Little Women

4.5/5

SLIGHT SPOILERS FOR A BOOK ALMOST 150 YEARS OLD. PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

Wow. I am so glad I picked this book up again. I can't say I was never interested in classics (I went through a huge Jane Austen kick in high school), but for the most part many left me could. (coughWuthering Heightscough) Austen has aged incredibly well compared to many of her contemporaries haven't. Little Women seems to have the same staying powers in some ways, though I totally get why I couldn't read it until now (in my mature 29 years).

While P&P specifically has aged so well, you can basically change the setting, the characters but as long as it keeps the core of the story, the story never really suffers.

Little Women is much more of a product of its time and while has themes and characters that definitely defy the time period (Jo in particular). I don't think I would've had the maturity to read this book before now.

I should start off before I go into a slight tirade that I absolutely did love this book. I get why it's considered timeless. There's a humor and a wholesomeness and such love for these characters that I now share. And for the most part, a lot of the advice in this book is still applicable today. (Also, the Marches are the og Weasley family. Change my mind.)

However, I do know why it took me so long to read it. The book is unfortunately somewhat dated in some of how it talks about family dynamics. But there's enough humor and spirit, it's easy to see that a more modern retelling could still keep the heart of the book and update some of the values.

While the spirit of a lot of the morals of the book are commendable, there is a certain gendered and/or religious tone that sometimes is jarring. Not to mention that the morals are much more blatant than say, in Austen's novels, because Alcott will literally spell it out for the reader, which can sometimes feel condescending if you're not buying the wholesome tone.

I think that if you were to do a modern retelling, a few things would change:

- Hannah

Oh Hannah. Probably the most problematic part of LW. Hannah is clearly black and working for the family. She's not a slave, and as the story happens during the Civil War, we can assume the March's stances are anti-slavery and that she is employed. However, it is often stated how poor the March family is, so who knows what Hannah was being paid if at all. She is treated fondly by the family and not her own character.

I have not seen any adaptions, so I don't know how Hannah is handled in any of the movies, but it wouldn't surprised me if she was cut out entirely. I think the only way to include Hannah or a Hannah-like character is make her a friend of the family because I do think she's integral in at least Meg's story. She could be a family friend.

Or, I think that a more progressive approach to a more modern retelling/adaption, is changing the race of the main characters. Which I think would be very timely.

- The morals would need a slight adjustment for modern audiences. Specifically the ones that are more gendered.

For example, Meg's issues when she's figuring out balancing her marriage with having children. It can definitely come off as the woman needs to make sure her ~man~ is taken care of. But really it's about remembering to take care of each other and not neglect needs and let your spouse/other people help with the children. Which are really good points! Maybe remove the husband/wife dynamic and it's golden.

- Joe probably shouldn't be married at the end. Or maybe would be LGBTQ+

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say Jo is the most popular, most empathetic, and most idolized character and it's not hard to see why. While all of the other little women have their quirks and faults, Jo is everyone's bombastic friend that's up for adventures and has dreams higher than her station can afford. (Not just monetarily–since Meg and Amy both wish for more comfort in that area–Jo also wants freedom that being a woman at the time simply does not allow.)

I can see a lot of romantics wondering why Laurie and Jo didn't end up together, but I'm happy that Alcott recognizes they're not a good romantic match. And I don't hate Jo ending up with Professor Bhear, but I can imagine her story not ending up with anyone and making her own way. Or figuring out that she's not attracted to men. Or that she might be trans. Although I can see many people getting unnecessarily angry at those insinuations.

I think that a better outcome for Jo did not lie in marriage and it felt forced and might contribute to what makes LW feel more dated than say P&P.

I do want to reiterate that I did love the book and can see myself rereading it. I look forward to watching the newest adaption and maybe the others. :)