That was the worst! I mean, I know people dying is worse than birds dying, but as you say, scarlet fever was sadly common at the time. Beth’s illness is the result of teen siblings being too lazy to do a chore – a forgivable offense, as they would have had no inkling of the consequence of their action (or rather, inaction). Amy’s fall through the ice was unforeseen–not what Jo wanted to happen, despite her anger at Amy.
But why would Marmee let poor Pip die?? I’d like to think she didn’t realize that Beth was neglecting her bird, but that’s doubtful, as Marmee Knows All. I think it’s part of the peculiar form of tough love discipline that we see on display in Little Men. A lesson had to be learned and Pip was the sacrificial lamb, er, bird. Too cruel.
My daughter had scarlet fever as a child. Thank goodness for antibiotics!
I’m reading the Gutenberg “Little Women” on my large monitor. As an adult, it strikes me now that these young children were working very hard at very young ages.
It doesn’t explain much detail on how father lost the family fortune helping an uncle.
It’s not clear how much formal education any of the children had, other than the one child who was in school but quit after being publicly humiliated by the teacher due to pickled lime contraband.
It does seem much “preachier” than I recalled as a child. I believe I only read it once and it was NOT a favorite of mine.
Behind the Mask, on the other hand is quite a contrast and I prefer it, I think. The women seem more self-reliant and confident (of course they’re also older).
One thing I was struck with is the vocabulary. My edition of the book was the 150th anniversary annotated edition. There was a 20 page glossary. I wonder how today’s 10 - 12 year old girls react to the writing and the vocabulary.
Finally finished “Little Women” and quite glad I did.
My mother in law ( who passed last year ) was named Amy, and her sister Jo, their mother was inspired by “ Little Women”.
I’m looking forward to Greta Gerwig’s movie, stellar cast, and wonder how faithful she will be to the “dated” aspects of the story.
Will just chime in on the Laurie / Prof camps. I saw Laurie as always “a dear boy” , and Prof Bhaer” as a “father” figure.
Really Jo should have remained unmarried, but how would Alcott have been able to write the sequels. So it all works out. ?
Back when I had a website recommending books for gifted kids, one of my recommendations was Victorian novels because they tended to be long with rich vocabularies and relatively G-rated. I’d forgotten how much death and suffering were in many of them. I agree though it may have seemed more a normal part of life then than now.
That’s interesting because I always think of Little Women as sounding so much more contemporary than other novels written at the same time – with straightforward, non-flowery dialogue and colloquialisms that we still use today. But maybe it just seemed easier because during my girlhood romantic phase, I was also reading Jane Eyre and David Copperfield, which made Little Women seem like less of a challenge, by comparison.
One of the ways Louisa May Alcott veered from her own autobiography was to give the March family more stability than she had herself:
Bronson and Abigail Alcott also employed a form of free-range parenting that I think Marmee would not have approved of. I can’t quite see her advising Meg to let Daisy and Demi wander about thus:
^shocking parenting, actually abusive parenting.
One of the scenes I read with some fear, related to parenting, was when Meg’s husband took over putting the baby to sleep. I feared it would result in harsh treatment, and relieved when he patiently placed the baby back in the bed, time and time again, ending up with the baby in his arms. Whew!
Perhaps this strikes close to home now That I’m a grand mom.
I assume from your post above, Alcott’s parents were not model parents during sleep training time.
I had never read LW as a child, which, in looking back, is somewhat surprising since I was an avid reader and loved “Jane Eyre,” “Wuthering Heights,” etc. Not really sure how/why I missed LW.
ANYWAY, put me in the “it was OK, but I didn’t love it” camp. I found much of it tedious, and there was a fair amount of preachiness. I’m pretty sure, though, that my opinion of the book would have been more positive if I had read it as a child.
I enjoyed “Behind a Mask” more – perhaps because it was shorter/a quicker read. I like the tension at the end – would Jean get married before being found out? Did something happen to Sir John that he was late returning on the train?
