A lyrical and entrancing portrait of an enduring genius, 08 Aug 2005
Blake's prophetic books are, in proportion to their length and literary importance, amongst the least read texts within the body of English Literature. Certainly, they are the least understood.

This is partly because of the notion, common today as it was amongst Blake's contemporaries, that the poet-artist was, at best, an ultrasensitive whose work was not consciously or methodically thought out but merely reflected his changeable mood at the time of writing. Either that or he was a lunatic, and his work the ramblings of a lunatic; this view is, unfortunately, still common today.

Ackroyd's examination of Blake's life is important in that it aids in expelling this illusion, both by relating the nature of Blake's time and place to the artist's output, and by being willing to engage Blake on his own ground. For example, Ackroyd at times willingly entertains the veracity of Blake's frequent visions, which is an engaging angle for the reader seeking to penetrate fully into Blake's world (and an attitude less likely to be found in a more academic study). At others, he substitutes the notion that Blake's imaginative faculties were of such a magnitude as to invade his ocular sense: he literally saw what he fancied. Either way, Blake is far from a madman and closer to a genius; consequently, one can feel the grain of his life - as he lived it - passing under the fingertips as they turn the pages.

This biography is that rare thing amongst its kind that allows the reader to engage with the subject's life, as well as observe it; at times, it allows moments of genuine love for the pugnacious Londoner who remains so little understood. Alone, it will not grant an understanding of Blake's poetry or art, particularly his prophetic works; this is not Ackroyd's intention. Rather, it allows a reader (or, more accurately, 'the viewer') of Blake's work, either experienced or virginal, to approach them with the attention, engagement and willingness to understand that they both require and deserve.

a little too fawning to its subject matter, 01 Nov 2003
I have really enjoyed Ackroyd's writing in the past. His London Biography, in particular, is an outstanding book.

I had, therefore, high hopes for his life of Blake, the 18th century visionary being a famous Londoner and a fascinating man.

I was a little disappointed. It's certainly learned and well researched (though it eggregiously overuses the word "vouchsafe"), but seems to skip over a number of important points: for one thing, Ackroyd hints darkly the Blake may have had misogynistic tendencies, but then declares "this isn't the place for a discussion of such things". Well, if a balanced biography isn't, I don't know what is.

Additionally, Ackroyd is somewhat credulous in his desire to portray Blake as a misunderstood genius, rather than a somewhat troubled individual. Serious credence is given to statements that certain people in Blake's circle (including, to an extent, Blake himself) were clairvoyant, whilst on the other hand short shrift is given to far more credible notions: such as that Blake - a man given to regular visions of angels and saints, after all - might have been mentally ill. Blake's behaviour may have been that of a genius, but is equally explainable as that of a flat-out nutcase, which appears to have been the general consensus of the time (and might partly explain Blake's lack of success during his own life).

Even-handed and insightful, 29 Mar 2001
This is well worth a read. The reader may gain a greater insight into Blake from the events of his life, which are relayed in detail. And furthermore from Ackroyd's empathetic and even-handed treatment of Blake the man, who one feels, will always be more than the sum of his actions. Particularly good for those who only know Blake the poet rather than the painter, the illustrations and engravings are given lots of attention and there are quite a few pictures to view.

Good on Blake, down on style, 26 Feb 2001
Ackroyd has a grand reputation as an auteur superbe, but in this book he finds himself to close to the subject to allow his normal objectivity to flow. Indeed, one might even say that Ackroyd is in love with Blake but at odds with his work

In this remarkable new biography, Peter Ackroyd offers a different view of Dickens to that presented in his earlier study of the author. In that book, Ackroyd's attempts to mimic the voice of the great writer were highly controversial, though some saw the book as a radical re-invention of the biography form. There is no arguing with the brilliant achievement of the more straightforward Charles Dickens: Public Life and Private Passion, however; the picture of Dickens and his complicated private life that emerges is fastidiously detailed and powerfully evocative, while Ackroyd's customary skill at creating a panoply of the city of London is as dazzling as ever (London, is, in fact, the subject of another biography by the author, who is unquestionably the keenest chronicler of the city's colourful history). Here, Ackroyd attempts to peel away the mask of a man whose life was outwardly a picture of Victorian rectitude, but whose love life was as complicated (and unconventional) as any modern writer. Dickens had everything--fame, success and riches--but he died harbouring a deep sadness he had experienced all his life. He was a man of mercurial character, had enormous vitality and humour, but he also had a sense of loss and longing that would constantly appear in his work. Like many eminent Victorians, he led a double life: although he insisted that nothing in the newspapers he edited should upset his middle-class readers, he regularly indulged in dubious night-time escapades with fellow author Wilkie Collins, and, for the last 13 years of his life, kept a secret mistress.

While presenting a warm but astringent portrait of the man who (along with George Eliot) can be classed as the greatest writer of his age, Ackroyd also masterfully recreates the relationship with the actress Ellen Ternan, a strong and intelligent woman (herself the subject of a biography by Claire Tomalin, The Inviisble Woman who, like her lover, outwardly observed the proprieties while living her real life behind closed doors. Ackroyd also vividly conjures the reality of Victorian life, the issues that sparked Dickens' fervent call for social reform, and the great landmarks of the time, which profoundly affected his life and work. --Barry Forshaw

A lyrical and entrancing portrait of an enduring genius, 08 Aug 2005
Blake's prophetic books are, in proportion to their length and literary importance, amongst the least read texts within the body of English Literature. Certainly, they are the least understood.

This is partly because of the notion, common today as it was amongst Blake's contemporaries, that the poet-artist was, at best, an ultrasensitive whose work was not consciously or methodically thought out but merely reflected his changeable mood at the time of writing. Either that or he was a lunatic, and his work the ramblings of a lunatic; this view is, unfortunately, still common today.

Ackroyd's examination of Blake's life is important in that it aids in expelling this illusion, both by relating the nature of Blake's time and place to the artist's output, and by being willing to engage Blake on his own ground. For example, Ackroyd at times willingly entertains the veracity of Blake's frequent visions, which is an engaging angle for the reader seeking to penetrate fully into Blake's world (and an attitude less likely to be found in a more academic study). At others, he substitutes the notion that Blake's imaginative faculties were of such a magnitude as to invade his ocular sense: he literally saw what he fancied. Either way, Blake is far from a madman and closer to a genius; consequently, one can feel the grain of his life - as he lived it - passing under the fingertips as they turn the pages.

This biography is that rare thing amongst its kind that allows the reader to engage with the subject's life, as well as observe it; at times, it allows moments of genuine love for the pugnacious Londoner who remains so little understood. Alone, it will not grant an understanding of Blake's poetry or art, particularly his prophetic works; this is not Ackroyd's intention. Rather, it allows a reader (or, more accurately, 'the viewer') of Blake's work, either experienced or virginal, to approach them with the attention, engagement and willingness to understand that they both require and deserve.

a little too fawning to its subject matter, 01 Nov 2003
I have really enjoyed Ackroyd's writing in the past. His London Biography, in particular, is an outstanding book.

I had, therefore, high hopes for his life of Blake, the 18th century visionary being a famous Londoner and a fascinating man.

I was a little disappointed. It's certainly learned and well researched (though it eggregiously overuses the word "vouchsafe"), but seems to skip over a number of important points: for one thing, Ackroyd hints darkly the Blake may have had misogynistic tendencies, but then declares "this isn't the place for a discussion of such things". Well, if a balanced biography isn't, I don't know what is.

Additionally, Ackroyd is somewhat credulous in his desire to portray Blake as a misunderstood genius, rather than a somewhat troubled individual. Serious credence is given to statements that certain people in Blake's circle (including, to an extent, Blake himself) were clairvoyant, whilst on the other hand short shrift is given to far more credible notions: such as that Blake - a man given to regular visions of angels and saints, after all - might have been mentally ill. Blake's behaviour may have been that of a genius, but is equally explainable as that of a flat-out nutcase, which appears to have been the general consensus of the time (and might partly explain Blake's lack of success during his own life).

Even-handed and insightful, 29 Mar 2001
This is well worth a read. The reader may gain a greater insight into Blake from the events of his life, which are relayed in detail. And furthermore from Ackroyd's empathetic and even-handed treatment of Blake the man, who one feels, will always be more than the sum of his actions. Particularly good for those who only know Blake the poet rather than the painter, the illustrations and engravings are given lots of attention and there are quite a few pictures to view.

Good on Blake, down on style, 26 Feb 2001
Ackroyd has a grand reputation as an auteur superbe, but in this book he finds himself to close to the subject to allow his normal objectivity to flow. Indeed, one might even say that Ackroyd is in love with Blake but at odds with his work

Unsatisfying and frustrating, 27 May 2008
Without realising it I picked up the abridged version of Peter Ackroyd's Dickens, and perhaps this is why I cannot agree with the good reviews of this book. It is well written and goes into great detail about all happenings- every story, every periodical, every novel, however the abridged version (of around 600 pages) refuses to talk about the important emotional relationships in Dickens' life. Just over 4 paragraphs are given to his break up with his wife (and most of these concern the legal settlement rather than any meaningful analysis of the break up). His relationship with his mother and father are mentioned at the beginning of the book but nothing pays off further into the book. Ackroyd asserts that Dickens had an ambiguous and not altogether good relationship with his mother and then proceeds to produce not one piece of evidence or feeling to back this statement up. Ackroyd is happy to make fatalistic assumptions; for example Dickens thinking train carriages were tilting to the left side after his crash 'because he had a swollen left foot' but is not willing to explore in any detail his relationship with Ellen Ternan, or track IN ANY WAY his falling out of love with his wife. Ackroyd also fails to explore Dickens' relationship with his children in any meaningful way- mentioning that his sons always felt inadequate but again not giving us any indication or evidence to suggest this was the case.

After 600 pages I was so dissatisfied I felt like going to read the primary source material myself in order that I could understand Dickens not in the context of his periodical, his stories and his books but as a man who had relationships with people around him.

Amanda Foreman's Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire as a historical biography (it is worth pointing out that this was actually written by a historian instead of a journalist, novelist and literary critic) shows a greater command of the material available and is able to plot relationships and feelings. In the abridged edition of Dickens, at least, Ackroyd fails spectacularly to do so. I don't know whether I wish I had picked up the full version, if I was to get through 1200 pages with the same conclusion I can only imagine my further frustration.

