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 
as found on a blog on amazon.com
so this explains it all:
Hamlet ========= Sawtelle
Hamlet’s father, the late king and ghost === Gar
Hamlet === Edgar
Hamlet’s uncle and present king, Claudius === Claude
Hamlet’s mother and queen, Gertrude === Trudy
Hamlet’s love interest, Ophelia === Almondine
Advisor to the king and father of Ophelia and Laertes, Polonious === Doctor Papineau
Polonius’ son, Laertes === Glen Papineau
Fortinbras, the soldier who comes too late to save the day === Forte
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, friends who accompany Hamlet when he flees Denmark and who he abandons === Tinder and Baboo
Horatio, Hamlet’s best male friend who goes to seek aid in England and returns with Fortinbras === Essay
Event Correspondences:
Hamlet ========= Sawtelle
Death of Hamlet’s father, the king === Death of Edgar’s father, Gar
The king is killed by his brother with poison. === Gar is killed by his brother with poison.
Hamlet sees his father’s ghost. === Edgar sees his father’s ghost.
The ghost tells Hamlet to “remember”. === The ghost tells Edgar to “remember”.
Hamlet’s mother marries Claudius. === Edgar’s mother starts a relationship with Claude.
Hamlet dithers over what to do. === Edgar dithers over what to do.
Hamlet gets angry at Ophelia accusing her of being a slut. He famously says, “Get thee to a nunnery.” === Edgar gets angry at Almondine for being too friendly with Claudius and abandons her.
Ophelia goes mad and drowns herself in a river. === Almondine wanders onto a road looking for Edgar and gets knocked down by a car.
Hamlet spies on the king praying. === Edgar spies on Claude with Trudy.
Hamlet arranges for a play to be put up with a scene that re-enacts the killing of a king with poison. === Edgar has the puppies re-enact a scene with a syringe.
Claudius panics. === Claude panics.
Hamlet confronts Gertrude in a violent scene where he pushes her onto her bed. === Edgar confronts Trudy in a violent scene where he pushes her onto a bed of hay.
Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius thinking he is Claudius. === Edgar accidentally kills Doctor Papineau thinking he is Claude.
Hamlet leaves after the death of Polonius. === Edgar leaves after the death of Doctor Papineau.
On his journey, Hamlet is accompanied by Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. === On his journey, Edgar is accompanied by Essay, Tinder and Baboo.
Hamlet meets a gravedigger. This was used as an example of a simple man, a clownish figure. === Edgar meets Henry, described as a simple, “boring” man.
In the graveyard, Hamlet picks up a skull and has his famous soliloquy on death and the meaning of life (“Alas poor Yorick…”). === Edgar meets a ghost in Henry’s shed who talks about the meaning of his life.
Hamlet leaves Rosencrantz and Guildenstern behind when he decides to return to Denmark. === Edgar leaves Tinder and Baboo behind when he decides to return home.
Claudius manipulates Laertes into duelling Hamlet as revenge for the killing of his father, Polonius. === Claude manipulates Glen into interrogating Edgar about the killing of his father, Doctor Papineau.
Claudius poisons Laertes’ sword. During the duel, Laertes wounds Hamlet. === Glen and Edgar struggle. Glen uses chloroform on Edgar.
During the swordfight, the two accidentally switch swords and when Hamlet wounds Laertes, Laertes dies of the poison. === Edgar and Glen struggle. Edgar throws quicklime on Glen’s face.
The death of Laertes reveals the treachery of Claudius. === The attack on Glen reveals the treachery of Claude.
Claudius tries another way to kill Hamlet by poisoning a cup of wine. Gertrude drinks from the cup when toasting Hamlet and dies. === Trudy dies or goes mad.
Hamlet succeeds in killing Claudius. === Edgar opens the barn skylight causing the fire to flare up, thereby being partially responsible for Claude’s death.
Hamlet dies from his poisoned wound. === Claude successfully poisons Hamlet.
Fortinbras returns accompanied by Horatio, but too late to save Hamlet. === Essay returns accompanied by Forte.
Hamlet names Fortinbras heir to the Danish throne. === I think we are meant to see Essay and Forte leading the dogs away as a saving of the legacy of the Sawtelles’ work. (Needless to say, I don’t think it works.)
LikeLike
PervinOz:thanks for the roadmap; next time I want to read a novel that needs one I’ll think of you.
