Sign in with Facebook
Sarah's Reviews > March
March
by
by
It's not that I don't like any historical fiction, I just think that it's a really hard thing to do right, without simplifying everything. Nah, I really just hate historical fiction. And I think that March is a perfect example of historical fiction gone wrong.
1. I hate it in historical fiction when... the author seems to cling to one or two details in history and repeat them over and over again. In this book, the author seems intent on measuring everything in rods, no matter how short or long the distance, no matter how unimportant it is to the rest of the story - "the field was six rods away," "he was one rod tall," "I love rods." She does the same thing with the word score - three score, four score, five score... there are never ten or fifty or ninety of anything. Perhaps there was never ten, fifty, or ninety of anything in the 1860s? I suppose I'm not a historian...
2. I hate it in historical fiction when... huge events, such as the Civil War, are simplified down to the most basic historical and moral levels. Sure, I understand that an entire war is too complex to fully cover in a three hundred page novel, but you can still do better than, "War is bad! But slavery is also bad! So is a war to get rid of slavery good?"
3. I hate it in historical fiction when... the main character seems to be best friends with every famous person of the time period. In this book, the main character hangs with Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau (notice she drops the "Ralph" and "David" parts because, you know, they're like close friends), Nathaniel Hawthorne, and John Brown. As if, because I live in the 2000s, I am best buds with Dick Cheney, Britney Spears, and Bill Gates. Hi, Brit! Luv Ya!!!
1. I hate it in historical fiction when... the author seems to cling to one or two details in history and repeat them over and over again. In this book, the author seems intent on measuring everything in rods, no matter how short or long the distance, no matter how unimportant it is to the rest of the story - "the field was six rods away," "he was one rod tall," "I love rods." She does the same thing with the word score - three score, four score, five score... there are never ten or fifty or ninety of anything. Perhaps there was never ten, fifty, or ninety of anything in the 1860s? I suppose I'm not a historian...
2. I hate it in historical fiction when... huge events, such as the Civil War, are simplified down to the most basic historical and moral levels. Sure, I understand that an entire war is too complex to fully cover in a three hundred page novel, but you can still do better than, "War is bad! But slavery is also bad! So is a war to get rid of slavery good?"
3. I hate it in historical fiction when... the main character seems to be best friends with every famous person of the time period. In this book, the main character hangs with Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau (notice she drops the "Ralph" and "David" parts because, you know, they're like close friends), Nathaniel Hawthorne, and John Brown. As if, because I live in the 2000s, I am best buds with Dick Cheney, Britney Spears, and Bill Gates. Hi, Brit! Luv Ya!!!
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
March.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 28, 2007
– Shelved
Started Reading
September 1, 2007
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-47 of 47 (47 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Great reviews! I also found this book very disappointing and certainly not an homage to the disaster wrought by the Civil War.
Geraldine Brooks based the character of Mr March on Louisa May Alcott's father, Bronson Alcott. Two of Mr Alcott's closest friends were Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau so it would be a little strange were they NOT included in the story...
I suggest Sarah visit Concord, Massachusetts. There, she would find the Alcott home as well as the homes of Emerson, Thoreau, and Hawthorne. The writers were contemporaries and believed passionately in freedom for all slaves.
I felt the same way about March knowing Emerson and Thoreau, until I read the end of the book...where Brooks explains that she based the character of March on Alcott's father.....who did actually know those people.
Sarah, love this review. Your commenters are of course correct about Bronson Alcott - but what the heck, I hated the book anyway, for all the reasons you gave PLUS the plodding style.
It makes sense for a character to know a bunch of famous people who all live in the same place and move in the same social circle. Now, if Abe Lincoln had paid a surprise visit to the hospital (seems like I once read a civil war novel where that happened), then I'd've been rolling my eyes....
Don't comment on things you know nothing about. If you would have just read the back of the book, you would have known march's character was based off of Bronson Alcott.He lived in concord massachusetts, in the same neighborhood as henry David thorough and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Not only were the neighbors, they were also close friends. Do some research before you make any more embarrassing comments.
Recently finished this and hated it too, though for a different set of reasons. Also, defenders who say some of the unbelievable aspects of the book are drawn from Bronson Alcott's should note that other unbelievable aspects of the book contradict that life. And unbelievable events aren't always crimes against literature. My bigger complaints are that the writing does not hold together, the main character is a weak and unlikable whiner, and the plot does not overcome these faults to make the book worth the effort.
