards.

Excuse me while I retch.

Why must this book be so vomitous? It even starts off in this fashion - let us give our dinner to the poor, because we are so wonderful! Fuck off. Just... fuck off. If there was ever such a saintly family, I hope I never meet them. My boyfriend's diabetic and we must watch his blood sugar levels...

n  n    “I am not afraid of storms, for I am learning how to sail my ship.”n  n

So far, I only knew these Little Women from the film adaptations that were inspired by Louisa May Alcott's novel – the 1933 version with Katharine Hepburn and Joan Bennett, the 1994 version with Susan Sarandon, Claire Danes and Winona Ryder, and of course the irresistibly compelling 2019 adaptation by Greta Gerwig with Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Eliza Scanlen and Florence Pugh in the leading roles. Hence, I was already well aware of the nature of the story and the characters, but finally I decided that it was about time that I got to know the novel that spawned these memorable adaptations. And well, let's just say this was far from disappointing.

n  n   

“Don't try to make me grow up before my time…”

n  n
In Little Women, author Louisa May Alcott immediately guides her readers into a delightful pool of exquisiteness. With a story that is accessible and meaningful to all ages, Alcott teachers generations upon generations of young readers the lessons that Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy themselves learnt during the course of the novel.

The (melo)dramatic, often sentimental familial dynamics are brightly interwoven with American history to construct an endearing, captivating portrait of the bildungsroman that teaches moral lessons and values by having its core characters grow from adolescence to adulthood and make their own decisions, sometimes precipitately, sometimes unwisely, almost always with new moralistic insight to be gained. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy, as well as all the endearing secondary characters (of course, none of them more endearing than Laurie) become your close friends during the reading experience, rendering Little Women an all the more winning endeavor that effortlessly passes the test of time.

And finally, the novel is so beautifully written that if I hadn't listened to the audiobook, but acquired a used copy instead that went through dozens of hands before (which, to me, screams to be the most compelling way to read this novel), I am sure I would have highlighted a sentence on every page. There are many other authors whose works are just as quotable, of course, but in my sentimental rush right after finishing this novel, I want to say that no other author managed to inject one novel with so many quote-worthy phrases.

n  n    "Because they are mean is no reason why I should be. I hate such things, and though I think I've a right to be hurt, I don't intend to show it."n  n

If I had to criticize anything about the book, it would be that it seems a little bit too intent on spreading happiness and optimism. Granted, blows of fate and (minor) conflicts occur frequently, but they are mostly solved rather quickly, highlighting the sentimental approach Louisa May Alcott went for. That approach seems to obstruct depth, for most of the moral conclusions taught in Little Women are spelled out explicitly rather than allowing the reader to make their own deductions. However, Alcott apparently wrote the novel directed towards a target audience of young girls, obviously not yet knowing the timeless success that her writing would achieve, so I hesitate to criticize the author for not opting for a more subtle approach at times. Because ultimately, as a sentimental, nostalgic, heartwarming appeal for love and friendship, Little Women is effective on all levels, and sometimes that is all that counts.

n  n    “Be worthy love, and love will come.”n  n

that feeling when you spend the majority of the book desperately longing to be a jo, but then end up realising youre actually just a beth… :/

also, the fact that i still like laurie, even after he messes around in france trying to “find himself,” says a lot more about me than it does about him, to be fair.

and dont even get me started on the new film coming out. the casting definitely has me feeling some kind of way. im still not over the precision of timothée chalamet as laurie, the literary character who embodies so many young peoples first experience with f-boi heartbreak. i mean, will you just LOOK at my son!?

n  n

jo + laurie 4 ever, amirite ladies?!

↠ 3.5 stars

I’ve been meaning to read this since January of this year, so it only makes sense that I’ve finally read it by *checks calendar* the end of October. I actually finished Little Women several days ago, but have been putting off finally writing the review for it because I was so massively disappointed.

