Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
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!!
Geraldine Brooks does it again. Another remarkable story told deftly.
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-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
emotional
inspiring
reflective
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
Loved the tie into Little Women
I really wasn't keen on the idea of an author taking a character from another author's book, especially such a classic as "Little Women" and writing about their life, but this was an amazing novel. It totally deserves the Pullizer Prize!
adventurous
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Interesting story told from the perspective of Mr. March, father of the Little Women, as Ms. Brooks imagines it. This covers his year serving the Union during the Civil War.
had with my book group - they loved it, I cannot say I loved it. The idea of writing a book about the father of Little Women was intriguing. I learned a lot about aspects of the Civil War I didn't know. She is a good writer, but a lot of it seemed very self-conscious writing. Not sure how to critique what I didn't like about her prose style. Glad to have read it though.
"Little Women" sets a huge precident for someone to try to write into, but Brooks manages to weave a great story that stands alone, but also references the classic in a creative and expansive way. "Little Women" is something of a children's novel, but "March" helps show the more adult concepts and struggles behind the relatively sweet and innocent world of "Little Women". It also provides a more detailed look at bigger concepts like Civil War-era politics and the intellectual community of New England. The mix of characteristics from the fictional March family and real Alcott family
are intriguing and the characters produced are engaging and colorful. "March" was a great read and definitely makes me want to pick up "Little Women" again and reread one of my childhood favorites.
are intriguing and the characters produced are engaging and colorful. "March" was a great read and definitely makes me want to pick up "Little Women" again and reread one of my childhood favorites.
A fictitious account of the lives of fictitious characters -
the father & mother from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women books
(which were based upon her real family). I devoured Alcott as a kid,
but we recently reread Little Women in book club and it was quite saccharine. Brooks has expanded upon the father's stint in the Civil War,
and fleshed out the parents' characters as abolitionists and idealists in a tumultuous time. I admire her writing, and was really impressed with how she wove in elements of Louisa May Alcott's writing with her own gritty vision.
the father & mother from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women books
(which were based upon her real family). I devoured Alcott as a kid,
but we recently reread Little Women in book club and it was quite saccharine. Brooks has expanded upon the father's stint in the Civil War,
and fleshed out the parents' characters as abolitionists and idealists in a tumultuous time. I admire her writing, and was really impressed with how she wove in elements of Louisa May Alcott's writing with her own gritty vision.