Bevan Lewis’s answer to “This book is full of revisionist history and incorrect statements! I know it is fiction but so full…” > Likes and Comments
38 likes · Like
When I read historical fiction I expect the authors "perspective" to peek through. What I don't expect is a rewrite of history. To insinuate, hell out right say, that Reagan's actions/diplomacy had no impact in helping along the collapse of communism, ruined the book for me. It was almost as if the books main purpose was to disrespect Reagan.......Islamic terrorists were portrayed in a better light......I will never read another Ken Follett book
This book as a work of fiction is a lot weaker than the previous two and criticism on this count is justified. I think perhaps the weaker 'fiction' plot makes the actual historical events more important in the narrative. Also Follett's liberal outlook has been pretty clear right through the trilogy but probably stands out more when applied to events in 'living memory'.
I agree that the book doesn't 'cover' Reagan's contribution to the fall of communism and Follett's characters are certainly anti-Reagan. Most historians place more emphasis on Gorbachev's role in the end of the Cold War, and internal USSR politics. Beth Fischer in the book The Last Decade of the Cold War states that Reagan's hardline policies (ramping up defence etc) had little impact as they had been largely abandoned by the time Gorbachev came to power. His conciliatory policy after that was important but secondary to the revolutionary changes happening on the Soviet side. Just as important were the various (often covert) actions going on with Soviet clients such as Grenada and Afganistan.
So yes there probably is a sin by omission there, but its not as though he is wilfully ignoring the leading factor in the end of the Cold War. Reagan's disarmament is mentioned, and of course this isn't a comprehensive diplomatic history.
I didn't find anywhere where he states outrightly that Reagan had no impact in the collapse of communism though - and as for the book's main purpose being disrespecting Reagan and portraying Islamic terrorists in a better light than him . . . I think that is quite over the top! He isn't even mentioned that much in a 1100 page book - I think Bush snr gets more of a drubbing :-)
Did you read the very last chapter.....I agree with some of your points and obviously Gorbechev was the biggest reason those outside influences were able to have the effect they did. You can't just say it was falling oil prices ......you have to look at why those oil prices fell, and that goes for everything. Enjoy your next read, I for one won't be reading anymore follett ;)
Will re-read it. I think he gets a bit tired with series - the sequel to Pillars of the Earth wasn't as good either!
He basically closed with a parting shot at Reagan...loved Pillars skipped the second one after hearing it wasn't that good...:)
Bevan...Yes I think he just got tired at the end and missed out on completing a lot of the story. Left Wing perspective is putting it mildly.
I am most of the way through the book and really disgusted too. I thought he handled the opposing views in the previous books with balance and complexity but wow, conservatives in the US in the last 50 years might as well be Westboro Baptist. I've always been a fan of how he creates complex characters who are not fully evil and not fully good, but somehow conservatives now have little to no redeeming qualities.
Sounds like most of the reviewers here have more of an agenda than Follett. To call him "leff-wing" is really a riot, given that his portrayal of all things communist is anything but flattering. I'm about halfway through and so far he has been very good at presenting people, including historical figures, as being very complex, not two-dimensional. The 1980s are covered in the las 10 chapters of a 62-chapter book, so they clearly weren't his primary interest. By then, relations with the USSR were on an even keel, with few threatening events, especially with the USSR obviously stagnating under Brezhnev. I think Follett simply wanted to get to the demise of the Evil Empire.
My biggest beef with Follett is calling Reagan a mass murderer and comparing him to other brutal dictators. Giving no credit whatsoever to Reagan or Bush for the fall of the Berlin wall. He definitely was pushing his political agenda.
Can you show me in this book where Reagan is called a "mass-murderer"?
"But it was not just murder. It was mass murder. President Reagan was guilty. And so was Cam Dewar" pg 1015 location 15476 Kindle edition
That's taken out of context. Unfortunately, I don't have a Kindle version as I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer real books... :D European leaders ignored factual reports about the stalinist famine in Ukraine but chose to ignore it because they wanted Ukrainian (soviet) grain. Are they guilty? In the sense that they failed to do anything even though they knew what was going on, yes. Millions died.
Not really sure how you can state it is taken out of context when you did not even find it in your "real book". It can be found in Part Nine Chapter 57.
I'm just pointing out how it is that leaders of western countries can be seen as guilty because they ignore genocide in other countries. That doesn't mean that they are, under law, but there are people who will see them that way. Just be glad you weren't one of the peoples being murdered while the West sat on its thmbs.