Obviously as a book published in 1868-1869 (was originally two volumes), there’s going to be exhaustive literary analysis going back a century and a half. There’s nothing I can say that hasn’t been said a hundred times over but OH WELL that’s really never stopped me before! In all seriousness, I intended on giving this book a thoughtful critique and trying to take into account the time this was written and how it was probably even considered transgressive then and blah blah blah, whatever. But by the end I was so pissed with the direction Alcott was going that I knew this was just going to be a huge rant-y, mostly unproductive review, which is more about venting than informing potential readers. Sorry y’all, this ones for me!!!!

Everything after this point is going to be a huge spoiler, so only read on if you’ve read the book, seen one of the movies or just don’t care.


I’ll start with Meg because she’s the oldest and was the first to be totally dropped by the story. Seriously, Meg started off as independent and smart, but is tossed aside like a used rag as soon as she gets married. After Meg had inexplicably agreed to marry her trash husband John Brooke, the only time the author decides to check in on her is to see how not perfect of a wife she’s being. John, who is useless and proud, one of the worst combinations, all but abandons his new wife because she’s ‘always busy caring for their children’ and not the hot young wife he married. These are his actual reasons for staying out all night and ignoring her. And to add insult to injury, one of his worst enablers is Meg’s own mother.

This becomes a theme in the book, where one of the girls usually rightfully points out things that are unfair or ridiculous to expect of women, only to be subjected to a Marmie Lecture® about why, actually, it’s good to be miserable all the time. Marmie’s speech this time went something like, “Ah, I too use to want to take care of my children (you), but then my husband (your father) got grumpy and I saw it was actually all my fault!” See how that works! You can not simply expect your husband to help out, you actually should just feel lucky he wants you at all anymore because you’re 22 and basically decrepit!!

But anyways, on to Beth! The most likable because she has no personality. I’m not being mean, that’s literally a theme of the book, except Alcott calls it being “agreeable”. I never want to hear that word again. It’s just code for ‘do not give any indication you have any opinion whatsoever’, basically going along with whatever the man in the room says. This rule has made such a strong impression on Beth that she is genuinely afraid of anyone not a blood relative to her and she tries to physically hide herself whenever a stranger is present.

The elephant in the room with Beth is that she famously dies near the end. The sickness came early on in the book and made a feeble girl practically invalid for the rest of the story. The character of Beth is based on Alcott’s sister, Lizzie, who died at 23. And though I’m sure it was comforting for the author to try to ascribe meaning to a beloved sibling who died so young, narratively, I really hated what she did with Beth’s character. It felt like as soon as Beth might start showing interests and goals outside of being ‘the quiet one’, that her agency was stripped away from her. I’m sorry, no teenage girl is actually ‘happy’ she’s dying young because she couldn’t figure out what she wanted to do when she grew up. That’s clearly an author’s issue in not being able to imagine Beth beyond the flimsy character development she’s had so far. It’s a way to make both writer and reader more comfortable with the death of a young girl, and I’m not here for it.

I’m going to do Amy and Jo together, because they felt like they were written mostly as foils for each other. Amy is prim and Jo is messy. Jo acts like a tomboy and Amy is a girly-girl. Amy follows the rules and Jo likes to break them. I didn’t mind this characterization, but it was interesting to see them clash and figure out who they were when they were apart from one another.

What I disliked the most about them was the romantic direction Alcott took with them. We could see the budding relationship between Laurie and Jo, and it came as no surprise when he proposed. I wasn’t surprised when she said no, either, in fact I actually really liked that choice for her. She’s fiercely independent and has shown no interest in any form of ‘settling down’, so no, I don’t think she should have ended up with Laurie. But oh my god Amy?????? Her and Laurie make even LESS sense together than him and Jo!!!!! He literally says “when he couldn’t have one sister he took the other, and was happy” WHAT

Is Amy not allowed to have her own romance? Her own dreams? Must she get everything second-hand from her sisters—even a husband?!? Amy from the first half of the book would NEVER have married Laurie, she wouldn’t dream of it!! Which brings me to the second most disappointing pairing of the book: Jo and whatever his name.

