What do you think?
Rate this book
Great or Nothing
A reimagining of Little Women set in the spring of 1942, when the United States is suddenly embroiled in the second World War, this story, told from each March sister's point of view, is one of grief, love, and self-discovery.
In the spring of 1942, the United States is reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbor. While the US starts sending troops to the front, the March family of Concord, Massachusetts grieves their own enormous loss: the death of their daughter, Beth.
Under the strain of their grief, Beth's remaining sisters fracture, each going their own way with Jo nursing her wounds and building planes in Boston, Meg holding down the home front with Marmee, and Amy living a secret life as a Red Cross volunteer in London--the same city where one Mr. Theodore Laurence is stationed as an army pilot.
Each March sister's point of view is written by a separate author, three in prose and Beth's in verse, still holding the family together from beyond the grave. Woven together, these threads tell a story of finding one's way in a world undergoing catastrophic change.
In the spring of 1942, the United States is reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbor. While the US starts sending troops to the front, the March family of Concord, Massachusetts grieves their own enormous loss: the death of their daughter, Beth.
Under the strain of their grief, Beth's remaining sisters fracture, each going their own way with Jo nursing her wounds and building planes in Boston, Meg holding down the home front with Marmee, and Amy living a secret life as a Red Cross volunteer in London--the same city where one Mr. Theodore Laurence is stationed as an army pilot.
Each March sister's point of view is written by a separate author, three in prose and Beth's in verse, still holding the family together from beyond the grave. Woven together, these threads tell a story of finding one's way in a world undergoing catastrophic change.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published March 8, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 482 reviews
Want to read
March 8, 2022queer little women retelling? count me the fuck in!
January 20, 2022
I have admiration for authors who undertake the task of re-writing/ updating classic novels, and manage to create something great. Moving the familiar story of the March family from the Civil War era to WW2 was an ingenious idea. The original characters retained their personalities in a setting that was moved almost 100 years forward. Although four different authors collaborated, one for each March girl, it was done so seamlessly that I honestly couldn’t tell!
Many loyal Alcott fans might disparage this recreation. I really enjoyed it; all the details about life during WW2, especially those about the homefront, gave the story great reality. Meg’s experiences as a schoolteacher were particularly enjoyable to read about!
*Thanks to Netgalley for a digital copy in return for an honest review. All opinions are strictly my own.*
Many loyal Alcott fans might disparage this recreation. I really enjoyed it; all the details about life during WW2, especially those about the homefront, gave the story great reality. Meg’s experiences as a schoolteacher were particularly enjoyable to read about!
*Thanks to Netgalley for a digital copy in return for an honest review. All opinions are strictly my own.*
February 10, 2022
This is such an intriguing concept. A beloved classic set during World War II? Perfect. Unfortunately, while the idea is perfect the execution was not.
Let’s start with the pros. I loved how this book was written, with a different author writing a different sister. Their writing styles really meshed well together, and I honestly couldn’t even tell that it was coming from different people. I especially loved the poems that were written from Beth’s perspective (presumably from heaven, definitely from beyond the grave). They were beautiful and poignant and in incredibly haunting at times. In addition to this, the setting just fit really well with the March family. Hearing about Meg put on lipstick or plant a victory garden felt completely normal.
The second part I loved is that we get to see more of Amy and Laurie’s relationship. I feel like this gets skipped over a lot in the book and movie adaptations, and so I liked that we actually get to see their relationship as it progresses (plus they're really cute together in general, so I'm always up for them to get more screen time).
Where this book lost me was in how it represented the March sisters (warning: significant spoilers ahead). The whole reason that we love Little Women is because of the strong family bonds that it represent. However, in this book, Beth’s death drives the sisters apart instead of bringing them together, and they spend more time focusing on their individual love interests than they spend in reconciling with their sisters. Jo felt especially out of character, though this may have been largely due to the fact that she is portrayed as queer. Personally, I feel like this change to her character didn’t fit, and felt like it was included more for the shock factor than for anything else. Also I genuinely missed Professor Bhaer.
The second problem I had was that the book is four hundred pages long, and yet nothing really happened. Amy’s was the only plot line that had any form of action or really anything resembling the traditional narrative arc. Meg and Jo’s stories felt more like a-day-in-the-life style, focusing on their emotions instead of their actions or anything going on around them. When I finished the book I thought surely it had only been 250 or so pages with the amount of plot it contained.
Finally, the ending was just off. I felt like with all of the tension between the three sisters, there should have been a longer, more meaningful conclusion and not just a phone call. Their reconciliation was the main plot, and so the brief conclusion felt particularly lacking as a result.
Overall, it was an enjoyable read, but plot and character building could have used some more work.
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley for the purpose of this review. All thoughts and opinions are entirely my own, and I am writing a voluntary review.
Let’s start with the pros. I loved how this book was written, with a different author writing a different sister. Their writing styles really meshed well together, and I honestly couldn’t even tell that it was coming from different people. I especially loved the poems that were written from Beth’s perspective (presumably from heaven, definitely from beyond the grave). They were beautiful and poignant and in incredibly haunting at times. In addition to this, the setting just fit really well with the March family. Hearing about Meg put on lipstick or plant a victory garden felt completely normal.
The second part I loved is that we get to see more of Amy and Laurie’s relationship. I feel like this gets skipped over a lot in the book and movie adaptations, and so I liked that we actually get to see their relationship as it progresses (plus they're really cute together in general, so I'm always up for them to get more screen time).
Where this book lost me was in how it represented the March sisters (warning: significant spoilers ahead). The whole reason that we love Little Women is because of the strong family bonds that it represent. However, in this book, Beth’s death drives the sisters apart instead of bringing them together, and they spend more time focusing on their individual love interests than they spend in reconciling with their sisters. Jo felt especially out of character, though this may have been largely due to the fact that she is portrayed as queer. Personally, I feel like this change to her character didn’t fit, and felt like it was included more for the shock factor than for anything else. Also I genuinely missed Professor Bhaer.
The second problem I had was that the book is four hundred pages long, and yet nothing really happened. Amy’s was the only plot line that had any form of action or really anything resembling the traditional narrative arc. Meg and Jo’s stories felt more like a-day-in-the-life style, focusing on their emotions instead of their actions or anything going on around them. When I finished the book I thought surely it had only been 250 or so pages with the amount of plot it contained.
Finally, the ending was just off. I felt like with all of the tension between the three sisters, there should have been a longer, more meaningful conclusion and not just a phone call. Their reconciliation was the main plot, and so the brief conclusion felt particularly lacking as a result.
Overall, it was an enjoyable read, but plot and character building could have used some more work.
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley for the purpose of this review. All thoughts and opinions are entirely my own, and I am writing a voluntary review.
March 14, 2022
A wonderful reworking of Little Women set in the US in 1942, and told from each March sister's POV. Creative and absorbing, and a must-read for anyone who loves the original. Highly recommended!
Thanks to the authors, Random House Children's, Delacorte Press, and Netgalley for the ARC; opinions are mine.
#greatornothing #netgalley
#RandomHouseChildrensDelacortePress
Thanks to the authors, Random House Children's, Delacorte Press, and Netgalley for the ARC; opinions are mine.
#greatornothing #netgalley
#RandomHouseChildrensDelacortePress
February 24, 2022
Oh how I wanted to like this book so much more than I did. The concept is perfect, the shifting historical time period works well, even the four sisters being written by different authors worked better than I originally thought it would. But the plot and some of the characterization simply fell flat for me.
Overall, I think the book was about 150-200 pages too long. As a 400 page book, not a whole lot happens. The Amy sections do offer the most growth, which is a nice reversal from the book and many film adaptations because it can be very jarring to simply find out, at the same moment that Jo does, that Amy and Laurie are married. While the book and films do showcase a little bit of their romance, this book affords the readers a prolonged look into how it could have happened.
As for Meg and Jo, more often than not I felt like we were treading over the same few issues. This is also a problem in the Amy chapters, but Amy's also had more purpose than Meg or Jo's chapters, with her budding romance and the addition of Laurie. Every chapter alluded to The Fight™. Every chapter alluded to Their Grief. Every chapter alluded to Meg's discontentment with staying home and Jo just having to run away because no one understood her. These sentiments were repeated nearly every chapter, and truly never revealed much. We can obviously gather what The Fight was about, but the harsh words, the reasons Jo never writes home and avoids Marmee's phone calls, are never revealed. Meg is reduced even further, in my opinion, than in Alcott's original novel when she marries the eldest daughter off to appease the view of women at the time (my opinion: the second half of little women purposely destroyed her characters to prove a point). Meg in the original novel is strong, she makes her choices (to marry and have children and keep a home) because she wants to and finds pride and joy in those things. Meg in this novel seems to whine at every inconvenience of being the one who is home, and it seems she stays out of unwanted obligation. It just doesn't feel like Meg to me.
