InterWorld (or the Kindle version, which is what I read) by Neil Gaiman and Michael Reeves was disappointing. It’s not bad; I’d characterize it as mediocre but harmed by my expectations for the authors. Gaiman and Reeves have imagined a very vivid world, but the pacing and characterization (particularly in the beginning) leave the whole thing a bit flat. The last half is actually a lot better than the first; this feels like the kind of book whose sequels (if there are any) will outshine the original because they won’t be burdened with exposition. I think the problem is that we don’t get eased into the action at all; if it were a graphic novel the abrupt shift from mundane reality into wild science-fantasy would probably work, but as a novel I was left wondering just why I was supposed to care about some of the characters (or believe the over-the-top settings).

Pretty disappointing for a Neil Gaiman novel (even if he was collaborating). I have not been impressed with much of Gaiman’s work since Anansi Boys, and even that wasn’t as good as its predecessors. I’m beginning to wonder if he’s one of those authors who has a brilliant early career but isn’t able to sustain it.

2 responses to “InterWorld”

Leave a response

  1. jack frost 11 says:

    They say in the afterword of Interworld that the book was written in 1998 and put in a drawer. Also, the reviews of the Graveyard Book I have read say it is Gaiman’s best. has he written any other novels since Anansi Boys?

  2. Ian Beck says:

    I don’t think the Graveyard Book comes out for several months, does it? Here’s hoping that it’s better than some of his recent work (Beowulf, I’m looking at you).

Leave a response

Clicky Web Analytics