Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “Little Vampire Women” as Want to Read:
Little Vampire Women
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

Little Vampire Women

3.33  ·  Rating Details ·  1,108 Ratings  ·  117 Reviews
"Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses."

The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites.

Marmee has taught them well, and so they l
Paperback, 317 pages
Published May 1st 2010 by HarperTeen
More Details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Little Vampire Women, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about Little Vampire Women

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  Rating Details
Mindi Beal
Nov 07, 2014 Mindi Beal rated it it was ok
Another selection I only read because my good friend Stacey asked me to for her podcast, Got Lit Radio: Holy crap, I'm glad I had someone to vent to when I was finished with it.

To Lynn Messina’s credit, she’s a good writer. The footnotes on vampire history books and her sense of storytelling are as imaginative as the confines allowed. I blame society and book publishers craving/peddling a genre to the coffin bed and back more than her.

I love the Alcott
Claudia Joy
Jun 25, 2011 Claudia Joy rated it did not like it
I am always amazed when an author have to cut and paste an original work that belongs to another writer, you see much of this with Jane Austin redo's and now I guess with Louisa Alcott it is plain to me that readers cannot get enough of her and I certainly understand why; she was brilliant and wonderful all in one breath, but I have to say this book is just another book from a writer trying to capitalize on an idea they didn't create! I would not recommend this book!
I have to give this author probs, he turned a book that I despinsed into a book I enjoyed.
Jan 24, 2011 Claire rated it it was ok
I wanted so badly to like this book! But I went into it expecting something that it did not deliver. Had I dropped expectations I would have enjoyed it so much more. However, when I picked this up to read, I was expecting the Little Women story with a few vampires thrown in. I was not given this. I was given a story about the March sisters that LOO SLY followed the Lousia May Alcott story. And I'm using the word loosely as a generous description. This story was all over the place! Characters ...more
May 22, 2010 Gmr rated it liked it
Recommends it for: young adult readers, and classic fans
You know for the bad rap that the mashup books tend to get, I actually enjoyed this YA one. Though the story is stagnant in some places, overall the vampire aspect of the book does not read like a "re-do" reads as if this was the way the story was always suppose to be. Certainly recommend for a read through whether you've read the original story or'll gain a new perspective on a classic novel and still have some fangish fun along the way. Happy reading!
Gemma Newey
Apr 08, 2012 Gemma Newey rated it really liked it
Shelves: vampire
I did enjoy this book. I found the wording and language used was very fitting with the style of the original version of 'Little Women'. I am so glad that I read this book - it was tragic, funny and a pleasure. I am so glad that I read this book - very interesting take on the original book!
Jul 25, 2010 Marianne rated it did not like it
This book had all the elements of the worst vampire movies. The author didn't know Alcott very well, but she also didn't know vampires.
Jan 03, 2015 Mel rated it liked it
For 2015 Challenge -

This was 1. The book I own but haven't read.

Was easy and silly - just what I needed over the Christmas/New Year time!
Aug 17, 2012 Misfit marked it as will-never-read
Shelves: monster-mash
Will it never end?
Susanna - Censored by GoodReads
Gods. Will this trend ever end!?!?!?!?
Nov 28, 2016 Maku rated it liked it
I quite enjoyed this book more than I expected. The footnotes that came with it were quite helpful. It was a really light read.
Oct 31, 2016 Alice rated it did not like it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: willneverfinish
I like vampire novels, I like mash ups, I like Little Woman.

Little vampire woman though, not so much. Not at all. I can't really explain why, it just didn't do it for me and I couldn't even get to chapter three.
Apr 27, 2016 Kelley rated it it was ok
Since Little Women is one of my favorite books, I like to read it every couple of years to keep it fresh in my memory. This year I decided to read Little Vampire Women and Little Women and Werewolves at the same time. Unlike a lot of these reviews, I didn’t immediately hate them because I love the book, and I didn’t like them immediately because I didn’t like the original. To me, these monster mash books need to be successful in two different ways: they need to stay true to the original, while, ...more
Oct 08, 2014 Angela rated it did not like it
This. Was. AWFUL.

I hated every minute. If you love and respect the original, just read the original. Don't waste your time!

