mary_juleyre's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racial slurs, Racism, and Sexism
marinaschulz's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
0.25
I don't know if Louisa May Alcott intentionally *tried* to spoil her wonderful characters from "Eight Cousins", but they are definetly ruined.
I picked up "Eight Cousins" when I was quite young, because I had nothing to read, and I'd enjoyed "Little Women". Turns out, I ended up liking it much more than "Little Women"; mostly because it was significantly less preachy.
"Eight Cousins" isn't perfect. You can tell Alcott was an educator and, at a lack of a better word, wanted to blatantly brainwash her readers with her values and views. Some values stood the test of time, like family closeness and respecting your elders. Others stick out as either very sexist or like Alcott believes that having fun is a sin (like when Rose's ear piercing is considering as bad or worse than when her male cousin's smoke). Somethings simply don't translate into nowadays.
But "Eight Cousins" is a relatively harmless book. No kid nowadays will be brainwashed by it, because the bulk of the novel, which is about the family dynamic, is well written, and one can stand to ignore the annoying and preachy parts of the boom, since they are so few.
Fast forward to "Rose in Bloom" and yikes. I brought this as an e-book on an eight hours flight to and from India, and it was hell being left with it. I skimmed the last 50 pages, and that's something I never do.
Bible quotes are abundant, and the apparent purpose of the book is to teach kids that fun is immoral and that being good has to necessarily be boring or you aren't doing it right. The one 3-Dimensional character is killed off - the only character with flaws as well as qualities. Because for Alcott you're either virtuous or a sinner, and there's nothing left in the middle. Of course, said character died being a sinner, failing at redeeming himself for the woman he loves, and she never really loved him much anyways and moves on within months, because one way or the other, he drank licor and enjoyed being with his friends, and so didn't deserve good things.
Meanwhile, Rose and the rest of the characters prove that to be good you absolutely can't have any fun whatsoever. You can't, for instance, go to parties and still care about the poor. It's one or the other. If you like parties you're a sinner. And if you ever have the instinct to go out and buy yourself a nice dress don't because that's a sin too, and you should give your money to an Irish girl you can look down on, and then pat yourself on the back for how much better you are than her. Also, if you are being good, you are allowed to look down on people and be patronizing and people will love you. In sum: if you ever have the instinct of spending money on yourself you are a bad, bad person. You also aren't allowed to have friends outside your direct family.
Other things that are a sin include professions that don't directly help other people, so only be a doctor or a lawyer - or, if you have the money, a philanthropist. For some reason it is immoral to be an actor. Characters int he book agree that it is, to paraphrase, "Better and more honourable to be a lousy doctor than a successful actor". Yeah, because actors give nothing to society, like fun and distraction (which, again, are immoral) or even educational services, but being a bad doctor who might kill you is ok.
To sum things up: lots of annoying bible quotes, best character dies, nobody has any hobby or interest whatsoever because being good is all-consuming, the adults in the series basically stop existing, except to give worldly advise because age necessarily equals wisdom and Rose has a weird Oedipus Complex with Uncle Alec that is just disturbing. She ends up adopting, alone and unmarried, a small child at age circa 18, but don't worry. She does get a husband. Because that's what's important in life.
I picked up "Eight Cousins" when I was quite young, because I had nothing to read, and I'd enjoyed "Little Women". Turns out, I ended up liking it much more than "Little Women"; mostly because it was significantly less preachy.
"Eight Cousins" isn't perfect. You can tell Alcott was an educator and, at a lack of a better word, wanted to blatantly brainwash her readers with her values and views. Some values stood the test of time, like family closeness and respecting your elders. Others stick out as either very sexist or like Alcott believes that having fun is a sin (like when Rose's ear piercing is considering as bad or worse than when her male cousin's smoke). Somethings simply don't translate into nowadays.
But "Eight Cousins" is a relatively harmless book. No kid nowadays will be brainwashed by it, because the bulk of the novel, which is about the family dynamic, is well written, and one can stand to ignore the annoying and preachy parts of the boom, since they are so few.
Fast forward to "Rose in Bloom" and yikes. I brought this as an e-book on an eight hours flight to and from India, and it was hell being left with it. I skimmed the last 50 pages, and that's something I never do.
Bible quotes are abundant, and the apparent purpose of the book is to teach kids that fun is immoral and that being good has to necessarily be boring or you aren't doing it right. The one 3-Dimensional character is killed off - the only character with flaws as well as qualities. Because for Alcott you're either virtuous or a sinner, and there's nothing left in the middle. Of course, said character died being a sinner, failing at redeeming himself for the woman he loves, and she never really loved him much anyways and moves on within months, because one way or the other, he drank licor and enjoyed being with his friends, and so didn't deserve good things.
Meanwhile, Rose and the rest of the characters prove that to be good you absolutely can't have any fun whatsoever. You can't, for instance, go to parties and still care about the poor. It's one or the other. If you like parties you're a sinner. And if you ever have the instinct to go out and buy yourself a nice dress don't because that's a sin too, and you should give your money to an Irish girl you can look down on, and then pat yourself on the back for how much better you are than her. Also, if you are being good, you are allowed to look down on people and be patronizing and people will love you. In sum: if you ever have the instinct of spending money on yourself you are a bad, bad person. You also aren't allowed to have friends outside your direct family.
Other things that are a sin include professions that don't directly help other people, so only be a doctor or a lawyer - or, if you have the money, a philanthropist. For some reason it is immoral to be an actor. Characters int he book agree that it is, to paraphrase, "Better and more honourable to be a lousy doctor than a successful actor". Yeah, because actors give nothing to society, like fun and distraction (which, again, are immoral) or even educational services, but being a bad doctor who might kill you is ok.
To sum things up: lots of annoying bible quotes, best character dies, nobody has any hobby or interest whatsoever because being good is all-consuming, the adults in the series basically stop existing, except to give worldly advise because age necessarily equals wisdom and Rose has a weird Oedipus Complex with Uncle Alec that is just disturbing. She ends up adopting, alone and unmarried, a small child at age circa 18, but don't worry. She does get a husband. Because that's what's important in life.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism and Religious bigotry
More...