Scan barcode
uselesspirateraven's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Misogyny, Terminal illness, and Grief
Moderate: Sexism and Pregnancy
promfairy's review against another edition
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
good wives is a weird book to write about, i didnt even know my edition of little women was half of it until i reached the end. i read the different parts in different languages and formats.
along the book there is a distaste for growth and change, as there is in the first part. but in this one alcott seems to trip over herself to make (almost...) every march have a happy, stable wedding and change to be a virtuous Woman (tm). all that worry for change is swiftly replaced with a deep contentment towards everything but death. this sequel is written like the author was constantly looking over to her future readers and smirking.. there are jabs at creative-but-ugly writers and the general bohemian life artists led in the 19th century.
direct quote: "Somehow, as he talked, the world got right again to Jo. The old beliefs, that had lasted so long, seemed better than the new. God was not a blind force, and immortality was not a pretty fable, but a blessed fact." no comment.
"He's away all day, and at night when I want to see him, he is continually going over to the Scotts'. It isn't fair that I should have the hardest work, and never any amusement. Men are very selfish, even the best of them."
"So are women. Don't blame John till you see where you are wrong yourself."
this is supposed to be her mother. oh meg. #notmymarmee, also on the same chapter:
"In her secret soul, however, she decided that politics were as bad as mathematics, and that the mission of politicians seemed to be calling each other names, but she kept these feminine ideas to herself" SHOOOT MEEEEEEEEEE
obviously more controversial than the first part.. i actually don't mind most of their fates. beth's feels fitting, meg justifies her choices well enough, jo's love feels sincere. amy's is weird. it's a complete 180. jo is not weird let me be CLEAR. amy's fate is weird. not even amy as a character, because it doesn't feel real, but more the strings that seem to move her in order to avoid giving "teddy" a sad ending. god forbid a man is rejected. after he is, amy literally says "Try lower down, and pick those that have no thorns" ?? honey ur implying your sister has thorns? and youre lower down? for a MAN?
"Women work a good many miracles, and I have a persuasion that they may perform even that of raising the standard of manhood by refusing to echo such sayings. Let the boys be boys, the longer the better, and let the young men sow their wild oats if they must. But mothers, sisters, and friends may help to make the crop a small one, and keep many tares from spoiling the harvest, by believing, and showing that they believe, in the possibility of loyalty to the virtues which make men manliest in good women's eyes." LOUISA DROP THE INK NOWWWWW...
the sexism in this is uncomfortable because its so sure of itself, it runs so deep. its not throwaway comments its the whole book. its impossible to ignore. "It's [marriage] just what you need to bring out the tender womanly half of your nature, Jo" is a sucker punch of a quote when you consider that for 300 pages jo was completely opposed to marriage. it's not that she falls in love despite it all, but suddenly desires to get married. to be feminine, fearing her "spinster" future (she's 25) ["Yes, I remember, but the life I wanted then seems selfish, lonely, and cold to me now"]. times have changed but the stark difference between the first and second installment HURTS. when jo hears abt teddy's engagement she starts talking about children (??????) right after. even worse, when she does fall in love, amy and laurie mock how poor she will be in the future while promising to help other poor people. gagged her kinda.
little women somewhat stands the test of time (with some tolerance) while good wives does not. every woman in the stoy marries and is happier and "whole" because of it. the sisters adhere to societal expectations more than ever, even though there is a clear disapproval of those who marry without being in love.
besides all that, the characters remain mostly loveable and the little fable-like chapters wholesome enough to keep a reader happy. beth's death is treated beautifully both by characters and the prose surrounding it.
along the book there is a distaste for growth and change, as there is in the first part. but in this one alcott seems to trip over herself to make (almost...) every march have a happy, stable wedding and change to be a virtuous Woman (tm). all that worry for change is swiftly replaced with a deep contentment towards everything but death. this sequel is written like the author was constantly looking over to her future readers and smirking.. there are jabs at creative-but-ugly writers and the general bohemian life artists led in the 19th century.
direct quote: "Somehow, as he talked, the world got right again to Jo. The old beliefs, that had lasted so long, seemed better than the new. God was not a blind force, and immortality was not a pretty fable, but a blessed fact." no comment.
"He's away all day, and at night when I want to see him, he is continually going over to the Scotts'. It isn't fair that I should have the hardest work, and never any amusement. Men are very selfish, even the best of them."
"So are women. Don't blame John till you see where you are wrong yourself."
this is supposed to be her mother. oh meg. #notmymarmee, also on the same chapter:
"In her secret soul, however, she decided that politics were as bad as mathematics, and that the mission of politicians seemed to be calling each other names, but she kept these feminine ideas to herself" SHOOOT MEEEEEEEEEE
obviously more controversial than the first part.. i actually don't mind most of their fates. beth's feels fitting, meg justifies her choices well enough, jo's love feels sincere. amy's is weird. it's a complete 180. jo is not weird let me be CLEAR. amy's fate is weird. not even amy as a character, because it doesn't feel real, but more the strings that seem to move her in order to avoid giving "teddy" a sad ending. god forbid a man is rejected. after he is, amy literally says "Try lower down, and pick those that have no thorns" ?? honey ur implying your sister has thorns? and youre lower down? for a MAN?
