The Ocean at the End of the Lane
discussion
Where did Mr. Gaiman go wrong in The Ocean at the End of the Lane
I hadn't thought of the funeral as his own but that makes sense. We never hear anything about the person who died and maybe that's why he suddenly remembers everything. One of the things that bothered me a little about this book was that it felt like things were being thrown in for imaginative effect. Once reality is suspended that much, anything can happen and that's ok but it just felt like all kinds of things were being thrown in.
Still, I enjoyed it overall because of that feeling of being a child again - with all the good and bad that goes along with it. If the main character had been less passive, I think some of that would have gone away. One of the overwhelming feelings of childhood is of not being in control.
I think personally the story was wonderful. You may say the execution was messy compared to his other works, but it's enough to make you cry. You may say the world was underdeveloped, but it's enough to make you wonder. You may say that his characters are shallow, but it's enough to remember how shallow you are as well. I think this book really captures humanity, rather than the escapism and idealism that fantasy and science fiction so often turns to. Even in dystopias and punk genres the protagonists are different somehow. Gaiman really took a step back into the human heart. And it's the first step, so of course it's not well placed, but it's an amazing one. I think the enjoyment of this novel is to be had in the subtle movements where it flits around the normal, rather than those great leaps which put you somewhere far away.
The way I read it, this could be a story that happened to any of us as children. I don't feel like the story/world was underdeveloped because deep down you remember what it was like for there to be monsters under the bed. You remember seeing adults behave in ways you didn't understand and how unsettling that was. This is the same world for me, at least. I thought the fantastical elements bled into the mundane just perfectly... it's kind of like when you're just dozing off and your thought patterns just start to drift into the bizarre without notice.
Amy wrote: "Ana wrote: "I am floored by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon to praise this book. Please, lets help Mr. Gaiman out. Lets give him ideas on ways, this pricey novella posing as a novel,..."I totally agree with your points!
I quite enjoyed the book because I felt a connection with the main character which is why I enjoyed it, though I agree the book could have been longer and more developed.
Though, I feel slightly offended to branded as someone who "jumped on the bandwagon". If I didn't enjoy a book I'm pretty sure I wouldn't give it a good rating to let others know of my opinion on the book.
Keshena wrote: "Awesome response! I abhor literary snobbishness."And I love a good snobbish romp with other bibliophiles!
James wrote: "You hated Stardust? Please elucidate. Ocean is probably his best novel yet.
Except for the authors preferred text of Neverwhere."
Absolutely not, in my opinion. American Gods is his masterwork.
Ocean went wrong at a number of turns. Opportunities for mystery, opportunities for strong social commentary or undercurrents of complexity - all missed. Every turn, I became less impressed.
I have realized that what bothers me about this thread is the title, with its assumption that Gaiman went wrong.He wrote exactly the book he meant to write, and if it isn't the book you wanted it to be, that's your problem.
There are some authors who churn out 1000-page volumes every few weeks, and I imagine they can "go wrong," but for most writers I don't think it's fair to say that the author has gone wrong if the book doesn't fit the expectations you brought to it.
I think Gaiman recognizes where it went wrong: he himself acknowledges at least twice that the story was a short story, which grew into a novel(la). He's conscious of that change and perhaps retrospectively rethinking it. I don't know his thoughts so I am just speculating. However, it seems that he was not 100% satisfied with the work.
Ana wrote: "Jessie, the first paragraph of your comment was spot on.And you are also right that"people are reading to much into something that's not there".Thanks again to everyone for such intelligent discu..."
I think it's a bit presumptuous to reach the conclusion that people are reading too much into it, simply because you didn't come away from the story with those feelings or insights. Everyone brings their own experiences and agendas to a book, and as such, everyone experiences the book in a unique way.
It also seems a bit presumptuous to assume that all of us were simply jumping on the Gaiman bandwagon. This is actually the first of his books I've read, and I found it mesmerizing on its own merits. Maybe, as others have alluded, the fact of reading his other works is the issue, if with that background, you have a certain expectation for what this work would be.
That may well be it. I had high expectations. I may not be able to extricate that from my analysis, but even still, I feel that Gene Wolfe is more to blame than Gaiman for my review. He's single-handedly ruined fiction for me by setting the bar somewhere in the upper atmosphere.
Wrong? When is any writer's work- their own creation as they placed it "wrong"? Art too- people do not like the same things. At all. So why the angry and argumentative replies for a difference of opinion? Too much protest.This was slick and completely a romp. It was not pretentious, as A. Gods was, IMHO. He wasn't the "so clever" boy making philosophical generality and worldwide pronouncements. It was the expectation of the audience that is off, as one poster says.
Why can't any artist in any genre write in different ways and on various roads? Failed!
Failed for you, not for me. At all.
In this time we have social commentary flooding our ears and our eyes until we are mere drones in response. Politico is savage and eats its young. And the enemy of individual thinking too, at that.
So every work like this that is a magical myth or simple morality play- it is a pure diamond.
Failed in execution? What a blanket statement. Mind-boggling that you believe it does not reflect upon your own reception of the work as a reader and take such offense at another opinion that it is wholly on the author's onus.
Failed in execution? Not for me.This was a slick romp. Not full of pretentious wit and so clever "knowledge" as A. Gods.
When is an artist's work failed in execution because he goes down a different path or tries a different format?
Love, love a magical myth, morality play a simple Adult FAIRY tale without all the b.s. trappings of social commentary and supposed arrogance of special insight. We have social commentary droned into our ears and eyes in most waking moments in this era. Terrible, terrible blah, blah, blah which has nearly stopped any individual thinking. True individuality at that, besides it has eaten our young alive to a sameness of acceptances that is horrific by any standards.
Failed in execution? Not for me.
People do not like the same books or tales. Writers do not have to write the same way forever. Strong dislikes expressed with such tone will get you negativity and hater category estimations in all eras, btw.
Disagreement in discussion really stops when you make such definitive remarks as "failure in his execution" when so many others differ in their response to that same execution. That changes the tone of the entire. So the point you make upon differences, it seems rather lost as you are the pot calling the kettle black.
Disagree, but allow others their enjoyment of the pure. In my opinion, this Ocean was his best and it was pure. It did not need the tawdry bling.
The only problem I had with the book is that it was too short. I wish there were more pages to enjoy. It seems like many people forget that this was supposed to be a short story and was later expanded because Neil enjoyed it so much. It keeps the elements of a short story like deus ex machina elements. But I don't think that Hempstocks rob the book of sense of danger. And how can a 7-year old boy be the great hero of this story? He is a tool through which the story is delivered. It would have been foolish to make him less scared or less vulnerable. I think protagonist is really well made, except that maybe he is a bit to intelligent for his age. But on the other hand, I really don't know how 7-year old kids think or speak, so maybe I am wrong.
I enjoyed this book, and I don't feel like I was blinded by his previous work. I think this book is way better than some short stories that were praised. If you didn't like it, don't insult people who did. It's worth reading. Let other people decide if they wil enjoy it or not.
We do know how 7 year olds think. We were all once 7. For the most part, those contributing negative reviews are not insulting fans of the book. They're criticizing a beloved author's work given their expectations and his previous output. It seems that those who favored this book are taking that criticism personally, even when the lion's share is directed at Gaiman and the book itself. Additionally, they should understand (again I reiterate) that many of the critics are passionate fans of his work. Just not this one.We could not reconcile the cardboard characters, the deus ex machinae, the overt foreshadowing. We felt that this story had strong potential but that potential was, to use Gaiman's own symbolism, in the end just a pond and not the Ocean it could have been. Someone wrote that it read like a first draft. I think that's a close criticism to describe the combination of elements that resulted in less admiring reviews. We wanted to like it. We wanted to get dragged under by its strong currents. We wanted to feel wonder and awe. But with very few exceptions (such as the foray into the cloth-thing's prison abode), we felt we were just splashing in a puddle and not being tossed in ocean currents. It was too simplistic, too easy, too childish. Yes, childish. The narrator is a child, but that does not mean the book need be told in such a limnal style. Consider David Mitchell's "BlackSwanGreen". Told by a kid, but decidedly deeper in content. The Ocean at the End of the Lane, instead, felt written for a lesser audience. Authors like Wolfe, who Gaiman adores, have confidence in the savviness of their readers. Neil has expressed this concept himself on several occasions. In his other books, he too puts faith in the reader's ability to discover the hidden tides beneath the story's surface, the symbolism and the subplots and the riddled meaning. Here, he does not, save very few but key elements in which mythological knowledge plays a small role.
