Water for Elephants
discussion
The role of memory in the novel
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Sherry
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jan 11, 2008 09:29PM

reply
|
flag

Is Jacob being selective in his memory, protecting Marlene?
I am speculating that Marlene was the perpetrator and not Rosie.
If this is not the case, then why did the author re-write the details of Jacob madly trying to find Marlene during the stampede and seeing the demise of August?


I returned the book to the library so I can't quote verbatim, however I do remember a few differences in the two stampede descriptions.
In the first description Jacob clearly locks eyes with the one he is most anxious to find. 'She' then picks up the tent peg...
My proposition is based on the fact that Jacob would be most concerned about Marlena and thus the first version 'she' is Marlena.
Does that Theory hold any water?
If it was Rosie then why did the author slightly change the two versions: in one the person he locks eyes with has a 'bemused' look, while the other version 'she' has a stoney (I forget the exact description) look.
My theory may help support Sherry's thoughts above; possibly Jacob does have a good memory but years of covering up the real truth causes him to blur a lot of facts. The author could have been highlighting Jacob's memory as a clue to August's fate.


I believe it truly was Rosie who did the deed for two reasons - first, unless Marlena was taller than August she would have to be extremely strong to force a stake into his skull from a lower height. More importantly, Gruen talks about the reality of elephant executions, which contextualizes Jacob's fear of telling anyone the truth about August's death.
Just my 2 cents...


I think the only reason the two accounts of the stampede were different is because the author wants the reader to think Marlena did it at the beginning so the reader will read the whole book with interest to find out why and find out what happened to her for killing a man; and then we get the "details" in the second account that tell us it was really the elephant, as a "twist." If we knew it was just the elephant from the start, would we be so prodded to read on?



It very well could be that Jacob's shakey memory could account for the fact that he believes Rosie killed August. He may also claim Rosie killed August in order to protect Marlena. I think that it was in fact Rosie that killed August because Gruen never gave Marlena any character triats that would indicate that she would kill anyone let alone August. Throughout the whole book Marlena is one of only two people who really defend August and his violent behavior (Uncle Al only defends it by labeling his a paranoid schizophrenic). Marlena only stands up to August in the very end of the book. While we do see Marlena detach herself from August little by little thoughout the book, I just don't think she would do something as extreme as killing him, especially in such a violent way.
Also, thoughout the book Jacob makes many comments about how smart Rosie is. Several times Jacob makes comments about rosie's facial expressions. He expresses that he feels that Rosie forgave what August had done to her in the past. Elephants are known for their memory so perhaps Rosie did remember and was simply paying August back for the brutal treatment.
Another thing I found interesting was at the end Jacob expressed that he didn't think Marlena saw what Rosie did. He said that he never had the heart to tell her. I like to think that she did see what Rosie did and she never had the heart to tell him either.


Iron stake is heavy and I doubt Marlena had strength amidst the commotion. Also Jacob he didn't told Marlena because Rosie may put into danger. Elephant killing was common in those days.

As for the unreliable narrator, I never questioned his memory of the past. He said it was his memory of the present that was problematic. To illustrate this he said he never forgot his own children, just had trouble placing the grandkids and great-grandkids, etc.
The circus owner at the end of the book puts some credibility to his story too as he had heard of the stampede and wanted the first-hand account.

On the subject of his memory, I don't think something as important and real as his love for Marlena is one of those things that could be changed with time and old age. The Notebook, anyone? :)


I think why Jacob didn't told Marlena was because she was afraid what it might do to their relationship.

Iron stake is heavy and I doubt Marlena had strength amidst the commotion. Also Jacob he didn't told Marlena because Rosie may put into danger. Elephant killin..."
I agree. Wasn't there a point towards the end of the story where Jacob actually said that he didn't tell Marlena the truth because he didn't want her feelings for Rosie to change?


I had to re-read the beginning, since I didn't know where Rosie came from in the final retelling of the stampede. Jacob retold the story by stating that Rosie protected Marlena, that she was stood over Marlena during the stampede(convenient imagery). He also made it a point to justify "Rosie's" actions, since he was going to kill August, how could he hold it against "her".
I believe that Marlena killed August, and Jacob did not want to hold it against her since he intended to so the same. However, Jacob struggled with the killing. There is a clear difference between intent and action; they had the same intent but she took it a step further and acted. There are so many moral implications that he would have had to address if he admitted Marlena's culpability to himself (how could she be his wife, loving mother, a beautiful horse whisperer, and a killer), but morality is a non-issue with an animal. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Marlena would have shunned Rosie, had Rosie actually been her protector. It was simply Jacob painting and re-painting his beloved.


all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic