Betty und ihre Schwestern

by Louisa May Alcott

Hardcover, ?



Call number

Fic Alc

Call number

Fic Alc

Local notes

Fic Alc




Chronicles the joys and sorrows of the four March sisters as they grow into young ladies in nineteenth-century New England.


Original publication date

1868 (vol. 1)
1869 (vol. 2)

Physical description

8.03 inches

Media reviews

Almost every single line is overflowing with passion, the choice of words, the portrayal of characters, and the eloquence of emotions, all of this just makes me wonder how is it even possible for someone to write so elegantly with a simple yet appealing tone. This is surely one of those books where
Show More
you know it is going to be a classic masterpiece at first glance. It delivers so well that I feel as if I am there, in that house along with the characters.
Show Less
2 more
The Guardian
Louisa May Alcott's highly original tale aimed at a young female market has iconic status in America and never been out of print.
Madelon Bedell
The American female myth.

User reviews

LibraryThing member Citizenjoyce
In Little Women Jo, everyone's favorite, is full of intelligence, energy, talent and ready anger. She is constantly reminded by everyone not to be such a tomboy. At one point Jo's beautiful little sister does something really horrendous, burns a book Jo has been working on for a year. Jo is
Show More
understandably very angry, her mother urges her to forgive her sisters little indiscretion. Jo won't, and the form her anger takes is to ignore her sister, who stupidly gets herself into trouble and almost drowns. Jo, feeling terribly remorseful and almost like a murderer goes to her mother and asks how she can control her anger. (Note, she didn't do anything to her sister. She merely felt anger.) Her mother tells her, "I have been angry every day of my life, but I have learned to control it." In real life Alcott's father lost the family fortune by loaning it to someone who doesn't repay it, the daughters and wife work ceaselessly to support themselves and his schemes. He, of course, is nearly saintly in his devotion to transcendentalism. With some other followers he started a utopian community in which everyone was strictly not only vegetarian, but almost starved since no one knew how to farm. Mostly they ate apples for 8 months and lived in unheated houses, he, his wife and children. This was supposed to feed their spirits. He got to do the thinking and preaching, his wife and children got to do all the hard work of finding a way to keep them alive. So when Marmee (the worst name in the world) says she's angry every day, I say, of course you are, leave the idiot. But no. He is the adored, the saintly father. While the novel doesn't give the specifics of her background it does at every turn show that women should be hard working, obedient, and self denying and that when they pursue their own desires they get into trouble. Perhaps I overreacted, Gloria Steinem is a fan, I think. But I can't. Oh one other horrendous part, when Jo goes to New York and finally is able to make some money writing stories, dark stories about wayward people, the man she has found to take her father's place finds out what kind of stories she writes. They're not the fine moral tales Little Women is. He tells her he'd rather she swept the street than wrote such things. And Jo, rather than smacking him in the face, feels ashamed and vows never to write such stories again. (Which vow Alcott did not make, and she continued to write stories about wayward people under a pseudonym.) She wrote Little Women only to make money, which it certainly did; but I don't see why the rest of us should find anything moral about it. If you never feel the need to read it, you're doing yourself no harm what so ever.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bookworm12
From the very first sentences of Little Women we know the four daughters in the March family: the eldest, Meg, tomboy Jo, gentle Beth and vain Amy. Soon we meet their kind mother, Marmee and from those first moments the reader is part of the family.

Set during the Civil War the March family is left
Show More
with no men in their household when the father is sent off to war. The remaining house full of women is left to manage on their own.

I first read this when I was in grade school and I was thrilled to discover the character of Jo. She was a stubborn tomboy who longed to be an author and on the very first page she's described as "Jo, who was a bookworm." It was me in every way. Jo was the antidote to every sugary sweet character tossed my way in other books. She wasn't a lady, but she was strong and loving and she was willing to sacrifice anything for the good of her family.

The other characters, their neighbor Laurie, their selfish Aunt March, etc. are engraved in my mind forever. I longed to be there, in their world, acting out the Pickwick Portfolio with them in the attic.

