Geraldine Brooks' "March" is a remarkable work that won the Pulitzer Prize in fiction in 2006. It offers a unique perspective by delving into the story of Louisa May Alcott's beloved classic "Little Women" during the start of the Civil War. The focus is on the absent father of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy, and his wife Marmee, as he departs to serve as a chaplain for the Union cause. Brooks skillfully weaves in the relationship between A. Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott's father, and figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. A. Bronson Alcott was a transcendentalist philosopher, educator, and abolitionist. The fictional March family, much like the real Alcott family in Concord, Massachusetts, was involved in the Underground Railroad, facilitating the safe passage of many slaves to freedom. This book is not only a beautiful read but also raises numerous moral questions and explores the application of ideals and beliefs in the context of war.

The quotes from the book add depth and poignancy. The first quote about simple men having their gods in high places and the risk of seeing desolation when looking at the horizon highlights the harsh reality of war. The second quote, where the narrator gazes at the girls' locks and imagines them sleeping peacefully, shows the longing for home and the loved ones left behind. These quotes bring the story to life and make the reader truly feel the emotions of the characters.

I had a great affection for Little Women during my childhood. However, the reason I picked up this particular book was not because of that, but rather because I adored Caleb’s Crossing and desired to read something else penned by Brooks. This novel, which centers on the wartime experiences of Mr. March, the father from Little Women, is a respectable work about the American Civil War. Nevertheless, countless books have been written about this era, and in my opinion, this one didn't truly distinguish itself.

The plot holds a reasonable level of interest, alternating between the war and flashbacks to March’s previous life. It has a somewhat uneasy connection with the source material. At times, Brooks remains faithful to the story in Little Women and includes small “Easter eggs” for the readers. For instance, a brief sentence from the original (such as Aunt March’s offer to adopt one of the girls when the family loses its fortune) evolves into a full-fledged scene here, while there are also brief references to events that are significant in Little Women (like Jo’s selling her hair). However, Brooks bases Mr. March largely on Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott’s father, and this extends to modifying the original cast to resemble the Alcotts more closely. In some respects, the Alcotts were more vivid than the Marches, and thus I can understand the allure. In Brooks’s version, the family operates a station on the Underground Railroad, they are vegetarians or vegans, and they socialize with the Emersons and Thoreaus. Additionally, Brooks makes an effort to make Mrs. March less idealized, but does so by giving her a volatile temper, which is inconsistent with the original character. So, while I don't entirely concur with those who believe the Little Women connection is merely a publicity gimmick for Brooks’s Civil War novel, I do see their point.
What detracted from this book for me was its generic Civil War setting. If you have read other Civil War books, you will be familiar with the overcrowded field hospitals and unhygienic amputations, the Union soldiers ransacking fancy Southern homes, the educated, aristocratic plantation owners who mistreat their slaves, and the supposedly shocking scenes where Union soldiers turn out to be just as racist as their Confederate counterparts, and so forth. It has all been presented before. Brooks does manage to uncover one original subject - the Northerners who took over and managed plantations during the war - and this segment was one of the most engaging parts of the book.
The characterization is satisfactory. March is mostly believable as a liberal chaplain. I appreciated the way Brooks demonstrates that he and Marmee may not be quite as open-minded as they strive to be and reveals the misunderstandings within their marriage. Grace, the educated slave, perhaps isn't as captivating as intended; I found the rather unappealing yet not-evil Ethan Canning to be the most interesting among the supporting cast. The first-person voices are mostly convincing, and of course, Brooks writes skillfully.
Overall, this is a decent book. I might not have enjoyed it as much as I potentially could have if I hadn't grown up reading Civil War books or if I had been a die-hard fan of Little Women. And I don't quite understand how it won a Pulitzer. But it is a perfectly adequate piece of writing, and if you haven't read much about the Civil War, you will probably enjoy it more than I did.

I ended up liking this quite a bit more than I expected to.

I really liked the structure of it. Brooks crafted this really well with rich details and well-developed characters in a fairly short novel.

The story was engaging from the start and held my attention throughout. The way the plot unfolded was both unexpected and satisfying.

I do wish that I had read this instead of listening to it. The narration for part one was great, but when it switched POVs, the narration was too similar. It made it a bit difficult to distinguish between the different characters at times.