LikeLike
Don: Thanks. I have no one with whom to talk about this book which so upset me, so I have been turning to blogs to help me. When I found this “roadmap” it helped me to find peace-peace with the book, peace with the author and peace within myself. I could not understand why the author had certain characters in the story and had certain things happen to them that made no sense to me. It was all for the sake of Hamlet. Blame it all on Shakespeare. Now I can go on with my life. This wonderful forum also helped me through. Thank you all! Whenever I read a good book, I will come back here for a discussion. Many of you are extremely intelligent and talented (should write your own books)and I wish you were my friends. Perhaps through the years that will happen.
LikeLike
Pervin Oz: It’s true: it is really comforting and enlightening to see that so many share the same kind of frustration with, as well as love for, this book of many colors. I too am glad to have found this blog.
LikeLike
Yes, Jay, I think you have touched on the central weakness of Mr. Wrobleski’s work. I wonder why he ever decided to follow such a model? Something dark in his own life, something that somehow illuminated that which was beauty for him.
I guess we can all understand contrast in our lives–the good and the disappointing, maybe even the bad for some. But it strikes me that for this author that contrast was almost unbearable.
LikeLike
I think the tragedy of the ending of this book in a sad sense, is that endings are not always happy. That is demonstrated in the beginning of the book with the wolf pup,and the stillbirth of Trudy’s first child. There is darkness in the world and the author seems to be trying to convey the despair that life can bring. Forte seems to be a ghost that is prominent when the spirit of Gar is near. I am guessing the dogs head to Henry’s as he wishes his life to not be so plain and ordinary. It is unclear, however, if this is accurate. Perhaps Forte as Gar’s spirit leads the dogs to safety at Henry’s. Also, it hints that Claude was not merely in the navy but imprisoned for…murder? Maybe Gar stole Trudy from Claude to begin with and the drama began…
LikeLike
This is the first book blog I have read and it is fascinating!
I too was troubled by the book’s ending and now have a better insight into this amazing literary work.
The suggestion that Almondine had been killed by a “traveler” never crossed my mind, but now that better explains how that chapter ended.
I love dogs and now know that I have truly never understood a dog. I will try harder now.
I have concluded that Edgar’s communication skills in sign were some of the most moving parts of the book. When he went out and signed, “Happy New Year” to each of the dogs, I just sobbed. I am now going back and re-reading many of my favorite parts. A great read.
LikeLike
I am so glad that so many other readers were dissapointed with the ending of this book. At the end, I had to re-read it because I was sure I missed something but…..I didn’t. Poor Edgar. Not the best read for me.
LikeLike
I just finished this and thought it was OK. Too long and although I often cry at sad endings, this one just didn’t do it for me. I didn’t care about any of the characters, except Almondine and thought it was unfair she died that way. The way the author killed/maimed everybody at the end wasn’t in keeping with the rest of the book. It felt like we went from “literature” to “slasher movie” in the last 100 pages. And why just at the end do we suddenly get to see into Claude’s mind, but not before then?
If it took the author 10 years to write this, I think another year of editing and rewriting would have helped.
LikeLike
I don’t think the author can really see evil. He sees good, evil dances around the edges of his understanding. That is why, in my estimate, we who love a good portion of this novel, as we love our dogs/pets, are devastated by its conclusions. The good outweighs evil in the overall content of the story. Yet evil destroys our beloved Edgar, finally.If Mr. Wroblewski considers the spirits of consciousness as a final victory his literary content does not achieve this.
LikeLike
my favorite parts were when edgar and the dogs were living as fugitives in the woods breaking into cabins, his relationship with almondine, and his time with henry.
the best writing was claude dying and edgar couldn’t make the 911 phone call. that tore me all up.
but i have many problems with that book:
a book being so popular (NY times bestseller & oprah book club) that makes dog breeding look like a good thing. why couldn’t he have written it as a story based on a family doing rescue and not a family of dog breeders? with all the dogs in shelters being pts, we dont need any breeding, not even so called “responsible breeding” that is my #1 problem with the book.
what was so SPECIAL about sawtelle dogs? or so special about their training? most people including myself, consider popping the leash inhumane. i have seen much better dog training on youtube. and surpassing dog capacity.
lack of character development. ie history between the brothers claude and gar that would cause claude to get the poison in the first place
i can accept that it was based on Shakespeare’s tragedy hamlet, and the hard truths:
mom chooses man over child
tragedy is part of life
but i am afraid the sudden and undeveloped ending is merely authors scheme to write a prequel and also a sequel. the history of gar & claude, edgar surviving with the poison bottle to prove claude murdered gar and then he writes the ending we all wanted: edgar, the dogs and trudy end up happily ever after. with henry.
my conclusions are:
dogs definately deserve better than us
i gained even more respect for dogs and might get a dog tattoo!
no need for $$$ making sequel or prequil. it is complete in that: perhaps trudy indeed understood the evil of claude and thus edgar was vindicated
claude died. and he died exposed.
i am glad i got it free from the library and wont watch the movie when it comes out
i am glad i learned about the hachico dog in japan
LikeLike
I think everyone who has commented who is unhappy with the book has not understood its relationship to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. No, it isn’t a rewrite of the play, not at all, but it does take strategic characters and plot points from a classic play that begs for explanation. See Pervin Oz’s very handy guide in comments above. But the play is like the tip of an iceberg, and this novel provides the parts that lie beneath the surface.
