Bibliovoracious’s review of Little Women (Little Women, #1) > Likes and Comments
67 likes · Like
Interesting perspective. It seems this may be a book best read in early adolescence. When I read it at age 11 or 12, I recall loathing Amy. As for Jo, I saw her friendship with Laurie as a sort of marriage of true minds. I could not get over my disappointment at her marrying the seemingly elderly professor. I find your perspective about Jo as a transgendered woman quite interesting. When I read the book as a child, I felt deep identification at her chafing against the confinements of being female and the sexism and stereotyping that characterized the world around me.
I think it's always important to read a book in the context of when it was written. Louisa grew up in a family where her father was a Transcendentalist preacher, so of course the novel is very moral! Goodness was a very core value, but also the arts! And creativity! In so many ways, the Marches were an anomaly, less focused on prude morality and more focused on happiness and beauty. I always thought it was very forward thinking for Jo to stick to what would make her happy, especially in a society where women usually married to survive.
(That said, I haven't read the actual book for decades, and the fondness in my mind is likely the core story itself and not how it was told.)
Canadian wrote: "Interesting perspective...." Oh funny. Amy in particular didn't get to me. Jo- definitely! I've always appreciated female characters that chafe against the strictures of being female (I identify with that powerfully). It's almost a common theme, but generally those characters are resigned or accepting of their self, gender as is, to a greater degree. Jo seems to be more angry about it somehow; it's very authentic and she's never resigned - it's like she's just trapped in the wrong body.
Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I think it's always important..." I wonder if I would feel appreciably different about it if I had read it decades ago (like everyone else). I'm stuck on comparing in my mind to Austen (even a little earlier), whose characters are also trapped in a world where female "accomplishment" and good marriages are the only roads available, but the two books seem worlds different. Austen's women seem to care more about their doings, cleverness, and development aside from Goodness as a pursuit. Alcott's God is very heavy overhead, too.
Hannah wrote: "I read this for the first time last year and..."
Thank you:) Yes, you were more forgiving! Oh, the profligate use of adverbs! Those were the days.
I knew it! From Wikipedia (Jo is autobiographical character, obviously)- "I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body ... because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man." It goes on that she had one romance with a man called Laddie, and Laurie was based on him.
Nope, I was thoroughly frustrated by all the morality of this little book as well. I was expecting to finish it in two days tops, and ended up dragging it out so much because I just hated everything it stood for.
It's interesting how you consider Jo a trans-gendered woman. To me, she just sounded like an early feminist. Then again, I suppose that if you put the author's own background into perspective, it can of course be interpreted like that.
Yes. Because goodness, love, kindness, selflessness, and caring for others are such loathesome qualities. 😧
I agree with your review! Yes, it was written in a different time and context matters, but the near-constant sermonizing, the sickly-sweet morals of Smarmee, the annoying thee/thou “Germanisms” of Bhaer, the caricatures of “meek Jews” (even though that was minor, it bothered me) Once a childhood favorite, as an adult this was boring, syrupy twaddle.
Oh my gosh like girls can’t be Tom boys???
I personally don’t believe Jo was intended to be transgender. I think she more so wanted the respect and image that came with being a man, although the theory is definitely plausible.
Nothing like that particular 2020s era sexism, implying the only average, common, normal, nonsaccharine girl characters must actually be men. What a damn shame this trend is to live through.
@Frog, What IS this witch saying, exactly? She doesn't like the overly-saccharine way the women are portrayed here, yet if they don't act that way. . . OOPS, THEY MUST BE A MAN. Women are just doomed to act in this way, AND you should look down on it!!!
I hated 2022, when these liberals bopped their butts around assuming people actually agreed with them about transgender being real.
that trans theory is misogynistic as hell lol just because jo doesnt fit the restrictive gender roles forced on her that means shes actually a man?
The trans theory is actually kind of valid, though. Jo often refers to herself as "gentlemanly" and like the man of the house while their dad is gone, not just as a tomboyish girl. And I mean, lets get real; trans people DID actually exist back then, too; I don't think it's insulting to anyone to consider maybe that IS how Jo felt and see some representation there, but that that concept wasn't a thing anyone in that time was familiar with. Louisa Alcott based Jo on herself and DID express feelings of being...not entirely at home with being a woman. I feel like it's even possible she diluted Jo a bit to present more like just a boyish girl that grows out of it and gets married and all that to please the masses; she was very frustrated with being pressured into giving all of the girls a romantic life.
Jo is literally just a tomboy! The second part of the book she became more ladylike. Also of Jo was raised in a Christian home it seems and she even put her trust in God after Amy fell through the ice. She would never change who God intended her to be, and her mother definitely wouldn’t have let her.
Alcott herself would have been horrified at the idea of Jo being "trans." Yes, the concept did exist back then, but Alcott would not have known about it or had any real conception of what it meant and all the ramificacions. The concept does not work from era to era, those who believe Jo is trans are seeing her with 21st century eyes and mindsets, while Alcott only had 19th century eyes and mindset and a fairly narrow life experience on top of it.
To me, Jo is more like the tiresome "I'm not like Those Other Girls" of today. The kind who thinks not wearing makeup and liking to run around outside is something new and different and something to cling to and wave around like a flag of martyrhood and uniqueness. Nothing more.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
CanadianReader
(new)
Jan 30, 2017 03:54AM
Interesting perspective. It seems this may be a book best read in early adolescence. When I read it at age 11 or 12, I recall loathing Amy. As for Jo, I saw her friendship with Laurie as a sort of marriage of true minds. I could not get over my disappointment at her marrying the seemingly elderly professor. I find your perspective about Jo as a transgendered woman quite interesting. When I read the book as a child, I felt deep identification at her chafing against the confinements of being female and the sexism and stereotyping that characterized the world around me.
reply
|
flag
I think it's always important to read a book in the context of when it was written. Louisa grew up in a family where her father was a Transcendentalist preacher, so of course the novel is very moral! Goodness was a very core value, but also the arts! And creativity! In so many ways, the Marches were an anomaly, less focused on prude morality and more focused on happiness and beauty. I always thought it was very forward thinking for Jo to stick to what would make her happy, especially in a society where women usually married to survive. (That said, I haven't read the actual book for decades, and the fondness in my mind is likely the core story itself and not how it was told.)
Canadian wrote: "Interesting perspective...." Oh funny. Amy in particular didn't get to me. Jo- definitely! I've always appreciated female characters that chafe against the strictures of being female (I identify with that powerfully). It's almost a common theme, but generally those characters are resigned or accepting of their self, gender as is, to a greater degree. Jo seems to be more angry about it somehow; it's very authentic and she's never resigned - it's like she's just trapped in the wrong body.
Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "I think it's always important..." I wonder if I would feel appreciably different about it if I had read it decades ago (like everyone else). I'm stuck on comparing in my mind to Austen (even a little earlier), whose characters are also trapped in a world where female "accomplishment" and good marriages are the only roads available, but the two books seem worlds different. Austen's women seem to care more about their doings, cleverness, and development aside from Goodness as a pursuit. Alcott's God is very heavy overhead, too.
Hannah wrote: "I read this for the first time last year and..."Thank you:) Yes, you were more forgiving! Oh, the profligate use of adverbs! Those were the days.
I knew it! From Wikipedia (Jo is autobiographical character, obviously)- "I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body ... because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man." It goes on that she had one romance with a man called Laddie, and Laurie was based on him.
Nope, I was thoroughly frustrated by all the morality of this little book as well. I was expecting to finish it in two days tops, and ended up dragging it out so much because I just hated everything it stood for.It's interesting how you consider Jo a trans-gendered woman. To me, she just sounded like an early feminist. Then again, I suppose that if you put the author's own background into perspective, it can of course be interpreted like that.
Yes. Because goodness, love, kindness, selflessness, and caring for others are such loathesome qualities. 😧
I agree with your review! Yes, it was written in a different time and context matters, but the near-constant sermonizing, the sickly-sweet morals of Smarmee, the annoying thee/thou “Germanisms” of Bhaer, the caricatures of “meek Jews” (even though that was minor, it bothered me) Once a childhood favorite, as an adult this was boring, syrupy twaddle.
Oh my gosh like girls can’t be Tom boys???
I personally don’t believe Jo was intended to be transgender. I think she more so wanted the respect and image that came with being a man, although the theory is definitely plausible.
Nothing like that particular 2020s era sexism, implying the only average, common, normal, nonsaccharine girl characters must actually be men. What a damn shame this trend is to live through.
@Frog, What IS this witch saying, exactly? She doesn't like the overly-saccharine way the women are portrayed here, yet if they don't act that way. . . OOPS, THEY MUST BE A MAN. Women are just doomed to act in this way, AND you should look down on it!!!
I hated 2022, when these liberals bopped their butts around assuming people actually agreed with them about transgender being real.
that trans theory is misogynistic as hell lol just because jo doesnt fit the restrictive gender roles forced on her that means shes actually a man?
The trans theory is actually kind of valid, though. Jo often refers to herself as "gentlemanly" and like the man of the house while their dad is gone, not just as a tomboyish girl. And I mean, lets get real; trans people DID actually exist back then, too; I don't think it's insulting to anyone to consider maybe that IS how Jo felt and see some representation there, but that that concept wasn't a thing anyone in that time was familiar with. Louisa Alcott based Jo on herself and DID express feelings of being...not entirely at home with being a woman. I feel like it's even possible she diluted Jo a bit to present more like just a boyish girl that grows out of it and gets married and all that to please the masses; she was very frustrated with being pressured into giving all of the girls a romantic life.
Jo is literally just a tomboy! The second part of the book she became more ladylike. Also of Jo was raised in a Christian home it seems and she even put her trust in God after Amy fell through the ice. She would never change who God intended her to be, and her mother definitely wouldn’t have let her.
Alcott herself would have been horrified at the idea of Jo being "trans." Yes, the concept did exist back then, but Alcott would not have known about it or had any real conception of what it meant and all the ramificacions. The concept does not work from era to era, those who believe Jo is trans are seeing her with 21st century eyes and mindsets, while Alcott only had 19th century eyes and mindset and a fairly narrow life experience on top of it.To me, Jo is more like the tiresome "I'm not like Those Other Girls" of today. The kind who thinks not wearing makeup and liking to run around outside is something new and different and something to cling to and wave around like a flag of martyrhood and uniqueness. Nothing more.
