Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I always like finding this out about books. Which character or characters did you really like? There were quite a few I thought were great characters in this book, but Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar are the first ones that spring to mind whenever I think of this book. What a delightful combination of the hilarious (his opening descriptions of them had me laughing out loud) and the truly disturbing (the scene where Mr. Croup fell upon the mercenary chap left me feeling fairly queasy).

It's almost impossible to separate the two, despite their disparate personalities, too. Their final scene in the book conveys their co-dependence in an excellent way.

Probably Hunter and the Marquis. I wanted to see more of Anaesthesia though because I really liked her.

Croup and Vandemar are also awesomely creepy villains.

I was also sorry we didn't get to see more of Anaesthesia. She was interesting :-(.

The Marquis, I think, is my favorite followed very closely by Croup and Vandemar.

I, also, would have liked to see more of Anaesthesia - she was sweet.

I loved Croup and Vandemar, and the Marquis was cool too. I liked Door and she's probably the one I would like to see expanded on further....

My favorite character is Richard Rahl. The first war wizard since 3000 thousand years ago. Loving his magic spell and story along. Its really cool..

I'll throw in my vote for the Marquis. He was awesome.
Unfortunately, I felt like the characters in this book were a little flat. Richard himself was fairly well written, but I think only because it was all from his point of view. Everyone else lacked dimension, except, I think, the Marquis who somehow shone through despite that.
While I enjoyed the quick pace of this book, and how it didn't get bogged down by description and exposition, I think there were some elements that failed because of it and characterization was one of those things.

Nichole wrote: "I'll throw in my vote for the Marquis. He was awesome.
Unfortunately, I felt like the characters in this book were a little flat. Richard himself was fairly well written, but I think only because..."

Interesting, Nichole. I've had this discussion with a few friends. Let me go through a quick rundown of all the primary characters. I think Richard develops nicely over the course of the story, growing a backbone and a sense of purpose as it progresses. The Marquis is, indeed, very cool, and has a very distinct, interesting personality. Door is very young, so she hasn't fully developed her own personality yet. At such a young age, she is consumed with one thing: finding out what happened to her family. Croup and Vandemar are essentially darkly comic ghouls, so layered personalities wouldn't be appropriate for them. Anaesthesia isn't in the story long enough to be developed (unfortunately).

Hunter is the character I can agree with you on. She is fairly one-dimensional.

Did I miss anyone or do you disagree with any of my points? I'm not trying to argue, I'm just curious if you saw something there that I missed.

I'm currently reading Barker's [Book: Weaveworld], which I've been saying is essentially [Book: Neverwhere] with far less interesting characters. I personally thought the creation of memorable charcters was one of [Book: Neverwhere]'s strong suits :-).

Door will always be my favorite. I'm a sucker for the struggling adolescent character leaving childhood behind to figure out who they are, and who they want to be. I think it’s an archetype with such potential that can be written differently by every author.

Yep.. So far I know Richard is the best.. lol

John wrote: "Did I miss anyone or do you disagree with any of my points? I'm not trying to argue, I'm just curious if you saw something there that I missed."

Of course not. I love a good discussion. Bring it on!

So here goes. Basically I felt like all the characters in the book with the exception of Richard were treated with the same lack of exploration or depth.
Now, for Croup and Vandemar, they are deliciously creepy villains who did not need further exploration. Agreed - they are fine as is.
The Marquis was a great character who benefitted from as much mystery as possible, so again, he really did not need any further exploration. He too was fine as is.
Anesthesia's role in the book was regrettably but necessarily brief, so her lack of dimension, much like the character itself, was an acceptable casualty.
You agree that Hunter was pretty flat.

Basically the only place we disagree is Door. Even though she was young, she still could have been so much more than she was. She was on a very personal, very meaningful and pivotal journey. Yet I didn't feel like we got to know her at all.

As Libby stated, she's a character leaving childhood behind and trying to find who she is - or at least that's what she should have been. But we never got to see beyond the surface. We saw her actions, but very little of her motivation beyond "I want to know who killed my family."
Door was a flat archetype who never rose above her function in the plot to become a fully realized character.

I would also argue that Islington, the angel, deserved FAR more time and attention than he (it?) received. Again, this was a character with both a history and a psyche that could have been fascinating but was practically glossed over until the very end.

Awesome villains aside, the Marquis is my favorite, hands down. But I'm a sucker for characters that put off a selfish/bad guyish persona but are good guys deep down. Jack Sparrow! That's who he reminds me of. (It kept slipping out of my head, and I finally nailed him down, hence the !)

Nichole,

I agree that Door was a bit too under-developed for my taste. I think in the review I wrote, that was one of my few faults with the book. That said, I was also glad that she was the one who tricked Islington by being clever. One of the things I liked was that Richard didn't do all the saving, that sometimes he needed to be saved, and that they all had their parts to play.

