What do you think?
Rate this book
The Century Trilogy #1
Fall of Giants
This is an epic of love, hatred, war and revolution. This is a huge novel that follows five families through the world-shaking dramas of the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the struggle for votes for women.It is 1911. The Coronation Day of King George V. The Williams, a Welsh coal-mining family is linked by romance and enmity to the Fitzherberts, aristocratic coal-mine owners. Lady Maud Fitzherbert falls in love with Walter von Ulrich, a spy at the German Embassy in London. Their destiny is entangled with that of an ambitious young aide to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and to two orphaned Russian brothers, whose plans to emigrate to America fall foul of war, conscription and revolution. In a plot of unfolding drama and intriguing complexity, "Fall Of Giants" moves seamlessly from Washington to St Petersburg, from the dirt and danger of a coal mine to the glittering chandeliers of a palace, from the corridors of power to the bedrooms of the mighty.
985 pages, Hardcover
First published September 28, 2010
About the author
Ken Follett
479 books55.9k followersKen Follett is one of the world’s most successful authors. Over 170 million copies of the 36 books he has written have been sold in over 80 countries and in 33 languages.
Born on June 5th, 1949 in Cardiff, Wales, the son of a tax inspector, Ken was educated at state schools and went on to graduate from University College, London, with an Honours degree in Philosophy – later to be made a Fellow of the College in 1995.
He started his career as a reporter, first with his hometown newspaper the South Wales Echo and then with the London Evening News. Subsequently, he worked for a small London publishing house, Everest Books, eventually becoming Deputy Managing Director.
Ken’s first major success came with the publication of Eye of the Needle in 1978. A World War II thriller set in England, this book earned him the 1979 Edgar Award for Best Novel from the Mystery Writers of America. It remains one of Ken’s most popular books.
In 1989, Ken’s epic novel about the building of a medieval cathedral, The Pillars of the Earth, was published. It reached number one on best-seller lists everywhere and was turned into a major television series produced by Ridley Scott, which aired in 2010. World Without End, the sequel to The Pillars of the Earth, proved equally popular when it was published in 2007.
Ken’s new book, The Evening and the Morning, will be published in September 2020. It is a prequel to The Pillars of the Earth and is set around the year 1,000, when Kingsbridge was an Anglo-Saxon settlement threatened by Viking invaders.
Ken has been active in numerous literacy charities and was president of Dyslexia Action for ten years. He was chair of the National Year of Reading, a joint initiative between government and businesses. He is also active in many Stevenage charities and is President of the Stevenage Community Trust and Patron of Home-Start Hertfordshire.
Ken, who loves music almost as much as he loves books, is an enthusiastic bass guitar player. He lives in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, with his wife Barbara, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Stevenage. Between them they have five children, six grandchildren and two Labradors.
Born on June 5th, 1949 in Cardiff, Wales, the son of a tax inspector, Ken was educated at state schools and went on to graduate from University College, London, with an Honours degree in Philosophy – later to be made a Fellow of the College in 1995.
He started his career as a reporter, first with his hometown newspaper the South Wales Echo and then with the London Evening News. Subsequently, he worked for a small London publishing house, Everest Books, eventually becoming Deputy Managing Director.
Ken’s first major success came with the publication of Eye of the Needle in 1978. A World War II thriller set in England, this book earned him the 1979 Edgar Award for Best Novel from the Mystery Writers of America. It remains one of Ken’s most popular books.
In 1989, Ken’s epic novel about the building of a medieval cathedral, The Pillars of the Earth, was published. It reached number one on best-seller lists everywhere and was turned into a major television series produced by Ridley Scott, which aired in 2010. World Without End, the sequel to The Pillars of the Earth, proved equally popular when it was published in 2007.
Ken’s new book, The Evening and the Morning, will be published in September 2020. It is a prequel to The Pillars of the Earth and is set around the year 1,000, when Kingsbridge was an Anglo-Saxon settlement threatened by Viking invaders.
Ken has been active in numerous literacy charities and was president of Dyslexia Action for ten years. He was chair of the National Year of Reading, a joint initiative between government and businesses. He is also active in many Stevenage charities and is President of the Stevenage Community Trust and Patron of Home-Start Hertfordshire.
Ken, who loves music almost as much as he loves books, is an enthusiastic bass guitar player. He lives in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, with his wife Barbara, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Stevenage. Between them they have five children, six grandchildren and two Labradors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 16,523 reviews
April 17, 2014
It's a little disappointing that people are rating this book on Amazon out of protest of its price. It's low rating does not give the book the recognition it deserves. This is my first Ken Follett novel, and I am hooked. I've read where some people have not been that interested in the subject matter of Fall of Giants and prefer the Middle Ages. I'm fascinated with 20th Century history, so this is right down my alley.
This novel covers the years of WWI and the Russian Revolution and follows 5 families. Their stories all connect at some point. While you invest in the characters, the story is plot driven and moves pretty swiftly through the years. There are times that a character may be left for a year before we hear from him again. But you don't feel like you're missing any crucial information.
My favorite portions were before and after the war. There is quite a bit of battlefield sections in the middle. They are well written, but I am more interested in the people than military tactics.
I was surprised at how quickly this book reads. Despite it's huge size, you can read it pretty quickly if you have the time to devote to it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this.
My Review of Winter of the World
This novel covers the years of WWI and the Russian Revolution and follows 5 families. Their stories all connect at some point. While you invest in the characters, the story is plot driven and moves pretty swiftly through the years. There are times that a character may be left for a year before we hear from him again. But you don't feel like you're missing any crucial information.
My favorite portions were before and after the war. There is quite a bit of battlefield sections in the middle. They are well written, but I am more interested in the people than military tactics.
I was surprised at how quickly this book reads. Despite it's huge size, you can read it pretty quickly if you have the time to devote to it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this.
My Review of Winter of the World
February 7, 2020
“Men were the only animals that slaughtered their own kind by the million, and turned the landscape into a waste of shell craters and barbed wire. Perhaps the human race would wipe itself out completely, and leave the world to the birds and trees… Perhaps that would be for the best…”
- Ken Follett, Fall of Giants
This book is utter trash.
Is that too harsh? Let me rephrase.
This book is a steaming pile of garbage.
Still a bit mean?
It doesn’t matter. Ken Follett does not give a whit. His editor and publisher do not care. His accountant certainly is indifferent to this complaint.
It’s not that Ken Follett is critic proof, because that implies that he achieves astronomical sales figures despite scathing reviews. That’s not the case. Rather, he achieves those astronomical sales with the apathetic approbation of critics usually quick to slash and burn.
Ken Follett cannot be criticized. He is covered in Teflon, Kevlar, and Valyrian steel. Book reviewers understand this and have given up.
Still, it needs to be said. This book is awful. And I don’t care that Ken Follett can’t hear me because his ear canals are plugged with diamonds.
Moving on.
Let us start with what Ken Follett is not. He is not a poet. He is not a short story writer. He does not craft literary fiction. He doesn’t even do thrillers anymore. Instead, Ken Follett writes dumbbell-sized works of historical fiction that manage to be simultaneously prodigiously researched and absolutely inauthentic.
What is Ken Follett? Ken Follett is a wizard. He is an alchemist. He takes magic beans, plants them in fallow earth, and grows trees that shed money. He turns charcoal into diamonds, iron into gold; he sleeps in a room built from emeralds, and blows his nose in the finest silk. His ingredients are horrible characters, lack of psychological insight, lumbering plots, and striking coincidences. He mixes all these into 1,000 pages and creates a bestseller.
Ken Follett has entered into a dark pact. I’m sure of it.
To be fair, Fall of Giants does not aspire to be great, National Book Award-contending literary fiction. Ken Follett does not want to be Jonathan Franzen; he doesn't even want to be John Jakes.
There isn't a very high bar for this kind of book. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine any bar that Fall of Giants actually hurdles. It’s not good fiction, it’s not good literary historical fiction (ala War and Peace), and it’s not good historical fiction. Ken Follett makes Herman Wouk read like Proust, and Terry C. Johnson appear as Dostoyevsky.
Fall of Giants is the first in a proposed “Century Trilogy.” It is an ambitious undertaking, I’ll grant, and I’d be far more excited if a different author’s name was above the lame, innocuous title. Instead, there are at least 2,000 more pages of inanities to come. [Cue Ken Follett’s accountant planning a new addition to his house].
The plot of the first installment is easily summarized: it’s World War I.
Literally.
The historical realities dictate everything that happens in this novel. Follett has taken the historical timeline and plugged it with so-called “characters” meant to give real-life events human-sized drama. You will find more drama, however, on any Wikipedia page.
Not that Follett isn’t straining for drama. He certainly is. As the excerpt up top shows, he wants us to know that this big book is important.
These turbulent years – somehow made exceedingly boring with Follett’s paralyzing touch – are viewed through the eyes of five interrelated families. It would be a stretch to call these characters archetypes. The words “cardboard cutout,” “tired clichés,” and “hopelessly derivative” are much more apt. Nothing happens or unfolds or is said that hasn’t happened, unfolded, or been said better in other books or movies. There is no wit, warmth, or ingenuity to be found. The only surprise is that Follett does exactly what you expect him to, every single time.
Take, for instance, Earl Fitzherbert, the English Lord of the Manor. Take a wild guess what he’s like. Conservative. Check. Insufferable. Check. Against suffrage. Check. Sleeping with his maid. Check.
You might not believe it, but there’s also star-crossed lovers! Yes, I know, you didn’t think he’d pull the whole German man in love with a British woman bit (so daring!). But this is Follett. He does it. And if you also surmised that this German man will be suspiciously anti-imperial (no spiked helmet or pointy mustache here!), you are also on the money.
Or what about the Williams family? They’re Welsh. They’re coalminers. As though – in Follett’s world – there is a difference. Also, you know they’re Welsh because the son, Billy, calls his dad “Da.” I stand in awe of the research it must have taken to uncover that nugget of detail.
The use of “Da” and “Dai” is the extent of the Welsh idioms employed by the Williams family. It is the extent of the use of any idioms, really. Every character, whether English or Welsh or Russian or American or German speaks in the exact same way: unconvincingly. That is, they converse in robotic monotones meant to deliver historical exposition to keep us moving down the timeline toward the sequel. There is never a moment when two characters share original thoughts, insights, or profundities. I found no evidence, on the basis of the many interactions and conversations that occur, that anyone in this novel is a human being.
Take, for instance, an exchange between Gus and Rosa. Gus works for President Wilson. He won’t let you forget about that, because it’s all he talks about. He also has a big head. Rosa has one eye. That is the extent of their characterizations:
God forbid, indeed. SPOILER ALERT. Gus and Rosa’s big-headed one-eyed children will have to fight another “world war.” If there’s a more awkward and clumsy way to set up the next book, I frankly really, really, really want to read it. For humor’s sake.
Everything about Follett’s recreated world seems fake. It’s like a studio back-lot for a western movie: everything is a façade, with no actual dimensions. Every location, from England to Germany to Russia to the United States feels exactly the same.
Follett’s research is a facile gilding. In Pillars of the Earth and World Without End, Follett demonstrated his inability to create memorable personages or write convincing dialogue. Yet he also did a marvelous job cramming period-specific detail into the story. I still shudder to think about medieval bread, thanks to Follett’s meticulous recounting of how it was made. Nothing like that level of detail is present here. Instead, famous events are often passed off in the form of exposition. Towards the end of the novel, there is a nice little scene showing rampant inflation in postwar Germany. This small, intimate, anecdotal moment, shows Follett at his best, working his research into his larger story. Mostly, though, things like Gallieni’s “Taxis of the Marne” and the rise of Lenin and Trotsky come through in clunky dialogues.
Historical fiction gives you the chance to breathe new life into actual people. Follett decides to ignore this opportunity completely. Despite walk-on roles by dozens of famous people, none of them is given even the hint of a spark. I'm not asking for something along the lines of Tolstoy's creative realization of Napoleon. But you have to do more than simply mention Sir Edward Grey's name and expect me to swoon at the verisimilitude.
One of the odder things I’ve noticed about Follett is his inability to write a big set piece. His earlier work (Eye of the Needle, Night Over Water) showed him to be a precise plotter of containable dramas. Since he’s expanded his tableaus, however, he has lost his sure grip. I compare it to a movie director like Kevin Smith (director of small budget, dialogue-centric films) directing a big action movie. Follett just can’t do it. His battle scenes are silly and empty and fake. His big Russian Revolution moments are a confusing mess.
And don’t even get me started on the bad sex scenes. There’s only one! I used to be able to count on Follett to prepare three or four euphemism-free adult encounters that would leave me searching for a bottle of wine and a pack of cigs. Not here. As Follett has reached his widest audiences yet, he seems to have toned down his erotic impulses. All we get is a handjob during an opera. That’s a shame.
Perhaps the only interesting thing about this novel is its unusual political undercurrents. Generally, I think most people still hew to the Germans-were-the-aggressors-and-the-Allies-were-the-heroes line of World War I. (That casting is one of the consequences for Germany's actions in World War II). Follett takes a different tact, lingering on Great Britain's questionable decision to enter the war. His recollections of Unions and workers’ revolutions is also generally favorable, though I doubt the masses realize they are reading their fake-history with a leftist slant. (This is not a political hot-take. The slant isn’t bothersome, it’s just interesting. Rather, it would have been interesting in a more lively, well-written, coherent novel).
