Umm. Hello?

I read this book quite some time ago. I did not care for the parallel lines of the story (past/present). I didn't find it confusing, but I thought it disrupted the narrative in a somewhat jarring fashion, and it was too sentimental for my taste.

I recall that I particularly loved the way the author painted a picture of the culture of the circus--she really seemed to make it come alive in all its seaminess. I was riveted by the picture she painted.

The romance was not very convincing to me, for some reason. Maybe I didn't think that a Cornell lad would find a suitable romantic interest in the circus performer. And the rather dramatic ending seemed a bit too pat--but it was very satisfying that the dreadful circus boss met his end that way!

I enjoyed the book, I did not mind the past/present, once I was used to it. Although the nursing home for me was very close to the bone at times!!

I loved the animals, especially Rosie, her amber eyes with the "outrageously long lashes"and her smile, I also loved Kinko's Queenie.

Also I liked the little touches of humour running thru it, like the way that Rosie had a real liking for lemonade!! and the way that Jacob lost his virginity!! and Barbara's striptease act, oh what a hoot!!!. Remember the horse that "had its tail where its head should be"!!

I found the kitchen and catering setup very interesting, Uncle Al made sure they were all well fed.

After reading the book I did a google on the casting of the movie, I found that Jacob does not have red hair and there in no Uncle Al!!

I also read this book some time ago. It reminded me of Stephen King's The Green Mile in the descriptions of desperate life in the depression era. Both stories had old men thinking back on their lives. I did not mind the parallel story line, and rather liked the way the story unfolded to make sense of the introduction. I also did not feel any chemistry in the romance. I don't even remember the woman's name. I was happy for the elder Jacob to get some independence, but wondered how realistic that would be for an such an old gent. My favorite character was the elephant.

And what did you think of the ending? I thought it wrapped up the story rather too well - all nice and tidy, but honestly, I felt it was way too far-fetched. An old man leaves the nursing home and gets taken in by some random man with no money, no nothing? Puhlease. Perhaps if he had been dreaming or had a stroke and this was his vision or something. But real life??

Apart from the ridiculous ending, I rather enjoyed learning about the circus in the olden times. Although now I would not go to see one (due to animal treatment issues), back then it was very different. I thought Gruen developed some interesting characters along the way.

Found some discussion questions for us; here are some to get us started...

1. To what extent do the chapters concerning the elderly Jacob enhance the chapters recounting the young Jacob�s experiences with the Benzini Brothers circus? In what ways do the chapters about the young Jacob contribute to a deeper understanding of the elderly Jacob�s life?

* How does the novel�s epigraph, the quote from Dr. Seuss�s Horton Hatches the Egg, apply to the novel? What are the roles and importance of faithfulness and loyalty in Water for Elephants? In what ways does Gruen contrast the antagonisms and cruelties of circus life with the equally impressive loyalties and instances of caring?

* How was August's mental illness handled? Was it appropriate for the time? Did it ring true?

Liz, although the idea for the story was good, I found the whole thing altogether rather underwhelming and wondered how it had become so popular in the US.
I hadn't realised it was a first attempt at writing so am willing to make some allowances for the author, but no-way could it be considered 'literature'.

The 'looking back' didn't bother me too much, but I felt the old Jacob and the young Jacob didn't seem like the same person.
I have no experience of how an educated young man from Cornell would have talked, but Jacob sounded just like the hobos and circus workers. In fact all the characters seemed almost 'one-dimensional' and the flat 'romance' scenes lacked any emotion.
Did you think that although J had received this top 'vet' training (OK I know he had missed his final exams) there was very little made of his knowledge, except with some foot treatment and non-ability to cure a horse? . . . sorry nearly forgot the giraffe's neck poultice.
What little I know about circuses (and all in the UK) I am surprised that animal cruelty should be a serious issue. I'm not talking about the business of keeping wild animals captive and making them 'perform', but of beatings and bad treatment. Surely these animals were VERY expensive (think of the cost of the elephant) and it was to the owners/trainers advantage to keep animals in the best conditions possible. I just wanted Rosie to trample everyone or squeeze them to death with her trunk and gallop off into the sunset.
Sorry I can't be more positive.

I agree that it didn't much sense (business or otherwise) to be cruel to Rosie the elephant and star performer. Perhaps it was believed back in those days that man could control all etc. Also being maltreated were the working guys (sorry - can't remember what they are called), but the ones like Walter and Camel (the old guy). It seems they were treated just as badly as some of the animals were at times.

Do any of you or your familes still go to the circus when it comes to town (if it does)? We had the circus here in town the other week, but I don't know anyone who went. I do know that they were offering lots of special deals on tickets if you bought some pizza etc. I wonder if they still use animals?

I thought it was an ok story, but did not feel 'pulled in' to the story much. To me, it seemed as though the author had felt as though she had done all her homework, and gosh, she was going to use every bit in the book.