I also hate how characters in historic fiction always meet famous people, but I felt that the people March met were totally believable. The Alcotts lived in Concord and would have met Thoreau, Emerson, and Hawthorne. Also his support of John Brown makes sense. Abolitionists went on lecture tours; March would conceivably gone, listened, and chose to support Brown's cause. I also didn't think that the author's contention is that a war to end slavery is good. Mrs. March's thoughts upon first arriving at the hospital were all on how wrong it was for boys to be killing boys over their beliefs. I myself on reading it was wondering, "What else was one to do at that point in our history?", but I definitely felt that the author was negative toward war.
If you had read the author's (extensive) notes, you would have discovered that she based Mr. March's character on Bronson Alcott who ... wait for it ... was friends with Thoreau and Emerson. It's not THAT far-fetched. Good grief.
historical fiction is still fiction bases loosely on historical facts.it's not meant to be taken as the end all of the time period. that being said the book was well written in prose reminiscent of the period. I did not think it underrated war on the contrary.what I did think was that one white man endured one small year of hardship and he was almost distorted emotionally ans mentally. the compared strength of the African Americans depicted is a powerful testimony to their spirit.
I had some issues with this book as well, but apparently, the relationships with Thoreau, Emerson, etc. were based on fact. From the Huffington Post: "Many forget that the beloved purveyor of moralistic tales for young girls, Louisa May Alcott, had quite a radical streak. Alcott came from a leftist, abolitionist, transcendentalist family, and she counted Henry David Thoreau and Nathaniel Hawthorne as family friends. One of the most significant family friendships in Alcott’s life was that of Ralph Waldo Emerson, a lifelong friend of her father’s. In an essay written in 1882, Alcott remembered Emerson’s contribution to her education as a writer, recalling that he allowed her free rein in his extensive library: “His kind hand opened to me the riches of Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe and Carlyle, and I gratefully recall the sweet patience with which he led me round the book-lined room.� To a reader like young Alcott, Emerson’s willingness to share his literary bounty was the greatest gift possible." 
Good points all, but I especially agree with your 3rd point. I mean, come on! It was so ridiculous and absurd!
I understand and appreciate what you have pointed out, and for the most part, I agree one hundred percent (and I did not like the novel either, too unbelievable and strange for my tastes). However with regard to your annoyance about all the relationships with and to these famous literary people and philosophers, March (actually rather Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott's father, on whom the character of Mr. March is strongly based) would have and should have, in fact, been friends with Thoreau, Emerson, Hawthorne etc. and not having the main character be friends with these individuals would have been historically inaccurate (Brooks did not make this up, any biography of Bronson Alcott will show his friendships with many of the most well known transcendentalists of the time). Geraldine Brooks, thus, did not artificially strive to make her main character friends with as many famous people as possible, Mr. March's relationships to Emerson, Thoreau and company are based on the historical fact that the model for Mr. March, Bronson Alcott, was good friends with the these individuals (the entire Alcott family was).
I agree with point three the most. I call it Forrest Gump syndrome
I agree with point three the most. I call it Forrest Gump syndrome
Makenzie wrote: "I agree with point three the most. I call it Forrest Gump syndrome"Yes, but Bronson Alcott (the model for March) was indeed friends with (and good friends with) all of the famous people mentioned in the novel. Brooks did not make this up and if she had left this information out, that would have been very historically inaccurate (as the entire Alcott family was friends with Hawthorne, Emerson etc.).
With regard to historical accuracy the third point of contention actually makes no sense at all for this particular book, as ALL the friendships did occur and were not invented by the author or added by the author.
Then why are you reading historical fiction?
Then why are you reading historical fiction?
Then why are you reading historical fiction?
Jim wrote: "Then why are you reading historical fiction?"That is definitely a question that comes to mind. I did not like this book all that much, but especially point three in the review makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as its criticism does not pertain to Bronson Alcott.
What a silly review. This is one story about one man. Not meant to be epic! Did you read the "Afterward"?
If you read historical fiction, you have to be willing to ask questions and then go digging for answers. Brooks did her homework on this book, as she has done with all her others. You must also realize that early involvement in the war meant having a very myopic view of the bigger picture. March was an idealistic preacher who thought by showing up he could instantly make a difference. What he found was exactly what John Brown found. Sometimes people will cling to the only home they know rather than risking death for the unknown.
He really was close personal friends with Ralph' Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. That part is accurate. I'm the curator of Fruitlands Museum, the site of the community he created in Harvard MA.
I totally disagree. This book was amazing. She actually based the story on Louisa May Alcotts real father. He did know Emerson and Thoreau.