Jo. I just come right out with it: the choice to make Jo queer in this novel may hold water because of the time and I know she has been increasingly read and coded toward the queer end of the spectrum in more modern times, but I simply do not agree with that assessment, nor do I like the choice here. To me, it takes something innate about Jo, her differences in wants from the time she was written, and diminishes that power a bit. Again, given the time period of THIS novel, and the proclivity for many historical fiction novels set in the same period to throw in the token queer woman and the woman she discovers shares her desires, I can understand why she was written this way. I just don't agree with the choice.
The Beth sections, written in prose, were beautiful. Many of the poems were very touching and I liked how it was as if Beth was still a part of the story, watching the strife her sisters were going through unfold. Beth is one of my favorite characters so to have her missing was a detractor, but to have a piece of her, was lovely.
I think, beyond the novel being too long and too repetitive at times, what also detracts from the heart of the story for me is the fact that the March sisters are scattered. The strength of Little Women is the sisterhood. They have their disagreements and arguments, but there is a bond in their sisterhood that withstood those things, and the test of time. It withstood Beth's death and to make her death here one of the catalysts for the break in their bonds, feels cheap. The sisters interactions are key to the March's story and you can feel that lack keenly.
The ending of this book leaves me baffled. There was no conclusion. There was no reunion, save for Amy coming home and essentially rehashing exactly what had happened in her chapters for Meg. Jo doesn't go home? Jo simply makes a phone call and then it ends. At least with the original story, Jo was about to publish her novel, something she did on her own rather than with someone else which is the case of the article she was writing with Charlie. The end was a let down, and rushed. And really left a lot to be desired, including the sense of conclusion. Not that everything needs to be wrapped up with a bow, but it felt as if the book was working toward a family reunion, to set aside their argument and heal together. And we never got to see that, which is disappointing.
Perhaps a younger reader would enjoy this more, or someone who does not pick up this book because they already know and love the source material. It is YA, which I have absolutely nothing against and read often, but there was something a little more juvenile to the story and characters than I like.
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley for the purpose of this review. All thoughts and opinions are entirely my own, and I am writing a voluntary review.
Overall, I think the book was about 150-200 pages too long. As a 400 page book, not a whole lot happens. The Amy sections do offer the most growth, which is a nice reversal from the book and many film adaptations because it can be very jarring to simply find out, at the same moment that Jo does, that Amy and Laurie are married. While the book and films do showcase a little bit of their romance, this book affords the readers a prolonged look into how it could have happened.
As for Meg and Jo, more often than not I felt like we were treading over the same few issues. This is also a problem in the Amy chapters, but Amy's also had more purpose than Meg or Jo's chapters, with her budding romance and the addition of Laurie. Every chapter alluded to The Fight™. Every chapter alluded to Their Grief. Every chapter alluded to Meg's discontentment with staying home and Jo just having to run away because no one understood her. These sentiments were repeated nearly every chapter, and truly never revealed much. We can obviously gather what The Fight was about, but the harsh words, the reasons Jo never writes home and avoids Marmee's phone calls, are never revealed. Meg is reduced even further, in my opinion, than in Alcott's original novel when she marries the eldest daughter off to appease the view of women at the time (my opinion: the second half of little women purposely destroyed her characters to prove a point). Meg in the original novel is strong, she makes her choices (to marry and have children and keep a home) because she wants to and finds pride and joy in those things. Meg in this novel seems to whine at every inconvenience of being the one who is home, and it seems she stays out of unwanted obligation. It just doesn't feel like Meg to me.
Jo. I just come right out with it: the choice to make Jo queer in this novel may hold water because of the time and I know she has been increasingly read and coded toward the queer end of the spectrum in more modern times, but I simply do not agree with that assessment, nor do I like the choice here. To me, it takes something innate about Jo, her differences in wants from the time she was written, and diminishes that power a bit. Again, given the time period of THIS novel, and the proclivity for many historical fiction novels set in the same period to throw in the token queer woman and the woman she discovers shares her desires, I can understand why she was written this way. I just don't agree with the choice.
The Beth sections, written in prose, were beautiful. Many of the poems were very touching and I liked how it was as if Beth was still a part of the story, watching the strife her sisters were going through unfold. Beth is one of my favorite characters so to have her missing was a detractor, but to have a piece of her, was lovely.
I think, beyond the novel being too long and too repetitive at times, what also detracts from the heart of the story for me is the fact that the March sisters are scattered. The strength of Little Women is the sisterhood. They have their disagreements and arguments, but there is a bond in their sisterhood that withstood those things, and the test of time. It withstood Beth's death and to make her death here one of the catalysts for the break in their bonds, feels cheap. The sisters interactions are key to the March's story and you can feel that lack keenly.
The ending of this book leaves me baffled. There was no conclusion. There was no reunion, save for Amy coming home and essentially rehashing exactly what had happened in her chapters for Meg. Jo doesn't go home? Jo simply makes a phone call and then it ends. At least with the original story, Jo was about to publish her novel, something she did on her own rather than with someone else which is the case of the article she was writing with Charlie. The end was a let down, and rushed. And really left a lot to be desired, including the sense of conclusion. Not that everything needs to be wrapped up with a bow, but it felt as if the book was working toward a family reunion, to set aside their argument and heal together. And we never got to see that, which is disappointing.
Perhaps a younger reader would enjoy this more, or someone who does not pick up this book because they already know and love the source material. It is YA, which I have absolutely nothing against and read often, but there was something a little more juvenile to the story and characters than I like.
I received a copy of this book from Netgalley for the purpose of this review. All thoughts and opinions are entirely my own, and I am writing a voluntary review.
March 28, 2022
One of my favorite books growing up was “Little Women”. I still have my original book my mom gave me as a kid. These days I read a lot of WWII books. So combining an old classic with one of my favorite time periods was a must read for me.
“Beantown Girls” by Jane Healey (⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️) was the first time I read about the Red Cross Clubmobile. I love that “Great or Nothing” incorporated this into the story. However, I feel as though the book made light of the Clubmobile services. The Clubmobile volunteers also known as the “Donut Dollies” had an important role building and maintaining troop morale during WWII, sometimes at the risk of their own safety.
I felt that the disagreement between the sisters was such a big part of the book that it didn’t leave room for much character development.
I’m glad I read it, but I just couldn’t connect with the March sisters in this book.
“Beantown Girls” by Jane Healey (⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️) was the first time I read about the Red Cross Clubmobile. I love that “Great or Nothing” incorporated this into the story. However, I feel as though the book made light of the Clubmobile services. The Clubmobile volunteers also known as the “Donut Dollies” had an important role building and maintaining troop morale during WWII, sometimes at the risk of their own safety.
I felt that the disagreement between the sisters was such a big part of the book that it didn’t leave room for much character development.
I’m glad I read it, but I just couldn’t connect with the March sisters in this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 27, 2022
This re-imagined
Little Women
set during World War II began when Jessica Spotswood posted a story idea she found daunting on Twitter. Her fellow authors joined with her to flesh out this story where Jo is queer and working in a factory, Amy has run away to join the Red Cross in London, Meg is a teacher and living at home with Marmee, and Beth watches over them all.
Each of the four authors assumed the story line of a different March sister. Spotswood wrote Meg’s chapters, Sharpe wrote Jo, Richmond followed Amy, and McCullough gave voice to Beth. I particularly liked how McCullough used poetry to show Beth following her sisters’ exploits.
With four authors, the four sisters had more equal roles than in the original work, which really focused on Jo. Having them each in a separate location helped, as they had fewer shared experiences. This was especially true for Meg and Amy.
And, while the time frame is World War II, this is NOT a soldier’s story, but more a story of how the women left behind dealt with their fears, and rose to the challenge of supporting those fighting overseas.
A favorite quote: A woman with ideas is terrifying to a certain kind of person.
Some libraries, including mine, have shelved this in the Young Adult section, others, as adult fiction. Jo’s relationship is depicted in way that is not at all graphic, but deals more with the feelings of love and connection between the characters.
Each of the four authors assumed the story line of a different March sister. Spotswood wrote Meg’s chapters, Sharpe wrote Jo, Richmond followed Amy, and McCullough gave voice to Beth. I particularly liked how McCullough used poetry to show Beth following her sisters’ exploits.
