Little Women is a period drama centered around the lives of four young women during the Civil War where they learn their ways towards sisterhood, resilience, and the pursuit of dreams. This book was set during the Civil War, and the novel follows the lives of the four March sisters: Amy, Jo, Beth, and Meg, as they navigate the challenges of growing up, finding love, and pursuing their dreams. The author really captivates the character development and characteristics, really drawing the reader into the sisters’ lives, making the reader have an emotional connection with the sisters. Through their trials and triumphs, the March sisters inspire readers with their strength, compassion, sisterly love, family, and the pursuit of individuality. If you are interested in period dramas, coming of age stories, and sisterhood, then Little Women is the perfect book for you! -Sara K. (Teen Volunteer)

i've never witnessed a ship of mine get sunk so tragically, how dare you ms. alcott (ง •̀_•́)ง

RTC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

probably the first classic that i'm //choosing// to read so let's hope this goes well bc it'll probs determine whether i keep this charade up or not :))

n  Buddy readn with ma girl, t swizzle

The two books that I have read the most in my life: Little Women and Walden.

Louisa May Alcott wrote Little Women in 1868. It centers on the 4 young March sisters: Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth. Each of the sisters has a distinct personality. Meg is the oldest, Jo is the writer and tomboy, Amy is the vain one, and Beth is a saint. The sisters are guided by their mother, Marmee, and they strike up a friendship with the next-door-neighbor boy, Laurie.

Little Women follows the March sisters as they grow up. Each chapter is relatively short and usually features a moral lesson without being preachy (much like parables in the Bible).

Transcendentalism

Now, I mentioned Walden. What in the world does that have to do with Little Women? Why I am so glad you asked (or if you didn’t I will tell you anyways).

Walden is authored by a man named Henry David Thoreau. He also lived in Concord, Massachusetts, the same as Louisa May Alcott. Additionally, Thoreau and Louisa May Alcott were friends. They were both transcendentalists. Transcendentalism is centered around the philosophy of simple, plain living with high thinking.

When was the last time you received an advertisement that said, “Buy less!” or “Stop buying things. You are enough!”? If you are like me, that has never happened. Yet every day, we are inundated to buy more concealer, a new pair of skinny jeans, a lavish vacation, or a gigantic mansion that will surely make us happy. Transcendentalism is anti-consumerism. It is a reminder that there is another way to live.

Little Women is the more digestible version of Walden, but if you loved Little Women and enjoyed the morals therein, I highly, highly, highly suggest Walden (alright I suggest Walden to practically anybody).

Jane Austen

The last time I read Little Women was before the internet existed. When I picked this book up again for this reread, I am a completely different reader, and I have even more respect for Louisa May Alcott than before. One of the things that I simply hate about Jane Austen is that her characters just seem to sit around and do nothing but complain about men and their highest desire is to be married (the female characters also do a bunch of silly things).

Louisa May Alcott is the opposite of Jane Austen, and I like her more for it. Her female characters are strong. At the beginning of the novel, both Meg and Jo are working jobs to support their family. Jo dreams more of being a writer than getting married. Marmee is more focused on raising wonderful people versus marrying off her daughters.

One of the characters in Little Women refuses a marriage proposal. When she says no, she says that she really means no. In Jane Austen’s novels, her heroine receives multiple marriage proposals, and she says no and then yes. This is very confusing to young readers. Are you supposed to say no when you really mean yes? I think Louisa May Alcott has the better idea of just saying no when you mean no. As an introvert if I get even an inkling that the other person isn’t interested, I will never try again so if you mean yes, you should probably say yes and leave mind games to Jane Austen novels.

Overall, Little Women is a timeless classic, one that should be read over and over again.

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Insta My Bookstore at Pango

Little Woman is a book that I have read again and again, since I was a child and every time it seems a little new. The story is about four sisters with human faults. They try to do what is right, fail, and keep at it as they are all strong and independent. The pages of this book are full of honesty, love, kindness, and tolerance pervade.
I can only give one recommendation: just start the book, it will be finished automatically.

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.

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

ALL TIME FAVORITE CLASSIC

I have read 18 of Louisa May Alcott's books, so I guess I can safely say that I am very familiar with her work. Some of them were very good, some not quite as good. All had that 19th century down home feeling with wonderful, memorable characters. But only one of her novels reached the level of what could be called literary greatness. Somehow, with this simple story, and these adorable characters, with a heart warming and heart wrenching plot, Alcott creates an American classic, her masterpiece. Yes it is dated, but Little Women will always have a place in our hearts, in our homes, and in the World's libraries.

