What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson is about the death and afterlife of Chris Nielson, a writer, husband, and father. Chris is killed in an automobile accident and whisked away to what many would refer to as "heaven." What I DID like about the book is the in-depth research that went into creating an afterlife that could reconcile many beliefs about an afterlife into one place. I felt that was ingenious and was impressed at how Matheson coalesced all of these concepts into one reality, "if you want it to be a reality." I started to envision my own piece of heaven and how I might construct my paradisaical realms. It was an interesting thought to explore. Of course, where there is a heaven, there is also a hell, and Chris, through his unbreakable connection with his grieving wife, can not only feel her suffering, but has the lingering impression that something is wrong. It's when Albert, his guardian angel, tells him that his wife, Ann, has committed suicide and now must remain in a limbonic hell for the 24 years she was supposed to continue living, that Chris decides to descend to this lower level and seek her out. I struggled with the logic of this to an extent. If time is not "time" in this heavenly realm, and if Chris risks not only losing himself but prolonging their separation by descending to this lower level, I wonder why he couldn't wait the 24 years when Ann would be allowed to join him once again. Yes, I understand the grief that she will have to suffer for those 24 years, but Albert explains that that is the key to her ultimate progression. That to learn the lessons that are sometimes the hardest to learn, and to make recompense for the poor decisions we've made, the road back is less than ideal. How else do we learn from past mistakes if not by facing the consequences of those choices and accepting that by choosing how we did, we also chose the outcome. This 24 years was meant to help Ann recognize and progress to the level where Chris ended up.
In many respects, the movie made more sense to me than the book. This is one such instance. In the movie, Chris (Robin Williams) is told that Ann will be in this limbonic self-imposed hell for eternity and THAT seems a more tragic and disheartening scenario than risking longer separation for having to wait only 24 years. 24 years compared with eternity puts it in better perspective for me, at any rate. At least, it adds greater justification and urgency to Chris's decision to "save" his wife from hell i.e. from her decision to commit suicide and the consequences of that choice.
I also really struggled with the character of Ann in the book and this is where my personal bias may come into play. In the novel, Ann is constantly painted as very weak of character, child-like, naive, extremely co-dependent, and incapable. This bothered me a lot. I like strong women characters and/or women who have some independence and inner strength that helps them cope with life. Don't misunderstand me. We all have flaws, weaknesses, tragedies, and vulnerabilities that we struggle to cope with, but Ann didn't seem to cope at all, rather, to merely survive. And even in the end, she couldn't do that. She had lost her husband and throughout the novel, Matheson attempts to take this already incomprehensible grief and magnify it through Ann's inability to live as a whole person without her husband present. Passing these two off as "soul-mates" was not justification enough for me for Ann to take her own life when she still had 4 children and other family alive who were also grieving and struggling. I would never attempt to diminish the incredible loss and grief that would overcome someone if their spouse passed away so quickly; particularly if, like Ann, you didn't believe in an afterlife. But it seems that her response to Chris's passing was typical of her characters inability to have some perspective, pull up her big girl panties, and face life as it is; good and bad. I found her character incredibly weak-willed and it frustrated me how Chris always referred to her as a little girl constantly in need of saving. I felt that she made her self a greater victim than she actually was. There are scenario's that are thrust upon her that she cannot control - but through her pessimism, childishness, and extreme co-dependency, I felt she overly victimized herself and for me, made her a very frustrating character and difficult for me to want Chris to "save." Her stubbornness and pessimism also blinded her to belief that there was life after death and she refused to allow the consideration to even exist. Many times, when faced with the death of someone close to us, it opens the door to greater possibilities. For Ann, she chose to remain blind and therefore, encompass herself in a shroud of "wo is me." I found her very self-centered in many respects.
In the movie version, however, Ann's grief at Chris's passing is compounded by the loss of their only 2 children (vs. 4 in the book) not 4 years earlier. Now THIS sort of trauma, for me, brings Ann's suffering to a level I feel justifies it being "unbearable" to the point of considering death. She literally lost everything within 5 short years and regardless of your feelings about suicide, can understand her excruciating grief and desire to remove it from herself even by desperate measures such as suicide. In this I don't justify the act of suicide nor do I attempt to pass judgement on those who choose that path. That is not for any of us to decide; however, what I'm saying is that the Ann in the movie couldn't be blamed for languishing in that sorrowful darkness and wanting it to end. Thus, this made Chris's quest more acceptable and made the audience sympathize and even understand Ann's struggle more.
I also thought the end if the novel was a little far-fetched not to mention compounding the issue once again. Now instead of waiting the requisite 24 years of separation that would've not only allowed Ann to understand her choice and progress, they have to be reborn, find each other again, and live another lifetime in the hope that their decisions will be such that they end up in the same place. Likewise, it seems Ann's reincarnation was made "easier" so that she could have a better chance at making it to the same realm as Chris previously had. How is this progression if she is back-tracking? Is this to say her first lifetime was clearly a mistake and she was too weak-willed to overcome her trials in that life and so, instead, she gets a second chance by being reborn into less difficult circumstances? The novel does mention she will have a sleep disorder because of her choice to take her own life with sleeping pills and she will be born in India; but to more loving parents in a more ideal circumstance, setting her up to meet Chris, the heroic doctor that will, once again, save her.
Perhaps I'm missing the point. That this novel is a love story before anything else. A love that transcends death and hell and separation. But one of the characters intricate in this story, Ann, was not someone I loved or even liked; that I couldn't even bring myself to pity, so it was difficult for me to urge Chris on when I felt the quest was continuing to hinder an already weak-willed character. I also felt through the 4 pages of him thanking her and apologizing to her for various scenario's in their life, started to be a laundry list of what a woman should be; most of them I didn't ever really see in this character at all.
Clearly I've had a lot to say about this novel which clearly marks it as a decent book for discussion. I would give this book perhaps a generous 3 of 5 stars overall. However, from the reviews I've read, most give it 5 out of 5 stars. Most of my qualms with the book are likely my own personal annoyances rather than over-arching bias. So, read at your own risk. That's my recommendation ;)
0 comments:
Post a Comment