Scan barcode
donsar's review against another edition
3.0
There is a great deal on offer from Queer City and it is clear that Ackroyd has done his work in researching a vast tract of history. But like other readers, I thought that Ackroyd could have taken a deeper dive into the lives of the various people we meet along the way. Instead, we will meet someone who is so interesting that an entire book could be written about them alone and we are whisked away from them after a meager paragraph.
I don't take as much issue with the amount of focus on criminals as some of the other reviewers have. Apart from the availability of court records, I think Ackroyd uses these cases to highlight that fact that people in the past were well aware of what could go on behind closed doors (or in the bushes!) and that it was relatively commonplace. Although, I don't think it was necessary to add pedophiles in the list of queer people. That said, while our modern day understanding of childhood extends into the teenage years, it is worth bearing in mind that for most of human history that has not been historically the case.
Overall, Queer City is perhaps best as a reference book, or a jumping off point into deeper research.
I don't take as much issue with the amount of focus on criminals as some of the other reviewers have. Apart from the availability of court records, I think Ackroyd uses these cases to highlight that fact that people in the past were well aware of what could go on behind closed doors (or in the bushes!) and that it was relatively commonplace. Although, I don't think it was necessary to add pedophiles in the list of queer people. That said, while our modern day understanding of childhood extends into the teenage years, it is worth bearing in mind that for most of human history that has not been historically the case.
Overall, Queer City is perhaps best as a reference book, or a jumping off point into deeper research.
synthetic_and_saturnine's review against another edition
3.5
3.5 stars- the final chapter felt quite rushed and i feel as though it glossed over a lot of issues still present within queer spaces in the uk
catheriner23's review against another edition
2.0
While I learned a few things I didn't know, there are lots of ways this book could have been better. Firstly, the book moves chronologically(ish). While this gives you a reasonable historical grounding, and might be useful if you're less familiar with British history, it gives you no geographical sense of London as a queer space whatsoever. I would love to have seen this divided instead by geographical location, or at the very least with some maps, pointing out how spaces link through time. While this book talks about 'queer' London, what it really means (surprise, surprise) is 'the London of men who have sex with men'. It talks very sparingly about women, trans and gender nonconforming people. This mostly occurs in the final chapter, which gives it a feeling of 'gay men have existed for centuries, but in the mid-20th Century, women and trans people were invented!'. There are some occasional earlier mentions, but they are few and far between. On the whole, the book feels bitty and disconnected and where themes could have been drawn out, or links made by area, these have been disregarded in favour of a fragmented chronological retelling.
hscoop_'s review
informative
slow-paced
1.0
I guess it’s historically accurate but god, is it boring. And it does just reduce queerness largely to gay men and it also focuses more on the punishments throughout time than the deeds. And the ONE thing I found interesting was the Black woman, who in 1815, successfully captained a ship - but there was NO COMMENT on the aspect of race?? Idk it was just booooring.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexual assault, Sexual content, Child abuse, Hate crime, Pedophilia, Police brutality, and Rape
theseventhl's review against another edition
3.0
I was thrilled to get Peter Ackroyd's QUEER CITY as a Goodreads Giveaway book. What is inside, for the most part, does not disappoint. There are so many anecdotes and stories of queer London, shocking and rude and heartbreaking and humorous, that it really puts a lot of color and character into our queer English ancestors. I appreciated the look at lesbian and gay men, and an acknowledgment that trans folks and genderqueer/genderfluid existed in the past, although we didn't have the words to describe these gender complexities back then.
My favorite stories were probably about queer folks in power and with real societal influence. It really means a lot to me, as a bisexual woman, to hear stories of powerful queer people who, in some ways were able to live their lives authentically but could never truly be themselves, although some succeeded through using the cultural depictions of queer people to their advantage. The stories of queer women who took on traditionally masculine roles and careers and became legends of their time were outstanding and, quite frankly, inspiring.
At times this book also broke my heart, mainly when QUEER CITY describes the desperate measures gay men would go through to avoid being arrested for just being found with another men, from leaving the country to jumping into the Thames. These men were just trying to live, but were forced to hide vital parts of themselves, arrange hook-ups in back alleys and lavatories, create elaborate codes in order to safely identify other gay men, and yet were still harassed, arrested, attacked, and killed for being men who loved other men. And, as Ackroyd points out, even though we have improved in gay rights, it is still not fully safe for queer people to be themselves out in the open. How far have we truly gone?
This book would have been so perfect if it didn't spend so much time in the 1700's - is this where the bulk of queer history for London really takes place? This seems like an off-balance focus on one period, and by the time you get to the 1900's, it feels shoehorned in. Speaking of the 1900's/2000's last chapter, it could have used some serious editorial restraint. At one point, Ackroyd breaks away from his thesis of queer London history and goes on a rant about the "sudden" flux of gender identities and gender fluidity and the "examine your privilege" sub-culture online, none of which gels with the rest of the book and feels thrown in to fulfill some lingering personal agenda with the Twitter/Tumblr blogosphere. It was obnoxious and put a bitter aftertaste on an otherwise intelligent history of a very queer, very dynamic city.
