Tildes Book Club discussion - Ocean at the End of the Lane by Neil Gaiman
This is the fifth of an ongoing series of book discussions here on Tildes. We are discussing Ocean at the End of the Lane. Our next book will be Small Gods by Terry Pratchett around the end of August.
I don't have a particular format in mind for this discussion, but I will post some prompts and questions as comments to get things started. You're not obligated to respond to them or vote on them though. So feel free to make your own top-level comment for whatever you wish to discuss, questions you have of others, or even just to post a review of the book you have written yourself.
For latecomers, don't worry if you didn't read the book in time for this Discussion topic. You can always join in once you finish it. Tildes Activity sort, and "Collapse old comments" feature should keep the topic going for as long as people are still replying.
And for anyone uninterested in this topic please use the Ignore Topic feature on this so it doesn't keep popping up in your Activity sort, since it's likely to keep doing that while I set this discussion up, and once people start joining in.
This is a book about a boy. Is this a book you would recommend to kids?
Very appropriate for older kids! It reminded me greatly of Coraline.
If one were judging strictly by plot, it would be a pretty typical kid's story: child from the mundane world meets a girl with magic powers. The two go to a fantasy setting to confront a monster, and then because of a mistake they have to confront a bigger monster. It looks like a sad ending until magic makes everything okay.
But I think the details are designed to trigger adults more than children. Money worries and obsession is handled in a way that rings true, even if exaggerated. Unhealthy scenes of coping with loneliness seem very adult.
I really enjoyed this book. I had a hard time putting my finger on why it moved me, given its standard fantasy plot. But there is definitely poetry in the details.
Does the fact that the boy was not named change how you experienced the story? Why might Gaiman have made that choice?
I didn't notice until you mentioned it! As far as I remember, the narrator doesn't name any of his family members either.
The novel raises the idea that nobody remembers the same events the same way. I think this writing technique reinforces the theme of subjectivity, and also enhances immersion. The narrator is not reporting an objective description of events; he is relating his personal memories, in the first person. In his own mind, he does not think of himself by name; he is 'me', his sister is 'my sister', and his parents are 'my parents'.
I also didn't notice until I read this question. I think the fact that he always uses first name last name for the Hempstocks and Ursula Moncton but never refers to his own family by name serves to emphasize the unreality of our world versus the world or worlds that are inhabited by the Hempstocks and the thing that became named Ursula Moncton.
Holy crap. I only just now realized we never learned the main characters name too. WTF? It's seems like such an important component part of so many other books that I have no idea how I failed to notice it was missing from this one. You would think the lack of mentioning a name would stand out while reading it, but it weirdly didn't (at least for me).
As for your second question, I like both @Idalium and @first-must-burn's ideas as to why. But I also think Gaiman might have kept the main character's name from being mentioned to make them even more representative of an every
manboy for the readers. It's also probably easier to imagine yourself as the main character if they don't have a name that is totally different from yours. Although were I the author I might have even considered making the character's gender totally unstated/ambiguous too, to make them more relatable for every gender of reader! :)It's made clear at the end of the book that his existence is a kind of construction templated off of the boy he remembers being. A very good simalcrum, but a copy nonetheless. Perhaps he doesn't dwell much on his name because it's not his name, but that of the person he's supposed to be. It's never clear to whom the narrator is narrating this story. Rather he is experiencing a very transient remeniscence that he will soon forget. In this context, where he isn't the person he remembers being and he won't retain the memory of the time he remembered being someone else, the lack of the memory of the name of the boy he was seems a propos.
What do the prologue and epilogue in the main characters adult persona contribute to the story? How would the book change without them?
I read this book as a non-spec-fic novel framing a portrayal of the MC's childhood games with a friend as if they were reality. The speculative memory changes are a framing device for traumatic memory repression of his abuse by the nanny, and the entire novel is framing with additional memory loss from dementia. He recalls a childhood friend when returning to the location, but he misremembers play adventures as reality.
I think the same thing could maybe have worked without the framing device, but it wouldn't have been as solid a metaphor for me
Interesting! I didn't read it as a portrayal of false/repressed memories covering up the main character's abuse and traumatic childhood. I took it entirely at face value, as a piece of pure fantasy about his encounter with actual supernatural beings, and magical places. In retrospect, I can definitely see how the story could be interpreted as you did... but since every other bit of content I've consumed from Gaiman in the past has been pure fantasy (Sandman, American Gods, Good Omens, etc) that's how I read this as well, without even considering any alternatives until I read your comment.
I didn't either but it is an interesting theory.
For me it read as fantasy.
This reminds me of Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five, where the SF elements in the story are clearly products of the main character’s deranged mind. 
If you (or anyone else in this thread) like alternate portrayal of speculative elements, I highly recommend Elder Race by Adrian Tchaikovsky! The entire novella is an exploration of framing events through different lenses
Given how Gaiman chose to structure the book, they are vital. In my opinion, they legitimize the fantasy in the story itself. Without them, it's a lot easier to frame the book's fantasy elements as some sort of coping mechanism from the MC. But within the epilogue especially, there is a heavy dose of dramatic irony as we actively see the MC start to re-remember the magic of the Hempstocks and their land as he talks with Mrs. Hempstock and old Mrs. Hempstock, and then slowly forgetting the magic right before our eyes as he leaves their land, finally ending his conversation by asking Mrs. Hempstock to please wish Lettie well in Australia. Gaiman choosing to include such a direct wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the audience solidifies the fantasy elements as face-value in my eyes, while still allowing us as the readers to apply our own lived experiences with nostalgia and perspective (see my other comment in this discussion) to an otherwise fantastical story.
What do you think about how the author shows loneliness and how being isolated functions in the story?
Loneliness and solitude are highlighted in the context of danger, but not as a uniformily dangerous condition. Several times, the boy seeks solitude as a way to ensure his own safety. This comfort with loneliness is an asset when he is abandoned in the fairy ring. But his isolation (and that of his family) also allows the child-minder (great word!) to take advantage of them.
Interesting that the key event in the book pertains to his decision to let go of Lettie when they first encounter the monster.
What are your thoughts about Lettie and her mother and grandmother?
They were my favorite characters. I would love to read another book, series, or anthology focused on them. They hinted at having so many other adventures throughout history, so reading those stories fleshed out would be fun. I want to know what happened during Cromwell's time! :P
p.s. As a huge fan of medieval history, I also loved them mentioning their farm being in the Domesday book.
I particularly loved how much mystery was left surrounding them. I enjoyed that there wasn’t a need to describe every last mechanic in detail as was the case in Project Hail Mary. We never truly learned what or who the Hempstocks are or if they’re actually related in any way.
The readers were also only just barely given enough information on their abilities to follow the plot and even then I was left with a lot of haziness.
That lack of detail adds another layer of depth to the memory-based retelling. The unnamed main character is recalling these events with vivid detail, but the basic facts about what happened are still in question. He didn’t even remember visiting previously, having apparently had those memories snipped. Who is to say this retelling was anything more than a fairy tale told to him through Ginnie’s abilities?
What are your thoughts about the pond/ocean and how it is used?
The book read strictly as fantasy for me, though I can understand several other folks seeing it through the lens of a child's make-believe world. That said, I couldn't help but draw an analogy to ideas like nostalgia, and seeing the world through a child's eyes. It's an interesting parallel to look at Lettie's ocean as if you're an adult returning to your childhood haunts and realizing, "Wow, I always thought this pond was so huge! I never realized how small it was," but at the same time, have this fantasy thread of the pond quite literally being an enchanted ocean across which the Hempstocks traveled to reach the human world.
Another moment where this really hit home for me was when the narrator returned to the Hempstock home and saw Mrs. Hempstock again, realizing that he was considerably older than her at this point, and seeing her as a comely woman in her mid-30s instead of as a thoroughly "adult" figure who was large and "motherly." As a person expecting my first child, I'm making the exact same comparisons to my parents when they were my age. When my mom was my age now (33), she already had a 10-year-old and an 8-year-old. But of course, when I was 10 years old, I remember my mom as being such an adult. She was already so old to me. And now when I look at pictures of my early- & mid-20s parents when they first had me, I think, "Look at those cute little youngins!" The perspective shift is almost fantastical, and Gaiman simply amplified that feeling through real magic in the story.
At the outset of the story when you met the main character, did you believe that he would be a hero? What do you think about the role he plays in the story?
Would I believe that the main character would be the hero of the story? Not really, he acted like any other 7 year old (or really any one that is not the Hempstocks) would have acted, i.e. scared about the situation that he had found himself in because of the unknown things that he was experiencing. But he was the catalyst for the story and the events in said story. Like he had acknowledge, without him Ursula would not have gotten out of that place that Lettie had tried to tied her to and Lettie wouldn't have to sacrifice herself to save him from the Pests.
