Sign in with Facebook
Sarah's Reviews > March
March
by
by
Ok, to be honest - I couldn't finish it! I've completely lost faith in the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. It's becoming like a Grammy award for pop music (see Mariah Carey and Celine Dion). This book is pretentious and short-sighted from page one. Come on, a vegetarian, Unitarian, abolitionist, transcendentalist, book-lover from the North is just one HUGE cliche that, frankly, probably did not exist during the Civil War. I know that Louisa May Alcott's parents (as that is the subject of this book) were revolutionary for their time (in fact, Bronson Alcott was indeed a vegetarian and attempted a community based farm named "Utopia-something-or-other"), but they weren't a tired-out, modern day example of tolerance.
To reinforce my point, here is a quote from the book: "You must know that we in the South suffer from a certain malnourishment of the mind: we value the art of conversation over literary pursuits, so that when we gather together it is all for gallantries and pleasure parties . . . I envy your bustling Northern cities, where men of genius are thrown together thick as bees, and the honey of intellectual accomplishment is produced."
UUUUgggh. One more person, stereotyping the South. Just what we need in this modern day.
To reinforce my point, here is a quote from the book: "You must know that we in the South suffer from a certain malnourishment of the mind: we value the art of conversation over literary pursuits, so that when we gather together it is all for gallantries and pleasure parties . . . I envy your bustling Northern cities, where men of genius are thrown together thick as bees, and the honey of intellectual accomplishment is produced."
UUUUgggh. One more person, stereotyping the South. Just what we need in this modern day.
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
March.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
May 1, 2008
–
Finished Reading
May 2, 2008
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-22 of 22 (22 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Susan
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
May 29, 2008 08:13PM
At last, a voice of reason in this wilderness of enthusiasts! This is a dreadful book--contrived, facile, and...well.. just plain silly. Yours is a terrific review. Thanks.
reply
|
flag
I agree! I also thought this book was a disappointment. What was difficult for me was the fact that the March family was dirt poor, and instead of using that as the justification for not having meat, dairy, etc the story is written as if they use their fanatical belief system to justify these losses...What?!?
Oh my god...yes...I am supposed to read this book for book club and I am hating every page. I have liked Geraldine Brooks' other books but this book is so pretentious and going nowhere. I rarely put a book down before it's finished, but I've had enough of this. As someone once told me "Life is too short to read bad books." Amen.
But if you know the Alcotts were vegetarians, you probably know they were also " Unitarian, abolitionist, transcendentalist, book-lovers from the North." You can fault a lot of things about this book, but that part is factual. And I thought Brooks did a nice job at pointing out the ways in which March wasn't quite as tolerant and radical as he thought he was--especially in his views of women.
I just wanted to point out that the vegetarian, Unitarian....etc. is based on fact. Even if you don't like the book, there is no doubt that Brooks not only has read Little Women thoroughly but has also researched the time period and also Bronson Alcott, the man Mr. March was based on.
It's funny; I'm reading "People of the Book" right now and having a similar gripe...
I wish you had finished it. It really is marvelous, and contains more factual information than you seem to realize.
Well, you know what they say about stereotypes... there is a bit of truth in it.
Finally! Someone who sees the flaws of the prize-winning crap.
I felt for a while that I must've missed something, SOMETHING, for this book to have had so much acclaim and I had ended up hating it somehow. I even went so far as to try and re-read parts of it.
You hit the nail on the head. Amen.
I felt for a while that I must've missed something, SOMETHING, for this book to have had so much acclaim and I had ended up hating it somehow. I even went so far as to try and re-read parts of it.
You hit the nail on the head. Amen.
I agree with Wendy's comment above.
I agree with you. I absolutely hated it. I actually left the book outside on the porch and it got rained on; destroyed! I thought it was so boring, and cliched- merely fan fiction disguised as literary fiction. But it's an example of an overrated Pulitzer Prize winning novel that's really simply bad writing.
I agree. They turn Marmee into a whimp instead of the strong character she was. They turn a great novel into a soap opera. Terrible.
Funny! I've had this feeling for a while. I'm all for learning from the great writers, but having read a few Pulitzer prize winning book, I start to feel that maybe the prize doesn't share its taste with me.
I wasn't thrilled with the book, but I'm afraid that the cliche "vegetarian, Unitarian, abolitionist, transcendentalist, book-lover from the North," is a faithful depiction of Bronson Alcott, the real man who was an inspiration for "Mr. March" in both "Little Women" and this novel. His unusual (for the time) philosophical reasons actually were the reason why both the Alcotts and the fictional Marches were impoverished.
Wendy wrote: "But if you know the Alcotts were vegetarians, you probably know they were also " Unitarian, abolitionist, transcendentalist, book-lovers from the North." You can fault a lot of things about this bo..."Well, then Geraldine Brooks should have used the Alcotts as characters and not the Marchs who in Little Women were certainly not vegetarians and fanatical.
Meggityb wrote: "I just wanted to point out that the vegetarian, Unitarian....etc. is based on fact. Even if you don't like the book, there is no doubt that Brooks not only has read Little Women thoroughly but has ..."So why then, did the author not use Bronson Alcott and the Alcotts as characters, since in Little Women the March family was rather idealised and was certainly neither radical nor vegan. I mean, if Brooks had based her characrters on the actual Alcott family (and called them Alcott), March would have made a lot more sense.
This last comment right here, about why then didn't they portray this book as being about the Alcotts... YES. I hate how weird they are portrayed... especially the father.. in different spin off books and film. Yes, in real life? They were definitely the odd balls. But you don't see this reflected in Little Women. I feel like the two can be separated!!!! Also, the scene with Mr. March and Grace.... Scarred for life. SO out of character and TMI.... 馃槺
Wendy and others are right. Louisa May Alcott's father was a vegetarian, Unitarian, abolitionist, transcendentalist, book-lover from the North.
I just looked up the information and Louisa May Alcott's father Amos Bronson Alcott did in fact believe in a plant based diet, was an abolitionist and a major figure in transcendentalism. He was a friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Brooks did her research.
thanks for the review. I've been wanting to read this book for a while. This author is hard to read IMO anyway. Will reconsider.
We're arguing about facts that are fiction? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Reading reviews. . .Disappointed with my first Brooks, 鈥淗orse.鈥� I prefer non-fiction over historical fiction.
WTR?
