Mark’s answer to “This book is full of revisionist history and incorrect statements! I know it is fiction but so full…” > Likes and Comments
29 likes · Like
Your comment reflects how effective the assertions that "tear down this wall" and Star Wars brought about the fall of the USSR have been. No serious historian believes that bunk.
A massacre a day is the american way.
americans have no idea how many innocent people killed under corrupt,insane, power hungry ans self serving us presidents.
WOW! What an american hero.can't defend the sewer you live in.......quick retort critiquing my grammar and communication skills.. How and where can you buy a shift key
I most certainly lived through those times and find nothing to quibble with in Follette's account of them. It is time people who are enamored with Ronald Reagan come to see his many flaws and, for that matter, criminal deeds.
One crop nobody grows as well....Bad American Presidents
Among other things, Washington was not a city of 5M when Geo. Jakes arrived. In the early 60's it was still a sleepy Southern city w/a population of maybe 750K. Even including the suburbs it wasn't close to 5M. Also, Barry Goldwater was no racist. He was a Libertarian w/reservations about the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. I continue to be amazed, more than a half century after the act was passed at the focus liberals have on the 6 (of 33) Republicans who voted against the act over the 27 who voted for it thus preventing a filibuster led by the likes of that paragon of liberal virtue, Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle.
No mention of Reagan's assassination attempt, no development of the complexity of his character, even Nixon got higher marks than Reagan. Islamist ideology is not even mentioned. Somehow William Buckley was kidnapped by terrorists and tortured so I guess we should just sit around and not do anything in response. Nothing about their motivations for doing so (other than clearly it's our fault). The first 2 books expanded on the need to defend our allies against communism and fascism, but apparently that only counts for Europe because when done in Asia, we are apparently overreaching warmongers. Maybe Asians threatened by communism don't count, to him??
WHERE IS LADY MARGARET THATCHER? First woman PM doesn't even get mentioned??
re the 'racist' (not!) Barry Goldwater, didn't Hillary Clinton vote for him??
Given that the 1980s are covered in the last 10 chapters of a 62-chapter book, it was clearly not Follett's main focus. The Cold War of the 1960s dominates the book and there's nothing "revisionist" about it. I lived through most of that era and his presentation is pretty accurate. It's unfair to judge fiction against the standards of professional historians, seems to me. You're missing the point. Most of the book is about people who never existed.
Totally correct. A really good book suffering from some critical innacuracies. Not just inaccurate but intentionally so and yes likely to sway those that do not know the truth.
I lived thru those times Mark - 73 now!
I also lived through this era and agree with Graeme Stuart Waymark. Most of the people unhappy with the book seem to be big fans of Reagan who are upset that half the book wasn't about him. Just think how silly your comments sound to a normal reader. You want Reagan's story with a flattering spin? Go buy one of the handful of sycophantic "biographies" of him out there... You don't hear any fans of JFK or Catholics in here whining about how he was portrayed, do you? Again, Follet is anything but "letist." He's a typical 1950s moderate.
Ty Lidia. I am perplexed by the number of reviewers of contemporary novels in the last decade who take a polemic, to the point of combative ideological stand. The accusations that novelists have political motive for the construction of a novel seems utterly ludicrous.
In my days one would not accuse Anne Rand of 'right wing' writing! The reviews would comment on her 'conservative' thoughts; however, they would not criticize her for them.
Today America appears to be divided between 'us' and 'them' based solely on ideological preferences..! Does no one ever explore the strengths of each part of the ideological spectrums? - or we all so sure that OUR political values are correct and "they" are always wrong? If as a populace we continue this hostility within a democracy that always needs both points of view on all policy and law - then I believe we should fear losing our democratic culture, rights and freedoms.
I can only agree. But even more silly is the complaint that Reagan was somehow "slighted" in this novel because he wasn't given enough space. That' starts to sound like Stalinist expectations that literature should toe the party line. It's creepy and crazy.
Reagan was not the Saintly God of all the way conservatives insist on seeing him.
Goodness, we have entirely different views of things!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Your comment reflects how effective the assertions that "tear down this wall" and Star Wars brought about the fall of the USSR have been. No serious historian believes that bunk.