It didn't bother me that much that we didn't focus on Islington too much. I agree with you that 'there's a guy with a history', but I guess I've read enough stories with angels in them to be biased against them as characters, because for all their eternal lives, they rarely seem to really change. In other words, I feel like we learned as much about him as was really interesting and/or important.

*spoilage*

Also, there's the danger that if too much time was spent on him that it would've become too obvious too quickly that he was behind everything - though I know some people who guess that straight off, anyway. I wasn't one of them, though.

I'm in the Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar camp. And also the Marquis. They were the most "colorful" characters though I did notice he did a lot of "tell" not show when describing them. He made to many "fox" references and should have just described more to give me that impression.

I think he set the age of Door too young. Especially since Richard felt a little romance toward her at one point. Fifteen - Sixteen is cradle robbing I would have preferred to see her 22 - 24.

The girlfriend I think was overdone. Yeah we know she is a b**ch but it was too much of a caracature. No one is that insensative. Made me think of Tom Hanks girlfriend in You've got Mail.

I "want" to like Richard - but to be honest I don't think there was enough "there" to latch onto.

Robin - I got the impression that Door was older than that. Yes, Richard thought she was 15-16 when he first met her, but I don't remember the book ever stating her actual age. She may have just seemed younger at first. As we got to know her, she seemed a little older than she did at first. I had her in my mind at around 18-19, but that might have just been a hopeful projection (so Richard wouldn't be cradle-robbing).

I too thought Door was a bit older - at least I hope so :-)

Many people have commented on the lack of character development in Neverwhere. I would agree, which is why this is my least favorite Gaiman work. Someone brought up the fact that the book was written after the television series and I think that certainly affected the novel. In my opinion, the novel’s strengths are its creative setting and plot, while the primary weakness is lack of character development. I think since the characters were already “set� by the television mini-series Gaiman failed to develop them fully on the page. The book reads like a serialized screenplay which is pretty much what it is.

Also, while Gaiman had a very successful career in comics and graphic novels, this was his first traditional novel and I think he was still adapting to that style. I love his novels but his real creative genius is in the written word combined with imagery. Graphic novels are a written and visual medium. While I love American Gods, I think Gaiman’s work is best when the visual art is combined with the written word.

I'm also not sure that they ever give Door's age for certain. But I also think it's important to take into account that people in the world Below seem to age differently than the world Above. Maybe door appears to be 15-16 - but how long has she been 15-16?

(As a total side-note, it always kind of creeped me out in Avatar: The Last Airbender that Aang is 11-12 and Kitara seems to be 15-16... )

Anyway - I also don't think Richard is craddle robbing because I don't think they end up together romantically. That was actually one of the things I liked about the book. Yes, there were a few moments where there seemed to be some romantic tension of sorts - but there's the line at the end when Jessica asks Richard if he met someone else and he says 'No' and he realizes that he means it. That yes, there was Door and Hunter and Aneasthesia and everyone, but that he hadn't met anyone in the way that she meant.

I imagine that the relationship that they develop is more as good friends, perhaps even as substitute family. I could see him being protective of her, like an older brother - and that works just fine for me. I like that it doesn't have to be a romance - that he wants to save the girl not because she's beautiful and he fell in love with her, but because it's the right thing to do, because that's the kind of person he is, and because he does grow fond of her, but in a similar way to how he grew fond of Aneasthesia (whose name I'm sure I keep mangling).

And I forget - how old is Richard?

I liked that it didn't have to be a romance as well, but I found that one scene where they had that "almost kiss" to be a little weird. Not just because it felt a bit like cradle robbing (because it did), but also because it just didn't really seem to fit. It wasn't a romance, and that was fine, so what was that? They had that moment and then nothing ever got mentioned again. It was weird.

I don't know if they ever said Richard's age, but they mentioned that Jessica was 26, so I'm guessing he's somewhere in the late 20's, early 30's range. My personal guess is 28.

There was a TV series? Wow I'm out of it. The lack of character development did not bother me as the plot was solid and it kept me moving along. I think Richard is suppose to be "kind of bland" on purpsoe so he is going to be understated. Also Door herself doesn't reveal much about herself and I think that is common in Gaiman - at least I saw some of that in the Fallen Star in Stardust. The Count had a nice feel to him and even Hunter had her own special way so combined with Mr. C and Mr. V. I was satisfied from a characterization standpoint.

Nichole wrote: "I liked that it didn't have to be a romance as well, but I found that one scene where they had that "almost kiss" to be a little weird. Not just because it felt a bit like cradle robbing (because i..."

