Scan barcode
A review by promfairy
Good Wives by Louisa May Alcott
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