Therefore in conclusion, if you enjoyed this book, then he has accomplished his goal for you and there is nothing to discuss. You're satisfied with it. For many of us, we are not, and we hope he believes in us more for his next story.
Kenneth wrote: "We do know how 7 year olds think. We were all once 7. For the most part, those contributing negative reviews are not insulting fans of the book...We could not reconcile the cardboard characters...It was too simplistic, too easy, too childish....felt written for a lesser audience...we hope he believes in us more for his next story. "I think it might be statements like the ones I've quoted that could make people take it as a personal criticism, since apparently liking the book implies enjoyment of cardboard characters, presented in a simplistic, childish manner, written for a lesser audience, not to the caliber of those who disliked it, who Gaiman has apparently underestimated in this work.
Obviously, those are not my views of this tale. I'm comfortable enough with my own view of personal preference of writing style and relative need for density on the page to see this as a matter of individual taste, but I can see how those kinds of views could be taken personally.
I think if people took that personally, then they should reevaluate the metric by which they judge their own character. It's not a popularity contest, and it's just one book of countless thousands upon thousands. My favorite book is constantly derided by critics. I don't take it personally. The criticism is not directed at me but the author, and it is indeed a matter of individual disagreement over stylistic preferences. The same is the case here. If all the reviews were positive or gingerly constructed on eggshells, there would be no point in review. Critique which is just "yes this is the best!" is not worth taking the time to write. There is good, and there is bad, always. One hopes to find more of the good than the bad in any piece of art.
Well sorry, I don't really have good memories of when I was 7.. :) I was speaking for myself, not for others. And of course criticism is not insulting anyone, but when someone says that we're blinded by Gaiman's previous work, just because we like it.. It's silly. I don't mind your opinion, you are here to express it..
Absolutely well said, Aislinn. You hit the point exactly. And some miss the entire attitude connotation in this, as well. They really do not seem to know that they consistently use condescending language. It isn't just about agreeing or disagreeing or liking the book or not, or evaluating "ones own metric" in this discussion or in discussion of any art. When people are talked down to- some will always take it personally. Sometimes knowing the most about the entire of anything, actually makes you the dumbest regarding a part of it. Sometimes first exposure is the surest. Sometimes the opposite is true in both cases.
Criticism when spoken or posted in a certain manner IS actually insulting. I disagree with Competine on that one. And sometimes it was not meant to be that way, but certainly seems insulting to me. And I was not insulted at all- but I see how many could be.
Some people just don't like criticism. I can't and won't apologize for that, nor my vocabulary. This is just the way I talk. I do not intend to condescend, and find there's also insult in the reception of this type of writing. I choose ti ignore it. There's more worthwhile topics to discuss - like the merits of particular books, comparing them to other books, and discovering new elements beneath the surface.
Kenneth wrote: "Some people just don't like criticism. I can't and won't apologize for that, nor my vocabulary. This is just the way I talk. I do not intend to condescend, and find there's also insult in the recep..."I don't think you have been insulting. I agree with the majority of your points and think they were well presented.
I did not approach this book "blinded by the light" of Mr. Gaiman's previous works. I decided to read it because I had read The Graveyard Book to my son and thoroughly enjoyed that so was looking forward to an adult book from Mr. Gaiman. I thought this was a lovely book, really good at capturing the way it feels to be a child. The story was wonderful too. I understand that it may not be the same as an epic like American Gods, which I have on my to-read list, but I thought it was a compelling story with interesting characters. He really pulls you into the story. I loved it!
