Chicks On Lit discussion
Archive 08-19 GR Discussions
>
Fall of Giants Chunky Read with reading schedule
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
Irene
(new)
Nov 03, 2010 08:38AM
O Ladies, I am so, SO grateful for my reading buddies right now. I am 2/3 through this book and am ready to throw it across the room. If it were not for your support, knowing that you were reading it with me, I am not sure I would finish it. Are there no editors where Fallotte lives? How many times does he have t ell me that there is no mail service between Germany and Brittan? Is the only way to speak of stationery is to call it expensive (and occassionally creamy)? Can't anyone just write a letter without sitting down and taking ou a piece of expensive paper? I am starting to think that I am really readin a short story that no one edited. And, I am REALLY tired of pressing breasts! This guy needs a blow-up girlfriend to get, whatever it is, out of his system.
reply
|
flag
Irene wrote: "O Ladies, I am so, SO grateful for my reading buddies right now. I am 2/3 through this book and am ready to throw it across the room. If it were not for your support, knowing that you were readin..."I am with you. I have read 90% and can't take it anymore. I am taking a break and reading some Stephen King. I will finish it, eventually...The book really grabbed me at the beginning, but it has gotten away from the characters stories and gone to much too into the nations conflicts, for me.
I do like Fallet and I plan to read
The Pillars of the Earth after this one.
Elena, Thank you. At least I am not crazy, or if I am, I am not alone in my insanity. This is my first Fallett novel and I am beginning to wonder why everyone loves him and I am going crazy. I think that the emphasis on the political intrigue is because the giants which are fallin are the mighty powers of Germany, France, Austria, Russia, Brittan. He wants us to comprehend this fall. Well, who knows, maybe I am just making assumptions because, initially, I was not sure what was the giants.
Elena wrote: "Irene wrote: "O Ladies, I am so, SO grateful for my reading buddies right now. I am 2/3 through this book and am ready to throw it across the room. If it were not for your support, knowing that y..."Pillars is really good.
Irene wrote: "O Ladies, I am so, SO grateful for my reading buddies right now. I am 2/3 through this book and am ready to throw it across the room. If it were not for your support, knowing that you were readin..."I have thrown books across the room in frustration. :)
I guess throwing books is acceptable as long as it does not konk someone on the head or knock someone's tooth out. Have to make sure that I am not too hasty when I throw those books, or else my aim may be leathel.
The three women that you mention Teri are very different in character and strength. I am enjoying following the development of women in European society.As for those of you who are finding this a book not as up to par as his others, I am afraid I have to agree with it somewhat.
What is annoying me somewhat is that his historical facts are off and that is annoying.
As for Pillars it is superior in style to this, I hate admitting that!
I am very glad to hear that Meg. I want to read Pillars, but was doubting that as Iam slogging through this one. Did the acclaim of Pillars go to his head, giving him a false confidence to produce an inferior product?
I am bummed that you girls don't like it.
I like it a lot, I just don't think it compares to Pillars.
Marialyce wrote: "I am bummed that you girls don't like it."Oh I like it. It is that it is too much war in it for me. This is my first Follet book and I am impressed with him. I want to read his other books.
Well, I do feel better then. I agree, Meg, Pillars was outstanding. I am giving Follett the benefit of the doubt with this one as I know there are two others in the works. ....although someone told me there were historical inaccuracies in Pillars as well!
So sorry to disappoint...really trying to like it...maybe/probably the problem is with me...I can be so critical of everything and everyone as if I had any right to be...but he seems to resort to stock descriptions, is so repetative, and is just toopresent as an author in the writing...I need to be more appreciative of the work of others.
I am having trouble really liking the characters. I am just not extremely involved with them and that is what is bothering me.
I am really liking the story itself, but not really any of the characters. And yes, there is repetitiveness throughout the book. I haven't figured if my lack of connection with any of the characters is due to the fact that the chapters switch character stories so frequently or if its something else.
I felt a great connection to the characters in the first part of the book. But then, as I said, he goes away from the characters' stories to focus on the nation conflicts, and that is when he lost me. It was very good how he connected everybody's life through the beginning.
Does anyone feel connection with the characters? Is there one that you particularly like or empathize with?
I like Ethel. She is a strong woman and haven't have it easy. ***Spoiler****
I was very happy she married this other guy and didn't fall for Fitz when he proposed her to be lovers after he found her again. Good!!
