I just finished reading The Story Of Edgar Sawtelle. It’s a book I resisted for quite awhile, at least partly because Bookdwarf was so enthusiastic about it, and I just didn’t want to admit that she’s always right about these sorts of things.
Another factor that scared me off was that the book contains dogs. That immediately makes me think it’s one of those dog books – you know, of interest only to dog fanciers. It’s not. I’m pretty sure that people who like anything with dogs in it will like this book. After all, it contains dogs. But it’s not the sort of thing that appeals only to them. It will also appeal to novel-lovers. It’s a tale of family and secrets and betrayal, a northern Wisconsin sort of Hamlet mixed with Lear, a story of almosts, of near-breakthroughs in communication and understanding and perfection.
“The Story Of Edgar Sawtelle” uses the relationships – sometimes beautifully tender and joyful – between people and dogs to reflect more clearly the relationship between humans. Just as even imperfect communication between humans and dogs requires years of training and practice, the mute Edgar is stymied by his own imperfect understanding of the world and by other people’s inability to grasp what he’s saying. And of course, more generally, everyone fails to communicate or hides what should most be unearthed and shared.
No, there’s no happy ending there. Nice dogs, though.
Secretly Ironic 
Does anyone remember how John Sawtelle died. Could Claude have killed him too?
LikeLike
Loved the reading of the book…hated the ending…….agree with Aaron’s wife that Page and Claude cooperated in Gar’s death and Page had self-interest at heart when he stayed at the farm following Gar’s death. I also agree with Mark, December 11 who noticed the memory of the Japanese incident going from Gar to Edgar – how did Gar have that memory if it had been Claude who was getting the poison??
LikeLike
no mention of that is made in the memory transfer. the only thing he references are his dying memories of claude retreating from the workshop where the murder occurred, and of course the broken spelling of the Japanese dog’s name, which was only to let edgar know that there had been other cases where dog’s had sensed “ghosts”; just trying to convince Edgar of the validity of what had happened in the rain (last few lines, p. 269). I suppose that Claude always had movitations to dispose of Gar… Gar said that whatever Claude wanted, he would find a way to take, and otherwise, why include the first chapter, if not to point to Claude’s intentions?
a weak ending. it doesnt need to be happy, but it does need to do a book justice. I’m not sure why, in a book filled with so much humanity, growth, and relationship, there are three supernatural encounters. they seem out of place and clumsy.
I really enjoyed Edgar and the dogs, even Trudy’s wit and Claude’s evil, but the end seemed like it was written by a different author – hurried and abrupt, like he was trying to escape from the novel, after giving drawn-out thoughtfullness to the previous 500 pages.
LikeLike
Thank you to everyone who offered insights and questions. This blog is like a good book group! Two bits of information:. 1) the Hachiko story is true. There is a statue of the dog in the Shibuya train station. Evidently a movie is in the works, with Richard Gere, I’m sorry to see. Why not Ken Watanabe?
2) Wroblevski’s book is the focus in a live Webcast on Oprah at 8 p.m. on January 26.
LikeLike
Never been on a blog before…so upset about the book, had to get it off my chest. Liked the story, didn’t like the writing. The author described things vividly except for the things of importance. Every chapter I had a new image of each character, never settling on what Edgar, his mother,dogs, etc. looked like. But man did I know what every cove,field,and road looked like. For every noun the author had ten adjectives for it. Really hated the end, but again, the authors decision. I decided after closing the book for the last time….I had my own ending. Hated this book. Will not recommend to anyone. Sorry.
LikeLike
Marsha, what was your ending?
LikeLike
My ending…..the Sawtelle dogs ends up at Henry Lambs. He finds Edgar to return the dogs. He helps build the kennel back and Edgar has a family again. Yes, Edgar is still alive…why not, he finally knew the truth about his father, Claude,the dogs etc., and then die? No….makes no since. I actually do not do alot of reading. Guess that is why I was so disappointed. I felt I had wasted my time on this book.
LikeLike
Yes,Marsha, I’ll take your story! Personally, I think I would have liked Edgar to share with his mother all that he learned and saw on his odyssey. Then maybe Henry could meet them, become part of their wonderful life.