Brings Dickens utterly to life, 17 Dec 2007
I know that Peter Ackroyd has researchers working for him, so I assume the facts which he offers about Dickens are true. That being so, I greatly admire the way he so brilliantly weaves his material together, creating a picture of a living, breathing man - a genius who was irritating, temperamental, likeable, egocentric, self contradictory and generally almost impossible. Not only this but he puts Dickens in his period: he shows us what public life was like at the time and sketches in many individuals that Dickens knew, lived and worked with. He suggests what Dickens might have been aiming for at various times of his life, and what he might have felt and thought. There is inevitably some guesswork in this but after all, nobody can REALLY know another person, and Ackroyd's portrait, based as it is on research, probably contains more truth than the social front Dickens presented to most of the people who knew him personally. So I do believe this is the nearest we will ever get to understanding him, and highly recommend the book. By the way, this is the abridged version, but it is so illuminating and fascinating that I will now go and investigate the longer version.

Astounding, 08 Oct 2007
I am in the perhaps somewhat bizarre position of never having read any novel by Dickens himself, and regardless of that, finding myself utterly captivated by this biography. Is it correct? I wouldn't know as I've never read other Dickens-biographies. Is it complete and exhaustive? Probably not, no biography can be. All I do know is that it's truly magnificently written, and had me completely spellbound for all of its 579 pages (in my edition).

Great., 23 Jul 2006
This is a super read for anyone wishing to know more about the country's greatest novelist. Ackroyd's insight, following his extensive research demonstrates his passion for Dickens which is unmatched.

There exists one negative piece of feedback within the Amazon site re: this book, that is, repsectfully totally incorrect. If, like many of Dickens's novels, you take the time the read and savour rather than trying to finish the book, you'll gain a better persepctive, very much like what Ackroyd has achieved in providing this must read biography.

The Best Dickens Biography, 03 Jun 2006
When you first pick up this book in a bookshop or look at it online the first thing that hits you is obviously the size of it. From beginning to end Ackroyd's "Dickens" spans 1256 pages and to read it may seem like a daunting mission. This is not the case; Ackroyd is one of the best historical-biographial writers of our time and he knows how to make sure that long does not equal tedious. For fans and students of Dickens alike every word in this biography is essential; you may even find that you wish it was longer, I certainly did. The book chronicles everything Dickens from his birth through all of his works in periodicals and theatre to his sad and sudden death in 1870. To try and list the contents of this book would make the review over 200000 words long so i won't even try, but when I say everything I mean EVERYthing is in here from Dickens's family to his railway accident, his feelings, emotions, beliefs, experiences and relationships. There are also many caricatures and photographs of Dickens's life and times included, that add delight to what is already a wonderful read. If, however, you feel that 1300 pages really is too long but you still want to read Ackroyd's version of Dickens (which you should) try the abridged 500-page tie-in version that accompanied the BBC series in 2002. If you can manage the full version, you will not be disappointed.

A lyrical and entrancing portrait of an enduring genius, 08 Aug 2005
Blake's prophetic books are, in proportion to their length and literary importance, amongst the least read texts within the body of English Literature. Certainly, they are the least understood.

This is partly because of the notion, common today as it was amongst Blake's contemporaries, that the poet-artist was, at best, an ultrasensitive whose work was not consciously or methodically thought out but merely reflected his changeable mood at the time of writing. Either that or he was a lunatic, and his work the ramblings of a lunatic; this view is, unfortunately, still common today.

Ackroyd's examination of Blake's life is important in that it aids in expelling this illusion, both by relating the nature of Blake's time and place to the artist's output, and by being willing to engage Blake on his own ground. For example, Ackroyd at times willingly entertains the veracity of Blake's frequent visions, which is an engaging angle for the reader seeking to penetrate fully into Blake's world (and an attitude less likely to be found in a more academic study). At others, he substitutes the notion that Blake's imaginative faculties were of such a magnitude as to invade his ocular sense: he literally saw what he fancied. Either way, Blake is far from a madman and closer to a genius; consequently, one can feel the grain of his life - as he lived it - passing under the fingertips as they turn the pages.

This biography is that rare thing amongst its kind that allows the reader to engage with the subject's life, as well as observe it; at times, it allows moments of genuine love for the pugnacious Londoner who remains so little understood. Alone, it will not grant an understanding of Blake's poetry or art, particularly his prophetic works; this is not Ackroyd's intention. Rather, it allows a reader (or, more accurately, 'the viewer') of Blake's work, either experienced or virginal, to approach them with the attention, engagement and willingness to understand that they both require and deserve.

a little too fawning to its subject matter, 01 Nov 2003
I have really enjoyed Ackroyd's writing in the past. His London Biography, in particular, is an outstanding book.

I had, therefore, high hopes for his life of Blake, the 18th century visionary being a famous Londoner and a fascinating man.

I was a little disappointed. It's certainly learned and well researched (though it eggregiously overuses the word "vouchsafe"), but seems to skip over a number of important points: for one thing, Ackroyd hints darkly the Blake may have had misogynistic tendencies, but then declares "this isn't the place for a discussion of such things". Well, if a balanced biography isn't, I don't know what is.

Additionally, Ackroyd is somewhat credulous in his desire to portray Blake as a misunderstood genius, rather than a somewhat troubled individual. Serious credence is given to statements that certain people in Blake's circle (including, to an extent, Blake himself) were clairvoyant, whilst on the other hand short shrift is given to far more credible notions: such as that Blake - a man given to regular visions of angels and saints, after all - might have been mentally ill. Blake's behaviour may have been that of a genius, but is equally explainable as that of a flat-out nutcase, which appears to have been the general consensus of the time (and might partly explain Blake's lack of success during his own life).

Even-handed and insightful, 29 Mar 2001
This is well worth a read. The reader may gain a greater insight into Blake from the events of his life, which are relayed in detail. And furthermore from Ackroyd's empathetic and even-handed treatment of Blake the man, who one feels, will always be more than the sum of his actions. Particularly good for those who only know Blake the poet rather than the painter, the illustrations and engravings are given lots of attention and there are quite a few pictures to view.

Good on Blake, down on style, 26 Feb 2001
Ackroyd has a grand reputation as an auteur superbe, but in this book he finds himself to close to the subject to allow his normal objectivity to flow. Indeed, one might even say that Ackroyd is in love with Blake but at odds with his work

Unsatisfying and frustrating, 27 May 2008
Without realising it I picked up the abridged version of Peter Ackroyd's Dickens, and perhaps this is why I cannot agree with the good reviews of this book. It is well written and goes into great detail about all happenings- every story, every periodical, every novel, however the abridged version (of around 600 pages) refuses to talk about the important emotional relationships in Dickens' life. Just over 4 paragraphs are given to his break up with his wife (and most of these concern the legal settlement rather than any meaningful analysis of the break up). His relationship with his mother and father are mentioned at the beginning of the book but nothing pays off further into the book. Ackroyd asserts that Dickens had an ambiguous and not altogether good relationship with his mother and then proceeds to produce not one piece of evidence or feeling to back this statement up. Ackroyd is happy to make fatalistic assumptions; for example Dickens thinking train carriages were tilting to the left side after his crash 'because he had a swollen left foot' but is not willing to explore in any detail his relationship with Ellen Ternan, or track IN ANY WAY his falling out of love with his wife. Ackroyd also fails to explore Dickens' relationship with his children in any meaningful way- mentioning that his sons always felt inadequate but again not giving us any indication or evidence to suggest this was the case.

After 600 pages I was so dissatisfied I felt like going to read the primary source material myself in order that I could understand Dickens not in the context of his periodical, his stories and his books but as a man who had relationships with people around him.

Amanda Foreman's Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire as a historical biography (it is worth pointing out that this was actually written by a historian instead of a journalist, novelist and literary critic) shows a greater command of the material available and is able to plot relationships and feelings. In the abridged edition of Dickens, at least, Ackroyd fails spectacularly to do so. I don't know whether I wish I had picked up the full version, if I was to get through 1200 pages with the same conclusion I can only imagine my further frustration.

Brings Dickens utterly to life, 17 Dec 2007
I know that Peter Ackroyd has researchers working for him, so I assume the facts which he offers about Dickens are true. That being so, I greatly admire the way he so brilliantly weaves his material together, creating a picture of a living, breathing man - a genius who was irritating, temperamental, likeable, egocentric, self contradictory and generally almost impossible. Not only this but he puts Dickens in his period: he shows us what public life was like at the time and sketches in many individuals that Dickens knew, lived and worked with. He suggests what Dickens might have been aiming for at various times of his life, and what he might have felt and thought. There is inevitably some guesswork in this but after all, nobody can REALLY know another person, and Ackroyd's portrait, based as it is on research, probably contains more truth than the social front Dickens presented to most of the people who knew him personally. So I do believe this is the nearest we will ever get to understanding him, and highly recommend the book. By the way, this is the abridged version, but it is so illuminating and fascinating that I will now go and investigate the longer version.

Astounding, 08 Oct 2007
I am in the perhaps somewhat bizarre position of never having read any novel by Dickens himself, and regardless of that, finding myself utterly captivated by this biography. Is it correct? I wouldn't know as I've never read other Dickens-biographies. Is it complete and exhaustive? Probably not, no biography can be. All I do know is that it's truly magnificently written, and had me completely spellbound for all of its 579 pages (in my edition).

Great., 23 Jul 2006
This is a super read for anyone wishing to know more about the country's greatest novelist. Ackroyd's insight, following his extensive research demonstrates his passion for Dickens which is unmatched.

There exists one negative piece of feedback within the Amazon site re: this book, that is, repsectfully totally incorrect. If, like many of Dickens's novels, you take the time the read and savour rather than trying to finish the book, you'll gain a better persepctive, very much like what Ackroyd has achieved in providing this must read biography.

