n  n    “Love is a great beautifier.”n  n

The March Sisters.
Marmee.
Laurie.
Hannah.
Mr. Laurence.

What a beautiful journey. What a beautiful family. What a beautiful story.
The book is so simple that every time after i complete it, i wonder whether i missed something. It leaves me wanting to know what led Alcott to write this simple masterpiece.

We have Jo ; a tomboy and an author who has a temper and a quick tongue, although she works hard to control both.


We have Meg ; responsible and kind, has a small weakness for luxury and leisure, but the greater part of her is gentle, loving, and morally vigorous.


We have Beth ; quiet and very virtuous, and she does nothing but try to please others.


We have Amy ; an artist who adores visual beauty and has a weakness for pretty possessions.


We have Laurie ; charming, clever, and has a good heart.


This book is absolutely stunning in its simplicity. Alcott's writing is simple yet beautiful.

n  n    “I want to do something splendid...something heroic or wonderful that won't be forgotten after I'm dead. I don't know what, but I'm on the watch for it and mean to astonish you all someday.”n  n

That being said i do have a *ahem* problem with this book. Yep. You guessed it. Actually, I have two problems with this book:
1.  BETHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. NOOOOOOOOOO. I don't remember the last time i cried this much. It was absolutely heart-breaking. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. no no no no no no. Plus the fact that some people call me Joey and this is my reaction every. single. time.
2. I don't give a damn. single. f about what you think. JO ENDS UP WITH LAURIE. LOU LOU ALCOTT DID NOT WRITE ANOTHER BOOK IN THIS SERIES ABOUT JO'S CHILDREN. GOT THAT? Good!
They are perfect for each other and they marry and they have kids and they live happily ever after. THIS IS MY
BOAT
SHIP
YACHT
SUBMARINE
CRUISE SHIP
TITANIC
HILL
OCEAN
WORLD
UNIVERSE
AND IF YOU TELL ME THESE TWO DON'T END TOGETHER YOU WILL HAVE A KNIFE IN YOUR BACK.

Look at me and tell me that these two don't end together!!!




And Jo loves you too. YESSSS. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WEDDING :)


I stan this. I love this book. I LOVE THIS BOOK SO MUCH.

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

See? Even Lou Lou Alcott is telling to to sail your own ship.......

P.S: Random person who is reading this : Please watch the 2019 movie adaptation.

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."

To me this book is just a big neon highlighted literary exclamation mark defining how incredibly different I am from my mother. She loves this book. Really, really loves it....a lot. She always used to tell me how great she thought it was although, as a kid I somehow avoided reading it; mainly because at this point I was too busy dangling from a climbing frame by my ankles or stealing scrap wood from building sites in order to make dens and tree houses.

As it is prominently placed on the 1001 books list I thought, "What the hell I'll give it a go". Man oh man what an epic snooze fest. Less than twenty pages in I could feel my mind slowly shutting down. Was it through boredom? Or was I entering a diabetic coma because of the saccharine overload created by the sickly sweet world of Margaret, Jo, Beth and Amy? Anyway to avoid succumbing to said coma I threw the book as far away from me as I could and then chucked a blanket over it to ensure that I wouldn't be effected by the mind numbing dullness being exuded from between the covers.

I know that I risk howls of outrage at this lambasting of a much loved classic but this ticked no boxes for me. I am clearly dead inside.

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

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!

Some books read like a lifelong friendship, each page a warm or comforting embrace as you laugh and weep along with the characters. Little Women by L.M. Alcott is an enduring and endearing classic that will nestle its way so deep into your heart that you’ll wonder if the sound of turning pages has become your new heartbeat in your chest. To read the novel is a magical experience, and we are all like Laurie peering in through the March’s window and relishing in the warmth within. I have long loved the film adaptations and make it a holiday tradition to ensure I at least watch it every December (it has Christmas in it, it counts), so it was fascinating to finally read the actual novel and return to character I feel I’ve always known yet still find it fresh and even more lovely than ever before. Semi-autobiographical, Alcott traces the lives of the four March sisters, Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy, and their struggles to make their own way in a society that offers little use for women beyond the household. An emotional epic and moving family saga full of strong characters, sharp criticisms on society and gender roles, and a beautiful plea to dispense with the worship of wealth and find true purpose and value in simplicity, nature and generosity.

‘I've got the key to my castle in the air, but whether I can unlock the door remains to be seen.’

Little Women will leave your heart full and your pen dry from underlining the seemingly endless lovely passages. I’d like to thank Adira and her wonderful review for convincing me to finally actually read this and not just watch the movie again (I did last night though, because who doesn’t want to relive the joy of yelling “Bob Odenkirk?!” in a theater and later sobbing) because, just when I thought I couldn’t love this story more, now I’m fully engulfed by it. Surely enough has been written about this book already, but i like to ramble about things I love so here’s a more I guess (I’ll try to keep it shorter than usual [having finished writing it now, I failed]). But how can you not be with such incredible characters? Jo is of course the favorite, but I think part of loving this book is wanting to be Jo and realizing you are Amy, but each character touches your heart in their own way. Mr. Laurence and Beth’s connection with the piano and lost daughters makes me teary just writing this. Alcott based the story on her real family and one can read a genuine love for the characters pouring from every page.

