What do you think?
Rate this book
Little Women #1 part 2
Op Eigen Wieken
Nummer op achterplat 14.31.3016. Jeugdboek met 16 illustraties, uitgave uit de jaren 1970. Vervolg van 'Onder Moeders Vleugels'
Children's book edition/juvenile literature, published in the 1970s.
Children's book edition/juvenile literature, published in the 1970s.
122 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1869
2069 people are currently reading
32480 people want to read
About the author
Louisa May Alcott
3,916 books10.4k followersLouisa May Alcott was an American novelist, short story writer, and poet best known for writing the novel Little Women (1868) and its sequels Good Wives (1869), Little Men (1871) and Jo's Boys (1886). Raised in New England by her transcendentalist parents, Abigail May Alcott and Amos Bronson Alcott, she grew up among many well-known intellectuals of the day, including Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.
Alcott's family suffered from financial difficulties, and while she worked to help support the family from an early age, she also sought an outlet in writing. She began to receive critical success for her writing in the 1860s. Early in her career, she sometimes used pen names such as A.M. Barnard, under which she wrote lurid short stories and sensation novels for adults that focused on passion and revenge.
Published in 1868, Little Women is set in the Alcott family home, Orchard House, in Concord, Massachusetts, and is loosely based on Alcott's childhood experiences with her three sisters, Abigail May Alcott Nieriker, Elizabeth Sewall Alcott, and Anna Bronson Alcott Pratt. The novel was well-received at the time and is still popular today among both children and adults. It has been adapted for stage plays, films, and television many times.
Alcott was an abolitionist and a feminist and remained unmarried throughout her life. She also spent her life active in reform movements such as temperance and women's suffrage. She died from a stroke in Boston on March 6, 1888, just two days after her father's death.
Alcott's family suffered from financial difficulties, and while she worked to help support the family from an early age, she also sought an outlet in writing. She began to receive critical success for her writing in the 1860s. Early in her career, she sometimes used pen names such as A.M. Barnard, under which she wrote lurid short stories and sensation novels for adults that focused on passion and revenge.
Published in 1868, Little Women is set in the Alcott family home, Orchard House, in Concord, Massachusetts, and is loosely based on Alcott's childhood experiences with her three sisters, Abigail May Alcott Nieriker, Elizabeth Sewall Alcott, and Anna Bronson Alcott Pratt. The novel was well-received at the time and is still popular today among both children and adults. It has been adapted for stage plays, films, and television many times.
Alcott was an abolitionist and a feminist and remained unmarried throughout her life. She also spent her life active in reform movements such as temperance and women's suffrage. She died from a stroke in Boston on March 6, 1888, just two days after her father's death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,370 reviews
November 22, 2020
[Spoilers up ahead! Though I advise you to read them so maybe they can convince you to never read good wives]
I'm so happy this book is over, because this little book gave me so much heartaches, headaches and agony I couldn't bear to read it more than a chapter at a time and it took ages to finish.
Though it wasn't my first time reading this book, It still struck me as much as the first time.
I remember when I was 11-12, I loved little women with all my heart -though not a favorite book- It still had a especial place in my bookcase.
I remember finishing it and dreaming of Joe's future as a successful writer and her happy home with Laurie, full of music and writing.
Then I read this book and well you can not begin to imagine how disappointed and depressed I was.
and now after about 4-5 years, I read it again -this time in English- and if not more, i'm still as disappointed as I was then.
My brain can understand that a lot of concepts in this book are related to the society of the time, but my heart certainly can't. It is truly hard to see sweet Meg and strong Jo give up their castles and dreams to go and be good little wives to poor , old men.
The entire talks about how women should apologize first in fights, take care of children and husband and never complain is just terrible and no matter how much you tell yourself - hello this book wasn't published yesterday!- you can't help but be angry and upset.
Then as childish as it seems - and probably is- Jo and Laurie not ending up together is like a big bucket of cold water dumped right on your head! Even worse, Laurie marrying Amy after Jo rejected him was so forced and terrible I wanted to smash my ipad!
These were actually Laurie's thoughts:
"If you can't have one sister you should get the other and live happily!"
"Amy ls like a part of Jo, She is the nearest thing i have to her"
"After Jo she is the only women who can make me happy"
Yeah, that's really romantic. Imagine this proposal
"Your sister rejected me but between all the other women in the word I chose you, because you remind me of her and I'm sure you can make me happy, just not as happy. so let's spend the rest of our lives together? "
WOW isn't that just dreamy?!
So I really really beg of you, If you loved little woman DO NOT read this because it will forever ruin the happy image of four strong sisters you probably have in mind. It will be one of those dreams gone with the wind.
I'm so happy this book is over, because this little book gave me so much heartaches, headaches and agony I couldn't bear to read it more than a chapter at a time and it took ages to finish.
Though it wasn't my first time reading this book, It still struck me as much as the first time.
I remember when I was 11-12, I loved little women with all my heart -though not a favorite book- It still had a especial place in my bookcase.
I remember finishing it and dreaming of Joe's future as a successful writer and her happy home with Laurie, full of music and writing.
Then I read this book and well you can not begin to imagine how disappointed and depressed I was.
and now after about 4-5 years, I read it again -this time in English- and if not more, i'm still as disappointed as I was then.
My brain can understand that a lot of concepts in this book are related to the society of the time, but my heart certainly can't. It is truly hard to see sweet Meg and strong Jo give up their castles and dreams to go and be good little wives to poor , old men.
The entire talks about how women should apologize first in fights, take care of children and husband and never complain is just terrible and no matter how much you tell yourself - hello this book wasn't published yesterday!- you can't help but be angry and upset.
Then as childish as it seems - and probably is- Jo and Laurie not ending up together is like a big bucket of cold water dumped right on your head! Even worse, Laurie marrying Amy after Jo rejected him was so forced and terrible I wanted to smash my ipad!
These were actually Laurie's thoughts:
"If you can't have one sister you should get the other and live happily!"
"Amy ls like a part of Jo, She is the nearest thing i have to her"
"After Jo she is the only women who can make me happy"
Yeah, that's really romantic. Imagine this proposal
"Your sister rejected me but between all the other women in the word I chose you, because you remind me of her and I'm sure you can make me happy, just not as happy. so let's spend the rest of our lives together? "
WOW isn't that just dreamy?!
So I really really beg of you, If you loved little woman DO NOT read this because it will forever ruin the happy image of four strong sisters you probably have in mind. It will be one of those dreams gone with the wind.
July 31, 2010
If Little Women created my heart, Good Wives tore it apart.
This book stole away a whole lot of the beautiful charm that Little Women had for me. I simply couldn't bear with Jo's refusal to marry Teddy, because that's what I expected from them and a part of what I adored them for. I've always believed that love is friendship, and I hoped their heart-warming story from when they were children would have the future of a beautiful love. I'd be happier if Teddy hadn't ever fallen in love with Jo, and if he hadn't married Amy. I never really liked Amy!!
I'm trying to be happy for Jo, but I never imagined she would marry an old guy, or give up her writing. I just can't forgive her, she broke my heart!
Little Women taught me that life is beautiful. Good Wives taught me that dreams don't come true. I don't care that the March sisters supposedly have a happy ending. They proved something I don't want to believe in - wonderful children became dull adults.
I wish I hadn't read it in the first place!
This book stole away a whole lot of the beautiful charm that Little Women had for me. I simply couldn't bear with Jo's refusal to marry Teddy, because that's what I expected from them and a part of what I adored them for. I've always believed that love is friendship, and I hoped their heart-warming story from when they were children would have the future of a beautiful love. I'd be happier if Teddy hadn't ever fallen in love with Jo, and if he hadn't married Amy. I never really liked Amy!!
I'm trying to be happy for Jo, but I never imagined she would marry an old guy, or give up her writing. I just can't forgive her, she broke my heart!
Little Women taught me that life is beautiful. Good Wives taught me that dreams don't come true. I don't care that the March sisters supposedly have a happy ending. They proved something I don't want to believe in - wonderful children became dull adults.
I wish I hadn't read it in the first place!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 29, 2018
The sweet, playful March sisters have grown up. Meg has married and is now a mother, Amy travels to Europe to refine her agreeable upbringing, Jo earns her living writing disposable best-sellers, even if the novel she had been working on is dismissed by the editors again and again. And Beth keeps struggling with her ill health.
There is not a single chapter where something of interest is brought to the reader’s attention, and as the novel progresses, the characters bloom into fragrant, colorful flowers, developing all their potential in the face of adversity: unrequited love, jealousy, irremediable loss or failed expectations.
Alcott’s prose can be as soothing as a lullaby or as scathing as a cautionary tale, and her greatest achievement is that the reader perceives it as both without a hint of conflicting style in the narrative. Action and characters go hand in hand, surfing the rough tides of life, allowing them space to adjust, fight or even surrender when it’s necessary to do so, portraying situations that invite the reader to reflection.
The kind of wisdom that Alcott displays in the follow-up novel to her famous “Little Women” is rare because of its graceful tone, but it shouldn’t be disregarded as outdated womanly insight, there is much to learn from the March sisters and much more from Alcott’s patient but relentless understanding of the human soul.
There is not a single chapter where something of interest is brought to the reader’s attention, and as the novel progresses, the characters bloom into fragrant, colorful flowers, developing all their potential in the face of adversity: unrequited love, jealousy, irremediable loss or failed expectations.
Alcott’s prose can be as soothing as a lullaby or as scathing as a cautionary tale, and her greatest achievement is that the reader perceives it as both without a hint of conflicting style in the narrative. Action and characters go hand in hand, surfing the rough tides of life, allowing them space to adjust, fight or even surrender when it’s necessary to do so, portraying situations that invite the reader to reflection.