A massacre a day is the american way.
americans have no idea how many innocent people killed under corrupt,insane, power hungry ans self serving us presidents.
WOW! What an american hero.can't defend the sewer you live in.......quick retort critiquing my grammar and communication skills.. How and where can you buy a shift key
I most certainly lived through those times and find nothing to quibble with in Follette's account of them. It is time people who are enamored with Ronald Reagan come to see his many flaws and, for that matter, criminal deeds.
One crop nobody grows as well....Bad American Presidents
Among other things, Washington was not a city of 5M when Geo. Jakes arrived. In the early 60's it was still a sleepy Southern city w/a population of maybe 750K. Even including the suburbs it wasn't close to 5M. Also, Barry Goldwater was no racist. He was a Libertarian w/reservations about the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. I continue to be amazed, more than a half century after the act was passed at the focus liberals have on the 6 (of 33) Republicans who voted against the act over the 27 who voted for it thus preventing a filibuster led by the likes of that paragon of liberal virtue, Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle.
No mention of Reagan's assassination attempt, no development of the complexity of his character, even Nixon got higher marks than Reagan. Islamist ideology is not even mentioned. Somehow William Buckley was kidnapped by terrorists and tortured so I guess we should just sit around and not do anything in response. Nothing about their motivations for doing so (other than clearly it's our fault). The first 2 books expanded on the need to defend our allies against communism and fascism, but apparently that only counts for Europe because when done in Asia, we are apparently overreaching warmongers. Maybe Asians threatened by communism don't count, to him?? WHERE IS LADY MARGARET THATCHER? First woman PM doesn't even get mentioned??
re the 'racist' (not!) Barry Goldwater, didn't Hillary Clinton vote for him??
Given that the 1980s are covered in the last 10 chapters of a 62-chapter book, it was clearly not Follett's main focus. The Cold War of the 1960s dominates the book and there's nothing "revisionist" about it. I lived through most of that era and his presentation is pretty accurate. It's unfair to judge fiction against the standards of professional historians, seems to me. You're missing the point. Most of the book is about people who never existed.
Totally correct. A really good book suffering from some critical innacuracies. Not just inaccurate but intentionally so and yes likely to sway those that do not know the truth.
I lived thru those times Mark - 73 now!
I also lived through this era and agree with Graeme Stuart Waymark. Most of the people unhappy with the book seem to be big fans of Reagan who are upset that half the book wasn't about him. Just think how silly your comments sound to a normal reader. You want Reagan's story with a flattering spin? Go buy one of the handful of sycophantic "biographies" of him out there... You don't hear any fans of JFK or Catholics in here whining about how he was portrayed, do you? Again, Follet is anything but "letist." He's a typical 1950s moderate.
Ty Lidia. I am perplexed by the number of reviewers of contemporary novels in the last decade who take a polemic, to the point of combative ideological stand. The accusations that novelists have political motive for the construction of a novel seems utterly ludicrous.In my days one would not accuse Anne Rand of 'right wing' writing! The reviews would comment on her 'conservative' thoughts; however, they would not criticize her for them.
Today America appears to be divided between 'us' and 'them' based solely on ideological preferences..! Does no one ever explore the strengths of each part of the ideological spectrums? - or we all so sure that OUR political values are correct and "they" are always wrong? If as a populace we continue this hostility within a democracy that always needs both points of view on all policy and law - then I believe we should fear losing our democratic culture, rights and freedoms.
I can only agree. But even more silly is the complaint that Reagan was somehow "slighted" in this novel because he wasn't given enough space. That' starts to sound like Stalinist expectations that literature should toe the party line. It's creepy and crazy.
Reagan was not the Saintly God of all the way conservatives insist on seeing him.
Goodness, we have entirely different views of things!
FOOLS and self serving asses you have had since. Most of them are war criminals. Obama has done more to polarize racism . Bush and his henchman Chaney are war mongers and Regan was a complete idiot who took his marching orders from a crazy lady.. I lived through much of that time and through Freedom of Information files I would live in SHAME to be called an American,