Paper Money: A Novel

An excellent book like all of those written by Mr. Ken Follet. Entertaining, informative and factual research without engaging in unnecesary, boring and useless descriptions. Paper MoneyHugo Dothée

I loved Pillars of the Earth. Then I ordered three early Ken Follett books which he wrote under a different name. Paper Money is a terrific tale of the banking business in England in the 1800's. The banking family are all great characters. Murder, Mayhem and money. A great read.

Ken Follett means, to me, accurate history told through interesting characters and stories. Paper Money was a disappointment. It seemed to me it was written for Londoners who know the city and are acquainted with all the stereotypes of the slum areas. It was provincial, stereotyped, and depressing. It was very disapointing read for someone who loved Follett's excellent trilogies.

I am trying to return it, but so far no luck. The paper in the book is so old it is golden and the acid build up on the paper kills my fingers. I read a couple of pages, but gave it up. I will have to order another copy.

Not up to my expectations for this author. Stopped reading it after a couple chapters.I enjoy this author as you can see by the number of books I have purchased but this one was not up to his standards.

Previously reviewed - very humble for this Author. For some reason, the review was never published (might it not have been up to the store standards).
If the Board has a problem with negative reviews, then don't ask for one.

'Paper Money' has a very complex plot. The book has multiple characters whose relationship to one another gradually evolves as the story unfolds. Overall, it's a good read although the ending is a bit abrupt. One note - the book had me repeatedly referring to the 'Dictionary of British Slang'.

Because it was a Ken Follett book, I picked this up off off a Take One - Leave One book case at the hotel I was staying at in Manzanillo this past week. Even though I previously had read Paper Money, his novel immediately preceding The Eye of the Needle, when it was first published in 1977, I'm glad I had the occasion to reread it.

It was a great, short read. He says in his introduction of this newer edition that "it is the best of his unsuccessful books." He ponders the reason as there not being a main protagonist but a series of co-equal characters in the rather involved plot.

I disagree. If it was unsuccessful, it wasn't because of what he attributes it to, but that his readers just didn't know a damned good book when they saw one.

Life happens to all of us all the time, whether it be Heinrich Faber aka the Needle, the guy we're reading about in a stand-alone or a series character.

Further, life continues to happen to all the characters including the protagonist even when the author is not reporting to us what those happenings are.

I, for one, would rather read about the digressions that I know are going on behind the scenes as opposed to what color shirt some minor, nobody character is wearing, or even how beautiful the sunset is.

Not in every case, of course, but in most, particularly if I plan to read more from that particular author, series or stand-alone, I want to know whats going on in the author's mind as he or she tells us the story.

A friend who is critiquing and proofing my second novel, Felony Murder, the follow-up to Hammering Nails Can Be Murder says that my "digressions and the digressions within the digressions and the vignettes are fascinating as background but parenthetical to story itself and are out of balance with the plot, or the main event itself.

She in particular mentioned the entire second chapter, though I thought it was short chapter, as describing a character who isn't even germane to the plot. That character, however, is extremely germane to the activities of the main protagonist, so I thought the digression an important one.

More importantly, however, is that I received the same criticism of a character in Hammering Nails.
I didn't know it at the time I wrote it, but this character was to be the main character in the follow up. Thinking about that made me include this chapter on this otherwise not-so-important-now character as he will be a main character in one of the forthcoming books.

Thinking about this made me reflect on William J. Coughlin's Charley Sloan series. If one didn't know better, that is know how to read a novel, one might think that he is jumping all over the place, one thread here, one thread there, almost like 2 or 3 different stories all hodgepodged into one. Not so. he is writing about his character's life and how it unfolds on a daily basis.

My novels are somewhat meant to be the same. I am writing about my main character and his family of friends and associates. in a way, though I hope a lesser one, the actual story line, discovering the connection between Nails Morton and John-John is secondary to the life of this man and his associates.

Like it or not, this is what I intended to do.

