This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1margad
I picked Gilead by Marilynne Robinson and March by Geraldine Brooks to compare, because these are the two novels I've read most recently. Both were written by women but have male protagonists. Otherwise, they seem quite different on the surface. Gilead takes the form of an elderly minister's musings on life. Knowing he will die soon, John Ames hopes to set down some useful insights about life for his young son to read when he grows older and needs a father's guidance. The first page of March plunges the reader into the midst of battle, a shocking contrast to the intimate, domestic tone of Louisa May Alcott's classic Little Women, which inspired and supplied the protagonist for Brooks' novel.
In Little Women, Pa - Mr. March - was mostly absent, fighting in the Civil War. March tells the story - in meticulously researched, emotionally moving, and very adult detail - of Mr. March's war experience. But Gilead, too, is about the Civil War - or more precisely, its causes and results. John Ames' small Kansas town, Gilead, was founded by abolitionists bent on forcing Kansas to enter the Union as a free state. His grandfather was a fiery leader of those abolitionists.
March is set during the Civil War, and though Gilead is set in the mid-twentieth century, much of the novel consists of flashbacks to Ames' childhood in the previous century and his family's conflicts over whether violence was an appropriate tool for ending slavery. March, too, revolves around that central question, because of Mr. March's growing feelings of guilt over his role in the Civil War's violence.
Since it's clear to us today that slavery was wrong and had to end, I long took for granted that the Civil War was a necessary, if not desirable, means for ending slavery. Neither March nor Gilead forces a definite conclusion on whether the Civil War was the right or only way to end slavery - both books are too well-written to be so didactic. But both provoke deep thought about an issue of terrible relevance: Is war ever the best way to remedy a wrong?
Anyone else notice additional similarities or differences between these two books?
How about comparing March with Year of Wonders, Brooks' previous novel, or Gilead with Housekeeping, Robinson's previous novel?
Or March with Little Women?
What are the two novels you've read most recently?
In Little Women, Pa - Mr. March - was mostly absent, fighting in the Civil War. March tells the story - in meticulously researched, emotionally moving, and very adult detail - of Mr. March's war experience. But Gilead, too, is about the Civil War - or more precisely, its causes and results. John Ames' small Kansas town, Gilead, was founded by abolitionists bent on forcing Kansas to enter the Union as a free state. His grandfather was a fiery leader of those abolitionists.
March is set during the Civil War, and though Gilead is set in the mid-twentieth century, much of the novel consists of flashbacks to Ames' childhood in the previous century and his family's conflicts over whether violence was an appropriate tool for ending slavery. March, too, revolves around that central question, because of Mr. March's growing feelings of guilt over his role in the Civil War's violence.
Since it's clear to us today that slavery was wrong and had to end, I long took for granted that the Civil War was a necessary, if not desirable, means for ending slavery. Neither March nor Gilead forces a definite conclusion on whether the Civil War was the right or only way to end slavery - both books are too well-written to be so didactic. But both provoke deep thought about an issue of terrible relevance: Is war ever the best way to remedy a wrong?
Anyone else notice additional similarities or differences between these two books?
How about comparing March with Year of Wonders, Brooks' previous novel, or Gilead with Housekeeping, Robinson's previous novel?
Or March with Little Women?
What are the two novels you've read most recently?
2writestuff First Message
I will be reading March within the next week. I read Gilead last year (and unfortunately found it to be a very dull read!). I will come back and give you my thoughts after I've read March.
3franklymydear
I've just finished Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague and for me, I much preferred March. I am unsure as to whether this is only because I loved Little Women when I was younger. I really liked the flashback sort of thing that was going on with March and the slight references to Little Women.
I think that it is difficult to compare books, even when they are written by the same author. I can't really say that March was written better or that since March was based on a book by another author that it is inferior to Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague.
But actually, Year of Wonders was based on the story of a real village, so that's a similarity.
I enjoyed them both, that's all I can say.
