Apparently I'm an awful person. I just completely hated this! which came as quite a surprise. I was expecting Jane Austen-ness, whom I love, but while the language was similar, the sentimentality was cloying, the moralizing unrelenting, the plot lurching (serialized, I'm guessing), the characters caricatures, the themes of goodness, love and moral responsibility revolting. THIS is what our foremothers at one time believed was the ideal for womanhood? (No wonder they eventually revolted, but) THIS is what American women aspired to? Flaccid, be-ribboned, personhood-less dolls? Shock and outrage!
I concede that I must read about Alcott and the historical context of this book that everyone else loves, but I doubt that could reverse my interpretation.
One positive: is Jo March the first transgendered woman in American literature? The constant harping on Jo's boyishness and frustration with her female lot was authentic and just a little too... distinct. Methinks Jo March, circa 2000s, would be taking hormones, adding an E, and being a lot happier.

‏ ‏قرأت هذه الرواية في سن الخامسة عشر تقريبا
وهي رواية لطيفة اكتسبت شهرتها عبر السنوات
من خلال اقتباسها في أعمال سينمائية
وفي ابتداعات الرسوم المتحركة ‏

بل حتى الأوبرا كان لها نصيب من ذلك
حيث ألف الموسيقار الأمريكي مارك آدامو أوبرا نساء صغيرات ‏في عام‎
1998 ‎
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFkXV...

:::::::::::::

الرواية مقتبسة عن تجربة الكاتبة الذاتية مع شقيقاتها الثلاث‏

وتقدم لنا حياة أربع شقيقات هن
ميغ وجو وبيث وإيمي ‏

‏.‏في جو مليء بالدفء العائلي
متوغلة في أسرار النساء اللائي ‏عشن في تلك الفترة
وكيف كانت تفكر أدمغتهن على اختلافها

الطريف أنه بينما كتبت لويزا تقول أن جو
- المستلهمة من ‏شخصيتها هي نفسها ‏
كان عليها أن تظل الأديبة ‏العانس

ولكن بناء على رسائل المعجبات الكثيرة‏
والتي طلبت منها تزوج جو بأي ثمن‏
‏ لم تجرؤ على رفض طلبهن في النهاية

فإن لويزا ظلت بلا زواج لآخر أيام حياتها‏

:::::::::::::

عن الشخصيات

*
جوزفين أو جو


هي بطلة الرواية التي تبدو في نظر الكثيرين مسترجلة ‏
لشخصيتها القوية ولجرأتها
وهي الأخت الصريحة ‏
والشغوفة بالكتابة‏
‏
وبعد مقاومة طويلة لفكرة الزواج
تتزوج أخيرا من ‏البروفسور الألماني
فريدريك بير‏

*
مارغريت أو ميغ


هي الشقيقة ‏الكبرى التي تتحمل مسؤولية المنزل
وتوفر الحماية والدفء للجميع
وهي تتمتع كما وصفتها لويزا بجمال أخاذ‏
ولكنها تحمل أفكارا من الطراز القديم

*
اليزابيث أو بيث


فتاة تبدو من وصفها هادئة وبيتوتية ‏
مطيعة وخجولة
تحب الموسيقى والقطط والدمى ‏
وتعزف ‏على البيانو
وهي تفضل المكوث في منزلها على الاختلاط والثرثرة‏
كما أنها تهوى الأعمال الخيرية ‏
وتساعد أمها ‏في رعاية الأسر الفقيرة
وأثناء زيارتها لأحد تلك الأسر ‏
تلتقط عدوى الحمى القرمزية من أحد أ‏طفالها ‏
وصحيح أنها تشفى مع الوقت
ولكن المرض جعلها دوما ضعيفة ‏
وتموت بعدها بفترة بمرض آخر
فالعالم لا يحتمل شخصيات برقة بيث
وكان عليه التخلص منها عاجلا أم آجلا

*
ايمي ‏


هي أصغرهن ‏
وهي فتاة مدللة
تبدو باردة المشاعر وملهوفة على مصلحتها الشخصية‏

عانت إيمي من أنفها المسطح
وكانت ‏تشبك مشابك الغسيل على أنفها عند النوم
آملة حل هذه المشكلة العويصة من وجهة نظرها
:D
علاقتها كانت دوما متوترة مع جوزفين
وذات يوم بعد موقف محتدم بينهما
تقوم إيمي بإحراق ‏ رواية جو التي لم تنهيها بعد

كانت إيمي دوما قريبة من عمتها
التي أتاحت لها الفرصة للسفر إلى أوروبا
كي يتسنى لها فرصة الاطلاع على أعمال الفنانين العظام‏
لولعها بالفن ولموهبتها في الرسم

‏ ولكنها في النهاية ‏تقرر التخلي عن الفن
‏ لأنها لم ترى أنه بإمكانها أن تكون على المستوى الذي كانت ‏تتوقعه لنفسها

::::::::::::::::

الرواية لطيفة وخفيفة الروح
كلاسيكية بامتياز

Whilst I do recall reading this as a young child I could remember little about the characters and the story-line so felt I was revisiting both something beloved and viewing it with fresh and excited eyes.

