What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Brothers
Rapier-sharp, witty, intriguing, and mysterious: a new novel from Peter Ackroyd set in the London of the 1960s.
'Three Brothers' follows the fortunes of Harry, Daniel, and Sam Hanway, a trio of brothers born on a postwar council estate in Camden Town. Marked from the start by curious coincidence, each boy is forced to make his own way in the world—a world of dodgy deals and big business, of criminal gangs and crooked landlords, of newspaper magnates, backbiters, and petty thieves.
London is the backdrop and the connecting fabric of these three lives, reinforcing Ackroyd's grand theme that place and history create, surround and engulf us. From bustling, cut-throat Fleet Street to hallowed London publishing houses, from the wealth and corruption of Chelsea to the smoky shadows of Limehouse and Hackney, this is an exploration of the city, peering down its streets, riding on its underground, and drinking in its pubs and clubs. Everything is possible — not only in the new freedom of the 1960s but also in London's timeless past.
'Three Brothers' follows the fortunes of Harry, Daniel, and Sam Hanway, a trio of brothers born on a postwar council estate in Camden Town. Marked from the start by curious coincidence, each boy is forced to make his own way in the world—a world of dodgy deals and big business, of criminal gangs and crooked landlords, of newspaper magnates, backbiters, and petty thieves.
London is the backdrop and the connecting fabric of these three lives, reinforcing Ackroyd's grand theme that place and history create, surround and engulf us. From bustling, cut-throat Fleet Street to hallowed London publishing houses, from the wealth and corruption of Chelsea to the smoky shadows of Limehouse and Hackney, this is an exploration of the city, peering down its streets, riding on its underground, and drinking in its pubs and clubs. Everything is possible — not only in the new freedom of the 1960s but also in London's timeless past.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published October 3, 2013
27 people are currently reading
631 people want to read
About the author
Peter Ackroyd
187 books1,499 followersPeter Ackroyd CBE is an English novelist and biographer with a particular interest in the history and culture of London.
Peter Ackroyd's mother worked in the personnel department of an engineering firm, his father having left the family home when Ackroyd was a baby. He was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and, at 9, wrote a play about Guy Fawkes. Reputedly, he first realized he was gay at the age of 7.
Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing and at Clare College, Cambridge, from which he graduated with a double first in English. In 1972, he was a Mellon Fellow at Yale University in the United States. The result of this fellowship was Ackroyd's Notes for a New Culture, written when he was only 22 and eventually published in 1976. The title, a playful echo of T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), was an early indication of Ackroyd's penchant for creatively exploring and reexamining the works of other London-based writers.
Ackroyd's literary career began with poetry, including such works as London Lickpenny (1973) and The Diversions of Purley (1987). He later moved into fiction and has become an acclaimed author, winning the 1998 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for the biography Thomas More and being shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987.
Ackroyd worked at The Spectator magazine between 1973 and 1977 and became joint managing editor in 1978. In 1982 he published The Great Fire of London, his first novel. This novel deals with one of Ackroyd's great heroes, Charles Dickens, and is a reworking of Little Dorrit. The novel set the stage for the long sequence of novels Ackroyd has produced since, all of which deal in some way with the complex interaction of time and space, and what Ackroyd calls "the spirit of place". It is also the first in a sequence of novels of London, through which he traces the changing, but curiously consistent nature of the city. Often this theme is explored through the city's artists, and especially its writers.
Ackroyd has always shown a great interest in the city of London, and one of his best known works, London: The Biography, is an extensive and thorough discussion of London through the ages.
His fascination with London literary and artistic figures is also displayed in the sequence of biographies he has produced of Ezra Pound (1980), T. S. Eliot (1984), Charles Dickens (1990), William Blake (1995), Thomas More (1998), Chaucer (2004), William Shakespeare (2005), and J. M. W. Turner. The city itself stands astride all these works, as it does in the fiction.
From 2003 to 2005, Ackroyd wrote a six-book non-fiction series (Voyages Through Time), intended for readers as young as eight. This was his first work for children. The critically acclaimed series is an extensive narrative of key periods in world history.
Early in his career, Ackroyd was nominated a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1984 and, as well as producing fiction, biography and other literary works, is also a regular radio and television broadcaster and book critic.
In the New Year's honours list of 2003, Ackroyd was awarded the CBE.
Peter Ackroyd's mother worked in the personnel department of an engineering firm, his father having left the family home when Ackroyd was a baby. He was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and, at 9, wrote a play about Guy Fawkes. Reputedly, he first realized he was gay at the age of 7.