Alcott wrote about intimate family dynamics in a time when little was known about women's interaction in the privacy of their own homes. The book was published in 1869, shortly after the end of the war. She created a family full of women with very different personalities, who must struggle through some horrible trials, but survive because their love for each other holds them together. It's a beautiful story that everyone should read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member atimco
Little Women, that classic tale of four very different sisters growing up in Massachusetts during the Civil War, is well known for its warmth, humor, and moral lessons. Louisa May Alcott, the "Jo" of the story, describes the life of the March family with an eye for the funny side of every
Show More
situation. Jo is the literary sister and more than a little tomboyish, while Meg, the oldest, is almost a woman and takes her responsibilities very seriously. Beth, next youngest after Jo, is shy and gentle, playing her piano and tending her dolls. Amy, the youngest, has the artistic temperament and is a bit vain, though still lovable in her own way. And then there's Marmee, the center of the March household and the standard for moral behavior in her daughters' lives. There isn't much of a plot, as each chapter tells of some memorable episode in their family history.

I was struck this time by how similar my childhood was in some ways to that of the March girls. My siblings and I also "published" a newspaper of sorts and got up theatrical presentations for the delectation of our parents. We wrote stories, played with dolls, created elaborate make-believe games, and had a "post office" where treats were occasionally left. We read voraciously, were educated at home, never had much money, and learned early the strong work ethic that has been so valuable in adult life. I can even see some strong resemblances between Meg and myself (the oldest) and Jo and my next youngest sister, the undisputed tomboy of the family. We four sisters are as unique and distinct as the March girls. I guess happy childhoods share many of the same traits, regardless of how times change.

Many readers object to Alcott's occasional preachiness. I actually don't mind moral lessons carefully woven into a story, and I can take a great deal of what others may term "preaching" without annoyance. But I object to Alcott's preachiness on a different score. She preaches what she knew, the doctrines of the Transcendental movement that was then popular in their family's social circle. And it's astonishing what they got wrong. On the surface it seems like good moral stuff, and perhaps it is, as far as it goes. But Christ is absent—or if He is there, He's a friend and helper rather than a Savior. The slightest misdirection at the start will change the entire trajectory of a person's faith. It was almost sad to hear Alcott describing her and her family's struggles to be good, to subdue their sinful flesh and improve themselves by their own efforts and self discipline. They completely missed the point of grace; it isn't there to help us be good enough to be saved, but to save us completely, apart from any good we may do. There is freedom in that.

An example of this is the ongoing metaphor from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, that of the burden that Christian carries to the Hill. There is no doubt that Bunyan intended Christian's burden to represent the burden of sin; it falls off when Christian beholds and believes in the Savior. But Alcott and her family apparently missed the entire point and interpreted Christian's burden as the general burdens of everyday life, our cares and responsibilities. Biblically astute Christians will see the problem at once: if our burden is our everyday life rather than our sin, that means we don't have a fatal problem that only Christ's sacrifice can alleviate. We are capable of perfecting ourselves.

Another contentious point is how Jo rejects Laurie and instead marries Professor Bhaer, a much older German man. I have always been dissatisfied with that, as much as I respect an author's authority over her own characters (and in this case, her own life!). This time I really tried to listen with an open mind and Alcott does a fair job of convincing me that she really did make the right decision. But it's still hard to read about Laurie's rejection and later marriage with Amy.

I have several of Alcott's "thrillers" that she disparages in this story, and it will be fascinating to see the other side of this author. The impression I get from the back-cover blurbs is that the author of the scandalous thrillers is the "real" Louisa May Alcott, while the author of the cozy Little Women and its successors is the public persona she created for herself. That seems a pretty huge assumption to make, but then, I haven't read any of the thrillers besides A Long Fatal Love Chase. I definitely need to make time for these in the coming year.

Lastly, a word on the film version with Winona Ryder. It's one of our favorites and though they had to condense and omit quite a bit from the novel, they were faithful to the spirit of the story. And Thomas Newman's lovely score doesn't hurt a bit, either. Of course they make the Professor (played by Gabriel Byrne) as palatable and handsome as possible, and that helps too. I wonder if they will ever make a longer version, perhaps a miniseries.