This rewrite really dumbed down the original text. Frustratingly so. Many historical points were wholly inaccurate, and the characters of the girls were changed almost entirely. Things were pointed out in a blatant straightforward way (I notice this a lot in American literature,) and inference is taken away from the reader. The sentence structure was not always very sound, a
Sarah Crawford
Feb 26, 2016 Sarah Crawford rated it really liked it
This is, of course, a parody of the Little Women book by Louisa May Alcott. Both books have the same sistesr, Mag (16), Jo (15), Beth (13), and Amy (youngest). Much of the text in this book is word-for-word from Little Women.

The main difference is that these four sisters are all vampires. Humans and vampires live in the same areas, and the sisters and their mothers have sworn off taking blood from humans. There is a League of Defenders, vampires who work against the various slayers that come alo
Apr 18, 2014 Lexie rated it liked it
Shelves: books-once-owned
As a young girl I read a lot of the 'classics'. All of Jane Austen, most of the Bronte sisters and a fair deal of Louisa May Alcott. Little Women wasn't my favorite Alcott book, Jo's Boys was, but I did read the unabridged version several times. The sisterly warmth and support was something I sought at the time, being the oldest in my family. For me Little Vampire Women, one of the new mash-ups of classics with paranormal bent, failed in that regard. There is something more than a little ...more
James Perkins
Mar 13, 2016 James Perkins rated it did not like it
What is it with modern readers that they can't read anything any more without monsters added to make it "interesting"? The same treatment has been given to several classic works of fiction in recent years, including Android Karenina, Henry VIII, Wolfman, and Grave Expectations, to name but three. I'd previously read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and the only reason I gave this one a chance was that although the Jane Austen rip-off finished rather flat, it started reasonably well, and I though ...more
Nov 17, 2011 Tami rated it really liked it
Yay, so excited! I haven't received the book yet, just received notice I had won. 10/17/11
Received last night, and already I just love the cover! Have a few to read before I can get to it, but woo-hoo. so excited! 10/27/11
Started yesterday 11/13/11
Finished 11/16/11

Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses."

The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since y
Danielle Klassen
Apr 29, 2012 Danielle Klassen rated it did not like it
I have to come right out and say that this is one book I just couldn't get into enough to finish it. I don't normally give up on what I'm reading but I'm also the kind of person who approaches reading as a stress-free, escapist sort of activity so I have little patience for books I don't enjoy and this is one I didn't enjoy much. To be completely on the fair side, however, I don't know how much I would really enjoy the real Little Women and I have a funny feeling that the issues I had with this ...more
Ron Arden
Aug 23, 2011 Ron Arden rated it really liked it
This is the first vampire book I've read of a literary classic and it was hilarious. If you have read Little Women, you should enjoy it.

This is the same story, but with a few twists. Of course all the Marches are vampires, but true to the original, they are humanitarians. They don't feed on humans. Only on animals. I was wondering how the author was planning to get sickness and death into the story, since vampires can only be killed by beheading and driving a stake through their hearts.

The fun
Moody Claire
Jan 30, 2011 Moody Claire rated it it was ok
I loved the original novel of Louisa May Alcott so when I got this last Christmas and read in the back of the book that it would be hilarious, I expected it to humor me so I read it immediately with excitement leaving the other book I was reading behind. But it let me down.

I expected it would be a rather fun story more so than "Little Women" because I really had fun reading the original version but as I said, it wasn't at all what I had in mind before I read it.

In short, I loved the original ve
Joseph Harris
Jun 06, 2012 Joseph Harris rated it liked it
"Christmas wont be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they live by an unprecedented moral code of abstinence . . . from human blood. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy must learn to get along with ...more
Brandi Bette
“‘Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses,' grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.” Alcott's classic receives the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies treatment—and it's surprisingly effective. The original March family was characterized by their poverty, independence, and firm morals in the face of wealthy neighbors and decadent temptations. The vampire version has the equally poor Marches resisting the urge to dine on humans, instead drinking the blood of rats, beavers, and in Beth's case, her ...more
Aug 15, 2010 Angie rated it it was ok
Shelves: young-adult
Honestly, the whole vampire thing was tied up pretty well in this story. There were a couple of parts I didn't like, but on the whole it would have been OK.

It just feels like such a copycat. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was the first title to mix classic with ... what would you call it? Pop horror? Anyway. It was funny and a great idea. At first. Too many people try to do it and it loses it's punch.