The Best Dickens Biography, 03 Jun 2006
When you first pick up this book in a bookshop or look at it online the first thing that hits you is obviously the size of it. From beginning to end Ackroyd's "Dickens" spans 1256 pages and to read it may seem like a daunting mission. This is not the case; Ackroyd is one of the best historical-biographial writers of our time and he knows how to make sure that long does not equal tedious. For fans and students of Dickens alike every word in this biography is essential; you may even find that you wish it was longer, I certainly did. The book chronicles everything Dickens from his birth through all of his works in periodicals and theatre to his sad and sudden death in 1870. To try and list the contents of this book would make the review over 200000 words long so i won't even try, but when I say everything I mean EVERYthing is in here from Dickens's family to his railway accident, his feelings, emotions, beliefs, experiences and relationships. There are also many caricatures and photographs of Dickens's life and times included, that add delight to what is already a wonderful read. If, however, you feel that 1300 pages really is too long but you still want to read Ackroyd's version of Dickens (which you should) try the abridged 500-page tie-in version that accompanied the BBC series in 2002. If you can manage the full version, you will not be disappointed.

Invaluable, 27 Nov 2008
This book is invaluable to any book lover! I have discovered so many new authors and books to add to my wish list. The descriptions are excellent, they don't give away too much information but just enough to make you want to read it. I think that everyone will have a different take on what has been included, there were books that I didn't think deserved to be in there and some missing that I would have wanted to see but you can't please everyone!

Temptation in paper form, 21 Sep 2008
I asked for this as a Christmas gift along with several other books and spent the entire day with my nose in this one.
It provides a surprising amount of information for each entry and is enjoyable to read in and of itself.
I don't know if I should be ashamed of all the books in it I haven't read but, also, I was pleased to see some of my favourite books are included.
This book does have one major flaw, however: You'll spend more time reading this than actual novels! My copy is covered in Post-It strips of all the books I intend to buy and read.
A great item for anyone with even the vaguest interest in books and reading.

A great book about great books!, 28 Aug 2008
What more could you want in a reading guide? The 1001 books are not suggested to be the best ever, but rather a diverse selection of international novels which deserve to be read. Spanning over 1150 years, the book's contributors (mostly university academics) draw your attention to forgotten gems and obscure authors, as well as to famous and popular classics. Additionally, the illustrations are a major attraction; interesting photos of authors, book covers, manuscripts, film stills, posters and cartoons all contribute to '1001's encyclopaedic feel. You might even term it a selective bibliopaedia. I counted 73 books featured that I have read, but I don't intend to read all the remaining 928! The nature of the book means that for some works, it's enough to read about them. It's particularly useful for someone who has only been reading adult fiction for a few years.

Revised 2008 edition, 21 Jun 2008
This second "international" edition has been revised to include a far wider range of authors, including many prize winners (Nobel - Isaac Bashevis Singer, SY Agnon, Orhan Pamuk, Naguib Mahfouz; Neustadt - David Malouf, Alvaro Mutis), more Spanish-language novels (Carlos Fuentes, Roberto Bolano, Juan Carlos Onetti) and classics like Ferdydurke (Gombrowicz), The Guide (RK Narayan), Dom Casmurro (Machado de Assis), the Chinese epic The Dream of Red Mansions/Story of the Stone, and Seasons of the Migration to the North (Tayeb Salih). Most of the books cut from the 1st edition are from authors with 3 or more entries, giving a much more varied list (although a shame to lose The Brothers Karamazov ?).

The 1001 are still quite biased toward Europe, with fewer US titles than similar books. Everyone will have their own gripes with individual choices (I would have liked to have seen Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar, Paradiso by Jose Lezama Lima, Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman, All the Kings Men by Robert Penn Warren, The Poor Christ of Bomba by Mongo Beti, Housekeeping by Marilynne Robinson, Petersburg by Andrei Bely). It is interesting to see some titles included which are not yet available in English translation (The Unknown Soldier by Vaino Linna, Grande Sertao by Joao Guimaraes Rosa), let's hope publishers take note.

My main reservation - as with the first edition - is the inconsistency. Why include the epic poem the Lusiad and not the Iliad or Aeneid, or verse such as Eugene Onegin and not Goethe's Faust, history like The Conquest of New Spain and not Gibbon, short stories by Lorrie Moore and not Chekhov. Also the index is full of errors and omissions like the first edition (Mishima's The Sound of Waves is listed under William Faulkner).

But this is still a fascinating book to browse and a great source of ideas for sampling world literature. A third edition would be welcome, maybe deleting the "quality trash" (the book's description) like Donna Tartt's The Secret History in favour of more little-known masterpieces which deserve to be better known.



Fun Argument Starter for Fiction Lovers, 04 Jun 2008
The first thing to understand about this massive brick of a book is that the title is meant to catch one's attention and that like the contents, it must be taken with a very large grain of salt. Dial it down to "1001 Books You Might Like to Read at Some Point" and you're more on target. The second thing to understand is that for editorial purposes, "book" generally means "adult novel" for the most part, so there's no non-fiction or poetry or plays or essays or or children's books or short stories (with one or two unexplained exceptions). The third thing to understand is that the book originated in Britain, and as such, has a rather British emphasis and a rather decidedly modern tilt. (The editor teaches at the University of Sussex, and a disproportionate number of the contributors either teach there with him or are current or former doctoral students there.) With these points understood, most fiction-lovers will find this to be a really fun coffee-table or bathroom book to have around for years.

Each of the 1001 books is given roughly 300 words in which to "respond...to what makes each novel compelling, to what it is about each novel that makes one absolutely need to read it." However, with around 100 contributors, the style of these varies wildly: some focus on the book's prose style, some its context, many are mere plot summaries, and unfortunately very few are genuinely inspirational. Arranged chronologically by date of original publication, the book grants roughly 80 pages to the years leading up to 1800, 140 pages to the 1800s, 650 pages to the 1900s, and 65 pages to the relatively recent 2000s. Aside from the 300 words and some basic bibliographic information, almost each selection is accompanied by some kind of artwork (jacket art, author photos, stills from film adaptations, etc.), making the book vivid and gorgeous throughout. Of course, the real fun in a book like this is the arguments it provokes, and the general hue and outcry about omissions or disproportional representation. Before I get into my own pet peeve, here's a little context:

-- The most heavily represented authors are J.M. Coetzee and Charles Dickens with 11 entries each, Samuel Beckett with 10, Graham Greene and Virginia Woolf with 9, Paul Auster, J.G. Ballard, and Ian McEwan with 8, and Saul Bellow, Dom DeLillo, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Philip Roth, and Salman Rushdie with 7. This does not include instances where trilogies have been lumped together into a lone entry, as is done several times. And I'll admit this is based on a quick run through the index, rather than a careful parsing, so I may have missed one or two people or miscounted slightly.

-- Despite the above, many prominent writers are completely missing, such as the following: William Boyd (Any Human Heart), Ray Bradberry (The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451), Willa Cather (Death Comes For the Archbishop), Roddy Doyle (Barrytown trilogy), Arthur Koestler (Darkness at Noon), Naguib Mahfouz (Cairo trilogy), Norman Mailer (The Naked and the Dead), Bernard Malamud (The Fixer), Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses, No Country For Old Men), George McDonald Fraser (Flashman series), John O'Hara (Appointment in Samarra), Orhan Pamuk (My Name is Red), Walker Percy (The Moviegoer), Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter series), Jane Smiley, Wallace Stegner (Crossing to Safety), William Styron (Sophie's Choice), Anne Tyler (The Accidental Tourist). Again, I'll admit the above list is largely compiled from other reviewers' mentions.

-- Although you would think a book like this would give a token nod to the established critical orthodoxy, only about half of Booker Prize winners appear, and only about 2/3 of Nobel Prize winners who were known for their novels appear. That's not to say that every prize-winning book is a must read, but when they come at the expense of decent, but entirely unremarkable, selections such as Zadie Smith's "On Beauty" or Ardal O'Hanlon's "Talk of the Town," one has to wonder...

-- Genre fiction gets very short shrift. Crime and science fiction are represented by the most obvious of choices (Chandler, Christie, Hammett, Asimov, and Clarke for example, although there are three Elmore Leonards). Horror gets a brief look-in with Dracula, Frankenstein, a Lovecraft short story and a Stephen King book. Aside from the obvious Tolkein, there's a lone fantasy title. Adventure tales are represented by H. Rider Haggard. And there are no westerns whatsoever. It's as if there was an editorial decision made that genre selections must be included and somewhat was assigned the task of rounding up the usual suspects. Oh yes, it's worth pointing out that a token graphic novel (Watchmen) was included, so that's nice.

My own personal bone to pick is with the Eurocentrism of the selections. I did a quick and dirty tabulation and found that roughly 70% of the selections were from Western Europe, roughly 25% from the U.S., and roughly 5% the rest of the world. The world's most populous country, China (currently 1 in 5 humans is Chinese), is represented by exactly zero entries. Ditto for the entire Arab-speaking/reading world. Don't even get me started on Africa -- entries authored by white African authors outnumber those by non-white African authors by a 2:1 ratio. And not coincidentally, all the non-white African writers represented all wrote in English. It's not that hard to find excellent fiction in translation, and as an example, I would point to the omission of Nobel laureates like Mahfouz, Pamuk, and pretty much every other non-Western winner. Anyway, that's just my own pet peeve, and most others probably don't care.

Ultimately, it's a fun book to have lying around to dip into from now and then or as a provocation to oneself or others.

Peter Ackroyd is the quintessential London writer. His wonderful biography of Dickens was lit not only by his love and understanding of the writer, but also of the city which Dickens made his own. Recent novels such as The House of Doctor Dee and Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem may have taken liberties with historical fact, but their London is a fascinating, pulsating place, more their true protagonist than their eponymous heroes.

Thomas More is a prime candidate for the London treatment. Born in the city, with a life of official city duties at a time when London was highly distinct from Westminster and the court, he imbued his writings (especially Richard III and his print debate with Tyndale) with a real sense of London's uniqueness. Ackroyd's treatment is thus both apposite and, of course, highly readable. He possesses a real gift for making dry history come alive with telling detail and vivid swathes of local colour. But while the new angle might imply a new understanding of the man, ultimately, the picture is overly familiar. Ackroyd's More comes out looking very much like Robert Bolt's Man for All Seasons More--a hinge between dark medievalism and modern secular conscience. Only this time he has an inner London postcode. --Alan Stewart

A lyrical and entrancing portrait of an enduring genius, 08 Aug 2005
Blake's prophetic books are, in proportion to their length and literary importance, amongst the least read texts within the body of English Literature. Certainly, they are the least understood.