Ackroyd was educated at St. Benedict's, Ealing and at Clare College, Cambridge, from which he graduated with a double first in English. In 1972, he was a Mellon Fellow at Yale University in the United States. The result of this fellowship was Ackroyd's Notes for a New Culture, written when he was only 22 and eventually published in 1976. The title, a playful echo of T. S. Eliot's Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), was an early indication of Ackroyd's penchant for creatively exploring and reexamining the works of other London-based writers.
Ackroyd's literary career began with poetry, including such works as London Lickpenny (1973) and The Diversions of Purley (1987). He later moved into fiction and has become an acclaimed author, winning the 1998 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for the biography Thomas More and being shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 1987.
Ackroyd worked at The Spectator magazine between 1973 and 1977 and became joint managing editor in 1978. In 1982 he published The Great Fire of London, his first novel. This novel deals with one of Ackroyd's great heroes, Charles Dickens, and is a reworking of Little Dorrit. The novel set the stage for the long sequence of novels Ackroyd has produced since, all of which deal in some way with the complex interaction of time and space, and what Ackroyd calls "the spirit of place". It is also the first in a sequence of novels of London, through which he traces the changing, but curiously consistent nature of the city. Often this theme is explored through the city's artists, and especially its writers.
Ackroyd has always shown a great interest in the city of London, and one of his best known works, London: The Biography, is an extensive and thorough discussion of London through the ages.
His fascination with London literary and artistic figures is also displayed in the sequence of biographies he has produced of Ezra Pound (1980), T. S. Eliot (1984), Charles Dickens (1990), William Blake (1995), Thomas More (1998), Chaucer (2004), William Shakespeare (2005), and J. M. W. Turner. The city itself stands astride all these works, as it does in the fiction.
From 2003 to 2005, Ackroyd wrote a six-book non-fiction series (Voyages Through Time), intended for readers as young as eight. This was his first work for children. The critically acclaimed series is an extensive narrative of key periods in world history.
Early in his career, Ackroyd was nominated a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1984 and, as well as producing fiction, biography and other literary works, is also a regular radio and television broadcaster and book critic.
In the New Year's honours list of 2003, Ackroyd was awarded the CBE.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
March 1, 2015
I have long suspected that some writers receive critical praise based on their reputation rather than the merits of a particular work. After reading 'Three Brothers', I am more than ever convinced that that is the case. Its author, Peter Ackroyd, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and has written a number of well-received novels, e.g. 'Hawksmoor', and biographies. 'Three Brothers' is a weak and very disappointing novel. Yet it has been lavished with high praise by professional critics in several of the broadsheet newspapers in the UK. I simply don't understand why. It's a rather odd story that falls between several stools. It's not thrilling enough to be a good thriller; despite having elements of the supernatural, it's not eerie enough to be a good ghost story or fantasy; and it's not nearly well enough plotted to be an effective murder mystery.
The plot relies far too heavily on coincidence. The lives of the three main characters - brothers Harry, Daniel and Sam Hanway - overlap in highly implausible ways. Harry is a journalist. His newspaper is investigating a Rachmanesque landlord named Ruppta who frightens and exploits his tenants. Daniel, an academic and a book reviewer, becomes involved in a gay relationship with a rent boy and petty thief, Sparkler, who also has connections with Ruppta. And Sam works for Ruppta and gets to know Sparkler as a result of his work. Neither Harry nor Daniel is aware of each other's connection to Ruppta. Other characters overlap in similarly unrealistic ways. People bump into each other or inadvertently catch sight of someone they know far too conveniently for a city of the size and scope of London. It's all much too simplistic and strains credulity. If the novel has a theme, I think it's the inter-connectedness of things and of people. But the wholly unrealistic use of intersection and coincidence in the story devalues that message somewhat.
The characterisation is a tad superficial and one-dimensional and the ending of the story is abrupt in nature and leaves many unanswered questions swirling around in the reader's mind. The supernatural aspects of the story seem almost pointless, bolted on to create some sort of frisson of ghostliness which was completely lost on me. What is more, the story starts very slowly and doesn't really get going until around page 100 (yet there are only 246 pages in all!). On the plus side, the prose is readable, precise and razor-sharp. And Ackroyd paints a vivid picture of various parts of London in the 1960s. But those good points are not enough to rescue the novel from its torpor, its triteness and its sheer unbelievability.
All in all, 'Three Brothers' is an unsatisfying hotchpotch. It's a major disappointment given its author's pedigree. I did not enjoy it and I cannot really recommend it. 4/10.
