I liked it. I wonder what my impressions of it would have been had I not already read Water for Elephants as I find myself compelled to compare the two, though they are extremely different.
In the earlier post I did after only having read the first few chapters I said that I liked that Ape House wasn't as based in historical fact as Water for Elephants was, but after reading the Author's Notes I realize that there was some history in Ape House as well. Apparently most of it was just in the conversations between the bonobos and the humans, which explains why it wasn't so apparent. I guess when half of the dialogue is sentences like, "want candy coffee. isabel go. hurry gimme" you don't notice it being disjointed from the narrative as much.
I also think this story line played more to Gruen's interest in human nature than Water for Elephants did. In that novel I felt like she was applying 21st Century thinking to characters living at the beginning of the last century, which I would argue is inaccurate. I mean I understand that there are certain human emotions that we have always, and will always have, which is what makes Shakespeare still relevant today. But at the same time it seems to me that humans have evolved to a place now where so much of our basic needs are met without effort that we are left with nothing to do but contemplate our own existence from dawn till dusk. Or at least from dawn until we pass out from mid-afternoon drinking.
This is why I felt more connected to the storyline of Ape House, being that it's set in present time and also deals heavily with these very issues. How we are looking to our next closest species to help explain ourselves. What happens to these bonobo's when they are put in the Ape House and given everything they want immediately when they want it. And just like with Shakespeare, it's only a handful of people that ask the questions and study the results, everyone else just happily sits at the bar watching the reality unfold on the tv screen in front of them.
I like Gruen's characterization, though just like in Water for Elephants I felt kind of uncomfortable with her version of what men think about or how men react to situations. At least with Ape House she has enough other (female) characters to offset it, but in Water for Elephants I found myself continually annoyed with her assumption to know the ins and outs of a mans psyche.
That being said I really enjoyed the female characters in Ape House and how they all served as parallels for each other as well as parallells for the bonobos. The whole thing about plastic surgery and superficiality was brilliant, and though it was focused primarily on the female characters, was written in an almost non-gender specific way that made it easy to relate even though I've never been involved in a disfiguring explosion.
Mostly I would say I was more lost in the narrative of Ape House than I was in Water for Elephants. I can remember specific events from Water for Elephants but was never really compelled to turn the page by anything besides a desire to just finish the book. With Ape House I was forcing myself to put it down so I wouldn't finish it all in one sitting. Am I the only person that doesn't like finishing a book in one sitting? But I came close, and I'd definitely say the final half of the book was finished this morning between coffee and lunch.
Speaking of, I need to go get lunch now. Her ridiculously long and descriptive chapter about eggs benedict got me super hungry so I am off to barnyard for a bacon egg and cheese sandwich. How are they so good?!
No comments:
Post a Comment