LikeLike
Wow. I thought I must be the only one who somehow didn’t warm to this book – now after reading all these comments on this blog, I feel reassured. I finished reading the book last night, and it was a chore for me to get through. The writing is as the others say here – beautifully mellifluous, poetic and haunting in its imagery. But as a story, I was left waiting. I didn’t know the Hamlet reference till I came here – but Hamlet is a classic. I somehow couldn’t get the same feeling about Edgar. Mystical, magical all that the book is, and the ending was sort of in keeping with the book – too many loose plots, random connections, and the need to keep it ‘mystical’ means that the ending too would have been randomly bizarre. Disappointed I am. To read prose as poetry it’s great but as a novel, a story – zilch. Thanks to all the other commenters here.
LikeLike
I loved the book.
The ending- Not So Much!
I’m one of many people that see real life as already presenting too many tragic events. When I read, I want the fantasy of a good happy ending and a sense of prevailing justice that is transparent. It would have been very comforting to put the book down after finishing the read late last night and revel with the happiness the book could have given had there been an alternate ending and easily fall into pleasant dreams rather than with distress. I hope the author has a sequel in mind that presents a good ending for Essay and company.
LikeLike
Like so many posts before this is the first time I HAD to search out others to see what they had to say about this book. I did not read the jacket liner notes (like Oprah said not to)till nearly the end. You would had to have been living under a rock not to pick up on the Hamlet references. I was not surprised by the ending, but the pain in my heart won’t go away. I agree with Norman 12/17 and Lynn 12/24. It definitely makes you think. I will re-read it and recommend it, but will also be ready to defend my recommendation.
LikeLike
I am not an avid reader, but LOVED the book. Of course, like everyone else, disappointed in the ending and didn’t want it to end. I loved this site, reading everyone’s comments and found it answered many of my questions. I never read Hamlet, so never saw that connection. What I wondered is why did Gar spell out Hachi? I know it referenced the dog in Japan, but what was the point? Was it so Edgar could discover the letters and understand the breeding and specialness of the dogs? I also wanted to know if Forte is related to the Sawtelle dogs somehow? This book really got to me and I couldn’t wait to discuss it with someone. I read it in less than 3 days, passed it on to a co-worker. We discussed and then she found this site. How wonderful to get all this insight. Thanks, Ann (1/19) for sharing about Oprah’s live Web cast. I’ll check it out.
LikeLike
My reaction to this book is opposite of previous comments. The book began as a chore When is something going to happen! All the dog training(and I like dogs), kid growing up business was boring. That changed when Edgar went out on the run. I loved the change in pacing. The speeding up of action, the clipped writing and confusing scene changes as the book reached its climax. I almost put the book down when Edgar started to lose it and took his grief out on Almondine but I stuck with it. And of course seeing Almondine die was just too sad (she was the character I cared the most about). Looking back, I wouldn’t change a thing.
LikeLike
I found the book enchanting; the ending one written by an exhausted author.
LikeLike
To the people with questions about why Gar signed “H-A”. He was indeed telling Edgar to look for the Hachiko files. They are the beginning of the blood line of the Sawtelle dogs. However more importantly, the drawer containing the oldest files (i.e. Hachiko) is where Claude hid the bottle of poison. If Edgar had understood sooner, he would have avoided the tradgedy that ensued.
LikeLike
Sorry to post again but I have a few more things to say.
After reading ALL of the comments left here I am surprised at how many people didn’t “get” the novel. It’s not a surprise, however that the people who didn’t get it, didn’t like it. I think someone actually asked “…What was in the bottle?…” I mean, come on, did you actually read the book.
And for all of you that skimmed the book and then decided you didn’t like it…there’s your problem. This is a novel that is full of symbolism and not intended to be only skimmed through. I’m also not sure why so many of you have these “unanswered questions”. I suggest you go back and reread the novel. Pay attention to details and the symbolism, you will have a much better understanding of the novel. The author didn’t spell everything out for the reader-how boring if he would have.
LikeLike
Thank you Tanya: why don’t you teach a course on the book? For all the simple minded people who need your help to cipher the secret symbols. I guess Mr. Wroblewski writes for the sophisticated literati, not for those of us who know the more common sufferings and joys of our human condition.
