Chicks On Lit discussion
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Fall of Giants Chunky Read with reading schedule
I am finding this book hard to put down, the characters very engaging. My favorite one so far is Ethel. I am imagining Fitz being a very handsome man! I was afraid characters relationships were going to be confusing when I say the list of characters at the beginning of the book, but so far I have not have had need for it. I am somehow lost when it comes to the political games between nations (I think they start in chapter 6), but it is not taking away from enjoying the story.
What did you think of the following quote:The working class are more numerous than the ruling class, and stronger. They depend on us for everything. We provide their food and build their houses and make their clothes, and without us they die. The can't do anything unless we let them. Always remember that.(page 122)
Do you agree with this? Is this powerful? Is this true today?
Yep, I totally agree. If not for the workers where would industry be? The better your work force the better the product and so on. So, I think, times have not changed so much in that arena.
If not for the industries, where would workers work? There are not absolutes. I like how the book explains the political hierarchy in England. Very interesting.
One of the books mentioned, Meg, is Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. It was one of the books the socialists were reading (towards the end of FoG). I believe the premise is that the workers, wearing the ragged trousers, are philanthropists because they are giving their labor to companies, individuals, etc., without really benefiting. Anyone read this book?
I never heard of this book before. Have you read it?
I was searching for the release date of book 2 of this trilogy. I was spoiled by the author himself talking about the second book on an interview! Ughhh! Stay away from his interviews if you don't want to know about the future of Maud and Walter!By the way, book two will be release, hopefully in 2012, and book three in 2014
That is what I was afraid of. I hate waiting!
Meg wrote: "I never heard of this book before. Have you read it?"Ragged Trousered Philanthropists was mentioned in Fall of Giants, and it's also on the BBC 100 best loved books list, so I'll be reading it sometime. I've never heard of it either, but according to Fall of Giants, it was one of those books beloved by British socialists/Labour party members in that time period. It was written by a house painter (?) and published after his death.
O FUDGE!!! I am still 82 on the library reserve list for this book. Can't get myself to pay full price to purchase a print copy of this book. Still trying to see if I can get it in accessible format, but not yet. I may not be able to join this discussion after all.
Oooo I hope you can find it....we would love to have you
Meg wrote: "What did you think of the following quote:The working class are more numerous than the ruling class, and stronger. They depend on us for everything. We provide their food and build their houses..."
I think this quote even pertains to today's politics. What is different is that we always forget that the working class has to use it's voice to be heard and to actually BE stronger. One thing that truly inspires me about the working class(including the women too!) in this book and this time period is that they weren't afraid to USE THEIR VOICE! The loudest voice is typically the one heard (or the one with the most media coverage) and while it doesn't always work out (I mean, WW1 DID happen), sometimes it can be surprising what the outcome turns out to be (like women voting - that was CRAZY talk in the early 20th century).
(While I didn't read it quickly, I have already finished the book...it was on loan from the library! Silly due dates!)
I'm picking mine up at the library today, and will try to catch up. Right now, though, I'm trying not to peek at your discussion until I can read it! (Typing with one eye half open. . .)
I think the quote meant that there are more of them there there is of us so by the numbers they are the stronger of the two. The ruling class had to ride over the working class and kept them pretty much under foot. They were generally uneducated, poor, and stayed that way. The only way the ruling class could stay in power was by keeping them that way. If the ruling class provided the jobs and the minimum way of life, the workers should be happy. All of that changed once people started to speak out (without getting killed for it) and the working class found their voice collectively.
I agree with you Marialyce, the working class found their voice and thus the start of unions helping them. The unions struggled to be powerful, but it was the only collective way the working class could get their rights.I also agree with you Melissa in that it was great to see people have a voice and stand up for their beliefs.
OK the scene where Ethel goes home to tell her family that she is pregnant. There is a lot of old school new school in that scene. Her father's reaction, her mother's reaction to the situation, Billy's reaction and Ethel herself. Ethel is a woman ahead of her times and yet not so. I think this scene is a pivotal point for women from the author's perspective. Any thoughts?