With four authors, the four sisters had more equal roles than in the original work, which really focused on Jo. Having them each in a separate location helped, as they had fewer shared experiences. This was especially true for Meg and Amy.
And, while the time frame is World War II, this is NOT a soldier’s story, but more a story of how the women left behind dealt with their fears, and rose to the challenge of supporting those fighting overseas.
A favorite quote: A woman with ideas is terrifying to a certain kind of person.
Some libraries, including mine, have shelved this in the Young Adult section, others, as adult fiction. Jo’s relationship is depicted in way that is not at all graphic, but deals more with the feelings of love and connection between the characters.
March 28, 2022
Thank you to Netgalley and the publisher for providing me with an eARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Great or Nothing has been on my TBR since the moment I saw it on Goodreads. A book with Joy McCullough about some of my favorite literary characters is an immediate win for me and it certainly didn’t disappoint!
Great or Nothing is a retelling of Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women but reimagined during World War II. We are privy to the narrative of each of the four March sisters each of whom is written by a different author. The characters held true to the outline of Alcott’s characters while exploring the opportunities that a new time period and setting provides.
This book had so many strengths it’s difficult to know where to begin. The choice to utilize different authors for each of the different sisters added an element to this book that could not be recreated by a single writer. Each author had a distinct enough voice that the narratives didn’t blend together or get too confusing. Joy McCullough’s verse as Beth was particularly powerful and really encapsulated the strengths of her writing.
Another strength of this book was the clear research and work that had been done to make it historically accurate. The addition of pop culture references from the time period and significant events and mindsets worked to ground the reader in the time period. The way that these authors handled issues of racism and sexism of the time period was both graceful and powerful. The dissatisfaction of the women who were underappreciated was clear without being overbearing as they emphasized the importance of both leaving home to work and staying home to comfort. The commentary on the racial prejudices against Black soldiers and Japanese Americans was handled very well. It demonstrated imperfect white characters who needed to grow and change, and did, without creating a white savior complex.
I think the biggest flaw of this book is its pacing. The beginning moves slowly sometimes including details that seem unnecessary. Because of this, it feels like the end of the book ran out of space and had to end rather abruptly without a full resolve. I can totally understand the literary strategy of the way this book ended, but for me, I would’ve preferred slightly more resolve.
Overall, I absolutely adore this book and it will be one that I think about long after I have finished it. The end of it had me nearly in tears. It is a beautiful and powerful novel that revives and reimagines Alcott’s characters in powerful new positions.
Great or Nothing has been on my TBR since the moment I saw it on Goodreads. A book with Joy McCullough about some of my favorite literary characters is an immediate win for me and it certainly didn’t disappoint!
Great or Nothing is a retelling of Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women but reimagined during World War II. We are privy to the narrative of each of the four March sisters each of whom is written by a different author. The characters held true to the outline of Alcott’s characters while exploring the opportunities that a new time period and setting provides.
This book had so many strengths it’s difficult to know where to begin. The choice to utilize different authors for each of the different sisters added an element to this book that could not be recreated by a single writer. Each author had a distinct enough voice that the narratives didn’t blend together or get too confusing. Joy McCullough’s verse as Beth was particularly powerful and really encapsulated the strengths of her writing.
Another strength of this book was the clear research and work that had been done to make it historically accurate. The addition of pop culture references from the time period and significant events and mindsets worked to ground the reader in the time period. The way that these authors handled issues of racism and sexism of the time period was both graceful and powerful. The dissatisfaction of the women who were underappreciated was clear without being overbearing as they emphasized the importance of both leaving home to work and staying home to comfort. The commentary on the racial prejudices against Black soldiers and Japanese Americans was handled very well. It demonstrated imperfect white characters who needed to grow and change, and did, without creating a white savior complex.
I think the biggest flaw of this book is its pacing. The beginning moves slowly sometimes including details that seem unnecessary. Because of this, it feels like the end of the book ran out of space and had to end rather abruptly without a full resolve. I can totally understand the literary strategy of the way this book ended, but for me, I would’ve preferred slightly more resolve.
Overall, I absolutely adore this book and it will be one that I think about long after I have finished it. The end of it had me nearly in tears. It is a beautiful and powerful novel that revives and reimagines Alcott’s characters in powerful new positions.
May 16, 2022
4.5 rounded up!
I never ever ever thought I would read or watch a Little Women adaptation and end up having Beth become my favorite sister, but friends, IT HAPPENED!
This is a Little Women retelling that takes place during WWII and each sister has found a war effort to lose herself in…all except Beth…because this is after she passes. Jo is working in a factory making parts for the planes that are used in the war, Meg is at home teaching and trying to keep home normal for Marmee and her students, and Amy has run away to England to join the Res Cross without her family knowing.
Each sister’s pov is told by a different author and it helped move the story so quickly. Beth’s pov is almost as if she is watching over the sisters and bridges their chapters via poetry and these parts often stole my breath and pulled my heartstrings. I adored them.
This retelling absolutely stands on its own, while leaning into the original versions bones. The things that make the second half of the original Little Women (aka Good Wives) so rich and exciting are all still there, while being uniquely their own! Without spoiling, we even have a queer rep and I ADORED IT!
Anyhoo, I highly recommend this story, especially on audio and thoroughly enjoyed it for both the nostalgia of Little Women and the creative GENUIS that makes it it’s own!
*thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for a free eARC in exchange for my honest and unbiased review!*
I never ever ever thought I would read or watch a Little Women adaptation and end up having Beth become my favorite sister, but friends, IT HAPPENED!
This is a Little Women retelling that takes place during WWII and each sister has found a war effort to lose herself in…all except Beth…because this is after she passes. Jo is working in a factory making parts for the planes that are used in the war, Meg is at home teaching and trying to keep home normal for Marmee and her students, and Amy has run away to England to join the Res Cross without her family knowing.
Each sister’s pov is told by a different author and it helped move the story so quickly. Beth’s pov is almost as if she is watching over the sisters and bridges their chapters via poetry and these parts often stole my breath and pulled my heartstrings. I adored them.
This retelling absolutely stands on its own, while leaning into the original versions bones. The things that make the second half of the original Little Women (aka Good Wives) so rich and exciting are all still there, while being uniquely their own! Without spoiling, we even have a queer rep and I ADORED IT!
Anyhoo, I highly recommend this story, especially on audio and thoroughly enjoyed it for both the nostalgia of Little Women and the creative GENUIS that makes it it’s own!
*thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for a free eARC in exchange for my honest and unbiased review!*
July 27, 2024
A really fun read!! Such a beautiful cover!! Soooooo pretty!! And it being set in WWII was super interesting!
Meg’s perspective was fun to read about but it did feel like it dragged on just a little bit.
I LOVED Amy’s perspective!! It was so fun to read about her and Laurie!! It was adorable!! Definitely worth it just to read about her!!
Jo’s perspective was a disappointment. It wasn’t fun to read about how mad she was at her sisters and how long she’s held a grudge for. And she ends up being gay so why even read about her. It was sad to see how they wrote her because she’s such a great character in the original.
Beth’s perspective was beautiful!! And her poems summed up the characters perfectly!!
Meg’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Amy’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Jo’s story:⭐️
Beth’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I would highly suggest reading Meg’s, Amy’s, and Beth’s poetry, and just skipping Jo’s because it doesn’t even matter to the plot. You’ll be just fine without it!
Meg’s perspective was fun to read about but it did feel like it dragged on just a little bit.
I LOVED Amy’s perspective!! It was so fun to read about her and Laurie!! It was adorable!! Definitely worth it just to read about her!!
Jo’s perspective was a disappointment. It wasn’t fun to read about how mad she was at her sisters and how long she’s held a grudge for. And she ends up being gay so why even read about her. It was sad to see how they wrote her because she’s such a great character in the original.
Beth’s perspective was beautiful!! And her poems summed up the characters perfectly!!
Meg’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Amy’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Jo’s story:⭐️
Beth’s story:⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I would highly suggest reading Meg’s, Amy’s, and Beth’s poetry, and just skipping Jo’s because it doesn’t even matter to the plot. You’ll be just fine without it!
July 8, 2022
Oh, this is the kind of retelling I like! Your mileage may vary, of course, but for me it kept the spirit of the books and characters while also feeling free to do its own thing. It wasn't a scene by scene retelling.
It also felt really true to the time period it was set in.
It also felt really true to the time period it was set in.
Want to read
October 24, 2020"....a reimagining of Little Women set in the spring of 1942....in which each March sister's point of view is written by a separate author". SAY LESS.
June 21, 2022
As a standalone story about sisters grieving the loss of their wonderful, perfect, GOOD sister and coming to terms with the changes WWII brings to their lives, this is a pretty decent novel. As a standalone queer romance, it's a cute short story.