Overall I enjoyed this audiobook (read by the inimitable Kate Reading) very much, and I am sure I will revisit this book. The humor keeps the preachiness in balance, and the characters are so affectionately drawn by their author that I can't help but love them too.
Show Less
LibraryThing member owenre
Despite a taste for tougher fiction, I have never lost my fondness for Little Women. I understood Jo, her bookish awkwardness combined with her good sportmanship. I found comfort in the decency of the family and for a long while I was not discomfited by the preachiness of Marmee. I wanted to have
Show More
the sort of goodness of this family. My father worked out of the country and was mostly absent, so that sorrow was easy to understand. However, where these sisters were close, my four sisters were each firmly in their own world, so it was a bit of wish fulfilment. I wondered if I would have given up Laurie, if I would have stuck it out with Aunt March, or if I would ever have the courage to write. Now, I don't think I would have, but I still wish I was the kind of person who would.
Show Less
LibraryThing member steadfastreader
I've never been a fan of this book.

As a feminist, I'm REALLY not a fan of this book. Teaching little girls that the most important thing is to find a man and keep him! As an atheist, who doesn't mind religion, the religious undertones were too ... irritating in this book.

I know it's a classic. I
Show More
know people love this book. It just wasn't for me.

The second star is solely for it's 'classic' status. I know... I'm a sucker.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kaionvin
A confession: I love my brother, but I always wanted sisters. (Would you deny such an idyllic, idle daydream?)

That about summarizes the appeal of Little Women for me at its best parts, where Alcott really reveled in portraying, falsely perhaps, an almost enshrined childhood. Fiery Jo, meek Beth,
Show More
prissy Meg, and prideful Amy are drawn deftly as Characters (with a capital 'c')- with exaggerated verisimilitude that really brings bite to their passionately petty arguments and tenuous alliances.There's an underlying joy in recognizing the familiarity of such sibling spats.

I also enjoyed the introduction into 19th century America. It's notable that the girls' beloved Marmee is raising them rather singly while their father is off during the Civil War. The older girls are expected to work, and all contribute to the housework- and from all emerges a sense of practical, common sense ideology.

Not that you could miss it, because the main plot of every chapter is thus: One of the girls commits a moral sin based on her defining character trait. Marmee disapproves. The girl learns her lesson and attempts to improve. Rinse and repeat. And while it's given with much charm perhaps mainly due to the old-timey-ness of the situation, you've almost got to start wondering if there's a purposefully satirical tone to the ridiculous levels of didactic moralizing. Rating: 3 stars

Which turns out isn't quite as palatable when applied to grown women in the 'sequel', Good Wives. It's one thing to drive such a point home to children, but when the characters in question are ready to enter the wide world on their own, such black and white goofy moral messages are frankly condescending.

It's no secret that Little Women is largely autobiographical and Jo's winning independent traits are based on Louisa May Alcott herself. And while the novel piles further on Jo about her failings and doles her subsequent 'punishments', it becomes increasingly harder to ignore that Jo's 'failings' (for example, writing salacious horror stories) are actually Alcott's strengths. It's a huge tonal disconnect lends an almost schizophrenic quality in the proceedings.

In the Jo's 'happy' resolution, I hear the battle between two competing voices: Alcott the author who'd told us the story of becoming a good person, and Alcott the woman who told us the story of 'good wife' (of being crushed into conformity).

Was it how Alcott felt about her choices in life? Her subversive message to the world? Or was her hand simply forced by the publisher- by 'public' sentiment in her fiction if not in her life? I'm left with no answers, only dissatisfaction. Rating: 1 sta
Show Less
LibraryThing member sva7
Although I consider Little Women one of my favorite books -- and certainly my favorite childhood book -- this is the first time I've actually finished the whole thing.

For a couple of reasons: One, that it still feels as though marrying off Laurie and Amy was a willfull move on the part of a writer
Show More
unwilling to bend to the wishes of her young readers. And two, because I'd heard a rumor that Louisa May Alcott wrote this second half in a month, and the lack of care in "Good Wives" compared with "Little Women" shows.

It's still a great book, however touches of sexism and strange 19th century values make it a very different read than when I was younger, like the scene in which Mrs. March informs Meg that her husband going over to another woman's house for her "company" is Meg's fault, because she's too devoted to her children.