This is partly because of the notion, common today as it was amongst Blake's contemporaries, that the poet-artist was, at best, an ultrasensitive whose work was not consciously or methodically thought out but merely reflected his changeable mood at the time of writing. Either that or he was a lunatic, and his work the ramblings of a lunatic; this view is, unfortunately, still common today.

Ackroyd's examination of Blake's life is important in that it aids in expelling this illusion, both by relating the nature of Blake's time and place to the artist's output, and by being willing to engage Blake on his own ground. For example, Ackroyd at times willingly entertains the veracity of Blake's frequent visions, which is an engaging angle for the reader seeking to penetrate fully into Blake's world (and an attitude less likely to be found in a more academic study). At others, he substitutes the notion that Blake's imaginative faculties were of such a magnitude as to invade his ocular sense: he literally saw what he fancied. Either way, Blake is far from a madman and closer to a genius; consequently, one can feel the grain of his life - as he lived it - passing under the fingertips as they turn the pages.

This biography is that rare thing amongst its kind that allows the reader to engage with the subject's life, as well as observe it; at times, it allows moments of genuine love for the pugnacious Londoner who remains so little understood. Alone, it will not grant an understanding of Blake's poetry or art, particularly his prophetic works; this is not Ackroyd's intention. Rather, it allows a reader (or, more accurately, 'the viewer') of Blake's work, either experienced or virginal, to approach them with the attention, engagement and willingness to understand that they both require and deserve.

a little too fawning to its subject matter, 01 Nov 2003
I have really enjoyed Ackroyd's writing in the past. His London Biography, in particular, is an outstanding book.

I had, therefore, high hopes for his life of Blake, the 18th century visionary being a famous Londoner and a fascinating man.

I was a little disappointed. It's certainly learned and well researched (though it eggregiously overuses the word "vouchsafe"), but seems to skip over a number of important points: for one thing, Ackroyd hints darkly the Blake may have had misogynistic tendencies, but then declares "this isn't the place for a discussion of such things". Well, if a balanced biography isn't, I don't know what is.

Additionally, Ackroyd is somewhat credulous in his desire to portray Blake as a misunderstood genius, rather than a somewhat troubled individual. Serious credence is given to statements that certain people in Blake's circle (including, to an extent, Blake himself) were clairvoyant, whilst on the other hand short shrift is given to far more credible notions: such as that Blake - a man given to regular visions of angels and saints, after all - might have been mentally ill. Blake's behaviour may have been that of a genius, but is equally explainable as that of a flat-out nutcase, which appears to have been the general consensus of the time (and might partly explain Blake's lack of success during his own life).

Even-handed and insightful, 29 Mar 2001
This is well worth a read. The reader may gain a greater insight into Blake from the events of his life, which are relayed in detail. And furthermore from Ackroyd's empathetic and even-handed treatment of Blake the man, who one feels, will always be more than the sum of his actions. Particularly good for those who only know Blake the poet rather than the painter, the illustrations and engravings are given lots of attention and there are quite a few pictures to view.

Good on Blake, down on style, 26 Feb 2001
Ackroyd has a grand reputation as an auteur superbe, but in this book he finds himself to close to the subject to allow his normal objectivity to flow. Indeed, one might even say that Ackroyd is in love with Blake but at odds with his work

Unsatisfying and frustrating, 27 May 2008
Without realising it I picked up the abridged version of Peter Ackroyd's Dickens, and perhaps this is why I cannot agree with the good reviews of this book. It is well written and goes into great detail about all happenings- every story, every periodical, every novel, however the abridged version (of around 600 pages) refuses to talk about the important emotional relationships in Dickens' life. Just over 4 paragraphs are given to his break up with his wife (and most of these concern the legal settlement rather than any meaningful analysis of the break up). His relationship with his mother and father are mentioned at the beginning of the book but nothing pays off further into the book. Ackroyd asserts that Dickens had an ambiguous and not altogether good relationship with his mother and then proceeds to produce not one piece of evidence or feeling to back this statement up. Ackroyd is happy to make fatalistic assumptions; for example Dickens thinking train carriages were tilting to the left side after his crash 'because he had a swollen left foot' but is not willing to explore in any detail his relationship with Ellen Ternan, or track IN ANY WAY his falling out of love with his wife. Ackroyd also fails to explore Dickens' relationship with his children in any meaningful way- mentioning that his sons always felt inadequate but again not giving us any indication or evidence to suggest this was the case.

After 600 pages I was so dissatisfied I felt like going to read the primary source material myself in order that I could understand Dickens not in the context of his periodical, his stories and his books but as a man who had relationships with people around him.

Amanda Foreman's Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire as a historical biography (it is worth pointing out that this was actually written by a historian instead of a journalist, novelist and literary critic) shows a greater command of the material available and is able to plot relationships and feelings. In the abridged edition of Dickens, at least, Ackroyd fails spectacularly to do so. I don't know whether I wish I had picked up the full version, if I was to get through 1200 pages with the same conclusion I can only imagine my further frustration.

Brings Dickens utterly to life, 17 Dec 2007
I know that Peter Ackroyd has researchers working for him, so I assume the facts which he offers about Dickens are true. That being so, I greatly admire the way he so brilliantly weaves his material together, creating a picture of a living, breathing man - a genius who was irritating, temperamental, likeable, egocentric, self contradictory and generally almost impossible. Not only this but he puts Dickens in his period: he shows us what public life was like at the time and sketches in many individuals that Dickens knew, lived and worked with. He suggests what Dickens might have been aiming for at various times of his life, and what he might have felt and thought. There is inevitably some guesswork in this but after all, nobody can REALLY know another person, and Ackroyd's portrait, based as it is on research, probably contains more truth than the social front Dickens presented to most of the people who knew him personally. So I do believe this is the nearest we will ever get to understanding him, and highly recommend the book. By the way, this is the abridged version, but it is so illuminating and fascinating that I will now go and investigate the longer version.

Astounding, 08 Oct 2007
I am in the perhaps somewhat bizarre position of never having read any novel by Dickens himself, and regardless of that, finding myself utterly captivated by this biography. Is it correct? I wouldn't know as I've never read other Dickens-biographies. Is it complete and exhaustive? Probably not, no biography can be. All I do know is that it's truly magnificently written, and had me completely spellbound for all of its 579 pages (in my edition).

Great., 23 Jul 2006
This is a super read for anyone wishing to know more about the country's greatest novelist. Ackroyd's insight, following his extensive research demonstrates his passion for Dickens which is unmatched.

There exists one negative piece of feedback within the Amazon site re: this book, that is, repsectfully totally incorrect. If, like many of Dickens's novels, you take the time the read and savour rather than trying to finish the book, you'll gain a better persepctive, very much like what Ackroyd has achieved in providing this must read biography.

The Best Dickens Biography, 03 Jun 2006
When you first pick up this book in a bookshop or look at it online the first thing that hits you is obviously the size of it. From beginning to end Ackroyd's "Dickens" spans 1256 pages and to read it may seem like a daunting mission. This is not the case; Ackroyd is one of the best historical-biographial writers of our time and he knows how to make sure that long does not equal tedious. For fans and students of Dickens alike every word in this biography is essential; you may even find that you wish it was longer, I certainly did. The book chronicles everything Dickens from his birth through all of his works in periodicals and theatre to his sad and sudden death in 1870. To try and list the contents of this book would make the review over 200000 words long so i won't even try, but when I say everything I mean EVERYthing is in here from Dickens's family to his railway accident, his feelings, emotions, beliefs, experiences and relationships. There are also many caricatures and photographs of Dickens's life and times included, that add delight to what is already a wonderful read. If, however, you feel that 1300 pages really is too long but you still want to read Ackroyd's version of Dickens (which you should) try the abridged 500-page tie-in version that accompanied the BBC series in 2002. If you can manage the full version, you will not be disappointed.

Invaluable, 27 Nov 2008
This book is invaluable to any book lover! I have discovered so many new authors and books to add to my wish list. The descriptions are excellent, they don't give away too much information but just enough to make you want to read it. I think that everyone will have a different take on what has been included, there were books that I didn't think deserved to be in there and some missing that I would have wanted to see but you can't please everyone!

Temptation in paper form, 21 Sep 2008
I asked for this as a Christmas gift along with several other books and spent the entire day with my nose in this one.
It provides a surprising amount of information for each entry and is enjoyable to read in and of itself.
I don't know if I should be ashamed of all the books in it I haven't read but, also, I was pleased to see some of my favourite books are included.
This book does have one major flaw, however: You'll spend more time reading this than actual novels! My copy is covered in Post-It strips of all the books I intend to buy and read.
A great item for anyone with even the vaguest interest in books and reading.

A great book about great books!, 28 Aug 2008
What more could you want in a reading guide? The 1001 books are not suggested to be the best ever, but rather a diverse selection of international novels which deserve to be read. Spanning over 1150 years, the book's contributors (mostly university academics) draw your attention to forgotten gems and obscure authors, as well as to famous and popular classics. Additionally, the illustrations are a major attraction; interesting photos of authors, book covers, manuscripts, film stills, posters and cartoons all contribute to '1001's encyclopaedic feel. You might even term it a selective bibliopaedia. I counted 73 books featured that I have read, but I don't intend to read all the remaining 928! The nature of the book means that for some works, it's enough to read about them. It's particularly useful for someone who has only been reading adult fiction for a few years.

Revised 2008 edition, 21 Jun 2008
This second "international" edition has been revised to include a far wider range of authors, including many prize winners (Nobel - Isaac Bashevis Singer, SY Agnon, Orhan Pamuk, Naguib Mahfouz; Neustadt - David Malouf, Alvaro Mutis), more Spanish-language novels (Carlos Fuentes, Roberto Bolano, Juan Carlos Onetti) and classics like Ferdydurke (Gombrowicz), The Guide (RK Narayan), Dom Casmurro (Machado de Assis), the Chinese epic The Dream of Red Mansions/Story of the Stone, and Seasons of the Migration to the North (Tayeb Salih). Most of the books cut from the 1st edition are from authors with 3 or more entries, giving a much more varied list (although a shame to lose The Brothers Karamazov ?).