The kind of wisdom that Alcott displays in the follow-up novel to her famous “Little Women” is rare because of its graceful tone, but it shouldn’t be disregarded as outdated womanly insight, there is much to learn from the March sisters and much more from Alcott’s patient but relentless understanding of the human soul.
June 2, 2021
~ 1.5 stars ~
This review is only based upon part 2 of Little Women. My copies of this series splits book 1 into two volumes, Little Women and Good Wives. And my opinions on Little Women compared to Good Wives, despite them being techniqually the same book, are vastly and drastically, different.
***Spoilers ahead***
I hated this book. It really had potential to be a new favorite as I adored part 1. But then everyone became a grown up and annoying as hell. Then becoming older was glow down. It lost the frivolous charm I loved before.
~ what I disliked ~
• I thought the lessons of family and relationships were sweet starting off. But then, once I started this book, I realized that they were becoming so astronomically pretentious. I wasn't a fan of a lot of the things it was preaching. Then I realized, back to the fact that I think that them growing older is a contributing factor, is that it started to talk a lot about romance and marriage. You would think that I should have taken the fact that this book was called "Good Wives" as a hint that this was going to be unbearable, but alas, here we are.
• And the glow down of the century award goes to.... Margret. She really became just a background character, and not even one I even slightly cared about. Just a caregiver for her man child husband and nothing else.
There was one aspect that especially irked me with that, which was how it dealt with the fact that Meg and John Brooke, her husband, who's doesn't really have a personality, were a bit disconnected because they were leading sperate lives.
With John always at work or at the neighbors discussing politics, and Meg taking care of the house and the twins, it almost made it seem like it was Meg's fault for not doing enough to satisfy him.
When Meg expresses to her mother how she felt neglected, Mrs. March spins it as if Meg was perhaps the one neglecting him... Because she is spending all her time taking care of her kids. Which yeah, I just hate that logic so much.
That's not how it works. Meg is overburdened by the task of this, and I'm sure Mr. Brooke, could insist upon helping if he wanted. I'm sure chitchating with the neighbors is less important than his own children.
It's not Meg's job to make sure he doesn't fell "left out", and the difficulties of being a parent and maintaining the relationship shouldn't be all on her. Why must she be the one to compromise everything?
• I love Jo. She is amazing. Undoubtedly. But her ending was pretty unsatisfactory. What happened to her writing? She literally just decided that the only entire life aspirations she had was running a boarding school for boys, and marrying Mr. Bhaer, a walking coffin.
In my opinion Jo should have ended up single. A strong independent women. But no, instead she settled for someone 10 minutes away from death. If not with Laurie, than what is so wrong with her being along? She would have been better off that way, y'all just aren't ready for that conversation. There is nothing wrong with that. It would have fit her character well.
• Beth dying was absolutely unnecessary? I don't even remember what she died of to be completely honest here.
• I don't like Amy. She rude and uptight. She devoted her whole life to marrying rich, which same, we love that for her, but she's so unbelievably shallow.
She was wholeheartedly ready to marry Fred because of how rich he was, the only thing that stopped her was Laurie (who's even richer, keep that in mind). She claims she loves him, but if you ask me, he deserved better than her.
Might I mention that she calls "My Lord". That's embarrassing. I'm glad she secured her bag, but there is no need for her to stuck up to him like that.
I also don't like how we just never find out what her art skills lead to. One trend I saw, is that all the sisters gave up their passions, Meg singing and acting, Jo writing, and Amy art, once they got married. Beth just died, so this doesn't apply to her, but still, what is up with that??
~ short intermission from my rant to share fanart ~
Credit
Credit
continued...
• Where did Laurie's love for Amy come from. It felt so unnatural and forced. Almost like he felt as if Amy could be the only one to fill the whole that Jo left because of their relation, but he didn't really care for her.
My proof:
Laurie has always had a more friendship type relationship with Jo, and a sibling bond with Amy. Friends to lovers as a trope is an acceptable one. Do you know what trope isn't? Siblings to lovers. I rest my case.
• It was so boring: I didn't find myself attached to the story or the events as I did with the first half. I skimmed a lot of it. Especially those letters and poems/songs, which took up a good chunk of this book.
• What the hell does petting mean?! Laurie always talks about being pet, or asking for Jo to pet him. And Jo asked Beth to pet him when she was away. So like a dog. This is weird and I am scared. Someone please tell me what this means.
Final thoughts: I'm sad, dissatisfied and frankly kind of disappointed. I came into this so hopeful that I would love it, but didn't. I was let down. Perhaps I will pretend that part 1 was a standalone.
I don't know that I will continue with the series either, which sucks, because I bought the entire box set for really cheap, but unfortunately, this story has quickly became one I am bitter towards.
This review is only based upon part 2 of Little Women. My copies of this series splits book 1 into two volumes, Little Women and Good Wives. And my opinions on Little Women compared to Good Wives, despite them being techniqually the same book, are vastly and drastically, different.
***Spoilers ahead***
I hated this book. It really had potential to be a new favorite as I adored part 1. But then everyone became a grown up and annoying as hell. Then becoming older was glow down. It lost the frivolous charm I loved before.
~ what I disliked ~
• I thought the lessons of family and relationships were sweet starting off. But then, once I started this book, I realized that they were becoming so astronomically pretentious. I wasn't a fan of a lot of the things it was preaching. Then I realized, back to the fact that I think that them growing older is a contributing factor, is that it started to talk a lot about romance and marriage. You would think that I should have taken the fact that this book was called "Good Wives" as a hint that this was going to be unbearable, but alas, here we are.
• And the glow down of the century award goes to.... Margret. She really became just a background character, and not even one I even slightly cared about. Just a caregiver for her man child husband and nothing else.
There was one aspect that especially irked me with that, which was how it dealt with the fact that Meg and John Brooke, her husband, who's doesn't really have a personality, were a bit disconnected because they were leading sperate lives.
With John always at work or at the neighbors discussing politics, and Meg taking care of the house and the twins, it almost made it seem like it was Meg's fault for not doing enough to satisfy him.
When Meg expresses to her mother how she felt neglected, Mrs. March spins it as if Meg was perhaps the one neglecting him... Because she is spending all her time taking care of her kids. Which yeah, I just hate that logic so much.
That's not how it works. Meg is overburdened by the task of this, and I'm sure Mr. Brooke, could insist upon helping if he wanted. I'm sure chitchating with the neighbors is less important than his own children.
It's not Meg's job to make sure he doesn't fell "left out", and the difficulties of being a parent and maintaining the relationship shouldn't be all on her. Why must she be the one to compromise everything?
• I love Jo. She is amazing. Undoubtedly. But her ending was pretty unsatisfactory. What happened to her writing? She literally just decided that the only entire life aspirations she had was running a boarding school for boys, and marrying Mr. Bhaer, a walking coffin.
In my opinion Jo should have ended up single. A strong independent women. But no, instead she settled for someone 10 minutes away from death. If not with Laurie, than what is so wrong with her being along? She would have been better off that way, y'all just aren't ready for that conversation. There is nothing wrong with that. It would have fit her character well.
• Beth dying was absolutely unnecessary? I don't even remember what she died of to be completely honest here.
• I don't like Amy. She rude and uptight. She devoted her whole life to marrying rich, which same, we love that for her, but she's so unbelievably shallow.
She was wholeheartedly ready to marry Fred because of how rich he was, the only thing that stopped her was Laurie (who's even richer, keep that in mind). She claims she loves him, but if you ask me, he deserved better than her.
Might I mention that she calls "My Lord". That's embarrassing. I'm glad she secured her bag, but there is no need for her to stuck up to him like that.
I also don't like how we just never find out what her art skills lead to. One trend I saw, is that all the sisters gave up their passions, Meg singing and acting, Jo writing, and Amy art, once they got married. Beth just died, so this doesn't apply to her, but still, what is up with that??
~ short intermission from my rant to share fanart ~
Credit
Credit
continued...
• Where did Laurie's love for Amy come from. It felt so unnatural and forced. Almost like he felt as if Amy could be the only one to fill the whole that Jo left because of their relation, but he didn't really care for her.
My proof:
" He consoled himself for the seeming disloyalty by the thought that Jo's sister was almost the same as Jo herself, and the conviction that it would be impossible to love any other women but Amy so soon and so well"
Laurie has always had a more friendship type relationship with Jo, and a sibling bond with Amy. Friends to lovers as a trope is an acceptable one. Do you know what trope isn't? Siblings to lovers. I rest my case.
• It was so boring: I didn't find myself attached to the story or the events as I did with the first half. I skimmed a lot of it. Especially those letters and poems/songs, which took up a good chunk of this book.
• What the hell does petting mean?! Laurie always talks about being pet, or asking for Jo to pet him. And Jo asked Beth to pet him when she was away. So like a dog. This is weird and I am scared. Someone please tell me what this means.
Final thoughts: I'm sad, dissatisfied and frankly kind of disappointed. I came into this so hopeful that I would love it, but didn't. I was let down. Perhaps I will pretend that part 1 was a standalone.
I don't know that I will continue with the series either, which sucks, because I bought the entire box set for really cheap, but unfortunately, this story has quickly became one I am bitter towards.
January 31, 2024
《فى كل حياة ، لابد ان تسقط بعض الأمطار 》
لازلنا مع عائلة مارش و البنات الأربعة و ولورنس العجوز و لورى الحفيد ومستر بروك
لنكمل احداث حياتهم ونبدا بعد مرور ثلاث سنوات ولنرى هل اختلفت احلامهم وامنياتهم عن السابق ؟ وهل حققوا امنياتهم ام لا ؟ وهل هم سعداء ام قانطين ؟
رايي الشخصى عن الرواية
كان الجزء الاول طفولى عن الجزء الثانى ففى الجزء الثانى نتعرف على شخصياتهم وأفكارهم بعد النضج وخاصة اخر العنقود ايمى التى كانت مختلفة كثيرا عن الجزء الاول .
