The Ocean at the End of the Lane
discussion
How did you comprehend the ending?
message 1:
by
Salmaan
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jul 24, 2013 09:51AM
One of my favorites. However, the end left me somewhat unfulfilled.
reply
|
flag
I sort of took it to mean the magic of the Hempstocks tampered a bit with his memory. The way the Hempstock women explained it at the end made it seem like he had been drawn there many times before when life was rough, but he would have no memory of those visits or what happened to him there as a child - sort of like they wiped his memory clean. Of course, they never could wipe his memory completely from his mind since something always brought him back - maybe the shadow of a memory of the events from the "Ocean."
I think Christina gets it right, and I wonder just how close it is to Mr Gaiman. Everyone who knows him, himself included, has talked about how personal this one is, how it is his most 'autobiographical'. Which makes me wonder...The narrator is told, towards the end, just how many times he has visited the Hempstocks. Every time he has felt lost, alone, has suffered some personal tragedy (remember he ends up there after witnessing the death of the opal miner, and the scene in the living room, as well). Is this Neil himself? does he retreat to be with the magical, the mystical and the mythical whenever he finds the real world too real? Is his writing a way to deal with the things that have happened to him? There are a couple of stories he and his wife tell about how the book came to be, and both agree it was born out of a difficult time for the both of them. Maybe that's the real message of this book - the magic saved him, and he has been to the Hempstocks many times. But they are always there, and always ready to help him heal.
I think it's only autobiographical in the sense that it's EVERYONE'S story, Gaiman's included. This is a grand Myth in the finest sense of the word. It's an allegory about the journey of the soul through one human lifetime, how we face our demons, the demons of the mind: everything that causes fear and paralysis, helplessness and hopelessness, and how we call upon the deep inner wisdom of our soul (our soul self is classically feminine as opposed to the mind, which is classically masculine) to confront those demons and send them back where they came from so that we can continue our human journey. When our soul self has to sacrifice itself for the benefit of our human, physical life, then that is the meaning of the sacrifice of the Christ. Not getting all biblical on you; just putting it in one mythological perspective. The Christ consciousness, or, if you like, the Krishna consciousness, or Buddha consciousness, dwells within the heart, which is why the boy in the story kept referring to the sensation in his heart and how the hunger birds wanted what was there. The ocean is a classic symbol for the Great Mother, the great womb of creation we came from and to which we will return, and during the course of our life's journey we have many opportunities to return to that place of rejuvenation and refreshment during which times we re-member our selves. But we can't stay there because we have our life's journey to complete, so after those times of refreshment and recollection of our Whole Self, we return to life's journey and we necessarily forget that little vacation time with our soul self because we must. Otherwise we would never leave it, and like Lettie said, it would dismember you. Only "a little of you would exist everywhere, all spread out, no point of view any longer, because you'd be an infinite sequence of views and of points." Human life, with all its struggles and griefs and difficulties, is still a precious gift of individuality, of intense focus on "I"-ness, whereas the soul is vast and all-encompassing.
I like that, Ellen -- very cogent!
Thanks, Brenda. I love mythology and when I discover myths re-interpreted in modern form, I'm over-the-moon ecstatic. "Yes! This type of story-telling is eternal!" This is one juicy little novel. I just re-read it as a matter of fact, and just like any great myth or fable, deeper layers of meanings keep rising up, things I didn't grasp the first time. But that only goes to show how compressed the wisdom of the story itself really is. Books like this are meant to be savored and re-read at different stages of life.
Don't know that I have to give spoiler alert, given the thread title, but Did anyone catch the bit at the end where the narrator said to Old. Mrs. Hempstock something to the effect "I thought there were two of you?" Are Ginnie and Mrs. Hempstock the same person and wouldn't then Lettie, Ginnie and Mrs. Hempstock have been the same person at different stages of life? I'm not going to draw the allusory Trinity comparison, except to just mention it and leave it there.
Sure, Jerry, I think it's an allusion to the Triple Goddess symbol, and yeah, the Triple Goddess is really One, just aspects of the One in different guises or roles. Notice too, how his memory fades away as the women all coalesce into one? By the time he leaves the farm to return to his life he only recalls the illusory story, the one that will fit into a neatly packaged idea of normal life. I like to think, however, that his art will be enriched henceforth, though he won't know why of course, but when the veil is pulled back and we see Truth behind our notions of reality, we need to find ways to express that implicit knowing.
