counter create hit Little Vampire Women - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

Little Vampire Women

Availability: Ready to download

"Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they l "Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they live by an unprecedented moral code of abstinence ... from human blood. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy must learn to get along with one another, help make society a better place, and avoid the vampire hunters who pose a constant threat to their existence. Plus, Laurie is dying to become a part of the March family, at any cost. Some things never change. This horrifying — and hilarious — retelling of a timeless American classic will leave readers craving the bloodthirsty drama on each and every page


Compare
Ads Banner

"Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they l "Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they live by an unprecedented moral code of abstinence ... from human blood. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy must learn to get along with one another, help make society a better place, and avoid the vampire hunters who pose a constant threat to their existence. Plus, Laurie is dying to become a part of the March family, at any cost. Some things never change. This horrifying — and hilarious — retelling of a timeless American classic will leave readers craving the bloodthirsty drama on each and every page

30 review for Little Vampire Women

  1. 5 out of 5

    Mindi Beal

    Another selection I only read because my good friend Stacey asked me to for her podcast, Got Lit Radio: http://gotlitradio.com/020-little-vam.... Holy crap, I'm glad I had someone to vent to when I was finished with it. To Lynn Messina’s credit, she’s a good writer. The footnotes on vampire history books and her sense of storytelling are as imaginative as the confines allowed. I blame society and book publishers craving/peddling a genre to the coffin bed and back more than her. I love the Alcott Another selection I only read because my good friend Stacey asked me to for her podcast, Got Lit Radio: http://gotlitradio.com/020-little-vam.... Holy crap, I'm glad I had someone to vent to when I was finished with it. To Lynn Messina’s credit, she’s a good writer. The footnotes on vampire history books and her sense of storytelling are as imaginative as the confines allowed. I blame society and book publishers craving/peddling a genre to the coffin bed and back more than her. I love the Alcott classic and was completely annoyed by the audiobook reader, but neither contributed to the fact that this was just incredibly boring. Where Pride and Prejudice and Zombies had acres of room for the mashup, Little Women seems airtight in comparison. Jo March – the female antagonist most strong-headed, bookish girls grow up adoring – fades under the weight of her revamped storyline. Her sisters come off even blander. The intimate feeling one normally finds in the March household is entirely missing. All the same people die and marry, but unlike in the original, I simply didn’t care. I felt like I didn’t know any of them. Also, don’t even get me started on their “humanitarian vampirism”. Thank you for nothing, Twilight. Blatant in Little Vampire Women was the feeling that these mashup novels are an attempt to capitalize on the supernatural obsession in today’s culture, yet taking a public domain classic and splicing it with blood and monsters seemingly fails to entertain fans of either genre. It’s like putting bacon in your Earl Grey because awesome + awesome = double awesome. Only it doesn’t. It equals soggy hog and salty tea. No one wins.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Nemo (The Moonlight Library)

    Where the fuck did I put this book?

  3. 4 out of 5

    Claudia Joy

    I am always amazed when an author have to cut and paste an original work that belongs to another writer, you see much of this with Jane Austin redo's and now I guess with Louisa Alcott it is plain to me that readers cannot get enough of her and I certainly understand why; she was brilliant and wonderful all in one breath, but I have to say this book is just another book from a writer trying to capitalize on an idea they didn't create! I would not recommend this book!

  4. 4 out of 5

    Gemma Newey

    I did enjoy this book. I found the wording and language used was very fitting with the style of the original version of 'Little Women'. I am so glad that I read this book - it was tragic, funny and a pleasure. I am so glad that I read this book - very interesting take on the original book!

  5. 5 out of 5

    AnnaRae Martin

    I have to give this author probs, he turned a book that I despinsed into a book I enjoyed.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Tami

    Yay, so excited! I haven't received the book yet, just received notice I had won. 10/17/11 Received last night, and already I just love the cover! Have a few to read before I can get to it, but woo-hoo. so excited! 10/27/11 Started yesterday 11/13/11 Finished 11/16/11 Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since y Yay, so excited! I haven't received the book yet, just received notice I had won. 10/17/11 Received last night, and already I just love the cover! Have a few to read before I can get to it, but woo-hoo. so excited! 10/27/11 Started yesterday 11/13/11 Finished 11/16/11 Christmas won't be Christmas without any corpses." The dear, sweet March sisters are back, and Marmee has told them to be good little women. Good little vampire women, that is. That's right: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy have grown up since you last read their tale, and now they have (much) longer lives and (much) more ravenous appetites. Marmee has taught them well, and so they live by an unprecedented moral code of abstinence ... from human blood. Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy must learn to get along with one another, help make society a better place, and avoid the vampire hunters who pose a constant threat to their existence. Plus, Laurie is dying to become a part of the March family, at any cost. Some things never change. Yes, I stole the blurb from the book. I really wanted to love this book. I remember loving Little Women when I was well, little. I think I was aobut 10 when I read it the first time. Maybe I need to reread it. I felt this book boring, and tedious in parts. I loved Jo, I remember, and while the vampire Jo was fun, it just felt off for me. I did give it a 4 instead of a 3 just for the reason that it did get better towards the end, and I did love the original when I read it.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Claire

