I started reading this classic text AFTER I watched all three film versions. That being said, it was impossible not to picture June Allyson as Josephine March, the most boisterous and independent of the March Sisters, as well as picturing the always lovely Christian Bale as Laurie. Odd pairing, but anyways. I felt Alcott was writing this against the terms of her time. When it felt palpable to write stories with expected happy endings, rather then invigorating part of ones self and beliefs into the text. Louisa May Alcott was going against the waves of the current by not creating the epic Laurie/Jo romance that seems to be a controversial "Why not?" even today (Especially when considering the casting of Laurie in the 1994 film). What we get instead, is the unconventional leading man in Professor Bahaer, an eloquent, if not awkward, man of the world. In Professor Baher, we get the unconventionality and humor I learned to love in Alcott's own prose throughout the work.

The camaraderie between the March sisters, is no doubt a tribute to Alcott's relationship with her own tightly knit family, moreso then anyone, her father, whom both Jo and Louisa equally respect and admire. The humor throughout Little Women, and the sentimentality, has aged marvelously, and reading this is like venturing into a March family photo album, full of memories, both good and bad, that make us feel like we're part of the family too. Against the lush, introspective beauty of Concord MA, "Little Women" feels like a warm cup of hot chocolate on a winters day, or a visit from an old friend. The characters are the same, but the stories feel a little different each time we hear them.

I preferred Part one of Little Women intensely more then I liked the conclusion. In fact, I would have been A-OK if Louisa wasn't forced to write a second parter to her amazingly detailed first. If readers had left the March sisters on the eve of their father's return, the marriage of Meg, and the still growing flirtation of Laurie towards Jo, my imagination would have wandered farther then I could anticipate, and I would have left with the wonderful notion that their is hope for the neighbourly, brotherly Laurie after all. What I found in the second part of Little Women was a sort of detachment from my old friends. A feeling that they had all drifted (which families sometimes do, I know) and no longer the warm nostalgia I used to feel. Laurie became a character I hardly recognized, a well done detachment on Alcott's part in developing Laurie. However, I still missed the rosy cheeked friend next door who pined for a girl he could never seemingly have. I didn't overly enjoy the end result of Laurie and Amy, frankly because the chemistry and heart just wasn't there. I loved Professor Baher, though, but for Laurie, there was only Jo, and Jo alone.

I didn't end up finishing the last couple of pages, not because I didn't enjoy them, but my heart felt detached and dismayed by the sadness in the second half. The main reason I removed a star from a perfect review, was the sometimes irrelevant details of the four sisters, including Meg's dismay of life as a wife, which I liked, but dragged on a couple pages too long. There was also the developing "love story" of Laurie and Amy, that was more for convenience then practicality. In the end, I missed Beth as much as Jo, and I longed for the way things used to be. Alcott does a stunning job of conveying loss and change that all families must endure in their lifetimes, but for me, the first part of Little Women makes it what it is after all these years: A wonderful love song, of family, of friends, and of camaraderie. As well as the journey women have had to endure for centuries to prove themselves as the intelligent, brave individuals we've always been, yet never given enough credit for.