Little Women - book club discussion

[ufcasey]

Welcome to the second book club discussion of 2018! Everyone is welcome to join in at any time

This month's pick was Little Women by Louisa May Alcott

Just to help get you thinking, if you have a hard time figuring out what you want to say, there are some questions below that I found online. You definitely don't have to answer any of them!

Things to potentially consider:

1. In the first two chapters, the girls use John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress as a model for their own journey to becoming "little women." Have you read that book? If so, did that enhance this story for you?

2. What purpose does Beth's death serve? Was Alcott simply making a sentimental novel even more so, or was this a play on morality and philosophy? Do you think Beth was intended to be a Christ figure?

3. Do you find it surprising that once Laurie is rejected by Jo, he falls in love with Amy? Do you feel his characterization is complete and he is acting within the "norm" of the personality Alcott has created for him, or does Alcott simply dispose of him once our heroine rejects him?

4. Some critics argue that the characters are masochistic. Meg is the perfect little wife, Amy is the social gold digger, and Beth is the eternally loving and patient woman. Do you believe these characterizations are masochistic? If so, do you think Alcott could have characterized them any other way while maintaining the realism of the society she lived in? And if this is true, what of Jo's character?

5. The last two chapters find Jo setting aside her budding literary career to run a school with her husband. Why do you think Alcott made her strongest feminine figure sacrifice her own life plans for her husband's?

6. Do you believe this is a feminine or a feminist piece of work?

7. What 'lesson' did you like the most? The least?

8. Which sister did you relate to the most?

[ufcasey]

Tagging people who might have read this book:
peppermint, captainmel, Chirp, secretlyevil, booknerd, Brie, luckyval, rainbowchip,winnied, monkeyfeet, dorothyinAus, mrspez07, bex, @tooshort, Nonny,

[bex]

I realized upon rereading it that I never liked this book. I like others of hers - An Old Fashioned Girl was one of my favorites growing up - but I never liked this one. I think the characters all felt very one-dimensional and then when Alcott tries to make them grow, it just falls flat because they were introduced as so one-dimensional. There's not a lot of room for growth. Jo is my favorite but I feel she has to be everyone's favorite, she's clearly designed to be the favorite. I do actually like Meg quite a bit though, as vain and shallow as she is.

I don't like Amy. I have never liked her. I think she is introduced as a spoiled selfish brat and I think she is supposed to "grow up" but again, it falls flat. And because of that, I think less of Laurie for going from Jo to Amy. They are so incredibly different.

So anyway. Yeah. Not a fan of this one, lol. As I was rereading it I remembered why I had thrown all my copies away (I think at one point I had 4 copies of it for some reason.)

[rainbowchip]

I haven't finished yet. *damn you Olympics!*

I read this book on HS and I remember liking it then but so far I'm not feeling it.

[secretlyevil]

I love Little Women and I do not like it either. Character development always felt hollow or “flat” as PP put when I re-read this as an adult. When I read it as a kid, I adored it.

I haven’t read Pilgrims Progress, I’m not sure if that would enhance my reading or not.

[monkeyfeet]

Agh, I’m only to part 2 and just read the second question! I’m not reading anything else, but it’s taking a while to make it through, which I think is the general consensus!

[Nonny]

I have read the book, but it was years and years ago, and I hated it, so I didn't read it again for this. I think I voted for Of Mice and Men. 

Honestly, I don't remember much about it except that I thought it was super boring.  Also, when I was in 6th grade, my teacher had us all read a biography of Louisa May Alcott in place of reading Little Women.  The biography was also super boring, but I very distinctly remember the part where she never wanted to write Little Women in the first place, because it wasn't the type of thing she wanted to write, but she did it because she needed the money and it kept the publishers happy so they'd keep working with her.

The only other one of her books I've read is A Long Fatal Love Chase, which I read in high school (before I read Little Women as an adult). I have vague memories of thinking it was OK, but not really my style.

[minzy]

I’m going to be a few days late because my hold just came in Monday. I’ve read it before, but hadn’t realized it’s 520 pages.

[ufcasey]

So I really disliked this book. When Amy burns Jo's book that she spent years writing just because Jo wouldn't let her invite herself to an outing with Laurie, I thought Amy deserved a beat down. And then to make matters worse she invites herself along to go iceskating and then almost dies and somehow that makes her earlier transgression ok. Insane. I don't know if I would talk to a sibling for months, near death experience or not, if they had done the same thing. But even ignoring the over the top morality-play-esque chapters, I thought Jo was the only realistic or interesting character. And even she is a bit over the top at times with her out of the blue declaration that she wouldn't want anyone to do her a favor because it would make her feel like a slave or something ridiculous like that. And then in the end she just becomes a mother and puts off her writing career. She should have ended up with Laurie, I thought it was ridiculous that he ended up with Amy.

