Week 11: 11/16 Ch 32-End

[Kristi]

Please post your comments on this section as well as your overall thoughts on the book. Also be sure to put your star rating so I can add it to the group bookshelf!

[Luffy Sempai]

"be sure to put your star rating"

Do you mean "rate the book"? Please clarify.

[Zulfiya]

Yes, how many stars do you think the book deserves.

[Luffy Sempai]

Okay , so I'll just rate it on Goodreads, and you'll get the data when I post here. Thanks.

[Kristi]

Luffy, we don't get that info. If you would post how many stars you give it then I can factor it into our group rating.

[Kaycie]

Actually, that data should appear on here. Look at Zulfiya's name...it says "rated it 4 stars" beside it. It should do that for everyone who rates it. At least, as long as their ratings are public.

[Kristi]

Kaycie wrote: "Actually, that data should appear on here. Look at Zulfiya's name...it says "rated it 4 stars" beside it. It should do that for everyone who rates it. At least, as long as their ratings are public."

Nice! I learned a new thing today! Thanks Kaycie!

[Josh]

Frankly, I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

[Luffy Sempai]

I'm so glad to have finished this book of Follett's, the first of this author I've read. Maybe his best days are behind him. It's very possible that The Pillars Of The Earth boasted of an inspired scribe.

The final section, including Part Three of the book, was in the same tone as most of the chapters before. The promise of the opening passages haven't been captured for the epilogue.

I went in expecting great things from FoG. I was memorizing each person's name, anticipating that this would be crucial to understand the unfolding of a complex story.

I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't berate the tone and content of FoG. I'm just glad it's over and that the probability of choosing a similarly inadequate book is not high.

[JoLene]

I finally finished. My thoughts generally haven't changed. It was a great overview of some of the major politics going on upto, during and immediately after WWI. It was a compelling read, but as I said several weeks ago, I think that the breadth that was covered meant that depth was sacrificed. The characters were a bit one note but the events kept the story moving forward.

I am waivering between a 3 and 4 star rating. I liked the comment of how it would have been great to see what George RR Martin would have done. A death or two would have definitely shaken things up.

[Kaycie]

JoLene wrote: "I liked the comment of how it would have been great to see what George RR Martin would have done."

Haha, although if that were the case, we'd all be hooked on the series, 5 long books in, most of our favorite characters would be dead, and the plot would not even be past the assassination of the archduke....

I enjoyed this book in the end. Like you, JoLene, I am waffling on the star rating, but I'm glad I read it. I do think that a faster pace from the beginning would have improved the read because it was a bit drawn out. Usually I would have read this book in probably two weeks, and the flimsy characters wouldn't have been as big of an issue.

I still think Follet's other novels were better, though. The characters are still similarly underdeveloped, but at least they are from a time so long past that it seems easier to take somehow. I enjoyed my overview of WWI for dummies (I will honestly never pick up a non-fiction about it), and think I retained some basic info about at least who was shooting at who in the war (sadly not something I was 100% confident on going in), and what major events happened when. I will definitely have a long Follet break before starting on the others in the trilogy, though...

[Everyman]

Billy should have stayed in prison. There is no doubt that he was an absolute traitor, deliberately and frequently disclosing confidential information that was likely to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Ten years was minimum he should have gotten. Personally, I would have gone for the death penalty.

[Everyman]

I'm wavering between two and three stars.

As a novel, for me the characters were flat, one-dimensional, lacking any complexity or nuance, and showing no character development. Many plot elements were totally unpersuasive, even to the point of absurdity. I saw no morally uplifting content, no aspects which enriched my life.

Strictly as a novel, I would give it two stars. That there was a significant level of historical content that was at times interesting in its own right, that could elevate the book to three stars. But only if I had more confidence in the accuracy of his history. Given that I know from family records of a significant error he made that he never corrected, and that others have mentioned other errors, it's hard for me to give it those three stars.

[Everyman]

Finished it last night.

I almost lost my dinner over the idea of Billy and Ethel in Parliament. It was the most absurd absurdity of a whole train of absurdities running throughout the book.

[Zulfiya]

I hope you do mean that they are simply not professionally ready.
On the other hand, there are so many people who think about their personal profit or corporate corporate in modern parliaments across the world, that the couple of siblings of humble origin is not a bad idea even if they lack education and professional background.