Maiden, mother and crone. They turn up in other Neil works.
That's interesting Christina. It did seem so unlikely as to be based on truth. I'm surprised he did not mention it in the acknowledgements section.
Aye. Where did you read that Christina?
Lian Kwee wrote: "Aye. Where did you read that Christina?"She said she attended a reading by Neil, so she heard him tell this.
Frankly, the ending of the book, like the rest of the book, was a very poor showing for Mr. Gaiman. I am always surprised by the glowing reviews for this novella posing as a fully developed novel. For example, Mr. Patrick's, it seems as if I read a different book. The editors of this book should have been given truth serum before advising Mr. Gaiman to release it. There is no character development or even a plot progression that is believable within the context of the book. I did not care about the characters nor have a sense of their motivations. They did not live for me on the page. I experienced this book as a series ideas and notes that Mr. Gaiman must have had lying in a junk drawer.
Now, I really wanted to like this book. In fact I absolutely looked forward to it like a dog waiting for a nightly meal. But sadly my bowl was empty.
I did care about the main character and identified with him because I found that Mr Gaiman had captured very effectively the fears, memories and illogical thoughts of childhood.The Hempstocks could have been developed a little more, but for me that would have defeated the object as you were reading from the narrator's point of view, and to him they were very mysterious. I didn't want to know more about their motivations or thoughts because they worked well as a canvas without depth (which being non human I assumed they were).
I loved every word, but hey ho, it's a good job we don't all think alike!
Ana, if you've read other books by Gaiman, you should have known the things you dislike would plague this one, too.
Ellen wrote: "I think it's only autobiographical in the sense that it's EVERYONE'S story, Gaiman's included. This is a grand Myth in the finest sense of the word. It's an allegory about the journey of the soul t..."Ellen, I think your review was absolutely perfect - you captured the very essence of this book for me.
Thank you!
Keshena wrote: "So much backlash on this book-it truly surprises me! I thought it was a beautiful meditation on childhood and the psyche."Thanks to those who enjoyed my comments.
Interesting, yes, Keshena, people seem to either love it or hate it, or at least express disappointment in it. My thoughts are that many take a too-literal view of the text. A grounding in mythology would help and subsequently learning to read deeply into literary and mythological allusions. This book requires that kind of depth for full enjoyment. A little Joseph Campbell perhaps?
There is one part I don't understand and maybe other readers can share their ideas about it: When the character tries to enter the beloved kitchen to return the cup and saucer, old Mrs. Hempstock prevents him from doing so. Any ideas why she prevented him from entering it when he was always welcomed inside as a small boy?
There's a considerable tradition in children's lit about becoming Too Old to do stuff. You can't go with Peter Pan to Neverland after you grow up; after a certain point Aslan refuses to let you come to Narnia any more. Maybe this is part of that?
Antonia wrote: "There is one part I don't understand and maybe other readers can share their ideas about it: When the character tries to enter the beloved kitchen to return the cup and saucer, old Mrs. Hempstock ..."Yes, I can see the Narnia influence. I think Gaiman has referenced CS Lewis' work in the past.
Brenda, I love your response to Antonia's question.
If you truly (and I mean TRULY) want to look at Gaiman's take on Narnia, he has written a highly-controversial short story about it, "The Problem of Susan." It is reprinted in his collection FRAGILE THINGS.The idea that you cannot return untouched from visiting the Hempstocks, that journeying to Narnia may damage you permanently — that however exciting the movies were or thrilling the novels, you really really do not want to do this! -- is the theme he's been working for some time.
That's very interesting, Brenda. I will have to pick up Fragile Things and look for that. There is a lot of suggestion in spiritual literature that you cannot visit too long in the realms of the gods because you cannot withstand it for long.
Ellen wrote: "That's very interesting, Brenda. I will have to pick up Fragile Things and look for that. There is a lot of suggestion in spiritual literature that you cannot visit too long in the realms of the ..."
Try this http://waa.ai/RwV
Brenda wrote: "If you truly (and I mean TRULY) want to look at Gaiman's take on Narnia, he has written a highly-controversial short story about it, "The Problem of Susan." It is reprinted in his collection FRAGIL..."Yes, "The Problem with Susan" is a great example of CS lewis' influence. Referencing "The Ocean...", once a child acquires secret knowledge of some kind, he is no longer part of the innocent world he once lived in. This has biblical tones of Adam and Eve, banished from Eden.