I tink that we, as women, think "we have come a long way, baby."Unfortunately, I still think that there is a certain stigma to having a baby before being married. (not that I agree with it!)Where Ethel is concerned, even though she is a forward thinking woman, she still wants and needs the acceptance of her family. Who else would there be to help her through this experience, to share the pain and joy, etc.? Unfortunately, her father, the voice of the family, shuns her and her mother has to go along with his decision. (although she doesn't like it) Even she is trapped, in what seems to be a loving relationship with her husband, to his words, his deeds, and his actions. I think on the whole mothers are so much more forgiving to their children than fathers are. (at least in my experience)
Ethel does it on her own, is stronger for it, but eventually does reunite with her dad. Interestingly though, Ethel never admits that she is an unmarried mother and says the baby's father died in the war. Was she afraid of being socially ostracized, or is she protecting her child, or both?
I just found this yesterday, and this is great! I would love to join in. I am halfway through Pillars of the Earth, but can put that aside for another group side read I saw somewhere starting Nov. 22nd, and read this one now with you guys. Tried to get it from the library, but I'm #100 on the list, so I picked it up at Costco this morning and will get reading!
Yay, glad you can join us Maureen!for people still looking to buy it, I just saw it @ BJ's Warehouse for $19.00
Woohoo!! "Fall of Giants" just became available through Good Reads, so I am working at catching up. I read the first 100 pages so far.
Woops, can't figure out how to edit a post. Meant to say that "Fall of Giants" just became available through BookShare. Trying to do too much at the same time and getting increasingly sloppy.
Either way Irene, we are glad to have you join us!
Book One (end of Chapter 10)Maud is definitely in a difficult, conflicting position. She is a feminist, liberal and yet bound by the duties of her role in her family. She secretly wants to marry Walter but if Fitz finds out he can have her institutionalized as insane. "Wealthy upper-class men could have a female relative put away without much difficulty" Any comments? I certainly didn't know this aspect of English life back then.
Marialyce, I think Ethel pretended she was a widow to avoid being socially ostracize primarily. I don't remember her thinking about protecting her son by her decision, although, of course, she could not have provided for him if she was negated a job. It comes to show how prejudice the world was back then.Meg, about wealthy upper-class men having female relatives put away, if I don't remember wrong, that is the center of the story in The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins. It was written in the 1859 though.
I was thinking how we have come a long way in communications. Our soldiers spend over a year in the war today, and thanks to the internet and telephones, they can communicate with their family. Walter was almost 3 years without word from Maud!
I am up to chapter 28 and I had to take a break from the book. I found too much war description and longing for the author to go back to the character stories.
O, I may never catch up since I got a late start. Forgive my comments being so far behind. I just reached the scene where Grigori gives Lev his pasport and ticket. When I read of the dishonesty of the mine owners resulting in the deaths of the workers, it was bad. However, I understood that the 2 worlds were separated for so long that the workers had become depersonalized to the owners. The workers were not real. The same was true when I read of the empirical forces terrorizing the serfs. But, when brother destroyed the dreams of brother it somehow felt 100 times worse. Brutality committed by an impersonal force is enraging, disheartening, disempowering, but somehow, it does not have the power to kill the deepest part of me. But, when someone I have known, loved and protected carelessly tramples on my dreams or efforts, it wounds deeply. Not only has Lev stolen Grigori's dream, but he is putting him in the most vulnerable position since they look so much alike and the police already hate him.
You are right Irene. I hate Lev, he doesn't stop there.
I had a bad feeling about Lev, especially knowing that the Russian organized crime boss awaits him in Buffalo. I have been at a 2 day workshop and had no time to read for the past two days, but I am having a hard time wanting to pick up this book knowing that Lev will be there. I want the chance to give him a good beating and I am a pacifist steadfastly committed to nonviolence.
Every novel needs it's bad guy and I think Lev is it. His only thoughts are of and for himself. He lacks conscience and is a despicable person. He certainly is a man we learn to hate.
I think the worst thing about Lev is that he is the type of person even we might find charming. I think what's so infuriating is that we all know/are related to a Lev- someone who floats through life at the expense of others and never pays the price for it.
