Louisa May Alcott wrote Little Women in 1868-1869, Little Men in 1871, and Jo’s Boys in 1886. They form a trilogy of sorts, and are to be read in the order I have listed them. They center on Jo, the second daughter of four in the March family, who is a stand-in for the author herself.
While there are many fun anecdotes similar to Anne Shirley scrapes in Anne of Green Gables, there is something very disturbing about these stories of which Christians should be aware: it is not at all clear to me that Alcott understands the gospel. When Alcott points out a character flaw in someone, which is quite often, the solution is always “encouraging words” which amount to “do better”. Mind you, there are sound things said in these sorts of conversations, but rarely is there ever a mention of Jesus Christ. In particular, with certain characters like Dan (in the second two volumes), I can’t remember anyone ever calling Dan to believe the gospel. Moreover, the basis or grounds for our sanctification is solidly in our justification. While it is certainly true that our good works play no role whatsoever in our justification, the same is not true for our sanctification. We must do good works, but we do them on the strength of God, and realizing that on our own we are utterly unable to do the smallest good work. This kind of theology is foreign to Alcott, and means her works will come across as works-oriented salvation. You should be aware of this!
The episode of Dan in Jo’s Boys shows another flaw in the series, as far as I’m concerned. Dan is out west, he is protecting a younger man from card sharpers, and gets into a scrape where, in self-defense, he kills a man. He ends up serving one year in prison for manslaughter. It’s understandably a hard year for him, but the chaplain does him some good, and he comes out, on the whole, for the better. But here’s the kicker: when he comes back to Plumfield and finally tells Jo about it, she weeps, and in the context of the story, it’s clear that Jo thinks Dan behaved very wrongly by killing the man. I fail to see any unethical behavior in Dan in the entire episode! Painting self-defense in such a negative light appears to me a symptom of a feminized Christianity – something that has been criticized by many. Not that I’m claiming Christianity is a masculine religion: it’s the only true religion for all people, and God transcends biological sex. (The human nature of Jesus Christ is unquestionably a man, and we follow the Bible’s lead in always using masculine pronouns for all members of the Trinity.)
Alcott’s religion, even to the extent that it’s Christian, lacks punch. It does not have a robust solution for sin. This series is definitely worth reading, but you need to be aware of these theological defects.
Brown Took 