What I liked:
The historical details about how WWII affected the people on the homefront. The families left behind, the Japanese-Americans eager and willing to fight but incarcerated because of their race, the young women forging their own paths in life for the first time. This was well done. I also liked the incorporation of the minor subplots about Japanese-Americans and the racism they faced. The history of the Red Cross Clubmobile program was also fascinating. I knew about the Salvation Army doughnut girls but not the WWII Clubmobile program. I somehow missed that in my research into food during the World Wars. Try molasses doughnuts for an authentic taste.
I liked seeing the characters grow in confidence, except Amy.
I really liked Charlie. I relate more to her than Jo because Charlie is far more like the original Jo March. She's feisty, determined and fearless! I wholeheartedly agree about the women in the military auxiliary services. Only NOW, after most of them are dead, can they be buried at Arlington. I totally don't buy into the rhetoric of focusing only on the rah rah rah hooray for America stuff. I appreciated the relationship between Charlie and Peg though and understand Peg's view of the situation. They were much more like Jo and Meg, even their names. Meg and Peg are both nicknames for Margaret and of course Charlie is a masculine sounding nickname like Jo. I especially enjoyed the budding relationship between Jo and Charlie. They have a lot in common and bond over those commonalities. While Charlie is confident in who she is, Jo is still struggling to figure out what she wants.
I also found Doro a lot like Jo, more than the Jo that is presented here. A student at the high school where Meg is a teacher, Doro is a force to be reckoned with. She's angry and raging at the world. Life has been unkind to her and she's a teenager so it's extra tough. Her story is sad and I know she's not the only one going through that. I'm sure there will be others at school too. I LOVE the way Meg helps Doro deal with her rage. It's similar to how Marmee offers her wise counsel to Jo with her "I'm angry every day of my life" speech. It's a great scene because it also helps Meg deal with her own rage against the world.
Unlike many reviewers, I enjoyed Beth's poems from beyond the grave. Poetry isn't my thing and blank verse is weird but Beth recapped some of the events from Little Women Part I to help jog readers' minds. It also shows a different side of Beth, what she was really thinking and feeling. It makes her less of a saint and more human. I also appreciate how she shares that she can't protect anyone she loves even though she wishes she could but she'll be there with them in spirit. That's a very sweet thought and I often imagine my loved ones with us still, watching and celebrating or helping us along the way. My sister has actually experienced evidence of that first hand so I'm buying Beth's beyond-the-grave plot.
All of this would have made a great novella! Even Jo's story would have made a good short story. Meg's story paired with it would be a good novella.
What I do not like is ...
As an adaptation of Little Women, it fails majorly. It goes on too long and the authors completely misinterpreted their characters. It lacks Marmee's wise counsel and that warm, cozy feeling that makes all of us want to be March sisters.
The story is filled with inconsistencies. The second part of Little Women covers Beth's final illness and death. This occurs AFTER Meg has married John and had the twins, AFTER Jo was in New York and while Amy is in Paris. In this reimagining, Beth is dead and she was apparently the glue that held the sisters together so now they've argued and scattered. There are also references to Father losing his money in the stock market crash of '29 but also references to Father being like Bronson Alcott and not being able to support his family. MANY MANY MANY people lost their money in the stock market crash. That's not Mr. March's fault. Even 1860s Father March is based more on Ralph Waldo Emerson than on Bronson Alcott.
I do not like these March sisters much. These sisters are mean and nasty to each other. They fight, they lie and hold grudges. They're grown adults not teenagers and they still act like they're 13-17. It went on too long and wasn't really concluded. Apparently in this universe, Beth was the glue that held them together and without her, they come undone. This is completely off.
Little Women is about sisters and the bond between them. Family was everything to Louisa May Alcott. If it wasn't, she would have ran away from home, disguised herself as a man and fought in the Civil War. If Louisa wasn't all about family, she wouldn't have literally worked herself to death trying to support them all because her lazy father was too noble to work. Little Women is about sisterhood. The sisters share an unbreakable bond. Yes they have their differences and even fight but when Amy fell through the ice, Jo realized her temper nearly killed her sister. Marmee's wise counsel helped Jo curb her temper. At the end of the day, the sisters are sisters. They fight sometimes but they love each other. They grow closer as adults after Beth's death, realizing life is precious and ambition is great but family is more important.
In the original novel Meg is happy with her choices to become a wife and mother. She wants those things, it's not just what's expected of her. In this version, Meg wants those things too but she's also a school teacher and a good one. She's making a difference in the lives of children who need her. They attend a regular old public school and don't always pay attention to what she's teaching but she begins to see the difference as she befriends a student named Doro.
Still, Meg wants to get married. She's the one stuck at home with Marmee and she's the one trying to put on a brave and happy face for everyone. Sometimes she resents her sisters for leaving home and leaving her behind. This is not the Meg March I know. The Meg March I know was happily married and a mother by this time. This Meg sounds more like Jo.
There's a whole chapter replicating the "Meg Goes to Vanity Fair" chapter in the original which Beth helpfully points out. Didn't Meg learn her lesson the first time? In this story she runs into a fellow teacher and not Laurie which makes her embarrassed and ashamed. This part does not equal the part in the original where Meg buys a new dress at the encouragement of Sally, even though she knows she can't afford it. Meg finally learns to be content with what she has at that point thanks to a loving and patient husband. This Meg still isn't quite sure. There's also a chapter than mirrors the original when Aunt March gives Meg a hard time about getting engaged to a poor man. Like the original, it spurs Meg into realizing she knows what she wants. At that point in the novel it just doesn't make sense because the timeline is way off. Sallie Gardiner is a classic mean girl.
Meg and Jo apparently had a huge fight. We never really learn what it was about, just Meg's inability to see Jo. They apparently fight over their life choices. Meg wants marriage and not a career while Jo wants ....??? They're supposed to be super close and tell each other everything so why doesn't Meg know what's in Jo's heart? Jo can NOT love Laurie enough to want to be his girl. That's tough because it's wartime but can't Meg see that he's their brother and Jo's bestie and not a love interest? If they're really that close, she should know that. Then Amy interferes and Jo snaps at Amy and Amy rebels.
I don't read Jo as queer. I don't have a problem with a queer romance story or a story inspired by Jo March but not a direct adaption. There are good reasons she rejects Laurie's proposal. 1)They're too young. He's just finished school, he's kind of lazy and doesn't do anything to support a family. NO ONE in the March family is pressuring Jo into marrying him. That's just a bad idea. 2)They're like siblings. She thinks of him as a boy, a brother, a friend. 3)They're too much alike. Amy flatters Laurie's ego and lets him think he's hot stuff. Jo tells it like it is and they'd never get along. 4) Jo is freaking out because her sisterhood is about to be broken up and OMG that means she'll be the eldest and now she has to be an adult and nothing will be the same and 5)MOST IMPORTANTLY Louisa wanted Jo to be her alter ego- "a literary spinster content to paddle her own canoe." I wish someone would do it right and leave Jo as she is with her ambition and her pen. No need for romance.
Jo doesn't become a duller version of herself as she ages (see Anne Shirley for THAT, she grows up, she matures, she stops acting like a child. Jo learns to control her temper but that doesn't mean she isn't still angry, like Marmee. Jo learns from life experience about what she wants and what she doesn't. She learns her limitations. She can be great, she just needs time.
Jo matures and grows as the novel goes on and after her time in New York, she returns home and must become the adult of the family as Marmee and Father do not see Beth's illness for what it is. After Beth's death Jo returns to writing with the encouragement of her family. She's gotten to know herself better and grown up. She misses all her sisters and grieves for their lost childhood. Enter Professor Beher. He knows how she's feeling and what's in her heart. He's a good man and helps Jo become a better woman. Marmee, Meg and Amy see what's going on right away and even Laurie figures it out quickly. They all support Jo.
I also don't see Jo giving up her writing just because she can't find someone to publish her stories. She doesn't in the original, she just changes direction. Is Jo changing direction in this novel? Not really. She's running away from her problems, her fears and her own feelings. Working in a factory makes her too busy and tired to think. That's not healthy. She needs a Professor Beher to help her find her way. Enter Charlie, her boarding house mate's sister. Charlie is a lot like Jo. She sees Jo, she understands Jo and pushes Jo to be a better writer and better sister but it doesn't quite ever reach the level of interaction between Jo and Fredrich Beher. There needs to be more to the story. I wish Charlie had been introduced sooner and interacted with Jo more.
