First Among Equals

Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece about british modern politics.
Review: Archer is a fantastic storyteller and a political player (maybe the future mayor of London). That is why the book is perfect. You learn a lot about british politics while being greatly entertained. Even if you don't really like politics you'll love the suspense of this sophisticated political noble soap opera .

Rating:
Summary: Best written and evolving book Archer has ever written.
Review: Archer, one of the best story tellers of the day, weaves a tale a three young men growing up in England, all aspiring to the same goal in life - to be the Prime Minister. Archer's nack for blending the characters and sub-characters together throughout their lives is as entertaining as he gets. EXCELLENT first read if you've never read a Jeffrey Archer book. It will definitely hook you on both his writing style and stories. A true classic!

Rating:
Summary: Near the top, but not quite at it...
Review: Certainly one of the best books I have ever read. It is true that Jeffrey Archer gives us an example of the pure art of storytelling. But what I most admired - as in every other book of J. Archer - was his incomparable use of the language and the structure of an original story. A very good idea finds a very good way of embodiment. However, what went wrong? I found the book a rather slow page turner at some points, and it was a little difficult to come to the end. Perhaps because of its 450 pages. Anyway, the book is not as fast paced as I would like it to be. This does not mean though that anyone should avoid it. On the contrary, this is a book I would definitely recommend, although "primus inter pares" comes second in favor of J. Archer's "The Fourth Estate"

Rating:
Summary: Good
Review: I cannot help but to agree with some of the reviewers that this book tend to go to deep into the politic of Britain, which would not do much good on the US market or everywhere else for that matter. Nevertheless, this book is as entertaining as all other Archer's work. It is fast, detailic, and full of surprises are usual.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing Special
Review: I read this book the day after Lord Archer was sentenced to prison on perjury charges. As Archer was one of the few openly conservative writers out there, I was disappointed to hear of his sentencing and, in reading my first Archer book, I was hoping to discover an unsung masterpiece. Unfortunately, what I got in First Among Equals was a typical, not terribly enthralling soap opera that just happened to take place in the British Parliament as opposed to Peyton Place.

Essentially, the novel follows the political careers of three men as they win their first elections to Parliament and, over the decades, rise through the ranks until finally they find themsleves dueling for the office of Prime Minister. As promising as this might sound, the hopeful premise is defeated by Archer's bland writing style and his refusal to give any of his characters -- from the three protaganists to their various lovers to the minor characters who pop up occasionally -- any semblance of personality beyond the most basic. One character's a self-centered rich boy and then another one is an angry son of the working class and so on. In short, not a single character who in any way comes across as unique or even truly alive. As well, Archer spends far too much time on supporting characters like the obnoxius Alec Pimpkin who is apparently supposed to be some sort of charming rogue but is never given any flair by the author and as such just becomes a distraction.

However, this book does earn an extra star for me because Archer does present an easily understood explanation of the rules of Parliament and helped to clear up a lot of questions that I had regarding how the Prime Minister is elected and how the entire government is run. Being an American, I've always watched in a sort of bemused confusion whenever the Prime Minister's given a speech before Parliament just to find himself being booed and catcalled by the opposition. Archer, himself, a former member of Parliament, obviously enjoys explaining the arcane rules of the government and manages to slip in several amusing anecdotes from the history of Parliament. These brief digressions are the only time the book comes alive and one regrets that Archer didn't just write political history as opposed to trying to be a novelist.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing Special
Review: I read this book the day after Lord Archer was sentenced to prison on perjury charges. As Archer was one of the few openly conservative writers out there, I was disappointed to hear of his sentencing and, in reading my first Archer book, I was hoping to discover an unsung masterpiece. Unfortunately, what I got in First Among Equals was a typical, not terribly enthralling soap opera that just happened to take place in the British Parliament as opposed to Peyton Place.

Essentially, the novel follows the political careers of three men as they win their first elections to Parliament and, over the decades, rise through the ranks until finally they find themsleves dueling for the office of Prime Minister. As promising as this might sound, the hopeful premise is defeated by Archer's bland writing style and his refusal to give any of his characters -- from the three protaganists to their various lovers to the minor characters who pop up occasionally -- any semblance of personality beyond the most basic. One character's a self-centered rich boy and then another one is an angry son of the working class and so on. In short, not a single character who in any way comes across as unique or even truly alive. As well, Archer spends far too much time on supporting characters like the obnoxius Alec Pimpkin who is apparently supposed to be some sort of charming rogue but is never given any flair by the author and as such just becomes a distraction.

However, this book does earn an extra star for me because Archer does present an easily understood explanation of the rules of Parliament and helped to clear up a lot of questions that I had regarding how the Prime Minister is elected and how the entire government is run. Being an American, I've always watched in a sort of bemused confusion whenever the Prime Minister's given a speech before Parliament just to find himself being booed and catcalled by the opposition. Archer, himself, a former member of Parliament, obviously enjoys explaining the arcane rules of the government and manages to slip in several amusing anecdotes from the history of Parliament. These brief digressions are the only time the book comes alive and one regrets that Archer didn't just write political history as opposed to trying to be a novelist.

Rating:
Summary: Worth reading
Review: I wasn't very eager to read it. I don't care much about politics and I find boring reading about it in newspaper, let alone in book. But when I started it I fought it's something for me anyway. Politics are just the background for a story itself, which is a masterpiece of storytelling. Don't miss it!

Rating:
Summary: Made Me Want to Move to London
Review: In the world of British politics, it takes intelligence, drive, ambition, great amounts of luck and most of one's lifetime to be considered for the position of prime minister, the most-coveted station in all of England. The story of three Englishmen, Simon Kerslake, Charles Hampton and Raymond Gould, all equally opportunistic and determined to rise through the ranks and become prime minister, are drawn out wonderfully against the real-life backdrop of the British parliament and the major decisions they made throughout this past century. At times, it can be confusing keeping the three men's stories straight, as Archer moves quickly in and out of each of their lives. This difficulty is only intensified as the three central players cross (and double-cross) paths as the decades pass and their political careers and aspirations to be Britain's next great leader seem destined to come down to one defining moment of action. Down to the last sentence, this novel is fully engrossing and highly clever, pitting three political competitors against one another in an epic about the pursuit of a position so elusive only one man by novel's end has attained the prize.

Rating:
Summary: A SUPERIOR VOICE PERFORMANCE
Review: Larry King has said of Jeffrey Archer, "There isn't a better storyteller alive." One would be hard pressed to find a better reader alive for this story of a fight for power. Martin Jarvis easily inhabits the personas of four men as they parry and jab for the right to live at No. 10 Downing Street.

Listeners are introduced to this quartet gradually as the story unfolds over some thirty years. Charles, a man born to title and privilege; Simon, whose father imbues him with ambition; Ray, not of patrician birth but born with an iron will; and Andrew, a politician cum sports hero.

Archer, a member of the House of Lords, well knows the terrain in which he sets his story, and Martin Jarvis well knows how to deliver it.

- Gail Cooke

Rating:
Summary: Politics for those who hate politics
Review: Not one of my favourites by Archer, though the fault is not entirely the author's. This book was written in 1983, and covers the period between 1964 and 1991 in the lives of four fictional politicians and the British people. The problem with attempting to novelise the future is that one is inevitably overtaken by events, and the passage of time only makes this book's ending seem more and more absurd.

On the other hand, its depiction of four power-hungry politicians is magnificent; Archer has always had an impressive talent for characterisation. Charles Gurney Seymour, Ray Gould, Andrew Fraser and Simon Kerslake are vivid and well-contrasted personalities whose professional rivalry is both credibly described and entertaining to watch. If you don't enjoy politics, you're apt to be a bit put off by the sections of the book dealing with leadership struggles within the Labour party or with Seymour's efforts to keep Kerslake from standing for a vacant Tory seat in the Commons. Yet one must admit that Archer plots them convincingly, just as he credibly contrasts Gould's dull marriage and resulting affair with Fraser's happy home life and the personal tragedy that taints it. Ultimately the book's greatest merit may be that Archer, as he always does, holds the reader's attention from beginning to end. One may say this is a novel about politicians that is suitable for those who hate politics.