Thanks,@mathmom, I just added Brooks autobiography to my “to be read” list. ( I’m partial to Australians) after reading Bill Bryson’s book,”; In a sunburned Country”, and watching the Australian Tv show, Offspring, I set my Siri has voice of an Australian woman.
I, was quite happy Jess returned to Australia, with Clancy, It seemed like a fitting ending, even a happy ending.
Four hours left in my audiobook! I can’t wait to join you – probably Tuesday.
Thanks to @caraid for that Atlantic article, certainly explains why so many have reservations about this book.
Mary13 mentions “flinch worthy moments” mentioned in the article, and while the Theo character may have been off putting, clumsy, “flinch worthy”, I felt that was Brooks attempt, to make us realize the world through different lense.
Theo’s perspective was designed to make us feel uncomfortable, and even though it may not have been well done, it served a purpose.
Was his death shocking! Yes, such is the pathetic reality of today,
What I “enjoyed “ about the book, were many “kind” characters, (including Jarrett) and an overall, uplifting spirit, even during the Antebellum era!
Recently, I read Demon Copperhead, filled with lots and lots of horrible people, so Horse was light reading in comparison.
Jarrett’s life, was filled with caring people, Mary clay, Cassius Clay, Ten Broeck at times, Scott….
Jarrett, was the face of slavery, which made Kamala Harris’s recent emotional experience in Ghana more meaningful. She could barely speak, fought back tears, after visiting the Slave Trade Market where where 10 MILLION human lives were destroyed!
We must never forget, and Brooks’ novel, Horse, made this point.
So,when Jarrett, transformed into a most articulate man at the end of the novel, with his criticism of the media, ignoring the discrimination against the black jockeys and trainers, I overlooked that flaw, I believed the quiet, submissive Jarrett, finally found his voice, and it. Bookended his life’s arc. Didactic, yes, oh well.
Many times during the recent years here in America, I fantasized about life in Canada, where gun laws, and life seems more sensible than the crazy political regime we endured.
So,Jarrett off to Canada worked for me. Perfect ending.
Well, an interesting tidbit, Brooks adopted her son, Bizu from Ethiopia.
“ In the contemporary story Theo, son of Nigerian diplomats, is an art historian who finds a painting of a horse among a neighbour’s garbage, and Australian-born Jess is a scientist working at the Smithsonian to identify the skeleton of a horse. Fate, of course, will bring them together in a complicated dance of forensics and attraction. Delicate ground for a white woman, Brooks knows, but she has watched her son Bizu, adopted from Ethiopia, navigate his way through American society.”
In her afterward she thanks her son Bizu along with several others for “shared insights into contemporary Black experience.”
Yes, I appreciated that the characters were not written in broad strokes, but had some nuance. Jarrett would get frustrated and angry with the tone-deaf comments or careless behavior from White people, and rightly so, but only Quantrill’s raiders were pure evil.
I agree with Jarret about Mary Barr Clay’s thoughtlessness. Her desire to be an independent woman and a social rebel put him at great risk. I was about as afraid as he was during the scene when she was waiting alone for him in his room!
The “at times” part is important as regards Ten Broeck. He started out as a sensible man–he was the one who encouraged Jarret’s education!–but he was a real you-know-what at the end, when he wouldn’t let Jarret buy his freedom. Historically speaking, I wonder if Brooks was hinting at Ten Broeck’s eventual dementia (not termed that way then, but probably what it was). His wife tried to declare him insane and he died alone, short of both funds and friends.
From his obituary:
He was alone at the time and had been for some time, as he experienced great difficulty in keeping help on account of his extremely nervous and irritable temperament, which of late years had grown on him to such an extent as to lead his friends to believe that he was bordering on insanity.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SFC18920802.2.25&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------
I found the book an engaging read and liked it. It’s nice to have historical novels that interweave factual info and then explain what was fact/fiction.
I did find some of the racial injustice theme with Theo a bit heavy handed. But I was more open to it I think because of church discussion groups on the topic (including read of “Waking up White” by Debby Irving - an insightful read, even if you only have time for the first few chapters). I would hesitate to hand it off to friends who prefer lighter reading.
The book made me often think of our Belle Meade tour (1800s mansion / horse breeding near Nashille). We took the general tour, which did discuss the slaves there especially the black horse trainer who was famous enough to have obit in national newspaper. We both said though if we went back someday this would be an interesting tour
That tour looks very interesting! (And I wouldn’t mind following it up with the Wine & Food Pairing and the Belle Meade Bourbon Experience 
).