June 22, 2016
Three Brothers, Three Decades, One Disappointment
He doesn't actually begin "Once upon a time," but Peter Ackroyd captures the fabulist tone perfectly in the opening of his new novel:
Then something happens that belongs to magic realism rather than the mid-century working-class novel that this was shaping to be. I won't say what it is, but it heralds a major change. Not the small fanciful touches that appear on and off for the rest of the book, but Ackroyd's increasing artifice in manipulating his characters. Although he continues to keep the three brothers almost entirely separate as they move outwards along their individual spokes, he also reconnects them by having them each cross paths with a small group of shady people in the London scene: an unscrupulous newspaper magnate, a cabinet minister on the take, a ruthless slumlord, a professional thief and part-time male prostitute. The action becomes almost like a farce as, in scene after scene, one brother narrowly misses bumping into another while the same dodgy individuals keep cropping up everywhere.
As the novel came closer and closer to satire, I found myself getting more and more disappointed. Having started in the mold of Kingsley Amis, Ackroyd was now channeling Evelyn Waugh, though a louche version of Waugh with one foot firmly in the gutter. I grew tired of the satires of literary parties or the seventies gay scene that were the setting of so many of Daniel's chapters; he could have been a more interesting character than that. I eventually lost sympathy with Harry's selfish ambition, though most of the increasingly involved plot of skulduggery, extortion, and murder seemed to happen on his watch. Only the continued presence of Sam provided a reminder of the humanity with which the novel started, but it was too little too late. With the promise of the opening dissipated, the main things I have left to praise are Ackroyd's time-capsules of the sixties and seventies, and the remarkably comprehensive and intimate knowledge of London we have seen in many of his other books. [2.4 stars]
He doesn't actually begin "Once upon a time," but Peter Ackroyd captures the fabulist tone perfectly in the opening of his new novel:
In the London borough of Camden, in the middle of the last century, there lived three brothers; they were three young boys, with a year's difference in age between each of them.Exactly one year, it turns out; all three have the same birthday. I suppose I should have been warned by this touch of whimsy, but the next six or nine chapters (they go in threes, one for each brother) develop their individual stories with sympathetic realism. Harry, the eldest, is forceful and independent; he leaves school to work as errand boy in a local newspaper, and will quickly rise to become a successful journalist. Daniel, the middle brother, is a scholar; he wins a place at a selective high school and goes from there to Cambridge, where he will remain as a fellow. Sam, the youngest, is shy, neither aggressive nor smart; he finds work as a handyman in a convent.
Then something happens that belongs to magic realism rather than the mid-century working-class novel that this was shaping to be. I won't say what it is, but it heralds a major change. Not the small fanciful touches that appear on and off for the rest of the book, but Ackroyd's increasing artifice in manipulating his characters. Although he continues to keep the three brothers almost entirely separate as they move outwards along their individual spokes, he also reconnects them by having them each cross paths with a small group of shady people in the London scene: an unscrupulous newspaper magnate, a cabinet minister on the take, a ruthless slumlord, a professional thief and part-time male prostitute. The action becomes almost like a farce as, in scene after scene, one brother narrowly misses bumping into another while the same dodgy individuals keep cropping up everywhere.
As the novel came closer and closer to satire, I found myself getting more and more disappointed. Having started in the mold of Kingsley Amis, Ackroyd was now channeling Evelyn Waugh, though a louche version of Waugh with one foot firmly in the gutter. I grew tired of the satires of literary parties or the seventies gay scene that were the setting of so many of Daniel's chapters; he could have been a more interesting character than that. I eventually lost sympathy with Harry's selfish ambition, though most of the increasingly involved plot of skulduggery, extortion, and murder seemed to happen on his watch. Only the continued presence of Sam provided a reminder of the humanity with which the novel started, but it was too little too late. With the promise of the opening dissipated, the main things I have left to praise are Ackroyd's time-capsules of the sixties and seventies, and the remarkably comprehensive and intimate knowledge of London we have seen in many of his other books. [2.4 stars]
December 21, 2024
i love curious coincidences, mysterious disappearing nuns and atmospheric London corruption as much as the next man, but i was a but disappointed by this novels’ ending (a sadly trite attempt to pull all its strings together into a neat knot) and kinda underdeveloped familial feelings. Sparkler was an absolute joy, however - who doesn’t love a gay pick pocket.
September 28, 2024
Ça tire plutôt vers le deux étoiles que vers le quatre. Roman classique qui raconte sans surprise ni idée la vie entrelacée de trois frères à Londres dans les années 60/70. C'est assez bêbête, mais on tourne les pages. Je ne lirai pas d'autres Peter Ackroyd.
March 8, 2017
Passé complètement à côté de cette histoire ; trois mois pour terminer le livre, pour essayer de rentrer dedans... en vain ! Dommage car la quatrième de couverture était prometteuse.
