May Discussion: Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman
 

Let's discuss the May MobileRead Book Club selection, Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman. What did you think?

This is the first book by Neil Gaiman that I have read and I hope to read more of his work!

I enjoyed this book immensely. It was a brilliant page-turner with a marvelously constructed world filled with interesting characters and locales. The latter were developed as plays on the literal meaning of the various London place names such as Earl's Court--which has a real Earl who holds a bizarre court on an underground train carriage.

The characters were unforgettable. Richard, the Warrior, :rofl: seemed anything but a warrior and the Lady Door--for me anyway--was more reminiscent of an anime heroine than the traditional fantasy princess. Even the villains were remarkable in their {sometimes horrible} quirkiness. The plot had a wonderful whimsical quality with its unexpected twists, turns, and red herrings.

:) I loved this book! :)

BTW I've been told that Gaiman wrote a fabulous episode, "The Doctor's Wife", for series 6 of Dr Who {I've not seen it yet--but I'll make a point of it now}.

I second all that fantasyfan said. I'm not much for fantasy, yet I enjoyed this very much.

Gaiman cleverly mixed the real London's history and landmarks with the creation of London Below. The notion of people literally falling through the cracks kept the book grounded, we all have the tendency of thinking everyone is exactly like us when there are many who struggle every day. Halfway through I didn't care what happened next, I only wanted to spend more time with the quirky and complex characters.

Fantasy is my husband's favourite genre and I'd bought him this audiobook earlier in the year. He loved it, so I'll certainly be acquiring more of Gaiman's work for him, and myself. I regret not buying American Gods when the anniversary version was on sale for $10 a couple of months ago. It was a cast version though, and I do prefer a single narrator, so I'll use an Audible credit to get the earlier version.

I actually enjoyed this book much more than I thought I would. That said though, I did see some serious flaws in it, most of my views on that may just illustrate why fantasy novels in general are not something I generally read.

So I will start with what I found the most annoying. Even in the most fantastic :D world created in a fantasy novel I expect it to have its own logic, a consistent set of rules. In my opinion this novel failed in the important matter of under what circumstances and to what extent the population of “London Below” can be seen and noticed by the population of the real present day London. When Jessica and Richard first encounter Door on the sidewalk they both immediately see and recognize her, completely at odds with the rules for to what extent real Londoners notice London Below people elsewhere in the novel. Obviously the novel goes no where but for this, but still here, and through out the novel, this crucial aspect changes arbitrarily as needed by Gaiman to further the story.

I really did find myself drawn into the story though. I especially liked the angel Islington aspect of it; the idea of a fallen angel akin to Lucifer was great. In fact I came away wishing that there had been a lot more development of that story; how Islington became evil, how he became imprisoned, the role of the Black Friars, etc. In fact I would have liked a lot more development of how London Below came into existence and why it was the way it was and why its relation to modern London was what it was. For instance, London Below seemed to have been populated by and culturally tied to the historical period of somewhere from Medieval times up to approximately The Renaissance. Why just that segment of history? On the other hand going into such complete development probably would have at least doubled the length of the novel and I would have probably been now complaining about its length and slow going. :chinscratch:


I had a problem with the ending as well, unless there is a sequel to this novel, or one is planned. Otherwise it seems tacked onto the book and at odds with the rest of the book. Or is it just standard for fantasy novels that once an ordinary person makes a trip into a fantasy world he or she will never be the same and will want to return to the fantasy world no matter how dangerous and unpleasant that journey had been?


Finally this is sort of an off-the-walk comment, but it was one of the first things I made sure to make a note about as I read this. That is the banter between the murderous Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar. I just immediately thought of similar banter between the pair of assassins, Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint, in the film Diamonds Are Forever (Sean Connery's last outing as James Bond):

So I enjoyed reading this, but it did not make me want to read more Gaiman, nor more fantasy novels.

He made the tv series first and the book goes into more detail so even if things are missing it's still more than what we get on the show lol.

This book is one of my favorites and I'm also not much of a fantasy reader. Maybe it's just me but this book seemed to have a faster pace compared to his others.

I certainly would have been complaining if that was included. Tedious detail and world building is one of the the reasons I stay away from this genre.


Not explaining everything allowed for the faster pace, I'm happy with that tradeoff. It also opened up the opportunity for my own imagination to fill in the gaps. Mind the Gap!

True and I agree. I have enjoyed his other books but there were many moments where I was thinking "get on with it already!"

Originally Posted by Hamlet53
In fact I would have liked a lot more development of how London Below came into existence and why it was the way it was and why its relation to modern London was what it was. For instance, London Below seemed to have been populated by and culturally tied to the historical period of somewhere from Medieval times up to approximately The Renaissance. Why just that segment of history? On the other hand going into such complete development probably would have at least doubled the length of the novel and I would have probably been now complaining about its length and slow going.




I think that one gets a sense that the world of London Below does have a logic and hierarchy of its own, though this is conveyed through actions and relationships rather than by editorial description. Thus, the rat-people are high on the social scale as we see by the respect they get. The Market has certain inviolable rules, the Angel Islington is imprisoned and guarded by a Labyrinth and Minotaur equivalent. All this implies a world with its own logic--though a logic far different than that in London above.

In my opinion, the lack of editorial world-building--of the sort one gets, for example, in The Farthest Shore, the third book of the Earthsea series is an advantage as it actually makes the Neverwhere universe far more alive and vivid. It simply is--it doesn't require or demand an explanation. This is something that Richard Mayhew must learn as he adapts to it in order to survive. And there's no doubt but that the fact that the world of London Below is present as a given does help create the effective pace and excitement generated by Gaiman. And, yes, I agree, it releases our own imaginative response!

I was not aware that the novel was actually written from a television program. That information does explain a lot about how the book was written. It would explain the faster pacing, and a visual medium like television naturally requires less development and descriptive narrative. As I said had the book been written to provide all sorts of background and development it would probably have been for me a case of be careful what you wish for . . . :D

So did the television version end on the same note as the book?

It's been about 7 years since I saw the show so I honestly don't remember most of it.

I nominated this book in the first place because I have wanted to read it for a long time, just to see what all the fuss was about. I did enjoy it, despite some of the inconsistencies already mentioned by Hamlet53, but would categorise it as a light read, not too involving, and not something that would make me rush out to buy another Gaiman novel ( I have read Good Omens, his collaboration with Terry Pratchett which was good).

The London Below was the best aspect of the book, in my opinion, and for some reason I particularly enjoyed the London Underground scenes - I think I like the idea of abandoned and non-existent stations lurking down there somewhere. Quite easy to relate to when you are standing on an Underground platform alone at night...

To sum up, not a book I regret reading, as it was fun, but not one I will ever reread. If a sequel does turn up, I might just be tempted to give it a go, though.

Thanks for the review. I thought the inconsistencies were part of the story and some explanation will be there in the later part. For instance there was something in Jessica and Richard that caused them to see Door as they saw her. Unfortunately the explanation never came. Having said that, I really liked the book, using London history with the story was quite intriguing.
I had read American Gods by Gaiman before and it wasn’t exciting enough for me to get into his other works. Thankfully Neverwhere was a lighter read. A question to people who have read his other books, does Gaiman keeps bringing various mythological characters in his other stories as well?

din

I didn't know about the TV series either. I notice that the DVD is available on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...ovies-tv%2C252

Personally, Since I enjoyed the book so much I'll probably rest with it and not bother with the mini-series {unless it's repeated on our channels over here}.

I didn't realize there was a TV series. I'll have to check that out. Unlike some commenters, this did make me want to read more Gaiman, even though I'm normally averse to the fantasy genre. The only real flaw I noted was the somewhat flat portrayal of Hunter.

I hope someday there will be a sequel.

BTW, the TV series is available to rent BUY at Amazon Instant Video.

The last post contained some bogus info. Amazon Instant Video has the episodes of Neverwhere for sale, not rent. I edited the post to reflect that.

Neverwhere is the 8th book by Neil Gaiman that I have read. I'd rank this one somewhere in the middle. I enjoyed it, particularly the London Below. I tend to like fantasy books that have settings like this. That said, I can't see myself ever rereading Neverwhere.

I hadn't heard of the TV program before. Sounds interesting. I'm always learning new stuff at Mobileread!

I just finished the television series and I can say that the book is a very faithful adaptation of the film version. The only real difference I could see was the dispute near the end between Croup and Vandemar and the angel Islington over how their payment was to be made wasn't in the TV series (unless I missed it).

Oh, and in the book, Islington never breaks out singing the "Heaven, I'm in Heaven," line from Irving Berlin's "Cheek To Cheek".

:rolleyes:
:rofl:
:rolleyes:
:rofl:

3 stars out of 5
 

As it's been pointed out, Neverwhere is a novel taken from a TV series. And the plot has been changed several times while filming, due to actors unavailability, lack of scenery and so on. And you can tell it.

As a novel we notice first that it's losely based on the standard "monomyth" story line, from the beginning through the main character's odyssey to a very predictable and never unexpected epilogue.
The main character is very good, though: a real Everyman, a mr. nobody who actually does nothing until his ordeal with the Black Friars and does very little after that.
The fictional world is also well portrayed, although, having read the british version of the book, I didn't have the explanations put in the american version so I may have missed something. But it's consistent and fascinating. And I think the fact Jess and Richard actually saw Door is consistent too: as she later explained, she opened a specific and special "door" while escaping the two killers. Having Richard come in contact with the girl, it's logic that he can see and interact easily with the two killers.
The novel is a real page turner, hard to drop dow until the descent in Down Road, despite its minor plot flaws, like the Varney episode: the killers corrupt a to-be bodyguard and after he fails, they kill him for having lost the bid to their actual accomplice... And given how easily they deal with him, what's the purpose to corrupt him in the first place?
In the last chapters, the novel deteriorates. The whole final confrontation simply does not stand: Hunter could have led the party to the Angel's nest protecting Richard from the vampire in the meantime instead of leaving him behind at her mercy (she knew the lady was after Richard's life), while Croup and Vandemar could have followed the company from a distance intercepting the returning marquis. The "good guys" would have come to the Angel, and the girl would have willingly and happily opened the door for him. End of the story.
But no. A ten thousand years plan fails because its ideator and his thousand-years-experienced hitmen reveal too much too soon, and at the crucial moment they fall for the simplest psychological trick made up by mr. Nobody, who, along the lines, has bested thousand of experienced warriors, knights and hunters in confronting the Beast... All having put the highest bet on a "open the door or I hurt your friend" without anticipating any trick on the girl's part...
Sorry, Neil. I just don't buy it.

Bottom line, I give it 3 out of 5 stars: it's a good entertaining monomyth novel, with a late coming of age theme, some good characters, a couple of lovable bad guys, and a very good fictional (under)world.

:)

I read the book when it first came out in paperback about 15 years ago, so I really can't comment on the details, but I remember thinking that the style was similar to some of Clive Barker's less horrific books like The Thief of Always or Weaveworld.

It was a rare combination of unmitigated evil and tongue-in-cheek. I enjoyed it.