This felt like a series of short stories involving the March sisters, bound into a longer narrative. Whilst each sister is dissimilar in temperament and personality they all share the closest of bonds, and reading of their shared happiness and sorrows made this an altogether adorable reading experience. I didn't expect this to be as poignant and whimsical as it was and each of the nostalgic adventures recounted had me feeling like an honorary March sister, so inclusive was the style of writing and the lovable nature of the characters within.

Each of these tales had a moralistic edge that made this suitable for younger readers, but not off-putting to an older or modern-day readership. I whole-heartedly enjoyed this, and the warm, fuzzy feelings it evoked, and am glad I have revisited something so special.

there are no actual little women in this book. all regular sized women. title is misleading. 0/10. would not read again

این ۴امتیاز رو از دیدگاه دختر ۱۸ساله‌ی درونم به این کتاب میدم چون ��اید ۱۸سالگی این کتاب رو میخوندم

Yes, yes. I AM a grown-ass man reading this, but I'm not even remotely ashamed.

What I tried to do here was dispel the extra melodrama & embrace the cut-outs (fat trimmed out) of the Winona Ryder film. I was on the hunt for all the "new" (ha!) stuff that the regular person, well informed of the plot involving four young girls growing up (or in the case of Beth, not) never even knew existed. But it seems that the film did a great job not adding many more scenes than direly needed (like the Byrne-Ryder night at the opera scene-- it explains why she doesn't choose Laurie after all) nor taking indispensable scenes from the century-&-a-half old novel to the cutting room floor. Alas, there's a good reason why Entertainment Weekly once decreed that the film was a great comfort to all post-911 victims--a holistic healing to the nation as a whole. The story has no great battles to speak of... no violence, no terrible disasters. The minutiae is symbolic of fragile domestic existences... important & very fun to read about--this coming from a Bridget and Carrie Bradshaw fan of course. "Little Women" is at its core all about Old School American values, such as temperance, forgiveness, hard work. It has astute lessons aplenty--to rival even old Aesopus himself. Laurie and Amy have the best lines, & there are plenty of groans amidst cute vignettes and harsh but necessary life lessons--for Americans and non alike. This is relevant today, more so than "On the Road" or other so called "quintessential American classics"--& that's a genuine plus.

This one stands as outstanding soap opera theatrics woven intelligently with American history herself. Good stuff, like a wise mentor of American Lit would say. Also, mega appropriate for the season!

(2014)

حرف زیادی ندارم برای گفتن ولی پنج ستاره برای حس و حال خوبی که بهم داد.این روز ها زندگی خیلی سخت برام میگذره و مشکلات زیادی دارم اما وقتی این کتابو دستم میگرفتم،همه چیز رو فراموش میکردم و حالم خوب میشد.

pre-read.

3/31/2024: forever going to love and adore little women like no other!
rtc (if i can finish my 10 other reviews first)

꒰

This book means SISTERHOOD... FAMILY… HAPPINESS…TOGETHERNESS… THANKFULNESS… GENUINENESS…SOLIDARITY…BELIEFS… RESPECT…UNCONDITIONAL LOVE…HONESTY…KINDNESS…


This is magical book, when I get into my hands for the first time, I was only eleven and for decades I kept on getting it into my hands, reread it several times and same words resonated different for me, awoke different feelings, made me look at the characters’ flaws and differences at brand new perspective.
Even though I know the ending: I laughed, I cried, I sighed, I smiled, I jumped, I felt peaceful and at the end I LOVED IT TRULY, DEEPLY so MUCH! Christmas is coming. You think there won’t be Christmas without presents and I think there won’t be any meaningful celebration without doing my yearly reading of this book and reconnecting with Holly March Sisterhood. Joe (tomboy, book-worn, hot-tempered, writer, definitely closer to my character), Meg (Romantic, sweet-natured, peace maker older sister), Beth ( sweet, shy, cute, friendly, fallen angel, musical prodigy) and Amy (spoiled, childish, artistic, elegant, refined youngest one): I LOVE YOU BOTH.


