The Story Of Edgar Sawtelle
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.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
[...] Recent Comments Secretly Ironic » Blog Archive » The Story Of Edgar Sawtelle on Not Dead YetVickie Jenkins on Fellow Bookseller Coverage of BEAPete J on Back from LAGwen on LinkaramaSteve Laniel on Big Bookstore News! [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Anyone want to discuss the ending of this incredible story? Where did the dogs go? Are they are on their way to you know who’s house? Are they off to a lead a wild existance with the mystical wolf? OR, is where they are headed meaningless in that they are simply making a “choice” like all of their masters did in the final chapters? I’ve spent the last two nights up late reading this book and pondering this question will have me up for at least one more!
July 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
All my dogs marched before me in the pages of this book. Over my life I have had wonderful dogs. This morning I finished the book and immediately got up and took Willie and Hannah for a walk in the redwoods. They became Sawtelle Dogs to me. I had tears as we walked, watching them dart and race through the shadows. I like to think that Essay and Forte took the dogs and chose wisely and left them at worthy homes and they were taken in as strays and loved by their new families. I think that is the what Edgar wanted her to do and she knew what he wanted and that Edgar knew the day he first saw Forte that he was part of it all. Henry and Tinder and Baboo will make it if the others don’t, but it’s sad that Henry will never know the true story……..but do many of us ever do? I am glad that Almondine and Edgar had their last moment together. I would love a sequel, but I also like just wondering.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Yes, but what about the sequel?…..Essay is obviously going to have a litter from Forte, and what will be their fate?
July 13th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I just finished reading this wonderful book too and I don’t believe there will be any new litters.
I’m inclined to believe Forte is a ghost and that Essay has led all the dogs to a much more significant “crossing.”
Now, it’s time to sit down and give my dear old dog a deep massage.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
Am I the only person in the world who didn’t like this book at all? It had a few pleasant chapters, mostly when Edgar was on the run & staying with what’s his name. But for the vast majority of the time I just didn’t care–about Edgar, or any of the other characters including the dogs. The nicest thing I can say about it is perhaps it was a “Guy Book” and I just don’t get it.
N.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I rate this one of my top 5 favorites of all time. Thought provoking and profound. I loved the insights into the raising and training of dogs, as well as the relationship between master and dog. I think David Wroblewski will have a tough time achieving the same level of success in his next piece, but I know I will be watching and waiting for it.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I finished this book a couple of days ago with sobs and great fury! Sorry, but it was the most unsatisfying book I have ever read. I am a dog person (all my life) and I kept telling my 16 year old son how he would love this book and have to read it after I was done. But not now! HE DIES?!!!! First the beautiful Almondine dies (alright, maybe Edgar’s running away has to have some consequence)and then Edgar? While his mother watches? Please!!! What kind of a depressed human being thought this up. Make us fall in love with the boy and the dogs and his bravery and his adventure and then kill him? No, this is not Hamlet, this is Edgar. And this is a shame.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Liz: One of the most important lessons of having animals in a child’s life is that they die, and it’s an early lesson in accepting mortality.
Also, if you recall, everyone in Hamlet dies at the end. It’s not a tragedy if there’s a happy ending…
July 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I cried through the last 100 pages,and had nightmares about my dog Sophie the night I finished it. I agree that the ending was horrible and hard to read. I was infuriated when Almondine died. But would the book have been as moving, as powerful, with a happy ending? If I’d have written it, Almondine, Edgar, and his mom would have lived happily ever after. Maybe that’s why I’ll never be a great writer.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
The ending had nothing to do with the story!!
July 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
[...] Recent Comments George Stevens on The Story Of Edgar SawtelleSusan Ramey Cleveland on The Story Of Edgar Sawtelleverbal on The Story Of Edgar SawtelleLiz on The Story Of Edgar Sawtelleverbal on The Radon Is Also A Metaphor [...]
July 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I felt that way about the end, too. I was so upset, and yet the whole time I was reading it, I kept saying to myself, “it’s based on Hamlet. Edgar has to die. Almondine is Ophelia. She has to die. Claude has to die and Mom has to die (symbolically?). I knew it would happen, but still I was terribly sad.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I think that Forte should have gone into the fire in the barn and pulled Edgar out. I really thought it would end that way !
July 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
One of the best books I’ve read lately, a total five-starrer, but I’m afraid I too was bummed by the ending. I didn’t see it coming at all, not being an English major aware of the Hamlet connection. Still, I can’t get Edgar out of my mind, and every time I look at my little mutt dog I want to curl my body around him and cuddle (I also think of how undisciplined he is, now that I see what training really means). I have been arguing with the book’s ending (who do you argue with…the author or the muse?) ever since I raced to the finish last night at midnight. I definitely need a sequel. Trudy’s story. And after all her troubles, it better have a happy ending.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I just finished this book and am unsure about how I feel. I absolutely hate it that it ends so tragically, but what beautiful writing! The story is good; the characters are amazing. I’ll be very careful about recommending it to others. I can’t remember when I’ve been so emotionally involved in a book.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:35 am
I agree the ending had nothing to do with the book. It was captivating and lyrical and then switched into a stupid bloodbath. Just like a hollywood movie. Don’t forget the ridiculous ether business plus burning barn plus lethal poison plus Trudy being pinned, etc. Too absurd. Trudy gets her just reward for falling for Claude; she was presented as a bright woman – the author really let us down concerning her character. The book was on the way to being what everyone says about it, but he blew it in the end.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Back to the original topic… While I love Gee’s idea about Forte being a ghost, I think that the ending of the book presented a choice to the Sawtelle dogs: either to live in the wild like Forte, or to live alongside humans. Each of the dogs let its opinion be known to Essay, the leader, and stood waiting for Essay’s decision. We never know what she chooses, but the choice itself is not significant. What matters is Essay’s capacity to choose. This is the culmination of John Sawtelle’s dream of creating the “next dog,” and this is what sets the Sawtelle dogs apart. What a terrific book!
August 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
ok – so i had to review the sparknotes on hamlet – when i got to the end and found my dear edgar dead, i simply could not believe it – the dogs heading off in to the next, whatever that may be, reminded me of Jonah in Lois Lowry’s The Giver, though of course the dogs were leaving an idyllic world -
August 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I’m in agreement with what Pixie has said. But the last chapters didn’t ruin the book for me because I enjoyed the rest so much. I’m also enjoying pondering alternate endings…
August 8th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
i just finished this book and had absolutely loved it throughout… but am very disappointed about the ending. in fact, i hated the ending!! i related to liz, who was re thinking whether to recommend the book to her 16 yr old. i am also not recommending it my two kids now. it was so frustrating. it was so so sad that edgar rejected almondine to start with. and what happened to almondine? was that scene at the end just in edgar’s imagination? i guess, but i just wanted to believe that almondine was really there. but i guess it was real in edgar’s mind anyway.
the ending really changed my opinion of the book. there was no reason it had to end so darkly. i’m so mad at the author right now.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I think that Essay and the dogs that choose to go with her are going to go feral and live off the land like Forte. In fact, I think that’s why Forte (the current one, not the one Claude had as a young person), is in the book. He knows how to live that way and will help them. I think that’s why Edgar lured him along as he returned to the farm. I think he sensed some of the Sawtelle dogs would need his skills.
I don’t really understand the people who said they wouldn’t have their 16 year old and other children read the book. Weren’t some of the books you loved most as a child very sad (Little Women is the example that springs to mind.)
August 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Loved this book, however, what was the significance of Edgar’s father signing to Edgar the letters HAA? How did any of the story concerning the ambassador have to do with the story or with helping Edgar solve his father’s death?
August 13th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I loved this story.Oh yes; I could see the shadow of Hamlet throughout the book.To answer Barbara’s question about what happened to Almondine=she was hit by the “car”(tho’ she didn’t have a name for it) that was coming down the road.Also,I have a feeling that somehow Edgar is going to survive that fire–in the sequel, if there is one. I’m not ready for another Hamlet.I’m waiting for a miracle–and they happen everyday!
August 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
A ridiculous book, I forced myself to read all of it and do not understand the hype and the interest it has received. It needed a good editor, but it also needed a point. None of the characters change or grow or develop or learn, the ghost stuff is ridiculous, the imagined other world after death is ridiculous, the “thoughts” of the dogs are ridiculous. Yes animals have an inner life of some kind, more than most humans have ever credited them, but not the clear-eyed philosophy expressed in the English language as written by the author. And Hamlet? please, Shakespeare the author is not. For Beth, he might have survived the fire, but not the poison, no sequel, please. and what are “cuneiform clouds”? I’ve never seen anything in any sky remotely matching that description. Overwrought, soon forgot, couldn’t bring myself to care what happened to any of the characters, human or canine, largely because the author didn’t give me any reason to care. A simple story that might have made a decent short story or novella, but “Moby Dick” it’s not, no need for all the references and quotations to dog breeding, etc. Nothing learned from any of it, and the “Sawtelle dog” as a breed is ridiculous in itself. Take a dog that has some charm from any breed of dog and add it to the line you’ve bred and you get mutts. Perhaps loveable, loyal, and intelligent, but mutts. No particular size or form or coloring is going to remain consistent. A thoroughly stupid and ridiculous book.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Loved, loved loved this book! Just finished it last night, and cried the entire rest of the evening, but oh! how wonderful. I am so glad I did not read these posts before I had finished or it would have spoiled the entire ending for me. I,too, was disappointed in the ending, however the entire book was magical.Last night I dreamt of my beloved (passed) Brandy and she was Almondine. Oh, to spend a few hours with the author, discussing, questioning, celebrating this work of art.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I just finished reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. I downloaded this book to my Sony eBook so now it is easy to go over some parts of the book to help me make sense of it all.Some words in this book I did not recognize so looked them up in my pocket dictionary. No luck there. I do not own a dog but I really enjoyed the way the author portrayed the personalities of them especially Almondine thoughts. I am dissappointed in the ending too and am confused. What is it that the author is not telling us that makes Edgar realize that Claude killed his father? I have so many questions that I am re-reading this book in parts hoping to satisfy those questions.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:15 am
I thoroughly agree with all the nay-sayers. If the author had written the last quarter of the book as skillfully as the first three-quarters, he’d have had a novel worth raving about. And I didn’t cotton to the ghosts, whether dead humans or dead canines. Yes, there was some admirable prose but the melodramatic pages that led to the ridiculous ending left me cold and regretful that I had urged my daughter to buy the book. August 17th marks my 87th birthday. I thought I’d be celebrating a wonderful conclusion to a wonderful novel. Thank heavens the other book I’ve been reading, Nice Work by David Lodge is totally satisfying and (I am confident) will not slap me in the face with a weirdly dark ending.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
My comment is awaiting moderation??? Why must my opinion be any more moderate than those who said they were angry at the author or concluded “A thoroughly stupid and ridiculous book”? Yes, I loved this book and the writing style until that style metamorphosed into darkness and chaos. I have copied and pasted my opinion into my book file, to show to my daughter after she has read the novel. She will be left with a similarly negative view.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
The ending was painful with so much loss and sadness, and I’m trying to reconcile the reasons why the author finished this way. Maybe Edgar was like a Sawtelle dog. He couldn’t speak, but communicated in sign and expressions which only those who tried, would understand, and he lived a short life. Did Claude poison Edgar’s father? What was the “poison in the juice”? Why was Trudy, the only woman, left to suffer the loss of all? I’m still disturbed and moved.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Stupid book, overwrought, overreaching. By the end, I was just skimming it.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I couldn’t get through it and recently stopped reading it right after Gar dies. It is strangely without context. I guess that’s part of the device of having a deaf main character. But I grew up in the 70s and nothing seemed to echo that era for me. Glad I didn’t finish it as I hate sad endings especially where dogs and children are concerned.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I’m not finished with the book yet, but have read the comments here and skimmed the end! How disappointing. When I read a book I want to feel satisfied in the end and I will definitely not feel that when when I finally finish this one. It was beautifully written, and I lived and breathed the characters while I read it. But I”m not looking forward to the ending. My own life has had aspects of Hamlet and Lear in it, and I don’t need to be reminded of life’s sorrows when I read.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
What good did it do Edgar to truly KNOW about the Sawtelle dogs? That knowledge died with him. Authors make choices and I think the choice to end Edgar’s life was not what most readers liked. All those years of keeping the line going and training the dogs – wasted!
August 27th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I just finished the book and I have to agree that it was a total disappointment at the end. And I am not dissapointed that it didnt have a “happy” ending, some books shouldnt. What was dissipointing was that the entire story was just wasted. Trudy never found out that Claude killed Gar, Edgar never got to confront Claude about his father’s death. The list goes on. There was just this whole big set up for 500 pages and then…. fizzle.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I loved this book. I am a dog-lover, but I don’t think it’s a necessary trait to enjoy the book. It was beautifully written, amazing imagery and intertwined relationships that had me thinking throughout the day (when the book was put away). I have somewhat mixed feelings about the ending– I am ok with Edgar dying, mostly because I was distraught that Almondine and he never got to reunite… However, a few days after crying about that (yes, I’m a sap), it dawned on me that since Edgar was having run-ins with ghosts, that of course Almondine would find him again. And just for that at the end was a huge relief for me. It didn’t matter that he didn’t “officially” confront Claude with info about the father’s homicide. Claude clearly knew that Edgar knew about it. That’s what was so good about the book– I saw no reason for the author to spell it out– just look at the extreme action Claude went thru to get rid of Edgar. There was plenty of “silent” confrontation between them. I would LOVE to discuss this book with anyone; it weighed heavy on my mind throughout the reading… there is so much in this rich and satisfying story.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:13 am
I almost stopped following this thread because it seemed that so many readers just didn’t “get it.” Then, Nat came along.
This book is a work of art. Like Stephen King, I plan to read it again.
Characters died, but did they really?
The ending left me stunned, but left my spiritual side quivering.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:35 am
I loved the book and am shocked at the ending. It defied predictability, for me at least, since I didn’t identify it as a modern Hamlet. I wonder about some of the symbols: the black image when Edgar leaves his body after the death of his father; the black vine-like image his mother sees; the name “Sawtelle” — talk about ironic (secretly or not). Did Trudy die?
August 29th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I disagree that this had a bad ending. It had a dramatic ending – I give you that. One of the reasons I love to read is to give me new perspectives on life. This book did that. It made me think about life. It is continuing to make me think about the story days after I finished it. Rare for me to think so long on a story. There are many lessons in the book that a happier ending would have made me forget. A slap across the face ending leaves me stunned and shocked, but not angry at this author. I have to face bad things in life. This book helps me to do that. You can learn about the struggles and decisions and see beauty in what superficially looks like a mess. Great, great story. It has me up at night. What a puzzle!
August 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I just finished the novel and wanted to read what others had to say. Most of the comments are about the ending. I guess it was fitting. The whole novel felt incomplete to me, too many unanswered questions and too little character development. What had Claude been in prison for? I assume that’s where he came from. I thought more about East of Eden when I was reading; it’s been too many years since I read Hamlet.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I just finished the book last night and I was so unhappy with the ending. I loved the book throughout till the end.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 am
Edgar did not die. Remember when Claude said he saw “Gar” standing in the door. He said all the time how Edgar reminded him of his brother. I like to think this is the happy ending. Edgar is still ALIVE!!!!!!!
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 am
I loved this book until the last 100 pages. I wanted a fairy tale ending and didn’t get it. Having both children and dogs, my pain was with Edgar and my anger was with Trudy. She didn’t go and look for him? Glen was able to keep her from going to the barn? Trudy had lost a baby before Edgar and sank into depression. The story presented about how her relationship with Claude evolved made little sense to me. I just wanted someone to hold and love Edgar. I am sad that he died not knowing he was loved. The gift he gave Henry was sweet. It wasn’t Timber or Baboo, but that he wasn’t ordinary after all. I agree with others wondering if they should recommend the book. I find it curious that after many months of climbing the best seller list, this book just drops out of site, with little word of mouth promotion.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Not really. The author was interviewed again just last week on the Today Show by Meredith Vieira. People are still talking about it.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mary Ellen’s comment from Aug. 10th addresses one of my biggest questions, something I was looking for an answer to throughout the rest of the novel — what was the significance of Edgar’s father signing to Edgar the letters HAA? What was he actually trying to say, what was he telling Edgar to look for? Also, this may be incredibly daft, or maybe it’s just a Hamlet allusion that I can’t recall, but what was the significance or Edgar cleaning out Henry’s shed and Edgar talking to the ghost (besides telling us that Edgar can communicate w/ ghosts)? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Btw, I thoroughly enjoyed the book (except for the unnecessary detail of him running through the woods pre-Henry — didn’t see the need for it), but these lingering questions are really nagging at me.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only who was mashed by this bizarre ending. I never got used to John Irving killing off characters he so deftly got me to fall in love with, but logic wasn’t so far off as it is here.
There’s no way this ending simply does justice to the magnificence that preceded it.
I knew something was up when Glen, for whatever reason besides the demented Claude’s prodding, decided he needed to subdue Edgar in such a forceful manner.
Me thinks Edgar would have willingly answered Glen’s questions about his dad if he simply sat down with the boy and asked him.
I also was frustrated with the torrents of imagery at the end. I had to read and re-read to pick out what was real and what was illusion.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Didn’t the poison bottle have the word Hague on it?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Totally agree with Les, Aug 4. The ending deletes the human factor and leaves the idea of rational choice, the “next” dog generation, as the evolved Sawtelle dog where it can choose to be a mutt, ie the Forte character and live on the fringe of the forest, OR become part of the human race. I guess it congers up the notion of who is more evolved? The Henry character that lives in the forest and feels “ordinary” or the civilized houses below with the glow of light that emits from the houses. Which way is progress for Essay and her fellow survivors? Toward Forte, who I also believe is a “vision” or toward the lights? I guess the answer depends on whether or not you see the glass as half empty or half full, or whether “civilization” is the better choice or not. I’m not convinced that the dogs choose the “lights”.
September 11th, 2008 at 5:16 am
I just finished this book. I couldn’t put it down for 3 days. When I finally did there were too many unanswered questions. I had all the questions in my mind and kept looking at the few pages I had left to read and was hoping HOPING they’d be answered.
I didn’t like the way it ended, it left a void.
But everything that led up to the end was amazing. Had it ended differently it would have been the book of the year.
I sometimes think authors run out of steam and just end it and wait for a paycheck.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
As I read the comments of others, I was relieved that my sense of loss were shared by so many others. I am simply a reader, not a literary critic, but I respect the desire of an author to write a great work of literature. I was unaware of the Hamlet theme and I wanted, and expected, Edgar to survive. I’m 57 years old and have read many hundreds of novels and yet at the end I had to remind myself myself that this is ONLY a story and that Edgar never actually lived so he couldn’t die. The problem is that charcters do live for me and David Wroblewski made me believe every word. I loved the book and, though disappointed, I am not angry with the ending.
For Mary Ellen, I thought that the “Haa” was a reference to Hachiko, the Japanese Akita, and that the father was telling his son that when you find something or someone worthy of your love (his mother, Almondine, …), you should give it loyally and unconditionally.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Finished about an hour ago, walking around in a kind of stupor, turned off my phone so I’d be left alone. I don’t know yet if I’m angry about the ending, maybe when I “come to” I’ll have a clearer opinion about that, but as for a story about communication I need no delay: this book is remarkable. The simple notion that there is no need for the silly, unimaginative zero-sum game of dominance/subservience is the great lesson in this work for me: teaching and learning are one, giving and taking love are one, and doing either and still leaving room for choice is an aspirational ideal. If the author deprived me, it was only of gratuitous scenes (which I would nevertheless have “enjoyed”, in a tear-jerker, “justice meted out” way): I would have heaved sobs when Almondine died, I would have crackled with satisfaction when Trudy learned about Claude, etc. What is most important: I want to talk to people, as so many above have said, and in that sense the book is a complete success. If it is, indeed, about communication, then here I am, looking on the internet for complete strangers to give me a gaze, or a scent, or to cup my belly and tell me they, too read this…
September 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I LOVED this book. I just finished it last night and would rate it in my top 5 best books EVER! I would have liked a better ending – with Edgar and his mother together with all the dogs. I do not own a dog but was fascinated with the training and loyalty of Sawtelle dogs. I found myself totally captivated with this book.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I have one question – What were the references to Edgar’s real father? The mother at one point asked Edgar what he remembered about his real father – What was that about?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:04 am
The Haa could also refer to Hangul. The language that was spoken where Claude received the poison.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
So many unanswered questions: Did Claude buy the poison intentionally so he could settle a longstanding conflict w/ Gar? The old Chinese man showed the power of the poison by using it on a dog. Foreshadowing? What was the conflict between the two brothers about? What was the significance of the questions the old man “ghost” asks as Edgar cleaned out the shed? Any significance to Henry’s character, other than he was totally different from anyone Edgar had ever experienced? Or his beat-up car? A lot of mention of cars, trucks, buses. Somebody tell me the meaning of Gar (or his message) in the rainsheets. So what’s the theme? “Revenge can cause destruction [of spirit, lives, love]“? Perhaps the ending with Essay giving the other dogs a choice is intended to give us the feeling of the uncertainty of life. So many bad decisions made by the human characters in the story…thanks to all who shared the confusion I had as I finished the book yesterday. I had to re-read the ending also, but it was because I just couldn’t accept that Edgar’s character died. “Now what just happened here??”
September 20th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
About Susan’s questions re the father and Haa: The references were not to Edgar’s real father; they were to Trudy’s (remember her foster family upbringing). It’s sometimes confusing as to who is “speaking” when the dialogue is in sign. Also, the Haa was later described to mean the loyal dog in Japan, Hachiko, waiting for the long-dead master’s train. The ambassador wrote about “…possibly a third presence… whom only Hachiko could see.” Hmm, more ghosts. I just finished the book an hour ago, and still can’t decide how I feel about it. Alternately annoyed/warmed.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I read this book in short sessions, savoring it, unwilling to have it end. I had to stop and set it aside at times – worried about the dogs. I think Claude was a sociopath. He killed animals – that’s a sure sign. He obviously was jealous of his brother all his life especially having a loving family and a successful breeding business. He was obsessed with the poison as the answer to his problems. I wanted Edgar to save the syringe and have it tested in a crime lab! Why did he throw it away when it was proof he needed to show his mother? Why didn’t he ever confront Trudy? He knew Claude was dangerous, yet he let him insinuate himself in his mother’s life. The dog training/communication was eye-opening. The shared-gazing in the book led me to watch my own dog with a new insight. I like the idea of the dog making a choice. Essay, Babou, and Almondine made life-altering choices, and Edgar was aware of what they were doing. I had to reread the summary of Hamlet, as I forgot important plot elements. Edgar’s story follows it like an outline. This book is worthy of all the attention it is receiving.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
My sister is reading this book now and wondering what all the fuss and praise is about. She says that it’s readable, and pleasant enough but nothing to rave about.
Is all the “fabulous” saved for the end of the book???