‘Wealth is certainly a most desirable thing, but poverty has its sunny side, and one of the sweet uses of adversity is the genuine satisfaction which comes from hearty work of head or hand, and to the inspiration of necessity, we owe half the wise, beautiful, and useful blessings of the world.’

Alcott was a transcendentalist and many of her beliefs shine through in the novel. Much of this came from her father and one will be pleased to learn that the real Mr. March—Amos Bronson Alcott—was as radical in his time as his fictional counterpart. An abolitionist who also advocated for women’s rights, Amos became a major transcendentalist figure along with his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Alcott’s mother was equally radical for her time too, and many of their teachings arrive here through Mrs. March to her children. There is, of course, the belief in nature as the ideal, such as when the March girls, having little jewelry, adorn themselves in flowers instead. Even Laurie states ‘I don’t like fuss and feathers,’ another instance of a return to simplicity over flashy status symbols. There is also the belief in generosity, which is seen throughout with the March family always involved in helping others, and the belief that hard work is important, but not for profit reasons but because it leads to spiritual and emotional happiness and freedom.

‘Then let me advise you to take up your little burdens again; for though they seem heavy sometimes, they are good for us, and lighten as we learn to carry them. Work is wholesome, and there is plenty for every one; it keeps us from ennui and mischief; is good for health and spirits, and gives us a sense of power and independence better than money or fashion.’

Towards the start of the novel, the mother advises the children to be like Christian from John Bunyan’s allegorical novel The Pilgrim's Progress and we can see how Little Women follows a similar fashion of Pilgrim’s being knowledge gained through the travel of a life lived, and each daughter is shown to face certain trials and must learn to bear their burdens, like Jo’s anger, Amy’s desire to be liked, Meg’s desire for vanity, Beth’s passivity. But the largest burdens here are those of love and labor.

‘Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition, and they’ve got talent, as well as just beauty. I’m so sick of people saying that love is all a woman is fit for.’

The relationship to work is threaded through the entire novel. We have Jo and Amy who wish to be great and break from the traditional mold for women in society. Jo wants to be a writer, though she only publishes scandalous stories under a false name, and Amy desires to be a painter. And neither will settle for anything less than greatness ‘because talent isn't genius, Amy states, ‘and no amount of energy can make it so. I want to be great, or nothing.’ Meg and Beth, on the other hand, show different routes a woman can take. The novel questions if women can find happiness outside marriage and caring for a household, and these struggles bash against social expectations along the way.

‘ I'll try and be what he loves to call me, 'a little woman,' and not be rough and wild; but do my duty here instead of wanting to be somewhere else.’

‘ I can't get over my disappointment in not being a boy,’ Jo quips, and a major part of Little Women is a critique of gender roles and how they stifle people in society. Laurie is an excellent foil to Jo, in many ways, but is also a way that Alcott addresses and subverts gender expectations. Jo and Laurie both use shortened versions of their name that seem to cross gender expectations (even though Laurie didn’t like being called Dora) and in many ways Jo tends to represent more masculine behavior while Laurie often a more feminine role. While Meg dresses in finery and tries to fill the traditional role of a woman, Jo prefers to romp in nature in simple or dirty garments and behave, by her own admission, like a boy.

Recently there has been a lot of discussion on the author’s gender and sexuality, with even the New York Times writing an opinion piece wondering if Alcott or Jo was a trans man. I know that frustrates some people but personally I find it interesting to think about, even if a bit anachronistic, but it seems to be a genuine question people investigate about authors who subvert gender expectations (think how often it was avoided to discuss Virginia Woolf’s sexuality in the past and now we have letters and look at scenes in Mrs Dalloway and think “oh yea, that makes total sense”). Honestly, I say Jo is whatever you want Jo to be. Trans, lesbian, ace, or just a girl pushing back on gender norms. I think the key detail is that Jo was breaking out of the mold, so let that empower you as you best see fit. Personally I thought the marriage to Friedrich felt tacked on anyways (I enjoy the way the Gerwig adaptation addresses this) but, side note, I do see how Alcott weaves in the transcendentalist notion of the “universal family” and belief in learning about and supporting other cultures here. Friedrich is German, Meg marries the English John, and Laurie is said to be half-Italian, which all comes as a rebuttal to the anti-immigration sentiments of the times.

‘I like good strong words that mean something,’ Jo says and that appeals to my love of language as well. This book deals with love in many ways, but feels like a romance between book and reader as you enjoy every page. Little Women was ahead of its time and still stands proudly today as an endearing work that dares challenge social convention. But most importantly, it feels like a friend. Finishing is hard as now I’ll miss the days with the March sisters, and I find books that take you from childhood to adulthood often hit the hardest because you feel as if you’ve grown up together. An emotional read, also a genius one, Little Women is a favorite now forever.

5/5

‘ Watch and pray, dear, never get tired of trying, and never think it is impossible to conquer your fault.’

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

Alexa, play “Champagne Problems” by Taylor Swift.

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

|| 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.

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

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