Heaven 2022: December Book Club: Little Women (including Good Wives), by Louisa M Alcott

finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
edited January 2024 in Limbo
Our December book is Little Women. This is including Good Wives - I believe in the US it's all one book, while it's separated into two books in the UK. Alcott herself didn't call part 2 'Good Wives - that was the publisher's choice.

It can be accessed free on Project Gutenberg, which has both parts in one book: link here

Also, it is 41p on Amazon UK, and again, both parts included: link here

I imagine it's a book a few of us are familiar with from childhood, and also, maybe, from the various film adaptations that have been made. Incidentally, for those who have Netflix, the 2019 adaptation is on there, with Saoirse Ronan as Jo - this is a version that seems to get quite mixed responses. Personally, I really liked it, particularly Florence Pugh's portrayal of Amy.

I always find it interesting to reread a childhood book in adulthood and see how/if my perspective has changed, things I notice that I didn't notice before, etc. I've read this book quite a few times, in childhood and in adulthood, and look forward to reading it again.

I'll post discussion questions on the 20th.
«1

Comments

  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    I've just started a re-read and am looking forward to the discussion.
  • MiliMili Shipmate
    I own the book/s as two so will start reading now.
  • I checked out Little Women. I will either skip Good Wives or persevere reading it as an ebook.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I reread Little Women a few years ago when I was studying something on the Civil War and it was a surprise to find how much Louisa May Alcott had layered into her narrative for that time. Looking forward to reading both Little Women and Good Wives together.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    I reread Little Women a few years ago when I was studying something on the Civil War and it was a surprise to find how much Louisa May Alcott had layered into her narrative for that time.

    Ah, interesting - I haven't thought much about that aspect. Reading your comment made me wonder where in the US the story is set, and I found this on Wikipedia:
    'Four sisters and their mother, whom they call Marmee, live in a new neighborhood (loosely based on Concord) in Massachusetts in genteel poverty.'

    I'm realising I had no idea they lived in Massachusetts, nor a new new neighbourhood, but it must say so in the novel.
  • As I remember, the novel was purposely vague about certain things such as setting, perhaps to maintain some distance between reality and fiction.

    I must dig out my treasured copy, which belonged to my mother and has the most beautiful silhouette illustrations. Although I'm in the UK, this version has both books in one, which is interesting. My first encounter with the book(s) was in two volumes, those abridged hardback ones which were so popular in the 70s. Mum read them to me before I was old enough to read them for myself, but since she didn't attempt American accents, it was a long time before I realised they were set in America!

    The book is close to my heart, and the most recent film version made me want to stand up and cheer in the middle of the cinema. I got the DVD for my birthday, and now I need to watch it again!
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I reread it several years ago, after reading it many times as a child, and remembered when I started the reread that the version I had read and loved when younger was an abridged version, so I never read the whole thing until adulthood. It's a book I have a lot of thoughts about so will be interested to join in the discussion even if I don't get time for another reread!

    I've been putting off watching the 2019 film until the time seemed right so will probably do that this month.
  • I thought I knew it by heart, having read it so many times, but looking at the first couple of chapters noticed several things I hadn't taken in before - e.g. that their father had been too old for the draft: I'd always imagined both sides in the civil war were volunteers.
  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    The Draft Riots in New York were notorious (relatedly, there was even a movement for Manhattan to secede and become a separate city-state).
  • Apologies for my British ignorance!
  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    edited December 2022
    No worries--I believe the Confederacy didn't have an official Draft (and probably many Americans, unless they've seen The Gangs of New York, don't know about the Draft Riots).
  • I think at least some Confederate states did have a draft.
  • The 2019 film was great, but it felt like Postmodern Little Women - it jumbled up scenes from different parts in the story so much that it definitely felt like a film aimed at fans of the book, rather than people new to the story altogether.
  • I don't think any of the film versions has been entirely faithful to the book. The overall story does provide scope for good young actresses.
  • I loved it as a child, but when I came to read it to my own two as a bedtime story they didn't take to it and we gave up. I can't remember why.
  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    I didn't like the book as a child, but I'm really enjoying my reread now.
  • The 2019 film was great, but it felt like Postmodern Little Women - it jumbled up scenes from different parts in the story so much that it definitely felt like a film aimed at fans of the book, rather than people new to the story altogether.
    Not all fans of the book would have enjoyed having scenes interwoven from different parts of the book. I did not at all enjoy the muddled chronology.
    Having been a fan, and repeat reader, since the mid fifties I have a very definite 'screenplay' running through my head, and that most recent film version caused me much confusion.