LikeLike
I loved the first half of this book. Wroblewski develops characters well and uses lovely similes. Good writing makes this book a good read; however, the second half of the book left me cold. It was an allusion to Hamlet. I found it so predictable and rather disconcerning. Claudius in Hamlet was obviously Claude, the brother. When the doctor was killed, I almost put the book the book down. I guess Almondine was Ophelia, poor old Ophelia. I love Hamlet. I adore Hamlet. Why is Hamlet the metaphorical allusion? Personally, I think Shakespeare did a better with it, and this adaptation was nothing more than a poor adaptation to modernize a fantastic play.
LikeLike
Especially Tanya, since you’re wrong. The poison wasnt in the drawer until long after he signed those letters in the rain. It was in the mow before. Edgar saw it when claude removed it.
I kinda think you’re wrong about Gar also, while we’re at it. Read the last lines of p.269. Gar signed the broken spelling of the Japanese dog’s name only to let edgar know that there had been other cases where dog’s had sensed “ghostsâ€, giving validity to his appearance. Hachinko, it was speculated in the letter, sensed her dead owner. Why would Edgar need proof from his dad about the dog’s heritage? Nice lesson though.
LikeLike
and you wanna tell other readers to watch the details… c’mon now.
LikeLike
Before reading this book I gave away 3 copies for Christmas, one to my 11th grade son…..now I’m sorry I did. Of course it’s well written, and sure I don’t need a rosy happy sappy fairytale ending….but for Christ’s sake, if the classic tale from our youth “Old Yeller” killed not just Old Yeller, but the two boys, their Dad, and left the Mother to a life that could only be addressed by a permanent room in a Mental Hospital, or suicide??? I am seriously considering telling my son that it is so tragic, with no redeeming twists at all, to skip it. I will not be waiting for another book by this author.
LikeLike
Wow. I just finished the book. I must say I’m in shock. In the end, I think this book beautifully and metaphorically reveals what lies beneath choice and chance. Edgar knew intuitively he was going to die. He had been forewarned, yet that didn’t deter him. Trudy, in a weakened state, chose not see that Claude was a sociopath. I appreciated the rich writing style, symbolism and flaws contained within each character. The ending, like the prologue, was mystical and tragic.
LikeLike
After being away from the book for 4 days I don’t know if I can be objective. I’m still torn. If you remove Almondine from the story what do you have? The relationship she has with Edgar is what I think is the key to the feelings the story evokes. It’s as if the author created this wonderful Sawtelle Universe which had he chose to , could have been mined for countless reveries over time. At some point down the line he he got it in his head to experiment with Shakespeare in the modern world..The similarity is there but the result is a dull thud. There are so many negative vibes that come from the ending of this book the conversation concerning them could go on for days. In my case I lost a dog on Jan 9 and started this book at my wifes urging a week later..Big mistake. I prepared myself for 3 days to come to the end of Almondine which I knew would happen but the rest of the ending ? The anger I felt as each ridiculous event unfolded I couldn’t believe. Even so I can’t hate the book but at this point I can’t feel anything else for it either..A move I think is a big mistep.
LikeLike
Jay, I am so sorry for your loss. I have decided that Wroblewski’s beautiful relationships I shall keep. I truly feel he boxed himself in, maybe exhausted himself with his own efforts, and ran from the beauty. or maybe his own life held this darkness. Fortunately, your own life doesn’t have room for such despair. Just love the love you have for your dog.
LikeLike
That is very kind marg. In reality as I read the first several chapters I was enthralled. I was experiencing my feelings about my own dog more acutely and his memory was still very much alive. I was able also to appreciate our two other dogs that much more. I think this led to greater expectations as I read on. I think the redemption in the book are the relationships, not the occurrences. I think it’s ingenious to advertise the book as a “coming of age” story or the warm fuzzies that you get on oprah. The Hamlet tragedy reference should be right out front so people know what they are in for. There seems to now be a movie deal in the works and the author is talking about a prequel and a sequel. I’m not sure the magic of the Sawtelle farm can be replicated ion print again or at all, on film.