The 1001 are still quite biased toward Europe, with fewer US titles than similar books. Everyone will have their own gripes with individual choices (I would have liked to have seen Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar, Paradiso by Jose Lezama Lima, Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman, All the Kings Men by Robert Penn Warren, The Poor Christ of Bomba by Mongo Beti, Housekeeping by Marilynne Robinson, Petersburg by Andrei Bely). It is interesting to see some titles included which are not yet available in English translation (The Unknown Soldier by Vaino Linna, Grande Sertao by Joao Guimaraes Rosa), let's hope publishers take note.

My main reservation - as with the first edition - is the inconsistency. Why include the epic poem the Lusiad and not the Iliad or Aeneid, or verse such as Eugene Onegin and not Goethe's Faust, history like The Conquest of New Spain and not Gibbon, short stories by Lorrie Moore and not Chekhov. Also the index is full of errors and omissions like the first edition (Mishima's The Sound of Waves is listed under William Faulkner).

But this is still a fascinating book to browse and a great source of ideas for sampling world literature. A third edition would be welcome, maybe deleting the "quality trash" (the book's description) like Donna Tartt's The Secret History in favour of more little-known masterpieces which deserve to be better known.



Fun Argument Starter for Fiction Lovers, 04 Jun 2008
The first thing to understand about this massive brick of a book is that the title is meant to catch one's attention and that like the contents, it must be taken with a very large grain of salt. Dial it down to "1001 Books You Might Like to Read at Some Point" and you're more on target. The second thing to understand is that for editorial purposes, "book" generally means "adult novel" for the most part, so there's no non-fiction or poetry or plays or essays or or children's books or short stories (with one or two unexplained exceptions). The third thing to understand is that the book originated in Britain, and as such, has a rather British emphasis and a rather decidedly modern tilt. (The editor teaches at the University of Sussex, and a disproportionate number of the contributors either teach there with him or are current or former doctoral students there.) With these points understood, most fiction-lovers will find this to be a really fun coffee-table or bathroom book to have around for years.

Each of the 1001 books is given roughly 300 words in which to "respond...to what makes each novel compelling, to what it is about each novel that makes one absolutely need to read it." However, with around 100 contributors, the style of these varies wildly: some focus on the book's prose style, some its context, many are mere plot summaries, and unfortunately very few are genuinely inspirational. Arranged chronologically by date of original publication, the book grants roughly 80 pages to the years leading up to 1800, 140 pages to the 1800s, 650 pages to the 1900s, and 65 pages to the relatively recent 2000s. Aside from the 300 words and some basic bibliographic information, almost each selection is accompanied by some kind of artwork (jacket art, author photos, stills from film adaptations, etc.), making the book vivid and gorgeous throughout. Of course, the real fun in a book like this is the arguments it provokes, and the general hue and outcry about omissions or disproportional representation. Before I get into my own pet peeve, here's a little context:

-- The most heavily represented authors are J.M. Coetzee and Charles Dickens with 11 entries each, Samuel Beckett with 10, Graham Greene and Virginia Woolf with 9, Paul Auster, J.G. Ballard, and Ian McEwan with 8, and Saul Bellow, Dom DeLillo, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Philip Roth, and Salman Rushdie with 7. This does not include instances where trilogies have been lumped together into a lone entry, as is done several times. And I'll admit this is based on a quick run through the index, rather than a careful parsing, so I may have missed one or two people or miscounted slightly.

-- Despite the above, many prominent writers are completely missing, such as the following: William Boyd (Any Human Heart), Ray Bradberry (The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451), Willa Cather (Death Comes For the Archbishop), Roddy Doyle (Barrytown trilogy), Arthur Koestler (Darkness at Noon), Naguib Mahfouz (Cairo trilogy), Norman Mailer (The Naked and the Dead), Bernard Malamud (The Fixer), Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses, No Country For Old Men), George McDonald Fraser (Flashman series), John O'Hara (Appointment in Samarra), Orhan Pamuk (My Name is Red), Walker Percy (The Moviegoer), Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter series), Jane Smiley, Wallace Stegner (Crossing to Safety), William Styron (Sophie's Choice), Anne Tyler (The Accidental Tourist). Again, I'll admit the above list is largely compiled from other reviewers' mentions.

-- Although you would think a book like this would give a token nod to the established critical orthodoxy, only about half of Booker Prize winners appear, and only about 2/3 of Nobel Prize winners who were known for their novels appear. That's not to say that every prize-winning book is a must read, but when they come at the expense of decent, but entirely unremarkable, selections such as Zadie Smith's "On Beauty" or Ardal O'Hanlon's "Talk of the Town," one has to wonder...

-- Genre fiction gets very short shrift. Crime and science fiction are represented by the most obvious of choices (Chandler, Christie, Hammett, Asimov, and Clarke for example, although there are three Elmore Leonards). Horror gets a brief look-in with Dracula, Frankenstein, a Lovecraft short story and a Stephen King book. Aside from the obvious Tolkein, there's a lone fantasy title. Adventure tales are represented by H. Rider Haggard. And there are no westerns whatsoever. It's as if there was an editorial decision made that genre selections must be included and somewhat was assigned the task of rounding up the usual suspects. Oh yes, it's worth pointing out that a token graphic novel (Watchmen) was included, so that's nice.

My own personal bone to pick is with the Eurocentrism of the selections. I did a quick and dirty tabulation and found that roughly 70% of the selections were from Western Europe, roughly 25% from the U.S., and roughly 5% the rest of the world. The world's most populous country, China (currently 1 in 5 humans is Chinese), is represented by exactly zero entries. Ditto for the entire Arab-speaking/reading world. Don't even get me started on Africa -- entries authored by white African authors outnumber those by non-white African authors by a 2:1 ratio. And not coincidentally, all the non-white African writers represented all wrote in English. It's not that hard to find excellent fiction in translation, and as an example, I would point to the omission of Nobel laureates like Mahfouz, Pamuk, and pretty much every other non-Western winner. Anyway, that's just my own pet peeve, and most others probably don't care.

Ultimately, it's a fun book to have lying around to dip into from now and then or as a provocation to oneself or others.

Rich and erudite, 15 Sep 2008
This is a rich and erudite biography, replete with literary and theological references. As would be expected from this author, the theme of More as a Londoner is brought out quite clearly. The overriding theme, however, is of More as essentially a man of his time, the last great representative of late Medieval Catholicism, with a deeply ingrained belief in order, harmony and peaceful uniformity as represented by the collective piety of his religion, still at this early stage shared by the great bulk of the population of London and most of the country. That explains his hatred and violence towards the heretics whom he saw as disturbers of all order and civilisation in the world, not just of the Catholic church; it is the aspect of his life that is most disturbing to the modern reader, seeming to conflict harshly with his great conscience and the heroic nature of his death. But he must be seen in the context of his time when many great educated men on all sides of the religious divide believed in causing the deaths of their opponents to save those opponents' souls. A great, if not easy read, though I felt it lost its way a bit in the middle.

A Biography, Not A Character Study, 19 Jan 2004
“The Life Of Thomas More” introduces the reader, not only to his life story, but also to the world of the Upper Class Englishman of his day. A life long Londoner, More earned his way into a rarefied world of legends. Henry VIII was his patron turned persecutor, Erasmus was his friend and St. John Fisher was his co-martyr.

In his early life, More lived a life of sanctity, but displayed traits which would not suggest a saintly temperament. Working his way into high office in what was then Catholic England, More was confronted by the early infiltration of the Protestant movement. A strong supporter of the Church of Rome, More aggressively worked to suppress the rising heresy.

More’s religious fervor, which initially put him in good stead, became a handicap when Henry VIII chose to divorce and remarry. His religious consistency then led his patrons to turn on him. His efforts to avoid taking a stand on the issues of the King’s divorce and remarriage and papal supremacy ultimately failed to save his life. Recognizing his fate, More made his last testimonies at his trial and in prison to supplement his prior writings such as “Utopia”.

Although this book does well at relating More’s outstanding life and public career it fails to give the reader a feel for the man. Upon completion of the book, I felt that I knew about Thomas More, but did not feel that I knew him. I am glad that I read it, but I had hoped for more.

Simply Amazing, 18 Nov 2002
How Ackroyd has managed to do this I don't know. He has written a wonderful biography on a man who lived 500 years ago as if it were happening today. His descriptions of More's early life really allow you to...well...smell the life in Tudor England. Ackroyd puts across a variety of More's characteristics which are not always evident in a typical history book. More is described as someone devout, but inherently down to earth; he interacts with the people of his time and he seems to play second fiddle almost to his father who commanded his respect. A fascinating insight into the social structure of Tudor London and at times very moving. Well worth buying a copy.

A splendid and moving recreation of a world we have lost., 31 Aug 2001
Saints can be obstructive, difficult, dogmatic and even inherently unlikeable. In various degrees Thomas More is all of these and more. Yet in Ackroyd's sure hands he is revealed to be both a man of his time and perhaps even a "man for all seasons" with a steadfast focus on his God and what He demands.

Ackroyd patiently and sympathetically portrays More as essentially a medieval man, born into a world of obligation. It is this sense of the overwhelming obligation of the Christian man that is striking about More. He is not a natural saint - but he does have a very clear understanding of what the duties of a Christian man are. What is deeply depressing about his relationship with Henry VIII is that Henry tells him on more than one occasion that his duty to the King is, and has to be second, to his duty to God. Ironically it is this duty to God and its precedence over his earthly allegiance to Henry that becomes his undoing.

The other moving aspect of Ackroyd's vivid portrayal is the clarity with which Ackroyd explains More's notorious attitude to heresy. As he ages, More increasingly senses in the work of Luther and others the prospect of a world falling into decay and disorder - even a world where the Last Things are near. The prevention of that catastrophe and More's fear of its happening are central to his energetic campaign against heresy. Order is everything; chaos to be avoided at all costs. (It is extremely interesting to compare More's vision of what Protestantism might bring with the state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes a century later.)

For many it may appear that More's worst fears were realised and the great fracture in Christendom did indeed herald the end of the medieval world order and the birth of a world of individuals rather than a community united by the common faith of More and millions of our ancestors.

More was not the saint he appears in "A Man For All Seasons", 08 Sep 1999
I much enjoyed Peter Ackroyd's biography which I read as background in preparation to directing a production of "A Man For All Seasons". I found the early chapters hard work and skipped on to the period of his life more relevant to the play. Ackroyd presents a man who was not, by present standards, wholly likeable. Though clearly much loved by his family and very human, there is also the bigotry of the zealot in him. He seemed to delight in sending heretics or "newe men" (as he called them) to be burned at the stake. During his long incarceration in the Tower, he became understandably obsessed with his fate and, it must be said, it was a dreadful prospect. Robert Bolt's More in "A Man For All Seasons" is a much more sanitised character than Ackroyd presents to us.

