Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

classic-books-3 nadine keels

Book reviews are subjective. I tend to rate books not according to how “perfect” they are, seem to be, or are said to be in general but rather to how perfect they are to me.
____________________

Five Gold Stars

LittleWomen.qx5.EGLittle Women by Louisa May Alcott

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

(Click the title to find the book description/blurb.)

A joy to finally read, after seeing the 1933 and (the best) 1994 versions of the movie several times. I ate it up, cover to cover. I’m glad the novel gives more about the sisters’ lives after their marriages than either of the movies do, and while the families are clearly happy, Alcott does not tie up the conclusion with a perfect “not-a-care-in-the-world-and-happily-ever-after” bow. So disappointing to confirm how much the Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel film copied directly from Little Women, as far as Jo/Laurie and Anne/Gilbert are concerned, but that’s not Little Women’s fault, and though I may never be fully reconciled to the way Laurie “switches over” to Amy, I’m still fond of the story in spite of it.

Jo’s poem to Beth, toward the end, is one of the most moving pieces of the novel, as are Beth’s words to Jo, at the sea: “Jo dear, I’m glad you know it. I’ve tried to tell you, but I couldn’t.” Beth, in all of her virtue, is still portrayed as human: a dying, nineteen-year-old girl wondering if her short life has truly amounted to anything. One of my main questions going in was whether or not Alcott would make Beth a flawless, otherworldly angel, and I’m pleased that Alcott doesn’t.

________________________

Indeed, the 1994 film version by Columbia Pictures with Winona Ryder in her Oscar-nominated role as Jo (and a fantastic musical score by Thomas Newman) is the best film version of Little Women, but the 1933 release with Katharine Hepburn has its own “old movie” charm.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

  1. Pingback: Little Women (1994) | Prismatic Prospects

    • Heeheehee! You may already know that back before the first part of Little Women had a sequel, readers were anxious to know what would become of the March girls when the four of them grew up. As far as I know, Alcott, as a feminist in her day, didn’t like the thought of the March girls’ happiness in womanhood “having” to be attached to whether or not they would marry. So I think that as Alcott resigned not to let any of the Little Women live their whole lives as spinsters, she must have still been determined not to let all of them take the conventional or expected route. But I think in not letting Jo and Laurie take the expected (and most fitting!) path, Alcott may’ve cut off her nose to spite her face. 😀 My opinion!

      Liked by 1 person

Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s