    I will admit that I have seen various TV & film versions over the years, and the 'film in my head' is now peopled with a selection of individual characters from past castings.



  • I would advise avoiding film versions as they will ruin the experience of the original book.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I've only ever seen two films, Dr Zhivago and Enchanted April where I liked the film as well as the book.

    I must see if I can find the book/s at the library and join in.
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    rhubarb wrote: »
    I would advise avoiding film versions as they will ruin the experience of the original book.

    I think that's a very individual thing. I have watched many film adaptations of books I've loved, and my responses have ranged from loving the film and feeling that it added layers of enjoyment and meaning to the book, to thinking the film was terrible and totally misrepresented the point of the book. (There are even a few cases where I think movie is better!). However, I've never felt that a movie "ruined the experience" of a book for me -- the book, and my memories of it (and the ability to reread and enjoy it anew) still exists for me, quite independent of a bad film adaptation or even a good one.
  • I can think of three films made from books for which the quality matches: "The Magic of Ordinary Days", "The Abyss" and "The Old Man and the Sea".
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Belisarius wrote: »
    The Draft Riots in New York were notorious (relatedly, there was even a movement for Manhattan to secede and become a separate city-state).

    We'd not heard of the Draft Riots either, probably because they formed a minor sideline to the Civil War. Even that was not a major part of history education in 50's and 60's Australia. The Ship continues its role of opening bylines and pathways.

    My sisters and I disliked the books intensely, but looking back now I can see why they appealed to US girls when they were written and probably for a century afterwards.
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    I have just finished my reread of "Little Women" and will shortly be moving on to "Good Wives" - they are two separate volumes in my house.

    Unfortunately I have lent my copy of "Little Women" to my daughter and have done the reread in a different copy in which there is at least one key omission - just a couple of lines, but it really bugged me when I came across it.

    I've also seen what I believe to be the most recent film and it will be interesting to discuss that when the time comes.
  • I've just noticed that the copy of Good Wives that I inherited from my mother was published by the Religious Tract Society!
  • Started Little Women last night and almost a hundred pages in. I think I last read it when I was around 10. Definitely a didactic period piece. I am not sure it has aged well.
  • I recently read "Pilgrim's Progress", and this might give me more insight into "Little Women". As I recall, Alcott mostly included references to the first volume of PP.
  • I vaguely recall Marmee giving each of the girls a copy of PP, saying that she hoped that they would use it as a guide for their lives. Didn't they find it under their pillows? Didn't each copy have a different coloured binding?

    It's been some years since I actually read it, but this 'memory' has just popped into my mind on reading HarryCH's post. I've never seen that bit in any of the film or tv productions
  • Yep; I even recall the colours of the books: red green dove coloured-for drippy Beth, natch- ( had to ask my Mum what that colour was at age 7) and blue ( for Amy).

    Felt like slapping sanctimonious old Marmee with a dead fish even then
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    I've always assumed those books were copies of the Bible - described as "that beautiful old story of the best life ever lived..."
  • You could be right… might be getting mixed up with the chapter “ Meg goes to Vanity Fair”
  • Yes, I always assumed they were Bibles, or maybe just New Testaments.
  • BelisariusBelisarius Admin Emeritus
    They are indeed copies of PP; the sisters mention a few times how they are trying to emulate its story.
  • Several of the chapter headings refer to PP as well.
  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    I too thought Marmee had given the girls New Testaments, though I realised they were acting out Pilgrim's Progress.
    @Sojourner I didn't like the book when I read it as a child for pretty much the reasons you've mentioned. Now having read loads of Religious Tract Societies novels for children such as Jessica's First Prayer, I can appreciate Little Women a lot more.
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I was also confused as a child by what the books were; I thought they were Bibles or New Testaments as well but then later concluded that they were copies of PP. Glad to know I wasn't the only one confused.
  • It’s only on this re-read that I worked out they were PP, because of something said in the chapter where Amy is exiled with Aunt March. (My copy is digital so a real pain to seek and find quotes in, sorry.)
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    In Good Wives, in the chapter "The Valley of the Shadow"
    when Beth is dying
    it speaks of how "Jo found Beth reading in her well-worn little book." Two paragraphs later, Beth one night turns "the leaves of her old favourite Pilgrim's Progress." It seems pretty clear to me that the two books are different, otherwise they would have been referred to in the same way.
  • The girls had obviously been reading Pilgrim's Progress when they were much younger, hence the accounts of the games they used to play based on it. It seems they hadn't had their own NT until that Christmas.