A lyrical and entrancing portrait of an enduring genius, 08 Aug 2005
Blake's prophetic books are, in proportion to their length and literary importance, amongst the least read texts within the body of English Literature. Certainly, they are the least understood.

This is partly because of the notion, common today as it was amongst Blake's contemporaries, that the poet-artist was, at best, an ultrasensitive whose work was not consciously or methodically thought out but merely reflected his changeable mood at the time of writing. Either that or he was a lunatic, and his work the ramblings of a lunatic; this view is, unfortunately, still common today.

Ackroyd's examination of Blake's life is important in that it aids in expelling this illusion, both by relating the nature of Blake's time and place to the artist's output, and by being willing to engage Blake on his own ground. For example, Ackroyd at times willingly entertains the veracity of Blake's frequent visions, which is an engaging angle for the reader seeking to penetrate fully into Blake's world (and an attitude less likely to be found in a more academic study). At others, he substitutes the notion that Blake's imaginative faculties were of such a magnitude as to invade his ocular sense: he literally saw what he fancied. Either way, Blake is far from a madman and closer to a genius; consequently, one can feel the grain of his life - as he lived it - passing under the fingertips as they turn the pages.

This biography is that rare thing amongst its kind that allows the reader to engage with the subject's life, as well as observe it; at times, it allows moments of genuine love for the pugnacious Londoner who remains so little understood. Alone, it will not grant an understanding of Blake's poetry or art, particularly his prophetic works; this is not Ackroyd's intention. Rather, it allows a reader (or, more accurately, 'the viewer') of Blake's work, either experienced or virginal, to approach them with the attention, engagement and willingness to understand that they both require and deserve.

a little too fawning to its subject matter, 01 Nov 2003
I have really enjoyed Ackroyd's writing in the past. His London Biography, in particular, is an outstanding book.

I had, therefore, high hopes for his life of Blake, the 18th century visionary being a famous Londoner and a fascinating man.

I was a little disappointed. It's certainly learned and well researched (though it eggregiously overuses the word "vouchsafe"), but seems to skip over a number of important points: for one thing, Ackroyd hints darkly the Blake may have had misogynistic tendencies, but then declares "this isn't the place for a discussion of such things". Well, if a balanced biography isn't, I don't know what is.

Additionally, Ackroyd is somewhat credulous in his desire to portray Blake as a misunderstood genius, rather than a somewhat troubled individual. Serious credence is given to statements that certain people in Blake's circle (including, to an extent, Blake himself) were clairvoyant, whilst on the other hand short shrift is given to far more credible notions: such as that Blake - a man given to regular visions of angels and saints, after all - might have been mentally ill. Blake's behaviour may have been that of a genius, but is equally explainable as that of a flat-out nutcase, which appears to have been the general consensus of the time (and might partly explain Blake's lack of success during his own life).

Even-handed and insightful, 29 Mar 2001
This is well worth a read. The reader may gain a greater insight into Blake from the events of his life, which are relayed in detail. And furthermore from Ackroyd's empathetic and even-handed treatment of Blake the man, who one feels, will always be more than the sum of his actions. Particularly good for those who only know Blake the poet rather than the painter, the illustrations and engravings are given lots of attention and there are quite a few pictures to view.

Good on Blake, down on style, 26 Feb 2001
Ackroyd has a grand reputation as an auteur superbe, but in this book he finds himself to close to the subject to allow his normal objectivity to flow. Indeed, one might even say that Ackroyd is in love with Blake but at odds with his work

Unsatisfying and frustrating, 27 May 2008
Without realising it I picked up the abridged version of Peter Ackroyd's Dickens, and perhaps this is why I cannot agree with the good reviews of this book. It is well written and goes into great detail about all happenings- every story, every periodical, every novel, however the abridged version (of around 600 pages) refuses to talk about the important emotional relationships in Dickens' life. Just over 4 paragraphs are given to his break up with his wife (and most of these concern the legal settlement rather than any meaningful analysis of the break up). His relationship with his mother and father are mentioned at the beginning of the book but nothing pays off further into the book. Ackroyd asserts that Dickens had an ambiguous and not altogether good relationship with his mother and then proceeds to produce not one piece of evidence or feeling to back this statement up. Ackroyd is happy to make fatalistic assumptions; for example Dickens thinking train carriages were tilting to the left side after his crash 'because he had a swollen left foot' but is not willing to explore in any detail his relationship with Ellen Ternan, or track IN ANY WAY his falling out of love with his wife. Ackroyd also fails to explore Dickens' relationship with his children in any meaningful way- mentioning that his sons always felt inadequate but again not giving us any indication or evidence to suggest this was the case.

After 600 pages I was so dissatisfied I felt like going to read the primary source material myself in order that I could understand Dickens not in the context of his periodical, his stories and his books but as a man who had relationships with people around him.

Amanda Foreman's Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire as a historical biography (it is worth pointing out that this was actually written by a historian instead of a journalist, novelist and literary critic) shows a greater command of the material available and is able to plot relationships and feelings. In the abridged edition of Dickens, at least, Ackroyd fails spectacularly to do so. I don't know whether I wish I had picked up the full version, if I was to get through 1200 pages with the same conclusion I can only imagine my further frustration.

Brings Dickens utterly to life, 17 Dec 2007
I know that Peter Ackroyd has researchers working for him, so I assume the facts which he offers about Dickens are true. That being so, I greatly admire the way he so brilliantly weaves his material together, creating a picture of a living, breathing man - a genius who was irritating, temperamental, likeable, egocentric, self contradictory and generally almost impossible. Not only this but he puts Dickens in his period: he shows us what public life was like at the time and sketches in many individuals that Dickens knew, lived and worked with. He suggests what Dickens might have been aiming for at various times of his life, and what he might have felt and thought. There is inevitably some guesswork in this but after all, nobody can REALLY know another person, and Ackroyd's portrait, based as it is on research, probably contains more truth than the social front Dickens presented to most of the people who knew him personally. So I do believe this is the nearest we will ever get to understanding him, and highly recommend the book. By the way, this is the abridged version, but it is so illuminating and fascinating that I will now go and investigate the longer version.

Astounding, 08 Oct 2007
I am in the perhaps somewhat bizarre position of never having read any novel by Dickens himself, and regardless of that, finding myself utterly captivated by this biography. Is it correct? I wouldn't know as I've never read other Dickens-biographies. Is it complete and exhaustive? Probably not, no biography can be. All I do know is that it's truly magnificently written, and had me completely spellbound for all of its 579 pages (in my edition).

Great., 23 Jul 2006
This is a super read for anyone wishing to know more about the country's greatest novelist. Ackroyd's insight, following his extensive research demonstrates his passion for Dickens which is unmatched.

There exists one negative piece of feedback within the Amazon site re: this book, that is, repsectfully totally incorrect. If, like many of Dickens's novels, you take the time the read and savour rather than trying to finish the book, you'll gain a better persepctive, very much like what Ackroyd has achieved in providing this must read biography.

The Best Dickens Biography, 03 Jun 2006
When you first pick up this book in a bookshop or look at it online the first thing that hits you is obviously the size of it. From beginning to end Ackroyd's "Dickens" spans 1256 pages and to read it may seem like a daunting mission. This is not the case; Ackroyd is one of the best historical-biographial writers of our time and he knows how to make sure that long does not equal tedious. For fans and students of Dickens alike every word in this biography is essential; you may even find that you wish it was longer, I certainly did. The book chronicles everything Dickens from his birth through all of his works in periodicals and theatre to his sad and sudden death in 1870. To try and list the contents of this book would make the review over 200000 words long so i won't even try, but when I say everything I mean EVERYthing is in here from Dickens's family to his railway accident, his feelings, emotions, beliefs, experiences and relationships. There are also many caricatures and photographs of Dickens's life and times included, that add delight to what is already a wonderful read. If, however, you feel that 1300 pages really is too long but you still want to read Ackroyd's version of Dickens (which you should) try the abridged 500-page tie-in version that accompanied the BBC series in 2002. If you can manage the full version, you will not be disappointed.

Invaluable, 27 Nov 2008
This book is invaluable to any book lover! I have discovered so many new authors and books to add to my wish list. The descriptions are excellent, they don't give away too much information but just enough to make you want to read it. I think that everyone will have a different take on what has been included, there were books that I didn't think deserved to be in there and some missing that I would have wanted to see but you can't please everyone!

Temptation in paper form, 21 Sep 2008
I asked for this as a Christmas gift along with several other books and spent the entire day with my nose in this one.
It provides a surprising amount of information for each entry and is enjoyable to read in and of itself.
I don't know if I should be ashamed of all the books in it I haven't read but, also, I was pleased to see some of my favourite books are included.
This book does have one major flaw, however: You'll spend more time reading this than actual novels! My copy is covered in Post-It strips of all the books I intend to buy and read.
A great item for anyone with even the vaguest interest in books and reading.

A great book about great books!, 28 Aug 2008
What more could you want in a reading guide? The 1001 books are not suggested to be the best ever, but rather a diverse selection of international novels which deserve to be read. Spanning over 1150 years, the book's contributors (mostly university academics) draw your attention to forgotten gems and obscure authors, as well as to famous and popular classics. Additionally, the illustrations are a major attraction; interesting photos of authors, book covers, manuscripts, film stills, posters and cartoons all contribute to '1001's encyclopaedic feel. You might even term it a selective bibliopaedia. I counted 73 books featured that I have read, but I don't intend to read all the remaining 928! The nature of the book means that for some works, it's enough to read about them. It's particularly useful for someone who has only been reading adult fiction for a few years.

Revised 2008 edition, 21 Jun 2008
This second "international" edition has been revised to include a far wider range of authors, including many prize winners (Nobel - Isaac Bashevis Singer, SY Agnon, Orhan Pamuk, Naguib Mahfouz; Neustadt - David Malouf, Alvaro Mutis), more Spanish-language novels (Carlos Fuentes, Roberto Bolano, Juan Carlos Onetti) and classics like Ferdydurke (Gombrowicz), The Guide (RK Narayan), Dom Casmurro (Machado de Assis), the Chinese epic The Dream of Red Mansions/Story of the Stone, and Seasons of the Migration to the North (Tayeb Salih). Most of the books cut from the 1st edition are from authors with 3 or more entries, giving a much more varied list (although a shame to lose The Brothers Karamazov ?).

