Reading Little Women for a book group and hating it so far

[FatherFintanFay]

I've read an awful lot of things in my lifetime - I'm a big reader, love the classics generally, but for some reason I've never read Little Women. I don't know why, but now I've been obliged to read it for a book group I'm in, and - my god, the preachiness! The saccharine! I usually manage about two chapters before I have to put it aside in disgust.

It's just that each chapter is like a little sermon about proper womanly behaviour. Nobody seems to grow or develop very much overall, but they always learn something over the course of the chapter and vow to mend their unladylike ways by the end. So far, Meg has been slut-shamed for wanting to look nice at a ball, and Jo has had to forgive Amy for burning the book she spent years writing because SHE MIGHT DIE AND THEN YOU'D WISH YOU HADN'T BEEN SO ANGRY! Not to mention all the talk of Marmee having to squash down her unseemly anger when she gets given a particular look by her as-yet unseen husband.

It is awful, isn't it? It is regressive even for the time in which it was written? Does it get any better? I know vaguely what happens by the end because I saw the adaptation on TV last Christmas, so I'm all ready for meek little Beth to stop existing. I only wonder how long it will be before anyone else notices she's no longer there.

Oh goodness! This was my favourite book as a child and I’ve read it about 50 times, but I clearly need to read it again. 😱
I have relatively recently turned into a raging feminist so imagine I might feel the same as you on repeat reading.

sueH1983 this is the problem, I think. There are plenty of books I read as a child that I loved that I can see are really problematic now I'm an adult, and it's like a bit of my childhood dies every time. I didn't read LW as a child so now, reading it as a 40-year-old rabid radfem, all I can see is women being crushed and cowed into submission.

I understand that LMA wrote it sort of against her will for commercial purposes and didn't really like her creation that much afterwards, but then many of the characters were based on her and her sisters, so surely she could have made them a bit more likeable!

I think most people read this book as a child so miss all of this. Same with books like Heidi and What Katy Did. I read and enjoyed all three when I was young, but when I re-read them as an adult (when I dug them out for my daughter to read), I realised that I had missed a lot when I was a child.

I love 19th century literature, but have to make allowances by recognising how different society was then.

It's a book for young children. Very much of its time.

They do tend towards morals and preachyness.

Yes. I know it's of its time, and I wouldn't expect it to be a work of feminism as we understand it. What I don't really get is why it's still so beloved and why it's still given to young girls to read. I used to love looking at my dad's old Little Black Sambo annuals when I was a child who didn't know any better, but I wouldn't dream of recommending them to a similarly aged child now. LW isn't quite that bad, I admit, but I still wouldn't like to think of a girl reading it now and absorbing the message that being a meek martyr to other people's needs is a good way to live.

It's based on Louisa May Alcott,s life May be none of her siblings were particularly likeable? I read th e whole series as a child ,but not for many years ,I also liked thev "What Katie did " books and Anne of Green Gables etc but as a pp said it is very much of the time .

I liked Jo.

Families are just like that though, siblings fight, and are blamed unfairly, and have to go against their own instincts.

I bet most children can relate to at least one character in it.

I still love it and still read it but also have some reservations about the things that you mention. I guess I try and 'translate' the events you mention into some advice given on MN i.e. forgive and rise above it as your sister is more important than material goods or 'don't get angry but get your ducks in a row'

It can be relevant if you take away the Christian angle but I find they do grow up and move on by the end.

It is regressive even for the time in which it was written?

No, I think it was actually quite progressive in its time, which is more shocking! Later in the series we have a young woman training to be a doctor. And references - which are now hideously dated - to the progressiveness of Jo and the professor's school in having a pupil who was a 'quadroon' or 'octaroon' despite naysayers telling them this would be calamitous or suchlike.

She was writing about the time she grew up in. Women kept the home fires burning while men went to work or war.

I suspect comparing American society to british society in the 1860s, the American women had a h more liberal time than British women

The thing is, I don't think it does go over your head as a young girl.

Sure, you don't notice the same things explicitly. But you still internalize the messages and themes (without someone to point things out).

Literature has to be read in the time context it was written. We may detest how society viewed women but life was very much like that.

The authors Father was actually progressive for his time and an educational reformer that had a huge influence, they also assisted runaway slaves as part of the Underground Railroad. I visited their home in Concord and as I love the book it was a moving experience.

It’s like the part where the girls give their Christmas breakfast to the Hummel’s. It is absolutely a moral lesson and it impacted enormously on the nine year old me.