I think that it is difficult to compare books, even when they are written by the same author. I can't really say that March was written better or that since March was based on a book by another author that it is inferior to Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague.
But actually, Year of Wonders was based on the story of a real village, so that's a similarity.
I enjoyed them both, that's all I can say.
4LeHack
I just finished Sharp Objects by Gillian Flynn and The Ghost at the Table by Suzanne Berne. Both books were about family dynamics. The main character in Sharp Objects was a reporter for a small newspaper who was sent to her hometown to cover two murders of young girls. She had a distant relationship with her mother and a nonexistent relationship with her stepsister. Her older sister had died when she was a child. The subject matter was heavy. It was definitely a page-turner. The Ghost at the Table also deals with family relationships which come to a head at Thanksgiving. Frances invites her sister, Cynnie to visit Concord for the holiday. They go to the Cape to pick up their elderly, recently divorced father to take him to a nursing home. The nursing home doesn't have a space for him yet, so Frances takes him to her home. Cynnie never got along well with her father and suspects him of having something to do with her mother's death, even though her mother suffered from Parkinson's disease for years. Frances has also invited family friends, a coworker, her daughter brings a classmate home from school, so there is an interesting mix at the dinner table. Most of us can relate to bad behavior by some family member at the holidays, either due to holiday stress or being thrown together with people you may not have wanted to be with on the holiday. Both books ended with a resolution, but neither had a happy ending.
5margad
I loved Year of Wonders while I was reading it, but it hasn't stuck with me the way March is doing. I can't help but wonder whether I would have found more in Year of Wonders if I had written a comparison review of it and whichever novel I read immediately before or after it.
LeHack, your review is making me think of a memoir I read a few years ago. The name escapes me at the moment, but it was about a girl whose mother was schizophrenic. When the mother had to be institutionalized for a time, another relative - sane, but harsh and judgmental - came to care for the children. The climax of the book occurs at a family Thanksgiving dinner (SPOILER ALERT) after the mother has just returned and no one is quite sure how okay she will be. Unlike Sharp Objects and The Ghost at the Table, this book did have a happy ending - in a triumphal moment, the mother sticks up for her daughter, the narrator, and memorably tells off the obnoxious relative.
LeHack, your review is making me think of a memoir I read a few years ago. The name escapes me at the moment, but it was about a girl whose mother was schizophrenic. When the mother had to be institutionalized for a time, another relative - sane, but harsh and judgmental - came to care for the children. The climax of the book occurs at a family Thanksgiving dinner (SPOILER ALERT) after the mother has just returned and no one is quite sure how okay she will be. Unlike Sharp Objects and The Ghost at the Table, this book did have a happy ending - in a triumphal moment, the mother sticks up for her daughter, the narrator, and memorably tells off the obnoxious relative.
6dchaikin
March and Gilead? They have such different feels. I find them tough to compare.
March is difficult to pin a theme on. Is it about the cruelty in war? I think it's more about appearances, and how misleading they can be. I haven't read Little Women (yet), but Mr. March is certianly a much different characer here then he is in Little Women. I think the book leaves the impression that Mr. March's outward appearance is pretty mild, this is how I imagine he is in Little Woman (correct me if I'm wrong). But, his story is dark and shows him to be unstable, naive, and, by the end of the book, in possesion of a large collection of macabre experiences. All the other major characters are also quite a bit different then what you might expect from first appearances, most obviously the planatation caretaker (I've forgotten his name).
Gilead, on the otherhand, is about coming to terms with life and mixed painful histories. John Ames has a lot to deal with regarding his father, grandfather and some his decisions during his life...also, Ames seems to learn something new about himself. I'm not sure Mr. March really ever understood his experiences.
I hadn't realized before your post that they both meet at the abolitionist side of the Civil War, and from a minister's perspective. That is interesting. Both Mr. March and John Ames grandfather had some pretty strong opinions. They both gave a quite a bit with the intention of ending slavery and both books dwell on the costs of war. But March (the book) dives into the heart of of the meat grinder, the civil war is immediately present. Gilead discusses the soldiers that never came home and burden that lay on the man who inspired them to go fight. But, it's long ago, and the painful memories are largely softened by time.