The 1001 are still quite biased toward Europe, with fewer US titles than similar books. Everyone will have their own gripes with individual choices (I would have liked to have seen Hopscotch by Julio Cortazar, Paradiso by Jose Lezama Lima, Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman, All the Kings Men by Robert Penn Warren, The Poor Christ of Bomba by Mongo Beti, Housekeeping by Marilynne Robinson, Petersburg by Andrei Bely). It is interesting to see some titles included which are not yet available in English translation (The Unknown Soldier by Vaino Linna, Grande Sertao by Joao Guimaraes Rosa), let's hope publishers take note.

My main reservation - as with the first edition - is the inconsistency. Why include the epic poem the Lusiad and not the Iliad or Aeneid, or verse such as Eugene Onegin and not Goethe's Faust, history like The Conquest of New Spain and not Gibbon, short stories by Lorrie Moore and not Chekhov. Also the index is full of errors and omissions like the first edition (Mishima's The Sound of Waves is listed under William Faulkner).

But this is still a fascinating book to browse and a great source of ideas for sampling world literature. A third edition would be welcome, maybe deleting the "quality trash" (the book's description) like Donna Tartt's The Secret History in favour of more little-known masterpieces which deserve to be better known.



Fun Argument Starter for Fiction Lovers, 04 Jun 2008
The first thing to understand about this massive brick of a book is that the title is meant to catch one's attention and that like the contents, it must be taken with a very large grain of salt. Dial it down to "1001 Books You Might Like to Read at Some Point" and you're more on target. The second thing to understand is that for editorial purposes, "book" generally means "adult novel" for the most part, so there's no non-fiction or poetry or plays or essays or or children's books or short stories (with one or two unexplained exceptions). The third thing to understand is that the book originated in Britain, and as such, has a rather British emphasis and a rather decidedly modern tilt. (The editor teaches at the University of Sussex, and a disproportionate number of the contributors either teach there with him or are current or former doctoral students there.) With these points understood, most fiction-lovers will find this to be a really fun coffee-table or bathroom book to have around for years.

Each of the 1001 books is given roughly 300 words in which to "respond...to what makes each novel compelling, to what it is about each novel that makes one absolutely need to read it." However, with around 100 contributors, the style of these varies wildly: some focus on the book's prose style, some its context, many are mere plot summaries, and unfortunately very few are genuinely inspirational. Arranged chronologically by date of original publication, the book grants roughly 80 pages to the years leading up to 1800, 140 pages to the 1800s, 650 pages to the 1900s, and 65 pages to the relatively recent 2000s. Aside from the 300 words and some basic bibliographic information, almost each selection is accompanied by some kind of artwork (jacket art, author photos, stills from film adaptations, etc.), making the book vivid and gorgeous throughout. Of course, the real fun in a book like this is the arguments it provokes, and the general hue and outcry about omissions or disproportional representation. Before I get into my own pet peeve, here's a little context:

-- The most heavily represented authors are J.M. Coetzee and Charles Dickens with 11 entries each, Samuel Beckett with 10, Graham Greene and Virginia Woolf with 9, Paul Auster, J.G. Ballard, and Ian McEwan with 8, and Saul Bellow, Dom DeLillo, Thomas Hardy, D.H. Lawrence, Philip Roth, and Salman Rushdie with 7. This does not include instances where trilogies have been lumped together into a lone entry, as is done several times. And I'll admit this is based on a quick run through the index, rather than a careful parsing, so I may have missed one or two people or miscounted slightly.

-- Despite the above, many prominent writers are completely missing, such as the following: William Boyd (Any Human Heart), Ray Bradberry (The Martian Chronicles, Fahrenheit 451), Willa Cather (Death Comes For the Archbishop), Roddy Doyle (Barrytown trilogy), Arthur Koestler (Darkness at Noon), Naguib Mahfouz (Cairo trilogy), Norman Mailer (The Naked and the Dead), Bernard Malamud (The Fixer), Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses, No Country For Old Men), George McDonald Fraser (Flashman series), John O'Hara (Appointment in Samarra), Orhan Pamuk (My Name is Red), Walker Percy (The Moviegoer), Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged), J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter series), Jane Smiley, Wallace Stegner (Crossing to Safety), William Styron (Sophie's Choice), Anne Tyler (The Accidental Tourist). Again, I'll admit the above list is largely compiled from other reviewers' mentions.

-- Although you would think a book like this would give a token nod to the established critical orthodoxy, only about half of Booker Prize winners appear, and only about 2/3 of Nobel Prize winners who were known for their novels appear. That's not to say that every prize-winning book is a must read, but when they come at the expense of decent, but entirely unremarkable, selections such as Zadie Smith's "On Beauty" or Ardal O'Hanlon's "Talk of the Town," one has to wonder...

-- Genre fiction gets very short shrift. Crime and science fiction are represented by the most obvious of choices (Chandler, Christie, Hammett, Asimov, and Clarke for example, although there are three Elmore Leonards). Horror gets a brief look-in with Dracula, Frankenstein, a Lovecraft short story and a Stephen King book. Aside from the obvious Tolkein, there's a lone fantasy title. Adventure tales are represented by H. Rider Haggard. And there are no westerns whatsoever. It's as if there was an editorial decision made that genre selections must be included and somewhat was assigned the task of rounding up the usual suspects. Oh yes, it's worth pointing out that a token graphic novel (Watchmen) was included, so that's nice.

My own personal bone to pick is with the Eurocentrism of the selections. I did a quick and dirty tabulation and found that roughly 70% of the selections were from Western Europe, roughly 25% from the U.S., and roughly 5% the rest of the world. The world's most populous country, China (currently 1 in 5 humans is Chinese), is represented by exactly zero entries. Ditto for the entire Arab-speaking/reading world. Don't even get me started on Africa -- entries authored by white African authors outnumber those by non-white African authors by a 2:1 ratio. And not coincidentally, all the non-white African writers represented all wrote in English. It's not that hard to find excellent fiction in translation, and as an example, I would point to the omission of Nobel laureates like Mahfouz, Pamuk, and pretty much every other non-Western winner. Anyway, that's just my own pet peeve, and most others probably don't care.

Ultimately, it's a fun book to have lying around to dip into from now and then or as a provocation to oneself or others.

Rich and erudite, 15 Sep 2008
This is a rich and erudite biography, replete with literary and theological references. As would be expected from this author, the theme of More as a Londoner is brought out quite clearly. The overriding theme, however, is of More as essentially a man of his time, the last great representative of late Medieval Catholicism, with a deeply ingrained belief in order, harmony and peaceful uniformity as represented by the collective piety of his religion, still at this early stage shared by the great bulk of the population of London and most of the country. That explains his hatred and violence towards the heretics whom he saw as disturbers of all order and civilisation in the world, not just of the Catholic church; it is the aspect of his life that is most disturbing to the modern reader, seeming to conflict harshly with his great conscience and the heroic nature of his death. But he must be seen in the context of his time when many great educated men on all sides of the religious divide believed in causing the deaths of their opponents to save those opponents' souls. A great, if not easy read, though I felt it lost its way a bit in the middle.

A Biography, Not A Character Study, 19 Jan 2004
“The Life Of Thomas More” introduces the reader, not only to his life story, but also to the world of the Upper Class Englishman of his day. A life long Londoner, More earned his way into a rarefied world of legends. Henry VIII was his patron turned persecutor, Erasmus was his friend and St. John Fisher was his co-martyr.

In his early life, More lived a life of sanctity, but displayed traits which would not suggest a saintly temperament. Working his way into high office in what was then Catholic England, More was confronted by the early infiltration of the Protestant movement. A strong supporter of the Church of Rome, More aggressively worked to suppress the rising heresy.

More’s religious fervor, which initially put him in good stead, became a handicap when Henry VIII chose to divorce and remarry. His religious consistency then led his patrons to turn on him. His efforts to avoid taking a stand on the issues of the King’s divorce and remarriage and papal supremacy ultimately failed to save his life. Recognizing his fate, More made his last testimonies at his trial and in prison to supplement his prior writings such as “Utopia”.

Although this book does well at relating More’s outstanding life and public career it fails to give the reader a feel for the man. Upon completion of the book, I felt that I knew about Thomas More, but did not feel that I knew him. I am glad that I read it, but I had hoped for more.

Simply Amazing, 18 Nov 2002
How Ackroyd has managed to do this I don't know. He has written a wonderful biography on a man who lived 500 years ago as if it were happening today. His descriptions of More's early life really allow you to...well...smell the life in Tudor England. Ackroyd puts across a variety of More's characteristics which are not always evident in a typical history book. More is described as someone devout, but inherently down to earth; he interacts with the people of his time and he seems to play second fiddle almost to his father who commanded his respect. A fascinating insight into the social structure of Tudor London and at times very moving. Well worth buying a copy.

A splendid and moving recreation of a world we have lost., 31 Aug 2001
Saints can be obstructive, difficult, dogmatic and even inherently unlikeable. In various degrees Thomas More is all of these and more. Yet in Ackroyd's sure hands he is revealed to be both a man of his time and perhaps even a "man for all seasons" with a steadfast focus on his God and what He demands.

Ackroyd patiently and sympathetically portrays More as essentially a medieval man, born into a world of obligation. It is this sense of the overwhelming obligation of the Christian man that is striking about More. He is not a natural saint - but he does have a very clear understanding of what the duties of a Christian man are. What is deeply depressing about his relationship with Henry VIII is that Henry tells him on more than one occasion that his duty to the King is, and has to be second, to his duty to God. Ironically it is this duty to God and its precedence over his earthly allegiance to Henry that becomes his undoing.

The other moving aspect of Ackroyd's vivid portrayal is the clarity with which Ackroyd explains More's notorious attitude to heresy. As he ages, More increasingly senses in the work of Luther and others the prospect of a world falling into decay and disorder - even a world where the Last Things are near. The prevention of that catastrophe and More's fear of its happening are central to his energetic campaign against heresy. Order is everything; chaos to be avoided at all costs. (It is extremely interesting to compare More's vision of what Protestantism might bring with the state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes a century later.)

