1. True or False. After reading Good Dog, . . . a. you are more likely to go out a get a dog. b. you are less likely to read more books about dogs.
R: A—False: Though the thought crossed my mind many times during the reading of this book. But never with the hunting dogs, which is strange given their prevalence. But when it came to the toy poodles, pit bulls, or mutts (I’ve always been the biggest fan of mutts), I made sure not to mention, even jokingly, this idea to my wife… B—Most definitely true: But that doesn’t deter me from wanting to pet one when I see one.
M: A—False: I have to admit that reading this one gave me dog-buying fever, but two things cured me of it. My wife, who emphatically told me she does not want another dog, and my toy poodle, who does not play well with others. B—True: While this one was mostly fun, I don’t want a steady diet of dog books.
2. Which story was your favorite? Why?
R: I liked the one with the toy poodle hunting dog. That image of the dog trying to carry a bird bigger than it was made me chuckle. I also enjoyed the one about the dog in Mississippi that stayed at the theater/bar and hung out with Willie Morris . That one seemed to have the southern charm of a tall tale.
M: My favorite was “On Patrol” by Ben Mc Moise. He taught me something I didn’t know (the Boykin spaniel is the state dog of South Carolina). He also gave me some good memories of Charleston (where I got engaged and married). The story of his Boykin swimming the Ashley River and waiting on him at his truck was classic, as well.
3. Death is a frequent topic of the stories in Good Dog. How did this impact you as you read?
R: Honestly, it kinda became so rote that it didn’t tug at my heartstrings and instead hinted the essay was almost over.
M: That’s true. The first few stories were sad, but after a while they became predictable at the end. This is not the fault of the writers, but rather just the cycle of having a dog in your family.
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the book? What would have made it better (if anything)?
R: I think anthology series have a lot of potential. This one just didn’t showcase it. Like, I get it, you love your dog. But that doesn’t mean I love your dog, and my argument would be the authors really didn’t give me an emotional reason to love their dogs, either.
M: I think humor is one of the definite strengths of Good Dog. The first 2/3 of the book especially provided some good laughs. The varied writing styles of the authors also appealed to me. I like being exposed to different uses of language and story-telling. The main weakness to me was that many of the stories became predictable by the last 1/3 of the book. Again, this is probably not the fault of the writers, but the nature of living with dogs.
5. The following criticisms of Good Dog are that it a. is lacking emotion. b. is filled with dullness. c. has a “flat, uninteresting tone.” d. is not well edited. What is your response to these criticisms?
R: I’d agree with these, especially with a – c. I finished most of these essays with, okay, so what? But I think, too, if I wasn’t reading them back to back and in a more serialized version as intended (I think I remember reading readers of Garden & Gun showed interested, thus they created the book), I would have come away a bit more satisfied.
M: I disagree that these stories lacked emotion. People are sappy about their dogs, and these feelings came through in the book. I do agree that some of the stories were dull, but in a book filled with stories, every one of them is not going to be a home run. Likewise, there were some that had a “flat uninteresting tone” but again the law of averages says this likely to happen. Also, what’s “flat and uninteresting” to me may be quite interesting to another reader, so that needs to be factored into the equation. To me, the most intriguing criticism is that the book is not well edited. I would tend to disagree with this. Again, the nature of books with short stories is that some will appeal to others, while some will not. In light of this, the notion that Good Dog is not well edited seems harsh.
6. Would you recommend Good Dog to a friend? Why or why not?
M: I would recommend it with the proviso that it feels redundant after about 2/3 of the way through the book. It did expose me to some writers that I had not experienced before, so that is a good thing. Overall, I would give 3 stars to Good Dog.
R: I think to the right person, hunters or dog aficionados, this book would be a slam dunk home run hail Mary pass to the end zone. And some of the parts were greater than the whole, but I’d still have to go with a 2, because in the end it’s the whole I have to take into consideration.
a. you are more likely to go out a get a dog.
b. you are less likely to read more books about dogs.
R: A—False: Though the thought crossed my mind many times during the reading of this book. But never with the hunting dogs, which is strange given their prevalence. But when it came to the toy poodles, pit bulls, or mutts (I’ve always been the biggest fan of mutts), I made sure not to mention, even jokingly, this idea to my wife…
B—Most definitely true: But that doesn’t deter me from wanting to pet one when I see one.
M: A—False: I have to admit that reading this one gave me dog-buying fever, but two things cured me of it. My wife, who emphatically told me she does not want another dog, and my toy poodle, who does not play well with others.
B—True: While this one was mostly fun, I don’t want a steady diet of dog books.
2. Which story was your favorite? Why?
R: I liked the one with the toy poodle hunting dog. That image of the dog trying to carry a bird bigger than it was made me chuckle. I also enjoyed the one about the dog in Mississippi that stayed at the theater/bar and hung out with Willie Morris . That one seemed to have the southern charm of a tall tale.
M: My favorite was “On Patrol” by Ben Mc Moise. He taught me something I didn’t know (the Boykin spaniel is the state dog of South Carolina). He also gave me some good memories of Charleston (where I got engaged and married). The story of his Boykin swimming the Ashley River and waiting on him at his truck was classic, as well.
3. Death is a frequent topic of the stories in Good Dog. How did this impact you as you read?
R: Honestly, it kinda became so rote that it didn’t tug at my heartstrings and instead hinted the essay was almost over.
M: That’s true. The first few stories were sad, but after a while they became predictable at the end. This is not the fault of the writers, but rather just the cycle of having a dog in your family.
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the book? What would have made it better (if anything)?
R: I think anthology series have a lot of potential. This one just didn’t showcase it. Like, I get it, you love your dog. But that doesn’t mean I love your dog, and my argument would be the authors really didn’t give me an emotional reason to love their dogs, either.
M: I think humor is one of the definite strengths of Good Dog. The first 2/3 of the book especially provided some good laughs. The varied writing styles of the authors also appealed to me. I like being exposed to different uses of language and story-telling. The main weakness to me was that many of the stories became predictable by the last 1/3 of the book. Again, this is probably not the fault of the writers, but the nature of living with dogs.
5. The following criticisms of Good Dog are that it
a. is lacking emotion.
b. is filled with dullness.
c. has a “flat, uninteresting tone.”
d. is not well edited.
What is your response to these criticisms?
R: I’d agree with these, especially with a – c. I finished most of these essays with, okay, so what? But I think, too, if I wasn’t reading them back to back and in a more serialized version as intended (I think I remember reading readers of Garden & Gun showed interested, thus they created the book), I would have come away a bit more satisfied.
M: I disagree that these stories lacked emotion. People are sappy about their dogs, and these feelings came through in the book. I do agree that some of the stories were dull, but in a book filled with stories, every one of them is not going to be a home run. Likewise, there were some that had a “flat uninteresting tone” but again the law of averages says this likely to happen. Also, what’s “flat and uninteresting” to me may be quite interesting to another reader, so that needs to be factored into the equation. To me, the most intriguing criticism is that the book is not well edited. I would tend to disagree with this. Again, the nature of books with short stories is that some will appeal to others, while some will not. In light of this, the notion that Good Dog is not well edited seems harsh.
6. Would you recommend Good Dog to a friend? Why or why not?
M: I would recommend it with the proviso that it feels redundant after about 2/3 of the way through the book. It did expose me to some writers that I had not experienced before, so that is a good thing. Overall, I would give 3 stars to Good Dog.
R: I think to the right person, hunters or dog aficionados, this book would be a slam dunk home run hail Mary pass to the end zone. And some of the parts were greater than the whole, but I’d still have to go with a 2, because in the end it’s the whole I have to take into consideration.