|
|
21 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Plumfield Revisited, May 8, 2002
For "Jo's Boys", which she intended to be the last in her series about the March family, Louisa May Alcott pulled out all the stops. It is with great fanfare that the beloved characters of former books make their last appearance.All sorts of incredible developments are described in the course of the novel--and some of them fairly stretch the imagination. My favorite is the "emigration" of the whole extended family to Plumfield: Meg has a house close by, Laurie and Amy have a mansion on an adjacent hill, and even Mr. March and Mr. Laurence have become neighbors to the school. Of course, this and all the rest make the story more fun . . . but I miss the old subtlety. The school itself has become a college--a convenient twist that allows the characters from "Little Men" to still be in the same area years after they ought to have moved away. Though not all the Plumfield students make a second appearance, Alcott's famous favorites remain. A decade later, Demi is having trouble deciding on a career and declaring himself to a certain young lady. Tommy is in pursuit of his childhood sweetheart, Nan, who has vowed to be a spinster for life. Nat is sent to Germany, far away from his beloved Daisy, for musical training. Emil is shipwrecked, Dan tangles with the law, and young Ted gets into scrapes worthy of his namesake's youth. There is enough "lovering" and "spooning" here to make up for the lack in "Little Men", but some characters brought in for the romance are ex machina. "Jo's Boys" is also agonizingly preachy. I don't just mean the campaigning for women's suffrage and against alcohol, but also all the sermonizing about mastering one's faults, appreciating others' virtues, testing the strength of love by waiting, etc. Mrs. March's three surviving daughters try their best, but they cannot equal her talent for lecturing without putting people to sleep. The story positively drags when the moralizing begins. At least no one has to forsake his or her castle in the air, this time around. Even though Meg, Jo, Amy and Laurie had to give up their artistic aspirations, being deficient in "genius," the next generation of dreamers does not suffer the same fate. Few of them are made to "grow out of" whatever made them so wonderful during childhood. This almost makes up for the novel's appalling lack of polish. Read "Jo's Boys" for closure, but if you feel homesick for Plumfield, stick to "Little Men".
|