Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
Got 6 pages in and at, "I saw the heavy boot of one stout soldier land with sickening force onto the skull of a slight youth, mashing the bone against the rock.", I decided I wasn't up for a Civil War book.
My biggest problem was that I didn’t like March himself. He was too idealistic to be useful - and the book ultimately wanted to praise his idealism and punish him for it. This meant he was an utterly reactive character and not particularly exciting company.
I did, however, love the way in which his first person shows the way he is reading Marmee and then her narration showing how wrong he is about her. He goes full throttle into the abolitionism and into the Civil War to make her proud of him but she is not as fervent as he thinks.
Ultimately, an interesting book about the conflict between ideals and their action into reality, a striking depiction of the American Civil War and an interesting slant to Little Women.
I did, however, love the way in which his first person shows the way he is reading Marmee and then her narration showing how wrong he is about her. He goes full throttle into the abolitionism and into the Civil War to make her proud of him but she is not as fervent as he thinks.
Ultimately, an interesting book about the conflict between ideals and their action into reality, a striking depiction of the American Civil War and an interesting slant to Little Women.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I had some trouble reconciling some characterizations this book offered as well as a few details. To avoid too much of a rant, I condensed it in a few bullet points:
- Marmee has “lawless, gypsy elements of her nature.” And once, in a fit of rage, Marmee hits and wounds Mr. March’s face with a switch.
- Mr. March forcibly removes Marmee from a room and presses his hand against her mouth so firmly that it leaves an angry red handprint.
- Author trots out Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Brown, saying they are best friends with the March family. No. There's no mention of them in "Little Women." But, yes, these figures were known by the Alcott family (more on this particular problem next).
Basically, this was a book about a family during the Civil War. But that family is not recognizable as the March family. (The March family was based on Louisa May Alcott's family, sure. But Geraldine Brooks presented characters that were essentially the Alcotts. Not the Marches.)
Verdict
As a Civil War novel, it’s fine. Not a masterpiece but not awful. As a companion to “Little Women,” it is a complete and utter failure. I wanted to enjoy this book for what it was, but I found that difficult.
So, who would enjoy this book?
Civil War fiction enthusiasts who have very little knowledge of “Little Women” might like this book.
- Marmee has “lawless, gypsy elements of her nature.” And once, in a fit of rage, Marmee hits and wounds Mr. March’s face with a switch.
- Mr. March forcibly removes Marmee from a room and presses his hand against her mouth so firmly that it leaves an angry red handprint.
- Author trots out Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Brown, saying they are best friends with the March family. No. There's no mention of them in "Little Women." But, yes, these figures were known by the Alcott family (more on this particular problem next).
Basically, this was a book about a family during the Civil War. But that family is not recognizable as the March family. (The March family was based on Louisa May Alcott's family, sure. But Geraldine Brooks presented characters that were essentially the Alcotts. Not the Marches.)
Verdict
As a Civil War novel, it’s fine. Not a masterpiece but not awful. As a companion to “Little Women,” it is a complete and utter failure. I wanted to enjoy this book for what it was, but I found that difficult.
So, who would enjoy this book?
Civil War fiction enthusiasts who have very little knowledge of “Little Women” might like this book.
I am usually not one who likes stolen or reinvented ideas (plots, characters, etc. such as Alice in Zombieland), but the writing in this novel is first rate, and the prose is often beautiful. The philosophical and moral concepts may not be novel are well done, well written and well said. The dove-tailing into the _Little Women_ book was executed nicely, and not too overbearingly, and this book geared towards adults whereas the other is towards children, gives a fresh breath to LW.