My friend, however, is probably correct in all that she says because I didn't then, and probably now as well, know how to achieve the balance necessary for the reader to stay interested in both the main event and the parentheticals at the same time.

I will work on that and hope that the reader will judge that I have adequately done my job.

Given all of that, Ken Follett has done his job here. I followed the plot as well as how all the characters were involved in it as well as enjoying the perspective of each as well as how life was happening to each of them outside the plot and how those happenings affected the plot.

I don't expect to reach the level of Follett's expertise, but it is something I will definitely keep in mind as I write the next in the series, Sometimes The Innocent Pay.

Paper Money is a very engrossing, very talky but, in general, quite entertaining thriller. Instead of having one or two main characters, it's got several protagonists and a small army of secondary characters, meaning we get to read about some scenes from several points of view, or experience the consequences of one character's actions from the perspective of his son or wife or friend's family. It's a different approach, and it works to make the story feel more real, more dense... but it prevents any of characters from achieving any kind of complexity. They're painted in broad strokes, so to speak.

Nevertheless, I have to admit I was very entertained by Paper Money--I liked the way it presented its 1970s London, full of mobsters and cops and criminals and prostitutes and politicians and reporters. I liked the dialogue and the interwoven plot and yes, even the secondary characters who had little to do but provide different points of view of the same situation. It's a flawed--some of the "sexier" scenes feel very gratuitous--, but compelling novel.

I've enjoyed a few of Ken Follett's thrillers but what's stopped me from loving them is his characters. You always know from the start who's good and who's bad, which side you're supposed to be on, and that most of them will get the outcome they deserve. I much prefer the murky ambiguity of Le Carre.

This novel though, is different. This was Follett's first published novel (under the pseudonym Zachary Stone). In the reissued version, Follett laments its poor sales and apologises in an introduction for all the things I like about it (though judging by the reviews from hardcore Follett fans, he was right to do so).

The story has multiple viewpoints. There is a complex, interwoven plot. It has a downbeat, amoral ending. The characters act on a range of motivations. None of them is particularly likeable.

They are recognisable `types' but they are nuanced. Follett says he has a tendency to underwrite but I like to be trusted to work things out for myself. I admire the pared-down prose and the vivid world - worlds - that he has created in such a short book.

I prefer this Follett but the sales would suggest I'm in the minority.

Follet remains a great interpeter of his usual genre, which connects finance, thriller and papers scoops. The lector can be very interested to follow certain trends, whom happen in his pages. Also the style is always that of great of writing, but also the research of words is never obvious. This happyness of Follet could be seen by those aspects: the financial crisis and the militar questions have broken many beliefs, which with the author has built his important romances. So his books look like a remembering of the Cold War or the ease finance. But , I repeat, Follet is still a big of history of romance.

It's been mentioned several times but bears repeating: this is one of Ken Follett's earliest ventures into writing. Therefore, we must give him a break and assess this story in its proper context. He was just beginning his developing as a writer and many of us have benefited from his efforts.

The tale takes place in one day, There are almost a half-dozen characters and each is provided with enough biographical detail as befitting this brief novel. As it was, I found these details quite entertaining and appreciated Mr. Follett for laboring to place them in the narrative. The major issue -money, the kinds of people it attracts, and how it affects one's decisions- centered around a failing business conglomerate, an oil drilling contract, old money, the constant need for fame and fortune, and the persistent effort to sustain the human appetite despite the toil of age. I found it very satisfying that, at such an early start in his career, Mr. Follett would chance a story of high-finance crime interwoven with the "human condition." We all know authors who pursue the easier path. I say "Bravo!" to Mr. Follett for taking this step... and succeeding!

Paper Money is a very engrossing, very talky but, in general, quite entertaining thriller. Instead of having one or two main characters, it's got several protagonists and a small army of secondary characters, meaning we get to read about some scenes from several points of view, or experience the consequences of one character's actions from the perspective of his son or wife or friend's family. It's a different approach, and it works to make the story feel more real, more dense... but it prevents any of characters from achieving any kind of complexity. They're painted in broad strokes, so to speak.