This has been a rather negative review, so I will say two nice things:
First, I appreciate that Follett always tries to find actual roles for his women. They are just as poorly-realized and one-dimensional (half-dimensional?) as everyone else, but they’re never window dressing.
Second, Follett’s books go down easy. I think they are horrible in every objective, measurable way. Despite this, they are also fun to read. To me, the horribleness is even a bit endearing. Heck, another extremely graphic sex scene or two, and this might’ve earned another star.
And there’s no way I’m missing the sequel.
(EDIT: It has been many years, dear reader, and time has flowed on down the river. It now occurs to me that there is every possibility that I am missing the sequel. Life is just too short to read huge novels due solely to their unintentional hilarity).
- Ken Follett, Fall of Giants
This book is utter trash.
Is that too harsh? Let me rephrase.
This book is a steaming pile of garbage.
Still a bit mean?
It doesn’t matter. Ken Follett does not give a whit. His editor and publisher do not care. His accountant certainly is indifferent to this complaint.
It’s not that Ken Follett is critic proof, because that implies that he achieves astronomical sales figures despite scathing reviews. That’s not the case. Rather, he achieves those astronomical sales with the apathetic approbation of critics usually quick to slash and burn.
Ken Follett cannot be criticized. He is covered in Teflon, Kevlar, and Valyrian steel. Book reviewers understand this and have given up.
Still, it needs to be said. This book is awful. And I don’t care that Ken Follett can’t hear me because his ear canals are plugged with diamonds.
Moving on.
Let us start with what Ken Follett is not. He is not a poet. He is not a short story writer. He does not craft literary fiction. He doesn’t even do thrillers anymore. Instead, Ken Follett writes dumbbell-sized works of historical fiction that manage to be simultaneously prodigiously researched and absolutely inauthentic.
What is Ken Follett? Ken Follett is a wizard. He is an alchemist. He takes magic beans, plants them in fallow earth, and grows trees that shed money. He turns charcoal into diamonds, iron into gold; he sleeps in a room built from emeralds, and blows his nose in the finest silk. His ingredients are horrible characters, lack of psychological insight, lumbering plots, and striking coincidences. He mixes all these into 1,000 pages and creates a bestseller.
Ken Follett has entered into a dark pact. I’m sure of it.
To be fair, Fall of Giants does not aspire to be great, National Book Award-contending literary fiction. Ken Follett does not want to be Jonathan Franzen; he doesn't even want to be John Jakes.
There isn't a very high bar for this kind of book. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine any bar that Fall of Giants actually hurdles. It’s not good fiction, it’s not good literary historical fiction (ala War and Peace), and it’s not good historical fiction. Ken Follett makes Herman Wouk read like Proust, and Terry C. Johnson appear as Dostoyevsky.
Fall of Giants is the first in a proposed “Century Trilogy.” It is an ambitious undertaking, I’ll grant, and I’d be far more excited if a different author’s name was above the lame, innocuous title. Instead, there are at least 2,000 more pages of inanities to come. [Cue Ken Follett’s accountant planning a new addition to his house].
The plot of the first installment is easily summarized: it’s World War I.
Literally.
The historical realities dictate everything that happens in this novel. Follett has taken the historical timeline and plugged it with so-called “characters” meant to give real-life events human-sized drama. You will find more drama, however, on any Wikipedia page.
Not that Follett isn’t straining for drama. He certainly is. As the excerpt up top shows, he wants us to know that this big book is important.
These turbulent years – somehow made exceedingly boring with Follett’s paralyzing touch – are viewed through the eyes of five interrelated families. It would be a stretch to call these characters archetypes. The words “cardboard cutout,” “tired clichés,” and “hopelessly derivative” are much more apt. Nothing happens or unfolds or is said that hasn’t happened, unfolded, or been said better in other books or movies. There is no wit, warmth, or ingenuity to be found. The only surprise is that Follett does exactly what you expect him to, every single time.
Take, for instance, Earl Fitzherbert, the English Lord of the Manor. Take a wild guess what he’s like. Conservative. Check. Insufferable. Check. Against suffrage. Check. Sleeping with his maid. Check.
You might not believe it, but there’s also star-crossed lovers! Yes, I know, you didn’t think he’d pull the whole German man in love with a British woman bit (so daring!). But this is Follett. He does it. And if you also surmised that this German man will be suspiciously anti-imperial (no spiked helmet or pointy mustache here!), you are also on the money.
Or what about the Williams family? They’re Welsh. They’re coalminers. As though – in Follett’s world – there is a difference. Also, you know they’re Welsh because the son, Billy, calls his dad “Da.” I stand in awe of the research it must have taken to uncover that nugget of detail.
The use of “Da” and “Dai” is the extent of the Welsh idioms employed by the Williams family. It is the extent of the use of any idioms, really. Every character, whether English or Welsh or Russian or American or German speaks in the exact same way: unconvincingly. That is, they converse in robotic monotones meant to deliver historical exposition to keep us moving down the timeline toward the sequel. There is never a moment when two characters share original thoughts, insights, or profundities. I found no evidence, on the basis of the many interactions and conversations that occur, that anyone in this novel is a human being.
Take, for instance, an exchange between Gus and Rosa. Gus works for President Wilson. He won’t let you forget about that, because it’s all he talks about. He also has a big head. Rosa has one eye. That is the extent of their characterizations:
“I’m sorry,” [Rosa] said. “For you, for me, for the world.” She paused, then said: “What will you do?”
“I’d like to join a Washington law firm specializing in international law. I’ve got some relevant experience, after all.”
“I should think they’ll be lining up to offer you a job. And perhaps some future president will want your help.”
He smiled. Sometimes she had an unrealistically high opinion of him. “And what about you?”
“I love what I’m doing. I hope I can carry on covering the White House.”
“Would you like to have children?”
“Yes!”
“So would I…I just hope Wilson is wrong about them…He says they will have to fight another world war.”
“God forbid,” Rosa said fervently.
God forbid, indeed. SPOILER ALERT. Gus and Rosa’s big-headed one-eyed children will have to fight another “world war.” If there’s a more awkward and clumsy way to set up the next book, I frankly really, really, really want to read it. For humor’s sake.
Everything about Follett’s recreated world seems fake. It’s like a studio back-lot for a western movie: everything is a façade, with no actual dimensions. Every location, from England to Germany to Russia to the United States feels exactly the same.
Follett’s research is a facile gilding. In Pillars of the Earth and World Without End, Follett demonstrated his inability to create memorable personages or write convincing dialogue. Yet he also did a marvelous job cramming period-specific detail into the story. I still shudder to think about medieval bread, thanks to Follett’s meticulous recounting of how it was made. Nothing like that level of detail is present here. Instead, famous events are often passed off in the form of exposition. Towards the end of the novel, there is a nice little scene showing rampant inflation in postwar Germany. This small, intimate, anecdotal moment, shows Follett at his best, working his research into his larger story. Mostly, though, things like Gallieni’s “Taxis of the Marne” and the rise of Lenin and Trotsky come through in clunky dialogues.
Historical fiction gives you the chance to breathe new life into actual people. Follett decides to ignore this opportunity completely. Despite walk-on roles by dozens of famous people, none of them is given even the hint of a spark. I'm not asking for something along the lines of Tolstoy's creative realization of Napoleon. But you have to do more than simply mention Sir Edward Grey's name and expect me to swoon at the verisimilitude.
One of the odder things I’ve noticed about Follett is his inability to write a big set piece. His earlier work (Eye of the Needle, Night Over Water) showed him to be a precise plotter of containable dramas. Since he’s expanded his tableaus, however, he has lost his sure grip. I compare it to a movie director like Kevin Smith (director of small budget, dialogue-centric films) directing a big action movie. Follett just can’t do it. His battle scenes are silly and empty and fake. His big Russian Revolution moments are a confusing mess.
And don’t even get me started on the bad sex scenes. There’s only one! I used to be able to count on Follett to prepare three or four euphemism-free adult encounters that would leave me searching for a bottle of wine and a pack of cigs. Not here. As Follett has reached his widest audiences yet, he seems to have toned down his erotic impulses. All we get is a handjob during an opera. That’s a shame.
Perhaps the only interesting thing about this novel is its unusual political undercurrents. Generally, I think most people still hew to the Germans-were-the-aggressors-and-the-Allies-were-the-heroes line of World War I. (That casting is one of the consequences for Germany's actions in World War II). Follett takes a different tact, lingering on Great Britain's questionable decision to enter the war. His recollections of Unions and workers’ revolutions is also generally favorable, though I doubt the masses realize they are reading their fake-history with a leftist slant. (This is not a political hot-take. The slant isn’t bothersome, it’s just interesting. Rather, it would have been interesting in a more lively, well-written, coherent novel).
This has been a rather negative review, so I will say two nice things:
First, I appreciate that Follett always tries to find actual roles for his women. They are just as poorly-realized and one-dimensional (half-dimensional?) as everyone else, but they’re never window dressing.
Second, Follett’s books go down easy. I think they are horrible in every objective, measurable way. Despite this, they are also fun to read. To me, the horribleness is even a bit endearing. Heck, another extremely graphic sex scene or two, and this might’ve earned another star.
And there’s no way I’m missing the sequel.
(EDIT: It has been many years, dear reader, and time has flowed on down the river. It now occurs to me that there is every possibility that I am missing the sequel. Life is just too short to read huge novels due solely to their unintentional hilarity).
October 10, 2015
One of the early reviews I read stated that this book lacked one of Follett's infamous villains. I disagree. The ultimate villain in this enormous book is clearly war and perhaps the arrogance of world leaders.
I've always had a difficult time understanding the why surrounding World War 1 and this book helps put it in perspective (even if it is fiction). I remember learning in history class that the US got involved because the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania. And it did play a part, but that happened in 1915 and the US didn't declare war on Germany until late-1917/early-1918. I STILL don't understand why Germany got all the blame...wasn't it the Austria-Hungary Empire that started the war for NOT backing down to a fight with Serbia?! Obviously, WW1 was fought because a bunch of arrogant world leaders didn't want to look weak. Looking back, they all look like spineless jerks that killed millions of people because they wanted to "rule the world". By destroying the German economic system after all the fighting was done, they helped Hitler gain power and kill millions more in WW2. Way to go early-20th century world leaders...thanks for all the memories.
I really enjoyed this book and think it's worth it for everyone to read! While the beginning was a little slow (primarily because of all the character introduction required), it picked up speed and was difficult to put down (despite how heavy it was)!
If you liked this, try John Jakes' North and South trilogy. I really think that Fall of Giants is for the 20th century what North and South was for the Civil War.
Review of Book 2: Winter of the World
I've always had a difficult time understanding the why surrounding World War 1 and this book helps put it in perspective (even if it is fiction). I remember learning in history class that the US got involved because the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania. And it did play a part, but that happened in 1915 and the US didn't declare war on Germany until late-1917/early-1918. I STILL don't understand why Germany got all the blame...wasn't it the Austria-Hungary Empire that started the war for NOT backing down to a fight with Serbia?! Obviously, WW1 was fought because a bunch of arrogant world leaders didn't want to look weak. Looking back, they all look like spineless jerks that killed millions of people because they wanted to "rule the world". By destroying the German economic system after all the fighting was done, they helped Hitler gain power and kill millions more in WW2. Way to go early-20th century world leaders...thanks for all the memories.
I really enjoyed this book and think it's worth it for everyone to read! While the beginning was a little slow (primarily because of all the character introduction required), it picked up speed and was difficult to put down (despite how heavy it was)!
If you liked this, try John Jakes' North and South trilogy. I really think that Fall of Giants is for the 20th century what North and South was for the Civil War.
