Barbara Sicherman: The Persistence of Little Women, or Still Timely after All These Years

Well-Read Lives: How Books Inspired a Generation of American Women, by Barbara SichermanBarbara Sicherman is author of Well-Read Lives: How Books Inspired a Generation of American Women. In a compelling approach structured as theme and variations, Sicherman offers insightful profiles of a number of accomplished women born in America’s Gilded Age who lost—and found—themselves in books, and worked out a new life purpose around them. She argues that with Little Women‘s Jo March often serving as a youthful model of independence, girls and young women created communities of learning, imagination, and emotional connection around literary activities in ways that helped them imagine, and later attain, public identities.

Today is the 180th anniversary of Louisa May Alcott’s birth. To mark the occasion, we welcome a guest post from Sicherman, who discusses how influential Little Women has been to other women writers since its publication.


What do Simone de Beauvoir, Cynthia Ozick, Ann Petry, and Patti Smith have in common?

The French existentialist, Jewish American author, African American novelist, and punk rock star are all celebrated writers. Beyond this, each woman has acknowledged the importance of Little Women, and its heroine Jo March, in their imaginative lives and their identities as artists and intellectuals. They are not alone.

Numerous women, some famous, most not, have vouched for the novel’s appeal since its appearance in 1868-69 (initially in two parts). As early as 1875, fifteen-year-old Jane Addams, future settlement leader and Nobel Peace prize winner, anticipated the formulaic pattern of rereadings when she observed: “I have read and reread ‘Little Women’ and it never seems to grow old.” Even friends growing up in the 1940s and 1950s claim they read the novel yearly when they were young and returned to it periodically as adults.

Louisa May Alcott

Louisa May Alcott (1832-1888)
[public domain image via Wikimedia Commons]

The pattern is remarkable when we consider that November 29 is the 180th anniversary of Louisa May Alcott’s birth.

Why should a “girls’ book” written for the juvenile market nearly 150 years ago elicit such loyalty? Dedicated readers will have their own answers, but here are a few thoughts.

First, Little Women is a surprisingly modern work that has aged well. It is true that it is a moral, even moralizing, tale: the four March sisters are expected to grow up to become virtuous and useful women, an approach that has led some scholars to view it as a disciplinary text. But compared to other books of the period, Alcott’s represents a sea change in sensibility. The March girls have plenty of fun (including amateur dramatics) unsupervised by adults, they speak slang, articulate individual desires, and are allowed to learn their own lessons.

Little Women has survived despite the cultural chasm that separates Alcott’s era from our own because it is an unusually porous text, one to which readers may find several points of entry. Nothing points to its openness more than the absence of historical markers. The novel is framed against the backdrop of the Civil War (which has conveniently called the father away), but the nature of the conflict is not discussed, although Alcott and her family were staunch abolitionists. A British woman who read and reread the book as a girl recently recalled: “It wasn’t until college and a second year American history class that I realized that the nameless war that took Mr March away was the Civil War. Until that time, the March family had been English to me in every respect.”

Perhaps the most important reason for the novel’s survival is a heroine with unusual appeal. Some readers have identified with the other March sisters, but it is Jo March, the rambunctious tomboy and bookworm who is unladylike and careless of her appearance, who carries the story. The vast majority of readers, past and present, have identified with her. Jo’s presumed flaws are precisely the characteristics that speak to preadolescent and adolescent readers, themselves struggling with issues of growing up.

Alcott, who modeled Jo in her own image, created a character that continues to appeal. As J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books and herself a “Jo,” observed: “It is hard to overstate what she meant to a small, plain girl called Jo, who had a bad temper and a burning ambition to be a writer.”

For readers on the threshold of adulthood, the book’s embrace of female ambition has been a significant counterweight to more habitual gender prescriptions. For years there were few alternative models, although in my generation, the Nancy Drew books helped. Even today, some girls still respond to the portrait of Jo, the enthralled and enthralling writer.

Finally, Little Women is in important respects a “problem novel.” It is a work that lingers in the minds of its readers, generations of whom have found the story’s resolution unacceptable. To almost any devoted reader, the principal difficulty is Jo’s refusal to marry Laurie, the handsome, rich, and fun-loving, boy next door. Almost as troubling is Jo’s marriage to Friedrich Bhaer, a bumbling German professor who is not only much older but disapproves of her writing lurid thrillers, which Alcott had also written. Alcott intended that Jo—her alter ego—remain single. After publication of Little Women, Part I, when fans wrote expressing hopes that Jo marry Laurie, she compromised—but only by creating what she called “a funny match.”

Even today, when girls have many fictional heroines with whom they can identify, this seeming faux pas still rankles. Readers responding to a recent blog post at The Hairpin, “Texts from Little Women,” in October 2012 reiterated their double disappointment in the marriage plot Alcott devised for Jo. The exchanges also reveal intense resentment, some of it unprintable, toward Amy, the pretty, blond and stuck-up youngest sister, who marries Laurie. Some years ago, when I mentioned my interest in Little Women to a young African American academic, she exclaimed: “And I do think it was so unfair of Aunt March to take Amy instead of Jo to Europe.”

Alcott’s seeming misstep permitted girls to rework the plot on their own terms, to their own liking. Little Women, Part II, in which the sisters grow up and get married, is far less compelling than Part I, and many readers conveniently “forget” or ignore Jo’s marriage. Nevertheless, by combining a quest with a romance plot, Little Women covers all the bases. It is difficult to believe that the story would have remained so popular in the 20th century had it ended with an adult heroine who remained single.

I end with a confession: I was not an Alcott groupie. I read Little Women in grade school (I recall being sick in bed at the time). I had many of the “right” responses: I liked the book, liked Jo of course, and was disappointed in the resolution of the marriage plot. But it was not a book that haunted me or one I returned to. That is, until I was writing a book about women’s reading in the late 19th century and discovered that Little Women was the book most often mentioned in American women’s diaries and letters. Since then, I have reread Alcott’s classic often, always with pleasure. Even as I read as a scholar, I admire Jo’s youthful spunk and literary aspirations, am moved by Beth’s death, and above all appreciate Louisa May Alcott’s talent. You might say that Little Women is a book I grew into.

Barbara Sicherman is William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of American Institutions and Values Emerita at Trinity College. She is author of Well-Read Lives: How Books Inspired a Generation of American Women, Alice Hamilton: A Life in Letters, and The Quest for Mental Health in America, 1880-1917.


  1. This a wonderful piece, summing up in just a few words the universality of Little Women. Amazing how a simple request to a woman who hadn’t really made her mark in juvenile literature (yet) coupled with a little arm twisting produced such a classic. I have studied Louisa’s life on and off ever since I read a children’s biography when I was 10. I came in through the “back door” reading tons about the author herself before finally getting down to reading her writing. Go figure! I can’t get enough of Louisa which is why I keep the blog about her. Every new biography written sheds new light on a complex life that was years ahead of its time.

    Louisa obviously didn’t plan on this legacy but wouldn’t she be pleased to see how widespread and significant the influence of Jo March was and still is.

    • I’m glad you liked the piece. You’re so right to point out the amazing way that something undertaken as dutifully as Little Women resulted in such an enduring work.

      I love hearing readers’ Little Women stories and am eager to learn more about yours on your blog.

  2. Pingback: The lasting legacy of Little Women « Louisa May Alcott is My Passion

  3. I was leading a recent group discussion of Little Women, when a Japanese woman told us she read it as a girl in Japan and loved it. Another attendee told us she teaches an English as a Second Language class. She mentioned the book in the class and her females students enthusiastically reported they had read it as girls in Polish, Ukrainian, Spanish and several other languages. They were in different cultures from 1860’s America, but they responded to the book.

    • Yes, Little Women seems to have universal appeal. I understand that Japanese women are particularly partial to it and visit Orchard House in large numbers. There was even a Japanese t.v. program in the 1980s.

      • I got the newsletter from Louisa May Alcott’s Orchard House the other day with news of Executive Director Jan Turnquist’s 3 week visit to Japan recently as a cultural exchange. Concord has a sister city there which she visited along with other places – the newsletter contained pictures and information which I’ll be posting on my blog over the weekend. Kudos to Orchard House for all they do for Louisa and her legacy.

  4. Thank you so much for all you do for us LMA afficionadas. Always a little bit of joy in a harsh world!

  5. Pingback: Thoughts on Little Women : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

    • If readers click on the link “Texts from Little Women” in my article, they will see many comments, some of them pithy, about the four sisters and the marriage plot.

    • Thanks for referring me to your blog post. I enjoyed your discussion of whether Little Women is a feminist novel and the ensuing comments. I think that readers’ responses are based not only on what is “in the text,” but on their own interests and preconceptions. In this case, the openness of Alcott’s text encourages both readings.

  6. I was never disappointed that Jo did not marry Laurie. He was too young for her. It was Professor Bhaer who won her heart with his honesty and humanity. I do not think he disapproved of her writing just because it os sensational but because she had more real things to say. The picture of them sharing an umbrella was wonderfully sensual. I loved the way his hair stood up as did Jo’s. Laurie worshipped her, but did not really get her. Amy and Laurie were a perfect match. Two sweet but self absorved souls who did not need anything beyond each oterh.

  7. Pingback: Signal Boost: Barbara Sicherman on the Persistence of Little Women « Knitting Clio

  8. It is fun to talk about “Little Women” with other readers. I’ve certainly enjoyed the many discussions I’ve had about the novel, as well as those I’ve read on line. The intensity of some readers’ responses still amazes me. I’ve learned that many women like to reread the novel or see the movie with mothers, aunts, sisters, or female friends, particularly over Christmas, the timing no doubt suggested not only by spirit of the season, but by the novel’s famous first line: “Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents, grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.”

Comments are closed.