Book review: Archangel

Having read and enjoyed Fatherland, I foud Archangel second hand so gave it a go. I think that as a thriller it is superior: the ending in particular is great, from that perspective. As a book overall I prefer Fatherland; Archangel seems just a little parochial by comparison. But Archangel suffers a little by being read immediately after Fatherland, since the over all plots - evil empire, long-lost dox exposing terrible secret - are rather similar.

We're in Russia, during Yeltsin's premiership - I think this is not explicitly said, but there is a scene where a character on the phone to him hears the clink of ice cubes in a glass and thinks oh no, not this early in the morning - when all is chaotic; there is liberalisation, vast fortunes swirling around, but also longing for ye olde dayes amongst those losing out.

Our Hero, a scruffy feisty historian who has offended too many others, is at a conference in Moscow organised by the archives. And is approached by an old scarred man, ex Beria's service, who knows where Stalin's fabled notebook is buried. And then the chase is on.

Sadly - in my view; but then it would perhaps have been just too similar to Fatherland - the notebook turns out to be not Stalin's, but a young woman on whom he fathered a child, who turns out to be still alive, in the forests not too far from Archangel. And the plot turns into chasing him down. That makes a fine thriller but somehow, to me at least, rather small scale.

I think I thought to myself that Our Hero meeting the Old Guy was rather coincidental; happily this is fixed up at the end: it was all arranged. I think Our Hero should have guessed this, or at the very least considered it. I'm also rather dubious about the Son living off in the woods for so long, especially as town is only an hour or so away by boat. Oh, and a flaw: as Beria is dying, he shouts "Archangel", which means nothing to most Western readers, but really everyone who heard it would know is a city in Russia.

The book does a good job of showing you how badly the Soviet Union broke so many people's lives and what a terrible regime it was.

If you like forests-in-snow, then I think Billion Dollar Brain does it better.

Meta

I find myself asking Gemini questions now, so here is its answer to "is Archangel or Fatherland a better book?". FWIW, Goodreads gives F 4.03, and A 3.83.

Fatherland is widely considered the better and more iconic book by Robert Harris compared to Archangel, though both are gripping thrillers.

Fatherland (1992)

• Premise: An alternative history noir set in 1964 where Nazi Germany won World War II, and a Berlin detective named Xavier March uncovers a massive state secret while investigating a murder.

• Why readers love it: It is often praised as Harris's breakout masterpiece and a true classic of the alternative history genre. Readers highlight its chilling, richly imagined atmosphere of a victorious Nazi superstate and a tense geopolitical standoff with the United States.

• Consensus: Most fans and reviewers rank it higher in Harris's bibliography, citing a stronger and more iconic concept than his later thrillers.

Archangel (1998)

• Premise: A post-Soviet political thriller set in modern Russia, following a historian (Fluke Kelso) who tracks down a secret notebook belonging to Joseph Stalin.

• Why readers love it: It is a fast-paced, entertaining read with a satisfying ending and fascinating snippets of Soviet-era history.

• Consensus: While some individual readers prefer its pacing or setting, it is generally viewed as a more conventional thriller that lacks the cultural impact and atmospheric dread of Fatherland.

I find "more iconic" grates, here and whenever I see it elsewhere. Something either is, or isn't, iconic; I don't think it can be used in degree.