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!
I've not quite finished Part 1/Good Wives, so I'll save some questions till I have.
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?
I read this as a child and I remember my mum talking about it. The scene where Jo cut her hair was the scene that made the most impression on her. I remember not liking the book that much as a child, so I hadn't read it again till now some sixty years later.
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?
I'm really enjoying it so far. I think what makes it different from some other children's books of this era is that the March sisters come across as real people with distinct personalities. Also Alcott is probably a better writer than the constraints she (or others?) put on herself. The moral lectures haven't aged well, but they aren't nearly as dire in tone as some other books I've read. Try Mrs Sherwood's The Fairchild Family, for instance.
@Trudy - Jo was never my favourite character, which is why it fascinates me that most people seem to like her best and I don't. And I was a kid who loved writing, wanted to be a writer. When I read the book as a little kid, I wanted someone to identify with, and they all seemed too old, so I picked Amy as my favourite, as she was the youngest, and I've always liked drawing too, so that element appealed to me.
Later I found out that Jo is everyone's favourite and people hate Amy, but on all my rereadings I've still preferred Amy - the stuff that gets called selfishness seems largely ordinary childish behaviour to me. I normally don't like selfish and snobby characters, but I don't really interpret Amy this way - she seems like a very realistic child, and also someone who knows her own mind. And I find myself feeling how incredibly frustrating it must be for her, an intelligent, curious, strong-willed kid, who is repeatedly dismissed and teased by her older sisters, who are respected and get to do all sorts of fun stuff, while she is expected to play with a quiet, passive sister who likes nursing her dolls. I felt her frustration and fury as she tried to do something that would make Jo take her seriously and feel the hurt that she was feeling - I actually understood why she burnt Jo's story, and felt more anger with Jo for shaking her till her teeth rattled in her head! But I've never come across anyone else who liked Amy - as you say, everyone seems to like Jo best.
Incidentally, I discovered all the sisters of the author have their own Wikipedia pages, and the sister on whom Amy was based actually did become an artist, as well as teaching art and art therapy, and she lived in Europe. She didn't marry any next door neighbour either - she married a guy she met in London, when she was 38 and he was 22. That's actually more of the future life I would have imagined for the character of Amy. I don't think she would have settled down to conventional expectations. Though sadly the real life sister also then died in childbirth a year later.
By the way, I am also fond of Meg, who straightforwardly grows up, falls in love, marries and has children, all with relatively little ego and drama. Alas, she later widowed.
I am not fond of Marmee (silent R), sanctimonious and so busy caring for the poor that she neglects her own children.
One thing I noticed on this re-reading was the mention of little Irish children, who seemed to be regarded as a sort of pest - unlike the poor and deserving German family. Wondering about racism here?
One thing I noticed on this re-reading was the mention of little Irish children, who seemed to be regarded as a sort of pest - unlike the poor and deserving German family. Wondering about racism here?
Yes, when Amy has to throw her pickled limes out of the window and the Irish kids are eating them. I wondered about that - they seem to be seen as the enemies of the schoolkids, kind of like a rival school, like neighbouring private school v state school rivalries. It doesn't sound like the Irish kids are at school, but perhaps similar dynamics. I haven't yet got a sense of how they are viewed from a wider perspective than the schoolyard though.
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.
Could you expand on that a little bit? What makes you feel that way?
I can see that maybe she keeps him on the hook for too long, rather than making it more clear that she doesn't have romantic feelings for him. But I don't think girls were really encouraged to make their feelings clear in those days, unless the guy actually proposed, and it's not like Laurie is very good at taking hints 😁
Jo was not very good at giving hints that she was not romantically interested. The fact they do not get together is the weakest aspect of the plot.
I agree. I think there are very good and sensible real-world reasons why a couple like Jo and Laurie might not have worked out, but narratively, it doesn't make sense -- everything has been set up to lead the reader to want and expect them to be together. (Most readers, I should say. Just as with Jo being "everyone's" favourite character, there are certainly exceptions, as pointed out above!).
One thing I noticed on this re-reading was the mention of little Irish children, who seemed to be regarded as a sort of pest - unlike the poor and deserving German family. Wondering about racism here?
More likely sectarianism: the little Irish were of course RC ( subchristian as far as the Alcotts were concerned) rather than worthy Protestants like the Hummels. Funnily Hummel is a surname common in ( Catholic) Austria and Bavaria but heck, Louisa May could not be expected to know that
@Trudy - Jo was never my favourite character, which is why it fascinates me that most people seem to like her best and I don't. And I was a kid who loved writing, wanted to be a writer. When I read the book as a little kid, I wanted someone to identify with, and they all seemed too old, so I picked Amy as my favourite, as she was the youngest, and I've always liked drawing too, so that element appealed to me.
Later I found out that Jo is everyone's favourite and people hate Amy, but on all my rereadings I've still preferred Amy - the stuff that gets called selfishness seems largely ordinary childish behaviour to me. I normally don't like selfish and snobby characters, but I don't really interpret Amy this way - she seems like a very realistic child, and also someone who knows her own mind. And I find myself feeling how incredibly frustrating it must be for her, an intelligent, curious, strong-willed kid, who is repeatedly dismissed and teased by her older sisters, who are respected and get to do all sorts of fun stuff, while she is expected to play with a quiet, passive sister who likes nursing her dolls. I felt her frustration and fury as she tried to do something that would make Jo take her seriously and feel the hurt that she was feeling - I actually understood why she burnt Jo's story, and felt more anger with Jo for shaking her till her teeth rattled in her head! But I've never come across anyone else who liked Amy - as you say, everyone seems to like Jo best.
Incidentally, I discovered all the sisters of the author have their own Wikipedia pages, and the sister on whom Amy was based actually did become an artist, as well as teaching art and art therapy, and she lived in Europe. She didn't marry any next door neighbour either - she married a guy she met in London, when she was 38 and he was 22. That's actually more of the future life I would have imagined for the character of Amy. I don't think she would have settled down to conventional expectations. Though sadly the real life sister also then died in childbirth a year later.
When I read LW in 1959 I liked Amy best and thought that all the pious stuff about her supposed “ selfishness” was tosh. Does anyone recall how narky Jo was when Aunt March took Amy “abroad” rather than Jo? Jo had earlier stupidly dissed the idea of overseas travel. Sisterly envy, what?
Jo needed a brother, someone she could do all those 'unladylike' things with that she couldn't do with her sisters. Meg was already a young lady, Beth too frail and Amy far too young. Laurie filled that space in her life, and in her heart, but she was nowhere near ready to give anyone the kind of love that Laurie was eventually asking her for.