We did do the free wine tasting at the end of the tour. 
In the interview that @jerseysouthmomchess posted earlier (47:30 mark), Geraldine Brooks gets a funny question from an audience member about the title of Horse (“Was the name Book already taken?”) She said her U.S. publisher wasn’t happy about the name at all, telling her, “You can keep your crappy title, but you can’t have a picture of a horse on the cover.” Her Australian publisher must not have had any such restriction.
That interview, endeared me to Brooks, I’m now reading her autobiography, Foreign Correspondence. mentioned by @mathmom
I laughed aloud when the man questioned the title, and said “ was Book already taken” 
What were her options ? Lexington ? Too confusing , thinking about the city.
Darley, name didn’t even stick during the horse’s life,
I do wonder what the publishers would have preferred.
And, I agree the cover with horse on the front, looks like the YA books of my childhood , Flicka, The Black Stallion, Black Beauty,Fury ………….(another reason for my five star rating, Brooks captured many memories of my childhood obsession with horses, had a pony when I was five )
So I looked at your link to Brooks website Q and E @Mary13 and found this,
Why the title?
When Lexington died, the horse was so beloved he was given a ceremonial burial, complete with a horse-sized coffin. Later, it was suggested that his skeleton be disinterred and gifted to the Smithsonian. It stood in pride of place there for many years. But as the horse’s fame waned and the museum’s emphasis switched from displaying curiosities to advancing scientific knowledge, Lexington’s individual story became less important, until the skeleton stood in the Hall of Osteology along with those of other species, simply an example of “equus caballus”, or “Horse.” Eventually it was relegated to the attic of the natural History Museum and all but forgotten.
It amazed me, how popular horse racing was, with tens of thousands of people attending horse races in the antebellum south.
“ horseracing was the first major sport in the American colonies, with racecourses in New York, Charles Town, Annapolis and Williamsburg by the mid-eighteenth century, even before the introduction of the thoroughbred to North America. The Sport of Kings drew estimated crowds in excess of 50,000 in the ante-bellum era, long before baseball or football had developed, ”
It dismayed me a horse would be whipped so much, blood would run down, visible for all to see! The pressure on the young black jockeys was enormous to win, but that owners and the crowds allowed such mistreatment seemed shocking,
“ 9Jockeys were under pressure to win at almost any cost. Riders were expected by owners and trainers to employ the whip, though a few top riders like Jimmy McLaughlin relied heavily on just their hands and heels to push his horses. Critics felt that whipping was overdone, although the press invariably condemned any jockey who did not use the whip as “sleepy, careless, and, at times, worse” (Spirit of the Times 120, 23 Aug. 1890, 190).
10While whipping was unavoidable, such artificial methods as drugs given by trainers or electrical stimulants were not permitted. Electric prods powered from a battery worn as a belt brought startling results to old horses. The proscription on electrical devices was very successful but drugs, less so (Chicago Daily News, 17 Dec. 1895, 6).”
Ugh, that treatment of racehorses is just awful to read about. Makes my stomach turn.
Brooks said that in the course of her research, she learned the origin of a few common expressions. For example, to win “hands down” stems from a jockey winning a race without having to employ the whip – his hands literally down on the horse.
@jerseysouthmomchess, do you still ride or are your “pony” days behind you?
The ponies were just mostly pets- very little riding - it was my grandfather’s passion so three grandchildren got ponies, nothing fancy like horse shows or jumping.
Many hours spent loving those ponies!
Every time I read about Jarrett sleeping in the stall with Lexington, it’s as if I could smell the barn smell- manure, maybe some hay scent but it is unforgettable, especially when we would muck out the stalls-
We had three horses who lived in our backyard in Hargeisa, Somalia (I was 9 or 10). I’d go out riding with no adult supervision! I enjoyed it, I read a fair number of horse books, My Friend Flicka, Black Beauty, the Black Stallion, but also a fair number of British ones: The Pullein-Thompson sisters (three of them who all wrote about ponies), and my favorite K. M. Peyton not just The Flambards which many know because it was a TV series, but the books about Ruth and Pennington starting with Fly-by-Night where Ruth gets an pony (untrained) even though she can’t ride and her struggles just to get to a point where they can make it around a course.
Many of my friends were big fans of horses and horse books. Me not so much, but I must have read Misty of Chincoteague because my mother routed one of our vacations to visit the island.
The details about horse breeding and anatomy were still interesting to me. Also it was fun because we had once considered job offers in Lexington, and on the interview trip it had seemed like lots of interest there in horses.
I thought I’d have finished the book by today. I only have 70 pages left at this point. I am, however, reading another book at the same time and find myself picking it up instead of Horse. I’m not exactly sure why because I do like Horse.
My IRL bookclub met last night to discuss Horse. Overall it got a solid thumbs up with a range from “liked it” to “loved it.” Critiques mirrored those mentioned here: the words didactic and/or preachy cropped up along with confusion as to the number of paintings of Lexington and what happened to each. Theo’s sensitivity toward “race” also cropped up. One member discussed two episodes in particular - the bike incident where Theo and Jess meet and Theo’s unhappiness when Catherine compares the class system in the U.K with slavery in the U.S. She pointed out that most cultures have an ugly history of their own - class in Britain, treatment of the Aboriginal people of Australia, the caste system in India, and so on. She felt that perhaps Theo was a mite too quick to “call” racism. As a Black woman with husband, brothers, sisters, and so on, she says she’s by no means naive but perhaps Theo (or Brooks) was pushing the point a little hard. Positive comments stemmed re the history of horse racing, Lexington himself, art, and the Smithsonian. All agreed Brooks is an excellent writer (though the vocabulary in the book made one lady use the dictionary feature on her Kindle more than ever before.)
I purchased hardcopy, so my word lookup was via google on my phone. Glad I was not the only one.
Keeneland has an exhibit focusing on the accomplishments of African Americans in horse racing that will be on view in the next few months. Saw the feature in my Instagram and thought about Jarret’s speech to the editor.Keeneland Sharing The History Of Horseracing’s Black Pioneers
I enjoyed the feature in the article on the art of LaVon Williams. He was on the basketball team when I was a student at UK. I would love to see some of his art in person.
@ignatius, you’re right, the journeys of all the paintings in the novel can be a challenge to track.
@stradmom posted two paintings earlier in the thread, which got me started looking up the art works in the novel to see how they intersect in the past and present chapters.
This is – I think!–how it all goes:
Thomas Scott’s mentor, Edward Troye, makes a brief appearance in Horse. His painting, Richard Singleton with Viley’s Harry, Charles and Lew is the work that Theo sees in the art museum that leads him to change the direction of his PhD:
https://vmfa.museum/piction/6027262-8156920/There was no mockery here. As Theo gazed at the painting, he was struck by the individuality of the three men. Troye had portrayed them as distinct personalities. They were presences. He had not caricatured them—there was no exaggeration of features. He’d taken minute care with the details of their faces, clothing, bearing……here was a painting that challenged his thesis (p. 57).
Harry reminisces about posing for the Troye painting (p. 36):
So he have us stand about, all manner of foolishness, dressed up in our best, and he made that painting of that horse, and me in my top hat and frock coat looking mighty fine, and the jockey and the groom as well, and all manner of trees in back of us (p. 36).
When we first meet Thomas Scott, he is preparing to paint Alice Carneal, Lexington’s mother:
Alice Carneal by Thomas J. Scott on artnetIn the course of the novel, Scott gives two paintings of Lexington to Jarret. The first (Lexington as a colt) is stolen by Quantrill’s raiders and found over 150 years later in the trash by Theo. This painting exists only in Brooks’ imagination. She got the idea from this news story (which is about a different painting of Scott’s):
The second painting (a mature Lexington) is the one Jarret gives to May. That painting is passed down for generations until May’s descendant Annie sells it to Martha Jackson:
Now she saw it was a highly competent oil. Uneven, perhaps, in the refinement of the horse compared with the sketchily rendered background. The water trough, the stone wall, the tufts of grass—these seem to have been dashed off, while every detail of the horse’s anatomy and expression had been finely executed.
Martha Jackson bequeaths the painting to the Smithsonian, where Jess studies it as she works with Lexington’s skeleton.
Near the end of Civil War, Scott paints Jarret with a now-blind Lexington — a portrait that Jarret thinks captures “both Lexington’s grandeur and his defenselessness" (p. 335).
He had painted Jarret gazing pensively at the horse, his face in three-quarter profile, his arm, holding the lead rope, raised in a graceful arabesque. Somehow Scott had conveyed, in that gesture and that gaze, the current of affection and trust that flowed between horse and man.
The painting, Lexington led by Black Jarret, His Groom, is described in an 1870 Harper’s Magazine as one of Scott’s best works. The painting hung in the office of the Turf, Field and Farm newspaper until about 1903. Its whereabouts are now unknown. This mysterious lost painting was one of Brooks’ inspirations for Horse.