حتى مايقارب الثلث الأخير من الرواية كان تقييمى لها اربع نجوم لكن هناك اشياء فى الجزء الاخير وتغيير مواقف للشخصيات استفزنى وضايقنى فأنتقص النجمة الرابعة .
وفى النهاية الرواية خفيفة و لطيفة و بسيطة
٢٩ /٤ / ٢٠٢٠
: رفيو الجزء الأول
لازلنا مع عائلة مارش و البنات الأربعة و ولورنس العجوز و لورى الحفيد ومستر بروك
لنكمل احداث حياتهم ونبدا بعد مرور ثلاث سنوات ولنرى هل اختلفت احلامهم وامنياتهم عن السابق ؟ وهل حققوا امنياتهم ام لا ؟ وهل هم سعداء ام قانطين ؟
رايي الشخصى عن الرواية
كان الجزء الاول طفولى عن الجزء الثانى ففى الجزء الثانى نتعرف على شخصياتهم وأفكارهم بعد النضج وخاصة اخر العنقود ايمى التى كانت مختلفة كثيرا عن الجزء الاول .
حتى مايقارب الثلث الأخير من الرواية كان تقييمى لها اربع نجوم لكن هناك اشياء فى الجزء الاخير وتغيير مواقف للشخصيات استفزنى وضايقنى فأنتقص النجمة الرابعة .
وفى النهاية الرواية خفيفة و لطيفة و بسيطة
٢٩ /٤ / ٢٠٢٠
: رفيو الجزء الأول
January 2, 2020
4****
“I'm happy as I am, and love my liberty too well to be in a hurry to give it up for any mortal man.”
It was great to see how each March sister grew up, transformed and learned in their young adult/adult years. An important point of this novel was the economic situation for women and the time and how this was usually the basis for many decisions.
It might be controversial but I loved Amy in this one! She was the most pragmatic and logical- she understood that to look after her family she would need to marry someone rich. She is passionate for art and learning. She grows to learn not to just marry for money but that other factors are important. Meg is learning to be a mother and be with someone considered a poor man, despite her friends marrying rich and being able to afford more things, she must learn to be happy and content in the situation she is in. Jo is just as wild as in the first book, however, we are witness to see her solitude and loneliness creep into a depression, which then changes her overall wild character to someone more mature and more considerate of others.
Overall it was great to see how the March girls turned out. I am looking forward to watching the newest adaptation as it follows more what Louisa May Alcott would've wanted instead of what her publishers said she should write.
“I'm happy as I am, and love my liberty too well to be in a hurry to give it up for any mortal man.”
It was great to see how each March sister grew up, transformed and learned in their young adult/adult years. An important point of this novel was the economic situation for women and the time and how this was usually the basis for many decisions.
It might be controversial but I loved Amy in this one! She was the most pragmatic and logical- she understood that to look after her family she would need to marry someone rich. She is passionate for art and learning. She grows to learn not to just marry for money but that other factors are important. Meg is learning to be a mother and be with someone considered a poor man, despite her friends marrying rich and being able to afford more things, she must learn to be happy and content in the situation she is in. Jo is just as wild as in the first book, however, we are witness to see her solitude and loneliness creep into a depression, which then changes her overall wild character to someone more mature and more considerate of others.
Overall it was great to see how the March girls turned out. I am looking forward to watching the newest adaptation as it follows more what Louisa May Alcott would've wanted instead of what her publishers said she should write.
September 16, 2024
رواية كلها هدوء وعبر وعبرات
مليئة بالمواعظ والدفء اللطيف
لم اتخيل اني سأحبها هكذا رغم ان الاحداث قليلة والكثير من التفاصيل واخذت ما يقرب شهر ونصف حتى انهيها كلها
لكن في النهاية سعادة القلب موجودة فيها وحزنه ايضا
بكيت وضحكت وحزنت وسعدت كثيرا
الكثير من المشاعر المتضاربة لم اجد مفر من الدخول فيها كلها دفعة واحدة
تجربة مميزة لم اندم على تأخيرها او حتى اخذها وقت طويل فقد شعرت بكل كلمة وهذا يكفي
الترجمة رائعة رائعة رائعة
شكرا اصدقاء القراءة على الصحبة الجميلة والتشجيع اللطيف ❤💐
مليئة بالمواعظ والدفء اللطيف
لم اتخيل اني سأحبها هكذا رغم ان الاحداث قليلة والكثير من التفاصيل واخذت ما يقرب شهر ونصف حتى انهيها كلها
لكن في النهاية سعادة القلب موجودة فيها وحزنه ايضا
بكيت وضحكت وحزنت وسعدت كثيرا
الكثير من المشاعر المتضاربة لم اجد مفر من الدخول فيها كلها دفعة واحدة
تجربة مميزة لم اندم على تأخيرها او حتى اخذها وقت طويل فقد شعرت بكل كلمة وهذا يكفي
الترجمة رائعة رائعة رائعة
شكرا اصدقاء القراءة على الصحبة الجميلة والتشجيع اللطيف ❤💐
October 21, 2021
ينساب السرد بجمال ليحكي لنا بقية القصة
بعد زواج حسناء العائلة ميج.
ودخول لوري للجامعة .
في هذا الجزء سنرى تقلبات المشاعر في فترة المراهقة
والحيرة بين إعتراف بالحب أو كتمانه.
سنرى الغيرة والشجاعة والتضحية والخوف والموت .
ستتنضج كل فتاة بطريقتها وتتقلب بين أيام الصحو والمطر .
🔹️ ميج: مع تجربة الأمومة ومشكلة إهمالها لزوجها
و كيف تغلبت عليها بمساعدة نصائح أمها .
🔹️بيث : صبرها وإيمانها كانت مثال صدق الايمان
🔹️emma: أغضبتني في عدة مقاطع حين كانت ترى أنها يجب أن تتملق وتُجامل كي تكسب الود ثم الزوج لأنها ليست غنية وليست جميلة
وكنت أسعد بمعاكسات اختها "جو" لها عسى أن تفهم .
سنرى هل ستفهم أم ستصر على موقفها وتسعى للحصول على زوج ثري بكل السُبل. .
🔹️لوري: الفتى الذي كبر وأصبح أبًا
بما أن القصة ابطالها نساء لم ألاحظ دور كبير له .
و لأول مرة أسعد أن طلبه للزواج رُفض.
حزنت في الأول ثم فهمت أن ذلك أفضل
جميل أنه تغير وأصبح رجل ناضج مش فتى مدلل
لكن أن تناديه زوجته مولاي برشا هذه لم أقْبلها 😁
🔹️جو🌷 أحببت جدا تطورها وكانت نقطة جمال الرواية في نظري
.
في هذا الجزء تظهر شخصيات جديدة وأبرزها
الأستاذ الالماني "فردريك" هل يا ترى يخرج من الرواية كي ألتقي به🙈 .رائع فعلا 💓
وفصل المظلة من أجمل الفصول في الرواية.
من أحب الروايات إلى قلبي بما تحمله من دفء ونصائح لطيفة وحلوة ليس فيها سم كما قال فردريك .
أو ربما لانني وجدت ملامح من شخصيتي في إحدى
شخصيات و قالت لي أختي كلمات وجدت شبيه لها هنا
رغم كل قرائتي يبقى للادب الكلاسكي سحره ووقعه عندي ويمنحني نفحة من الأمل والجمال الراقي
رغم أنه يلصق بي صفة انني كلاسيكية برشا ...
🌸عيشك لويزا كانت روايتك خير رفيق لي وونس
في هذا المساء العصيب.
أرشحها أكيد وسأذهب لمشاهدة الفيلم غدا ان شاء الله.
تصبحون على خير.
24/juillet /20 💓🌸
بعد زواج حسناء العائلة ميج.
ودخول لوري للجامعة .
في هذا الجزء سنرى تقلبات المشاعر في فترة المراهقة
والحيرة بين إعتراف بالحب أو كتمانه.
سنرى الغيرة والشجاعة والتضحية والخوف والموت .
ستتنضج كل فتاة بطريقتها وتتقلب بين أيام الصحو والمطر .
🔹️ ميج: مع تجربة الأمومة ومشكلة إهمالها لزوجها
و كيف تغلبت عليها بمساعدة نصائح أمها .
🔹️بيث : صبرها وإيمانها كانت مثال صدق الايمان
🔹️emma: أغضبتني في عدة مقاطع حين كانت ترى أنها يجب أن تتملق وتُجامل كي تكسب الود ثم الزوج لأنها ليست غنية وليست جميلة
وكنت أسعد بمعاكسات اختها "جو" لها عسى أن تفهم .
سنرى هل ستفهم أم ستصر على موقفها وتسعى للحصول على زوج ثري بكل السُبل. .
🔹️لوري: الفتى الذي كبر وأصبح أبًا
بما أن القصة ابطالها نساء لم ألاحظ دور كبير له .
و لأول مرة أسعد أن طلبه للزواج رُفض.
حزنت في الأول ثم فهمت أن ذلك أفضل
جميل أنه تغير وأصبح رجل ناضج مش فتى مدلل
لكن أن تناديه زوجته مولاي برشا هذه لم أقْبلها 😁
🔹️جو🌷 أحببت جدا تطورها وكانت نقطة جمال الرواية في نظري
.
في هذا الجزء تظهر شخصيات جديدة وأبرزها
الأستاذ الالماني "فردريك" هل يا ترى يخرج من الرواية كي ألتقي به🙈 .رائع فعلا 💓
وفصل المظلة من أجمل الفصول في الرواية.
من أحب الروايات إلى قلبي بما تحمله من دفء ونصائح لطيفة وحلوة ليس فيها سم كما قال فردريك .