In any case, the book isn't about Ronald Reagan.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lorraine
(new)
Apr 14, 2015 04:50AM
When I read historical fiction I expect the authors "perspective" to peek through. What I don't expect is a rewrite of history. To insinuate, hell out right say, that Reagan's actions/diplomacy had no impact in helping along the collapse of communism, ruined the book for me. It was almost as if the books main purpose was to disrespect Reagan.......Islamic terrorists were portrayed in a better light......I will never read another Ken Follett book
reply
|
flag
This book as a work of fiction is a lot weaker than the previous two and criticism on this count is justified. I think perhaps the weaker 'fiction' plot makes the actual historical events more important in the narrative. Also Follett's liberal outlook has been pretty clear right through the trilogy but probably stands out more when applied to events in 'living memory'.I agree that the book doesn't 'cover' Reagan's contribution to the fall of communism and Follett's characters are certainly anti-Reagan. Most historians place more emphasis on Gorbachev's role in the end of the Cold War, and internal USSR politics. Beth Fischer in the book The Last Decade of the Cold War states that Reagan's hardline policies (ramping up defence etc) had little impact as they had been largely abandoned by the time Gorbachev came to power. His conciliatory policy after that was important but secondary to the revolutionary changes happening on the Soviet side. Just as important were the various (often covert) actions going on with Soviet clients such as Grenada and Afganistan.
So yes there probably is a sin by omission there, but its not as though he is wilfully ignoring the leading factor in the end of the Cold War. Reagan's disarmament is mentioned, and of course this isn't a comprehensive diplomatic history.
I didn't find anywhere where he states outrightly that Reagan had no impact in the collapse of communism though - and as for the book's main purpose being disrespecting Reagan and portraying Islamic terrorists in a better light than him . . . I think that is quite over the top! He isn't even mentioned that much in a 1100 page book - I think Bush snr gets more of a drubbing :-)
Did you read the very last chapter.....I agree with some of your points and obviously Gorbechev was the biggest reason those outside influences were able to have the effect they did. You can't just say it was falling oil prices ......you have to look at why those oil prices fell, and that goes for everything. Enjoy your next read, I for one won't be reading anymore follett ;)
Will re-read it. I think he gets a bit tired with series - the sequel to Pillars of the Earth wasn't as good either!
He basically closed with a parting shot at Reagan...loved Pillars skipped the second one after hearing it wasn't that good...:)
Bevan...Yes I think he just got tired at the end and missed out on completing a lot of the story. Left Wing perspective is putting it mildly.
I am most of the way through the book and really disgusted too. I thought he handled the opposing views in the previous books with balance and complexity but wow, conservatives in the US in the last 50 years might as well be Westboro Baptist. I've always been a fan of how he creates complex characters who are not fully evil and not fully good, but somehow conservatives now have little to no redeeming qualities.
Sounds like most of the reviewers here have more of an agenda than Follett. To call him "leff-wing" is really a riot, given that his portrayal of all things communist is anything but flattering. I'm about halfway through and so far he has been very good at presenting people, including historical figures, as being very complex, not two-dimensional. The 1980s are covered in the las 10 chapters of a 62-chapter book, so they clearly weren't his primary interest. By then, relations with the USSR were on an even keel, with few threatening events, especially with the USSR obviously stagnating under Brezhnev. I think Follett simply wanted to get to the demise of the Evil Empire.
My biggest beef with Follett is calling Reagan a mass murderer and comparing him to other brutal dictators. Giving no credit whatsoever to Reagan or Bush for the fall of the Berlin wall. He definitely was pushing his political agenda.
Can you show me in this book where Reagan is called a "mass-murderer"?
"But it was not just murder. It was mass murder. President Reagan was guilty. And so was Cam Dewar" pg 1015 location 15476 Kindle edition
That's taken out of context. Unfortunately, I don't have a Kindle version as I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer real books... :D European leaders ignored factual reports about the stalinist famine in Ukraine but chose to ignore it because they wanted Ukrainian (soviet) grain. Are they guilty? In the sense that they failed to do anything even though they knew what was going on, yes. Millions died.
Not really sure how you can state it is taken out of context when you did not even find it in your "real book". It can be found in Part Nine Chapter 57.
I'm just pointing out how it is that leaders of western countries can be seen as guilty because they ignore genocide in other countries. That doesn't mean that they are, under law, but there are people who will see them that way. Just be glad you weren't one of the peoples being murdered while the West sat on its thmbs.
In any case, the book isn't about Ronald Reagan.
