Rating: 
Summary: Don't be scared away from a wonderful city by this book
Review: Ackroyd's book is full of wonderful images of a most fascinating city, but the book has two central flaws. I'll start with the easiest to detail -- its structure. The book's title London: the biography. First, I'll object to the use of "the" as if this book is the final word. Maybe "a biography". The book is certainly not a "history" in the strictest sense. History is generally told chronologically, and this book is anything but. Ackroyd does begin chronologically, but abandons chronology at whim to spend several chapters on long, parenthetical essays. Example: following mention of the Great Fire of 1666 and Newgate Prison as one of the first building reconstructed after the fire, Ackroyd goes into a multi-chapter essay on crime and punishment in London over the centuries. This extended essay isn't always presented chronologically either, with nineteenth century quotes used to support eighteenth century images, for example.
My second "beef" with the book is more important. Does Ackroyd even like London? I know that he lives there, but does he like the city. He reminds the reader, at every opportunity, that London's history has been "dark," "dirty," "chaotic," and "violent". He continually refers to the city as "a prison," "a disease" or "a madhouse". I have visited London, and I love the city. I find the city energetic and vibrant. I find Londoners welcoming, friendly, courteous and helpful. Almost none of this appears in Ackroyd's book. If I were reading this book, and I had never visited London, I'd be scared to death of the place. This book is certainly no homage to one of the great cities in the world; the book is certainly no compliment to some of world's most wonderful people.
So, why do I give it any stars at all? Because, the images Ackroyd paints of London are true. The list of images he chooses to present are, unfortunately, terribly incomplete. I wish he had not dwelt almost exclusively on the negative.
Rating: 
Summary: A magnificent history
Review: Ackroyd's portrait of London - for it is a portrait, of a living and breathing place - shows the city and its history from a variety of angles, both human and large-scale. The London that emerges from his story is an ancient and voracious one, which has an insatiable appetite for money, power and people. However, it's also a portrait illuminated with love, and the prose is riveting.
Rather than a chronological history, Ackroyd examines small vignettes of the city (for example, its food; darkness and the city; the madness for tea; continuties of buildings), in a way that's all the more compelling and revealing. Even if you know a fair bit about London, be prepared for surprises, and the urge to wander its streets with this book in hand. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Like the City, an organic work in progress
Review: As far as I am concerned, you can have Paris in the springtime. Give me London in the rain.
Ackroyd's book shares many characteristics with its namesake - it is crowded, organic, chaotic, and full of life. It also shares many of the City's faults - it's hard sometimes to find what you are looking for, and you can look in vain for any reason behind the juxtapositions of different cultural artifacts. Nevertheless, anyone who has spent more than the obligatory few days in the obligatory tourist sites will recognize the city from Ackroyd's prose.
One may complain that Ackroyd lingers too much on London's history of crime, social unrest, and dirt. Well, what do you expect of a city that boasts having had the "Great Stink" of 1858? Casual travelers, people who are looking for a simplistic history to read while in line for Madame Tussaud's, and anyone who desires a Disney-fied, Mary Poppins fantasy will be unhappy with this book.
But if you want to know what London _feels_ like, this book comes closer than anything else I have read to making me feel like I do when I am there. There is no city better for aimless wandering, stumbling through alleys, exploring the Underground, and observing the small details. It is a world-city grown pell-mell by greed, lust and need, with beauty in unexpected places and quiet rarer than gold, and more precious. In short, it is life. And, as Samuel Johnson famously said, "when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."
Rating:
Summary: A Great Book For A Wonderful City!!!
Review: Having lived in England for three years and having visited this wonderful city on more then one occassion I found this to be a very nice book to have as a keepsake of my stay in England.
London is a strange mix of modern and old and this book is a wonderful introduction to this amazing city. Mr. Ackroyd has managed to pen a book that will take you back to it's very beginning, and then slowly through narrative, and picture bring you up through her amazing history. London has see so much, and if you have never visited this historic city then you will want to after you have finished reading this book. This is a good book for either reading for pleasure or as a reference book. This book covers all manner of historical details that pertain to this city. Mr Ackroyd address the issues of art, society, architecture, and political issues. Truly is this an all encompassing book that will make a great addition to anyone's personal library.
