Edward Rutherford writes mammoth books where the central character is a place and the people in them are incidental and used to drive the plot across a given time period (usually several thousand years). It is a formula that has worked well and gained critical and popular acclaim. ‘London’ is the third such novel of his I have read; the other two are ‘Sarum’ and ‘The Forest’.‘London’ contains all of the best and worst elements of those two books. In ‘Sarum’ the characters and their situations are being shaped by real world historical events and integrated into it. In ‘The Forest’ that is less important as we follow families through the generations with real world events are largely in the background. I much prefer the former as it gives the novel more of an authentic feel.He also skips over too many important events in the first half. I know this is a novel about London but some events would have had an impact on the city. For example, after Julius Caesar’s failed invasion, we skip over Claudius’ succesful invasion and end up in the third century when little is happening. Then it ignores the withdrawal of the legions and the Anglo-Saxon migrations and drops us into the 7th century where again not much is happening after Christianity is well established. We see nothing of the turmoil of the conversion period, the establishment of Lundenwic, or the effects of the Viking attacks. The book limps toward the Norman invasion which is the first good chapter.Into the second millennium and though the Henry II-Thomas Beckett event is dealt with well, the Black Death and its after effects on society is given little coverage (a stark contrast to Sarum). Instead we get meaningless fair such as “The Whorehouse”, which, though amusing to understand and see how church-run brothels worked in medieval London, does little to advance the plot.The second half is better with more integration. Real improvement is seen in “God’s Fire” which deals with the beginning of the Stuart era, the Civil War and Restoration. The most impressive chapter centres around the design and building of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Rutherford writes with such passion that this is easily the best chapter, if only as much care had been put into other chapters, this would have superseded ‘Sarum’ as my favourite work by this author. Then we feed through the world wars, including the blitz and to 1997 (date of publication of the book) with a short epilogue. I am assuming that the novel was finished and published before the two major events of that year: the election of Tony Blair and the death of Princess Diana. A shame almost that he did not hold off long enough to write a chapter on the millennium celebrations at The Dome to bring it full circle.Overall this book is a slog and though better than ‘The Forest’ it is not as good as ‘Sarum’ I will probably read another Rutherford but only if a suitable subject comes up. To date, his other written work is ‘Russka’, ‘New York’, ‘Dublin’ and ‘Ireland’.See more book reviews at my blog
I've had this book on my to-read list for a while, but it wasn't available on Kindle until relatively recently. I originally wanted to read it because the premise reminded me of the Geodyssey series by Piers Anthony, but much to my delight this novel far exceeded that series in craft, detail, and storytelling.As might be assumed from the name, this book follows the story of the city of London from the earliest times before the Romans arrived for the first time through to almost the present day. Several families are followed to give continuity to the project, with most time periods skipped by a few generations so that one or two characters remember those from the previous section. This structure worked beautifully for telling the story, and the only fault I found was that sometimes it was hard to tell how much time had passed between each section. The year of each section is listed at the front of the chapter, but I wasn't about to go skipping back through the last section to find the last year mentioned, so a short note under the year to indicate the time that had passed would've been quite helpful. Other than that, I have no complaints about the writing or structure of the book.I particularly enjoyed how popular/critical points in history were covered, at least tangentially, such as the Tudor court of Henry VIII and the dangers therein, the London Fire, and the building of St Paul's Cathedral. There is a LOT of religious information in this book, and I hadn't realized just how touchy the transition from Catholicism to Church of England to Protestants (and their interactions!) had really been, so I learned quite a lot on that topic. I also appreciated that the characters were from a range of social and economic spheres, with the different families rising and falling from prominence across the ages. Finally, there were plenty of narrative comments that helped call attention to different details (such as a reminder that an ancestor in the Fishmonger's Guild had been far more important/powerful than the descendent ever realized), which I found immensely helpful and enriching.I highly recommend this book. It's quite long, as I spent nearly a month reading it in 30-45 minute chunks, but it's well worth the ride.
What do You think about London (2002)?
Hot summer days between the move and the arrival of household goods - no better time to start a long epic by Rutherfurd. I discovered this book was loaned to me about ten years ago by someone who doesn't want it back. I love these Michener-like authors who start with the creation of the earth and bring it through the centuries to modern day time, especially when, like Rutherfurd, they have families who intertwine through the epochs and are followed from earliest times to the present.I also love his theme that there really are no pure-breeds, that we are all the result of rivers of population changes, influxes of immigrants, plagues, intermarriages, inter-breeding outside of marriage (No! LOL) and random attractions. And how quickly we forget - two centuries later, people have legends about their beginnings that have little or no relationship to the truth!I even have another Rutherfurd book, The Forest, as a carrot for when I am finished with unpacking boxes.
—Patricia
Well, for an 1100 page-plus book, I would've liked it to be more interesting. There were a lot of large sections that were bogged down by politics & religion (and at one regrettable point, banking); while I know these issues obviously affect people's lives, I don't need to read about every single complexity therein.There were some great historical tidbits I'd never heard before and I went Googling several times to look at photos & drawings of places gone by (several still remaining). The early to mid-book descriptions of the river were lovely. Really, the best parts of the book focused on the City itself and the surrounding landscape.However, I enjoyed Peter Ackroyd's non-fiction tome, London: The Biography, much more.
—Laurie
I purchased this book because I loved the idea of a grand overview of history. I knew I'd find it educational. But I admit I was pretty doubtful about how entertaining it would be. I fully expected great research and flat writing. I couldn't have been more delightfully surprised. Rutherford has not only offered amazing and fascinating research, he's also proven he's a marvelous storyteller.I was never bored for a minute while reading his short stories, chronicling the lives of several London families. His clever use of identifying features for each family through time kept me oriented, but the characters themselves are each unique, flawed, and delightful.I came away with a tremendous education on history in general and London in particular, and a great anticipation for reading the next of Rutherford's books.
—K.M. Weiland