I was going to read it but I’m less excited about it now.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I am very disappointed. So much in the book about character and noble intentions, then “Thwack!” with the ending. What?? Did ANYONE in this book go on to a happy life? Poor dogs- stripped of their home and their family. I’m glad this is fiction. I am sorry I wasted my money, though.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
i finished this book about an hour ago, and i can’t stop sobbing. I don’t mean tearing up, actually sobbing. this book so totally got into my soul, that I feel as though members of my family have died, and my own dogs have run feral. when i was about 60 pages out, i told my mother that this was one of those books that you want to get to the end to see what happens, but you don’t because then the journey will be over. i had no idea it would be so tragic. this author made me feel and care about these people and animals, and i really feel a sense of loss. i agree with steve from 9-13, i have to keep telling myself that none of this is real, and i shouldn’t feel a loss. i just can’t help it. i know this is not a story about dogs, but the parts from almondine’s pov have enlightened me on a dog’s sense of loss. i’ve always known they have feelings, and grieve. i am going to pay more attention to how my own three dogs are feeling.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I could not get over how disappointed I was with this ending. The book was amazing in all other ways (although there was a typo that didn’t sit well with me.) Everyone DIES??? What is THAT?? I’m pretty sure Trudy dies. Trudy knew in the end that Claude killed Gar, at least I thought so, so that was somewhat satisfying. I’m glad Claude dies. The most unsatisfying was not that Edgar died, but he was killed by Claude. Also, how could Trudy take in Claude? I was disappointed by that fact. I’m happy Edgar reunited with Almondine, his soul mate at the end, but I did not like the circumstances. I miss reading this book.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
This book was haunting, and I’d recommend it without reserve to anyone because it is great literature. PEOPLE–it is not a soap opera or one of your favorite TV dramas that must be resolved in an hour. It is fashioned after classic literature, and apparently many of you don’t recognize that (i.e. inane complaints of it not having a happy ending). Trudy does not die; she must live any empty husk knowing what her role in the tragedy was. Edgar had to die because that’s the only logical way to resolve the conflict. Claude must die to balance the evil he perpetrated on all (he’d used poison to kill before Gar). Edgar being reunited with Almondine (real or not) was satisfying for me. The author couldn’t have let Edgar survive after his being responsible for a man’s death and for blinding that man’s son. Too much tragedy for a 14 year-old to bear.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:27 am
Hey, Fellow Readers,
I, too, was devastated by the ending; so tragic! I loved the book in spite of that. It spoke to the human spirit of us all and to the animal spirit in each of us as well, and, yes, I am speaking of both people and dogs.
The one thing I would like to ask the author is what the purpose of the little girl who told Edgar he couldn’t speak beacause he was born with a secret? Her Granny told her? Was her Granny Ida?
So many questions!
Also, Trudy was a weak woman. She should have turned on Claude the moment she realized he had betrayed them all, but I know we are all so stupid about relationships, and so easily into denial. DAMN!
Wish I had a good book to turn to tonight. I miss the gang in Sawtelle!
Gwynneth
October 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I loved the book, but found it disturbing and haunting.
Edgar is 14 years old, and never seems to miss Trudy, or indeed, Almondine.
Almondine moved me, but Edgar was growing up, and parents, animals, and grandparents frequently get left behind.I believe that as Edgar’s lifelong protector, Almondine would not have walked into the road and stood in front of a truck.
Trudy was an unsympathetic character, her choice caused the tragedy.
My happy ending would have been, they sell the farm, move to a farmhouse near town, and learn to live a different life, remembering Gar.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I loved the book….how the author got into Almondine’s head and let us know how she felt about Edgar leaving…it tore my heart out….the ending was so so sad though…but the reading was captivating. I believe that Essay was on her way to Henry…hopefully and I believe that she is carrying Forte’s pups….
October 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
p.s. what was the deal with the liquid in the bottle with the ribbon…did it have a hidden meaning…I just didn’t get it…..also what about Ida…how did she figure in….
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 am
I loved this book, but I was so let down by the ending that I had to reread it to make sure I didn’t misunderstand it. I wanted Essay to stop Claude and to save Edgar. I started rereading it because it paints so many beautiful pictures in mind and I wanted to see the crumbs that were dropped at the beginning leading to the ending. I partly listened in the car through my iPod, and I highly recommend that. The reader was great. I can’t wait for my family to read it, so we can talk about it. Thanks for the blog, so I don’t have to wait so long. What a great movie this book will make!
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
What a great book!That is until the end!Why spend 10 years writing a masterpiece and then just throw it all to the wind for the sake of finishing.No one I know has enjoyed much less understood the ending.It was such a huge failure.I read that book like it was my last breath and then WHAMO what the heck????
October 4th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I believe this book left alot of questions unanswered…..on purpose. Noone takes that long to write a book just to leave so many questions unanswered with reason. There will definitely be a sequel. Or maybe even another, completely different story that may help read as guide to Edgar. Bravo to the new author. I only hope he answers all the questions he left us with.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:32 am
So glad I found this site…I just finished it last night and like most everyone posted here I, too, was devastated by the ending. BUT, I still absolutely loved this book. I agree with Linda (9/27) that this is great literature…what prose. It leaves one breathless and in awe of the author’s mastery of language. I still have so many questions…I have never re-read a book until now. I think a second reading will give me new insights since I already know all the basics of the story. Almondine definitely came back to Edgar as he was “dying”?…he was “lost” and she finally “found” him. And yes, she was hit by a car because she decided to “ask” the “strangers” if they knew where her boy had gone. No one else had answers for her…she chose to seek out others. It’s not clear to me if Claude actually injected Edgar with his poison of choice. He stood in the barn with the “syringe still in his hand”. Doesn’t clarify if it was empty. And why did he get it from the old man in the first place…who else did he kill? Edgar was able to “see” & “talk” with those that had died even though he was alive. Couldn’t he have been having this same experience with Almondine? I believe Trudy did die. Strangled by the pitiful character Glen. And Claude…his last vision was of Gar manifesting within the smoke of the advancing fire. Interesting that the barn only contained smoke…no fire for so long? Too many questions that only the author can answer. I would love to hear his explanations. Does anyone know where I could read his comments? I can only hope that he writes a sequel…I really NEED to know what happened to Essay (and Forte..I don’t think he was a “ghost” as some have said)& the Sawtelle dogs that chose to follow her. Also what happened to those dogs that chose to stay at the farm? Is Henry (so “ordinary”)the next one to become extraordinary in raising the Sawtelle dogs? If there was ever a book to have for a book club to discuss this is it.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I can accept that some people didn’t like the ending (or even the entire book for that matter), but it surprises me how many were outraged by it!
I guess I was prepared for the ending, because one thing I got pretty quickly was that Edgar and Almondine came into this world within a short time of each other and I knew they’d exit this world within a short while of each other. There just was no other alternative. Edgar was half of a soul and Almondine was half a soul. Together they were whole.
I loved the book and was almost comforted by the ending in a weird way. I was sorry for Trudy’s tragic losses (she suffered so many throughout her entire life), but ultimately this book wasn’t about her. It was about a boy and his one and only.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Gotta say, I too, fell for the dog and adventure story, but didn’t understand what the heck all the death at the end added to the story other than frustration. I think there were messages to be communicated, relationships to be explained and richer deeper understandings that were forfeited in the wholesale consumption of characters and opportunity by a fire. So many unexplained threads…like what was this old riff between brothers about anyway such that Claude premeditates a murder across continents and time? Clue me in here folks.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
What a waste of talent and good storytelling and many long hours when I should have been sleeping and money. Yes, I am angry, feel cheated and totally at a loss. All because the ending was unnecessarily stupid. All the rest was brilliant and an elixir unto itself. I did indeed rewrite the ending only to please and appease myself. For shame is all I can say. I do not recommend this book to anyone because of the ending being a big joke being played on the readers.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I hated this book. I kept reading chapter after chapter waiting for the book to become interesting. Question: What was Claude’s motive in killing Gar? Did he actually kill Gar? the ending was terrible and did not wrap up the so called mystery.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:37 am
I’m glad to see someone shared the feelings I had at the end of the book. I was completely hooked, absorbed in such a deep part of my soul with all the characters and the beauty and depth of the writing. Then, at the end everyone good has to die, and evil had to prevail. I felt shocked and angry, and so saddened by the horrible ending. Why, when so many choices, would the author choose to end the book the way he did. I was ready to recommend this bood to many friends and now I can’t wait to dump it in the Goodwill box. All because of the ending. I don’t think I can read another one of his books if he is capable of this.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
It was a captivating and engrossing book. I have taken to calling one of my two chocolate labs “Almondine” and the dope is so eager to please she answers to the name!! After reading the book and then these posts I have to say I didn’t really mind the ending, but I would have liked a little more detail as to the fate of the dogs. After all the author could have made it the feel good story of the year and have Forte, Essay, Almondine, Trudy and Edgar live happily ever after, with Edgar finding his voice from the fire. It would feel good but not be very thought provoking.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I am very much a dog lover – not as a “pet” or object to show off – but as a fellow animal that cares for me as I care for him. The treatment of dogs and the descriptive narrative of this book are engrossing — BUT – it all gets lost in disjointed unexplained events that can only be described by a line from the book itself “Life was a swarm of accidents waiting in the treetops, descending upon any living thing that passed, ready to eat them alive.” The trouble is – that doesn’t make for a very satisfying story.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I too just finished reading the book and am still in the process of digesting everything. I am torn between loving the first 80% of it but the ended left too many unsatisfying questions and visions. No doubt, great literature one of the best, no doubt not meant to be a fairy tale ending. But — why so many unanswered questions. Why so many wrongs that could have been righted but instead took a totally dark un-redeeming turn for Edgar. I kept waiting for him to be vinidcated, by Glen, by Trudy, by Claude, by Almondine. NONE of it really happened.
I was grateful for the small piece when Edgar lay there on the cement floor of the barn presumably crossing over to death to find Almondine waiting there for him. I was at least pleased for the brief exchange between them but I didn’t think that did her or their special bond the justice it deserved as the author had built up too so eloquently in earlier passages.
I recently lost my beloved dog of 14 years. He was in every way “my Almondine” , he was my heart, soul, and essence and maybe it’s just where I’m at right now missing him but I felt like the author could have done more to honor that which was the heart and core of this story.
I hope there is a sequel, and a movie. Maybe Stephen King will direct it and help it make more sense.
There was a lot of subtle ironies sprinkled throughout that did tidy some of the plots and subplots up but not in a big enough way for me.
I did love the book, mostly because of the way it portrayed the emotional bond that exists between humans and animals and especially when told from the animals point of view.. I just ended up feeling a bit cheated in the end. I may have to go back and reread some key chapters to make sure I didn’t miss anything.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Also, there was one blooper in the book when Henry was helping Edgar care for Tinder’s wounded paw he gave her tylenol. Any true dog person knows that Tylenol can be fatal for dogs! That kind of bothered me.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Did anyone notice a chronological mistake in the history of Trudy’s miscarriages and story of Edgar’s birth. I have read and re-read that section numerous times and have to come to the conclusion that it is a mistake by the author. Trudy has two miscarriages and then the book says she becomes pregnant for the third time in late 1957. That pregnancy ends with a stillbirth in April of 1958. But later it says that her fourth pregnancy ends with the birth of Edgar in May of 1958. Am I missing something? If I’m mistaken and someone can set me straight, I would appreciate it. This is really bothering me.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Lori,
Maybe they didn’t know that back in the 70′s. Some of those side effects were discovered much later. Just a thought…
October 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I just finished the book and feel so depressed. It was bad enough for me when Almondine was pining for Edgar, then we find out that she died. No, I dind’t know she actually stood in front of a truck and got hit. I assumed she died of old age, though she was trying to find Edgar on her own.
One mistake they made in the book was when Henry first met Edgar and the dogs, and they gave Tinder two Tylenols because of her injury. Anyone who knows anything about dogs knows you can not give Tylenol to a dog or it can be fatal!! Aspirin is a different story–not fatal–but Tylenol is a Bozo no-no. The author should have known this.
I was thinking that Essay was guiding the other dogs back to Henry’s house…
It’s so nice to hear I’m not the only one depressed after reading this book! I was telling my husband about it and almost started crying! I felt like I needed to talk to somebody who read the book!
October 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am
WHY DID EDGAR KILL THE VET?
I READ THIS PART OVER AND OVER , PRACTIICALLY RE READ IT TO FIND OUT WHY HE WOULD KILL THE VET WHEN IT WAS CLAUDE THAT KILLED HIS FATHER?
PLEASE LET ME KNOW THIS REASON?
October 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
WHY WOULD EDGAR KILL THE DR. WHEN IT WAS CLAUDE THAT KILLED HIS DAD? WHAT REASON DID HE HAVE TO DO THIS?
October 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I think this book is very overrated. Had to struggle to finish it.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
He didn’t see who it was–he thought it was Claude. This comes from Hamlet–he kills Polonius, who is eavesdropping on him, believing it to be Claudius, his uncle.
Seriously, I have problems with the way Wroblewski followed the Hamlet story (though not entirely faithfully, since Trudy and Glen don’t die, and Claudius doesn’t kill Hamlet, and Hamlet stabs Claudius, and etc.
I thought the book was best when he got away from Hamlet, such as the trek through the wilderness, and their time with Henry (who is clearly Horatio). Personally, I don’t think the modern setting works as a setting for the direct retelling of Shakespeare stories–I hate modern dress versions of Shakespeare–the stories are timeless, but also anachronistic–the timelessness of the stories is ruined when you rip them out of the time they’re set in, and stick them in a different era.
And I hated to see Edgar never get a chance to use what he had learned. But that was the choice the author made, to follow the outline of that tragedy, and people should respect it. It is a very dark novel, though–darker than anything Stephen King ever wrote.
If you read the play, or rent one of the movie versions, you’ll pick up on the names–Forte stands for Fortinbras, King of Norway, who appears at the end of the play, too late to save Hamlet. He is going to inherit Edgar’s kingdom. The dogs have evolved to the point where they can make choices for themselves, and thus do not need humans anymore. Edgar’s grandfather’s dream has come to pass, not in the way he expected.
I’m not sure I understand who or what Essay stands for, in terms of the Shakespeare play–or why Trudy is left alive, since Gertrude dies without ever knowing (consciously, at least) what has happened. That’s a really horrible punishment Wroblewski inflicts upon her–Shakespeare was never that cruel. Glen might as well be dead without his eyes–he’s useless now.
It’s not a satisfying book, but it’s got some amazing moments. I have a dog who reminds me of the Sawtelle dogs–not quite that smart. Maybe just as well. But the questions Wroblewski asks are meaningful on a lot of levels. I don’t agree with all of his answers.
What the Sawtelles were selling was not the dogs, but the chance to form an intensely close bond with a non-human being. And that, ultimately, is the attraction of the dog-human relationship. We are more together than we are apart.
So why does the book end with the dogs and humans parted? Because, Wroblewski is saying, people aren’t yet worthy of dogs like that. If we want better dogs, we have to be better people.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I just finished reading the book in about 4 days. Loved most of it. Hated the ending. I hated that so many questions remained unanswered. I had to go back and reread the part where Almondine dies. I didn’t get it at first. I did notice the Hamlet connection immediately. Another bit of sadness to an already dark ending is that in Edgar’s final act of saving all the dog files from the burning barn, embers land on them and they are burnt up anyway which made his final effort in vain. And what iof the mother Trudy? I don’t believe she dies. I might reread this book because I think I missed some of the elements.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I kept thinking of the Cain and Able story from the bible while reading (I was ignorant of Hamlet until I saw a million references to it). I was thinking it was the brother’s hatred towards each other that was driving everything in the story. I’ve been kind of wandering around here for a couple of hours kind of shocked at the ending. I did notice how Edgar was distancing himself from all the adults, even his mother, and didn’t think it was going to turn out good, but was really surprised.
October 12th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Am I the only one who hasn’t read Hamlet? If I’d known he pretty much “copied” the story line from a freaking Shakespeare play, I probably wouldn’t have bothered reading it, because now I feel ripped off, like he didn’t have an original thought and just ripped off Shakespeare pretty much. I was unhappy enough with the ending, but now reading about all these parallels to Hamlet makes me even more angry…
October 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Shakespeare didn’t invent the story of Hamlet–in fact, nearly all of Shakespeare’s plays are derived from earlier sources, though he almost invariably improved upon them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet
I think it’s outrageous to suggest there’s nothing original in the novel because he patterns the bare plot of the narrative after one of the most famous stories of all time.
I have no problem with people not liking the book–which I did, very much, in spite of some things I wish had been done differently. It is a very bleak ending, though not as hopeless as it might seem. I think most people here dislike it because it’s not 101 Dalmatians, or whatever. Not a good enough reason.
Most great books have bad things happening in them. Happy endings are not guaranteed, in fiction or in life. And that includes stories about dogs.
Spoiler alert–Travis shoots Old Yeller–in the book, he doesn’t even wait to see if Yeller gets rabies! The original story of A Dog of Flanders involves both the boy and his dog dying of cold and starvation! Call of the Wild ends with all the humans dead and Buck taking over a wolf pack and never returning to civilization!
One thing I liked very much about the book was the idea that dogs deserve better than us.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I liked the idea that David Wroblewski gave the special Sawtelle dogs a voice. I liked the prose – the lines of poetry – the long descriptive passages. I liked that Edgar and the dogs learned to live in the wild – an important point to connect the story’s end. I understood the undertone – human characters kept secrets, had loose connections and kept readers wanting more. I got the theme – forget Hamlet. Concentrate on the Sawtelle family’s success for generations in training dogs – not in forming solid human relationships. In the end their demise, dying off physically and emotionally was expected. The dogs grouped together. As David wrote,”Yet witnesses they were, one and all, trained and bred to watch, taught by their broody mothers to use their eyes, taught by the boy himself to wait for a gesture that put meaning into a world where none existed.” Essay got it- Edgar’s sign – took the lead – “watching it all,” “when she was sure all of them were together now and no others would appear, she turned and made her choice and began to cross.” This was a great story of survival and failure.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:42 am
I wanted to comment on the balance of Edgars birth on the death of a wild wolf pup, and then when Edgar finally dies Forte, possibly a litter mate or parent of the wild pup, is joined by his cousins the Sawtelle dogs as they choose to leave the farm. The debt of the pups life is repaid again to nature just as Edgar finally got the privelege of his life in return for this wild pup. Jungle boy…Nathoo, and each made their choices.
The pendulum swings from one world to another and balance maintains. As in the opening scene, this is a law here, life from life and life for life…No one gets to play god, the rules do not change.
The story goes beyond epic to prophetic.
No death, no failure, only the constant of change, from one form to other forms.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Of course everyone could see the references to Hamlet, but did you also catch the comparisons to the Jungle Book? Often times throughout the 550 pages, I felt the author channeling more Rudyard Kipling than Shakespeare. Just curious if anyone else got that.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I’m still pretty uncertain if I liked the book or not. I guess I can say I do since it has me thinking on it so much. The book started going south for me when Edgar accidentally killed the vet. I had the sour feeling in my tummy after that. Also, I knew it wasn’t going to go well when he was headed home after the tornadoes, because Ida told him not to unless he had the bottle. Since he didn’t, well it went badly. Even if Edgar had outed Claude, Edgar would still have had to live with the knowledge that he was responsible for someone else’s death. Not a happy burden to place on a kid. I think Claude and Edgar both needed to die. Claude for being a cold blooded murderer, and Edgar for the inadvertant death he caused, so he wouldn’t have that burden on him. I was hoping against hope that somehow Edgar had found that syringe and bottle before Claude could use it, and replaced it for some benign substance. Edgar could then come around later and live happily ever after, but where’s the justice in that? I’m not saying it gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling that Edgar died, but it had a touch of poetic justice. Trudy gets to live with the knowledge that she chose a man over her child. She will probably waste away, along with Glen, until the “blackness” swallows her.I’d like to think that the Sawtelle dogs have learned to live in the wild. That while on the return journey home with Edgar, Forte was schooling Essay on living in the wild. That’s why she had the blood on her after a little time away with Forte, and it wasn’t her own blood. Forte was teaching her. She will in turn help teach the others. Also, since Sawtelle dogs can see “ghosts” they will all have reunions out on the land that they all love and enjoy.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Please forgive me for writing again so soon, but I had another thought. What if perhaps I may have been a little correct in thinking Edgar did find the bottle of poison before CLaude could use it? What was that patch of dead grass that kept growing out in front of the barn? If I overlooked something, please let me know.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Scratching my head after reading this one…Couple of questions…how could any mother send her child away-mute or not? Also-what about all the rain and storms encountered in the book? metaphor for what? Almondine was the only hero here….
Am I the only one that missed something??
October 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Edgar found the used syringe that Claude used on Gar, which still had a small amount of the poison in it–and which would have been all the evidence he needed, but he was in too much emotional upset to act. I mean, he just saw his dead father.
Trudy sent Edgar away to hide near the farm, until she figured out a story to explain Page’s death. It had nothing to do with his muteness. She never wanted him to just disappear into the wilderness.
It’s not fair to say Trudy chose Claude over Edgar–and Claude had fixed things so that they couldn’t keep the farm, or the dogs, unless they accepted his help.
However, there is a deeper failure in her inability to see Claude for who he is, and using him to help her forget Gar.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Amazing! I don’t want to compare the story to Hamlet or any other story. It stands by itself and I will remember it for a very long time. A great book doesn’t always have a happy ending. I don’t have to like the ending to feel it was still a fantastic novel. The unanswered questions just adds to the intensity of the book. I too would like the answers, but what would we chat about or mull over if was all clearly laid out in the pages. Makes us think!
October 15th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I loved it! I will never look at my dogs in the same way again.
October 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
It’s puzzling and disheartening to read some of these “reviews.” I get the impression that some readers have difficulty with the hard truths in life and can only appreciate blinding sunshine. Certainly, the author indulges in prophecy too much. But if the ending was a surprise to you, I suspect much of the author’s gifts were also unseen.
This story will remain with me. The author has invited us into a world where the elemental is exposed, and its discovery is both devastating and triumphant. I feel sorry for those who refuse to look.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I read the book and enjoyed it…I am surprised that after reading half the blogs no one ever mentions the woman at the store in town and had the conversation with Edgar…can someone tell what she was all about…????
October 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I truly enjoyed this book. I have a twelve year old Akita who is coming to the end of his wonderful presents in my life and have been blessed with the gift of a new puppy. In the pages of this book I was able to find a way to deal with my emotions over the impending loss of a true friend, and marvel in the everyday exuberance of a four month old puppy.
Thank you David Wroblewski for this great read.
I look forward to discussing this book with friends who are just starting the fascinating journey that is Edgar Sawtelle.
PS: Crazy walking really works
October 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I loved this book. I got the ending. Besides all the wonderful parts of the book, I found myself enjoying everything about Henry. Although not a major character, he was such a pleasure to read. Loved, loved, loved this book.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Two questions were asked with still no answers….perhaps trivial but still, those loose ends needing to be taken care of. 1. What was the significance of the white patch in the grass. It was referenced several times….was it perhaps some poisin spillage? 2. Why did Edgar go after the Vet up in the loft. It was very sketchy as to what they were both doing up there and why Egdar pushed him down the stairs. 3. Why did Glen attack Edgar with such a death grip. I agree all he had to do was sit with the boy to talk. Sheez…. 4. Ida Payne….the little girl, were they related? What was Ida warning Edgar about???