As for this edition in and of itself, it was great for highlighting and making notes while working on a paper, but I could tell that there were numerous typos in the edition, the pages are cheap and will probably fall apart in another couple of years, and the cover photo is ugly and sepia-toned. If you genuinely love the book, get a better version.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lit_chick
2011, Listening Library, Read by Kate Reading

Somehow I missed reading this well-loved classic until now. When I spotted it recently in 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (book nuts take note, the best-smelling book ever!), I went in search of an audiobook, and am delighted to have decided on
Show More
this edition. Kate Reading is perfect as narrator.

I found it impossible not to be completely charmed by Alcott’s narrative of idyllic family life as the March sisters, Jo, Meg, Beth, and Amy, come of age under the gentle but firm guidance of their mother. Set against the backdrop of the American Civil War, Little Women recalls a time when life was quiet and genteel, manners impeccable, morals intrinsic, and modesty fundamental. To Alcott’s credit, I found myself longing for a quieter, simpler time. That said, I was comforted (and much humoured) to know that some things have not changed at all:

“Amy’s lecture did Laurie good, though, of course, he did not own it till long afterward. Men seldom do, for when women are the advisers, the lords of creation don’t take the advice till they have persuaded themselves that it is just what they intended to do. Then they act upon it, and if it succeeds, they give the weaker vessel half the credit of it. If it fails, they generously give her the whole.” (Ch 41)

A worthy and deserving read. Highly recommended!
Show Less
LibraryThing member thebookmagpie
I hate this book. I hate hate hate hate hate this book. This book is INSIPID. This book makes me feel like I need a trip to the dentist after merely looking at the cover.

I hate this book.

I hate Jo, and her supposed tomboyishness, and the fact that she is the most flat, and dull, and stupid
Show More
character I've ever come across. I hate Amy, because she's a vapid idiot who contributes nothing to the story. I hate Meg, even though I don't remember anything about her. I HATE Beth more than them all combined because she is so holy-holy, and meek, and perfect, and then she goes and dies (except in the versions where she doesn't) and everyone loves her even MORE afterwards.

Excuse me while I retch.

Why must this book be so vomitous? It even starts off in this fashion - let us give our dinner to the poor, because we are so wonderful! F*ck off. Just... f*ck off. If there was ever such a saintly family, I hope I never meet them. My boyfriend's diabetic and we must watch his blood sugar levels...
Show Less
LibraryThing member rainbowdarling
A true classic, truly timeless, Little Women is a must have for any bookshelf. This story of a family of young women, dealing with the very real traumas of the Civil War is charming in that it gives pictures into the lives of the daughters, the things that concern them, please them, the trials they
Show More
must face and the choices they are forced to make. The main character is endearing as are her three sisters and by the end I found myself rooting for the ultimate well-being of everyone involved, not simply the main character. I can't imagine not having this book around.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ysar
I originally received this book as a young teen, and I sat up in bed, reading by lamplight, long after I should have been asleep each night. A beatifully told story of four nearly-grwon sisters and their mother, this is a must read for any girl (or grown woman for that matter!). I have long since
Show More
lost my original copy, but I loved it so much it has been replaced by no less than three more copies.
Having no sisters of my own, and not living with my mother, I had little in common with the family in the story. Perhaps that was what fascinated me. In any case, it's a touching story about four very different sisters, family life that isn't always easy, and in the end romance that is entirely appropriate for young readers. Louisa May Alcott captured a normal American family in such a way that the book is much loved a century later.
Show Less
LibraryThing member silenceiseverything
My first actual introduction to Little Women came from watching the Winona Ryder version of the film on a snowy, beautiful day in New England during my sophmore year of high school. I immediately fell in love with the movie and tracked down the book in my library. I read a few pages of it, couldn't
Show More
get into it, and brought it back to school unread. And that was that (sadly this happened with a few classics that weren't required of me). I ultimately decided that I should give Little Women another shot due to my love of the film. I'm so glad I did.

Okay, sure some of the views in this book (one being that a woman's worth was determined on how well she kept house) did prick my feminist nerves a little bit, but I did keep in mind that this was a wildly different time than the one I live in now. The book was a bit on the preachy side, but Little Women had such a humble and homey feel to it that I really didn't mind being preached at most of the time.