[ufcasey]

Feb 28, 2018 11:59:40 GMT -5 monkeyfeet said:

Agh, I’m only to part 2 and just read the second question! I’m not reading anything else, but it’s taking a while to make it through, which I think is the general consensus!

Sorry! If it makes you feel any better that part actually got spoiled for me too when I read The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo a couple of weeks ago - in that book the main character is an actress who ends up playing Jo in the movie version of the book and complains that another actress will steal the show since she plays Beth and will die.

[Nonny]

Feb 28, 2018 13:19:44 GMT -5 ufcasey said:

Feb 28, 2018 11:59:40 GMT -5 monkeyfeet said:

Agh, I’m only to part 2 and just read the second question! I’m not reading anything else, but it’s taking a while to make it through, which I think is the general consensus!

Sorry! If it makes you feel any better that part actually got spoiled for me too when I read The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo a couple of weeks ago - in that book the main character is an actress who ends up playing Jo in the movie version of the book and complains that another actress will steal the show since she plays Beth and will die.

Rachel spoils this part for Joey in the episode of Friends where they are reading each other's favorite books. LOL!  

Unrelated to Little Women, but related to that same episode of Friends, whoever wrote that episode had clearly never actually read The Shining, and had only ever seen the movie.

[monkeyfeet]

Agh, no big deal. I shouldn’t have come in here if I didn’t want spoilers!!!

[secretlyevil]

Looks like there’s a general consensus that Amy was a spoiled brat and deserved to be beat.

If I had to pick a favorite...I say Meg.

[dorothyinAus]

I had't read this book since college, and that was the first time I had read it all the way through. Growing up, I always stopped before Beth died. I knew what happened basically afterwards, as the Katherine Hepburn version of the movie was one of my favorite movies growing up.  I have always enjoyed the book, but this time I found it a struggle to get through. I think most of that was down to the fact that this time I listened to a audio-book version and did not actually read the book myself.  I found the characters a bit flatter in listening to the book, but that could be the reader's influence.  Overall, it's still one of my favorite books, and my hardcover copy is a favorite book, even without liking the story. My copy is beautifully illustrated by Tasha Tudor with pen & ink drawings at the beginning of each chapter and water color panels throughout the book. I think missing the illustrations was part of what made the audiobook less satisfying.

1. In the first two chapters, the girls use John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress as a model for their own journey to becoming "little women." Have you read that book? If so, did that enhance this story for you? -- I have never read Pilgrim's Progress, though I know the basic outline of the story because I looked it up once after reading Little Women. I'm not sure of having read Pilgrim's Progress would have made any difference to reading Little Women, but I am unlikely to make the experiment.

2. What purpose does Beth's death serve? Was Alcott simply making a sentimental novel even more so, or was this a play on morality and philosophy? Do you think Beth was intended to be a Christ figure? -- I think Beth had to die, much the way other innocent characters die in other books. There was nowhere for Beth's character to grow and that left very little option for her story arc. I never really connect Beth with a Christ figure, but I'm terrible at picking up on symbolism so it's quite possible that I missed any connection that may have been there.

3. Do you find it surprising that once Laurie is rejected by Jo, he falls in love with Amy? Do you feel his characterization is complete and he is acting within the "norm" of the personality Alcott has created for him, or does Alcott simply dispose of him once our heroine rejects him? -- I do not find it surprising that Laurie & Amy marry. While most readers want it, Laurie and Jo would never have worked as a couple. They never loved each other as a man & wife. And I was always happy that Alcott didn't force that relationship. Laurie & Amy work much better as a couple, and it means that Laurie still has an important role in Jo's life and she in his.

4. Some critics argue that the characters are masochistic. Meg is the perfect little wife, Amy is the social gold digger, and Beth is the eternally loving and patient woman. Do you believe these characterizations are masochistic? If so, do you think Alcott could have characterized them any other way while maintaining the realism of the society she lived in? And if this is true, what of Jo's character? -- Is the characterization as masochistic a recent discussion of the characters? Because I doubt that would have ever been considered when the book was written and first published. I take these kinds of discussions with a grain of salt because I generally believe they come from people desperate for a Doctoral Thesis Topic and they need a "new" idea to research.

5. The last two chapters find Jo setting aside her budding literary career to run a school with her husband. Why do you think Alcott made her strongest feminine figure sacrifice her own life plans for her husband's? -- I don't think she did sacrifice her own plans & dreams. I think those plans and dreams changed because she found someone to love. That happens in the real world as well, and it's not a bad thing. She still had her own life, and I do not for a moment believe that Jo was ever a submissive wife. I'm sure she was just as a strong a women in her marriage as she had been before. Just because the hopes and dreams change when the character's situation changes does mean it's a sacrifice or a submission.

