Little Women
Authors and publishers are not able to post replies in the review topics.
- knfstar
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 12:20
- Bookshelf Size: 0
Re: Little Women
- debbie smith
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 21 Apr 2014, 11:53
- Currently Reading: Shadowhorn: Age of the Revenant
- Bookshelf Size: 30
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-debbie-smith.html
- Latest Review: "Flaherty's Crossing" by Kaylin McFarren
- QueenCat
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 02 Mar 2014, 10:38
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-queencat.html
A woman's role in society
Sisters as friends
Death of a loved one
The absent parent
Helping others
I was delighted to see that you would be using a great book to share with your 'girls'. I hope you have a great time of discussion.
- Norma_Rudolph
- Posts: 207
- Joined: 29 Apr 2014, 15:04
- Favorite Book: <a href="http://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelve ... =4245">The Gift of Lies</a>
- Currently Reading: Enchantment
- Bookshelf Size: 21
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-norma-rudolph.html
- Latest Review: "Desolate" by Stephanie Binding
- joriemae
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 19:39
- Favorite Book: Nancy Drew
- Bookshelf Size: 11
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-joriemae.html
- anomalocaris
- Posts: 326
- Joined: 24 Apr 2014, 01:14
- Bookshelf Size: 3
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-anomalocaris.html
- Latest Review: "Kaitlyn a Wants To See Ducks" by Jo meserve Mach and Vera Lynne Stroup- Rentier
I think you have to consider a book in the context of the time it was written. Alcott needed to sell her work. She couldn't just go to Amazon and self publish it, and expect to make money from it. Therefore, whatever she put out there had to be palatable to publishers. She couldn't speak too openly about feminism or she wouldn't be able to sell her work. What she could do is write a book about a household full of strong women with opinions of their own, just as capable of morality, bravery and sacrifice as any man.knfstar wrote: While Alcott is considered an early feminist for her portrayal of strong female characters, does the eventual fate of Jo becoming a wife in her hometown indicate an abandonment of her original goals and a resignation to traditional values? Or were all those people at my college just a little nuts?
In fact, most of the men in the story are at some level incapable of taking care of themselves without women. The father is wounded in the war -- helpless, until his wife comes to care for him. When we meet Laurie, he's a frail little princess, pining away in his tower until Jo storms the castle to rescue him. Later, he falls in love with Jo, and when she won't have him, he falls apart, leaving Jo unsure what to do with his histrionics -- again a role reversal. So he crawls to Amy, who essentially says he's a silly girl and won't have him until he grows up. Behr is Jo's equal in intellect and unconventionality, but again, appears somewhat of a child when we first meet him. There are two exceptions of course. Meg's suitor, John, who serves as both a nod to conventionality and a statement that women need not marry for money and to be taken care of, but should be true partners to their husbands and share equally in the burdens of the household. Then there's the patriarch, Mr. March -- the dragon Jo needs to defeat in order to rescue Laurie, who, once conquered becomes the family's defender -- yet always at their service. Never controlling them.
Jo does marry, but spurns the suitor who is not her intellectual equal and wants her to take a conventional role. She ultimately embraces the suitor who loves her for her strength and intellect and will not force her into that conventional role. In fact, it is Jo who comes into the marriage with property and a plan, and Behr who comes into it, essentially in Jo's employ.
All of these things look pretty tame to us now, but that's because people like Louisa May Alcott paved the way. In any political movement, you have to accomplish things in increments. You start with a small step. One that society might be induced to make. Then you expand on it. Try to force society to take too big a leap at once and you're liable to face a backlash that will set the movement back 30 years.
--Vol. Bobby Sands
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: 12 Apr 2014, 12:54
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-elizabeth-rogers-47.html
One thing I found mysterious: What exactly did Beth die from?
- anomalocaris
- Posts: 326
- Joined: 24 Apr 2014, 01:14
- Bookshelf Size: 3
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-anomalocaris.html
- Latest Review: "Kaitlyn a Wants To See Ducks" by Jo meserve Mach and Vera Lynne Stroup- Rentier
--Vol. Bobby Sands
- tlolney
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 16 May 2014, 00:44
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- LittleWilma
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 28 Feb 2014, 02:10
- Favorite Book: Dark Destiny
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-littlewilma.html
-Stonewall Jackson
- stoppoppingtheP
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 902
- Joined: 14 May 2014, 09:59
- Favorite Book: The Hand of Fatima
- Currently Reading: High Low In-Between
- Bookshelf Size: 162
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-stoppoppingthep.html
- Latest Review: If I Only Knew by Kim Simmons
One thing that I didn't like at the end was, of course, that Jo didn't get married to Laurie, her 'best friend', but rather her youngest sister did. this somehow reminds me of Harry Potter and Ron, and the fact that Hermione got married to Ron instead of Harry. I know it's a weird analogy, but I just thought that often it is not who we are rooting for that gets together, but rather, someone close to them.
- tlolney
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 16 May 2014, 00:44
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I understand what you mean. It is quite a surprise in both cases that the ones you root for don't get together in the end.stoppoppingtheP wrote:I liked this book. Not loved, just liked.
One thing that I didn't like at the end was, of course, that Jo didn't get married to Laurie, her 'best friend', but rather her youngest sister did. this somehow reminds me of Harry Potter and Ron, and the fact that Hermione got married to Ron instead of Harry. I know it's a weird analogy, but I just thought that often it is not who we are rooting for that gets together, but rather, someone close to them.
- Lovely_Ink
- Posts: 225
- Joined: 21 Jan 2014, 19:45
- Bookshelf Size: 15
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lovely-ink.html
- Latest Review: "Olympian Passion" by Andrya Bailey
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 21 May 2014, 05:01
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- runs-with-scissors
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 21 May 2014, 12:42
- Bookshelf Size: 0
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-runs-with-scissors.html