When he married Amy, Jo was happy that at last he had become the brother she had always seen him as, and Amy was far better suited to the life he was destined for.
I really have no idea if I expected Jo to succumb to his entreaties back when I first read it, and of course, ever since then it is obvious that she cannot.
@Trudy - Jo was never my favourite character, which is why it fascinates me that most people seem to like her best and I don't. And I was a kid who loved writing, wanted to be a writer. When I read the book as a little kid, I wanted someone to identify with, and they all seemed too old, so I picked Amy as my favourite, as she was the youngest, and I've always liked drawing too, so that element appealed to me.
Later I found out that Jo is everyone's favourite and people hate Amy, but on all my rereadings I've still preferred Amy - the stuff that gets called selfishness seems largely ordinary childish behaviour to me. I normally don't like selfish and snobby characters, but I don't really interpret Amy this way - she seems like a very realistic child, and also someone who knows her own mind. And I find myself feeling how incredibly frustrating it must be for her, an intelligent, curious, strong-willed kid, who is repeatedly dismissed and teased by her older sisters, who are respected and get to do all sorts of fun stuff, while she is expected to play with a quiet, passive sister who likes nursing her dolls. I felt her frustration and fury as she tried to do something that would make Jo take her seriously and feel the hurt that she was feeling - I actually understood why she burnt Jo's story, and felt more anger with Jo for shaking her till her teeth rattled in her head! But I've never come across anyone else who liked Amy - as you say, everyone seems to like Jo best.
Incidentally, I discovered all the sisters of the author have their own Wikipedia pages, and the sister on whom Amy was based actually did become an artist, as well as teaching art and art therapy, and she lived in Europe. She didn't marry any next door neighbour either - she married a guy she met in London, when she was 38 and he was 22. That's actually more of the future life I would have imagined for the character of Amy. I don't think she would have settled down to conventional expectations. Though sadly the real life sister also then died in childbirth a year later.
When I read LW in 1959 I liked Amy best and thought that all the pious stuff about her supposed “ selfishness” was tosh. Does anyone recall how narky Jo was when Aunt March took Amy “abroad” rather than Jo? Jo had earlier stupidly dissed the idea of overseas travel. Sisterly envy, what?
Yes, exactly. I see from reading up on the real life sisters that Louisa was envious of her youngest sister, as well as supportive of her, and I think that explains the inconsistency in how she portrays Jo and Amy. Jo is described as this impulsive, generous natured, cheery soul, while Amy is described as more selfish and petty, but Jo is constantly bickering with Amy, deliberately saying things to wind her up, and resenting her for all sorts of things, which is just as petty. And Amy's 'selfishness' is things like deciding she will split her Christmas dollar to buy a small bottle of cologne for her mum and a pack of drawing pencils for herself, which seems to me a very natural and sensible decision. As a kid, I always felt sad that she changed her mind and didn't get herself the pencils!
I do find the whole moralising thing interesting. I get the feeling the author had guilt instilled in her for ever thinking of her own needs and desires, and her youngest sister probably rebelled against this more than she did, so maybe represented something she both admired and resented.
I don't think I have a favourite among the sisters. I think Jo is the most interesting character and very different from most girls in the Victorian literature I've read. It's interesting to contrast her with Ethel in The Daisy Chain by Charlotte M. Yonge. Ethel is very intelligent and better than her brother at her lessons. She's keen to learn Latin etc. However when told ladies shouldn't pursue academic studies she gives them up without a fight. I'm also thinking of the difference between Meg and Anne Shirley in Anne of Green Gables. Meg seems an intelligent young woman but is never given the opportunity to be other than the bride in waiting for John Brooke. It might have been obvious that Anne would marry Gilbert Blythe after she cracked the slate over his head for teasing her, but at least she went off and got an education first. Maybe it is the thirty years difference in the writing of the stories, or the difference between the USA and Canada.
More likely sectarianism: the little Irish were of course RC ( subchristian as far as the Alcotts were concerned) rather than worthy Protestants like the Hummels. Funnily Hummel is a surname common in ( Catholic) Austria and Bavaria but heck, Louisa May could not be expected to know that
I thought Alcott was rather more open-minded about Catholics than most English books of the period I've read. Amy is encouraged in her devotion to Our Lady, or at least to the picture Aunt Marsh's maid gives her, and Laurie hikes off to Mass when he is in a bother about Amy. I can't imagine either of those things happening in a book from the Religious Tract Society. The best would be that Catholics can almost be 'proper' Christians, despite the error of their ways.
By the way what do you think of the portrayal of the Vaughn family. There seem to be a few digs about how snobbish and slightly underhand the English can be.
[*] 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?
A re-read; one of many. I've revisited these books a number of times over the years, having first read them when I was, I guess, around 10 or 11.
[*] 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?
I've tried to be more aware of the historical background this time, aware that I am not very knowledgeable about it. It doesn't seem particularly different this time, I think because I've always pretty much bought into the story and not questioned some of what I see now are the questionable elements.
On previous readings when I was younger I just blubbered over the sad bits about Beth and didn't really question them. Now, I do wonder why a doctor apparently wasn't involved with her final illness and it didn't even seem to cross the family's mind to consult one about her.
[*] 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?
No, I don't really have a favourite. I liked Jo because of her bookishness and her writing abilities (I wanted to write a book when I was younger) but I didn't relate to her tomboyishness or to her temper that went so far it put her little sister's life in danger. I liked and related to Beth's quietness and home loving traits and to Meg's motherliness. I did like Amy - I thought the portrayal of her reasonably realistic; also, the kind of young woman she developed into.
I've never particularly liked Professor Bhaer, I thought (and still think) he comes over as a bit of a buffoon.
[*] 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?
I prefer the first part but one of my favourite scenes is in Good Wives, see below.
[*] Do you have any favourite scenes? If so, which ones, and why? (And again, both from previous readings and now.)
One of my favourites is when Amy gets herself dressed up to go to the ball with Laurie. I've always liked the description of how she "prinks" herself but also knows not to go too far - covering an old dress with illusion, not doing anything too fancy with her hair and deliberately not arranging herself under the light, even though she knows it will show her hair off.
[*] 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.)
I always cringe a bit when Professor Bhaer asks Jo to address him as "thou" and she does so, having asked him whether it isn't a little sentimental "privately thinking it a lovely monosyllable." He goes on to describe himself as the fairy prince who came through the wood and waked her heart up. None of that dialogue rang true to me.
Also, now, I cringe when Amy calls Laurie "my lord" after they are married but I didn't think twice about that when I read it as a teenager.
[*] 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?)
I don't think I have much of a reaction either way.
[*] 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?
