I received a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review--from Library Thing, I think.
My honest rating would be 3.5 stars, but without that option, I give it 3, and not 4, because although I enjoyed this book and was very caught up in the storytelling, there are some aspects that take away too much for it to deserve 4 stars.
The author's narrative style is so realistic that I almost classify this book as a memoir, and that is its main strength: it is so realistic, so straightforward, the narrator's voice is masterfully accomplished: he witnesses what happens around him, he describes his relations with the people he meets, his reactions, his thoughts. Sometimes, books written in the first person are overwhelmed by the narrator's self, but in this case, the narrator is truly a lens through which readers see what he sees, and although he is not constructed as to be "bland" enough for any reader to identify with him (I certainly did not), he is presented in such a way that you understand him and accept the stupid things he does and thinks as feasible and believable (he is a bit, um, dense).
So why, even though I was very caught up in the story and very interested in what would happen next, do I not give the book a higher rating? Because the narrator repeats himself ad nauseaum, like a bad non-fiction writer who hopes to convince his readers about his argument by repeating it constantly instead of by presenting the evidence. In this case, the narrator really wants to convince readers that capitalism does not give people freedom, because social mobility is very difficult in countries where the state does not provide good universal education, etc., and because personal happiness and satisfaction is indeed impossible because they are made eternally dissatisfied: one must always have more and better objects, one is in a state of permanent competition with one's peers. Communism (in East Germany, at least), freed people from both the need to have more and better things, and freed them from competing with one another and indeed forced them to cooperate in order to be able to survive. Because he is not politically inclined, and he is not the smartest person, and he has no family or friends in the country until he has been there for a while, he does not understand the pain felt by people divided from their relatives and friends by the East/West frontier, and by the Berlin Wall; nor the pain and fear felt by people who are not as happy as he is with the system. But he learns...
The author, however, does not trust his evidence, nor the intelligence of his readers: perhaps because he thinks that most people in the world would need a lot of convincing to even start to consider that maybe capitalism does not give people freedom, and communism, despite political dictatorship, could have done so at the social and economic level. Perhaps because most readers would simply scoff at this, the author prefers to repeat the argument every ten pages, instead of trusting that smart and open-minded readers are able to see in the evidence presented (the lives of those in East and West Berlin, those in London, those in Perth), that indeed, there is an important truth in this argument. Those who are close-minded will not believe it no matter how many times he says it. And those that like a good book will in fact be turned off, as I was, by the constant repetition.