The Man from St. Petersburg

Rating:
Summary: It could have been so much better!
Review: Although I read the book quickly, it became impossible to suspend disbelief. The actions of some of the characters simply made no sense... except to move the plot along. While the book has many twists, many were not plausable. The enjoyment of the book, therefore, was signficantly reduced as the actions of the characters (particularly the mother and daughter) became silly. It's too bad becasue Follett is a good writer and "The Man from St. Petersburg" had great potential. "The Eye of the Needle" was far superior - it easily passed the plausability test.

Rating:
Summary: good story, worth the read
Review: another follett win! what a great story. i highly recommend the book. if you haven't read follett before, this is a good place to start and one of his better books.

Rating:
Summary: Follett's Best Time Period
Review: Anyone who has read a lot of Follett knows that he usually chooses a distinct time and place in history for his setting. While Pillars of the Earth (set in 1150) and The Eye of the Needle (WWII) are excellent, this WWI-set novel is a masterpiece. I enjoy anything Follett puts to paper, but this goes beyond even my highest expectations. There are some subtle turns-of-phrase in this work that show us why Follett is a genuis. You will enjoy his Feliks character even when you feel you sometimes shouldn't! A definite 11 on a 1 to 10 scale

Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: As always, a book of K. Follett which is brilliantly combined with history and facts and fiction. Fun to read

Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: Follet is a Swiss watch-maker and this book a Rolex among thrillers. The plot ticks along with fantastic pacing and suspense. Secrets come out at incredibly tense moments. With apparent ease, Follet makes the reader care for all the main characters, and two of them want to kill each other. This novel has it ALL: great plot, great characters, great descriptions, great dialogue, great pacing, a great climax. No other novel in the thriller/espionage field comes close.

Rating:
Summary: Great Page Turner
Review: Follett does a great job of developing and describing the four main characters in the novel. He also does an excellent job of describing the setting and time in which the novel takes place (pre WWI). Once you begin this book you should set aside some time because you find yourself reading all day. This definitely ranks in my top ten.

Rating:
Summary: What's all the fuss about?
Review: I read Eye of the Needle a long time ago and remember enjoying it. So when I saw this book in the library I thought it would be worth reading.

Suspenseful? Maybe the last 5 pages or so. I really only finished the book to see how it ended.

I found many of the characters actions to be preposterous, even in the setting of the novel. In the end I only really liked Walden. Charlotte turns out to be a ditz.

I also didn't enjoy some of the preachiness of the novel, especially the suffragette issues.

Rating:
Summary: Not Follett's best.
Review: I'm a fan of Ken Follett's work & intend to read all his stuff. I have read 5 books so far. This was a disappointment, though. At first it seemed like nothing more than a historical novel bodice-buster, but then the plot did pick up. The main problem, though, was the character of Feliks. Follett wants to make him at least a little sympathetic, maybe a lot, but it didn't work for me. Feliks is a big, smelly, dirty, cruel, ruthless, coldblooded Communist assassin. The fact that he's good in the sack & glib with words does not compensate for his evil. And can Charlotte really be that stupid? Oh, well. They can't all be winners.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, But...
Review: In many ways, this is vintage Ken Follett. It is fast-paced and keeps you wanting to see what is going to happen next. The writing is good and he does a good job of developing his characters and plot. He also seems to have a good feel for English society in the period immediately before WWI. Despite all this, however, I found myself less than satisfied with the overall result. He gives you Feliks, a Russian anachist and murderer who is on a misguided mission to stop an attempt to negotiate an alliance between Britain and Russia because he is convinced that millions of Russian peasants will die. It never seems to occur to him that the coming war will involve Russia anyway and that millions of peasants will die with or without an alliance. Then Follett tries to make Feliks a sympathetic character. He has been badly wronged in his life. Well, for me, it didn't work. Feliks was still a misguided terrorist bent on murder. Then you get the usual improbabilities: women whose misguided sympathies cause them to let Feliks get closer to his target than he ever would; Feliks miraculously escaping capture despite all odds; and Feliks resorting to a completely improbable tactic at the end. The climax finds Feliks resorting to a tactic that can best be described as using an elephant gun to kill a flea. He needs to flush out the Prince in order to get a shot at him, but Follett would have us accept that Feliks would endanger all that he seems to hold dear in the process. Churchill's action at the end to retrieve the situation was clever plotting, but seemed obvious to me as soon as it was clear what Feliks was going to do. I'm rather thought it would have occurred to Feliks, too. It would have been another good reason to not do what he did.

In many ways, "The Man From St. Petersburg" is a good read. For me, though, it asked me to go farther in suspending disbelief than I was prepared to go. The clever ending was a little too clever, and left me somewhat less than satisfied.

Rating:
Summary: Yet another display of magnificance
Review: Ken follet is a genius..it can't be said too many times!!

Set early in the nineteenth century at the brink of the world war, a middle aged man sets out on a mission to England. His mission is to kill a visiting Russian Prince, his goal is to prevent Russia losing millions in the world war. His name is Feliks and he is the man from St. Petersburgh. He has killed many in his lifetime and he has suffered a great deal and he therefore knows himself never to be afraid. But he has also loved once, wildly and truthfully but she was forced to marry someone else.

The assassination of the Russian Prince Orlov will help Russians because this would alienate the Czar from alliance with the British and French to fight against the Germans. The British on the other hand, including the young Winston Churchill and a powerful lord, the Earl of Walden once realising the danger do everything to protect Orlov because a Russian alienation would be fatal.

Feliks fails to act the first opportunity he creates for himself because he is overpowered by a memory of 18 years before as he realises the Lady Walden is his Lydia.

In England, it is the social season of coming out of debutantes and the Earl of Walden's daughter Charlotte is due to come out. At eighteen, she discovers the facts of life and aspects of the real world (like the poverty that exists around them, and the work of suffragettes fighting the injustice done to women) and she is angry that her parents kept it from her. Although she is eighteen, she feels her parents don't treat her in that way. She realises women were meant to be stupid and ignorant and she hates that.

No wonder she takes warmly to Fe liks, the stranger who saves her from a suffrage demonstration turned ugly. She feels unusually comfortable with him and appreciates him for talking sensibly as an adult to her. By this time Feliks realises that Charlotte is in fact his daughter because she was born seven months after Lydia was married. He desperately loves the jewel he never knew he had and suddenly he is afraid to die.

Ken Follet has a distinct ability to give his villains a true and full character that we feel sad when they die. We see the justification of their actions and we warm to them. His style is simple with the correct amount of descriptions and he is able to portray all characters (although they are different in their race, creed and class) as similar because of their needs and wants and the common feelings of love , hurt , anguish and anger.

Ken Follet successfully tells a tale and he gives a full story and an ending that satisfies us. There is quite a lot of suspense in this book, and unlike Pillars of The Earth and The Third Twin where "happy endings" were inevitable towards the end, the fine line between good and bad in this book (one would have a personal opinion on whether Feliks or Walden is the bad guy ) blurs the ability to say whether the ending is happy or not.

I feel the ending is suitable to the story as the characters themselves are able to be satisfied. Feliks got more than what he expected, Charlotte lived on and learned to believe and live by much the same ideals as her father and did not live as a debutante should, Lydia could live without the truth haunting her and Walden still had his wife and daughter.

The only sad part is the war did happen (we know it) and not only Russians but many died. Perhaps this style that Follet adopts here (fully dissecting both good and bad) can teach us a lesson. All man has some good in him. We need only look for it. Then perhaps with a little understanding and giving there could be peace...