My real life book group read "Water for Elephants" a couple of years ago. It was voted as the group's favorite reading experience of that year. That probably begs the question: if it was the "best" book, what was the caliber of the rest of the books? I agree with Veer that it seems lightweight - not literary. But the truth is WFE was tailormade for book group readers. It is exciting and moves quickly. It does not require any great brain strain, but there is enough in it to excite righteous indigation in modern readers' sensibilities, especially in the mistreatment of animals and somewhat less in the treatment of aged humans.

One member of my real life group gave up reading WFE in disgust, but not for anything sordid in the story. She will not read a book told in present tense. The present tense does not bother me once I get used to it, but I think she made a good point that both of the narratives being told in present tense could be confusing. I had forgotten that WFE was written for NANOWRIMO. That exercise is probably where Gruen's use of the present tense comes from - it seems to be 'de rigueur' for such writing directions. I know several readers (including some RPers?) who loathe the trendiness of present tense storytelling.

Unfortunately, after I read the book, I saw the film, and it has overshadowed my initial reaction to the story. If ever a book was written for a movie to be made from it, this is the one! The characterizations were stunning in the film, IMHO.

I was familiar with the reputation elephants have for good memory, so the quotation at the beginning was ironic, in more ways than one.

I took away one theme re the mistreatment of the animals by the circus trainers as being to show the nobility of dumb creatures vs. the stupidity of some human beings.

I don't think anyone on this forum is claiming this to be "great literature"! If the tying up the ending was a bit too neat, then, at least, it was good entertainment, which I expect from my reading material.

An added "plus" for me was the meticulous detail which went into the research of the Depression era by the author, as well as the b & w photos interspersed throughout.

I approached reading Water for Elephants with some trepidation, for several reasons:

1. It's fiction and my luck with fiction lately has been dismal.
2. It violates my cardinal rule of not reading books with animals as 'characters'. The animals always seem to be put into the story to break the readers' hearts and I resent the manipulation.
3. Knowing that Water for Elephants is a bestseller and book club darling made me leery. I mean, how many of those are really worth the hype?

I'm happy to report, though, that all my reasons for avoiding Gruen's circus book were dispelled. I found it eminently readable and entertaining. So what, if it's not literature? What the heck is meant by 'literature' anyway? I admit that I associate lit mostly with elitism and the sniff factor where gloomy erudition is valued over a plain ol' good story. Think of the Booker Prize lists (long and short) and the ultimate winners for examples. Please note, though, that I'm not branding all the Booker books. :-)

Usually I'm not a fan of parallel story lines, but the old Jacob/young Jacob one worked better for me than most. I didn't find it confusing, although, as Lydia mentioned, the present tense for both was a bit much. Does the present tense really annoy readers so much? I've never really understood why. I do think it is rather gimmicky and faddish, and for the writer it must be devilishly difficult to stay in the present tense. Mantel's Wolf Hall is told in present tense. I never caught a slip-up, but that's probably to her editor's credit.

Yes, I think Gruen was enamored with her research, but I can hardly blame her for including as much as she could. I found her incorporation of the anecdotes from actual circus performers/workers to be great fun. And oh! the jargon. I enjoyed the actual historical photographs, too.

The last circus I attended was not in the U.S.; it was in France in the 1980s. I remember attending several big-tent affairs when I was a kid; but strangely the only animals I recall were in the equestrian acts -- no elephants, no big cats.

Before I forget: I got the con of the horse's tail where it's head ought to be, but what was it with the suspenders that the men were duped into paying their quarters? I'll probably slap my forehead when I find out, but it has eluded me so far.

I read the book a while ago. I remember the "Elderly Jacob" more interesting. I got upset about the Elphant. However, it was about a past time, where animal abuse, was not so much of concern as it is today.

The movie, I believe Robert Patterson, was a miscast. He has too much of that Harry Potter, English look going on.

Sara Gruen's is a very good writer.

Liz, you asked about circus visits. As a child I was taken to see the touring Bertram Mills Circus and well-remember the elephants lined up against a roadside fence and offering them stale buns. Today there is a very small-scale one that tours this part of England, 'Giffords Circus', using traditional caravans to house the performers. The only animals they use in their acts are horses and the acrobats, clowns etc come from a wide range of European countries. In fact I think the use of 'big cats' etc is now banned.
I think I identified with the 'Old Jacob' part of the story; that could be me in not so many years . . . but why had he become such an old curmudgeon?
No photos in my copy of the book and I doubt the film will every reach these distant parts.

Here is a link that might be useful: Some shots of Giffords Circus

One of several things that confused me: Rosie was called a bull elephant. I thought bull elephants were male and the females were cows. I 'googled' for an explanation, and apparently the confusion was not mine alone. The only answer, however, that seems to explain why Gruen used what appears to be a 'wrong' application of the male elephant to that of a female: During that era, all elephants, male and female, were called bulls. Hmm, okay, it was tradition. That's arcane and shows Gruen really did do her research. It's also a shibboleth, such as the title Water for Elephants is one that indicates someone who doesn't know the first thing about elephants and so infuriated the old Jacob.

