SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads Discussions 2008
>
Neverwhere - Why does Richard choose to... *spoilers*
date
newest »
newest »
Donna had mentioned it was a "man grows up" style theme, and as you stated, it was supported by another poster who mentioned Peter Pan.I actually think it is neither of these things. I will admit, Richard goes through life as though it's already been pre-programmed for him, mostly by Jessica lately. I think that it's more self discovery then growing up. Richard doesn't have any real goals of his own because he doesn't know what he wants or what he's capable of. His trip through London Below taught him just what he can do and what he can be. In London Below he was useful, appreciated, and -in all honesty- permitted his own opinions. He found courage where he didn't think there was any, he fought dark villains, and stood by his friends. At any point in this, he could have decided to abandon Door and the others for a safer experience.
Back in London Above, he once again goes back to the same thing. A job that he doesn't really enjoy, a girlfriend who wants to have more control of his life than he does. I think he realized that he had nothing up here worth fighting for, where in London Below he could be his own person, with friendships forged more through hardship than through strong social connections.
I think sometimes we all want to return to life we once had. It's like going back to the town you grew up in. Sometimes I go back to my home town and once I get there I don't know what I missed about it. I think the same with Richard, he remembered his life as being perfect and wanted to get back there. And then when he got there it wasn't how he remembered.
I'm the one who brought up the Peter Pan comparison. One of the things I found with this novel is that there are so many levels to it and so many different interpretations. London Below is very much like Neverland and it's also very much like Alice's Wonderland. In all of these worlds, life is exciting and dangerous and requires strength and courage for survival. The world of London above is safe, dull and boring. Did you notice how much "better" Richard's life was when he got it back? He got a promotion. He got a penthouse apartment. His girlfriend came crawling back. It was everything he thought he wanted, but it was safe, dull and boring (in other words, grown-up) and he had developed a taste for danger and adventure.
I have to admit that I was wondering at the end if Richard really experienced the whole "London Below" adventure or if he had truly snapped and become mentally ill. Perhaps the ordeal he went through with the Black Frairs was the truth staring him in the face.
It was everything he thought he wanted, but it was safe, dull and boring (in other words, grown-up)As you say, there are so many different interpretations - I don't think a life where you don't really make your own decisions or have to face anything difficult is very "grown up." When we're little kids, things are safe - we have our parents taking care of us and making our decisions for us, like Jessica did for Richard. It could go either way, depending on how you look at it!
Your last paragraph is something I never thought of before, and is very interesting. I also hope it's not true...when I was little, I always desperately held onto the idea of Oz and Wonderland being real and not just dreams. :)
Brooke, I think part of the power of this book is that Gaiman leaves the interpretation up to the reader. He doesn't hand us all the answers on a silver platter. It's so ambiguous. I'm figuring that if I were to read this book in five years, I would interpret it very differently than I do now. In fact, I've been interpreting it differently every five minutes. Which London is real? Either, both or neither?
It's been quite a while since I saw Brazil, but actually I think that another Terry Gilliam film, The Fisher King might even be a closer fit.
More is more. Once Richard awakens to the fact that there are more things in heaven and hell than he had previously dreamed of in his old philosophy, could he really, with intent, turn away? It's one thing not to know, to be unaware of wonders. It's another to consciously turn your back on them. Richard couldn't remain in his cage, no matter how cushy it had gotten. It would have made his journey pointless.
@Donna: I think Brazil is an excellent comparison. :) The real world and madness are one and the same.The question in my mind is whether there was a third option he didn't bother to consider. It seemed that Richard's options were A) stay in LA and lead the life assigned to him OR B) return to LB and who knows what. (Yes, I'm aware it is a metaphor, but please bear with me) Never once did he consider the third option .. C) stay in LA, but use the lessons he learned in LB to make a new life for himself
This is what made it a depressing read for me. There is no compromise; his choices are office drone or nut case. While life does tend to beat one down into acceptance, it would be nice to think that the third option is available .. it may be difficult, it may involve skirting the edges of the two main options, but it is possible - or so I hope!
Donna, I think you are absolutely right. Things happen to Richard almost as magically in London Above as they do in London Below. You really get a sense of this when he returns to London Above and gets the better job and better flat even though he did nothing to earn them.