I think that the reason I am not connecting with the characters is that he does not allow me to spend time with them without sticking his explanatory voice in the middle of it. I never feel as if there is enough time to connect before he points out some bit of cultural history. They never become living breathing beings, more like wax tableaus placed in a certain position just to teach me something.There is alo a bit of incredulity limiting my identification with characters. I am having a hard time not believing that Lev is not at the bottom of Lake Erie. True, he is arrogant and wreckless, but making out with a lounge singer in a public park immediately after he was caught by his father-in-law, and in a city where Wyalof (or however it is spelled) is head of such a large network, stretches all reason. Why does Wyalof allow himself and his daughter to be humiliated over and over again when no one would have investigated the disappearance of an insignificant Russian immigrant. That is just one example of incredulity. Maud's family's willingness to allow her to openly engage in radical politics, and even to fund her efforts, Ethel's rise to such a position of skilled leadership with her limited educational and social background, and so on.
I do like Ethel, Billy and Maud. I did not have trouble connecting with those characters, but I do admit that Fowlett is trying very hard to connect political events and the climate of the times with his characters. Perhaps, if he had chosen less characters( I read that there will be 150 characters by the end of the series) or fewer political arenas, it would have been better. I think his intent is to cover the 20th century in its entirety which is a pretty tough goal. ...and stuff was happening in this countries he has chosen to include. Made me realize what a turbulent century it was. I am hoping he will pull it together in the next novel as Hitler will (I am sure) be the focal piece in it.
In our reading for this week, there was mention of the Zimmerman telegraph (around page 622). I like to verify facts while I read, this is what I found out about it in Wikipedia:Zimmermann Telegram
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Zimmermann Telegram as it was sent from Washington to Mexico
Map showing Mexican territory in 1917 (dark green), territory promised to Mexico in the Zimmermann telegram (light green), and original Mexican territory (red line).
The Zimmermann Telegram (or Zimmermann Note; German: Zimmermann-Depesche; Spanish: Telegrama Zimmermann) was a 1917 diplomatic proposal from the German Empire to Mexico to make war against the United States. The proposal was declined by Mexico, but angered Americans and led in part to the declaration of war in April.
The message came as a coded telegram dispatched by the Foreign Secretary of the German Empire, Arthur Zimmermann, on January 16, 1917, to the German ambassador in Washington, D.C., Johann von Bernstorff, at the height of World War I. On January 19, Bernstorff, per Zimmermann's request, forwarded the telegram to the German ambassador in Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt. Zimmermann sent the telegram in anticipation of the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany on February 1, an act which German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg feared would draw the neutral United States into war on the side of the Allies.[1] The telegram instructed Ambassador Eckardt that if the United States appeared likely to enter the war, he was to approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance. He was to offer Mexico material aid in the reclamation of territory lost during the Mexican-American War (the Southeastern section of the area of the Mexican Cession of 1848) and the Gadsden Purchase, specifically the American states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Eckardt was also instructed to urge Mexico to help broker an alliance between Germany and the Japanese Empire.
The Zimmermann Telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British cryptographers of Room 40.[2] The revelation of its contents in the American press on March 1 caused public outrage that contributed to the United States' declaration of war against Germany and its allies on April 6.
Is it significant that Fall of Giants begins with the stories of Billy and Ethel Williams? Would the novel have been different if other characters’ stories opened the book, such as those of Grigori and Lev Peshkov, or Gus Dewar?
Do you enjoy reading epic novels such as this one? What makes them so appealing to readers, in your opinion?In continuation of the above question, if you had to identify one of the main characters’ stories as one that would make a good “stand-alone” novel, which would it be? Why do you think his/her story would make an enjoyable book on its own?
I think the story of Ethel would be a good stand-alone just because it is the one with more drama on it. It has all the elements of life: family (brother/parents), love and betrayal, daughter, politics, careers, friendships. I guess some of the others do to, but for some reason hers is the most down to earth story.And for that same reason, the book may not had been that engaging to begin with if the author had started with somebody's else story.
I agree that Ethel would stand alone well. I also think that Grigori would stand alone well. For that matter, so ould Lev. I think that each of these characters shw the most movement in their lives: Ethel in terms of social awareness and personal growth, Grigori in terms of political empowerment and social standing and Lev in terms of pure adventure. However, I think each of these characters in this novel could be fleshed out sufficiently to have a compelling story. However, as this story stands, we are not shown much change in Maud, Walter, Fitz, Gus, etc.As for a starting point, I think that Falett starts in the West because it wold more accessible to Americans than Russia. Older readers would have lived through the Cold War and younger readers might have little awareness of pre-Revolutionary Russia. But, England pre WWI is much like the USA at that time. Further, I suspect that Fallett is sympathetic to the libral causes. He depicts monarchs as ineffectual and a bit dim. In debates, the poorly educated Grigori, Billy and Ethel can make the far better educated and cosmopolitan opponents appear stupid, in articulate as if they consrvative spokesmen just repeat what has always been with no individual thought. By putting the Williams family at the start of the novel, he invites the reader to develop a relationship with this family of minors before they can do so with the wealthy; they become our first friend so to speak.