I'll give that one to Gruen, but there's a couple of other words and phrases that she did, perhaps unintentionally, modernize. One is 'hash browns'. During the Depression era this potato dish was 'hashed brown potatoes' or 'hashed browned potatoes' as the recipes are entitled in the Depression-era cookbooks I possess. I remember these well from my own childhood when I thought 'hashed browned' was just too much of a mouthful to say. The shortened version, hash browns, didn't become the usual one until 1970 or thereabouts. Sometimes it's these little things that distract me most!

I'm still wondering about the "suspenders"! Doesn't someone know or have an opinion of what this trick actually was? Gruen certainly wasn't explicit about that, although she was very explicit about other things -- cringeworthy explicit, in my opinion -- but if you're going to depict seaminess and sordidness in a realistic way, I suppose explicitness has its place. I just won't be recommending this book to my acquaintances with delicate sensibilities.

My husband works on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, and it seems that every year he casually mentions that the circus is in town--and that he saw the elephants marched through the streets. What a spectacle!

The last circus I went to was a Barnum & Bailey in NYC in the mid 90's when our children were young. I recall seeing horses and cats, but not an elephant, though there must have been one. And the clowns, of course--shudder.

Frieda-

What was it with the suspenders that happened in the book? Perhaps if you could give me some details, I could try and remember what was going on...,Some swindle of some type.

I remember going to the circus in Bedford once when I was a little girl. Very exciting, the smell of sawdust, the scary clowns. (Why do they continue to use them if a lot of people find them scary? Or perhaps it's not a lot of people?) The only circus that I would attend now would something like Cirque du Soleil - just humans doing beautiful movements.

The present tense didn't really bother me, but then I am usually fairly ok with the various literary styles and tricks that authors use. And why was the old man character so grumpy? Perhaps because it makes a better story? I don't really know why he was - presumably all old men aren't grumpy. :-) I remember my old grandpa being rather gruff and grumpy but he was old school English Raj type of man. My dad was just really sweet. Perhaps he died before he could get grumpy! :-)

I did like the inclusion of the BW photographs in the story - I wish they had not been so grainy in my edition as I feel I was missing a lot of details. Still, fun to see.

I think seeing the events that happened to young Jacob helped to explain why he would get narked about people using misinformation for circuses later on in life, but presumably that happens all the time between people who have worked for ages in popular career fields and people who would like to have. Do kids still threaten to "run away to the circus" any more?...

Frieda, re 'suspenders'. Is Gruen referring to what we in the UK call suspenders ie the things that hold up stockings (and I understand, over the Pond hold up men's trousers . . .which we call braces . . . not to be confused with the metal-work worn on the teeth of American young people)? I suspect she means the garment worn with stockings, so perhaps the men were expecting to see a good deal more naked flesh for their quarters.
Presuming that Gruen is accurate about circus life, I was surprised to see there seemed to be a travelling brothel as part of the show; seems very tacky. I too felt the strip show could have done with less detail.
I was glad to see her use the word 'waistcoat' as part of men's wear as I had been told here at RP that no such word exists for that item of clothing in the US where it is called a vest. Over here a vest is an undergarment. ;-)

Liz, the suspenders swindle occurs (present tense, note) on Jacob's first night as part of the circus. He's told to help Cecil, the sideshow talker, who is enticing the crowd to see 'The Lovely Lucinda', etc. Then he gets all coy and says the next exhibit is if for 'gentlemen' only, sorry ladies! The men pull out their quarters and shuffle into a tent without their women. Meanwhile, Cecil gives the women and children a viewing of the horse with his head where his tail should be, which, of course, is a horse with his rear end backed up to his oat pail. The women are actually relieved with the joke, but one of the men causes a ruckus and wants his quarter back because all he saw was a 'god*amned pair of suspenders'.

Vee, in the U.S. suspenders are indeed what you in the UK call braces -- aids in keeping up men's trousers. There were/are two ways to keep up women's stockings (the one-per-leg kind, not tights/pantyhose): garters (the elastic or tie-on bands) and the garter belt with metal pieces to hook onto the stocking tops. I suspect the garter belt is what you call suspenders. And if Gruen meant a garter belt but used the word suspenders, that makes sense, of a sort -- the only problem being it's not what Americans would typically say. I wonder if Gruen, being Canadian herself, accidentally applied the Canadian (like the British) term for that garment. That explanation comes closest, I think, so thanks for putting me onto it!

Americans use waistcoat (pronounced /wes-kit/ until just a few decades ago when Americans started pronouncing it as if it's two words, waist and coat) interchangeably with vest many times. Your source may be unfamiliar with the American use of waistcoat, but it is, by no means, unknown (except, perhaps, regionally and among certain youthful Americans). A vest is a decorative garment nowadays in the U.S. -- same as a waistcoat -- (though it was was once a handy place to keep your watch and chain, a key or two, and maybe a snuffbox).

