In the children's classic, "Little Women," Mr. March is a minor character, far from the center of the action but emotionally important to the family. "March" brings him front and center and shows us an entirely different sort of man than we may have imagined. Brooks has loosely based her character on Alcott's own father, drawing the character and personality of March from her imagination. He is a man about whom one might charitably say, "His intentions were good." So they were, but the character falls far short of the idea portrayed in "Little Women." He is a man deeply flawed, weak, misguided and yet fundamentally kind and decent. Brooks' interpretation of "Marmee" was still more disturbing. The character in "March" simply did not square with the character in "Little Women."

On the plus side, Brooks did a fine job of even handedly presenting the squalor,horror and sadness of the Civil War and a good job of underlining the obliviousness of the typical19th Century man to what was close the heart of the women in his life. Still, if you want to read Brooks, try "Year of Wonders." It's simply a better book. ( )

In general I did NOT enjoy this book. I did find several quite good short stories wending their way through a lot of sheer pap! ( )

Short, well-written, and thought-provoking. I loved Little Women as a child, and found more to appreciate upon re-reading it recently. I was afraid I would dislike this adaptation, but thankfully did not. This book serves as a companion to illustrate the reality and complexity of the civil war era. Little Women was a story of sheltered girls, written for children. March is a grown up story of humanity at its best and worst (often found in the same person) and about the devastating effects of war, and the power of truth and forgiveness. ( )

This book won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, but I didn't care for it much. It's the story of Mr. March, father of Alcott's Little Women. If my book club hadn't been reading it, I probably wouldn't have finished it. Away from his family, March finds racism and brutality as he serves as an army chaplain. His idealism is shaken. Brooks based the character on Bronson Alcott, Louisa May's father, and a person I've always pretty much despised because he expected his richer friends to support him and his family. I'll stop here. Failure to accept responsibility for one's family can bring on a major rant. ( )

This book is not one you zip through in a day or so. It's a long, intense tale about amazing people, set in the Civil War. The author, Brooks, is truly dedicated to historical details - this enables you to completely lose yourself in the times and places she writes about.I highly recommend this book. ( )

The main character of this book is Mr. March, from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. It was interesting reading from his perspective; what I remember from Little Women (too many years ago - I need to reread) is that it is sentimental and sweet. This novel is much darker. I enjoyed it. ( )

Mr March, the father gone away as an army chaplain from Little Women is the protagonist of this novel that imagines what could have happened to him, using the life of Louisa May Alcott's father, Bronson Alcott, as an inspiration. ( )

The Afterward was enormously helpful in explaining how this book evolved and how it fit in with Little Women because of Brooks' study of Louisa May Alcott's own father's life. Mr. March could never live up to what he expected of himself. With this new version of the father March the picture of "togetherness" found at the end of Little Women is completely altered. It would be wonderful to see what Louisa May Alcott would think of this book. ( )

I thought this was a well-written, affecting gem of a short novel. I can see why it won the Pulitzer and it rises above Brooks' still quite good first book, 'Year of Wonders.' We finally learn not only about what Mr. March did as a volunteer chaplain for the Union Army in the early years of the Civil War, but also about his early life which is modeled much on Louisa May Alcott's real father - an abolitionist and a contemporary of Emmerson and Thoreau. I guess you don't absolutely have to have read 'Little Women' to appreciate this, but knowledge of Marmee and the girls adds charm and texture, as well as some forknowledge as to what will befall Mr. March.

And what befalls Mr. March is quite a story. I especially enjoyed his experiences at Oak Landing despite its' conclusion. I also felt his character was exquisitely rendered - so passionate, yet so naive, but yet 'a gud kin man.' It was refreshing to see that all was not so sugary sweet behind the scences of the March marriage explaining why Papa seemed a bit distant in Part 2 of 'Little Women.' I haven't decided whether my overwhelming emotion is sympathy for, or exasperation with Mr. March and his homecoming.

Really the entire package without a page to waste - action, drama (just narrowly escaping the melodrama her first novel fell into,) fine prose, and real emotional impact. Geraldine Brooks is growing into an outstanding novelist and this effort is worth the accolades. ( )

Have you ever wondered what happened to Mr. March of Little Women while he was away at war? This story fills in that gap. In first-person narration and lovely prose, March tells his own story of being a Civil War chaplain in 1861. During a battle, he is unable to save one of his comrades while he makes his own escape. He finds himself at a plantation that he knew years ago from his days as a peddler, and remembers the plantation owner, Clement, and his slave, Grace, as they were twenty years ago. His heartbreaking descent from high-minded idealist to disillusioned soldier reads realistically. March finds himself unable to communicate the horrors of war to his wife, if only to try to keep her and his daughters from heartbreak.

