First of all, Angie, this is my favorite of your picks thus far. It was engaging (more so than Remains of the Day), an easy read (more so than Moby Dick), and long enough to satisfy (more so than O.Henry's short stories). In fact, the only part that disappointed me was the cruelty to some of the animals, especially Rosie. And this is where I am irrational. I know that these things happened to animals in circuses, especially during the Depression era, and thus to be historically accurate this must be the case. However, I read for pleasure and reading about people hurting animals doesn't give me pleasure and therefore I don't want it in my books. Of course, I do want my books to be as historically accurate as possible... thus the inconsistency. Oh well.
I really liked the end of the story, or both ends if you consider the end to his earlier life story and the end of his later life story to both be ends.
Did you guess who killed August from the Prologue? I was completely off and never expected it to be who it was (trying not to ruin the ending for anyone who might read this before the book). So much for my Holmes' detective powers!
The only problem I had with the overall design of the book was that occasionally the chapters would switch from young Jacob to old Jacob and I wouldn't realize it right away. I imagine this was intentional, to give the same feeling that old Jacob had- of not knowing when it was the present or the past. Do you think?
Finally, may favorite scene was his first night of debauchery (sp?)with the two female performers and his reaction to drinking. I have to say that once I had a vaguely similar experience, in that I drank to much and puked at an inopportune (sp?- I can't remember how to spell anything today!) moment and haven't lived it down yet. So, I totally feel for him. :-)
I've already thanked my sister, Joy, for suggesting this book, and I will do so again. Compared to our others thus far, I think this was a blessed change of pace (though I really, really liked SACD too). I'll also take the time to excuse my lateness in posting; although I did finish the book quickly, I came down with the flu (or "someone kill me, kill me now" as I like to call it) shortly thereafter and this is the first day this week I've felt up to snuff.
I loved, loved, loved this book! Gruen certainly has a wonderful way of writing older characters (even the minor characters like Camel) and I particulary liked the way Jacob came full circle and ended the book the same way he began it - joining the circus without intending to, with no money, no ID, nothing but the clothes on his back.. Lovely.
Yes, I do think the confusion between the present/past at the beginning of the chapters was intentional. You mentioned once that you don't like being ripped out of your story bubble. I agree with you on that. And while these transistions weren't the smoothest, they weren't bad enough to take me out of the bubble, just make it a little hazy, and sometimes I could kind of feel myself shaking my head saying, "wait a minute, what's going on here?" just like Jacob did every once in a while. In this book, I think it was very appropriate and intentional.
I was a bit wary about the scenes with the animals from the start, having had a professor in college who would often throw crude antecdotes about the circus into her lectures, but I think they were tastefully done for the most part. Not a lot of gore gore gore, but enough to let you know that it wasn't pleasant (also enough to show the swings in August's mood, and he violence he was capable of). The worst for me, besides Rosie, was the rancid meat in with grassburners (or was it hayburners?) or the slaughtering of those 2 sick horses for the cats.
I was so sad for Walter at the end, I didn't see that coming at all! I also guessed incorrectly as to the murderer, indeed, as soon as I read the revealing part of the book I had to go back and read the prologue again, just to make sure everything matched up!
I do wish there was more explication given as to how they got into Ringling, or something - that part of the story seemed to wrap up too quickly for me. I mean, how does one transport an elephant, 11 horses and a chimp to another circus? Does that circus come to you just because you phone and say "Boy do I have a great act, come pick me up?" And how do you feed them in the meantime?
One other question - and maybe it was in the book but I just missed it - but why does Jacob get so mad about the other man saying he brought water for the elephants? He could have been on a different show, right? I don't recall Jacob ever explaining that they had to take the elephant to water because it needed too much to haul by hand, or ... ?
I liked both the main women in this book. Marlene and Barbara were both well written, not over dramatized, and I love that Gruen didn't make excuses for them. Barbara's a hooker and that's that. Marlene's in a bad marriage and that's that. I really enjoyed the description of Barbara's strip show, especially Jacob whacking the tent when shoes appeared. I can't wait to throw the term "cooch tent" into casual conversation. I also liked when she said something like "get out of her before I decide to let you have another go." haha!