Is the author trying to say something abot power and powerlessness through Lev? I know that I am not very far along. However, it is clear that there is a clear tension being established between those with and those without power. In Wales, power seems to come from money. In Russia, power is military/political. WW1 is about to break out and power comes from military might, political alliences and the financial resources to purchase both. However, does Lev represent a different sort of power? And, is the author trying to say something about why the powerless remain so? Rather than working together, too often those on the bottom of the power structure work at cross purposes believing that they need to fight each other for the tiny piece of the pie available to them. Strikes work because workers stand together. Without their muscle, there is no military or financial power. The masses of people feed, clothe and shelter the tiny number of so-called powerful. But, strikes fail when others on the bottom of the social ladder accept the opportunity to make a little money, acquire a tiny bit of shelter. And, before you know it, the powerless are fighting the powerless instead of joining together to resist the "powerful". Could Lev be symbolizing the micro story that parallels the macro story of industrial strikes and military battles?
Perhaps, Irene, you are seeing something in you question. I, myself, see Lev as the antagonist, the anti hero, who gets away with his misdeeds and always seems to land on his feet (as Shay has said)Do you think that Follett is suggesting that the evildoers fight against the good and therefore create another force that allows those in control to be in control?
Does that make any sense???
I guess the author could be saying that Lev is the only type of person who could thrive in a setting like that. Someone amoral and therefore open to any opportunity regardless of risk or morality. Corruptable. If you think about it, how different is Lev from the Earl? Perhaps only the veneer of wealth, education, and class.
I am feeling guilty for being so far behind on the reading. I don't want to drag the discussion down.I am wondering who the "giants" are. Is it the world powers of Russia, England, Germany, Austria, who can think nothing of crushing weaker countries suchas Serbia and South Africa? Reading this from the vantage point of 2010, it is clear that they are about to fall from their lofty status. Are the "giants" the old noble families who seem to approach world affairs as if they are playing a game of chess? I am at the endof Part 1 and it is clear that these noble family clans are already tottering in England, not yet in the other countries being discussed. Are the "giants" the industrial mights who loom in the backdrop of every scene and whose influence is on the rise? Are the "giants" the individuals who weild power despite their personal situation: Da with his growing influence in the labor movement, Jimmy with his natural strength and heroism, Ethel who can, not only survive, but flurish, in any situation?Or are all "giants" in one way or another, each rising and falling in their time?
I read through the section on Ethel's pregnancy with the previously posed question in mind. What struck me was how circumscribed her life was by social convension, but no more so than any other person's life. Walter would appear to have access to every advantage and freedom at first glance. But his family wealth, political position, international education and even gender puts as many restrictions on his life choices as on any other character. In fact,there is a piece of me that feels that Ethel has a level of options not available to Maud because she can more easily hide and her family can be a bit more shielded from her choices.
First off, don't ever think you are dragging us down. this is open discussion, some of us read faster than others or have different things going on in their lives, while others got the book later.I was thinking the same thing about the Giants. I was wondering if it was a double entendre where they are talking about the powers and the families.
Interesting observation as to Ethel have more options that weren't available to Maud. Or do they just have different options. Maud's speech (I dont' think you are there yet Irene) had people listening, I think, more because of her position in society. If Ethel had made the speech I dont' think it would have been received the same way.
I think you are right, the options are different. No, I am not up to Maud's speech, but Grigori or Ethel could not get the attention of a Maud or Fitz. But then, Ethel or Lev can do thigs that the arostocracy can not do.On another note, I am finding the writing tedious at times. Ifeel as if Fallotte is giving too many explanatory notes that prevent the story from developing a good flow. I feel as if I am watching a museum folio with a tour guide pointing out things rather than entering the scene. Is Fallotte trying to proove how much research he did?
Sorry ladies, I'm going to have to not read this one with you. It was a 1 week borrow from the library, so I'll have to wait until it becomes a 21-day. It's too long for me to read in a week. I'll come back and read your discussion after I read the book.
Meg wrote: Do you think the portrayal of women in this reading gives inkling to the conflicts women faced at the turn of the century. If so, what are some examples? Hello Fellow Fall of Giants readers! I'm about halfway through the book and enjoying it very much.