For me from down under "suspenders" are used to keep stockings up, they are attatched to a suspender belt, and can look really sexy!!!

June, yes, it seems to me that most 'red-blooded' (as Cecil said) American men would think suspenders/a garter belt would be sexy -- maybe not worth a quarter for a look, but nothing to act so sheepish or get irate about, as the rubes did. So, I'm back to square one. Surely, there was a joke involved such as with the women's presentation of the 'bass-ackward' horse. Something's still missing or there's something I don't understand. Maybe they really did see 'a pair of suspenders' -- in the American sense. Oh well, it's a small thing and not really important, but it sure is a puzzle to me! I hate it when I don't get the joke or miss the punchline.

I think I caught another anachronism: Marlena was pouring champagne into fluted glasses. In 1931? All the old films made in that era, that I've seen, show champagne in those stemmed saucer glasses. I asked my 89-year-old, sharp-as-a-tack mother if she thought the fluted glasses were wrong for champagne in that era. She says, "Definitely wrong." I'm not sure, though, how -- or where -- to verify our sense of wrongness.

Vee, it's a shame you didn't have the photographs in the edition you read! I wonder what eejits decided to omit them.

Okay, I'll try to avoid any further nitpicking with words and anachronisms. Getting back to some of the questions Liz put out:

Was August's mental illness handled realistically, etc? I didn't realize that he had any specific pathology. I just thought he was a nasty piece of work -- cruel, bitter and jealous. I got the hints that Marlena was apprehensive of some of his moods; but, hell, there's a lot of moody people who aren't paranoid schizophrenics. Not sure I buy that as a valid diagnosis for the 1930s.

Really, who was the more despicable in some traits and behavior, August or Uncle Al? I think it's a toss up. Think how 'freak-crazy' Uncle Al was, and how he took advantage of Lucinda the Fat Lady's death. He had no compunction whatsoever in letting the defunct Fox Brothers' Circus's animals swelter in the heat, and do without water and food, just so he could make a better business deal. And his meanness: the withholding of the workers' pay for weeks or penalizing them for the disappearance of the lemonade. He didn't even apologize or return their money when they were found not to be the culprits. It can be claimed, I suppose, that he was 'astute' as a businessman and 'did what he had to do' and at least he continued to feed his performers/workers. I don't know. It could just be my own cynicism towards bosses, in general.

I want to talk about Marlena, too, but I better save it for another time.

Frieda I noticed the champagne flutes too. We still have a collection of those old style' glasses . . . I don't know if they have a particular name; not that much champers get consumed in our house; more's the pity.
Re suspenders. There is a recent saying over here that tights (ie pantyhose) are for wives and stockings (and suspenders) are for mistresses.

Re August . . . I presume his name is pronounced the German way and not as the month. I also felt that he and Uncle Al were two nasty characters put there to give a bit of added drama to the plot. I imagine there were some pretty mean and tight circus owners in those days but there must have been a limit to how much abuse the staff/workers would take.
I don't suppose modern children think of running away to join the circus but there is an old and delightful children's book from the 1930's The Circus is Coming by Noel Straetfield (remember Ballet Shoes) in which a couple of kids search for a missing Uncle who they knew had joined a circus as a lad. N S spent time living with a circus as part of her research. There is neither sex or violence in it.

BTW do US circuses us the term 'ringmaster' for the guy in the top hat and red tail-coat who runs 'proceedings' from the centre of the 'ring'?

Here is a link that might be useful: The Circus is Coming

>"What the heck is meant by 'literature' anyway?"

Friedag, you probably meant your question to be rhetorical because I am sure you know what literature is.:) I cannot speak for Veer of course, but I only meant that WFE is narrative and plot driven. I consider those devices to be lighter weight than the devices used in what is usually thought to be "literary" fiction, e.g. development of characters and in-depth ideas. I do not think literary fiction (i.e. literature) is necessarily superior - a lot of it is boring and pretentious, as you cited with the Booker Prize nominations and winners.

I was going to add that the graphic sexual descriptions in WFE were enough to make it non-literary, but then I remembered "Lolita," and Henry Miller's and D. H. Lawrence's books were once considered pornographic although now they are considered literature. Maybe you are right - "what the heck is literature?" :^)

I think I like WFE better now than when I read it two or three years ago. I am not a prude, usually, but I was quite astonished at the women in my book group who did not bat an eye over the sexual content but got all riled up about the animal abuse. I remember that some were aghast at the thought of the goats kept to feed the big cats and that Marlena's horse after it was put down became cat food too.