I thought the ending was perfect. Don't over-analyze it: magicalrealism works best when you take it as-is.One of the pleasures of good literature is seeing how the author "did it". As I got close to the end, I was wondering how in the world (or out of it?) Gaiman was going to wrap it up. I think he did a lovely job of it -- the protagonist lives in the "real" world, but the magic is still there, to be encountered face-to-face only at rare, exceptional times. Childhood, adulthood, middle age, old age -- each holds its own terrors, but also hope and beauty and comfort. (As a Christian, I have some pretty definite feelings about this!)
Was it "real"? Of course it was! That's the point of magical realism as a genre: suspend disbelief, enter the dream, accept the "what-if" of the magic.
Alternative endings: (1) it was clearly all a childhood dream or fantasy; (2) it was all "real" and the protagonist continues to live in the magcal world as he ages. I would have been disappointed with either of these alternatives.
I agree with you, Susan.
Ellen wrote: "I think it's only autobiographical in the sense that it's EVERYONE'S story, Gaiman's included. This is a grand Myth in the finest sense of the word. It's an allegory about the journey of the soul t..."Really liked your analysis. Spot on! Thanks for articulating what was in my head.
To the detractors - I have a bone to pick with you. As a child, from whom the protagonist's view is drawn, please tell me who has fully fleshed out thoughts about the other people, let alone adults, around them. IMHO, you really have to step outside of your adult perspective for some of this, for it to really touch you. For me, reading always brings out the child in me because much of my childhood was nose deep in novels.
I recently started reading Gaiman books. I really enjoyed The Grave Yard Book, much more than American Gods. It really did bring me back to my childhood. With this book it had the sense of wonder and style the Grave Yard Book had. I think for me what the narrator went through as a child was his way of making sense of the world. As somebody mentioned earlier, he went through a lot of trauma as a child, I can't imagine losing a beloved pet, let alone finding out that someone had killed themselves. I think the narrator lets his imagination run free as a way of suppressing all the traumatic events he had to deal with it.
I liked the ending. This is the First Gaiman book I've read and it kept my attention through the whole thing. For me the ending parallels regular life, in that no two people remember the same thing exactly the same way. It adds a bit of a mystery to our own consciousness and makes you think about whether our own reality coincides with other peoples perception of reality.
Very good point, Tasy. I like your way of thinking!
I loved this book. It was the first Gaiman read since Sandman I felt fully satisfied by in the same way. The ending leaves us with a question-- did all the fantastic events really happen and the Hempstocks are protecting the protagonist by limiting his memory, or are they just childhood daydreams? We're left wondering and, for me, that's the magic of the book. He doesn't spell it out. We have to think about it. I was reminded of all the misconceptions I carry from my childhood, only to be dispelled one day as I get older. The one that comes to mind is I always thought my Great Uncle had a glass eye like Sammy Davis, Jr. There was a point after he died when I asked my Mom if he was buried with it. It turns out, he never had a glass eye. Did he play a joke on me and my sister when we were young? Did my Mom make a joke about it? Did someone else? I have no idea. But for many years the idea of the glass eye was very real to me and my sister. It reminds me a lot of the things in this book. Like Gaiman's father keeping secret the suicide in the stolen car. We tell half-truths to young children to protect them and sometimes the half-truths grow into something we could never imagine and stay with them into adulthood.
EXCELLENT review!!!
I think Amy had it right, at least the way I understood it. Of course, many of you others had some of it "right" too ;)I read it this way: that he was drawn back, probably more often than he thought, to check on his friend subconsciously. She had affected him, greatly. And in their mercy, they removed his anxiety, for enough time that he could get on with his life. For a time ;)
I, too, have always loved mythologies of all cultures. Some of you would love to see the books I have in the Myths and Fairytales section of my library!
Some of these are, of course, old memes and have been used and reused over the millennia by storytellers, like Gaiman. Retelling them in terms the current population can understand is wonderful. Some tellings aren't so well done; some are. It's fun to read through the new works to find the gems of the original stories, is it not? :D
I've only just finished this book and mostly I liked it but the ending.... There was a line or two about his heart being plucked out and that he was dead. I thought that was why he didn't remember being there before, and that it was his spirit that kept returning. I was let down by the thought that Lettie quite possibly sacrificed her life for his when he'd died anyway but maybe I didn't read it right? It didn't seem to make sense that he'd blocked it out even after revisiting the place as an adult unless the Hempstock women were making it so he didn't remember in between visits.
I was reminded of the Silence creatures from Doctor Who--you see them and you remember and then you don't see them and you forget.
I finished this book several weeks ago and it has stayed with me, like most good books do. I think that if you like books that lead you from point A to point B in a linear way then Neil Gaiman books aren't for you. He creates a fantasy world and then allows you to come to your own conclusions. Your mind should be untethered by (ever evolving) reality and control must be ceded to enjoy this author's work. You have to let his books take you where they will without trying to put them in a neat little sensical box.
Brenda wrote: "There's a considerable tradition in children's lit about becoming Too Old to do stuff. You can't go with Peter Pan to Neverland after you grow up; after a certain point Aslan refuses to let you co..."My exact impression as well!
Leigh wrote: "I finished this book several weeks ago and it has stayed with me, like most good books do. I think that if you like books that lead you from point A to point B in a linear way then Neil Gaiman book..."I agree, and so many of his messages are implied rather than stated. It is more like dreaming along with the author than reading his words. Gaiman is effortless at this; I have read other authors that had me balking like a mule from the word go. I just couldn't follow their story or give any relevance to their words because they lacked skill in introducing their characters and plot. I resisted and the reading usually came to a grinding halt.
This was my first Gaiman novel and the writer/reader affinity was there from the very first page.
I really liked this book but there was alot that wasn't explained. It was never clear that his father was the one that died, so I was confused to who died until I read on this conversation that it was his father. The ending was majorly confusing and therefore it had no closure and now I'm continously thinking of what the mystery was. And I don't like a bad/unexplained ending.I have never read a book by this Author and probably should read more to understand his writing style.
Susan wrote: "I thought the ending was perfect. Don't over-analyze it: magicalrealism works best when you take it as-is.One of the pleasures of good literature is seeing how the author "did it". As I got close..."
I totally agree,too! "Don't over-analyze it"
I loved this book!
Just read this book - couldn't put it down. I loved it - and I don't normally read this genre. I agree - don't over-analyze it, just go on the adventure with the narrator.
fantastic book. I just really struggle with Lettie. I struggle with the idea that Old Mrs. Hempstock says it was the narrator's heart who was ripped out and died. I am not following this. any interpretations on what really happened between Lettie and the narrator at the end?
I think it's the opposite of what most of the people are saying. I think there are truths we accept when we are younger that we cannot handle once we grow up.
I think the author has this incredible talent with the way he sums up his writing. It always seems to have an open-ended element, which I love, because you can choose whether you want to read into the meaning and symbolism of his words or simply appreciate them. I always finish his books completely satisfied. Like a good vegetable soup, there may be strange ingredients, but nothing tastes out of place.
Miranda Mcclung wrote: "I think it's the opposite of what most of the people are saying. I think there are truths we accept when we are younger that we cannot handle once we grow up."God, yes. I've always looked at it like that, and I think that's where the memory thing comes into it. He has all these distorted memories and seems to only now be dwelling on what they might mean. It's about how children can accept what is plainly occurring, while adults can't get past all the suffering.
I agree with you, Lara, And I love your vegetable soup analogy.
Terry wrote: "I agree with you, Lara, And I love your vegetable soup analogy."I'M GLAD!
Diane wrote: "I've only just finished this book and mostly I liked it but the ending.... There was a line or two about his heart being plucked out and that he was dead. I thought that was why he didn't remember ..."The Hempstock's were able to manipulate things (certainly people's memories, and they were able to ensure the narrator's parents had a toothbrush on them) and the varmints are threatened with being removed from the list of created things altogether, so how I understood it they basically changed things retroactively - he died, then they changed it so Lettie tried to protect him, and though she didn't die she was badly hurt.
Brenda wrote: "There's a considerable tradition in children's lit about becoming Too Old to do stuff. You can't go with Peter Pan to Neverland after you grow up; after a certain point Aslan refuses to let you co..."It's not just Narnia or children's literature; Tolkien is rife with it: the closing of the Shire, the closing of Loth-lorien. Philip Pullman deals beautifully with this theme in The Golden Compass trilogy. Sean Russell's World Without End/Sea Without a Shore has a slightly different take on the reasons to close the paths to magic, but ultimately that same feeling of loss.
The explicit formal closures of the paths of magic found in fantasy echo that real-world realization that you can no longer be the 11 year old you once were, at least not entirely.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
