jerseyfabulous | 15 of 100: London Under

I'm always reluctant to give negative reviews, but London Under was a disappointment. I know Peter Ackroyd's other work on London, so I know he's capable of writing engaging history. This, however, is not history so much as a jumbled collection of literary essays about the history of sub-surface London. I am not sure whether to blame the author or the publishers for the misimpression the title and jacket inevitably give a potential reader, but it is highly annoying. I might still have read the book had I known, but my expectations would have been different, and perhaps the review would have been as well- though the lack of organization would still have been irritating.

That said, there are a few interesting nuggets buried in the wittering. There is mention of Roman and pre-Roman ruins, many sadly destroyed by the Victorians in their building blitz, and talk about the lost rivers of London. (Holborn Viaduct makes so much more sense when you realize there used to be an actual need for a bridge there, since Farringdon Street is where the Fleet River used to run.) Of course, there's also some ridiculous foolishness, such as the author maundering trying to make out that the Tube is somehow eerie or mysterious, when as anyone who has used it can attest, it's very much not. (Not even late at night when the stations are mostly deserted or early of a Sunday morning, when one may find one has even Zone 1 stations like Bank or Tottenham Court Road largely to oneself.)