I'm impressed by how seamlessly the werewolves fit into the story, while still keeping most of the beloved classic in tact. ( )

I thought that surely the addition of werewolves would be an improvement upon the original. It was not.

Haven't read the original since elementary school, but I'd bet I prefer this version. The werewolves are portrayed as beasts while in form, but respectable, moral members of society otherwise. I appreciated the contrast between the physical monsters and the brigade hunting down the beasts and their sympathizers (although some of the werewolves were awful just as some humans are awful). I enjoyed the dynamics between the sisters and their neighbors and their father's efforts to bring attention and aid to permanently wounded soldiers through a ghastly showcase. The ending dragged and was abrupt at the same time, but perhaps that's how the original was? Should have ended bloodily. ( )

9/15/10 I'm actively dreading picking the book up and continuing to read. This is not a good sign.

won this in the GR First Reads Giveaway I liked this book for the most part, but I’m not sure if I would continue reading other zombifications. I do look at this new genre as a spoofing, and don’t take it too seriously. Having read the original “Little Women” 35 years ago, I really don’t remember much and I could now benefit from re-reading it as an adult. Interjecting werewolves into the storyline was true to the era, but some parts were a little too graphic for my taste, but I quickly scanned and moved on. On a side note: I did a little research on Ms. Alcott’s history, and found she wrote three gothic novellas and another thriller under a pen name, which she called her “blood and thunder” works. So, this literary mash-up is possibly not that far of a stretch. ( )