A slender book about guilt, idealism, the lies we tell and truths we avoid, set during the US civil war in the context of the March family at the heart of Louisa May Alcott's novel 'Little Women'. I liked it but wasn't really moved. ( )

In this tale of the adventures of Mr. March - the absent father of Meg/Jo/Beth/Amy from Alcott's famed Little Women, Brooks presents us with a likable, idealistic young lad and then spends the next 250+ pages charting the course of his gradual disillusionment. From the seductive compromises of abolitionist John Brown (can evil means be justified in pursuit of a just cause?) to the hypocritical justifications of white slave owners; from the dishonesty of uncompromising honesty (where does virtue end and sanctimony begin?) to the often incompatible exigences of fairness vs. self-interest; from the glib affectations of organized religions to the disenchantments of idealized love, our poor protagonist must first come to grips with the realization that life is full of moral ambiguities and compromises, and then figure out whether he possesses the moral flexibility and fortitude to persevere.

Along the way, Brooks plunges us into the midst of the bloody battle of Ball's Bluff, allows us to linger for a while at the plantation home of a gentlemanly slaveowner who uses his erudition to justify his monsterous treatment of the slaves he manages, introduces us to such transcendental luminaries as Thoreau and Emerson, provides us with a peep into the lives of some of the families that served as stations along the Underground Railroad, lingers for several chapters at a "contraband plantation" where former slaves ("contraband") are paid to grow cotton for the union cause, forces us to witness several horrific interactions with war-emboldened villains and profiteers, and terminates amidst the horrors of a Civil War hospital.

Worth reading the afterward to appreciate the extent to which characters and incidents depicted in this tale are based on the first-person accounts of actual individuals and incidents. Ironically, however, I feel like Brooks' emphasis on realism comes at the expense of delving deeper into the consequences of March's spiritual struggle. By the end of the novel it's clear that March is no longer the idealist he once was, but it's unclear how he is going to cope with his new-found wisdom or how these new truths are going to reshape his nature, his career, and his marriage going forward.

Brooks' storytelling is lovely, particularly her gift for evocating nature, time, and place. I'm less a fan of her character-building, but in this case feel like it would be wrong to ding her for characters that act in inconsistent ways because that's arguably part of the authenticity of the tale - that, when confronted with moral ambiguity and inconsistency, there often is no *correct* response, leaving us humans to muddle through as best we can. Overall, a fine example of historical fiction and a satisfying if not spectacular read. ( )

I’ve always been a fan of “Little Women” and grew up in the area in which it was set, was forced to read Thoreau and enjoyed Emerson, so I felt quite cozy in this opposite side tale of Mr. March, the little women’s father. Brooks has based her portrayal of March on the reality of Louisa May Alcott’s father and the times then when people got pretty serious ideas about vegetarianism (wouldn’t even give their poor sheep a haircut as the fleece ‘belonged to the sheep’) and such. New England at that time was working its way through the Unitarian Universalist process as well, and there was a mighty group of male intellectuals discussing the world while their wives were kept quiet and busy in the home. (Sigh).
The March in this book is a bit of a pain in the arse. I personally would have smacked his sanctimonious face now and again, as he in this story blames himself for every bad thing that happened in his civil war experience and continually blunders about making things worse for everyone, not least his family starving at home, but directed to give their scant food to the poor. He is a bit tiresome and tends to offend with his little ways, but despite this the story is riveting as an uncommon view of the civil war. (It is a brutal view, with many entrails, so the uneasy stomached may well want to avoid)
I enjoyed the chapters where Marmee is given a voice, too, and shows herself to be a woman of spirit and her own feelings about her tiresome husband. She adds a leavening that helps cut through his often overblown self-abnegation.

A fast read and a good one. I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite the seeming Forest Gumpian ‘all the famous people hung out with March’ issue. It’s likely Alcott’s father knew the big men of the time (big men, very small pond) (see what I did there? Because Walden pond IS a very small pond...), so I didn’t find it as annoying as the actual Forest Gump story.

I’ll be seeking out more by this author. ( )

As the North reels under a series of unexpected defeats during the dark first year of the American Civil War, one man leaves behind his family to aid the Union cause. His experiences will utterly change his marriage and challenge his most ardently held beliefs. Riveting and elegant as it is meticulously researched, March is an extraordinary novel woven out of the lore of American history.

From Louisa May Alcott’s beloved classic Little Women, Geraldine Brooks has taken the character of the absent father, March, who has gone off to war leaving his wife and daughters. To evoke him, Brooks turned to the journals and letters of Bronson Alcott, Louisa May’s father, a friend and confidant of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.

In Brooks’ telling, March emerges as an idealistic chaplain in the little known backwaters of a war that will test his faith in himself and in the Union cause as he learns that his side, too, is capable of acts of barbarism and racism. As he recovers from a near mortal illness, he must reassemble his shattered mind and body, and find a way to reconnect with a wife and daughters who have no idea of the ordeals he has been through.

In "Little Women", the father figure is away for much of the story. This is Brooks' attempt to tell his story of his time away from the family during the American Civil War.

I dont know Little Women well enough to know how well Brooks ties the story in, and whether March's (and Mamie's) characters stack up against the previous books. However, March and the Civil War are the centre of the book, and Brooks pulls forward the problems of Slavery, the treatment of the slaves (and those wanting to free them) but the rebels and army who didnt want the Status Quo changing. It's the beatings, the cruelty, the killings etc - this makes the book sound more graphic than it is and whilst these are brought up, are not the centre of the story.

In summary: good book as a historical fiction book set during the American Civil War which is a reasonable addition to the "Little Women" canon. ( )

I liked the way the story combined the lives we know from "Little Women" with the letters written by March followed by his harsh experiences during the Civil War. Marmee is written up as more of a spitfire than one would guess from Alcott's story. It did take me some while to recognize March as a separate person from Bronson Alcott, whom he was modeled after. This was quite an interesting book, but at some point it started to seem fantastical--all the ways Grace shows up in March's life are more coincidental than would occur in real life. ( )