Rating:
Summary: Social history as seen by a literary historian
Review: Impressive in its scope, astonishing in its erudition, overwhelming in its detail, "London" contains a smorgasbord of information from an awe-inspiring number of sources. Unlike most histories (much less biographies), most of the material in "London" is organized by theme; only three "events"--the Great Plague of 1665, the Great Fire of 1666, and the Blitz--are examined in depth. Chapters detail architecture, neighborhoods, markets, work, entertainment, food, drink, smells, crime, punishment, madness, sickness, and more. Critics have noted that the reader will find few aristocrats or statesmen among the pages of this book; Ackroyd's focus is on the streets, the habitats, the commoners, and the everyday life of London. Civil war and uprisings, kings and queens, mayors and parliaments are mentioned only in passing. Yet this is certainly no treatise inspired the Annales school. Instead, "London" is a social history written by a novelist and literary historian, one who is more likely to quote Pepys, Boswell, Dickens, or Orwell than to invoke Cromwell, Pitt, Disraeli, or Churchill. The author favors fiction, diaries, essays, and similar remnants of the literati over court documents, tax records, and other types of evidence examined by English social historians such as Lawrence Stone or E. P. Thompson. While Ackroyd excels in compilation, he neglects any attempt at true synthesis. The book's overwhelming erudition, while admirable, is sometimes oppressive, and there seems to be little thought given to the structure of the book. One could toss most of its 79 chapters into the air and read them in the order in which they fall to the ground, with little loss in comprehension. This encyclopedic doorstop is truly a book to dip into, not to read in several sittings. (In spite of how absorbing I found much of its content, it still took me six months to finish it.) The overall effect is a sequence of well-written, thematically ordered index cards flaunting the research assembled by a polymathic mind. The lack of synthesis is further displayed by an annoying tic: Ackroyd often follows a quote or anecdote with a generalized sentiment that begins "So..." or "Here..." A few of the many examples from his otherwise fascinating chapter on children: "Here the idea of innocence, in a corrupt and corrupting city, is powerfully effective." "So the singing child is alluding to a dreadful destiny within the city." "So London children were, from the beginning, at a disadvantage." "So for at least two centuries London children have been associated with, or identified by, gambling." "So the city hardened its street children in every sense." The problem with these sentences is not simply their lazy, hypnotic construction; rather, their vacuousness and vagueness add no insight to the quotes they are meant to illuminate. And, more often than not, their fuzzy universalities could apply to Detroit as much as to London. Nevertheless, in spite of its imperfections, one is hard pressed to discount entirely the wealth contained in these pages. I'm sure I'll spend the next few years hauling this tome off the bookshelf to look up a quote or revisit a London neighborhood. But I'm equally sure that I'll never again read through the entire book.
Rating:
Summary: Don't be scared away from London
Review: The first question that comes to mind as you read Ackroyd's book might be: Does this guy even like the city? I know from the flyleaf that he lives in London. I reading the book, I often wondered why. I have visited London; I love the city. But this book would certainly not encourage anyone to make the trip. You're going to need more than fingers and toes to count the number of times Ackroyd calls London "dirty," "violent," "dark," "chaotic," "like a prison," like a madhouse". There are certainly occasions when he admits to the city's vibrancy, to its energy. Rarely does he admit to the city's openness, its friendliness -- two qualities that would keep me returning to the city. I find the city clean and alive; I find Londoners particularly friendly and helpful. I just can't believe this book is an homage to the city; it's very disparaging. All that being said: The book may, indeed, be a "biography" of London; it is not a "history". History tends to be chronological (aren't also biographies meant to be?); Ackroyd's organization is anecdotal. For example, after mentioning the Great Fire of 1666, Ackroyd explains that one of the first building to be re-erected was the prison at Newgate. He then interrupts the narrative flow to spend several chapters on the nature of crime and punishment in London. This multi-chapter essay spans the centuries, and it is quite a few pages down the road before Ackroyd, again, takes up any kind of chronological flow. Even within his extended essays, Ackroyd will bounce back and forth, backwards and forwards and back again, among the centuries, pulling an eighteenth century quote to support a seventh century observation.