I have a question that never got answered to my satisfaction in my previous book group discussion. Who did the deed on Uncle Al?

lydia, I agree with your explanation of Gruen's lack of 'literary' skills in W for E. In no way (above) did I say that it failed as a work of 'great literature', which it obviously wasn't meant to be. It is just that is was not very well written, although an enjoyable enough quick read.
There seem to be so many 'issues' these days with what might be described a 'love of animals' that their place in our lives/the food chain is taken out of all proportion. Quite a large group of folk in the UK give far more money to animal related charities than they do to 'human' ones, spending huge amounts on keeping aging and suffering pets alive while at the same time often living in squalid conditions themselves and having great difficulty in forming meaningful relationships with fellow humans. I have just returned from the funeral of one such person. The mourners all had to stay on the lawn as the house had an overpowering smell of ancient beasts. The wife had kept up to 80 cats, goats, donkeys, assorted one-legged birds etc with a total disregard for basic hygiene. Of course, I do realise this could be seen as some sort of psychological problem.
Re the death of Uncle Al. There seemed to be so many people who bore him a grudge that maybe it was a case of 'Murder on the Orient Express' syndrome.

Interesting that you wonder who killed Uncle Al - to me, it seemed obvious that it was Rosie the elephant, but perhaps I missed something...? And yes, a lot of people had a lot of reasons to kill him. For some reason, I just assumed it was Rosie.

And yes, I agree with Lydia about WFE not being particularly "literary" - but do you think that was her intent? I am guessing that Gruen just wrote the novel without much thought into whether it was "literary" or not. It is a very "book-club"by book - issues-driven et al. But perhaps its plot line and characters are too easy to follow to be "literary" for some people.

For me, literary fiction is a book that asks you the reader to work quite hard at it in some ways - not a straight forward narrative etc. (Think books that play with time, space, PoV etc..) But you may well have another definition for this.. Share?

Here is a link that might be useful: One Definition of Literary Fiction

Rosie killed August, Marlena's husband. Uncle Al was found strangled and rolled up in the canvas of the big top. Yes, a lot of people could have wanted him dead. Never thought of it, Veer, but the "Murder on the Orient Express" idea is a good one. I thought it was Grady, Uncle Al's "bouncer," but now I am now sure why I thought that. Grady acted like a brute but he gave indications that he was really in sympathy with the rest of the workers.

Make that Earl, not Grady, who was Uncle Al's bouncer. I get some of the peripheral characters mixed up. That is a problem I have with Gruen's characterizations of people, her cast is so large it must have been hard for her to make each of them distinguishable. Some like Jacob, Walter, Camel, and Marlena (because she's the main human female character) are vividly enough drawn, although I have a problem with Marlena. She is mainly pink sequins in my mind.

...I have a problem with Marlena. She is mainly pink sequins in my mind.LOL! Marlena is nebulous to me, too. We know about her pink sequin fixation and her bobbing foot. How many times was that foot mentioned? But I have no idea what she was supposed to have looked like or what made her tick. We're told that she is glamorous and talented and a 'natural' with horses. Some of her performances are described with the liberty horses and with Rosie, and they seem fine, except...I don't know. I guess I don't want to be told; I want to discern it, about Marlena, for myself, with good reason. It's curious to me that she is such a 'flat' character. I came to this thread to ask if anyone else thought so, and you've already partially answered it, Lydia.

In that respect -- with the characterizations, as you say, Lydia -- Gruen's writing inexperience is showing. I wonder if Gruen, as Woodnymph mentioned above, was already thinking cinematically, where you only need a bare outline of what your characters might look like or how they react.

Veer, is that part of what you mean about WfE not being very well written?

As for litrachure: I fear it is too damned subjective for me to ever get a handle on. Some of the worst crapola I've ever read is supposedly literature, and some of the best has been as well. I can say the same about genre books. I figure it has more to do with taste than anything else. However, I do realize that literary fiction is thought to be more innovative and challenging. Some genuinely is, no doubt; but I highly suspect some is just gimmickry and some is opacity for the sake of opacity -- the pretentiousness Lydia mentioned. I also think it tends to be a cliquish thing: writers like to think they and their writing are special or unique, and readers like to think they have discriminating taste; thus it's a way of setting up barriers so hoi polloi can't trespass onto what they think only they can understand (whether they actually do or not). If you can't tell already, I was soured somewhat by many years of professors and others claiming to know what was 'good' for me to read.

Liz, taking your criteria of no straight forward narrative -- playing with time, space, PoV, etc -- how would you place Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife, if you've read it?

A question folks, near the end the phone call that Marlena made when she left Jacob waiting ,after she says "wish me luck" who did she ring?. I have an idea, does any one else.

I liked the mystery from the the beginning as to who killed who and who had he been protecting all these years?? For me well done.

Junek, I have the impression she was calling a contact with Ringling Brothers. It is just an impression though. Who do you think?

Friedag, I am glad that I am not alone in thinking Marlena was sequins...and foot.:) My book group though had definite ideas how she looked and did not seem to care why she acted the way she did.

I have also felt that literary fiction readers like to be cliquish, to set themselves apart. There is a marketing motive to do so also. If a book cannot be popular, then it can be "superior" by the estimation of those who hate popular books. The Bloomsbury group was such a set. They rebelled against what Victorians liked for they wanted to be modern and different.

So what genre is WFE? It is not literary, I think we agree. It is not wholly a mystery, although there are a couple of whodunnits. It is a historical, partly, and it is partly today's topical contemporary issues, projected backwards. Sometimes I think there should be a genre called "For Book Club Readers." There already is but it is not formally named such.

What genre is WFE? I'd just call it popular/easy read fiction. And nothing wrong with that but, for me, it's not ideal for an in-depth discussion. A good enough 'tale' but very flat characters. The baddies are really nasty and/or mad, the female is blond and obviously sexy, the circus workers are down-trodden but, under their rough exteriors beat hearts of gold and we all get dewy-eyed over the animals. And Jacob is the hero, but are we given a picture of what he looks like? So we must assume he is tall, dark and handsome.
An interesting point that no-one has brought up and I assume actually happened in the circus world, is the nasty habit Uncle Al and his henchmen had of throwing the halt and lame off the moving train while it travelled over high bridges.

Interesting point about the Bloomsbury Group, Lydia. They seemed to have been quite a nasty and promiscuous set of individuals and intellectual snobs, ready to despise the 'popular' writers of their day. I think now only Virginia Wolf is still read. A similar trio in the '20's were the Sitwell family, Osbert, Edith and Sacheverell. Edith 'proclaimed' her poetry through a megaphone from behind a heavy curtain and her brothers' books are very heavy-going.
They would all have made excellent candidates for the Booker Prize.

Gruen mentions several times that Jacob was a redhead with freckles when he was young. Old Jacob recalled how relieved he was that the baby Marlena was pregnant with in 1931 was born with red hair, but he would have loved and raised him anyway.

I concur that WfE is probably best categorized as popular fiction, but I think your point of 'For Book Club Readers' is apt, Lydia. There seems to be more and more of this style of book written for that market. I can think of several recent ones, including The Help, One Thousand White Women, and Peace Like a River. Maybe it started with Oprah and her imprimatur, but in any event it really burgeoned after the advent of her book club. There's still the old prejudice around, though, that if a novel is about middle-aged male navel-gazing, it is 'literature', but if a novel is about young female angst, it is chicklit.

Vee, what is your "ideal for an in-depth discussion"? I'm curious. Do you think we are not coming up with enough to discuss in Water for Elephant? It seems to me that we aren't doing too badly.:-) At least it's not one of those threads where all anyone has to say about a book is "I loved it" or "I loathed it."

Sorry I missed the red hair and freckles. I wonder if it is how Jacob is depicted in the movie?

Well Frieda, you have got me over this particular discussion. We certainly seem to be coming up with enough to say about a book I found rather unmemorable. ;-)
I'm not au fait with book clubs, they are not such a popular meeting ground as in the US, although I understand one has been started in our area where no particular book is read or discussed and time is taking up with local gossip. Perhaps a witches coven would describe it better.

With the media playing such a powerful role in today's society, would it not be strange if some novelists did not take advantage of this fact and thus gear their novels, (especially firsts), to the big screen? Follow the money....

Veer, I have not seen the movie. Although it has been out for awhile, I have not heard very much about it either. I read the reviews at IMDb and found the critics did not like it much but the moviegoers are mostly enthusiastic. A couple of posters to this discussion have mentioned that Jacob's role is played by a dark, handsome actor (Robert Pattinson) - as you predicted, Veer. There must not be a currently popular actor who fit the book's description of Jacob as red haired, so they got an ex-vampire instead (Pattinson's most famous part).

>"At least it's not one of those threads where all anyone has to say about a book is "I loved it" or "I loathed it.""

I wish I could have RPers at one of my real life book group meetings. You all can discuss anything with intelligence!

Veer, that is funny about the witches' coven (disguised as a book club!). Our group does get around to saying I loved it or I loathed it about our book choice, but gossip is the main feature of our meetings too. Some of the group even call themselves "witches" or the word that rhymes with it.

June, please don't forget to tell us who you think Marlena was calling when she asked Jacob to wish her luck. I finally located the passage, but I had lost the context so I had to back up and reread that chapter. It didn't help me, thus I'm thinking it must allude to something even further back that didn't register with me -- unless it was, as Lydia says, someone she could contact about getting a job with Ringling Bros.

Vee, re redlighting, that act of throwing nonproductive or unwanted people off the train: The word itself definitely came from circus jargon. I had to look it up to make sure. (Does anyone else think Gruen could/should have provided a glossary?) I don't know if it was done in quite so dramatic a way as Gruen describes; the sites I went to said it was done mainly when the train was going slowly, before it got up to full speed -- the people hit the ground, perhaps with a hard landing, but most were able to get up unhurt (or with minor injuries), yet there was no way they could catch up with the train and get aboard again. If bodies of maimed or dead people were littering either sides of the tracks or under the trestles, surely there would have been some questions asked by the folk who found the bodies and authorities would have been alerted. I know it was the Depression and there were things that often went unreported, but if it happened with great enough frequency, there would have been some sort of outcry -- people were people during the Depression, too, and they all weren't cowed by circumstance.

