Rating: 
Summary: Very confusing, surreal tale..
Review: "Hawksmoor" by Peter Ackroyd was the first one I read by him, and I almost didn't want to read another. I can see from previous reviews that opinion was mixed. I did like what Ackroyd attempted: a story with an eighteenth century feel( The language in that part got on my nerves after a while) with an interesting antihero at the center. The premise that Nicolas Dyer, who designed churches, was a Satanist is both ironic and very original. That is one of the few strong points in the novel. The police detective who is investigating a series of murder is also interesting. Basically, he discovers that the killings are supernatural and echo Dyer's murders years before. The ending was what ruined the whole novel. What was the point of it? So Dyer and Hawksmoor are staring at each other through time, is in a mirror?
Rating:
Summary: Very confusing, surreal tale..
Review: "Hawksmoor" by Peter Ackroyd was the first one I read by him, and I almost didn't want to read another. I can see from previous reviews that opinion was mixed. I did like what Ackroyd attempted: a story with an eighteenth century feel( The language in that part got on my nerves after a while) with an interesting antihero at the center. The premise that Nicolas Dyer, who designed churches, was a Satanist is both ironic and very original. That is one of the few strong points in the novel. The police detective who is investigating a series of murder is also interesting. Basically, he discovers that the killings are supernatural and echo Dyer's murders years before. The ending was what ruined the whole novel. What was the point of it? So Dyer and Hawksmoor are staring at each other through time, is in a mirror?
Rating:
Summary: Very confusing, surreal tale..
Review: "Hawksmoor" by Peter Ackroyd was the first one I read by him, and I almost didn't want to read another. I can see from previous reviews that opinion was mixed. I did like what Ackroyd attempted: a story with an eighteenth century feel( The language in that part got on my nerves after a while) with an interesting antihero at the center. The premise that Nicolas Dyer, who designed churches, was a Satanist is both ironic and very original. That is one of the few strong points in the novel. The police detective who is investigating a series of murder is also interesting. Basically, he discovers that the killings are supernatural and echo Dyer's murders years before. The ending was what ruined the whole novel. What was the point of it? So Dyer and Hawksmoor are staring at each other through time, is in a mirror?
Rating: 
Summary: Dark, deep, witty... and scary.
Review: A chilling book by an accomplished stylist.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical 'Ackroyd' book, but rubbish
Review: Anyone who has read a book by Peter Ackroyd will be able to guess the point of this book and thus save the tedium of actually slogging though it.For the unitiated, an Ackroyd book is one set (a) in London; (b) in the past; (c) but with chapters set in the presesnt interposed to create dramatic tension between the past and present. Unlike most of the others however, this is unrelenting tosh. The characters are awful, particularly the young boy who dies in the first quarter of the book. The point of the book is that the architect of Christ Church, Spitalfields and others, was involved in the caballa of black magic and devil worship, leading to murders past and present. About the only thing which is in its favour is its setting in post-Plague London. However the mis-spelling and bottom-fixated puns of early eighteenth-century English does get tiresome. Frankly, it was done better in Blackadder II. The 'modern' passages are risible. Better to search out 'Chatterton' or John Fowles 'A Maggot' for the similar theme of the caballa.
Rating: 
Summary: If you are a simpleton do not attempt to read this book
Review: Clearly, the negative reviews in these pages are the product of individuals whose literary appreciation would best be confined to those works readily available in airport newsagents. Hawksmoor is one of the few truly great metaphysical works of the 20th century. The linguistic style employed by Ackroyd is not "pompous" as thus described by some halfwit from Idaho elsewhere in these reviews, but a peerless example of how to represent the richness and fluidity of the spoken word of the period. The language underpins a work which is multi-layered and largely allegorical and has been structured in such a way so as to intertwine with those same aspects as employed within the fabric of Hawksmoor's architecture itself. The novel is not a conventional narrative and should not be approached as such. If there exists a central and recurring theme then it is the precience and indivisibility of evil within the world. The juxtaposition of people and events within the text is achieved merely to highlight this theme. Those who see this work as a rather confusing ghost story would probably interpret "Ulysses" as a travel guide to Dublin. If you have a genuine love for literature and language then you will treasure this work. I guarantee that it will still be read long after the churches themselves have crumbled.
Rating:
Summary: A book which to me seems overrated.
Review: Having read the laudatory "blurbs" on my copy of the novel I was quite disappointed. The text was simply obscure, and the passages in seventeenth-century vernacular quickly became tiresome. I was prepared for something "macabre" and "chilling," but instead found myself merely irritated by the book's pretensions, and as for being scared - forget it. This type of thing has been done earlier and better by John Barth, so go out and read The Sot-Weed Factor instead. And as for James Fenton, Joyce Carol Oates, and Jonathan Keates, I'm not sure where their critical faculties were when they puffed this book up.
Rating:
Summary: If Ackroyd is an English literary light, this is ten watts
Review: I confess that this is the only book I have read by Ackroyd, but it may be the last one. Zero character development, an odd plot line pompous writing style and and a dismally incomplete finish. The historical setting deserved the two stars.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed!
Review: I have read some of the preceding reviews and I must say that the reviewer from Greece was pompous and insulting. I consider myself very well read in fiction and history and I came away from this book empty. Yes, the 18th century part was well written and evocative of that time and place, but I failed to understand the purpose of the whole. The sections in the 20th century were completely unbelievable. I twigged the business about evil, but it didn't mean anything to me. There was nothing new here. I have enjoyed Ackroyd's biographies but this stumped me. I also found the point of view to be extremely anti-intellectual. For a much better depiction of the stupidity of members of the Royal Society, read Longitude!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting though without point
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed the writing, both old & new. Unfortunately by halfway I was dying for something to happen. It didn't. The end as it approached was unfortunately predicted as being disappointing. It was.
| 
