Recently a friend asked if I'd read "March." I hadn't so she lent it to me along with the book that it's spun off from, "Little Women." I actually had never read the classic, so I decided to read it first to familiarize myself with the characters before reading "March." So, here are my opinions of both books:

"Little Women" by Louisa May Alcott:
In one word: lovely. This book was so good! It's obviously a very old book, but I was entranced with it in the same way I was with "Twilight," except to a slightly lesser degree of obsession. It captures the essence of the time so well. Girls were so different then. They had much more class overall and were much more modest and polite on the whole. The sisters' innocence was so captivating to me and made me want to be more like them. The old language they use is awesome to me. While reading the book I found myself referring to nice men as capital young fellows and using many more old timey phrases without even thinking about it. One thing that I found funny was in one part, the girls were laughing about this guy using a word that they deemed as old-fashioned. The funny thing was it is a word we use all of the time, although I can't recall it right now.
Anyways, the book basically covers nearly a decade of the March family's life, focusing really on the four daughters. The author actually based Jo on herself, so she does seem to be kind of the main character at points. She was definitely my favorite character though. For anyone who's familiar with the character Jo and knows Claire Colmans, she reminds me so much of Jo. I told her that they need to do a Little Women play at her school and she needs to play Jo. It would be perfect!
This book covers everything from love to loss. It's neat to see the girls mature and grow into women in this great classic novel. I could write more, but I'll stop here and move on to........

"March" by Geraldine Brooks:
Although this was a good read, I was sorely disappointed. I wasn't disappointed in the book itself, but more the main character. This book is about the father of the March family, who is off at war for most of the book "Little Women." He's a decent man, but in Little Women, you read about him through his daughter's eyes. He is much more idealized and reverred. He's a great man who would do anything for his family. If you want to maintain that view of the character then don't read this book. You really won't be missing much. Some might say that's a bit harsh, but it's just my opinion. In "March," he's somewhat of a coward, an adulterer (big no from me), selfish, and a bit more self-centered. On the other hand, he's also very giving, kind, has a good heart, and does love his family very much. I know it's hard to think how someone could be all that at once, but he is. I guess my dilemma was that I read LW, which really is meant for the young, full of goodness and morals and great characters, and then I went right from that to a book meant for a much more mature audience, filled with the hard experiences that life brings.
Good aspects of the book are the eye-opening and heart wrenching stories about slavery and post-slavery attempts during the Civil War. Although the specific stories are made up, I'm sure similar things happened during that time. It's good to think about things like that once in a while, though, because it's a wake up call to how blessed and fortunate we are. People went through such hardships to get us where we are now. It really gives me such a grateful and sympathetic heart. I did love that aspect of the book. God has blessed us so much!
So, both are good books. Definitely read "Little Women" if you haven't, and if you have some time on your hands and want to find out about Mr. March, then read "March" too. Although, I wouldn't recommend it if you want to maintain a high opinion of the character.