I have never liked Hamlet the play because, as many complain here, it ends with a depressing pile of bodies, but more importantly the deaths seem so pointless. The characters are not much more than their individual motives; why should I care if they die? I could never understand the anguish in the breakup of Hamlet and Ophelia. They seemed not much more than casual acquaintances.
What I love about The Story of Edgar Sawtelle is that it fills in all the missing background of Hamlet. It fleshes out those bare motives: why a man would kill his own brother. Why a mourning wife would then take up with the murderer and choose to be blind to evidence. Trudy comes off much more convincing and sympathetic as a woman struggling with her own losses than Hamlet’s conniving queen. And the Hamlet-Ophelia relationship is drawn so deeply and powerfully that you understand not just intellectually but emotionally how their break led to despair and untimely death. At the point where Almondine decides to look elsewhere for her missing boy, I put down the book and cried. And I am a cat person! But I have had a dog too.
The father’s ghost belongs in this story because it is a pivotal plot point, and I thought Wroblewski did a good job of translating those scenes to his own setting. After all, this is a novel–unreal things can happen. Has anyone read “The Lovely Bones” or “The Time Traveler’s Wife”?
Yes, the end is sad. Yes, I wished for some less dire finish. But I knew that couldn’t happen because it would have spoiled the careful alignment with the original in the rest of the story. Wroblewski could not twist a happy ending out of Hamlet. What he did give us that Shakespeare did not was Edgar’s reunion with his father and Almondine. That I found hopeful. That and the two dogs placed with Henry.
And the other dogs? I agree with Les that what is most important is that the goal of John Sawtelle is fulfilled, not in the human family, but in the dogs. Essay is able to make her own decisions for the future. She is the dog he wanted to achieve, and her existence is the link with Hachiko, the Japanese dog.
I am further enlightened by others’ comments here and thank you all for contributing. It seems this book has a myriad of points to ponder–that alone makes a good novel. All these references to the change in the last 100 pages–blame Shakespeare! It’s his ending.
LikeLike
I too have come here needing to sort things out. At first I had a tough time finding the rhythm of the novel. I decided to stick with it (maybe it was because this was my first book on the kindle?) Anyway, I stuck with it and fell in love with the poetic writing. There are some really wonderful moments in the book.
Usually I am a sucker for sad endings, but somehow I didn’t get teary here at all. Well, maybe the chapter where old Almondine is searching for edgar.
I was not really sad by the ending and the deaths of the characters as I was upset that I didn’t understand the PURPOSE of their deaths.
I had a hunch that Edgar would die as soon as he chose not to go to Canada, but to return to the farm. He was doomed, really. Of course he KNEW he would die. He had been warned. And how could he LIVE in the world? It was odd how apart they all were from the broader world, but there is no way this boy could live in it. Even more, after killing Doc P, he has blood on his hands. He stumbles thru purgatory, but once he is confronted by the three winds (what do they represent anyway? Trinity?) he decides to go back and face his fate. He has disappointed everyone he loved. Almondine, his mother, and he failed to save his father, that with murder in his heart, he would never have a normal, happy life. So maybe that’s why I wasn’t sad.
STILL, WHY? What does it mean? Why create a character who has such a rich interior life with animals, who sees the world in a special way, who can communicate with the dead, who can show people that ordinary is beautiful only to kill him? How does his death underscore the central themes of the novel?
I too was not a fan of trudy. It was plain creepy that she hopped into bed with Claude. There is a whole chapter which explains why–the only way for her to survive was to live with the shadow of Gar in Claude. But that’s just plain creepy. She really lost me when she flippantly told Edgar to stop living in the mow and join the rest of them. How selfish of her! This poor child feels like he caused his father’s death. There is a similar betrayal when Almondine is by Claude’s side. What is the author saying to us? Women don’t “see” bad characters? Again, I don’t get the parallel. Did she live? I don’t think it actually matters. If she lived, she would never be alive–she would be doomed–her blindness to the evil in Claude would have driven her mad. If she died, we know she’ll be with her son. SO perhaps we should hope she died in the fire.