    I wanted so badly to like this book! But I went into it expecting something that it did not deliver. Had I dropped expectations I would have enjoyed it so much more. However, when I picked this up to read, I was expecting the Little Women story with a few vampires thrown in. I was not given this. I was given a story about the March sisters that LOO SLY followed the Lousia May Alcott story. And I'm using the word loosely as a generous description. This story was all over the place! Characters wer I wanted so badly to like this book! But I went into it expecting something that it did not deliver. Had I dropped expectations I would have enjoyed it so much more. However, when I picked this up to read, I was expecting the Little Women story with a few vampires thrown in. I was not given this. I was given a story about the March sisters that LOO SLY followed the Lousia May Alcott story. And I'm using the word loosely as a generous description. This story was all over the place! Characters were changed so drastically that I barely recognized them, and the whole flow of the story was butchered. If you're expecting Little Women, don't pick this up!

  8. 4 out of 5

    Gmr

    You know for the bad rap that the mashup books tend to get, I actually enjoyed this YA one. Though the story is stagnant in some places, overall the vampire aspect of the book does not read like a "re-do"...it reads as if this was the way the story was always suppose to be. Certainly recommend for a read through whether you've read the original story or not....you'll gain a new perspective on a classic novel and still have some fangish fun along the way. Happy reading!

  9. 4 out of 5

    Marianne

    This book had all the elements of the worst vampire movies. The author didn't know Alcott very well, but she also didn't know vampires.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Mel

    For 2015 Challenge - This was 1. The book I own but haven't read. Was easy and silly - just what I needed over the Christmas/New Year time!

  11. 4 out of 5

    Susanna - Censored by GoodReads

    Gods. Will this trend ever end!?!?!?!?

  12. 4 out of 5

    Tisha "Manic Reads"

    This book was fairly interesting bringing a new concept to characters that we all love. Though there are a few issues (do they age slowly? how did they end up in America? interesting things that we would want to know) there is still a lot of the same heart left from the original work there. I do miss Jo's writing, and Amy seems even more immature which makes her being with Laurie even more problematic because... well if she doesn't age won't a 12 year old with an 20 something boy look strange, e This book was fairly interesting bringing a new concept to characters that we all love. Though there are a few issues (do they age slowly? how did they end up in America? interesting things that we would want to know) there is still a lot of the same heart left from the original work there. I do miss Jo's writing, and Amy seems even more immature which makes her being with Laurie even more problematic because... well if she doesn't age won't a 12 year old with an 20 something boy look strange, even if they ARE vampires? Beth and Mr March getting sick is actually handled really well, though the assassination of Brooke's character only to have him 180 randomly with hardly any time with him to begin with was a bit strange. And the antagonist behind it all was given so little fan fair after everything that it just seems a little strange to me. An ok read, especially if you love the story it was originally based on, but falls flat in a lot of places story wise.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Charlene

    I know this is sacrilege, but I do not enjoy the book Little Women. I read it in college and hated it. My friend bought me this book because she said that maybe vampires would make it better. It did. But there was still too much Little Women in there for me to really enjoy it. So, I'm obviously not the right audience for this, and that's OK. If you love Little Women and you love vampires, then this is the book for you!

  14. 5 out of 5

    Diana Oliveira

    it was not, by far, the funnyest of this genre. I understand that the source material is not maybe the best suited for this adaptation, still, if you make the effort to do it, do it right (not saying i would do it better...again, just felt this was not the story to do this). Do yourself a favour and give it a pass (wish i had).

  15. 4 out of 5

    Gracie

    Ugh couldn’t bring myself to finish this which is a rarity for me. I’ve never done that before. It was a great original novel, but cut and pasted with this vampire crap it ruined it. I love both genres on their own but together this didn’t work for me!

  16. 4 out of 5

    Angela

    Even with the inclusion of the undead, the charm and timely wisdom of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women cannot be abated, and Little Vampire Women by Lynn Messina is sure to be a dear a read as the original work.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Melanie Smith

    Boring! Just plain boring! Pride prejudice and zombies was a far better mash-up!

  18. 5 out of 5

    Baley Petersen

    Forgettable

  19. 4 out of 5

    Sylvia McIvers

    Lots of original text. My favorite scenes are, hm, different...