Review of Book 2: Winter of the World
April 2, 2018
ينصحني أبي دائما أن من يقرأ الجغرافيا،التاريخ والأحداث السياسية هو مثقفا بحق
فماذا عن رواية تمزج بين الجغرافيا السياسية واﻷحداث التاريخية مع دراما متميزة وشخصيات متعددة
ثلاثية القرن العشرين لكين فوليت ثلاثية ضخمة اﻷحداث والدراما ،صراعات الدول وثوراتها وحروبها
لوردات بريطانيا بغطرستهم وبيوتهم الضخمة والخدم، مناجم الفحم وثورة العمال، والمطالبات بحقوق المرأة
اﻷلمان وقرارات الحرب المتسرعة التي قد تقضي علي كل شئ..من قصص حب فردية حتي علاقاتهم بالدول
إستبداد القيصر الروسي وحكومته وشرطته الفاسدة، رغبة الروس في الهجرة لأمريكا لصعوبة العيش
أمريكا وصراعتها مع المكسيك من أجل البترول..وتحالفاتها من أجل مصالحها
ثم تأتي حرب العمالقة
الحرب العالمية العظمي التي تندلع شراراتها ﻷهون اﻷسباب ، لتأكل نيرانها خيرة الرجال
وكأن الشعوب بحاجة لسبب أخر ليزيد فقرهم ليلقي القياصرة والحكومات الإستبدادية بمحكوميهم وأموالهم لسعار نار الحرب
حرب بمجرد أندلاعها ستنسي أسباب شرارات أندلاعها من الأساس...هذه هي الحرب
تندلع الثورة الروسية..يسقط يسقط حكم القيصر، عيش ، سلام ، أرض. ..ألم ينبغي أن ينادوا بالحرية ايضا
والحرب تزداد أشتعالا بين ألمانيا , أنجلترا , روسيا وفرنسا وملايين الشباب يلقون مصرعهم في حرب بلا معني
حتي الرئيس اﻷمريكي ويلسون يجد ذريعته لينضم للحرب العظمي، ليلقي بما يزيد عن مليون شاب أمريكي لنيرانها
كل هذا تتابعه ، تتعرف عن حيوات شخصيات من أماكن مختلفة؛ من ويلز وأنجلترا، ألمانيا والنمسا، روسيا وأمريكا
لتتابع كيف تغير وجه التاريخ للعالم ... كيف حتي تغيرت جغرافيته السياسية
كيف صعدت دول وسقطت امبراطوريات...وفي اطار درامي كيف تصعد شخصيات وتهبط اخري
شخصيات من طبقات مختلفة ؛ آيريل، لوردات وأميرات، خدم قصور وعمال مناجم، عمال وعاملات مصانع مختلفة، دبلوماسيين، رؤساء اتحاد العمال، ثوريين، شرطة فاسدة,رجال أعمال, صحفيين
بالأضافة إلي شخصيات حقيقية سياسية ؛ الرئيس اﻷمريكي ووردر ويلسون ، جورج للويد رئيس الوزراء الليبرالي اﻷنجليزي ، تشرشل ، لينين ، وأول ظهور لهتلر و ستالين
كل هذا في الكتاب اﻷول من تلك الثلاثية ، ثلاثية القرن العشرين
****************************
اولا دعوني اعترف اني لا أهوي اﻷفلام الحربية بل وأمقت معظمها، لم أعرف الكثير عن الحرب العالمية اﻷولي سوي انهم اطلقوا عليها العظمي لانهم لم يدركوا وقتها ان الثانية قادمة ، والحرب العالمية الثانية كانت بسبب رغبة هتلر في اﻷنتقام من اليهود وباقي العالم
ولا أحتاج لأن أعترف أني لا أهوي قراءة روايات ضخمة لا تحتوي علي تلويح بالعصا السحرية ، أو تنينا قابعا في مكان ما، او جريمة قتل غامضة تحركها أمور خارقة للطبيعة، بالتأكيد كل أصدقائي والمتابعين يعرفون ذلك جيدا عني
And I have to admit that I only got this box set as a deal price on amazon just cause it's looks pretty elegant, and I'm a collector as you may know..
ولكن نجح كين فوليت جدا وبأسلوب بسيط أن يجعلني أتابع اﻷحداث الدرامية والسياسية بتمازج غريب في سلاسته وفي نفس الوقت بأثارة ومعايشة حقيقية للأحداث
الشخصيات للوهلة الاولي -ربع الرواية اﻷول- تبدو سهل التنبوء بمصائرهم، وبالرغم من أنك قد تكتشف في نهاية الكتاب اﻷول أن بعضا من تنبؤاتك قد أصابت ، ألا ان الأحداث من بعد الربع الأول من الرواية كانت مثيرة ومتشابكة وقوية فعلا
وستجد أن كثير من تنبوءاتك ضاعت مع تشابك الأحداث
وبإندلاع الحرب العالمية العظمي تتعرف علي روابط تهدم وأخري توصل ، كما ستتعرف علي كل مقدمات الحرب السياسية و غباء الحكومات والملوك....عمالقة بداية للقرن العشرين، وحربهم التي ستؤدي لسقوط الكثير منهم
اﻷجزاء الدرامية مثيرة لان الشخصيات سهل الشعور بها والتعاطف معها ، والشخصيات السياسية الحقيقية كان ظهورها بحساب...فلا تكن باهتة ولا مبالغ في أفعالها وأقوالها
-وقد حرص المؤلف علي الاشارة ان ظهورهم كان بناء علي نمط حياتهم الحقيقية من اكثر من مرجع، كما ان كل قراراتهم وخطبهم السياسية حقيقية من كتب التاريخ ، فقط تم اختصارها لتناسب الاحداث ومزج شخصيات الرواية الغير حقيقية في الاحداث-
*********************
-- العمالقة والجنس --
ما يعيب اﻷحداث هو أمر واحد، وصف الجنس بين بعض شخصيات الرواية بوضوح ودقة مبالغ فيها حيث انها تحتل مثلا صفحتان بلا داعي...لم يتكرر اﻷمر كثيرا علي كل حال ﻷنقص من التقييم كعادتي ، كما لم يكن فجا كالمتبع بروايات عربيا مثلا...وأنما كان واضحا بألفاظ لائقة نوعا كأنه فيلما ثقافيا تعليميا في بعض الاحيان -اﻷنجليز-
والعواقب بهذه الاحداث في الحالات غير الشرعية غالبا ماتكون عادلة
*********************
الثورات والحروب
وصف ثورة عمال المنجم بويلز كان ممتازا ، كأنك تشاهد النسخة الواقعية من 'ألعاب المجاعات' ، بينما وصف الثورة الروسية في مارس 1918 كان غاية في الدقة ومشابها لحد كبير كيفية اندلاع ثورة مصر في يناير 2011
بالرغم من أن -وعلي غير العادة بانسبة لقصص الحروب- أعجبني وبشدة متابعة تسلسل شرارات الحرب والقرارات السياسية والاسماء ومتابعة أماكن الدول المتصارعة علي الخريطة المطبوعة بأول الكتاب -ألم أقل لكم أنها تفيد في دراسة الجغرافيا أيضا- وتعلمت الكثير من أماكن بعض الدول التي لم أكن أعرف موقعها بدقة في أوروبا، وأيضا المصطلحات السياسية والجماعات كالبلوتريا ، اليسار والمحافظين و الليبراليين و الأشتراكية الثورية و و و
