Why Was Water for Elephants Banned? We Still Don’t Get It

We kicked off this Fully-Booked Podcast episode by sticking with our June theme: banned books. And this time, we focused on one that left us scratching our heads: Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen.

The 2006 novel was recently banned in Utah’s public schools under House Bill 29, which allows parents to challenge books they consider “sensitive material.” If three school districts or charter schools agree, the book can be pulled statewide. That’s how Water for Elephants landed on the list, although, to be honest, we still don’t quite get why.

We couldn't find a solid answer despite digging around. It’s not overtly graphic, political, or controversial in any standout way, so its ban feels baffling. That confusion is what actually sparked our whole Banned Books Month in the first place. We figured, if this book can be banned, what else is on these lists?

Water for Elephants Story

The book was adapted into a movie in 2011, starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz. It was set during the Great Depression and follows Jacob Jankowski, a Polish-American veterinary student at Cornell. Just as he’s about to graduate, tragedy strikes: both his parents die in a car accident. Jacob loses his home, his inheritance, and any hope of finishing his studies.

With nowhere to go, Jacob hops on a passing train, which turns out to belong to a struggling traveling circus, the Benzini Brothers. From there, the story unfolds into a tale of hardship, romance, and survival under the big top. He meets Marlena, the circus’s star performer, who’s married to the charismatic yet increasingly violent ringmaster, August.

What makes the movie unique is the addition of Rosie, a 53-year-old elephant brought in as the circus's new attraction. Rosie doesn’t initially respond to commands, and August abuses her, thinking she’s unintelligent. But Jacob discovers Rosie understands Polish, his native language, and with that breakthrough, he forms a bond with her.

Behind the Scenes and Onscreen Chemistry

Watching the film together, we had mixed feelings. The production value was solid; the costumes, set design, and overall look captured the Depression era beautifully. The acting was generally good, but we both agreed that the chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon felt flat. It wasn’t bad, just kind of…there. You understood they were supposed to fall in love, but you didn’t feel it.

We even joked that this wasn’t a steamy Notebook-level romance. There was one sex scene, and it happened while they were on the run for their lives, which felt oddly timed, to say the least. It didn’t ruin the film, but it did make us question why that specific element might've been enough to get the book banned.

Cultural Context

One part of the discussion that hit close to home was about migration and cultural mindsets during the Depression. Jacob's story of traveling cross-country for work reflects a very American attitude of chasing opportunity. We compared that with how, in Canada, people generally don’t move provinces nearly as much, partly because of climate and geography.

The circus in Water for Elephants operates on razor-thin margins. It picks up and moves within a day or two, requiring hundreds of people to maintain operations. August’s cutthroat management style is framed as necessary for survival in such tough times, but it quickly becomes clear he’s also a violent narcissist who physically and emotionally abuses both Marlena and the animals.

The final twist of the story involves Rosie killing August during a chaotic night that leads to the downfall of the Benzini Brothers Circus. Marlena and Jacob escape, start a new life with Rosie, join the Ringling Brothers, and eventually settle down in Albany. Jacob becomes a vet, and they raise a family with Rosie by their side for decades.

The story is told in flashbacks by an elderly Jacob, now in a nursing home. He ends the story by joining a modern circus, wanting to return to a life that once gave him purpose.

So, Why Was It Banned?

We still don’t have an answer. Animal cruelty is depicted, sure, but as part of the plot, not glamorized. There’s a single implied steamy scene. Maybe it’s the adultery subplot? Maybe the violence? But plenty of books in school libraries touch on all of those. We’re left wondering if the ban is mor