Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
This is one of my new favorite books. It's been a while since I so completely connected with a character...especially a middle-aged man character. Brooks digs deep into the heart of her semi-fictional protagonist and demands that I as a reader do the same kind of soul-searching. Her writing also illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand our fellow humans, even those we love deeply. Not to mention the fascinating element of history entwined in this fabulous tale. Read it.
Now this is how to tell a good story! I think Geraldine Brooks is one of my very favorite authors. This story, of what happens to the father in Little Women while he's away from his family, is nuanced, has great character development, and is told in a realistic setting.
My favorite part of the book may have been the first half or so, where we see Chaplain March through his own eyes, in which he's trying the very best he can to be a good person, but also through the eyes of others, where he seems a bit out of touch. I think Brooks does a brilliant job of showing how we all justify our actions and believe that we are truly being good people, and yet how our best intentions may be misinterpreted by others or might simply be extremely annoying. Her telling of the story through the husband and wife's eyes is also masterfully done, with each partner thinking the other one believes one thing when really the exact opposite is true. Somehow she also manages to show one character's slow evolution, not only through the story telling (where I might have missed it because the changes were gradual), but also through another character's reaction to the time-altered person or to a situation in which their own views are not nuanced by experience.
I loved this book and wish Geraldine Brooks could write as quickly as I can read. Her books are masterpieces.
My favorite part of the book may have been the first half or so, where we see Chaplain March through his own eyes, in which he's trying the very best he can to be a good person, but also through the eyes of others, where he seems a bit out of touch. I think Brooks does a brilliant job of showing how we all justify our actions and believe that we are truly being good people, and yet how our best intentions may be misinterpreted by others or might simply be extremely annoying. Her telling of the story through the husband and wife's eyes is also masterfully done, with each partner thinking the other one believes one thing when really the exact opposite is true. Somehow she also manages to show one character's slow evolution, not only through the story telling (where I might have missed it because the changes were gradual), but also through another character's reaction to the time-altered person or to a situation in which their own views are not nuanced by experience.
I loved this book and wish Geraldine Brooks could write as quickly as I can read. Her books are masterpieces.
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
A heavy book. I had a hard time getting into it at the beginning - I found March difficult to like, and the present day story was less engaging to me. The complexities around slavery from the perspective of a white man were interesting later on, and Part Two’s exploration of marriage and frustrations with morals versus obligations were interesting as well. Not sure I can say I completely enjoyed the book, but definitely will be thinking about it for a while yet.
In the novel, Papa March, the father of Little Women, and Marmee's husband, joins the Union Army as a chaplain during the Civil War. He recounts his experiences in narrative and in letters back home to his family. Based loosely on Louisa May Alcott's father, Bronson, who did not go to the War, but who was like the character March in many ways- vegetarian, abolitionist, idealist, father, neighbor to Thoureau and Hawthorne. Wonderful, rich details about the south during and before the war. One part is narrated by Marmee as she rushes to an army hospital after her husband is wounded. I enjoyed the story, but more than that was fascinated by the character of Bronson Alcott, and his daughter Louisa. I went and bought a new biography of Louisa in order to learn more.
Perspective of Little Women’s father, Captain March. Such an intriguing idea. (Weird to say that about a book with graphic war and scenes of human brutality to humans, slavery) Cameos by Thoreau, Emerson, Hawthorne, John Brown. I thought this book might offend my love for Alcott; but it didn’t. Recommend. Warning: copious use of word N*****, and slavery.
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
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!!