I knew the dogs would go with Forte 2 as soon as Essay and he frolicked and disappeared together on the journey home and returned with blood on their lips. They had gone wild at that point and there was no turning back.
I don’t think Henry plays into their futures. They choose the wild over domesticity. Not sure why they do tho since they seem to enjoy their human companions. Again, what is the author trying to say?
Why was Glen blinded? Would have been more interesting if Trudy had been blinded since she was so blind all along to what was happening. Frankly, I didn’t care much at all for the Glen story. Yes, the story goes on to indicate that he wasn’t that bright, but to try and kidnap Edgar to get information? Well, that’s just plain silly.
We know what Edgar gave Henry–ordinary is extraordinary. (one of my FAVORITE images–Henry plants a field of sunflowers to impress the woman he loves. AHHHHH! But what does Edgar learn from Henry? Yes, he gets medicine and relief from the road. But how does his time with Henry help him realize he needs to return home to face his fate? What does Henry symbolize to Edgar? If the choice was to go home and live an ordinary life then the time together would make sense. But Edgar knows going home means facing Almondine. Trying to bring Claude to justice. Facing his mother. Again, it is not that clear.
Again I enjoy the prose. The painterly way he created this contained little world, the lovely soul that was Edgar, but the theme and overall message is frustratingly elusive.
A movie is a terrible idea. Not only will the ending prove a huge bummer–you think the book is unsatisfying? Wait till you see a movie with this downer ending.
Better to just have the book with a little insight from the author to illuminate his intentions.
LikeLike
I finished the book last night. Like so many, it kept me up all night thinking and trying to make sense of it all. One aspect I differ in opinion is, I thought Claude killed Page the vet. What is the symbolism of the young girl on TV that Edgar is so drawn to, the “work camp,” that he is trying to go live. For me, the take home message with the dogs, Essay, Forte, and the others leaving, is to un-do all the strenuous training and go be wild dogs. With Edgar allowing Essay to run wild toward the end it is foreshadowing their need to be independent and free of such rigidity.
I put this novel up there as one of my all time favorites.
LikeLike
I’m writing a book. It will satisfy some, tick off others and leave a lot of people somewhere in between (if anybody ever reads it! :). The thing is, it is MY book and MY story so I get to write whatever I want, develop the characters and the storyline to whatever degree I choose and how it all ends is up to my imagination.
Bearing in mind that a story is a tapestry that an author weaves in order to share with others, I wonder how much the author of this book truly thought about his readers and whether he would leave them emotionally short-shrifted throughout and in the end. He wrote his story and we all got to go for the ride.
There were things I loved and things I hated. The unending flowery and poetic prose describing a tree branch or how dogs think about the passage of time was boring and mind-numbing, at best – and I am a consummate dog lover. The seemingly unending descriptives of life on the run in the north woods of WI were torture – and I live in the WI north woods and know how beautiful it is. Still, I could not relate to the mind-numbingly detailed and drawn out descriptions of the woods. So much time and so many pages devoted to correspondence about dogs shared with others by Edgar’s grandfather, yet we could not count on the author to fully develop the parts of this story that begged to satisfy our hearts and minds. Intentional on his part?
The trail of pathos that followed Edgar everywhere he went and through everything he did throughout the story made it clear from the start that he was doomed.
I was just glad that more of the dogs didn’t die.
LikeLike
Reading CF’s comments inspire me to see the work as a giving us beautiful paths to follow, and finding that most of them bring us to fallow ground.
LikeLike
marg,
How eloquently phrased! I was looking for my next book to read on Amazon this morning, and while not exactly a blog – there are about a thousand reviews from readers there who mirror your thoughts exactly!
LikeLike
Good to come back to this blog and see that folks are still expressing thoughts and feelings about the novel. I feel CF makes another good point about the bridges of language the author uses to weave the events of the story together. Again, I feel that if the story had been understood totally to be a retelling of the Shakespeare readers might have taken a different eye to it and not been so perplexed by the ending. I agree that the filler was out of place, in congruent if you will, to the actual events and overdone to the point of being inane. The range of emotions I have gone through in the month since I’ve read this have at this point left me kind of empty to it. The magic that I felt as opposed to the frustration and anger have given over to complacency. Life hands us enough ambiguity and bad news. Not sure I need to look to literature to give me the notion that is all there is…
LikeLike
I watched some very enlightening video-taped interviews that Oprah did with the author today. They are on her website, and questions about things that many readers have are addressed.