"It was the height of rudeness to dine on your guests, particularly if they were your social eq
Meera Pauline
Jun 14, 2013 Meera Pauline rated it liked it
Shelves: 2013-reads
I'm giving this 3.5 stars to be exact.

It turned out better than I expected but the last chapter's so weird, I haven't decided if it's a good or bad kind of weird.

Just a few cents:
- Jo and Laurie, wtf!
- Just how can two people fall in love in a span of, say, two months, when they have closely known each other beforehand for 5 years? *cough* Amy & Laurie *cough* Sorry, I can't comprehend.
- Mr. Bhaer, I think you're a bit too old for my darling Jo. Like, you know, grandfather-old. :|
- I firmly
Apr 09, 2012 Amanda rated it it was ok
Growing up, I never much cared for Little Women, but I thought surely a re imagining with vampires I could get behind. Sadly, I was wrong.
Perhaps it was that the story was just too much like it's original, or that too much was removed in this abridged version, but I just could not fall in love with the characters. It felt as though everything was too rushed to trigger any emotion from me. Oftentimes, I found it farcical, like it was trying to make fun of, rather than be an homage to its source m
Jacquelynn Fritz
Feb 24, 2012 Jacquelynn Fritz rated it liked it
This is Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" with the twist that the characters are vampires. This book follows the original story, but with less details. The Marches are humanitarians who live on animal blood. The vampires convert the humans they love into vampires, with Meg and Amy both doing this. Jo's professor is already a vampire when she meets him. This book is written for young adults and is very easy to read. The problem I had with this book was, they said several times that the vampires ...more
Kayla Parker
Oct 10, 2013 Kayla Parker rated it it was ok
Shelves: 5425-class
The Little Vampire Women by Lousia May Alcott and Lynn Messina is a brand new twist on the Little Women. In this version the March sisters are Vampires, but don't worry they don't drink human blood....much.

I've never read The Little Women, mostly because I didn't think the story sounded interesting but this version definitely has a humorous twist. The March sisters must deal with everything that young vampire women do, such as worrying about their father who is in the war, training to fight vamp
Alyssa (The Shady Glade)

I'll admit it, I've never actually read Little Women all the way through. Terrible, I know. But I thought the idea of this one sounded interesting, so I gave it a try. It wasn't terrible, but I didn't enjoy it much either. I must not be a monster mashup kind of reader, as I still have not read one I liked yet. It just seemed like adding the vampire aspect made things so awkward.

Recommended for those who do like monster mashups, as you will probably enjoy this more than I did!
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
  • Emma and the Werewolves: Jane Austen's Classic Novel with Blood-Curdling Lycanthropy
  • Little Women and Werewolves
  • Emma and the Vampires
  • Mansfield Park and Mummies: Monster Mayhem, Matrimony, Ancient Curses, True Love, and Other Dire Delights
  • Romeo & Juliet & Vampires
  • The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the Undead
  • Robin Hood & Friar Tuck: Zombie Killers
  • Boleyn Tudor Vampire
  • The Undead World of Oz: L. Frank Baum's the Wonderful Wizard of Oz Complete with Zombies and Monsters
  • Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Zombie Jim
  • Vampire Darcy's Desire: A Pride and Prejudice Adaptation
  • Wuthering Bites
  • I am Scrooge: A Zombie Story for Christmas
  • Henry VIII: Wolfman
  • Jane Slayre: The Literary Classic with a Blood-Sucking Twist
  • Shakespeare Undead (Shakespeare Undead, #1)
  • The Meowmorphosis
  • Alice in Zombieland
Lynn Messina is author of ten novels, including the best-selling Fashionistas, which has been translated into sixteen languages, and a series of Regency romance novels. Her essays have appeared in Self, American Baby and the New York Times Modern Love column, and she’s a regular contributor to the Times Motherlode blog. She lives in New York City with her husband and sons.
More about Lynn Messina...

Share This Book

“For centuries, vampire philosophers had argued that their treatment of humans was kinder; they took only the blood in their veins. Nonvampires took the sweat of their brow, the fire in their belly, and the joy in their heart.” 1 likes
“Staking is a terrible way to go. I'd much rather be decapitated. It still makes an awful mess but it's a lot more dignified than your limbs twittering all over the place. - Jo March” 0 likes
More quotes…