It would have been really interesting to have the early story written from the viewpoint of all the other sisters; later in the book the viewpoints diverge a bit. Particularly, perhaps, Beth's viewpoint and what was going on in her mind to make her so socially anxious.
[*] 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?
The big question could be said to be, why didn't Jo marry Laurie? I actually found it convincing that she didn't. I think, as Marmee observed, they are too alike and there would have been huge friction between them. Jo saw him as a brother and she got him as one when he married Amy.
[*] 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?
I did see one film adaptation (the one with Emma Watson as Meg) and was pretty underwhelmed. I was particularly annoyed with the way the film was called "Little Women" but strayed onto "Good Wives" territory, not realising at the time that they are seen as one book in some quarters. I remember being particularly irritated by the Jo and Laurie relationship and how, if I remember rightly, Jo desperately regrets her decision not to accept Laurie's proposal and goes chasing after some letter she's written to him. The closest the book gets to that is saying how dreadfully lonely she is after Beth dies and might have given Laurie a different answer if he had asked it then.
We have a version which we recorded a couple of days ago - I don't know which one it is, I just saw it and we hit the Record button - but I haven't watched it yet.
I read somewhere that L M Alcott never wanted Jo to be married (as she herself never was) and was pressured into it by the publishers who wanted a "happy ever after" ending.
The book, and the characters, have been constant companions since childhood, but I have re-evaluated them many times over the years.
The recent Greta Gerwig film was an absolute joy to me. True, the non-linear storytelling made it difficult for people who didn't know the book. But to me it felt like chatting with friends. Oh, such and such is happening in my life right now. It reminds me of years ago when we...
Alcott herself is almost a character in the film. Two endings are shown, the 'fiction' one where Jo marries Bhaer (who is far too young and handsome in the film, by the way) and the 'author' version, where Jo is seen to have written that ending to please the publisher, but has no intention of marrying anyone herself. Very much based on what happened in reality.
Alcott never married, and apparently never had a romantic relationship with anyone. There is, of course, speculation about her sexuality. I do wonder, if the book was being written these days, whether Jo would be trans. There seems more to her identity than just not liking the restrictive roles assigned to women at the time.
You have remembered the film much better than I have, @Gill H and in the light of what you say I feel I have done it an injustice and should watch it again.
I found an interesting article online about Alcott's possible sexuality.
To me, one of the most haunting moments in the book is when Jo comes back from New York, takes one look at Beth and knows--before anyone else except Beth does--that Beth will not live much longer. I have had a somewhat similar experience myself.
Alcott never married, and apparently never had a romantic relationship with anyone. There is, of course, speculation about her sexuality. I do wonder, if the book was being written these days, whether Jo would be trans. There seems more to her identity than just not liking the restrictive roles assigned to women at the time.
Ah, that is interesting, and I think kind of how I was interpreting it, though I hadn't put it into those words. But to me, when people say she and Laurie should have got together, I always think no, because she sees both herself and him as boys hanging out - they are lads having a laugh. He sees her as a different gender from how she sees herself. Or I should say how he sees himself, if he is trans. So of course there is miscommunication and crossed wires when it comes to the idea of a relationship between them.
That was an interesting article, and does a lot to explain the character of Jo. Reading the article reminded me that my favourite scene is the one where Laurie suggests they run away to sea or something similar. I wonder what would have happened if they had done so?
I also am feeling more and more that Alcott was caught between what she really thought and the prevalent mores of the time, hence the lurching into mini-sermons every now and then, which even she sends up occasionally.
I’m reading it for the first time (thanks for the link @fineline ) & enjoying it so far. Somewhere I have a copy that was given to my great-aunt as a Sunday school prize which I covered in Christmas wrapping paper for the Brownie booklover badge aged 7. I wish now that I’d read it as a child as I think I would’ve loved it as a 10/11 year old.
I also am feeling more and more that Alcott was caught between what she really thought and the prevalent mores of the time, hence the lurching into mini-sermons every now and then, which even she sends up occasionally.
I am feeling this too. The sermons feel more like something she felt she should do, and felt conflicted about, and possibly anger at herself for not being the selfless person she felt she should be. I was a little shocked at the way Marmee spoke about herself and her temper, referring to herself as 'weak and wicked' for wanting to express annoyance with people, and I found myself thinking that actually, a bit of expressing her mind sometimes might have been healthier, and perhaps it was a bit of repression that contributed to Amy and Jo's explosions of fury.
Incidentally, about Beth not going to the doctor, I don't know if this is related, but if you look at the Wikipedia page about Louisa's sister Elizabeth, who died at 22 of scarlet fever, it says: 'By February 1858, she refused to take medicine and told her father, "I can best be spared of the four."' I am not sure if that was for financial reasons, or she thought it would be easier in general for the family if she died. But to me this seems like an unhealthy level of self sacrifice, and I can see how Louisa might have internalised this as an ideal to aspire for. Jo is an odd mix of selflessness, sentimentality, anger and independent spirit.
I’m reading it for the first time (thanks for the link @fineline ) & enjoying it so far. Somewhere I have a copy that was given to my great-aunt as a Sunday school prize which I covered in Christmas wrapping paper for the Brownie booklover badge aged 7. I wish now that I’d read it as a child as I think I would’ve loved it as a 10/11 year old.
I first read it when I was seven (partly the full version, and then I switched to an abridged version I got for Christmas, as I liked the illustrations), which was a bit young and I didn't get a lot of the humour or implications, but I loved it nonetheless. The fun and bickering between the sisters was very vivid and real to me, as I also grew up with sisters.
[*] 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?
I have read it a number of times and have read the entire series. My mum had the first book, but not the second volume. I must have read the first volume when I was 10 (in the late 1980s), and it lead to a tragic conversation with a school friend. My friend had read the first two volumes. We were talking about Beth and she must have said something about her death. I was surprised as I had only read about her first illness so argued that Beth survived. I then found out the sad truth that Beth died in the next book. I got a copy of 'Good Wives' and was less devastated than I would have been if my friend had not spoiled Beth's death for me. I last read these books/volumes fairly recently, but a few years before the latest movie.
[*] 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?
I always enjoyed the series and have found it to be one I can reread numerous times. I didn't understand the historical context very well when I first read it - for example I thought Laurie must have had an African American mother based on his appearance and his grandfather's disapproval, until it was stated she was Italian. I also initially thought the book was set in England as Jo talks about playing cricket. Each time I read it I have known more of the history and about Louisa May Alcott and her family. I think I skimmed some of the moralising as a child.
I have always found the historical aspects interesting. When I first read the book I took the family to be typical of their time, but now understand the Marches were quite progressive and also that they were Unitarian, rather then Trinitarian Christians.