The author states that this is one in three books; two are yet to be completed. He said that while the next two are not really sequel(s), the three books will represent a tritych and together they will offer a more complete perspective. The next book to be released focuses on John Sawtelle; Edgar’s grandfather.
The interviews were really interesting. When it came to a few of the questions asked to DW, he said that even he did not know the answers.
I’d recommend viewing them to anyone who still ponders the uncertainties and ambiguities of what this book delivers.
LikeLike
All of his feelings on this will be of interest; it does not undo the despair, the black hole, into which he puts Edgar.
LikeLike
Hi marg.
I watched that interview the night Oprah presented it as a live webcast. The author talked about the prequel and the sequel. My question was when he decided to to do these other novels…before TSOES hit it big or somewhere else on the 10 year soujourn to the completion of this novel. He essentially will have to break much new ground to give us the before and after.
I also came away with the notion that as to the ending, the author was possibly as unhappy with it as anyone else although more philosophical about it. I felt the author ,although well intentioned and well spoken about his characters, didn’t provide much in the way of character development because that was never his intent. The book doesn’t seek to know why people did what they did only that they did what they did to fulfill the shakespearean tragedy.
LikeLike
practically bawled through Almondine’s death, but in the 24 hrs since i finished the book i’ve decided her suicide was an indication that the breed John Sawtelle was going for had been over-shot, somehow. the unforgettable dogs she’d been bred from would never have given up their master coming home in just 2 months! the whole breeding program was a bubble that had been building, precisely for the occasion of giving Edgar a voice. remember Trudy thinking how the training had become more difficult? Edgar told Essay to make her own choice, and take the others away. her choice was to turn away from humankind! i think this is a failure of the Sawtelle’s breeding that deserves mention.
LikeLike
Can a good read be killed by a bad ending, maybe not but it will take a few days. I’ve already got my own ending to replace that one. Claude goes in to get the stuff to inject Edgar as Edgar is coming out with the wheel barrel. While Claude is waiting for Edgar to come back in he gets overcome by smoke and drops with the syringe in his hand. When Edgar comes back in, he sees Claude down and pulls him outside, Trudy gets free and she sees the syringe,Claude’s dead from smoke inhalation, and they live happily ever after. Otherwise what is the sense of understanding what his father’s true mission was, getting all the papers out. Why couldn’t they let Trudy have her son back didn’t she go through enough? Where are the dogs going, back to Henry’s, or wild. It reminds me of the book Thinner by Steven King , following the character through all kinds of trials only to have him die in the end, No Thanks!
LikeLike
I finished this book 3 weeks ago but have already forgotten exactly Edgar died. Was it the fire? Thanks.
LikeLike
Jay, when I read an Elmore Leonard it is clear that underlying motives are not a big part of the work. But Wrobleski gives us profound portraits of father, mother, and son–and dogs–that DO involve motives. Don’t you think it is the changeover to a kind of gothic surrealism that leaves readers with feelings of frustration, disappointment, confusion, et al….?
LikeLike
Pervin. You mentioned that it took him 10 years to write this masterpiece. That is true however he was also working fulltime in software. I’m sure after the unbelievable success of this book and the money that he will receive from Oprah for the rights of the movie, he will be concentrating on the trilogy. I doubt it will take 10 years since he will now be writing full time. Just a thought. I bet we will see a book in two years. I will be waiting w/ my money in hand. Love it.
LikeLike
I very nearly missed the fact the Claude accidentally poisoned himself. This caused the disorientation and sealed his fate.
Ths book, at times, made me feel like a vegetarian who is forced to eat some meat in order to get to the tomatoes on the buffet.
Other times, it moved me more than pretty much any book I’ve read.
Being mysterious does not automtically translate to deep and meaningful; some of the mysteries achieve nothing more than annoyance; there is no point working them out.
The scene on the lawn, invented to take Trudy out of the picture was absurd. This book has something though; some really nice layers and I loved the dogs’eye views.
Perhaps one hundred fewer pages would have helped it, along with a tad more inventiveness in such scenes as the Trudy/Glen thing.
It has enough of me though, to ensure I will reccommend it. But not to everyone.
LikeLike
I very nearly missed the fact the Claude accidentally poisoned himself. This caused the disorientation and sealed his fate.
Ths book, at times, made me feel like a vegetarian who is forced to eat some meat in order to get to the tomatoes on the buffet.
Other times, it moved me more than pretty much any book I’ve read.
Being mysterious does not automatically translate to deep and meaningful; some of the mysteries achieve nothing more than annoyance; there is no point working them out.
The scene on the lawn, invented to take Trudy out of the picture was absurd. This book has something though; some really nice layers and I loved the dogs’eye views.