I have mixed feelings about this book. The writing was lovely and the research detailed, so I can see why it won a Pulitzer. I didn't entirely agree with the way the author reinterpreted the characters of Little Women, though I enjoyed the differing point of view and forcing myself to think of the characters in a new light. And though I can hardly fault the book for this, the harsh aspects of war and the effect it had on March's psyche left me feeling rather depressed; though the story is not devoid of hope, it is much sadder than I tend to like. ( )

I found this something of a let-down, having read Russell's The Sparrow. That book took a handful of characters and established a rapport with them which allowed Russell to tell a fascinating and complex story about humanity; A Thread of Grace attempts something similar on a larger scale, but it fails to convince. Russell does well at establishing a sense of period—northwestern Italy in the latter part of the Second World War, when the first signs of defeat were urging the Nazis on to greater acts of cruelty, and thousands of Italians sheltered Jewish refugees in their homes—and there is an unrelenting, photorealistic quality to her writing which is marvellous, if occasionally unsettling. (This is not a book to read if you have a weak stomach.) Yet I think her cast of characters was too large, diffusing some of the impact of what Russell was attempting; just as I was beginning to get involved with one character, they would disappear from the narrative or would be killed, while a number of very minor characters were given large swathes of backstory for no reason that I could fathom. It felt rather a mish-mash at times. One minor, but continuous annoyance, was Russell's insistence at points on trying to capture dialect by writing phonetically—it's a technique which, to me, always seems a little patronising. ( )

Peter March, the absent father in Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women" finds voice in this tale of the Civil War. March, a cleric, father of Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy, husband of Marmee, friend and neighbor to Thoreau and Emerson, and benefactor to John Brown is characterized as overly idealistic, paternalistic and naive. One would expect with all these fascinating aspects of March’s life, a fully fleshed out character, but the book falls short of that. However, it does offer an insightful and well researched look into this period of time. Although it is not my favorite book by this wonderful author, it is still an enjoyable read. ( )

I just finished this one today and it took me forever! Like many girls, I read Little Women as a child and loved it. I read all the books in the series. So you might think a book about one of the characters would be very appealing to me. And so it might, but not this book.

Reverend March is always the most obscure of the family in this series, as he is away at war when the book opens. So Geraldine Brooks has lots of room to imagine a new story for him. She opens the book with March in the middle of battle in the Civil War.

Now naturally, a book mostly about the Civil War would not exactly be cheerful. But it wouldn't necessarily be depressing and feel like a chore to read. That's exactly how I felt reading this book. I know lots of people have said good things about it. But I didn't like it at all. I didn't like the central character all that much. I did feel that he was a moral man, trying to stand up for what he believes in a very complicated situation. But I didn't like him. And I was unhappy with the interpretation Brooks gives to the whole March household.

I'm not sure if I'll read any more by this author, but it sure wasn't what I expected and I'm glad to be done with it. ( )

I grabbed this book simply because it was on the half-off Goodwill shelf and 'Year Of Wonders' has always been one of my favorites. It wasn't even until I got it home that I read what it was actually about. A Maguire-ian re-telling of Little Women through Mr. March's eyes? Sounded amazing.

And a lot of it was. But some parts dragged on and failed to keep my attention. It took me nearly a month to finish this short novel, which is unheard of. The latter half was much more enchanting than the first, however. It steadily picked up it's pace from there, right up until the end which actually left me wanting more.

