March by Geraldine Brooks

While Little Women has become so many people's favorites, I have failed to recognize its high value when I read it few years ago. It was difficult for me to relate with the story, that it just flowed to the end without deeper influence. It felt like an old blanket; comfortable, but nothing else.

Only after I read March, did I realize the reason. March was inspired by Little Women; telling the historical events of the 19th century American Civil War from the point of view of the missing father of Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth. However, to me, March felt more realistic than Little Women because Brooks made March and Marmee true persons with their weaknesses and struggles; while in Little Women they were like Mr & Mrs. Santa Claus—too good to be true!

March was actually inspired by Amos Bronson Alcott—Louisa May Alcott’s father—who was a teacher and abolitionist. But instead of teacher, Brooks made March a chaplain. As we already read in Little Women, March left Concord, Massachusetts to serve in the Civil War as soldier’s chaplain. In his letters to home, he told everything but the real horror and brutality in the battlefield, for he didn’t want to add burden on Marmee and the children. Then he caught a severe illness and was brought to hospital, where Marmee immediately went to nurse her husband. Then and there she learned for the first time the damage war had wrought into her husband.

I don’t think Brooks wrote March (and won Pulitzer Prize in 2006) only as a fanfiction or to reminisce over one of the best-loved classics. She focused on the warfare; how it has touched every family and changed the veterans’ personal lives. To do that, picking March as the central figure is ideal, since his absence in Little Women gave Brooks rooms to explore the influence of war to men, and kind of recreating the story—if not one of the characters—of the best-loved classic. Moreover, Alcott’s history as an abolitionist might have given Brooks more rooms to write about racism and slavery.

I loved how March discusses about cowardice. I remember one episode of Downton Abbey (TV series) where Mrs. Patmore was troubled when her nephew’s name was excluded from war memorial given to the village because he was shot for cowardice in WW I. I remember being shuddered while watching that scene, as I thought how easy it was for us—who have never been in the war, or perhaps been in the war but not in that specific moment—to label others with “coward”. While survival is human instinct, is it really disgraceful when one selfishly saves oneself instead of risking life for saving others? I mean, morally it is not right, it is not ideal. Still, not everyone is blessed with bravery. And having just several seconds to make decision at a critical moment, sometimes there are a lot of things one must consider (one’s family, for instance). It is really not easy to be brave to accept death. And I think it’s enough that one must account his actions to God, without having to face society’s sanction for the rest of his (and his family) life too. So I won’t blame March for doing (or not doing, in this case) what he supposed to do in the battlefield. And I can relate with his guilt afterwards; how he must bear the burden alone; how it changed his life forever. I was glad that Marmee and Grace Clement never blamed him. And it was kind of Marmee too to try to understand his relationship with Grace.

War… there are things that only those who participated in it can relate to. I am glad I have finally been able to read this magnificent book. Pulitzer Prize or not, it is the kind of book that opens your mind and change your perspective.

5 of 5

Falling Angels by Tracy Chevalier

One thing I always love from Tracy Chevalier is her theme choices to weave her stories. Either paintings or culture, Chevalier’s themes are always unique and unusual. In Falling Angles, she picked Victorian fetishism of death. Depicting the turn of the century, from Victorian to Edwardian, Falling Angels is about two families who were brought accidentally and reluctantly together by funerals.

The Waterhouses were more conservative (fanatic Victorian followers) compared to their neighbours: The Colemans, who were more moderate and progressive. On the day Queen Victoria died, both families visited their graves in London, which were located side by side, to mourn. That was how Maude Coleman and Lavinia (Livy) Waterhouse—both around 9 years old—met and then became best friends. As their families did not get along well, Maude and Lavinia could only meet and play together in the graveyard, where they befriended a gravedigger boy called Simon.

Along with the changing era, everything around the two families was evolving too. And this is what Chevalier wanted to portray. Many readers say that Falling Angels was a disappointment after Girl With a Pearl Earring (Chevalier’s best novels until today) because it lacks poignant story and strong characters. Yes, it may be true, but I think we derive something else from it in exchange: the peek into the turbulence era; how society was reshaped after the end of Victorian era; how they evolved and moved on. We get a glimpse, for example, of mourning etiquette, women suffragette movement, and how science slowly replaced superstition. And for that, Chevalier gave each character equal portion in the story by making them the narrators of themselves. Yes, we literally jump from one person’s to another’s point of view throughout the book. It’s rather annoying at first, but soon enough I got used to it; and it really become quite interesting in the end.

And so, Falling Angels might not be the best book by Tracy Chevalier, and if you analyze the writing more thoroughly, you might find that the personality of the characters seemed to be inconsistent. Richard Coleman for example; he was fond of astrology, and even promoted his daughter’s interest in it, not to mention his idea of swapping sex partner in chapter one. You would think him as liberal thinker, and that he would have given his wife more freedom. But no, when Kitty actively involved in women suffragette, Richard opposed strongly. But, maybe, it’s Chevalier’s way of emphasizing the turbulent era. It’s when people were timidly looking out for the future, while still clinging to their past. But nevertheless, time changes, and either sooner or later, everyone must going along with it.

Like I said, this book is not my best read, but it’s interesting, and is just the appropriate book to read around New Year! 3,5 / 5.