I wanted to respond to Meg's quote above. So far there has been a good deal revealed about the conflicts women faced at the turn of the century. It is portrayed in the case of lower class women by showing how helpless they are without their husbands and how much they are also at the mercy of their husbands. Mrs. Dai Ponies highest compliment to show how good a man her husband was, was that he never raised a hand to her. Many lower class women lived in poverty, and were saddled by large families. Single women who had to work to support themselves and their families only received about half of what men made at the same job. There was no child care, and women worked sweatshop hours – 12 hours per day.
Even upper class women were at the mercy of men. Lady Maud had to have a chaperone, and women of good reputation were not allowed to go anywhere alone. They were even denied an education. Maud was an unusual woman in that she was informed about politics and both had and voiced an opinion. Most men did not even listen to women’s opinions at that time, and didn’t give them very much credibility. Maud’s list of eligible suitors dwindled because men were not interested in a woman that they could not control.
And, of course, there is the double standard that is so evident in the amorous behavior of men and women. Regardless of class, it was understood that men would have mistresses and lovers. Maybe their wives weren’t too happy about it, but it did not harm their reputation or social standing in any way. If anything, it probably enhanced their reputation. Whereas, the opposite was true for women – it could ruin their reputation, social standing, in fact, their very lives. As mentioned in the book – it was a form of control.
Elena wrote: "I was afraid characters relationships were going to be confusing when I say the list of characters at the beginning of the book, but so far I have not have had need for it. I am somehow lost when it comes to the political games between nations (I think they start in chapter 6), but it is not taking away from enjoying the story.."Same here Elena. One of the things I love about historical fiction is that it helps to make history more meaningful and to come alive. It is tempting to skim over the historical parts and get back to the story, but I try to use it to my learning advantage. I’m not very knowledgeable about WWI, so I’m taking the opportunity to learn more about it in conjunction with the book. Here’s a great site with lots of good info about WWI: http://www.firstworldwar.com/index.htm
It’s no wonder it was difficult to follow the political games between nations. From what I read, the causes of WWI were very complex since there were so many treaties and alliances between different countries – some of them even overlapping.
OK, so what did you think about the secret marriage (Maud) and how much control Fitz has on her life? It is such a dichotomy about how she is into women's rights and yet how controlled she is. on page 306 "It was going to be difficult for Maud to get out of the house alone. Like all upper-class ladies, she was not supposed to go anywhere unescorted. Men pretended this was because they were so concerned to protect their women, but in truth it was a means of control. No doubt it would remain until women won the vote."
I was surprised at the fact that a brother would have that much control on a sister. This was already the 20th century. Maybe because he controlled the money?
I think we have to look at the fact that who controlled the money, controlled the women. I was not surprised to read that Maud was a bit of a "captive" to her brother. After all, he paid for everything connected with her well being, the clothes, the parties, the house etc. All women then were beholden to the males in heir life. I believe that they couldn't even hold property in their names.
The women's ability to vote freed them in a figurative sense from being second class citizens and eventually spurred them onto being independent and allowed to stand on their own merits. I think, in a way, too, the war broke many female barriers and once that happened, women were not going back to the old days.
You have to remember that, yes, men controlled the money. Most of the wealth, especially amongst the nobility, would have been entailed to the oldest son. So, she lives on her brother's sufferance. Also, women could not get college degrees at this time. I'm not sure if they could even attend college yet. Besides, who would hire them? I believe the only two occupations open to "respectable" women was teaching and being a governess. Maud was of too high a station to do either. Keep in mind, this is in "Victorian" money, but it will give you a good idea of costs. Most governesses made only about 120 pounds a year, true their room and board was taken care of. But keep in mind that to live at the bottom rung of the middle class took 400 pounds during the Victorian era. (FoG is set not much past this era, so it should give you kind of a good idea.) So, there's no way she could have supported herself independent of her brother.
I have appreciated the lengthy sections of political intrigue. It has helped to create an atmosphere, conveying the power these ruling families held so lightly in their hands. The scene where Walter is lightly tossing the expensive ceramic as he tries to threaten his father not to prevent his marrying Maud felt as if it was a metaphore for their political dealings. These people walk around in the big picture of foreign affairs with no mention of its impact on the little people. Precious lives are held in their hands and they can use these as leverage much as Walter uses a ceramic. "When elephants fight, the grass suffers." Of course, I am sure that it is only in the framework of the big picture that foreign affairs can ever be determined.I am having more problem with the lengthy explicit sex scenes. They add nothing to the story for me. I better understand the relationship between the genders and classes outside of the bedroom than in it. I really could have done without Walter and Maud in the library stacks. At times it feels like soft porn. I do not mind sex in a novel, I mind sex for entertainment purposes and that is what this feels like.
