Talk:Water for Elephants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Water for elephants.jpg[edit]

Image:Water for elephants.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Literary Criticism section seems to just be one person's interpretation.[edit]

"One of the most interesting aspects of the novel is that the death of August is described twice through Jacob's viewpoint, once in the Prologue and once at the end of the novel. In the first instance, the passage is written in such a way that the reader might believe that the character August is killed by Marlena, Jacob's love interest. In the second instance, August is clearly killed by Rosie the elephant. The novel leaves who actually killed August deliberately ambiguous, although the theory that it could have been Marlena is argued against by the description of the killer using a metal tent stake to split August's "head like a watermelon," something it would have been next to impossible for the slight Marlena to do. Early in the novel, Rosemary the nurse explains to Jacob that "Sometimes when you get older [...] things you think on and wish on start to seem real. And then you believe them, and before you know it they're a part of your history [...]" (177). Later, Jacob reflects how he kept the secret that Rosie killed August from Marlena. He thinks, "At first I stayed silent to protect Rosie [...].In the entire history of our marriage, it was the only secret I kept from her [...]. With a secret like that, at some point the secret itself becomes irrelevant" (327). These passages suggest that memories are inherently flawed and subjective.

However, the rest of the novel fits in the neatly with the "Rosie killed him" theory, and the author even describes this incident in the book as being based on a factual account of an elephant killing a trainer after he threw a lit cigarette in her mouth. The interpretation is ultimately left up to the reader with the Marlena theory being extremely unlikely."

Shouldn't this have critic's reception to it, not this? EvangelionTesttype (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This interview with Gruen seems to dispute the nanowrimo claims[edit]

http://bestsellers.about.com/od/authorinterviews/a/sara_gruen_intv.htm

I skimmed through that article but found no mention of nanowrimo. How does she dispute it? And what "claims" specifically are you referring to?

Exactly... she makes no mention of nanowrimo when discussing how she wrote the book. The claims I'm referring to are in the wiki article that she wrote it as part of nanowrimo, which is untrue... a myth propogated only by nanowrimo (for obvious reasons).

SARA GRUEN: (laugh) Well, um, I wrote the first half of the book without any problems, but I had two fairly long interruptions. The first, my horse got very sick and I sat outside her stall for nine weeks. Then she actually stepped on my foot and crushed it afterwards, so I was out for nine weeks. That was the first interruption. I was out for 18 weeks. So I wrote the first half of the book and then I took what was supposed to be a short three or four week technical writing contract, and it stretched into four months. I was doing 10 and 11-hour days, and it was a fairly complicated SQL server database thing. When I finished it, I was really having a lot of trouble getting my head back into the book and getting my characters and my plotlines back. So, I was shopping on ebay a lot and I painted my family room five times and I actually sorted my rubberbands by size. I’m a slob so this was a real cry for help. So I asked my husband to move my desk into our walk-in closet because I knew I either had to get serious about finishing the book or else just give up on it. And I covered over the window and I wore headphones. I think I was three and a half months in the closet before I finally finished. Of course, if I did it now I would have to rip the wireless card out of my laptop, but at the time I didn’t have one, so it meant I was unwired.

ECM: So, how long from when you saw that newspaper article to when you finished the book? How long start to finish?

SARA GRUEN: I think roughly a year.

ECM: Even with interruptions, that was pretty quick.


This interview confirms the NaNoWriMo connection. 

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WrimoRadio/~5/xjsZ6x5SmZ8/2008_14_WrimoRadio.mp3

It's a short discussion between Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo, and Sara Gruen, recorded in 2008 as part of WrimoRadio. The interview proper runs from the 3 min. to the 7 min. mark. The following begins at 3:13.


Baty: ... How does NaNoWriMo fit into your novelling process?

Gruen: I use it as a method of getting down a huge chunk of words to work with. And, really, they're not very good quality when I finish but, um, but that's what the whole editing process is for. You leave the editing behind when you're doing NaNo and then you go back afterwards and fix it, and usually I'm left with a big pile of clay and you [unclear - possibly "can" or "kind of"] mold it from there.

Baty: How many years have you participated in NaNoWriMo?

Gruen: You know, this last year has been such a, a blur that I'm, I'm not sure how many years it was. I skipped one, but I've done three NaNo books so I guess it would be four years. And this year I'm skipping because I'm finishing my last year's NaNo book [Ape House] which I guess goes to some degree to answer your last question, which is, I spend the next year completing it and making it better and making it decent enough.


Falln angel (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the interview is dead, but it seems legit. I guess people use Nano in different ways. 

http://lindseyrivait.com/blog/?p=75

I found an interview by Lindsey Rivait made with Sara Gruen in 2009 but only published in 2011. That also claims she used NaNoWrimo. Bujatt (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“The wonderful thing about NaNoWriMo is that it gives you something to edit. Because the only thing you can’t edit is a blank page,” Gruen said.

Non-Sequitur under the title[edit]

Why does it need to be stated that the book is not a sequel to Like Water for Chocolate? They both have "Water for" in their titles but their subject matter couldn't be further apart. Just because one user was confused, there is no reason for an explanation to be on this page. It looks silly. The Star Wars page does not have a section saying that it is not a sequel to Star Trek. Gwenlorraine (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right..."The circus came to town, so to the circus I went/I didn't have a nickel, didn't have a cent/The man said, 'Son, to see the show without a cent/You'll have to carry water for the elephants.'" --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu[edit]

When I saw the movie I had a strong sense of deja vu, to the extent of knowing the story line. I have not read the book and feel I saw the movie years ago, yet it's a new release. Was there a TV film or some other earlier version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.94.105 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the location for this type of discussion. Jabberwockgee (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue claim?[edit]

The article says "Also, photos of actual circuses and circus performers of the time are included throughout the book.". I've seen two different paperback versions in the UK and neither contained any photographs. Was this only in certain edition, only in the US? 94.174.108.74 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was the case as well (mine and my mother's copy are both photo-less), but the "see inside the book" preview on B&N shows at least one – and a reviewer refers to them "enhancing the sensual prose" or some such cockamamie – so I'm inclined to believe they added the photos in later re-printings after the book got really popular. Removing the Disputed tag accordingly. FoxAndRavens (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are photos in recent paperbacks of this book, go to your local bookstore ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler alert needed[edit]

There should be a spoiler alert before the plot summary. This is a very exciting story with twists to the very end, and I feel the reader would really miss out by knowing exactly what is going to happen.

83.50.39.99 (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Why does the link for the Water for Elephants offical website take me to the amazon page for the movie?--173.17.193.34 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Water for Elephants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_for_Elephants&oldid=1208093573"