LikeLike
the book was boring and didin’t even make sense at the end were the dogs going to find henry? I thought to help edgar.All the ghosts…oh yeah that happens alot.Did the mother get away run into the fire?I had to come onto the web site to even understand what i read.Or thought i read.
LikeLike
Jay, I experienced exactly those feelings about the dog I have now and the dogs I have had throughout my life. You are right, one is led to believe the novel will embrace this loving bond, embrace it in many ways. The darkness and the hatred that overwhelms the work is a kind of Trickster.
Maybe Oprah never finished the book: a not uncommon phenomenon among that level of critic.
LikeLike
As time goes and the book leaves me what remains more and more is Claude. When I finished the book the first question I asked my self was “what am I supposed to learn here?” I felt the book had a strong message and I felt it important to try and salvage something. The message I was left with was one of defeat, cheapness,treachery. The messages were there. “Accidents fall out of the trees ” to paraphrase. “Better that humans become more suitable for dogs rather than dogs for humans “…..
Where in the story does Edgar “come of age” In the forest ? During the Wind storm? I think Edgar came of age when he tried to pound the voice out of his chest and realized he could do nothing. Could not help his dying father. How could he cope with his Mother when she mistook his behavior for simple jealousy? Why couldn’t he tell her ? Edgar was no regular 14 yr old boy who needed to come of age. So in this regard I have issue with calling this a coming of age story.
Interestingly enough the author on Oprahs webcast talked about picking the name Sawtelle. He thought it might have been for the Town in California or a folk singer he heard on the radio. The next morning I took a shirt off a clothes hanger. The hanger is an old one from a most likey defuncy Dry Cleaner…guess where?….Sawtelle California….
LikeLike
I think the author has more beauty in his memory/life than he knows how to deal with. The dominant theme in this work is one of love and joy: love with his parents and love between the three of them(Edgar and his parents) and their dogs. The opening of the story warns us, really, that this is a sombre story. Nevertheless, the truly human story, the subjective, personal feelings that the author familiarizes us with, are all positive. It is only the external forces that are evil. The author sees evil, but he does not, himself, experience it. And yet he lets it destroy all that he does experience.
But there is no reality without the good. And I choose to accept the reality. His evil forces are a kind of deus ex machina–and maybe that’s how he feels about his own destiny, despite the inner beauty with which he lives, and gives to us.
LikeLike
After reading some of the responses to this book, I really think I need to re-read this book (though for me that seems a chore – the complete opposite to what Mr King has said!). Quite honestly I think it was wrong that Almondine was waiting for him when he crossed over. He left her. She had been such a wonderful and faithful companion and he left her. Typical isn’t it. Humans think they can treat animals with such contempt and then want them in their time of need. And they come!! That’s what makes dogs such wonderful, forgiving companions I guess. If I had been the author, I would have had Almondine turn her back on him and walk away! I’ve just remembered something in the book that I couldn’t understand and it was mentioned a couple of times. It was that whole lying in the apple tree staring through the window at Claude – what was that about? And wasn’t Forte Gar’s dog that he shot when he was 20. Wasn’t Forte a ghost the whole way through? I liked Henry the best. He wasn’t “ordinary”, he was real, kind to the dogs and in my eyes “extraordinary”. Trudy deserved the heart ache. She was a mother – why wasn’t she out searching for him instead of standing behind a silo night after night (come on?) – and why the hell didn’t she run into that barn? No man can hold down a woman whose child is in danger! Like I said, will need to re-read, but really can’t face it at the moment. And didn’t Ida tell him to head west and keep walking, so why did he turn and come back after thinking about his conversation with her? So many questions……
LikeLike
I have read a lot of the comments on this book. I agree with most of them, the ending was awful, Claude was a psycho, Gar – well he was just Gar. Almondine was always there, I tried to find reference in the beginning of the book as to where he came from. He wasn’t the dog Gar carried in after the death of their first child, that dog died but Almondine was already there. Where did he come from, was he a Sawtelle Dog. At one point it referenced that Almondine was blind (page 240). I have some other things in mind that don’t fit but where did Almondine come from??
