Sunday, November 18, 2007

Beware of "Water for Elephants"

What to do when you begin the latest book group selection--a best-seller-- and find that you hate it? I had good vibes for Sara Gruen's Water For Elephants, anticipating a good read about a young man's adventures with an itinerant third-rate circus traveling the byways of America back in the 1930's Depression. I like trains and I liked circuses, but this book with its cliche characters, tiresome plot, predictable events, and banal dialogue that just goes on and on is a major disappointment. How could The New York Times praise it and 612 Amazon readers give it five stars when it's obviously such a chore to read? Not all Amazon readers were fooled, however. In 1 or 2 star reviews they were critical of the poor writing, while others reeled away from the animal cruelty depicted or a really creepy description of a strip-tease artiste plying her trade.. . I've given up on the book after about sixty pages. Here are a couple of Amazon two-star reviews, the first from neighboring Fairlawn--five minutes' drive away. I feel vindicated. For the one-star reviews, go to Amazon. They offer valuable advice.

By M. G. Jamison (Fairlawn, OH USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Last week, halfway through my own reading of WATER FOR ELEPHANTS, I decided to check the customer reviews to see if any other readers were rolling their eyes as much as I was, and, to my surprise, not many were. 900 hundred reviews and most of them were five stars! What seemed paper-thin and kind of ridiculous to me was "beautiful and moving" to nearly everyone else. Everything about this book seemed like a cheat--like the warning you get on a bag of chips--"contents may settle"--to explain how there are only three chips in a family-sized bag. Even the inclusion of the period photographs seemed to excuse the writer for not making clear enough pictures of her own. It's not just the implausibility of the story either (elephant speaks only Polish). If the details are right, I can be drawn into even the most ridiculous of stories (THE RUINS and THE TERROR come to mind)), but the paragraphs here are so flimsy (usually no more than three sentences long) that I never pictured (or believed) a word of it. I'd close the book and pick it up a few hours later and have absolutely no idea what had happened. It was an "easy read," but I don't know many writers who would consider that a compliment.



2.0 out of 5 stars Sara Gruen owes William Styron some royalties, July 26, 2007
By Craig Keller (Chicago, IL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I rarely pick up best-sellers, but I felt compelled to torture myself through this one after Gruen was awarded -- in a baffling but sickeningly telling example of how lowest-common-denominator and bottom-line the book publishing business has become -- $5 million for her next two, as yet un-penned books. I've got $10 that says they involve touchy-feely maudlin interaction between people and animals and cliched romanctic treacle. I wouldn't be shocked to see a unicorn rear its head.

This novel is cliche and a pastiche of formula coopted from other, better books from cover to cover. The dialogue is PAINFUL. Every line feels prepackaged for the movie studio executive Gruen undoubtedly set out to placate before writing one word. Worse, while characters speak in cliched colloquial style, it remains ONE style. There is little to distinguish one voice from another. The plot, too, proceeds along a rote path -- I was predicting nearly every turn of it paragraphs, and then pages, ahead of time.

Gruen is justly commended for her research into circus history, which is the only original element she brings to the table. She clearly delights in it, though even that reads like dutiful observations culled from a torrent of microfiche and historical society archives. It's clear Gruen has spent a lot of time with her nose in books, and derives her style, such as it is, from other sources -- most notably, and unforgivably, William Styron's "Sophie's Choice," from which she shamelessly pilfers the very specific dynamics of that novel's central ill-fated love triangle, around which all else revolves. Gruen's Nathan is an equestrian director named August (interesting to note there are six letters in each name), and he's a Jewish paranoid schizophrenic. When Gruen's protoganist -- surprise! a young, precocious, naive but quickly maturing lover-boy bred from earnest all-American stock -- finds himself caught between the couple (Sophie is renamed Marlena here), all hell breaks loose ("all hell breaks loose" incidentally is a cliched phrase that appears several times throughout the book -- consider my usage a wry homage).

Do yourself a favor and buy the original, not the infantile copy.


The New York Times
was generally favorable. 916 readers so far have reviewed it online at Amazo. 612 of those gave the book five stars (tops). But over 50 disagreed, awarding only 1 or 1 stars.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I'm with you. It's been many long years since I read Sophie's Choice (the year it came out) but I was immediately taken back to charismatic yet menacing Nathan, fragile Sophie (of whom Marlena is a thin reproduction) and earnest, bumbling yet good-hearted Stingo and his grown-up counterpart the narrator. The complexity and anguish of divided loyalties which Styron wove throughout his powerful book are present here in their cartoon form. August is very bad and Jacob is very good and brave and Marlena is...well...female and pretty and awfully nice. Good luck, Reese Witherspoon. I would also like to remind Ms. Gruen that, while it is very commendable to put in historic slang (albeit slang from all over the decade) one must also avoid using modern slang if one wishes to create an authentic atmosphere. Then again, in this paint-by-numbers Hallmark circus, inept slang is only one drumroll reminding us every second that it's just a book, folks, just a kind of silly, derivative book.

claudette McCormack said...

Why wasn't this Gruen woman sued for plagiarism? This book was a total rip off from Sophies Choice!! I was absolutely amazed that her manuscript was not only accepted for reading by some underling at the
publishing company,but then passed on to an editor for eventual publication! ( and subsequent movie deal) We are not talking about a few paragraphs here either, but basically the entire story; like they say, only the names have been changed....
Claudette