PS: I rewrote this review on 11/29/2016, in honor of her 184th birthday, and my birthday that I share with her, just with a slightly smaller number.

There will be spoilers.

Now, if she had been the heroine of a moral story-book, she ought at this period of her life to have become quite saintly, renounced the world, and gone about doing good in a mortified bonnet, with tracts in her pocket. But, you see, Jo wasn't a heroine; she was only a struggling human girl, like hundreds of others, and she just acted out her nature, being sad, cross, listless, or energetic, as the mood suggested.

I first read this book as a tween, and had a real love-hate reaction to it, love of the first half, and I pretty much hated the last half. Beth's death made me cry, and I loathed sad books passionately, but most of all I loathed Professor Bhaer, for two reasons. The minor one was that he was ugly and forty, which was utterly disgusting to me, as my grandparents then were in their forties. Euw! But the real reason I felt utterly betrayed by Alcott was because my own limited experience laid a palimpsest over the story, distorting Alcott's meaning. Well, but even if I hadn't been twitted by the well-meaning adults in my life to stop writing silly fairy tales and concentrate on Real Life if I must scribble stories, I could not have taken her meaning, as my lack of life experience was exactly what she was talking about in those scenes.

I read the book again at another period of my life when I probably shouldn't have, as the sorrowful parts overshadowed the rest.

Then I recently reread it, and hey, it was a completely different book from the one I'd read as a kid. Funny, that, how much a text changes over the decades. To me, that is the sign of a great book.

The first thing I noticed was the humorous skill of the narrator, who sometimes, in true nineteenth century fashion, comes right out and talks to the reader, then vanishes again, and lets the characters talk and think for themselves.

I saw this time how skillfully Alcott set up Amy's and Laurie's romance. How splendidly Alcott painted Laurie's and Jo's friendship, and her courage in maintaining that hey, a man and a woman really can be good buddies. Yeah, Laurie goes through some heart-pangs, but he gets over it, and finally gets some emotional growth while being thwarted for the first time in a life of getting pretty much what he wanted all the time. There were occasional falters that showed the author's hand. Like I found it hard to believe that Laurie, as a teenage boy, would moralize quite so much over Meg prinking at her first party. I could totally see him being uncomfortable, but that's a small thing.

As a kid I'd been bored stiff by Amy's and Laurie's courtship, but this time, I loved the images of Europe, and appreciated how skillfully Alcott had brought the two through the years to their shared delights. I found their courtship one of the strengths of the book.

And then there was Professor Bhaer. The scene where he rejoices in Jo's giving up her writing after her humiliation over his opinion of trashy stories that I took as such a betrayal as a teen read utterly differently to me now. What he resented was Jo pandering to the modern taste for sex, violence, and melodrama, especially when she knew so little about sex and violence. Jo was perpetrating cliches, empty calories, because it was easy money, and he thought she could do better.

I had to laugh when I recollected that not so long ago I critiqued a teenage-written manuscript, suggesting that that writing about forty-year-old married people might wait until more was known about what marriage actually meant. What I had taken as a tween (because sex went right over my head) was that Professor Bhaer was anti-fantasy. Wrongo, but I didn't have the life experience to see where he was going about lack of life experience.

As for his being forty, that seems to have been a nineteenth century tic. Hello Mr. Knightley! And not just in fiction--just a couple days ago I was reading Horatio Nelson's dispatches. In winter of 1800 he is smirking about Sir John Acton, well into his sixties, marrying his thirteen year old niece. Smirking, not exclaiming in horror and disgust, the way we would now.

In short, Jo and the Professor's romance took on all the charm that had completely passed me by.

Meanwhile there were all the old scenes I'd remembered so well, still funny, and poignant, and beautiful. Alcott does get preachy, but she's aware of it; at one point, after encouraging young people not to make fun of spinsters, she gets on with the story after wondering if her audience has fallen asleep during her little homily.

These homilies all point toward love as well as acceptance, faith as well as resignation. Caring for one's fellow-being, whether it be a poor person, as the dying Beth made little gifts for poverty-stricken children and dropped them out of the window just to see smiling faces. There is so much beauty in this book, and so much appreciation of beauty, as well as illustration of many shades of love.

It was also interesting to get visual overlays, for last autumn I'd visited Orchard House, where May (Amy) had drawn all over the walls in her room and a couple of other rooms, carefully preserved, where Jo's room was full of books, overlooking the garden; between two tall windows was the writing desk her father had made for her. Beth's piano. You could feel wisps of the love the family had for one another, which Alcott had put into the book, along with her personal struggles to be a better person; she gave her alter ego, Jo, a happier ending than she actually managed to get. (And though she didn't know it at the time, a happier ending for her artist sister May, as well.)

