Neil Gaiman has been a favorite of mine since I discovered "The Sandman" several years ago, so I jumped at this novel as soon as I saw it. The premise of this book is not terribly original, it combines elements of Tim Powers' "The Anubis Gates", Christopher Fowler's "Roofworld" and many a classic quest novel (there are repeated references to "The Wizard of Oz" among other things), but the execution is deeply satisfying.

Gaiman makes it seem so effortless, its not until you've finished the book that you realize what a great story he has pulled off. I particularly liked the concept of Earl's Court as a travelling subway car, invisible to the up-worlders going about their business on the same train.

But what really makes this novel work is the characters, the hapless hero Richard, young Door, the mysterious marquis and Hunter, and two of the most unforgettable villains you will ever meet. I cared what happened to them all. I hope Gaiman will return to this world in future novels, as Robert Holdstock did with "Mythago Wood" (also highly recommended).


Didn't care for it   June 4, 2004
 7 out of 31 found this review helpful

I loved Good Omens so I gave this book a try. That got me to read Terry Pratchett - I figured HE must be the good one. I found this book boring and trite and just plain stupid.


"Neverwhere" means "Nowhere" and "Nothing".   April 7, 2007
 7 out of 42 found this review helpful

Besides of all the annoying parts, and there are plenty, this book goes nowhere and gives you nothing.
It is just a very, very light read, and it seems to be written without any passion and respect neither for the book itself nor for the reader.
I cannot see a dramaturgy at all, and dramaturgy is the least bit I should expect from a book.
The whole story is like a lot of weak ideas just poorly linked together. It gives me the impression that the author is not able to create a story with inner logic, suspense and dramatic peaks.
For example the fight between Hunter and the beast:
It was announced for chapters and then it was over in just a few seconds.
Another example is "Richard's Ordeal":
What could have been a key sequence in the book, what should have been Richards catharsis, was just a mediocre nightmare from which Gaiman steals himself away without any solution.
Then there is the moment we all learn who is the villain. It couldn't have been more crude, could it?
And is there really a true conflict in Richard regarding his real life and his girlfriend? For me it rather looks like he just wants to slip into this underworld for good out of reasons a kid in real life would slip into the world of video games.
The one star is for the sometimes funny murderer duo.


London Below isn't rock bottom, but I bet you can see it from there.   November 9, 2007
 7 out of 17 found this review helpful

There are hundreds of reviews here summarizing the plot of `Neverwhere,' so I'll cut directly to my opinions.

The main characters are tired archetypes. Richard is the average guy (er, bloke) out of his depth, and then there's the sexy female fighter, the orphan girl with strange powers (who is also sexy), and the sarcastic and selfish mercenary-type. Secondary characters are introduced and often killed a chapter later with no impact upon the plot or the emotions of the other characters or the reader.

Gaiman's dialogue can be excruciatingly precious, in a poor imitation of Douglas Adams' style, or it can be aggressively corny: a villain's shout of "You're [bleeping] dead!" is a real clunker.

My understanding is that Gaiman adapted this novel from his TV series of the same title. If so, this is probably why there are extensive descriptions of the sights of London Below - I'm betting there were certain visual devices from the series that Gaiman didn't want to sacrifice in the adaptation. Either way, his descriptive passages are long-winded and strike me as one of several tactics designed to artificially stretch the novel to its 400-page proportions.

The most irritating of these tactics to me as a reader is the mile-a-minute referencing of creatures, alliances, places, secrets, etc. that are never explored, explained or ever mentioned again afterwards. When Richard (quite understandably) inquires about these mysteries of London Below, he is almost always told that the subject in question is "something he's better off not knowing about." A few references of this type would give this world some color, but they come so thick and fast that I can only conclude Gaiman had no intention of fleshing them out. This level of laziness borders on antagonistic to the reader.

There are some cool ideas in here that warrant exploration. "Undercities" around the world apparently harbor legendary monsters - but where did they come from? Lots of magical trinkets and powers appear, but with little to no explanation behind them they're reduced to a string of deus ex machinas.

I was interested enough to finish this book, and I did genuinely want to know how the story ends, but `Neverwhere' so deeply flawed that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I can see why some of its qualities - the episodic nature of the storyline (as noted by another reviewer) and the excessive descriptions of its settings - may have helped make Gaiman's name in comics/graphic novels. But long-form prose is not his medium: the stilted plotting and lack of character development cause me to agree with the reviewer who likened this to fan-fiction.



Odinary people living ordinarylives are so critical   March 3, 2000
 6 out of 9 found this review helpful

I'm writing this review not just to join the 197 previous people who reviewed this book, but to review some of the reviewers.

I read Neverwhere last week while in Europe. This book entertained and enthralled me.

No it's not a perfect book, and even if the ending is predictable---you knew he would hate his reclaimed life, and you knew he would want to go back---how can a few of you be so viscious in your reviews.

Richard was ordinary. Richard was not captivating. Richard was boring. Richard did not fit in.

Well guess what. Most of us ARE that way. We may each be unique, but we are all very much alike. As a college professor told me years ago---people want to be different, but not too different.

As for the ending: If you have ever had your life shattered or merely turned upside down, then you know how badly you want your old life back, how much you wish things could be the ways things were. And it is human nature to WANT more than to HAVE.

To sum up: Neverwhere is a really good book. Who cares if it doesn't change your life! If you're looking for a fantasy book to change your life then you need professional help.

If you didn't like this book, then you are probably both very ordinary and very unhappy. If you're thinking about buying the book---just buy it. I mean, look at all the reviews! How many books inspire 200 reviews?

Now I'll get off my soapbox. Thank you.