The Ocean at the End of the Lane
question
Justify All The Hype To Me
Sampark
Dec 28, 2014 11:00PM
I recently picked up The Ocean At The End Of The Lane by Neil Gaiman and with all the hype surrounding it, I was certain of the fact that the book would not let me down. The book was not only a thorough disappointment in my opinion, but also one that I see unworthy of all the praise that it has garnered.
My biggest problem with the book? That it is too simple, and not in a good way. There are no underlying fears or motives of the characters. Moreover, there are no finer intricacies to the plot. It goes from A to B, and then from B to C in a very technical manner. The reader hardly has anything to look forward to and I was continuously asking myself what it was all leading to. I've read a lot of coming-of-age stories, and this is no where even close to a good one.
Initially, when all the protagonist could make out was that 'there were powers at play', the book ran along fine. But you shouldn't give a face to the forces. Seriously though, how do you expect me to fear someone made of rags? They can have limitless powers, but the writer also needs to give the evil force a soul of itself. I understand that she wants to give everyone money to make them happy, but what for? What is her larger motive?
My GoodReads rating for this book was a 2/5. I am not impressed and from now on, I will always think twice before picking up a Neil Gaiman book. There are so many problems this book has. Problems that could only have been sort out by taking the project back to the drawing board. The Ocean At The End Of The Lane is a fundamentally damned book. Yes! Good writing might have pulled it off, but even in that department, Neil fails terribly. It looks like he was dead-bored while writing this. It doesn't seem very well planned out. The only good thing about the book was that to some extent, the ending satisfied me and seemed to be a fitting conclusion to the tale and all the characters involved in it.
This is my opinion of the book. I did not like it. As a result, I call upon every fan of the book to explain to me what they liked so much about the book. I'd also like you all to tell me if the points I made about the book were valid or not. Have a good day everybody.
My biggest problem with the book? That it is too simple, and not in a good way. There are no underlying fears or motives of the characters. Moreover, there are no finer intricacies to the plot. It goes from A to B, and then from B to C in a very technical manner. The reader hardly has anything to look forward to and I was continuously asking myself what it was all leading to. I've read a lot of coming-of-age stories, and this is no where even close to a good one.
Initially, when all the protagonist could make out was that 'there were powers at play', the book ran along fine. But you shouldn't give a face to the forces. Seriously though, how do you expect me to fear someone made of rags? They can have limitless powers, but the writer also needs to give the evil force a soul of itself. I understand that she wants to give everyone money to make them happy, but what for? What is her larger motive?
My GoodReads rating for this book was a 2/5. I am not impressed and from now on, I will always think twice before picking up a Neil Gaiman book. There are so many problems this book has. Problems that could only have been sort out by taking the project back to the drawing board. The Ocean At The End Of The Lane is a fundamentally damned book. Yes! Good writing might have pulled it off, but even in that department, Neil fails terribly. It looks like he was dead-bored while writing this. It doesn't seem very well planned out. The only good thing about the book was that to some extent, the ending satisfied me and seemed to be a fitting conclusion to the tale and all the characters involved in it.
This is my opinion of the book. I did not like it. As a result, I call upon every fan of the book to explain to me what they liked so much about the book. I'd also like you all to tell me if the points I made about the book were valid or not. Have a good day everybody.
reply
flag
Sampark, I think perhaps you approached this book expecting a traditional literary novel. That implies (among other things) a certain kind of construction, with definable character motivations and a logical, linear plotline. Instead, what we have here is an exercise in non-linear myth-building, seen from a child's perspective and featuring deliberately archetypical characters. To expect something like this to conform to the classic coming-of-age model is like expecting "Guernica" to feature an anatomically correct horse. Of course, you're free to dislike it (we all have our individual tastes), but to call it a failure because of those things is to miss the point. It's not a coming-of-age story any more than it is a realistic portrait of actual events. It is, if you like, an extended Freudian metaphor, disguised as a fairy story.