The girls are quite natural compared to other children from moralistic books of the time that I have read. One story that sticks in my mind for its moralising and depressing ending, is 'The French Cap' a story from 'The Golden Ladder', published in the U.S. in 1863. It is set in a boarding school where a few of the girls decide to play a prank on a teacher, removing her cap with a hook on a pole. The cap catches fire and nearly burns two Annies (one of the pranksters and the girl that tries to save her) to death. The innocent Annie is a true Methodist Christian who does not fear death, however despite many talks with true Christian Annie and detailed bible lessons from one of the teachers, the other Annie can never understand that she is in need of forgiveness and salvation. She is fearful of death until they both recover. Once the truth about the prank comes out she begs to leave the school and the story ends with the teacher declaring sadly that unsaved Annie was only sorry for the prank with 'the sorrow of the world, which worketh death'. And that she saw no repentance, implying it was unlikely worldly Annie would ever come to faith, despite her only being around 14 or 15 years old! Here is a link if you want to suffer through reading it as a comparison https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
[*] 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?
I never really had a favourite, but related most to Jo and Beth. Jo as she liked writing and was more modern in her views and behaviours. Beth because I suffered from social anxiety, which it seems Beth does as well. At the time my anxiety was just seen as shyness and I often felt quite judged about it as I was sometimes made to feel it was a bad character trait that I should be able to fix. Beth's family and friends were very understanding, but perhaps didn't push her to confront her anxieties enough. Certainly both myself and Beth would have got counselling or teaching in techniques to deal better with anxiety if we were children today. I learnt those techniques over time and became more confident and it seemed Beth was also becoming more confident before her illness became severe.
[*] Do you have any favourite scenes? If so, which ones, and why? (And again, both from previous readings and now.)
Amy and Jo reconciling after the drama and excitement of Amy falling through the ice. Beth's recovery. Jo's first story being published and the related event where Laurie thinks she has been to the dentist. I also enjoy the romances, even if I never liked that Jo married somebody so much older than herself. It doesn't seem any better now I am around Professor Bhaer's age! If he had been ten years later it wouldn't have been so bad.
This book also told me to be cautious about Covid as diseases can have long term health effects and to never walk on ice unless you definitely know it is safe. I feel terrible for those poor boys in Birmingham who recently fell through the ice.
[*] 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.)
I didn't mind Jo not marrying Laurie, but certainly only became resigned to Jo and Frederick's relationship from the movies, where he is always more attractive. I always hated that Beth's canary died - it really upset me as a child, and rereading it now it seems worse that Marmee didn't check she was feeding it. Pets seemed to be considered more replaceable from an adult point of view at the time. I skim read the chapter on the Pickwick Papers as I found it boring. Jo's social visits were also painful. The cooking disasters were depressing, but probably accurate in a time when people had to cook with wood or coal fire stoves. I also noticed the prejudice against the Irish children this time around, which was such in contrast to how everyone else was treated with empathy.
[*] 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?
Their futures seemed fairly suited to their child selves. Of course I still would have liked Beth to have survived and it was depressing that she couldn't picture herself having a future due to her social anxiety and wondered if that was because she was destined to die young. I can see that Laurie and Amy could have a compatible marriage, but still wonder if he carried a flame for Jo, despite his denials. I felt like John Brook was barely present in the latter half of the second volume/book and really is not seen much of again before his death later in the series, which was a shame - Alcott didn't seem to know what to do with him.
[*] 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?
I have seen one early movie once, but the ones that impacted my views were the 90s version with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale and the most recent version. The 90s version I think will always be my favourite and the soundtrack perfect for the story. I think I liked child Amy better after seeing the movie as she seemed more sympathetic as played by Kirsten Dunst.
Incidentally, about Beth not going to the doctor, I don't know if this is related, but if you look at the Wikipedia page about Louisa's sister Elizabeth, who died at 22 of scarlet fever, it says: 'By February 1858, she refused to take medicine and told her father, "I can best be spared of the four."' I am not sure if that was for financial reasons, or she thought it would be easier in general for the family if she died. But to me this seems like an unhealthy level of self sacrifice, and I can see how Louisa might have internalised this as an ideal to aspire for. Jo is an odd mix of selflessness, sentimentality, anger and independent spirit.
That is tragic. However medicine may not have helped much at that time. I read a book about the first public hospital in Melbourne and treatments largely consisted of alcohol and opium/morphine for pain relief. Mr. March allowed Beth alcohol for medicinal reasons and Louisa May Alcott took regretfully took morphine for pain as she was anti-opium (she also had life-long poor health after catching typhoid while nursing). Fresh air cures such as tried by Beth were also common in a time before antibiotics and other modern treatments.
I always hated that Beth's canary died - it really upset me as a child, and rereading it now it seems worse that Marmee didn't check she was feeding it.
It upset me too, but my own mum was very dismissive about that bit when she found me bawling over it one day. "As if that would happen - the bird would make such a fuss it would let everyone know it was hungry." We had a budgie in a cage in our kitchen so I guess she knew whereof she spoke, although if the canary were in a room where no one went for days it's possible the family wouldn't hear it. I don't think they lived in that huge a house, though!
Beth does not simply contract scarlet fever and die of it; she recovers but has a permanently weakened heart, dying eventually of what is apparently congestive heart failure.
The relationships between the sisters interested me the most, especially the scene mentioned by @Mili where Jo and Amy quarrel, and Amy then falls through treacherous ice. Estrangement between sisters was probably as much of an issue then as now, sibling rivalry and envy or resentment that might develop into years of feuding or not speaking. Because I went through long periods of distance and estrangement from my own sisters, I found it moving to read this scene again at a time when there is a great effort at reconciliation going on.
When I first read Little Women and then Good Wives as separate volumes in a dark-blue edition (Everyman?) that had belonged to my mother as a child, I identified with both Meg and Jo and thought of my younger sisters as a mix of Beth and Amy. I read the suggestions for controlling my temper very carefully -- I wonder if children find their own moods quite overwhelming. It interested me that Marmee should confide in Jo that she had lost her own mother when she was young and had battled with a fiery temper herself and how her husband had helped her. The role of husband as mentor is now something I associate with controlling patriarchal marriages and yet I can see that a young wife might look to an older husband for guidance and support in dealing with an impulsive nature. Because death was always so close in that 19th-century context -- illness, accidents, war -- parents and siblings may have lived with immense regrets and guilt over unresolved conflicts.
I also found myself thinking about another writer who was living at home during the Civil War, Emily Dickinson at Amherst and her poem on the volcanic tensions in the repressed domestic household.
I judge from my Geography
Volcanoes nearer here
A Lava step at any time
Am I inclined to climb
A Crater I may contemplate
Vesuvius at Home.
