What do you think?
Rate this book
London : A Short History
In this short history of London the bestselling author AN Wilson traces London’s colourful and dramatic history over the last 2000 years from being a backwater in the Classical age to an important medieval city, a significant Renaissance urban centre to the modern colossus that it is today. From Roman times to the present, it has been a city which has evolved, if not by mistake then haphazard. It is not a great capital city in the sense that Rome, St Petersburg or Paris are great capitals. There has been no English Peter the Great, or Sixtus the Fifth or Louis Quatorze or Napoleon; hence in London no despot was ever in a position to level the place to the ground and start again, or to plan it according to some great design. It is a city which has rebuilt and reinvented itself in each generation. Its history is one of remarkable resilience – it has survived great fires, pestilence, civil war, the Blitz – and of stark contrasts – pageantry, wealth, poverty, squalor. It has been the home or inspiration for countless writers and artists (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dr Johnson, Pepys, Hogarth, Dickens). A N Wilson will look at the interaction between the city’s people, architecture, economy, criminal London, low life and high life, beggars and politicians, Royal families, intellectuals to bring alive the history of a city which was once the centre of the greatest mercantile empire the world has ever known and which remains one of the major financial hubs of the world.
Hardcover
First published March 1, 1995
20 people are currently reading
382 people want to read
About the author
A.N. Wilson
117 books242 followersAndrew Norman Wilson is an English writer and newspaper columnist, known for his critical biographies, novels, works of popular history and religious views. He is an occasional columnist for the Daily Mail and former columnist for the London Evening Standard, and has been an occasional contributor to the Times Literary Supplement, New Statesman, The Spectator and The Observer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
February 25, 2023
Two thousand years in 150 pages!
If the biography of a city whose history spans two thousand years is compressed to the short written span of only 150 pages, it is of necessity less than comprehensive. Like the late evening news, whose information is a compilation of sound bytes and 30 second highlights summarizing the day's events from around the world, AN Wilson's LONDON is entertaining and briefly hits only the highest of the high spots. If a reader limits his expectations to information content at that limited level, then any potential disappointment will dissipate like the mists of an early morning fog on the Thames. Instead the reader will be treated to a very entertaining and informative read that adequately traces the evolution of London from an outlying Roman settlement to a multi-ethnic cosmopolis whose economy is built upon the twin pillars of tourism and world finance.
"London is now a town much more like New York than it is like Rome or Paris. It does not have a particularly national identity. The big City institutions are largely staffed, funded and run, as well as owned, by hugely powerful non-British companies, American, German and Japanese. The economy depends upon non-British holidaymakers coming in huge numbers to be fed and tended by, on the whole, non-British restaurateurs, hoteliers, entertainers ... " and the like.
I found it particularly interesting that Wilson, like Bill Bryson in his NOTES FROM A SMALL ISLAND, makes much of the abysmal state of post World War II architecture and the generally appalling lack of leadership and centralized urban planning in the growth of the city of London. But whatever criticisms Wilson might level at London are also tempered by his obvious love for the city and his optimism that "in spite of all the mistakes made by its administrators, it will meet the challenges of the future".
As one of those millions of visiting tourists, I purchased LONDON: A SHORT HISTORY as a souvenir with the intent of learning a little bit more about the city that was gracious enough to give me such an enjoyable vacation. It filled the bill perfectly. The few brief pages, for example, that talked about Churchill's leadership and the city's unflappable courage during the London Blitzkrieg were a wonderful, moving summary of the city's finest hour.
Highly recommended.
Paul Weiss
If the biography of a city whose history spans two thousand years is compressed to the short written span of only 150 pages, it is of necessity less than comprehensive. Like the late evening news, whose information is a compilation of sound bytes and 30 second highlights summarizing the day's events from around the world, AN Wilson's LONDON is entertaining and briefly hits only the highest of the high spots. If a reader limits his expectations to information content at that limited level, then any potential disappointment will dissipate like the mists of an early morning fog on the Thames. Instead the reader will be treated to a very entertaining and informative read that adequately traces the evolution of London from an outlying Roman settlement to a multi-ethnic cosmopolis whose economy is built upon the twin pillars of tourism and world finance.