I thought that the bit about Mr March being a vegetarian in the time of the Civil War was just another liberalist do-gooder, and every time that came up in the book, I gagged, it rubbed me the wrong way. I felt that Mr March was a bit of Forrest Gump of the Civil War meeting and knowing everybody famous, until I read the Afterwards that explains that it was, in fact, modeled after Louise Alcott's father, who kept exceptional diaries, and met many folks and Really was a vegetarian (vegan?). A LOT of research was done to make this historically accurate, from many perspectives (Civil War medical doctors and nurses and chaplains, Historical dates and places in Civil War, reconstructionism, etc.). I realize that there are probably many who take fault with some of the liberties with the dove-tailing into LW, or the times/places of the Civil War, but this is a work of fiction, and it does not *have* to be 100% accurate to the days and months get the flavor of that era, of that half of decade over 150 years ago. and certainly, some probably don't like the tainting of their personal, fond childhood memories of father (and maybe mother) of the LW girls, but these characters and attitudes are so much more realistic than LW. Yes, Mr March seems to be a whining, liberalist weenie, but you don't have to like the characters to understand what is trying to be conveyed... if liking-a-character were the case for liking a book, nobody would like _The Great Gatsby_ or any Dickens novel.
Maybe not a perfect or ground-breakingly unique novel, but so much better than most of its peers, and deserving, I think, of the Pulitzer, especially in comparison to some the trash (even some of the past Pulitzer picks) out there today. If you fault the novel on the historical accuracies, or a famous people list, or the vegetarianism, or think it's only about slavery, I think you are missing a giant chunk of what this book is about.
I thought that the bit about Mr March being a vegetarian in the time of the Civil War was just another liberalist do-gooder, and every time that came up in the book, I gagged, it rubbed me the wrong way. I felt that Mr March was a bit of Forrest Gump of the Civil War meeting and knowing everybody famous, until I read the Afterwards that explains that it was, in fact, modeled after Louise Alcott's father, who kept exceptional diaries, and met many folks and Really was a vegetarian (vegan?). A LOT of research was done to make this historically accurate, from many perspectives (Civil War medical doctors and nurses and chaplains, Historical dates and places in Civil War, reconstructionism, etc.). I realize that there are probably many who take fault with some of the liberties with the dove-tailing into LW, or the times/places of the Civil War, but this is a work of fiction, and it does not *have* to be 100% accurate to the days and months get the flavor of that era, of that half of decade over 150 years ago. and certainly, some probably don't like the tainting of their personal, fond childhood memories of father (and maybe mother) of the LW girls, but these characters and attitudes are so much more realistic than LW. Yes, Mr March seems to be a whining, liberalist weenie, but you don't have to like the characters to understand what is trying to be conveyed... if liking-a-character were the case for liking a book, nobody would like _The Great Gatsby_ or any Dickens novel.
Maybe not a perfect or ground-breakingly unique novel, but so much better than most of its peers, and deserving, I think, of the Pulitzer, especially in comparison to some the trash (even some of the past Pulitzer picks) out there today. If you fault the novel on the historical accuracies, or a famous people list, or the vegetarianism, or think it's only about slavery, I think you are missing a giant chunk of what this book is about.
This is the story of Mr March from Little Women and his experiences in the war.
Once I got past the brutal war scenes at the beginning, this book was very interesting. I enjoyed the background on the March family and the story of how they came to be at the beginning of Little Women. I learned a lot about John Brown. And I especially liked the Marmee-perspective.
Oh, I loved this book. I studied the Transcendentalists quite a bit in grad school and even made a pilgrimage to Concord, so I knew quite a bit about Bronson Alcott, upon whom the main character in March is loosely based. I had also been, as a girl, a Louisa May Alcott fangirl, if there is such a thing, AND I love Geraldine Brooks, so this book had my name on it. She is such a gorgeous writer and so at home in the mind of the past, the consciousness of People Who Are Not Alive Now. It's the hardest trick to pull off, and she does it in every book.
I abandoned this book after a couple of attempts. I was turned off by the wartime March/Grace storyline, somehow it feels like a betrayal of the March family I loved all through my childhood.
An amazing and creative imagining of Mr. March, the father of the "Little Women" in Louisa May Alcott's 1868 novel. Brook tells us what happens when he volunteers as a chaplain in the civil war, and she skewers many Northern abolitionist ideas and describes in dark detail the violence and crimes against the enslaved. Gripping.
Craft note: Brooks explains in her author's note that in creating March's character, she was inspired by Alcott's father, Bronson Alcott, who was friends with Emerson and Thoreau. Brilliant.
Craft note: Brooks explains in her author's note that in creating March's character, she was inspired by Alcott's father, Bronson Alcott, who was friends with Emerson and Thoreau. Brilliant.