I wish there would have been a female narrator for part 2. This would have added more depth and authenticity to the female character's perspective.

Overall, I still really enjoyed this book and would recommend it to others. It's a quick and easy read that packs a punch.

Disappointing is the only word that comes to mind when I think about this classics spin-off. I had high hopes for it, especially since the writing was truly fabulous. However, as I delved deeper into the story, I found myself getting increasingly fed up with the inconsistencies in the characters and the disappointments I felt regarding their portrayed actions.

Halfway through, I seriously considered giving up, and in hindsight, I probably should have. I held on, hoping that there would be some sort of redemption at the end, but alas, there really wasn't, at least not enough to satisfy me. There were two particular things that bothered me the most.

First, there's Mr. March. He's supposed to be a poor farm boy who "loves" Marmee enough to teach her to control her temper. But then, he can't seem to control his own sexual urges. He seduces her and then rushes to her father for a quick marriage, thinking he's saving her. What if her father had refused to let him marry her? His pride is truly disturbing. Is Brooks trying to convey the message that even good, kind people have major faults?

The second thing that really bothered me is the nauseating difference in what Marmee thought about Mr. March going to war and what Mr. March thought she was thinking. I understand that Brooks was likely trying to make the Little Women characters more realistic, but the division and lack of true communication between Marmee and Mr. March were just too much for me to handle. I don't even feel like Mr. March repents of his pride, so what was the point of the story? That war is awful? That this life is full of suffering? That men are bad? I have no idea.

I cannot recommend this book. I did, however, learn an important lesson. If I don't feel like finishing a book, there's probably a good reason for that feeling, and I should listen to myself.

When I completed this book, I found myself content with the overall story. However, I couldn't help but feel impatient with the character of March. He appears to be completely consumed by his own weaknesses and self-centered causes. He is the ultimate navel gazer, to the nth degree. Even after his experiences during the war, he still has no understanding of the feelings or hopes of others and remains buried deep in hypocrisy.

He claims to seek redemption, yet he hides his true actions and thoughts. This is in direct contrast to what he preaches as a religious leader. From the very beginning, he discards the needs of his family when he squanders their fortune. Throughout the book, the main character is always referred to as "Mister March," never by his first name or a combination of his first and last names. Is this a reinforcement of how detached he is from real life?

His "Little Women" might actually be better off without him.

Geraldine Brooks' writing, on the other hand, is truly the saving grace of this story. Her characters are incredibly vivid and act in a consistent manner, even March. Her descriptions of the settings are also extremely vivid. For example, her description of the Mississippi River as "water without sparkle or shimmer... it sucks the light down and gives back naught" is truly remarkable. It makes the reader feel as if they are right there, experiencing the river for themselves.

Overall, while I had my issues with the character of March, I still found the book to be an interesting read, largely due to Brooks' excellent writing.

I'm not in principle a lover of fiction which takes a minor character from a classic and works it up. However, this book does that exceptionally well.

The Rev March is the largely absent father in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. I must confess that this book never really enthralled me and I haven't reread it since my schooldays. The two movie versions also left me somewhat cool about the 'perfect' family.

I will also admit that because of this, I was initially put off reading this book when it first came out. It was only when CR read the two books in parallel some years ago and my in-person book group decided to read Australian and New Zealand Novelists this year that I finally picked it up.

This book surpassed all my expectations. Brooks creates an engaging portrayal of Mr March. According to her Afterword, it is based around Bronson Alcott, the writer's father. Brooks says her starting point for any writing is finding and hearing the voice of her main character. I can completely relate to that. In this book, she most definitely creates that voice and through it brings the unknown Mr March to life as a fully formed character. He has his faults and imperfections, but also a solid heart. Much of Bronson Alcott's teenage peddling to wealthy southern planters, his radicalism of later years, his vegetarianism, and his transcendalist and abolitionist convictions are utilised.

I could hardly put the book down as I listened to its narration by Canadian actor Richard Easton. His lower register, mature tone, and range of intonation brought Brookes' first-person story telling Mr March very much alive.

This is a quite memorable 5* read.

This is the very first book that I have had the pleasure of reading by Brooks, and I must say that I truly adored it. In fact, my enjoyment was so profound that I am now eager to delve into her other work, Year of Wonders.