Now, on to The Little Women...I was endeared by all of the characters in this book (Marmee, Hannah, etc.), but of course I was mostly endeared by the little women (and Laurie). I just loved Meg, Beth, Jo, and Amy (to some extent, at least). My favorite was definitely Jo. She was just so strong, independent, and marched to the beat of her own drum. And I adored her relationship with Laurie. When I finished the film, I remember thinking (HUGE SPOILER FOR THE END HERE) "Laurie ends up with Amy?!??!? What a rip-off!" Even while reading the book, I kept hoping that I would turn the page and Jo would end up with Laurie.

On the one hand, I thought that Jo and Laurie were perfect for each other, but on the other hand, I loved that they had such a strong friendship that not even unrequited love could ruin it. However, I still don't like that Laurie ended up with Amy. Out of all the sisters, she was the one I was least endeared by. I would've loved nothing more than to drop her down a peg or two (or six). However, nothing can be done about it at this point. The fact that I'm so into whom should end up with whom just shows how attached I am to Little Women. (END OF SPOILER)

So, I absolutely loved and adored Little Women. I found it to be one of those classics that's just incredibly easy to read that even those whom don't have much experience in reading classics (like me) can understand the language without much difficulty. Little Women was just an adorable and sweet book that I know I'm going to re-read this book for years to come.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SimoneA
I am doubting about my rating of this book. On the one hand it is an entertaining classic. On the other hand it is a preachy, old fashioned book with annoyingly outdated ideas about women. For now I'll stick with just a fun read in between.
LibraryThing member michael1990
I think this novel is very interesting and real to react some situations in our daily life in some cases.This story is about Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy March in New England to live with their mother and their father in the war between the United States has been hit. Once they have been well to do
Show More
family, but their case, reversing. Although the March family's wealth does not have the money, their love and family wealth. Meg and Joe have a job, Beth and Amy go to school at home, Marmee.

Jo is the sister of adventure, like a boy as a person. She did not always like her as his wife's sisters will take action. Jo is to help the lonely boy next door, Theodore Lawrence. Soon, Laurie is involved in many girls' adventure. As the five grow up, they enjoy many activities, growth, and strengthen their imagination.

Over time Mr. March returns home girls grow. They are from girlhood to womanhood, of love, and with the participation in the activities of the enterprise. Beth, all of the family favorite, with life-threatening diseases. Although she recovered, she never recovered her full strength. Jo's temper would not trouble her more than once. Meg, then Amy, who met the love of their lives. Beth continues to comfort the family in March. Laurie falls in love with Jo was rejected - she knew they were brothers / siser relationship, not a good husband and wife. Over time, a wise grandfather, and the right woman, Laurie recovery from Joe, and found a new love. Joe continues to write, trying to make a small amount of money, her story. She was sure she was never married, but even Jo found the people to change his mind.
I think this is a very interesting story for teenagers.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
I believe I first read this as a child, but it's so much part of the American cultural heritage, it's one of those books I believed I might only thought I had read before. Who doesn't know of the the March sisters whom we first meet on Christmas Eve when they range in age from twelve to sixteen?
Show More
There's the beautiful eldest daughter Meg, the tomboyish bookworm Jo, sweet Beth, and the prim and pampered Amy. Reading this novel as an adult, I found this a pleasure.

I've read two main complaints in reviews. First, that the novel is unbearably moralistic and religious in tone. I didn't feel that way--and believe me I'd be sensitive to that--I'm not a believer. Yes, the March family are Christians, and take their beliefs seriously. This is a minister's household, after all. Paul Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is the girls' Christmas gift and the structure and metaphor for their growth in the first part covering a year during the American Civil War, and is alluded to throughout. But, as Jo herself puts it, I don't mind a story with a moral that makes me think, as long as it's "real, and not too preachy." I don't think it is, because the story throughout is leavened by such warmth and humor I can't find any priggishness in it. There are some things that strike me as old-fashioned, particularly when I read the story of the newly married Meg in "Domestic Experiences" or the urging of temperance, but most of the values taught, the growth in the girls, isn't just Christian but universal and timeless. Beth learns to go after what she wants and to overcome shyness. Amy that rules are made for her too and she's not everyone's spoiled pet. Jo learns it's important to reign in her temper. And Meg not to put so much store on being a fashion plate.