"London is now a town much more like New York than it is like Rome or Paris. It does not have a particularly national identity. The big City institutions are largely staffed, funded and run, as well as owned, by hugely powerful non-British companies, American, German and Japanese. The economy depends upon non-British holidaymakers coming in huge numbers to be fed and tended by, on the whole, non-British restaurateurs, hoteliers, entertainers ... " and the like.
I found it particularly interesting that Wilson, like Bill Bryson in his NOTES FROM A SMALL ISLAND, makes much of the abysmal state of post World War II architecture and the generally appalling lack of leadership and centralized urban planning in the growth of the city of London. But whatever criticisms Wilson might level at London are also tempered by his obvious love for the city and his optimism that "in spite of all the mistakes made by its administrators, it will meet the challenges of the future".
As one of those millions of visiting tourists, I purchased LONDON: A SHORT HISTORY as a souvenir with the intent of learning a little bit more about the city that was gracious enough to give me such an enjoyable vacation. It filled the bill perfectly. The few brief pages, for example, that talked about Churchill's leadership and the city's unflappable courage during the London Blitzkrieg were a wonderful, moving summary of the city's finest hour.
Highly recommended.
Paul Weiss
March 9, 2009
This is not really a history of London as the title would suggest. It is really an extended editorial by an author who loves 18th century architecture and the Cabinet War Rooms, and hates "Red" Ken Livingstone (former mayor) and the Tate Modern museum. If you've never been to London, this book will not be of much help in learning about the city unless you read it in conjunction with Google Earth or a copy of London A-Z. If you're familiar with British history, you will be bored, because the author only gives a very vague outline of the trajectory of the city's history. If you don't know much about British history, you will be confused, because the author does not give the general reader enough background information to understand the important characters in the city's story. Overall, I found this a disappointing book about a fascinating city.
February 2, 2020
A strange book really. If you don't know the broad outlines of British history, you don't stand a chance of following it. If you do, then there's almost nothing new or of interest here.
Add in that some of the history presented is pretty shaky stuff. Henry VIII probably didn't have syphilis, and using the possibility to imply he was a 'merry monarch' is dishonest. The claim that Elgin acquired the Parthenon Marbles legally is questionable at best (and the implication that the British Museum has looked after them is also dubious). The idea that servants quarters were a good solution to the Victorian housing crisis is just strange, since most servants lived in terrible conditions (and they were looked down on by the rest of the working class precisely because they 'lived in'). Those are just a few that caught my eye.
Then there's the weird politics/proto-Daily Mail articles. The (now dated) obsession with Ken Livingstone. The weird approach to immigration. The general air of 'old man shouts at cloud'. There's also a couple of particularly extraordinary statements
On 19th Antisemitism; 'That there was too much foundation for many of these accusations, and still is, no reasonable Jew can now deny'. I'm honestly not sure if I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.
On asylum seekers; 'None of these people [Jews fleeing Nazi Europe] were given state handouts or dole money just for being "asylum seekers"' Asylum Seekers are legally barred from working in the UK. One can't help but suspect he would have been equally welcoming to the Jewish asylum seekers of the 1930s.
I suppose on the bright side it's a very quick read.
Add in that some of the history presented is pretty shaky stuff. Henry VIII probably didn't have syphilis, and using the possibility to imply he was a 'merry monarch' is dishonest. The claim that Elgin acquired the Parthenon Marbles legally is questionable at best (and the implication that the British Museum has looked after them is also dubious). The idea that servants quarters were a good solution to the Victorian housing crisis is just strange, since most servants lived in terrible conditions (and they were looked down on by the rest of the working class precisely because they 'lived in'). Those are just a few that caught my eye.
Then there's the weird politics/proto-Daily Mail articles. The (now dated) obsession with Ken Livingstone. The weird approach to immigration. The general air of 'old man shouts at cloud'. There's also a couple of particularly extraordinary statements
On 19th Antisemitism; 'That there was too much foundation for many of these accusations, and still is, no reasonable Jew can now deny'. I'm honestly not sure if I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.
On asylum seekers; 'None of these people [Jews fleeing Nazi Europe] were given state handouts or dole money just for being "asylum seekers"' Asylum Seekers are legally barred from working in the UK. One can't help but suspect he would have been equally welcoming to the Jewish asylum seekers of the 1930s.
I suppose on the bright side it's a very quick read.
February 8, 2021
The last time I was actually in London was 1994 and this book was written in 2004. I was however, curious to know how the author could fit 2000 years of history into less than 200 pages. Thus, this was a highly readable summary which is divided into periods, highlighting the most significant achievements of that epoch, especially in terms of architecture.
