Least-favorite horse books

I suppose this is a predictable topic, but I am not in a particually creative mood at the moment.

So...what are some of the books you have read that have been disappointing for whatever reason? I know I am in the minority when I say that I loathed both National Velvet and My Friend Flicka. I got them in a boxed set of three classic horse stories once, and after reading Black Beauty I felt certain that they would be just as good. But they weren't.

Another one I hated was Misty's Twilight, even though Marguerite Henry is one of my favorite authors. It was just a torture to read, and I was so glad when it was over. I wish I had never bought it.

(By the way, I really would like to see this group become active, but if no one ever comments nothing will happen. And I cannot be expected to hold this group up on my own. So please make an effort. There are six other members of this group that should be posting. I would like to see more activity!)

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. I'm not blaming anyone, just trying to remind people to post more often.

What was it you didn't like about the books you listed?

I know I had to read My Friend Flicka in school (maybe junior high?) and didn't care for it. It just didn't speak to the part of me that loved horses--somehow it was too gritty, But when I read it quite a few years later, I identified with different parts of the book, and enjoyed it and its sequels, Thunderhead and Green Grass of Wyoming I've also always meant to read Mary O'Hara's memoir about summers on a Wyoming ranch but have never gotten to it.

I have always hated John Steinbeck's The Red Pony. Basically the plotline goes something like this--boy has life that sucks; boy is given a colt (not a pony!) that he falls in love with; pony becomes sick and dies a horrible death from strangles. Boy realizes life goes on.

I guess it's the same plotline in Marjorie Kinnan Rawling's book about a fawn The Yearling but I absolutely adored The Yearling and couldn't stand The Red Pony. Maybe because there were reasons the deer had to die, while the colt died senslessly.

I just read a recently published book called The God of Animals which I was very excited to hear about. It revolved around life on a (failing) horse farm and horse shows. The publisher raved about it as a first novel and said it was about 'kinds of love'. Some of the horse details were good. Some of them were so far outside of reality, it made me doubt everything else in the novel. For example,during weaning time, there were broodmares lying on their sides, their udders so uncomfortably distended they were 'whimpering in pain' while the foals 'whimpered' in their weaning pen. One foal was chosen as the farm's next stallion and was penned by himself with everyone forbidden to touch him because he was a stallion. They had a saddle on him as a weanling and he ended up dying. Sigh. Why can't publishers find an editor who knows something about horses to edit horse books? Other than the ever-so-wrong horse details, the novel had a lot of loose ends and was pretty unsatisfying all the way around.

Those are some pretty serious mistakes in The God of Animals. Editors should know about the subject matter they are reading about. Of course, the author should have known about those errors as well, but clearly he/she didn't.

I was pressed for time when I wrote my first post, but the reason I hated My Friend Flicka was mainly the family. The animals were rather interesting (and I loved the multitude of names the author had come up with for the horses), but the family was so horrible. I didn't like any of them. I couldn't stand Ken from the moment he arrived. I gather he was supposed to be sympathetic, but he really rubbed me the wrong way. And his father was practically evil in my book. It was his own fault a herd of horses went "loco." Then he sent them all off in a trailer to a slaughterhouse, shot the one that escaped, and wished vehemently that he could shoot the filly his son loved. I hated him! And Howard was just a miniature of his father, going down the same road. At first I thought I would like Nell, but by the end of the book, I had no respect for her at all.

I could have tried to ignore all this if the book had been compelling, or full of interesting secondary characters, but it wasn't. The whole first chapter was basically just a description of the Goose Bar Ranch and by the end of it I still couldn't picture it properly! The story was pretty run-of-the-mill and forgettable. So by the end, I felt I had wasted my time, and could not believe that this was hailed as a classic horse story. And around the middle of it, the book did become rather gritty as I recall, and that served to fuel my intense dislike of the characters.

I felt that Misty's Twilight lacked the charm of Margurite Henry's earlier works. It was set in modern-day, had un-interesting characters, and was utterly boring. I was never compelled to pick it up, and nothing ever happened. It was just dull, and a real disappointment.

I could go on a rant about National Velvet, but I'll just point out one or two things.
One: I loathed Velvet and her family, especially her brother Donald.
Two: The climax. Things were building up for the race at the end, and Enid Bagnold copped out by giving one short paragraph that dealt with the race itself. That paragraph was told by an onlooker who couldn't see anything through the dust cloud. Next thing you know, the race is over and the last four or five chapters deal with the press. And then things get interesting for two paragraphs in which Velvet goes over the rooftops to escape the horde of people trying to meet her. But far too soon, that is over and done with, and things go back to being painfully turgid until the book creaks to a halt. I have read way better horse classics than that! Flicka was better. The movie with Elizabeth Taylor was better.

I read them a few years ago so the details have blurred a bit, but that is how I remember them.

It's been a while since I read National Velvet, too. LOL about her family--one of my most vivid recollections of the book was Donald's spit bottle.

I haven't read Misty's Twilight. Marguerite Henry was never one of my favorite horse authors. Guess I craved more excitement. Next trip to the library, I'll see if they have a copy. Your description of her books--'charm' is very apt and so I'm curious to see what one of hers with 'less charm' looks like. I'm pretty sure I have several of her books packed up in boxes that I haven't gotten around to unpacking/putting on LibraryThing yet--a couple of the 'Misty' books, King of the Wind, Justin Morgan Had a Horse, Black Gold--hey even if she wasn't my favorite horse writer, if it was a book about horses, I probably have a copy!

The thing I really like about Marguerite Henry (besides the charm) was the way the plot unfolded slowly and smoothly. They were all short, pleasant reads, about real horses, set in the old days, with likeable characters. Perhaps not the most memorable or exciting, but very enjoyable in their own way. Every other summer or so I pull them out and re-read them.

The original Misty book is my all-time favorite, but both of its semi-sequels felt a bit depressing to me, though still well-written. Brown Sunshine of Sawdust Valley was far too short to be very memorable, and is probably my second least-favorite, because it doesn't have enough meat on its bones. Brighty of the Grand Canyon suffers from the opposite problem. The first few chapters were slow going, but I was well rewarded by the rest of the book. I bought King of the Wind, but haven't read it yet, so I don't know how that will stand up to the rest of the books. And you know my view of Misty's Twilight.

I personally can't recommend you reading Misty's Twilight, by the way. I wouldn't recommend it to any person save someone who wants to read Henry's entire collection.

I'm thinking about re-reading several of my old horse stories and perhaps getting some new ones if I get the time. I might even give My Friend Flicka a second try, to see if it's as bad as I remember!

I read The God of Animals and I enjoyed it except for the glaring mistakes about the horses. The weaning scene was the worst but I also didn't like the fact that the main character hops on the green-broke filly and rides a flawless reining routine. Hello!? How did the filly know what to do?

I think I read an interview/discussion with the author on the Barnes & Noble website (there was a book club on the book or something) and she did admit that she took liberties with the horse details. Some of it, she did to emphasize the brutality of life on the ranch (having them keep the stud colt separate, etc.).

I'm sure a non-horsey person would enjoy the book more. I'm always nit-picking at details!

Hi FionaCat;

Thanks very much for your reply.

I understand very much what you're saying about The God of Animals. I also enjoyed aspects of the story.I thought she did well with characterizations and relationships, the whole coming-of-age thing and even many of the horse details such as the 'flavor' of horse shows, the 'barn-party' they went to, etc.

But the horse details were sooooo distracting it overwhelmed my enjoyment. I wonder if fiction about any technical (and horses are technical) subject with wrong details wouldn't distract those who know about the field? Say a novel with bad information about mountain climbing or music or an author submitting her first book--wouldn't they be offputting to the reader who understands the field?

'Taking liberties with a subject' seems a greater violation to me than than writing about something you don't know--and getting the details wrong in ignorance. I remember the example my prof had in a freshman writing course where he gave examples of students writing absolute absurdities about sex--when they were ignorant of the subject. Getting the details wrong spoils it for people who know the subject. For a common experience like sex, most people will judge the absurdity of someone writing foolishly about it. With a lesser known subject, you trust the author to get the details right. Writing absurdities because you want to show brutality where none exists is not the mark of a well written book, IMHO.

You suspend your disbelief to let the author take you on a journey; seeing through the details is like seeing the mirrors in a poorly done magic show.

I did see that there was a B & N discussion on her book--I was disgusted and didn't participate. She also gave a local reading at a bookstore here. Again I didn't go, although I was eager to go before I had listened to the audiobook, if for no other reason than to get a signed first edition of the first book from what reviews said was a 'magnificent first effort by a promising new author.' Thanks for sharing what she said. I imagine she took flack over her horse details--the reader reviews I read on amazon almost uniformly criticized them.

After reading your comments, I wish I had participated in the B&N discussion and her reading. I'm sure I would have learned more--if I could have only kept an open mind. :)

You are right; nothing jolts you out of a story worse than incorrect details. I remember reading a book once that featured Jack London as a character and had him remembering seeing the Golden Gate Bridge from his home -- a bridge that wasn't built for at least 30 more years!

I am always eager to read books about horses or other topics or places I am familiar with, but I'm often disappointed because the details aren't right.

I do wonder how often an author does get the details right but they are changed at the urging of an editor because the truth just isn't exciting enough.

For example, in the film "Dreamer," which I did enjoy, the whole field selection for the Breeders' Cup scene was totally unrealistic, but quite dramatic for cinematic purposes, of course.

While on the topic of horse films and books, I think The Horse Whisperer is the only film that was better then the book. I hated the ending of the book, which was ridiculous. The film ending was much better.

I'd agree on Misty's Twilight. Another I just plain didn't like was Chicken Soup for the Horse Lover's Soul II. Some of the stories were fine, but some of them really pushed the boundaries of non-fiction.

On the subject of incorrect details -- does anyone else have a hard time watching prime-time TV programming where the characters are supposed to be heavily involved in the horse industry, but obviously either the directors or the actors haven't a clue? Things like Wildfire are like listening to someone squeak styrofoam. And there was a show revolving around the Pony Express that ran a few years back where all the "riders" bounced something awful. But some of the Dick Francis books that were made into movies -- I think they used to run some of them in the States on Alfred Hitchcock Presents? -- did a much better job of keeping things realistic.

Funny you would say that about the incorrect details on television, Fssunysd. I was just catching up on another thread in this group and the book Bluegrass was mentioned. I live in Lexington and am involved in the horse business, and watched the miniseries with friends....we howled with laughter. My favorite scene was the main character ?Maude? decorating her Christmas tree with a newborn foal romping in the field out the window. Of course, as all Thoroughbreds have an official birthday of January 1, no one would be happy to have a December foal!

Fiona Cat--I am glad to know I'm not the only person in the world that didn't like The Horse Whisperer. It was like five different people were working on the book, and all of them started a sub-plot that none followed up on! I have never picked up another book by Nicholas Evans.

hee hee fallaspen; I've heard horse show people refer to those as 'ber' foals, as in born in the months ending with ber; foals with an official birthdate of January 1st whose tails reach their hocks at two months old. I've never known anyone to actually do it, but the rumor mills run rampant.

I really like the book Bluegrass--the details rang pretty true to me, although I've never worked in horse racing.

I know I read the Horse Whisperer because I remember that I felt the ending was better than the movie's ending. But I didn't keep the book, so I guess that sums up how I felt about it.

fssunnysd--Thanks for mentioning the Dick Francis mystery shows. I just found them on Netflix and added them to my queue.

I'll have to read the book Bluegrass--until I saw it mentioned here, I didn't realize the miniseries had been taken from a book. Always interesting to see what liberties Hollywood takes with screen versions!

I think my other problem with the Horse Whisperer was similar to The Red Pony, The Yearling, and even parts of Black Beauty, and that's the violence, whether accidental, an act of nature, or inflicted by humans. I hate to see even fictional animals suffer. The crash scene (book and movie) was powerfully written, but painful to read or watch.

Streamsong--for the past two years, the Jockey Club has been sending inspectors around (unannounced) to farms with mares that are due to foal early, just to be sure breeders aren't trying to fudge on actual foaling dates. With the big books some stallion farms are allowing, they keep knocking back the opening day of the breeding sheds to accomodate as many mares as possible in the season (February 10 is a pretty common opening date for the sheds). If a mare catches first cover, she's going to be due awfully close to January 1.

The vast majority of breeders are just trying to cut it as close to January 1st as possible, without preceeding the date, and I know of many foals born in December that were registered honestly as such.

Breeders seem to feel January and February foals sell better as yearlings, being more mature and advanced, or that they have a racing advantage, especially for the Triple Crown races.

Oddly though, a great many of the best runners have been fairly late foals--Barbaro (April 29), Lemon Drop Kid (May 26), Victory Gallop (May 30), Hard Spun (May 10), Azeri (May 6), Empire Maker (April 27), Afleet Alex (May 9), etc. Go figure!

Speaking of foals...it's a great time of year to drive around Lexington--the paddocks are starting to fill up with babies! Makes the ice, rain, snow, sleet, wind, brown grass, mud, and grey skies a little easier to take when you see a foal scampering around its dam or trying to reach the grass with those long, long legs!

I wasn't a fan of Laughing in the Hills by Bill Barich. It came so highly recommended, but it wasn't my cup of tea. National Velvet wasn't as good as I thought it would be after seeing the movie first. I agree with nymith that Brown Sunshine of Sawdust Valley was too short, but I think I recall that this was Henry's last work and at the time of writing she was very old. Even so, it's my least favorite Henry.

I didn't like black beauty. I forgot about Justin Morgan had a horse. Because of that I always wanted a morgan, and I now have two! I never tried to read black beauty again from when I read it as a child.