I helped many years ago with the work for equal pay for equal value campaign and assisted in writing a local government equal opportunities policy. I was also running the women’s group of my trade union and received plenty of hate mail after sending out a survey to the few thousand employees of the council I was working for. So I am a feminist and have put myself out there, I still adore the book.

I have read about this happening before I'm sure there was an article I'll look it out - a largely female book group chose Little Women for nostalgia and got horrified ~ I love it but it is a period piece, not unlike Austen with regard to acceptable female behaviour

I totally agree. I love the world it's set in, and find it a very nostalgic and sort of comforting read but I hate the way ambition in a young woman is seen as so negative. They are all expected to be soooooo perfect, and the only one who reaches that ideal bloody snuffs it anyway! When Jo starts being paid to write she gets loads of shit for it being mass market stuff. Even though being published at all is a huge achievement!

I loved it, read it several times and Good Wives, Little Men and Jo's Boys. You have to remember that Louisa May Alcott's father was a transcendentalist, the family had a very difficult time because of that and her books are loosely based on her family life - only better. It's quite interesting to read about her life and the struggles she, her sisters and mother had. Great poverty and little security, Papa having his head in the clouds because of his religious principles.

Judging a 150 year old book by modern standards will never go well. The past is a different country.

I have very much acknowledged in my previous comments that I know it's from a different time etc etc and I can't expect it to be up to 21st century feminist principles. I would just like to move past that and talk about why it still seems to get a free pass because people have such warm nostalgic memories of reading it in their childhood. Just shrugging and saying "That's what it was like back then" doesn't seem to me to be very satisfactory.

The stuff about LMA's family history is interesting, and I might read further into that instead of finishing the book . I'm not really into other 19th century literature that doesn't portray women as proper characters and avoid much of Dickens for the same reason, but that's probably for another thread...

The word "Marmee" infuriates me so much I can't bear to read it.

Fatherfintan, yes please do read about LM Alcott. It's fascinating. Like the character of Jo, she wrote to make money for her family.

Another book she wrote is called, "An Old Fashioned Girl". The girl in question is unbelievably perfect :-).

There's a good 'Little Women' film with Wynona Rider as Jo.

Bezalelle there is that too. She is very much the Victorian ideal of "the angel in the house", although obviously she's mentally strong and resourceful as well. I just wish she hadn't been made such a prig.

Rachelover60 I saw the TV version last Christmas and I think that was enough for me. I did read a novella by LM Alcott last year about an evil governess, can't remember the title, and it was really bloody odd. It was all about this ugly old bag who disguised herself as a beautiful young woman in order to lure the men of the house into her seductive trap. That wasn't particularly progressive either!

I would just like to move past that and talk about why it still seems to get a free pass because people have such warm nostalgic memories of reading it in their childhood. Just shrugging and saying "That's what it was like back then" doesn't seem to me to be very satisfactory.

You should be able to do that. I read the 4 books to DD (and other 'classics') - and at various points I would initiate discussion about outdated attitudes.

And that’s exactly the right approach @ErrolTheDragon. Work from the beginning of my lifetime (1950s) is very dated now and it’s pointless judging it on 21st century mores. Reflecting on how society has changed and how far we’ve come is quite rewarding.

Too sweet and preachy for me, especially bloody marmee. It is of it's time but i really enjoy other books from the same period so it's not just that. I love Oscar Wilde, Jane Austen and most of Dickens and the Brontes. I liked some of the characters, Laurie, Jo, the tutor and the grandfather but I find it over sentimental and a bit humourless.

Even as a child I found Marmee twee but apart from that I loved it. The fact they could misbehave (and even by today’s standards they were pretty bad and you’ve still got a way to go - imagine burning a treasured possession of a sibling!) and they had very different characters and priorities but they still had unconditional love for one another, something I had never experienced.

I loved and still loved all the children’s books mentioned. I enjoyed comparing their experiences with mine, being shocked by the restrictions of their lives compared with now and sometimes being envious of freedoms they took for granted.

When my now adult DD were young they wouldn’t read the classic books but preferred contemporary, more relatable fiction. Now they are late 20s they are gradually discovering some of these old classics and enjoying them not only as a window on a different age but also in a more light hearted and emotional way as well.

It’s one if my favourite books, after all this time

I like how real the characters are, some of the women are strong personalities, and Jo more than anyone chooses her own path (though romantic teenage me wanted her to end up with Laurie)

LMA herself called the book “moral pap for the young”

But underneath it all she's a great writer and storyteller, and paints a vivid picture if a bygone era.

Even as a young girl, I never read it as a guide about how to live, but rather a picture of what life might have been like for women in the US in that era.

To me it’s not anti-feminist, if anything it shows how restricted choices for women were.

Do you not even like Jo?