The other objection I often saw was to Jo's romance with Professor Frederick Bhaer in the second part. Maybe it's just I don't think that kind of age difference is important, but I like Frederick and their relationship. He's her intellectual equal; he understands Jo, and he stretches her and accepts her in ways I doubt Laurie ever would have. Some also say how they don't care in general for how the girls are paired off and give up their dreams. Nineteenth century "domestic novel" this might be--their beloved mother herself says she'd rather see her daughters forever remain unwed than enter an unhappy marriage and when Laurie is asked if he or his wife "rules" he said they "take turns." I think real partnerships are what's stressed here, and it's not so much that dreams are given up but that they changed.

I'd much rather have a young woman imbibe the values in this book than those of Meyer's vapid Twilight. All the girls here have talents, ambitions and concerns beyond attaching herself to some boy. I also loved and identified with Jo's struggles to become a writer. I had to smile at her story of how she unwisely followed the advice of all trying to please everyone and sent off her novel after it wound up "liked a picked robin" after her editing. Nor does she give up that dream for domesticality when she marries. She says in the end she "may write a good book will be all the better for such experience."


I found this a charming, fun story full of memorable scenes and lines whose appeal still endures and to me at least, doesn't seem too dated or overly sentimental.

Oh, those "sensationalist" stories Jo abjures. Louisa May Alcott wrote them. I have a good friend who swears they're better than Little Women as far as she's concerned.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mrstreme
Little Women is a favorite American classic for many, but for this reader, I enjoyed the story so much more when I was a 10-year old girl. As I reread this story, I found myself rolling my eyes at the sweet goodness that is the March sisters. The allegories, the constant efforts to improve
Show More
themselves and ever-apologetic stance about their faults (faults, I would argue, that made them interesting to read about) left me an impatient reader.

Certainly, Jo March was more the exception than the rule, and I am guessing that is why many modern readers enjoy this story. Jo is an independent spirit – smart, big-mouthed, creative and sure of herself, especially as she becomes a young woman. She settles for nothing, including marrying a man she loves instead of marrying a man she was obligated to love. She supports herself through her writings and is a devoted daughter and sister – all in all, an interesting character to read.

Little Women, for all my restlessness, is definitely a portrait of its time. In that aspect, I admire and respect its representation of the time in which the sisters lived. I am looking forward to March by Geraldine Brooks, which is a modern rendition of this story from the dad’s point of view. I am very curious to see how the sisters are portrayed by Brooks.

Overall, I was entertained and enjoyed the second half of the book much better than the first. However, I almost regret rereading it. I think Little Women would have been better in my memory as a precious coming-of age-tale, perfect for the 10-year old dreamer that was me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member dorcas_yester
Enjoyable, well-written story overall, but characters could be a bit goody-goody. For the time period though, it is remarkably unpreachy.
LibraryThing member Anniik
I know a lot of people who just rave over this book, but it was really a struggle for me to even get through it. The characters had no depth, the book was preachy, and the ideals it was preaching for the proper behavior of women were bile-inducing. I know, I know, it was written a long time ago, in
Show More
a world with different ideals, etc. And yes, I know Alcott was a social reformer and a feminist. But my respect for her and what she did can't make me like this book any more...sorry.

I have to kind of agree with Jo's publisher, even though this statement was made as something we were supposed to disagree with in the course of the book...

"People want to be amused, not preached at, you know..."
Show Less
LibraryThing member mommablogsalot
I have mixed feelings about this one. I will say that I liked the book better than the movie I saw, because so many more details are given and the relationships feel more natural and realistic but I found the “moral and religious overtones” to be a bit much at times and the descriptions to
Show More
sometimes go on a bit longer than they needed to (a la Nathaniel Hawthorne). As far as classics go, I much preferred Anne of Green Gables which though also descriptive, managed to do the whole moral lesson thing much better, as in, not beating you over the head with it. I think the heart of this story is excellent, which is why the movies are so good I think, but sometimes reading it felt like a chore.
Show Less
LibraryThing member drebbles
Set during the Civil War, "Little Women" is the story of the four March sisters. Meg, the oldest, is sixteen and very much into being a "young lady". Jo, fifteen, is the exact opposite of Meg, a tomboy who hates everything girlish. Beth, thirteen, is a homebody, always cheerful and looking at the
Show More
bright side of things. Amy, the youngest, is loving but a bit selfish and shallow. The March's don't have much money, but they are rich in love and that love carries them throughout the course of "Little Women" which takes place over a span of ten years. The March's have many adventures as they grow up, several of them with their next door neighbor, Teddy Laurence. There is joy and sorrow in their lives, but the love they have for each other carries them through everything.