LikeLike
Did anyone else get this’ doggie downer” for Christmas?
I don’t think I would read a sequeal if one is written.
I love dogs. I have bred dogs and they have always given my heart spirit when I needed it, but this was such a jumbled mess. yes the discriptions were wonderful, but way too many. One ends up drowning in metaphors.
I have always enjoyed Stephen King, especially his early work, but he tends to get too “wordy” and so you begin to skim.
I had the same reaction with this book and began skiming the last third of the book until the las couple of chapters.
Having a “daytime job”, I do not get to watch Oprah’s book club, but “me thinks she has missed the mark”.
LikeLike
I watched the webcast on Oprah. The author is very nice and spoke well about his book. I don’t think he was comfortable in talking about the ending though. For the sake of the story line he had created and in keeping with the Hamlet theme he had to create the end, in form at least ,to coincide with the way Hamlet ends. It seemed to me though that he regretted the ending as much as anyone.
As I continue to strive to understand and reconcile how the book made me feel and to continue to care about it I can only see the story now in totality. A metaphor to life some how. I think the individual plot lines and events matter less than does the piece of life that the author attempts to articulate on the pages.
How much of a departure from real life was this book? Very little actually. How often do we make our own little tragedies by not communicating a truth when we know we should, when we know it’s vital to do so? How often do the placid and happy times in our lives give way to chaos and misgivings about those we profess to love? How often does the person who takes the short cut, who skirts around the truth, seem to be the one who succeeds ? Sometimes punished sometimes not…
Again, I feel if the character of Almondine was removed from the story there would be no story. Almondine is that jewel we all long to hold. That breath of truth and light we hope to feel brush against us. Deep calls to Deep and she touches something deep in us that needs absolute truth and Love with out condition. Again tonight I though of her standing by the road and asking “Have you seen my boy” just before her life ends. A simple question really. The answer to which is the key to her heart. I think of this and the tears start and I begin to sob . How often have I asked this question myself in the 8 years it’s been since my children left home. How often have I walked through a quiet house waiting to hear their noisy footsteps or to hear them breathing and alive as they sleep.To speak the language that only we knew. What else could bring the spirit of a father back to cradle so gently his boys heart in his hands that can no longer touch or feel the warmth of his child’s flesh.
I really want to stop caring about this book. To move away from it. To not accept how it ended. To understand it might be a wonderful book but is the first true attempt at a novel by an author who maybe yet has things to learn. Time will tell.
LikeLike
Jay, your children will return with their children. There are many in need in the world who would thrive on your sensitive nature. I feel a great sorrow for a dog I had to leave with others, who I visited on their farm, and who was hit by a car not too long after my visit: I felt he was looking for me, as Almondine was searching for Edgar. I too wept, and could weep many times, for this, for my beautiful Border Collie: but he did live a very long life before this happened. And I had no choice but to leave him, and I tried to explain it to him.
But we have been left behind, and we have left our parents and maybe others behind. Didn’t Wroblewski at some point in the novel cite a Buddhist saying that all pain comes from remembering what is gone? Beauty also comes from remembering. We are all sometimes hurt, and sometimes causing hurt: it is a part of the loving, of the beauty of life.
I don’t think we want to forget the novel: maybe we keep its beauty–for me, I do not see the ending as a part of the weave of it, at least not the central pattern that made the story so beautiful.
LikeLike
I am a bit late in reading this amazing story. Encouraged by my lovely erudite daughter who appreciates the wondrous connection between man and beast, I agreed to dive in. And dive in, I did. After 100 or so pages, I simply could not put the book down. It is riveting and propels the reader deeper and deeper into its grasp until the trajic ending.
Like many of you, I cried and cried and spent restless nights just trying to piece together the intricate interactions of both the human and canine characters. Many questions come to mind which I have not been able to answer. It would be satisfying to know what sparked the hatred between Claude and Gar, and why was Claude so drawn to the poison?
Edgar’s coming of age was so beautifully portrayed and it goes without saying that his special connection with the dogs was magical and also entirely within the realm of infinite possibility.
Almondine’s devotion mirrored that of the Japanese breed only to illustrate that pure love has not boundary.
