ŷ������

little women was the book that changed my life. literally. i remember cracking open an extremely dusty hardcover copy that only interested me because of the gold leaf on the cover, of course. as a self-proclaimed feminist at the ripe old age of 11, i was 100% positive i would hate this book with my entire heart. because obviously a book about women who might want to marry was going to be horrible! right?

little did i know that i was about to be introduced to characters that i related to so much: i went to conventions and stuck magnets on my fridge. i had a diary entirely covered with jo march stickers when i was 13. i even used to dramatically recite entries then purposefully asked my art teacher for ink pens so i could come out of class with stained hands like a true emerging author.

(spoilers!)

to quickly summarize this gem, it follows the lives of the march sisters, all of various ages: meg, jo, amy, and beth. each of them have different personalities which i will try to describe in extremely biased detail down below. there are technically two parts, but i read them all smushed together in that hardcover and can't go back now. sorry.

meg: the most responsible, typically beautiful sister. she was probably the character that i hated with a passion when i was a little girl, but now wish i was.

meg essentially raises some of the girls at times, teaching them life lessons all along the way. she longs to be a rich socialite, a wife, and a mother. (see why i hated her? ugh. girls who like traditionally girly things are the worst! - 11-year old adira that also used to want to eat the robin's egg paint in her art teacher's classroom because it looked "delectable")

my favorite scene of meg's was in little men- you can see her struggle, hoisting two babies on her hip, yearning for a beautiful green dress but trying to stay loyal to her husband. meg's two sides, the loyal and dwindling, fight in such a heartfelt way. she's is often teased for her wants, either by laurie or jo, who do not understand why she feels the way she does. meg is every little girl out there that got teased for wearing her frilly dress, and i just think that that's wonderful.

side note- her growth is not apparent in this book, and she's probably "the side character" if i had to name one. but i believe she's heavily underrated and misunderstood in her lifetime, because the things she wants don't match with her class and status at the time.

jo: i mentioned above, i was and still am unhealthily obsessed with jo march. i saw myself in her, mistakenly might i add. a rough tomboy utterly unaware of luxuries such as love & looks, jo, again, wants different things. as she grows as a person, she grows as an author.

alcott states that she wrote jo to be her more witty other half, and i can definitely tell. jo's point of view is the most painfully personal. you can feel her words ringing in your ears, and alcott's prose becomes infinitely more heartbreaking when jo's hurt is involved. now, i must say that i found romance so unlike jo, but i was happy for her! (no i wasn’t) okay, i didn't like who alcott set her up with, but i don't believe her and friedrich aren't good together because jo is a tomboy, and tomboys apparently don't like romance. i just...thought he was an uncle for a solid fifty pages. excuse me for not understanding age-gaps!

to be honest, i'm still not a fan of them, so i don't really like jo and friedrich now either.

i loathed them together when i was 11, and still do! i truly wish alcott dreamt up someone else for her. maybe another author, but not someone who's light gets dimmer whenever he's around jo. jo deserves the best. or me. no, the best. or me. me. okay, me.

amy: kind of petty, jealous, but a good person at heart. little amy is probably the most unlikable, but grown amy shows maturity and wiseness beyond her years. i know i see myself in every character, but i can truly say that i am little amy. she is me and i am her. however, i aspire to be like grown amy. anyways, amy is your typical immature sibling. amy’s fights with jo had that telltale underlying feeling of jealousy..wondering why she couldn't not try like her sisters.

when would laurie like her? would meg and marmee ever trust and pay attention to her? and when would she find her thing like jo has always had? or will she always be the side character in her sisters' stories?

that constant feeling of unwantedness and never being enough to stand up for yourself are things that i think a lot of young readers could relate to if they pay attention to little amy. her insecurities are so typical of the "forgotten sibling"..which is, admittedly, most of us.

moving on, i’m actually really happy she ended up with laurie! i thought they were perfect together. the "why couldn't you have loved me originally?" + "i'm sorry it took me so long to realize how perfect you are" trope will never not be amazing <3 although i liked them way more in the movie (i know, surprising), they were better matched than jo and laurie. i will fight people on this, i ADORE laurie and amy.

beth: beth my child, beth my perfect, beth my darling. beth deserves better. her storyline was so beautiful, i knew she would have a downfall! her death was so sudden and out of nowhere. i will forever hate louisa may alcott (but also love her because...BETH) for what she did to my little angel. also, beth is inspired by one of alcott’s sisters, so erasing her death would remove the depth to alcott’s version.

anyways, that's all. i remember first reading about her death and closing the book, going upstairs, and crying for 2+ hours. my mom thought that one of my stuffed animals died. again. (a little context, i used to randomly pick a sunday for one of my forgotten stuffed animals to "die" and i'd make my parents do backyard funerals for each of them. literally an icon)

personally, i've never been a classics fan. there's something beautiful about reading one, but i'm technically part of gen z. so our attention spans are miniscule, and when words like "fatuous" and "ignominy" are being used in each page, some of us, not me of course, have a hard time.

many people bring up the problem of blandness. but this book isn't a thriller. you're not supposed to be surprised when you turn the page, or gasp when someone has a revelation like you’d gasp when your favorite character starts brutally slaughtering everybody in sight purge-style. consider it an autobiography of truly ordinary peoples�� lives. they're not extraordinary in the sense of the word, and therefore a timeline of their life won't be invigorating/suspenseful. i’ve taken this sentiment into every classic i read, and it makes the reading experience much more enjoyable.

so, to close, little women isn't just a book- it's a phase. if you're looking to read one that will change your life outlook, this is it. look no further.

��-------------
pre-review: if only jo march was real

review to come!