I don't like angry, angsty Jo. In the original, Jo is a straight shooter. She tells it like it is and doesn't shirk her duty. She tells Laurie why she doesn't want to marry him. She goes to New York to get away from home and gain life experience and mature a bit. This Jo is just running away. Yes it's scary and I get it but I find it incredibly hard to believe that in this alternate 1940s story, Meg and Marmee wouldn't know who Jo is and why she can't love Laurie like that even if Jo doesn't know herself. I'm reasonably certain my mother and siblings wouldn't bat an eyelash if it were me. I would, however, and have, argued with my sister about her choice to marry and raise a family. Today women have more options. In the 1940s not so much and in the 1860s none at all. I don't see Meg and Jo having such a big argument.
Amy is the worst of all. She's still bratty. At 16, she's tired of being left out of her sisters' lives. Now she's the only young one without Beth. She's angry at her older sisters and mad because Jo considers Amy a snoop. In this case, it's untrue but Amy probably was like that when she was younger. Instead of talking to Marmee or to Meg, who in the original always takes Amy's side, she decides to run away herself and PROVE to her sisters she's grown up. In her mind, she seems to imagine everyone else still at home. She doesn't seem to know Jo and Father are away. In Amy's mind she's still the baby of the family and won't they be surprised when she comes home. Amy does all kinds of wrong things. She's not all that likable. Amy lies about her identity and lies to her family about where she is! Her ruse is so elaborate and she involves her cousin which could potentially get Flo in serious trouble. Amy joins the Red Cross in London where it's dangerous. If she's killed her family will never know where she is. That's just horrible! Marmee and Father already lost one child, why put them through that again?
In London, Amy befriends Edie, who seems to be a troubled soul, determined to be a bad seed. She's a bad influence on Amy who is already a horrible person. While the Red Cross is not the military, there are rules and regulations and rules for a reason! They are NOT there to go all "khaki wacky" over the soldiers.
(There's a reason why Dorothea Dix set the rules for nurses in the Civil War being 30+ and ugly).
The two younger girls are horrible to their supervisor, Marion. I guessed Marion's secret pretty quickly. Edie is incredibly rude and racist towards a Black serviceman as well, making Amy side with her instead of doing the right thing. Jo wouldn't have been so rude, Meg would have scolded and Beth would have been shy but at least talked to the man. Amy feels a bit ashamed. She KNOWS that's not the way she was raised but she does it again! She keeps silent when she should speak.
I still don't buy the Amy/Laurie romance. It's still underdeveloped. A lot is told rather than shown and I don't like that. Why does Laurie love Amy? Why does she love him? She's had a crush on him since childhood but we don't know much more than that. He knows her secrets and keeps quiet and still falls in love.
I also don't understand why Amy thinks she has to give up art. Florence Pugh's Amy gave that great speech in Greta Gerwig's 2020 film. (Amy's genius vs. talent speech). It was hard for women in the 1860s but this Amy seems to enjoy art and is good at it. Does she even know she's not great? I don't understand that.
Are you still reading? One more minor critique. If I were going to update Little Women and set it in New England, because it is a quintessentially New England story, I would have made the Marches half Irish or ethnic, descendants of mill workers AND the Boston abolitionist. It would make more sense. I don't know anyone in New England who is pure Yankee. I had maybe one classmate who didn't know where her family was from and when but judging from her name, her ancestors were likely French-Canadian mill workers and I very much grew up in the same kind of community as the March sisters not too too far from Concord.
I'd like to know how much research the authors did on WWII Concord. I was curious whether there was a swimming pool and if Amy had ever been to the other side of town, near the factories, to try "exotic" ethnic food. I'd have liked to see her head a little bit west on a date and visit a little hole in the wall restaurant in Fitchburg known as L'Conco D'Oro. She could have befriended Rita, age 15, the youngest in the family of 5 children. She had two big sisters. I think they could have related to one another! Sadly I don't think Fred Vaughn would have gone to an Eye-talian place. Too exotic. She'll have to go with Laurie when he comes back.
Anyway; TL:DR This book had potential but it's not a good adaption of the beloved novel.
What I liked:
The historical details about how WWII affected the people on the homefront. The families left behind, the Japanese-Americans eager and willing to fight but incarcerated because of their race, the young women forging their own paths in life for the first time. This was well done. I also liked the incorporation of the minor subplots about Japanese-Americans and the racism they faced. The history of the Red Cross Clubmobile program was also fascinating. I knew about the Salvation Army doughnut girls but not the WWII Clubmobile program. I somehow missed that in my research into food during the World Wars. Try molasses doughnuts for an authentic taste.
I liked seeing the characters grow in confidence, except Amy.
I really liked Charlie. I relate more to her than Jo because Charlie is far more like the original Jo March. She's feisty, determined and fearless! I wholeheartedly agree about the women in the military auxiliary services. Only NOW, after most of them are dead, can they be buried at Arlington. I totally don't buy into the rhetoric of focusing only on the rah rah rah hooray for America stuff. I appreciated the relationship between Charlie and Peg though and understand Peg's view of the situation. They were much more like Jo and Meg, even their names. Meg and Peg are both nicknames for Margaret and of course Charlie is a masculine sounding nickname like Jo. I especially enjoyed the budding relationship between Jo and Charlie. They have a lot in common and bond over those commonalities. While Charlie is confident in who she is, Jo is still struggling to figure out what she wants.
I also found Doro a lot like Jo, more than the Jo that is presented here. A student at the high school where Meg is a teacher, Doro is a force to be reckoned with. She's angry and raging at the world. Life has been unkind to her and she's a teenager so it's extra tough. Her story is sad and I know she's not the only one going through that. I'm sure there will be others at school too. I LOVE the way Meg helps Doro deal with her rage. It's similar to how Marmee offers her wise counsel to Jo with her "I'm angry every day of my life" speech. It's a great scene because it also helps Meg deal with her own rage against the world.
Unlike many reviewers, I enjoyed Beth's poems from beyond the grave. Poetry isn't my thing and blank verse is weird but Beth recapped some of the events from Little Women Part I to help jog readers' minds. It also shows a different side of Beth, what she was really thinking and feeling. It makes her less of a saint and more human. I also appreciate how she shares that she can't protect anyone she loves even though she wishes she could but she'll be there with them in spirit. That's a very sweet thought and I often imagine my loved ones with us still, watching and celebrating or helping us along the way. My sister has actually experienced evidence of that first hand so I'm buying Beth's beyond-the-grave plot.
All of this would have made a great novella! Even Jo's story would have made a good short story. Meg's story paired with it would be a good novella.
What I do not like is ...
As an adaptation of Little Women, it fails majorly. It goes on too long and the authors completely misinterpreted their characters. It lacks Marmee's wise counsel and that warm, cozy feeling that makes all of us want to be March sisters.
The story is filled with inconsistencies. The second part of Little Women covers Beth's final illness and death. This occurs AFTER Meg has married John and had the twins, AFTER Jo was in New York and while Amy is in Paris. In this reimagining, Beth is dead and she was apparently the glue that held the sisters together so now they've argued and scattered. There are also references to Father losing his money in the stock market crash of '29 but also references to Father being like Bronson Alcott and not being able to support his family. MANY MANY MANY people lost their money in the stock market crash. That's not Mr. March's fault. Even 1860s Father March is based more on Ralph Waldo Emerson than on Bronson Alcott.
I do not like these March sisters much. These sisters are mean and nasty to each other. They fight, they lie and hold grudges. They're grown adults not teenagers and they still act like they're 13-17. It went on too long and wasn't really concluded. Apparently in this universe, Beth was the glue that held them together and without her, they come undone. This is completely off.
Little Women is about sisters and the bond between them. Family was everything to Louisa May Alcott. If it wasn't, she would have ran away from home, disguised herself as a man and fought in the Civil War. If Louisa wasn't all about family, she wouldn't have literally worked herself to death trying to support them all because her lazy father was too noble to work. Little Women is about sisterhood. The sisters share an unbreakable bond. Yes they have their differences and even fight but when Amy fell through the ice, Jo realized her temper nearly killed her sister. Marmee's wise counsel helped Jo curb her temper. At the end of the day, the sisters are sisters. They fight sometimes but they love each other. They grow closer as adults after Beth's death, realizing life is precious and ambition is great but family is more important.
In the original novel Meg is happy with her choices to become a wife and mother. She wants those things, it's not just what's expected of her. In this version, Meg wants those things too but she's also a school teacher and a good one. She's making a difference in the lives of children who need her. They attend a regular old public school and don't always pay attention to what she's teaching but she begins to see the difference as she befriends a student named Doro.
Still, Meg wants to get married. She's the one stuck at home with Marmee and she's the one trying to put on a brave and happy face for everyone. Sometimes she resents her sisters for leaving home and leaving her behind. This is not the Meg March I know. The Meg March I know was happily married and a mother by this time. This Meg sounds more like Jo.
There's a whole chapter replicating the "Meg Goes to Vanity Fair" chapter in the original which Beth helpfully points out. Didn't Meg learn her lesson the first time? In this story she runs into a fellow teacher and not Laurie which makes her embarrassed and ashamed. This part does not equal the part in the original where Meg buys a new dress at the encouragement of Sally, even though she knows she can't afford it. Meg finally learns to be content with what she has at that point thanks to a loving and patient husband. This Meg still isn't quite sure. There's also a chapter than mirrors the original when Aunt March gives Meg a hard time about getting engaged to a poor man. Like the original, it spurs Meg into realizing she knows what she wants. At that point in the novel it just doesn't make sense because the timeline is way off. Sallie Gardiner is a classic mean girl.
Meg and Jo apparently had a huge fight. We never really learn what it was about, just Meg's inability to see Jo. They apparently fight over their life choices. Meg wants marriage and not a career while Jo wants ....??? They're supposed to be super close and tell each other everything so why doesn't Meg know what's in Jo's heart? Jo can NOT love Laurie enough to want to be his girl. That's tough because it's wartime but can't Meg see that he's their brother and Jo's bestie and not a love interest? If they're really that close, she should know that. Then Amy interferes and Jo snaps at Amy and Amy rebels.
I don't read Jo as queer. I don't have a problem with a queer romance story or a story inspired by Jo March but not a direct adaption. There are good reasons she rejects Laurie's proposal. 1)They're too young. He's just finished school, he's kind of lazy and doesn't do anything to support a family. NO ONE in the March family is pressuring Jo into marrying him. That's just a bad idea. 2)They're like siblings. She thinks of him as a boy, a brother, a friend. 3)They're too much alike. Amy flatters Laurie's ego and lets him think he's hot stuff. Jo tells it like it is and they'd never get along. 4) Jo is freaking out because her sisterhood is about to be broken up and OMG that means she'll be the eldest and now she has to be an adult and nothing will be the same and 5)MOST IMPORTANTLY Louisa wanted Jo to be her alter ego- "a literary spinster content to paddle her own canoe." I wish someone would do it right and leave Jo as she is with her ambition and her pen. No need for romance.
Jo doesn't become a duller version of herself as she ages (see Anne Shirley for THAT, she grows up, she matures, she stops acting like a child. Jo learns to control her temper but that doesn't mean she isn't still angry, like Marmee. Jo learns from life experience about what she wants and what she doesn't. She learns her limitations. She can be great, she just needs time.
Jo matures and grows as the novel goes on and after her time in New York, she returns home and must become the adult of the family as Marmee and Father do not see Beth's illness for what it is. After Beth's death Jo returns to writing with the encouragement of her family. She's gotten to know herself better and grown up. She misses all her sisters and grieves for their lost childhood. Enter Professor Beher. He knows how she's feeling and what's in her heart. He's a good man and helps Jo become a better woman. Marmee, Meg and Amy see what's going on right away and even Laurie figures it out quickly. They all support Jo.
I also don't see Jo giving up her writing just because she can't find someone to publish her stories. She doesn't in the original, she just changes direction. Is Jo changing direction in this novel? Not really. She's running away from her problems, her fears and her own feelings. Working in a factory makes her too busy and tired to think. That's not healthy. She needs a Professor Beher to help her find her way. Enter Charlie, her boarding house mate's sister. Charlie is a lot like Jo. She sees Jo, she understands Jo and pushes Jo to be a better writer and better sister but it doesn't quite ever reach the level of interaction between Jo and Fredrich Beher. There needs to be more to the story. I wish Charlie had been introduced sooner and interacted with Jo more.
I don't like angry, angsty Jo. In the original, Jo is a straight shooter. She tells it like it is and doesn't shirk her duty. She tells Laurie why she doesn't want to marry him. She goes to New York to get away from home and gain life experience and mature a bit. This Jo is just running away. Yes it's scary and I get it but I find it incredibly hard to believe that in this alternate 1940s story, Meg and Marmee wouldn't know who Jo is and why she can't love Laurie like that even if Jo doesn't know herself. I'm reasonably certain my mother and siblings wouldn't bat an eyelash if it were me. I would, however, and have, argued with my sister about her choice to marry and raise a family. Today women have more options. In the 1940s not so much and in the 1860s none at all. I don't see Meg and Jo having such a big argument.
Amy is the worst of all. She's still bratty. At 16, she's tired of being left out of her sisters' lives. Now she's the only young one without Beth. She's angry at her older sisters and mad because Jo considers Amy a snoop. In this case, it's untrue but Amy probably was like that when she was younger. Instead of talking to Marmee or to Meg, who in the original always takes Amy's side, she decides to run away herself and PROVE to her sisters she's grown up. In her mind, she seems to imagine everyone else still at home. She doesn't seem to know Jo and Father are away. In Amy's mind she's still the baby of the family and won't they be surprised when she comes home. Amy does all kinds of wrong things. She's not all that likable. Amy lies about her identity and lies to her family about where she is! Her ruse is so elaborate and she involves her cousin which could potentially get Flo in serious trouble. Amy joins the Red Cross in London where it's dangerous. If she's killed her family will never know where she is. That's just horrible! Marmee and Father already lost one child, why put them through that again?
In London, Amy befriends Edie, who seems to be a troubled soul, determined to be a bad seed. She's a bad influence on Amy who is already a horrible person. While the Red Cross is not the military, there are rules and regulations and rules for a reason! They are NOT there to go all "khaki wacky" over the soldiers.
(There's a reason why Dorothea Dix set the rules for nurses in the Civil War being 30+ and ugly).
The two younger girls are horrible to their supervisor, Marion. I guessed Marion's secret pretty quickly. Edie is incredibly rude and racist towards a Black serviceman as well, making Amy side with her instead of doing the right thing. Jo wouldn't have been so rude, Meg would have scolded and Beth would have been shy but at least talked to the man. Amy feels a bit ashamed. She KNOWS that's not the way she was raised but she does it again! She keeps silent when she should speak.
I still don't buy the Amy/Laurie romance. It's still underdeveloped. A lot is told rather than shown and I don't like that. Why does Laurie love Amy? Why does she love him? She's had a crush on him since childhood but we don't know much more than that. He knows her secrets and keeps quiet and still falls in love.
I also don't understand why Amy thinks she has to give up art. Florence Pugh's Amy gave that great speech in Greta Gerwig's 2020 film. (Amy's genius vs. talent speech). It was hard for women in the 1860s but this Amy seems to enjoy art and is good at it. Does she even know she's not great? I don't understand that.
Are you still reading? One more minor critique. If I were going to update Little Women and set it in New England, because it is a quintessentially New England story, I would have made the Marches half Irish or ethnic, descendants of mill workers AND the Boston abolitionist. It would make more sense. I don't know anyone in New England who is pure Yankee. I had maybe one classmate who didn't know where her family was from and when but judging from her name, her ancestors were likely French-Canadian mill workers and I very much grew up in the same kind of community as the March sisters not too too far from Concord.
I'd like to know how much research the authors did on WWII Concord. I was curious whether there was a swimming pool and if Amy had ever been to the other side of town, near the factories, to try "exotic" ethnic food. I'd have liked to see her head a little bit west on a date and visit a little hole in the wall restaurant in Fitchburg known as L'Conco D'Oro. She could have befriended Rita, age 15, the youngest in the family of 5 children. She had two big sisters. I think they could have related to one another! Sadly I don't think Fred Vaughn would have gone to an Eye-talian place. Too exotic. She'll have to go with Laurie when he comes back.
Anyway; TL:DR This book had potential but it's not a good adaption of the beloved novel.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 8, 2022
You can read my full review and more at: https://teatimelit.com/
We all know how special Little Women is to me, and I think that these authors did a wonderful job of celebrating the original story while putting their own spin on it. I thought the cohesion between all four parts of the story was great, which does not always happen with books written by multiple authors. I think had I not known that each March sister was written by a different author I wouldn’t have guessed it.
