REVIEW OF THE LIBRARY OF AMERICA KINDLE EDITION EDITED BY ELAINE SHOWALTER
So in my humble opinion, this here Kindle edition of all three of Louisa May Alcott Little Women novels is truly and utterly absolutely perfect (and while also a bit more expensive than many of the available e-book collections of the three novels, Little Women, Little Men, Jo’s Boys is also and most definitely worth every penny I have spent). For delightfully, not only does Little Women, Little Men, Jo’s Boys contain the unabridged texts of all three novels (and rendered in a very reader-friendly format with a font size that is sufficiently large for easy and comfortable perusing), editor Elaine Showalter has also included a detailed chronology of Louisa May Alcott’s life (from her birth to her death) as well as detailed and interesting notes and annotations (and which I for one have especially appreciated for Little Men and Jo’s Boys, since while there generally are multiple annotated Little Women editions to be found, the same is definitely and unfortunately not so much the case with regard to the sequels), leaving Little Women, Little Men, Jo’s Boys wonderfully textually complete both with regard to Louisa May Alcott’s three Little Women stories and a nicely general but still sufficiently extensive introduction to Louisa May Alcott as both a talented author and also of course as transcendentalist Bronson Alcott’s daughter.
LITTLE WOMEN
Although Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is probably one of my all time favourite books (and which I have read at least fifteen times since 1979), I actually have never managed to pen a review, simply because I really do not think I can (in my opinion) post a review that would do sufficient honour to either book or author. And with that in mind, this here review will in fact not be a standard review of Little Women either, but rather some personal and academic musings about both Little Women and questions such as censorship as well as influences of Little Women on Lucy Maud Montgomery’s The Story Girl and it’s sequel The Golden Road (and thus my review might also end up being a bit rambling, but I do hope that I will keep potential readers engaged all the same).
LITTLE WOMEN AND CENSORSHIP
Now it is really quite amazing to and for me that a children's novel written in 1868 can still (in this day and age) be so fresh, enchanting (often even socially relevant) and truly, for 1868, Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women is not only quite progressive and strivingly feminist, it is actually much more so than many books (especially books meant specifically for girls) written in the late 19th and even early to middle 20th century. And with that in mind, it just astounds me to no end (and massively infuriates me) that there have actually been moves and petitions to have the novel banned and censored (since according to certain "activists" Louisa May Alcott's Little Women is supposedly just not feminist enough and thus, due to its lasting popularity, inherently "dangerous" to girls/women, and thus supposedly warranting official censorship). Yes, Little Women is not a novel I would ever label as feminist in the late 20th, early 21st century way and manner of thinking, but for 1868, it was and remains exceedingly progressive indeed, a novel that not only promotes gender equality to a point, but also, and this is one of its prime advantages, Little Women pleads for and strives for true freedom of choice, especially for women (Meg is happy being a homemaker and wife, but that is her own choice, it is not in any way forced on her, while Jo goes alone to New York City, and supports the family with her work, and even Beth is not forced to attend school when it is reaslised that she is much much too shy and too afraid of strangers for this).
LITTLE WOMEN AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TWO NOVELS BY L. M. MONTGOMERY
So while I was recently rereading Little Women, I was also at the same time rereading two of my favourite works by L.M. Montgomery (of Anne of Green Gables fame), The Story Girl and its sequel, The Golden Road. And having now completed these two novels, it becomes rather obvious at least to me how much both of these stories have in common with Little Women. Especially the character of Cecily King is very much akin to Beth March, both personality wise and her eventual fate (that she is also doomed to die young like Beth does). Now, I am NOT IN ANY MANNER saying or even insinuating that Montgomery actively plagiarised from Louisa May Alcott, and Cecily is also not just a replica of Beth March either (although the latter might well have served as a bit of a model for the former), but yes, the similarities are, for me at least, striking enough to believe that Montgomery was in all likelihood more than a bit influenced by Little Women when she wrote The Story Girl and The Golden Road (which also becomes rather apparent when one realises that both the March family and the King family create their own magazines, and that both of these magazines are similar in both style and content to a point, with the March girls' magazine being perhaps a bit more literate, which of course makes a lot of sense, as the March sisters are from a literary and academic family, while the King family are basically simply and mostly PEI farmers).