6. Do you believe this is a feminine or a feminist piece of work? -- I'm not sure what that means. I am not a feminist and I do not believe that women should blindly and automatically support other women merely because they are women. I know that the target market of the book was women, but that's not inherently a bad thing. The target market of The Three Musketeers was men, but that does not mean that I cannot read or enjoy it. I believe this is a novel. I think it was written to a formula in that it needed to have a moral because that's what publishers wanted at the time, but I do not believe there is more to it than that.

7. What 'lesson' did you like the most? The least? -- I always thought the best "lesson" was that dreams and ideals can change as we grow. Life changes what we want from it sometimes and that's perfectly okay. I think in that sense Jo was the only character to grow, in that she was the only one who gave up her "castle in the air" because she saw that it was not going to make her happy once she met the Professor and feel in love with him.

8. Which sister did you relate to the most? -- I relate to Jo the best, though Beth has always been my favorite sister. I see parts of Jo's life journey in my own, and changing ideals and dreams when those dreams are no longer what I wanted.

[dorothyinAus]

Feb 28, 2018 16:24:56 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Looks like there’s a general consensus that Amy was a spoiled brat and deserved to be beat.

If I had to pick a favorite...I say Meg.

Ohh, Amy has always annoyed me no end. I have always wanted to slap the shit out of her. But I've always been frustrated by meek Meg too.

[travella]

I'm with Nonny. I read Little Women years ago and disliked the book. I couldn't get myself to read it again for our book club, sorry. I remember very little about the book other than I found it dull.

[dorothyinAus]

For anyone who has read both Little Women and the Anne of Green Gables series:

Is it just me, or is there a similarity between Jo's refusal of Laurie and Anne's refusal of Gilbert's first proposal? I think the language in both is nearly identical and certainly the feel of both refusals is the same.

[mrspez07]

I had read all of part of this book in the past and remembered the first party in the story the most.
This time I gave it 3 stars, I liked it but was also ready for it to wrap up.I listened to the audio book this time and definitely felt my interest ebbed and flowed with the activity in the story. Like the “camp/picnic” and other social events were the best parts of the story (as well as Jo’s time in the house where she met Fritz). In the audio, the “lessons” from the mother seemed more forced and long and didnt to flow well into the story. I also have the impression that much of Jo’s struggles and internal dialog were often autobiographical to Alcott as a woman writer of the era.

[dorothyinAus]

Feb 28, 2018 20:29:07 GMT -5 mrspez07 said:

I had read all of part of this book in the past and remembered the first party in the story the most.
This time I gave it 3 stars, I liked it but was also ready for it to wrap up.I listened to the audio book this time and definitely felt my interest ebbed and flowed with the activity in the story. Like the “camp/picnic” and other social events were the best parts of the story (as well as Jo’s time in the house where she met Fritz). In the audio, the “lessons” from the mother seemed more force and long and didnt to flow well into the story. I also have the impression that much of Jo’s struggles and internal dialog were often autobiographical to Alcott as a woman writer of the era.

Which audio version did you listen to?

I listened to the one read by Kate Reading and I found it very easy to tune out. I really don't think she was the best choice to read this particular story.

[mrspez07]

Feb 28, 2018 20:35:52 GMT -5 dorothyinAus said:

Feb 28, 2018 20:29:07 GMT -5 mrspez07 said:

I had read all of part of this book in the past and remembered the first party in the story the most.
This time I gave it 3 stars, I liked it but was also ready for it to wrap up.I listened to the audio book this time and definitely felt my interest ebbed and flowed with the activity in the story. Like the “camp/picnic” and other social events were the best parts of the story (as well as Jo’s time in the house where she met Fritz). In the audio, the “lessons” from the mother seemed more force and long and didnt to flow well into the story. I also have the impression that much of Jo’s struggles and internal dialog were often autobiographical to Alcott as a woman writer of the era.

Which audio version did you listen to?

I listened to the one read by Kate Reading and I found it very easy to tune out. I really don't think she was the best choice to read this particular story.

I listened to one by Susie Berneis. She did different voices subtle, at one point I swore it was Julia Roberts speaking.

[tacokick]

I am always a little disappointed the book isn’t more political since LMA grew up in a very unusual, political/feminist household. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Bronson_Alcott)

It was written as a serial so I guess it had to be more commercial but I think it is missing something that would have fleshed out the story.

[dorothyinAus]

Feb 28, 2018 23:10:07 GMT -5 tacokick said:

I am always a little disappointed the book isn’t more political since LMA grew up in a very unusual, political/feminist household. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Bronson_Alcott)

It was written as a serial so I guess it had to be more commercial but I think it is missing something that would have fleshed out the story.