October 20th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Someone answer Jan’s questions because I too was extremely dissappointed at so many loose ends. The ghosts, the sheets of rain turning into figures, etc.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I just finished reading this book and was thoroughly disappointed. A friend gave it to me as a birthday present and warned me not to read the jacket. I realized that it was Hamlet with dogs when the dad’s ghost appeared and then remembered that I had read an interview with the author that also referred to Hamlet. I spoke with my friend and she didn’t know what I was talking about – they must have just warned her in the bookstore. It turns out the jacket barely mentions Hamlet, it just gives away the plot. (I followed her instructions and didn’t check until just now.) I did immediately google Hamlet to help remember the play I last read in high school 40 year ago. It took me awhile to realize that Almondine was Ophelia and just before finishing I realized who Forte was. I feared the worst, i.e., everybody dies, but kept reading thinking maybe the author would tweak Shakespeare’s ending. I too felt a sour feeling when Edgar accidentally kills the vet, but then realized Page was Polonius. I set the book aside then and again when Tinder is injured. On the other hand, I loved the author’s descriptions of the benign presence of nature throughout the book, the meticulous training of the dogs and the secure rhythm of life on the farm before Claude and then briefly with Henry. Edgar didn’t really learn to live off the land, he just became a barely remorseful thief. I cringed when he put his filthy fingers in people’s honey jars and then sort of cleaned up their dishes. I am one of those people who gets lost in books and I also have always related best to dogs, which is why my friend gave me this book. I don’t need a happy ending. I appreciated a few of the readers explanations of the ending in regard to the evolution of the Sawtelle dogs and their relationship to humans. But I do feel empty, cheated and like I wasted the time I spent lying in our screen room reading this book even though I savored the language. Although I was initially very disappointed in Trudy, (while knowing that the scenario of choosing man over child occurs all too frequently in real life) I thought it was plausible because Claude waited until she was particularly vulnerable before making his move. I understood their relationship better at the end and must correct one reader’s comment. Trudy uses Claude to REMEMBER Gar.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Anyone willing to answer all the unanswered questions?
October 20th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Hated the ending. Question…. 1. What was the significance of the white blotch of grass outside the barn. 2. Why did Edgar push the vet down the stairs… what caused that to happen? 3. Did Ida Payne no more than we suspected? Was she the grandma to the little girl talking about Edgar’s muteness due to his having a secret?
October 21st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I think the white patch in the grass was caused by Edgar dropping the syringe with the potion that killed Gar. He later found it broken with the contents missing.
Edgar pushed the Vet down the stairs because, in the dark, he thought he was Claude.
I’m not sure about Ida’s relationship to the little girl. But, I think it is fascinating that when Trudy brought Edgar to Ida (when he was a baby) to get her insight into his speech. Ida said he would never talk, but, he would use his hands. Then, Page died & his son was blinded by Edgar’s hands.
I loved the book. It had a significant (and still lingering) impact on me. I have 3 boys (the oldest is 15) and 3 dogs. My oldest reminds me of Edgar which is heartbreaking.
I cried (no…sobbed) several times as I read it. Each day I think about starting it from the beginning because I miss the pure indulgence of reading it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
Wow reading these comments where dreadful. Everyone who hated this book did not understand it and maybe they should go back to reading young adult novels or watching Hollywood movies where everything is spelled out and tied up with a happy ending. I’ll admit that up until the first 150 pages it was mind numbingly boring and too small town for me. But that’s the beauty of it, the story had to be told slow and gracefully because that’s how life is. Sometimes you don’t understand the significance of what’s happening today until time passes and you see the bigger picture. This author was brilliant at that. He let you know when something important was happening but you didn’t at all know why. And sometimes, just as in life, not everything adds up or falls in to place. When i started reading this book i didn’t know anything about it or it’s connection to hamlet. I just finished reading it a few minutes ago and I’m still in shock. do i wish that Edgar would have found that bottle in the file cabinet first, yes. But from the beginning of that last night, the author made it clear that things were not going to pan out like all the characters were trying to plan. And I know that this story couldn’t have turned out any other way. I wish I would have known the connection to hamlet, it would have softened the blow of the ending. It really was tragic. And to everyone who didn’t understand the dogs or even the one’s who think that training your precious dogs will make them anything like the Sawtelle dogs, you completely missed the point. And Trudy’s question, “what are they selling” Those dogs were, as the author clearly states in the sleeve cover, a fictional breed. You might as well not even call them dogs. They were on a whole other level. I know because I am a dog owner. Edgar couldn’t see that because he grew up with them. By the way, the best part of the book was the chapters with the view from the dogs. And a dog of Almondine’s size usually lives to about 10 maybe 11. Are you really surprised she died at the age of 16? Oh and the person who asked if the little girl was Ida Pain granddaughter, the answer is yes! Overall great novel, never read anything like it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
I just finished reading the book and I happened across this forum. I hope the author reads these posts. There is much validity to many of them. I will try not to repeat too much of what has been said. I will not read this book again. I will however read Hamlet again soon. I didn’t catch the Hamlet theme until the very end. I disliked the ending, loved Henry and the journey with the dogs but overall found it an unsatisfying read. It leaves an opening for a Watership down of advanced canines.
I love my dog and always have for the way she looks at me. I found myself telling her about Almondine. Good book, a little muscly at the end. Tough to chew.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Those of you who still have questions might want to check out the review of this book in the Los Angeles Times. By the way, the author gives very clear indication that the little girl was indeed Ida’s granddaughter.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
So many questions asked above are ones I had. Thanks to everyone who has written their thoughts here.
I liked the character of Henry, being somewhat of a recluse myself, and in imagining what happens next regarding Henry, does he learn about his mute visitor and the special dogs he now has from reading about the horrible fire and deaths that surely appeared in the local media? However, more questions … Henry’s TV did not work so was he interested enough in what happens outside his small world to buy a newspaper in town to find out?
If Essay returns to Henry with her pack, what would Henry do? Is this the sequel, as someone has suggested?
And I do have to make a reference (a shout out!) here to my wonderful dog Champ who died several summers ago … a mutt from the Humane Society but healthier than the 2 purebred dogs my sister had during the time I had Champ. The two rescued cats I have now do not begin to equal the powerful companionship Champ gave me.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Nobody has mentioned that this is an Oprah’s bookclub pick and will be dissected on her show.
October 24th, 2008 at 3:35 am
No one has mentioned that this is an Oprah’s bookclub pick and will be dissected on her show.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I agree with many who say the book does not live up to the hype. I plodded through the first 170 pages and found it more interesting once he left the farm. Edgar is a character I wanted to love but as I saw the end coming, the constant return to the files, I just didn’t care anymore. If Glen was in so much pain, why couldn’t Trudy break away? Her character is just disappointing.
The dogs are so overwritten with human characteristics they morphed into Super- Lassie. And what is with masterminding a superior strain of dog – creepy!
Please answer this if you can. What is the significance of the old man telling (Claude?) the antidote to administer to his “grandson”? For the record I thought the white patch on the lawn was Forte’s “marking” and Edgar filled it in so Claude wouldn’t know that Forte was still around.
Overall – not the classic Oprah predicts.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Stayed up way too late last night to finish this book, and was very eager to read other’s thoughts as i felt so conflicted about the characters- got the Hamlet references, but like others was hoping for an outcome that was more satisfying than:”they all died.” Not to mention the pages of blinded Glen holding feckless Trudy in a wrestling grip as her son is murdered by the serial killer, Claude! Yuck. That needed some editing. Was particularly hard to read after the relatively light-hearted preceeding chapters with Henry, a character i liked very much. Being a dog-lover, the Almondine chapters were my favorite as they seemed to convey what a dog’s thoughts might be- why we don’t get it when they do the things they do – brought tears to my eyes every time i read her chapters. Completely agree with Chris, Oct 11- dogs deserve better than us- they are so pure of soul. thanks, folks for sharing.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:12 am
i think the white patch in the yard was from the poison from the broken syringe that Edgar found the night with the rain.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
From the first page we know that Claude is a sociopath…Edgar is mute…are these mutations, defects in the human breed. The author took us on a journey that pondered the human psyche, the relationships between man and dog. We breed animals, always hoping for some degree of perfection. Is this playing God? Is this a control issue? This is a ponderous book that raises a lot of issues. It has caused us all to question and think..bravo!
October 28th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I put this at the topof my list of utter dissapointments. I could never recommend this book, as I feel it was a total waste of time. Great in the beginning, sets you up for all interesting things to happen. And then a weird, freaky, disturbing ending that in my opinion, did not flow well with the previous pages. A real letdown.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I felt like this was a magic carpet ride and then the rug was yanked out from under me. I bawled at the ending.
Powerful writing to affect me so. I’ll be reading it again.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I had to struggle to finish book. It was really boring and disconnected. It is very overrated. I didn’t care about dogs Edgar, Trudy, Gar Claude Vet. And really, why did supposedly Edgar kill the Vet, why did Claude kill Gar, why does Trudy sleep with Claude…A complete waste of time.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I feel like he set us up for what could have been a really good story… but the ending ruined the whole thing… he didn’t stay true to his characters for one thing(especially Trudy.. who was presented as such a smart and strong person in the beginning)..and basically there was no point to the plot… the whole story was about Edgar finding himself and being able to “avenge” his fathers murder… and he just dies in the end? and Claude? The truth never comes out??? What about the random ghost encounters??? or the stray dog?? I feel sad… this could have been a really great story… but mostly I just am confused… he didn’t really explain alot of things…
October 30th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Trudy was the ultimate victim from childhood on with only a few years of true happiness with Edgar and Gar. She had an abusive childhood, was involuntarily childless for years, bore a disabled child, lost her husband, became deathly ill, was overwhelmed with the amount of work and became dependent on the sociopath who came into her home, sent her son away after he killed the Vet she needed to maintain her business, and finally lost everything. I read and re-read the ending and thought she died as a result of Glen’s strangle hold, based on “sightless eyes” phrase.
Should she survive, she would endure more victimization, pain, and loss.
Ultime Tragedy!
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I lovd this book so much, I rushed the reading and now must go back so iunderstand more. I did not understand the importance of the picture of Claude with Forte that fell from the yearbook. can simeone please explain that? Why did Claude leave that with the money? I get he wanted edgar to leave. I really did not understand Claude and I have never read Hamlet. What was Edgar looking for when he was with Henry, the poison? Any help would be appreciated.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 am
After finishing the story, I thought about other books that had a change of pace and unhappy ending, such as Bel Canto, which I thought was great book. the difference, for me, was that the Edgar Sawtelle book raised questions it didn’t answer, planted hints and ideas of things to come, that didn’t, obsessed on the methods with which the dogs were trained, but in the end they reverted to the wild, and at no time was the reader given reason to accept the ending as it seemed arbitrary and, in a way, silly. Within the book was probably buried a good short story, with well written passages, but as it is, too drawn out.
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Please, I have the same feeling as most of you, the last 100 pages seems like it was a totally different author writing it. One of them dies, ok, but all of them? His writing is beautiful, the story was wonderful, but after finishing it last night, I woke up this morning and had to read it again to make sure I didn’t misconstrue anything…I won’t recommend it.
However, I love getting book recommendations, anyone reading anything SATISFYING lately?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Madeline,
I think Claude with his stories switched his and Gar’s actions. Forte in his arms seems to prove Claude was a liar. He told Edger that Gar’s trick was to have Forte jump up in his arms…Don’t know about Henry other than he was a convenient stop – so many here link the various roles to Hamlet characters and probably have a more literary answer. Wow, interesting book – would I recommend it? I have already, probably because it is unforgetable (and I forget a lot of things…)
November 4th, 2008 at 3:11 am
I wanted to add that I read with great interest many of the comments here – many really great comments, and I shared so many of these same thoughts. The story though interesting, did not work well for me and I finished it last night feeling very much let down. Not because it is a tragedy but because it didn’t flow right for me. Having said that – I will never forget it and that says something (for me) very positive about this author. I also meant to add that some literary type compared this book to “To Kill a Mockingbird” which will always be my favorite novel. Personally I don’t believe it should even be mentioned in the same breath as that master piece.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Just finished the audiobook version and enjoyed Richard Poe’s reading more than the book itself. Maybe tomorrow I’ll change my opinion, but I have to say, on balance, that I think the final 15% of the book was written by someone else. The characters, even though it was a long book, were largely undeveloped, and all through the book there were events that were never adequately explained. The death of Gar and Dr. Papineau were offered and then left alone. Claude’s motives for killing both Gar and Edgar likewise. Wroblewski spent a lot of ink on Henry Lamb and did little with him, other than hum being converted to a dog lover. Both the beginning and end of the book dealt with the elusive, mysterious oriental herbalist’s poison, and that was never put in context in the story. It just WAS.
Personally, I had to develop my own alternate ending where the poison loses it’s potency and acts like a panacea that miraculously repairs Edgar’s vocal cords so he can finally learn to speak. Hell, if Gar can return as an elusive rain man, Edgar should be able to talk. Then,Trudy figures out what Claude has done and rips his nuts off, then surgically removes HIS vocal cords. Trudy, Edgar and the dogs buck up and move on. Claude’s out on his ass.
Nice try, David, but it wasn’t all it could have been.
I’ll decide on the sequel if and when one shows up, but most likely not.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
So,Claude was in the Army and went AWOL.Did he use the poison to escape?
Was he in prison just for being AWOL?
After reading the book jacket, I thought this would be a story of healing – after a tragedy, a boy escapes to the woods with his dogs.Wow!I,too, loved the prose and did not get the Hamlet connection.(Apology to my English 101 & Lit professors).I have been so sad since I finished the book last night. I made up my own happy ending so I can quit thinking about all the loss at the end.I have my 3rd lab and loved the dog-version parts of the book. Dogs can tell you alot by body language and seem to understand much more than most people credit to them. I advised my kids and friends not to read this.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Started great, but the last few chapters were hugely disappointing. We find out Edgar wasn’t that great after all, if he could turn his back on his lifelong friend, almondine. When almondine died, I skimmed thru he rest, disgusted. And all that confusing murder and chaos at the end–no redeeming value at all. Started out uplifting, turned out to be another sad tale designed to depress you and remind you that no one but the dogs are worth reading about. And then he kills off the dog, Almondine! I’ll avoid his books in the future.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
When a talented writer impales his readers with his own hopelessness, the results are hugely disappointing to those readers who have been swept along with the story. Too bad Wreblewski couldn’t provide his characters with problem solving abilities and moral character. If I had not borrowed this book, I would have thrown it out with the trash this morning.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I just finished the book and came searching for other interpretations of Essay leading the dogs to…I am glad I did – there are many insights and questions that did not occur to me or occur with the same depth – I am definitely reading it again. I was more taken with Edgar’s coming of age; living an idyllic life that is suddently confronted with tragedy and chaos. DW is very skilled in capturing the true emotional reaction and intellectual turmoil as Edgar’s awareness and experiences progress. As for the Sawtelle dogs, were they the next generaton of dog or are humans just a level down in evolving? I too felt let down by the end, but in my rush to find out what happened I may have missed some things. I think it would be a mistake to not have a teenager read this book because of the tragic ending – there is a good deal of wisdom in Edgar’s insight. Books, like this, are a way of living a life not just your own for a brief moment. A big thanks to the author that spent 10 years on this story!
November 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Do read the Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society…you will not be let down by this book. I wasd shocked to read in a book column in the WSJ that that columnist had not read The Tender Bar…this is a great book, passed around and enjoyed by many avid readers.
November 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
What an enchanting story, only to be completely ruined by the most tragic ending imaginable!!!!! Inexcusable.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
A story wasted. As a children’s librarian I read thousands of books a year and rarely take the time to read adult literature. When this book was recommended to me, I hesitated starting it, but once I did, I was hooked. I had to read it to the end because there were so many open-ended story lines that I was sure were going to amount to something. I knew, the minute Edgar’s father died that I was reading Hamlet, so I expected a tragedy and can live with the unhappy ending. It’s the lack of character growth and cohesiveness that truly bothers me. I kept expecting all of those story lines to come together and mean something. If the characters didn’t learn from the story, I wanted to, but didn’t. I felt robbed. At the same time, a literary experience is very personal (what I take from a story is only important to me). It is rare that after reading a book I feel the NEED to discuss it or see what others have to say. Typically when that happens it is a story that stays with me for a long time and I find myself contemplating it often and garnering deeper meaning as I think about it. As a previous post mentioned, I too liken Essay’s departure to that of Jonas in _The Giver_. Whenever someone tells me they hated that book because of the ending, I remind them that the ending is what they choose to make of it and encourage them to reread the book later in life. I suppose I will have to consider my own advice as _The Story of Edgar Sawtelle_ is concerned.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I need to talk to the author before I can get my head around this book.Perhaps the answers to my questions will come with his next book.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:47 am
I am a dog lover and this book left me cold. Cry over this boring book? God, endless chapters about dog training and breeding lines. At the end of this book I didn’t care about a single character in it.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Doesn’t anyone wonder about Claude-why is he so crazy obsessed with poisoning dogs and family?? And I, too was disappointed in Trudy. It’s no wonder Edgar kept everything to himself, not sharing discoveries and thoughts, even with his mother. (Is that what the author thinks happens in coming-of-age–you become so independent that you are spiritually separated from your mother?) The whole thing was just tragic. I enjoyed his journeys as Nat though it seemed long and purposeless, and the talk with the ghostman in the shed gratuitous. I think the author is a very talented writer, but I was left with more sadness and questions than soulful satisfaction. Plus, I miss my dog. Thank God I was there when he died.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
I started out loving the book, but quickly it turned into just another tormented story. I wish some writers can just decide what style of book they would like to write. This would have been a great read for teenagers, then all the death and destruction sets in. Adults are also confused (as I read other replies). I am a dog lover and thought all the dog info. is just too much. Where were the editors? Sorry I will not be recommending it to any one. Plan on donating it with a note inside to warn parents not to think it will be a good “family read”.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Just finished and bummed by the ending. One thought… Claude poisoned Dr.Papineau. Edgar describes the filmy look of the dr.’s eyes at death …made me feel it was similar to the look he saw in his father’s eyes. It would explain why Claude kept insinuating to Glen that Edgar killed the Dr., to deflect suspicion. I’d hoped these details would have been wrapped up in the end.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I believe that the author would be amused by all of the childish outcry over his very effective ending. This book reads like a minuet, and the ending was carefully thought out and a logical, beautiful conclusion to this eerie, spiritual story. This book requires more than one read. I know that for me, a second read will afford more clarity. Folks, this story is not supposed to have a “happy ending.” This is a highly cerebral piece of work; it requires a mature, high intellect. Otherwise, you will be disappointed. I’m grateful for finding this discussion group. I’m hoping that Essay was going back to Henry, but I could be off on that one. As one participant pointed out, what’s significant is that she made a choice.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:13 am
I did not make the “Hamlet” connection, so I was surprised by the ending. I could not put the book down, especially when I realized that a happy ending was unlikely. I started peeking ahead to read the titles of subsequent chapters, all the while begging unnamed gods to spare Edgar and Trudy. Nonetheless, I knew that a neat resolution would significantly lesson the power of the book. Unanswered questions, unresolved relationships and tragedy are parts of life. What I took away from the book was an ever-deepening love and connection to dogs and the reminder that every day we make choices that have repercussions. Also, I see no reason not to recommend this book to teenagers. It is relevant and could facilitate important discussions.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I was profoundly disappointed with this book after all of the rave reviews. OK, yes it is beautifully written, but to what end? We know that Claude murders his brother and Edgar but why? What is the significance of the photograph of Forte and Claude? So many lose ends, so many questions left unanswered? And it all takes far too long: judicious editing could have cut this tome to 300 pages max. Perhaps I am just too deficient in the cerebral matter, and lacking the “mature, high intellect” that Vicki (and others) appear to believe are needed to enjoy this book. I much preferred Tim Winton’s “Blueback; A fable for ages” which can be read and enjoyed in a single sitting of 2 hours!
November 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Spent an entire Sunday reading this book
my heart was racing the last twenty pages
my mind new it would end horribly – but my heart wouldn’t believe it could end like it did – I’ve been tempted to read the last chapter again somehow hoping Edgar made it – as you can tell this book has made it’s mark
November 14th, 2008 at 2:48 am
I felt the darkness at the reading of the prologue. I began to dread the ending – way back when Claude ‘seeded’ the sheriff’s mind for the future ‘take down’. Then – the death of Almondine began the wild tumble to a down right nasty ending. The scholar in me understands the greatness of the book as a study of human nature, the evil and the good, but in the end I throughly disliked the dark and tragic ride the author took me on.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:55 am
I finished the book this morning, couldn’t get out of bed until I read the last 4 chapters. Disappointed, sad, and trying to understand the tragic ending. Reading everyone’s thoughts has helped. I was especially amused by Hachiko-I know this dog and have waited at this statue many times in my life. Having grown up in Japan, waiting to meet with a friend downtown at the Shibuya Train Station there is only one place to meet up-at Hachiko. Pre-cell phone there was no other way to hook up. So that was a nostalgic trip back in time for me. I’m curious how the author got ahold of that story.
November 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I’ve been struck by how many people struggled with the book’s sad ending, as I did. Though I knew that the story was based on a Shakesperian tragedy, having the plot lines unfold in a modern day setting made the outcome seem so much more brutal to me than it would have in a story about characters and kingdoms from long ago. Also, it bothered me that he made this incredible journey, both physically through the woods to stay with Henry, and also emotionaly to the point when he realized that he had to go home. And all of that…. for what? for nothing? What did it all mean?
The few things I could pick out that might hold enough meaning not to leave me completely devastated by the book had to do with the glimpses of Gar and Almondine from the afterlife. Although those scenese felt unnatural, they did at least seem to say that some part of Edgar and his family lives on. That love cannot be destroyed, even in death.
The other interesting thing to me was the matter of the dogs “choosing.” Towards the end of the book Edgar believed he no longer had the right to command the dogs. Those days were past. Once you instill in the animals the power to see and to discern; you no longer have the right to command. I think the dogs went to go live in the wild – a sad testament to the potential for evil by men from which they’d had to flee.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I just finished the book last night. I desperately needed to hear what others felt and gratefully found this blog. This is the first time I have search for a blog after reading a book. I have a terribly empty and disappointed feeling after reading the ending. The many questions left unanswered will keep me awake at night for many weeks. I live in Denver, where the author does, and would like to call him up and have him explain WHY! Obviously, the author wrote a memorable book and is a major talent, but for the life of me I don’t understand the need to end the book in this way. I have been writing the sequel in my mind all day. Essay leads the dogs to “ordinary” Henry’s home where she has Forte’s puppies. Henry retrieves some of the files from Trudy and raises the next level of dog thus becoming truly unordinary. I need some purpose for the life of John and Edgar Sawtell.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Thank God for this blog! Like Lisa, I have never searched out fellow readers’ comments and I am so glad I did. I read the book in 2 days, rereading pages as I went; read the last few chapters several times….Closed the book and thought, “I am probably the only person in the world who hated this book!” It is beautifully written but it left me cold, for lack of a better word, and I don’t know why. I didn’t expect a happy ending, but I thought the ending was confusing, totally lacking clarity. If there is a sequel, I won’t be reading it.