SHOULD JO HAVE MARRIED LAURIE INSTEAD OF PROFESSOR BHAER?
I know that there are some, perhaps even more than some individuals who are not quite at ease with the fact that in Little Women Jo does not end up marrying Laurie, but Professor Bhaer. Now for me, I have always thought that while Jo and Laurie would make and do make great friends, they would have made horrible and even intensely problematic lovers, and the concept that Laurie and Jo are too similar in and with certain perhaps less than admirable parts of their personalities has always made sense to me. For if Laurie and Jo had married, I do believe that their personalities would have clashed, and not because they are so different, but because they are so similar with regard to willfulness, stubbornness, desire and emotionality. And the professor, he complements Jo and she complements him. Professor Bhaer calms her personality, even giving Jo’s writing a calming edge, while she, in turn, makes his own calm personality a bit more outgoing. And also, one has to think of the fact that from an academic standpoint, Jo and the Professor are actually much more complementary and complimentary than Laurie and Jo would and could ever have been. For Jo thrives on writing, literature, education, something that Professor Bhaer also exibits, but something that Laurie only shows marginally (mainly artistically and musically, and in this, he is actually much closer to Amy, and not to Jo). And yes, in particular from an artistic and societal point of view, Laurie and Amy do suit one another and much more than Jo and Laurie would have or could have meshed. Yes, Louisa May Alcott might indeed have originally envisioned in Little Women for Jo to not have been married at all (and there are actually some critics who consider her love for her sister Beth, her devotion to her, lesbian, and while I most certainly do not, it is indeed a common thread in some secondary analyses). And then, when the publishers clamoured for Jo to also marry, it makes sense, at least to me, that Alcott had Jo not end up marrying Laurie, but Professor Bhaer, an older, more mature man perhaps, but also someone whose intellect, whose philosophy, whose education and ideas regarding education, corresponded to and with Jo. For yes, I actually do think with Laurie, that Jo would not only have had too many battles and arguments, I think she also would probably have found the life of relative leisure that Laurie and Amy end up enjoying, rather tedious, even monotonous in the long run when compared to and with the life that Jo and the Professor end up creating/having with their school at Plumfied, as demonstrated and described in the two sequels of Little Women, in Little Men and Jo's Boys.
Now I do hope that my musings and ideas regarding Little Women have proven to be entertaining, but also, that they have provided food for thought and perhaps a desire for a reread and for those of you who have not yet read this lovely and enchanting novel, a first read (it is a rewarding and emotional reading experience, but then again, I admit to being majorly biased).
Finally (and indeed, really and truly), there are indeed many many editions of Little Women. And my favourite at present is the Norton Critical Edition, as it also includes background, literary analyses (as well as a short bibliographic of Louisa May Alcott) and an extensive bibliography. Now if you are just desiring to read Little Women for its own sake, any edition (as long as it is unabridged and contains both the first and second part) will likely suffice. However, if you are interested in also perusing information about the novel, its historical background, reviews and critical literary analyses, give the Norton Critical Edition a try; you will not be disappointed (at least that is my hope).
LITTLE MEN
Although I have definitely for the most part rather enjoyed Louisa May Alcott's Little Men and do therefore consider it both a successful sequel to Little Women and also what I would consider an interesting and delightful late 19th century American boarding school story (and yes, a school story that really does descriptively and with much textual pleasure demonstrate how at Jo and Professor Bhaer's Plumfield, not only book learning and lessons are important and cherished, but also how the students are equally and intensely instructed and expected to be physically active, to engage in sports, gardening and the like), I also (and indeed frustratingly) have found that occasionally whilst reading Little Men, I was definitely feeling a just trifle impatient, that I really was wishing Louisa May Alcott would get to the point and move away from being so annoyingly preachy.
