Book - Little Women

 Book - Little Women

By: Louisa May Alcott

Score: 6/10

Year: 1868 (part one) ; 1869 (part two) : 1880  (one volume edition)

Publisher: Duke Classics

ISBN 978-1-62011-456-8 (kindle/ebook)

Pages : 494 (digital)

Language: English

Undisputed American classic, Little Women is a largely autobiographical novel by author Louisa May Alcott (1832-1888) and based on her experiences with her own three sisters.

The first part of the book, published 30 September 1868, was such a success that the editor requested a second. Louisa composed the subsequent part for two intense months of November et December (1868) and it published in April 1869 - before a single volume edition for both would come in 1880.

It follows the lives of four sisters in the family March. At the start of the story, they are 17 (Meg), 15 (Josephine, or Jo), 14 (Beth), and 12 (Amy). 

Their father, Robert, had helped a friend who couldn't repay his debt, causing the family's genteel poverty. At the start of this story, he's away serving as a chaplain in the Union Army during the Civil War, so the sisters have to make due with the little they have, the eldest working to help sustain the family's finances, and mature with mutual aid and under guidance from their mother, Margaret Marmee and Hannah Mullet – the family maid and cook, their only servant, except that she is treated more like a member of the family. 

Part One lasts about a year ; it centers around character development, and the various events lived by these girls-becoming-women all aim to bring individual personal growth. 

Part Two begins 3 years after the end of part one, and last about a dozen years total. 

Before talking about characters and other aspects of the story, let me precise factual errors the author introduced in the text, which has to reset the timeline :

The only official date giving in Part One is 20th November 1861, placing the first chapter in Christmas 1860. However, the father being away during the Civil War, which starts only in April 1861 must push back this first chapter to December 1862 and the aforementioned 20th November changed from 1861 to 1863, in order for the entire tale to make historical sense. The author wrote it, after all, several years later, and must've have confused her memory of specific real dates to include them within a fiction, yet based on reality. 

Characters : 

Jo is hot tempered, rough and tumble gal, quick to act, often with disastrous emotional (if not physical) effects, has to learn patience. She wishes she was a boy who'd have joined her father in the army ranks. Meg labels her a tomboy. 

Beth is a sweet peacemaker and always gentle, finding a talent for music ; in her humility, she has to learn how much she impacts other people's lives, when she believes herself so ordinary ; Amy's an artist who loves beautiful things; and Meg the oldest and prettiest, also loves beauty, this time of clothes. Poverty is very dreadful to Amy and Meg's tastes. 

Narration : 

The first part of the story has a rather fluid style ; the narrator addresses the readers on several occasions, as if in confidence, or questions, to us. The second changes pace - we know the author wrote it in a mere two months lapse, and we feel it within the hastened pace - not always for good.

A big issue is that after a first part where there were morals-of-experience given with a few religious aspects, the second part becomes totally preachy, to the point that we have this line

Jo must have fallen asleep (as I dare say my reader has during this little homily) - except the little homily lasted nearly 600 words, on top of all the preaching before and after!

On the other hand, I loved how early Louisa M. Alcott announced fervent political views she had in real life, shared by her parents and family : through Robert's service in the Union army, we learn about their abolitionist views, reinforced in dialogues and also further events in part second. 

Indeed, Louisa's parents belonged to transcendentalist movement, and had encouraged her and her sister's education, writing journals and all aimed for women's rights. Louisa had said "No boy could be my friend till I had beaten him in a race, ... and no girl if she refused to climb trees, leap fences " ; and aged 15, in 1847, troubled by her own family's poverty, vowed: "I will do something by and by. Don’t care what, teach, sew, act, write, anything to help the family; and I’ll be rich and famous and happy before I die, see if I won’t!" and these aspects, she infused into Jo's character : as I said earlier, she's the tomboy mirror of Louisa's self ; and does all of these activities within the story, at one time or another. She doesn't care what people will think of her appearance or attitude, so she'll lay, stretched on a rug or run so fast that she'll drop hat, comb and hairpins in her haste... this and many other attitudes, acts and words were all deemed unmaidenly, unwomanly, at the times. 

The Alcott's acting plays for one another are equally present in Little Women's numerous theatrical pieces the sisters embody, adding to Jo's tomboyish attitude also acting male or villainous roles, against all social gender norms of this period - a truly astounding feminist aspect insofar that Jo's embodies a rebellion against patriarchy - all included within her acts, words, approach to culture, romance and friendships with men (one particular relationship with Laurie, the next-door neighbor, is that of teen boys, not a boy and a girl), but also her very physic. 

When she was Fifteen, Jo's description is as follows: very tall, thin, and brown, and reminded one of a colt, for she never seemed to know what to do with her long limbs, which were very much in her way. She had a decided mouth, a comical nose, and sharp, gray eyes, which appeared to see everything, and were by turns fierce, funny, or thoughtful. These are reflected in her character as 

dazzling and original invention: bold, outspoken, brave, daring, loyal, cranky, principled, and real. She is a dreamer and a scribbler, happiest at her woodsy hideout by an old cartwheel or holed up in the attic, absorbed in reading or writing, filling page after page with stories or plays.

Jo is the strongest point in Little Women ; not only she's a rebellious teenaged girl who wants nothing with conventions, but her various jobs and lessons in patience to subdue her temper are inspiring. It's no wonder that she became the main character, though there are 6 main women, 3 main men, and additional individuals who come into the story. It's also no wonder that upon success, the editor wanted more, and pushed the author to write sequels, despite her initial reluctance. 

But, as much as I loved part One, and my enjoyment dwindled with narrative that kept hastening as if fire was chasing the plot in part Second, alongside its preaching, reduced my overall appreciation, hence my final score of 6/10. 

A note about feminism and availability of Little Women in French : 

Although a Madame Rémy had translated the novel as early as 1872, as Petites Femmes, with the author's approval despite the loose translation, it had retained the feminist title and content. However, in 1880, a certain Pierre-Jules Hetzel decided to not just translate and slightly adapt, he called it Les Quatre filles du Docteur Marsch d’après Louisa May Alcott, where the title double subjugates the little women to a man, but not only a man, a doctor - knowing that medicine at this period was extra misogynistic (and whereas in the original, he's a chaplain) ; he also downgraded ALL of the feminist aspects and descriptions within the story and characters, especially, you guessed, Jo. Indeed, her body is less clumsy, she's made far less impatient and her boiling temper is a mere shadow of her initial steam... dialogues and events' natures are equally reduced to fractions, altered beyond recognition. 

The main issue is that all subsequent editions, until present day, retained his sexist title ; even editions as recent as early 2000's to 2020's have kept it, and haven't fully restored wording to match the original emphasis on feminism. Some still omit between 3 and the 5 whole chapters that mr Hetzel had thrown in the trash of his sexist approach. 

His edition was also based only on part One - he hadn't read part Second, though it had been published years prior to his intervention. He expanded to include a very different and contrary to the author's explicit wishes in character growth, a romance and even a marriage she refused to ever include ! So, to my francophone readers, make yourself a favor and learn English, to read the full extent and not feminism on a minimalist's diet of poverty. 

PS: I remembered a large part of the story, reading it when I was a teenager; now I think I had read an abridged version, so my first reading as an adult is also my first in the unabridged version.