Customer Reviews

First Among Equals

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

(The following refers to the unabridged audiobook version)

First Among Equals profiles the lives of four fictional British politicians from their entry into the House of Commons until one becomes Prime Minister. Since Archer was a politician through some of the period that First Among Equals covers, the novel possesses an insider's knowledge. It also contains scheming, shady deals, sex, personal tragedy and terrorism. It is an enjoyable story but a little too orchestrated to be plausible.

Archer starts by introducing the reader to four different characters, all of whom have different skills and different reasons for wanting to be the Prime Minister. While the reader is given some background on the characters, the novel really begins in earnest with the 1964 British general election. Two are Conservative Party and two are Labour Party members. For the next 27 years, Archer guides the readers through the ups and downs of the men's careers, their personal challenges, and their conflicts. The reader gets a sense of the hard work and sacrifice that is required for a politician to be a good MP and Cabinet Minister. It is also clear that good luck has a lot to do with progress; supporting the right leadership candidate at the right time and picking the right issues to tackle.

Archer tells a story and tells it well. He effectively builds suspense, can lead the reader in one direction and then switch direction quickly. First Among Equals is also not a nasty novel. Even the rogues have their redeeming points and are sometimes portrayed sympathetically.

First Among Equals is a good read although I did have some problems. I did find some of the election races just too close. Archer's twists of direction began to get predictable and manipulative. The box cover indicated that only one of the four could get to be Prime Minister and the novel does end with one's appointment. However, the novel doesn't exclude the possibility of another individual achieving the Prime Ministership later. I was also very disappointed by the ultimate resolution of the novel. The last chapter struck me as unrealistic and contrived. I just could not believe that it would actually happen as Archer described it. Archer constructed a Lady and the Tiger ending without any explanation for the ultimate decision. I also had a bit of difficulty believing that politicians are as straightforward as most of the ones portrayed.

Still, First Among Equals is enjoyable and educational to some degree. Politics and politicians can be quite boring. First Among Equals definitely is not boring.

I write this review having now read both the British and American versions of the book. I found both engrossing and highly readable, but the British version without the Scott, Fraser, and the different plotline for Simon Kerslake to be a superior story. Beware! The American version does not alert you to the rather substantial difference. I would not have bought it knowing now the difference.

'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.

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!

There is the theoretical idea in Westminster Parliamentary systems that all Cabinet ministers are equals, and that the Prime Minister is simply First among Equals, rather than the nearly all-powerful figure most have become (similarly, the Pope as Bishop of Rome is theoretically merely the first among equals of bishops -- see how that works?).

In fact, the office of the Prime Minister is a powerful position, one that drives many people to do strange and bizarre things in aid of attaining the office. Like the characters in the novel, Jeffrey Archer (now Lord Archer, most recently guest of Her Majesty's prison system) had Prime Ministerial ambitions, too. Unlike many of the characters in this novel, Archer 'settled' for less than the Premeirship earlier in his career, discovering writing as a lucrative and creative outlet, and one that allows him to work out his personal and professional angst in a very unique manner. Much in this novel reflects Archer's own struggles.

The novel is very accurate and true to form in the mechanics and atmosphere of the House of Commons and House of Lords. Having been a Member of Parliament, Archer knew the environment from the inside, and drew realistic scenarios and created realistic characters of such degree that I have required this novel as a text when I've taught British politics.

The major cast of characters -- Seymour, Kerslake, Fraser and Gould -- fit composites of many back-benchers I knew when I worked in Parliament. Unlike the majority of back-benchers, these are men of ambition and ability (alas, somewhat rare combinations in politics in any nation). Each has an eye on the brass ring of No. 10 Downing Street, and each has, at the outset of political careers, an equal chance at success.

A week can be a long time in politics, it has been said, so the span of several decades might as well be an eternity. We see the personal and professional ups and downs of these individuals against a backdrop of real political history from the 1960s forward; this book written in 1984, the 'future' was speculative, but not beyond reason, and still makes for a good read. The careers of the foursome are not linearly upward; true to form of many political careers (including Archer's own), there are near misses and great falls, from which some recover, and others do not.

The ending is an interesting one, again part of Archer's speculative history, hinging upon one event that perhaps he knew well would never in fact happen. However, it is still a believable political event, and given that actual politics is often unbelievable, this novel makes a generous alternative history.

Archer's gift of storytelling is strong, and perhaps best when he is dealing with situations he himself has survived. 'First Among Equals' is one such story.

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.

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?

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.

Jeffrey Archer is able to do something quite interesting here, he creates and atmosphere that is both intriguing and informative of the British parliamentary system. It focuses on the lives of four MP's as they rise through out the pantheons of government through a thirty-year period. There is the witty and charming Simon Kerslake, the inhibitive Andrew Fraser, the intelligent yet flawed Raymond Gould and finally the cold and Machiavellian Charles Seymour. All four of these men rise to high posts in the governments of Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, James Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher. They become confidants of real life figures such as Queen Elizabeth and Neil Kinnock along with tackling the ever-real issues concerning Northern Ireland and the difficulties of running a national economy.

By the last, half of the book one is left with the feeling that Archer provides us with this great cast and yet almost feels determined to ruin our view of them. Charles Seymour in particular, early on emerges as the cold and scheming political animal, one who sacrifices his life and his family to succeed in parliament. Nevertheless, by the end Archer reverses the portrait he has been painting all along and provides us with a different more, caring more sentimental figure, then the one we had come to know. The second half of the book draws upon quite a few cliché has in order to fill out the loose ends, which had long ago developed. Andrew Fraser's trouble of conscience and Kerslake's own economic woes, simply add to the trouble at hand. However, I did invariantly enjoy the little spin at the end of the final leadership race. I will admit that at first I didn't happen to like the character of Raymond Gould, but buy the end I was genuinely rooting for him, out of all the characters he seemed the only one truly competent to lead.

All and all not a bad read, although flawed in some aspects. It surely should be a good way to knock off a few hours, while simultaneously learning of a different way of governance.

The election last week in the UK made me re-read this novel. As a political junkie in the U.S., I remember reading this several years ago, and understanding the electoral system in the UK.
Perhaps for my friends across the water, this novel is old-hat, but for us Yanks, it is totally illuminating.
"Bang-on" good political fiction!