My father, as a teenager in the early 1930s, did some railriding. He and his buddies would hitchhike to Chicago, then hop a train to New Orleans and then hop another for the return to Chicago. (From New Orleans, he made it to Los Angeles and on to Seattle before retracing.) They could do it legally in an empty freight car for a penny a mile, but of course many didn't have the funds. The legals would hide the illegals under clothes and blankets, but the "tosser" often managed to find them and, true to his job title, he tossed them off the train, physically. According to daddy, he was tossed off a few times himself. Daddy referred to it as redlighting, so the circus phrase was in the vernacular at the time.

I didn't get sappy about the animals in Gruen's story as much as I did about Camel and Walter being thrown off the train while it was on the trestle. Maybe such things happened, maybe they didn't -- I'll allow Gruen license, anyway, although I wonder why she thought it was necessary to kill them off. But that poor little dog, Queenie, without Walter... And what makes it particularly affecting to me was the earlier scene when Queenie was lost and Walter would have missed the train to look for her, if Jacob hadn't physically thrown Walter onto the moving train. I hate being manipulated by a writer with poignant animal scenes, but I have to admit Gruen pulled a good 'un on me.

>"Does anyone else think Gruen could/should have provided a glossary?"

Yes a glossary would have been helpful. I found when I looked up some words in a regular dictionary that none of the listed meanings applied. "Redlighting" was one of those. I did find it in a "slang" dictionary. It was a brutal practice whether it was in the dramatic form Sara Gruen depicted or in the milder form you related, Friedag.

>"I wonder why she thought it was necessary to kill them [Walter and Camel] off."

I wondered the same thing. I got the feeling that she had to tie up loose ends. Killing them was easier and more exciting than having to come up with a more pleasant scenario.

Junek mentioned that there was no Uncle Al in the movie. I can see combining the two characters of August and Uncle Al because they really are very similar in the book, and that would be one less actor the moviemakers would have to pay. But it paints a different picture from the book and is one of those "shibboleths" you pointed out, Friedag. Those who want to weasel out of reading the book by watching the movie are going to get caught with their pants down. By the way, I had to look up that word too.:)

What do you all think about the references to anti-Semitism? They almost seem to me to be thrown in gratuitously. It was the 1930's after all, and Jacob was Polish (Catholic). I was uneasy when that was introduced, but I do not remember much being made of it.

Seems to be the slow season here at RP -- the folk must be off on vacations or working in their gardens -- but I worry that we might have scared off some potential posters who actually liked/enjoyed Water for Elephants. I hope not, though. I'll stand with anyone who wants to defend WfE. In spite of my awareness of its flaws, I did enjoy reading it and I'm enjoying discussing it.

Vee, if you're still following, do you think you might've preferred and related better to WfE if Gruen had set her 1930s circus story in England with English or European characters? Being Canadian, Gruen could have gone that direction rather than south of the Canadian border. I got the thought from another English friend. :-)

Lydia, I didn't know what to make of the antisemitic references except that maybe they were supposed to indicate that Jacob wasn't "that sort" of man.

The upthread bits about literature and nonliterature caused me to bring out Harold Bloom (critic, Yale professor, and author of The Western Canon). His definition (partial) of literature: One mark...[of] a literary work is strangeness that we either never altogether assimilate, or that becomes such a given that we are blinded to its idiosyncrasies. He goes on to give examples of Dante for the first type of strangeness and Shakespeare for the second type.

All well and good, I suppose. Apparently all literary-type writers since have been trying to achieve one or the other strangeness. I remember now why literature classes made me scratch imaginary itches. ;-)

Friedag, yes the remarks seem to have been today's political correctness straying into the 1930's story, almost an apology from Gruen that she had to use them to make her characters more "authentic." But she could not bear to have the readers think that her hero, young Jacob, would have accepted such talk.

I have already said that I liked WFE better on second reading. Now that the first flush of hyperbole has waned, I think more thoughtful readers have determined that WFE is neither as wonderful as the ravers have claimed nor as bad as the detractors have countered. I doubt that Sara Gruen wrote it with any "literary" intent. I think she meant it as entertainment, and in that she succeeded in pleasing many readers but of course not all.

I do not think WFE is so lightweight that there is nothing in it to talk about. On the contrary, it has engendered many lengthy discussions in real life and at many Internet sites. Friedag, have you read the Goodreads WFE discussion? I think it is very enjoyable.

I am sure that I read that one of our readers did not have the black and white circus photos' that ran right thru the book, a shame as they are very special.

My copy has a three page "author's note" at the end, I found that especially interestiing.
Did others' have the same???

I found this website filled to the brim of circus-related history and associated photos and spent a pleasant few minutes messing about it.

