Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
Don't read it if you want to maintain the beauty and innocence of(your own childhood reading of) little women.
I'm glad I read this as part of a book club. When I finished it I thought I didn't like it because of all the conflicting feelings it created within me. But by the time our book club meeting was over and we'd all worked through our feelings, I decided I really liked it. I just had to discuss it with other people to get comfortable with the conflict.
Someone needs to write Marmie's story now.
Someone needs to write Marmie's story now.
emotional
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Definitely more of a 4.5 stars than just a 4 stars book. I can see why it won the Pulitzer, although it was a less compelling read for me than I expected. Some of that, though, was due to the heavy and serious subject matter, coming as it did at the same time as other reading which was heavy and serious. At different parts you could definitely see the impending disaster on the horizon and it was almost painful to keep reading until it arrived. I admire Mr. March's idealism, but think he went to a few extremes (he was a Vegan way ahead of his time) and was still quite naive in many ways. I applaud the book's honesty about the attitudes of people on both sides of the war towards those of other races, those of mixed races, and those of the other sex/gender. The war was not as black and white, literally or figuratively, as history books often teach us, and the honesty on this point was appreciated if still saddening and maddening. I think one of the most compelling aspects of this book was the change in narrator from March to Marmee for all that it allowed us to see what is unsaid and unsayable even in the best of marriages, and how our own needs and biases can cloud our pictures of other people, even the ones we think we know the best. I am now really tempted to go back and re-read Little Women, as I imagine I will have a new perspective on it.
So many conflicting feelings on this one.
On the one hand – thank God this is much closer to [b:Year of Wonders|4965|Year of Wonders|Geraldine Brooks|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327936622s/4965.jpg|3211895] than [b:Caleb's Crossing|9684523|Caleb's Crossing|Geraldine Brooks|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1303284000s/9684523.jpg|14572532] in quality. Also on the one hand, Brooks has gorgeous historical writing – it feels very true to the time and mindset, it brought the period alive, it saw the appearance of historical figures (Thoreau and Emerson) that illuminated their characters without creating caricatures. Brooks definitely has talent for this genre.
On the other hand, this really, really should not have been a “side-telling” of [b:Little Women|1934|Little Women|Louisa May Alcott|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309282614s/1934.jpg|3244642]. It feels like nothing more than a publicity stunt or a lazy way to frame the story. This book had so little to do with Little Women besides the character names and some basic narrative parallels (five daughters, father a chaplain in war who gets injured). Honestly, I do not even feel like the two books are connected at all. It is not a fleshing out of the original – it is an entirely other book that happens to be loosely related. This really, really should’ve been an “inspired” by book that didn’t claim a connection. Throw in a son, change the names, and no one would’ve connected the two. I think it’s easier to have the daughters be the March sisters than have to create whole new biographies for them, but it wouldn’t have felt like such a cheap and awkward ploy. I do not even have strong emotional ties to the Marches (and I am totally up for taking liberties with the original story - in my mind, always and forever, Jo and Laurie marry) and I still think it’s awkward that she made Papa March a patronizing cheater. Brooks really does have problems with good guys, doesn’t she? All her men are seemingly understanding and kind but underneath are a mess of condescending, patriarchical views of women.
This book also ends while March is still not fully into his character growth. He is still trying to save the world and getting angry at himself for failing. He is still aggravatingly idealistic. You’d think that he would have gained a more complex view of the world, but instead he falls back into his old habits of thinking he can save everyone and that people are either innocents or evil. He either absolves someone of all their sins (Ethan – not such a bad guy! [okay, he’s not, he’s just really, really bad at being a boss, but March still views this less as teaching leadership skills then showing him the moral way that is surely within him]) or thinks they are moral ruins (which maybe they are, but who knows). It doesn’t feel like March has learned anything, just gotten more and more disillusioned and bitter.
P.S. I always thought that “Marmee” was the March sisters’ word for “Mom.” But in this book its her actual adult nickname? So the girls called her by her first name? What? That wasn’t done in the 19th century. Why did Brooks do that? And it just sounds awkward that her husband is calling her Marmee.
P.P.S. Also, this is proof that Brooks can write convincingly from a man’s POV – now she has even less reason to not make Caleb (of Caleb's Crossing) the protagonist and narrator (or at least a secondary protagonist & narrator) of his book instead of making it another white girl!!