The 1994 movie with Winona Ryder was on TV over Christmas - did anyone watch it? I watched it, at my dad's house. I hadn't seen it since it first was at the cinema, so it was interesting to watch again and compare with the book. I find Winona Ryder an odd Jo - she totally creates and owns a believable, likable character, but it seems very different from the Jo in the book. She makes Jo kind of cute and girly and delicate of speech. But I imagine if someone played Jo exactly as she is in the book, she wouldn't always be so likeable!
Something I find about the book, whenever I reread it, is that although it's annoyingly moralistic and didactic, there are always unexpected elements of humour that tickle me. I enjoyed Amy declaring that Aunt March was 'a regular samphire,' and Jo commenting that she meant vampire, not seaweed, but that it didn't matter, because it was 'too warm to be particular about parts of speech.'
I didn't watch the 1994 film on TV but with the help of YouTube I have reminded myself of the 2019 version and feel a lot more positive about it now that I know more about L M Alcott and how she had to end the story in the way she did.
When I was a child we had the sequels, Little Men and Jo's Boys, which I probably reread once or twice and can't remember very well at all. However, I do seem to remember that there's a girl in one of them (Nan?) who is "one of the boys" rather as Jo was, and who pursues a career in, I think, medicine. I can recall one particular passage describing how if one of the boys had a splinter they much preferred her matter-of-fact and no-nonsense removal of it than the other girls' cautious not-wanting-to-hurt approaches. I don't think she ever paired up but put her efforts into her career. Maybe L M Alcott felt this was a more authentic rendition of how she wanted to write about women.
I agree about the humour too - I found a particularly amusing bit I hadn't noticed before... can't find it now, of course! >rolleyes<
I'm just in the middle of reading Jo's Boys having also finished Little Men. If I'd ever read them before it was a long time ago and I remember nothing of them. I find it interesting that careers such as medicine are considered sensible for girls and much is made about how much more enlightened society now is. There was also a heated discussion about votes for women, that claimed women in the UK had the vote, which wouldn't have been true at the time the story was written. I'm also finding it fascinating that cameras and bicycles are now around.
Sorry for the double posts but I finally finished Jo's Boys.
Those of you who have read it what did you think of Dan? I kept on thinking when reading the last two books where he appears that Alcott was going to kill him off, he had so many accidents. I could just feel she was working up to a touching death bed scene and then changing her mind. I also think she changed her mind about him marrying Bess. I'm glad he didn't, she was such an irritating character.
The last two books are not great literature, but they were certainly interesting.
I read the sequels when I was much younger, and then more recently when I did my unabridged reread of LW/GW a few years back, and I remember almost NOTHING from Little Men or Jo's Boys. The only thing that stands out to me is that I felt the sequels underlined the essential (narrative, not real-life) wrongness of Jo and Laurie not ending up as a couple, because the adult Jo and Laurie only ever seemed to come to life on the page or were at all interesting when they were interacting with each other.
A major difference between Beth and Beth is that Bess is raised as an only child in wealth and privilege (and of course, she does not die in the book).
Or maybe Jo and Laurie illustrate the fact that men and women can be close lifelong friends without necessarily ending up in a physical relationship with each other, even if they’re both straight?
I have loved all four of the books for almost as long as I can remember, though used to get confused about many of the references in Jo’s Boys when I was younger.
Or maybe Jo and Laurie illustrate the fact that men and women can be close lifelong friends without necessarily ending up in a physical relationship with each other, even if they’re both straight?
In real life, definitely! I'm still not 100% convinced it works narratively in the novels, but I accept that other people read them differently.
Even in real life, I think if you were pretty much a bland and uninteresting person around your spouse and seemed witty, fun and interesting only when you were with your lifelong opposite-sex best friend, I would at least be questioning your marriage if not the nature of your friendship. But again I think this is more of a narrative problem than one that often arises in most of our daily lives.
I wanted to drop a couple of suggestions here for other books/media relevant to Little Women, for those who want to further explore the Little Women Extended Universe, as it were. Over Christmas break I listened to a great episode of the podcast Sentimental Garbage, with Caroline O'Donoghue and Ella Risbridger, about Little Women. As is often the case with podcasts, you have to enjoy the two hosts and the energy they bring to it in order to enjoy the conversation, but since I do like the podcast, I found it a great, wide-ranging, insightful discussion (they also do quite a bit of analysis of the 1995 and 2019 movie adaptations).
One of the interesting "what ifs" I have about LW is "what if Louisa May Alcott had written more explicitly about the Civil War and the abolition movement that was so central to her family's life at the time period Little Women is set?" When LMM was 15 (I believe the age Jo is when LW starts), the Alcott family had an escaped slave hidden in their house for a time -- that certainly would have changed the dynamic of the novel if that had happened to the Marches! If the historical background interests you and you haven't come across it before, I highly recommend Geraldine Brooks' novel March, a retelling of the novel that focuses on the mostly-absent father and his involvement in the war and the abolition movement, and how that affects the daughters.
Also, if you like re-tellings and re-imaginings, there's a recent novel called So Many Beginnings by Bethany C. Morrow (from the "Remixed Classics" series) imagining the Marches as a Black family in the aftermath of the American Civil War -- with, again, some really interesting insights into the historical period and some fresh takes on the four sisters.
Interesting -- I haven't read anything of hers except for LW and its sequels. I didn't know she'd written one about a Civil War nurse. Is that Civil War Hospital Sketches, which seems to have been based on her own experiences and published in dispatches during the war? (Just tried to find it by googling).
That’s the one. I downloaded a collection of her works some time ago. “Hospital Sketches” was mildly interesting but, apart from the LW series, my favourite was “Work” - a fascinating and often harrowing account of employment options for women at that time.
Comments
Oh, but she would have wanted to run and hide!
That’s the one!
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?
I read this as a child and I remember my mum talking about it. The scene where Jo cut her hair was the scene that made the most impression on her. I remember not liking the book that much as a child, so I hadn't read it again till now some sixty years later.
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?
I'm really enjoying it so far. I think what makes it different from some other children's books of this era is that the March sisters come across as real people with distinct personalities. Also Alcott is probably a better writer than the constraints she (or others?) put on herself. The moral lectures haven't aged well, but they aren't nearly as dire in tone as some other books I've read. Try Mrs Sherwood's The Fairchild Family, for instance.
