Prisoner of Birth and the Count of Monte Cristo
0 comments Published by Mel on Friday, June 19, 2009 at 2:10 PMRecently I walked into a book store and and found a brand new, latest copy of a HARD COVER Jeffrey Archer book entitled "Prisoner of Birth" for half the price of the paperback! I figured the store must be hiring idiots who labelled it wrongly....anyhow I wasn't one to pass up such a good bargain, so I bought the book, tore off the wrapping immediately, intending to read it that same night. However, between parents, dinners, housework and Nodiatis, I forgot about it until last night.
Well, I couldn't sleep last night so I strolled over to my mini library and discovered that I had not read my new book. Thus I decided to read a couple of chapters until I was tired enough to rest for the night. And I spent the next 2 hours reading the book cover-to-cover.
Main Storyline: Danny Cartwright proposes to his childhood sweetheart, Beth Wilson and she subsequently accepts. They go to a bar to celebrate, where they meet up with her brother and Danny's best friend, Bennie. What isto be a happy engagement party starts to turn into a nightmare when Spencer Craig, a young solicitor, takes a fancy to her. Beth basically doesn't respond to his flirtatious stares and gestures, which pisses him off and having imbued a not-insignificant amount of alcohol plus having the backing of his friends Toby, Gerard and Lawrence, he decides to pick a fight with Bennie and Danny. And a fight it is, in the back alley, which ended up with Bennie dying.
Danny is charged with his best friend's murder, and despite Beth's testimony, he is found guilty. After all, how could a simple mechanic beat a solicitor, handsome and popular actor (Lawrence) and aristocrat (Gerard). From here, the real story starts, with Danny meeting interesting people in prison, his subsequently release and his revenge on the people who put him there.
The plot has too many similarities with "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexander Dumas. In fact, Archer does make a couple of references to this book in his story.Call him a modern day Edmund Dantes if you like, but Archer's protogonist, Cartwright, is not as well formed in terms of character buildup compared Dantes. Well in Archer's defense, he used up only a quarter of the words that Dumas used to complete his work, thus one cannot expect to experience and empathise with Archer's characters compared to Dumas'
Archer's murder plot is covered up by the false witness testimony of Toby, Gerard and Lawrence, where Toby is the weakest link (a drug addict who became completely dependent on drugs by the time Cartwright was released), Spencer is a person of Law, Gerard is a pompous aristocrat and Lawrence is a charismatic and popular character.
In Dumas' book, the weakest link was Caderousse, a greedy merchant who became poor after Dantes was released, and the Lawyer was Villefort, the aristocrat was Danglers (who bought his title) and the likable man was the hero soldier, Comte de Morcerf. All of them were witnesses to the poor Dantes' accusation of treason, which meant he would be thrown into a dungeon for the rest of his life.
In both stories, the spark that ignited such an event was a fight over a girl. In Archer's book, it was a drunken folly of the solicitor, Spencer Craig, who, in one glance, decided he wanted to have a fling with Beth who is Cartwright's fiancee. He picks a fight, kills a man, and manages to get everyone to collude with him because they were part of "some secret society" called Musketeers. This is probably Archer's weakest plot in this story. I mean, HUH, u managed to convinced a bunch of friends to lie about murder because you are "All for one, and one for all" (i'm not kidding, this is quoted from the book). And as a friend, you would send an innocent man to prison because your pal is a jerk? Not bloody likely.
Dumas had a better plot: Comte de Morcerf, was then a poor fisherman who grew up in love with the beautiful Mercedez, and could not woo her from the arms of Edmund Dantes, her true love. Dantes was about to be made captain of a vessel, to the dismay of Danglers who was senior to Dantes. Morcerf, Danglers and Caderousse were having a drinks and discussing Dantes, and influenced by alcohol and anger, they wrote a letter accusing Dantes of treason. Villefort, the prosecutor, sent Dantes to prison despite knowing his innocence, because of a mild involvement with his own father, who was the real traitor!
Archer's story starts to deviate slightly when Cartwright goes to prison. The introduction of Nick (who is probably Dumas' Abbe Faria), is less convincing as a character compared to Faria. Nick is portrayed as a totally honest, straight-forward, kind and honourable soldier with an aristocratic background - and none of these traits are really common anymore to English soldiers nowadays. His interaction with Cartwright does not convince me that they can be so close to each other - to the point where Nick would leave Cartwright everything. After all, they were only sharing a cell for less than a year - with Nick being scheduled for release in a matter of months. it's not at all the way Dumas' Faria and Dantes forged a friendship - in a dungeon where they lived for several years in isolation, never meeting another human other than the jailer until Faria dug a hole to Dantes' cell by mistake. Both imprisoned for what would be a life sentence - both trying to dig their way out of an impregnable prison, both never hearing or seeing another human voice other than each other and the jailer...for YEARS - This is what real friendships are made of.
I do promise you, Archer's plot does improve after Cartwright was released (I won't tell you HOW he was released, you will need to buy the book for that). The subsequent revenge exacted and reunion with Beth was touching. I must admit that Dumas does overplay the revenge bit to the point where it becomes a bit cheesy. In this sense, Archer wins. However Dumas has much better surrounding characters compared to Archer, whose Sarah Davenport, Alex Redmayne and Fraser Munro were not given all too much attention and one barely feels in touch with those characters.