    @Sarasa, I was interested in what you said about the Religious Tract Society: I'd thought they only issued religious tracts, but obviously they covered fiction too. Were they a big outfit?
  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    I have a collection of Victorian children's novels many of which were published with Sunday School prizes in mind from various publishers. The best have a good story as well as the moralising, but some are pretty wall to wall preaching
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Nenya wrote: »
    I've always assumed those books were copies of the Bible - described as "that beautiful old story of the best life ever lived..."

    Yes, I've always thought they are Bibles. It says they are 'the beautiful old story of the best life ever lived,' which I assume is intended to be that of Jesus, rather than Christian in PP. The sisters know the story of PP, and Marmee says the books are their guidebook, to read from every day, which sounds like it's a Bible to me. It's the teaching in the Bible that inspires PP and their PP game.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I just remembered that in December people usually post questions earlier than the 20th, to allow for people being busy for Christmas. I would have posted earlier if I'd remembered before, but I'll post today, anyway, a day early.

    I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'm familiar enough with it, having read it a few times in the past. I think for most people here it seems to be a reread too, so people might be interesed in talking about how differently they experiece the book in adulthood, for instance, so I'll write questions about this, while also making them inclusive of anyone reading it for the first time. Hopefully they are broad enough for people to talk about whatever aspect of the book interests them, and if anyone has other questions to add, please do.
    1. Is this your first time reading the book or a reread? Do you remember roughly how old you were when you first read it, and if you've read it more than once in the past, how long since you last read it?
    2. What were your overall impressions? Both now, and in any previous readings? If this is a reread, did reading the book now seem very different from your previous reading(s) of it? What has not aged so well, and what did you find more interesting this time?
    3. Do you have any favourite character, and a favourite of the March sisters? If you read it as a child, has this changed? Have you changed your opinion on any of the characters? Are there any characters you particularly dislike, amd has this changed?
    4. Of the two parts of the book (volume 1 and volume 2 in the US, and Little Women and Good Wives in the UK), do you prefer one to the other? If so, why? And again, has this changed since any previous readings?
    5. Do you have any favourite scenes? If so, which ones, and why? (And again, both from previous readings and now.)
    6. Are there any scenes that make you cringe, or you find annoying? Is so, which ones and why? (And again, from both previous readings and now.)
    7. The story is told from the perspective of a narrator who inserts their own opinions and speculations quite frequently - the intrusive narrator. Do you find this entertaining or annoying? Did you find yourself seeing the narrator as a separate character and forming an opinion on them? (And again, is this a different experience now from previous readings?)
    8. Although the story is about the four sisters, the narrator expresses a particular fondness for Jo, and Jo's story and perspective seems to be the most central one. How do you find this, as a reader, when an author does this, and specifically in this book? Do you find yourself wondering how different the story would be if a different sister was featured and favoured in this way? Is there a sister you would like to have had more of a voice and central role?
    9. What do you think of the way the sisters lives turn out, from the kids/teens they are Little Women to the adults they become in Good Wives? Would you have written their futures differently?
    10. Have you seen any of the film adaptations of the book, and if so, what do you think of them? Have the more modern films influenced how you interpret the novel?
    11. Anything particular you noticed about the book that you found interesting/odd/surprising?
    12. Add any question you want to add here.
  • 98 pages to go in Good Wives.
  • I am not re-reading, as I find reading a struggle these days, so can't address most if the questions - but Jo was, and is, still definitely my favourite character. Of course, once you realise that Little Women & Good Wives is a fictionalised autobiography of LMA, it is clear that the story would be written from her viewpoint. I think the film versions are able to tell parts of the story from other viewpoints.