I just posted my review of this book. Gave it two stars. I thought it was okay, but nothing we haven't seen before. Gaiman's previous works were better written and with far more relatable characters. I don't think he fully developed the concept behind his characters when he wrote this. I understand he was trying to write a short story at first and it gradually developed into a novel, but that's no excuse for what I just read. The story felt rushed and I was left with so many questions at the end. Also, that memory wipe ending at the finale...utterly clichéd.
Kenneth wrote: "Some people just don't like criticism. I can't and won't apologize for that, nor my vocabulary. This is just the way I talk. I do not intend to condescend, and find there's also insult in the recep..."Kenneth, I totally understand your comments and POV. And I happen to agree with you completely. I too have been the victim of, zealots who take comments which differ from their POV as personal insults. Hang in there, you have not been insulting.
Becky wrote: "Amy wrote: "Ana wrote: "I am floored by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon to praise this book. Please, lets help Mr. Gaiman out. Lets give him ideas on ways, this pricey novella posing..."Sorry Becky, I did not mean that comment as a put down.It was really written in jest.
Jeanette wrote: "Absolutely well said, Aislinn. You hit the point exactly. And some miss the entire attitude connotation in this, as well. They really do not seem to know that they consistently use condescending la..."This thread was started as a fun thought provoking exercise for people who may like to explore re-imagining elements of Mr. Gaiman's book. Nothing said in this discussion needs to be taken personally. It's really just an informal book group.
David wrote: "I just posted my review of this book. Gave it two stars. I thought it was okay, but nothing we haven't seen before. Gaiman's previous works were better written and with far more relatable character..."I have been thinking about the memory wipe ending too.
How to you think it would work if the main character goes home for the funeral, visits the Hempstocks and kinda steps back into that moment in time when he was a little boy. BUT- when he walks away retains a memory of his time with the hempstocks which like our childhood memories become fainter and fainter yet retains the favor of the event.
Aislinn wrote: "Ana wrote: "Jessie, the first paragraph of your comment was spot on.And you are also right that"people are reading to much into something that's not there".Thanks again to everyone for such intel..."
Aislinn I think it may be helpful to take a step back and just stick to a discussion of the book. You liked it and I did not. Both our positions are valid.
i love this book , the book was based on his childhood memories mixed with some of his creativeness .it was supposedly to be a novella but turn out to be a novel , showing his overflowing emotion ( am i being to exaggerated in here) so this work of him was all his own personal exp.
I really enjoyed this book. It moved me. And that for me is great writing.I will admit to feeling out of my depth at times (am currently reading American Gods and feel exactly the same way)but honestly it is one of those rare books that I just allowed myself to go with the flow, and relish in the sense of bewilderment. :)
Hey, all!I just finished reading this book. Like many others commenting on this thread, I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan. Neverwhere was the first book of his I read and it hooked me, Stardust is my favourite (though I wouldn't necessarily say it is the most well-written), and my least-favourite is probably Coraline (which I still enjoyed immensely). The Ocean at the End of the Lane might take Coraline's spot at the bottom-rung of my ladder-of-like but I still enjoyed it.
And I wanted to address the Hempstock Deus Ex Machina theory, argueing against it. I understand why it would feel like the Hempstocks felt a bit deux ex machina-y. I feel like it's an effect of the narrator's point of view. He's a child, and as a child in an unusual circumstance, he has a very narrow frame of reference. He sees what the Hempstocks can do and he doesn't go digging for the hows or the whys and he certainly isn't given much explanation. He gives the Hempstocks the kind of faith that as a child most people give to their parents. You know the dark in the closet is scary, you fear it terribly, but you know that your mom or dad can close the door and not be hurt, though if you were to try something awful would happen.