November 16th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Now I get it! I reviewed the plot of Hamlet and compared it to Edgar Sawtelle. With this in mind I understand why the author ended it as he did. The fact that dogs and a mute boy were the characters in this book pulled my heart strings more than the plot of Hamlet. After Almondine died,I had my dogs sit next to me so I could pet them as I finished the book. This was a powerful and haunting book that I will not forget.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:42 am
This was a book in which I fell in love with sentences, but whether or not I loved the story, I’m not sure. I had broadly anticipated the ending so it didn’t sideswipe me, but nevertheless it was a hard finish. I felt as many others that the lack of resolution in the end was difficult to bear after one has invested in the story, but I do believe that an author has no obligation to please readers. It’s his book to do with as he wants, and our choice to read it or not. But clearly this book is giving its readers the opportunity to think deeply, and for me that’s good writing.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Casi me muero de coraje, al terminar este
hermoso libro,que me tuvo por dias inmersa, desconectada del mundo ,con ese final tan tragico e inesperado. Porque nadie se entero de la verdad? Porque su madre tuvo que verlo morir? Yo lo iva a
recomendar pero ya no.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Wow. People are right, searching out internet answers? I did NOT like the ending at all, unclear, awfully heart retching. but the author sure has us interested as we’re all searching online for answers. I am a wimp when it comes to animals and tear jerkers!! I cried entirely way to much and when i got to the ending i was balling, wiping tears away from my eyes so i could continue reading.
I HATED reading about the dogs wondering off into the woods at the very end, like many times in the story i felt torn between what i was reading and what i wanted to be reading about. The author takes you away from the subject so many times and I felt myself yearning to get back to the point, but the point didn’t come at the end. I slammed the book shut, opened it again.. read the last few pages over, complaining outloud to my fiance who has seem the whirlwind of emotions this book has led me on!!
and for all of them to die, just lying there on the floor, my lord how sad!
I’m glad almondine and edgar had their last words.
I agree that the running through the woods was way overwritten, when i couldn’t get through that part i actually ended up sitting the book down for 4 days.
I enjoyed this book a lot, but worth all the crying i dunno!
pam couldn’t of said it better:
his was a book in which I fell in love with sentences, but whether or not I loved the story, I’m not sure
November 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I was going to recommend this book to others but the ending shot that idea right out – too much death too much pain for one family – I am angry that I vested all this time in reading this book to have it end so tragically – it could have had at least one survivor – the mother will never survive, the father dies, Edgar is dead, Claude is dead, the sheriff is blind, the dr. dies and the fate of the dogs will be mixed – what happened to lessons learned – some good is always at the base of humans – this was just shit! All of the characters die… it could have been a murder novel – all the good stuff you learn about the dogs is tainted by such loss. I am keeping the people I love away from this tragedy.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Finished it yesterday – found the Hamlet parallel ‘gimmicky.’ A story about a fictional breed of dog being created on a remote farm could have developed into a great story on its own. Once the author committed to the template of Hamlet it was like a topiary gardener trimming a hedge into unnatural shapes; the story couldn’t evolve naturally it HAD to be shaped into Hamlet. The author does write good characters: Henry for example, but a lot of the writing was overwrought and, overall, the book is disappointing.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I finished it today. I too hated the ending, tragic and bazzare. In the end I felt cheated, robbed of a potentially great ending. Overall, the author failed his audience. Am I glad I read it? Yes. The parts I loved the most were the scenes through Alondine’s eyes, very poignant. I’m hesitant to recommend it, but it sure stimulates a conversation.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I read the book on a Kindle and flew through with abandon. I really enjoyed the lesson of loss and sorrow mixed with the feeling like everything is allright in the world still with the way the dogs group and move on at the end. It is impossible to change anyhting and we just have to be good observers along the way is kinda how is seemed to me, I juts wnat to say goodbye and thank you to Edgar for showing me the way.
Peace
November 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Worst book I ever read. What was the story about anyway???? Why did Claude kill Gar?? Was the old man ghost in the barn Gar??? How did Almondine die? At the end of the book when Edgar saw Almondine was he dead? Stupidest book I ever read!
November 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I join the ranks of people who sought out comments for this book. I am surprised by how many did not see the parallels between this book and Hamlet. Hamlet is committed to revenge his father’s death at the hand’s of his Uncle Claudius (Claude) who has married his widowed mother Gertrude (Trudy). His father’s ghost appears to him.
Hamlet pretends to be mad, then kills his uncle’s counselor, Polonius (Doctor Papineau). Once I made the connection to Hamlet, I knew the book would end tragically as everyone dies at the end.
My frustrations with Edgar were due to his inability to tell his mother what he suspected with Claude. It seemed that following his father’s death they had developed a closeness. However, Edgar’s challenge in life was communication. The dogs understood him more easily than people.
I thought Henry represented life away from the farm. The Sawtelles were isolated. I think Henry gave Edgar a glimpse of a different lifestyle.
I also wondered if perhaps because the dogs had evolved to a higher state that they were the ones to trigger the “ghost” encounters. Just a thought.
I found the book riveting….I can’t say I enjoyed it because the end was very difficult to read.
Thanks for all the good comments.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
My wife and I both read the book – (she, first). Somehow, she got the impression that Doctor Papineau, the vet, was Claude’s accomplice – that he was in on the whole planned murder of Gar because he had a “share” in the Sawtelle’s business and either wanted more control with Claude or to go a different route branching out – (as when that Texan, I believe, showed up to start a Sawtelle dog franchise). I thought she was crazy. But she pointed out the relationship between Claude and Page started long ago when Claude was a boy and how Page had mentioned to Trudy, shortly after Gar’s death, to consider Claude as an option to lessen her burden.
Did ANYONE else think this???
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Very disappointed. I started reading this book with a friend several weeks ago and we just finished our discussion of it and feel like we both wasted our time. Entirely too much detail on the training of the dogs. This was a novel -not a how-to book. And then all of the unanswered questions – why was Claude in jail? who was the old man in Henry’s barn? did Edgar actually cause the vet’s death or just a misunderstanding? and did Trudy die or was she just left to suffer?
The part we enjoyed the most was when Edgar spent time with Henry but this book is definitely not one that I will recommend to others. I’m an avid reader but this one was just too detailed to have such a short and open-ended ending.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
What a piece of crap ! Way too long. I had the feeling the book was written by two different authors. The good one in the beginning and the bad one at the end. I suspect the guy who finished it got rid of the guy who started it. Call the police !
It’s unfinished, unpolished… It’s a “talk-about-me-good-talk-about-me-bad-but-talk-about-ME” thing. I’ll never follow Oprah’s advice about good books again.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Sorry but that is how I really felt !
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I just finished this book today. I enjoyed it but was bewildered and saddened by the tragic ending. I sobbed when Almondine died.
What happened to Trudy at the end? My understanding is she is the only one left as she watches the barn burn and the dogs run away.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Agree with everyone and had to Google the title just to find out if I missed something. Wrobeleski better draw Oprah some pretty profound parallels to something that makes sense or I would be hard pressed to read a sequel.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I agree with Aaron’s wife (Nov 22). I suspected that the Doctor and
Claude had a deeper connection. That’s why he stayed at the house after Gar’s death to help and keep tabs on things. He was just too interested in selling dogs to the breeder from Texas. I also wondered if Claude gave the Doc poison because of the filmy eye comment. Doc’s death was a way to get him out of the picture and give Claude more control of the business. Although I did not like the ending either (as I find I often do not, even in books I like), the author really made us thing about the book, its characters and the meaning of it all – and isn’t that what an author wants to do? I finished the book tonight and have been very interested in all of your comments
November 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I could only get half/way through. So many things about this book are dark and troubling – and it just keeps getting worse. Had to stop, leaf through the rest and get on the Internet. The book is leaving my house today – don’t even want it in my library.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
thank God many feel like I do…I could not put this book down, 100 pgs a nite I was reading…for what , that was the worst ending of all time…so disappointing, it didn’t have to end like that….even if it’s not a total happy ending, geez , everyone dead….too many unanswered questions…I guess from now on I will have to read the prolouges since I didn’t know what the heck was in that bottle…typical male ending , no emotions just the facts….I was raving about the book and told my daughter in law how great it was and couldn’t wait to give it to her, now i feel like telling her never mind..such a let down…again another Oprah bomb…i swore i’d never read another of her books this seals it…please don’t write another book…terrible lack of emotion…we needed some answers..not that you cared….sorry
November 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I have been up in the middle of the night reading this book, emotionally invested in the storyline. After finishing it this morning, the only emotion I felt was anger, so much time wasted. The first person I was upset with was “Oprah.” (The second stinker I’ve read that she recommended.) This is a book I could never recommend anyone reading due to the horrible ending. I really don’t know how the author in good conscious could write such an interesting and emotionally charged story and then end it that way. To have Edgar die at the end was just wrong and to have his poor mother left to deal with this tragedy after having so many other challenges in her life was heartless. The story should have concluded so that the reader felt some kind of moral rectitude for the wrongs done to Edgar and Trudy. To whack him at the end was just stupid.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Just a thought: Was Almondine so depressed that Edgar was not around that she committed suicide? Since Sawtelle dogs can make choices – and walked in front of the car on purpose. Also in Hamlet – Ophelia commits suicide (if Almondine is supposed to be the Ophelia character).
November 29th, 2008 at 3:20 am
I finished the book a few days ago–stayed up until 1:00 a.m. to finish it. Upon reading the last chapter, I was incredulous! I was stunned at the ending. At first, I wasn’t sure that I really understood that everyone had died (except Glen). Then as it sunk in, I was a bit “miffed” that it ended so tragically. After thinking about it for a few days and rereading several parts, the ending makes more sense to me than it did originally. There is some consolation in the reuniting of Edgar and Almondine. I also found some comfort in the conversation that Edgar had with his father and the opportunity he had to finally tell him that he loved him. I recognized that Essay represented the quintessential “next dog” in her ability to assess the situation (barn burning, humans dead) and make a decision to leave (with Edgar’s encouragement) and persuade the other dogs to accompany her. Ultimately, she must decide if she will live wild in the forest or venture into the village and find human companionship….I don’t regret reading the book…it really made me think. I’m hoping some friends will read it soon so that I can sit and have an indepth discussion about it!
November 29th, 2008 at 5:50 am
The ending only succeeds in completing the Hamlet parody and does nothing to tie up plot lines or give any insight into the thin characters or their vague relationships. Am I really supposed to believe that Glen is holding Trudy between his legs for 20 minutes while his eyes are burning up and he’s screaming, “What’s happening?”? Am I supposed to believe a policeman feels he needs to sneak up on a witness to his father’s death and incapacitate him with ether so he can ask him a question? Am I supposed to to believe that a couple of ounces of ether in a huge barn is ignited by a single lightbulb 25 feet overhead. I had such high hopes 2/3 of the way through the book, only to be woefully let down at the end. It could have been a great book. I don’t need a happy ending, but I do need resolution.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I agree with Peter. It’s not that the book doesn’t have a happy ending but that it doesn’t have the resolution I was anticipating. The overly dramatic ending, which, again, I agree was meant to complete the Hamlet parody, diminished an otherwise incredible novel. I know there are some who say this was great literature and are explaining why it had to be a tragedy… I’m not really complaining about all the deaths and I think most people would not either if it hadn’t been so dramatic and if there had been better resolution. I hate that this was done to satisfy the Hamlet theme. Even so, they could have all died but in a less frustrating way. Especially because up to that point, the book had been absolutely amazing. Here are areas I wasn’t “digging:” 1) Edgar never finds the bottle. And we don’t know the mystery behind it or get the satisfaction of knowing that Edgar did finally find it. 2) Trudy remains in the dark about Claude. Yes, I get that this book is about communication too (or lack of it, between humans) but it could have been articulated a different way. 3) Trudy never slaps and kicks Glen away from her. My god that was frustrating. 4) Do Claude, Trudy, and Edgar die for SURE? It is not super clear, although implied. 5) The dogs can make a choice but it’s not like they have the choice to continue the previous life they led. They can’t have what they did before… with the barn burned and the trainers gone forever. So it’s not like they have a lot to choose from.
Overall, though, I do want to give the book credit for raising all of these questions. The author’s writing style is also superb. The idea behind the novel is originial but I wish he had used Hamlet as a theme and not an outline.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Like the other readers, I too hurriedly read through the last 90 pages or so anxiously awaiting all the answers to my questions only to be disappointed not so much by a sad ending as much as by a feeling of emptiness and curiosity. As well I reread the ending. I was happy that the author did treat us to a reconciliation between Edgar & Almondine, albeit it in the afterlife. There is one question that I haven’t seen addressed yet. Perhaps I read it wrong, but when Henry was taking Edgar to the border and they came upon the tornadoes/waterspouts, Essay freed herself & faced the winds. When it was over, Henry said there was something wrong with the dog. Edgar thought “How do we know”; he remembered the time that Ida Paine said “If you go, don’t you come back, not for nothing. It’s just wind, that’s all. Just wind. It don’t mean nothing?” At that point Edgar decided to go home. It seems to me that Ida was warning him not to go home. I’m assuming that when Essay followed him into the smoky barn & Edgar gave her the command “Away, I know you understand” he was telling Essay to take the dogs & leave & never return as he should have done. I may attempt to reread the book hoping to find some answers. Perhaps someone with more insight that I can turn this novel it into a movie which I will surely watch.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:35 am
What is the meaning behind Gar signing to Edgar the initials “HAA” ? Please let me know, arsinele@gmail.com
December 1st, 2008 at 6:49 am
Regarding Claude and his motives, I just assumed that the navy man (in Hong Kong, circa 1950′s) in the “prologue”, exchanging the antibiotics for the poison, was Claude. During a cribbage game, Claude states that anybody can accomplish anything, if they go slow enough. I think he always intended to over-take the kennel – I mean, killing Gar didn’t seem to be the end-game; he wanted the kennel, and by golly how ’bout his wife along the way? He tried to manipulate Edgar – (the scene with Trudy and Gar after Claude shoots the deer – he assures Forte’s safety for Edgar’s silence). And the driving episode (still makes my laugh – how about parallel parking???) I think Claude was trying to win Edgar over…
Anyway, I’m just your average reader-type. I’m not trying to draw parallels to Hamlet, or assess if this was a waste of my time or not. It was a story, and like life, no guarantee it would make me happy, or sad, or dissappointed… it is just a book! A book that made me weep (the Almondine chapters); a book that I reread immediately, and that will forever change the way I think about my dogs (as one commenter previously stated). Some of the sentences still haunt me.
BTW is it possible Trudy died? I decided she did. But, then, I don’t really know.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:57 am
P.S. Oh Angi – October 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 am – your comments were a balm for me. After reading so many negative ones, I was so glad to read yours.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Has anyone thought about why Edgar’s father didn’t appear to him and warn him that Claude had the seringe in his hands and in a few seconds will kill him? He appears to Edgar in a few minutes and then appears to Claude shortly after that. Did his dad WANT him to die?
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 am
I read the whole 560+ pages thinking it would get better. It didn’t. Left me with a – is that all there is – feeling.
The descriptions of dog behavior were very good. When the author described a dog “sighing” I could hear and feel it as if the animal was right beside me – but the story and characters (except Almondine and Henry) left me cold.
That’s all the time I’m going to spend on that book. I need to find a good author whose writing I can get lost in. Ah, yes – the new Jhumpa Lahiri! Bye.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I did not like the book. I found some of the chapters boring and difficult to understand. I made myself read it at times. I did not “get” the ending. I could not find any meaning to the story. Tragic endings seem to be a fad these days. Children dying in stories leave me cold.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
tragic endings are not a fad. they are part of classic literature. this is not a disney story. however, the development of the ending I thought was overly melodramatic… a great book…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:25 am
What will Mr. Wroblewski’s next book be about ? Two young lovers who can’t be together because of their feuding Montana families ? He might want to have them die in the end !
December 11th, 2008 at 2:49 am
How was Forte in the picture with Claude from his yearbook, and still living today? At first, I thought what was in the syringe was something mystical from the Orient to let their dogs live forever. The poison was a shock to me.
I wondered if Edgar, because of being mute, had a 6th sense of being able to see dead people (no pun intended from the movie). I think that is how the old man came to him while cleaning the shed. Also how he could relate and speak to the dogs and actually understand Almondine.
I didn’t think Edgar had anything to do with the Vets death.
My feeling about the dogs at the end, was that they were going to Henry’s house.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Am I missing something or did the author make a mistake? When the ghost of Gar transfers his memories to Edgar he transfers a memory of that alleyway in Korea in which the poison was obtained. That’s Claude’s memory, not Gar’s!
December 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Absolutely did not like this book at all. Listened to it on audio books and had to force myself to get through the entire 18 cds. Kept thinking that the ending must be worth it but it wasn’t. I have two dogs and am a dog lover but I just didn’t get this book at all.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I just finished the book and am so disappointed. I was toally engrossed in the book and agree with the reader who looks for resolution. How did Gar and Trudy actually meet? What was Claude’s problem with his father? with Gar? Why was Trudy so much in denial about Claude? What was HAAI? Loved the Henry character but was too predictable and false somehow. The Hollywood ending and the ghost stuff will make for a good movie but I wasn’t looking to read a screenplay.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I was around page 450 or so, at the point where the two dogs chose to stay with Henry when I started sobbing, but, in a good way. So, I put the book down and I went to buy two copies to send to friends that live out of town as their Holiday gifts.
Than, in one single night, I finished the book and I when I did, I was wrapped in lost and sadness and I felt cheated y the Author. You mean, Trudy never found out, Edgar was never vindicated, Edgar died? Almondine Died? where was Essay going? I mean, comon?
Now, I just want to keep the two copies and send my friends something else, even though I already told them I was absolutely LOVING THIS BOOK. But, the truth is, I have two dogs, I live by myself, life is sometimes tough and than, I get to love these people and the main dogs and, at the end, they all died, nope, not my type of ending at all.
I mean, with an Opera, at least I know what I am getting into but, I kept thinking that, Essay was going to find the bottle and SAVE Edgar or something like that. Also, I mean, if I was Trudy, I would have gone inside that Barn at whatever rishk even on my life to save Edgar. What took place here?
December 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The last 100 pages were ridiculous and I skimmed it like many others. I was also disappointed in the ending. It could have ended so much better. From the time Edgar “ran away” it got disappointing. Henry was hard to believe. The style of writing was beautiful at times, other times brutally boring. And too many unanswered questions…why did Claude hate his brother so much? Why did Trudy fall for him?
Just got too ridiculous at the end. Now I won’t recommend it to any of my friends
December 13th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Oh my goodness. I finished the book last night and immediately returned it to the library since there was a long waiting list. I wish that I had a chance to reread it again after stumbling upon this websight. I got the Hamlet references and I enjoyed reading Kipling stories when I was a kid. I believe that Edgar and the dogs left the Garden of Eden…We and they are in the real world now and it isn’t always a pretty sight. We do have the freedom to choose but obviously not all of us have a wide spectrum of choices. And of course human beings make incredible mistakes!!! Some of us gravitate to love and to good, but somethings get lost in translation.. I love the transcendence of love and respect between Edgar and his dogs. Who couldn’t love the relationship between Edgar and Almondine???Even in the deepest loves there are betrayals. Unexplainable betrayals. At first I hated the ending. Hated it because every main character could had done something different. Perhaps Claude couldn’t I think that he was too lost from day one. We all make choices. Maybe the point of the story was let us all make the right choices. Let us live as consciously as possible since we all bit off that knowledge from the tree.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:37 am
by the way does any one know when the author will be on the Oprah show???? I just lost my beautiful Mascot. She was part border collie and part Aust. shepherd. We got her from the shelter. She was called the mascot because they were going to put her to sleep that night. She looked sick and pretty much beaten up when we found her at 7 years of age. We adopdted her and she was almondine. A perfectly aware, king and compassionate dog. You never know what shapes angels will take in this world.She lived with us until she was 16. What a beautiful spirit she added to this world.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I just finished this way too long book. Sorry but I would NEVER recommend it. Too laborious, and the ending was terrible. It left me unfulfilled and questioning what the heck happened. I don’t know what all the fuss was about this book but now I have my time back.
December 17th, 2008 at 2:59 am
i think edgar is a product of th “sawtelle” dogs. half dog/ half human
December 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Come on,folks! The ideas behind a truly great piece of literature it the ability to make one think and ask oneself how the situations from the text might relate to his or her own life. The key here is “to think.” I loved this novel from start to finish. I too had to reread certain passages. Not because I couldn’t understand what was taking place but rather to contemplate the message the author was presenting. This is a masterpiece, and like all masterpieces, it will have its critics. However, I will not be one of them. I will gladly recommend this book to any and all who read for entertainment as well as thoughtful reflection.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Norman. You are soooo on target. Some of these review that people are giving are absurd. Come it is not a Disney Book w/ a fairy tale ending. Comments from some stateing that they would never let a teenager read this? You have got to be kidding me. They language was not bad at all. There was never any sexual connotations. Unbelievable writing. This book made you think. I have referred it to many friends and will continue to do so. I will be reading the book again so I can hopefully understand a few of the storylines that are not completely clear to me. I can’t wait. But please take this book for what it is… A masterpiece.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I don’t guess I’ll be writing any books any time soon.. Did not check my spelling before I hit the submit button. lol. Sorry gang.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I’m grateful for having found this site;reading other people’s comments has eased my mind — which was seriously disturbed after finishing this book! I flew through the book, enjoying it immensely, thinking I wanted to recommend it to any intelligent person I know. I would now be very selective about who I would recommend the book to. I never got the Hamlet theme — dumb me — but I can certainly see how obvious it is now. I felt that there would be tragedy coming, though, especially after the doctor died and Edgar “ran away”, but I never thought it could be so ghastly. I didn’t need any neat, Disneylike ending — what came before made that all but impossible anyway; but for Edgar to have braved the smoke over and over to save the files on the dogs, to risk his life to save what he felt was so precious — and then for him to DIE, and for the files to apparently burn up from falling cinders — and for no one to be left to understand or make use of them anyway — it was just too much. Like someone said earlier, I thought that ultimately Forte would save Edgar from the fire. So Gar is dead, murdered by the monstrous Claude; Edgar is dead, essentially murdered by Claude — who appears to have, thankfully, died himself; and Trudy is alive, but she is now a madwoman — left to live out her life in agony. Wow!! This writer is so very, very good, so lyrical, stringing together words into sentences that make you want to slowly savor them. He makes us feel so much and understand so much about our relationships with dogs, too; and he makes us love and respect these magnificent creatures even more than we already did. As to the “mysteries” many spoke of, some were never explained, for sure — and will keep all of us long wondering — but other things weren’t really mysteries: Ida was, indeed, the grandmother of the little girl; Almondine did die on the road, looking to the “trucks” and the humans in the trucks for answers about her beloved Edgar; the ghost in Henry’s barn was NOT Edgar’s father — he was the man who previously owned the home Henry now lived in; Edgar never meant to kill the vet — he thought the vet was Claude. I know that the dogs leaving at the end was supposed to be about CHOICES — but it was all wrong somehow. As someone said before me, I think this book is a masterpiece, but I hated the ending, really hated it — so much knowledge and hard-gained maturity, so much struggling for Edgar — and then it all became so ugly and he died. The End. BOO!