I, too, was confused and shocked by the ending, since I had formulated my own version early on. However, now, in retrospect, it has come to mind that one of the tenets in the story is that we all make choices in life for which we stand accountable. Essay and the others with her will choose — be it the bright lights of “civilization” to find another home, or the call of the wild (Forte) and existence on their own terms. Either way, I know that the dogs will be fine.
LikeLike
Finished it 2 days ago and I need to talk this out with someone!! I agree with so many of you – but disagree with the naysayers, this book is definitely for those who can suspend their disbelief and soar with their imaginations and emotions! (a la Stephen King) But, that being said, I am haunted by the tragedy and the lack of explanation for all the character’s actions in the end. Agreed with all of you who said that it is a beautiful story of Edgar and his coming of age, loved Henry and Forte and Almondine, but not enough background explanation as to why Trudy, A MOTHER, would act like she did and Claude, a criminal, what were his motivations? Too many pivotal points left unexplored, Mr. Wroblewski. Are you listening to us?
LikeLike
That was part of the beauty of it to me…that we didn’t know all of the background details. Many of the answers posters are looking for are not needed to complete the story. Like in life, you never know the full story, the motivation behind others’ actions, the history of their lives and relationships, etc. It doesn’t matter what the original conflict was between Gar and Claude, just that there WAS a conflict /issue that grew out of control into multiple tragic consequences. There is absolutely no need for a sequel. The story is complete.
I am shocked at how many people didn’t get it / didn’t see the ending coming. The “satisfying” ending was that Edgar did die and was reunited with Amondine whom he missed “the most.” Also that Claude died exposed and did not get that for which he selfishly schemed.
(By the way Edgar was vindicated in the end as Trudy did understand the evil of Claude, and Claude knew that Edgar knew the real cause of Gar’s death.)
I am shocked at how many people didn’t get it and wanted a Disney ending. And at those who don’t want their kids and friends to read it. (I too question their intelligence. And worry that they will naively withhold great literature from others because they don’t understand it or can’t appreciate it.)
LikeLike
I’m not sure the ending gave enough for us to know that Trudy could have fully understood. She might eventually but not now. Her denial of the outcomes that grew from her actions might have been too great even for her. Trudy had known rejection in her life. She also had to have built up a certain Wall which would not allow her to fully understand. Being shipped from one family to another it would be easy to see that she long ago separated her actions from those of the people around her.
I agree that backstories are not necessary here. They might play in a sequel but more detail here to Gar and Claudes past would have probably done nothing more that deepen the shadow already around Claude and possibly even allowed some people to have empathy for him… If claude had been portrayed as utterly evil I would have questioned Gar’s sense for having him there which I had wondered about at one point.I think the setting for that relationship fit the story well.
I certainly wouldn’t hope for a Disney ending but what difference is there really between that and Edgar reunited with Almondine in a Rainbow Bridge type place. Don’t get me wrong, I lost a precious 4 legged friend 3 weeks ago and that longing to see him again is still in my heart. But I long for the touch of his fur and the heat of his breath on my cheek. For life to be what it was. Life is like the book..not always tidy , less than perfect , often unjust. Why muddle the waters with gleaning a just end from the vision of an afterworld where everything is complete while those left behind suffer losses that are beyond reason. A place that is just fiction within fiction. The horror of the ending to me was obtuse to the beauty of the story.
LikeLike
What an amazing novel! I advise all who are upset by the tragic ending to look up the word “tragedy”. This was a beautiful retelling of Hamlet. The beauty in it was the description of the countryside, the love of the dogs, and Edgar. Edgar. Edgar.
LikeLike
Jody, Jody, Jody: look up the word “smug”.
LikeLike
To address those who are critical of the ending, it was not only “fiction within fiction”. It’s like trying to dock a ship in two feet of water: the last pages ran from the complexities of the relationships: they remain restlessly unresolved, unclarified, and in despair.