Perhaps one hundred fewer pages would have helped it, along with a tad more inventiveness in such scenes as the Trudy/Glen thing.
It has enough of me though, to ensure I will reccommend it. But not to everyone.
LikeLike
I was very disappointed with the ending. Really enjoyed and was ready to recommend the book…..until the end. In my opinion, their was enough “tragedy” in the story without Edgar having to die.
LikeLike
I, too, am angry about the ending. I feel seduced then betrayed. I was going to recommend the book to my book club, but after having finished the book, I never will recommend it to anyone. Having been so disappointed, I doubt I will ever read another book by this author. It is ridiculous in the first place to have chosen a plot by another author to hang one’s tale on, and to follow it so slavishly to its bitter end. I agree with others that the ending just does not suit this story. It does not seem authentic, so Wroblewski has failed miserably. Regarding several issues discussed here, Edgar later realized that the signs for HAA actually had been HAC, then he remembered HAC…I…. When he found the letter that tells the story of Hachido, the attempted spelling filled out, and it became clear to him what his father had been trying to sign to him. It occurs to me that the story of Hachido is about a dog waiting for his dead master to return to him, whereas Almondine is a dead dog waiting for her live master to return to her. Yes, indeed, Almondine died; they buried her. And Edgar dies at the end, too, so don’t expect a sequel. As he is dying, Almondine comes to him and lies next to him. But she is a spirit, and Edgar is entering the spirit world. He sees his father, who also is a spirit. Finally, the three of them end up on the same side of the “river,†on “the other side.†There can be no sequel to this. (Did you notice that the only words Edgar spoke in his life was when he said to his father, “I love you.â€) Ida at the store is simply a seer. Regarding the dogs at the end, I think that Essay leads them to Henry. She would otherwise have no reason to follow the trail they had taken when Edgar and the three dogs ran away. She could have run into the wilderness at any point. But she takes the other dogs to a place where they can see the lights of a village; and when she crosses the field, she leads them to Henry.
LikeLike
I have been following this discussion for a few weeks now and thoroughly enjoy many of the commentaries. GG, your insights are terrific. There were so many wonderful ways in which this novel could have been developed. Maybe too many…I hope Wrobleski can get more control over intuitive sensitivities.
LikeLike
Thank you, Marg, for your kind words. I agree that the novel could gone in much more satifying ways. Too bad it didn’t, as I liked it a lot until the end. I must revise a couple of things in my previous commentary. First, I realize that the Japanese dog’s name was spelled Hachiko, not Hachido. And upon reflection, I think that Edgar had died by the time he spoke the words “I love you.†He was mute all his life, but in death he was freed from that limitation.
LikeLike
I received the book for Christmas and put off starting it until about 2 weeks ago. Every night I would read and not want to put it down. I haven’t been so taken with a book in many, many years. I learned so much about dogs and training without even realizing it. I would have liked a happy ending just like almost everyone else, but I felt throughout that Edgar was never really going to be happy without his Father and Almondine – that’s why I wasn’t disappointed. If the author had written a happier ending the chances are we wouldn’t be discussing it quite as much! As Stephen King said – life is too short to reread books, but this is one of a very few that I will and I know I will love it as much the 2nd time.
LikeLike
It’s true, RJ, the book did indeed inspire me to new insights for our poodle. And our dog tops ’em all. But I maintain my criticisms: it could have been a great work.
LikeLike
After watching interviews with the author, he maintains that at the end Essay “crosses over”, but the mystery he fully intended to leave us with was to wonder which way she went with the other dogs; back toward people or off into the woods; thus the Sawtelle dogs making choices. Truthfully, after having just read about the tragic end to Edgar’s life and the beginning of Trudy’s hellish life without him, I could have done without one more shallow, unresolvable incident of “fence-sitting” in the story. Quite frankly, in light of everything else that happened I really couldn’t have cared less whether the dogs ran off into the woods or came back to human company. The ending resolved nothing, gave me nothing, and could have been left out completely. In my humble opinion, that is. 🙂
LikeLike
This book was given to me as a Christmas present by someone who had not yet read it. I don’t know how I will tell the giver that this book was the worst I have ever read. Full of questions and no answers. I know of two others she bought the book for and have called each and said “Don’t read this book!” Sad, tragic, and a big waste of time. Readers deserve more. What about Oprah? Really makes you wonder about her judgement in good books!