So why do I give this book even 3 stars? Because the images are fascinating. London is a fascinating city, and the book does present much of what makes the city fascinating. I only wish Ackroyd had given the city its due praise and not dwelled so much upon the negative.
Rating:
Summary: City lifes
Review: The metaphor of cities as organisms has become almost a cliche - yet it's one that fails utterly. Fortunately, Ackroyd essentially abandons the image as he progresses through this account of an urban "life". His narrative is lively and thorough - almost as dynamic as the city itself. After a brief chronology of beginnings, he switches to a topical survey of elements contributing to the character of London. Each segment may be local in time or place, or span distances and years. We learn about the wall surrounding The City, the impact of noise - an ongoing phenomenon which repels some while attracting others - eateries, housing, plagues and fires. There is a page and a quarter on suicides - although why that is set apart is elusive. Ackroyd sets it all down like a Medieval annalist, surpassing that genre by carrying themes from origins to modern times. The wealth of information presented is nearly overwhelming. While the material is well organized, the steppingstone effect impairs the flow of narrative. Perhaps, given the sweep of time and vast numbers of topics that can be derived from an urban history, light reading isn't possible. Few are indifferent to cities - people seem to loathe them or love them. Ackroyd is captivated by London, but he's anything but apologetic about the failings of urban living. Crowding leads to disease. Shoddy building practice encouraged conflagration. Noise is universal through time and space. Traffic jams long preceded the advent of the automobile and public transportation didn't prove a solution. While there are those who revel in such an environment, as Ackyord admits, his own affinity for urban dynamics blinds him to an outsider's hostile view. His most hilarious citation is that of Boswell's unfavourable comparison of Greenwich's weather that of Fleet Street! He cites few critics, almost universally foreign, not rural Britons. "Country folk" flocked to London: after the initial shock, smoothly fit in, continuing the urban dynamic he lauds. The business of London, states Ackroyd, is business. Development, restoration, exchanges of goods and services - including those involving such disparities as survival and entertainment - are what make London exist, even flourish. Property is fundamental, as he demonstrates when fires devastate London. No plans or authority could match the speed with which owners reclaimed their shops and homes after the disasters. Epidemics causing massive mortality only served to allow speculators fresh opportunities. This, of course, is "civilisation" at work. Almost invisible is the class structure this scenario creates, but Ackroyd aknowledges the "ubiquitious shadow" of the poor this situation creates. Their numbers, he notes, "could fully populate an average city". This, in the "greatest city in the world". Fully aware of their condition, the London poor generated some of history's more radical political movements. The initial year of the 14th Century witnessed uprisings of "savages" launching assaults on "their betters" - a tradition, Ackroyd notes, that is ongoing. More organised "movements" from the Wat Tyler tax revolt through the Lollards and Chartists to today's race conflicts bear witness to class resentment and disaffection. Urban dynamics, then, is not a wholly positive ideal. Ackroyd has culled nearly every ingredient that goes into making a city. In this case, it's London, but the same recipe could be applied nearly anywhere. If London fogs incite more literature than Sydney's sunshine, that's a feature of latitude. If Marx researched in London instead of Rome, that's an accident of history. The urban stew Although Ackroyd's admiration of his city is clear and unequivocal, presented in a treasure of informative prose. If you are a fan of cities, especially Britain's capital, you may find this book useful, even entertaining. He's a fine writer, assuming a monumental task. He does it as well as can be expected. He's given us a wearying tome, though hardly a boring one. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: City lifes
Review: The metaphor of cities as organisms has become almost a cliche - yet it's one that fails utterly. Fortunately, Ackroyd essentially abandons the image as he progresses through this account of an urban "life". His narrative is lively and thorough - almost as dynamic as the city itself. After a brief chronology of beginnings, he switches to a topical survey of elements contributing to the character of London. Each segment may be local in time or place, or span distances and years. We learn about the wall surrounding The City, the impact of noise - an ongoing phenomenon which repels some while attracting others - eateries, housing, plagues and fires. There is a page and a quarter on suicides - although why that is set apart is elusive. Ackroyd sets it all down like a Medieval annalist, surpassing that genre by carrying themes from origins to modern times. The wealth of information presented is nearly overwhelming. While the material is well organized, the steppingstone effect impairs the flow of narrative. Perhaps, given the sweep of time and vast numbers of topics that can be derived from an urban history, light reading isn't possible. Few are indifferent to cities - people seem to loathe them or love them. Ackroyd is captivated by London, but he's anything but apologetic about the failings of urban living. Crowding leads to disease. Shoddy building practice encouraged conflagration. Noise is universal through time and space. Traffic jams long preceded the advent of the automobile and public transportation didn't prove a solution. While there are those who revel in such an environment, as Ackyord admits, his own affinity for urban dynamics blinds him to an outsider's hostile view. His most hilarious citation is that of Boswell's unfavourable comparison of Greenwich's weather that of Fleet Street! He cites few critics, almost universally foreign, not rural Britons. "Country folk" flocked to London: after the initial shock, smoothly fit in, continuing the urban dynamic he lauds. The business of London, states Ackroyd, is business. Development, restoration, exchanges of goods and services - including those involving such disparities as survival and entertainment - are what make London exist, even flourish. Property is fundamental, as he demonstrates when fires devastate London. No plans or authority could match the speed with which owners reclaimed their shops and homes after the disasters. Epidemics causing massive mortality only served to allow speculators fresh opportunities. This, of course, is "civilisation" at work. Almost invisible is the class structure this scenario creates, but Ackroyd aknowledges the "ubiquitious shadow" of the poor this situation creates. Their numbers, he notes, "could fully populate an average city". This, in the "greatest city in the world". Fully aware of their condition, the London poor generated some of history's more radical political movements. The initial year of the 14th Century witnessed uprisings of "savages" launching assaults on "their betters" - a tradition, Ackroyd notes, that is ongoing. More organised "movements" from the Wat Tyler tax revolt through the Lollards and Chartists to today's race conflicts bear witness to class resentment and disaffection. Urban dynamics, then, is not a wholly positive ideal. Ackroyd has culled nearly every ingredient that goes into making a city. In this case, it's London, but the same recipe could be applied nearly anywhere. If London fogs incite more literature than Sydney's sunshine, that's a feature of latitude. If Marx researched in London instead of Rome, that's an accident of history. The urban stew Although Ackroyd's admiration of his city is clear and unequivocal, presented in a treasure of informative prose. If you are a fan of cities, especially Britain's capital, you may find this book useful, even entertaining. He's a fine writer, assuming a monumental task. He does it as well as can be expected. He's given us a wearying tome, though hardly a boring one. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: my favorite book on how to hear the "voice" of a city
Review: This book has been criticized for its informal style, its anecdotal quality, and its lack of chronology; yet the title tells us up front that it's not a "history," but a "biography." It treats London as a person best understood through a kind of case history or genealogy. The author has done his homework, but he also goes well beyond the mere facts and dates to listen carefully into the images, motifs, and themes of London's past and present, and this makes the book immensely valuable as a deeper-than-usual resource into the "soul" of a place the author obviously loves despite its shadows and ugly spots.
Rating:
Summary: my favorite book on how to hear the "voice" of a city
Review: This book has been criticized for its informal style, its anecdotal quality, and its lack of chronology; yet the title tells us up front that it's not a "history," but a "biography." It treats London as a person best understood through a kind of case history or genealogy. The author has done his homework, but he also goes well beyond the mere facts and dates to listen carefully into the images, motifs, and themes of London's past and present, and this makes the book immensely valuable as a deeper-than-usual resource into the "soul" of a place the author obviously loves despite its shadows and ugly spots.
|