December 19th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Has anyone read Hamlet? I thought the author wrote the book around the story of Hamlet to make a story about raising dogs and consciousness more interesting:
Gar = Hamlet’s father named Hamelet
Edgar= Hamlet, who comes back as a ghost
Claude =Claudius, who poisened Hamlet’s father
Trudy=Gertrude, marries her husband’s brother soon after Hamlet’s death
Almondine=Ophelia, dies while Hamlet is away
Forte (the first)=Fortinbras in Hamlet, killed by Hamlet’s father
Forte (the second)=the young Fortinbras in Hamlet who receives Hamlet’s kingdom, just as Forte received the “kingdom of dogs”
Dr. Page=Polonius, killed in error in Hamlet
Glen=Polonius son out to get Hamlet
I am a literature professor, so perhaps that’s why it bothered me. All throughout the original Hamlet, Hamlet is indecisive and haunted. Too many similarities for me to not know who would die and when.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Correction to my blog–Gar, is Hamlet’s father who comes back as a ghost
December 21st, 2008 at 4:34 am
I thought this book was very confusing at first and was having a hard time continuing to read it. Then Edgar ran away and I couldn’t put it down. It all began to come together for me, especially towards the end. I was so enthralled in the book. I fell in love with Edgar, Almondine, and all the dogs. I hated how the book ended. I was so hoping that Claude would stab himself with the needle on accident and Almondine would come back and Trudy would find out the truth. I did love the book but was so enraged by the ending. I also want to know where the dogs decided to go; I was hoping they would go to Henrys house.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 am
In keeping with the spirit of this book, I think Claude should have lived happily ever after on the farm with his new barn.
Seriously, though, Glen’s nickname after getting his police officer’s uniform, “Babe the Blue Ox”, was hilarious!
Claude became Trudy’s black vine.
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 am
One more thing, the dogs choose to live life “in the wild” but get picked up by Popcorn Corner’s Animal Control Unit.
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
Seriously? I don’t care if it mimics Hamlet. Why did he have to die? And my favorite dog too? That broke my heart. I’ve had a few teens try to read this and the points of view are confusing for them and they stop. And these are serious readers. Sorry, but I am not recommending this book. And I know if it had the power to break my heart I should acknowledge it is a powerful book. But frankly the ending pissed me off.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:58 am
This is one of the most moving and tragic books I have read in a long time. I too will have to reread it to truely understand some of it’s deeper meanings. The ending is indeed very sad. I kept reading hoping for a happy ending. But in reality life can be unfair to good people who deserve better.
December 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Never have blogged…, but had to this book/ending irritated me to no end.
I agree w/all the unanswered questions.
One other…I thought Edgar named Forte? I guess he was a ghost bc he couldn’t be alive that long.
What was the significance in having the photo of Claude and Forte? Was Forte abused by Claude bc he kept his distance??
When Claude shot the deer, he couldn’t shoot Forte because he was a ghost??
I too skimmed parts, didn’t need to be so long!
Meery Christmas!!
December 26th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I have never blogged either…..This wonderful book took me for a ride. It so touched my heart. Yes, there was plenty of tears. I know in my heart that Mr. D.W. will not just leave it there. There has to be more to it & I’ll be waiting with baited breath. Thank you so much for a wonderful book. My husband is reading it now.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I feel so lucky to have discovered this blog! I just finished TSOES. I loved the lyrical writing, but as for the plot: I’m very familiar with the plot of Hamlet and I think I would have been very disappointed with the book if I wasn’t familiar with it. I half-expected two of the puppies to be named Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. Having said that, I think the most inspired Hamlet-plot parallel was the puppies acting out the “players” scene. Here’s my question to you Shakespeareans: who was Henry? Was Essay the Horatio character?
December 29th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I didn’t read this book–I inhaled it. (Now I’ll have the pleasure of rereading it without the suspense.) I,too, found the ending devastating, but curiously satisfying. I think the key resides in the comment from the correspondence between the two breeders: “To deserve a better dog, perhaps we need to become better people.” (I’m paraphrasing here. I lent my copy to my daughter.) I can imagine Essay, Forte, and all the rest of the Sawtelle dogs living in the wild, breeding, developing that decision-making capacity the grandfather was so intently intuitive about…and waiting for us to catch up.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:56 am
I just finished the book too over Christmas vacation. It was recommended by a friend. Loved the connection portrayed in the book between people and dogs, and how it showed the enormous place in our hearts that animals can fill, but HATED the ending. OK, let Claude die, maybe even Trudy and Glen, but not Edgar & Almondine. Just a bit too tragic for me. The jarring ending took away from some of the haunting nature of the rest of the book. I don’t have to have a happy ending to enjoy a book, but when the whole world blows up at the end of book… it diminishes the sense that you have grown as a result of reading the book.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:00 am
Just read this book on my new Kindle and I loved it. If you have a teenage boy in your house you can definitely relate to Edgar in the book. There are so many things that Edgar saw, thought and did that is so typical of the way a boy that age thinks. Perhaps this book will inspire others to actually train their own dogs – the Sawtelle dogs were not that unique – they had unique trainers. Do you think that perhaps the dogs went to Henry’s and that he finds his way back to Trudy via them? After all his lamenting about Belva, maybe Trudy and the dogs are his way of achieving something unordinary? Henry was a bit like Gar in a way – in that he couldn’t forget the past but choose to preserve it. In any case, you didn’t have to read far in this book, ie. Chapter 1, to know it wasn’t going to be a Disney ending.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I was not surprised at the ending. The first chapter sets it up with the purchase of the poison( As Marilyn noted). It was Hamlet and as such no other endng would serve. Very well written. I enjoyed matching Hamlet’s characters to these characters. It was thoght provoking and satisfying.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 am
Does anyone have an answer to the chronological mistake cited by DD on october 9? It’s true, Edgar is born in May of 1958, yet the 3rd miscarriage was in April of 1958. Strange if the author and editors missed this, yet if it was intentional I don’t get it. Also Linda (Oct. 24) asked about the old man and Claude discussing an antidote in the prologue. It wasn’t an antidote. They were discussing the penicillin that Claude traded for the poison. The old man needed the medicine for his grandson.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I am so glad I found this site. I did not like this book. Too long and drawn out and didn’t say anything. I love dogs, and that part of it wasn’t the tiniest satisfying to me. The detail was lovely, but it was ALL detail – no story. Was there a point to all of this? I didn’t see it. It got bored with the book half-way through it but continued on because it was a gift. I finally jumped ahead to the end and even then never really got my head around what happened and didn’t have the patience to try to go back and figure it out. Bomb!
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I enjoyed many aspects of this book- the lyrical style of writing, the shifting points of view, the human drama, the new twist on a great classic of English literature. I more or less expected the final outcome, given the basic Hamlet structure of the story, and was only surprised by how the characters met their fate, not by what their fate was. The fact that the outcome was both tragic and predictable to me didn’t diminish my admiration for the book, any more than Hamlet’s death detracts from that classic. But here’s the thing that disappointed me – the dogs! I loved the telling of the relationship between Almondine and Edgar, and I especially admired the author’s poignant description of Almondine’s grieving over the loss of Gar, and then even more intensely the loss of Edgar. But the whole conceit of this special line of “Sawtelle Dogs” just didn’t ring true to me. The author never sold me on what was so special about them. The level of training they received? C’mon. Despite the characters’ stated contempt for “show dogs” very single thing that was described as part of the dogs’ regular training was just the sort of mostly novice level training that any obedience trial dog receives. There was nothing in the description of the training that any respectable dog trainer isn’t already familiar with, although many would advocate very different techniques now days. As for the quest for the “next dog” that is capable of making choices, the author should follow a well trained Search and Rescue dog sometime, or better yet watch a working sheep dog, or better still follow behind a guide dog. The next dog, capable of making intelligent independent choices clearly has existed for centuries. Sorry to get all dog nerdy here, but as much as I admired many aspects of the book, every time the Sawtelle line was portrayed as something unique and special just took me out of the story and made me roll my eyes. In my opinion, this book is highly successful as a re-telling of a classic human drama; but if you want to read about a quest for the next dog, read Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men by Don McCaig, and compare that to the quest for dogs that can, uhm, choose to obey recall and stay commands.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
This story was breathtaking. At first, I was turned off by the fact that Edgar was mute, but the writer was able to get around that and did it with style. I loved this book–that is right up until the ending. I knew that he had to die, but I was hoping it would go a different way. So, in the end this book left me feeling totally depressed albeit more appreciative of all the wonderful dogs I have had the pleasure of owning.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I love to read but thsi book was a waste of time and effort. Once again I fell for an Oprah book. NEVER AGAIN !! I do nt mind tragedy etc. but all the symbolism and unanswered questions make me furious. I am giving the book to Goodwill ! Yuck !
January 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Denise…the beauty of the author is that he got you (I assume) to read all 500+ pages. Never say never! Books that I don’t like I put aside in the first few pages.
I just finished the book last night so I’m a virgin…I keep thinking there is a deeper meaning to what happened…what do the Sawtelle (or any other) dogs have to teach us? Patience, unconditional love; the fact that there is no difference between this dimension and the next; that dieing doesn’t have to be a tragedy.
I am concerned, however (!) for Trudy. How did her life go after this? Did she restart the business after months of emotional recovery? We KNOW Essay led the dogs to Henry. Did Henry lead them back to Trudy?
And so it goes….
January 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I kept wanting a description of the dogs…what breed were they like? How do they look?
January 5th, 2009 at 12:58 am
I just finished reading this book and I, like so many other folks who have commented here, was very upset by the ending. I had read the inside cover of the book but did not know that the story was compared to the story of Hamlet. I am very glad I didn’t know that. Perhaps if I did I would have been less devastated by Edgar’s death but I would have been more anxious as I read. I was impatient enough as it was wanting to know what was going to happen next and reluctant to put the book down to take care of “ordinary†life at my house. Perhaps I was more philosophical as I read the book. I was looking for clues about the words such as “Saw,†“Tell,†(Tru)dy, Iris (as in an eye), Essay, Ida Paine (the pain of knowing and not being able to tell or being believed), and there were probably more but I didn’t jot them down. Then there was the symbolism of John, Mary and Adam(ski) for the beginning of the story. If John had been Joseph, that would be even better. There was Henry Lamb when Edgar was “On the Lam.†Tinder hurt his foot and they had to stay with Henry the “Tenderfoot†with dogs.
I saw a parallel with these things to Edgar’s job of naming the dogs and trying to make the names fit the dogs perfectly. I must admit I have never read “Jungle Book†but I know that there are moral stories contained within each of the stories. I also know that each animal is given human abilities and so when you do that with the dogs and especially with Almondine it tugged at my heart and made me grieve for my deceased dogs even more. That grief extended to my lost loved ones as well, especially my parents. I think I related to Almondine more emotionally than to anyone else. How she must have felt at the loss of both Edgars and no one bothered to console her! This played into the whole picture of communication or lack there of among the people as well. They practiced communicating with the dogs but not with each other.
People have been asking what is the message? Somewhere I have heard that one’s life isn’t measured by the length of time on earth. Its direction and value are determined by the choices one makes and what one does with the time one has. I think the author put those thoughts very well when he talks about Tinder and Baboo’s decision to stay with Henry and Essay’s decision to go with Edgar. He says that life is a swarm of accidents and we cling to the happiest ones and let the rest float by.
Coming full circle Edgar is feeding fish to Essay just as his grandfather had done with Gus, the first Sawtelle Dog. He is doing this as he is going home to face Claude and as he is discovering what his grandfather and dad had been trying to produce in the Sawtelle Dog. A dog that could make intelligent decisions on its own. Was this not what Forte II had done? Is this not what most people try to do? So it had come full circle? Then I was left wondering for what?
I couldn’t concentrate on anything else. It was just too sad. It was consuming me. I know that my male family member say that this is just a story and these people aren’t real so “just forget it.†But I couldn’t.
I too think that Trudy is alive. Her life was so full of tragedy already that this would be the last straw. So with my overwhelming grief for my loss and her loss I had to write a different ending in a sequel that would show that Edgar hadn’t died after all. He had been knocked on the back by Claude but the needle missed him. What made him collapse was fatigue and smoke. The image he saw was Trudy and she rescues him. Here’s where Hamlet stops.
Since it was Essay that went off with the other dogs maybe that’s what was intended all along? For the reader to write his or her own essay.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:53 am
I bought this for my boyfriend for Christmas. He finished it in three days and passed it on to me. I just finished it. As a high school English teacher, I was immediately struck by the parallels to Hamlet and was gratified to see so many readers here who validated this for me ( thank you! sometimes I think I imagine paralles because of my job). I am impressed with David W.’s skill as a writer but am upset with the conclusion of the novel. I can handle characters dying but I see no point in the plot being strengthened by Edgar’s death….I wanted things to go better for him and Trudy. Perhaps this points out the finesse of the author — that so many readers became that captivated by Edgar that they are reacting so stronglyu to his death?
January 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I have just recently become an avid reader. For that reason I thought maybe I just didn’t get the book. After reading the majority of the posts I am relieved that I am not the only one to feel this way.
The book to me was very hard to “want” to read at the beginning. It felt like each chapter was a random list of meaningless events.
After I felt the story really started I pretty much finished the book without many breaks.
As with everyone’s concerns mine are with the fact that there were way too much meaningless details. I have no problem with the ending and assumed the worse would happen. My gripe is with the fact that all the work Edgar did was for not with his death.
TOOO MANY details and no resolution to anything.
I will say that if there is a movie or sequel I will watch or read it.
Thanks,
January 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
As life consists with so many unanswered questions like this novel portrayed, some answers by Wroblowski himself can be found at oprah’s website.
As far as the ending is concern, it is LIFE as intended, it ends with death-sadness and tragedy.
For you who dump this book at ‘goodwill-related’ shop…Thanks for your generous donation!
January 7th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’ve just finished reading this book and totally amazed at the talent of the author. I have a 19 yr old son who has just written a book- with a very dark side to it. I want him to read this book – it is brilliantly written- even tragedy, paranormal has to be written cleverly, gracefully. I think it was all of that. I have actually started to reread it- because i loved it and some things i didn’t understand.
Claude was a liar – about the story of Gar shooting forte- later in the story Claude says (about the stray) shoot it Gar you’ve done it before… I think he replied ‘so you tell me’? (maybe remembering that wrong. In the letters edgar read- there is mention of the lady he bought with him to the bar when they were discussing dogs/breeding etc.. who was that?
How did Trudy and Gar really meet or is it not significant.
I really must read a bit closer! I gobbled it up too quickly!
January 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I thought this was the Story of Edgar Sawtelle, not the story of his dogs therefore we’ll write a sequel. And by the way, if it was about communicating who is going to tell Trudy about what a scumbag Claude was. If Gar was killed by Claude and no one knows it, how is anyone going to know that Edgar was killed by him also. I hated the ending. I feel like I read 540 pages for nothing as it ended without resolution…except for the dogs going into the sunset…just awful!
January 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I have a question that no one has addressed yet. It bothered me from the beginning. Why was Almondine a house dog? She obviously was living with Trudy and Gar in the house and not in the kennel before Edgar was born and she was still quite young. All the other dogs rotated through house and then back to the kennel.
I knew the Hamlet connection but had forgotten that EVERYONE died. The ending was disappointing because of all the unanswered questions. I don’t like the way most modern literature/films make every connection so obvious, but this one didn’t seem to provide even hints for the readers’ interpretation.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I’m not sure how I feel about the story yet, but one thing for sure, it provoked enough emotion that I had to keep reading to find out what would happen each new sunrise whether I liked it or now. I believe that makes a good book, regardless whether we like the story (the inability to put it down). The Sawtelles were dog breeders and dog experts, so I couldn’t help but wonder how Essay wasn’t impregnated by her brothers…except that we assume she was never in heat during the period they were always together. She was old enough.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
This book will be one of my top ten. The beautiful portrayal of the countryside, the sincere, honest and heart-wrenching development of both the human and dog characters, the haunting connections to mistakes of the past and choices for the future..sigh..I, too, inhaled this story. Like Aaron’s wife, I thought that Dr. Papineau had a motivation for ridding the world of Gar. He and Claude were old pals as Claude worked in the vet’s office as a teen. I think that Edgar thought it was Claude’s shadow in the stairway vestibule… I wasn’t expecting the ending to be so tragic. I am an avid reader, but missed the whole Hamlet connection. I’m actually kind of glad I didn’t pick up on that anyway. Having only read the book on the recommendation of a friend, I didn’t have any preconceived notions. Of course I was upset that Edgar had to die, but I was comforted by Almondine’s and Gar’s ghostly final moments with Edgar. It was my understanding that Essay developed the ability to choose. She chose Forte and the wild. I thought that Trudy survived, but I might need to reread that part.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:26 am
I agree with all who feel the end of the book was excessively dark. The darkness of the book was at least balanced by the beauty of Edgar and his relationships with his parents and the dogs. The evil of Claude and its annhilating impact on all the good around him was too much. A great excess from the author.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Thank you, jjk–I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments!
January 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I finished this book 3 hours ago after reading all night. One of the thngs that I liked about the book was the other worldly ghosts and the refernces to an afterlife. We got to see Gar, Edgar, Alomondine in their heavenly afterlife and we got to see that creepy,nasty Claude in his hell–constantly turning left and finding himself in a cage at each turn. It didn’t make the ending happy but it was sweet justice for Claude.
I thought that Trudy was a weak character. Did she lose her mind or die (Ox clutching at her too tightly?)? She chose Claude over Edgar and young Edgar thought that his Almondine had done the same thing. He came to understand but it was confusing for a bit. I did not get that ALmondine was hit by a car-thanks.
No sequels. Too gruesome; especially since Essay and Forte were already feral and she had become the Alpha Female.
I do think that the essence of a good book is to create thought and emotion. From the comments, this one suceeded with us all.
January 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Apparently, Wroblewski is working on a Prequel, not a Sequel. This might be interesting and would explain some of the above mentioned questions regarding Claude and his relationship with Gar and Dr. Papineau, etc.
January 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I just finished The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. The ending was devasting, and I needed to process it. So I googled and found this message board. What a great resource–I’ve never seen one before! I used to teach middle school English and have read many “coming of age” novels…which, I suppose, is what I was expecting. Generally, the protagonist gains experience and understanding, enabling him to work through a central conflict. With this book, I held out hope that Edgar’s sensitivity and intellect would enable him to triumph in the end…that Hamlet would finally have a “happy ending.” Or at least a just one. Sigh. Not so… With a book like this, where is there hope or redemption? Very troubling…
January 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Oh my God, I gave this book to two friends as a Christmats gift. I have never before not read a book before giving it to someone. I felt confident since I had many good reviews from close friends. Then, I wondered by it was the only book Steven King would read twice. Well, now I know.
I have been a dog person and had close relations with many magical dogs. I really liked the story at first – expecially, about all the in and outs of breeding and training dogs. I loved the story – then came the ending.
There are so many good endings that couold have come about. Why would the author leave us so sad and despondent.
I finished reading it this morning, and I have been in depression all day.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:47 am
I’m so glad I found this blog. Listened to the last 7 hours of the audio book today and, like everyone, felt stunned at the end — had forgotten the Hamlet connection or I would have expected the deaths. I, too, question whether Trudy is alive at the end — just not certain. What an incredibly DEEP and ingenious novel..reminds me of Irving’s A Prayer for Owen Meany, one of my favorites. I have to face my book club tomorrow night, and I know many will be furious about the ending. I am not, for all the reasons listed above — and because it is a BRILLIANT and complex retelling of a classic with incredible depths that Shakespeare would have admired. Though I’m not always a huge fan of everything written by Stephen King, I am a fan of him as a writer and I agree with his assessment. WOW…this one will stick with me a long, long time.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:17 am
I’d like to add another aspect to the ending of the novel by death of all characters. It is a way of avoiding confrontation, discovery, reconciliation or retribution. It is a way for Edgar to never really confront Claude and his evil; for his mother to never be able to articulate her transformation at discovering the evil of Claude, the goodness of her son. There are many realities that are buried alive by the writer. A creator who is unable to deal with the consequences of the characters’ actions. A writer who leaves the world he has constructed, paralyzed by the evils he has conjured.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
This book was beautifully written, making creative use of simile and metaphor and wonderful description. However, I found the ending surprisingly tragic and disturbingly disappointing. Was this a cruel joke by the author? As my son would say, “The ending sucked, big time!”
January 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Yes, John, my comment, just above yours, shares the disappointment and disillusion you feel, and offers some explanation for why we all feel this.
I would hope the author will take these comments to heart in the spirit of integrity and authenticity.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I too was extremely disappointed by the ending of this book. It seems to me that life is not so black and white; therefore, an ending so dark is just as false as one that is outrageously positive. I feel I could have gained just as much insight and perspective of the world without such a crushing ending.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:27 am
John, I think you’ve hit it on the head with the idea that the ending was a cruel joke by the author, except it’s no joke–just cruel. How could anyone deliberately make so many readers so miserable? Especially after the pain and sorrow we’ve all had to endure for the past 8 years as we watched our beloved earth and its inhabitants slowly dying . . .
January 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Too grand, too self important. The magical realism was a cop out.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Yes to “Bob”: a magic wand: doesn’t wave away the realities that the author does not confront within the structure of his characters.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I cannot agree with you, Liz (Jan. 12). This novel cannot come close to “A Prayer for Owen Meany.” Not at all. After finishing the novel last night, I went to the internet to see what others had to say about it. When I first read reviews of Edgar Sawtelle, I was wondering if I was the only one who didn’t like it. Well, I liked it enough to finish it – partly because a friend gave it to me with her glowing recommendations. I think it dragged on in parts with long detailed descriptions that were not necessary to the story. While his literary style and language were pleasing, some of his passages were just too detailed. I found I had to go back and reread to get a better understanding of what he was saying. And of course, there’s the ending. Very unsatisfying, indeed.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
What if David Wroblewski had written The Wizard of Oz instead of Frank Baum?
The Castle scene: The witch’s guards have Dorothy, Toto, Tinman, Scarecrow, and Lion trapped in the highest turret with no chance to escape. The witch slowly, menacingly advances on our heroes. She pauses, lifts her broom to the lighted torch, and thrusts the burning broom at Scarecrow, setting his arm ablaze. Dorothy instantly grabs a bucket of water and douses Scarecrow’s burning arm. There’s a horrific explosion, flames everywhere, the tower collapses, for what she thought was water, was gasoline! (or ether) Everyone dies; Dorothy, witch, guards, Tinman, Lion, and Scarecrow, they all die, and… Toto, too, and Toto, too. THE END……..roll credits.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I just finished and yes I too am unhappy with the ending but more unhappy rather with all the unanswered questions. When did Almodine die? And how, I really want to know. And what about glen he went blind yes but did he and trudy both burn also? And where are the dogs crossing over to? I get the symbolism but really!
January 17th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Though I was generally engrossed and impressed by the book, I (like others) was ultimately disappointed not by the Hamlet connection but Wroblewski’s slavish adherence to the events of the play. Is sprawling and innovative a setting and set of characters he created, why lock them to the fates of the characters for whom they stand in in another artwork? Give them the freedom to find their own destinies. As soon as he forces them into Hamlet’s plot turns (esp. the vet’s death) the book begins to feel inauthentic, like a literary exercise gone awry. Of course, it becomes more apparent what’s going to happen to the main characters, if not exactly how, and that’s too bad, esp. as so much of the book is so satisfying.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Edgar ignores Ida’s warnings about the wind, finding the bottle, not returning. So what’s the point?