July 25, 2020
This is an amazing book that has an amazing atmosphere where you have a strong sense both the physical and historical setting. All characters and plot is intertwined through the three brothers. And the story itself is full of twisty and suspenseful events in the realm of business, politics, blackmail , murder, and following the lives and decline of the three very distinctly different brothers. I found this story was similar to Blood Brothers, and also reminded me of a darker and more thrilling The Heart's Invisible Furies But I highly recommend this book. I really enjoyed it.
February 3, 2014
Their lives began in the place that came to define them: Born in Camden Town, in London, in a council estate, in the Mid-Twentieth Century.
"Three Brothers: A Novel" tells the tale of Harry, Daniel, and Sam Hanway, born one year apart on the same date (May 8); their distant and distracted father is scarcely a presence in their lives. They are also affected by the mysterious and unexplained disappearance of their mother Sally. Sam is the most strongly affected, apparently, but the actions of the other two speak of how the event informed their lives as well.
Coming to adulthood in the 1960s, they live completely separate lives, with Harry as a Managing Editor of a newspaper; Daniel is a lecturer at Cambridge, who also reviews books; and Sam as a compassionate man strangely drawn to the homeless and seemingly finds his path through doing good deeds.
As separate as they are, they are also connected in various ways, seemingly coincidentally. This story of corruption, bribery, and violence is narrated from the perspectives of each of the brothers. In the end, we see clearly how place and history have defined them.
A few mysterious elements left me dangling at the end, forced to come to my own interpretations of events. The character studies and the descriptions of the settings drew me in, but otherwise, the story left me cold. 3.5 stars.
"Three Brothers: A Novel" tells the tale of Harry, Daniel, and Sam Hanway, born one year apart on the same date (May 8); their distant and distracted father is scarcely a presence in their lives. They are also affected by the mysterious and unexplained disappearance of their mother Sally. Sam is the most strongly affected, apparently, but the actions of the other two speak of how the event informed their lives as well.
Coming to adulthood in the 1960s, they live completely separate lives, with Harry as a Managing Editor of a newspaper; Daniel is a lecturer at Cambridge, who also reviews books; and Sam as a compassionate man strangely drawn to the homeless and seemingly finds his path through doing good deeds.
As separate as they are, they are also connected in various ways, seemingly coincidentally. This story of corruption, bribery, and violence is narrated from the perspectives of each of the brothers. In the end, we see clearly how place and history have defined them.
A few mysterious elements left me dangling at the end, forced to come to my own interpretations of events. The character studies and the descriptions of the settings drew me in, but otherwise, the story left me cold. 3.5 stars.
December 30, 2014
I found the first half of the book slow going, as Peter Ackroyd spends a long time building his cast of characters, and thought I'd read a few chapters before sleep around 11pm. Mistake. Suddenly, I was gripped and read the rest of the book, finishing at 2am. It took another hour to wind down as I sorted through the images and ideas it engendered.
There are passages which describe walks taken by characters street by street, and I got the feeling a London A-Z or a tracing of those walks on street would reveal more secrets.
I'm not familiar with the London literary scene of the 1980's, so a lot of the satirical references to authors were lost on me and I found a couple of chapters dull.
SPOILERS
Mr Ackroyd weaves a tale of coincidence, his thesis being that in a city everyone is interconnected, and even three brothers who've lost touch for years play significant parts in each others lives.
At times I wasn't sure If I was reading a ghost story or if some of the narrative was just the imaginings of the youngest brother, Sam. That's part of the charm of this book. The nastiness of some characters is contrasted with the mysticism of others.
Ignore the blurb if you're looking for a murder mystery. The killing doesn't take place until 3/4 of the way through the book.
There are passages which describe walks taken by characters street by street, and I got the feeling a London A-Z or a tracing of those walks on street would reveal more secrets.
I'm not familiar with the London literary scene of the 1980's, so a lot of the satirical references to authors were lost on me and I found a couple of chapters dull.
SPOILERS
Mr Ackroyd weaves a tale of coincidence, his thesis being that in a city everyone is interconnected, and even three brothers who've lost touch for years play significant parts in each others lives.
At times I wasn't sure If I was reading a ghost story or if some of the narrative was just the imaginings of the youngest brother, Sam. That's part of the charm of this book. The nastiness of some characters is contrasted with the mysticism of others.
Ignore the blurb if you're looking for a murder mystery. The killing doesn't take place until 3/4 of the way through the book.
March 25, 2014
At times when reading this book, I felt this was a 5-star winner for sure. At other times, I thought, Did I miss something? The three brothers are born a year apart to probably the most disaffected parents ever. When Harry, the oldest, is 10, Mum disappears. Da just keeps going along supporting his family with no explanation, and the three grow up as different as three people could be if they lived in different zip codes. But it is London that unites them and provides their mutual history. How this comes to be is the 5 star part of the book. As the 1960's give way to the '70's, and London is experiencing what will become the growth spurt that will continue to present day, her history and timelessness works its magic, both black and white, on these three men. I did get the sense of an abrupt ending to it all -- it's as if Ackroyd put down his pen and said I'm done.
April 28, 2014
The book follows the fortunes of three brothers who are all born on the same day, one year apart. The writer makes this statement right at the beginning of the book and the reader is left to wonder at the significance of this event. The mother leaves the household abruptly and, for some reason, her absence is never explained to the boys. The oldest, Harry, goes into journalism, the middle brother, Daniel, escapes in books and goes off to Cambridge and the youngest, Sam, is drawn to the marginalized and downtrodden. There are unexplained, supernatural elements scattered throughout the book and the reader is left to wonder the significance of such elements. A quick read, highly recommended if one is into Dickens or London.
May 26, 2018
A tale of three brothers born exactly one year apart to the very time and date. It's a very Dickensian flavored novel: orphans (essentially), an unscrupulous slum lord, various grotesques, a crusader for good and surprise benefactors. I enjoyed it. It was a fast read, with London past and present running somewhat ominously throughout.
December 24, 2021
When I visited the university bookshop in the fall of 2000 I had no idea I was about to discover one of the defining books of my life, The Plato Papers by Peter Ackroyd. Since then I haven’t read all of Ackroyd’s books, but a fair sampling, mostly his fiction since then but also London: The Biography, and always found him enjoyable. Three Brothers is the first disappointment.
Ackroyd’s career is suffused with the past. Other readers know him for his biographies; this is a novel that seems as much informed by his own past as, say, Dickens. Though he doesn’t seem to have much favorable to say about his past or much insight into Dickens.
Mostly it’s a book that comes off as artificial, full of conceits. The central conceit is the divergent paths of three brothers (four, really, but that one never really gets play), plus one of them experiencing a bit of magical realism. Everything just kind of happens.
What intrigued me so much about Plato Papers was its comic commentary on history, which is a mood absent from the other Ackroyd books I’ve read. Brothers is kind of a Christmas Carol without the ghosts; the brothers are the ghosts, a gloomy proposition, and they agree with Scrooge as we meet him.
Perhaps it’s Ackroyd bemoaning living in the modern world, rather than the past. That, at any rate, is as good a theory as there’s likely to be. But no real point wondering if there’s much history will worry about it.
Ackroyd’s career is suffused with the past. Other readers know him for his biographies; this is a novel that seems as much informed by his own past as, say, Dickens. Though he doesn’t seem to have much favorable to say about his past or much insight into Dickens.
Mostly it’s a book that comes off as artificial, full of conceits. The central conceit is the divergent paths of three brothers (four, really, but that one never really gets play), plus one of them experiencing a bit of magical realism. Everything just kind of happens.
What intrigued me so much about Plato Papers was its comic commentary on history, which is a mood absent from the other Ackroyd books I’ve read. Brothers is kind of a Christmas Carol without the ghosts; the brothers are the ghosts, a gloomy proposition, and they agree with Scrooge as we meet him.
Perhaps it’s Ackroyd bemoaning living in the modern world, rather than the past. That, at any rate, is as good a theory as there’s likely to be. But no real point wondering if there’s much history will worry about it.
October 9, 2018
A Ripping yarn from 'Our Lady of Sorrows'.
August 27, 2022
A big fan of Peter Ackroyd I was keen to read this book which had somehow passed under my radar. Full of Ackroyds sense of atmosphere this started well with a fascinating premise of the very different lives of 3 brothers who had been mysteriously abandoned by their mother who they rediscover at a later date. It all then seemed to lose direction and I was left feeling very confused by the ending.
May 28, 2024
Great premise, great writing, touch of mysticism not handled all that deftly and in the end felt really grubby after reading it.
January 15, 2014
Superior presentation of characters is the main attribute of this book. All the characters have their own voice and unique perspective.
There were far too many coincidental meetings among the main characters. I suppose this is the point of the book, that London is a vast maze that moves and stretches as a unit which justifies the coincidences.
If you like books about London and about characterization you might really like this book. I felt it lacked central purpose.
There were far too many coincidental meetings among the main characters. I suppose this is the point of the book, that London is a vast maze that moves and stretches as a unit which justifies the coincidences.
If you like books about London and about characterization you might really like this book. I felt it lacked central purpose.
March 8, 2019
I think people who criticise the use of coincidence in this book have missed the point, or maybe haven’t read Ackroyd’s other books or appreciated his love of the Victorian novel. He even mentions all the coincidences at the end of the book, & reminds us of his conviction that everything in London is interwoven. I’m sure you’re not meant to actually believe them, or take on face value everything that happens - if indeed it really happens at all.....
I really enjoyed the book and recommend it.
I really enjoyed the book and recommend it.
May 13, 2014
Reminder, 2 Stars means "It was okay."
This book never gelled for me. I have liked a lot of Ackroyd's books in the past, so I finished it, but some of the characters didn't seem terribly distinct and a couple of plot points just didn't make sense to me at all.
Still, I'll read his next one.
This book never gelled for me. I have liked a lot of Ackroyd's books in the past, so I finished it, but some of the characters didn't seem terribly distinct and a couple of plot points just didn't make sense to me at all.
Still, I'll read his next one.
May 23, 2019
Nonsense.Why did I read it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The first few chapters grabbed my interest then it fell apart. I thought it would get back on track. It did not. Waste of time read.
The first few chapters grabbed my interest then it fell apart. I thought it would get back on track. It did not. Waste of time read.
March 3, 2018
I had been suffering from what is called a reader's block where one finds it hard to proceed with a book as no subject or plot seems interesting enough to hold the interest, which can be quite sad and frustrating to say the least. But like everything else in life - when given some time, it just passes...
So hopefully that phase is past me as I am slowly starting to get back into my reading routine again and have managed to finish my first book for this year with some difficulty, my first Peter Ackroyd read.
Peter Ackroyd, a well-known historian and novelist, has put in a lot into this slim volume of a story about London, a city that he knows like the back of his hand - every street, every coffee shop, every pub and every patisserie...- so the narration is quite vivid. It has drama, scandal, closely connected characters with or without knowing, ambition, murder, extra-terrestrial and imaginary phenomenon like flying objects & people and establishments disappearing overnight, poverty, hunger, lust and many other things....
So many that I am still making up my mind what to make of it as a whole, as it didn't quite leave a massive impact. For a greater part of the story things happen in parallel in the lives of Hanway brothers, some connected and others disparate. After reading more than two thirds of the book, I found myself still waiting to see how it all joins up. It got my interest towards the end when one of the characters is murdered and some untold truths begin to emerge but overall a bit chaotic with the concepts and the characters; I felt unsatisfied with the way things were left at the end, messy…
The novel begins with the quintessential introduction to a story “In the London borough of Camden there lived three brothers..." who were born at the same time, on the same say of the same month with a year's difference of age between each of them – but very different in temperament.
If the coincidence was not enough to get the reader's attention, the author made it obvious by underlining the theme with questions like - "Were they in some sense marked out? Was there some invisible communion between them, apart from their natural affinity?"
The story progresses in the third person's narrative style to explore the lives of these boys as they grow up and move on in different directions, the author taking turns to talk about each of them, one by one, in chapters that follows…
I loved some of the characterization, especially that of Sir Martin Flaxman’s, owner of the Chronicle. There are some brilliant individual pieces within this book, some of the chapters stand out more than the others and was a sheer pleasure to read, I read some of them twice over…
However, on the whole it seemed a bit disordered. I feel, given the reputation, there is a better Peter Ackroyd book out there that I ought to read to enjoy his writing fully or this could be just a manifestation of my fading reader's block syndrome....
So hopefully that phase is past me as I am slowly starting to get back into my reading routine again and have managed to finish my first book for this year with some difficulty, my first Peter Ackroyd read.
Peter Ackroyd, a well-known historian and novelist, has put in a lot into this slim volume of a story about London, a city that he knows like the back of his hand - every street, every coffee shop, every pub and every patisserie...- so the narration is quite vivid. It has drama, scandal, closely connected characters with or without knowing, ambition, murder, extra-terrestrial and imaginary phenomenon like flying objects & people and establishments disappearing overnight, poverty, hunger, lust and many other things....
So many that I am still making up my mind what to make of it as a whole, as it didn't quite leave a massive impact. For a greater part of the story things happen in parallel in the lives of Hanway brothers, some connected and others disparate. After reading more than two thirds of the book, I found myself still waiting to see how it all joins up. It got my interest towards the end when one of the characters is murdered and some untold truths begin to emerge but overall a bit chaotic with the concepts and the characters; I felt unsatisfied with the way things were left at the end, messy…
The novel begins with the quintessential introduction to a story “In the London borough of Camden there lived three brothers..." who were born at the same time, on the same say of the same month with a year's difference of age between each of them – but very different in temperament.
If the coincidence was not enough to get the reader's attention, the author made it obvious by underlining the theme with questions like - "Were they in some sense marked out? Was there some invisible communion between them, apart from their natural affinity?"
The story progresses in the third person's narrative style to explore the lives of these boys as they grow up and move on in different directions, the author taking turns to talk about each of them, one by one, in chapters that follows…
I loved some of the characterization, especially that of Sir Martin Flaxman’s, owner of the Chronicle. There are some brilliant individual pieces within this book, some of the chapters stand out more than the others and was a sheer pleasure to read, I read some of them twice over…
However, on the whole it seemed a bit disordered. I feel, given the reputation, there is a better Peter Ackroyd book out there that I ought to read to enjoy his writing fully or this could be just a manifestation of my fading reader's block syndrome....
March 5, 2025
I hadn't read anything by Ackroyd in a very long time when I chanced on this in a charity shop in Whitianga, NZ. Some readers on this site found fault with the numerous coincidences in this story of 3 brothers who quickly distance themselves from each other as soon as their mother mysteriously disappears, yet bump into each other at every turn. However, it seems to me that Ackroyd is not trying for realism here but rather for a fable-like quality. Harry quickly decides to try his hand at journalism, and has all the ruthlessness and spinelessness to make a success of it. When his boss tells him to kill a juicy story, he complies without any qualms. Eventually, he marries his boss's daughter, becomes his mother-in-law's lover when his boss has a stroke, and ends up strangling her and committing suicide. Daniel is a repressed gay man with brains who easily gets a position at Cambridge, but is, in his own way, as hollow as his older brother. The youngest one, Sam, is the one most affected by their mother's disappearance. Sleepwalking through life, he is also the one who manages to find Sally and reestablish a relationship with her. It turns out that Sally sold herself to supplement her husband's inadequate income, and ended up in prison. When she came out, she decided to spare her teenage sons the stigma associated with her actions. She got some help from a crooked businessman and bore him a son, Andrew. Sam ends up working for Asher Ruppta before knowing all this. Ruppta gets killed by Harry's boss Sir Martin, whom he has blackmailed thanks to information about Sir Martin's sexual encounters with a rent boy who also happens to be Daniel's lover. There's even more to the plot than this. Altogether this isn't a great book but a very pleasant read, full of atmosphere and nice little touches.
April 28, 2019
The streets of London in the 1950-60's are as important of a role as the three brothers, and the feeling of London comes through brilliantly.
The literary mysticism with the nuns made an enjoyable subplot, not sure what they symbolized, but they added an unexpected interest to the story.
At times the personalities of the brothers would shift in startling ways, such as Sam being portrayed as "a bit of a nutter", but then he would make sane, rational, responsible choices compared to his two older brothers. He was quiet and reserved, but could communicate/ connect with people easily. Sam seemed to be guided by humanity and a conscious more than his brothers, but yet didn't seem bothered by other's greed or motivated to seek justice for the actions of other's bad behavior.
The oldest brother, Harry, didn't start out ruthless, so his subsequent immoral choices were baffling. He seemed adept in navigating through controling relationships, but yet wasn't strong enough to avoid his mother-in-law putting him into a compromising position. Still not clear what resulted from his actions at the bridge.
The middle child, Daniel, was as much as a surprise as his brothers when it came to decisions and behavior.
None of the three shared their personal information or feelings with the other, leading to many missed opportunities. Many missed coincidences happen in the story, so many crossed paths, but no crossovers into each others lives.
It ended with a 'more-ish' longing to read deeper into the past and future of Sally and Philip Hansen and their children. I wish there was a sequel to continue the story.
The literary mysticism with the nuns made an enjoyable subplot, not sure what they symbolized, but they added an unexpected interest to the story.
At times the personalities of the brothers would shift in startling ways, such as Sam being portrayed as "a bit of a nutter", but then he would make sane, rational, responsible choices compared to his two older brothers. He was quiet and reserved, but could communicate/ connect with people easily. Sam seemed to be guided by humanity and a conscious more than his brothers, but yet didn't seem bothered by other's greed or motivated to seek justice for the actions of other's bad behavior.
The oldest brother, Harry, didn't start out ruthless, so his subsequent immoral choices were baffling. He seemed adept in navigating through controling relationships, but yet wasn't strong enough to avoid his mother-in-law putting him into a compromising position. Still not clear what resulted from his actions at the bridge.
The middle child, Daniel, was as much as a surprise as his brothers when it came to decisions and behavior.
None of the three shared their personal information or feelings with the other, leading to many missed opportunities. Many missed coincidences happen in the story, so many crossed paths, but no crossovers into each others lives.
It ended with a 'more-ish' longing to read deeper into the past and future of Sally and Philip Hansen and their children. I wish there was a sequel to continue the story.
