Sorry I’m a bit late, but after the semester ended I had to hurry up and scrape together Christmas and the whirlwind has finally subsided. But, I read the book before the semester started so I was able to get this put together. I’m sorry it’s a bit vague, but it’s been a few months now since I read the book, and I’ve read three recently so the characters in this one have faded. I remembered more than I thought I did though, and was able to answer all the questions :)
Like The Odyssey, Alice in Wonderland, and many mythological stories, Neverwhere involves a descent into an underworld. What is the appeal of exploring a world that exists beneath the surface of our everyday lives? What does the marquis de Carabas mean when he tells Richard that “London Below — the Underside — is inhabited by people who fell through the cracks in the world”?
To have a whole world right below you (or figuratively in front of your face) is something that is appealing to those who wish that there was something more to the life they lead. It is the illusion that escape is possible. It’s hope.
For the marquis de Carabas, he may mean that since London below is, well, below London Above, these people literally fell into London Below. But to fall through the cracks, they are also people who are easily forgotten, and not missed. Whatever magic is used for them to be separated from London Above, even while they were up there, is probably made easier by virtue of this.
In what ways is it meaningful that Richard enters the world of London Below through an act of compassion for Door? Where else in the novel does he prove his willingness to sacrifice his own safety and comfort to help others? Why are these acts of courage and selflessness so important?
They’re important because they set him apart from his adversaries. It also shows him as trusting, so that he would have no warning of the treachery amongst his traveling companions.
What are the major trials that Richard must face in his journey underground? What inner qualities do these trials bring forth in him? What kind of hero is he?
His major trials were to stay alive through the various tasks of getting to the market, the bridge(s) crossings, going to the monks, through the maze and getting the angel through the door. He found himself, and his inner strength through these things. He’s a reluctant hero, just an honest and compassionate regular guy.
In what ways can the world of London Below be seen as a kind of inverted mirror of London Above? In what ways does this magical world, with its outrageous characters and floating markets that sell everything from rubbish and lost property to “first-class nightmares” and “things that might have been hats and might have been modern art” comment on the world above? In what sense is Neverwhere satirizing the “normal” world and its values?
I think the market is a mockery of commercialism and materialism. If someone is willing to buy it, someone is willing to sell it. If it’s for sale, someone will buy it.
The narrator describes the bodyguard Ruislip as resembling “a bad dream one might have if one fell asleep watching sumo wrestling on the television with a Bob Marley record playing in the background,” and suggests that Mr. Vandemar’s voice sounds like “night wind blowing over a desert of bones.” Where else do we find this kind of highly metaphoric description in the novel? How do such descriptions make the book more vivid? In what ways is this kind of writing suited to the story being told?
I don’t find it to make the book more vivid. I find it to make the book more watered down. I love to read, but for long tracks of description, I have a short attention span. If my mind cannot come up with a real sense of what the author is trying to say while using these flowery phrases than it’s jarring. It can take you right out of the moment in the story to ponder over what they’re actually trying to say. I’m much more of a fan of plain language. Still describe things, but using less metaphor and more actual description. So that one doesn’t have to have the same background as the novelist to understand it. So as a rule, I usually pay little attention to phrases like these. If they don’t immediately leap out at me to make sense, to make an image, or a connection, I move on.
What makes the characters Richard meets in London Below — Lord Ratspeaker, Door, the marquis de Carabas, Hunter, Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, Serpentine, the Earl, and others — so engaging? What magical powers do they possess? What character traits make each of them so distinctive? How do their reactions to Richard change over the course of the novel?
They seem pretty exasperated with him on the whole. No one really takes him seriously. I’m not sure that actually changes at the end, either. I think that they’re starting to see him as one of them by that point, but the ending felt “unfinished”.
What is the significance of the Angel Islington turning out to be the betrayer and perhaps the most evil character in the novel? What motivates his treachery? In what ways is it appropriate that a man like Arnold Stockton owns the The Angelus statue through which Islington may be reached?
It shows a darker side of Angels. They are usually synonymous with goodness, but an angel can be corrupted. And believing you are good, you can go about it the wrong way. I think it could be taken as a warning to be cautious of who you trust, or just a bleak outlook on what’s happened with greed and materialism that even an Angel can be corrupted in the world.
At the end of the novel, when Richard tries to explain to Jessica why he can’t resume their relationship, he says “I’ve just changed, that’s all.” In what important ways has he changed? What has his journey in the underworld allowed him to discover about himself? Why would it be impossible for him to marry Jessica now?
He grew a backbone. He no longer has to feel like a lapdog following her around. He’s survived enough on his own to realize he doesn’t need anyone to feel good about himself. Still having his memories of where he came from, Jessica would be boring to him going back to their old life.
While in London Below, Richard longs to go home where “Everything is going to be normal again. Boring again. Wonderful again.” Why does he find “normal life” so empty and dissatisfying when, after such a heroic effort, he finally does get home? Does he make the right decision in returning to London Below?
Because he realizes that he no longer is suited to a boring life. I think he does make the right decision, but I don’t think he was wrong for going home in the first place. If he didn’t follow the path he did, than he would forever be wondering “what if”.
What does Neverwhere, as a whole, say about the themes of trust and betrayal, loyalty and disloyalty, selfishness and compassion?
It’s a word of caution, not to trust the wrong sort of people. To trust in yourself, and to put your friends before your own fears and safety. A basic moral theme to live by.