Why didn't Old Mrs. Hempstock just fix everything when it began to go wrong? It's clear that Old Mrs. Hempstock is more powerful than powerful, so why didn't she? When I read the Ocean at the End of the Lane, I took from the text a connection between the Hempstocks and fairy women (or the triple goddess, which I know is a thread running through a number of Gaiman's works). As fairy women or goddesses or Things Not Human, they would be bound by codes and rules in a way human characters are not. Since we get the story from the narrator's human boy perspective, it's not an aspect of them we get to see very closely. However, it's still there. Lettie took the boy to the orange-y sky place and because she did bad things happened, so it was hers to fix. No interference from Ginnie or Old Mrs. Hempstock. Lettie goes about trying to uproot the Flea from the boy's life, and then there's a snag that puts the boy in danger. She ups the ante, and at first that seems to take care of the problem - but no. And the creatures (cleaners) she called to take care of the Flea are too strong for her to deal with on her own, so she goes to get help. I think it's important to note that even though she gets her grandmother's help putting the ocean into the bucket in order to move the boy from the fairy ring to their farm (and safe ground), she is still the Hempstock who is running point on attempting to fix things. Why doesn't Old Mrs. Hempstock or even Ginnie Hempstock step in at this point? Because it is still Lettie's to do.
Some evidence for "convenient deux ex machina" seems to be Old Mrs. Hempstock's slumber after moving the ocean and her all-too perfect timing. I feel like this is addressed in the narrative, but once again because we're getting the information from the eyes of a seven year old, it feels less deliberate and more like "a thing that happened and now does not." She's described as needing a lie-down after moving the ocean because she's getting on in years. We saw what the ocean is through the boy's eyes, what an immense and raw and powerful and magical thing it is; we know that the Hempstocks came to this world by travelling over the ocean. Because of this, I didn't have any trouble imagining even a very powerful entity wanting a rest after manipulating the whole of it. When the Hempstocks talk about the need to wake up Old Mrs. Hempstock, they say that when she sleeps it's hard to wake her up. Sometimes it's for hours, sometimes it's for hundred of years. Ginnie admits that she doesn't know how to wake her. I feel like this magical sleep is a consequence of being whatever it is Old Mrs. Hempstock is. So why did she wake up when she woke up?
Because Lettie's death (or not-death) was hers to avenge.
Old Mrs. Hempstock quite literally calls the cleaners out for being greedy, for daring to rend something from her world (Lettie) which they were not allowed to do by whatever compacts or rules these Others abide by as a matter of course. Sure, go ahead, destroy our world - erase the fox - devour the Flea. That mattered, but wasn't an offense which Old Mrs. Hempstock was bound to respond to. The fact that they injured Lettie at all might even be why Old Mrs. Hempstock had the power she did over them. Their transgression gave her the right.
And I don't look at any of this as a deus ex machina move on Gaiman's part. I just think we don't see directly some of the story since we're seeing it from the boy's eyes. It's all there, but we're removed from it because we're in his tale, not the Hempstocks tale, and what they do isn't something he fully understands.
Would it have been a better book, something I loved more, if it was told from another angle? I don't know. I feel like the fact that we are in the boy's tale is very important. I would have liked to see more of his mother, more of his mother and father interacting, more of his mother and the Flea interacting, had a better grasp on the life he was living that way. I would have liked to see more of the Flea's influence, maybe see some of it begin to spread. I would have felt more firmly rooted in his story. That said, I rather liked the distant feeling of a lost memory recovered in a time of grief. When we're grieving, I think there can be something distancing-from-the-world about it - which is a perfect time to revisit the Ocean at the End of the Lane which can allow you to know everything but also to lose your 'I.'
And this response is way longer than I meant it to be (Ha, ha, longer than the book? I kid, I kid.) so I'll stop myself from babbling further now!
HJ wrote: "Here's the problem I had with the novel: The Hempstocks serve as a Deux Ex Machina that immediately robs the book of any real sense of danger. They are presented as so powerful that the current sta..."I felt that as well, that there was never really a true sense of danger because the Hempstocks were there, but I suppose that was the point, that to kids adults are always there, seemingly to clean up the messes made, and so being around one tends to make everything OK. Of course this is juxtaposed with Ursula Monkton and her manipulation of the protagonist's father. In all I found Coraline much more effective in portraying the disempowered empowered child, but then she is older than whatsisname. Whimsical is what we've come to expect from Gaiman, and while this is by no means a bad book, it just lacks that something that endeared Coraline and The Graveyard Book to me.
I don't think this novella was fatally flawed, but I felt the ending was far, far too neatly tied up. I missed the space that Gaiman used to leave his readers to draw their own conclusions in his earlier works.
