The Pillars of the Earth (Kingsbridge, #1) The Pillars of the Earth question

Which one is more gripping "The Pillars of the earth" or "Fall of Giants"?

I loved Fall of Giants. I got a bit bored reading The Pillars of the Earth. There was too much on how cathedrals were built.

World Without End is the sequel to Pillars, I just started reading it.

The pillars of the earth is by far the best Ken Follet book and one my top 5.

I definitely vote for The Pillars of the Earth.....I found the entire book captivating.

Susan (last edited Nov 29, 2013 09:47AM ) Nov 29, 2013 09:46AM   0 votes
Both books are very good. It's hard to chose the "better" one because they are about such different periods of history--the rise of cathedrals and the practices of the feudal system in the 12th Century vs. the world conditions leading to WWI in the 20th Century. Although Ken Follett is a novelist and not an historian, he does paint an absorbing picture of past times. He does better (more accurately) with times closer to our own than he does with things in the distant past, but his works certainly hold the reader's interest and pique curiosity about the events he's chronicling.

I love the time periods of the Fall of Giants series. The only thing that is difficult is the wait between books. By the time he brings another one in, I have forgotten the characters and the plot of the one before.

My overt preference for medieval history makes my preference between the two easy. The Fall of Giants was good, but it seemed that Follet almost had too much going on at once, and too many characters to feel truly invested in any of them. Pillars of the Earth is by far a more intimate story for readers.

For me, they were both amazing!!!

I hate to sound too ignorant (or lazy because I could just google the answer), but is Fall of Giants a sequel to Pillars of the Earth? Thanks in advance for answering my question. By the way, I loved Pillars of the Earth.

that question is like asking what do you like better choc cake or ice cream

two different books and I like them both

I found The Fall of Giants much more exciting.

I loved them both, but if you are looking for a gripping book, then I would say "Fall of Giants". Ken Follett is so great at character building, and the way he intertwines the families in "Fall of Giants" and on into "Winter of the World" is amazing.

For me Pillars was much more gripping but I loved them both. Pillars is my favorite book of all time though.

I was leery about "pillars" when I began, but found it to be a wonderful book, might even re-read it someday.

I think Fall of Giants, I found I was reading on to see what happens next to these characters that you care about. I am looking forward to reading Winter World.

I really enjoyed Pillars but wasn't so impressed by Fall. Maybe that's because I knew next to nothing about medieval England but am quite well educated about world war 1 so wasn't so captivated by his take on this period.

Neither. Apparently, if we are to trust Amazon statistics for bestsellers, this Goodreads e-author is better than anything Ken Follett can do. Right now she's got the most downloads in her 'category'!

And yes, Azizi you sound very ignorant and lazy.

Alfred (last edited Nov 28, 2013 03:45AM ) Nov 28, 2013 03:42AM   -1 votes
Aziz, Do not judge whole barrel by the one bad apple. Chris it would be easier to answer the question.

Chris Bumpas I did answer the question and I've never been on a Melville thread. ...more
Jan 10, 2014 12:04PM

Wow Chris. I didn't expect such hostility. This comment was my attempt at trying to engage in this online community, but it is clear to me that there are some pretty pretentious and possibly uptight people on these boards. I will surely stay away. By the way, I am far from ignorant and lazy... Perhaps I exercised poor judgment. I will own that.

Feliks He was either joking or he is out-of-his head. There was nothing wrong with your inquiry.
Jan 11, 2014 08:23AM · flag

back to top