There will be spoilers.Now, if she had been the heroine of a moral story-book, she ought at this period of her life to have become quite saintly, renounced the world, and gone about doing good in a mortified bonnet, with tracts in her pocket. But, you see, Jo wasn't a heroine; she was only a struggling human girl, like hundreds of others, and she just acted out her nature, being sad, cross, listless, or energetic, as the mood suggested.I first read this book as a tween, and had a real love-hate reaction to it, love of the first half, and I pretty much hated the last half. Beth's death made me cry, and I loathed sad books passionately, but most of all I loathed Professor Bhaer, for two reasons. The minor one was that he was ugly and forty, which was utterly disgusting to me, as my grandparents then were in their forties. Euw! But the real reason I felt utterly betrayed by Alcott was because my own limited experience laid a palimpsest over the story, distorting Alcott's meaning. Well, but even if I hadn't been twitted by the well-meaning adults in my life to stop writing silly fairy tales and concentrate on Real Life if I must scribble stories, I could not have taken her meaning, as my lack of life experience was exactly what she was talking about in those scenes.I read the book again at another period of my life when I probably shouldn't have, as the sorrowful parts overshadowed the rest.Then I recently reread it, and hey, it was a completely different book from the one I'd read as a kid. Funny, that, how much a text changes over the decades. To me, that is the sign of a great book.The first thing I noticed was the humorous skill of the narrator, who sometimes, in true nineteenth century fashion, comes right out and talks to the reader, then vanishes again, and lets the characters talk and think for themselves. I saw this time how skillfully Alcott set up Amy's and Laurie's romance. How splendidly Alcott painted Laurie's and Jo's friendship, and her courage in maintaining that hey, a man and a woman really can be good buddies. Yeah, Laurie goes through some heart-pangs, but he gets over it, and finally gets some emotional growth while being thwarted for the first time in a life of getting pretty much what he wanted all the time. There were occasional falters that showed the author's hand. Like I found it hard to believe that Laurie, as a teenage boy, would moralize quite so much over Meg prinking at her first party. I could totally see him being uncomfortable, but that's a small thing.As a kid I'd been bored stiff by Amy's and Laurie's courtship, but this time, I loved the images of Europe, and appreciated how skillfully Alcott had brought the two through the years to their shared delights. I found their courtship one of the strengths of the book. And then there was Professor Bhaer. The scene where he rejoices in Jo's giving up her writing after her humiliation over his opinion of trashy stories that I took as such a betrayal as a teen read utterly differently to me now. What he resented was Jo pandering to the modern taste for sex, violence, and melodrama, especially when she knew so little about sex and violence. Jo was perpetrating cliches, empty calories, because it was easy money, and he thought she could do better. I had to laugh when I recollected that not so long ago I critiqued a teenage-written manuscript, suggesting that that writing about forty-year-old married people might wait until more was known about what marriage actually meant. What I had taken as a tween (because sex went right over my head) was that Professor Bhaer was anti-fantasy. Wrongo, but I didn't have the life experience to see where he was going about lack of life experience.As for his being forty, that seems to have been a nineteenth century tic. Hello Mr. Knightley! And not just in fiction--just a couple days ago I was reading Horatio Nelson's dispatches. In winter of 1800 he is smirking about Sir John Acton, well into his sixties, marrying his thirteen year old niece. Smirking, not exclaiming in horror and disgust, the way we would now.In short, Jo and the Professor's romance took on all the charm that had completely passed me by.Meanwhile there were all the old scenes I'd remembered so well, still funny, and poignant, and beautiful. Alcott does get preachy, but she's aware of it; at one point, after encouraging young people not to make fun of spinsters, she gets on with the story after wondering if her audience has fallen asleep during her little homily. These homilies all point toward love as well as acceptance, faith as well as resignation. Caring for one's fellow-being, whether it be a poor person, as the dying Beth made little gifts for poverty-stricken children and dropped them out of the window just to see smiling faces. There is so much beauty in this book, and so much appreciation of beauty, as well as illustration of many shades of love.It was also interesting to get visual overlays, for last autumn I'd visited Orchard House, where May (Amy) had drawn all over the walls in her room and a couple of other rooms, carefully preserved, where Jo's room was full of books, overlooking the garden; between two tall windows was the writing desk her father had made for her. Beth's piano. You could feel wisps of the love the family had for one another, which Alcott had put into the book, along with her personal struggles to be a better person; she gave her alter ego, Jo, a happier ending than she actually managed to get. (And though she didn't know it at the time, a happier ending for her artist sister May, as well.)I won't wait so long for my next reread.