Nevertheless, I have to admit I was very entertained by Paper Money--I liked the way it presented its 1970s London, full of mobsters and cops and criminals and prostitutes and politicians and reporters. I liked the dialogue and the interwoven plot and yes, even the secondary characters who had little to do but provide different points of view of the same situation. It's a flawed--some of the "sexier" scenes feel very gratuitous--, but compelling novel.

I've enjoyed a few of Ken Follett's thrillers but what's stopped me from loving them is his characters. You always know from the start who's good and who's bad, which side you're supposed to be on, and that most of them will get the outcome they deserve. I much prefer the murky ambiguity of Le Carre.

This novel though, is different. This was Follett's first published novel (under the pseudonym Zachary Stone). In the reissued version, Follett laments its poor sales and apologises in an introduction for all the things I like about it (though judging by the reviews from hardcore Follett fans, he was right to do so).

The story has multiple viewpoints. There is a complex, interwoven plot. It has a downbeat, amoral ending. The characters act on a range of motivations. None of them is particularly likeable.

They are recognisable `types' but they are nuanced. Follett says he has a tendency to underwrite but I like to be trusted to work things out for myself. I admire the pared-down prose and the vivid world - worlds - that he has created in such a short book.

I prefer this Follett but the sales would suggest I'm in the minority.

Follet remains a great interpeter of his usual genre, which connects finance, thriller and papers scoops. The lector can be very interested to follow certain trends, whom happen in his pages. Also the style is always that of great of writing, but also the research of words is never obvious. This happyness of Follet could be seen by those aspects: the financial crisis and the militar questions have broken many beliefs, which with the author has built his important romances. So his books look like a remembering of the Cold War or the ease finance. But , I repeat, Follet is still a big of history of romance.

'Paper Money' has a very complex plot. The book has multiple characters whose relationship to one another gradually evolves as the story unfolds. Overall, it's a good read although the ending is a bit abrupt. One note - the book had me repeatedly referring to the 'Dictionary of British Slang'.

It's been mentioned several times but bears repeating: this is one of Ken Follett's earliest ventures into writing. Therefore, we must give him a break and assess this story in its proper context. He was just beginning his developing as a writer and many of us have benefited from his efforts.

The tale takes place in one day, There are almost a half-dozen characters and each is provided with enough biographical detail as befitting this brief novel. As it was, I found these details quite entertaining and appreciated Mr. Follett for laboring to place them in the narrative. The major issue -money, the kinds of people it attracts, and how it affects one's decisions- centered around a failing business conglomerate, an oil drilling contract, old money, the constant need for fame and fortune, and the persistent effort to sustain the human appetite despite the toil of age. I found it very satisfying that, at such an early start in his career, Mr. Follett would chance a story of high-finance crime interwoven with the "human condition." We all know authors who pursue the easier path. I say "Bravo!" to Mr. Follett for taking this step... and succeeding!

I'd say the word that best describes this book is decent. I expected this to be the weakest book I've read from Follet, and it certainly is. I mean, this is the guy who soon after wrote the excellent Eye of the Needle, and many years later wrote so many great historical fictions. Come on, this guy wrote the freaking Pillars of the Earth and World Without End for crying out loud. Totally excusable, based on the many hours of joy Ken Follet's books have given me, that one of his first novels was a semi-disappointing story that at times really had something going for it.

So, I wanted Follet, and for some reason I wavered between this and The Modigliani Scandal. Basically, this entire story takes place in the span of ten hours, though it has a wealth of characters. There's some suspense throughout, their is some okay character development between a couple of the more important ones, and there's even a few moments where a chapter ends and you really want to read on so you can get back to that particular storyline to see what happens (Deaf Willie's son is an example).

Ultimately, the ending was a let down, too abrupt, but I give Follet a pass overall on the book. Nevertheless, for this being easily his weakest book, and perhaps because I expected that, it was nice to just read a fun, light book that doesn't take itself too serious. It's not without its flaws, but a big fan of Follet might want to buy a cheap copy and give it the four to five hours required to read through it.