It is why this book is always my all-time favorite one! Time to reconnect with the sisters and feeling the best holiday spirit!

3.5⭐️

I read this with feelings of warmth and love for the first 60% of the book and the writing was nothing short of gorgeous and riveting. I thought it was going to be a solid 5 star for me but I fear the characters just started to make life difficult for themselves for no goddamn reason imo.

I understand that there were a lot of questions with regards to whether or not Laurie and Jo were compatible romantically, Beth's health, Jo's writing, ... but emotions, decisions and actions started to run rampant and characters felt feeble and made the story fell all over the place for me.

I'm trying to also be understanding about how the 60% mark felt like a third act breakup n  for no reasonn between the story and its readers, because life especially for women in families, friendships and love was so much different in 1860s. Coming from reading too many modern reads, my brain may unconsciously be struggling to reconcile that.

It's still a strong read and enjoyable experience. I would recommend, reads like a true classic. I kmow if I read it in the year it published, I would be completely blown away. ❤️

***

ready for my first read of the year

little women was the book that changed my life. literally. i remember cracking open an extremely dusty hardcover copy that only interested me because of the gold leaf on the cover, of course. as a self-proclaimed feminist at the ripe old age of 11, i was 100% positive i would hate this book with my entire heart. because obviously a book about women who might want to marry was going to be horrible! right?

little did i know that i was about to be introduced to characters that i related to so much: i went to conventions and stuck magnets on my fridge. i had a diary entirely covered with jo march stickers when i was 13. i even used to dramatically recite entries then purposefully asked my art teacher for ink pens so i could come out of class with stained hands like a true emerging author.

(spoilers!)

to quickly summarize this gem, it follows the lives of the march sisters, all of various ages: meg, jo, amy, and beth. each of them have different personalities which i will try to describe in extremely biased detail down below. there are technically two parts, but i read them all smushed together in that hardcover and can't go back now. sorry.

meg: the most responsible, typically beautiful sister. she was probably the character that i hated with a passion when i was a little girl, but now wish i was.

meg essentially raises some of the girls at times, teaching them life lessons all along the way. she longs to be a rich socialite, a wife, and a mother. (see why i hated her? ugh. girls who like traditionally girly things are the worst! - 11-year old adira that also used to want to eat the robin's egg paint in her art teacher's classroom because it looked "delectable")

my favorite scene of meg's was in little men- you can see her struggle, hoisting two babies on her hip, yearning for a beautiful green dress but trying to stay loyal to her husband. meg's two sides, the loyal and dwindling, fight in such a heartfelt way. she's is often teased for her wants, either by laurie or jo, who do not understand why she feels the way she does. meg is every little girl out there that got teased for wearing her frilly dress, and i just think that that's wonderful.

side note- her growth is not apparent in this book, and she's probably "the side character" if i had to name one. but i believe she's heavily underrated and misunderstood in her lifetime, because the things she wants don't match with her class and status at the time.

jo: i mentioned above, i was and still am unhealthily obsessed with jo march. i saw myself in her, mistakenly might i add. a rough tomboy utterly unaware of luxuries such as love & looks, jo, again, wants different things. as she grows as a person, she grows as an author.

alcott states that she wrote jo to be her more witty other half, and i can definitely tell. jo's point of view is the most painfully personal. you can feel her words ringing in your ears, and alcott's prose becomes infinitely more heartbreaking when jo's hurt is involved. now, i must say that i found romance so unlike jo, but i was happy for her! (no i wasn’t) okay, i didn't like who alcott set her up with, but i don't believe her and friedrich aren't good together because jo is a tomboy, and tomboys apparently don't like romance. i just...thought he was an uncle for a solid fifty pages. excuse me for not understanding age-gaps!

to be honest, i'm still not a fan of them, so i don't really like jo and friedrich now either.

i loathed them together when i was 11, and still do! i truly wish alcott dreamt up someone else for her. maybe another author, but not someone who's light gets dimmer whenever he's around jo. jo deserves the best. or me. no, the best. or me. me. okay, me.

amy: kind of petty, jealous, but a good person at heart. little amy is probably the most unlikable, but grown amy shows maturity and wiseness beyond her years. i know i see myself in every character, but i can truly say that i am little amy. she is me and i am her. however, i aspire to be like grown amy. anyways, amy is your typical immature sibling. amy’s fights with jo had that telltale underlying feeling of jealousy..wondering why she couldn't not try like her sisters.

when would laurie like her? would meg and marmee ever trust and pay attention to her? and when would she find her thing like jo has always had? or will she always be the side character in her sisters' stories?

