Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

~ 1.5 stars ~

This review is only based upon part 2 of Little Women. My copies of this series splits book 1 into two volumes, Little Women and Good Wives. And my opinions on Little Women compared to Good Wives, despite them being techniqually the same book, are vastly and drastically, different.


***Spoilers ahead***



I hated this book. It really had potential to be a new favorite as I adored part 1. But then everyone became a grown up and annoying as hell. Then becoming older was glow down. It lost the frivolous charm I loved before.


~ what I disliked ~


� I thought the lessons of family and relationships were sweet starting off. But then, once I started this book, I realized that they were becoming so astronomically pretentious. I wasn't a fan of a lot of the things it was preaching. Then I realized, back to the fact that I think that them growing older is a contributing factor, is that it started to talk a lot about romance and marriage. You would think that I should have taken the fact that this book was called "Good Wives" as a hint that this was going to be unbearable, but alas, here we are.

� And the glow down of the century award goes to.... Margret. She really became just a background character, and not even one I even slightly cared about. Just a caregiver for her man child husband and nothing else.

There was one aspect that especially irked me with that, which was how it dealt with the fact that Meg and John Brooke, her husband, who's doesn't really have a personality, were a bit disconnected because they were leading sperate lives.

With John always at work or at the neighbors discussing politics, and Meg taking care of the house and the twins, it almost made it seem like it was Meg's fault for not doing enough to satisfy him.

When Meg expresses to her mother how she felt neglected, Mrs. March spins it as if Meg was perhaps the one neglecting him... Because she is spending all her time taking care of her kids. Which yeah, I just hate that logic so much.

That's not how it works. Meg is overburdened by the task of this, and I'm sure Mr. Brooke, could insist upon helping if he wanted. I'm sure chitchating with the neighbors is less important than his own children.

It's not Meg's job to make sure he doesn't fell "left out", and the difficulties of being a parent and maintaining the relationship shouldn't be all on her. Why must she be the one to compromise everything?

� I love Jo. She is amazing. Undoubtedly. But her ending was pretty unsatisfactory. What happened to her writing? She literally just decided that the only entire life aspirations she had was running a boarding school for boys, and marrying Mr. Bhaer, a walking coffin.

In my opinion Jo should have ended up single. A strong independent women. But no, instead she settled for someone 10 minutes away from death. If not with Laurie, than what is so wrong with her being along? She would have been better off that way, y'all just aren't ready for that conversation. There is nothing wrong with that. It would have fit her character well.

� Beth dying was absolutely unnecessary? I don't even remember what she died of to be completely honest here.

� I don't like Amy. She rude and uptight. She devoted her whole life to marrying rich, which same, we love that for her, but she's so unbelievably shallow.

She was wholeheartedly ready to marry Fred because of how rich he was, the only thing that stopped her was Laurie (who's even richer, keep that in mind). She claims she loves him, but if you ask me, he deserved better than her.

Might I mention that she calls "My Lord". That's embarrassing. I'm glad she secured her bag, but there is no need for her to stuck up to him like that.

I also don't like how we just never find out what her art skills lead to. One trend I saw, is that all the sisters gave up their passions, Meg singing and acting, Jo writing, and Amy art, once they got married. Beth just died, so this doesn't apply to her, but still, what is up with that??

~ short intermission from my rant to share fanart ~














continued...


� Where did Laurie's love for Amy come from. It felt so unnatural and forced. Almost like he felt as if Amy could be the only one to fill the whole that Jo left because of their relation, but he didn't really care for her.

My proof:

" He consoled himself for the seeming disloyalty by the thought that Jo's sister was almost the same as Jo herself, and the conviction that it would be impossible to love any other women but Amy so soon and so well"

Laurie has always had a more friendship type relationship with Jo, and a sibling bond with Amy. Friends to lovers as a trope is an acceptable one. Do you know what trope isn't? Siblings to lovers. I rest my case.

� It was so boring: I didn't find myself attached to the story or the events as I did with the first half. I skimmed a lot of it. Especially those letters and poems/songs, which took up a good chunk of this book.

� What the hell does petting mean?! Laurie always talks about being pet, or asking for Jo to pet him. And Jo asked Beth to pet him when she was away. So like a dog. This is weird and I am scared. Someone please tell me what this means.




Final thoughts: I'm sad, dissatisfied and frankly kind of disappointed. I came into this so hopeful that I would love it, but didn't. I was let down. Perhaps I will pretend that part 1 was a standalone.

I don't know that I will continue with the series either, which sucks, because I bought the entire box set for really cheap, but unfortunately, this story has quickly became one I am bitter towards.