Paper Money, an early effort by Ken Follett, takes place over the course of a single day in the London of the early 1970's. The plot revolves around a brazen armored car heist and contains many diverse subplots. There are many characters; some directly connected to the robbery and others involved in peripheral ways. Several chapters take place in the newsroom of an evening paper as reports related to the crime come trickling in.

Even though Paper Money is a relatively short novel, it contains plenty of richly crafted storytelling. The multiple storylines are cleverly woven together to make for an interesting and compelling reading experience. This is a short book which delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Highly recommended.

Follett writes an introduction to this book and explains that in this early novel the plot was too complex and their were too many characters that didn't get enough development. So Follett admits, this isn't the best book, but it was still entertaining, even if the end was abrupt.

The plot revolves around an British politician who is seduced by a young woman then blackmailed into revealing who wins a government oil contract. Also, financial wizard Felix Laski tells a henchman Tony Cox the location of a delivery of money to be destroyed.

The plot then follows the money being stolen and Laski wheeling and dealing to buy the company that won the oil contract. All of this information is filtered through a newspaper office where the reporters must decide what to print and what not to print. The only intrigue lies in will the reporters discover the scheme and will they print it, and will some of the bad guys get there due. For an early novel, this isn't bad, but is extremely obvious that Follett improved greatly after this book.

Paper money is short and good read for a Follett fan, but not anyone else.

"Paper Money," was written in 1976, and originally published in the United Kingdom in 1977 by Ken Follett, international bestselling British author, under the pseudonym Zachary Stone. It's a suspense thriller, obviously an early effort by the author who would make his name immediately afterward with the famous spy thriller Eye of the Needle, (made into a very good movie of the same name Eye of the Needle). And then The Key to Rebecca,also filmed under the same nameThe Key To Rebecca [VHS]. Then he would make his name again with the extraordinary non-fiction On Wings of Eagles. Then he made his name again in historical fiction in 1989 with the huge hit, THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH, set in twelfth century England. And now he's moved onto the twentieth century with The CENTURY TRILOGY. But this early novella-length effort of his has, meanwhile, been found and republished. Though it's doubtful it would have been had he not become such a worldwide publishing phenomenon.

PAPER MONEY is set in London, and is supposed to span, hour by hour, a day in the life of an evening newspaper, similar, I gather, to the one at which Follett worked in 1973/74. There is no central character, but there are a dozen or more characters. An adulterous politician, a corrupt financier, an eager cub reporter - that's a surprise, no? A criminal gang, and a mentally retarded young man. The author intended to show that crime, high finance and journalism may be corruptly interconnected. It is an early exhibition of Follett's ability to produce a complex plot--Follett says in his introduction the cleverest he ever devised--although, at the book's novella length, it is necessarily rather thin. It is also an early showing of his ability to create and manipulate many characters, although again, owing to the book's short length, they are rather thin. Follett has said, "As a writer I have always had to struggle against a tendency to underwrite, and in PAPER MONEY you see me struggling in vain. Consequently the many characters are painted in brisk, bold brushstrokes, and the book lacks the feeling of detailed personal involvement with the private lives of the characters that readers demand of a bestseller."

Follett goes on to say, "Today I am not as sure as I was in 1976 of the links between crime, high finance, and journalism; but I think this book is true to life in another way. It presents a detailed picture of the London that I knew in the seventies, with its policemen and crooks, bankers and call girls, reporters and politicians, its shops and slums, its roads and its river. I loved it, and I hope you will too." Unfortunately, while I found the book to be okay, I think it would mainly be of interest only to the writers' enthusiasts; to the rest of us, it's rather thin gruel indeed.

For the most part, I enjoyed this novel. It felt ahead of its time in terms of dealing with financial crimes, but I found myself tuning out toward the end as the pacing wasn't quite as quick as I typically look for in the thriller genre.

