I'm afraid that this may be a long post and my English knowledge won't be enough to keep up with my thoughts.

I've just finished reading "Little Women", a 19th century American novel written by Louisa May Alcott.

I read it in my native language because I thought it would be something painful if I had the audacity to read it in English.

I have been interested in this book for a long time, back to my early twenties. Despite that I delayed reading it and ended up forgetting about it.

One day, answering a "what's your kind of personality" quiz (just for fun I may say) my interest revived from the ashes.

The quiz's answers were based on characters of books, movies and series.

I received a list of characters with a percentage in front of each one. The list had 1700 items. The higher up a character appeared, the more I might be psychologically similar to them.

It was fun to see my Frodo Baggins and other intriguing comparisons, but one grabbed my attention. It said: Beth March (Little Women) 85%.

From that point on I had to read the book, because I've got so curious about who Beth was and what we have in common.

So finally I started to read Little Women, and now here I am, hundreds of pages after.

Before I jump to my appreciation of the story I must say that as well as reading it, I also watched two movie adaptations of the book, one from 1994 and the other from 2019. Usually I don't like spoilers, but for unknown reasons it didn't bother me this time.

I consider the 1994 adaptation more ideally romantic than the other, which I quite like. But one thing spoiled the movie for me entirely, and it was it compass. Big things happen from scene to scene, always over the top with loud moments. There was no "crescendum" from one significant moment to another, and it seems a lack of timing or a rush storytelling choices.

But overall I enjoyed the aesthetics and the nostalgia feeling that "old" movies recall.

I like Winona Ryder as Jo, but she played her more annoyingly to me than the character itself from the book. I address this effect less on the actress and more on the rushed storytelling account.

Now, about the 2019 adaptation, the actress who interpretated Jo was outstanding in her looks and I think it doesn't precisely suit to the original character, who seemed to have a slightly more ordinary appearance.

Emma Watson was a mistaken choice to play Meg. She wasn't believable as the older sister; maybe because she looks so young.

But I must confess, despite some odd things in the 2019 movie, I like it! And mostly because the director dared to change some passages of the story spicing the whole thing and making more interesting for the sake of entertainment. It was quite fun!

Now let's go to my considerations on the book. WARNING ALERT: There will be spoilers.

The story is lovely and I enjoyed many things, even the moral foundation which some people turn up the nose at these days.

I could see myself in the girls and remember, as I was in touch with their alternatives, my own crossroads in life.

Some moral advice inspired me to reaffirm internally some good thoughts that were left aside a little bit in my adult years. And I identify many of the girls' efforts with mine.

This is a book to sell a "ideal" world, with ideal characters which are always willing to achieve purity in mind and heart.

It contrasts drastically with the reality, even more in 2022 societies. Although I think it serves well to inspire everything good, kindness and inocence; things that our humanity have lost in droves.

One thing bothers me in the story and it is the poverty's virtue claim that runs through the entire book. There is no virtue in being poor or rich, the virtue is in the way people deal with it. Sometimes the text seems to glorify poverty as a synonym for modesty. But, in my view, modesty is a virtue that makes the person behave in simplicity and equanimity with others, not looking to subjugate or diminish others by one material posses, knowledge, beauty, etc; and a person can be modest in poverty or rich contexts.

Three things are glorifyed in the book and I think they deserve it: family relationships, friendship and marriage. It is beautiful to see relationships unravealing while the characters evolve and change their ways to see, think and feel things. Some of them change more than others. The adults, for instance, didn't seem to adjust their points of view so much, they mostly reasure convictions. It would be interesting to see their internal transformation as well.

For me Amy was, by far, the one that changed the most. She was irritating and selfish at first and evolves into a charming personality.

Beth was a "saint" timid girl who turned to be a little less timid and a bigger "saint". Although she had a lot of good qualities for caring others and was quite sensible I think she had a big dose of sentimentality and inferiority complex that limited her. But she was the one who really sensed the profundity of things, for sure.

I didn't like that she died, I'd rather see her turning into a composer or a piano teacher devoted to her parents.

I also dislike the "saint" aura that sometimes I got from the text because it dehumanizes Beth a little.

Jo was a happy mess and she always will be, in my opinion. But she evolves from rebel, angry, little selfish, anti-romance, impulsive girl to a less of that and maintain her good traits like being joyful, playful, adventurous and intense. She's like a all-or-nothing personality; no middle ground.

Meg changes more after her marriage with John Brooke (a middle-of-the-road character for me). Despite being the oldest of the sisters, in marriage context the reader can had a glance in her immature behaviors. Luckily John helped her get over them.

I REALLY like Mr. Friedrich Bhaer, the best male character of the book in my opinion. (1994's Gabriel Byrne wins over the Louis Garrel 2019 version).

Bhaer is mature, well educated, has principles, likes children, plays piano, teaches german, studies literature and philosophy and has the charm of those men who don't have everything right in place; plus he's kind hearted and has depth. I think he is the perfect match for Jo.

I know my opinion goes against the tide, but Laurie is too shallow for Jo. She needs someone to stimulate her intellectually and sensitively; Laurie is a good company for a few laughs and that's it.

So, to end my dreaded long post here is my verdict on the quiz:

I would say I have similarities with all the sisters and not just Beth. Maybe I have more Amy and Jo traits than Beth's... it's hard to know.

But one thing I can say for sure: I would be very happy to have them as my sisters.

Here is the link for you to take the quiz too: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/characters/

Have you already read this book? What did you think of the story?