In some ways I agree with AA about the lack of compromise but in a different way. The one thing I kept struggling with was why there wasn't really an underworlder who still had fun in the above world. (The opposite compromise). You could steal all the food you needed and never get caught. You could go and live in some breathtaking wilderness. You could probably even play some awesome practical jokes. But no one seems to do anything like that. The two homeless guys were seen as leading a pretty crappy life in London Above. Hunter traveled about but was cursed to London Below. And then there's Old Bailey - a very interesting character because he lives on the roofs. He's the only one that really lives in London Above and enjoys it thoroughly. It's like everyone actually wants to live in the sewers. Is being ignored by the people of London really that bad?I don't think boring is the best way to describe Richard's London Above life. When he sees into the future, he even says that it wouldn't be a bad life by any means. But it's not adventurous; it's not self-fulfilling. He's the Warrior now, and once you become a hero, it's hard not to try and keep saving the world. It's like going through college pursuing your dreams in music or literature or some equally fun but not quite money-making pursuit, and then ending up as a sales clerk raising five kids the rest of your life. And all you keep dreaming about are those dear old college days. The life you have isn't a bad one, or even boring [two-year olds are not boring] or even meaningless. But it's not full of risks and daring feats. I know Richard is supposed to be more 'grown up' but I think he actually 'grows down' and becomes a kid again. And what a kid's world it is.
@Justin I don't think that London Below is meant to be thought of as just a physical place, more as a social status - I'm sure that Old Bailey lives just as much in London Below as Door and the Marquis.
He has just chosen a domain which physically lies above the notice of the inhabitants of London Above, while most of the other inhabitants of London Below physically exist below the notice of London Above.
Hopes this makes sense!?
Donna: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the differences between LA and LR, please?Sandikal: My interpretation was not that LA was magical because Richard had a "new & improved" life when he returned, but that in turning the key of reality he was given all the things he thought he wanted. Kind of like a mind trick. To me, it emphasized his lack of control and lack of willingness to make things happen for himself.
Justin: I'm with you .. I can only imagine the shenanigans one could get into knowing you wouldn't be noticed. Could be an interesting moral discussion :}
Donna: Thank you! I understand your point better now.The way I was looking at it, anything out of the ordinary in LA (the phone taking calls, Richard's new and improved life) was as a direct result of interference by LB.
This may be scarier than Mr. Croup, but it is highly unlikely here in the "real world" that I'd call the cops if a co-worker stopped coming to work. I might ask what happened to them, but otherwise I would (eek) assume they had gone on vacation. Many of the things I found most creepy in Neverwhere were in the LA scenes .. in many ways they are too close to reality for comfort.
Please keep in mind, I'm not saying this is right or the way the real world should be .. I simply think the book is trying to wake us drones up and prod us into thinking instead of assuming.
That's a great point, AA! I myself would not check in with a missing co-worker. I would probably ask my boss where he's been, get told some kind of "Dunno, he's not even called in" answer, then be like "Sucks..." and move on with my day. When it ultimately comes down to it, everyone inherently has a little bit Jessica in them, some more than others. No matter how altruistic you wish to be, whether or not you help someone usually comes down to one final question: is there danger in it for me? Whether its a financial risk you're wary of, or if its fear of bodily harm, you will ask yourself this question, even if you're not aware of it at the time. But everyone also has the capacity to be a Richard. The Richards of the world will look at the question, and then decide that the risk to themselves is outweighed by the need of the person, hence why he helps Door. The Jessica's of the world will decide that it's not worth the risk, and move on to safer waters.
Gaiman shows that yes, it is far easier to be a Jessica and only look out for yourself, but Jessica's never really accomplish anything worthwhile. They're not risk takers. Richards, on the other hand, take one risk that leads to another, and then another, and at the end, they have accomplished a great deal, and are able to look back on it with pride. Richard returns to London Below because London Above is full of Jessica's, and he has learned that he is not a Jessica.
Sorry, I guess Philosophy came up and smacked me in the face for a moment there.
Donna: That is an excellent point! Thanks for bringing up a deeper layer of meaning. I hadn't thought of it that way at all, but it makes excellent sense. 
I don't know why we have to think Richard is insane, wanting to go back to LB. I like the comment that focuses on how "great" everything was when he got back to his old life. Yet something was missing. I agree that it was "safe" and, obviously a bit "boring" to him. And as far as the relationship between Richard and Door, I believe that is entirely left up to our imaginations, and I like that. Personally, I haven't decided if I think they became romantically involved or not. But I do believe that they were probably the best of friends for many, many years, possibly even for "ever after." Heh.
Jeff, we don't have to think that's he's insane to want to go back to London Below. I just think that it's one of many possiblities. Gaiman left a lot of ambiguities in the story and this is one of them.
Sandikal said: we don't have to think that's he's insane to want to go back to London Below. I just think that it's one of many possiblities. During Richard's 'Ordeal' he apparently struggled with himself to the point where I believe that Gaiman strongly hinted that Richard was In London Below because he had suffered a mental break-down. Later, we discover that Richard is in fact the master of the 'key' (because He survived the ordeal, despite Door being a more obvious candidate). When Richard is finally told how he can return to London Above, we learn even more about the 'key' ... that it is the 'key' to reality itself. IMHO this means that the difference between LA and LB is purely perception and Richard must make a choice as to how he wishes to perceive the world around him. His first choice was a return to normalcy or sanity ... Back to the way it was (albeit somewhat better). Ultimately Richard discovered that he did not want the 'real' world (or could no more handle it then he could at the beginning of the story) and retreated back to insanity. In short, he was not insane to 'want' to go back to LB ... He was insane because he chose to stay there.
I'm not sure why, but I never really questioned Richard's sanity in the book, so I didn't see the LA/LB distinction as a matter of sanity but one of everyday life vs. adventure and the unknown. Some people thrive on the everyday--a routine, a desk job, etc but some people seem born (or are changed by an amazing event) to want more. Its present in other places in fiction--for example, in LOTR, Frodo, realizes he can no longer live in the normal hobbit world after his experiences, despite the fact that it was precisely what he had dreamed of throughout the series.
Some events change a person so fundamentally the world isn't ever quite the same but you don't realize it until you try to fit yourself into it again.
Donna said: The assumption there being that LA was sanity. Perhaps Richard became sane, and did not wish to return to delusion. You could interpret it that way; however, that would make several parts of the story more problematic ... Such as this short monologue at the end:
"I thought I wanted this," said Richard. "I thought I wanted a nice, normal life. I mean, maybe I am crazy. I mean, maybe. But if this is all there is, then I don't want to be sane. You know?"
Here is another problematic passage; I don't know if this is in the full edition ... It was obviously cut in the American edition (from the mini series):
Richard Oliver Mayhew: Can I ask a question?
The Marquis De Carabas: No. You don't ask any questions. You don't get any answers. You don't stray from the path. You don't even think about what's happening to you right now. Got it?
Richard Oliver Mayhew: Excuse me. I know this is a personal question, but are you clinically insane?
The Marquis De Carabas: It's very unlikely. Why?
Richard Oliver Mayhew: Well, one of us must be.
I think Richard going back to London Below has alot of significance - While he was "sucessful" in Upper London his life was very "meaningless" - one day just like the other. Goingt below is/was more unpredictable and exciting. I think it is a much more "fulfilling" place to live and ultimately shows that money can't buy happiness.
I read it mostly as the "humdrum" life versus the life of adventure and meaning and purpose. I don't think Richard feels like he has any real purpose in London Above, which, arguably, he doesn't... but in London Below he's achieved something, he's become someone.I also think that Richard belongs in London Below, and this is one reason why he saw Door when others didn't. It references the dreams he had about the Beast, before he even heard about the Beast. I think Richard's soul, for lack of a better term, always beonged there - which is one reason why he became part of the world so quickly because, in a way, he was always meant to be.
I agree with everything that blackrose said -- well stated ;-)-- Robin The Crown Conspiracy | Avempartha | Nyphron Rising (Oct 2009)
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Avempartha (other topics)Nyphron Rising (other topics)
This has already been touched on briefly in another thread, one suggestion was that once you had been made aware of the underside of society it is hard to return to the status quo of an inhabitant of London Above, while another poster suggested a Peter Pan complex.