  20. 4 out of 5

    Ema

    I did finish the book. I choose the book because the cover looks good. Then, I realize don't judge a book by its cover

  21. 5 out of 5

    Amy Figueroa

    A very interesting retelling of a classic. The stories are so well blended, I was surprised how much I liked it!

  22. 5 out of 5

    Elisabeth Davis

    Hysterical, respectful, and ridiculous.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Taylor (Taylor Talks Tales)

    I forgot this one sucked too. Seriously, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer are really the only worthwhile monster mash classic lit books. Jane Slayer was okayish.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Laurel Hearn

    The story wasn't "vamparized" enough. They left out some of the best parts from the original story. Also, what they did with Dr. Bang was SO stupid!

  25. 5 out of 5

    Denise

    Not for me. Didn't feel like the mash up worked; or maybe I don't love little women enough. The footnotes are what kept me through the first 50 pages; they are hands down the best part of the book.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Alice

    I like vampire novels, I like mash ups, I like Little Woman. Little vampire woman though, not so much. Not at all. I can't really explain why, it just didn't do it for me and I couldn't even get to chapter three.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Kelley

    Since Little Women is one of my favorite books, I like to read it every couple of years to keep it fresh in my memory. This year I decided to read Little Vampire Women and Little Women and Werewolves at the same time. Unlike a lot of these reviews, I didn’t immediately hate them because I love the book, and I didn’t like them immediately because I didn’t like the original. To me, these monster mash books need to be successful in two different ways: they need to stay true to the original, while, Since Little Women is one of my favorite books, I like to read it every couple of years to keep it fresh in my memory. This year I decided to read Little Vampire Women and Little Women and Werewolves at the same time. Unlike a lot of these reviews, I didn’t immediately hate them because I love the book, and I didn’t like them immediately because I didn’t like the original. To me, these monster mash books need to be successful in two different ways: they need to stay true to the original, while, at the same time, being their own book. Little Vampire Women tried really hard to stay close to the book but just didn’t seem to know how. The first half of the book it seemed like the author just changed a few words per sentence to make it fit the vampire theme; however, the second half of the book held it’s own, but the characters were lost in the shuffle. The fact that I couldn’t recognize the characters by the end was what lost me. My main problem was John Brooke. In the original his nickname was Mr. Greatheart, and yet he’s a slayer in this version? That lost me. And then Meg turns him into a vampire and suddenly he’s completely okay with everything? I also thought Laurie’s character was a little off. He seemed a little bit too Bella Swan-esque with his constant pleas for the Marches to change him. Everyone else was a little thin, and I just didn’t feel like I got to know them that well. Other than that, I think the author kept appropriate parts of the original and did a descent job at abridging it. For me, Little Vampire Women couldn’t hold its own in the second half of the book. The storyline that was all its own—Jo being a part of Gentleman Jackson’s squad and going after slayers—was extremely interesting and I wanted more out of it. It was well done in the first part of the book, but when Dr. Bang was introduced (sort of) it fell apart. It was rushed and odd. And, most infuriating, it ended abruptly and seemed like the vampire plot was completely thrown away. After all of the work Jo did to track down Dr. Bang, he literally ends up hog-tied on her doorstep. Jo should have been the one to catch him. I felt the entire book was ruined by the fact that Jo wasn’t the one who caught and killed Dr. Bang. And what was up with that last chapter? So much was thrown into it and it was so confusing; it was one of the least satisfying endings I’ve read in a very long time. The whole book fell short. It wasn’t clever enough to be its own book, and it wasn’t close enough to the original to be a good parody. Therefore, it was just okay. It was entertaining and a fast read, but probably not one I’d reread or recommend.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Angela

    This. Was. AWFUL. I hated every minute. If you love and respect the original, just read the original. Don't waste your time! This rewrite really dumbed down the original text. Frustratingly so. Many historical points were wholly inaccurate, and the characters of the girls were changed almost entirely. Things were pointed out in a blatant straightforward way (I notice this a lot in American literature,) and inference is taken away from the reader. The sentence structure was not always very sound, a This. Was. AWFUL. I hated every minute. If you love and respect the original, just read the original. Don't waste your time! This rewrite really dumbed down the original text. Frustratingly so. Many historical points were wholly inaccurate, and the characters of the girls were changed almost entirely. Things were pointed out in a blatant straightforward way (I notice this a lot in American literature,) and inference is taken away from the reader. The sentence structure was not always very sound, and the amount of vampire cliché's became somewhat nauseating as they continued to accumulate. I noticed the phrase "Not a particle" used several times (page 88 is one of them,) and this badly thought out phrase looks like the author is trying too hard to be fancy, with no knowledge of the way people actually speak in the time. On page 5, the author insists that Marmee "Strove to cultivate" musical talent in her girls. This is one of those poorly researched point-outs. In the time, there were several skills that young women were permitted to develop, music being one of them. (Drawing, archery, singing, embroidery, painting. The list of possibles isn't long.) The girls are described on page 8 as being "perched precariously on the edge of womanhood," when they've been living as vampires for 32 years. That is a very long time to be alive in the world, and gathering life experience. Especially at the times they were turned, the girls would have been absorbing social and life experience at a very fast pace, and should in fact act more like sober matrons than giggling teenagers. This rewrite also omits huge chunks of the original story, in favour of adding excessive talk of blood and slaying. Essentially the charm and meat of this dish is removed, and extra garnish added in its place. I was appalled to learn that Meg had been changed into the vain and whiny sister, and Jo into a hyperactive trainee of murder. Just the fact that her writing was taken away from her, and her passion turned into one for hunting down Slayers, changed her beyond recognition for me. I found the fictional footnotes to be irritating instead of amusing or helpful. And there are a LOT of these kind of footnotes. And in the end, Dr Bang ended up being some random guy nobody had met before! I was hoping desperately for a clever twist.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Sarah Crawford

    This is, of course, a parody of the Little Women book by Louisa May Alcott. Both books have the same sistesr, Mag (16), Jo (15), Beth (13), and Amy (youngest). Much of the text in this book is word-for-word from Little Women. The main difference is that these four sisters are all vampires. Humans and vampires live in the same areas, and the sisters and their mothers have sworn off taking blood from humans. There is a League of Defenders, vampires who work against the various slayers that come alo This is, of course, a parody of the Little Women book by Louisa May Alcott. Both books have the same sistesr, Mag (16), Jo (15), Beth (13), and Amy (youngest). Much of the text in this book is word-for-word from Little Women. The main difference is that these four sisters are all vampires. Humans and vampires live in the same areas, and the sisters and their mothers have sworn off taking blood from humans. There is a League of Defenders, vampires who work against the various slayers that come along. The main focus for the March family is to fit in with everyone else. The other main difference, and an even more important one, is that this version can be, at times, absolutely hilarious. There are even footnotes in this version that usually refer to fictitious books that fit perfectly into the story. There are also some passages that come across as extremely funny. (p. 26)' It was the height of rudeness to dine on your guests, particularly if they were your social equal. Likewise, it was unforgivably vulgar to stake your host.' In relationship to an old gentleman vampire that had once courted their mother, p. 49 notes: 'In the middle of his fine speech, Poll (the parrot) tweaked his wig off to his great dismay, so the suitor bit the head off the bird in retribution. But the parrot was itself of a special avian vampire species, so its head grew immediately back to insult the gentleman anew.' Other differences arrive over specific items. For example, in chapter 6 in the original book the sisters make the guy next door some slippers; in this book they make a type of hood that vampires can wear during the daytime to look out a window without being severely burned. The last part of this book is, I feel, vastly superior to the original. The only problems this book has is when it spends too much time copying from the original which actually drags down the quality of this book.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Lexie

    As a young girl I read a lot of the 'classics'. All of Jane Austen, most of the Bronte sisters and a fair deal of Louisa May Alcott. Little Women wasn't my favorite Alcott book, Jo's Boys was, but I did read the unabridged version several times. The sisterly warmth and support was something I sought at the time, being the oldest in my family. For me Little Vampire Women, one of the new mash-ups of classics with paranormal bent, failed in that regard. There is something more than a little disturb As a young girl I read a lot of the 'classics'. All of Jane Austen, most of the Bronte sisters and a fair deal of Louisa May Alcott. Little Women wasn't my favorite Alcott book, Jo's Boys was, but I did read the unabridged version several times. The sisterly warmth and support was something I sought at the time, being the oldest in my family. For me Little Vampire Women, one of the new mash-ups of classics with paranormal bent, failed in that regard. There is something more than a little disturbing in reading about previously sweet-natured and selfless Beth talking about munching on bunnies. It's hard to ignore the pang of irritation whenever Beth would complain (vampire Beth is apparently less passive than human Beth), or Jo would grumble about 'those humans'. The charm of observing the Marchs' plight as they struggle to overcome the many obstacles they are faced with is lost because their reason for being in such a state is less because they have no choice and more because they choose to be different from everyone else and thus are treated that way. Taken on its own, without knowledge of its source material I think Little Vampire Women is better off. It's an abridged version of the classic to begin with, so its much shorter than the original and the dialog is updated for a more modern approach. The historical 'footnotes' that Messina includes are hilarious and sometimes what the March girls get up to is highly entertaining.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.