There’s just no reason for this. She never wanted a husband, but if she did for whatever reason, WHY would she pick this middle-aged German man she knew for a few months over a boy her age who she’s been best friends with her entire life??? She wouldn’t, it makes no sense. And he’s not supportive of her! He literally shames her out of writing for money because he morally objects to some ‘popular’ stories that appear in papers. Ohhhh noooooo, not a story someone enjoys reading, THE HORROR!!! He lectures her at every opportunity, is twice her age, is ugly, poor and takes advantage of his position as her teacher to make a move on her. He’s gross, I hate him.

As a coming of age story, this was terrible. I could not think of a worse moral for young women to pull from a book then ‘you cease to matter as an individual as soon as you’re married’, which is my assumption of what Alcott was going for. If you want to be entirely turned off the idea of marriage, I would recommend Little Women. Or maybe just read Part 1, which is superior in every way. If I average the star rating of the first part with the second, I guess that averages to three stars, which is the nicest I can do for this “classic”.

Sorry Louisa May, it’s not for me.

if i were a 15 year old girl in 1870 then maybe this book would be a full five stars. hell, if part one was a standalone from part 2, it probably would've gotten 5 stars. but i join the hoard of people who are so disappointed in how this book resolves.

i can already hear the voices of people coming to this book's defense re:the publishing era and louisa being forced into changing the plot of certain things, but this was just a disappointment in the end and i felt like the women in part 2 weren't even the same as the first part. also part 2 was boring and i'm sad i spent THREE (!!!) weeks on this book just to feel like it was okay.

the 2019 movie redeemed a lot of it for me and one day i may reread this and research it better beforehand so i'm better prepared for what to expect but i was hoping this would blow me away and sadly i remain sitting

First Re-Read of 2019

Well, my hardcover edition of this American "classic" written 151 years ago was first read by me when I was 13 years old( such a great age as I read so many great books that year). One of the Goodreads groups I belong to decided to read this as our February 2019 selection and I managed to smuggle this one admidst all my February/March ARCS.

* SPOILERS AHEAD*

As an adult reader, I find myself thinking back to what I thought that very first initial read. First, I was Jo March + Theodore " Laurie" Laurence= Relationship goals. I couldn't believe that she ended up with a 40 year old man with a beard!! But it's 2019, I am a Canadian girl that gets weak in the knees at the mere sight ofa man with a beard and a nice plaid shirt. I totally see all the reasons that it wouldn't have worked between Jo and Laurie. Second, I hated Amy March with a passion when I was a kid( Kristen Dunst did make me feel a bit of empathy for the character in the 1994 film), but now as an adult I actually enjoyed the character. It's eldest sister, Meg, that I find a bit insufferable now. Especially after she and John Brooke get married, just one eyeroll after the other.

The only characters that I still feel a great love for are Marmee and fragile Beth. Although with a little bit of reluctance, I do have to concur with my fellow readers that they were perhaps a tad too perfect. Who knew there could ever be such a thing?

Still a 5 star read after all these years though!

★ 4.0 Stars ★

“I do think that families are the most beautiful things in all the world!”

Little Women, the classic american story written by Louisa May Alcott, follows four sisters; Grown up Meg, free-spririted Jo, kind Beth and ambitious Amy, as they grow from children into women. Alcott tells the story of the March family with so much charm, warmth and humour, that I looked forward to reading a piece of the book every day. Jo March was my favourite of the four, but I loved them all and enjoyed following them through their lives.

My book includes both the first part as well as the second, and I'll say that the first part was definitely a five-star read for me, while the second part was a three-star read. I guess, like Jo, I don't care much for marriages and children hahah, so there wasn't a lot that I could relate to there.

When reading classics/ books written centuries ago, I often find the characters boring and flat, with no real personality to speak of. But Little Women is full of characters with realistic personalities, characters so life-like you feel as if you know them somehow. As I'm currently reading Persuasion, it's honestly such a startling difference between the two worlds; Jane Austen's world feels so cold and desolate compared to Alcott's lively and heartwarming one. A beautiful classic.