Little Women sort of straddles categories, so I think you have to read it at just the right time in your life to have it “set” right. It’s 647 pages–too long for the average child (even we geniuses of the 60’s and 70’s )–and the first half and second half are geared toward younger/older audiences, so that complicates matters.
@CBBBlinker, you brought back a memory: I recall now that when I first read Little Women, I was a little girl and it was the abridged version. (Anybody remember those Abridged Junior Classics?) That’s why I was absolutely flummoxed about the Laurie-Amy romance – the junior version had cut out most of their trip to Europe. A few years later, I read the full version and was delighted to discover all the “deleted scenes.” Although I still didn’t agree with the Laurie-Amy match, it made more sense to me.
My solution with my own kids was to read the book aloud to them as part of the bedtime ritual. That way, they got the full story, but I was there to ease the way as regards vocabulary, etc. How I miss that nightly read-aloud now that the birds have flown the nest! We did everything from Holes to Great Expectations. Such fun.
I read aloud to my kids too, but both were able to read fat books on their own at an early age. Harry Potter came out when my oldest was eleven and it was a nice combination of long, but not overly difficult vocabulary. And handily he grew up at about the same speed Harry did. (Though younger son was so sad when he realized that torches were just flashlights!)
I have a friend who reads aloud to her husband every night. I suspect he’s dyslexic though I’ve never asked. They were reading Dickens the last time I visited.
The nightly reading aloud was one of the brightest spots of raising our children. They also did a lot of listening to audio books as well as reading on their own, but sharing the nightly installment was a special moment.
I haven’t reread Little Women, but just finished Behind the Mask and found it amusing and an easy read. Once the ending became clear partway through, I wondered if Jean will have a baby and knock Gerald (the heir) out of the succession. I think Sir John is their father’s older brother. Yes, she’s a hag of 30 with fake hair and teeth, and yes, he’s a decrepit and sick old man of 55 with gout. But hey - miracles happen ;).
And if necessary, I’ll bet this femme fatale can get someone in the family to father a baby…
Wow–finally finished Little Women! I don’t believe I ever read the full, unabridged version of it but found it fascinating. It’s really an amazing book. I have great respect for Louisa May Alcott. She had so much talent. I’m sorry she never had the amazing school for boys–I’m sure it would have been a glorious place.
I really did enjoy her “blood and glory” tales. She was able to really describe a lot so concisely in her short stories!
A whole lot did happen in LW–I didn’t remember all of the things that I just read about in the Guttenberg version with the lovely pen and ink illustrations.
Considering Alcott’s biography, I didn’t think of Beth’s death as having a literary “purpose,” so much as being a touching (fictionalized) re-telling of her own lived experience.
I only know that the chapter “The Valley of the Shadow” gets me every. single. time.
In the 1947 version of the film, Beth is played by a very young Margaret O’Brien (about age 10). The script strayed from the book and made her the youngest March sister. I’m guessing this was done to take advantage of O’Brien’s popularity at the time.
The 1994 version was Claire Danes (Beth)'s first movie role. Here’s some trivia about the making of that film. Fun to read about who was considered for the cast (Hugh Grant for Professor Bhaer!). The article includes the trailer for the 1994 film and also for for the upcoming 2019 film. Timothée Chalamet’s hair…I don’t know :neutral: : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/movies/little-women.html
I am rather amused by all those men being surprised that Beth died.
I don’t think Beth is any sort of Christ figure, though she is annoyingly saintly. And I don’t think it was right of her to tell Jo that she needed to take over the saint role in the family. (So at least that wasn’t so saintly of her!) I think it’s just that since the characters are based on her own family, Alcott naturally needed a sister who would die young.
Much as I enjoy Hugh Grant he would have been all wrong for Professor Bhaer - though it would have had the advantage that some of us would definitely consider him better than Laurie!
)–and the first half and second half are geared toward younger/older audiences, so that complicates matters.
: