I'd only ever read Alcott's Little Women in the abridged version. I found an unabridged version and realized why the abridged it. I liked the version that's been shorn of all the preaching, and, yes, I even cried when Beth(?) died.

For those who've read both, do you prefer the unabridged or the abridged?

For what it's worth, the unabridged Count of Monte Cristo is the only true version.

For those who've read both, do you prefer the unabridged or the abridged?

The abridged -- because of the preaching, like you said, though Alcott does poke a little fun at herself during the preachier parts.

It reminds me a little of the self-consciousness that John Irving can't keep out of his writing, no matter how much he tries.

Yep. As I say, I'm a story writer and a story reader. Tell me a story, and don't do anything to get in its way as it unrolls.

sometimes, I like the bells and whistles...they can be distracting, however.

I have no idea what version of Little Women I read. And I'd have to read it again to find out.

Don't want to.

Beth dies.

Interesting that Alcott should be brought up now. I'm just in the midst of reading her Rose in Bloom , the sequel to Eight Cousins , which I just finished. I definitely feel I have a different perspective on them as an adult than when I was younger. Especially I'm finding with Rose in Bloom that the undercurrents of early feminism are standing out more. I have tended to just skim through the preachy parts. Also there are some inconsistencies between the original and the sequel, but I thought that may be due to the versions I am reading (which BTW I downloaded for free from Project Gutenberg ). They are still enjoyable, I find, but not as much as when I was a kid, and probably for different reasons.

I never read Alcott until I was an adult (nor LM Montgomery, nor any number of the authors you're supposed to discover as a child or adolescent--I skipped straight to the adult section of the library as soon as my reading comprehension was up to it, and missed a great many classics thereby). Anyway, she's one of the authors I read with two brains--as a standard reader enjoying the story and characters, and as a history buff intrigued by the primary source material. The second brain even enjoys the sermons and the early feminism and all, because it's a Window on Our Past.

Anyway, Eight Cousins/Rose in Bloom is my favorite Alcott, followed by An Old-Fashioned Girl, with Little Women still a beloved book, but a distant third. I've never quite forgiven Alcott for sticking Jo with Prof. Bhaer, but I'd marry Mac Campbell in a second, and I'm not as bothered by Charlie's fate as many readers for some reason.

So should I go see this tonight?

I read a ton of Alcott growing up. I missed Roald Dahl, but read Louisa May. This is what happens when you're left on your own in the library. Not that I regret it by any means. I think I liked Little Men and Jo's Boys best. There were some unexpectedly dark turns. I also really liked Jack and Jill which had (at least to my mind at the time) all kinds of weird undercurrents and morbid streaks.

This is what happens when you're left on your own in the library.

What happened to me was that I read Dahl's adult stuff at the same time as the kid's stuff. In fact, I think I finished the adult oeuvre first, and may have omitted a kids book or two. I was technically too young for the former and too old for the latter at the time -- but I adore the man. Good proper dark.

Was American kiddie lit so bent on the absent or evil parent?