"Women work a good many miracles, and I have a persuasion that they may perform even that of raising the standard of manhood by refusing to echo such sayings. Let the boys be boys, the longer the better, and let the young men sow their wild oats if they must. But mothers, sisters, and friends may help to make the crop a small one, and keep many tares from spoiling the harvest, by believing, and showing that they believe, in the possibility of loyalty to the virtues which make men manliest in good women's eyes." LOUISA DROP THE INK NOWWWWW...
the sexism in this is uncomfortable because its so sure of itself, it runs so deep. its not throwaway comments its the whole book. its impossible to ignore. "It's [marriage] just what you need to bring out the tender womanly half of your nature, Jo" is a sucker punch of a quote when you consider that for 300 pages jo was completely opposed to marriage. it's not that she falls in love despite it all, but suddenly desires to get married. to be feminine, fearing her "spinster" future (she's 25) ["Yes, I remember, but the life I wanted then seems selfish, lonely, and cold to me now"]. times have changed but the stark difference between the first and second installment HURTS. when jo hears abt teddy's engagement she starts talking about children (??????) right after. even worse, when she does fall in love, amy and laurie mock how poor she will be in the future while promising to help other poor people. gagged her kinda.
little women somewhat stands the test of time (with some tolerance) while good wives does not. every woman in the stoy marries and is happier and "whole" because of it. the sisters adhere to societal expectations more than ever, even though there is a clear disapproval of those who marry without being in love.
besides all that, the characters remain mostly loveable and the little fable-like chapters wholesome enough to keep a reader happy. beth's death is treated beautifully both by characters and the prose surrounding it.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexism
rakkaussipsi's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Grief
Moderate: Sexism
_tee_'s review against another edition
emotional
lighthearted
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.25
i suppose my views on this book are heavily influenced by my feminist views, which caused me to dislike the book much more than little women. a lot of my opinions on this book were formed by the book’s stance on marriage and the role of women, forcing even the most ambitious characters to get married and have a family rather than pursuing their dreams, such as jo deciding that writing for the newspaper is immoral as her stories are exciting and then giving up her writing dreams altogether to raise a lot of random boys, and also amy giving up both her dreams of being an artist and a socialite to go and marry laurie (who is only rebounding off of her older sister. yikes.)
something that made me love little women was the range of women it portrayed, from jo the ambitious writer to meg who wants to marry and have a family. i loved this detail as it showed how diverse women are, and did not portray the entire gender as just one being with the same actions and opinions, as some people believe. it also provided a little to learn from everybody (for me, the main three were jo’s ambition, amy’s confidence and beth’s selflessness). this seems totally lost in this book, as, by the end, they all seem to have become a hive mind (except for beth… who is dead) who believe that marriage and children are a woman’s only purpose in life. this is not helped by the fact that the book seems to preach that a woman’s true desire is to serve her husband, and that the source of any unhappiness she may face is that she is not married (take jo stopping grieving as heavily once the professor appears). combine this with the fact that all their ambitions have been taken away from them, and all you get is a generally outdated and somewhat boring book that just parrots ugly messages we all heard time and time before.
although the original felt preachy at times, the morals were understandable, such as helping the poor and not being selfish, but this books lacks this fact, and just spouts sexist rhetoric about marriage and families. take the chapter where meg’s husband doesn’t come home at nights to hang around at his friend’s house and works all day, leaving meg to struggle with the children and housework. this, of course, is blamed on the fact that meg wasnt finding time in the day (whilst she was caring for babies) to look after her husband and give him attention, rather john being blamed for not caring for his children. what is this supposed to mean? that a woman should learn to be in three places at once? it certainly isnt not to have children as one of the key messages of this book is that babies will solve all your problems, women.
i was genuinely surprised by this messaging as a section at the beginning of my book explains the author, louisa may alcott’s stance on marriage (which is that she enjoys freedom to much to find a husband) and her wildly feminist views for the time. i suppose she may have just been writing for the general 1800s audience?
tldr: i am glad that little women and good wives are usually sold as separate books from where i’m from, as some lucky souls may be able to steer clear from the obscenely sexist rhetoric portrayed in this book and just read the original.
(just thought i should mention that there’s weirdly some stereotypes about jewish people in one scene? a jewish character is described as a having a large nose quite a few times)
Content Warnings
Graphic: Grief
Moderate: Child death, Death, Misogyny, and Sexism
Minor: Death, Islamophobia, and Pregnancy
just general kinda icky sexism and stereotypes about jewish people in one scenemahtab's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.25
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Sexism, and Grief
More...