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: 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: The Matter of London
Review: In London three writers are closely associated as starting the so-called 'psychogeography' movement, essentially a romantic movement which understands that human beings leave their stories in the earth and stones of their environment. The three writers are Michael Moorcock (whose Gloriana and Mother London are acknowledged influences on Ackroyd) Iain Sinclair (whose Lud Heat inspired Hawksmoor and whose Downriver is usually cited with Mother London as one of the two finest modern London novels) and Peter Ackroyd (whose Dickens, Blake and Eliot biographies are masterpieces of their kind, bringing life and imagination, as well as inspired insight, to their subjects). These three giants are best read in conjunction. They are all fascinated with popular entertainment and incorporate it into their work -- the London music hall fascinates Ackroyd (Dan Leno, for instance) and Moorcock (from The Cornelius Quartet to London Bone) has used it to great effect. These are not modernist writers, yet they look back to a Victorian past as much as they employ techniques usually called 'post-modern', and they represent an important and in recent years rather overlooked strand in the English romantic canon. Ackroyd's London is as much a fantasy as his Dickens -- and for that reason it is far more real than any dry-as-dust retailing of facts and figures. He brings a London to life that is as vital as Dickens and as real as Gissing and it is a London I know and love as much as the ordinary, grey run-of-the-mill South London suburb I lived in for nearly twenty years. It is why you stay living there, because you can feel the same ghosts as Ackroyd feels, hear the same voices, sense the same history, and this book brings it all back. Vivid, enthusiastic, celebratory, I can't recommend this too much. But try the other two of this modern 'triumvirate' -- you'll be rewarded by Mother London and Downriver more than you could possibly imagine! This is London, warts and all, but she still pulls you in as fast as a
Dickens novel. Get this for someone you like for their generosity. It will be a fair reward!
Rating: 
Summary: Existential claptrap
Review: London is my favorite city in the world. I've visited there many times, and love it each time. I thoroughly enjoyed Stephen Inwood's A History of London, and looked forward to this book by Ackroyd. What a disappointment! I made it through 80 pages of existential waxing about the history of London, filled with rhetorical (or non-rhetorical)questions which were irritating and insulting. Note for the author: Let the READER speculate and reflect on what you're telling him or her. Asking constant questions just makes me think you consider all of us to be idiots. I quit this book during the chapter on silence, where Ackroyd's existentialism went even more overboard than usual. In addition, he seems to enjoy flaunting his vocabulary, using "numinous", for instance, twice in several pages, and repeating a quote about a silent London courtyard twice in one paragraph. Must be a really dumb reader who has to be shown the quote twice. Note to the author: good that there's a quiet part of London, and good that Hawthorne and Washington Irving discovered it and wrote about it. One paragraph suffices, not a whole chapter. Note to the author: stick to fiction.
Rating:
Summary: A Fabulous History of a Fabulous City
Review: Peter Ackroyd has produced a magnificent history of my favorite city, London. It is roughly chronological in scope but has plenty of fascinating little chapters highlighting certain aspects of the city's life over the centuries, like its pollution problems or its cosmopolitan populace. This discursiveness is an echo of one of my favorite aspects of London: the chance of wandering from one neighborhood (or chapter) to another totally different in atmosphere. Although at my first reading I went straight through in a matter of a few days, I anticipate keeping this book at hand for some time so as to be able to pick it up at random for a few minutes' reading. In this way I can fully appreciate the many small chapters and vignettes which make it up.
Rating: 
Summary: complete and thorough
Review: The definitive book on the life of london, its entire history since earliest time, to an insightful description of all those little details about the city that those who have lived there will love. Some subjects i found boring, but he deals with so many different topics that theres something for everydoby in there, from the life of children, to a history of the subterranean life of london, to the history of revolutionary ideas in Clerkenwell. Its got it all. At 800 pages, and a great bibliography, its excellent value for money
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: 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]
|