هذا غير الخطوط الأساسية السياسية والتي لحظي تم وضع أيضا ملخص لها في بوستر عملاق مع الثلاثية
لكني لم أستمتع بكثير من وصف المعارك الحربية نفسها والخنادق الهجوم والتراجع...بقدر ما أعجبني اﻷجزاء الدرامية التي تحدث خلالها فقط ونقاط التحول للشخصيات، او الحرب نفسها والتي تجعلك لا تستطيع تخطي تلك اﻷجزاء كلها فقد يفوتك نقاط تحول أو معلومات جديدة
وإن دل هذا علي شئ فإنما يدل علي سهولة أسلوب الراوي ، وقدرته أيضا علي جذب أنتباهك
***********************
الشخصيات
--------
بعد أن كتبت ملخصا للشخصيات حذفته ، ليس لخوفي من أن يكون الريفيو طويلا
ولكني لا أعتقد أنك ستشعر بنفس المتعة التي تمتعتها بينما أتابع الشخصيات وتحركاتها ومصائرها والحكايات الكثيرة التي يعيشونها في فترة الكتاب اﻷول ، من مقدمته في 1911..مرورا بالحرب العظمي 1914 وحتي العالم يبني من جديد ...الجزء الاخير من الكتاب الاول من 1918-1924
الأيام دول
--------
ستشعر كيف الله يداول الأيام بين الناس والشخصيات وحتي الدول
حتي الثورات ستجدها تتكرر في كل عصر وفي كل بلد تقريبا بنفس الطريقة
نهاية الجزء الأول ماهي ألا بداية أخري
العالم يبني من جديد
سقطت العمالقة
وصعدت طبقات اخري
نجحت ثورات ولكن ركب علي نتجائها من ركب
التجهيز لعصبة اﻷمم كي لا تنشب حروب أخري!! ؟
حتي البلد الأكثر ديموقراطية تخطئ وتخلط العدل بالانتقام
روسيا تستعد لستالين وألمانيا تستعد لهتلر
وشخصياتك المفضلة من عشت معهم ﻷكثر من 900 صفحة يبدأوا صفحات جديدة من حياتهم...مختلفة
يجعلك أذا لم تمتلك الكتاب الثاني ستسارع لأقتناءه لتتابع حيوات عاشت بالقرن العشرين
**************************
ملحوظة أخيرة
احتفظ بورقة بجوارك بها أسماء الشخصيات من الصفحات الاولي بالكتاب... وأختر من يمثلها في بالك كلما ظهرت شخصية منهم بالأحداث وعرفت أوصافها فهذا سيجعلك تستمتع أكثر بالرواية دون اختلاط اوصاف الشخصيات معك
هذه طريقتي المفضلة اساسا بأي رواية وأن كنت لم أحتاج لورقة خارجية سوي في
مائة عام من العزلة، The Casual Vacancy , The Luminaries
النسخة الورقية المتاحة باغلب المكتبات
Mass Market Paperback هي تعب للعينين
بينما النسخة الهاردكفر أذا وجدتها فهي تعب للمعصم...اﻷختيار لك
The Epic Reads of 2015 فقد كانت أول القراءات الكبري بالنسبة لي في
أولي قراءاتي في الملحمات التاريخية
ولم أتخيل أنها ستمتعني إلي هذا الحد.. في 20 جلسة قراءة, حوالي من 50 ساعة
قراءة سعيدة، هادفة وممتعة أن شاء الله
محمد العربي
من 27 ديسمبر 2014
إلي 19 يناير 2015
الريفيو الأول المبدئي
فماذا عن رواية تمزج بين الجغرافيا السياسية واﻷحداث التاريخية مع دراما متميزة وشخصيات متعددة
ثلاثية القرن العشرين لكين فوليت ثلاثية ضخمة اﻷحداث والدراما ،صراعات الدول وثوراتها وحروبها
لوردات بريطانيا بغطرستهم وبيوتهم الضخمة والخدم، مناجم الفحم وثورة العمال، والمطالبات بحقوق المرأة
اﻷلمان وقرارات الحرب المتسرعة التي قد تقضي علي كل شئ..من قصص حب فردية حتي علاقاتهم بالدول
إستبداد القيصر الروسي وحكومته وشرطته الفاسدة، رغبة الروس في الهجرة لأمريكا لصعوبة العيش
أمريكا وصراعتها مع المكسيك من أجل البترول..وتحالفاتها من أجل مصالحها
ثم تأتي حرب العمالقة
الحرب العالمية العظمي التي تندلع شراراتها ﻷهون اﻷسباب ، لتأكل نيرانها خيرة الرجال
وكأن الشعوب بحاجة لسبب أخر ليزيد فقرهم ليلقي القياصرة والحكومات الإستبدادية بمحكوميهم وأموالهم لسعار نار الحرب
حرب بمجرد أندلاعها ستنسي أسباب شرارات أندلاعها من الأساس...هذه هي الحرب
تندلع الثورة الروسية..يسقط يسقط حكم القيصر، عيش ، سلام ، أرض. ..ألم ينبغي أن ينادوا بالحرية ايضا
والحرب تزداد أشتعالا بين ألمانيا , أنجلترا , روسيا وفرنسا وملايين الشباب يلقون مصرعهم في حرب بلا معني
حتي الرئيس اﻷمريكي ويلسون يجد ذريعته لينضم للحرب العظمي، ليلقي بما يزيد عن مليون شاب أمريكي لنيرانها
كل هذا تتابعه ، تتعرف عن حيوات شخصيات من أماكن مختلفة؛ من ويلز وأنجلترا، ألمانيا والنمسا، روسيا وأمريكا
لتتابع كيف تغير وجه التاريخ للعالم ... كيف حتي تغيرت جغرافيته السياسية
كيف صعدت دول وسقطت امبراطوريات...وفي اطار درامي كيف تصعد شخصيات وتهبط اخري
شخصيات من طبقات مختلفة ؛ آيريل، لوردات وأميرات، خدم قصور وعمال مناجم، عمال وعاملات مصانع مختلفة، دبلوماسيين، رؤساء اتحاد العمال، ثوريين، شرطة فاسدة,رجال أعمال, صحفيين
بالأضافة إلي شخصيات حقيقية سياسية ؛ الرئيس اﻷمريكي ووردر ويلسون ، جورج للويد رئيس الوزراء الليبرالي اﻷنجليزي ، تشرشل ، لينين ، وأول ظهور لهتلر و ستالين
كل هذا في الكتاب اﻷول من تلك الثلاثية ، ثلاثية القرن العشرين
****************************
اولا دعوني اعترف اني لا أهوي اﻷفلام الحربية بل وأمقت معظمها، لم أعرف الكثير عن الحرب العالمية اﻷولي سوي انهم اطلقوا عليها العظمي لانهم لم يدركوا وقتها ان الثانية قادمة ، والحرب العالمية الثانية كانت بسبب رغبة هتلر في اﻷنتقام من اليهود وباقي العالم
ولا أحتاج لأن أعترف أني لا أهوي قراءة روايات ضخمة لا تحتوي علي تلويح بالعصا السحرية ، أو تنينا قابعا في مكان ما، او جريمة قتل غامضة تحركها أمور خارقة للطبيعة، بالتأكيد كل أصدقائي والمتابعين يعرفون ذلك جيدا عني
And I have to admit that I only got this box set as a deal price on amazon just cause it's looks pretty elegant, and I'm a collector as you may know..