One scene that really caught my attention was the Christmas battlefield sceen. Of course, it was made famous in the folk song with a very different feel. The conversation between Fitz and Walter was quite striking. Here are two friends, obviously very familiar with one another, discussing how the fratranizing between their troops had to be stopped for fear the men would not want to kill each other in the morning. The irony between their concern and their relationship is almost humorous, it is so ridiculous.
I don't think that is just women who are kept in bounds by financial dependence. The miners are controled by the mine owners. If Fitz had younger brothers, I think they would have been restricted. Walter is just as controlled by Otto as Maud by Fitz. If Walter violates his father's wishes and is disowned, he has no more respectible options than would Maud if disowned by Fitz. In part, such familial control of money limited the options of dependent members. But, it also ensured the power of those families. Maybe, the individual was sacrificed for the whole. In the US with different inheritance expectations and greater individual freedom, we have witnessed powerful families brought low by the misconduct of individuals. I agree that this is a financialissue and not a gender issue specifcally. Ethel is not under the control of her father or brother except for the normal emotional ties exerted in every family. I appreciate that this story does not portray the male characters as brutes. For all the comments about male power over women, it is also clear that the men do not exploit these legal options. Da does not beat his wife or pregnant daughter. Cara stands between her husband and son, both strong miners, and they back down. Maud has to sneak out of the house to marry Walter, but Walter also has to sneak around. And, Maud has her London house from which she could have come and gone with relative ease had she wanted to meet secretly with Walter for a marriage. Fallotte creates artificial scenarios to highten social tension when it furthers his point and ignores them when it does not. The one surprise for me was the relative acceptability of Robert's homosexuality. I did not realize that homosexual relationships was treated with such casualness. We seem to have greater misgivings about it today.
The battlefield scene was pretty remarkable. It is a pity that they couldn't have all sat down and reached agreements without battles after that. As for economic ties. I agree with what you are saying mostly except when Maud was in fear of being committed to an insane institution if her brother found out. I think that went beyond the financial burden. Also, when Ethel was thrown out of the house and "dead" to the family because she was pregnant. Again, I believe that was beyond the financial controls.
My big questions about women voting. I am finding it hard to understand. Was England going through women's sufferage at the exact same time as USA? Women got the right to vote in America 1919-1920, was it concurrent with England? I somehow don't remember that from my history classes.
As for the homosexuality, that was quite surprising to me as well.
I am not sure that the patriarch in any family could not have had that power over any individual in the family that did not conform, male or female. I read Tinkers this summer. In it, the wife has the power to similarly institutionalize her epoleptic husband who does not meet her expectations of a husband. There is no indication in that book that her motivation is his health needs. That book takes place in New England around the same time. As for Ethel being kicked out of the house, I think Da would have just as easily have done the same to Jimmy if he violated family morals. Had Da been dead and Cara a widow, she would have had the same authority unless she became a dependant in her son or son-in-laws house as the grandfather was.
The Effect of Militancy In the British Suffragette MovementMarcie Kligman, RMHS '96
The ideal for women at the turn of the century in Great Britain was to maintain a composed facade, a delicate and demure manner, and a distaste for all things violent. This ideal did not allow for breaking street lamps, destroying golf courses, shattering windows, setting arson to palaces, destroying works of art, and fist-fighting with policemen. Frustrated with a sidestepping government, a majority of the suffragettes of Great Britain eventually turned to such militant measures in order to campaign for women's rights and, especially, women's voting rights. Although these extreme measures in the short term delayed the implementation of women's suffrage, combined with the increased respect women received during World War I, the passionate protests actually helped ensure the granting of suffrage to women in Great Britain in January of 1918.
Chicks On Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
The Pillars of the Earth (other topics)The Woman in White (other topics)
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (other topics)
Rebecca, I am not good on elevators either! I guess I am the wimpy one here.