Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
42 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Review and Response to Mr Loveitt, 4 Nov 2003
Written history is always subjective. Admittedly here Mr Ackroyd has made no exception. I am a New Yorker by birth but London has been my home for a third of my life.Peter Ackroyd writes about 'his London' and this has become 'my London' too.To read any of Peter Ackroyd's books on London, fiction, biography or history is to have all of one's senses come alive.The reader is transported to that time and place.We walk the hidden alleyways of a London that survives just below the surface of this modern city. This is TS Eliott's 'intersection of the timeless moment'.When Ackroyd critcises modern developments in this city, it is because everyday the essence of this wonderful city becomes a bit more obscured beneath concrete. Instead of feeling all of London's tenses, past, present and future: we are fast losing touch with its past. In the future we will have more and more to thank Peter Ackroyd for. His beautiful evocative prose have created a time capsule for all of us who love this city. Certainly this is a gift not only to Londoners but to anyone who wants to peak around corners, who finds magic walking the streets of this or any city in the pre-dawn hours, but mostly to those of us who are not merely content to walk the concrete pavements of this city and claim that we know it.The brilliance of Peter Ackroyd's work has delighted me with each new title since reading "Hawksmoor" many years ago. This latest work is a wonderful addition to an excellent body of work.
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not just a coffee table book., 20 Mar 2004
Although I have lived in London most of my life, it still fascinates me. I have bought and read several books on LOndon over the last few months including Roy Porter. This is a very informative and undemanding book in terms of text. The illustrations are what makes this book a true gem especially those snapshots of ordinary Londoners. Particularly poignant were images of children during the Blitz. A good present for interested Londoners and especially people coming to move here from overseas.
|
|
|
68 of 120 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Good Illustrations; Quirky Text, 20 Oct 2003
Peter Ackroyd was born in London and has lived there all of his life. I am not British and have never even been to London. Before I sat down to write this review I asked myself, "Who am I to criticize?" But after doing some soul-searching I think my criticisms are valid. I assume that most people who read this review will be residents of London. So, after you finish reading this you can decide if the review has any value. I know that Mr. Ackroyd has previously written both biography and history, but I also know that he is equally famous as a novelist. Perhaps it might have been better if the wonderful illustrations (photos, portraits, cartoons, etc.) in this book had been accompanied by text written by someone who is a "pure" historian....or else, call this a "personal history." The text is too personal, too metaphysical, too subjective. What are we to make of the following sentences? "London goes beyond any boundary or convention. It contains every wish or word ever spoken, every action or gesture ever made, every harsh or noble statement ever expressed." Appropriate for a novel, yes. For a work of history, no. Mr. Ackroyd seems very alienated and the book is very negative. The author states that there is no sense of community in London - people seem cut off from one another and dazed by all the urban confusion. He says there is no respect for the past - buildings are constantly being torn down and others are being put up. He states that the making of money is considered all-important. Am I saying that Mr. Ackroyd is wrong? Of course not. I'm sure many people feel the same way. I'm also sure many people would disagree and would feel that his comments are too dogmatic - too one-sided. What Mr. Ackroyd is presenting isn't history, it's commentary. The text presents other problems. Sometimes Mr. Ackroyd contradicts himself. At one point the author states that in most places in the world it takes foreigners years to fit in, but in London a person will be assimilated in a matter of months. But then he goes on to mention the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots of 1780, the suspicion of the Jews and Irish living in the East End, the historical distrust of the Chinese, and the ongoing racial problems stemming from immigration from Africa and the West Indies (circa 1950 to the present). At other points Mr. Ackroyd makes comments that demonstrate an ability to think creatively, and possess a surface cleverness, but don't stand up to analysis. For example, he speculates that one reason people in the East End were looked down upon was the psychological association with "The East" - i.e.- the Orient. The author believes that the word east in East End conjured up images of non-Christians and people who were different from Europeans. What is Mr. Ackroyd saying? If these people had lived in the West End other people would have had a more favorable opinion because of the "positive" psychological value of "The West"? I don't want to give the impression that the whole book is like this. It isn't. But there's enough of this type of thing to leave a bad taste in your mouth. The book also suffers from the choices Mr. Ackroyd has to make because of the brief amount of text. There are so many illustrations that there isn't much room left for narrative. If you want to know about the Great Fire of 1666 (and the outbreak of the Plague 1665-1667) you will find a lot of material here. Likewise, the Gordon Riots, Bartholomew Fair, and the Blitz and WWII are pretty well documented. That's pretty much it, though. Mr. Ackroyd seems to have primarily a Dickensian focus - he enjoys talking about colorful street people, pickpockets, prisons, hangings, popular entertainment, etc. There is almost nothing on "high" culture, architecture, the financial history of London, etc. In other words, there are huge gaps in what is present. If you are looking for any sort of in-depth history, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Because of this fact, and also because of the highly subjective and speculative point of view, I cannot recommend this book.
|
|
|
|