Nevertheless the book is quite interesting and would probably receive more favourable reviews had it not been a less than shining rendition of the Count of Monte Cristo. Prisoner of Birth, simply speaking, is not in the same class as the Count of Monte Cristo. I, personally, am a fan of Archer, and many of his books grace my mini library. However, his latest work is a poor copy of Dumas, and certainly not in the same level of distinction compared to to his earlier writings such as Honour among Thieves.
Well, I couldn't sleep last night so I strolled over to my mini library and discovered that I had not read my new book. Thus I decided to read a couple of chapters until I was tired enough to rest for the night. And I spent the next 2 hours reading the book cover-to-cover.
Main Storyline: Danny Cartwright proposes to his childhood sweetheart, Beth Wilson and she subsequently accepts. They go to a bar to celebrate, where they meet up with her brother and Danny's best friend, Bennie. What isto be a happy engagement party starts to turn into a nightmare when Spencer Craig, a young solicitor, takes a fancy to her. Beth basically doesn't respond to his flirtatious stares and gestures, which pisses him off and having imbued a not-insignificant amount of alcohol plus having the backing of his friends Toby, Gerard and Lawrence, he decides to pick a fight with Bennie and Danny. And a fight it is, in the back alley, which ended up with Bennie dying.
Danny is charged with his best friend's murder, and despite Beth's testimony, he is found guilty. After all, how could a simple mechanic beat a solicitor, handsome and popular actor (Lawrence) and aristocrat (Gerard). From here, the real story starts, with Danny meeting interesting people in prison, his subsequently release and his revenge on the people who put him there.
The plot has too many similarities with "The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexander Dumas. In fact, Archer does make a couple of references to this book in his story.Call him a modern day Edmund Dantes if you like, but Archer's protogonist, Cartwright, is not as well formed in terms of character buildup compared Dantes. Well in Archer's defense, he used up only a quarter of the words that Dumas used to complete his work, thus one cannot expect to experience and empathise with Archer's characters compared to Dumas'
Archer's murder plot is covered up by the false witness testimony of Toby, Gerard and Lawrence, where Toby is the weakest link (a drug addict who became completely dependent on drugs by the time Cartwright was released), Spencer is a person of Law, Gerard is a pompous aristocrat and Lawrence is a charismatic and popular character.
In Dumas' book, the weakest link was Caderousse, a greedy merchant who became poor after Dantes was released, and the Lawyer was Villefort, the aristocrat was Danglers (who bought his title) and the likable man was the hero soldier, Comte de Morcerf. All of them were witnesses to the poor Dantes' accusation of treason, which meant he would be thrown into a dungeon for the rest of his life.
In both stories, the spark that ignited such an event was a fight over a girl. In Archer's book, it was a drunken folly of the solicitor, Spencer Craig, who, in one glance, decided he wanted to have a fling with Beth who is Cartwright's fiancee. He picks a fight, kills a man, and manages to get everyone to collude with him because they were part of "some secret society" called Musketeers. This is probably Archer's weakest plot in this story. I mean, HUH, u managed to convinced a bunch of friends to lie about murder because you are "All for one, and one for all" (i'm not kidding, this is quoted from the book). And as a friend, you would send an innocent man to prison because your pal is a jerk? Not bloody likely.
Dumas had a better plot: Comte de Morcerf, was then a poor fisherman who grew up in love with the beautiful Mercedez, and could not woo her from the arms of Edmund Dantes, her true love. Dantes was about to be made captain of a vessel, to the dismay of Danglers who was senior to Dantes. Morcerf, Danglers and Caderousse were having a drinks and discussing Dantes, and influenced by alcohol and anger, they wrote a letter accusing Dantes of treason. Villefort, the prosecutor, sent Dantes to prison despite knowing his innocence, because of a mild involvement with his own father, who was the real traitor!
Archer's story starts to deviate slightly when Cartwright goes to prison. The introduction of Nick (who is probably Dumas' Abbe Faria), is less convincing as a character compared to Faria. Nick is portrayed as a totally honest, straight-forward, kind and honourable soldier with an aristocratic background - and none of these traits are really common anymore to English soldiers nowadays. His interaction with Cartwright does not convince me that they can be so close to each other - to the point where Nick would leave Cartwright everything. After all, they were only sharing a cell for less than a year - with Nick being scheduled for release in a matter of months. it's not at all the way Dumas' Faria and Dantes forged a friendship - in a dungeon where they lived for several years in isolation, never meeting another human other than the jailer until Faria dug a hole to Dantes' cell by mistake. Both imprisoned for what would be a life sentence - both trying to dig their way out of an impregnable prison, both never hearing or seeing another human voice other than each other and the jailer...for YEARS - This is what real friendships are made of.
I do promise you, Archer's plot does improve after Cartwright was released (I won't tell you HOW he was released, you will need to buy the book for that). The subsequent revenge exacted and reunion with Beth was touching. I must admit that Dumas does overplay the revenge bit to the point where it becomes a bit cheesy. In this sense, Archer wins. However Dumas has much better surrounding characters compared to Archer, whose Sarah Davenport, Alex Redmayne and Fraser Munro were not given all too much attention and one barely feels in touch with those characters.
Nevertheless the book is quite interesting and would probably receive more favourable reviews had it not been a less than shining rendition of the Count of Monte Cristo. Prisoner of Birth, simply speaking, is not in the same class as the Count of Monte Cristo. I, personally, am a fan of Archer, and many of his books grace my mini library. However, his latest work is a poor copy of Dumas, and certainly not in the same level of distinction compared to to his earlier writings such as Honour among Thieves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
