<p>I stumbled across two interesting interpretations of the title on the Amazon Discussion board. If you recall, we are told at the beginning of the book that it is impossible to carry water for elephants, because no matter how much you try to bring, it is never enough. One Amazon reader wrote: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another Amazon reader believed that the title “Water for Elephants” reflected the Jacob-dementia theory. He wrote that title is a clue that the story is a figment of Jacob’s imagination because we know that carrying water for elephants never really happened in circuses—it is a false claim by “pretenders” like Mr. McGuinty. Jacob’s story, born of dementia, is nonsense, just like carrying water for elephants. Here’s the post (which includes a unique Marlena-Catherine twist):</p>
<p>^ Ah, a logical, rational person amongst us! Welcome! We do tend to get happily carried away with our analysis. And here I was just about to suggest that if you read Water for Elephants backward, it says “Paul is dead”…</p>
<p>(Sorry–a [bad] joke for the over-40 crowd. :))</p>
<p>I think Gruen wanted to express the idea that after Camel becomes incapacitated, he is treated like an animal. At one point in the book, August looks at the half-starved, mistreated camels:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not unlike how Jacob and Walter are greeted by Camel when they drag him out from behind the trunks at the end of a long day. </p>
<p>Not only that, note this dialogue:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did anyone else notice that August smokes Camels? That’s mentioned twice (p. 103 and p. 115), so I suspect it’s deliberate. Again, I think Gruen wants to reinforce the notion that Camel (the man) is “used up” and then discarded.</p>
<p>I am a newbie to this book club. I read Major Pettigrew and finished Water for Elephants a few weeks ago. I have to say that I am so enjoying all of the posts about the book. I found the book really easy to read, but I can see by the posts that I have to start taking better notes! Thanks to everyone for their insights and some of the references have made me really ponder about certain parts. I am so looking forward to the next book!!</p>
<p>Welcome on board NJ Mom! Like you, I am a relatively newcomer, having joined in with Major Pettigrew. I can’t wait to read Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet for our next discussion.</p>
<p>(Here’s a preliminary thought for August - I notice we’ve had a good string in a row now of new / best selling / trade paperback type novels. How about, for our next pick, we switch it up. It’s due course to go back to a “classic”. Or, in the opposite direction, maybe we can dwell on something postmodern. Move away from the Kindle top sellers vain or from the NY Times Trade Paperback list.</p>
<p>I thought the book was an easy read, and I enjoyed it. And the ending was sweet, even if not all that realistic. Perhaps it will help get me back to some reading hobbies, beyond just CC </p>
<p>The animal cruelty did bother me. But to me it was much more tragic to read about people being mistreated and even thrown from a train.</p>
<p>I was surprised at the level of qualms expressed regarding animal and human abuse in this thread. I thought that they would already have been a given. I don’t feel that a reader needs to limit him or herself to “feel good” books only. In fact, I find books that tackle difficult subject matters with skill to be the best of them all, and I encourage the reader to push themselves to wade through difficult matters.</p>
<p>There’s a reason why the genre of “fiction” exists. Authors will of course write stories that are not real, and are not meant to be real. And often you’ll find that the author him or herself are exactly putting that in there for a reason. For example, maybe Gruen is an animal lover, so writes a book with animal abuse to demonstrate consequences. Likewise, a woman author may base an entire fictional novel devoted to violence towards women or a Jewish author may write a book set in the Holocaust. (And of course, to be honest, as far as gruesome or un PC scenes in novels go - Gruen’s book may well be Dr. Seuss!)</p>
<p>Yes, I think Reese Witherspoon is both too old and too smart for the role. But Reese will probably imbue Marlena with more substance and complexity than Sara Gruen did, which can only be a good thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m open to almost anything, although the new releases do tend to have broader appeal and draw more participants. We’ll have lots of time to discuss possibilities in June, after Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet!</p>
<p>“I don’t feel that a reader needs to limit him or herself to “feel good” books only.” - I agree. I liked the book and am glad that I read it. </p>
<p>It just surprised me how often I read about the sensitivity to animal cruelty when it pales compared to the human tragedy. (I do get the part about animals being defenseless. It just did not catch my attention near as much as the serious woes of the depression.)</p>
<p>I have never read a book about the circus before, and naturally, had never encountered “redlighting”. In all honesty, I thought the intention was to throw people off the train, and wonder if it was to kill or maim them.</p>
<p>Of course, Camel was in no condition to survive being tossed anywhere, and I hope “redlighting” was not as gruesome as presented in the book. </p>
<p>Just read on another blog, that Jacob’s placement in a nursing was sort of “redlighting” him from life.</p>
<p>Mary13- Kudos on another successful book discussion. Won’t it be interesting to read the movie reviews?</p>
<p>Ignatius-many thanks for that link, with all those additional links to book reviews.
About a month ago, I saw the Entertainment magazine “A” rating of “Emily, Alone” bought the “sample” chapter immediately via Kindle, then the book. The life of an e-book reader these days. It happens fast!</p>
<p>After reading the book, I checked out the Amazon reviews, and they were decidedly more mixed than the newspaper criticis who all seemed to think this is O’Nan’s best.</p>
<p>I wonder if someone doesn’t know the life of an elderly 80sh year old woman would relate as much as I did to this character.
Let me know, Ignatius what you think if you read it. It’s very much a “woman’s book”! </p>
<p>From one review:
" Emily is as authentic a character as any who ever walked the pages of a novel. She could be our grandmother, our mother, our next-door neighbor, our aunt. Our self. Her ups and downs are our own. Despite the sadness of inevitable loss, Emily delights in comic observations. "</p>
<p>I just got back from seeing Water for Elephants at the movies with my H. The critics’ reviews I have read have been very mixed. I don’t want to say too much until others see the movie, but I did like (most) of it, and so did my H. There were many things that were different in the movie. Some of the changes were okay and some things were better in the book. I did have a hard time separating what I already knew from the book from what was happening on the screen. I thought Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson both did a good job and Reese was believable as Marlena. I thought Christoph Waltz, as August, was great…and Rosie was wonderful.</p>
<p>Great review BU. Would be interesting to know if reading the book enhances the movie experience or is more distracting. Only way to know that is to compare with someone who has not read the book.
Had your husband read the book?
On a four star rating system- what you would rate book ----movie ?</p>
<p>SJCM - My H had not read the book. He actually liked the movie quite a bit, but feels it fell short of being a great movie. He’s a bit of a history buff and he enjoyed learning about the circus story from the depression era. When he was little his mom told him of the excitement when the Ringling Brothers came to town and the movie helped make her story real. He felt the romance part of the movie was a little too Holywood, meaning more convienient for the story, rather than thoroughly developed. I asked him to rate it and he gives it a 3 out of 4 stars.</p>
<p>I was definitely distracted from the movie having read the book. There were many changes. The earlier discussion on this thread talked about the lack of development of the characters, and I felt the characters were developed even less in the movie. I think I need a 5 star rating to give the movie 3 stars and feel the same way about the book. If I had to rate on a 4 star rating, about 2 and 3/4 of my stars would be filled. I’m glad I saw the movie and would recommend it to others.</p>
:))</p>
</p>