Bryan's piece on Peter Ackroyd is a must read. No one does this sort of thing better than Bryan - or even as well.
I had not realized how much I had in common with Ackroyd. He despises secularism, finds TV pundits revolting, and doesn't put any stock in self-expression. Bryan is right when he says that Ackroyd "buries himself alive in his subjects, fictional or nonfictional." That is why The Plato Papers and The Hosue of Dr. Dee are such good novels. His biography of Blake, by the way, is superb.
I had not realized how much I had in common with Ackroyd. He despises secularism, finds TV pundits revolting, and doesn't put any stock in self-expression. Bryan is right when he says that Ackroyd "buries himself alive in his subjects, fictional or nonfictional." That is why The Plato Papers and The Hosue of Dr. Dee are such good novels. His biography of Blake, by the way, is superb.
I agree with your assessment of Ackroyd. I would, however, reinforce your critique of his Blake biography by making two points: (1) there is no better biographical treatment of Blake; (2) there is nothing better in Ackroyd's oeuvre (at least not up to this point in his distinguished career, though I did very much enjoy his fictional treatment of Chaucer's pilgrims).
ReplyDeletePOSTSCRIPT: Of course, in my previous post, I referred to "The Clerkenwell Tales" rather than Ackroyd's "translation" of Chaucer's tales.
ReplyDelete