أو ربما لانني وجدت ملامح من شخصيتي في إحدى
شخصيات و قالت لي أختي كلمات وجدت شبيه لها هنا
رغم كل قرائتي يبقى للادب الكلاسكي سحره ووقعه عندي ويمنحني نفحة من الأمل والجمال الراقي
رغم أنه يلصق بي صفة انني كلاسيكية برشا ...
🌸عيشك لويزا كانت روايتك خير رفيق لي وونس
في هذا المساء العصيب.
أرشحها أكيد وسأذهب لمشاهدة الفيلم غدا ان شاء الله.
تصبحون على خير.
24/juillet /20 💓🌸
May 3, 2011
OMG! How could Louisa May Alcott do this? How could she ruin Jo like this?
Okay, so Good Wives is a lot like Little Women. We find out how the girls change as they grow up unfortunately the change is not for the best. Beth dies, Meg becomes a mom, Amy grows up to be the beloved of everyone and Jo, the wild, lively Jo is turned into a model of domestication and marries a freaking forty year old man!!!!This is unfair. Why did the author do this to Jo? I always thought Jo should marry Laurie and it would've all worked out if the selfish, stupid, annoying Amy hadn't gotten in the way. Honestly, Amy gets everthing. She grows up to be pretty, charmming, and graceful. She gets to go to Europe then marries- sorry steals Laurie and becomes rich as well. Okay so if Miss Alcott made Amy marry Laurie- Fine why couldn't she let Jo remain an independent woman? That would have worked pretty well
Okay, so Good Wives is a lot like Little Women. We find out how the girls change as they grow up unfortunately the change is not for the best. Beth dies, Meg becomes a mom, Amy grows up to be the beloved of everyone and Jo, the wild, lively Jo is turned into a model of domestication and marries a freaking forty year old man!!!!This is unfair. Why did the author do this to Jo? I always thought Jo should marry Laurie and it would've all worked out if the selfish, stupid, annoying Amy hadn't gotten in the way. Honestly, Amy gets everthing. She grows up to be pretty, charmming, and graceful. She gets to go to Europe then marries- sorry steals Laurie and becomes rich as well. Okay so if Miss Alcott made Amy marry Laurie- Fine why couldn't she let Jo remain an independent woman? That would have worked pretty well
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 11, 2024
يعجز اللسان عن وصف جمالها🥹
January 28, 2018
Ho appena finito di leggere piccole donne crescono. Meraviglioso! A parte i due episodi di Meg moglie e mamma, che mi hanno fatto all’inizio storcere il naso, ma poi fortunatamente si sono ripresi, ho adorato questo libro. L’ho trovato meno moralista del precedente. Le sorelle che affrontano i primi tormenti amorosi e non, mi hanno tenuto incollata alle pagine. Ho pianto (davvero non me lo aspettavo) e ho riso di gusto e sopratutto il mio cuore si è riempito di amore. Bellissimo davvero. Alcune frasi e alcuni momenti sembravano scritti per me. Libro giusto al momento giusto. Rimarrà sempre nel mio cuore. Sono davvero contenta di averlo letto. Purtroppo l’ho preso dalla biblioteca. Credo proprio che lo comprerò, anche perché ho il primo e non posso non avere questo.
Mi sta vendendo anche una mezza idea di leggermi gli altri. Vedremo, adesso mi godo la gioia e l’amore che mi ha lasciato.
Chissà perché non l’ho mai letto. Forse dovevo solo aspettare il momento giusto. 😊
Mi sta vendendo anche una mezza idea di leggermi gli altri. Vedremo, adesso mi godo la gioia e l’amore che mi ha lasciato.
Chissà perché non l’ho mai letto. Forse dovevo solo aspettare il momento giusto. 😊
August 29, 2011
This book took all that was good about Little Women and crushed it, grinding the sharp pieces of my despair right in my face. It's so bad I can't pick up Little Women without remembering this book and knowing that everything I read is a filthy lie and that all happiness shall soon cease to exist.
I want to purge my memory of Good Wives, but I can't. I wish I'd never read it. If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and slap this book out of my own twelve year old hands. And once that was done I'd go even further back in time, just to be absolutely sure, and make sure Louisa May Alcott never even had the chance to write it in the first place.
I want to purge my memory of Good Wives, but I can't. I wish I'd never read it. If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and slap this book out of my own twelve year old hands. And once that was done I'd go even further back in time, just to be absolutely sure, and make sure Louisa May Alcott never even had the chance to write it in the first place.
April 4, 2021
I don't know why I hold the second part so close to my heart, but there's just something special about seeing the girls grow and fully become themselves!
June 14, 2017
The problem with any series is that once you’ve read the first book, the others can’t stand on their own – you’re always comparing them to the original one. In the PDF version I have, Good Wives is not a separate novel, as it was originally; it begins somewhere after page 400, right after the end of Little Women, without even a section break.
I think I’m disappointed, but I’m also not. I knew what was going to happen before it happened. I suppose that’s why people don’t like spoilers – what they ‘spoil’ is your raw reaction the story.
I looked up the sequel to Little Women to see what became of the characters. The sequel was listed as Little Men. Seeing Jo married and with boys taking the stage, I didn’t want to go there. When I found that the sequel was actually Good Wives (a daunting title on its own), the reviews on Goodreads were so harsh, so disappointed, that I decided I wanted to read the book for myself to see if such criticism was justified… if Jo really fell from her powerful place or just dashed our conception of her being a reigning feminist queen. I couldn’t see her as settling into being a ‘good wife’, because Alcott didn’t seem to take that road at all when defining her as a character. Contrary to some of the reviews given here, what happened was not a gross distortion. It was believable, and depressing for that purpose. It was understandable conformity. In a way, I appreciated it a little. It depicts a positive reality, but is soft around the edges. Meg’s honeymoon stage ends when she discovers that voluntarily sacrifice in order to seem like the ‘model wife’ is not helpful – that perhaps cooperation is better than servitude. Of course, her mother still warned her to apologize first ‘if both of you err’ (and that was a pre-reading ‘spoiler’ I found contained in someone else’s review). Jo gets a happy ending, but couldn’t be the rebel for too long without feeling the very real price of it.
Let’s give you a bit of backstory… I’m a girl in a culture where the only way you can satisfy your desire for love and/or lust is through arranged marriages. The other option is remaining single forever, or becoming a ‘whore’ and possibly risking your life in the process. For various reasons, I am and was always the girl who spat on marriage and on sexism. Jo was a symbol for me, a role model – I was so grateful for her existence as a strong female character born in an unexpected time period like the 1880s, from the mind of a female author, nonetheless. Her humanity in the first book was stunning, when paired with her rebelliousness… then her favorite sister died, the other two married, and she faded. She was in a vulnerable state where she was defeated and limited by her external world and herself.
“...something like despair came over her when she thought of spending all her life in that quiet house, devoted to humdrum cares, a few small pleasures, and the duty that never seemed to grow any easier. ‘I can’t do it. I wasn’t meant for a life like this, and I know I shall break away and do something desperate if somebody doesn’t come and help me,’ she said to herself, when her first efforts failed and she fell into the moody, miserable state of mind which often comes when strong wills have to yield to the inevitable.”
She grew lonely, listless. Her house was not bustling with life the way it was, her story-writing didn’t go as successfully as she wanted it to, she grew demotivated, and the steam she used to keep her turbines going was diminished. She fought a bit less, conformed a bit more… and married the first person who asked her in that state, and not out of love, though Alcott tries to trick you into thinking that, though previously Jo had explicitly stated:
"I am lonely, and perhaps if Teddy had tried again, I might have said ‘Yes’, not because I love him any more, but because I care more to be loved than when he went away."
You flick back to some earlier pages, and it just seems so much brighter and full of hope. She was sparking with life, and caught the eye of Laurie, who was as much of a firecracker as she was. Passion can be scary, we naturally fear the unknown, and for many strong girls in repressive times and cultures, it’s very difficult to admit to having any sort of romantic or sexual inclination at all, because it seems like a violation of feminism: ‘If I was a feminist, I wouldn’t want to give up my independence for some boy’. Again, she said as much in her own words:
“An old maid, that’s what I’m to be. A literary spinster, with a pen for a spouse, a family of stories for children, and twenty years hence a morsel of fame, perhaps, when, like poor Johnson, I’m old and can’t enjoy it, solitary, and can’t share it, independent, and don’t need it.”
“I’m not one of the agreeable sort. Nobody will want me, and it’s a mercy…”
That last phrase was shockingly vulnerable, and complex. From the beginning of the series, Jo was the nonconformist: she spurned social obligations, embraced her status as a tomboy, enjoyed her short hair in a time period where long hair was almost a requirement of beauty and femininity, and masculined her feminine name… but her words indicated that she wasn’t unaware of how repulsive this was to the rigid social world she was living in, she understood it and accepted it (“nobody will want me”) and then turned it into a point of pride in herself and her principles, rejecting the world she knew would reject her (“it’s a mercy”). Amy, who ended up marrying her admirer, was always very conformist and criticized Jo for her “romping”, even if it only consisted of playing a game of tag, as God forbid a woman run or play in public! Despite that, Jo’s parents always seemed relatively tolerant of her, but she clearly understood that a suitor, fiance, or husband would not be so tolerant, and neither would her parents if she married and ended up having children and ‘wifely’ responsibilities… but in Jo’s world, in that time, and even in some of the more liberal cultures until this day, any solitary woman is a ‘somber spinster’. Anyone is free to shun their culture and it’s very admirable if that act comes from a genuine belief in something different, like in greater equality or justice, but all societies have both formal and informal ways of punishing rebels… the informal punishment is mounting pressure, and the internally-felt loneliness that comes from being a social outcast. Also, Jo didn’t have many options – it is unlikely that in those times it was proper for a woman to live alone, and equally unlikely that she could find a secure way to support herself, so with her sisters married or dead and her parents aging, her future was up in the air.
Alcott lectures her audience for more than a page on being kind to spinsters, and to me, that’s a sign that this novel goes a little bit deeper than it appears to at the surface.
“Don’t laugh at the spinsters, dear girls, for often very tender, tragic romances are hidden away in the hearts that beat so quietly under the sober gowns, and many silent sacrifices of youth, health, ambition, love itself, make the faded faces beautiful in God’s sight.”
Before reading this sequel, I thought that Jo and Laurie’s continued platonic status was the result of a case where she genuinely didn’t harbor any romantic feelings towards Laurie – that he really was only a best friend. There are plenty of times in real life where you think people would go amazingly well together, and they choose someone else entirely for their own reasons (whether or not they’re aware of what those reasons are, let us add). Characters don’t always turn out the way you conceive them to be, in any setting. At worst, I thought she’d chosen Mr Bhaer because he was safe territory – a bland, sexless man with a paternal air. It so happens that my perception was true: in the book, he has zero passion and loves her with the neutral affection and condescending advice of a father. Whereas Laurie liked her for who she was, exactly how she was – they played, had discussions, argued and reconciled afterwards, all without asking the other to change too dramatically - the Professor’s few interactions with her involved making her stop writing sensational stories and going on about them as if they were erotica (“Yes, you are right to put it from you. I do not think that good young girls should see such things. They are made pleasant to some, but I would more rather give my boys gunpowder to play with than this bad trash.”) and the first ‘romantic’ moment consisted of him getting her to start using "thou" instead of "you" in the most cringeworthy passage of the entire book (and there were some other moments), because he liked it better. What I didn’t realize was that it had little to do with either man, as the first quote I mentioned proves ("I am lonely, and perhaps if Teddy had tried again, I might have said ‘Yes’, not because I love him any more…")
Jo got lonely. It’s wonderful to have somebody, even just a fictional character, fight for your cause… to watch them be a symbol of female strength in a world that doesn’t have nearly enough of them, made even more impressive due to its existence in 1880s New England (which seems to have granted women more freedoms than certain nations in the present which will go unnamed have). To have that make way for a lackluster defeat, to her saying things like “women’s special mission is supposed to be drying tears and bearing burdens”, and conforming to the narrator’s earlier propaganda about women having no greater happiness than what they can find in the home is upsetting, but it’s also realistic. I don’t think Alcott avoided the fairytale ending with Laurie that readers expected out of spite, which a reviewer here accused her of doing – it was to make a point about conformity and loneliness usually being much stronger forces than romance can ever be in determining relationships. At least, that’s what I make of it… keeping in mind that Alcott lived until 55 and did not marry once, perhaps following on the one remaining path that Jo could’ve taken.
I tried to see the book in its own light, without thinking of its predecessor or of my interpretations, but that was difficult. I guess there were cute moments and little insights, to a lesser extent. It wasn’t an outright boring read – I gladly kept going until the end. I suppose that says something… or maybe it says nothing at all. Perhaps I got used to the characters in the first book, and was happy to walk alongside them for a little while longer, even if their passage grew generic, less exciting, less funny, and more forgettable. Even Beth’s death was bland of any flavour or real sadness. Once you build up an obvious death from the first few pages of what – overall – would be an 800 page book, that’s bound to happen. Meg and Amy blur into each other and do nothing except marry (a little like Jane Austen, and less like Little Women). The life is mostly drained away.
“Teddy, we never can be boy and girl again. The happy old times can’t come back, and we mustn’t expect it. We are man and woman now, with sober work to do, for playtime is over, and we must give up frolicking. I’m sure you feel this. I see the change in you, and you’ll find it in me.”
How supposed propriety doth kill the soul.
It occurred to me that people romanticize childhood because they think it’s the only time they were allowed to taste the freedom of open-hearted enjoyment. They form prisons for themselves the very moment they begin to think and accept what may be a wider societal notion – that playing, that joking, that living in the moment as opposed to thinking about your image is something you are barred from doing. No, you aren’t. It takes bravery to put your image aside, when almost all of society is built on ‘appearing rather than being’, as Rousseau once said, but it can be done even in the 1800s, even for women… as Jo once proved to us. Maybe the ending was just a goodbye to childhood, and that’s why it’s so hard to like. The four girls grew into the surrounding cultural fabric, and more than that, they all parted ways. Even the maple-syrupy scene in the apple orchard that featured on the closing pages couldn’t hide that.
"I don’t like that sort of thing. I’m too busy to be worried with nonsense, and I think it’s dreadful to break up families so. Now don’t say any more about it. Meg’s wedding has turned all our heads, and we talk of nothing but lovers and such absurdities. I don’t wish to get cross, so let’s change the subject."
Indeed, let’s. Let’s change the subject.
____
P.S. This is a silly little comment, but I wasn't too pleased that Jo set up a school for little boys because she related to them… forgetting the fact that she was a little girl and perhaps her duty was to them first, since they didn’t have half the educational opportunties boys had overall and there were certainly very few places where little book-loving, tomboy Jo's could be themselves.
I think I’m disappointed, but I’m also not. I knew what was going to happen before it happened. I suppose that’s why people don’t like spoilers – what they ‘spoil’ is your raw reaction the story.
I looked up the sequel to Little Women to see what became of the characters. The sequel was listed as Little Men. Seeing Jo married and with boys taking the stage, I didn’t want to go there. When I found that the sequel was actually Good Wives (a daunting title on its own), the reviews on Goodreads were so harsh, so disappointed, that I decided I wanted to read the book for myself to see if such criticism was justified… if Jo really fell from her powerful place or just dashed our conception of her being a reigning feminist queen. I couldn’t see her as settling into being a ‘good wife’, because Alcott didn’t seem to take that road at all when defining her as a character. Contrary to some of the reviews given here, what happened was not a gross distortion. It was believable, and depressing for that purpose. It was understandable conformity. In a way, I appreciated it a little. It depicts a positive reality, but is soft around the edges. Meg’s honeymoon stage ends when she discovers that voluntarily sacrifice in order to seem like the ‘model wife’ is not helpful – that perhaps cooperation is better than servitude. Of course, her mother still warned her to apologize first ‘if both of you err’ (and that was a pre-reading ‘spoiler’ I found contained in someone else’s review). Jo gets a happy ending, but couldn’t be the rebel for too long without feeling the very real price of it.
Let’s give you a bit of backstory… I’m a girl in a culture where the only way you can satisfy your desire for love and/or lust is through arranged marriages. The other option is remaining single forever, or becoming a ‘whore’ and possibly risking your life in the process. For various reasons, I am and was always the girl who spat on marriage and on sexism. Jo was a symbol for me, a role model – I was so grateful for her existence as a strong female character born in an unexpected time period like the 1880s, from the mind of a female author, nonetheless. Her humanity in the first book was stunning, when paired with her rebelliousness… then her favorite sister died, the other two married, and she faded. She was in a vulnerable state where she was defeated and limited by her external world and herself.
“...something like despair came over her when she thought of spending all her life in that quiet house, devoted to humdrum cares, a few small pleasures, and the duty that never seemed to grow any easier. ‘I can’t do it. I wasn’t meant for a life like this, and I know I shall break away and do something desperate if somebody doesn’t come and help me,’ she said to herself, when her first efforts failed and she fell into the moody, miserable state of mind which often comes when strong wills have to yield to the inevitable.”
She grew lonely, listless. Her house was not bustling with life the way it was, her story-writing didn’t go as successfully as she wanted it to, she grew demotivated, and the steam she used to keep her turbines going was diminished. She fought a bit less, conformed a bit more… and married the first person who asked her in that state, and not out of love, though Alcott tries to trick you into thinking that, though previously Jo had explicitly stated:
"I am lonely, and perhaps if Teddy had tried again, I might have said ‘Yes’, not because I love him any more, but because I care more to be loved than when he went away."
You flick back to some earlier pages, and it just seems so much brighter and full of hope. She was sparking with life, and caught the eye of Laurie, who was as much of a firecracker as she was. Passion can be scary, we naturally fear the unknown, and for many strong girls in repressive times and cultures, it’s very difficult to admit to having any sort of romantic or sexual inclination at all, because it seems like a violation of feminism: ‘If I was a feminist, I wouldn’t want to give up my independence for some boy’. Again, she said as much in her own words:
“An old maid, that’s what I’m to be. A literary spinster, with a pen for a spouse, a family of stories for children, and twenty years hence a morsel of fame, perhaps, when, like poor Johnson, I’m old and can’t enjoy it, solitary, and can’t share it, independent, and don’t need it.”
“I’m not one of the agreeable sort. Nobody will want me, and it’s a mercy…”
That last phrase was shockingly vulnerable, and complex. From the beginning of the series, Jo was the nonconformist: she spurned social obligations, embraced her status as a tomboy, enjoyed her short hair in a time period where long hair was almost a requirement of beauty and femininity, and masculined her feminine name… but her words indicated that she wasn’t unaware of how repulsive this was to the rigid social world she was living in, she understood it and accepted it (“nobody will want me”) and then turned it into a point of pride in herself and her principles, rejecting the world she knew would reject her (“it’s a mercy”). Amy, who ended up marrying her admirer, was always very conformist and criticized Jo for her “romping”, even if it only consisted of playing a game of tag, as God forbid a woman run or play in public! Despite that, Jo’s parents always seemed relatively tolerant of her, but she clearly understood that a suitor, fiance, or husband would not be so tolerant, and neither would her parents if she married and ended up having children and ‘wifely’ responsibilities… but in Jo’s world, in that time, and even in some of the more liberal cultures until this day, any solitary woman is a ‘somber spinster’. Anyone is free to shun their culture and it’s very admirable if that act comes from a genuine belief in something different, like in greater equality or justice, but all societies have both formal and informal ways of punishing rebels… the informal punishment is mounting pressure, and the internally-felt loneliness that comes from being a social outcast. Also, Jo didn’t have many options – it is unlikely that in those times it was proper for a woman to live alone, and equally unlikely that she could find a secure way to support herself, so with her sisters married or dead and her parents aging, her future was up in the air.