I loved the things that they kept from the original novel — the general dynamics between characters, base characterization for each March daughter, etc. but they made some subtle twists that I really appreciated. One of them being the scene where Marmee expresses that she’s angry nearly every day of her life. In the original story, this scene happens with Jo not long after Amy burns her book, but in Great or Nothing, this scene happens with Meg towards the end of the book. I really liked that this scene happened with Meg, as throughout the story we see her hold in so much of her anger. Anger at the war, her father and John being gone, seeing the racism against one of her students, and the aftermath of her fight with Jo and Amy. Meg tries so hard to be perfect — in both Little Women and Great or Nothing — and it was nice to see her let herself be angry, and realize that it’s okay to have justifiable anger and that sometimes you need to express it otherwise it will consume you. Meg and Marmee especially needed that moment together and it was probably one of my favorite parts of the book.
This story handles grief so well —- it goes into how the death of a loved one affects all of us differently, how grief is a nonlinear process, and how that deep of a loss irrevocably changes you. Though there are many heartbreaking moments, there are just as many beautiful moments as we see the March girls discover new passions, follow their instincts, stand up for themselves and others, and grow into the young women that they’re meant to be. I also felt that this book was a great reminder of how those we’ve lost are always with us through the ones they loved and the lives they touched. Great or Nothing felt like a lovely and comforting reminder that although you may feel alone, you never truly are.
Additionally, I thought that the juxtaposition of having Meg, Jo, and Amy’s POVs written in prose vs. Beth’s sections being written in verse was very interesting and I liked how Beth’s sections directly addressed what happened the chapter before, or alluded to something that was going to happen in the next chapter. It gave Beth this omnipresent characterization that I found really cool and definitely played into the idea that our loved ones are always present even after they’ve died.
It probably won’t come as a surprise when I tell you that my favorite parts of the book were the chapters from Amy’s point of view. We all know that I am an Amy March apologist above all else, and I loved her characterization in Great or Nothing. Gosh, there was so much I loved about Amy’s storyline, and I think that she had the best character arc of the girls. I feel like Caroline Tung Richmond really understood Amy, and not many people that adapt Little Women do. She understood Amy’s fierce loyalty, her dedication and drive, her loving heart, and that deep down she’s a young woman who wants to be known and loved for who she is.
Overall, I think that Great or Nothing is a retelling that stays true to the heart of Little Women while telling the story in a new and different way. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of Louisa May Alcott!
----
oh my heart is so full.
real review to come!
We all know how special Little Women is to me, and I think that these authors did a wonderful job of celebrating the original story while putting their own spin on it. I thought the cohesion between all four parts of the story was great, which does not always happen with books written by multiple authors. I think had I not known that each March sister was written by a different author I wouldn’t have guessed it.
I loved the things that they kept from the original novel — the general dynamics between characters, base characterization for each March daughter, etc. but they made some subtle twists that I really appreciated. One of them being the scene where Marmee expresses that she’s angry nearly every day of her life. In the original story, this scene happens with Jo not long after Amy burns her book, but in Great or Nothing, this scene happens with Meg towards the end of the book. I really liked that this scene happened with Meg, as throughout the story we see her hold in so much of her anger. Anger at the war, her father and John being gone, seeing the racism against one of her students, and the aftermath of her fight with Jo and Amy. Meg tries so hard to be perfect — in both Little Women and Great or Nothing — and it was nice to see her let herself be angry, and realize that it’s okay to have justifiable anger and that sometimes you need to express it otherwise it will consume you. Meg and Marmee especially needed that moment together and it was probably one of my favorite parts of the book.
This story handles grief so well —- it goes into how the death of a loved one affects all of us differently, how grief is a nonlinear process, and how that deep of a loss irrevocably changes you. Though there are many heartbreaking moments, there are just as many beautiful moments as we see the March girls discover new passions, follow their instincts, stand up for themselves and others, and grow into the young women that they’re meant to be. I also felt that this book was a great reminder of how those we’ve lost are always with us through the ones they loved and the lives they touched. Great or Nothing felt like a lovely and comforting reminder that although you may feel alone, you never truly are.
Additionally, I thought that the juxtaposition of having Meg, Jo, and Amy’s POVs written in prose vs. Beth’s sections being written in verse was very interesting and I liked how Beth’s sections directly addressed what happened the chapter before, or alluded to something that was going to happen in the next chapter. It gave Beth this omnipresent characterization that I found really cool and definitely played into the idea that our loved ones are always present even after they’ve died.
It probably won’t come as a surprise when I tell you that my favorite parts of the book were the chapters from Amy’s point of view. We all know that I am an Amy March apologist above all else, and I loved her characterization in Great or Nothing. Gosh, there was so much I loved about Amy’s storyline, and I think that she had the best character arc of the girls. I feel like Caroline Tung Richmond really understood Amy, and not many people that adapt Little Women do. She understood Amy’s fierce loyalty, her dedication and drive, her loving heart, and that deep down she’s a young woman who wants to be known and loved for who she is.
Overall, I think that Great or Nothing is a retelling that stays true to the heart of Little Women while telling the story in a new and different way. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of Louisa May Alcott!
----
oh my heart is so full.
real review to come!
March 28, 2023
review to follow
June 19, 2022
I really enjoyed the idea of a Little Women retelling set in WW2. Usually when I read WW2 books, it’s about people who are in the middle of the action and I love how this book shows the way the war was when you weren’t fighting. I especially loved reading Meg’s parts, they were written so well and made me proud of her for soldiering on for her students and Marmee while still showing her vulnerability and how much she missed her family and John.
March 22, 2022
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I loved getting to see what the March sisters would have been up to during World War II. I love reading stories about women's experiences during the war, and the ways that they were able to take part in the war effort, and I think this novel did a great job of exploring that. I loved that each of the sisters was written by a different author. Each of their voices felt distinctly different. I especially loved Beth's poetry and Amy's storyline.
The thing that I didn't love about this book, was that it did not feel like a Little Women retelling. The thing that I (and I think everyone) love about Little Women is the relationships between the sisters and their mother. Marmee was barely in this story, and the sisters are all separated for the entirety of the novel. I think the reason that Amy's chapters were the strongest was that she was with Laurie, so you had their friendship and blossoming romance. The rest of the sisters were all alone and distant - not even writing to each other. So the essence of Little Women was completely missing for me.
So overall, as a story about women and the war effort, it was great. As a Little Women retelling, I don't think it worked.
Thank you to Netgalley for the free arc in exchange for an honest review!
The thing that I didn't love about this book, was that it did not feel like a Little Women retelling. The thing that I (and I think everyone) love about Little Women is the relationships between the sisters and their mother. Marmee was barely in this story, and the sisters are all separated for the entirety of the novel. I think the reason that Amy's chapters were the strongest was that she was with Laurie, so you had their friendship and blossoming romance. The rest of the sisters were all alone and distant - not even writing to each other. So the essence of Little Women was completely missing for me.
So overall, as a story about women and the war effort, it was great. As a Little Women retelling, I don't think it worked.
Thank you to Netgalley for the free arc in exchange for an honest review!
November 23, 2021
I don't read a lot of historical fiction. Its not my cup of tea, but Little Women is my cup of tea, queer lit is my cup of tea and I knew my students might find some value in this story. I really loved this. I've read a lot of retellings and a lot of World War 2 stories that get it wrong, but this does both justice.
It takes place after Beth has passed, and the three remaining sisters are scattered to the winds, not talking. I think it was the perfect starting point for these characters and their arcs. I was most impressed by Amy's story, who I think is an extremely underrated character. I also like the voice that was given to Meg in this. I feel like I gained a much deeper understanding of the character. I also love that Jo is queer, it makes sense with her character and makes other story aspects hurt less. Lastly, I loved Beth's poetry. It fit her character well and moved me to tears several times. I was unsure of it at first but slowly realized it was the best way to hear from her. I think this was a super cohesive collaboration that also allowed each author to show their strengths. I will definitely get this for our library and read a sequel, if one comes out.
It takes place after Beth has passed, and the three remaining sisters are scattered to the winds, not talking. I think it was the perfect starting point for these characters and their arcs. I was most impressed by Amy's story, who I think is an extremely underrated character. I also like the voice that was given to Meg in this. I feel like I gained a much deeper understanding of the character. I also love that Jo is queer, it makes sense with her character and makes other story aspects hurt less. Lastly, I loved Beth's poetry. It fit her character well and moved me to tears several times. I was unsure of it at first but slowly realized it was the best way to hear from her. I think this was a super cohesive collaboration that also allowed each author to show their strengths. I will definitely get this for our library and read a sequel, if one comes out.