LikeLike
During the last three days of staying home with a stuffy-head cold, I am finishing the book with my 45 pound Springer Spaniel on my lap for most of the reading. “60 pages…then 30 pages….alas 5,4,3,2,1 and I am finished.” I let out a big sigh; my dog does the same. My first thoughts are to turn to my dog and tell her this is a book that she will love to read. I cannot get past the wonderful descriptions of intimate relationships that exist between humans and dogs in this book and look anew at my dog’s capacity for intelligence and understanding. The book was written and intended to be a tragedy; to this aim it was very successful. Did I feel sad and wish for another ending? Of course; I was entirely engaged with the life of Edgar , Almondine and the story. I was made to care deeply about all of them. Beyond the main story, interesting interwoven themes included:
-To deserve a better dog, we need to be better people. Of course the dogs leave at the end; Edgar released them. They are the “Next dog” sought after by the Sawtelles and very capable of making their own decisions. Not to mention that humans ultimately imperfect as we are have let them down. It is not important that we know what they decide but that they can. Any supposed sequel to this story will do this book an injustice.
-“If only” interwoven in Edgar’s immature reasoning to handle all life had thrown him…”If only I had done this or that then this alternate event would or would not have happened” (explaining his mania to save the papers in the fire to somehow exchange this action for all of the errors of his ways in the past and put things right).
-The idea of ordinary versus extraordinary and the essence that for most of us, without realizing it, “ordinary” is just fine, very comforting and possibly even heavenly.
-The wind is almost another character in the book whipping up a randomness to events that blow through the story. After the tornado at the lake, Wroblewski writes: “You swam in a river of chance and coincidence. You cling to the happiest accidents – the rest you let float by”. This T-bones against the other theme of painstaking controlled genetic manipulation of the dogs DNA and their behavior…something perfected to be predictable and sure but at what cost.
-The elements of ghosts, magic, prediction, heaven and hell are at the essence of the story. Did that really happen? Did Edgar really see that? True evil and the essence of love are alive in the story.
Would I recommend the book? YES!
Recommend this book: YES!
LikeLike
I loved the story and looked forward to a happy ending. When that did not happen, I had so many unanswered questions. Did Trudy die too? Perhaps of a broken heart? Where did the dogs go and did all of them go? Trudy should have known about Henry. She should of known how Gar died. Although I would and will recomend the book, I still feel lost.
LikeLike
Hated, Hated, Hated this book. Don’t know how anyone (BIG O) can compare this author to Steinbeck or Harper Lee, but he’s not. The ending was too horrible. Logistically, too many unanswered questions–unfinished details. Too many included details that don’t add up. All these comments from others show the depth of confusion.
LikeLike
Right on Renee. But the fierce reactions have to do with the story’s beauty, I suspect.
LikeLike
I loved parts of it. I hated parts of it. I don’t necessarily think there needs to be any refernce made to Hamlet. Why make the reference? It can stand on its own without Hamlet. It felt too forced at times, too wordy at times. I skimmed some parts because he seemed to drone on and on about nothing of importance and then when I needed more detail I was left without it. I wanted to shake Trudy, for someone who wanted children so badly, she turned into such a weak mother. I could go on and on too. I felt the foreboding throughout the whole novel so I was not suprised by the end, however I never felt like there was the redemption there should have been. There should have been some sort of life lesson learned, but no one learned it. Very unsatisfying…
LikeLike
Foreboding, yes. Two extremes, really: of great gentleness and terrible(inexplicable) hatred. Maybe the author understands that hatred, but he shall have to work very hard to write it out more clearly. The gentleness and joy, the intimate success of the Father-Son-Mother-dogs relationships: he needs no tutoring there. I hope he did not intentionally let a Hamlet Paradigm shape his plot.
LikeLike
I have to agree marg. I think though that the author shaped the story in his mind according to the Hamlet outline and in fact it was his goal to retell Hamlet in a modern time. Ambitious yes, wise no….Where ever the Sawtelles meet Hamlet in the story arc the effect is disingenuous. The energy of the sawtelle universe moves in it’s own orbit and creates it’s own unique effect. The beauty of that universe as it is drawn back to Hamlet is diminished as the author forces the one to match the other. It was a clever attempt but needless really.
LikeLike
Why did you recommend Edgar Sawtelle to me? It ruined me.
