Rating: 
Summary: Who wrote this nonsense?
Review: Being a fan of Mr. Archer's from way back, I was delighted to see that he was back on track and making good use of his confinement. Boy, was I wrong! This novel reads like Danielle Steel wrote it- full of trite phrases and hokey dialogue that only shows that Mr. Archer must not be conversing a great deal lately. Also, the time frames do not match up with the characters: if they are twins, Nat goes to Vietnam when he is in his first year of college, (18) stays 2 years and comes back when he is 19? Simultaneously, his "twin" is now at Yale Law? Huh?
The worst part of the book is the ending- (stop here if you don't want to know...)a rival reveals secrets that lead Nat's talented and sensitive son to suicide (even though it had NOTHING to do with him..) and the two brothers find themselves at last- only to agree never to acknowledge each other. Neither of these incidents stop them from campaigning for governor...
Rating: 
Summary: A good start but a wimpering end
Review: The author was able to weave two stories pretty well for the first half of the book but then he went into an overdrive to finish up the rest of the book. The end is rushed, he did not take time to flesh some of the characters out and then rushes to end the book. It is like starting a good dinner with a great appetizer and then a okay entre and a bad or poor desert. He normally finishes well in most of his books. It was a let down at the end.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling story. Mindboggling effort...
Review: But it coulda' been a better read. I like Jeffery Archer's work, but it seems like he bit off more than he could chew in this one. There was so much stuff happening to so many people that most of it got much shorter shrift than it deserved. Maybe the 400 pages he crammed it on to just weren't enough. It made for a sad lack of depth, given the story's potential, and for a rough and choppy flow, which wounds even the most engaging of stories.I am an identical twin who lost her twin (in an automobile accident) and have worked in twin loss at a national level in the past, and found that Archer's representation of the twins-separated-at-birth part of this saga doesn't ring quite true for me. Twins bond in utero. I know a true story of a toddler whose twin died at birth, who didn't even know she was a twin yet, who always asked her mother for two of everything: apples, crackers, ice-cream, teacups. I also know that parents of one twin dead-at-birth and one twin survivor bend over backwards to make the dead twin part of their lives, with birthday celebrations which include him, and visits to the cemetery when it's age appropriate. Nat would have been longing and yearning for his twin all of his life. Even if a 1940s repressed and restrained life had allowed him to know nothing more than he simply was a surviving twin, his heart would have often ached for his twin. And Fletcher would have been tormented with mysterious longings of his own. He would have sometimes felt empty, oddly alone and lonely, strangely incomplete and not whole, and would not have been able to name it. Actually, given the range that Archer attempted in this story, I'm amazed he did as well as he did... which was about a C. Maybe.
Rating:
Summary: Average
Review: The problem with an author like Archer is that he will always be measured up against Kane and Abel and he will always fall short. He desperately tried to make The Fourth Estate another Kane and Abel and failed - it is the same case for Sons of Fortune. Perhaps he is no longer concerned about exploring new literary avenues - perhaps he wishes to stick to his tried and tested formula to guarantee good sales. The book is above-average, which can be expected of Archer. He writes well within his own limitations here - he knows he is no Salman Rushdie. In the end, I would say that the book is worth a read - but don't raise your expectations sky high.
Rating: 
Summary: Loved Sons of Fortune
Review: Great Read! Marvelous storytelling - a totally enjoyable book.
Rating:
Summary: not worth a read
Review: i've always liked Archer's books-----but this one was a big let down. i can't believe that the same author wrote books like NOT A PENNY LESS NOT A PENNY MORE & SHALL WE TELL THE PRESIDENT. the auhtor borrows heavily from his previous books--be it Nat reffering to paintings as mistresses(short story),or his son hanging himself on finding out that his grandmotherwas a prostitute(similar to daniels death in AS THE CROW FLIES) or even the love story of the twins parents-which is very similar to the short story AN OLD LOVE. this book is a waste of time and money-both which may be used to buy and read better stuff.
Rating:
Summary: Typical Archer
Review: This book is written in a typical archer style, following the lives of two separate boys and the different paths they take. A very entertaining read that keeps the reader attached wanting to see how each boy's life unfolds. With many of Archer's books the story is let down by the ending tends to unroll in a very predictable fashion. Overall a good, easy and enjoyable read. - 4 Stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Standard Archer, but ruined by errors
Review: (This is based on the British edition of this book, which I expect is almost identical to the American edition.) I think Jeffrey Archer's best book was his first (Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less) but his other books have been entertaining. Sons of Fortune is much like Kane & Abel, but the two men whose fates are entwined are actually twins, unknown to each other because they were separated at birth without knowledge of the parents. Not plausible, but suspend disbelief for the sake of the story. The two men's lives are followed from birth, and they run in parallel without ever quite meeting through most of the book. Both go into politics, and eventually compete directly against each other. The problem that I couldn't get past is the book's completely wrong description of how American elections work (especially the Connecticut gubernatorial primary and general elections). I suppose that Parliamentary elections may work as shown here, but ours don't (and Archer should certainly know it). Most major plot elements in the last third of the book rely on impossible electoral events. The errors aren't small, and can't be overlooked by anyone who's ever seen election results. Even without the errors, this would be Archer's weakest novel. With the errors, it's almost impossible to finish.
Rating:
Summary: Archer Plays a Strange Type of God
Review: Twins are seperated at birth. One ends up in a family of wealth and priviledge - the other to a middle class family. However, both are twins in many ways - they are both smart, like the same kind of girl, and are adept at their chosen paths of finance and criminal law. Each also faces a common enemy - a character of low worth who is only out for himself.
Both sons of fortune find themselves married to a woman who loves them back - one an immigrant who had a secret; the other a scion of history. Though they run against each other in a governor race, each respects each other enough to put politics aside in the favor of what is right.
Archer makes major mistakes in this well intended novel - one man would not defend his enemy in court in a heated political campaign. Another is that marriage to a foreign born translates into citizenship is another - one man loves his Korean born wife to death. Plus AB blood type means somebody can take blood from anybody. The sons find out their common blood via this, but it is a medical mistake.
However, I do agree with Archer's main point - that blood doens't matter much. Both twins agree to keep their heritage secret. Adopted or by blood, they had parents who loved them and cared for them - and raised them with all their love. The only effect of their revealing the secret would be to destroy their families and loved ones. Both are honorable men who put ambition apart from family in the end.
Rating:
Summary: Bizarre distortion of American politics
Review: I'll skip over the wooden (or should I say leaden?) characters and the improbably swap at birth. I can ignore the anachronisms (Yale coed in the 1960s). I can even overlook minor errors (Officer Cadet School, instead of Officer Candidate School).
This monstrous political novel bizarrely distorts American politics. There apparently was no fact-checking done regarding American politics in this novel of American politics written by an English lord. The competing candidates for the Republican nomination for Connecticut governor endure separate primaries or caucuses in every town in the state, on different dates? Their chances of winning the Republican nomination depend on the Electoral College? Beyond bizarre. Apparently Lord Archer didn't have access to researchers while he wrote this in prison.
| 