I won't wait so long for my next reread.

Never liked this one. I read Alcott back around the time I was first reading the Brontes and Dickens, and her books always struck me as incredibly dull in comparison. I was probably about 12, though, so I suppose I should try it again someday.

"I don’t believe fine young ladies enjoy themselves a bit more than we do, in spite of our burnt hair, old gowns, one glove apiece, and tight slippers, that sprain our ankles when we are silly enough to wear them." – Jo March

Whether you like this book or not, I doubt there are many that would deny that Jo March is the star of this mid-nineteenth century novel about the March family. In many ways, because of this remarkably self-assured heroine, Little Women seemed to me much ahead of its time. Sisters Meg, Beth and Amy all have their moments to shine; while Mr. and Mrs. March are more broad-minded than what I imagine their contemporaries to have been. Had I been required to plant myself down in the midst of an American family during that era, I would have been satisfied to settle in with the Marches.

Meg yearns for the fine things she once had before poverty knocked the Marches down a few notches; yet she retains a mother-like quality that warmed me to her. Beth is quiet, good-natured and pious; all her sisters look to her as the epitome of virtue. The artistic little Amy is spoiled and vain and dreams of someday becoming a moneyed gentlewoman. I admit to feeling a bit sorry for her and by book’s end I became a fan. People do grow up after all, don’t they?!

And then there is Jo who adores books and dreams of someday becoming a writer. Described as a bit of a "tomboy", which I suppose a girl with her pluck would have been commonly labeled back in the day, Jo is at the center of the novel. Given that Little Women is somewhat autobiographical in nature, it is fascinating to read of this spirited young woman. I can just imagine how she felt – stifled by society’s norms and expectations of a Victorian ‘lady’. She wanted the freedom to express herself; she would often have difficulty suppressing the pent-up rage that she felt deep inside; and she wanted to do what made her happiest.

"An old maid – that’s what I’m to be. A literary spinster, with a pen for a spouse, a family of stories for children, and twenty years hence a morsel of fame, perhaps…"

She shared her hopes with Laurie, the boy next door and her greatest pal besides her dear sisters. They shared a love of literature and the outdoors and confided in one another their greatest dreams.

"Wouldn’t it be fun if all the castles in the air which we make could come true, and we could live in them?"

I read this story as a young teen and didn’t recall much of the plot. I have always carried a strong, positive image of Jo in my head during the intervening years; and I’m very glad I decided to reacquaint myself with her and the entire March family. I’m happy to say the image held up. With the exception of ever-sweet Beth, I would say that all of the girls exhibited growth throughout the book, and it was fun to spend some time with them. At times the story felt a bit over-sentimental, but I believe it was aimed at young women and given the date of publication, I decided to forgive it for this small ‘crime.’ I’m all for a sweet from time to time, as long as it’s balanced out with something nutritious, and I believe I got both here. I am super-excited to see the upcoming screen version of this to be released on Christmas Day!

"Now and then, in this work-a-day world, things do happen in the delightful story-book fashion, and what a comfort that is."

"Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents", grumbled Jo..."

I was under the impression that I had missed Little Women in my youth and that it was one of those gaps in my education that keep nagging me. Then I started reading it, and realised that I know all characters, and the story, and the feeling of the novel as a whole. So either I have developed a psychic connection to my "to-read"-shelf, or I have actually NOT missed out on Little Women in my adolescence, just forgotten the process of reading it. I wonder which one of my two types of amnesia I prefer: the one where I know I have read the book but forgotten the content, or this recently discovered other one, where I think I haven't read the book but remember the content?

Either way, I find the beginning quite fitting. The March girls are discussing the sacrifice of their Christmas tradition to honour the bigger historical event of their times: the men fighting in the Civil War. There has been a Christmas discussion in my family for quite a while too, and it has also revolved around the craziness of mass consumption in times of difficulty. In our case, the back drop is not the American Civil War, but rather the more global threat of Climate Change looming like a frustrating Apocalypse that you can't avoid by being a confessed Atheist (quite the contrary, actually, it seems that those who still take the biblical revelations for granted truth can avoid feeling bad about the Climate Apocalypse!).

And like the March sisters find their niches in a family of many wishes and needs and hopes and fears, we settle for different positions within our microcosm, enjoying a good conflict as much as any family, while worrying about each other and supporting each other in our respective dreams (and support meaning what it always does in families: partly helping, partly standing in the way of other members' interests).

So to all of you out there, trying to square the circle of personal and collective responsibilities in Christmas time: have a merry time, or if not, read a book - maybe a classic you thought you had missed?