I liked how Gruen played the eating arrangements in the circus with the eating arrangements in old Jacob's life. I think it's a recurring theme throughout life, from grade school, to high school to the workplace. At times it seems so inconsequential, but where and with whom you sit to eat group meals really pretty much sums up your social standing (taking a note from Henry James here!)
One last note, gracious I had a lot to comment on with this one!
I absolutely adored the scene with Rosemary and old Jacob, when she opens his blinds without asking. It reminded me so much of my great grandmother. My grandmother and her sisters took care of their mother in their homes for years after she broke her hip and couldn't walk any more. My grandmother had her on the weekends, and I often went to stay with her to help. It never failed, the second we got her loaded into the car she would start adjusting the sunvisor - flipped up - flipped down - up - down - up with every angle of the sun. That scene made me realize that it was probably the one remaining thing that she could do for herself to adjust her own comfort level. The comfort was not the shade itself, but in creating the shadow.
PS - I meant to put this in an email, but might as well post it here. I was wathcing an episode of NCIS last night and there was a young woman in a coma. Her friend was reading to her aloud "from her favorite book because the doctor said it might do her good." The book? Moby Dick! And then the little NCIS investigator girl had the audacity to FINISH SOME RANDOM QOUTE from the middle of the book. It was at that point I realized that the episode was a waste and the writers had evidently lost their effing minds. Morons.
Well, I am the sister and happy that you liked this book! I LOVED it! I liked the Dr. Seuss quote at the beginning, "An elephant's faithful - one hundred per cent". It put me in the right frame of mind to read a circus book.
I too did not see the ending coming and thought I should have. And I re-read the prologue too (and then re-read the whole book).
I agree about the cruelty to animals but it is real and still occurs so you can't deny it (but prefer to not read it). I felt avenged (right word?) when Rosie took the "stake in her own trunk" and did the deed. I cheered her on!
My VERY favorite part is "sex or corn on the cob?". I think that sums up LIFE beautifully.
Wow, where to start recommenting? Nice of you to join us on this book, Joy! Thanks for recommending it, who knows what Angie would have come up with on her own. :-)
First of all, recent Moby Dick references... I've seen that episode of NCIS. We watch NCIS pretty consistently. My recent MD encounter...Ken and I are watching X-Files from start to finish through Netflix. We watched an episode last night (somewhere in the 4th season) named Queequeg. I laughed when we started the episode and told Ken that Queequeg was my favorite character in Moby Dick. About halfway through the episode, Sculley explains to Moulder that her father used to read her Moby Dick before bed (poor girl) and they called each other Ahab (father) and Starbuck (her- I wonder why not Ishmael?) and so it was only natural that she name her dog Queequeg. Then she want on a long rant about how Moulder is like Ahab- obsessed with something unattainable and willing to kill everyone with him to get it. I have to go with her on that.
Back to Water for Elephants.. Animals- I felt particularly bad for the toothless lion. How did he lose his teeth? How did he eat his meat? Did he feel like less of a lion? I also love that they call the herbivores "hay burners" because that is what we used to call our horses. When people found out my mom and I owned a small herd of horses they would assume we lived on a farm. I would explain that we didn't because on a farm you make money off your livestock but we only owned hay burners.
Walter- it does seem a shame they had to kill off the midget (oops, little person), but at least his dog lived- so I'm happy. :-) I don't mind so much when just people die.
Ringling brothers- I didn't mind that they left the Ringling Brothers reference open. I think the time period between the first circus and the last circus was meant to be grey and fuzzy. And also, having a liberty rider with all her horses and a vet with an elephant pretty much makes them a shoo-in, doesn't it (oh, and Bobo too)?
Water for elephants- I understand this anger. It's like you are a specialist in a rare field and then some moron tries to pass themself off as a specialist too, but they get the most basic facts wrong. Like that someone actually carries water to the elephant rather than taking the elephant to water. I don't mind liars, but I despise liars that get their facts wrong. It's like not only didn't they put the time in to do it in the first place, but they didn't even put the time in to FAKE it convincingly. ARGH.
Finally, yes, I reread the prologue too. It didn't seem like it could have worked out the way it did, but it did. :-)
I didn't mind the way they disposed of Marlena's horse. It was in pain and too far gone to be healed; the cats needed to eat. Seems like it would have been an awful waste to just bury it.
I have to agree with Angie about Marlena's horse. I've had personal experience with horses that founder badly and putting them down is really the best for the horse. And the cats need to eat, right?
I guess I was feeling more for Marlena than for the horse, having buried a few favorite pets along the way. We have them in the back yard and yes, I do put flowers on the graves.
I saw this on one of my newsletters today. Anyone going to see it in the theaters? Nice to know they treated the animals well too.
"Sure to be a blockbuster, the film Water for Elephants comes out next week, and when you go see it, you can be sure "No Animals Were Harmed."® Based on the New York Times best-selling novel by Sara Gruen, the film stars Hollywood hotshots Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz. It's a Depression-era romantic drama about a veterinary student who joins a traveling circus and forges an amazing bond with an elephant named Rosie. In real life, the elephant actor's name is Tai, and our Certified Animal Safety Representative™ was on set to make sure Tai — and the rest of the film's menagerie — were safe, healthy and happy at all times."
I watched the movie two nights ago. I thought it has been long enough since I read the book that I wouldn't be disappointed by how many places they deviated. With that said, I don't think they deviated too much: it seemed pretty true to the book. And as much as Robert Pattinson's acting irks me, I think he and Reese Witherspoon both did a good job in their roles.
Just some notes on the animals. 1. They were really well-trained. They had several animals doing pretty neat tricks. 2. Most of the abuse of animals happened off-screen, which is probably how they managed to keep the animals "happy and healthy" throughout. When August was beating Rosie, I was really glad they kept it off-screen but it was still really disturbing.
With all that said, I still liked the book better because I could skip over the disturbing paragraphs. With a movie (especially if you are watching it with someone else) you are less able to do so.
12 comments:
First of all, Angie, this is my favorite of your picks thus far. It was engaging (more so than Remains of the Day), an easy read (more so than Moby Dick), and long enough to satisfy (more so than O.Henry's short stories). In fact, the only part that disappointed me was the cruelty to some of the animals, especially Rosie. And this is where I am irrational. I know that these things happened to animals in circuses, especially during the Depression era, and thus to be historically accurate this must be the case. However, I read for pleasure and reading about people hurting animals doesn't give me pleasure and therefore I don't want it in my books. Of course, I do want my books to be as historically accurate as possible... thus the inconsistency. Oh well.
I really liked the end of the story, or both ends if you consider the end to his earlier life story and the end of his later life story to both be ends.
Did you guess who killed August from the Prologue? I was completely off and never expected it to be who it was (trying not to ruin the ending for anyone who might read this before the book). So much for my Holmes' detective powers!
The only problem I had with the overall design of the book was that occasionally the chapters would switch from young Jacob to old Jacob and I wouldn't realize it right away. I imagine this was intentional, to give the same feeling that old Jacob had- of not knowing when it was the present or the past. Do you think?
Finally, may favorite scene was his first night of debauchery (sp?)with the two female performers and his reaction to drinking. I have to say that once I had a vaguely similar experience, in that I drank to much and puked at an inopportune (sp?- I can't remember how to spell anything today!) moment and haven't lived it down yet. So, I totally feel for him. :-)
I've already thanked my sister, Joy, for suggesting this book, and I will do so again. Compared to our others thus far, I think this was a blessed change of pace (though I really, really liked SACD too). I'll also take the time to excuse my lateness in posting; although I did finish the book quickly, I came down with the flu (or "someone kill me, kill me now" as I like to call it) shortly thereafter and this is the first day this week I've felt up to snuff.
I loved, loved, loved this book! Gruen certainly has a wonderful way of writing older characters (even the minor characters like Camel) and I particulary liked the way Jacob came full circle and ended the book the same way he began it - joining the circus without intending to, with no money, no ID, nothing but the clothes on his back.. Lovely.
Yes, I do think the confusion between the present/past at the beginning of the chapters was intentional. You mentioned once that you don't like being ripped out of your story bubble. I agree with you on that. And while these transistions weren't the smoothest, they weren't bad enough to take me out of the bubble, just make it a little hazy, and sometimes I could kind of feel myself shaking my head saying, "wait a minute, what's going on here?" just like Jacob did every once in a while. In this book, I think it was very appropriate and intentional.
I was a bit wary about the scenes with the animals from the start, having had a professor in college who would often throw crude antecdotes about the circus into her lectures, but I think they were tastefully done for the most part. Not a lot of gore gore gore, but enough to let you know that it wasn't pleasant (also enough to show the swings in August's mood, and he violence he was capable of). The worst for me, besides Rosie, was the rancid meat in with grassburners (or was it hayburners?) or the slaughtering of those 2 sick horses for the cats.
I was so sad for Walter at the end, I didn't see that coming at all! I also guessed incorrectly as to the murderer, indeed, as soon as I read the revealing part of the book I had to go back and read the prologue again, just to make sure everything matched up!
I do wish there was more explication given as to how they got into Ringling, or something - that part of the story seemed to wrap up too quickly for me. I mean, how does one transport an elephant, 11 horses and a chimp to another circus? Does that circus come to you just because you phone and say "Boy do I have a great act, come pick me up?" And how do you feed them in the meantime?
One other question - and maybe it was in the book but I just missed it - but why does Jacob get so mad about the other man saying he brought water for the elephants? He could have been on a different show, right? I don't recall Jacob ever explaining that they had to take the elephant to water because it needed too much to haul by hand, or ... ?
I liked both the main women in this book. Marlene and Barbara were both well written, not over dramatized, and I love that Gruen didn't make excuses for them. Barbara's a hooker and that's that. Marlene's in a bad marriage and that's that. I really enjoyed the description of Barbara's strip show, especially Jacob whacking the tent when shoes appeared. I can't wait to throw the term "cooch tent" into casual conversation. I also liked when she said something like "get out of her before I decide to let you have another go." haha!
I liked how Gruen played the eating arrangements in the circus with the eating arrangements in old Jacob's life. I think it's a recurring theme throughout life, from grade school, to high school to the workplace. At times it seems so inconsequential, but where and with whom you sit to eat group meals really pretty much sums up your social standing (taking a note from Henry James here!)
One last note, gracious I had a lot to comment on with this one!
I absolutely adored the scene with Rosemary and old Jacob, when she opens his blinds without asking. It reminded me so much of my great grandmother. My grandmother and her sisters took care of their mother in their homes for years after she broke her hip and couldn't walk any more. My grandmother had her on the weekends, and I often went to stay with her to help. It never failed, the second we got her loaded into the car she would start adjusting the sunvisor - flipped up - flipped down - up - down - up with every angle of the sun. That scene made me realize that it was probably the one remaining thing that she could do for herself to adjust her own comfort level. The comfort was not the shade itself, but in creating the shadow.
PS - I meant to put this in an email, but might as well post it here. I was wathcing an episode of NCIS last night and there was a young woman in a coma. Her friend was reading to her aloud "from her favorite book because the doctor said it might do her good." The book? Moby Dick! And then the little NCIS investigator girl had the audacity to FINISH SOME RANDOM QOUTE from the middle of the book. It was at that point I realized that the episode was a waste and the writers had evidently lost their effing minds. Morons.
Well, I am the sister and happy that you liked this book! I LOVED it! I liked the Dr. Seuss quote at the beginning, "An elephant's faithful - one hundred per cent". It put me in the right frame of mind to read a circus book.
I too did not see the ending coming and thought I should have. And I re-read the prologue too (and then re-read the whole book).
I agree about the cruelty to animals but it is real and still occurs so you can't deny it (but prefer to not read it). I felt avenged (right word?) when Rosie took the "stake in her own trunk" and did the deed. I cheered her on!
My VERY favorite part is "sex or corn on the cob?". I think that sums up LIFE beautifully.
From: Joychina!
Wow, where to start recommenting? Nice of you to join us on this book, Joy! Thanks for recommending it, who knows what Angie would have come up with on her own. :-)
First of all, recent Moby Dick references... I've seen that episode of NCIS. We watch NCIS pretty consistently. My recent MD encounter...Ken and I are watching X-Files from start to finish through Netflix. We watched an episode last night (somewhere in the 4th season) named Queequeg. I laughed when we started the episode and told Ken that Queequeg was my favorite character in Moby Dick. About halfway through the episode, Sculley explains to Moulder that her father used to read her Moby Dick before bed (poor girl) and they called each other Ahab (father) and Starbuck (her- I wonder why not Ishmael?) and so it was only natural that she name her dog Queequeg. Then she want on a long rant about how Moulder is like Ahab- obsessed with something unattainable and willing to kill everyone with him to get it. I have to go with her on that.
Back to Water for Elephants..
Animals- I felt particularly bad for the toothless lion. How did he lose his teeth? How did he eat his meat? Did he feel like less of a lion? I also love that they call the herbivores "hay burners" because that is what we used to call our horses. When people found out my mom and I owned a small herd of horses they would assume we lived on a farm. I would explain that we didn't because on a farm you make money off your livestock but we only owned hay burners.
Walter- it does seem a shame they had to kill off the midget (oops, little person), but at least his dog lived- so I'm happy. :-) I don't mind so much when just people die.
Ringling brothers- I didn't mind that they left the Ringling Brothers reference open. I think the time period between the first circus and the last circus was meant to be grey and fuzzy. And also, having a liberty rider with all her horses and a vet with an elephant pretty much makes them a shoo-in, doesn't it (oh, and Bobo too)?
Water for elephants- I understand this anger. It's like you are a specialist in a rare field and then some moron tries to pass themself off as a specialist too, but they get the most basic facts wrong. Like that someone actually carries water to the elephant rather than taking the elephant to water. I don't mind liars, but I despise liars that get their facts wrong. It's like not only didn't they put the time in to do it in the first place, but they didn't even put the time in to FAKE it convincingly. ARGH.
Finally, yes, I reread the prologue too. It didn't seem like it could have worked out the way it did, but it did. :-)
THe animal part I didn't like was when they had to shoot Marlena's horse. And they "disposed" of it ....
So rumor has it, there will be a movie made of this. I wonder who will play the elephant???? Horton?
I didn't mind the way they disposed of Marlena's horse. It was in pain and too far gone to be healed; the cats needed to eat. Seems like it would have been an awful waste to just bury it.
I have to agree with Angie about Marlena's horse. I've had personal experience with horses that founder badly and putting them down is really the best for the horse. And the cats need to eat, right?
I guess I was feeling more for Marlena than for the horse, having buried a few favorite pets along the way. We have them in the back yard and yes, I do put flowers on the graves.
I saw this on one of my newsletters today. Anyone going to see it in the theaters? Nice to know they treated the animals well too.
"Sure to be a blockbuster, the film Water for Elephants comes out next week, and when you go see it, you can be sure "No Animals Were Harmed."® Based on the New York Times best-selling novel by Sara Gruen, the film stars Hollywood hotshots Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon and Christoph Waltz. It's a Depression-era romantic drama about a veterinary student who joins a traveling circus and forges an amazing bond with an elephant named Rosie. In real life, the elephant actor's name is Tai, and our Certified Animal Safety Representative™ was on set to make sure Tai — and the rest of the film's menagerie — were safe, healthy and happy at all times."
Which makes me wonder how true to the book it will be, since the animals in the book were not safe, happy or healthy...
I probably will not see the movie, because I loved the book too much.
I watched the movie two nights ago. I thought it has been long enough since I read the book that I wouldn't be disappointed by how many places they deviated. With that said, I don't think they deviated too much: it seemed pretty true to the book. And as much as Robert Pattinson's acting irks me, I think he and Reese Witherspoon both did a good job in their roles.
Just some notes on the animals. 1. They were really well-trained. They had several animals doing pretty neat tricks. 2. Most of the abuse of animals happened off-screen, which is probably how they managed to keep the animals "happy and healthy" throughout. When August was beating Rosie, I was really glad they kept it off-screen but it was still really disturbing.
With all that said, I still liked the book better because I could skip over the disturbing paragraphs. With a movie (especially if you are watching it with someone else) you are less able to do so.
Post a Comment