You might not like it, Everyman, but the bunch of people who came to power a couple of weeks ago here in Arkansas only creates a felling of deep aversion and queasiness, but they are mostly lawyers, and judging by their slogans, the feeling of kindness, compassion, equality, free choice and independent thinking are an uncharted territory for them. So I would take semi-literate workers with hearts over predators whose track record is revoltingly inhumane. People like Fitz in parliament perpetuate inequality, rigidness, unnecessary clinginess to century-old habits of patriarchy and chauvinism. Billy and Ehtel might be too simple and too naive and definitely not prepared for this work, but they would possibly represent certain voices who outnumber the limited others.

[Everyman]

Zulfiya wrote: "I hope you do mean that they are simply not professionally ready. "

I don't think they're intellectually or emotionally ready. There is so much that goes into running a country, passing national budgets, making wise laws, overseeing massive government departments, all things they have no idea about or training to deal with.

And they're both so young. Billy was only 13 at the start of the book in 1911. It's now 1924, so he is 26. For my money, that is just too young to be in Parliament, especially since he has spent most of his life either in the mines or in the army, with no real understanding of what is involved in national political service. And Ethel is only, what, two years older?

Fortunately, it's only fiction. But that the public is willing to elect near children to Parliament doesn't say much to me for Follett's opinion of the British voters.

All, of course, just my humble opinion.

[Everyman]

Zulfiya wrote: "So I would take semi-literate workers with hearts over predators whose track record is revoltingly inhumane."

I don't see it as an either-or. There are people with hearts who also have some understanding of how an economy, a government, a legal system, work.

[Nina]

Everyman wrote: "But that the public is willing to elect near children to Parliament doesn't say much to me for Follett's opinion of the British voters."

It is not that uncommon in Denmark. One of the most prominent members of the parliament is a woman in her 20s, and she is very good. Of course, no one would dream of making a 26-year old Prime Minister or the like, but the parliament is supposed to represent the people and they were voted in in a democratic proces. Besides, there are mature young people in their 20s, and immature people in their 50s. Ethel is 31 at the end of the novel, I think, and wasn't Fitz about that age at the start of the novel and he has been an MP all along? Ethel has been co-running a newspaper, working for the Union and has a politically engaged husband - I don't see why she would necessarily do a worse job than Fitz, who got his place because of his wealth and status.

[Zulfiya]

I agree with Nina. The whole idea of any parliament is to represent different people - young and old, poor and rich. I know that nowadays there is a feeling of being old is a certain point to consider. Everyone thinks whether a senior politician will be able to do it again in four or five years, but I think the whole idea of a parliament being balanced is the only way you can find representation.

Of course, Billy and Ethel are not exactly what one might call legislative material, but one can not openly reject the idea. It seems like the whole point of the novel is to show changes in the society, and those who represent the change whether they are suitable or not suitable for this role is another question.

Besides, Follett does not create a single character in this novel that would be relatively young and moderately experienced. So no matter how unlikely these two are, they might be the only characters that would introduce the idea of change in the novel. Granted, it is partly Follett's fault that we hardly find anyone who is ideal for this role, but Fitz does not seem to embrace any change, and Billy and Ethel are more prone to changes because they have been fighting for them most of their lives.

[Everyman]

Zulfiya wrote: "Besides, Follett does not create a single character in this novel that would be relatively young and moderately experienced. So no matter how unlikely these two are, they might be the only characters that would introduce the idea of change in the novel. Granted, it is partly Follett's fault that we hardly find anyone who is ideal for this role, ..."

Well said. Outside of the historical characters, Follett seems to put most of the burden of doing almost everything in his novel on a few shoulders. Grigori almost single-handed brings about the Russian revolution. Walter is all over the place, not only in England but in Germany, Russia, at one moment in the German front lines, at another engaged on a secret mission in the heart of Russia (and killing a Russian policeman, probably, in the process), Billy goes from rescuing miners trapped by an explosion to fighting fighting on the front lines in France to fighting in eastern Russia, to being imprisoned for being a traitor to getting elected to Parliament. It seems that once he has created a character, Follett feels the need to throw everything possible onto his or her shoulders, rather than giving us a larger palate of more realistic characters.

(And yet at the same time, for all the things his characters are forced to do, they are remarkably weakly drawn as characters. If, for example, you had to illustrate the characters of this book, you would really have remarkably little to go on. If I were asked to do a psychological profile of any of them, I wouldn't know where to start. They're almost like characters in an X-box game, always doing extraordinary things but never emerging as actual people.)

[Zulfiya]

I agree - characters are quite weak in this novel, but I enjoyed his explanation of the WWI politics (with the exception of historical misrepresentation), but he does convey an convincing story for laymen of how and why WWI happened.