Beginning with a description of the Fleet River which coursed through open countryside in Roman tiimes, and is now covered over by the street of the same name, the author makes clear that London, unlike other capitols was never centrally planned. What today are merely neighborhoods like Camden, etc.; began as autonomous villages along the river in which all was chaos until 1666.
However, like Chicago in 1871, 70% of the city was burned to the ground and allowed to start over. Thus, the best parts of the city were designed by Wren, and later Inigo Jones who imposed a cohesive style on everything they did.
While the author believes the much of the Victorian architecture to be ugly, at least they initiated great infrastructure projects still in use like the Embankment and the sewer system which kept the Thames from flooding residential areas with smelly sewage.
But he is also scathing when discussing more recent post-war creations which he likens to communist slabs. And he is unsparing with what he calls the "Americanization and moronization" of Britain, the apotheosis of which is The Millennium Dome.
And responding to the Lord Mayor's plan for 2002, he certainly pulls no punches, calling it "a masterpiece of ill-advised euphemisms and cliches. 'In the emerging information society London will need to become increasingly a learning city,' [where have I heard that one before?] is a piece of gobbledegook trying to hide from itself the fact that half of the population of London will in the future, be illiterate."
Thus on the whole I found it to be amusing. I just wish there hadbeen more photos. The good news is I probably thwarted the Google algorithm by searching for photos of every ugly building in London (not my usual thing). I wonder what he thinks nearly twenty years later?
Beginning with a description of the Fleet River which coursed through open countryside in Roman tiimes, and is now covered over by the street of the same name, the author makes clear that London, unlike other capitols was never centrally planned. What today are merely neighborhoods like Camden, etc.; began as autonomous villages along the river in which all was chaos until 1666.
However, like Chicago in 1871, 70% of the city was burned to the ground and allowed to start over. Thus, the best parts of the city were designed by Wren, and later Inigo Jones who imposed a cohesive style on everything they did.
While the author believes the much of the Victorian architecture to be ugly, at least they initiated great infrastructure projects still in use like the Embankment and the sewer system which kept the Thames from flooding residential areas with smelly sewage.
But he is also scathing when discussing more recent post-war creations which he likens to communist slabs. And he is unsparing with what he calls the "Americanization and moronization" of Britain, the apotheosis of which is The Millennium Dome.
And responding to the Lord Mayor's plan for 2002, he certainly pulls no punches, calling it "a masterpiece of ill-advised euphemisms and cliches. 'In the emerging information society London will need to become increasingly a learning city,' [where have I heard that one before?] is a piece of gobbledegook trying to hide from itself the fact that half of the population of London will in the future, be illiterate."
Thus on the whole I found it to be amusing. I just wish there hadbeen more photos. The good news is I probably thwarted the Google algorithm by searching for photos of every ugly building in London (not my usual thing). I wonder what he thinks nearly twenty years later?
April 4, 2014
This book started out okay but then took a dive off an opinionated cliff.
I love London and consider myself privileged to have visited the city back in 2011. Actually, to say that I love the city would be an understatement. If it were just a little bit easier I would seriously consider moving there as soon as possible.
If I based my opinion of the city on Wilson's incredibly biased work of "history" I would want to stay as far away from the city as possible. Thankfully, I'm not that gullible.
Wilson's narrative degenerates into so much hogwash by the end of the book I could barely stand to finish listening. It's been a long time since I disliked a book so much.
I definitely don't recommend it.
I love London and consider myself privileged to have visited the city back in 2011. Actually, to say that I love the city would be an understatement. If it were just a little bit easier I would seriously consider moving there as soon as possible.
If I based my opinion of the city on Wilson's incredibly biased work of "history" I would want to stay as far away from the city as possible. Thankfully, I'm not that gullible.
Wilson's narrative degenerates into so much hogwash by the end of the book I could barely stand to finish listening. It's been a long time since I disliked a book so much.
I definitely don't recommend it.
June 8, 2007
This was disappointing. I expected to get the story of London; its beginnings, its growth, its major events and its culture. What I got was a lot of nonsense about obscure characters and architecture that are only interesting to the author. He assumes far too much prior knowledge with his name-dropping of people and events, he skips over entire centuries, and he expresses his ideas poorly. The nice thing about it is, it's very short and the chapters are manageable. That's about the only nice thing I can think of to say...
March 12, 2021
A too brief overview of London with emphasis on architecture, city planning and class.
June 10, 2024
the author seemed to be pretentious classist and racist i’m afraid
May 9, 2008
Despite its title, this book is far from being a systematic historical account; instead, it peoples London with ghosts of "old, unhappy, far-off things/ And battles long ago".
The style is very clear but scholarly; the book is obviously written by one who knows and loves London and its history and communicates that love to the reader.
On the other hand, Wilson's attempts to reconcile the history of London with its modern self sound as strained as they are well-intentioned. I do wish he had left the odes to multiculturalism to the politicians!
The style is very clear but scholarly; the book is obviously written by one who knows and loves London and its history and communicates that love to the reader.
On the other hand, Wilson's attempts to reconcile the history of London with its modern self sound as strained as they are well-intentioned. I do wish he had left the odes to multiculturalism to the politicians!
September 8, 2010
Exactly as the title suggests, this is a short history of London. I really wanted to love this book (is there anything more fascinating and romantic in history than imagining the back alleys of London over the last 1500 years?). However, the author has the most pompous tone and biases that I don’t always agree with which greatly interferes with any sustained enjoyment of this book.
January 8, 2012
A quick and easy read, but very rambly and definitely not as advertized. I was put off by the very anti-immigrant tone of the introduction, which is even weirder when the chapter that deals with modern immigration to London is much more open-minded.
June 25, 2012
A short history and a long rant.
I would recommend V. S. Pritchett's, "London Perceived" and Peter Ackroyd's "London: A Biography" instead.
I would recommend V. S. Pritchett's, "London Perceived" and Peter Ackroyd's "London: A Biography" instead.
October 13, 2017
The good:
-Good, brief overview that encompasses politics, scientists, artists, kings, etc.
-Interesting and unconventional suggestions for sightseeing.
-Definitely whets my appetite and makes me want to learn more about the succession of monarchs, London daily life during WWII, prehistoric Londoners, etc.
The bad:
-Too many opinions about the politics of architecture and the effects of architecture on the character of the city. What even is that? There are only 200 pages to give me a history of London.
-Wilson wants the city to remain "true to itself," but doesn't define what that means.
-Pessimistic view of the Globe theater. It's that purism.
-At times the reader can feel like a smooth rock skipping across the water, barely touching on events or trends that seem like they may be important but get passed by. Of course, this is the reality when we try to cram thousands of years of history into 200 pages.
The ugly:
Um, it seems like Wilson despises tourists. He assumes a certain knowledge base about London, which makes me think this book wasn't written for visitors.
Mostly, the whole thing just felt a bit pessimistic. I should have known from the dreary cover.
-Good, brief overview that encompasses politics, scientists, artists, kings, etc.
-Interesting and unconventional suggestions for sightseeing.
-Definitely whets my appetite and makes me want to learn more about the succession of monarchs, London daily life during WWII, prehistoric Londoners, etc.
The bad:
-Too many opinions about the politics of architecture and the effects of architecture on the character of the city. What even is that? There are only 200 pages to give me a history of London.
-Wilson wants the city to remain "true to itself," but doesn't define what that means.
-Pessimistic view of the Globe theater. It's that purism.
-At times the reader can feel like a smooth rock skipping across the water, barely touching on events or trends that seem like they may be important but get passed by. Of course, this is the reality when we try to cram thousands of years of history into 200 pages.
The ugly:
Um, it seems like Wilson despises tourists. He assumes a certain knowledge base about London, which makes me think this book wasn't written for visitors.
Mostly, the whole thing just felt a bit pessimistic. I should have known from the dreary cover.
January 27, 2019
There are many reasons to read a history of London. One is, you’ve read many already and this is just another one. Two: You’ve not read anything before and this looks the least painful. Three: You are going on a trip and want to know about the Victorian period because that’s when your hotel was built. Four: You watch Downton Abbey and think this book—or is it the series?— has relevance. I would say this book doesn’t quite fit any of those profiles. If you’ve read a great deal about London history, you’ll learn a bit more here (“putting down your Garnish”). If you’ve never read anything on the subject before, this is indeed not painful but you might follow it up with some Peter Ackroyd. If you are going on a trip, this will do quite nicely as a companion to your DK. And if you are a Downton Abbey fan, well let me assure you this has no relevance whatsoever. Happy reading!
May 5, 2025
Bit of a mixed bag that doesn't really work for me. Mostly focused on architecture (old good, new bad according to Wilson) and a bit on Londoner's behaviour (old clever, new dumb according to Wilson). Some dubious history presented as fact, and the brevity of the book prevents the author from really unpacking anything in any interesting depth.
On the other hand, I've made notes of a few things this book mentioned that I want to look further into. Also includes an interesting section challenging racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric, pointing out how racist prophecies of disaster have failed to come true, and the real enemies of London are not immigrants or benefit scroungers, but faceless global businessmen out for a profit by any means.
One for the charity shop.
On the other hand, I've made notes of a few things this book mentioned that I want to look further into. Also includes an interesting section challenging racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric, pointing out how racist prophecies of disaster have failed to come true, and the real enemies of London are not immigrants or benefit scroungers, but faceless global businessmen out for a profit by any means.
One for the charity shop.
July 16, 2017
Would not recommend this book. He gets historical facts wrong and there are so many grammatical errors. He seems to only care about architecture and although London is full of beautiful buildings, it is not its only history. Also he says St Paul is not Wren's most beautiful church... I've seen a lot of Wren's churches and St Paul is miles above the others.
July 18, 2017
Super concise and highly opinionated but a great read to get you in the mood for a quick trip to this epic city. Sets a tone and gives you interesting context for some of what you will see. Makes you want to read more - which can't be a bad thing. Author has some strong opinions and he is not afraid to share them!
December 8, 2018
Entertaining, if often random and generally surface-level treatment of London history, with razor-sharp observations of post-war London's architectural grotesqueries and political ineptitude, all delivered with signature British wit and sangfroid. An agreeable brief prelude to a visit to the city.
January 2, 2019
You go into a 200 page history of London knowing it will be a bit thin on detail. So the amount of time spent critiquing modernism and editorializing on this, that, or the other was frustrating. Perhaps the book was aimed more at fans of Wilson than in fans of history. Still, there are enough interesting anecdotes to compel me to finish.
September 9, 2023
As others have said, this is in no way a history. At best it is musings primarily about London’s architectural history. It suffers from “curmudgeon syndrome”: “Everything old is good; everything new (especially in the arts and architecture) is bad. I was surprised to find that Wilson was only in his 50s when he wrote this. I guess he was a precocious curmudgeon.
May 7, 2020
It's somewhat astounding how the author managed to take the fascinating history of such an interesting city and make it so dry and boring...If you want to know the history of London, there are much better books out there.
June 30, 2018
A cranky contrarian complains about architecture.
September 26, 2018
This book is pretty dry. So it’s hard for me to pick it up again once I put it down. I like that it listed what is built at different era.
March 18, 2021
A swift and pleasant jaunt. Seems to have aged rather well, and certainly makes a fine companion text to Peter Ackroyd’s tome.
September 17, 2021
A short by fact filled look at the history of London.
April 8, 2022
A well-written overview of London, told in broad strokes with a good deal of wit.
May 20, 2022
Oh this was good! Thoroughly enjoyed the narrative and the history of the city through the lives of the characters detailed therein
November 10, 2024
Enjoyable synopsis of London history with plenty of detail and commentary.
December 18, 2016
I really enjoyed 'The Victorians', Wilson's last effort. It seemed to link the dominant themes of the Victorian era effortlessly - even when they seemed at odds (grinding poverty and the pursuit of culture for example). It avoided the 'lots of important men invented big things' mentality of many recent reviews of the 19th Century both in print and on television.
So, I had high hopes for this accurately titled little book. Its size certainly concerned me however. After the weight and authority of Stephen Inwood's 'History of London' and the sheer overwhelming emotional sweep of Peter Ackroyd's 'London - A Biography', one expects more pages from a history of London. From the outset however, it is clear that this is a different kind of book. Wilson's breezy dash through the accepted version of the history of London rarely digresses into the underbelly. Nods to Booth and Mayhew accept poverty as a given, and in a traditional 'history book' style the people of the city and the buildings and infrastructure are rarely related by Wilson.