August 10, 2023
shoutout to little women retellings for doing what louisa may alcott couldn’t and making jo a lesbian, it’s what she would’ve wanted
March 7, 2022
(2.5)
Rep: lesbian mc, Japanese American side character, British Chinese side character
CWs: period typical racism
Rep: lesbian mc, Japanese American side character, British Chinese side character
CWs: period typical racism
June 23, 2022
3.5
There was nothing really bad about it but i did feel it was lacking something
There was nothing really bad about it but i did feel it was lacking something
January 28, 2022
When I read Little Women (or its retellings), I'm reading for the relationships between the four sisters. It's the heart of the story, not their romantic relationships. So when I read a story like this, where the sisters do not interact at all until Chapter 30 (out of 31), it is no longer Little Women to me.
In this retelling of "Little Women," Beth has died of some mystery illness an unclear amount of time before the story starts. Her ghost gives feedback between the chapters in a series of lovely poems. But the major problem lies in the characters that remain. They had a fight at some point between Beth's death and the start of the story (I have no idea when), and it's not clear as to why. I think Meg yells at Jo for not accepting Laurie? Or Jo says something mean to Meg? Or they both think Amy's a snoop? Regardless, we don't see enough of the argument to make me believe the characters need to be apart (no visits, no letters, no phone calls) for literally the entire book.
Perhaps the four authors didn't want to step on one another's toes by writing the others' characters? I don't know. They do not give a clear reason for the failing of the sisterly bond. Each character agonizes over the other sisters, but there is no real understanding of WHY. Or honestly, even why the characters ever care about each other.
Amy and especially Meg's stories fare better than Jo's, which is a shame. This Jo is unrecognizable: sullen and timid about her dreams and afraid of interacting with anyone in her family. While I understand she was dealing with grief, we might have understood this drastic character change a bit better if we'd understood the Beth/Jo relationship (or any of the sisters' relationships, really). We only know Beth as an omnipresent being, and her sisters only refer to her as a perfect angel. There are less "Jo" chapters than the other sisters, which I think was detrimental to her character development, which happened all at once and not at all (though I found her chapters boring and difficult to get through, which was sad because it's JO MARCH).
If I were to recommend this book to anyone, I think I'd make sure they read the original first. There are a great deal of throwaway references to the original, and I don't think I would have understood the characters at all if I weren't so familiar with the source characters.
I received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
In this retelling of "Little Women," Beth has died of some mystery illness an unclear amount of time before the story starts. Her ghost gives feedback between the chapters in a series of lovely poems. But the major problem lies in the characters that remain. They had a fight at some point between Beth's death and the start of the story (I have no idea when), and it's not clear as to why. I think Meg yells at Jo for not accepting Laurie? Or Jo says something mean to Meg? Or they both think Amy's a snoop? Regardless, we don't see enough of the argument to make me believe the characters need to be apart (no visits, no letters, no phone calls) for literally the entire book.
Perhaps the four authors didn't want to step on one another's toes by writing the others' characters? I don't know. They do not give a clear reason for the failing of the sisterly bond. Each character agonizes over the other sisters, but there is no real understanding of WHY. Or honestly, even why the characters ever care about each other.
Amy and especially Meg's stories fare better than Jo's, which is a shame. This Jo is unrecognizable: sullen and timid about her dreams and afraid of interacting with anyone in her family. While I understand she was dealing with grief, we might have understood this drastic character change a bit better if we'd understood the Beth/Jo relationship (or any of the sisters' relationships, really). We only know Beth as an omnipresent being, and her sisters only refer to her as a perfect angel. There are less "Jo" chapters than the other sisters, which I think was detrimental to her character development, which happened all at once and not at all (though I found her chapters boring and difficult to get through, which was sad because it's JO MARCH).
If I were to recommend this book to anyone, I think I'd make sure they read the original first. There are a great deal of throwaway references to the original, and I don't think I would have understood the characters at all if I weren't so familiar with the source characters.
I received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
August 20, 2022
Really struggled with what to rate this one… Amy and Laurie’s storyline was absolutely perfect and by far the highlight of this book. Meg and Beth’s chapters were interesting and I really enjoyed them, especially Beth’s being told in verse, but I have to say, the Jo chapters left a lot to be desired. While I felt like the rest of the sisters (and Laurie) were true to the original, Jo just didn’t feel like the Jo March we all know and love. She just seemed to do a lot of moping around. That being said, I did love the premise of this book and seeing how the March sisters in a more updated setting and how they would deal with WWII. I did enjoy this one and especially recommend it if you’re as much of a fan of Amy and Laurie as I am!
January 15, 2022
I’M SO ANGRY THAT I FINISHED THIS BOOK. WTF. BEST LITTLE WOMEN RETELLING
March 11, 2022
decided to read this because of the fact that jo is queer in this and ended up loving it 😭😭😭 my only complaint is that the ending felt a bit abrupt and should have been longer
December 23, 2022
I basically take Little Women in any shape and form. For a retelling, this was fantastic. In many adaptations one or more of the girls seems to be ignored, so I loved getting each one's perspective and fully having chapters devoted to them.
I had a list of complaints which were:
-At first I thought the poetry sections were not that unique or innovative...but then they hit me hard and made me cry (sister stories are the best but also DEVASTATING).
-At times the setting felt forced and that most of the research came from watching classic movies (because that's my source and I understood a lot)...but then I had to stop what I was doing and Google stuff because, "Wait, that was actually a thing?"
...so the complaints have been filled.
All the original LW men are imprinted on my heart because I love them so much (With John Brooke usually claiming the top spot. In this he's a math teacher??? Can't get better, folks.), and while I LOVE Pr. Bhaer and feel like he never gets justice, I thought the take here was brilliant. Yes, I had heard about it before reading, and that was one of the things that spurred me into action with buying the book. This is one of the best interpretations of Jo that I have come across. It's not how I pictured her while reading the original (that is hands down Saoirse Ronan, folks) so I loved getting a peek into someone else's view of her. That's what adaptations and retellings are about, right? Seeing how the exact same story can mean so many different things for different people?
5 stars for innovation.
I had a list of complaints which were:
-At first I thought the poetry sections were not that unique or innovative...but then they hit me hard and made me cry (sister stories are the best but also DEVASTATING).
-At times the setting felt forced and that most of the research came from watching classic movies (because that's my source and I understood a lot)...but then I had to stop what I was doing and Google stuff because, "Wait, that was actually a thing?"
...so the complaints have been filled.
All the original LW men are imprinted on my heart because I love them so much (With John Brooke usually claiming the top spot. In this he's a math teacher??? Can't get better, folks.), and while I LOVE Pr. Bhaer and feel like he never gets justice, I thought the take here was brilliant. Yes, I had heard about it before reading, and that was one of the things that spurred me into action with buying the book. This is one of the best interpretations of Jo that I have come across. It's not how I pictured her while reading the original (that is hands down Saoirse Ronan, folks) so I loved getting a peek into someone else's view of her. That's what adaptations and retellings are about, right? Seeing how the exact same story can mean so many different things for different people?
5 stars for innovation.
April 7, 2022
This is such a charming reimaging of Little Women, set during WWII. The March sisters are grieving the death of their sister Beth, while each also tries to find her place during wartime.
I enjoyed reading from each sister's point of view, as they deal with their loss and their fracturing relationships. I loved that even Beth has a voice, her parts in poetic form. Her words of love and hope to her sisters were so touching.
Each sister finds love in unlikely places. I adore Laurie and he's just as sweet and charming in this version. I loved his and Amy's love story.
I really enjoyed this book. Its messages of family bonds, forgiveness and love were heartwarming. It was a beautiful reading experience.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Delacorte Press for sending me this book in exchange for an honest review.
I enjoyed reading from each sister's point of view, as they deal with their loss and their fracturing relationships. I loved that even Beth has a voice, her parts in poetic form. Her words of love and hope to her sisters were so touching.
Each sister finds love in unlikely places. I adore Laurie and he's just as sweet and charming in this version. I loved his and Amy's love story.
I really enjoyed this book. Its messages of family bonds, forgiveness and love were heartwarming. It was a beautiful reading experience.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Delacorte Press for sending me this book in exchange for an honest review.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 17, 2023
In this Little Women retelling, it's World War II. Beth has already passed away prior to the start of the story. Meg, Jo, and Amy are not speaking to each other and have gone separate ways. Instead of writing, Jo is working in a factory in Boston. Instead of traveling with an aunt, Amy has given up painting and joined the Red Cross . And Meg is a teacher at the local high school in Concord; supporting her students, planting victory gardens, collecting scrap metal, and rationing.
If you like anything Little Women, read this. Or if you are looking for a version for an a tween or teen in your life who likes stories with adult characters, this fits the bill.
If you like anything Little Women, read this. Or if you are looking for a version for an a tween or teen in your life who likes stories with adult characters, this fits the bill.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 482 reviews