What do you think about the cosmic worldbuilding, the fantasy context for this adventure in our world?
The fantastical elements were the plausible ones in the book. The elements that didn't work, or rather references, were the ones that were not fantastical. What was the throw away reference to dark matter doing in there? Was the way back a wormhole? Perhaps an Einstein-Rosen Bridge of MCU fame? For me, I would swallow the wildest fairy tales without hesitation, but if we are talking black holes and WIMPs, then I'm going to have a tough time suspending my disbelief.
I didn't love this book. I never really became invested in the characters, but appreciated the descriptive writing that brought the story to life. Ex. "The coal shed smelled of damp and blackness, and of old crushed forests." What a lovely sentence!
Thanks for putting in the effort to finish and share your thoughts.
Also, I wanted to thank you for the negative review. I was reluctant to post criticisms of other books and am glad you were more courageous.
I really enjoyed this story.
There's something about the author's writing style (and, in the audiobook, his voice) that makes every moment of the novel, from the first to the last sentence, engrossing. It reminds me of Stephen King's writing in some ways. The opening scenes of the novel describe mundane events; nothing overtly supernatural or fantastical has yet happened, and we don't know much about the world or characters; but it already feels enchanting. What tricks of phrasing does the writer use to elicit this kind of reaction in the reader's brain? It is difficult to quantify. I think, by structuring the writing along the lines of the main character's thought processes, the writer engenders the reader's empathy with that character, and immersion into their mind. For example, the narrator gives vivid descriptions of objects and locations, focusing on details such as the colour of bricks on a house. The narrator then describes his internal response to what he sees, and the subsequent train of thought.
I thought this supernatural elements of this book were handled well. Enough is explained (or implied) to be satisfying for this story, but enough is left to our imagination for preserve the magic. The stakes of the story are also handled well. The villain feels evil and dangerous, particularly from the child-narrator's perspective. We know the main character will survive until the 'present', but there is still a sense of threat; he can still suffer trauma and loss.
I liked the contrast of childhood versus adulthood, and the exploration of how a person's perspective changes with time. It's reflected in the writing itself; the narrator thinks like an adult in the present story, and like a child in the past story, yet feels like the 'same person' throughout. At times the story felt like a (dark) fairy-tale; there are grown-up themes, but I think children would enjoy it.
What books or stories does this book remind you of? What do you think about how Gaiman works with mythic and fairy tale themes and tropes?
Not sure if this is just because I read it recently, but some earlier parts reminded me of Piranesi. The main perspective is a child's but the descriptions of this thoughts felt a little too mature and zen for his age.
Otherwise it felt a lot like Coraline, especially Ursula's character. Weird scary lady from "somewhere else" threatening a kid with things children might be scared of and all that. Old neighbors who seem to know "things" for some unexplained reason. I think I liked Coraline better than this book, but I wonder if it would be the other way around if I'd read Ocean first instead.
I think overall the book was successful at making me feel nostalgia (or perhaps some feeling of loss) for times I never had.
The feel of this prose reminded me of T. Kingfisher's The Hollow Place with the way the main character is just bopping along, then discovers something entirely alien and pretty terrifying lurking behind the world.
This novel reminds me SO MUCH of Atonement - the writing style of getting a child's inner monologue about the world was a big part, and also
Atonement spoilers
At the end of the novel we get the narrator as an older adult with dementia issues, and in both cases we get the loss of memory giving the MC a happy ending - although in Atonement it's through natural causes with dementia making her forget her crimes as a kid, and in Ocean it's via magical means of the MC being given alternative memories.The MC also makes a bad decision as a kid that ultimately causes someone's death, although the circumstances are pretty different. Likewise, in Atonement, we have the adults believing a kid's lie (about the rape), and in Ocean we have the adults disbelieving a kid's truth (about the nanny).
If you liked Ocean, I highly recommend Atonement, I enjoyed Atonement a lot
Frederick Backman My Grandmother asked me to tell you she's sorry, is also an adult book told in a child's voice. I really enjoyed it.
Thanks! Added it to my (albeit infinite) TBR
Gaiman credits Stephen King at the end of the book, and the worldbuilding part reads like a dead ringer for Lisey's Story. The "Place" where the fleas live seems very reminiscent of Boo'ya Moon. The way the Hempstock's farm has a full moon all the time is not unlike the tree in Boo'ya moon, where it is usually sunset. Skarthatch seems very similar to the Long Boy in many respects. The role of the lake in Lisey's Story has a similar prominence to that of the eponymous Ocean, albeit a different place in the hierarchy.
