Saturday, January 5, 2013

Little Women


Becca Anne's Request
   For some reason, I've always classified Louisa May Alcott with Lucy Maud Montgomery, even though the two wrote in different time periods. There are some similarities between Little Women and Anne of Green Gables (beyond that I have copies of both in Apple Classics!): namely, both have well-crafted characters, both are very episodic, and both excellently moral. Oh, and both written by authoresses with vivid paintbrushes of words.

   The four main thespians of the play are Margaret "Meg", Josephine "Jo", Elizabeth "Beth", and Amy, of the March family. Their family was once well-to-do, but lost its money over a decade before the book begins: a forceful hardship for sixteen-year-old Meg, who longs for riches and fashion. Jo is fifteen, boyish, talks slang, and continually disgraces Meg with her odd doings. Thirteen-year-old Beth is shy and quiet, her one dream to stay at home and care for the family, while the twelve-year-old Amy is a selfish, artistic little woman who is always putting on airs. The book covers about fifteen years in forty-seven chapters and two parts, and watches all four girls change dramatically.
   One of the aforesaid shared traits of the biographies of Anne and the March girls is its segmented plots. There is a very subtle definite problem--that of life itself--throughout the threads of both books, but each chapter is something like its own story. Little Women is less this way than Anne, having a seemingly more chronological and less episodic view of things. Much romance is weaved throughout the story, which is perfect for sentimental me; and with that come many moral and life lessons, and a tragic sorrow which molds "stonyhearted" Jo and "cool and soft as snow" Amy into more tender women.
   One thing that may be surprising to some is that Little Women has much more learning material in it than does Anne of Green Gables, given that L.M. Montgomery married a minister. Anne Shirley is filled with ambitions; so are Meg, Jo, and Amy (as aforesaid, Beth's only wish was to remain at home and be loved), but they come to realize, unlike a more worldly Anne, that the only truly worthwhile ambitions are those of virtues. I am not saying this to dethrone Anne Shirley from anyone's queendom; each novel will have its betters and bads over the other. But the morals in this book make it excellent to read if only for that (though it might be a little harder to get through).
   I'm going to scorn a conclusion because in my own opinion they're boring and uppity. I've said before that the best characters, plot, and sermon are nothing without "a way with words". Alcott has some of the most comical stories, hilarious and fluorescent language; but as a warning, her long paragraphs abandoning dialogue and the tame plot may both drive readers away. In today's society, young minds are not nearly as old (I said that) as they once were, as writing has gotten simpler and simpler. A tween is about the youngest who would make it through this book, based on the average of today; but I know that, being from the homeschool world, there are some out there with amazing intellects who have been trained to read the slow language of the classics. And since most of the moms and praiseworthy older sisters around practically know this book by heart (ask Hallie to start quoting), they can be the judge. Let me know if this review inspired you to read, or reread, Little Women!

9 comments:

  1. Good thing I don't have a book review blog, because if I reviewed Little Women, it would be one sentence long: "Read it NOW." :) Every girl on earth needs to read it and know it by heart, not just because it's a good story but because it's one of the very few truly interesting books out there that drives us girls in the right direction: being feminine without being wimpy, and being ambitious without being feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this is a great review and I have to say yes, it does inspire me to re-read Little Women! Have either of you ever read Alcott's The Inheritance? It's quite over-romanticized, but still sweet, in my opinion... and I believe it was her first book so she can be forgiven for some faults, I think. I'd be interested to hear your take on it. And Hallie, I really like how you phrased that: "feminine without being wimpy, and ambitious without being feminist." Well-said!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Hallie: That paragraph could be used as a book review :) I agree with Laurz: "feminine without being wimpy, and ambitious without being feminist" is an excellent way to word that!

      @ Laura: No, I haven't read The Inheritance, but I really, really want to! Where did you find your copy? It's not in the library district, unfortunately.

      Delete
    2. Hannah, I love this!! LW is such a lovely book, and I am always shocked when I hear a friend hasn't read it. :)

      And I just read The Inheritance two days ago, and enjoyed it a lot! (I found it at the Goldendale Library, btw. :) You should look into it and do a review.

      I love the new design as well. Very beautiful, and simple.
      Becca Anne
      www.singingjoyfully.blogspot.com

      Delete
    3. Wow! I had no idea it was in the system. I will look into it :) Thanks about the design :) I WUV it.

      Delete
  3. Hannah, I got my copy at a used bookstore... If you aren't able to track it down, I'll get mine to you so you can borrow it :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks :) However, I actually DID find it from FVRL and picked it up Saturday. I'm excited to start reading it!

      Delete
  4. Yes, I really love this book! I am a lot like Jo:) Have you read the sequels, Little Men and Jo's Boys?

    Layla.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I haven't read those yet, though they are on my reading list! You know, it's kind of interesting ... it seems like most people I know classify themselves as a Jo. I'm not sure who I am.

      Delete

Go 'head, leave a comment! I gladly respond to every one :)