that constant feeling of unwantedness and never being enough to stand up for yourself are things that i think a lot of young readers could relate to if they pay attention to little amy. her insecurities are so typical of the "forgotten sibling"..which is, admittedly, most of us.

moving on, i’m actually really happy she ended up with laurie! i thought they were perfect together. the "why couldn't you have loved me originally?" + "i'm sorry it took me so long to realize how perfect you are" trope will never not be amazing <3 although i liked them way more in the movie (i know, surprising), they were better matched than jo and laurie. i will fight people on this, i ADORE laurie and amy.

beth: beth my child, beth my perfect, beth my darling. beth deserves better. her storyline was so beautiful, i knew she would have a downfall! her death was so sudden and out of nowhere. i will forever hate louisa may alcott (but also love her because...BETH) for what she did to my little angel. also, beth is inspired by one of alcott’s sisters, so erasing her death would remove the depth to alcott’s version.

anyways, that's all. i remember first reading about her death and closing the book, going upstairs, and crying for 2+ hours. my mom thought that one of my stuffed animals died. again. (a little context, i used to randomly pick a sunday for one of my forgotten stuffed animals to "die" and i'd make my parents do backyard funerals for each of them. literally an icon)

personally, i've never been a classics fan. there's something beautiful about reading one, but i'm technically part of gen z. so our attention spans are miniscule, and when words like "fatuous" and "ignominy" are being used in each page, some of us, not me of course, have a hard time.

many people bring up the problem of blandness. but this book isn't a thriller. you're not supposed to be surprised when you turn the page, or gasp when someone has a revelation like you’d gasp when your favorite character starts brutally slaughtering everybody in sight purge-style. consider it an autobiography of truly ordinary peoples’ lives. they're not extraordinary in the sense of the word, and therefore a timeline of their life won't be invigorating/suspenseful. i’ve taken this sentiment into every classic i read, and it makes the reading experience much more enjoyable.

so, to close, little women isn't just a book- it's a phase. if you're looking to read one that will change your life outlook, this is it. look no further.

—-------------
pre-review: if only jo march was real

review to come!

Although Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is probably one of my all time favourite books (and which I have read at least fifteen times since 1979), I actually have never managed to pen a review, simply because I really do not think I can (in my opinion) post a review that would do sufficient honour to either book or author. And with that in mind, this here review will in fact not be a standard review of Little Women either, but rather some personal and academic musings about both Little Women and questions such as censorship as well as influences of Little Women on Lucy Maud Montgomery’s The Story Girl and it’s sequel The Golden Road (and thus my review might also end up being a bit rambling, but I do hope that I will keep potential readers engaged all the same).

LITTLE WOMEN AND CENSORSHIP

Now it is really quite amazing to and for me that a children's novel written in 1868 can still (in this day and age) be so fresh, enchanting (often even socially relevant) and truly, for 1868, Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women is not only quite progressive and strivingly feminist, it is actually much more so than many books (especially books meant specifically for girls) written in the late 19th and even early to middle 20th century. And with that in mind, it just astounds me to no end (and massively infuriates me) that there there have actually been moves and petitions to have the novel banned and censored (since according to certain "activists" Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is supposedly not feminist enough and thus, due to its lasting popularity, inherently "dangerous" to girls/women, and thus supposedly warranting official censorship). Yes, Little Women is not a novel I would ever label as feminist in the late 20th, early 21st century way and manner of thinking, but for 1868, it was and remains exceedingly progressive indeed, a novel that not only promotes gender equality to a point, but also, and this is one of its prime advantages, Little Women pleads for and strives for true freedom of choice, especially for women (Meg is happy being a homemaker and wife, but that is her own choice, it is not in any way forced on her, while Jo goes alone to New York City, and supports the family with her work, and even Beth is not forced to attend school when it is reaslised that she is much much too shy and too afraid of strangers for this).

LITTLE WOMEN AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TWO NOVELS BY L. M. MONTGOMERY

So while I was recently rereading Little Women, I was also at the same time rereading two of my favourite works by L.M. Montgomery (of Anne of Green Gables fame), The Story Girl and its sequel, The Golden Road. And having now completed these two novels, it becomes rather obvious at least to me how much both of these stories have in common with Little Women. Especially the character of Cecily King is very much akin to Beth March, both personality wise and her eventual fate (that she is also doomed to die young like Beth does). Now, I am NOT IN ANY MANNER saying or even insinuating that Montgomery actively plagiarised from Louisa May Alcott, and Cecily is also not just a replica of Beth March either (although the latter might well have served as a bit of a model for the former), but yes, the similarities are, for me at least, striking enough to believe that Montgomery was in all likelihood more than a bit influenced by Little Women when she wrote The Story Girl and The Golden Road (which also becomes rather apparent when one realises that both the March family and the King family create their own magazines, and that both of these magazines are similar in both style and content to a point, with the March girls' magazine being perhaps a bit more literate, which makes sense though, as the March sisters are from a literary and academic family, while the King family are basically simply and mostly PEI farmers).