The writing style employed by Brooks is utterly absorbing, captivating the reader from the very first page. The plot, on the other hand, is both harrowing and heart-wrenching, leaving a lasting impression. I believe that Brooks did an outstanding job of building upon the somewhat idyllic life portrayed in Little Women and transporting the reader into a more gritty and realistic portrayal of the Civil War.

Her ingenious concept of writing the fictional life of Mr. March, the absent father of Jo from Little Women, is truly brilliant. Given that we all know that Alcott drew inspiration from her own life, there is an added layer of fascination in knowing that some of the situations described in the book are based on reality.

In essence, this is a story that vividly illustrates the devastating impact of war on lives, both on an individual and a collective level. It also highlights the toll that war takes on the men who go off to fight and often return forever changed. The women in the story are especially well-developed, adding depth and nuance to the narrative. It's worth noting that Brooks is a Pulitzer Prize winner, which further attests to the quality of her work.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in historical fiction or a thought-provoking exploration of the human experience during times of war.

Peter March, a Concord minister, had an outstanding story. In the early days of the Civil War, he served as a Union chaplain. Later, he became a teacher for a Virginia plantation settlement of runaway slaves. His wartime experiences were a brilliant rendition of the absent father in Alcott's "Little Women". He often recalled his life before meeting his beloved wife Marmee and the family's accommodation to his loss of fortune due to funding the abolitionist John Brown.

The story is essentially about the nature of love. The love for one's family and concerns for human injustice can inspire one to take action to improve the world and prove the worth of that love. However, the commitment to such causes may lead to the neglect of family. The human failings and mistakes in facing these challenges can make one feel unworthy of such love or make it seem like a selfish refuge.

The heroism of March and the tragedies surrounding his efforts are deeply moving. Yet, the path back to life is a triumph of the human spirit. His story shows that even in the face of great difficulties and sacrifices, love and the pursuit of justice can prevail, and the human spirit can overcome all obstacles.

Geraldine Brooks’ Mr. March is compelled to leave his family, the beloved characters of Little Women, and embark on a journey to join the Union troops in Virginia. He is a middle-aged man who is woefully ill-prepared for the grueling and vicious life of war.

His unwavering high moral standards soon thrust him into a series of dilemmas, forcing him to make choices regarding killing, courage, faith, and fidelity. His interactions and conversations with luminaries like Thoreau, Emerson, and John Brown have a profound impact on his behavior and serve as a call to action.

As always, Ms. Brooks’ writing is of the highest caliber and extremely accessible, effortlessly drawing the reader into the story while simultaneously delving deep into the human mind and behaviors in the most difficult of situations. I thoroughly enjoyed this read, yet I couldn't help but feel that Mr. March’s narcissistic need to prove his moral superiority at times bordered on being a bit excessive. It added an interesting layer to his character, but also made me question the authenticity of his motives at certain points. Nevertheless, it was a thought-provoking and engaging novel that I would highly recommend.

The problem with March lies in its connection to a beloved children's story. While this might have been a great marketing strategy (as fan fiction often is, offering immediate context and recognition), it led to two distinct stories.

The first is a reworking of characters from a famous work of fiction, one absent and one present (and much loved). The second is the story of a pacifist who went to war during one of the bloodiest and most tragic conflicts in the nation's history.

The first story seems likely to anger loyal fans of the original. The second, however, is more compelling and perhaps more accessible to those unfamiliar with L.M. Alcott's novels.

It's probably a good thing I won't read Little Women again, as March appears to be written to upset some fans. A reread might be spoiled by my constant annoyance with this Pulitzer Prize-winning novel. In the afterword, the author admits that, despite loving LW as a child, her mother once said: “Nobody in real life is such a goody-goody as that Marmee.” Brooks seems to have taken this to heart and written a story that portrays Marmee in a negative light.

Mr. March expects his wife to be the epitome of decorum, but he himself has issues. Brooks also seems to think she's clever with her allusions to masturbation.

Later, when the point of view switches to Marmee's, we see more character assassination. The portrayal of her as a racist when she suspects her husband of adultery doesn't seem believable. This character assassination doesn't add anything useful to the story and comes across as a personal agenda.

The character of Mr. March is based on Bronson Alcott. The story improves when he goes to war as a chaplain, but it also falls victim to political correctness. The final two chapters, from Mr. March's point of view, are well done, portraying Soldier's Heart and survivor guilt.