Alcott lectures her audience for more than a page on being kind to spinsters, and to me, that’s a sign that this novel goes a little bit deeper than it appears to at the surface.
“Don’t laugh at the spinsters, dear girls, for often very tender, tragic romances are hidden away in the hearts that beat so quietly under the sober gowns, and many silent sacrifices of youth, health, ambition, love itself, make the faded faces beautiful in God’s sight.”
Before reading this sequel, I thought that Jo and Laurie’s continued platonic status was the result of a case where she genuinely didn’t harbor any romantic feelings towards Laurie – that he really was only a best friend. There are plenty of times in real life where you think people would go amazingly well together, and they choose someone else entirely for their own reasons (whether or not they’re aware of what those reasons are, let us add). Characters don’t always turn out the way you conceive them to be, in any setting. At worst, I thought she’d chosen Mr Bhaer because he was safe territory – a bland, sexless man with a paternal air. It so happens that my perception was true: in the book, he has zero passion and loves her with the neutral affection and condescending advice of a father. Whereas Laurie liked her for who she was, exactly how she was – they played, had discussions, argued and reconciled afterwards, all without asking the other to change too dramatically - the Professor’s few interactions with her involved making her stop writing sensational stories and going on about them as if they were erotica (“Yes, you are right to put it from you. I do not think that good young girls should see such things. They are made pleasant to some, but I would more rather give my boys gunpowder to play with than this bad trash.”) and the first ‘romantic’ moment consisted of him getting her to start using "thou" instead of "you" in the most cringeworthy passage of the entire book (and there were some other moments), because he liked it better. What I didn’t realize was that it had little to do with either man, as the first quote I mentioned proves ("I am lonely, and perhaps if Teddy had tried again, I might have said ‘Yes’, not because I love him any more…")
Jo got lonely. It’s wonderful to have somebody, even just a fictional character, fight for your cause… to watch them be a symbol of female strength in a world that doesn’t have nearly enough of them, made even more impressive due to its existence in 1880s New England (which seems to have granted women more freedoms than certain nations in the present which will go unnamed have). To have that make way for a lackluster defeat, to her saying things like “women’s special mission is supposed to be drying tears and bearing burdens”, and conforming to the narrator’s earlier propaganda about women having no greater happiness than what they can find in the home is upsetting, but it’s also realistic. I don’t think Alcott avoided the fairytale ending with Laurie that readers expected out of spite, which a reviewer here accused her of doing – it was to make a point about conformity and loneliness usually being much stronger forces than romance can ever be in determining relationships. At least, that’s what I make of it… keeping in mind that Alcott lived until 55 and did not marry once, perhaps following on the one remaining path that Jo could’ve taken.
I tried to see the book in its own light, without thinking of its predecessor or of my interpretations, but that was difficult. I guess there were cute moments and little insights, to a lesser extent. It wasn’t an outright boring read – I gladly kept going until the end. I suppose that says something… or maybe it says nothing at all. Perhaps I got used to the characters in the first book, and was happy to walk alongside them for a little while longer, even if their passage grew generic, less exciting, less funny, and more forgettable. Even Beth’s death was bland of any flavour or real sadness. Once you build up an obvious death from the first few pages of what – overall – would be an 800 page book, that’s bound to happen. Meg and Amy blur into each other and do nothing except marry (a little like Jane Austen, and less like Little Women). The life is mostly drained away.
“Teddy, we never can be boy and girl again. The happy old times can’t come back, and we mustn’t expect it. We are man and woman now, with sober work to do, for playtime is over, and we must give up frolicking. I’m sure you feel this. I see the change in you, and you’ll find it in me.”
How supposed propriety doth kill the soul.
It occurred to me that people romanticize childhood because they think it’s the only time they were allowed to taste the freedom of open-hearted enjoyment. They form prisons for themselves the very moment they begin to think and accept what may be a wider societal notion – that playing, that joking, that living in the moment as opposed to thinking about your image is something you are barred from doing. No, you aren’t. It takes bravery to put your image aside, when almost all of society is built on ‘appearing rather than being’, as Rousseau once said, but it can be done even in the 1800s, even for women… as Jo once proved to us. Maybe the ending was just a goodbye to childhood, and that’s why it’s so hard to like. The four girls grew into the surrounding cultural fabric, and more than that, they all parted ways. Even the maple-syrupy scene in the apple orchard that featured on the closing pages couldn’t hide that.
"I don’t like that sort of thing. I’m too busy to be worried with nonsense, and I think it’s dreadful to break up families so. Now don’t say any more about it. Meg’s wedding has turned all our heads, and we talk of nothing but lovers and such absurdities. I don’t wish to get cross, so let’s change the subject."
Indeed, let’s. Let’s change the subject.
____
P.S. This is a silly little comment, but I wasn't too pleased that Jo set up a school for little boys because she related to them… forgetting the fact that she was a little girl and perhaps her duty was to them first, since they didn’t have half the educational opportunties boys had overall and there were certainly very few places where little book-loving, tomboy Jo's could be themselves.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 6, 2019
1.) Little Women ★★★★
2.) Good Wives ★★★★
-----------------------------------------------
so wholesome.
2.) Good Wives ★★★★
-----------------------------------------------
so wholesome.
March 18, 2020
خیلی غر دارم دربارهش بزنم اما چون که بخشی از داستان رو اسپویل نکنم از خیرش میگذرم. اما من اون بچهگربههای بت رو میخوام چون بعد از چهار، پنج سال هنوز بچهگربه بودن و هیچوقت بزرگ نشدن :))))
January 31, 2023
My first and worst reading slump of five months is slowly coming to an end, alhamdulillah!
What can I say about this book that I haven’t already said in my review of Little Women? It is consuming such stories that remind me of why I read: to grow as a human. Fictional books these days don’t do that anymore; they don’t make you feel like a better person or make you want to improve and become one. They act as a means to escape reality, not a means to reflect.
There is so much to absorb and apply from the March sisters, all the trials and tribulations they underwent, their patience and gratitude, their love and duty to their parents—it all resonated so deeply within my heart. This isn’t just a book to pass time with. It is a series of lessons on life, grief, marriage, love, hidden within the messy, emotional and hilarious lives of Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth. I have so much to say, but I think I will just leave it to this: I truly love and admire every single character in this book. They’ve taught me a lot about life and opened my heart to be more contemplative of my actions, especially towards family. They grew and were unabashed of the trials of life and the evil that existed within themselves. They strove for goodness, always. What made this book settle comfortably within my heart even more is because of how Islamic the lessons and morals felt—Islam encourages the exact same values, it is just our modern society that has become so corrupt.
And on that note, I cannot wait to reread this.
What can I say about this book that I haven’t already said in my review of Little Women? It is consuming such stories that remind me of why I read: to grow as a human. Fictional books these days don’t do that anymore; they don’t make you feel like a better person or make you want to improve and become one. They act as a means to escape reality, not a means to reflect.
There is so much to absorb and apply from the March sisters, all the trials and tribulations they underwent, their patience and gratitude, their love and duty to their parents—it all resonated so deeply within my heart. This isn’t just a book to pass time with. It is a series of lessons on life, grief, marriage, love, hidden within the messy, emotional and hilarious lives of Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth. I have so much to say, but I think I will just leave it to this: I truly love and admire every single character in this book. They’ve taught me a lot about life and opened my heart to be more contemplative of my actions, especially towards family. They grew and were unabashed of the trials of life and the evil that existed within themselves. They strove for goodness, always. What made this book settle comfortably within my heart even more is because of how Islamic the lessons and morals felt—Islam encourages the exact same values, it is just our modern society that has become so corrupt.
And on that note, I cannot wait to reread this.
April 1, 2023
i'll just pretend that this book does not exist
November 15, 2020
4 Estrellitas, y sí, me ha gustado más que "Mujercitas", pero si no le doy las 5 Estrellas es porque ésta edición de RBA, pese a que es preciosa, tiene una carencia tremenda de la que no me di cuenta leyendo el primer volumen, y es que éstas ediciones fueron sacadas de una bastante antigua y no completa; puesto que hasta 2004 no se tradujeron los libros al completo y faltan capítulos, como si le hubiesen metido de un plumazo un tijeretazo a la obra. Hace al menos 15 años que leí estos libros y ahora me he dado cuenta de que fue la edición moderna, pues recordaba cosas que no han pasado en éste libro. Comparando una versión con otra, a ésta de "Aquellas mujercitas" le faltan 5 o 6 capítulos.
Puede parecer una tontería, pero a mí como lectora no me gusta. Sé que estos no han sido los únicos libros que han sufrido el tijeretazo o la censura de un editor porque no le gusta lo que cuenta o no lo ve necesario. Sé que a una edición nueva de RBA no puedo pedirle por el precio que ofrece que venda la edición moderna si le ha salido más barato comprar los derechos de una traducción hecha hace más de 60 años, pero aún así jode.