How Mr. March reconciles his Civil War experiences with his innocent family is meant to be left up to imagination, but a part of me really wants to be told that tale. ( )

I began this book feeling that I wasn't going to care for the main character. I had always pictured Mr. March as pretty much of a milk toast guy. He left all the important matters up to Mrs. March and he just really wasn't "there" even when he was there with his family. But by 1/3 of the way through the book I was into the story, into the characters and had gone from thinking him a weak, spineless man (which was how I always felt about him when reading Little Women) to seeing him as a fully fleshed out character in his own right.
I really like how Brooks puts a book together, slowly building on the storyline and the characters and allowing the reader to just take it all in with no confusion until he/she is there, in the moment of the story and with the characters.
The story of March is that he was a minister who, when going to see the young men from the township off to war, suddenly told them they would not be going alone---that he would be going with them. That group didn't have need of a chaplain, but they put him with another group who did. So Mr. March went to war. He was connected with John Brown, his family was active in the underground railroad, he was on friendly terms with Emerson, Thoreau and others like them.
He writes letters home trying to tell his family of some of the not so gruesome details of his life with the army. He spends much of his time on a cotton plantation helping to establish schools for the colored children and their parents. The author does a good job describing what life was like for the blacks and whites alike during the terrible days of the Civil War.
The plantation is taken over and the whites and blacks alike are taken, tortured, and some are killed. Only one got away and she came back to get Mr. March and help him. She got him to a hospital and Mrs March was sent for as he was doing very poorly and at this point, as in Little Women, Brooks saves the day and brings Marmee to the hospital where she and her husband are reunited. I was quite amazed to see that in this book Mrs. March is portrayed as quite a little spitfire.
According to Brooks, Alcott modeled the March girls after herself and her sisters. Journals, letters, and biographies of Alcotts's father, Bronson, were used for inspiration in the writing of this novel. Bronson Alcott was a radical even for those times and "recorded his life in sixty one journals and his letters fill thirty seven manuscript volumes in the Harvard College Library. He is the subject of an 1893 two volume memoir by Franklin B Sanborn and William T Harris, and a 1937 biography by Odell Shepard. Warm references to Bronson Alcott, often as mentor and inspiration, appear frequently in the letters and journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, who were among his closest friends."
I did like this book and look forward to reading more by this author. I recommend it for anyone who enjoys historical fiction, books on the Civil War (though it is fiction) or just wants a good read. There is not a lot of depth here, but it is a good book and I enjoyed it. However, I read in one of the reviews here that it was a Pulitzer Prize winner and though I enjoyed it, I cannot see it being of that quality work. ( )

The trouble with novels about the Civil War is that they are bound to follow a requisite formula, and Geraldine Brooks’s Pulitzer-winning March is no exception. All the familiar scenes, themes, and elements are there: lonely letters home, the smoke-filled chaos of battle, stealing a dead person’s boots, whipping a slave, selling a slave’s family members, a slave revolt, Southern gentility, Northern rough manners, soldiers trashing the plantation, buildings burning, having no food but root vegetables, and the mandatory amputation of limbs with hand tools.

Civil War novels only distinguish themselves with what gets used to string together these common essentials. Brooks differentiates her book by using a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee abolitionist as her protagonist and developing a personal relationship between him and a beautiful, educated house slave. Brooks also plays a little literary game, in that Mr. March is the father of the eponymous Little Women in Luisa May Alcott’s 1868 novel. This might be a more compelling device if Little Women were more compelling.

Not knowing anything about the fictional Mr. March, Brooks fashioned him after Alcott’s colorful father, Amos Bronson Alcott, an innovative educator, friend of Thoreau and Emerson, experimental farmer, and strict vegetarian. Weaving Thoreau and Emerson into the story, as well as the fanatic abolitionist John Brown, was an interesting touch. But March’s vegetarianism – discussed often and at length – was a distraction that added nothing to the story.

Overall, March is well-written and tells a good story. For a reader new to, or completely enamored with, Civil War novels, it would be a great read. But there is not enough novelty to capture the fancy of more jaded readers.

Also posted on Rose City Reader. ( )

I read this book because of the Pulitzer Prize that it won in 2006. I think the book deserved to win this coveted prize. Ms. Brooks paints a very realistic picture of life for an obscure chaplain in the Civil War. The fact that this chaplain is Mr. March, the father of one of my favouite fictional families the Marches made it even more poignamnt for me. I love Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women". I read it many times when I was growing up, and I have shared this wonderful story with my daughter as well. As everyone knows, we don't see much of their father in the book, so this book gives us an idea of what he experienced during his year with the northern forces. This is definately not a child's book. There is life, love, lust, murder and realistic army routing scenes within. I think what I enjoyed most about the book was it's highly original format, and of course Ms. Brooks' wonderful writing. It certainly opened my eyes to an era that remains steeped in mystery ( )