View 1 comment
I just finished the book and I had a completely different understanding of it than you did. For me, the center of the book is a horrible act of violence. A father tries to kill his very young son. I am not sure why, the child doesn't understand why either, but he is trying to "excuse" it by imagining a lot of mythical forces that influence his father. The child eventually manages to forget about it and even have some connection with his father when he gets much older.
But the day of the book is a very special day. The father has died and his son attends the funeral and he suddenly remembers. He remembers not only the act of violence but also the excuses he made up back then. The evil force doesn't have clear motivation or a soul because it is not real, it is just part of the excuse. Maybe it is based on a babysitter he had back then, with whom the father had an affair. The child could live with blaming the violence on her instead of his own father. But he also transposes the violence in his mind so that another child ends up (kind of) dead.
At the end of the book, the protagonist decides to forget again, for his own peace of mind.
But the day of the book is a very special day. The father has died and his son attends the funeral and he suddenly remembers. He remembers not only the act of violence but also the excuses he made up back then. The evil force doesn't have clear motivation or a soul because it is not real, it is just part of the excuse. Maybe it is based on a babysitter he had back then, with whom the father had an affair. The child could live with blaming the violence on her instead of his own father. But he also transposes the violence in his mind so that another child ends up (kind of) dead.
At the end of the book, the protagonist decides to forget again, for his own peace of mind.
Well, I'm not going to try and convince someone who didn't like a book why it's good. I know that wouldn't work on me, so what's the point? Books are less subjective than, say, music, but still very subjective. If you didn't like it, you didn't like it.
I will say that personally, as a huge Gaiman fan who started with Sandman, didn't like Neverwhere, think people who don't read his short stories are missing some of his best work, and think that American Gods is overrated (more below), I was blown away by this.
It was absolutely his best novel since The Graveyard Book, which up until now had been my favorite, and I may actually like this one more. Just like Graveyard, it showcases how incredibly well he writes children, and how well he puts you in the mind of a child. The story felt truly magical in that way that's hard to pinpoint. It's the only book I've ever read that made me feel the same way a Hayao Miyazaki film does. It evoked true wonder, which is so very, very rare for me. There are many books that I love, many that make me think, many that make me marvel at how well put together and complex they are, but few that make me once again feel like a wide-eyed child full of wonder.
So many people seem to dislike this book because it doesn't explain itself. What makes the magic work? Explain this. Explain that. What genre is it? Etc. In my opinion, that's missing the point entirely and you'd probably be more comfortable with "hard magic" such as appears in Brandon Sanderson's books. If you can get away with using magic the way Gaiman uses it here, it's the only way to write magic that truly "feels" magical, and Gaiman is one of the few who can get away with it. He's done it many times before. He just ramps it up here, and it works wonders. It worked leagues better than Coraline did.
A lot of people say American Gods is his best novel, and while I do really like it, it didn't feel "magical" to me in the same way that Graveyard, Ocean, and Sandman do. It felt more...planned. Thought out. Researched. It felt safe. He took his obsession with popular mythology that he knew people already loved him for and that he was comfortable with and turned it into a con man story with an immigrant theme, and it worked well, but it rang hollower than many of his simpler tales. American Gods touched my mind. Ocean touched my heart. Gaiman is better at the latter than the former, and he most often touches the heart when he cuts things down to the basics; to the very fiber of story that lives in the deepest recesses of our soul. That's why he's so obsessed with mythology, because mythology does the exact same thing. What could be more basic than making you feel like a child again, with all the extremes that brings? Intense wonder; crippling, otherworldly fears, etc.
It was also his most personal book to date, taking things directly from his own life and offering not only the perspective of a child but of an aging man looking back on his childhood. As such it felt incredibly genuine and only added to the emotional impact of the story.
I will say that personally, as a huge Gaiman fan who started with Sandman, didn't like Neverwhere, think people who don't read his short stories are missing some of his best work, and think that American Gods is overrated (more below), I was blown away by this.
It was absolutely his best novel since The Graveyard Book, which up until now had been my favorite, and I may actually like this one more. Just like Graveyard, it showcases how incredibly well he writes children, and how well he puts you in the mind of a child. The story felt truly magical in that way that's hard to pinpoint. It's the only book I've ever read that made me feel the same way a Hayao Miyazaki film does. It evoked true wonder, which is so very, very rare for me. There are many books that I love, many that make me think, many that make me marvel at how well put together and complex they are, but few that make me once again feel like a wide-eyed child full of wonder.
So many people seem to dislike this book because it doesn't explain itself. What makes the magic work? Explain this. Explain that. What genre is it? Etc. In my opinion, that's missing the point entirely and you'd probably be more comfortable with "hard magic" such as appears in Brandon Sanderson's books. If you can get away with using magic the way Gaiman uses it here, it's the only way to write magic that truly "feels" magical, and Gaiman is one of the few who can get away with it. He's done it many times before. He just ramps it up here, and it works wonders. It worked leagues better than Coraline did.
A lot of people say American Gods is his best novel, and while I do really like it, it didn't feel "magical" to me in the same way that Graveyard, Ocean, and Sandman do. It felt more...planned. Thought out. Researched. It felt safe. He took his obsession with popular mythology that he knew people already loved him for and that he was comfortable with and turned it into a con man story with an immigrant theme, and it worked well, but it rang hollower than many of his simpler tales. American Gods touched my mind. Ocean touched my heart. Gaiman is better at the latter than the former, and he most often touches the heart when he cuts things down to the basics; to the very fiber of story that lives in the deepest recesses of our soul. That's why he's so obsessed with mythology, because mythology does the exact same thing. What could be more basic than making you feel like a child again, with all the extremes that brings? Intense wonder; crippling, otherworldly fears, etc.
It was also his most personal book to date, taking things directly from his own life and offering not only the perspective of a child but of an aging man looking back on his childhood. As such it felt incredibly genuine and only added to the emotional impact of the story.
It is amazing to me that this book has caused so much discord. I thought it was his best book to date. It is much deeper than you may think on the surface. It has all of the magic of Neil Gaiman, but is much more mature and somber than the rest of his work. I couldn't put it down and was shocked how fast it was over. What he does not do this time is explain everything and that seems to frustrate many.
I don't have to. I enjoyed it and you didn't. That's how books are.
loved the book. for a few hours it was a perfect place to be. brief, evocative and haunting
but that's my opinion of it.
i'd never bother trying to convince someone who hated it that it was good, but i certainly thought it was great
but that's my opinion of it.
i'd never bother trying to convince someone who hated it that it was good, but i certainly thought it was great
I liked it. I thought some of the descriptions were beautiful, especially around the Hempstock's farmhouse, and that it drew me into a child's reasoning about what was happening. It reminded me of Coraline in that. I'm sure it can be looked at on several different levels, and I'm going to be re-reading it.
I appreciate everyone's varying tastes as I have been known to LOVE a book that the majority hated, but occasionally I'm on the other side of the fence. I'm with you Sampark, and in the words of the great lyricist Flavor Flav, "Don't believe the hype"!
It sounds like you came at the book with a grudge because Gaiman is a popular author. For me, the strength of this story is that it's one of the few, in my experience, to portray boyhood accurately, with all of the fears and none of the rose-colored sentimentality most other authors see through. Honestly, I think your attitude is the real problem here.
I felt this this book is way deserving of the hype. It is one of the rare novels that had so much characterization, that it amazed me that it did not receive any more accolades. I liked it so much cause it was simple, there was not a lot going on; it was just memorable, magical and unforgettable.
I thought the writing was lyrical at times and the images facinating. I loved the fact that the "three" women were really just different incarnations of one and that they were ageless. The fact is that fear doesn't usually have a face. People fear more what they cannot see and do not understand. I hadn't read it as a coming of age story but as two stories one of which was finally understanding a period in time that took years to gain perspective on to appreciate the struggle through which the wisdom was gained. After reading The Ocean at the End of the Lane and picked up American Gods and again loved the mythical, lyrical and imaginative writing of Neil Gaiman.
I was also disappointed. It was an okay read, but the hype around it made me expect more.
I didn't like this book. I was expecting so much from it based on all the hype and how much people lived it. It blurred reality... So it is fantasy??? Magical realism?? What exactly???
Papaphilly
Maybe it is nothing more than a great read. Not everything must fit into a category. It is a shame that you didn't like the book, but not every book w
...more
I couldnt agree more with you. I had not heard anything of this book so when I picked it up, I had no expectations. It was just alright... The writing was beautiful, the descriptions were amazing and I think that is why I kept reading. The story itself was the problem... it was just too simple.
I agree with people who think that the novel is a bit slight and the plot rolls along in a fairly mechanical way, for all the excellent description etc. The one thing for me that lifts the book from being a not good book into being an OK book is the ending, where it seems to get adult and deep and sad in an interesting manner. To some extent that reminded me of the last chapter of Peter Pan and that might have been what Gaiman was aiming for, that bittersweet sadness at thoughts of having left childhood behind.
Gaiman seems to be a love him or hate him author, but I was glad I read this one. Can't say I "enjoyed" it in the traditional sense of how I enjoy books, I was glad I read it though. It stuck with me, still sticks today. I see it as rich folklore for adults - if the simple story or giant plot holes are what sticks out, you have missed the point. But folklore isn't for everyone, and I respect that.
This is a story about a Man, remembering being a child and how he as a child rationalized the difficult things that happened to him. Its about childhood, memory and imagination. But that is just how i see it.
Sampark wrote: "I recently picked up The Ocean At The End Of The Lane by Neil Gaiman and with all the hype surrounding it, I was certain of the fact that the book would not let me down. The book was not only a tho..."
Sam, I fully agree with your analysis. The hype, which I ignored, is wholly unjustified. I read it because I liked American Gods and the subtlety used in that story. This, unlike American Gods, failed to be subtle when the "powers" were unveiled. The mystery explained. The wonder quashed. The story morphed from uncanny horror into humdrum bedtime story. I felt cheated that the author refused to trust me as a reader to grasp subtle concepts, and decided to pander to a general audience with a lowered bar demographic.
Sam, I fully agree with your analysis. The hype, which I ignored, is wholly unjustified. I read it because I liked American Gods and the subtlety used in that story. This, unlike American Gods, failed to be subtle when the "powers" were unveiled. The mystery explained. The wonder quashed. The story morphed from uncanny horror into humdrum bedtime story. I felt cheated that the author refused to trust me as a reader to grasp subtle concepts, and decided to pander to a general audience with a lowered bar demographic.
I agree. The concept sounded good, but the book was weak in execution. I was so disappointed that I wrote a (rather long!) blog post about it:
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.blogsp...
http://mirabilis-yearofwonders.blogsp...
The price bothered me the most. I paid novel prices for what was essentially a very short story. Since it started out as a piece about his new wife I wonder how much of it is private jokes that only they get. Is she the Flea? Are the Hempstocks his former wife and children? Who knows? The book lacked substance and read like a rough draft. Definitely not his best and most likely his worst.
I disliked this book also that I will probably not pick up a Neil Gaiman book ever again. I was bored and failed to see the point of any of it, including like you said, the characters' motivations.
Could not agree more. Utter disappointment, despite of all the vibe around this book. In fact, one of the lecturers (!!!) at uni said that it was worth reading. I thought I missed the point when I finished it, but it's good to see some like-minded folk here :-)
If I ever meet Neil Gaiman, I swear I'm going to punch him in the face. No seriously. This book was amazingly disappointing. And is it me or does he LOVE to repeat endings in different books. Honestly, I wish I never wasted my time reading it. By the way I agree with you Licha. I doubt I will ever read a Neil Gaiman book again. I'd much rather punch one the next time I see it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
