Just to put it out there, I’ll admit straight off the bat that I’m one of the people who enjoyed this book. It was a fast read (which I always appreciate, because I’m perpetually drowning in a list of books TBR) and it was fairly easy to get through. I also didn’t see the end coming until a few pages before it actually happened, which probably added immensely to my enjoyment factor.I’ve been reading all the criticisms of this book in an attempt to organize my opinions after reading this book. It seems like most of the complaints have to do with cruelty to humans and animals in the story and the sex scenes sprinkled throughout Jacob’s experience with the circus.I do not feel that the sex described in these books was inappropriate or gratuitous. In all instances (namely Barbra’s strip scene, Jacob’s deflowering with the circus prostitutes and the scene where he and Marlena finally made love), these descriptions helped to move the plot and create human experiences and reactions, which is what makes a book worth reading. Very few of us who will ever read this book can say that we were involved in a Depression-era circus, however, must of us has some concept or experience of our own with sex. In the case of this book, I feel that the sex in the book permits us to draw a parallel to these characters that we might otherwise never identify with (because they are truly from another world). I won’t lie. There were several uncomfortable scenes where Rosie the elephant was brutally beat by August, and I cringed during those scenes. I was also extremely discomfited by the scenes where the big cats were fed rotting meat and other circus animals. The instances of redlighting were also appalling.However, this is because I am 29-years-old. I was born in 1979. Not 1929. That time in American history is FOREIGN to me. FOREIGN, FOREIGN, FOREIGN. It’s hard for me to fathom sometimes that people actually had experiences like that so recently in the past. I have a grandmother who is 101-years-old. My father is 73-years-old. To listen to them describe life when they were my age is mind-blowing to me, because some of the stories they tell me fall into the same category of shock that I felt while reading this story. My 87-year-old grandmother has told me stories about going to their family’s beach house in the summers and how her mother would lock her inside the house whenever the Chicago gangster’s had committed a big heist (there were several who would spend time in Minnesota and Wisconsin) while they were waiting for things to cool down. My father has stories about chasing trains and jumping on them to go for a ride out of boredom. And so it’s my opinion that sex and animal cruelty were not the themes of the story and that to get hung up on them means missing out on something bigger. Life was different then, so we can’t apply our same logic to those events and have them still make sense. They were tangential ideas peppered throughout the story to support the actual point of the story, which I felt had to do with the aging of a human being. The fact that the story was not just ABOUT the circus supports this. If the story was ABOUT the circus, there would have been no need to include details about Jacob as a 93-year-old man. Or to share conversations he has with the nurses in the assisted living home and with the other patients. Aging is a very real, very human experience that none of us can escape. Even if someone dies as a young person, they won’t escape the issues that come with aging because there are people in our lives who WILL age and we will be there to witness it. I’ve already seen grandparents go through that transformation of a vital, independent adult to an old, frail being that needs help with even the most basic of a function, who can’t remember names of family members and who eventually dies. The drastic comparison between Jacob’s life at the assisted living center and his flashbacks to his time spent at the circus give an extremely compelling glance at the passage of time and how it affects us all. Now, all that being said. There were several instances of the author’s “modern voice” creeping in. The one that bothered me most was the reference to August’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. In 1933? Um, nope. It wasn’t recognized as a legitimate disease or even named until the 70’s (I think, which was when my oldest brother was diagnosed with it. If they’d known more about it at the time, he might be better off today, but there just wasn’t enough information or research available, even in the late 70’s).
I think I expected too much out of this novel and therefore had room only for disappointment. Though I finished the book in its entirety, I wrote a short review on my blog about halfway through, expounding on the aspects of the book that irritated me. I have adapted it herein.First, the main "heroine," Marlena, is incredibly flat & boring. The narrator/main character, Jacob, is clearly infatuated with her, but I'm not sure why other than she looks good in pink sequins. She's married to her arrogant, bipolar boss, so maybe there's some sort of damsel-in-distress complex triggered in our hero. Regardless, I don't care about her. She doesn't engage me or hold any allure. The novel really ends up being more of a romance tale, and to be honest I think it would be just as interesting (more so?) without Marlena.There were several instances of explicit sexual encounters fairly close together in the heart of the novel that annoyed me. I don't inherently react against books with sex, but I do object to explicit, gratuitous sex. It felt more for shock value than actually relevant to the plot or characterization. The instances of it are over-the-top and some even slightly grotesque to the point of distraction. I'm not sure what exactly she was trying to prove ("Look, I can write like a man: men think about sex all the time!"), but it was unnecessary. The crudeness calmed down after a bit, but it distracted me through the center of the novel.Furthermore, I'm not even sure the narrator is believable/realistic. It takes him too long to figure things out; he likes to describe a scene in excruciating detail before he "realizes what's going on." If I had been standing next to him, by the time he "realizes what's going on," I would have smacked him over the head and left. Too often he encounters situations in a total stupor. OK, so people don't always react instantaneously. But when you describe it in exhaustive detail, it doesn't make me think something is happening quickly. (Speaking of descriptions, every strong smell is described as "overwhelming." Really, is that the best adjective you've got?) Additionally, I can't quite reconcile the young Jacob to the 90/93-year-old Jacob. A lot can change in 70 years, but I can't see the sensitive, humble Jacob I meet in large stretches of the novel with the bitter, crotchety old Jacob I meet in shorter excerpts. Maybe some more explanation of what caused the change would have helped. The story has so much potential in its unique setting: Depression/Prohibition-era traveling circus. This alone kept me reading because I was curious at least to see where the narration was going. Will it end with Jacob's death or something else? How long does he stay on the circus, etc? So I guess kudos to the author for that: at least the uniqueness of the setting & atmosphere keeps me intrigued.Maybe I expected too much. Still, I give the book credit: despite my disappointment, I was curious to the end.
What do You think about Water For Elephants (2007)?
Reading this was like running a marathon on bloody stumps. It took forever and it was painful. The subject - a vet recalling his days in a failing 1920s circus - would've interested me if the writing had been up to par. It wasn't horrible, just amateurish at times. Also, the dialogue could've been better. If the characters sounded more like they came from the '20s it might've drawn me more into the story, but they sounded like contemporaries who like to use old timey jargon. Also, I can't get down with the idea that an old man, who can't remember his own age, can remember minor details from 70 years prior as well as exact dialogue that is as mundane as the tripe used to fill out an hour-long soap opera. Why do I read modern pop lit? Oprah's minions shall no longer rule my reading!Maybe I might have disliked this a little less if I'd just read it instead of listened to the horribly narrated audiobook. Never has a narrator squeeze so much melodrama out of the simplest of actions and mildest of emotions. I don't think I've ever taken this long to get through an audiobook. Usually, even if I'm not enjoying it, I can just let it run and bust on through. But with this one I actively avoided listening to it by being inactive. My thing is, if I have a boring job to do like yardwork or servicing my lady*, I plug in an audiobook and both the book and the job whizz by. But not this book. Instead of weeding or going for a walk with Water for Elephants I made sure I had other things to do. The days-long NFL draft came in handy.* "My lady" is the term I use for my car. Get your mind out of the gutter.
—Jason Koivu
Somehow I feel that I have to defend why I liked this book, even though there's no one saying why I shouldn't have enjoyed it. Here's what I found most touching: the author took an fantastic premise - an orphan running away to the circus, a love triangle, an elephant, and the Great Depression and weaved a tale that doesn't make you say "bullocks," at every page. Gruen outlines use of anachronistic story telling is effective and she is skilled at moving the story along, even more adept at highlighting an aging man who is recalling his prime. Because Gruen juxtaposes her novel against the Great Depression, careful readers will find an interesting opportunity for retrospection around how we treat elders today and during the depression and where we put our "unwanteds."The book is fantastical and clearly well researched, with the exception of one character being misdiagnosed as "paranoid schizoprenic." This inaccuracy can be forgiven. Gruen also works hard to show the layers of social dynamics, acknowledging in the book: segregation, racism, ability and others who are "queered out," poverty, capitalism, and elder care. That's a lot to put comfortably in a book - and to Gruen's credit I didn't feel overcrowded. I am most impressed with Gruen's technique; its the details in the craft of her writing that makes the story possible.My only complaint would be that while most all of the characters are quite believable, the female protagonist, I found to be a little flat. I don't feel that Gruen inhabited her as the writer - she didn't quite come to life for me, I didn't find her realistic or understand her. I also am still thinking through a casual (and perhaps unintended) parallel the author draws between Rosie the elephant and the Black female nurse who Jacob so appreciates. I have to revisit that.After reading the book I am certainly more interested in reading historic accounts of the circus - definitely an intereting topic; had me yearning for a certain X-Files episode featuring the circus - but I digress... ;-D
—Izetta Autumn
This is a very good example of why one should have no expectations when going into a book. I wanted this book to be great. I thought this book was going to be great. A depression era traveling circus and all that entails? Awesome! The author’s voice being likened to Mr. Irving? Awesome! The fact that damn near everyone LOVED it? Promising! The only other circus book I’ve read was GEEK LOVE, and holy shit. Awesome! All of this lead me to believe that I was about to be blown away.But, it wasn’t awesome. And I hated it because it wasn’t. Normally, I probably would have just thought, meh- good, but not great. But it wouldn’t have evoked such distaste had I not expected it to be brilliant.Given the concept, there was so much room for fantastical wonderfulness that this story lacks entirely. All the bits that almost got there- the mischievousness of the elephant that didn’t understand English, the moonshine paralysis, a hippo in formaldehyde, murdering elephants- weren’t the authors ideas, but anecdotes from her research. How fucking dull.It would have been a million more times gratifying had it been written as non-fiction, because the details were good. And even interesting. But the fiction part… basically, is an unimaginative love story with boring, cliché characters that I couldn’t stand and a Hollywood ending.Boo.
—Tory