A reviewer copy of the book was provided for free by the Goodreads giveaway program and Beacon Press; no other compensation was offered for this review, nor was a review required to receive the book.
My favorite stories were probably about queer folks in power and with real societal influence. It really means a lot to me, as a bisexual woman, to hear stories of powerful queer people who, in some ways were able to live their lives authentically but could never truly be themselves, although some succeeded through using the cultural depictions of queer people to their advantage. The stories of queer women who took on traditionally masculine roles and careers and became legends of their time were outstanding and, quite frankly, inspiring.
At times this book also broke my heart, mainly when QUEER CITY describes the desperate measures gay men would go through to avoid being arrested for just being found with another men, from leaving the country to jumping into the Thames. These men were just trying to live, but were forced to hide vital parts of themselves, arrange hook-ups in back alleys and lavatories, create elaborate codes in order to safely identify other gay men, and yet were still harassed, arrested, attacked, and killed for being men who loved other men. And, as Ackroyd points out, even though we have improved in gay rights, it is still not fully safe for queer people to be themselves out in the open. How far have we truly gone?
This book would have been so perfect if it didn't spend so much time in the 1700's - is this where the bulk of queer history for London really takes place? This seems like an off-balance focus on one period, and by the time you get to the 1900's, it feels shoehorned in. Speaking of the 1900's/2000's last chapter, it could have used some serious editorial restraint. At one point, Ackroyd breaks away from his thesis of queer London history and goes on a rant about the "sudden" flux of gender identities and gender fluidity and the "examine your privilege" sub-culture online, none of which gels with the rest of the book and feels thrown in to fulfill some lingering personal agenda with the Twitter/Tumblr blogosphere. It was obnoxious and put a bitter aftertaste on an otherwise intelligent history of a very queer, very dynamic city.
A reviewer copy of the book was provided for free by the Goodreads giveaway program and Beacon Press; no other compensation was offered for this review, nor was a review required to receive the book.
acrosstheskyinstars's review against another edition
dark
informative
tense
medium-paced
4.0
An interesting overview of gay life throughout London's history. I listened to the audiobook version, which I recommend. There is plenty to learn from this, even for those well-versed in queer history.
mesy_mark's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
2.5
So this was a highly information-packed history of queer London. But it should perhaps have been longer to cover it rather than incident after incident. Some parts just seemed like a list of crimes here and there. I listened to the audiobook format and the narrator's voice was easy to listen to.
ameyawarde's review against another edition
1.0
Though it has quite a bit of interesting trivia in here, I find this book DEEPLY problematic, and thus awful. Extremely triggering for anyone who has sexual-violence related PTSD as well. I'm choosing not to finish it. As the reviewer "Will" wrote in Jan 2018,
"First, he dwells on accounts of sexual assault and violence, as well as pedophilia and pederasty, without making any effort to separate them from consensual sexual encounters."
I truly don't understand how more reviewers haven't been commenting on this. I was surprised to hear the author is gay because such a deep convolution of gayness and pedophilia/pederasty offended _me_, and I am not a gay man. The author's narrative voice is present throughout the book, and yet never makes any sort of commentary suggesting any differences between the unbelievable amount of rape (of adults and children/teens) he covers and gay men/the gay community. I honest to god started to think the book was written by one of those American religious extremists who DO think gay = pedophilic. It did not help at all that the voice of the audiobook narrator did NOT take on any different tone in these parts, to the point where I had to pause it a few times because i was overwhelmed with the lighthearted tone that both the text and voice were taking with too-graphic accounts of rape and molestation.
As far as I got in the book I feel like the women he covered were discussed well enough-- not much on them, but I totally understand that the lack of materials is likely behind it, which is something historical research of even straight, cis women deal with, and yet he managed to find material other than graphic sexual assaults, and I really don't see why the hell he saw no problem including graphic and jaunty accounts of rape and molestation, pedophilia and pederasty in all the sections about gay men.
"First, he dwells on accounts of sexual assault and violence, as well as pedophilia and pederasty, without making any effort to separate them from consensual sexual encounters."
I truly don't understand how more reviewers haven't been commenting on this. I was surprised to hear the author is gay because such a deep convolution of gayness and pedophilia/pederasty offended _me_, and I am not a gay man. The author's narrative voice is present throughout the book, and yet never makes any sort of commentary suggesting any differences between the unbelievable amount of rape (of adults and children/teens) he covers and gay men/the gay community. I honest to god started to think the book was written by one of those American religious extremists who DO think gay = pedophilic. It did not help at all that the voice of the audiobook narrator did NOT take on any different tone in these parts, to the point where I had to pause it a few times because i was overwhelmed with the lighthearted tone that both the text and voice were taking with too-graphic accounts of rape and molestation.
As far as I got in the book I feel like the women he covered were discussed well enough-- not much on them, but I totally understand that the lack of materials is likely behind it, which is something historical research of even straight, cis women deal with, and yet he managed to find material other than graphic sexual assaults, and I really don't see why the hell he saw no problem including graphic and jaunty accounts of rape and molestation, pedophilia and pederasty in all the sections about gay men.