"Little Women" is old fashioned, sentimental but not too sentimental, and a wonderful book to read. The book is partially autobiographical, based on Louisa May Alcott's own sisters and the love she had for them is evident throughout the book. There are heartbreaking parts which make me cry each and every time I read "Little Women", yet there are heartwarming and comical moments that make me smile every time I read it. The four March sisters are very realistic, even Beth, who is almost too good to be true. Alcott was an imaginative writer who could make inanimate objects, such as roses, seem alive. "Little Women" was originally written in two parts and Alcott's style changes a bit in the second part, as she addresses the reader directly and at times delivers little "sermons" to her readers.

"Little Women" is a delightful book for readers young and old.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mausergem
Little Women is a story of the March family set in the nineteenth century. Mr. and Mrs. March have four loving daughters and this story starts in their teens and ends with them and their respective families. We journey through the lives of plain Meg, romantic Jo, sickly Beth and ambitious Amy.

Show More
way through this book I felt that the appropriate name for this novel should be “Lessons for teenager girls in how to be angels in nineteenth century America”. Though the novel is a bit mushy and the characters are a bit one dimensional it makes for good reading. Simple lives are truly beautiful.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kpickett
The March family is an interesting bunch. Each sister represents her own personality, the beautiful and kind Meg, the tomboyish Jo, the fragile and creative Beth and the romantic and dramatic Meg. Every girl can find a personality they like. Jo is independent and smart and doesn’t take anything
Show More
from one! Follow Jo as she experiences love, challenges and discrimination in her quest to become a writer.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LibrarianRyan
OMG this book is SOOOOOOO boring. I can not believe that this is still a classic and how many times the movie has been remade. UGHHHHHH. I liked the Wynona Rider version of the movie. I thought Christian Bale Lurie was perfect. But the book, I thought it was never going to end.

I didn’t like Amy.
Show More
I thought she was a brat in the movie and I still think the same thing according to this book. In the book I actually liked her ending up with Lurie. It felt fitting and a good match. And could see why her aunt wanted her to accompany her around the world.

Beth lasted longer in the book than in the movie. In the movie she dies of scarlet fever, but lasts years longer in the book. I did think the way she was described was interesting. In modern society, she would have a ton of initialed diagnoses after her name. High anxiety, etc.

There was so much more depth to the oldest march sister Meg. I don’t remember if it was in the movie that she had twins, or the deals she had with her husband upon marrying. I actually liked her much more in the book than I ever did in the movie. She has more depth.

As for Joe. Joe is the reason we have a book. But I wonder if this story was modernized if she wouldn’t be a “they” or “questioning” her gender and roles in society. But that comes from a modern mind reading a classic book. And I don’t make this point because of all the times they say “queer” used as it’s original definiation as odd or unusual. But it's when she is described as not being womanly, or not caring for the roles of women.

Overall I may not have enjoyed this book, but I did find it interesting. I know why I tried to read this book many times but never made it that far. And parts of me see why others like it, and why people use it for character studies. But for me, this will never be a book I recommend, but it will be a book I argue and debate.
+21 #TBRread
#BBRC #OriginalFreezerBook
#booked2019 #publicdomain
Show Less
LibraryThing member mrsdwilliams
While their father is away fighting in the Civil War, the March sisters (beautiful, girly-girl Meg, outspoken Jo, shy Beth, and spoiled Amy) live in a poor but loving home with their saintly mother. Laurie, the poor little rich boy who lives next door becomes like a brother to the girls. Lively and
Show More
realistic, the characters are never too perfect; they each have their flaws and we love them all the more for it.

Don't let the length scare you away. This one is an enduring classic for a reason. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
Show Less
LibraryThing member schmal06
An endearing and heart-warming tale about growing up. A true classic that transcends time.

Similar in this library


(5762 ratings; 4)
Page: 8.7635 seconds