By the middle of the book we are in the Second World War, and the book begins to change. From here in, Wilson becomes entagled in immigration, cultural diversity and modern architechture. He seems uncertain where he stands on any of the topics, and settles on padding out a variety of statistics on immigration, crime and transport with some pictures of buildings he deems 'silly'. In a sense Wilson is reflecting the quiet and rarely expressed ambivalence that British people feel here - wanting to accept a cosmopolitan society but terrified and misled by media representations of the 'unknown' of Islam for example. However, it seems to me that nowhere is this tension brought more to the fore than in modern London - and nowhere is it more often successfully resolved. Wilson, rather typically dwells on the incidents which have caused death and controversy, revisiting the crime scenes but drawing no conclusions. I sense that Wilson wants to say some controversial things here, but is very aware of the sort of people who read his work. He strikes a safe middle ground between Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, and besides a deep dislike for Ken Livingstone, doesn't give away any secrets.
Perhaps I expect more from a London book because I receive more from the city? In the closing chapter Wilson in fairness, does hint at the secret history of London, the dead who walk the ancient pattern of streets along with the living. Perhaps too, I'm far more prepared to accept the past as a rather closer neighbour than Wilson does, because I don't (indeed as Wilson justly points out couldn't afford to) live in modern London?
I am often accused of living in the past, which is a fair and accurate charge. This book however, by taking what seems a deliberately inconclusive position on the difficulties of a modern capital city, falls short of living in the present.
So, I had high hopes for this accurately titled little book. Its size certainly concerned me however. After the weight and authority of Stephen Inwood's 'History of London' and the sheer overwhelming emotional sweep of Peter Ackroyd's 'London - A Biography', one expects more pages from a history of London. From the outset however, it is clear that this is a different kind of book. Wilson's breezy dash through the accepted version of the history of London rarely digresses into the underbelly. Nods to Booth and Mayhew accept poverty as a given, and in a traditional 'history book' style the people of the city and the buildings and infrastructure are rarely related by Wilson.
By the middle of the book we are in the Second World War, and the book begins to change. From here in, Wilson becomes entagled in immigration, cultural diversity and modern architechture. He seems uncertain where he stands on any of the topics, and settles on padding out a variety of statistics on immigration, crime and transport with some pictures of buildings he deems 'silly'. In a sense Wilson is reflecting the quiet and rarely expressed ambivalence that British people feel here - wanting to accept a cosmopolitan society but terrified and misled by media representations of the 'unknown' of Islam for example. However, it seems to me that nowhere is this tension brought more to the fore than in modern London - and nowhere is it more often successfully resolved. Wilson, rather typically dwells on the incidents which have caused death and controversy, revisiting the crime scenes but drawing no conclusions. I sense that Wilson wants to say some controversial things here, but is very aware of the sort of people who read his work. He strikes a safe middle ground between Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, and besides a deep dislike for Ken Livingstone, doesn't give away any secrets.
Perhaps I expect more from a London book because I receive more from the city? In the closing chapter Wilson in fairness, does hint at the secret history of London, the dead who walk the ancient pattern of streets along with the living. Perhaps too, I'm far more prepared to accept the past as a rather closer neighbour than Wilson does, because I don't (indeed as Wilson justly points out couldn't afford to) live in modern London?
I am often accused of living in the past, which is a fair and accurate charge. This book however, by taking what seems a deliberately inconclusive position on the difficulties of a modern capital city, falls short of living in the present.
February 1, 2013
I skimmed a number of the reviews of this book here on goodreads, most of which were quite critical of it. Yes, this is not what most of us would identify as a 'typical' history of a city. There are major elements missing, and Wilson perhaps devotes too much time to architecture, rivers, and interesting odd-ball stories. But instead of making this book 'bad' history, I suggest that it is an experimental historiography--a historiography based not so much on the sequence of events and the cause-effect relationships between them, but on the affective and personal importance of London. Instead of sticking to 'the facts' (which historians like Hayden White would readily admit is impossible to do in the objective way we [Americans] are often trained to expect from a 'good' history), Wilson takes us on a tour of London's changing geography and cultural face, along with the accumulation of 'ghosts' (a favorite term in this book) that importantly haunt the city. Although his project is less dedicated to giving an accurate and thorough history of London, and indeed in less than 200 pages how could it, the passionate and sometimes beautiful prose of Wilson's book offers us an insight into the conflicted relationship of Londoners to their city, at once loving the city and mourning the innumerable buildings, people, dreams, and cultures that have been lost but remain 'ghostly' presences.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews