I think Richard is a cipher. His personality is not particularly developed. We know he likes toy trolls and isn’t keen on wandering around art galleries but that’s about it. He lacks a place in the world – his parents are both dead, he moved away from the friends and family he grew up with and seems to have few close friends. Richard is the anti-hero who comes good, he is not particularly smart, adaptable strong or particularly anything, but he comes good in the end. It is Richard who kills the beast and Richard who survives the hardest test at Blackfriars. It is a classic tale of an everyman who, under the right circumstances, can accomplish extraordinary things. The very fact that Richard is almost a blank canvas means we can easily step into his shoes and imagine that we had our lives turned upside down after helping someone, discovered a London Below and accomplished heroic deeds.

Vandemar and Croup? I’m not entirely sure what to make of these. They are comical villains in a similar vein to the baddies in Batman. I think they are terrifying and comical at the same time. I’d be interested to see what other people make of this.

I liked what Gaiman did with the place names in London. You hear these names all the time (at least I do), but never stop to think about what they mean or where they came from. He gives them a meaning of his own, but also makes you wonder where the names really came from. I enjoyed his whole articulation of the two Londons, and like everywhere there are always more than one version of a place. A tourist in London sees a completely different city to the person who lives there. The rich person experiences something very different to the tramp, etc.

I really enjoyed this book and I thought it was well written, well constructed, clever and extremely entertaining. But I didn’t feel I gained anything from it. To me it was a light read which made a very pleasant change, but I don’t think it has a lot to say. I think it’s a very witty and well put together adventure story. As ever, I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise…

Danny | March 20, 2006 6:40 AM

Those stupid spamming fuckers. You must be so frustrated, Marydell. I have no idea why bookblog is targeted so often.

That said, I won't be able to participate in the discussion much. I tried to read Neverwhere a few years ago, and got about halfway through but just couldn't get into it. And the details of why are hazy because it was so long ago....

daisy | March 20, 2006 7:33 PM

I thought that Richard was just an average Joe. It is interesting that his personality did not work with the elements in his life (job, girlfriend).You are right, the book is really about Star. It is her story and he just bumbles along with her.

Croup and Vandemar were comic relief, albeit gruesome. What were they? Wasn't there indication that they were somehow other than human?

I had a lot of difficulty envisioning the underground with floating doors everywhere. How did anyone know what door opened where? I just couldn't get that world into my head.

Wendy | March 20, 2006 10:59 PM

Agreed, Daisy. Spammers are fricking annoying and I have no idea why they bother. They clog the site up for a little while, I get rid of all their crap, and they get nothing in the end (no links, no business, no google ranking). Whatever. I have an infinite amount of patience and a trigger-happy delete button.

marydell | March 21, 2006 3:46 AM

Danny, I forgot that you were located somewhere near the setting of the story and would probably understand the play on places more than us Yanks. I found the idea of London Below and the play on names helped make the novel more fun. Despite being mostly New Yorker, I can appreciate Londonese double entendre.

I also agree with Danny and Wendy on how Richard is an "insert-yourself-here" character. He's a nobody designed specifically to allow the reader to get more into the story. In a way, he reminds me of Harry Potter, who I think is the most boring of all the characters in that series. Although the books are supposedly about him, they're really about how we all are nobodies who could become somebodies due to strength of character rather than by having an innate superability.

Considering that Neverwhere was Gaiman's first attempt at "real" literature, it's no surprise how a lot of the narrative elements are reminiscent of comic books. (Yes, I said comics. Graphic novel is a nonsense phrase invented to give credibility to a genre that doesn't need it. Comics were already a valid art form before people mistakenly thought they needed legitimizing.) I chose it since I thought it was a lot of fun. You need to read fluff every once in a while since it helps you appreciate the more serious stuff.

marydell | March 21, 2006 4:09 AM

I'm with you on this one, Daisy. I loved Gaiman's comix, as well as some of his other works, but this one just bored me stiff. I love the concept, since I love alternate dimensions and parallel realities and am a sucker for anything underground, but everything in this novel was just TOO fanciful for my taste. It seemed pointless, and I didn't enjoy the characters. As far as Gaiman's word play, I thought it was mostly pretty flat. Reminds me of that old Jethro Tull song in which "a foreign student said to me: was it really true, there are elephants and lions too in Picadilly Circus?" Like, let's take the obvious and try to make something deep out of it by making it literal. I also love etymology, but the book wasn't worth reading just for that info.

Wow, I sound really upset about this book. I think it's more that I was terribly disappointed by it.

maya | March 21, 2006 11:55 AM

Hmm. The dislike of this book, which is obviously meant to be more entertaining than serious literature, surprises me.

marydell | March 22, 2006 3:55 AM

Grr spammers.

Anyway, I just wanted to put in a good word for the novel. I thought it was a light read and it wasn't terrible enlightening, but that's not what it was trying to be. The book is inventive, well-constructed, fun and has a lot of off the wall ideas, which make it really enjoyable to read. It therefore succeeded in everything it set out to do and provided me with some great entertainment. I also think it's really important that there is a variety in the books we discuss and I was really pleased to be reading something so different to the usual fare. I think Gaiman is a good, lighthearted reader. He may not be going down on the university syllabuses for a while, but who cares?

Danny | March 22, 2006 7:13 AM

Oh, I completely understand that the book was supposed to be a light, entertaining read, but it was too boring to be entertaining. Maybe TOO light?

maya | March 28, 2006 2:09 PM

Wow, I read this book about 3 years ago and really liked it. I'm not familiar with London, but I particularly enjoyed how Gaiman played around with words and place names. I thought they were clever, and very interesting. While I read the novel, I often thought about the origins of the various place names. After all, why IS Blackfriars called Blackfriars?
Richard was probably the Everyman so that the reader can easily envision him/herself entering this strange world of London Below. A fantastic adventure like this isn't limited only to heroes. Even "regular" people get sucked into the surreal and live out extraordinary lives. I think Richard's decision at the end also highlighted the boredom of his "regular" life. Perhaps the same thing happens to us. We become complacent and satisfied with everyday things, when there's always something more fantastic we can have.
If you guys liked this one, I highly recommend "American Gods." This novel takes place in the U.S. and is just as fanciful as "Neverwhere."

enygma | March 29, 2006 11:36 PM

I was just browsing around and came up on this Gaiman discussion... I hope it's ok if I put my two cents in.
I've been a Gaiman fan since his comics and Neverwhere was the first novel of his I ever grabbed... and I've kept reading his other novels based from this one.

I don't know if this had been brought up yet, but did you know that this book is actually a novelization of a BBC production? I found it at Amazon on day and was completely amazed (this was after I read the book). The show is very entertaining and, I think, makes the book even better.

treyla | March 30, 2006 3:40 PM

Enygma, now, see, I really liked American Gods. I wish I could remember/put my finger on exactly why I didn't like Neverwhere. I think it was just too wacky and I didn't feel like we really got to know the characters.

daisy | March 30, 2006 9:51 PM

Daisy, that's kind of funny. When I read Neverwhere, I couldn't help drawing some parallels between a few of the characters in each novel. hmm.....

enygma | March 30, 2006 10:49 PM

just following up on treyla's comment. i think the failures of this book has to do with it being a novelization of a tv miniseries. don't get me wrong, i've read the book and seen the series, and i think the novel is much better (cheesy bbc special effects - doctor whoish, if you know what i mean). i enjoyed it, but gaiman's other works are more fully developed (stardust and american gods in particular).

btw, happy to have come across this site in my internet searching.

will | April 3, 2006 1:05 AM