I think Follett started with what he knew the most about. I believe he lives in England and think he might feel an affinity towards his homeland. It also makes sense as Irene said to start with something the bulk of his readers have affinity to.I think Ethel and Grigori's stories could be a stand alone novel. There is just so much going on in their lives that make that a possibility. Of course the war is a character all in and of itself. I love the way Follett makes the telling so real, so emotional, so heart rending. The characters are real, they seem like people not wooden characters, not pieces on a game board. He gives them substance and identity and makes them important to the reader.
Meg wrote: "Is it significant that Fall of Giants begins with the stories of Billy and Ethel Williams? Would the novel have been different if other characters’ stories opened the book, such as those of Grigori..."From Follett's website: Ken Follett was born in Cardiff, Wales, on the 5th of June, 1949. His father was a tax inspector, and “now that he has retired, he does my tax returns for me”. Like many young couples bringing up a family in post-war Britain, Martin Follett and his wife Veenie were not able to provide their children with many luxuries. From a very early age, Ken was creating imaginary worlds for himself.
“My mother told me stories all the time. I don't know whether I inherited it from her or just acquired it under her influence, but by the time I was seven years old I was an imaginative child.”
Ken was also reading from a very young age. His parents were devout born-again Christians and would not allow their children to watch television or go to the cinema, and Ken found his escape in books. “With no TV or radio, and no Saturday morning pictures which all the other kids used to go to, reading was my entertainment. I didn't have many books of my own and I've always been grateful for the public library. Without free books I would not have become a voracious reader, and if you are not a reader you are not a writer."
Ken's family moved from Cardiff to London when he was ten years old, and since then he has spent most of his life in London, he speaks with a North London, rather than a Cardiff accent; “I think of myself as a Welsh Londoner”.
I think, to some extent, Follett put a lot of himself, into the character of Billy. I think he wanted us to identify with Billy too, so that we could see that families with almost nothing, had to sacrifice their sons to this war.
Thanks for that info on Follett's background. I did not realize that he was from Wales.
I don't have as many issues with the book as others are voicing. I have enjoyed it and look forward to the ones that come. I do think that the stories are stretched a bit thin in places as the author tries to work everything into the context and timing of history. And I agree that some characters require require some extra latitude from readers. It bothered me from the beginning that Maud had such knowledge of current events without the benefit of education. But all in all, it hasn't been enough to steer me off of the book. I didn't find a lot of historical inaccuracies in the book. As a matter of fact, I liked the way Follett worked the characters into the history and used the characters to support the characteristics of the different countries. For example - the descriptions of the differences between the British and the German trenches and the differences in their approaches to war and battles; -- the contrast of the orderliness, planning, research of the Germans vs. the sloppiness and egotistical lack of planning on the part of the British. I thought he worked hard to tie the causes of the beginning of the war and the reasons for losses in battle etc. to the personalities of the countries involved. It helped me to understand these nuances in a way that reading history has failed to do.
I also noticed how characters were being prepped for the part they would play in the sequel. Did you notice how Fitz has been changing into someone who is bitter and intolerant? I thought he was somewhat arrogant and snobbish at the beginning, but by the end of the book, he was totally unlikeable.
Anyway, just a few thoughts...
Think about the main characters and what place faith held in their lives. Did religion help or hinder their respective circumstances? What is the overall role of religion in Fall of Giants? Along these lines, discuss the characters who abandoned their respective faiths. What caused them to walk away from their beliefs? To what end?
I think the morals and constraints taught by religion definitely had an effect on all the characters. Frankly, though, I really didn't see its part in the novel as much as I imagined it should have been given the time period. (or perhaps it just did not strike me as so)I thought each character acted according to their own strengths or weaknesses. I might be missing something however in the religion element. I thought the war was the major impetus in the book.
Well if you look at religion and look at Ethel. Ethel's life was totally changed once she got pregnant (the first time). Her father threw her out, the town's reaction etc. All that was done because of their strong religious beliefs right?
You know sometimes, it can just be a case of a child disappointing a parent, so I guess this is what I thought with Ethel, Meg.Look how parents would disown a child when they didn't marry who the parent thought they should.
I have to admit that I did not associate Da's reaction to Ethel's pregnancy with his religion primarily. After all, Ma and Billy were also of the same faith and responded very differently. I gave the credit to his childhood experiences as the son of a single mother functioning in a morally ambiguous zone. But, in homogenious societies like turn of the century Wales, how do you separate religion from other cultural factors?
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)