[Everyman]

Zulfiya wrote: "I agree - characters are quite weak in this novel, but I enjoyed his explanation of the WWI politics (with the exception of historical misrepresentation), but he does convey an convincing story for..."

Agreed. For those not of my generation (school in our day was still teaching straight history, not "social studies," and we spent quite a bit of time in 7th and 8th grades on WWI), this may be the best, if not the only, way for them to get some understanding of this period of history. (I asked my kids whether their JrHi or High School classes spent any time on the history of the Balkans and the reasons for WWI, and they just looked blank.)

Oh -- and we also learned geography. It was considered important in the aftermath of WWII. I think if I stretched my mind I could still name the capitols of all the states and of most Western nations. (But not of Africa, and certainly not of all those new -stan republics that in my day were the Soviet Union! And while I could in my day have filled in a blank map of Africa with all the countries properly labeled and the major rivers, no longer. Too many new countries.)

[Andrea]

Everyman wrote: " It seems that once he has created a character, Follett feels the need to throw everything possible onto his or her shoulders, rather than giving us a larger palate of more realistic characters. ..."

I'm going to agree with every single word Everyman is saying in this post. While I did enjoy the novel, this was a huge issue for me. The further the plot went along, the more I just wanted to roll my eyes in frustration.

I just don't like characters that cannot fail.

[Alana]

JoLene wrote: "I liked the comment of how it would have been great to see what George RR Martin would have done."

Haha, although if that were the case, we'd all be hooked on the series, 5 long books in, most of our favorite characters would be dead, and the plot would not even be past the assassination of the archduke...."

LOL! That's so true! Although, in this case, it would be more realistic...

Anyhoo, I can't decide on my rating either. As a work of historical fiction, bringing real events to life through fictional characters and believable characters, it rates, at best, a 2.5. As far as sheer enjoyability and fun of reading: a four. I want to call it a 3.5 but I'll probably round up to four, because I really did enjoy reading it and I want to finish the rest of the trilogy to see how it all turns out for everyone.

I was floored that Lev kills his father in law, then marches back in and says "take me back, I'm going to run an illegal liquor operation and make us millions!" and it all works out. But, after Grigori singlehandedly brings about the Russian Revolution, as Everyman so aptly stated, I guess that's not so far-fetched.

I think of all of them, the one I liked the best and found the most realistic was Gus. I see some more likely character development from him, and his rise in power is actually not unlikely. Plus, I like his relationship and interaction with Rosa. It just works for me. I'm curious to see how that plays out in future books. I also like Walter and Maud, although there's obviously a lot of tragedy ahead for them.

And while Ethel is ridiculous, especially with both she AND Billy in Parliament, I did like her scene with Fitz at the end.

[Alana]

Also, I've lost count of how many pregnancies and babies there were by the end. At one point we thought five was a lot! :)

[Sarah]

I'm so sorry that I failed to post. I don't have time to give a full breakdown but I wanted to let everyone know that I ended up at one star. I fully planned to do two when I was at 70% of the book but then Follett really started to annoy me. There were times he would tell us how all of the characters felt about a situation and I thought that if he had done a better job on character development, we wouldn't have had to be told. Or he could have stuck with one person's POV rather than telling us what they were both thinking. Also, the "Fitz was angry, but then he realized.....", or "Grigori was horrified, but then he realized...". These drove me completely crazy because they were a part of the characters personality or ideology and then in one sentence they did a 180.

Anyway, the last 30% pretty much made me homicidal so it ended up at a lowly one star. Sorry again that I failed to post.

[Everyman]

Sarah wrote: "I'm so sorry that I failed to post. I don't have time to give a full breakdown but I wanted to let everyone know that I ended up at one star. I fully planned to do two when I was at 70% of the bo..."

Whew. Somebody even tougher on Follett than I was!

[Sarah]

I totally live your Xbox analogy! The characters were terribly flat. I really hated being told what to think.

I've been trying to stick to strict Goodreads rating guidelines. Two stars is 'it was ok' and one is 'didn't like it'. Unfortunately they don't have one for those occasions where you truly hate something. Since I didn't like this book it pretty much had to be one star. There were things I did like about it, they just couldn't outweigh my frustrations. I dithered but couldn't see giving it more than one.

[Alana]

I pretty much use the one star as "hated it," since GR doesn't give us that option. I rarely give only one star, but when I do, boy, do I mean it! I enjoyed this one well enough, but I certainly understand those of you who didn't. It does get a bit frustrating dealing with a lot of flat characters, especially when he started them all out with so much potential for interest, whether as "good" or "bad."