My two cents, this was the first work of Gaiman's that I have read and I did enjoy it. Are there holes in the plot...yes. Should it have been longer? I don't think so. If it had, I think it would have risked becoming mundane. I felt the best part about it was the portrayal of how a child can miss things that an adult will grasp instantly, yet that same child has the capacity to understand things that no adult ever could. That was the magical part of this story for me.
Jess wrote: "And I wanted to address the Hempstock Deus Ex Machina theory, argueing against it.[...]
It's all there, but we're removed from it because we're in his tale, not the Hempstocks tale, and what they do isn't something he fully understands."
I want to applaud you for saying everything that I couldn't put into words.
On the deus ex machina point, yes certainly the fact that the protagonist's age has to be taken into account, he's a little kid in a big bad world made even bigger, badder and weirder by the trinity and their seemingly divine abilities transcending creation itself. It also puts up the comforting feminine three to counterpoint the 'evil' seduction of Ursula Monkton, but as some readers have noted, because we could mostly rely on the Hempstock's to 'save the day', it seemed to detract from the actual threat posed by the negative elements, the flea and the hunger birds. Yes it works because the main character is a child, and adults are either benevolent guardians or distrusted tyrants, with the maternal Ginnie Hempstock countering the 'Other' mother, Ursula, as she effectively is more relevant than the protagonists own mother, who along with his father are almost anonymous, which makes sense because when children develop reasons for disliking someone, it is relatively rare, I believe for their parents, as loving as they are to lend any credence to such accusations, and certainly 'my babysitter is a monster' will be dismissed out of hand as nonsensical, is cleverly ironic in this tale because she in fact is what he claims her to be.
I stopped caring about your opinion when you said you hated Stardust. There's no accounting for taste, I guess.
First of all I have to admit that I have not read all posts in this thread. But I dare to write I post anyway, since I do have a clear opinion where Neil Gaiman went wrong in this novel. I think it really should have ended when the hunger birds had devooured Ursula Monkton. The story after was really silly. I think a key is the fact that Neil Gaiman intented it to be a short story from start, and then had to extend it farther than the story could match.
Kenneth wrote: "I think if people took that personally, then they should reevaluate the metric by which they judge their own character..."Oh dear, Kenneth. Perhaps you might consider re-evaluating your approach here. It's absolutely fine that you didn't like the book. In fact it's a good thing. If we all liked the same things, what a dull place... blah, blah, blah...
Criticism of a book is fine. It's the way that you, Kenneth, choose criticise that grates. You may not mean to condescend, but you do so nevertheless. When you label those who like a book as being a "lesser audience" your criticism becomes personal to someone who likes the book. When you claim that the author has underestimated those of you who dislike the book, you imply that he has not underestimated those who found the book satisfying.
Your commentary therefore contains the clear implication: people who dislike this particular book = smarter, better, more discriminating. People who like this book = inferior, easily pleased.
It's hard to not take it personally.
Take your own advice, stick to discussing the relative merits of the book and avoid critiquing the audience.
All well and good, but you're taking those comments out of context as perhaps even I did myself: Gaiman has spoken about trusting the audience when discussing the writing of another author he admires. I'm just relaying his own sentiment here and expressing surprise he didn't apply it to this book.
Shannon wrote: "You seem to have fallen into the classic trap of criticizing a creative endeavor because it wasn't what you wanted it to be. The Ocean at the End of the Lane certainly wasn't American Gods, Anansi ..."Well Stated !
Kenneth wrote: "All well and good, but you're taking those comments out of context as perhaps even I did myself: Gaiman has spoken about trusting the audience when discussing the writing of another author he admir..."Could you please qualify this statement.
Dave wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "I think if people took that personally, then they should reevaluate the metric by which they judge their own character..."Oh dear, Kenneth. Perhaps you might consider re-evaluatin..."
Wholeheartedly agree.
Let me see if I can find the original source.
