The Ocean at the End of the Lane, by Neil Gaiman

[sophia_sol]

I am reminded that there is a difference between finding a book compelling and actually LIKING it. The whole thing feels extremely Gaiman to me, in a way I can't quite put my finger on. And Gaiman tends as a whole to just not quite work for me. Oh, he's certainly a talented writer, but I just can't love the guy's books the way so many people do. And I don't hate them either, as many other people apparently do. He's just kind of eternally in a place of "I see what you're doing but ehhhh."

(I did genuinely like both Graveyard Book and Anansi Boys. But I think I can never reread Anansi Boys because embarrassment squick, which puts Graveyard Book as the sole true outlier. But I keep reading Gaiman books anyway! I guess there always feels like a chance that THIS time his writing will work for me.)

My biggest problem with this book, I think, is that the nameless protagonist/viewpoint character is just so bland and presenceless. The Hempstocks are fascinating, I am interested in the worldbuilding, there's some nice imagery, and there's nothing wrong with Gaiman's prose. But the main character had no actual character. And when you have such a complete lack of any kind of actual feelings about the main character of a book, it rather causes problems with one's enjoyment of the book. The feelings about the main character don't even have to be positive! There should just BE SOME. He seemed to me like a nonentity, there only to move the plot along.

A lot of characters in this book felt one-dimensional, actually. The rest of the protagonist's family for sure, and Ursula Monkton definitely. (I also didn't care about Ursula Monkton as the antagonist. The type of being she is as a larger worldbuilding thing, sure. Her in particular, not at all.) Even with the Hempstocks you only see hints of their complexities, possibly in part because you only see them from the POV of such a remarkably boring dude.

Anyways in conclusion I would read a book all about the Hempstocks in a heartbeat but probably not if Gaiman was writing it because I just can't care about his priorities, apparently.

Comments

[sholio]

I skipped the part under the cut since I haven't read the book, but the way you describe your relationship to Gaiman's books -- YES. ME. EXACTLY. I really enjoyed some of them, but in general they leave me cold in a very puzzling way, like -- this is full of creative ideas, many of which are very much my thing, and I should be liking it, but I just ... don't? I have really liked a couple of his books, really didn't like a couple, and was "meh" on most. Overall I don't like or hate the guy, he's just kind of ... an author somewhere in the giant pack of authors, for me.

[china_shop]

I'm grateful for this review, because I too am a Gaiman agnostic (and I didn't even like The Graveyard Book, because the gratuitous mindwipe of a female character at the end filled me with fiery rage and retrospectively ruined the whole thing), and my partner loved TOatEotL and has been reccing it to me for some time. Now I think I'll continue to pass -- not out of a belief I'll hate it, but just because life is short and my Kindle is full. :-)

ETA: Maybe I should try Anansi Boys, though...

[skygiants]

I know, intellectually, that at one point I cared about Gaiman's stuff, but the most recent time I tried to read a Gaiman thing it just ... filled me with a vague sense of apathy. It was weird! Where did that caring go?

[michelel72]

Oh, me too! "Sandman" was *huge* when I was in college, though I only ever saw snippets of it at the time, but I just received the message that Gaiman was a Master. And then I read "American Gods" and ... didn't care. And then I read "Graveyard Book" and ... very didn't care. Intense apathy is such a bizarre experience!