Later I found out that Jo is everyone's favourite and people hate Amy, but on all my rereadings I've still preferred Amy - the stuff that gets called selfishness seems largely ordinary childish behaviour to me. I normally don't like selfish and snobby characters, but I don't really interpret Amy this way - she seems like a very realistic child, and also someone who knows her own mind. And I find myself feeling how incredibly frustrating it must be for her, an intelligent, curious, strong-willed kid, who is repeatedly dismissed and teased by her older sisters, who are respected and get to do all sorts of fun stuff, while she is expected to play with a quiet, passive sister who likes nursing her dolls. I felt her frustration and fury as she tried to do something that would make Jo take her seriously and feel the hurt that she was feeling - I actually understood why she burnt Jo's story, and felt more anger with Jo for shaking her till her teeth rattled in her head! But I've never come across anyone else who liked Amy - as you say, everyone seems to like Jo best.
Incidentally, I discovered all the sisters of the author have their own Wikipedia pages, and the sister on whom Amy was based actually did become an artist, as well as teaching art and art therapy, and she lived in Europe. She didn't marry any next door neighbour either - she married a guy she met in London, when she was 38 and he was 22. That's actually more of the future life I would have imagined for the character of Amy. I don't think she would have settled down to conventional expectations. Though sadly the real life sister also then died in childbirth a year later.
I am not fond of Marmee (silent R), sanctimonious and so busy caring for the poor that she neglects her own children.
Yes, when Amy has to throw her pickled limes out of the window and the Irish kids are eating them. I wondered about that - they seem to be seen as the enemies of the schoolkids, kind of like a rival school, like neighbouring private school v state school rivalries. It doesn't sound like the Irish kids are at school, but perhaps similar dynamics. I haven't yet got a sense of how they are viewed from a wider perspective than the schoolyard though.
Could you expand on that a little bit? What makes you feel that way?
I can see that maybe she keeps him on the hook for too long, rather than making it more clear that she doesn't have romantic feelings for him. But I don't think girls were really encouraged to make their feelings clear in those days, unless the guy actually proposed, and it's not like Laurie is very good at taking hints 😁
I agree. I think there are very good and sensible real-world reasons why a couple like Jo and Laurie might not have worked out, but narratively, it doesn't make sense -- everything has been set up to lead the reader to want and expect them to be together. (Most readers, I should say. Just as with Jo being "everyone's" favourite character, there are certainly exceptions, as pointed out above!).
More likely sectarianism: the little Irish were of course RC ( subchristian as far as the Alcotts were concerned) rather than worthy Protestants like the Hummels. Funnily Hummel is a surname common in ( Catholic) Austria and Bavaria but heck, Louisa May could not be expected to know that
When I read LW in 1959 I liked Amy best and thought that all the pious stuff about her supposed “ selfishness” was tosh. Does anyone recall how narky Jo was when Aunt March took Amy “abroad” rather than Jo? Jo had earlier stupidly dissed the idea of overseas travel. Sisterly envy, what?
When he married Amy, Jo was happy that at last he had become the brother she had always seen him as, and Amy was far better suited to the life he was destined for.
I really have no idea if I expected Jo to succumb to his entreaties back when I first read it, and of course, ever since then it is obvious that she cannot.
Yes, exactly. I see from reading up on the real life sisters that Louisa was envious of her youngest sister, as well as supportive of her, and I think that explains the inconsistency in how she portrays Jo and Amy. Jo is described as this impulsive, generous natured, cheery soul, while Amy is described as more selfish and petty, but Jo is constantly bickering with Amy, deliberately saying things to wind her up, and resenting her for all sorts of things, which is just as petty. And Amy's 'selfishness' is things like deciding she will split her Christmas dollar to buy a small bottle of cologne for her mum and a pack of drawing pencils for herself, which seems to me a very natural and sensible decision. As a kid, I always felt sad that she changed her mind and didn't get herself the pencils!
I do find the whole moralising thing interesting. I get the feeling the author had guilt instilled in her for ever thinking of her own needs and desires, and her youngest sister probably rebelled against this more than she did, so maybe represented something she both admired and resented.
I thought Alcott was rather more open-minded about Catholics than most English books of the period I've read. Amy is encouraged in her devotion to Our Lady, or at least to the picture Aunt Marsh's maid gives her, and Laurie hikes off to Mass when he is in a bother about Amy. I can't imagine either of those things happening in a book from the Religious Tract Society. The best would be that Catholics can almost be 'proper' Christians, despite the error of their ways.
By the way what do you think of the portrayal of the Vaughn family. There seem to be a few digs about how snobbish and slightly underhand the English can be.
A re-read; one of many. I've revisited these books a number of times over the years, having first read them when I was, I guess, around 10 or 11.
[*] 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?
I've tried to be more aware of the historical background this time, aware that I am not very knowledgeable about it. It doesn't seem particularly different this time, I think because I've always pretty much bought into the story and not questioned some of what I see now are the questionable elements.
On previous readings when I was younger I just blubbered over the sad bits about Beth and didn't really question them. Now, I do wonder why a doctor apparently wasn't involved with her final illness and it didn't even seem to cross the family's mind to consult one about her.
[*] 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?
No, I don't really have a favourite. I liked Jo because of her bookishness and her writing abilities (I wanted to write a book when I was younger) but I didn't relate to her tomboyishness or to her temper that went so far it put her little sister's life in danger. I liked and related to Beth's quietness and home loving traits and to Meg's motherliness. I did like Amy - I thought the portrayal of her reasonably realistic; also, the kind of young woman she developed into.
I've never particularly liked Professor Bhaer, I thought (and still think) he comes over as a bit of a buffoon.
[*] 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?
I prefer the first part but one of my favourite scenes is in Good Wives, see below.
[*] Do you have any favourite scenes? If so, which ones, and why? (And again, both from previous readings and now.)
One of my favourites is when Amy gets herself dressed up to go to the ball with Laurie. I've always liked the description of how she "prinks" herself but also knows not to go too far - covering an old dress with illusion, not doing anything too fancy with her hair and deliberately not arranging herself under the light, even though she knows it will show her hair off.
[*] 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.)
I always cringe a bit when Professor Bhaer asks Jo to address him as "thou" and she does so, having asked him whether it isn't a little sentimental "privately thinking it a lovely monosyllable." He goes on to describe himself as the fairy prince who came through the wood and waked her heart up. None of that dialogue rang true to me.
Also, now, I cringe when Amy calls Laurie "my lord" after they are married but I didn't think twice about that when I read it as a teenager.
[*] 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?)
I don't think I have much of a reaction either way.
[*] 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?
It would have been really interesting to have the early story written from the viewpoint of all the other sisters; later in the book the viewpoints diverge a bit. Particularly, perhaps, Beth's viewpoint and what was going on in her mind to make her so socially anxious.
[*] 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?