March is difficult to pin a theme on. Is it about the cruelty in war? I think it's more about appearances, and how misleading they can be. I haven't read Little Women (yet), but Mr. March is certianly a much different characer here then he is in Little Women. I think the book leaves the impression that Mr. March's outward appearance is pretty mild, this is how I imagine he is in Little Woman (correct me if I'm wrong). But, his story is dark and shows him to be unstable, naive, and, by the end of the book, in possesion of a large collection of macabre experiences. All the other major characters are also quite a bit different then what you might expect from first appearances, most obviously the planatation caretaker (I've forgotten his name).
Gilead, on the otherhand, is about coming to terms with life and mixed painful histories. John Ames has a lot to deal with regarding his father, grandfather and some his decisions during his life...also, Ames seems to learn something new about himself. I'm not sure Mr. March really ever understood his experiences.
I hadn't realized before your post that they both meet at the abolitionist side of the Civil War, and from a minister's perspective. That is interesting. Both Mr. March and John Ames grandfather had some pretty strong opinions. They both gave a quite a bit with the intention of ending slavery and both books dwell on the costs of war. But March (the book) dives into the heart of of the meat grinder, the civil war is immediately present. Gilead discusses the soldiers that never came home and burden that lay on the man who inspired them to go fight. But, it's long ago, and the painful memories are largely softened by time.
7dchaikin
About comparing Year of Wonders and March... that easy the first is crummy, the second is really good... or is it the other way around? :o)
It's interesting that so many readers seem to like one a lot (I prefer March) and not like the other much at all. What was the difference? They are both historical fiction, and they are both approachable subjects. Year of Wonders seems to have been heavier on symbolism and some forced plotting (and a kind of silly ending, maybe). It probably hurts that there is not really a first person account of the contracting the Plague. In March we see everything close up, and that is what sticks with me.
It's interesting that so many readers seem to like one a lot (I prefer March) and not like the other much at all. What was the difference? They are both historical fiction, and they are both approachable subjects. Year of Wonders seems to have been heavier on symbolism and some forced plotting (and a kind of silly ending, maybe). It probably hurts that there is not really a first person account of the contracting the Plague. In March we see everything close up, and that is what sticks with me.
8margad
I did enjoy Year of Wonders, but the main character, Anna, is not really a prime mover for any of the events in the novel - she reacts to events rather than causing them. So although we do get a quite vivid, I think, insider's view of what it is like to live in a plague town - she nurses many people who did contract the disease - there is a passive quality to the novel. Mr. March makes a lot of mistakes, but no one could call him passive!
9berthirsch
on today's Conversational Reading website (http://esposito.typepad.com/)there is a great discussion of a recent essay by Cynthia Ozick which emphasizes how reviews need to be more indepth and how one way to do this is to "compare books" with one another.
in reading it i immediately thought of this converstaion group.
in reading it i immediately thought of this converstaion group.
10margad
Oh, my goodness, I will have to check out that website! As a matter of fact, I started this group immediately after reading Ozick's essay (which appeared in the April Harper's magazine). She was lamenting the decline of reviews that considered books in a larger literary context, and I just thought, why do we have to wait for the professionals to get their act back together? We can do this on LibraryThing.
And we have! I have been absolutely stunned by the high quality of the postings in this group. So much so, that I hope newcomers to the group will not be intimidated. There seems to be a magic in considering two or more books together that just naturally brings out deeper, richer insights. I hope every group member will get around to trying their hand at it sometime soon.
Thanks for tipping us off to the website, Bert!
And we have! I have been absolutely stunned by the high quality of the postings in this group. So much so, that I hope newcomers to the group will not be intimidated. There seems to be a magic in considering two or more books together that just naturally brings out deeper, richer insights. I hope every group member will get around to trying their hand at it sometime soon.
Thanks for tipping us off to the website, Bert!