June 27, 2025
I don’t know about other reviews. I liked this - first I’ve read of this author. I generally dislike murder mysteries, which this was only sort-of sort-of. And only through the second half of the book. Ackroyd spends many chapters introducing the myriad of characters and setting the scene.
I liked the style, with each chapter dedicated only to one of the brothers (each of whom I also liked for different reasons).
And after reading a review commenting on the frustrating coincidences of the brothers’ just missing each other, I was looking for those coincidences and found myself liking them. Toward the end, middle brother Daniel responds to a student questioning Dickens’ use of coincidence with, “That is the condition of living in the city, is it not? The most heterogeneous elements collide.” I think (perhaps conveniently) this sums up much of this work.
There’s little I didn’t like about the book and recommend Three Brothers. It reads easily, entertains, and makes you think, but not too too much.
I liked the style, with each chapter dedicated only to one of the brothers (each of whom I also liked for different reasons).
And after reading a review commenting on the frustrating coincidences of the brothers’ just missing each other, I was looking for those coincidences and found myself liking them. Toward the end, middle brother Daniel responds to a student questioning Dickens’ use of coincidence with, “That is the condition of living in the city, is it not? The most heterogeneous elements collide.” I think (perhaps conveniently) this sums up much of this work.
There’s little I didn’t like about the book and recommend Three Brothers. It reads easily, entertains, and makes you think, but not too too much.
May 23, 2019
For the entirety of this book, I felt like I was always waiting for something to happen, but in the end, nothing really did.
It had the potential to be something both engaging and suspenseful, with a unique take on having three brothers born on the same day, at the same time, exactly a year apart, and because of this particular happenstance they all shared an almost other worldly connection to one another.
Yet, even with the mystery of what could have happened to their mother, who had disappeared when they were only children, everything seemed to fall short and rather flat. Even the circumstance of Asher Ruupta and the possibilities that that story line implied, the book still ended as disappointingly as possible only made more so because of what seemed like an extended period of nothingness.
Needless to say at this point that I did not
enjoy this novel. So much so, that reading anything else by this author already seems like a bore.
It had the potential to be something both engaging and suspenseful, with a unique take on having three brothers born on the same day, at the same time, exactly a year apart, and because of this particular happenstance they all shared an almost other worldly connection to one another.
Yet, even with the mystery of what could have happened to their mother, who had disappeared when they were only children, everything seemed to fall short and rather flat. Even the circumstance of Asher Ruupta and the possibilities that that story line implied, the book still ended as disappointingly as possible only made more so because of what seemed like an extended period of nothingness.
Needless to say at this point that I did not
enjoy this novel. So much so, that reading anything else by this author already seems like a bore.
August 1, 2020
Three brothers growing up poor in Camden Town , London about the time of Harold Wllson. Harry, ambitious and sporty, becomes a journalist and then rises to the top of the newspaper, as he marries the proprietor’s daughter, Daniel, studious and gay, ends up at Cambridge both as a student and tenured , and Sam, the weird one, who survives them all. Not a bad read, reasonable plot . Their mother left them when they were very young, as we discover later, as she was jailed for soliciting. The boys mainly fend for themselves, and are not close to their Dad, or to each other. Each go their seperate ways
March 30, 2021
I'll invest in pretty much anything Peter Ackroyd writes. It's worth the risk. This one disappointed me, though. Three stars may be a bit excessive. My first encounter with the author was Hawksmoor, which I have read and re-read and continue to enjoy and find new meaning. But here I wondered which came first: the story or the picture on the dust jacket. If that seems harsh, I'll give the book a second chance and get back to you.
January 8, 2022
A compelling and entertaining story told with great skill by this expert writer. As with very many of Peter Ackroyd’s books, London is both a character and the setting. Ghosts of former Londoners and possible ones also appear; so do the shadows of what occupied the land before.
He has a lot of fun with the queer demi-monde of the 1960s and the bitchiness of academics and writers. Nostalgic double entendres are sprinkled about. There is a lot of drinking and smoking.
He has a lot of fun with the queer demi-monde of the 1960s and the bitchiness of academics and writers. Nostalgic double entendres are sprinkled about. There is a lot of drinking and smoking.
October 26, 2016
An odd little story- but compelling. I didn't like Harry and Daniel very much - I suspect we weren't supposed to. Sam was a gentler soul. The front cover photo is misleading- they weren't together as adults like this - aside from at their father's funeral. I'm glad we found out what happened to their mother.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 7, 2018
Started well and I do enjoy the supernatural blending of history and pre-history with the present. But it failed to bring the localities in London alive - at least to me. And I got tired of the characters, who did not come alive for me either. Had to skim the second half quickly or I would not have finished it. Lovely cover photograph.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews