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.
Apparently, we've been reading everything all wrong. First, it was Jane Austen. Then Seth Grahame-Smith set us straight with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Now it's Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. Fortunately, Lynn Messena is here to resurrect (pun quite intended) the previously untold vampiric careers of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy March. Blood curdling fun.