Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
3.5 stars.
TW/CW (for the book): graphic descriptions of: injuries, war, dead and dying bodies, slavery; racism, usage of ableist/racist/antiziganist slurs and language, opium use (in the context of questionable Civil War-era medicine), slight marital infidelity (this may not be everything but definitely be aware of the above!)
The prose in this was stunning and it brought a new dimension to Little Women. It was a relatively quick and easy read and I can see why this won a Pulitzer. It also brought to light the realities of racism within the union, which is a critical complication of the traditional narrative, and done very well. There were a few "fix-it fic" plot elements that added compelling explanations to events of little women. The structure of the book was also really interesting and well done. That said, I have a few major issues.
1. The use of the n and g slurs. I know ideas about usage of these slurs has changed in the past 15 years, but it still made me very uncomfortable to see n****r written from the pen of a white author. (Yes, I understand that this was likely to demonstrate the horrors of slavery, but it was unnecessary considering the myriad of other ways this is portrayed in this book.) There was also frequent, unnecessary, unchallenged use of antiziganist slurs.
2. Mr. March is so annoying.
You know those vegans who like to compare animal farming to genocide and will yell at you for eating anything other than raw bananas?? Mr. March is characterized like that. He's idealistic to the point of self-sabotage, and honestly, if he wanted to sabotage himself? Fine. But he's so callous towards everyone in his life and actively harms his wife and children for the sake of his causes. He purposely drives himself to financial ruin to fund abolitionist causes then feeds his young children 2 meals a day to teach them about thrift. He is so convinced of his moral superiority that he trashes *everyone* else in his life and it's really unclear in the text if this is supposed to be good or not.
3. Historical Context is weird
Little Women is loosely based on Louisa May Alcott's family, which would mean Mr. March is her father-- a, erm, character. So Brooks's challenge here is to either base her Mr. March off of the actual A. Bronson Alcott or craft a more original character. She kind of did both- keeping many elements of the actual man intact (vegetarianism, fierce abolitionist, etc), while toning down the more colorful parts of his life story and adjusting the timeline. Thus, the character just reads kind of muddled- caught between the worlds of historical and literary figure. This confusion is compounded by the fact that some of Brooks's choices are inconsistent with the canon of Little Women; for example, the family in Little Women is not vegetarian, but in March their vegetarianism is made a big deal. Little Women is also set in a sort of alternate history to our own-- the war is far away and few (if any) actual historical figures are present. In March, many of the primary characters are famous figures of the 1860s- John Brown, Thoreau, and Emerson all play a significant part in the plot. This again conflicts between the historical reality of A. Bronson Alcott and the world of Little Women.
If you're not a little women die-hard or stickler for accuracy, I think you'd enjoy this, because the prose is gorgeous, but I was too irritated by the characterization of Mr. March to love this.
TW/CW (for the book): graphic descriptions of: injuries, war, dead and dying bodies, slavery; racism, usage of ableist/racist/antiziganist slurs and language, opium use (in the context of questionable Civil War-era medicine), slight marital infidelity (this may not be everything but definitely be aware of the above!)
The prose in this was stunning and it brought a new dimension to Little Women. It was a relatively quick and easy read and I can see why this won a Pulitzer. It also brought to light the realities of racism within the union, which is a critical complication of the traditional narrative, and done very well. There were a few "fix-it fic" plot elements that added compelling explanations to events of little women. The structure of the book was also really interesting and well done. That said, I have a few major issues.
1. The use of the n and g slurs. I know ideas about usage of these slurs has changed in the past 15 years, but it still made me very uncomfortable to see n****r written from the pen of a white author. (Yes, I understand that this was likely to demonstrate the horrors of slavery, but it was unnecessary considering the myriad of other ways this is portrayed in this book.) There was also frequent, unnecessary, unchallenged use of antiziganist slurs.
2. Mr. March is so annoying.
You know those vegans who like to compare animal farming to genocide and will yell at you for eating anything other than raw bananas?? Mr. March is characterized like that. He's idealistic to the point of self-sabotage, and honestly, if he wanted to sabotage himself? Fine. But he's so callous towards everyone in his life and actively harms his wife and children for the sake of his causes. He purposely drives himself to financial ruin to fund abolitionist causes then feeds his young children 2 meals a day to teach them about thrift. He is so convinced of his moral superiority that he trashes *everyone* else in his life and it's really unclear in the text if this is supposed to be good or not.
3. Historical Context is weird
Little Women is loosely based on Louisa May Alcott's family, which would mean Mr. March is her father-- a, erm, character. So Brooks's challenge here is to either base her Mr. March off of the actual A. Bronson Alcott or craft a more original character. She kind of did both- keeping many elements of the actual man intact (vegetarianism, fierce abolitionist, etc), while toning down the more colorful parts of his life story and adjusting the timeline. Thus, the character just reads kind of muddled- caught between the worlds of historical and literary figure. This confusion is compounded by the fact that some of Brooks's choices are inconsistent with the canon of Little Women; for example, the family in Little Women is not vegetarian, but in March their vegetarianism is made a big deal. Little Women is also set in a sort of alternate history to our own-- the war is far away and few (if any) actual historical figures are present. In March, many of the primary characters are famous figures of the 1860s- John Brown, Thoreau, and Emerson all play a significant part in the plot. This again conflicts between the historical reality of A. Bronson Alcott and the world of Little Women.
If you're not a little women die-hard or stickler for accuracy, I think you'd enjoy this, because the prose is gorgeous, but I was too irritated by the characterization of Mr. March to love this.
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Brooks perfectly captured the mood/tone of the era. It was a solid 4-star rating until about the last 75 pages, when it jumped to a 4.5 for me.
Knowing the story of Little Women really makes it come together. Brooks' research and attention to detail is evident from the get-go.
Can't wait to read more of her books!
Knowing the story of Little Women really makes it come together. Brooks' research and attention to detail is evident from the get-go.
Can't wait to read more of her books!
I would give this book a 4.5. I had a bit of trouble getting into it, but once I did, I did not want to put it down. An interesting account of Mr. March (of little women). The character is based on Louisa May Alcott's father. Not too far of a stretch since Little women is based on the author and some of her siblings. A worthwhile read.
I agree with my sister's comment that I liked "Year of Wonders" better - I didn't really find myself sympathizing with Mr. March. It's tough to use such a well-known story ("Little Women") as the outer shell; I have preconceived notions of who these characters are and to have that so widely contradicted was difficult for me. Nonetheless, she paints a really poignant picture of his journey and the ideals that are challenged along his way.
This is a very impressive book with fascinating characters and complex historical setting. Itโs not always pleasant to read, a book about war and slavery is going to contain some gruesome passages, but i was in awe at the authorโs skill, and it was an enormously satisfying read. ๐๐๐
I found the descriptions of the terrible toll the war took on individuals compelling. The love triangle, not so much. I was actually a little surprised at the somewhat amateur handling of some of those scenes.
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
For the first two-thirds of this book, there seemed to be no purpose behind the choice of narrator - the absent father of the Little Women - beyond trading on the name recognition. And by the end, I just didn't like how this had twisted my memories of Little Women. I would have loved this novel were the protagonist just any Civil War chaplain. Not much is gained by making him Mr. March, but much was lost.