SHOULD JO HAVE MARRIED LAURIE INSTEAD OF PROFESSOR BHAER?

I know that there are some, perhaps even more than some individuals who are not quite at ease with the fact that in Little Women Jo does not end up marrying Laurie, but Professor Bhaer. Now for me, I have always thought that while Jo and Laurie would make and do make great friends, they would have made horrible and even intensely problematic lovers, and the concept that Laurie and Jo are too similar in and with certain perhaps less than admirable parts of their personalities has always made sense to me. For if Laurie and Jo had married, I do believe that their personalities would have clashed, and not because they are so different, but because they are so similar with regard to willfulness, stubbornness, desire and emotionality. And the professor, he complements Jo and she complements him. Professor Bhaer calms her personality, even giving Jo’s writing a calming edge, while she, in turn, makes his own calm personality a bit more outgoing. And also, one has to think of the fact that from an academic standpoint, Jo and the Professor are actually much more complementary and complimentary than Laurie and Jo would and could ever have been. For Jo thrives on writing, literature, education, something that Professor Bhaer also exibits, but something that Laurie only shows marginally (mainly artistically and musically, and in this, he is actually much closer to Amy, and not Jo). And yes, in particular from an artistic and societal point of view, Laurie and Amy suit one another and much more than Jo and Laurie would have or could have meshed. Yes, Louisa May Alcott might indeed have originally envisioned in Little Women for Jo to not have been married at all (and there are actually some critics who consider her love for her sister Beth, her devotion to her, lesbian, and while I most certainly do not, it is indeed a common thread in some secondary analyses). And then, when the publishers clamoured for Jo to also marry, it makes sense, at least to me, that Alcott had Jo not end up marrying Laurie, but Professor Bhaer, an older, more mature man perhaps, but also someone whose intellect, whose philosophy, whose education and ideas regarding education, corresponded to and with Jo. For yes, I actually do think with Laurie, that Jo would not only have had too many battles and arguments, I think she also would probably have found the life of relative leisure that Laurie and Amy end up enjoying, rather tedious, even monotonous in the long run, when compared to and with the life that Jo and the Professor end up creating/having with their school at Plumfied, as demonstrated and described in the two sequels for Little Women, in Little Men and Jo's Boys.

Now I do hope that my musings and ideas regarding Little Women have proven to be entertaining, but also, that they have provided food for thought and perhaps a desire for a reread and for those of you who have not yet read this lovely and enchanting novel, a first read (it is a rewarding and emotional reading experience, but then again, I admit to being majorly biased).

Finally (and indeed, really and truly), there are indeed many many editions of Little Women. And my favourite at present is the Norton Critical Edition, as it also includes background, literary analyses (as well as a short bibliographic of Louisa May Alcott) and an extensive bibliography. Now if you are just desiring to read Little Women for its own sake, any edition (as long as it is unabridged and contains both the first and second part) will likely suffice. However, if you are interested in also perusing information about the novel, its historical background, reviews and critical literary analyses, give the Norton Critical Edition a try; you will not be disappointed (at least that is my hope).

ADDING FOR DECEMBER 29th, 2022

Honestly, while I guess I am glad that literary critics are still reading and analysing Little Women in the 21st century, I am also both massively annoyed and hugely frustrated that on December 24th, 2022, in the New York Times, journalist and author Peyton Thomas was trying to argue that Louisa May Alcott should somehow be considered as not a woman but rather a transgender man (and the same of course also for the character of Josephine March in Little Women). But really and in my opinion, ANYONE trying to portray either Louisa May Alcott or her Jo March is transgender is both anachronistically ignorant and also totally and utterly trashes both Louisa May Alcott as a person and what she achieved textually with Little Women, how avant garde and how feminist Little Women was for the 1860s/1870s. And no, Josephine March being described as a rather a tomboy in Little Women and the fact that Louisa May Alcott never married, this for me totally and utterly does NOT IN ANY WAY make either transgender (and that some literary critics are doing this, to truly makes me want to laugh derisively and also rather to scream and do a mayor eye roll).