The story was decent and the characters unique and interesting but that is pretty much all I liked about it. This was extremely hard to read simply because I did not want to read the next sentence. I am generally a fast reader and it still took me over 2 weeks to finish this story. The main characters are four sisters: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. They start out between the ages of 12 and 16 and as the book progresses you follow them as they grow up. The story is set late nineteenth century in America in a lower class American family. How the book was set up is probably what bothered me the most: each chapter has a definite moral to it that one or all of the sisters must learn/figure out before the chapter comes to a close. Now I have no problem with morals and life lessons in books. This is how I learned a lot of what I know about living in this world. The problem with this book is that the morals are SO OBVIOUS. There is no hint at what you might be learning, it is just stated for you. Now that is taking all the fun out of it. What is the point of the lesson if you don't get a chance to think about it and figure it out for yourself? After stating each lesson, one or all of the girls goes and cries to their mother about how "selfish" or "naughty" or "proud", etc, etc, they have been, beg to be forgiven, pray for forgiveness, and then off they go so proud that they learned that delightful little lesson. I'm sorry, but that is not really how life works. While annoying, this could have been forgiven if the morals were not so obviously stated. If I had been reading this when I was younger, I might have liked it better but at my current age, I like to have to think a bit to figure out what the authors are trying to convey.
Another problem I had with the book is why Beth had to die. I simply do not understand why. The book seemed to chalk it up to allowing Jo's character to grow, but I think that is silly. Jo would have gotten there eventually, especially with Professor Bhaer's help, and as he liked her before Beth died there is no point in her death. Poor Beth, she was the nicest and most naturally content of the sisters and yet Alcott killed her off - just because she didn't have dreams of adventures or marriage when she was 13. Not all people do. Some people are late bloomers. Now maybe I am missing something here. I understood the reason she got sick, but to have her die? Just a bit uncalled for. It was touching to add the poetry from Jo and see how much a sister is loved, but I do not think it was necessary. Anyone who read the book would know how much they all cared about each other. This led to Amy's daughter, also called Beth, so of course she is sickly as well. Now that is adding insult to injury in my mind. So not only did Beth have to die but the poor child named after her is also likely to die at an early age. Shouldn't Beth have had a healthy baby named after her to live the life she was denied? It also seemed like the author added it to make Amy's life seem less charmed, to sort of even out the sisters at the end. Another cruel and unnecessary stab, in my mind at least. Some people do seem to "walk in the light". Why should the author curse poor little Beth, just to teach Amy a lesson? Although it could be argued that Daisy will be the new Beth and she is healthy and happy, but I really think she will just be the new Meg. Regardless, I think Beth had the worst deal in the book and was treated most cruelly by the author.
Jo is another character who does not have the easiest time. She is most at odds with fitting into this male dominated society and is constantly getting into trouble or looked down on for her boyish qualities. She is an independent little girl who is not a fan of frills. I rather liked her. She does have a sharp tongue and is properly reprimanded when she is not asked to go abroad by their Aunt Carol. She starts to mellow out after that, but then the author kills Beth, and she becomes more mellow and more "womanly" and she sits and knits or sews all day or cleans the house, and [insert stereotypical woman's job]. Needless to say I am very glad we have entered the 21st century and women are no longer expected to do that all day. Jo has grand ideas about adventure and fun and loves to write. She makes good money from her stories, some more smutty than others. She is more of a late bloomer and learns to love later in life but ends up with a wonderful husband who suits her perfectly and two little boys of her own, along with a whole school of "lads" that she can care for. Now if that is not a heroine I do not know what is. The author does not seem to think so and this quote pretty much sums up why I do not like this book "Now, if she [Jo] had been the heroine of a moral storybook, 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." Okay, maybe it is because I do not like the moral storybook model but what is so heroic of becoming saintly or renouncing the world??? Nothing as far as I can see. And why can't a heroine be a struggling human girl? So what if there are hundreds of them? Each is unique and I think they can all be a heroine of a story. In fact, they tend to be the more interesting heroes and heroines as they have had a hard time growing up or overcoming some difficulty and it gives them character and humanity. At least Jo does get part of her Castle in the Sky that she envisioned as a little girl. I don't see why she should not get to go abroad and at least visit. Professor Bhaer is likely to want to go visit the motherland at some point and surely Jo would get to go with him, right? I will just think that she does eventually get some of the adventures she planned, just at an older age than she had imagined and the author simply forgot to mention it. While I am at it, I should also imagine that little Beth gets better and becomes quite the healthy child, living the life that sister Beth did not get to have.
So to summarize that soapbox of a blogpost, I did not like Little Women and will not be reading it again. I might recommend it but only in very special circumstances and with considerable disclaimers. The characters were decent and the storyline was okay (although a little archaic - being forgiven for that since it was set during that time period). The delivery was terrible due to the "moral storybook" template. Neither the characters nor the plot could make up for this.
No comments:
Post a Comment