★★★★: Me encantó, en serio.Este libro y yo tenemos una larga historia. Es el libro favorito de mi mamá, y como tal, ella habría preferido que este fuera mi primera lectura, allá cuando yo tenía nueve o diez años. Por supuesto ya desde chiquita le entré a llevar la contra y mi primer libro fue Harry Potter y el Cáliz de Fuego. A partir de allí, comencé un camino muy diferente al de ella, un camino que no pudimos hacer converger nunca más, porque desde Harry Potter que la fantasía siempre fue una de mis preferencias, mientras que mi mamá sigue optando por historias realistas, policiales y romanticonas. Lo curioso es que ya vi la película, ya sé qué pasaba, y nunca me había interesado lo suficiente. Mi mamá, persistente como es, siempre me decía que tenía que leerlo, que no me iba a arrepentir. Y yo simplemente no le encontraba el gusto. Hacía ya varios días que reencontré este libro en mi último estante de la biblioteca tocando suelo. Lo ves y te dan ganas de enmendarlo: de una editorial del año del pedo, de una de esas colecciones que salían con el diario. No tiene lomo directamente: se ven las hojas, amarillentas, gastadas, usadas, muy leídas. No tengo idea de cuántas veces mi mamá lo leyó, pero sé que mínimo cuatro o cinco sí. Es corto, me digo, 212 páginas. En un día me lo leo. (Justo estoy con exámenes finales y se me ocurre leer un libro. Bien Xime). La cuestión que no fue hasta que una amiga de la facultad me dijo que "cómo puede ser que no lo hayas leído! Yo lo leí a los 13 y te juro que me encantó". Me apuró para leerlo porque, bueno, el libro es un tanto infantil y se me estaba pasando el cuarto de hora. Bueno. Infantil no es la palabra. Es... inocente. Ahora, después de tanto tiempo, puedo decir que me arrepiento de no haberlo leído antes. Me encantó. Lo disfruté en serio. Leyéndolo me olvidé de todos los exámenes que tengo que rendir la semana que viene, y me dejé enamorar de Laurie, de Jo, de Beth (oh, Beth!), del ambiente de finales del siglo XIX, de los vestidos de encaje, de los guantes, de los sombreros raros, de las formas extravagantes y elegantes que tenían de hablar. (Ahora tengo muchas ganas de leer Orgullo y Prejuicio, ya que tienen historias y ambientes parecidos). Me pude identificar mucho con Jo, sus comportamientos de marimacho, sus aspiraciones a ser escritora. Pero también es fácil identificarse con sus demás hermanas, la timidez de Beth, los delirios de grandeza de Amy, las ganas de salir a flote de Meg. ¿Lo mejor del libro? LAURIE, SIN DUDAS!! ¿Lo peor?, justamente esa inocencia de la que hablaba. Las chicas son de una familia pobre y precaria, pero se desviven dando todo por los demás. La madre les hace leer el Nuevo Testamento, y cada "aventura" que ellas tienen, su madre aprovecha para sacarles una moraleja y terminar diciéndoles que "deben confiar en Dios, no importa qué pase". Y bueno, teniendo al padre en la guerra y con tan poco dinero, no hay mucho más para hacer... Pero las moralejas llegan de tal manera que parece un dibujito animado que te dice "¡No te olvides de comer tus vegetales!". Por eso en medio de esa oscuridad, Laurie es ciertamente la luz que las ilumina. Se hace primero amigo de Jo, con el que parece entablar rápidamente mucha confianza y compañerismo, pero al poco tiempo las demás hermanas se abren a él y lo toman como un hermano más. Por supuesto que Laurie ve a Jo como algo más que una simple hermana o amiga...Tiene frases fascinantes, sobretodo el capítulo 13, que se llama "Castillos en el aire" (HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE ah no??). Cada una de las hermanas en compañía de Laurie deja salir sus sueños, los "castillos" que les gustaría tener, cómo les gustaría verse dentro de diez años... y las llaves a esos castillos que no logran hallar, o que las tienen pero las puertas no se dejan abrir. Es un capítulo que, dada la edad que tengo y el momento que vivo, que me parece muy adecuado más allá del infantilismo juvenil y esos sueños de niñas que parecen imposibles. "A veces los libros son tan familiares que volver a leerlos es como regresar a casa"Igual, como dije, ya vi la peli. Y la película comprende no solo Mujercitas, sino también su secuela Hombrecitos (Little Men) y parte de Los niños de Jo (Jo's Children). Con lo cual, me enteré de cosas que NO me gustaron para nada. (view spoiler)[Lo triste de Hombrecitos es que Jo rechaza a Laurie, y Laurie era tan TAN TAN BUENO que no podés concebir que sea rechazado. Beth muere también, Beth, justo la más ángel de todas, la más buena y la que más merecía ser feliz, muere de una enfermedad, y vos no comprendés la crueldad de la autora, de separar a Laurie y a Jo, de matar a Beth, de hacer una secuela que te rompa todo lo hermoso que tiene el primer libro. ¿Y saben qué es lo peor de todo esto? QUE LAURIE ERA INTERPRETADO POR CHRISTIAN BALE. ¿CÓMO PUDISTE SER CAPAZ DE RECHAZAR ESA HERMOSURA, JO? (hide spoiler)]
What do You think about Little Women (2004)?
My copy of this is probably 55 years old -- I've probably read it at least twenty-five times. One of my all-time favorite books. One of my favorite authors ever. Yes, it is old-fashioned -- it was old-fashioned fifty-five years ago. But that is the point pretty much in my opinion. This is a story of times past, of a family which functioned in a particular way in a particular time. This is also a story of what one person in a family might have wished were so all of the time in the family but wasn't. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Nov 2008/Dec 2008 rereading for the ??th time. Reading my Centennial Edition -- priced at $5.95 in 1968 -- pretty amusing that. I believe I bought this book second hand which surprises me as I thought I'd splurged and bought it the minute it was out -- perhaps in a fit of being good, I'd refrained and later bought this used copy to appease my Little Woman penchant retroactively.Only 156 pages in and I'm as thoroughly hooked as always. Something peaceful about this story, speaks to me in a very profound manner. A bit of treacle is apparent but the story's truths are also as apparent as ever.
—Dottie
To me this book is just a big neon highlighted literary exclamation mark defining how incredibly different I am from my mother. She loves this book. Really, really loves it....a lot. She always used to tell me how great she thought it was although, as a kid I somehow avoided reading it; mainly because at this point I was too busy dangling from a climbing frame by my ankles or stealing scrap wood from building sites in order to make dens and tree houses.As it is prominently placed on the 1001 books list I thought, "What the hell I'll give it a go". Man oh man what an epic snooze fest. Less than twenty pages in I could feel my mind slowly shutting down. Was it through boredom? Or was I entering a diabetic coma because of the saccharine overload created by the sickly sweet world of Margaret, Jo, Beth and Amy? Anyway to avoid succumbing to said coma I threw the book as far away from me as I could and then chucked a blanket over it to ensure that I wouldn't be effected by the mind numbing dullness being exuded from between the covers. I know that I risk howls of outrage at this lambasting of a much loved classic but this ticked no boxes for me. I am clearly dead inside.
—Shovelmonkey1
A great read! This book is a classic, and I think it is a beautiful coming of age story that tells the story of the March family. The four March girls are taught about kindness, charity, good deeds and the importance of family and friends, as they grow older they enrich their lives with love and growth in lieu of wealth.The Author Louisa May Alcott prefaces Little Women with an excerpt from John Bunyan’s seventeenth-century work The Pilgrim’s Progress, an allegorical novel about leading a Christian life. This story begins with the March girls sitting in their living room. Marmee comes home with a letter from the girls’ father, who is serving in the Civil War. The letter inspires the girls to bear their burdens more cheerfully and not to complain about their poverty.The girls have various adventures. Amy is caught trading limes at school. Jo refuses to let Amy go with her to the theater and as a result, Amy burns Jo’s manuscript, and Jo, in her anger, nearly lets Amy drown while ice skating. Meg goes to Annie Moffat’s party and allows the other girls to dress her up in high style. Meg learns that appearance is not everything. The family receives a telegram saying that Mr. March is sick in the hospital in Washington, D.C. Mrs. March the girls mother, goes to tend to him. Beth becomes very sick, she contracts scarlet fever from the Hummel baby. Beth recovers, though not completely, and Mr. Brooke, Laurie’s tutor, falls in love with Meg, much to Jo’s dismay. Mr. Brooke and Meg are engaged.Many years pass before Part Two begins. Meg marries and moves into a new home with Mr. Brooke. Meg struggles with the duties of keeping house, and gives birth to twins, Demi and Daisy. Amy goes to Paris. Jo thinks that Beth loves Laurie. Jo moves to New York so as to give Beth a chance to win his love. Jo meets Professor Bhaer. When Jo returns home, Laurie proposes, but she turns him down. Beth dies.Amy and Laurie reunite in France, and they fall in love, marry and return home. Jo begins to hope that Professor Bhaer will come for her. He does, and they marry a year later. Amy and Laurie have a daughter named Beth. Jo inherits Plumfield, Aunt March’s house, and decides to turn it into a boarding school for boys. The novel ends with the family happily gathered together, each sister thankful for her blessings and for each other.”This is the first time i've read this book and i loved it! This book shows the daily life of the 4 March sisters and their struggles.A must-read!
—Ana Carter ｼ