For many it may appear that More's worst fears were realised and the great fracture in Christendom did indeed herald the end of the medieval world order and the birth of a world of individuals rather than a community united by the common faith of More and millions of our ancestors.

More was not the saint he appears in "A Man For All Seasons", 08 Sep 1999
I much enjoyed Peter Ackroyd's biography which I read as background in preparation to directing a production of "A Man For All Seasons". I found the early chapters hard work and skipped on to the period of his life more relevant to the play. Ackroyd presents a man who was not, by present standards, wholly likeable. Though clearly much loved by his family and very human, there is also the bigotry of the zealot in him. He seemed to delight in sending heretics or "newe men" (as he called them) to be burned at the stake. During his long incarceration in the Tower, he became understandably obsessed with his fate and, it must be said, it was a dreadful prospect. Robert Bolt's More in "A Man For All Seasons" is a much more sanitised character than Ackroyd presents to us.

definitive but so very long, 12 Aug 2008
I'm a great fan of Peter Ackroyd, whose technique is outstanding, but I nearly gave up on this book, somewhere around ch 57 which is entitled 'No more words, we beseech you'. A book of about 300 pp. as opposed to 500 would have been much more enjoyable.
The historical evidence about WS consists of two types of source: (1) a group of primarily legal texts about his investments, property purchases, his will and a few encounters with the law; and (2) comments by contemporaries, both favourable and hostile. There are more of (1) than I thought and many more of (2), so many in fact that I'm amazed that the 'Who really wrote Shakespeare?' theorists persist. The picture that emerges is of an exceptionally professional, hard-working, pragmatic, well thought-of, reasonably convivial man, respected and admired by most of his contemporaries. Of Shakespeare's opinions, beliefs and convictions we know, as Ackroyd says time and time again, absolutely nothing. Stretching that picture to 500 pp. requires a vast amount of conjecture (Shakespeare would have done this, Shakespeare would have known that ... ) coupled with a huge amount of admiring comment about the plays, some of it pretty banal.
I agree with reviewers that this is as close to WS as we can hope to get, given that he left no clues at all about himself. It's definitive, certainly the last book I want to read about the man as opposed to the works. But it's too long.

Flawed, 11 May 2008
My experience with Peter Ackroyd has been rather mixed. I enjoyed several of his novels: "Chatterton", "First Light", "Dan Leno And The Limehouse Golem" with its clever twist, the weird and wonderful "Hawksmoor" especially... but I found I only enjoyed dipping into "London: The Biography", and I totally failed to engage with "Albion: The Origins Of The English Imagination".

While writing a "biography" of London was a sufficiently original approach to justify the use of the definite article, it was perhaps just a teeny-weeny bit presumptuous, in such a heavily populated area of scholarship, to entitle this work "Shakespeare/The Biography". After all, Ackroyd's biographies of Dickens and Blake are just called "Dickens" and "Blake". And, at the beginning of his hefty bibliography, the author himself confesses to his lack of particular expertise in matters Shakespearean:

"I came to this study as a Shakespearian [sic] enthusiast rather than expert, and my debt to previous scholarship is as obvious as it is profound."

It would be interesting to know what the specialists have made of this. I certainly found it as readable as most biographies (not my own specialist area, or my preferred one, by a long way...), but it ironically confirmed for me what I have always thought, in other words that Shakespeare's works are such that any information about his life simply does not stand comparison. And I concluded, once again, that Shakespeare is so much in a quasi-mythical class of his own that any attempt at writing about the man is perilous at best, and perhaps even irrelevant...

Having said all that, I found a lot to ponder here, and had no difficulty at all in keeping reading. But time and time again I found myself saying "Yes, must read that bit in "Hamlet"/"Twelfth Night"/whatever... again." (And it also made me want to read the plays I confess to never having read: "Pericles"/"Coriolanus"/"All's Well That Ends Well"/whatever... )

Ackroyd clearly knows the complete oeuvre extremely well indeed. His observations about the plays are often extremely interesting, if occasionally rather idiosyncratic, not to say debatable... On the other hand, he is not always convincing in what he imagines about the period:

"When Shakespeare includes the famous stage-direction in "The Winter's Tale", 'Exit, pursued by a bear', the audience would have been able to picture the scene quite precisely."

Except, of course, that the audience wouldn't have been reading the stage-direction, given that they'd have been watching the play, and consequently wouldn't have needed to actually picture anything...

There are bits of information that are given twice in different parts of the book, such as the one about Shakespeare rewriting the character of Emilia in "Othello" to make her more sympathetic to the audience.

There are disappointments (in my view) too, such as Ackroyd having much more to say about the history plays than about the tragedies.

To his credit, Ackroyd gives an extremely vivid picture of London life in Elizabethan England. But then he'd already "done" London in another book. In fact several others...

So... good, if occasionally controversial, on the plays. Very good on London. And on Shakespeare the man... well, so-so. And does anybody really care?

No holes Bard, 26 Dec 2007
With shelves already creaking under the weight of so many Shakespeare biographies, what need another one? With its definite article, Ackroyd's title seems to imply that this could be the definitive account and, given his previous success in the field of literary biography (Dickens, Chaucer, Blake, Pound, Eliot, the Lambs, More), who can deny that his Shakespeare: The Biography is at least worth investigating?

For all its array of footnotes, this is not a work of scholarship (the notes are references to other works, not primary sources). It is, however, a work of insight and empathy of the kind that we might expect from one author writing about another. Given the relative paucity of valuable 'artistic' raw materials (as opposed to legal documents) and given, also, the unlikelihood of very many more contemporary documents cropping up, these qualities are all-important.

Some of the insights provided by Ackroyd seem invaluable - if obvious, in retrospect. It's the first time here, for instance, that I've met the idea that early plays bearing similar titles to Shakespearean works (eg The Troublesome Raigne of King John and The Taming of A Shrew) are not so much source materials for Shakespeare, as early drafts by the selfsame playwright. Ackroyd suggests that, by 1589, Shakespeare had written early versions of at least Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew, King John, Hamlet and, quite possibly, the apocryphal Edmund Ironside and Edward III as well. This is a very early date, of course, and doesn't reflect scholarly consensus. The beauty of the idea lies in the fact that it does a great deal to fill in much of the gaping hole of the 'missing years' problem. Furthermore, it explains why his rivals - like the embittered malcontents Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe - should have spent so much energy attacking the young playwright who, even by 1589, must have achieved some prominence. (Certainly so by 1592, when Shakespeare is attacked overtly by Greene.) The traditional account, that Shakespeare by this date might merely have written a couple of crude apprentice pieces, like Two Gentlemen of Verona and Titus Andronicus, begins to sound quite unconvincing all of a sudden.

Ackroyd is persuasive in his presentation of a dramatist being shaped by the (theatrical) company working around him. He suggests that the sudden departure or arrival of an important actor significantly changed the character of his plays. A notable example of this process being the replacement of the ad-libbing, dancing clown, Will Kempe, with the 'intellectual fool', Robert Armin, whose arrival heralded roles, from Touchstone on, of 'fools' who regularly break out into song and who are now more 'philosophical'.

A major strength of this biography is that it is part 'life' and part lit crit. Ackroyd the biographer observes, for instance, that in writing Hamlet, Shakespeare draws upon a reservoir of personal experience, including the recent death of his son Hamnet (in 1596) and the even more recent death of his father (1601). Ackroyd the critic then goes on to suggest that the resulting play represents a movement towards greater introspection, of 'interiority' and a refinement of his use of soliloquy, which is now 'the index of an evolving consciousness in which 'this is what I am' gives way to 'this is what I am becoming' '. A yet further layer is provided by Ackroyd the visionary, who divines that the Hamlet of 1601 is a re-working of an earlier play, and that this earlier play was published as the 'bad quarto' of 1594. The Hamlet discussion provides a good example of his presentation of Shakespeare as an evolving artist - one who was capable of writing hurried and imperfect work which was later moulded into the form in which we now know it, via the Folio of 1623. In Ackroyd's words, 'His was always a work in progress.'

But what kind of picture of Shakespeare the man does this biography paint? Ackroyd presents Shakespeare as a detached individual (although loyal to colleagues and friends). One who, both personally and artistically, mistrusted dogma. In religion, his father and his daughter Suzanna were recusants. Although the whole family seems to have had strong connections and affinities with Catholicism, the fact that Suzanna, his favourite daughter, married the Puritan Dr Hall, suggests that tolerance prevailed above all. Of Shakespeare's learning, Ackroyd tells us that he read solely for his work. He was emphatically not interested in books or in learning for their own sakes. On aesthetics: 'Shakespeare did not have an aesthetic view of the drama at all, but a practical and empirical one.' And philosophy? According to Ackroyd, Shakespeare's whole cast of mind was entirely concrete, and more interested in character and event than in anything abstract. He is portrayed, therefore, as a man motivated by the thing that mattered most to him - success.

This is a very full account of Shakespeare's life that, above all, does much to suggest how some of the 'holes' in his subject's early career can be accounted for. While not being the definitive Shakespearean biography to end all such biographies, perhaps, it is always thought-provoking. Such as when Ackroyd advances the ideas that Shakespeare may have written a lot more than is acknowledged in the 'canon', and (as paradoxical a notion as anything in Romeo and Juliet) the thought that 'In the early years he may not even have been particularly Shakespearian'. Paradoxically again, while not relying on original research, Ackroyd manages to present a highly original take on the dramatist's life.

Shakespeare, 04 Jun 2007
Considering the lack of first hand biographical sources, this is a brilliant look at the life of Shakespeare. What information on his life is available has been brilliantly researched. I like the way this also looks at life in London, and in the rest of the country, when Shakespeare was alive, it really gives you a feel for what he may have experienced and what may of shaped his views and writing. This has some nice colour plates as well. This book is fairly easy to read and although a little dry in places, it is well worth persevering with for an insightful look into an influential literary figure.

Excellent biography and historical analysis, 24 Sep 2005
Peter Ackroyd's biography of Shakespeare maintains the high standards he sets for himself and displays his ability to make historical analysis accessible to a wide public. The concrete facts known about Shakespeare are few and far between - there is plenty of room to speculate on the events of his l