Devouring Books: Little Men by Louisa May Alcott

"No person, no matter how vivid an imagination he may have, can invent anything half so droll as the freaks and fancies that originate in the lively brains of little people."

I have read Little Women (or, if you're American, the first part of Little Women) approximately a million times, but until I was nearly 21 (and prompted by the SHOCK of seeing the second half of the movie where Christian Bale is Laurie) I hadn't even read Good Wives (or, if you're American, the second part of Little Women). Considering how much I love Little Women (and that, by the way, is A LOT) this was kind of ridiculous in itself, and even more ridiculous is that I've owned the third part of this saga for a long time now, and I didn't read it until the other week. I don't even want to go into how my brain works, but the obvious answer is: Not well.

Anyway. It has been read now, and the verdict? Kind of... Mixed. Here's the thing- when I DID finally read Good Wives (ugh, that title...), even though I disagree with a lot of the things that happened in it (I'm never going to be OK with Laurie and Amy. I'm just not) it was so lovely to read because here were some characters I knew really well, and they were doing things again and figuring stuff out and OBVIOUSLY DOING WITCHCRAFT TO GET LAURIE TO MARRY THEM, and basically it's a gay old time, and even though I'm never going to love that half of Little Women as much as the first half because I read it too late, it's still good.

Little Men is good in it's own way, too, but... It was disappointing. I think that Alcott was basically like 'OK, well, I'm done with the girls now, so let's move on to the next generation' and that's what she does. And I understand her doing that, in terms of wanting to tell the stories of the next generation, but... I'm old now. I'm very, very old, and I almost... don't want to read the stories of 10(ish) year old boys? And, when I'm finally reading the third in a series of four books that I started when I was about 12, it's reasonable to expect the author to focus on the characters that I want her to, and to ignore doing something new with different characters, right?

So. Disappointing in a it's-not-Little-Women way? Yes. But actively terrible? Not at all! Alcott is still fine at writing, and her boys are interesting and fun, and have their flaws and whatnot and it's fairly fun and, let's face it, easy to read about them. Their little adventures do call to mind the ones Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy had in Little Women, and just, Alcott's really good at creating characters who are likeable but not perfect and just, generally, like real little boys.

But. I've read some reviews of Little Women by people who didn't read it when they were 12 (and from then on) and I've always been perplexed as to why they're so negative- talking about things like the moralising that's rammed down your throat and the gentle brand of sexism that comes from being a woman in the 19th century and believing that the entire POINT of your being is to marry a man and be his support. And, whilst I can't see that in Little Women unless I look REALLY HARD, it's all over the place in Little Men, mostly with the fact that Jo (who is the only one of the sisters with a main part in this book- Amy and Meg make maybe two appearances each) doesn't seem to do anything any more except be a mother to a load of boys.

This is Jo, we're talking about. Jo, who is about the least maternal person ever, and who is a writer for fucks sake! She runs a school with her husband (who is a genuine Professor, to be fair) and she can't even teach a creative writing class? Or just an English Lit in general class? No, Jo's apparently just content to sit back and let Professor Bhaer do that kind of work while she teaches the only girls in the school HOW TO COOK, and it's seen as some kind of progress for her character because she's finally learnt how to be a proper woman. COME ON, Louisa, what are you doing to me?!

Ahem. Apparently I'm angrier at this book than I realised, and I need to take into account society's values and blah blah blah, but from a modern woman's perspective... Yeah. This IS bullshit. But, like I've said, it's nice. It's nice as long as you ignore everything you used to know about Jo (which, frankly, you might as well) and if I'd read it along with Little Women when I was 12, I doubt I'd have such a problem with it now. But I do. And that's probably a good thing.

All that being said, I kind of still want to read Jo's Boys for the sake of, I don't know, completeness or something, so I guess you can pretty much take all my criticism with a pinch of salt that lovely Mother Jo will get you to add to a pie crust or something. But I'm still pissed off.