The role of memory in both books is explored, both Lisey's memories of memories and Scott's memories of traumatic boyhood incidents. I could almost believe that Gaiman is writing Ocean to subsume Lisey's Story, as though asking, "If that were possible, what else could be possible?"
What do you think about Ursula as a monster?
Ursula? Who's... oh wait, Ursulamonkton, always with the last name! Such an evil stepmother type! Being referred to with both her names made her seem more singular and somewhat dehumanized.
I also like what I presume was her "true" name, Skarthatch of the Keep, which has an almost FromSoft-esque feeling of mythic implications without really telling you anything.
On your personal scale, how creepy or ominous or frightening was this book for you?
I recently finished reading all of Primaterre, a cosmic horror/s vs humanity, military scifi series which featured plenty of truly truly disturbing scenes all throughout... so by comparison Ocean at the End of the Lane was a cakewalk.
However, OatEotL was also surprisingly cosmic horror-ey too, which isn't what I was expecting going into it. Yet despite the story being not nearly as outright horrific/disturbing as Primaterre, the bathtub drowning scene, in particular, actually was pretty horrific/disturbing. And Gaiman still managed to thoroughly draw me into that world, get me invested in the characters, and worried about the stakes involved.
So on a personal scale, it was pretty tame in comparison to the grimdark scifi/fantasy I typically read (e.g. Warhammer 40k, Malazan, etc.). It kinda reminded me of a Brothers Grimm fairy tale, which I used to love reading as kid. So, to answer another of your questions, I think this book is definitely kid appropriate. Although it may give them nightmares, like Brothers Grimm used to give me. ;)
Given the recent Neil Gaiman accusations, it felt pretty dark to me. I feel very uncomfortable reading about any sort of child abuse in fiction, e.g. the 2nd Cemeteries of Amalo book (spinoffs of Goblin Emperor) was very difficult for me to get through, as was the 2nd-to-most-recent Wayward Children novella. So I don't think this would ever have been a comfortable read for me, but given the allegations it was pretty upsetting to read.
Did you notice how food is used in the story? What did you think?
I happened to be cutting some carrots while listening to the audiobook, where the narrator enjoys some glorious roasted carrots at Lettie’s house. I’d never had roasted carrots! So I tossed a few in the oven and they were quite tasty.
Roast every kind of vegetable is so good! Especially if they get nice and caramelized with a healthy dose of char on them too. I don't understand how anyone eats boiled veg (except potatoes for mashing). Yuck! :P
I make a big tray of roast veg (usually a random mix of carrots, onions, mushrooms, broccoli or cauliflower, bell peppers, buttnernut squash, zucchini, and/or sweet potatoes) pretty much every month. They're delicious on their own, but also make for a great addition to broth to add depth to it. So I always keep small baggies of the leftovers in the freezer for whenever I make soup. :)
How do time and memory contribute to the story? Does this aspect of the book relate to your life experience?
Ping @maximum_bake, @RheingoldRiver, @carsonc, @kwyjibo, @syllo, @kfwyre, @PnkNBlck71817, @rosco, @first-must-burn, @CannibalisticApple, @public, @DefinitelyNotAFae, @lackofaname, @Melvincible, @slothywaffle, @0d_billie, @Bifrost51, @skybrian @Sodliddesu @kfwyre @azaadi @fraughtGYRE @Nsutdwa @PnkNBlck71817 @chocobean @lackofaname @RheingoldRiver @OnlyGhosts @csos95 @Wes @CannibalisticApple @cfabbro, @georgeboff @Everdoor @PnkNBlck71817 @Palimpsest @CrazyProfessor02 @maevens @cdb @OceanBreezy @joshs @public @carsonc @Schnupfenheld @Captain_calico @hexagonsun @CharlieBeans @pu1pfriction @Lonan @DialecticCake @kej @LazarWolf @eyechoirs @Thales @syllo @Idalium
@Rudism @crespyl @rsl12 @thermopesos @archevel
@Shevanel , @Weldawadyathink,@blivet ,@syllo, @lhamil64,
I don’t remember subscribing to this or anything, I think I may have left a comment on an earlier book discussion on a book I had already read in the past, but I am generally not participating in these. Could I be taken off the ping list, please?
Absolutely
Replying to clear notification