The big question could be said to be, why didn't Jo marry Laurie? I actually found it convincing that she didn't. I think, as Marmee observed, they are too alike and there would have been huge friction between them. Jo saw him as a brother and she got him as one when he married Amy.
[*] 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?
I did see one film adaptation (the one with Emma Watson as Meg) and was pretty underwhelmed. I was particularly annoyed with the way the film was called "Little Women" but strayed onto "Good Wives" territory, not realising at the time that they are seen as one book in some quarters. I remember being particularly irritated by the Jo and Laurie relationship and how, if I remember rightly, Jo desperately regrets her decision not to accept Laurie's proposal and goes chasing after some letter she's written to him. The closest the book gets to that is saying how dreadfully lonely she is after Beth dies and might have given Laurie a different answer if he had asked it then.
We have a version which we recorded a couple of days ago - I don't know which one it is, I just saw it and we hit the Record button - but I haven't watched it yet.
I read somewhere that L M Alcott never wanted Jo to be married (as she herself never was) and was pressured into it by the publishers who wanted a "happy ever after" ending.
The recent Greta Gerwig film was an absolute joy to me. True, the non-linear storytelling made it difficult for people who didn't know the book. But to me it felt like chatting with friends. Oh, such and such is happening in my life right now. It reminds me of years ago when we...
Alcott herself is almost a character in the film. Two endings are shown, the 'fiction' one where Jo marries Bhaer (who is far too young and handsome in the film, by the way) and the 'author' version, where Jo is seen to have written that ending to please the publisher, but has no intention of marrying anyone herself. Very much based on what happened in reality.
Alcott never married, and apparently never had a romantic relationship with anyone. There is, of course, speculation about her sexuality. I do wonder, if the book was being written these days, whether Jo would be trans. There seems more to her identity than just not liking the restrictive roles assigned to women at the time.
I found an interesting article online about Alcott's possible sexuality.
Ah, that is interesting, and I think kind of how I was interpreting it, though I hadn't put it into those words. But to me, when people say she and Laurie should have got together, I always think no, because she sees both herself and him as boys hanging out - they are lads having a laugh. He sees her as a different gender from how she sees herself. Or I should say how he sees himself, if he is trans. So of course there is miscommunication and crossed wires when it comes to the idea of a relationship between them.
I also am feeling more and more that Alcott was caught between what she really thought and the prevalent mores of the time, hence the lurching into mini-sermons every now and then, which even she sends up occasionally.
I am feeling this too. The sermons feel more like something she felt she should do, and felt conflicted about, and possibly anger at herself for not being the selfless person she felt she should be. I was a little shocked at the way Marmee spoke about herself and her temper, referring to herself as 'weak and wicked' for wanting to express annoyance with people, and I found myself thinking that actually, a bit of expressing her mind sometimes might have been healthier, and perhaps it was a bit of repression that contributed to Amy and Jo's explosions of fury.
Incidentally, about Beth not going to the doctor, I don't know if this is related, but if you look at the Wikipedia page about Louisa's sister Elizabeth, who died at 22 of scarlet fever, it says: 'By February 1858, she refused to take medicine and told her father, "I can best be spared of the four."' I am not sure if that was for financial reasons, or she thought it would be easier in general for the family if she died. But to me this seems like an unhealthy level of self sacrifice, and I can see how Louisa might have internalised this as an ideal to aspire for. Jo is an odd mix of selflessness, sentimentality, anger and independent spirit.
I first read it when I was seven (partly the full version, and then I switched to an abridged version I got for Christmas, as I liked the illustrations), which was a bit young and I didn't get a lot of the humour or implications, but I loved it nonetheless. The fun and bickering between the sisters was very vivid and real to me, as I also grew up with sisters.
I have read it a number of times and have read the entire series. My mum had the first book, but not the second volume. I must have read the first volume when I was 10 (in the late 1980s), and it lead to a tragic conversation with a school friend. My friend had read the first two volumes. We were talking about Beth and she must have said something about her death. I was surprised as I had only read about her first illness so argued that Beth survived. I then found out the sad truth that Beth died in the next book. I got a copy of 'Good Wives' and was less devastated than I would have been if my friend had not spoiled Beth's death for me. I last read these books/volumes fairly recently, but a few years before the latest movie.
[*] 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?
I always enjoyed the series and have found it to be one I can reread numerous times. I didn't understand the historical context very well when I first read it - for example I thought Laurie must have had an African American mother based on his appearance and his grandfather's disapproval, until it was stated she was Italian. I also initially thought the book was set in England as Jo talks about playing cricket. Each time I read it I have known more of the history and about Louisa May Alcott and her family. I think I skimmed some of the moralising as a child.
I have always found the historical aspects interesting. When I first read the book I took the family to be typical of their time, but now understand the Marches were quite progressive and also that they were Unitarian, rather then Trinitarian Christians.
The girls are quite natural compared to other children from moralistic books of the time that I have read. One story that sticks in my mind for its moralising and depressing ending, is 'The French Cap' a story from 'The Golden Ladder', published in the U.S. in 1863. It is set in a boarding school where a few of the girls decide to play a prank on a teacher, removing her cap with a hook on a pole. The cap catches fire and nearly burns two Annies (one of the pranksters and the girl that tries to save her) to death. The innocent Annie is a true Methodist Christian who does not fear death, however despite many talks with true Christian Annie and detailed bible lessons from one of the teachers, the other Annie can never understand that she is in need of forgiveness and salvation. She is fearful of death until they both recover. Once the truth about the prank comes out she begs to leave the school and the story ends with the teacher declaring sadly that unsaved Annie was only sorry for the prank with 'the sorrow of the world, which worketh death'. And that she saw no repentance, implying it was unlikely worldly Annie would ever come to faith, despite her only being around 14 or 15 years old! Here is a link if you want to suffer through reading it as a comparison https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
[*] 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?
I never really had a favourite, but related most to Jo and Beth. Jo as she liked writing and was more modern in her views and behaviours. Beth because I suffered from social anxiety, which it seems Beth does as well. At the time my anxiety was just seen as shyness and I often felt quite judged about it as I was sometimes made to feel it was a bad character trait that I should be able to fix. Beth's family and friends were very understanding, but perhaps didn't push her to confront her anxieties enough. Certainly both myself and Beth would have got counselling or teaching in techniques to deal better with anxiety if we were children today. I learnt those techniques over time and became more confident and it seemed Beth was also becoming more confident before her illness became severe.
[*] Do you have any favourite scenes? If so, which ones, and why? (And again, both from previous readings and now.)
Amy and Jo reconciling after the drama and excitement of Amy falling through the ice. Beth's recovery. Jo's first story being published and the related event where Laurie thinks she has been to the dentist. I also enjoy the romances, even if I never liked that Jo married somebody so much older than herself. It doesn't seem any better now I am around Professor Bhaer's age! If he had been ten years later it wouldn't have been so bad.
This book also told me to be cautious about Covid as diseases can have long term health effects and to never walk on ice unless you definitely know it is safe. I feel terrible for those poor boys in Birmingham who recently fell through the ice.
[*] 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.)
I didn't mind Jo not marrying Laurie, but certainly only became resigned to Jo and Frederick's relationship from the movies, where he is always more attractive. I always hated that Beth's canary died - it really upset me as a child, and rereading it now it seems worse that Marmee didn't check she was feeding it. Pets seemed to be considered more replaceable from an adult point of view at the time. I skim read the chapter on the Pickwick Papers as I found it boring. Jo's social visits were also painful. The cooking disasters were depressing, but probably accurate in a time when people had to cook with wood or coal fire stoves. I also noticed the prejudice against the Irish children this time around, which was such in contrast to how everyone else was treated with empathy.
[*] 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?
Their futures seemed fairly suited to their child selves. Of course I still would have liked Beth to have survived and it was depressing that she couldn't picture herself having a future due to her social anxiety and wondered if that was because she was destined to die young. I can see that Laurie and Amy could have a compatible marriage, but still wonder if he carried a flame for Jo, despite his denials. I felt like John Brook was barely present in the latter half of the second volume/book and really is not seen much of again before his death later in the series, which was a shame - Alcott didn't seem to know what to do with him.
[*] 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?
I have seen one early movie once, but the ones that impacted my views were the 90s version with Winona Ryder and Christian Bale and the most recent version. The 90s version I think will always be my favourite and the soundtrack perfect for the story. I think I liked child Amy better after seeing the movie as she seemed more sympathetic as played by Kirsten Dunst.
That is tragic. However medicine may not have helped much at that time. I read a book about the first public hospital in Melbourne and treatments largely consisted of alcohol and opium/morphine for pain relief. Mr. March allowed Beth alcohol for medicinal reasons and Louisa May Alcott took regretfully took morphine for pain as she was anti-opium (she also had life-long poor health after catching typhoid while nursing). Fresh air cures such as tried by Beth were also common in a time before antibiotics and other modern treatments.
As an adult she supported her parents by her writing. They appeared to take this for granted.
When I first read Little Women and then Good Wives as separate volumes in a dark-blue edition (Everyman?) that had belonged to my mother as a child, I identified with both Meg and Jo and thought of my younger sisters as a mix of Beth and Amy. I read the suggestions for controlling my temper very carefully -- I wonder if children find their own moods quite overwhelming. It interested me that Marmee should confide in Jo that she had lost her own mother when she was young and had battled with a fiery temper herself and how her husband had helped her. The role of husband as mentor is now something I associate with controlling patriarchal marriages and yet I can see that a young wife might look to an older husband for guidance and support in dealing with an impulsive nature. Because death was always so close in that 19th-century context -- illness, accidents, war -- parents and siblings may have lived with immense regrets and guilt over unresolved conflicts.
I also found myself thinking about another writer who was living at home during the Civil War, Emily Dickinson at Amherst and her poem on the volcanic tensions in the repressed domestic household.
I judge from my Geography
Volcanoes nearer here
A Lava step at any time
Am I inclined to climb
A Crater I may contemplate
Vesuvius at Home.
Something I find about the book, whenever I reread it, is that although it's annoyingly moralistic and didactic, there are always unexpected elements of humour that tickle me. I enjoyed Amy declaring that Aunt March was 'a regular samphire,' and Jo commenting that she meant vampire, not seaweed, but that it didn't matter, because it was 'too warm to be particular about parts of speech.'
When I was a child we had the sequels, Little Men and Jo's Boys, which I probably reread once or twice and can't remember very well at all. However, I do seem to remember that there's a girl in one of them (Nan?) who is "one of the boys" rather as Jo was, and who pursues a career in, I think, medicine. I can recall one particular passage describing how if one of the boys had a splinter they much preferred her matter-of-fact and no-nonsense removal of it than the other girls' cautious not-wanting-to-hurt approaches. I don't think she ever paired up but put her efforts into her career. Maybe L M Alcott felt this was a more authentic rendition of how she wanted to write about women.
I agree about the humour too - I found a particularly amusing bit I hadn't noticed before... can't find it now, of course! >rolleyes<
Those of you who have read it what did you think of Dan? I kept on thinking when reading the last two books where he appears that Alcott was going to kill him off, he had so many accidents. I could just feel she was working up to a touching death bed scene and then changing her mind. I also think she changed her mind about him marrying Bess. I'm glad he didn't, she was such an irritating character.
The last two books are not great literature, but they were certainly interesting.
Dan was probably the most interesting character, as I recall.
I have loved all four of the books for almost as long as I can remember, though used to get confused about many of the references in Jo’s Boys when I was younger.
In real life, definitely! I'm still not 100% convinced it works narratively in the novels, but I accept that other people read them differently.
Even in real life, I think if you were pretty much a bland and uninteresting person around your spouse and seemed witty, fun and interesting only when you were with your lifelong opposite-sex best friend, I would at least be questioning your marriage if not the nature of your friendship. But again I think this is more of a narrative problem than one that often arises in most of our daily lives.
I wanted to drop a couple of suggestions here for other books/media relevant to Little Women, for those who want to further explore the Little Women Extended Universe, as it were. Over Christmas break I listened to a great episode of the podcast Sentimental Garbage, with Caroline O'Donoghue and Ella Risbridger, about Little Women. As is often the case with podcasts, you have to enjoy the two hosts and the energy they bring to it in order to enjoy the conversation, but since I do like the podcast, I found it a great, wide-ranging, insightful discussion (they also do quite a bit of analysis of the 1995 and 2019 movie adaptations).
One of the interesting "what ifs" I have about LW is "what if Louisa May Alcott had written more explicitly about the Civil War and the abolition movement that was so central to her family's life at the time period Little Women is set?" When LMM was 15 (I believe the age Jo is when LW starts), the Alcott family had an escaped slave hidden in their house for a time -- that certainly would have changed the dynamic of the novel if that had happened to the Marches! If the historical background interests you and you haven't come across it before, I highly recommend Geraldine Brooks' novel March, a retelling of the novel that focuses on the mostly-absent father and his involvement in the war and the abolition movement, and how that affects the daughters.
Also, if you like re-tellings and re-imaginings, there's a recent novel called So Many Beginnings by Bethany C. Morrow (from the "Remixed Classics" series) imagining the Marches as a Black family in the aftermath of the American Civil War -- with, again, some really interesting insights into the historical period and some fresh takes on the four sisters.