As I said, I cried and cried. The writing was beautiful. I could have kept reading that gorgeous prose about him forever. I did not mind the slow pace because of the beautiful descriptions. I never read the book cover or reviews so I will not have the story spoiled for me, but once I was hooked on the writing, I happened to glance at the back of the book and saw Stephen King had raved about it. That put fear in my heart. Then I encountered the ghost in the story and the oracle grocery store woman and realized this was not a sweet story about a boy and his dog, but was probably going to be a freaky Stephen King genre book. The ghosts and oracle and water spouts make a person have to suspend belief. I had to work hard to keep going and get back to the beautiful story.
Once the oracle had said don’t go back and he had to because he had not found the poison, I feared the worst. The ending was horrible. Everyone seemed to die. Even Trudy and the Ox probably would end up committing suicide, then what was the use of Edgar saving all the files and having his life taken. Even the best dogs ran away toward Henry’s house where poor Henry will have no clue and be lucky to keep them all alive let alone continue the breeding of the wonderful Sawtelle dog line. So here is a book that really will be disappointing to most readers because Steven King types who can enjoy unbelievable stories that are nasty and cold hearted will not like the slow pace-a book in need of editing, too long a story, although King does that too. And people looking for a boy and his dog story will not like the ghosts and ending.
This author made a choice to make the story line stick exactly to Hamlet and be in the macabre Steven King genre at the risk of keeping it from being a great American story in the best literature tradition. I think he made the wrong choice. He probably wanted to make some money out of this and they cannot make such a morbid movie. Of course the movie does not have to be like the book and his sequel may have Edgar surviving, coming around the side of the flaming barn or the mother finally getting free of the Ox and finding him unconscious in the weeds in back of the barn.
As a mother, I think most mothers would have pretended to calm down with the Ox and say let me get something to help your eyes and then running to the barn.
I had studied Hamlet in high school and missed the association completely. I wish the author had started with that premise and then thrown it away to do a dog and boy story. How can you have Edgar die before he has lived. How can all his good, innocent, naive efforts and person growth, coming of age, be rewarded with death? Why would his dad expose him to the chance of being killed and not save him. When he left home on the run,couldn’t Almodine have run off to find him after a while and then come home as he did for a grand reunion.
So the news is that the author has a trilogy planned. He is now writing a prequel to explain the history of Gar and Claude. Took him 9 or 10 yrs to finish this book, so this could all take 30 years. Perhaps the third book will show that Edgar did not die, he did get up and stagger out with the poison bottle wrapped in the greasy rag to prove his dad’s murder and then take care of his mom and the blind Ox and will reclaim Essay and all the dogs and end with his dogs continuing on getting better and better. Remember how the poison works differently on different people and Claude sees either Gar’s ghost or maybe a live Edgar at the end.
The book made me appreciate my dogs even more. I will never take them for granted again. I want to respect them and realize their potential. I may try to teach them some commands or tricks.
I had been reading books that were badly written for so long that this book really grabbed me much more than I should have allowed. I kept having to say to myself that it was just a book that the characters and story were not real and to calm down.
So, Dr. House, quit rolling your eyes and commiserate with me and talk to me about this book. Do you like Stephen King books? Duma Key, etc.? I can enjoy King’s short stories, but when he expands one into a novel, they just are unbelievable and frustrating.
I like the idea that because Edgar could see ghosts that Forte could be the ghost of Forte. The dogs could see the ghost of Gar, so they could see the ghost of Forte.
So many things to think about.
LikeLike
I am surprised at the people who do not get it about Claude and need an explanation of why he did what he did. There are many psychopaths in this world that, if you look at there families, there seems to be no reason they became they way they are- the bad seed. He was cold without feeling, which is shown as he watches the barn start to burn. He came back from the Navy, where he may have been imprisoned for using the poison first on someone else, but then, where was the poison during his imprisonment. But he comes back, we know he is envious of his good older brother, and after watching the family, decides he wants the family and life they have for his own. He kills his brother to be able to take over his life. Maybe his brother was married and doing the family business before he went into the navy and he got the poison to help him with a plan he had always had since he left. Remember – He said that if you are just patient enough you can always get what you want. One of the most important lines in the book.
LikeLike