    I went on to read Little Men and Jo's Boys after reading the first two books a couple of times. I enjoyed them back then, but they don't have the appeal of the first two volumes.
  • NenyaNenya All Saints Host, Ecclesiantics & MW Host
    I am not re-reading, as I find reading a struggle these days, so can't address most if the questions - but Jo was, and is, still definitely my favourite character. Of course, once you realise that Little Women & Good Wives is a fictionalised autobiography of LMA, it is clear that the story would be written from her viewpoint. I think the film versions are able to tell parts of the story from other viewpoints.

    I went on to read Little Men and Jo's Boys after reading the first two books a couple of times. I enjoyed them back then, but they don't have the appeal of the first two volumes.
    I am rereading (about halfway through Good Wives) and will come back to the questions, but I agree with this. I also read Little Men and Jo's Boys and we had copies of them in the house where I grew up but they disappeared mysteriously, like a few other things. I didn't like them nearly as much as the first two books and got the impression the author just wanted to tie some ends up. I believe I read somewhere that was the case: she was thoroughly tired of writing about the family and wanted to make sure she left nothing unanswered so she couldn't be pressed into writing any more about them.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I don't really like any of the sequels much, even Good Wives. But I read them when I was older, and I read Little Women when I was a child.
  • I set out to re-read for this discussion, it I could not get beyond the start of Good Wives. It is so prosy and wordy and moral, and lacks any sense of spontaneity. The earlier book is one I first read in an illustrated abridged version when I was very young, as it was a book my Granny had.

    This read through the war stuff seemed to be more important. And is the General Lincoln who sees Meg at the Moffat’s party supposed to be Abraham Lincoln?
  • My mother had these books and gave them to me when I was about nine or ten, and I've been reading them off and on ever since: last time would be five or six years ago. I 've always regretted that I didn't have a daughter to pass them on to, and my grand-daughter lives abroad.
    Jo was my favourite, as is the case with everyone I've ever discussed it with. I thought Meg was boring and hated Amy, though reading it this time I have more sympathy with her.
    My favourite part is when they're waiting for Marmee to come back when Beth is ill, and it turns out Laurie has already sent for her.
    I always thought it was a shame Jo didn't end up married to Laurie.
    Reading it this time I felt very irritated by the author's "moralising" comments (interesting in view of Jo's struggles with her writing and whether to put in such comments): I feel the moral is, and should be, clear from the story itself.
    I've been wondering about Beth: was it just shyness or was there something wrong with her?
  • I had to force myself to read beyond the first couple of chapters of Good Wives. Jo's treatment of Laurie was less than ideal.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Cathscats wrote: »
    I set out to re-read for this discussion, it I could not get beyond the start of Good Wives. It is so prosy and wordy and moral, and lacks any sense of spontaneity. The earlier book is one I first read in an illustrated abridged version when I was very young, as it was a book my Granny had.

    Was it a tall red hardback book, with coloured illustrations? I had that when I was seven. I remember the illustration of Amy drawing noses!
  • TrudyTrudy Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I have never met anyone whose favourite character in Little Women was not Jo, which I think is a function of her being the author's favourite character. Particularly, I think, young women with literary pretensions tend to model themselves on Jo.

    One of my favourite memes making the rounds on social media is one that says "The most depressing part of Little Women is not when Beth dies, but when Jo gets paid $100 for a short story, reminding us that rates for freelance writing have remained virtually unchanged since the 1870s" or words to that effect. Given Jo's struggle between what she writes for money and what she wants to write, it is interesting to wonder how much of the moralizing tone of LW/GW and sequels reflects what the author actually wanted to write, and how much of it is what she felt compelled by the literary norms of the day to put in.

    I have MANY opinions about this book (or these books, if you have them in two volumes), but to avoid being too long-winded, for anyone interested I'll post a link to a blog post I wrote back in 2011 when I "re-read" it, which actually turned out to be reading it for the first time as I'd never read the unabridged version. I ramble on at length in this post about my lifelong reactions to the novel's two biggest and perhaps most controversial plot points: Beth's fate, and the Jo/Laurie relationship.
Sign In or Register to comment.