I read this book because it was on an assigned summer reading list for Stanford students. After reading, I'm still a bit confused as to why it was selected. Maybe I should create my own prize, the Stacey Prize.

March is a novel of a type that I usually hold in contempt. It's the kind where a character from a classic work is plucked out and expanded upon, sometimes in a direction that the original author would surely not have intended or approved. However, in this case, March is an exception. Brooks skillfully develops the character of Mr. March from Little Women into a story of his own. She achieves this by integrating the character as presented in Little Women and drawing on historical facts related to Bronson Alcott, Louisa's father. This works because Little Women is so clearly autobiographical, and because there is very little known about Mr. March in the famous novel.

The novel delves into the difficult questions of the Civil War era, such as slavery and abolitionism. There are references to John Brown, as well as to Alcott's close friends Emerson and Thoreau. There is also a fictional side to March, who traverses the battlefields and has close interactions with slaves, something that would not have been part of Alcott's experiences.

In an early chapter, Brooks juxtaposes a slave auction, where families are torn apart and children are sold, with a church meeting where the pastor requests donations to "send the scripture to Africa." The contrast is striking, and the message is clear. The irony is that no one in the church meeting seems to be aware of the activity next door.

I am proud of Brooks for addressing the horrors of slavery without portraying the northern army as a selfless band of liberators. A northern colonel states, "I have no love for slavery. But most of these boys aren't down here fighting for the nig--for the slaves. You must see it, man. Be frank with yourself for once. Why, there're about as many genuine abolitionists in Lincoln's army as there are in Jeff Davis'." This, I believe, is a balanced and accurate portrayal of the situation. If considered objectively, it makes the released slave's situation even more dangerous and precarious. He has few true friends and even fewer champions. March, however, is a champion. He is a sincere believer in the need to free the slaves and provide for their education, and he sees them fully as human beings, something that few other characters in the novel are capable of.

Apart from its exploration of abolitionism and the complex social fabric of black and white societies, March also examines the complications of marriage, particularly the misunderstandings that can arise. I found Marmee to be unfamiliar as presented by Brooks. Alcott presents us with a wise, controlled, and nearly perfect woman, but Brooks reveals that this is just the surface. Scratch a little deeper, and there is a layer beneath that is confused, wild, and far from perfect. The fact that she and March often have different goals is a departure from the flawless marriage Alcott portrays.

Brooks does an excellent job of maintaining the integrity of the characters we know while giving us the depth and background that the originals lacked. In Little Women, Mr. March is off to war when the book begins, and now we know exactly what he was doing. He wasn't just ministering to dying soldiers; he was growing and changing, just like the little women he left behind.

The book is beautifully written and makes a lovely companion to Little Women. It will be easily appreciated by anyone who loves or respects Louisa Mae Alcott's classic.

When I first picked up this book, I had a certain assumption. I thought it was a novel solely about the American Civil War and Sherman’s March. Well, I was only half right. Indeed, it is a book set in the 1860s during the Civil War. However, as it turns out, March has no direct connection to General Sherman. The main character, Peter March, is actually based on Louisa May Alcott’s real father, Bronson Alcott. The familiar characters from Little Women, Marmee and the four daughters, do make an appearance here as March’s family. But they are not the central focus of the book. Instead, it relates March’s experiences during the Civil War.

Mr. March is a minister who serves as a Union chaplain. Later, he takes on the important task of teaching runaway slaves on a plantation in Virginia. The first three-quarters of the book are told in the first person by March, with the addition of letters home. Through the course of the narrative, we gradually learn his backstory via his memories. We discover how he made money as a salesperson, met his wife, and unfortunately, lost his fortune. It is truly a story about acting on one’s convictions out of love for others. March does his utmost to live according to his beliefs. But, as is often the case in life, it does not always work out as he had intended.

The book is written beautifully. I particularly enjoyed the references to Thoreau and Emerson. I would highly recommend setting aside any preconceived notions that one might have based on previous readings of Little Women. While that classic serves as a starting point for Brooks to unleash her imagination, this could have been any family story set during the Civil War period. It is a stunning portrayal of the difficulties faced in maintaining one’s strongly held beliefs during the turmoil of war, and the delicate balance between love of family and love for all of humankind.