Talk:Peter Ackroyd

Sexuality

Peter Ackroyd is openly gay. Why isn't there a Category link to LGBT people, or to gay writers? Nuttyskin 03:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ackroyd is not gay.[[1]]91.85.182.76 (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

... and yet...[2]. Whatever his declared sexuality now, he has identified as gay in the past. He seems to have moved from a position of living openly with a partner (who died from AIDS) to saying nothing about the subject, apart from pithy comments to the Independent (as above). I think some mention should be made of his past life and his attitudes to it now. I'm not 100% that one off-the-cuff comment to a paper and general silence on the subject elsewhere should mean an automatic removal of the LGBT category.--80.1.181.1(talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Albion

I changed the description of Albion, because it is not the most scholarly of his books; the rather obscure Notes for a New Culture surely deserves that prize. --Jbmurray 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Cleanup" tag

I added this mainly because the introductory para (see here) doesn't summarize subject's notability, but a few sub headings would also help. I may well get back to this, but it could be a while so don't hang back! --Old Moonraker 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone (anon) had taken this tag away. The intro paragraph is not acceptable as it stands. I don't think I am in a position to summarize his notability, so I replaced it with an "improve lead" tag. Sam Staton (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the repair. I really must get round to this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Redact the above: other users have made big improvements. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

London: The Biography

Look through the index of this 800 page tome, so glowingly reviewed, and you'll find no reference to Arsenal, Lords Cricket Ground, Ken Livingstone, schools, the Crystal Palace....I could go on. Only an Englishman could be culpable of such omissions, and be so highly acclaimed by his compatriots. Millbanks 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

800 pages, eh! Big, isn't it? Just imagine how much bigger it would be if Ackroyd included the topics you mention. The point is, the man's "acclaim" is as an historian (originally as a writer of historical novels) and when we buy his factual work we are expecting him to have used his expertise to select and present from the huge amount of material available. I'm guessing, now, that you are well aware of this and not really expecting anyone to take the post too seriously! --Old Moonraker 08:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I DO expect this point to be taken seriously. The omissions I make are very significant ones. There are lots of people in the book whose names are quite unfamiliar, and yet there's no mention of Ken Livingstone, a famous Londoner if ever there was one. And aren't the famous London schools worth a mention? That need not make the book longer. He could just remove some of the more obscure references. As for sport, dear me, he is in good company. Gerard Young's History of Bognor Regis has no mention of it. Nor does Alan Warwick's The Phoenix Suburb about the Crystal Palace area. Only the English could do that. In contrast Ruth Dudley Edwards's An Atlas of Irish History contains a chapter on sport. Apparently she was "ticked off" for the omission of this in an earlier edition, so she got two colleagues "to fill the gap". Millbanks 07:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's a matter of readers choosing the books that they think will interest them. I bought this book because of its historical scope, and Ackroyd's reputation. While reading it I found out about unfamiliar people, as you say. Learning something unfamiliar was part of the point. If I'd wanted a more up-to-date view about more familiar aspects of the city I could have bought, for example, Terence Conran's book which does have a few pages on football. Ken Livingston wrote the forward. It's all a matter of selection and choice: I chose a book where I anticipated the author would have made his selection with an historical bias, and was not disappointed.

Actually I think we may now be straying from the point of the talk page somewhat: Shouldn't we be discussing the article and how to improve it? A good lead identifying Ackroyd's importance has been requested for some months, for example. --Old Moonraker 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Comparable to Martin Amis"

I've added an {{or}} tag to "His works are comparable to Martin Amis, John Banville and Sebastian Barry". In any case, it doesn't meet the WP:LEDE criteria: an "introduction...and summary of the article below". --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks User:Charles Matthews. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One and only ?

Are there more than one writer called Peter Ackroyd ? I found an Peter R. Ackroyd who writes about the Bible, but are te Astronomy books and London by the same person ? (And if not, which of them wrote the Newton book ). --Kummi (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The novel First Light and the biography of Isaac Newton are both by the subject of this article. Reverend Peter Runham Ackroyd, biblical scholar, died in 2005. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

'Peter Ackroyd' must surely be a committee of writers. 'He' produces at least 2 substantial works every year, which is not humanly possible for a single writer. (Just kidding.)81.146.36.100 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Gissing or Meredith?

In Early career section, I think it is George Meredith who is meant, not George Gissing. I dare not correct it myself because I read the novel quite a long time ago. Please correct this section if I'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right: be WP:BOLD. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading a novel

"I don't think I even read a novel till I was about 26 or 27". But he got a degree in literature. What??? 123.243.29.122 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)