ولكن نجح كين فوليت جدا وبأسلوب بسيط أن يجعلني أتابع اﻷحداث الدرامية والسياسية بتمازج غريب في سلاسته وفي نفس الوقت بأثارة ومعايشة حقيقية للأحداث
الشخصيات للوهلة الاولي -ربع الرواية اﻷول- تبدو سهل التنبوء بمصائرهم، وبالرغم من أنك قد تكتشف في نهاية الكتاب اﻷول أن بعضا من تنبؤاتك قد أصابت ، ألا ان الأحداث من بعد الربع الأول من الرواية كانت مثيرة ومتشابكة وقوية فعلا
وستجد أن كثير من تنبوءاتك ضاعت مع تشابك الأحداث
وبإندلاع الحرب العالمية العظمي تتعرف علي روابط تهدم وأخري توصل ، كما ستتعرف علي كل مقدمات الحرب السياسية و غباء الحكومات والملوك....عمالقة بداية للقرن العشرين، وحربهم التي ستؤدي لسقوط الكثير منهم
اﻷجزاء الدرامية مثيرة لان الشخصيات سهل الشعور بها والتعاطف معها ، والشخصيات السياسية الحقيقية كان ظهورها بحساب...فلا تكن باهتة ولا مبالغ في أفعالها وأقوالها
-وقد حرص المؤلف علي الاشارة ان ظهورهم كان بناء علي نمط حياتهم الحقيقية من اكثر من مرجع، كما ان كل قراراتهم وخطبهم السياسية حقيقية من كتب التاريخ ، فقط تم اختصارها لتناسب الاحداث ومزج شخصيات الرواية الغير حقيقية في الاحداث-
*********************
-- العمالقة والجنس --
ما يعيب اﻷحداث هو أمر واحد، وصف الجنس بين بعض شخصيات الرواية بوضوح ودقة مبالغ فيها حيث انها تحتل مثلا صفحتان بلا داعي...لم يتكرر اﻷمر كثيرا علي كل حال ﻷنقص من التقييم كعادتي ، كما لم يكن فجا كالمتبع بروايات عربيا مثلا...وأنما كان واضحا بألفاظ لائقة نوعا كأنه فيلما ثقافيا تعليميا في بعض الاحيان -اﻷنجليز-
والعواقب بهذه الاحداث في الحالات غير الشرعية غالبا ماتكون عادلة
*********************
الثورات والحروب
وصف ثورة عمال المنجم بويلز كان ممتازا ، كأنك تشاهد النسخة الواقعية من 'ألعاب المجاعات' ، بينما وصف الثورة الروسية في مارس 1918 كان غاية في الدقة ومشابها لحد كبير كيفية اندلاع ثورة مصر في يناير 2011
بالرغم من أن -وعلي غير العادة بانسبة لقصص الحروب- أعجبني وبشدة متابعة تسلسل شرارات الحرب والقرارات السياسية والاسماء ومتابعة أماكن الدول المتصارعة علي الخريطة المطبوعة بأول الكتاب -ألم أقل لكم أنها تفيد في دراسة الجغرافيا أيضا- وتعلمت الكثير من أماكن بعض الدول التي لم أكن أعرف موقعها بدقة في أوروبا، وأيضا المصطلحات السياسية والجماعات كالبلوتريا ، اليسار والمحافظين و الليبراليين و الأشتراكية الثورية و و و
هذا غير الخطوط الأساسية السياسية والتي لحظي تم وضع أيضا ملخص لها في بوستر عملاق مع الثلاثية
لكني لم أستمتع بكثير من وصف المعارك الحربية نفسها والخنادق الهجوم والتراجع...بقدر ما أعجبني اﻷجزاء الدرامية التي تحدث خلالها فقط ونقاط التحول للشخصيات، او الحرب نفسها والتي تجعلك لا تستطيع تخطي تلك اﻷجزاء كلها فقد يفوتك نقاط تحول أو معلومات جديدة
وإن دل هذا علي شئ فإنما يدل علي سهولة أسلوب الراوي ، وقدرته أيضا علي جذب أنتباهك
***********************
الشخصيات
--------
بعد أن كتبت ملخصا للشخصيات حذفته ، ليس لخوفي من أن يكون الريفيو طويلا
ولكني لا أعتقد أنك ستشعر بنفس المتعة التي تمتعتها بينما أتابع الشخصيات وتحركاتها ومصائرها والحكايات الكثيرة التي يعيشونها في فترة الكتاب اﻷول ، من مقدمته في 1911..مرورا بالحرب العظمي 1914 وحتي العالم يبني من جديد ...الجزء الاخير من الكتاب الاول من 1918-1924
الأيام دول
--------
ستشعر كيف الله يداول الأيام بين الناس والشخصيات وحتي الدول
حتي الثورات ستجدها تتكرر في كل عصر وفي كل بلد تقريبا بنفس الطريقة
نهاية الجزء الأول ماهي ألا بداية أخري
العالم يبني من جديد
سقطت العمالقة
وصعدت طبقات اخري
نجحت ثورات ولكن ركب علي نتجائها من ركب
التجهيز لعصبة اﻷمم كي لا تنشب حروب أخري!! ؟
حتي البلد الأكثر ديموقراطية تخطئ وتخلط العدل بالانتقام
روسيا تستعد لستالين وألمانيا تستعد لهتلر
وشخصياتك المفضلة من عشت معهم ﻷكثر من 900 صفحة يبدأوا صفحات جديدة من حياتهم...مختلفة
يجعلك أذا لم تمتلك الكتاب الثاني ستسارع لأقتناءه لتتابع حيوات عاشت بالقرن العشرين
**************************
ملحوظة أخيرة
احتفظ بورقة بجوارك بها أسماء الشخصيات من الصفحات الاولي بالكتاب... وأختر من يمثلها في بالك كلما ظهرت شخصية منهم بالأحداث وعرفت أوصافها فهذا سيجعلك تستمتع أكثر بالرواية دون اختلاط اوصاف الشخصيات معك
هذه طريقتي المفضلة اساسا بأي رواية وأن كنت لم أحتاج لورقة خارجية سوي في
مائة عام من العزلة، The Casual Vacancy , The Luminaries
النسخة الورقية المتاحة باغلب المكتبات
Mass Market Paperback هي تعب للعينين
بينما النسخة الهاردكفر أذا وجدتها فهي تعب للمعصم...اﻷختيار لك
The Epic Reads of 2015 فقد كانت أول القراءات الكبري بالنسبة لي في
أولي قراءاتي في الملحمات التاريخية
ولم أتخيل أنها ستمتعني إلي هذا الحد.. في 20 جلسة قراءة, حوالي من 50 ساعة
قراءة سعيدة، هادفة وممتعة أن شاء الله
محمد العربي
من 27 ديسمبر 2014
إلي 19 يناير 2015
الريفيو الأول المبدئي
April 11, 2012
Do not say that I don't like historical fiction - because I do. Do not even say I don't like Follett - because I rather do. In fact, this highly praised - and very thick - volume I'd been anticipating eagerly, both because I had pleasant memories from The Pillars of the Earth and because currently I am rather WWI mad; I read Tuchman's classic works, Maddox Ford, not to mention Hemingway and Remarque, because I am fascinated by the subject.