On the one hand – thank God this is much closer to [b:Year of Wonders|4965|Year of Wonders|Geraldine Brooks|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327936622s/4965.jpg|3211895] than [b:Caleb's Crossing|9684523|Caleb's Crossing|Geraldine Brooks|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1303284000s/9684523.jpg|14572532] in quality. Also on the one hand, Brooks has gorgeous historical writing – it feels very true to the time and mindset, it brought the period alive, it saw the appearance of historical figures (Thoreau and Emerson) that illuminated their characters without creating caricatures. Brooks definitely has talent for this genre.
On the other hand, this really, really should not have been a “side-telling” of [b:Little Women|1934|Little Women|Louisa May Alcott|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309282614s/1934.jpg|3244642]. It feels like nothing more than a publicity stunt or a lazy way to frame the story. This book had so little to do with Little Women besides the character names and some basic narrative parallels (five daughters, father a chaplain in war who gets injured). Honestly, I do not even feel like the two books are connected at all. It is not a fleshing out of the original – it is an entirely other book that happens to be loosely related. This really, really should’ve been an “inspired” by book that didn’t claim a connection. Throw in a son, change the names, and no one would’ve connected the two. I think it’s easier to have the daughters be the March sisters than have to create whole new biographies for them, but it wouldn’t have felt like such a cheap and awkward ploy. I do not even have strong emotional ties to the Marches (and I am totally up for taking liberties with the original story - in my mind, always and forever, Jo and Laurie marry) and I still think it’s awkward that she made Papa March a patronizing cheater. Brooks really does have problems with good guys, doesn’t she? All her men are seemingly understanding and kind but underneath are a mess of condescending, patriarchical views of women.
This book also ends while March is still not fully into his character growth. He is still trying to save the world and getting angry at himself for failing. He is still aggravatingly idealistic. You’d think that he would have gained a more complex view of the world, but instead he falls back into his old habits of thinking he can save everyone and that people are either innocents or evil. He either absolves someone of all their sins (Ethan – not such a bad guy! [okay, he’s not, he’s just really, really bad at being a boss, but March still views this less as teaching leadership skills then showing him the moral way that is surely within him]) or thinks they are moral ruins (which maybe they are, but who knows). It doesn’t feel like March has learned anything, just gotten more and more disillusioned and bitter.
P.S. I always thought that “Marmee” was the March sisters’ word for “Mom.” But in this book its her actual adult nickname? So the girls called her by her first name? What? That wasn’t done in the 19th century. Why did Brooks do that? And it just sounds awkward that her husband is calling her Marmee.
P.P.S. Also, this is proof that Brooks can write convincingly from a man’s POV – now she has even less reason to not make Caleb (of Caleb's Crossing) the protagonist and narrator (or at least a secondary protagonist & narrator) of his book instead of making it another white girl!!
This novel imagines the story of Mr. March, the father in Little Women. While I enjoyed his story, I am not entirely sure that a lover of Little Women will love this book. My favorite aspect was the historical context -- the Civil War is something I'd like to read more about via historical novels.
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
There's a reason the dad is absent through much of Little Women.
4.5/5
I really enjoyed this book and especially enjoyed going into it with the idea that it was from the father's perspective. I don't think there is a lot of reality to this book other than the depth of emotion one feels at war. I think there's a common mentality coming out from the veterans of yesterday and today in that the exhaustion and emotional loss is just overwhelming. I thought Brooks created that image beautifully. The destruction of the self in the shadow of humanity's disgusting, destructive choice of slavery, tears more apart than can function. beautiful.
I really enjoyed this book and especially enjoyed going into it with the idea that it was from the father's perspective. I don't think there is a lot of reality to this book other than the depth of emotion one feels at war. I think there's a common mentality coming out from the veterans of yesterday and today in that the exhaustion and emotional loss is just overwhelming. I thought Brooks created that image beautifully. The destruction of the self in the shadow of humanity's disgusting, destructive choice of slavery, tears more apart than can function. beautiful.
I couldn't finish it. I didn't want her image of the March family clouding my own.
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Really loved this - especially after learning how the author based so much of it on real people.