Verdict: Gaiman is, like Richard, fully "out of his depth."


Entertaining enough, but could have been much better   November 4, 2004
 14 out of 21 found this review helpful

I leapt into this book on the recommendation of a friend, having never read anything by Neil Gaiman. Being a pretty big fan of sci-fi/cyberpunk, the premise sounded right up my alley, and it started out rather well. Even 100 pages in I was ripping through the book, smiling and intrigued, but soon after that the disappointment began to settle around me like a legendary London fog...

POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

With alternate reality books like these, world-building is key. For readers new to the genre, the vast kingdom of 'London below', (essentially a murky, underground, quasi-real parallel to the regular London)in which much of the events chronicled in 'Neverwhere' take place, might seem brilliant. The thing is, as an idea, it had real potential, but FAR too much was left unexplained. For example, at one point during his adventures, the protagonist, Richard, stops asking questions--questions on which I was also completely hung up--as he begins to accept the fact that no one's going to give him much in the way of a direct answer. For some reason, Gaiman decided to put the reader in the exact same boat, and the result was extreme dissatisfaction, at least for me. In this way, I can see why the book is being compared to the classic children's story 'Alice in Wonderland', as that was the problem with a lot of alternate world fairytales as well: the stories were great, but they were told with nary a modicum of concern for rhyme or reason. We accepted this as kids--face it, we weren't as smart back then--but adults with the same lust for the fantastical start to demand more solid explanations for things, more detailed descriptions, more questions answered, and thus spawned the world-building found in classics of science fiction and fantasy. (Dune, anyone?)

This is not to say that everything in science fiction and fantasy must make perfect sense according to our natural laws and facts about our own universe we believe to be true. Many great stories break all the rules, and that's the second task for the author--to build a given world, and then construct events in such a way that they make sense within the context of this world. The 'London below' of 'Neverwhere' did have rules, but they simply were not developed enough. The rules and events that took place within the world of 'London below' governed by these rules appeared to be completely arbitrary--for instance:
1. Market truce
2. Half-lives of Iliaster & Lear (WHY? HOW?)
3. Specialized abilities (Rat-speakers, Door, Croup & Vandemar)
4. Darkness on the bridge????
5. Mechanism that brought the marquis de Cabaras back to life
6. Richard AND Jessica's ability to see Door
7. Mechanism that brought Richard into London below (at least we were told how he got back!!)
8. Divisions of 'London below'--why was it organized into baronies & fiefdoms?
9. Immortality of several characters, but not all?
10. RICHARD'S ORDEAL!!! To some it might have seemed self-explanatory, but it wasn't. It was a half-baked idea at best, waiting to be cultivated into a magnificent turning point in Richard's journey. Nothing about the ordeal or why on earth Richard got through it made any sense. That goes for the rest of his triumphs: why was HE so special??

Etcetera!

Another reader equated this book with the phrase "rough draft." I must say, I agree! As a first copy, this novel has thrilling potential. Yet, as it stands, it's forgettable, simplistic and lazy.

This brings me to the main characters--same thing. It's pure laziness on the part of the author, but as far as I'm concerned, I doubt any of them will leave a lasting impression on me. I hate to sound trite, but nice as Richard and Door were, they appeared one-dimensional, simple-minded, and jumbled. How on earth did Richard get over Jessica so easily? Any rational person in his situation would have plunged into an existential panic. Instead he sort of shuffles along, waiting to be told what to do next.

In conclusion: not a horrible way to spend a couple days, but I wouldn't recommend this book to fans of genre-fiction. Otherwise, I CAN see why it went over so well with the general population, but to those who liked it for the world: IT GETS WAY BETTER THAN THIS! (Just off the top of my head, try Dan Simmons, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Philip K Dick, Robert Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, Ursula le Guin)


Neil GAHman: Flat characters, dull plot, poor prose   September 6, 2006
 13 out of 28 found this review helpful

I'd heard so much hype about Gaiman that I finally decided to check out his supposed masterpieces of dark fantasy.

The first few pages of the book are oozing potential... once you get past the fact that Gaiman writes at a 4th grade level. I originally supposed that his "child-like" approach to dark fantasy was part of his appeal. I was wrong. He really writes fiction as if he's still writing comic books or screen plays.

This book is extremely episodic; little pointless "quests" are blown up way beyond their resolutions. Characters are bare bones with no thought processes or histories to flesh them out. No background or history is given for most of them, and I couldn't force myself to care about any of them. I could hardly force myself to finish the book.

Overall, it was hugely disappointing. I'm accustomed to reading fantasy and SF with teeth, horns, and PLOT. One page out of "Lord of the Rings" has more substance than this entire book.

I'm sure the die-hard Gaiman fans out there will all rate this review as unhelpful simply because I'm in the minory. I challenge and encourage these poor souls to pick up something that is one notch closer to literature and notch further from comics. Try Tolkien, the epitome of high fantasy. Or try Robin Hobb's "Farseer" books for a rollicking fun ride (notably easier to read than Tolkien). If you're set on urban fantasy, grab Rachel Caine's "Weather Warden" books, which are fast-paced and sexy.