Ouch:
John Julius Norwich is an earnest and somewhat stiff-backed editor. So it’s not entirely surprising that he reveals in his introduction that he is “braced for objections” over his selections for “The Great Cities in History,” a collection of essays and images. He anticipates that readers will ask, for instance, why Timbuktu is included and not Toronto, why Meroe (an ancient Nubian city) is included and not Melbourne. It’s a dull question, and Norwich answers it dully, by pointing to the “in history” part of the book’s title. The better answer would have been that there’s not a shred of romance in Toronto and Melbourne.
One Comment
Well of course you spend a day or two in a place – any place – it could leave you feeling that way. Some cities you need to spend time in to understand them to get beneath the skin of the place. I was born in Melbourne, and I didn’t think it was anything much just a large urban sprawl.
The ride from the airport (Tulla) to the hotel room (CBD) is – if anything – one of the worst aesthetic experiences in the world. The urban spread of Melbourne would certainly make it easy to find many unromantic bits.
However having lived away from Melbourne and then returning to it, I became aware of its flaws and charms. The flaws are easily spotted, the charms are hidden and to me that’s what makes it Memorable.
But the probable truth of the barb is the author needed a large modern urban sprawled first world city starting with M to match his reference to Muroe, as much as Torronto has to match Timbuktu. A classic case of the writing style of the argument being more important than the substance. How very New York of him.