Pese a todo el libro me ha gustado. "Aquellas mujercitas" empieza unos años después que el primer libro y nos narra todo desde la boda de Meg. De nuevo veremos a las hermanas March creciendo y madurando hasta convertirse en mujeres y despertar a lo que realmente quieren de la vida. Meg resignándose a la vida de esposa y madre, si bien insatisfecha por no haber cazado un marido rico como deseaba, pero profundamente enamorada de su esposo. Jo con su independencia innata dispuesta a comerse el mundo por ser una escritora famosa y valorada. La dulce Beth, que mas que una niña buena es una santa, y de la cual no voy a hablar mucho porque todos sabemos como acaba. Pero de quien sí voy a hablar es de Amy y su tremendo cambio o más bien madurez de niña a mujer, pues si bien Amy en el primer volumen era una chiquilla egoísta y mimada, debo decir que en éste libro es la que más madura sin perder su esencia y casi llega a convertirse en la principal protagonista del libro.
Por otro lado quien no me ha convencido mucho es Laurie, pues como adolescente me gustó un montón, y como hombre lo he visto algo veleta o inmaduro. No puedo creerme mucho ése triángulo amoroso de sentimientos, pues por un lado lleva toda la vida enamorado de Jo y de repente la olvida porque quiere a Amy. Puede ser percepción mía, pero quizás esto se ha debido al tijeretazo editorial y eso no la hecho más inverosímil.
Si algo me ha gustado del libro es la aparición del profesor Bhaer, siento mucha debilidad por éste personaje, pues no es nada fácil enamorar a una mujer como Jo, resignada a quedarse como una solterona porque no concibe su vida como esposa. Pero me temo que debo criticar de nuevo el tijeretazo editorial, porque recuerdo de mi edición leída años atrás, bastantes más capítulos de la experiencia de Jo como institutriz en Nueva York, y ésta edición sólo ha mostrado un capítulo. Lo siento, pero muy mal.
Pese a todo, he disfrutado otra vez de leerlos y estoy segura de que volveré a hacerlo, pero la próxima vez procuraré leer la edición completa de hace pocos años para disfrutar en origen de ésta obra. Ahora mismo creo que me veré la versión cinematográfica del año pasado, pues me reservé de verla hasta que acabase de leer de nuevo los libros.
Puede parecer una tontería, pero a mí como lectora no me gusta. Sé que estos no han sido los únicos libros que han sufrido el tijeretazo o la censura de un editor porque no le gusta lo que cuenta o no lo ve necesario. Sé que a una edición nueva de RBA no puedo pedirle por el precio que ofrece que venda la edición moderna si le ha salido más barato comprar los derechos de una traducción hecha hace más de 60 años, pero aún así jode.
Pese a todo el libro me ha gustado. "Aquellas mujercitas" empieza unos años después que el primer libro y nos narra todo desde la boda de Meg. De nuevo veremos a las hermanas March creciendo y madurando hasta convertirse en mujeres y despertar a lo que realmente quieren de la vida. Meg resignándose a la vida de esposa y madre, si bien insatisfecha por no haber cazado un marido rico como deseaba, pero profundamente enamorada de su esposo. Jo con su independencia innata dispuesta a comerse el mundo por ser una escritora famosa y valorada. La dulce Beth, que mas que una niña buena es una santa, y de la cual no voy a hablar mucho porque todos sabemos como acaba. Pero de quien sí voy a hablar es de Amy y su tremendo cambio o más bien madurez de niña a mujer, pues si bien Amy en el primer volumen era una chiquilla egoísta y mimada, debo decir que en éste libro es la que más madura sin perder su esencia y casi llega a convertirse en la principal protagonista del libro.
Por otro lado quien no me ha convencido mucho es Laurie, pues como adolescente me gustó un montón, y como hombre lo he visto algo veleta o inmaduro. No puedo creerme mucho ése triángulo amoroso de sentimientos, pues por un lado lleva toda la vida enamorado de Jo y de repente la olvida porque quiere a Amy. Puede ser percepción mía, pero quizás esto se ha debido al tijeretazo editorial y eso no la hecho más inverosímil.
Si algo me ha gustado del libro es la aparición del profesor Bhaer, siento mucha debilidad por éste personaje, pues no es nada fácil enamorar a una mujer como Jo, resignada a quedarse como una solterona porque no concibe su vida como esposa. Pero me temo que debo criticar de nuevo el tijeretazo editorial, porque recuerdo de mi edición leída años atrás, bastantes más capítulos de la experiencia de Jo como institutriz en Nueva York, y ésta edición sólo ha mostrado un capítulo. Lo siento, pero muy mal.
Pese a todo, he disfrutado otra vez de leerlos y estoy segura de que volveré a hacerlo, pero la próxima vez procuraré leer la edición completa de hace pocos años para disfrutar en origen de ésta obra. Ahora mismo creo que me veré la versión cinematográfica del año pasado, pues me reservé de verla hasta que acabase de leer de nuevo los libros.
September 16, 2021
Se não estou em erro faz 5 ou 6 anos que li "Mulherzinhas". O li numa altura fundamental da minha vida, naquela fase que deixamos de ser meninas para nos tornarmos mulheres. Gostaria de naquela altura também ter lido este livro...
Adoro a família March. Mrs March é uma mulher encantadora que dá sempre bons conselhos as suas filhas. Beth, a mais novas das irmãs, é a mais adorável mas infelizmente não tem um final feliz... Jo é a mais inteligente e independente das quatro (e de todas a minha favorita). Amy é a mais certinha e a artista, tenho de admitir que ela me irritou no início (principalmente as suas cartas) só gostei mais dela quando se apaixona por Laurie. E Meg com o seu casamento adorável com John.
Não gostei do final de Jo. Acho que ela merecia casar-se com um jovem galante , e não com um professor de literatura frio. Sempre gostei das histórias e dos poemas de Jo, por isso fiquei um pouco desiludida por ela não ter ficado com um marido parecido com o Laurie.
Adoro a família March. Mrs March é uma mulher encantadora que dá sempre bons conselhos as suas filhas. Beth, a mais novas das irmãs, é a mais adorável mas infelizmente não tem um final feliz... Jo é a mais inteligente e independente das quatro (e de todas a minha favorita). Amy é a mais certinha e a artista, tenho de admitir que ela me irritou no início (principalmente as suas cartas) só gostei mais dela quando se apaixona por Laurie. E Meg com o seu casamento adorável com John.
Não gostei do final de Jo. Acho que ela merecia casar-se com um jovem galante , e não com um professor de literatura frio. Sempre gostei das histórias e dos poemas de Jo, por isso fiquei um pouco desiludida por ela não ter ficado com um marido parecido com o Laurie.
dnf
November 11, 2023DNF BECAUSE I ALREADY READ THIS - Nope, not me just now realizing the copy of Little Women I read last year included Good Wives (supposedly part 2 of Little Women - so confusing Goodreads!!) hahahaha face slap. Nope, I really didn't just get through a whole 50% before finally realizing I had already read this! I guess I've been sleep existing this last week! Correcting this now. The next in the series is actually Little Men for me! Well....at least I got a bit of a recap! 🥴🫣🤭
August 31, 2025
Well, strictly speaking this book is part of Little Women, so I should not treat this as a different book.
What I would add to my review of Little Women is that as the girls are growing up, the horizon is broadening (or in some of their cases, shrinking) so we see more of the outside world and are offered a bigger chunk of society around them, if not by much. This and also the character development makes it more interesting and while still all-in-all didactic, it advocates valid, true values nevertheless that are relatable.
What I would add to my review of Little Women is that as the girls are growing up, the horizon is broadening (or in some of their cases, shrinking) so we see more of the outside world and are offered a bigger chunk of society around them, if not by much. This and also the character development makes it more interesting and while still all-in-all didactic, it advocates valid, true values nevertheless that are relatable.
March 6, 2023
29th book of 2023.
2.5. A hard one to rate (being the same book as Little Women) because here in England they are published as two separate volumes, though that does make it is easier to critique them as individual beings. The March girls have grown up and the playfulness of the first book/first half has mostly waned. It took me a while to get involved in this one and I kept putting it down after only several pages. It's just less fun. There are some standout scenes, a poignant bit in both "Heartache" and "The Valley of the Shadow", some beautiful and surprising descriptions of nature in "Lazy Laurence", and so on, but generally the book plodded along. If you read the other reviews of this text, most people seem to hate it and claim the March sisters all turn out horribly, as do their marriages. Some of the sentiments are outdated, but I guess I just expected that from the book. I liked Laurie till the end, though Alcott doesn't give us the most satisfactory ending, considering. The only reason I read this is because without it, I'd essentially only read half of Little Women, and if I went to watch the film adaption (which I plan to do for once, hearing such good things), the second half of the movie would be a complete surprise to me. Though, of course, one of the main shockers of the book was ruined a long time ago, by Joey on Friends.
2.5. A hard one to rate (being the same book as Little Women) because here in England they are published as two separate volumes, though that does make it is easier to critique them as individual beings. The March girls have grown up and the playfulness of the first book/first half has mostly waned. It took me a while to get involved in this one and I kept putting it down after only several pages. It's just less fun. There are some standout scenes, a poignant bit in both "Heartache" and "The Valley of the Shadow", some beautiful and surprising descriptions of nature in "Lazy Laurence", and so on, but generally the book plodded along. If you read the other reviews of this text, most people seem to hate it and claim the March sisters all turn out horribly, as do their marriages. Some of the sentiments are outdated, but I guess I just expected that from the book. I liked Laurie till the end, though Alcott doesn't give us the most satisfactory ending, considering. The only reason I read this is because without it, I'd essentially only read half of Little Women, and if I went to watch the film adaption (which I plan to do for once, hearing such good things), the second half of the movie would be a complete surprise to me. Though, of course, one of the main shockers of the book was ruined a long time ago, by Joey on Friends.
October 17, 2015
I love this book. I mean, the fact that I've read it five times now does say something about how I much I love it...
September 18, 2023
Aunque no quedaron las parejas que me gustaban, fui sumamente feliz leyendo este magnifico libro. Adoro a las Hermanas March y leerlas fue un alivio entre tanto estudio
February 6, 2020
(I Recommend this book which is the second part of little women for everyone and for my future children! Because this part of French edition is not available.
