Rating: 
Summary: Top-class
Review: 'First Among Equals' is quite a different tale. Some of my friends told me that they found the initial part boring. Well, I didn't find that assessment to be true. This novel makes a very interesting reading, and like many other Archer novels, it picks up action as you reach 200-odd pages.This is a tale of four aspiring gentlemen: Fraser, Gould, Kerslake and Seymour who enter the House of Commons in the 1960s, each aspiring to win the highest office - and to reach 10 Downing Street. But only one man can do it. Archer, the master storyteller that he is, narrates in detail the lives of each men - the ups and downs each must face - and winds it up with the final battle. The suspense is gripping and the man who becomes the Prime Minister is revealed only in the very last paragraph of the novel. Overall a great story... hats off.
Rating:
Summary: Rooting for Characters I Don't Even Like
Review: A first-class effort by Archer. Of the four primary characters, three were compelling men whom the reader pulled for up until the very end. As a man of the right, I found the two Labour men to be the most sympathetic figures in the book. Politicians, even the best of 'em, have their secrets. Archer serves to bring that out in spades. But, in the end, most of them -- at their core (we hope) -- have some spark of idealism. Would that, in real life, both sides were as more or less honorable as Archer would have it . . . we'd all be okay. In any event, a first class effort, even if one knows little or nothing about politics in the UK. Even though it was written in 1984, it's still worth one's time in the 21st Century.
Rating: 
Summary: The Greasy Pole
Review: Anyone who says Lord Archer never wrote a good book is being uncharitable. Old Jeffrey, who is presently spending time at Her Majesty's pleasure, wrote one good book, and this, the story of four parliamentarians climbing the "greasy pole" of Westminster politics (to use Disraeli's expression), is it. Archer is writing about what he knows, since he was a British MP (before the Aquablast scandal forced his retirement). Other books about British politics are available but this one conveys the urgency of what it's like to be a "man in a hurry," to use another expression often associated with ambitious members of the House of Commons. Just goes to show that anyone can write a good book if they stick to what they know.
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: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating detail and an interesting read
Review: Once again Jeffery Archer has proved an insightful storyteller. Though First does not quite measure-up to the masterful Kane and Abel, it does offer a very interesting eye into the parliamentary political system. Archer manages to educate the reader on the backroom politicing and procedures of British Government while gripping your attention through wonderful characterization. One cannot help but cast an allegience towards one of the four characters chronicled, and you may find yourself switching sides more than once. All in all a great read that touches often on historical fact while involving the reader with the ever apparent battle for power among the main characters. The ending may be disapointing but isn't this the case in nearly every book worth reading as it is clearly indicative of true involvement?
| 
