Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This book ostensibly fills in some blanks for fans of "Little Women," by following the March girls' father as he acts as a minister to union troops during the Civil War. In addition to matching the chronology to "Little Women," author Geraldine Brooks also drew from Louisa May Alcott's own life, and from research into the Civil War.

Peter March is an idealist and abolitionist who worships his wife and four young daughters when he volunteers for the service. From the first page, we quickly learn that his gentle soul is not well equipped to handle the blood, gore, violence and moral uncertainties of war. His transcendentalist spiritualism, meanwhile, is of little comfort to soldiers in search of moral absolutes.

The first portion of the book is told through letters home in which March hides horrors from his loved ones, reflections on the reality he faces, and flashbacks that tell us how he made his fortune, won his wife, and later lost his financial footing. Later, when he is injured and hospitalized, Mrs. March has an opportunity to narrate, and she's shocked to realize how much her husband has hidden from her -- not only while away at war, but also from his life before they met and married. Then Peter March returns, shell shocked and broken, to narrate his return home.

I had not yet read "Little Women" when I picked up "March," and found myself frequently wondering if I'd like the book better if I could pick up on allusions that I instead might have overlooked. Having just finished "Little Women," however, I realize that the older book is only vaguely the framework on which "March" is based. Despite Brooks' author's note in which she claims to have tried to be true to the original, Peter March's character does not bear any semblance to the kind father of Louisa May Alcott's writing, and many of the facts don't mesh with Alcott's book.

Brooks also claims to have drawn from Alcott's life in writing "March." Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source, but if it's to be believed Brooks succeeded in some areas and failed in others. Big names like Emerson and Thoreau intrude on the narrative in "March," which I found distracting and unrealistic, but apparently the Alcott family was close to those other early thinkers. On the other hand, Wikipedia suggests that the Alcotts may have welcomed one or two run-away slaves into their home, while "March" portrays a family that was a frequent stop on the Underground Railway.

These inconsistencies would not be so grating if "March" were a better or more interesting book. Brooks tries to dwell heavily on Peter March's spiritual agony, but these efforts fall flat. If the reflections of a liberal Christian appeal to you, I recommend the much more beautiful and compelling "Gilead" by Marylinne Robinson. Geradine Brooks is clearly capable of writing compelling historical fiction -- the Pulitzer panel would have done better to recognize her wonderful "Year of Wonders." I don't know what they were thinking when instead they picked this discombobulated and disappointing book.