When i was a child I watched little women and in comparison to the animation , half the book appeared to be missing!
Good Wives takes off about three years after where Little Women left off. Each girl is struggling with her own problems.
The stories are all about girls being obedient, self governing, faithful to God and developing characters and hearts that reflect the great virtues of patience, love, and charity, so that they can be a blessing to all around them, and bring perpetual sunshine to their homes!!
I absolutely LOVED this BOOK and it gave me a lot to think about, as I dripped tears, laughed, and smileed. These tow books have both made me search my soul and promise myself I will be a better person. More patient, more kind, more compassionate, more considerate, more tactful, more loving .
It was like a little ray of light beaming into my soul, reminding me that it is the simple things in life, like family, and friends, and sunny days, and walking barefoot on grass, that are important, and not the rest of it that we stress ourselves out about on a daily basis.
Little Women and Good Wives will always be amongst my favourite books, because they are not concerned with being flashy or different or clever, but about inspiring and encouraging their readers to grow, and change, and love, and dream, and live, and to never give up, because no matter what, life is worth it. What could be better, and truer, than that!
July 21, 2014
I've no doubt that the unsatisfying ending is to blame for all the one- and two-star reviews this book is getting. I agree with those sentiments, but for a reason a little less shallow than just "omg Jo and Laurie should be together!" It's not that the romantic inside of me doesn't want that*, it's just that I don't think that that's the critique we should be indulging. Like, I /wanted/ Sirius Black to stay alive in Harry Potter - that doesn't mean he should've, or that the book was bad because he didn't.
It's not a matter of what I want as a reader, it's a matter of what makes sense for the characters. I truly believe that Laurie /should not/ have ended up with Amy, and Jo /should not/ have married the professor. I can forgive Jo rejecting Laurie and remaining husbandless, but for Laurie to "transfer his feelings" to the horrible Amy, and for Jo to reign in all that made her loveable for a life of wifery with a /much/ older man... I don't want to write an essay, so suffice it to say that it's lazy and rushed and it does not make sense.
I know that Alcott was taking the piss out of the Jo/Laurie shippers when she wrote this second volume, but the lengths she went to to do that actually made for a crappy conclusion.
If you stop reading after Jo rejects Laurie it makes for a much better book.
*The romantic in me literally cried tears of frustration when I realised that Alcott was actually making Amy/Laurie a thing, and that Jo/Laurie were gone forever. But that's not a critique, that's just me being a pathetic romcom-loving loser.
It's not a matter of what I want as a reader, it's a matter of what makes sense for the characters. I truly believe that Laurie /should not/ have ended up with Amy, and Jo /should not/ have married the professor. I can forgive Jo rejecting Laurie and remaining husbandless, but for Laurie to "transfer his feelings" to the horrible Amy, and for Jo to reign in all that made her loveable for a life of wifery with a /much/ older man... I don't want to write an essay, so suffice it to say that it's lazy and rushed and it does not make sense.
I know that Alcott was taking the piss out of the Jo/Laurie shippers when she wrote this second volume, but the lengths she went to to do that actually made for a crappy conclusion.
If you stop reading after Jo rejects Laurie it makes for a much better book.
*The romantic in me literally cried tears of frustration when I realised that Alcott was actually making Amy/Laurie a thing, and that Jo/Laurie were gone forever. But that's not a critique, that's just me being a pathetic romcom-loving loser.
May 6, 2023
Also published in "Tales of a Depresso Witch"
Where to start? This book was beautiful I couldn’t help myself finishing it the way I did. Knowing the movie, I already knew the end, but the end of the book (being slightly different from the movie – I love the movie version though) was so overwhelming for me that I was grinning like a child at the outburst of romance that came out of the pages.
Contrary to Little Women, Good Wives' pace was easier to follow. Despite having a few chapters that you can skip without really missing anything that important, the story develops in a way which glues you to the characters and you don’t want to leave them. It’s like you can pat them on the back and tell them all will be alright.
Each sister grew in a different way, becoming more mature and more independent in their own way.
Meg soon became a wife and a mother, learning her duties and how not to fear being herself around her husband. Their romance was mature and solid in contrast to those around her such as Sally Moffat.
Beth was the character that made me cry the most. Her death left a small hole in the story but her speech to her sister Jo about not leaving them and always being there made me realise that each character kept her within their hearts. Her presence after her death was not visible (readable, that’s more like it), but you could sense her nevertheless.
Amy’s journey through Europe did her good. She was the only sister I couldn’t help disliking until she left America and went abroad. The trip made her grow in a way she couldn’t at home. Plus the fact that love also helped her see the world with different eyes.
Jo is, and will always be, my favourite March sister. She is strong and with a loose tongue. I could relate with her a lot during the book and when she left home to go to New York and met Professor Bhaer, I was in heaven. Their romance was slowly shaping itself throughout the novel, and we knew before Jo that she was in love (not to mention the movie… we already knew it through it but the book was plain about it). Despite her lack of self-consciousness when it comes to such matters, we kept praying that she would see what was in front of her and that she deserved some happiness after losing her favourite sister and having a “trifle” with Laurie.
The bond between sisters and mother was still strong. Despite having a different point-of-view towards society and life itself, they kept together and fought together. In the end, even Beth was present at the end with small memories and small unconscious things from each character.
It was a romance I couldn’t stop myself from reading. Not only does it shows us, love, but it also shows us the depths of a sisterly and motherly relationship. It taught me to love my sister the way she is and to learn and see her flaws.
Where to start? This book was beautiful I couldn’t help myself finishing it the way I did. Knowing the movie, I already knew the end, but the end of the book (being slightly different from the movie – I love the movie version though) was so overwhelming for me that I was grinning like a child at the outburst of romance that came out of the pages.
Contrary to Little Women, Good Wives' pace was easier to follow. Despite having a few chapters that you can skip without really missing anything that important, the story develops in a way which glues you to the characters and you don’t want to leave them. It’s like you can pat them on the back and tell them all will be alright.
Each sister grew in a different way, becoming more mature and more independent in their own way.
Meg soon became a wife and a mother, learning her duties and how not to fear being herself around her husband. Their romance was mature and solid in contrast to those around her such as Sally Moffat.
Beth was the character that made me cry the most. Her death left a small hole in the story but her speech to her sister Jo about not leaving them and always being there made me realise that each character kept her within their hearts. Her presence after her death was not visible (readable, that’s more like it), but you could sense her nevertheless.
Amy’s journey through Europe did her good. She was the only sister I couldn’t help disliking until she left America and went abroad. The trip made her grow in a way she couldn’t at home. Plus the fact that love also helped her see the world with different eyes.
Jo is, and will always be, my favourite March sister. She is strong and with a loose tongue. I could relate with her a lot during the book and when she left home to go to New York and met Professor Bhaer, I was in heaven. Their romance was slowly shaping itself throughout the novel, and we knew before Jo that she was in love (not to mention the movie… we already knew it through it but the book was plain about it). Despite her lack of self-consciousness when it comes to such matters, we kept praying that she would see what was in front of her and that she deserved some happiness after losing her favourite sister and having a “trifle” with Laurie.
The bond between sisters and mother was still strong. Despite having a different point-of-view towards society and life itself, they kept together and fought together. In the end, even Beth was present at the end with small memories and small unconscious things from each character.
It was a romance I couldn’t stop myself from reading. Not only does it shows us, love, but it also shows us the depths of a sisterly and motherly relationship. It taught me to love my sister the way she is and to learn and see her flaws.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 10, 2020
“I'm not a show, and no one is coming to stare at me, to criticize my dress, or count the cost of my luncheon. I'm too happy to care what anyone says or thinks, and I'm going to have my little wedding just as I like it.”
- Margaret March (Meg)
* * *
“I may be mercenary, but I hate poverty, and don't mean to bear it a minute longer than I can help. One of us must marry well. Meg didn't, Jo won't, Beth can't yet, so I shall, and make everything okay all round.”
- Amy Curtis March
* * *
“Well, the winter's gone, and I've written no books, earned no fortune, but I've made a friend worth having and I'll try to keep him all my life.”
- Josephine March (Jo)
* * *
“Girls are so queer you never know what they mean. They say no when they mean yes, and drive a man out of his wits just for the fun of it.”
- Theodore Laurence (Laurie)
- Margaret March (Meg)
* * *
“I may be mercenary, but I hate poverty, and don't mean to bear it a minute longer than I can help. One of us must marry well. Meg didn't, Jo won't, Beth can't yet, so I shall, and make everything okay all round.”
- Amy Curtis March
* * *
“Well, the winter's gone, and I've written no books, earned no fortune, but I've made a friend worth having and I'll try to keep him all my life.”
- Josephine March (Jo)
* * *
“Girls are so queer you never know what they mean. They say no when they mean yes, and drive a man out of his wits just for the fun of it.”
- Theodore Laurence (Laurie)
November 16, 2016
9,5 de 10*
Ao contrário de “Mulherzinhas”, pouco me lembrava da história de “Boas Esposas” o que tornou esta leitura quase como uma estreia para mim. E foi uma excelente “quase estreia”. Depois do sucesso de “Mulherzinhas”, Louisa May Alcott decidiu dar continuidade à familia March e ainda bem que o fez!
Comentário completo em:
http://abibliotecadajoao.blogspot.pt/...
Ao contrário de “Mulherzinhas”, pouco me lembrava da história de “Boas Esposas” o que tornou esta leitura quase como uma estreia para mim. E foi uma excelente “quase estreia”. Depois do sucesso de “Mulherzinhas”, Louisa May Alcott decidiu dar continuidade à familia March e ainda bem que o fez!
Comentário completo em:
http://abibliotecadajoao.blogspot.pt/...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,370 reviews