I’ve just finished reading Mother London, by Michael Moorcock. I was interested to see that the Wikipedia page makes only the briefest mention of this book or its sort-of-sequel, King of the City, save to describe them as ‘mainstream’. In a way, I suppose that his is true. Mother London was, I believe, shortlisted for the Whitbread, and the LRB certainly published a rave (and borderline incomprehensible) review of King of the City, written by Moorcock’s friend Ian Sinclair.
Mother London is certainly rather different to the psychedelic swords and sorcery stuff that makes up a big chunk of Moorcock’s huge bibliography. In a way it’s reminiscent of a compressed Dance to the Music of Time, covering about fifty years and containing a huge cast of characters, most of whom come in and out of the story in a way that I found very pleasing. Someone will begin as a very minor character, but will then pop up again and again in a variety of settings, revealing new aspects of themselves each time. It’s a longish book, at just under five hundred pages, but it feels absolutely gigantic, epic.
It’s a book of many different aspects, one of which is a history of London. Throughout, Moorcock argues for a history that incorporates both the everyday and the mythic: “Such stories are common amongst all ordinary Londoners … By means of our myths and legends we maintain a sense of who we are.” This article sees the book as a work of pyschogeography, an attempt to “construct an order upon the multiplicity of London life”. Certainly, i don’t feel that it’s much of a stretch to see many of the central characters, with their constant walking and story-gathering, as flaneurs.
I would say, however, that this is only part of what the book is. It certainly has political aspects, with Moorcock’s love for anarchism being made very clear in parts. It can also be read as an incredibly sophisticated, very subtle superhero story. In a way, then, there are similarities with Alan Moore, another anarchist, although Moorcock seems to be unabashedly celebrating the idea of individuals possessing some kind of unique power, whereas Moore is often much more skeptical (think Watchmen, or Miracleman).
On an only mildly related note (there’s only a little bit of cottaging in Mother London, and it happens in parks; but I suppose they’re both related to the idea of specific city-spaces being used, experienced and understood in different ways by different people), I quite enjoyed this article (you have to use the download link on the left-hand side to read it) on literary representations of gay cottaging in public toilets. There’s a review of a book covering similar ground here, which offers an upside to World War 2:
London’s parks and squares eventually came to be afflicted by the scourge of lighting and cast-iron fences. Not until the Second World War — when railings where melted down for armaments and the blackout prevailed — were public spaces returned to their optimum condition (for men, at least) of openness and obscurity.