Joel wrote: "I've only started reading Gaiman this year (finished both American Gods and Ocean), and I don't understand what all the fuss is about him as an author. He incorporates some brilliant imagery into ..."I agree! I truly enjoyed Coraline and The Graveyard Book. I thought they had meaningful plots and themes, and I cared very much about the protagonists and their struggles. Not so in Ocean. I found I didn't really care at all about what happened to the boy. He didn't bring evil (or whatever Ursula was) into the world; he was merely a portal, as no doubt millions of others were/are. And if he had been destroyed or "eaten," it would have made no difference to the world (or to the plot, really). I did enjoy the Hempstocks and their actions (something like the witches in A Wrinkle in Time). And I kept envisioning Ursula as the evil octopus in The Little Mermaid.
I didn't dislike the book because I didn't "get" it; Gaiman just didn't make me care about his protagonist as much as I did about Coraline.
2. So the hunger birds, the so-called universal 'cleaners' can also just break the rules anytime they want and just decide to 'eat' reality?? Then what was stopping them from breaking the circle of stones that protected the protagonist? They're like unreliable vacuum cleaners that not only suck up dust but also break your furniture whenever they feel like it. Makes NO sense. Some careful plotting was needed here, but Gaiman fudged it."I'm just guessing... maybe because eventually the protagonist has the possibility to eventually get off the circle? That's just me anyway.
Brenda wrote: "Hmm. You want a professional assessment? If I had to put my finger on the flaw in the work, it is that the boy is not very proactive. In almost every situation he is the acted-upon, not the actor. ..."I guess the boy is not proactive because a story could be about anything? I mean does it make a story less if it revolves around anything that someone doesn't seem to like?
I suspect that the age and reading experience of the reader has a great deal to do with their reaction to Gaiman's book. I approached the book without expectations and found it a very moving, beautifully written book. It didn't "rock" me, or send me cringing into the corner, but I have never expected that from Gaiman. It is filled with brilliant irony and contrasts with our society. It seemed to me to be quite subversive in tone and sarcastic. I gave it a very good review. Just so you know, I've been around the block so many times that my feet have worn a groove in the sidewalk.
For what it's worth -- I bought The Ocean at the End of the Lane because the staff at our local bookstore often raved about it. I started reading it without knowing what it was about and without any previous experience of Gaiman's work. In other words, no expectations.Very soon in the story, I thought to myself, "Oh, this is a fairytale!" From that point on I just enjoyed the story and enjoyed it very much. As a parent, I particularly liked the boy's observations on childhood and adults. It was poignant and made me resolve to be more aware of the way I talk to my own children. I also like that I can hand this book to my teenage daughter without feeling like a bad influence. ;)
Richard wrote: "I suspect that the age and reading experience of the reader has a great deal to do with their reaction to Gaiman's book. I approached the book without expectations and found it a very moving, beaut..."Well said Richard. It doesn't have the same 'epic' quality that a few of his books do, but that's fine. Maybe it's best to think of it as a not-quite-come-of-age story. I found it very nice, like a warm blanket with glittery stars woven in.
It also had some interesting, new-to-me super-critters (including the Hempstocks, flea, varmints, and Ocean) that I enjoyed hearing about.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)
HJ, I agree completely with you on points 1 and 3. As for point 2, by the time I got to the hunger things, I was so bored, I just thought ho-hum. I was disappointed that he immediately learned that the Hempstocks were completely capable of solving every problem. There was no mystery to them at all; their powers were baldly stated. And, why did Lettie take the boy along at all? And it was not at all scary. A big flapping tent.
Usually the point of a child having fantasy or psychic adventures, is for him to learn something or achieve something, become a better or stronger person. But he personally does nothing, forgets all that happens and life appears to proceed as before, without even any subconscious realization. It was Letty's taking him with her that caused the Ursula problem to begin with. She should have sacrificed herself for him; it was her fault, and she should have known better.
I listened to the audio book which is read by Neil Gaiman, and I'm sure he read it as he meant it to be read. When Lettie is talking to the monster, he makes her sound absolutely bored. I pictured her as distractedly studying her fingernails while talking to it.
The only thing I got out of it at the very end was that memory is subjective and unreliable, which, of course, I already knew. But, it did get me wondering if some beings were messing around with my life and I didn't know it.
Oh, and I wondered if the funeral he was attending was his own.