<p>^ LOL, ignatius. Well, after ripping Sara Gruen for her poor writing, I figured I’d do her a good turn and assume that her work had some literary “layers” to it. I’ll stay out here on my limb, as precarious as it is.</p>
<p>And on the subject of Gruen’s writing, I found a list of “Totally Unauthorized” discussion questions online. What’s interesting is that the questions are loaded—and not in Gruen’s favor. I can see why they’re “unauthorized.” For example:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Historical novels are often overpraised, because good research can mask or distract you from flaws in the plot, characterization or structure of a book. Do you think Water for Elephants deserved all the praise quoted in the front matter of the paperback edition? Or do you believe some critics might have been willing to overlook its flaws because of interesting material that Sara Gruen turned up in her research?</p>
<p>^Amusing link to unauthorized Reading group guide. </p>
<p>And, Ignatius funny post about Mary out on a limb with the symbolism post, but I am out there on that limb with Mary.
Mary elevated the book in my opinion, with these additional “layers”. So Mary, I’m out there with ya’. </p>
<p>I’m relieved to read that others didn’t recognize the biblical references either, even after doing some research and reading Jacob’s life, I didn’t see it as a very large part of this book. Ok, Sara’s Jacob has to wait 7 years for something ? the biblical Jacob waited 14 years before her married his beloved Rachel. Yes, both Jacob’s left their homeland/ </p>
<p>Ok, so perhaps the movie won’t be the awful creation I expect.
Read this in Bookpage, yesterday, Gruen is on the cover. She says the movie VEERS from the book! So there’s hope… </p>
<p>“Gruen was also “absolutely blown away” by the “fabulous” script for the film, by Oscar-nominated screenwriter Richard LaGravenese.
“He combined a few scenes and combined a few characters and it works,” Gruen says. “There are places where it veers away from the book, but then it comes back. I’m really excited to see it.”</p>
<p>I think one symbol in the book that Gruen handles nicely is the most basic one: water. </p>
<p>As Jacob’s adventure begins, he is drawn by water: “From somewhere nearby I hear water trickling, and I pick my way toward it, guided by the moonlight” (p.23). He submerges his feet in a stream, which numbs the pain of his blisters, but “eventually causes its own ache.” This seems to foreshadow Jacob’s unfolding story—he immerses himself in the circus to numb the pain of his parents’ death, but as a result, is subjected to other “aches.”</p>
<p>The lack of (clean, healthy) water is a constant problem at the circus:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>“The water at the bottom of the horses’ buckets is murky and has oats floating in it. But it’s water all the same, so I carry the buckets outside, remove my shirt and dump what’s left over my arms, head and chest” (p. 79). </p></li>
<li><p>“August, it’s damned near ninety degrees. We can’t leave them without at least water” (p. 118).</p></li>
<li><p>“I grasp my pounding head with both hands. What I wouldn’t give for about a gallon of water—“ (p. 144)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Since water generally symbolizes purity and life, its shortage at the Benzini Brothers circus reflects the sordid and sometimes deadly behavior within. </p>
<p>There are water metaphors from beginning to end: When Rosie and Marlena first perform, “the Spec is forced to continue around them, parting like water around a stone” (p. 164). Near the end of the book, when the wounded Jacob crawls through the train and nearly gives up, he says, “It’s how drowning people must feel in the last few seconds, when they finally stop fighting and sink into the water’s embrace” (p, 298).</p>
<p>There is one water reference, however, that didn’t make sense to me. Jacob describes the intensity of his feelings for the animals in his charge: “A love for these animals wells up in me suddenly, a flash flood, and there it is, solid as an obelisk and viscous as water” (p. 146).</p>
<p>The odd thing about this simile is that water isn’t particularly viscous (unlike, for example, honey or oil). ‘Viscous water” is not, well, something I’d care to drink. I can understand love being “solid as an obelisk”—that makes sense—but what does it mean to say his love is “viscous as water”?</p>
<p>I really enjoyed Water for Elephants. I read it a few years ago, and just reread it. I was particularly interested in the portrait of the Depression-era circus and the description of the veterinary profession. </p>
<p>One point … the term “Ivy League” was coined in the 1930s. Do we really think it was in widespread use at that time along the lines of:</p>
<p>“the only thing my parents would have need to mortgage their house for was to pay my Ivy League tuition”</p>
<p>It seems to me that Jacob was going to VET SCHOOL at Cornell, and there simply were not very many vet schools at the time. The phrasing would have rung truer for me if it was not playing off today’s high priced prestige Ivy tuition, but rather simply vet school tuition. There are a few other references to the Ivy League in the book, but while the term was used in the 30s, the athletic conference was formed in 1954.</p>
<p>^ cnp55, You’re right. One of the discussion questions above (post #81) also mentions anachronisms (“hooking up”). </p>
<p>One anachronism that struck me was the use of the words “paranoid schizophrenia,” which Uncle Al tosses out to explain August’s behavior. I doubt that term—and the very concept of diagnosing mental illness-–was prevalent during the 1930s.</p>
<p>I don’t know a lot about the disease, but labeling August a paranoid schizophrenic seems like an insult to true sufferers. August was cruel and sadistic; that’s different. He suffered from a mental illness, that’s for sure, but to suggest that wife-beating and animal torture are symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia is wrong. John Nash, for example (A Beautiful Mind), struggled with paranoid schizophrenia—and I’m sure the rest of you could come up with names of many others who have absolutely nothing in common with the likes of August.</p>