This was written before the best selling Eye of the Needle back in 1976 and under a pseudonym. Follett considers it his best unsuccessful book. I consider it an interesting opportunity to see an early effort from a well known author. The story takes place in one day and involves about a half dozen people who have no idea how their lives are becoming interlinked by events. Were he to write the same story today, it would probably be tied together a bit differently and would be fleshed out a little more, but all the ingredients are there and if you have been a fan of this author, it is well worth your time to read this one.

I've read a lot of Ken Follet novels but had not heard of Paper Money when I came across it at a book sale. I read it in one take so I guess I really liked it. After I finished (the ending was perfect), I went back to the first chapter, read the first sentence and chuckled at Tim Fitzpeterson.

Ken Follett won my heart as one of my favorite authors in PILLARS OF THE EARTH, and EYE OF THE NEEDLE. I was so intrigued, that I wanted to read one of his earliest novels. It was praised, by Follett..and he ponders in the introduction if he was "TOO CLEVER" in writing this book. NO WAY! Clever is not an adjective which comes to mind.. Taunted as a novel of international suspense and action...it was neither. It was flat. It was dull. It was booooring. It was fragmented. The characters did not make me care about them....and I didn't "get it" when it was finished. I knew what Ken Follett wanted me to "get", but I did not. It was was so trite, that it wasn't even a summer "Take me Away" type of novel. IT was a weak start...but thankgoodness Ken Follett has risen to the occasion.and become a better author.

"Paper Money" is a Follett find. Especially for those who want to read everything Follett wrote or anyone who enjoys reading a good writer's early work. Originally published under a pseudonym in England, "Paper Money" appeared in the United States ten years later ­ after the eye-popping success of "Eye of the Needle."
This is a good enough story. Drawing on his newspaper experience, Follet tells what happens as the strands of a half dozen Londoners' lives intersect on one fateful day. Millions of dollars are gained and lost. Lives are ended and re-invented. Nobody escapes unscathed. All in less than 24 hours.
But what's most intriguing is to catch glimpses of the vintage Follet that make his books instant bestsellers today. Characters, good and bad, you can empathize with. Page-turning plots. Small details that loom large.
To be honest, "Paper Money" is not as good as what he's written more recently. He admits that himself in the forward to the American edition. But who would expect it to be? It's still a entertaining, quick read that¹ll leave you asking "what if" about nearly every character at the end of the day.

For all Ken Follet fans this is a must. In the foward of the first American release of his first novel, Follet admits that he tried too much in too little space and made things way too complicated. However, Paper Money allows us to se an established novelist when he was taking his first steps and see what lessons he learned.
If you like Follet, you will like this book. The same story teller is there. He just has learned to do it better and take his time. Avery short book with alot of story. Read it.

This is the first Ken Follett I have read and I understand it is an early effort. This novel is a wonderful invocation of London and various types that were around in the late 60s and early 70s. In a short space it paints a rich canvass of characters and has a very clever plot.
The insight into characters and "the way things work" is sharp and the sex is well handled without becoming prurient. I was amazed at the talent here ("I normally read more "serious" authors) and this is a cut above other best selling authors I sometimes have read. I intend to explore his other novels.

The novel paper money is an intriguing novel which describes a single day in the world of a bustling newspaper company. Follet's method of character description and presentation in which he introduces each character in their their own light, is an effective, yet sometimes confusing way of developing the novel's characters. The novel as a whole is a refreshing story which is sure to delight, yet the inadequate ending of the book may cause its readers to yearn for a sense of closure.

Although the story line & events were interesting, I found myself getting lost with the various characters and staying on track with the timeline. I'm glad I read it, but it isn't my favorite Ken Follett book.

Not the typical Follette book. Too many characters with too many quantum leaps between and among them. Almost unbelievable.

Really admire and like Follette's books but it was obvious this had to be the first book in his illustrious career.

Good characters, good stories, but the last chapter ended and since I didn't know I was reading the last chapter, it surprised me that I'd come to the conclusion. I'm a huge Ken Follett fan and never thought I'd ever give him less than 4 stars.