Ida’s granddaughter talks about “a secret” born with Edgar; is it that ghosts walk among us? He doesn’t “tell” the secret to Trudy or Henry though he could. Okay….now what?
Here’s a smart guy who hides and survives, can break into houses without leaving a trace, but can’t see his sociopath murderous uncle coming at him with a syringe? C’mon.
For all Trudy’s great love for her son, she is a weak, selfish woman who couldn’t knee the blind, writhing, blind Glen to help/save Edgar.
I’m not a dog lover but I ended up preferring the brave, loyal, sensible canines to the homo sapiens.
And for those who think Anodine is alive (and maybe Edgar too!), Trudy married Henry and Essay and Forte come to live in the fabulous rebuilt kennel. The End.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I was unsatisfied because the author went to such length to give Edgar a future to begin with. The psychic sends the signer to the home to war Trudy that Edgar needed instruction in the “window” of time. Why throw it all away. The combination of surreal and realistic fiction became very confusing and I feel was the downfall of this interesting but very frustrating piece of fiction (fairy tale). The victory of the underlying, although opaque, evil was so jarring. I agree with I.P. Freeley, why couldn’t the author used the Hamlet premise without destroying anything good in the novel?
January 18th, 2009 at 8:08 am
For those of you surprised by the references to Hamlet – there are more here than may first meet your eye. Hamlet (Edgar), after killing Polonius (Page)is sent away by his mother Gertrude (Trudy); he is accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Tinder and Baboo). In Hamlet, the trip is associated with a pirate attack; in comparison, Edgar has his overland adventure. Hamlet (Edgar) later returns to Denmark (the farm), under secrecy, in time to attend Ophelia’s (Almondine’s) funeral and is accompanied there by Horation (Essay). In both cases, the main character (Edgar/Hamlet) first comes upon a grave. Edgar “killing” Page was a mirror of Hamlet killing Polonius. Both thought it was someone else – Edgar thought it was his uncle, Claude, and Hamlet thought it was his uncle, Claudius.
I haven’t read through all of the responses; however, did no one else see the importance/relationship of the Forte in “Edgar Sawtelle” to the Fortinbras from Hamlet. Fortinbras Sr. is killed ans ucceded by his son, also named Fortinbras. Fortinbras (the younger) is the only character who seems to be free of the corruption found in Hamlet, just as Forte is the only “character” who seems to be free of corruption in Edgar Sawtelle.
For those of you who are upset about the ending… That’s how life can be. Is everything resolved – no. In real life not evertything gets resolved; things are left unknown, unsaid. To me, Edgar found what he wanted, what he needed, at the end when he was reunited with Almondine. Claude dies a horrible death, not because he can’t escape but because he was busy planning how out how he was going to make himself look good. Trudy knows Claude messed up and had something to do with Glen and Edgar, and whether she survives or not (a moot point) got to see Edgar working to save the things his father felt were important.
I don’t see a sequel. Interesting to think about who will play the parts in the film (someone will snap up the rights to this one.) If he weren’t so old I could see Sam Shepard as Gar.
January 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Was Wroblewski consciously fashioning his characters in this way?
January 18th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Does anyone remember how John Sawtelle died. Could Claude have killed him too?
January 18th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
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??
January 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
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.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
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.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
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.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Marsha, what was your ending?
January 21st, 2009 at 12:04 am
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.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:44 am
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.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:53 am
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.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
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.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 am
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.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:12 am
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.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
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.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I found the book enchanting; the ending one written by an exhausted author.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 am
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.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 am
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.
January 24th, 2009 at 2:59 am
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.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
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.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:56 am
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.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:58 am
and you wanna tell other readers to watch the details… c’mon now.
January 25th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
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.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
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.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:34 am
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.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:56 am
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.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:37 am
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.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
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.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:28 am
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.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
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….
January 29th, 2009 at 4:22 am
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.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
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……
January 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
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??
January 29th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
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”.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:29 am
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.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:13 am
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.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
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.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
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?
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
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.)
February 4th, 2009 at 12:48 am
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.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
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.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Jody, Jody, Jody: look up the word “smug”.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:47 am
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.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:09 am
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!
February 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
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.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:56 am
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.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Right on Renee. But the fierce reactions have to do with the story’s beauty, I suspect.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:59 am
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…
February 9th, 2009 at 4:29 am
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
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.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
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.)
February 10th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
PervinOz:thanks for the roadmap; next time I want to read a novel that needs one I’ll think of you.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
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.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:17 am
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.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:24 am
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.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
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…
February 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
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.
February 14th, 2009 at 5:52 am
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.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:34 am
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.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:34 am
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.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
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
February 18th, 2009 at 2:02 am
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.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:02 am
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.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
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.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
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.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
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!
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
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…
February 24th, 2009 at 1:07 am
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.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
All of his feelings on this will be of interest; it does not undo the despair, the black hole, into which he puts Edgar.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
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.
February 26th, 2009 at 3:02 am
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.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
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!
March 5th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I finished this book 3 weeks ago but have already forgotten exactly Edgar died. Was it the fire? Thanks.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:24 am
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….?
March 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
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.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
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.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
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.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:35 am
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.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
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.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:07 am
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.
March 19th, 2009 at 6:46 am
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.
March 19th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
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.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:08 am
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.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:32 am
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. :)
March 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
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!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
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.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
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.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 2:49 am
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:34 am
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
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.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
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.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
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.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:14 am
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.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Prequel!?? Unfortunate idea. Knowing how badly it all ends, I will not read a prequel . . .
March 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
what does trudy mean when she asks edgar (after the death of his father gar)do you remember your real father?
March 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
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.
April 5th, 2009 at 2:36 am
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.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:30 am
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.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:31 am
While I have criticized many aspects of our author’s work over the past few months, his portrayal of Almondine was clear for me. I had a somewhat similar experience with my own dog and that, perhaps, was why it was one of the most unforgettable parts of this intense work.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I thought this story was a waste of ink and paper.(and time, for that matter) Every time I felt the story was building to some sort of climax,I was slowly let back down to where it started. When it took a chapter to dress and bandage a dogs paw.I lost interest even faster.I managed to stick it out only because I was in to deep. The one positive note I could add,is that the author was realistic in describing actions,animal and human.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am
I thought this story was a waste of ink and paper.(and time, for that matter) Every time I felt the story was building to some sort of climax,I was slowly let back down to where it started. When it took a chapter to dress and bandage a dogs paw.I lost interest even faster.I managed to stick it out only because I was in to deep. The one positive note I could add,is that the author was realistic in describing actions.Animal and human.
April 8th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I don’t understand the “poison”. Why did Claude purchase it in the first place? What were his plans for it? As far as we know, he used it only to kill his brother and his nephew. (Am I correct in this, or did I miss something?) Was he intending to kill Gar when he bought it?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:54 am
I just finished this book which was recommended to me by a friend. I have never gone to the web before to try to figure out what a book I was reading was about, but here I am now along with a LOT of other people since June 2008! So obviously there is something about this novel that inspries people as well as bothers them. From the very beginning I was attracted to the story, confused by it and annoyed by it. I agree with those who think that is was way too long. And it needed serious editing. Go back and look at the first sentence in the first chapter. My English teacher would never have let me get away with a sentence like that. But, it did make me think…and say something on this blog!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Wow, what a ton of comments. The reason so many people, including me, are so upset is this : the difference between this book and the Shakespeare tragedies is that Shakespeare did not first make you invest so much emotion in the characters before killing them off. I can take a sad ending, but with this one I was not sad, I was very, very angry. What a dirty trick. I read it a month ago and am still mad. A satisfying ending does not have to be Disney-like, but why read such a downer with no sensible resoluton? It was all for naught. The actions didn’t always ring true. One has to wonder,by the way, what happened to all the other dogs, the ones that did not follow Essay at the end? So many other questions. Great writing in itself, but I am another one who will not recommend this to my book club, and I will not bother with any other books by this author.
April 11th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Shirley, You may change your mind. I did: after the book ‘jells’ or ‘marinates’ within you for a while, the beauty of his love for dogs overcomes what feels like the work’s shortcomings.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Does anyone understand a story for the sake of a story? I am not understanding these posts where people need everything spelled out for them. I also don’t understand those expecting or looking for everything to be parallel to Hamlet. There was a nod; that’s all there was. Claude – as it states in the book – is very patient and can take a long time to get something done the way he wants. Whatever the childhood rift with Gar, he buys that poison with the intent of eventually, someday, killing his brother – Cain and Able type stuff. Trudy is a FLAWED character – she is strong with the dogs, but that’s it. She is depressed and desperate. Edgar is 14, has been traumatized, has watched his fatehr die in his arms and caused the death of someone very close to his family, and then feels betrayed by Almondine and his mother – they both turn to his father’s killer. The ending saddened and depressed me to death, but it doesn’t make the book any less stellar. When I knew Almondine died, I couldn’t see any way that the book would from then on have a happy ending. Claude killed Edgar, but Edgar didn’t suffer in death, which was the blessing. Ida Paine had told him – Don’t come back. It’s only wind. But he chose, after enduring the water spouts, to go home, which he was told not to do. So you could argue that Ida knew what his fate was if he returned, and he felt he needed to avenge his father, and so he returned.
Oh, and Forte was a REAL dog! For heaven’s sake, he was a half-wild dog who wanted to trust Edgar but was too afraid.
All of you that are mad, furious, feel tricked, what have you – is that not an indication that you’ve read a superior piece of literature? You’re thinking about it, you’re feeling about it, you’re dying to talk to someone about it? THAT is a good book. Not another cop-drama-chick-lit cookie-cutter fluff book (which I enjoy but because I don’t HAVE to think about anything). This book gets in your heart and your guy and tears both to pieces. And I’m not sorry it does.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Trudy’s character is not just flawed. She’s badly written. She’s written to be less intelligent and insightful than her dogs, and utterly dependent on all the male characters in the book, including the male dogs. She also ends the story in a pseudo-sexual romp with a half blind idiot giant. It’s insulting. Other aspects of the book were enjoyable, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that this book was very much written with a steep sexist slant.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:12 am
I actually thought Trudy was stronger than the last half of the book allowed: it was an odd contradiction to me, and a character development I found inconsistent and false.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
This book was the best I’ve read in a while now, very refreshingly written. I was surprised to find so many people disliked the ending. While the future seems terrible for Trudy, I thought Edgars ending was the happiest he could have recieved considering the circumstances. So I suppose I considered it bittersweet, which I admit I tend to be fond of. Having recently lost a very beloved dog, I was very touched by this books ending. Seeing Edgar meet his Almondine again, despite her passing, was heartwarming to say the least. For Melanie: I hadn’t considered this perspective on Trudy before. I think I would consider her behavior to be normal for someone in grief. I actually considered her to be a strong character, but the death of a loved one simply broke her. I dont think it was written this way to imply she was a weak woman, but to express the grieving process of human beings. I agree though, the scene with Glen at the end was odd, I’m not sure what I make of it.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I just finished the book last night and I must say I was quite upset. I was so looking foward to this book, with all the hype, but I was left fully disappointed. I enjoyed the beginning of the book, but I was quite bored with the middle. It just seemed to take so long to get into any sort of story. It seemed like so much boring repetetion going over and over the dog breeding and training, it just didn’t seem necassary to go into that much detail about such mundane things. It was so also so hard to get into the story because of such little charchter development. But I continued on with the story because I was hoping for a good ending and questions answered. That was not the case. I am not upset with Edgar dying in the end, I feel that some books just need unhappy endings. I am however upset that no one was told about Claude’s part in Gar’s death. I’m upset with the way while Edgar dying and the dogs running away, Trudy was just lying there content in some dream-like state. I wish she would have been screaming, crying, broken apart while all this is happening. I want her to feel deep saddness knowing her part in this tragic ending. I also felt so disappointed that so many questions were left unanswered. Did Claude buy this poison all along with the intenet of killing Gar? I feel that there was never a great explanation of killing Gar, I understang past scars, but this just seems so extreme and had there been more charachter development this might have made more sense. Also, was Forte (the stray) the father of Edgar’s litter? The title of that section was “Forte’s Children.” It talked about hearing a lot of barking in the barn during the parts talking about Forte. If so, I wish the author would have added just a little sentence, where Trudy or Gar said something as simple as “have you noticed something different about this litter.” Just something other than just a title. There were also so many things left touched upon in this book, that had they been further explained would have brought so much to the story and yet left the way they were they were just a waste, for example, the previous owner of the land, all this about him, but brings nothing to the story, the old farmer helps the story in no way, the letter of Edgar’s grandfather, while I though there would be some development there was nothing and I’m going to go as far to say that Edgar being mute really didn’t do much for the book, I so wish the author would have gone more into Edgar’s thoughts about being mute, more into how upset about if he could only speak he may have been able to save his father, just someting like that. I see now that I am just ranting on, so I will stop, I just can’t get over my disappointment I guess.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:47 am
I finished the book last night and came away stunned and incredibly sad. I thoroughly enjoyed the many heart-warming aspects of the story and felt it was masterfully told, but I simply did not expect the totality of the ending. I’ve always said that Stephen King is willing to kill off characters no one would would, but Wroblewski matched him here. I am indeed a “dog lover” and so deeply appreciated the human-canine relationships in all their forms in the story. I confess I wanted a more clear sense that justice had been done in the end, but it was not to be; as is often the case in life. Overall, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to others as long as they are not looking for a “happy” or light story.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:14 am
A good book, as it makes the reader think
and re-read. Didn’t like the ending,
although it was believable……except
for the part where Trudy is being held
down for so long. I would’ve liked
a happier ending. My favorite characters
were Edgar, Ida (would’ve liked her fleshed out more) and of course Almondine. I kept picturing her as a recently departed Golden Lab dog-relative. Lots of tears when Almondine
died. Glad I read it, but unsatisfactory
ending.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:31 am
The first 1/3 was brilliant. Then I became too aware of the author’s writing which was a distraction to my enjoyment of the story he was weaving. An over abundance of intricate, detailed descriptions bogged down the progress of the tale. I cared about Edgar, Trudy, Gar and even Claude, but I found myself skipping big chunks of descdriptive narrative just to get on with the story. The ending left me totaly disgusted and I felt I’d wasted my time. However, as a dog owner, I appreciated the dog/human relationships. I really don’t get the hype about this book, except that Oprah liked it. Big deal.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:47 am
As a dog lover, I was really excited to read this book. Initially, I enjoyed it and felt as though this may become a favorite. However, it quickly turned into a drag to read. The pages were filled with too many unimportant details which never held any importance to the story. I forced myself to read the book, hoping to enjoy an ending that would connect all the pieces of the story together. Unfortunately, the ending made the book worse! I never truly felt connected to the characters or the development of the plot. (Although I did like the relationship between Edgar and Almondine, & the Sawtelle dogs.) I felt fragments of each character were left all over the place. It was a very disappointing read and I would not recommend it.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Wow…
This is what I felt about the book. I owned a dog when I was child with my sisters, but don’t own one now. However, I teach students with disabilities. I could not help but to make connections between Edgar and some of my students. They often don’t have a voice…even though most can talk! However, most have a unique way of communicating and when a teacher or close family member or friend can tap into it, it is often magical. The tragedy is that most students have had that special voice squashed by the time they get to high school(where I am). Edgar’s family accepted it and it thrived, perhaps given Edgar a sixth sense, sort of. Not to bring religion into it, but this is the kind of thing that makes me believe in god. It also makes me appreciate thee uniqueness of each individual. This story will linger with me forever. This is what art is supposed to do…change you or allow you to see humanity anywhere!
I do wish, however, that the truth was revealed to someone! I think that the dogs knew the truth. They knew it because Edgar was able to “tell” them. Maybe he was getting them ready for there exodus…that the era of the Sawtelle dogs was over and that Henry became the new sustainer. Maybe Edgar’s sent was left all over Henry’s property and that’s where the dogs were headed. It probably was not meant for Trudy to know the truth. Maybe she was just a player, just like Glen. I got the impression that this destiny was set by the Sawtelle brothers when they were younger. I also felt like maybe the unknown story was that Trudy and Claude were somehow connected long ago.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I have just finished this book and was mystified by the ending. I couldn’t believe I had read the last page. And I had to re read the last 4 chapters to convince my self that this was really it – the end of the book. I had to take in Edgars death and his final moment with Almondine again to be able to let go of him. Without hoping that there would be some miracle – forte or essay would save him from the burning barn in a very tv series kind of way. But after reading all the comments on this site I feel so relieved of my confusion with the end. Its ok for Edgar to die. Because life is much the same way. Without reason or literary sense. Its really my attachment to Egar that makes the ending so difficult.
I don’t think it matters where Essay or Forte and the rest of the Sawtelle dogs go. The point is that they choose to go. And as readers we have to let the go because that is the next generation of Sawtelle dog.
I loved this book and it will stay with me for a long time.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
I guess you could say we’ve all gone to the dogs.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Like many other readers, I wondered what happened to Essay and the other dogs. I’m thinking that news of the fire and the deaths and the disappearance of the dogs would certainly be in the news. Henry would no doubt hear of it, put two and two together, and drive down to see Trudy. Perhaps the dogs would be found and maybe Trudy and Henry would start the kennel and training up again.
Loved the book.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Mary Ann: now that you mention it, I found Henry to be a very realistic/authentic person in the novel. I too thought he would make the connection and eventually meet up with Trudy.
Hey Mr. Wroblewski: how about it? A little feedback for your suffering readers?
May 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
i feel like anyone read the prologue and paid attention to it would have known the ending from the very beginning! it is a book based on life and death, ashes to ashes, and a tragedy like any other shakespearean work. everyone in claude’s life was a rat; something to get rid of immediatly when they became a nuisance. even down to the lyrics in the doris day song in the prologue… everything is spelled out there!
May 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Well Mel, Let’s be sure to pay more attention to the dark comments that preface the book and let’s try to keep them dominant while we enter a world of love and beauty for two thirds of a book. I would rather encourage Mr. W. to a consistency that moves in the direction of love and real relationships that make sense rather than the Stephen Kings scenarioes that have a deus ex machina beginning and end with a center that does not at all relate to the black, bleak outline.
Sorry, rat poison and Doris Day lyrics do not the novel make.
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I initially found the book difficult to read and concentrate on. As I kept reading I started to enjoy the story and understand what the author was trying to convey; especially when Edgar and his three dogs start their adventure through the countryside and meet Henry. However, when did Almondine actually died? She was one of the main characters in the book. I must have reread the Chapter on Almondinr (starting on page 460)three time and never realized she died. I didn’t realize she died until Edgar was sitting by her grave. The author spent a lot of time building up the eventual death of Edgar and Claude, but left Almondine’s death just occuring with no explanation. Did I miss something?
May 4th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Stu, you have my sympathy: there is at times an overaffection for subtlety in writers. Innuendo is overrated. Shakespeare, who apparently is a paradigm for this author, would have had at least one lengthy soliloquy for the beloved dog.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Marg, thank you for your reply. I agree Shakespeare would have provided the transition for Almondine. It left me wondering how Trudy felt emotionally when Almondine passed away, with Edgar gone from her life, and why this event was not addressed by the author.
May 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Stu, and all, it seems that our author ran out of energy. What is so troubling, I think, is the novel’s inconsistency: we get to know these people, and to love them, through the details of their individuality. Suddenly, all of it disappears in a kind of fog of vague, dark symbols. An effort that did not quite make it to the top of the mountain.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I’m a dog person & can relate to the hard work involved with training. I’m also Deafened with a Working Dog so it was a pleasing surprise that Edgar Signed, which I do. I expected the dogs to run into the barn & pull Edgar out too & the other dogs who ran off I thought they would become wild like Forte or be making their way to Henry’s. Dogs only live so long. A person can never expect to have just one dog in his lifetime! I enjoyed this book a lot but like apparently everyone else the ending leaves a lot of unanswered questions. One that concerns me is why did Claude kill his brother?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I am not one to reread books, there are just too many others I can’t wait to read. This book, however, has touched something in me that I can’t remember feeling about another book. The only way to describe it is that I feel almost haunted by it. I finished it the first time in just a couple of days because I was anxious to see how the human issues were resolved. Like so many others, the ending left me feeling sad and confused. I felt compelled to reread it paying specific attention to the Sawtelle dogs, looking for something definitive to tell me what their choice was. I also went online and read everything I could find -something I’ve never done with another book. After viewing Oprah’s webcast, though, I learned that the author never intended to answer that question. The point was just that they had a choice, thus fulfilling the grandfather’s dream. He also said that he intentionally left many things unexplained because he never wanted the reader to know more than Edgar. I thought that was very interesting and helped explain why the reader was left with so many unanswered questions. Even after having resolved some of these issues in my own mind, I could not quit thinking about Edgar and Almondine. I almost felt like I was mourning them. So I went back and reread, savoring all of the parts that involved Almondine. I have to admit she brings me to tears every time! Finally, knowing that the “prequel” is going to be about the grandfather, I am now going back and really looking at his story. I never thought after college that I’d want to “study” a novel, but I think that’s exactly what I’ve been doing. This book to me is so complex and there is so much detail that each rereading has only made me love it more because each time I “discover” something new that fits in another little piece of the puzzle. It’s almost like “Lost” – there are so many underlying layers of mysticism and symbolism that you don’t necessarily see it or understand it during the initial reading. I would definitely recommend this book, but with the understanding that it is a tragedy. It is not an easy read, but it also will not be easily forgotten.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Wow, after reading these comments it is plain to see that it’s not so much about the book, but about the reader. Obviouly some are deep, sensitive people who love the incredible writing and symbolism, some are more shallow, maybe not seeing the beauty of writing, wanting the book to be black and white, the characters to be more predictable. I think this is a beautiful literay accomplishment and I loved it. I can’s wait to read the prequl. I will forever miss Almondine. I had a female golden retriever whom I pictured as Almondine. The depth of feeling in her eyes was so amazing. I was pretty disappointed in the ending of the book but, like others who left their comments I made up a couple of alternate endings. I will remember the characters (and dogs) in this book for the rest of my life. I can only say that about a few books I’ve read and I’ve read thousands of books. Please keep writing Mr. Wroblewski.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Leslie,
Yeh, “wow”–for some reason I have to keep coming back, many months after reading this puzzling novel. Wroblewski has attracted a great crowd. It is just very special to continue seeing others’ experience of the story, to share, and to know so many have a special relationship with their dogs, their animals, and their inner selves.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I agree with a lot of the comments…where I kept telling everyone “You have to read this book” up until I finished it, then I want to chuck it across the room! I am ok with the death, I just kept having question after question that I was looking forward to the end where I expected it to all make sense…It never made sense!!! So many unanswered questions and things left hanging….I will no longer recommend this book to anyone. Such a fabulous build up to have such a let-down.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I have very mixed feelings about this book.
I loved the first half, but when Edgar ran away things went downhill for me.
The author spent so much time on the runaway part. I believe this book would have been better at half the length.
And, Leslie, I don’t believe that some readers are “shallow” if they do not relate to the complexity of the novel. It is simply a matter of taste.
I felt the author overwrote the book, including the symbolism and complex references.
I was also very disappointed with the ending. It kind of left everything hanging, for me. I really didn’t see the point of all the intrigue around what Claude was up to, only to have it unclear in the end. Did Claude survive the fire? Did Edgar? Well, I at least hope Essay and her band made the choice to go back to the farm, to Trudy.
On a positive note…yes, the story was well-crafted. The author is a gifted writer in that sense.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
I picked up this book after listening to Oprah rave on and on about how great it was.. I love dogs and thought this would make for a good boy w/his dog adventure story. I am sorry to say that for me this book was a huge disappointment. I am a casual reader, but I have read much better novels than this that weren’t hyped nearly as much. Let’s summarize: Mute boy loves his dog, boy’s Dad dies (killed by his uncle), boy’s mother then develops relationship with evil uncle which enrages the boy, boy accidentally kills the town Doctor, boy runs away for a couple of months with dogs, boy finally comes back home only to find that his favorite dog is dead, then boy is killed by his evil uncle, both the boy and the evil uncle die in a barn fire) What do you really take away from this book other than feeling depressed ?
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This book was a huge disappointment for me. I thought this would be a good boy w/his dog story and Oprah raved so much about how great it was. I felt the author overwrote and gave us way more detail than we needed, this book did not need to be 540 pages. I never grew attached to any of the characters and only kept reading in the hopes of a great ending. Sorry, but I felt the ending was horrible. Everyone loses in the end and I don’t know for what.. I guess the author succeeded in creating a lot of discussion about the book and the ending. Unfortunately, I think it’s because the majority of people who read this book felt like they wasted their time.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
I was tryly disappointed in this book why did such a loving and hard working family with so much hope come to a tragic end? A mother left along without the two people she cared so dearly for. And a pack of dogs end up wondering aimlessly in the woods. who knows where they are heading. But I must say I’m glad Edgar and Almodine got to reunite- but it should have been in a different way.What was the point of the story. Okay I get it to make us dog owner love on our dogs more- because I sure have.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:32 am
I agree, i was disappointed with the ending and then couldn’t see the point to the story which, for most part, I did enjoy. it seemed like the ending was a waste of a very good set up. i think for me this book was so raved about that my expectations were higher than what was delivered.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:42 am
A great book until the end, which was rather pointless and depressing. I was anticipating many loose ends being tied together at the conclusion, but it never happened. It could have been a classic, but missed the mark badly.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
I got this book out of the library and had one week to read it. At first it was a struggle. It gets much better after Edgar leaves, I cried when he decides to leave the dogs with Henry. I cried at the end and also was frustrated because the ending was too dramatic does everyone have to die? I wanted to see Claude die though.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Hamlet in a kennel.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Well, after finishing this book last night and throwing it down and saying “I hate the ending”, it was refreshing to read everyone else’s comments….LOVED the book and I think that all the dogs made a choice to live on their own, but probably will check in with the guy that Edgar met and that his other two dogs stayed with….he never even got to tell his mother that Claude had killed her hsband and I could have handled him dying if he at least had an opportunity to redeem his actions in his mother’s eyes.
August 9th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Symbolism anybody? I am thinking of Jungian archetypes. Does Forte respresent our shadow side? Conscious vs. unconscious? Or am I just wanting to give the book more depth than deserved?
August 11th, 2009 at 2:26 am
This book is the worst book ever :/ what a horrible ending everyone dies! :/ U suck David whatever-ur-last-name-is…
PS:
Never read this book
August 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
As I got into this book, I absolutely loved it and raved about it to anyone who would listen… and couldn’t wait for the author’s next novel. However, I must say that the ending ruined the book for me. Edgar died!??!?!?!?!?! I always read before I go to sleep at night, and actually cried when finishing the book last night. So much for falling asleep… and so much for recommending this book to others.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Wow. Amazing book – some unbelievably dumb comments. Once you realize it’s Hamlet how can you ask why Edgar had to die, or why the ending had to be so sad?? DUH.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Before I read this incredible book, i hadn’t heard the comparisons to Hamlet, so the ending really took me by surprise too when i enthusiastically finished the book last night.
I can’t help but point out a few things i’ve been pondering throughout the day:
- The Sawtelle dogs contained some bloodline related to Hachiko, which might explain why they can see ghosts, and really puts into perspective what Edgar’s grandfather was endeavouring to achieve
- Like Essay and the tornado, Edgar chose a course of action (returning home and trying to bring Claude to justice) when he knew fully well the risks of what he was doing (thanks to Ida, who told him not to return “for anything”)
- The ending of the story made me consider the simiarlities between the Sawtelle family and their dogs…particularly their quest to achieve some ultimate end state (the “next” Sawtelle dogs). In their own human bloodline, there were some obvious undesirable traits (mentally/socially – Claude; physically – Edgar), and there could be an argument that this bloodline is “tainted” in the way that so many dogs’ bloodlines are judged, and thus not considered desirable for breeding. Edgar’s litter that he raised became his legacy, and to this extent they are effectively his offspring as he taught and nurtured them and they learned from each other. I think it is incredibly profound that he basically saw himself as one of them – his closest relationships were with his dogs – and chose to set them free rather than himself in the end. Physically, obviously he wasn’t free, but emotionally he was (he reunited with Almondine, he apologised to Glen, and he told his dad he loves him).
I apologise if all of these seem like random or incoherent thoughts, but it’s just what is going through my mind at the moment. As a casual reader, i’ve never experienced anything like the feeling that this masterpiece has left me with.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Finished the book this morning. Had to really think about the ending and come to grips with it. I could not let it just end that way without coming up with a conclusion of my own. I want to believe that Essay took the dogs to Henry’s, and in keeping as many as he wants and finding owners for the others, he and his life are no longer “ordinary.”
August 25th, 2009 at 3:14 am
I still think our author should say something to us on this blog: Mr. Wroblewski, did you start writing this with the intention of using a Hamlet template?
September 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Life isn’t all happy conclusions; in fact, it is inevitable that the end is sad. Of course Mr, Wroblewski started with the Hamlet theme. While I don’t necessarily think that an author needs to follow a borrowed plot to the letter, it’s probably not wise to mess with Shakespeare. I’d recommend this book to any young person that is capable of reading it. Allow them to be outraged (especially if they are unfamiliar with Hamlet), and you can have some great discussions. If the metaphysical angers you, I feel that you lead a boring life. All novels are fantasy; I can accept almost any device of an author to further the characters/plots. Great read. If I feel a need for a happy ending, I can always go re-read “Lassie Come Home”.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I finished the book last night and had the same reaction that I read here. One thought that I haven’t read is this. Did the author spend years developing the story with all the mysteries and questions and then not know how to bring it together? I think the reason our questions were not answered is because he didn’t have the answers. Just kill everyody off and the story is over.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:16 am
I had just got a copy of this book and was starting to read it in a restaurant when a stranger told me he liked the book but he hated the ending. I enjoyed the book but the ending was so flawed that I would never reccommend this book to anyone. It’s obvious the writer has talent but not enough experience to write a complete novel. Thumbs down.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:24 am
The book was too long, and the ending was terrible.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Just finished this book, and although at first I thought the ending was a disappointment, when you think about it, things don’t always have happy endings. If this book ended differently, would you feel the same about it a year or 10 years from now? Some books or stories just stay with you for years…one that comes to mind is Stephen King’s Green Mile series or even the recent Duma Key. Some answers to life’s questions have many variations, and some answers we are never meant to know. This is true in life, and this book reflects that. Take it for what it’s worth. I personally think if we had the fairy tale ending, then The Story of Edgar Sawtelle wouldn’t be nearly worthy of telling. I love a book that gets you thinking, and this was a great, great book!!
September 16th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I finished this book back in Feburary or so and being left with so many conflicting emotions I, like most here , reached out to find something to help me understand. This blog was helpful and continues to be. The novel as it is , is well written. Long perhaps but all the higher literary aspects are there. After these months though , the novel has become less the piece of magic I thought it was and more a metaphor for my life which is what i think the author most likely intended in the first place. I doubt he thought his novel would attract such attention. In the end the novel suggests we can be better people, should be better peple. Should pay closer attention to those among us who have no voice and to give room to all creatures to breathe and grow. Listen to the wiser among us and watch closely those who keep secrets. Most of all never give up on those who love us and those we love. The ending aside I enjoyed the book but won’t go back to read it again but have recomended it to others after not doing so for awhile…Be Well….
October 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I finished the book a few months ago. To me, the sign of a great book is whether it stays with me and affects my mood. This book was beyond great. After reading it I felt quite down for a couple of days. Then I started to tell friends about it, and if I talked or thought about it too much, I again felt down. Finally, after a few months the book no longer impacts my emotions, but I do find that I think about it every now and again, and the book will just pop into my thoughts.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I have conflicted feelings about this book. I liked much of it but think the ending could have been clearer. It seems Claude did plan Gar’s death so many years ahead. It takes a powerful amount of hate to carry out such a plan so many years later with only a passing reference to a disagreement Claude and Gar had over a younger Forte. Did young Gar kill Forte and why was it necessary? Why did Trudy become catatonic instead of trying to save her son? She seemed like a strong person most of the time except for moments of depression which was understandable.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
In reply to Marg’s question to the author about whether or not he intentionally based the book on Hamlet: while not the author, I think there is no doubt that he did base the book on Hamlet, just from the facts that Prince Hamlet’s mother was named Gertrude (Trudy), and Kind Hamlet’s brother (who killed him) was named Claudius (Claude) who married Gertrude after his brother’s death.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Like most of you, I was utterly shocked by the ending. I had been listening to the book on CD as I travelled to and from work for about 2 weeks. I knew the end was approching as I was on the last CD, but if the narator of the book had not actually said, “The End”, I think I would have assumed the last CD was defective or missing.
I am grateful for this blog and discussion becuse I needed to discuss it NOW! I’ve read so many comments that touched on things I questioned, and some I even missed.
I agree that this book is not for the person who wants light entertainment. There are plenty of books for that. This book is for those who want to think, question, and evaluate, not only this title, but their own thoughts and convictions. I also is for those who appreciate good writing and characterization. Slightly disturbing, but very worthwhile, in my opinion.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Bought this book in an airport two days ago. Found it difficult to put down. I’ve scanned the comments here and they amazed me.
Okay, does anyone ever read a prologue? There’s an asian herbalist (with knowledge of an art that spans about a couple thousand years or more). Anyway, you would think that such a person might concoct an antidote to just about anything. Obviously, he can’t; and in desperation trades a horrible poison for western medicine (penecillin). Not going to be a happy book.
One can be oblivious to Hamlet (it’s so much more than Hamlet), or hate the ending of this book — but please allow yourself to think and wonder.
Not everything worthwhile is spelled out gratuitously. The book was written to affect you. Be glad if it did.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Did anyone think of the story of Mowgli? Other than the tragic ending there was a lot of similarities to the learned way of communication between the wolves who raised Mowgli and Edgar. It was also referred to many times in the book. I looked for these comparisons and likened the characters to those in Mowgli over Hamlet.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I agree, Will. I cannot believe all these people who are shocked at the book’s ‘depressing’ ending.
The book is largely based off of Hamlet- the biggest bloodbath in literary history! Of COURSE it’s not going to end happily.
I also don’t understand why some people are offended when books don’t conclude with a happy ending. To me, that would have been the biggest betrayal that the author could have made.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I have just finished reading this book; I am glad to see I am not alone with the questions and feeling unsettled and unresolved about the plot.
1–What was the business with the dogs and the syringes?
2–Did Edgar kll Dr. Papineau and mean to?
3–Why was Claude so careful drawing up the “poison” (and what was the poison?) in the syringe—why did it matter if he had too much
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 am
judy i’m with you.I don’t understand the significance of the poison. I don’t get why they dogs had syringes in their mouths…..help please.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am
I appreciated the prose of the entire book,
I think the ending is misunderstood. It is beautiful, tragic, mature, unfair but not completely conclusive.
Essay’s freedom really made the ending work for me at first, but I found that with a little analysing the ending clicked. The parallel from Hamlet helps me understand the ending because of the thought I’d already put into that story, and recommend at least Sparknotes to those disappointed and unfulfilled by Edgar’s story.
Like Essay, at the end of the story we are given choices to decide in the book and at the end. I am not surprised by all the disappointment because this is the misconception human nature given many people when a decision is theirs to make.
Wroblewski wrote an excellent classic I own for my personal library.
(and a trilogy plan would ruin it for me, but is interesting to look forward to when I am…. 80!)
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Hamlet meets Cain and Abel in Wisconsin. Definitely not for those who prefer a pat dog and boy story nor for those who don’t appreciate symbolism, allegory, metaphor, allusions to other works of literature and the rest. A head scratcher, a heart troubler and a page turner all rolled into one. I found it both fascinating and frustrating. Isn’t Edgar like a Sawtelle dog? Almost an aspect of Almondine? He has no voice and although young appears fully grown up. He is much more mature than everyone else. The next dog? The next human? What is the poison? Doubt? Damn you Wroblewski!
November 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I just finished this book and came looking for people who are discussing this book and I am totally puzzled to the reaction to the ending of the book.
How could it end happily? Life is not Disneyland where everything ends with a happy ending.
If you read for entertainment purposes, this book is not for you. If you read to experience something different, thought provoking, stunning in its depth, you will enjoy the book over and over.
The author leaves us with a glimmer of hope that Essay chooses well – the “new” dog is a thinking dog, who will survive. Will we?
November 10th, 2009 at 3:23 am
I am speechless…just finished the books and characters I have grown to love. I am a 37 year old, 250lb man and as I write I have tears in my eyes. This is an incredible book..look at the emotions this novel has created on this blog alone. We were all moved…I just feel numb. This work moved me…I have never wanted to discuss a book before in my life, and here I am looking and hoping. In my ending the dogs have learned to choose..and its ok.
Thank You David Wroblewski for sharing this novel..I was born and raised in Wisconsin and now live in Florida but have longed to move home since the first 50 pages.
I think this is a book I will remember-a lifetime book.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:28 am
well, that was 3 days wasted, 562 pages wasted, the writing was so confusing i had to reread several chapters and was still confused…some of the chapters seemed to have nothing to do with anything and they never tied into the story later… what a waste i wish i could kick wrobleski in the crotch…oh yea and a waste of 16.99
November 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Yes, I think Essay (means to try) and Forte planned to live in the forest, realistic or not. I can’t see how Edgar could survive, remember, he’d been poisoned. The scenes with his Father and Almondine told me that he was dying and reuniting with those he loved the most. I kept hoping Claude would stick himself with the syringe. He deserved it.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Claude killed Gar by injecting him with the poison. remember when Edgar finds the used syringe during the scene where his father comes to him in the rainstorm. The bottle was bought in Japan by Claude. (maybe he was in the service?) Edgar trained the dogs to tag each other and then finally Claude, hoping that someone would realize he was the killer. Guess that’s an example of his difficulty with what he SEES and how difficult it is communicate that to others. Yes, ALL of us.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:31 am
I was seduced by the beautiful prose into thinking this was a beautiful book. But I was betrayed by the ending. I agree with DMS (2/18/09): What purpose is served by Edgar’s death in the end? Is it only to follow the Hamlet story line? I agree with I.P. Finley’s comment(1/17/09) that “slavish adhearance” to the Hamlet plot line prevented the author from “freeing his characters to find their own destinies.”
I am happy to have found this blog and thank Sandy (2/4/09) for elucidating some of the themes and Pervin Oz (2/9/09) for explaining the Hamlet connection. (I never took a lit class and never read Hamlet). I think Peter (3/26/09) states best why the ending of this book is such a disappointment: there is no redemption. Leaving the Hamlet analogy aside, it is as if the ending were written with the idea to sell this book to a movie studio and the author had to figure out what would be the most dramatic and shocking ending.(Like Jodi Piccoult did with her main character in My Sister’s Keeper Great, although Wroblewski is a much better writter than Piccoult.) Good literature can be sad, but at the same time it should be not just thought provoking but uplifting in some way. Killing off Edgar accomplishes nothing but leaves the readers feeling empty. I would not recommend this book to a friend, unless he/she wanted to read an example of brilliant writing gone to waste.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I recently finished the book, read too fast and will read again. My book group is this Wed., can’t wait to hear what they have to say. I really agree with Susan (May 21st) and appreciated Chris’s (Aug 18th ) comments, as well as those from all others who provided helpful insights. What a great blog! What a beautiful book!
November 15th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I am very frustrated with some of the comments about the novel. Not all stories end with nice happy endings! If that is what you are looking for, stick to Disney movies. Some people obviously have no sense of the word “tragedy” and how it pertains to literature. Yes, I was very sad at the ending of the story – but that doesn’t mean I didn’t love every minute of the story. A sad ending does not equate a bad ending. Some of the people on this board simply need to grow up and read with an adult’s eyes, not a child’s eyes.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:20 am
I enjoyed reading the book up until the last 100 pages or so. Along the way, I developed a fondness for Edgar, Almondine,
Henry and the other three dogs. I was rooting for Edgar to come home and courageously confront and expose his uncle and unravel some grand mystery or discovery about the uniqueness of the Sawtelle dogs.
The ending was quite disappointing. Not necessarily that it had a tragic ending and everyone died, but rather that the story seemed unfinished. Why . . . ?
1. Why the significance of Schultz in the beginning of the book? Initial part of the book referenced him a lot and I expected some tie in or revelation to be made later in the book, but there was nothing.
2. Why the significance of Edgar’s grandfather friendship and correspondence with Bloom. Good deal of time focused on breeding and pesonality/character of the dogs, but it didn’t seem like some great discovery or uniqueness was made about these dogs at the end. Was it simply that they had the ability to make choose?
3. Why did Claude kill Gar? Socialpath, to regain the farm/kennel business, childhood resentment, what? Author didn’t do justice in conveying why Claude wanted his brother dead…didn’t seem like he gained much by killing his brother. At least with Hamlet, his uncle wanted the throne.
4. The significance of Forte?
5. Glen’s scheme to kidnap Edgar in order to question him. He’s a police officer. There wasn’t a better or more interesting method?
I didn’t think the author explained and wrapped up the story too well. A part of me feels like I invested hours in this book, only to be “cheated” by the ending.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The complaints tell me much more about the reader(s) than the book. It appears that some people really should stick to Harry Potter and leave these kinds of books to adults. As for me, I’ll read it again and continue to recommend it to those who like something with a little more challenge.
November 19th, 2009 at 4:41 am
NOTE: I have never before been so inspired as to write a review for a book I’ve read, good or bad. But in this case I believe people should be warned before spending the money or the time or both. In my opinion this is one of those books that may simply be intended to elevate itself through controversy rather than quality of story. While Wroblewski clearly has a magical way with words, I question his ability to write a story, unless as I speculated, it was done as such for commercial reasons. This book will likely appeal to those individuals (Oprah?) who consider themselves to be of some intellectual and/or artistic level of consciousness as to grasp the underlying meaning of things not as easily recognized by the mere mortal masses like myself. And while I could probably struggle to find such a meaning as well, I’m sure it would never be as satisfying as to have had the story resolve itself appropriately on its own, and I already paid Wroblewski to do that for my enjoyment. I read another review that reminded me of my feelings as I progressed through the book, which were that while I disliked the very beginning, I overlooked it suspecting of course that there was a good reason for it which would present itself as the story unfolded. Then I found myself drawn into what appeared to be developing into such an enjoyable journey that I recommended it to several people and even more yet again perhaps a third of the way through. However somewhere near the middle I realized that I had become reticent to recommend it until I found out first for myself where it was going, and then ultimately, after the continually depressing downward spiral, I found I could not recommend it to anyone, and in fact considered pitching it into the fireplace so that it could not infect anyone else. The only thing even somewhat redeeming about the ending was the partial resolution of the relationship between the boy and his dog. Had it not been for that, I may have felt justified in pursuing legal action against the author for some compensation of my valuable personal time, etc. lost. For me it was as though he knowingly injected just enough positive elements to make me feel he knew right from wrong and would finally bring me to a happy place. What a shame that so much potential had to be lost on either commercialism or sensationalism or both. I should have known better than to give much credit to the jacket review of someone with the precarious sanity of Stephen King. My mistake. Bottom line: Very misleading. Essentially a horror story in the end, and I find it a disappointing statement that many claim to have enjoyed it. All but two of the good guys either die or worse, and the bad one lives, presumably to further torment the only surviving good guys. By the way, don’t assume that because I didn’t like this ending I must be naïve or unworldly, etc., because I assure you that I have been around much more than most, and although I’ve become a successful, well adjusted middle aged man, the road to here exposed me to the dark side of life in many various ways, and I want my reading to transport me further away from those places rather than back into them. At least to some degree. Believe me, I get the whole concept of reality, I know true life’s not “Disneylandâ€, but this book destroyed nearly everything good. The good husband & father, the good wife & mother, the good son, the great dog, the good friend?, and the good cop. Then spares only the sick, disgusting, manipulative snake of a human, Edgar’s uncle. The shear scope of the negativity makes me wonder about Wroblewski personally. What sort of place does that come from? As I write this I realize that I just don’t understand choosing to become engaged in terrible tragedy. I suppose though if being left feeling empty and disturbed somehow makes you feel better or something, this one’s for you!
November 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Robert – While I agree with a lot of your preamble, I don’t share the feeling of “negativity” and unlike you was left full and disturbed. You’ll have to explain how this book “spares” Claude. Do you think he survives the fire? The book this most reminded of, on the account of its apparent ambivalence, is Deliverance. It’s the nature of a book that uses biblical, Shakespearian or Freudian arhcetypes to tell a deeper tale than the one presented at face value to leave readers confused about the surface story. Yes, this book may well have been over written in too many workshops but it’s fascinating nonetheless. I may re-read this and come to a similar conclusion but I will re-read it. That’s a pretty successful story, in my way of thinking.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Thomas-I suppose I’ll have to re-read the ending and get back to you. Something left me with the impression that Claude survived, but I can’t recall the specific circumstances. Perhaps I am wrong about it.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I loved the book, I think as Thomas and many others have said, it was dark, yet almost whimsical in places, it made me think and smile and cry, I was riveted to the very last…thats what reading is all about surely? Stretching our imaginations to the very limit!
November 28th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
All this complaining about the ending…Of course there was redemption, Edgar’s Grandfather’s theories were redeemed for one when Essay turned out to be the “evolved” dog that he argued for in all those letters to Brooks. How? In the last paragraph notice Essay raising his paw – he was issuing a stay command to his pack.
Also, Edgar redeemed himself for the accidental death of Papineau by rescuing the dogs and exposing Claude. When Trudy called Claude a liar I gave a fist pump and shouted “Yeah!” in a crowded resaurant. And how were Edgar’s first and final words, “I love you” anything but great??? Outstanding work!
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
What a useless and horrible novel. David Wroblewsk should go back to school and make this his last novel. What a waste of time. If you get off on this type of story telling and publicity, then your a sick man. This book is now ashes! And I’m out $17.
Never to buy another book written by this author.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I, too, was deeply saddened by Edgar’s death. But I believe the author wanted to become clear in his ultimate aim of the story – that humans and animals are all equal in their spiritual being (Almondeen had the ability to speak in her spiritual form – so did Edgar), and mere bound on earth by our physical bodies. Edgar understood this as a human because of his disability: he also struggled to communicate with the rest of the world, just as dogs do. The fact that the dogs could understand his sign (and often complex sentences in which he communicated with them as opposed to a mere “sit” or “roll-over”) emphasizes animal intelligence and posession of a soul.
The author also suggests strongly that animals, in their physical figure, are much more advanced than humans, because they have the ability to see spiritual presences. Edgar shares this ability, perhaps because of is DISablilty and hence closer companionship with the animals. Perhaps Edgar’s spirit, because it is eventually set free with his death, will remain with the freed animals, and guide them on their journey towards their supposed destiny – whatever that might be.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I, too, listened to the audio version of this book. I’ve read all the above posts and no one mentioned one other thing from the final tragic scene. In the fire, before he dies, Edgar SAYS (not signs) “I love you”. I understood this to mean that Edgar finally got his voice, just before dying. I can’t recall whether he said it to his father’s ghost or to Almondine. Did anyone else catch that?
December 26th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Wow. I just finished the book this morning. A little background: I wandered into a library book sale and there were several “withdrawn” copies of this book for sale ($1, perfect condition). I had seen Wrobkewski read from it at the Wisconsin Book Festival, so I thought, what the heck.
I guess I’m still “processing.” But it is almost overwhelming to read the reactions above.
To Karen in Virginia–yeah, there are quotes around the “I love you.” I thought I got that, but didn’t really get it until you pointed that out. Shame on me for not being a close reader–but, hey, more than 500 pages in after two weeks (I am not a fast reader), and I have to admit I was a little fatigued.
If anyone wants to discuss further, I’d be up for it.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:49 am
This is an amazing book and I was completely surprised by the end. Yes, it was terribly sad, but it was also so satisfying to me that Almondine and Edgar were together with Gar… and that Edgar could SAY to his father, “I love you”. And Trudy, not knowing that she was “unbound” from the black vine… but “not there”. Her death or suspended state is tragic too… I cried at the end… through all the deaths and the pain and the horror and the betrayal.
The beautiful words, the world they evoke… a superb read.
I love all the comments, because everyone’s feelings about this book are so strong. And, everyone’s opinions made me think and look at the story differently.
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:50 am
I just finished this book yesterday. I had so many unanswered questions, and am so glad I found this blog. I loved this book, but the ending was so terribly tragic. I rather expected Edgar to die, but I am left very confused about what happened to Glen and Trudy. And the chapter that most broke my heart was when Edgar shunned Almondine and then left and she waited and looked for him. I thought she was killed by the car”the traveler”, but wasn’t sure. What I cannot understand about Almondine is that for all of her ability to read people, she did not seem to see the evil in Claude. This I will never understand, because dogs have a keen insight into people’s souls and usually know when they are evil. I can’t believe that she didn’t know that he killed Gar. I am glad all of you are as confused as I am. This book will haunt me for a long time, and it makes me love my two dogs even more (and I don’t know how that is possible) My dogs are also spoiled and untrained – I always thought it was cruel, but I understand now that they want to communicate with their people and to please us.
January 3rd, 2010 at 4:20 am
I just finished reading this book a few minutes ago and I have mixed emotions. The relationship between Edgar and Almondine had me in tears, the book is engaging, but I’m deeply disappointed in the ending.
Why does Edgar have to die? The kid suffers through out most the book then dies in the only place that ever gave him happiness — the barn. HORRIBLE ending. I also think that the book takes too long to get started. The author is talented, but is very wordy.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:18 am
I have been thinking more about the book. I believe that Essay will lead the dogs to Henry. (And I like the idea of him hearing about the tragedy at the Sawtelles and realizing who Edgar was) Perhaps Essay and Forte will let the dogs choose whether they want to remain in the wild, or go to Henry. I wasn’t too sad when Edgar sent Tinder and Baboo to Henry, because he realized how deep Henry’s lonliness was and how much Henry needed the dogs for love and companionship. Also, it was his way of repaying Henry for his helping him and the dogs. I believe that Henry had seen the old man in the shed before and that is why he had Edgar put so much of the stuff back afer they got the car in. I think he realized how much those things meant to him (the old man) because they belonged to his wife.
I am quite sure Edgar died at the end of the book because the poison was not survivable. As he is dying, he crosses into the light with Almondine and meets his father, and as he is finally freed from his earthly body, he is able to utter the words, “I love You” for the first time. I am also sure that Claude dies in the fire – he keeps turning around just when he about to reach the door. I think the poison illustrates that sometimes a power is so dangerous, that you can neither keep it or dispose of it. Either way, it will get you in the end. I also think Trudy knew about Claude’s crimes in the end. She realized that Edgar had left a note for her and that Claude had kept it from her.
I think that the picture of Claude and Forte told Edgar that Forte was Claude’s dog, not his father’s, and When Claude saw that Edgar had it (the picture), he knew that he knew. Claude killed Forte, not Gar. The stray Forte might have Claude feeling that he was the ghost of Forte, and maybe he was – that was probably why he wanted to kill it again.
I actually thought Trudy died in the end. Fire was melting things all around – the truck, turning the grass brown and yet she doesn’t move. I thought maybe she was just emotionally paralyzed and stayed there and awaited her fate. I still can’t figure out about Glen, and I agree that was wierd about him keeping Trudy in a scissor hold!
Need to work on your denouemant. Mr. Wrobeleski!
January 5th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
This was a beautiful book. I read it on vacation and had time to really sink into it. I escaped. For that, I enjoyed the book, descriptive…not vulgar….but the ending was so strange that now I feel haunted. Why the poison? Why would Glen smother Edgar? Why do we not know what happened with Trudy?
I miss Edgar and Almondine, I am truly sad about it all.
I suppose the fact that I am so upset, makes this a good book. I can not claim to critique a book properly, but the same perplexing questions are coming through from all the blogs, perhaps our author with all of his skills could grasp slightly a few of our nightmares and try another book with a more complete ending. I will be waiting!!!
Thank you for the incredible escape though….would buy another book from you!
January 5th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I also am not sure about what is the Sawtelle dog secret? I hope someone can tell me this? Their insight? Mixing with wild dogs?
will appreciate any suggestions from all of you wonderful, haunted people like me!!!
January 8th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
This book had a serious issue with consistency and lacked a clear point. I agree that the characters were static, not overly relatable to and I had absolutely no apathy toward any of them. There were so many insignificant tangent story lines that made no sense and I actually forgot about most of them until reading most of these reviews due to their pointlessness. No satisfaction at the end and just plain ridiculous. What was the point of edgar’s journey? Did Trudy die as well? And why on earth would it end with Essay taking a troop of dogs into the wild? Completely preposterous and the only parts I enjoyed were pre Gar’s death and Almondine’s perspective. Killing off the only emotionally relatable characters was a bad move because they weren’t supplemented by any other strong ones. Very disappointing and confusing.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:02 am
This book made me think. I was constantly re-reading passages in order to understand the author’s imagery [not that I minded, as I enjoyed reading it] Although the ending left me sad, I have to remember that not everything can be a fairytale ending. Death is a part of life. Some of the things that left me confused however, where mainly…who was the ghost that Edgar was speaking with while cleaning out Henry’s barn? What purpose did that ghost serve? The only thing that I wish would have been different in this book is that I would have loved a chance to connect with the characters more. Being able to have parts of the stories told from the dog’s point of view was great. However, I would have liked more from Claude or Gar or even Trudy. Where’s the background on Henry? He was important. What was the huge conflict that Claude had with Gar? I WANT MORE! Loved this story and I was so sad when it ended.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
This is the worst bunch of gripes i’ve ever encountered… I’ve been reading this book for six months now.. I read every page three times before moving to the next. Edgar does grow as a charactor…Trudy’s charactor makes perfect sense. Claude and Gar are archetypal symbols… I’m a english major.. and i’ve now spent two hours reading every post! And so many people dislike the book based on their lack of understanding. It’s a tragedy!! I believe the last quarter of the book to have been the most powerful, the beginning was beautfiul in how slow it came… which as noted in the story.. “You can have anything you want in life if youre willing to go slow enough.” So many people criticize the author!! what’s that about? Way to support him. He’s taken more risk writing this book than 99% of us have in our lives… I can only submit to praying that none of you recieve the same support many have showed David Wroblewski when you ever write something worthy of being read.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:50 am
I guess all of you “angry” about the ending of this book have never read Victor Hugo.
It’s one thing to wish the book ended differently (how many things in life do we wish ended differently?), but to be angry? to hate this book because you didn’t get the ending you wished for seems very typical of our spoiled, want-it-now, want-it-my-way society.
At first I was so sad Almondine died just before reuniting with Edgar. I understood Edgar’s anger and frustration with her – in his mind – remember, he’s still a child – she betrayed him. When he’d finally forgiven her, I was so relieved. When I realized he would never be able to say he’s sorry and experience the unconditional love and forgiveness of a dog, I was devastated. I could not understand how an author could do that to me. Then I realized it was just a story, these people and animals were just fiction and I had been given a gift of feeling without consequence. I experienced and dealt with the pain of loss and grief without actually loosing anybody.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:16 pm
It took me almost a year to read this book. Finally started skimming and the last 100 pages were exciting. Felt very let down at end and there were too many unanswered questions. One thing I have not seen any one question is the way Almondine took to Claude. That was unbelievable to me. Almondine, and dogs in general, are too sensitive to be hoodwinked. Almondine, especially, who was so psychologically in tune with Edgar. This aspect really bothered me. Almondine should have been the one to go with Edgar on his journey.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I don’t think any novel needs a happy ending, but a supremely weird ending is most irritating. This book had just too many inconsistencies; how could a mute boy really train dogs that will almost uniformly be owned by speaking persons? What about HAA? How could his mother end up being so stupid? Wroblewski ran out of ideas for an ending and settled for a joke.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
I enjoyed reading this book, thought the author was very gifted in painting a mental picture of the people and places the story took me, but was so disappointed in the ending. I don’t need a “happy ending,” but would have appreciated it not ending so abruptly, with so many questions unanswered. Why take us through that journey, watching Edgar learn all those lessens, to see him finally come to terms with everything his family and the kennel had been about, to just come back and die in the fire. And I agree, the scissor-hold Glenn had on Trudy was simply weird. I won’t trust this author in the future to finish the story and will probably not read another of his books.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:28 am
I just finished the book, and since it is late and there’s no one to talk to, I came searching for others who might have reacted to the ending like I did.
I don’t need a happy ending. I need resolution. This book is not resolved; it just ended.
Trudy was dragged off by Glen in the end, so no rescue for Edgar slumped in the barn, although I liked the idea put forth by one commenter on this site.
I’m glad this site is here so now I can go to bed. I read the author comments at the end (a bit TMI) and when I realized that he wanted to get his MFA so he could write a book–and that THIS was his first book done in workshop–that explained a lot. I think he’s very facile with his language and description, the book mostly seamless in its execution and the dogs become their own force in the book, along with the humans. Yet. . .
I think only the most skilled writers can pen a book’s resolution that shows characters learning from their mistakes, that open up the promise of their continued journey. There is no continued journey here. Only an ending.
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I agree with Letterpress’ conclusion that there is only an ending.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:16 am
Edgar did want to hurt Page. Right before he was pushed down the steps, Edgar said to him “did you help him?”, referring to Claude. Page taught Claude everything he knew about veterinary medicine.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Finished this book yesterday and spent most of the day in a fog. WHY did Edgar have to die?! I get the whole Hamlet connection, but so much of the story has been left untold. I loved the Henry character, and would like to believe that Essay took her family to him for safe-keeping. I do not like the idea of the dogs going feral. I loved Edgar; the only solace I get is from believing he was reunited with Almondine and his father in the here-after. I kind of feel sorry for Trudy; maybe Henry will come and rescue her, too.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:23 am
I have to confess that I, too, have a problem with endings like this, where one or more of the main characters die and we, the readers, are left feeling hopeless and like everything that character learned was wasted, especially in this case. This seems to be a modern trend, and I really wish writers would stop following it. People can die without it seeming pointless. I loved the story and read it and thought I understood it; however, for me, this type of ending really leaves a bitter taste and tends to overshadow the rest of a book. I’ll try to overcome this, though.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:16 am
I read this book last year. It is still at the very top of my book list. I loved how Wroblewski wove this tale. I was captivated from the start. What an incredible book. Adventure, tragedy, intrigue, love, murder, jealousy, loyalty – wrought with emotion and relevant, eternal themes. Evokes incredible feelings. Embraceable, if you can take it all in – and worth it you can do so. Ethereal and brilliant, yes sad and so resilient. Tugs at your heart strings and pulls you along – Bravo David!
February 26th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
The author is a an a HSP (highly sensitive person). We don’t need resolutions because we are immersed in a world of subtleties, intensity, and ambiguity. We experience life at a much deeper level than most in North American society, if the comments posted here are any indication.
His point is: money can’t buy you happiness. You paid for the book expecting a happy ending; instead, you ended up with an unresolved and “weird” conclusion- it’s called experiencing life at a sophisticated level. You have to get past the Macdonald arches and Walmart sales to get there, and most of you never do. It’s not hubris, just the truth.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I finished the book yesterday. Not being a Shakespeare buff, I had no framework against which to compare this work. I picked this book after reading positive review. I probably never would have selected it if I had read only a few of the foregoing critiques (particularly Robert of 11/19/09 or )if I had any idea of how very unhappy the ending would be after all the previous losses in the book, Gar, the stillborn, then the little wolf pup.I have been depressed since finishing it. I feel cheated too because no review I read a priori said how depressing and sad it would end. I expected a good outcome.
And then there’s all those loose ends. What’s the deal with the picture of Forte and Claude? So what? And I guess Claude really killed Forte #1 but I don’t know. I know it’s just a story but geez, did Almondine and Edgar have to die after all they went through everything they did? And when did Almondine die? When he went to look for Edgar, was he killed or was he still alive and came back to die in the fire with Edgar?What was the anger between the two sons about? Was Forte and the new Forte one and the same and was the latter a ghost? What happens to Epi? What did Almondine do that was so wrong? I know he took up with Claude but despite his intelligence, he was a dog for heaven sake. Was he suppose to know that Claude killed Gar? What were those poor dogs to do being shooed away by Edgar particularly the two little pups when the fire started? And why did Claude kill Gar? Was he after Trudy? Was there suppose to be some other significance with the first Vi who Cappy hooked up with and the second Vi that John Sawtelle owned? And what about Schultz? So what?
I found the first chapter really eerie but then it turned into what I thought would be a really great book until all the really negative stuff started coming in with no redeeming qualities since I had fallen in love with so many of the characters and then they’re all dead. And for heaven’sake, did Glenn have to be blinded for life. And what was with Ida Paine and “don’t come back..it’s only the wind”. Huh? And what happens to Trudy? Does she go insane?
I loved the storyline about the mythical breed of dogs and if they existed, I run out and buy one Three cheers to Robert of November 19th, 2009. I wish I was as eloquent as you.So much for David Wroblewski!
February 26th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
I forgot one of my questions writing my previous blog. Edgar was already passing to the other side to see his father and Claude was walking around disoriented and in a state of euphoria as his end neared. So what’s with the statement that it was a long time before Edgar or Claude appeared at the house after the fire. Huh? Aren’t authors suppose to make sense?
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
This comment refers to the dogs essence and the unbelievably quick ending. First, I kept thinking ask I was reading that I oculd never quite wrap my mind around what the dogs looked like. They were sort of slippery and elusive to me in spirit and physical presence. But they were always wonderful. (except when fighting, but that made them dogs.) I think that in the end, the papers burn, the barn burns, Edgar was given a fast ticket out without being killed by the fire (thanks to Claude) and his father was already on the other side. SO, when Essay and the dogs wandered into that clearing and made the decision, it was about going into Edgar/Dad/Grandad’s realm with them. Had they ever been real? Were they spirit animals all along? Guides along the way for humans in this life? Real, but not real? Here, but not here? And how sad for Edgar’s Mom to know (think) the fire killed him. Was that retribution for the way she let Edgar down by falling for Claude’s BS after his dad died? I loved the book. makes me wonder about many things. The scenes in the wilderness, the lake with the water spouts, life with Henry, his way with the dogs, the fact that he was mute and communicated in his own language, the fire, SO many pieces of mastery in writing. I was SO deeply into this book. I just shut the world off for two days while I finished it. I’m going to be thinking about it for a long time, but I really think the dogs were spirit guides. Once Edgar was gone, they chose to go with him. Amen!
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:44 pm
I have thought about this book since I finished reading it this morning. Such a haunting, sad story. I enjoyed it immensely until I got to the part where Almondine died. I kept hoping that she wasn’t really dead but then Edgar found her grave. I can’t help it, but I did not care for the ending at all. The only good thing was that Edgar, Almondine and Gar were reunited in death. I’m not sure that I would have read this book had I known that the story was going to end so tragically. I have to keep reminding myself that it’s fiction.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:39 am
I finished this book several days ago and it is still on my mind. I haven’t cried over a book in a long time but I cried over this one. It had such a sad and depressing ending. I kept hoping that Almondine wasn’t dead but then Edgar found her grave. Then Edgar had to die too. The only consolation was that Edgar and Almondine were reunited in death and they also were reunited with Gar. If I had known that this book was going to end the way it did, I’m not sure that I would have read it at all. I have to keep telling myself that’s it’s fiction.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:51 am
Sorry for the double comment but the first one never appeared and I commented again. When the second comment was submitted, the first one appeared also. Sorry again!
March 13th, 2010 at 2:47 am
I have read many of the comments written about this book, and am not surprised that the story has garnered such strong feelings. It was my own confusion about, and let down by, the ending that led me to this site. The ending didn’t seem right. While the plot seems to clearly mesh as a retelling of Hamlet, I don’t think combining Hamlet with a coming of age story works. There was no reason for Edgar to die, other than staying true to Hamlet, if that’s what the author was after. As for Edgar’s “walkabout” he had his revelation about the Sawtelle dogs and he needed to go back home (despite the warning not to) to carry out the work that his grandfather had begun, and that Claude was about to undo. Even in the last few moments of the book, Almondine’s ghost twice urges Edgar to get up, and Edgar, having forgiven her, should have obeyed her. Of course, that means that Claude couldn’t have poisoned him, which to me wasn’t even clear that he had succeeded in doing so. That whole scene was improbable, anyway; no one as panicked as Claude, and under those circumstances, could possibly handle such a potent poison and quickly prepare a syringe – believe me, I am a retired pharmacist with much experience! As someone pointed out, the story lacked redemption, which it would have had had Edgar found the bottle of poison (or the syringe meant to kill him). And in the prophecy, there was just as much imperative for Edgar to find the bottle as there was for him not to return to the farm. I didn’t know anything about this book before I began to listen to it, and was really was taken in by the story. Some of the writing was extremely moving, even poignant. But because of the ending, the book was ultimately unsatisfying. Too many motives were left unexplained, there were too many loose ends, and certain characters, such as Henry’s, and even Glen’s, ended up seeming superfluous.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:14 am
I’m confused about Claude and Forte. I thought Forte was Gar’s dog? And what happened to Claude at the end? I know he died, but how did he get trapped in a cage? (I’m assuming the fumes got to him, but is there something more significant I’m missing?). And I think Edgar had to die. Almondine was old when he left and was probably going to die anyway; she was a part of him and without her and his father he could not lead a peaceful existence. Therefore, they are reunited in death and he is at peace. I hoped he would get up when Almondine’s ghost encouraged him, however. I do wish he had somehow survived thought.
March 16th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I was so enjoying this beautifully written 600 page story until I came to the ending. I even went back to re-read the last ten pages to see if I had MISSED something. I was so hoping for a happy ending, and I was disappointed that the author chose to have Edgar die in the fire and not fulfill his young life with what meant most to him. I felt as though the author had run out of challenging scenarios and was hurrying to finish everyone off, quickly. So much more could have happened without such a shocking ending. However beautifully written, I’m not sure that I would recommend this book because of the ending. Wish it wasn’t so.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Oprah and Tom Hanks have already bought the rights to make “The Story Of Edgar
Sawtelle” into a movie Universal has signed on as well.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Just finished 5 minutes ago and had to google what other people thought. The last book I read by Jodi Picoult had the same kind of ending where I wanted to throw the book against the wall. This one not as bad as that I guess but geez, can’t we ever have a feel good ending anymore. There are so many unanswered questions on motivation, what happened, why, and it’s just a big, big bummer. Nothing to feel good about at the end…at….all. Was excited when I heard about the movie but now that I’ve finished the book, not so much.
April 17th, 2010 at 4:30 am
I finished the book last night and was left with many unanswered quesations. Why did Edgar decide to go back home to the farm? How did Almondine die?
I have never read Hamlet so I was surprised by the tragic ending in this book. Like many, I found it hard to believe Trudy could not get away from Glen and help Edgar. I felt like Trudy and Edgar deserved a proper reunion, which the author never allowed them to have. And, Edgar should have been allowed to get back the life Claude stold from him when he poisened Gar. If this were a coming of age story as the author described, Edgar should not have come home, with all his new insights and understanding, to die.
I did bot like the ending, but still would recommend the book.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:16 am
Half way through this book I suspected the author’s plot lines were getting a little too complicated for character motivation control. I agree that his foreshadowing is heavy handed and only have enjoyed the dog-human relationship development. Training is hard work but tremendously rewarding. Glad I checked this website though, as I believe the lost loose ends and curious character about faces, along with the negative spiral disagrees with my philosophy of life…any English grad will tell you some element of redemption is vital for even a realistically blunt ending. The ending isn’t just blunt, it’s sounds like a vicariously cruel but ill-managed attempt at tragedy and I agree with the comments that it turns into a nightmare, of which I wish no part. I choose not to finish this book therefore, but loved the cover as it reflects the iconic images the author started with. Too bad he opted for a clumsy and weirdly out of control finale.
May 14th, 2010 at 6:11 am
I enjoyed the book at first I was dissapointed by the ending but then I realized that Edgar living with the death of Gar then knowing he killed the doc and Claude killed Gar would be too much for him to bear. I mean He’s only a fourteen year old kid. I believe Trudy survived as she should have. If she had been there for Edgar, Edgar’s and the Doc’s death could have been avoided. Instead she decided to start seeing Claude and block her own child out.When you think about it the truth came out to everyone who it needed to come out to. Trudy knows what Claude did and who he is. Most people arent satisfied with an ending like that. Heres my comparison if youve seen the movie the lovely bones you know that the family figured out who did it but they didnt get to see him go to court instead an ice cicle hit him and he fell off a cliff. Even though neither one of them went through the legal system all of their victims were set free because their families were finally able to know the truth and thats all that matters.
July 25th, 2010 at 5:42 am
Just finished this book last night and wanted to throw it against the wall when I did! What a terrible ending! If the author was trying to write a modern twist on Hamlet obviously there was no other way to end it… but why do that?? Up until the last chapters the story was lovely (I couldn’t put it down) and deserved a creative ending even if sad, but that at least tied up all the loose ends and satisfied the reader. The ending was ridiculous and totally ruined the story. There was no lesson to learn from it… other than Edgar should have listened to Ida and stayed away for good!
As a side note… I watched “Hatchi” with Richard Gere last night (Hatchi was mentioned in the book). It was a sad movie also but moving. Worth watching if you love dogs!