I honestly couldn't remember if it was originally a serial or not, but listening to it, it sounded like it was. But I agree, there was nothing really gripping to keep you coming back week after week for the next installment. The Three Musketeers, also published as a serial, was a much more gripping and interest-holding story. And I know the target market was very different for the two books but I do wonder how the the simple, gentle story was ever accepted for publication when the market was obviously there for more thrilling stories like Penny Dreadfuls. 

[tacokick]

Mar 1, 2018 0:08:20 GMT -5 dorothyinAus said:

Feb 28, 2018 23:10:07 GMT -5 tacokick said:

I am always a little disappointed the book isn’t more political since LMA grew up in a very unusual, political/feminist household. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Bronson_Alcott)

It was written as a serial so I guess it had to be more commercial but I think it is missing something that would have fleshed out the story.

I honestly couldn't remember if it was originally a serial or not, but listening to it, it sounded like it was. But I agree, there was nothing really gripping to keep you coming back week after week for the next installment. The Three Musketeers, also published as a serial, was a much more gripping and interest-holding story. And I know the target market was very different for the two books but I do wonder how the the simple, gentle story was ever accepted for publication when the market was obviously there for more thrilling stories like Penny Dreadfuls. 

No cliffhangers but family sagas are always popular. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.

[secretlyevil]

Feb 28, 2018 18:50:26 GMT -5 dorothyinAus said:

For anyone who has read both Little Women and the Anne of Green Gables series:

Is it just me, or is there a similarity between Jo's refusal of Laurie and Anne's refusal of Gilbert's first proposal? I think the language in both is nearly identical and certainly the feel of both refusals is the same.

OMG...you may be right, it’s been ages since I read the series. I need to check into this.

[sassypants]

In light of so many of us disliking the book as adults, do you think that Little Women is geared toward what we would refer to today as YA audiences?

On a different note, here is a photo of LMA's house in Concord, MA (and me at her grave. People put limes on it!). If you ever get the chance to tour it (no matter how you feel about LW), do it. It's a great house museum!

[bex]

Mar 1, 2018 10:01:11 GMT -5 sassypants said:

In light of so many of us disliking the book as adults, do you think that Little Women is geared toward what we would refer to today as YA audiences?

On a different note, here is a photo of LMA's house in Concord, MA (and me at her grave. People put limes on it!). If you ever get the chance to tour it (no matter how you feel about LW), do it. It's a great house museum!

Good point.  Many (not all, obviously,  but many) of today's YA characters are pretty flat, we are just supposed to accept some things for the sake of the story (like Amy), and so on.

[tacokick]

Mar 1, 2018 10:01:11 GMT -5 sassypants said:

In light of so many of us disliking the book as adults, do you think that Little Women is geared toward what we would refer to today as YA audiences?

On a different note, here is a photo of LMA's house in Concord, MA (and me at her grave. People put limes on it!). If you ever get the chance to tour it (no matter how you feel about LW), do it. It's a great house museum!

I think it is basically YA. I don’t think it was ever supposed to be great literature, just an entertaining family saga.

Also it is really long but at a fairly low reading level which is good for younger readers and adults who aren’t huge readers in general (which is what a lot of YA is geared towards).

I’d love to go there! I need another excuse to get to MA so I can see it.

[abs]

I read this book years ago with my grandma. Like, 30 years ago. I loved it but I am sure that is mostly because I read it with my grandma. I didn't want to re-read. It was my grandma's favorite book and she isn't here anymore so I didn't want anything to ruin the memory of it!

[dorothyinAus]

Mar 1, 2018 7:50:48 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Mar 1, 2018 0:08:20 GMT -5 dorothyinAus said:

I honestly couldn't remember if it was originally a serial or not, but listening to it, it sounded like it was. But I agree, there was nothing really gripping to keep you coming back week after week for the next installment. The Three Musketeers, also published as a serial, was a much more gripping and interest-holding story. And I know the target market was very different for the two books but I do wonder how the the simple, gentle story was ever accepted for publication when the market was obviously there for more thrilling stories like Penny Dreadfuls. 

No cliffhangers but family sagas are always popular. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.

True, that probably explains the popularity of Dickens' serial novels.

[waverly]

I read it as a teenager and liked it. I thought Amy and Laurie were very spoiled and deserved each other. I never could really understand why Jo fell for her husband or why she really chose that life. She wasn't really the maternal run a school type IMO. It just seemed like the opposite of her character. I mean characters can grow but it just seemed like a 180. Meg was OK. I cried buckets over Beth. I don't think I want to read it again at this point. It wasn't very feminist in the end.