You may know this already, but I am constitutionally unable to pass up any book about New York City without reading it, even when it turns out I'm not that crazy about it. I am addicted to books on the subject.
The latest book I picked up to feed my addiction was Sam Roberts's Only in New York: An Exploration of the World's Most Fascinating, Frustrating, and Irrepressible City. It's a compilation of podcasts, in written form, that Roberts (who is the Urban Affairs correspondent for The New York Times) originally published on that newspaper's website.
There's nothing wrong with Roberts's writing, and his observations and research about New York City seems comprehensively done. It's just that these pieces don't, for lack of a better term, sparkle. Although I read the whole thing, this was not my favorite book about the city. Consider a piece on Manhattan's cemeteries:
"It's tough enough to find a place to buy or rent if you want to live in Manhattan temporarily. It's even harder if you're planning to remain permanently. Sure, people are dying to live here. Not the other way around, though...
I was reminded of that history the other day when former mayer Ed Koch told me he wanted to be buried in Manhattan. After he dies...But Manhattan's burial grounds have run out of room." (p. 100.)
Now that's kind of interesting stuff. And the writing is fine. But yet...I'd still say there's tons of books about New York I'd offer instead of this one. Randy Kennedy's Subwayland. Helene Hanff's Letter from New York. Even Melissa Plaut's Hack: How I Stopped Worrying about What To Do With My Life and Started Driving a Yellow Cab gives a better sense of the city. Do consider this one if you too are addicted to tales of the city. Otherwise, give it a miss.
I bet NYC is the most written about city in the United States. I wonder what city would come second. In fiction, maybe Los Angeles, but in nonfiction, any guesses? If we counted celebrity tell-all books, maybe LA in nonfiction, too.
Posted by: Venta | 12 January 2010 at 07:11 PM
That's because it's the best city in the world, Venta! :)
LA is a strong guess, although not much is coming to mind because LA is emphatically not my type of city. No subway? What? It would be interesting to know what city comes second in sheer volume of literature--I'd also throw Chicago and Boston out as guesses, particularly when you take into account Chicago's gangster lore and Boston's history and role in the American Revolution.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 13 January 2010 at 08:42 AM
Hi CR.,
Los Angeles does have a subway now. It is nothing compared to NYC, but it does exist.
Posted by: Ruthiella | 13 January 2010 at 12:51 PM
Ruthiella,
Awesome! When did they build that? Clearly I need a good nonfiction book on recent history in LA.
Posted by: Citizen Reader | 13 January 2010 at 01:14 PM
The Metro lines in L.A. have been around since the early to mid-1990's. Did you ever see the movie "Speed"? It featured the LA subway. I have used it a few times, taking the train into Union Station and then hopping on a subway for a matinee at the Pantages Theater or to shop at Amoeba Records (a used record/cd store...another dying breed).
Posted by: Ruthiella | 13 January 2010 at 04:02 PM