The writing is good and the wit is sharp but the story is so jumbled and hard to follow and the main character is pretty unlikable. Irving is a good writer though; definitely one of his early works (only his second novel). Worth the time but be prepared to get confused.

We don't deserve John Irving. Every book of his I read sends me into nostalgic tears where I'm left squeezing the book in gratitude when I'm done. This one took me a while to get into, the names were a little challenging: Trumper, Bogus, Thump-Thump, Couth, Colm, Biggie, Tulpen, etc. They were all similar and a little strange to keep straight, and with the varying POV, it just took some time. I felt much better about my own financial situation as a graduate student (chapter 8 letters to various companies regarding debts was absolutely brilliant) and just in general as a person who's also inside my head a lot.
My favorite moment: Trumper kissed his sleeping son goodnight. "I should have brought you a whale," he whispered.

Loved the ending. I might have to read Moby Dick after all this.

While definitely not his best, I can see a clear improvement from his first novel, Setting Free the Bears. Nonetheless, there's a huge leap from here to Garp, Hotel New Hampshire, or Owen Meany.

Hilarious. Unforgettable characters - each loveable and deeply, deeply flawed. Main character is Fred Trumper whose nickname is Bogus for his inability to tell the truth. No, I'm not making this up.

This is my third attempt to read a book that was so hard to get into that it took me more than 20 years to progress past page 34 (at which point I found the bookmark I'd left there on my second attempt).

Happily, this attempt was a success, mainly because I figured out (but not until page 105) that this book is supposed to be humorous! Once I realised that the story was written for laughs, rather than being a perverse attempt to utterly confuse the heck outta me, we got on 'like a house on fire' (a strange saying if you don't mind me saying).

From reading the bumpf, you get the idea that the hero of the story has a urinary problem - the 'water method' being his first favourite way of overcoming said problem. The rest of the book is about his marriages, relationship with his parents, his career, and boy does it sound dull when you put it like that.

The writing is still not so polished (his 2nd published novel) and this makes for a choppy, difficult read - but you can tell that once he gets his act together, he will be a truly tremendous writer. The plot is still kinda all over the place. The characters are at least more interesting than those in his first book and yet they still don't do many interesting things yet.

When reading this book, I got the feeling that it was set in the dark. There wasn't really enough description to shed light into the corners of the stage.

Just like the first book, I found the ending to be a good ending, even though the beginning was difficult and the middle was only good (for me) when I twigged about the humour.

I could do with reading it again from the beginning, but I won't; life is truly too short.

Second attempt to read a John Irving book ... maybe more successful than first ... but 90 pages of ... well, self-indulgent writing. Very American, white American, I'm sure it's very hip. According to 'The New Yorker' it's "Three of four times as funny as most novels." Seriously? 'New York Times' doesn't get out much, does it ... or had the previous books read by it all been published by Torquemada when he was editor-in-chief for the Inquisition?
Maybe mildly amusing in odd places, but characters and situations which have no relevance to me or my world.

This was a readaloud at our house. All the characters were so very weird but memorable. Irving just gets so wordy and carried away sometimes. Also this was an earlier work for whatever that's worth. Ready to move on to our next readaloud.

This is a story about a continuous graduate student that suffers from a congenital urinary tract issue that becomes a problem when he has sex. Hence the title, "water method man". He is on the verge of a second marriage that parallels in many ways his first marriage. What could go wrong? I did not find this book to be as funny as many did. and I suspect it has not aged well

John Irving's prose keeps a readers feet, bare and feeling the wind, while that same readers forehead is scraping against the soft needs of a noble fir. Perhaps only matched by Haruki Murakami, Irving keeps the reader feeling every bit of sadness, hurt, and joy. Somehow, they make us cry for more, even when it's painful. That's what it FEELS like to read a John Irving (or a Murakami Haruki) book. Poetry for the masses. Totally, worth, your, time. s.

Reading too many John Irving books in succession makes me appreciate him less, so I'd waited a couple of years since the last to crack this one, which was given by a friend. It was a light, refreshing tale, with some very funny moments and actually one of the most kind and human depictions of an unorthodox mixing of relationships that I've read. Especially given the year it was written.

I'm rating it four stars, same as The Cider House Rules, but I think the latter was a much more enjoyable read. Irving has a signature rambling-but-not-really-rambling style and I found that it was tighter and more cohesive in that book. The best of the three books I've read is of course The World According To Garp. That was life-changing to me.

With this book, I can see the makings of his style, and it was still worth reading, to understand how he developed his art. The rush towards his signature ending was a bit sudden, but the way he cut his story from past, very past and present was kind of like the movie that the main character had acted in, in the book. It isn't an straightforward to think of what the parallel is between the Old Low Norse thesis and the main character's life arc was, and I didn't really bother. I don't think it is as elegant as the other two books I've read anyway.

The hints of metafiction, with the main character apparently writing his own autobiography, gives hints of Garp also. I loved that. Historical signposting.

Anyway I'm rating it four stars because this book can't be compared to the other books I normally rate 3 stars. It's still superior.

Irvingin varhaistuotannon päähenkilö Fred Trumper on ehkä jonkinlainen hänen tulevien antisankari-hahmojensa hiomaton prototyyppi, lupaava, mutta ei kokonaisuutena ihan valmis. Irving on Vesimiehessä kyllä paikoin aivan hulvattoman hauska ja useimmiten tutun tarkkanäköinen elämän pieniin vääryyksiin liittyen, mutta aivan liian usein (ja pitkällisesti) minun makuuni rönsyilee kertakaikkisen sekaville sivupoluille. Ja Trumperin väitöskirjatyö muinaisnorjalaisesta runoelmasta saa ihan liikaa sivutilaa. "Kirja kirjan sisällä" -tekniikka on ihan ok, jos sisällöllä on selkeä relevanssi päätarinaan, mutta Irvingilla, jonka päähenkilöt ovat yleensä aina kirjailijoita tai tulossa sellaisiksi, on paha tapa sisällyttää teoksiinsa näiden henkilöiden hengentuotteita antaumuksellisesti ilman tällaista yhteyttä. Tai sitten minä en vain sellaista näe.
Ei todellakaan parasta Irvingiä, mutta kyllä tämänkin lukee.