LikeLike
I too was stunned and devastated by the ending of “The Story of Edgar Sawtelleâ€. I understood that the story is like a Greek tragedy in that no sins go unpunished, even Edgar’s, and found some solace in his reunion with Almondine and Gar on “the other side of the riverâ€. But the dogs! How could the ending be anything but disastrous for the dogs who left with Essay and Forte, no matter which choice they make? If they go wild, there will be no canine Utopia. If the dogs aren’t shot by farmers, they’ll starve (do we think they could learn to hunt efficiently fast enough to provide food for this large pack?) or inbreed, and die off. If they go to humanity, including Henry, they might survive physically, but their spirits will die. Perhaps they suffer for “the sins of the fatherâ€, by which I mean it was hubris to breed for cognition. Reminds me of Frankenstein’s monster; quite an accomplishment, but there was no place in human society for him. So the story is a tragedy. Everybody dies, evil wins. We have to accept the consequences of our actions and they can be dire. Bad things happen to innocents. But I already knew that. I didn’t need to have my heart torn out. The author has undeniable talent, but I won’t be reading any more of his books.
LikeLike
I’ve read many novels, great and not so great. However, I can’t believe my disappointed with this one. And, the disappointment began early into the book. The writing was as though everything learned in “writing school” was applied at once in this novel. Toward the end, I skimmed and was emotionless. Regarding the dogs, I kept reading for something different, something special, magical maybe. But, because I am familiar with dogs (and cats), there just wasn’t anything new here for me. Based on the animals’ behaviors in this book, my two dogs are “the next dogs.” Moreover, I thought it was somewhat misogynistic to leave Trudy with such despair–and for what.
LikeLike
What a great range of emotions being displayed on this site. Good or bad, people had definite feelings toward Mr. Wroblewski’s book. In my opinion, any author that can evoke these kind of feelings and emotions in people has done his job well. I enjoyed reading the story and the ending caught me a little off guard. We all expect “happy endings”, but life can be cruel sometimes. I am attending a neighborhood book signing tonight with Mr. Wroblewski as the guest of honor. Looking forward to meeting him and posing some of the questions raised here.
LikeLike
Bob B.: Please let us know if he is aware of this blog and our responses. And if he ever gets to Burlington, Vermont, I too would go to see him. Perhaps he could post his schedule without our having to sign in with lots of data on Oprah’s website.
I agree with you: the greatness of what he wrote does indeed evoke our deepest feelings. But it does not change what I have said about him.
LikeLike
I had heard so many wonderful comments about this book before I started reading it. I am a dog lover and absolutely love dog stories, so I could hardly wait to start this book. I’ve never wrote a book review before, but something inside of me has convinced me to write this in a way to make me feel at peace with ‘The Tale of Edgar Sawtelle.’ I agree, it was beautifully written and I loved how the author described the story from the characters perspectives. I was pulled into Edgar’s life- his relationship with his Father, Almondine, his litter of pups and how he learned to trust them and himself when he fled into the wild. It was a story filled with such courage on Edgar’s behalf, and because of that I think the story was wonderful in that way. Just because Edgar was mute, did not mean that his life was that way. His dogs understood him completely and he was never ignored. I think the worst part for me was that I had such hope throughout the whole entire novel. I kept believing Edgar was going to avenge his Father’s death, Trudy would find out about Claude and Claude would recieve rightful punishment. There would be justice. And stupid me, I kept believing there would be this, and the downfall was that there was none of the kind. For such a wonderful book, it had such a horrible end. I closed the book with such pain, I felt like my heart was broken and I kept thinking “How on Earth could it have ended like this? What was the author thinking??” For so many ways it could have ended, it ended like this? There were too many loose ends, hardly anything was tied up. I know not all stories are meant to have a happy ending, but in all honesty this was a book that truly deserved one, not only for its characters, but for the readers. The ending was just too cruel and unjust. I’d never understood that it was written in any relation to Hamlet and so maybe now I understand the whole storyline of ghosts and death, sadly I never knew that until I started reading reviews of this book online. I was going to recommend it to my sister, and my friends, but I have decided not to. I felt so depressed, I felt physically sick to my stomach after the ending. It was also such a long book. And I think that…well I may as well just say it. I wish it had ended differently. Its not often I sit down to read a book, as I’m sure is the same with many other people, so when I do I look forward to closing the book and saying “Wow, this was good”
I’m simply heartbroken with this ending.
LikeLike
Marg – The gathering last night at my neighbors house was very enjoyable. 10 people and David and his partner Kimberly. Talk about cozy! It was very interesting to me to hear how David’s book evolved over the last 10 years. I asked him if he had been on this site in particular and he said he had. It went through 11 drafts before the final one thay we have all read. That’s dedication. David did elude to a prequel book in the works that covers a period from 1910 to the ‘present’ and how the Sawtell breed got started. He wasn’t sure of the release date, but he has a three year contract for the book. He and Kim stayed with us for two hours and that time just flew by. Very charming and friendly couple.