Readers who enjoyed the B/W pics in their edition of WfE may like this site... I know that the photos in my edition made the story pop for me. :-)

Here is a link that might be useful: Circus Historical Society

Sorry to be so late to the discussion, life intervened and I only finished the book last night :)

After all the bookgroup-darling hype surrounding WfE, I was very pleasantly surprised by it. I really liked it a lot, I liked the hopping back and forth between the old Jacob and his younger self, and I was fascinated by the descriptions of circus life -- particularly as I once dated a professional clown (he was working as a teacher when we dated, but he'd traveled with a small circus for a couple of years and we went to the circus quite a bit. I haven't been to anything circus-related other than Cirque du Soleil in over 20 years. And just for the record, yes, clowns do creep me out a bit).

I thought she wrote the old Jacob very well, though I agree the ending was rather pie-in-the-sky. However, as an idealized ending, I liked the symmetry of it. I didn't find Marlena a total cipher -- with the foot-tapping and pointed toes, I pictured someone compact and focused and certainly not stupid or low-class. She came from Boston originally, and fled to avoid marrying a chinless banker of some sort, so I don't think she was uneducated. The lack of description didn't bother me.

Uncle Al was utterly slimy, and August was believably mentally ill. I thought both got what they deserved at the end, and I liked the way the author led us in one direction at the beginning (and I would have had no qualms if Marlena HAD killed August - he was awful) and then told the real story at the end.

I thought it was a great summer book, not too heavy, moved along quickly, I learned a few things along the way. Overall, I was very pleasantly surprised. And I LOVED the elephant! I couldn't imagine how they were going to manage a happily-ever-after with 12 horses and a pachyderm, and I really liked the way the author pulled a believable life for Jacob and Marlena from the story.

My only gripe would be the redlighting of Camel and Walter. I can see this plot device working nicely to tie up the loose end of Camel, but I was quite sad she tossed Walter out with him. I liked that character quite a bit, and he could have easily gone to Ringling with Jacob and Marlena. I was also disappointed that Jacob wasn't more visibly upset about Walter's death. I thought he'd feel guilty, since he was the one intended to be tossed off that trestle.

Overall, I really liked the book a lot. I noticed in the author's notes section that she intended Jacob's story to somewhat mirror the story of Jacob in the Bible. I'm not familiar with that, and so didn't notice any connections -- did anyone else?

sheriz6, I also read in the author's notes how Gruen intended her Jacob's story to parallel that of Jacob in the Bible. It had been a long time since I read or heard the Biblical Jacob's story, so I had to refresh my memory.

There are several parts to it. The first is about Jacob growing up with his twin brother Esau. Esau was favored by their father Isaac, and Jacob was his mother Rebekah's favorite. Esau because he was a few minutes older than Jacob was due the birthright from Isaac, his being the eldest son. Rebekah came up with the scheme to fool Isaac into giving the birthright to Jacob. (I do not see any parallel there to WFE's Jacob.)

The second part is about Jacob seeking a wife. The one he wants is Rachel, but Rachel's father tricks Jacob into marrying his elder daughter Leah. Then the father allows Jacob to marry Rachel too. Jacob also acquires a couple of concubines. With his wives and concubines Jacob sires twelve sons and at least one daughter. The progeny of the twelves sons become the "Twelve Tribes of Israel," Israel being the name given to Jacob by the angel. (I do not see any parallels here either.)

During Jacob's middle years he saw visions and had dreams. One of those is about the ladder to heaven, known as Jacob's Ladder. Another time Jacob wrestles with an angel. (I do not remember WFE's Jacob experiencing any visions, so again I do not see any parallels.)

The last part of Jacob's story is after his favorite son Joseph is sold by his own brothers into slavery in Egypt. Many years later because of a famine in Canaan the other sons are sent by Joseph to Egypt to get grain where, lo and behold, they find Joseph has become viceroy and he helps them out of a scrape. The sons report back to Jacob (Israel) that Joseph is alive, and Jacob decides to pack up his whole family (about 70 people) and go down to Egypt. Therefore, Jacob before he dies gets to be with his favorite son again. When he died at 147 years old, Jacob's sons embalmed and carried his body back to Canaan for burial. (Except for the famine part which could correspond to the Great Depression of the 1930s, I again do not pick up any connections.)

I simply do not know what Gruen means by saying she wanted "to mirror" her story with the Bible story. I am either missing something or Gruen is just about the most subtle writer ever! I need help understanding what she meant.

Lydia, thank you so much for the Jacob story -- I definitely needed a refresher and I agree, I don't see any clear parallels. Perhaps she just pulled random imagery from the story -- Jacob's ladder is up to the roof of a moving train car, Leah is the elephant, and Rachel is Marlena with her 12 horses (12 tribes). I'm just not sure what the author's intent was here at all.

Chiming in to say that I, too, missed the parallel with the Biblical Jacob, despite giving it much thought.