Geraldine Brooks has written such a full and rich story in so small a book. I almost put it down after reading the first few pages because the writing was so descriptive that I felt as if I was amongst the wounded soldiers in the civil war (and I am very squeamish). I am glad that I pressed on though because the book was unique and enlightening. It tells the imagined story of Mr March of Alcott's Little Women. It is by no means an imitation of Alcott's style or content though. Brooks story is tragic, intense and 'real' in it's portrayal of the human condition. "March" examines the morality of the intellect alongside the passions and failings of human nature ( )

This is the third book by Geraldine Brooks that I've read this year-- Year of Wonders, People of the Book, and this one, March. All 3 have been such compelling, moving reads. Anyone recommend another book of hers to read?

congratulations to Geraldine for her beautiful books and her Pulitzer Prize! ( )

I have heard conflicting reports on this Pulitzer Prize winner. It’s a literary spinoff – a contemporary novel that focuses on the absent father in Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women. The story opens on the Civil War battlefield and flashes back to the early life of this fictional father, his youth as a farmer and then a peddler, his relationship with a black slave, his later marriage to Marmee and the birth of his four “little women.” He is a complex character, sometimes foolish, too idealistic or too cowardly, but ultimately fully human and sympathetic. In realistic but readable 19th century language, through both letters and narration, March’s account helps us understand his unusual, intelligent and self-willed wife, and a short section allows us into her thoughts, as well.

Brooks has done her usual excellent research, and so gives us an accurate but fresh picture of various aspects of the Civil War period. She bases her portrait of March largely on Louisa May Alcott’s father, Bronson Alcott, and fills in the picture with considerable investigation of the horrific non-battlefield aspects of the war in the south, as well as life in the middle-ground of Washington, DC, and the familiar New England world of Alcott/March’s home, peopled by real historical figures that he knew: Thoreau, Emerson, and John Brown. A fascinating read. ( )

March imagines the story of the absent father from Little Women, who spent most of that book "far away, where the fighting was". The book opens with a letter to March's beloved Marmee and little women, following his unit's disastrous crossing of the Potomac, and the battle of Ball's Bluff. Brooks based many of March's experiences on the life of Louisa May Alcott's father, Bronson Alcott and the novel that follows weaves backwards and forwards in time, to create a stunning portrait of a man, idealistic and plagued with guilt at all that could have been, or that he could have done.

One of the things that impressed me most about the novel is the way Brooks has captured March's voice, and manages to sustain it throughout. It is artfully rendered and utterly believable. It's ironic, because I think it was the florid style of the prose that put me off the book the first time round, but as I persevered into the second chapter I completely changed my opinion. And just like People of the Book, by the final chapters, I was turning pages so quickly I practically gave myself papercuts.

Almost immediately after I finished, I went hunting through my boxes of books for my battered copy of Little Women. ( )

What a treat when a book you’ve been looking forward to reading actually lives up to the excitement you felt upon first hearing its premise! Brooks takes the sketchy details provided about the absent father in Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women and her own reading about the American Civil War, and weaves from these a tale of the life of Mr March. Brooks describes herself as having “tried to add some darker adult resonances in the voids of her sparkling children’s tale”, and the book is a fascinating adult counterpart to the children’s classic.

Because of these ‘darker resonances’ (which include vivid depictions of the horrors of slavery and the war), I’m sure that the novel won’t be everybody’s cup of tea. For me, the contrast in tone with Little Women really enhanced the poignancy of the story, and I found the book rich, multi-layered and thought-provoking.

I particularly enjoyed the book for the way Brooks depicted March – he does have his flaws, and yet is yet sympathetically drawn, for its exploration of relationship between he and ‘Marmee’, and for the way it made me think through some of the difficult moral decisions that people may have been faced with during this period in history ... ( )

http://amiralace.blogspot.com/2009/02... ( )

Given to me by one of the loveliest people I know, but I couldn't progress beyond 50 pages. Perhaps the ornateness of the style is intentional, as it is the inner monologue of an 1860s preacher, but that made it no less trying. And I did find the opening vignette almost a parody of the antebellum south and with not a hint of crackle or humor. So I stopped. Sorry Frances!

As a fan of Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women", I wasn't sure I'd enjoy this book. But I was pleasantly surprised. While the author has had to take a little license with the time lines of the original book (Alcott wasn't exactly historically accurate), she's kept to the general spirit of the original book while giving Mr March a voice of his own.