I do get what you're saying, and I sort of felt the same way - but I think then I rationalized it in my head. I think, in some ways, it's true to life. You might have someone who once or twice you get in this almost-intimate moment with, and it is awkward, and then it breaks and you move on and you don't talk about it because of it being awkward (and, heck, they're British, so they doubly wouldn't talk about it) - and it never happens again, and that's that. I know I've had moments like them in my life, and I never sat down and talked with the person about what happened - I mostly just pretend it never happened, and go on quite happily from there.

Robin wrote: "There was a TV series? Wow I'm out of it. The lack of character development did not bother me as the plot was solid and it kept me moving along. I think Richard is suppose to be "kind of bland" on ..."

It was a mini-series on BBC. I'm pretty sure that the novelization was written at pretty much the same time as the series aired.

I've been thinking a lot about Gaiman's stories, and, in general, I don't think there's a lot of character development going on. His strengths lie in the worlds he creates, which he inhabits with characters who just are what they are, and they fill the world and make it real... and then there are quirky little creatures and things which further develop the story and enhance the world.

I've also decided that most of his stories are a variant version of coming-of-age stories, some of them more literally than others. If not coming-of-age then definitely discovering-yourself. I think the whole "be careful what you wish for" theme often goes hand in hand with "finding out that who you really are isn't the same as who you think/thought you were". It's really only the person who's going through the 'coming-of-age' thing, and maybe their close cohorts, who have development, and everyone else already knows who they are, thankyouverymuch, and we'll be your guides, of varying degrees, to this really strange world that you sort of just got yourself thrust into.

I think, oft times, Gaiman delves into the world a little further than what is precisely necessary to tell the story, but with Neverwhere he seems to pretty much stay on track.

But what a way of seeing things he has, and oh the worlds he makes...

Maybe that's one reason that, with few exceptions, I don't like his short stories as much, because he doesn't really get to lay out a new world in such fine depth and detail as he does when he gets to linger for awhile.

**Addendum: I totally forgot to include the link which was half the reason for my posting. from the series. It might please you to know that Door and Richard look much closer in age than the novel might have you believe. :)

Like Chris, I never felt like Door was as young as she appeared. As for the scene where they nearly kiss, I thought it was rather interesting, because it came across as a repudiation of a romantic interest. They nearly kiss, there's a moment of discomfort, and it is never brought up again. It was as though it was Gaiman's way of saying this is never going to happen, they don't have that kind of relationship and such a thing wouldn't feel comfortable to either of them.

Another thing about the near-kiss. Weren't they drunk on angel wine at the time?

Good point - I think they might've been.

I forgot about that, Chris. I think you're right.

I just finished this story last night, and I have to say that my favorite character was by far the Marquis. Self-made, cunning, resourceful and sometimes ruthless, but still willing to do what's right when the time comes. I loved him. I'd really like to read a book that focuses on how he became the Marquis.

The Marquis is definitely quite cool. I love how loyal to Door he turns out to be after Gaiman repeatedly makes you think he's just in it for himself.

Exactly. And he did not have to help Richard get away from the Velvet, but he did. I liked that.

About the near-kiss: this has happened soooo many times as a literary device foreshadowing the future revelation that the 2 characters are related. I wonder if something like that will come up in the sequel we all hope to see.

Becky wrote: "I just finished this story last night, and I have to say that my favorite character was by far the Marquis. Self-made, cunning, resourceful and sometimes ruthless, but still willing to do what's right when the time comes. I loved him. I'd really like to read a book that focuses on how he became the Marquis..."

I agree Becky...I would love to see a book on him.

I also found the Marquis to be the most interesting character. I think another story about him would be fun - but I almost want it to be another future story. As much as I would like to know his past, a part of me feels like it would probably be better to leave him as a mystery.

Amy wrote: "I also found the Marquis to be the most interesting character. I think another story about him would be fun - but I almost want it to be another future story. As much as I would like to know his ..."

I agree, Amy. It's temping to learn more, but the mystery is a lot of the fun about the Marquis.

blackrose wrote: "Robin wrote: "There was a TV series? Wow I'm out of it. The lack of character development did not bother me as the plot was solid and it kept me moving along. I think Richard is suppose to be "kind of bland" on ..."

It was a mini-series on BBC. I'm pretty sure that the novelization was written at pretty much the same time as the series aired. "

From what I understand, Gaiman didn't like the way the mini-series was done so he expanded it into the novel so it could be how he wanted it to be. Has anyone seen the mini-series?

Bronwyn wrote: "From what I understand, Gaiman didn't like the way the mini-series was done so he expanded it into the novel so it could be how he wanted it to be. Has anyone seen the mini-series?"

I saw the mini-series. You can get it through Netflix. It's ok. I really liked how they portrayed the Marquis in it. Overall, though, the book is better.