I haven't read this book yet, yet it appears to me to be quite an interesting historical fiction. It is what the author imagines the father of the March sisters - yes, you remember "The Little Women" by Louisa May Alcott (a historical war time classic, which by the way I LOVED!) - does when he's away from home fighting the in the war. And I do believe that Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry David Thoreau, and other literary figures like them, were contemporaries (or possibly) at that time. The author is taking what's known as "poetic license" (although this is not a poem, that's just the term) with her historical fiction.And hey, Ms Sarah, WHY DID YOU PICK UP THIS BOOK
1. to read, knowing it is a historical fiction
2. and then give it a bad review.
Maybe bodice rippers are more your style? Next time, I suggest, you and the others who trashed this book - since none of you appear to like historical fiction - RESEARCH THE BOOKS YOU PICK UP MORE THOROUGHLY. Yeah?
And you may call me Ms Michelle... Personally, because of your review, I can't wait to read this book. So in effect, yes, you've written a good review.
You should really forget about reading historical fiction because you can’t recognize accurate research and well crafted prose. March did win the Pulitzer Prize in 2006, so I think that your review is a question of your personal opinion and you should not have bothered writing it.
I love historical fiction, but was somewhat disappointed with this novel. I agree, the book did seem over simplified. Additionally, I am a big fan of this author, but this one appealed to me the least.
As far as historical fiction goes, I think Brooks' book, 'Year of Wonders' is far better.
I love historical fiction because of some of the reasons she hates it. To me any big event is always a series of smaller events and conflicts. It’s about the people who were there and how they were affected. I love the different perspective Historical Fiction offers. Writers usually do a lot of research so that there is much history mixed with the fiction. Much better than a history book.
If you hate historical fiction, then I can understand why you didn't like this book. Just out of curiosity, do you like sci fi? The reason I ask is that I love both sci fi and historical fiction and I think what makes me like sci fi (imaging another world) is what makes me love historical fiction (imagining another time.) What genres do you like in fiction?
Bronson Alcott, the father of Louisa May Alcott and probably who she based Mr. March on, was actually good friends with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Thoreau. He was also at least an acquaintance of Nathaniel Hawthorne. It's all part of his biography. So the author didn't stretch it in order to make Mr. March glamourous. Bronson Alcott lived in a supportive literary community.
How many times was the word viscous used to describe the air, the muddy ground, the river...?! Lol. Ugh. What a let down!!
Hi Sarah, I must take issue with point 3 as Geraldine Brooks based the character of Mr March on Louisa May Allott’s father. It is historical fact that he was in fact close friends with Waldo Emerson and Thoreau and met John Brown on several occasions. Thus the inclusion of these historical characters is definitely in keeping as Louisa herself loosely based Little Women on her own family.
I don’t think you read the book from what I’ve gathered from your review. Rods don’t get mentioned past chapter 4 and the use of words that are beautiful in all their ways are vast and diverse viscous isn’t the only one. No I can’t believe you actually finished this book. Which delves into the true nature of the mind of Mrs March as well as Mr March and is equally elegant and dark. I wish that reviews on books could not be submitted unless finished. Make a DNF proclamation at the beginning so that we know. If you did finish the book and you gleaned nothing from it? That’s too bad.
In the afterword, the author mentions that since Little Women is loosely based on Louisa May Alcott’s own family (Louisa being the Jo, of course!), Mr. March is loosely based on Alcott’s father. And he was in reality good friends with both Emerson and Thoreau! So there is actually validity to that surprising acquaintance.. it’s not just a celebrity shout out.
I found this review funny and the comments enlightening. I hadn't realized the March father is based on Alcott’s dad and therefore the accuracy of the name-dropping within the story. Gives me a different perspective on the story.
I disagree with this review. The language captured the cadence and nuances of the era yet remained entirely readable. I felt that this book was far more ‘real� in many ways than Little Women as it dealt with humans who were far more flawed and believable than it’s inspiration text
Haters gotta hate. What took Mitchell 1,024 pages to write, Brooks achieves in 275. And they're both necessary narratives in a time, and when the politically regressive Deep Red states (not shown as one making up the South?) like this one hellbent on banning books. Because haters gotta hate. And alot of them are repeating history. Go figure.
Except that the author of Little Women based the Marches on her own family. Robert March is based on her bad, who WAS friends with Thoreau and Emerson, all of whom lived in Concord, MA at the time. It's not "name dropping" if it's historically accurate.
The Alcotts WERE actually friends with Emerson, Thoreau, and Hawthorne. That's why they appear here as the father's friends. Brooks even explains that in the afterword for those who weren't aware before reading.
Not feeling this review at all. Did you read the same book that I did? And the Afterword? I don’t see how you could have.
I would make an exception for another Geraldine Brooks novel -- "Year of Wonders." Did you read that one? I think it was much better written than "March," although a lot of goodreads reviewers complained about the ending.