London: A Social History

'London was always a muddle that worked. Will it remain that way?' is Roy Porter's closing question in this extensive, but engrossing, work. I chose his final remark to start this review because it encapsulates his view that London is "not the eternal city" and, he argues, may well now be at its end as a livable metropolis. Pessimistically he argues that it was at its greatest " ... between the two Elizabeths, between 1570 and 1986 to be more precise..." and he seems to sincerely fret that, once again, as in Roman times, London might be abandoned and "left to the dogs".

Certainly he presents the evidence that London grew too fast and too big "like a fungus" and he details the social and human dimension of that massive growth - show more unstructured, uncontrolled and ungoverned. From the mobs, the riots the plagues and the Great Fire came an unruly tradition that was translated into a totally unplanned sprawl as the people moved up, and away, from the collapsing city's origins.

Given the published date it is appropriate that he concentrates on the hardness of the Margaret Thatcher policy years and the dreadful impact that such laissez faire, "market forces" led attitudes to the city's growingly desperate needs for public housing, transport and infrastructure. The industries that provided the employment - that provided the taxes and disposable income for the city's fitness and survival - fled to the provinces (or over-seas). The redevelopment, Porter explains, did nothing to resolve these problems as the jobs that were created were filled by transfer, the housing that was built was so `upscale' that the indigenous could not afford to live in it and the `gentrification' of the East End and London Docks only provided for the Thatcherites of the "greed is good" generation. Tourism is now how London survives as even its traditional money-based `service industries' evacuate the remaining centers, to internet-commute, diversify, down-size or are sold off to foreign interests.

Porter's pessimism then is perhaps justified? We must hope not ... as Dr. Johnson once remarked; London is life and its crumbling and dissolution would be our collective loss. show less

Porter gives a good overview of London's rise as a great city, then a detailed view of its society (poor, rich, and in-between) during the long 19th century, covering the rise of capitalism and the Victorian era. If you are interested in the English classics (Defoe, Dickens, Doyle, etc.), this is a great companion book. It can help you to understand the many sides of a city that grew too fast at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It paints a fine picture of the glories and the filth and shame of London.

I think I first heard of this book way back when I was at university in Finland and did a British and Irish studies module about London in literature—it has therefore spent over fifteen years on my TBR list. But better late than never: when I came across it in a charity shop six weeks ago I rushed to buy it and didn't waste much time picking it up to read (unlike some other books on my shelves). And although the book doesn't reach the present—it comes to a somewhat pessimistic outlook for London coming out of the Thatcher era—some of its final thoughts about the tourist London, the rich foreign houseowner's London still seem relevant, even if investment in transport has evidently increased and the mayor brought a new element in show more the question of who governs London. show less

Porter's history of London is readable, entertaining and informative, its only fault being that of length (and of the focus on the 19th century, but this is a matter of taste). While the book itself doesn't slacken in pace or passion, towards the end, the reader cannot but flag at all the facts and figures. Good read though, all said.

Although this history starts at the beginning of London, it reaches the Reformation by page 45 (of over 400 pages) so it i primarily about early modern and modern London

History of London