For while the majority of the often rather episodic chapters of Little Men certainly are entertaining and engaging enough (even though I sometimes have found Dan's escapades and even his entire story to be a trifle too one-sided and even a bit artificial in scope), there is (at least in my opinion) occasionally just too many doses of morality and how to successfully live and prosper with honour and integrity lessons and messages being presented, and yes indeed, that especially Jo seems in Little Men to have totally morphed into simply being Professor Bhaer's wife and a mother-like figure to and for her students, her so-called little men (and with a few female students being thrown in for good measure, although I do very much appreciate in Little Men that Nan is being actively encouraged to follow her dreams of perhaps later becoming a doctor, even if Daisy is still generally being depicted as a standard and like her mother Meg entirely housewifely individual).
Combined with the fact that in Little Men I have also rather missed reading more about Amy/Laurie and Meg/John and that I do rather find it annoying that the only information about John Brooke in Little Men is the chapter concerning his untimely death (realistic perhaps, as John Pratt, the model for John Brooke, did in fact die very young and unexpectedly, but why could Louisa May Alcott not have devoted a bit of her Little Men narrative to Meg and John before the latter's death), while I most definitely have found Little Men engaging and readable, it also does not and never will have the same kind of reading magic appeal to and for me as Little Women does (and no, I will thus also not likely all that often be considering rereading Little Men, whereas for Little Women rereading it is both totally a pleasure and something that I continuously and happily do engage in).
JO'S BOYS
Yes indeed, I do have to admit that while Little Women is both brilliant and will always remain a strong and magical personal reading favourite and that Little Men albeit unfortunately not quite as delightful as Little Women is still engagingly readable and as such also a solidly successful sequel, Jo's Boys (the third and also the final instalment of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women series), while I guess that it does provide a decent enough conclusion in so far that it presents and features how in particular the characters encountered as Plumfield students in Little Men live and thrive (or conversely sometimes fail and do not not succeed) as adults, well, Jo's Boys has for me and in my humble opinion for the most part been a rather massively disappointing and indeed also often quite frustrating and even mildly to majorly annoying reading experience.
For although both Little Women and Little Men do exhibit and show moralising messages and preachiness (and with the latter, with Little Men considerably more so than Little Women and with rather less subtlety), both novels do from where I am standing still utterly pale when compared to the almost constant and as such also absolutely overwhelming level and amount of sermons and directly in one's proverbial face both religious and cultural, behaviour-based evangelism that seems to literally inhabit almost every single page of Jo's Boys, with in my opinion Louisa May Alcott often totally eschewing engaging story telling techniques in favour of almost continuously hitting her readers over their collective heads with one moralising and message-heavy speech after another, and yes, often in such rapid succession that one cannot even really recover from being evangelised and preached at before another such volley is launched, before in particular Jo Bhaer starts pontificating once again, leaving me with considering Jo's Boys not as generally a reading pleasure but for the most part just a huge and tediously dragging slog.
And indeed, even the few instances where I have found relatable and engaging scenarios in Jo's Boys, such as for example Jo trying to hide from fans of her writing (and who are desperate for autographs) and that Nan is allowed to stay single and to just concentrate on her medical studies, these very few instances of untainted delight, they are both too few and far between and equally do not and cannot provide enough engagement and entertainment to successfully contain and mitigate the moralising, this cannot make the over-use of the latter in Jo's Boys feel in any manner less problematic and annoyingly one-sided.
Combined with the fact that I have personally also found Dan's story and how he is (and in my opinion rather callously and unfeelingly) prevented by Jo from openly and publicly declaring his love and devotion to and for Bess extremely off-putting (and not to mention incredibly unjust and inherently nasty to boot, considering that the text really does seem to show Bess and Dan's affection for one another to be totally genuine as well as mutual, that they both truly do love and very much cherish one another), while I do not in fact regret having read Jo's Boys, I will also only ever consider it a two star rating at best, as well as pointing out that from the Louisa May Alcott novels I have read to date, Jo's Boys is most definitely the one I have thus far enjoyed the least, that has for the most part not been a joyful but rather just a frustrating and painful reading sojourn.