LikeLike
The book was enthralling. A colleague saw it on my desk and said, “Oh, you’re reading Edgar.” I said I was taking it on a vacation to Mexico. She said, “I don’t think it’s a vacation book.” I took it; she was right. I went for a walk on the beach after finishing it and wanted to cry my eyes out. The author must believe in the ultimate triumph of evil over good. There was no redemption in this story, but it helt the promise of such until the very end. I’m still sad and hope it is never made into a movie.
LikeLike
I just finished listening to the audio, which was wonderful. I adored the story and the technical aspects regarding the training and breeding of the Sawtelle Dogs. When the book ended I thought that I must have missed a few tracks because suddenly there was no more Edgar or Claude (who I loathed!. After listening again I was amazed to realize that Edgar and Claude must have died, although I am still not convinced of that. There is still something that I am missing and am hoping that sowmone can explain the photo of Forte and Claude. I am still puzzeled of how the photo came to be. I really enjoyed the book but was shocked by the sad and unfair ending. If it really is the end. I hope that Almondine returns.
LikeLike
How wonderful that our author makes himself available to small groups. I shall have to hope he finds this neighborhood a worthy visit. We have an excellent library, and I would gladly organize a group(s) for him to visit.
Thank you, Bob. B., for describing your meeting with him, with your neighborhood.
Did he speak to this problem of his suffering readership? It is a wonderful project, his work on the prequel: with eager heart I shall await its appearance, and wish him all the best in his great efforts. That special quality of his dogs is, after all, what bonded us–that and the wonderful Edgar! and his mother and father!
It would be most welcome, I am sure, if he, at some point, might find the time and emotional space to respond to we ‘blogs’–this is my first ever, and he is the prime mover thereof.
LikeLike
Prequel!?? Unfortunate idea. Knowing how badly it all ends, I will not read a prequel . . .
LikeLike
what does trudy mean when she asks edgar (after the death of his father gar)do you remember your real father?
LikeLike
Just finished the book.
Was like watching a slow motion, massive, multiple vehicle wreck in which friends and family die.
Then being compelled to say
Damm that was a great car wreck.
LikeLike
Paula, like you – I listened to the audio version of the book and was truly mesmerized. It was something that will remain with me for a long time. However, I was left with a lot of questions, including the one you brought up – the photo of Forte and Claude. Can someone shed light on this for Paula and I? Did it just materialize in the end, or did I miss something (which, indeed, CAN happen with audio books!)
I found this blog because of so many unanswered questions, and am intrigued by the fact that I’m clearly not alone! Yes – having questions to ponder is a sign of a good novel…but I don’t think it should apply to questions about the PLOT. I just watched Oprah’s webcast with Wroblewski and was a bit disappointed about his handling of readers’ questions. One caller asked for clarification about Almondine’s demise. In fact, Oprah said that she had missed the fact that Aldmondine had died and called Wroblewski for clarification after discussing it with a friend. Wroblewski admits that he had meant to make this fact clear, but was trying to convey it “impressionalisticallyâ€. Well, he clearly failed to do so. Similar plot points are when Edgar pushes the vet down the stairs or when Claude kills Edgar. The reader is left thinking – “what just happened…â€? I like having unanswered questions in a novel when it comes to character’s motive, theme, and meaning. But the plot? No – I think that in that respect, it is clear that this is a first-novel.
Wroblewski is a wonderful storyteller and I’m sure he will have many more stories to tell. I look forward to his next novel with some of these tweaks worked out.
LikeLike
Regarding the pic of Forte (the fighting dog Gar supposedly had in his youth, not the stray) and Claude – Claude sends this along with some money and the keys to the Impala to Edgar via Essay while he’s hiding out in the barn. Earlier in the story, Claude told Edgar that “Fighting” Forte was Gar’s dog and that Gar killed him when he showed cowardice and refused to fight. This seemed out of character for Gar so I, as a reader, wondered if it was really true at that point. I think it’s implied that Edgar also has serious doubts that Claude is telling him the truth. The picture of “Fighting” Forte with Claude seems to imply that this was in fact Claude’s dog rather than Gar’s and that Claude was the one who killed him. By sending Edgar the money and the pic, Claude is acknowledging that this was his dog and that he, rather than Edgar’s father, was responsible for his death. At the same time, he is offering Edgar a bribe to go away and leave him and Trudy alone in their new life together.
At least that’s my take on it. I’d be interested to hear what others think.
LikeLike