<p>^^^ My daughter read the book before I did and mentioned being bothered by the depiction of August’s mental illness. She felt his cruelty and abusiveness were just written off. (Though maybe the circus folk wouldn’t have known any better and attributed all aberrations of normal behavior to schizophrenia.)</p>
<p>So, if … if … if Rosie has to be a symbol :), how about:</p>
<p>Ridiculous! Or maybe not! Who knows? I only know that, under the circumstances, I can’t resist posting the old poem by John Godfrey Saxe. We’re a little bit like the men of Indostan, aren’t we?:</p>
<p>Six Blind Men & the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)</p>
<p>It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.</p>
<p>The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”</p>
<p>The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, “Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”</p>
<p>The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”</p>
<p>The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”</p>
<p>The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”</p>
<p>The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”</p>
<p>And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!</p>
<p>Moral:</p>
<p>So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen.</p>
<p>I read the book so long ago that I don’t remember enough to participate in the discussion, but I did want to say that I saw the trailer for the movie last night and just loved the “look” of it. Very rich, colorful and detailed. Nothing in it of the present day Jacob–interesting choice, perhaps they want to make sure the Pattinson fans aren’t put off by the appearance an older character. Anyway, can’t wait!</p>
<p>“aI dont know a lot about the disease, but labeling August a paranoid schizophrenic seems like an insult to true sufferers. August was cruel and sadistic; thats different. He suffered from a mental illness, thats for sure, but to suggest that wife-beating and animal torture are symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia is wrong. John Nash, for example (A Beautiful Mind), struggled with paranoid schizophreniaand Im sure the rest of you could come up with names of many others who have absolutely nothing in common with the likes of August.”</p>
<p>But how do we know that Jacob isn’t the one with paranoid schizophrenia, and that August was actually a real doll? Again, Jacob isn’t the most reliable narrator - and I’m not convinced that everything he tells us about August, nor himself, is real.</p>
<p>It’s true, we can never be certain of the truth with a first person narrative. But I can’t find quite enough reason to distrust Jacob’s account. His 60 year marriage to Marlena gives him some credibility.</p>
<p>That said, it is possible that Jacob is full of baloney. After all, the circus performers who could verify his story are long dead, and we never meet Simon or any other member of the family to back up Jacob’s version of events. And as ignatius pointed out earlier, the circus story always goes hand-in-hand with a confused Old Jacob emerging from some sort of dream.</p>
<p>If you really want to turn things upside down, think about whether Jacob really ran away and joined the circus at the end. Maybe he actually died and went to heaven, sort of like Old Rose returning to the ship at the end of Titanic. :)</p>
<p>Okay - I’ll try. I think Gruen means to portray love as both solid and liquid, saying Jacob’s love is solid yet at the same time flowing/pouring out. She purposely uses the words “viscous as water” meaning not viscous at all really - hoping to capture not only the strength of Jacob’s love but also the outpouring of his love. He opens himself up to love fully once again. </p>
<p>From Wiki:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A couple quotes that seem to equate water and love:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, it goes with saying that we often hear mention of the strength of love or a solid love.</p>
<p>(Though why Gruen characterizes love as “solid as an obelisk” is beyond me. Phallic symbol, maybe - though hopefully not, since she’s referring to Jacob’s love for his animals. Good grief - I am so not a literary-symbols-type-of-reader. Can I just return to my “sometimes an elephant is just an elephant” stance? Look where delving into literary symbolism led me. I need to quit while I still can. All yours Mary. LOL)</p>
<p>Thank you for my laugh for the day, or maybe even the week. </p>
<p>It IS a mighty odd object to choose in that context…Guess we’ll just say that Gruen meant that Jabcob’s love was as substantial and unshakeable as a stone tower, and leave it at that. ;)</p>
<p>That’s a great explanation re Jacob’s love as both solid and liquid, simultaneously stable and flowing. Thanks!</p>
<p>Welcome AlwaysInterested - Just curious why you wouldn’t like Reese as Marlena?
I, agree, it will be fun to compare the book and movie, and will be the first time the CC book discussion has had a movie tie in! </p>
<p>Anyone want to venture into the meaning of the title ?</p>
<p>I envisioned Ethan Hawke as August. Not sure I’m really looking forward to Christoph Waltz as August. Reese Witherspoon seems to old to play Marlena.</p>
<p>I enjoyed the book and took it at face value. A light read if one doesn’t read between the lines.</p>
<p>I think Reese’s physical description matches my picture of Marlena, but at age 36 she seems older than the book character. She’s ten years older that Rob Pattison - more disparate in age than I assumed the book characters to be. Interesting casting. I do think she can act - always a plus. Maybe it’s carried off so well in the movie as to be a non-issue.</p>
<p>The complaint used to be that older male actors were paired with ingenues/starlets. Interesting turn-around here, at any rate.</p>
