Little Monsters - Máire Roche - ★★

AUTHOR: Máire Roche

GENRE: Middle-Grade Fantasy

PUBLICATION DATE: August 18, 2026

RATING: 2 stars.

In a Nutshell: A middle-grade fantasy retelling Louisa May Alcott’s ‘Little Women’ in a modern-day setting and a supernatural twist. The concept had tremendous potential but the execution doesn’t deliver. Slow and repetitive. All the characters are from the classic, but to middle-graders unfamiliar with the story, this feature is useless. Just an average read for me.

Plot Preview:

Fourteen-year-old Meg March has been living in foster care with her sisters since a decade. As the eldest, she considers it her duty to protect her sisters and keep their dangerous secret: all four of them are monsters. Their latest foster parent Marmee seems sweet but Meg isn't sure if Marmee will continue to love them if their secret comes out. Things become worse when a beast is spotted in the forest outside their little town. Farmer Bhaer is sure the beast is responsible for his missing chickens. And Meg is sure that she will be blamed for the destruction if anyone learns of her hidden identity. As Halloween comes closer, things become even more chaotic. It is up to Meg to find out who is attacking the chickens, and the only person she can rely on for help is John Brooke.

The story comes to us in Meg’s third-person perspective.

Given its plot and characters, ‘Little Women’ is a classic that lends itself easily to spin-offs. The idea of a retelling giving the same characters a supernatural twist was tough for me to resist. Sadly, the execution of this concept left a lot to be desired.

The classic starts with the memorable first line, "Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents”, said by Jo. This book also starts off with a comment by Jo: "Halloween won’t be Halloween without any costumes.” Therein ends most of the similarity between the two stories.

This time, it isn't Jo but Meg who is the narrative viewpoint of the story. Now, Meg was never a favourite character of mine, but this change of narrator makes a lot of sense. The story does a fabulous job capitalising on her role as the eldest sibling who is forced into a pseudo-parental role to her siblings. It also does an excellent job highlighting her mental and emotional conflicts while depicting her fierce streak of independence. I loved how the book never overtly harps on Meg’s situation, but reveals indirectly through her inner monologues and actions what pressures elder siblings often go through. (As you can guess, I am an elder sibling and hence I empathised a lot with Meg over this issue.)

Unfortunately, in giving focus to Meg, the story forgets to offer equal importance to Jo, Beth, and Amy. The younger trio appear in the plot only when needed, and though all four sisters are “little monsters”, we barely get to see any monstrous conflicts except those of Meg. For the remaining three March sisters, we mostly get just a mention of their physical change. How the younger ones deal with the conflict of identity and the pressure of keeping their other side a secret isn't given any importance. The beauty of “Little Women” was in the character development. Though we saw the story only through Jo’s perspective, each of the four March sisters got enough space to shine. But in this book, though the younger trio is acknowledged in the title, the story is Meg’s alone.

Similarly, while the alter-identity of being a “monster’ is so crucial to the plot, we get only some vague reveals about the hows and whys of the same. The girls seem to shapeshift into their monstrous sides when stressed or startled, but this too isn't detailed out much. I’d have loved for this to be explored better as it is such an excellent metaphor for how we feel under anxiety.

All the characters in this book are the same as in ‘Little Women’. However, certain key relationships have been changed. The four March sisters are still siblings, but Marmee is their foster mother. Mr. Lawrence and his grandson Laurie are still neighbours of the March siblings, but John Brook is the son of Mr’ Lawrence’s friend whom he is presently fostering. The Hummels, the Gardiners, the Moffats – all have a role to play in this retelling, albeit a different one from their original appearance. I have no issues with the offbeat take on the characters and their interconnections as it added to the novelty.

The story needed much better world-building. The setting of Salem and its being a “seam city” is brought up multiple times, but nothing is explained further. Despite so many “monstrous” elements, there is just a little spooky atmosphere.

All the above would still have been okay if the plot had enough meat. But most of it is repetitive and slow, with the same few points coming up time and again. Only the final quarter or so does the story move ahead. There is a mystery in the book, but it failed to keep me engrossed.

Overall, this was a big disappointment to me. I love ‘Little Women’ and was hoping for a memorable supernatural twist to the March sisters’ story. But in focussing so much on Meg and her monster, the book ignores the fact that the equal focus on all four March sisters is what makes the classic memorable.

Most children wouldn’t have read ‘Little Women’. So they won't be making any comparisons and contrasts with the classic and will probably read this story at face value. But to those of us who know the classic and are promised a retelling, the expectations would obviously be different. I still think the plot concept had tremendous potential, but the execution is where the book missed the mark.

Recommended to monster-loving middle-graders who aren’t too demanding of answers. Don’t expect a typical retelling.

My thanks to Simon and Schuster Children's Publishing and Aladdin for providing the DRC of “Little Monsters” via NetGalley. This review is voluntary and contains my honest opinion about the book.