So what in the world went wrong with this book?
This story, which is, like many Folletts, incredibly wide in scope and encompasses a decade, about fifty characters, and several countries, described the beginning of the 20th century, with a special focus, so the book blurb claims, on WWI. It begins with a prologue in 1911 (though the main thrust of the book occurs in 1914) and ends with an epilogue in 1924. The title, Fall of Giants is rather deceptive; one may think it refers to the fall of empires which was brought about chiefly by WWI, but in fact it refers to the fall of aristocracies.
Here begin our issues. While the historical research that went into this book is clearly good - though with occasional snags and eyebrow-raising issues - the lens through which it was painted is speculative and political. Follett chooses to view everything - women's suffrage, personal relations, random little quarrels, and especially the World War - as one big struggle of the 'workingman' and the 'people' against their oppressors, the upper classes.
Commence problems.
For one, you simply cannot simplify an entire era to class struggle. Clearly, it played a significant role in the politics and life of the period, but there is a good chance that WWI actually was not an issue of class struggle. It had its own set of complex and unpleasant reasons, and some of them were class-related, while the majority was not. Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century especially, one cannot write the class differences in the same way one does in the 11th century (or whenever it was that The Pillars of the Earth was set). Relationships changed, notions changed (actually improved somewhat), and it becomes that much more difficult to present upper class people as the villains, as ones assuming they are 'born to command' or, and this bothered me especially, as uniformly stupid.
The book came out with gems like "all the officers were idiots, all the sergeants were smart" or something in that vein. Sergeants being working class, while officers, of course, belonged to the upper classes. There is definitely everything in the world to be said for merit, but the notion that in a huge, conscripted army, officers as a whole had not a scrap of talent among them is almost a statistical impossibility.
The problem is not the mere presentation of the facts; it is well-known that they were not much better than Follett presents, and in some ways even worse - though generally the guilty parties were not so much the nobility, anymore, as the great industrialists. The problem is that he shoves everything and every situation into the same tired framework, presents even quarrels of ideology in the light of 'if two women from different classes fight, the upper-class arrogance must be at fault', and has some serious trouble determining who 'people' are. For instance, in the description of the Russian revolution, he seems to neatly forget that the middle classes are as much 'people' as the factory workers are. The same is true for certain situations in England.
The double standard the author applies tends to show in intelligence, awareness, common sense, (Now there's a pretty reverse prejudice for you; people of the working classes universally seem to possess more common sense and presence of mind in the 'real world' than their airy, upper class counterparts. This propensity is so universal, it practically smacks of stereotyping.) and emotional breadth. After 920 pages, it tires one quickly.
If the novel's only problem were excessive political correctness - expressed also in the descriptions of the war itself - I would chalk it up to modern sensibilities, misplaced, perhaps, but generally laudable. Though it still irritates me, I should not criticize the novel so severely as, meant for the popular reader, it seems that the historical writer almost feels obliged, today, to prop up the wretched of this world. Unfortunately, these are not its own detriments. The author, once again in a nod to popular, modern literature, makes much of passionate love, ascension from the 'everyman' and the superiority of that same 'everyman'. All topics which are the permeating slogans of the present day but whose actual validity is dubious.
It's astonishing how many of his positive characters somehow wind up in key political roles. Two siblings from the same family, not to mention some three or four others. The coincidences that are created to somehow bring these characters to the top walks of life are not particularly inspired, nor endearing.
The writing itself, though, was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. A well-written book should be able to cover up for its flaws with the language it uses; this one, sadly, only emphasized them.
The problem appears to be twofold; the author writes a shopping-list, rather than a story. "He went. He came. He sat down. he saw her." Even I, amateurish writer though I am, know better than to do that. Also, the transitions, sometimes within the same paragraph itself, sometimes between paragraphs, are fantastically awkward. We may well have the sentence "He picked up the glass. The war was beginning. He put the glass down." He also manages to turn such events as a birth out of a hospital, the battle of the Somme, and a family throwing its daughter out, to completely maudlin and quotidian.
The second problem with the writing is that it is staggeringly, unabashedly didactic. Follett clearly writes for an audience which he supposes to be clueless, and makes no effort at all to conceal the history and sociology lessons he is giving. That also makes the dialogue sound awful, along the lines of: "You know, of course, that H. H. Asquith, the current prime minister..." Who in the world talks like that? Nobody in their right mind. His speech writing is tortuous in exactly the opposite way of Ford Madox Ford's elliptical ambiguity, and murder one's sense of reality in almost the same way.
I wish this were a better book, because I wanted very much a good book that deals with WWI. I wish this were the wide-scope, sweeping, thrilling epic it's supposed to be, because there is nothing more enjoyable than an epic that leaves you breathless, gulping it down, wanting more. Something like M. M. Kay's Far Pavilions, without the colonialism. I wish it were all of these things, but it really isn't. It's a book far too long for its own good on the one hand, and not nearly long or detailed enough on the other. The author gulped down so much time and space, he literally has no time or room to descent to descriptions much. It's a didactic, preachy, fantastically un-nuanced piece of writing, which suffers from laundry0list qualities, and apparently did not go through the capable hands of an editor.
So what in the world went wrong with this book?
This story, which is, like many Folletts, incredibly wide in scope and encompasses a decade, about fifty characters, and several countries, described the beginning of the 20th century, with a special focus, so the book blurb claims, on WWI. It begins with a prologue in 1911 (though the main thrust of the book occurs in 1914) and ends with an epilogue in 1924. The title, Fall of Giants is rather deceptive; one may think it refers to the fall of empires which was brought about chiefly by WWI, but in fact it refers to the fall of aristocracies.
Here begin our issues. While the historical research that went into this book is clearly good - though with occasional snags and eyebrow-raising issues - the lens through which it was painted is speculative and political. Follett chooses to view everything - women's suffrage, personal relations, random little quarrels, and especially the World War - as one big struggle of the 'workingman' and the 'people' against their oppressors, the upper classes.
Commence problems.
For one, you simply cannot simplify an entire era to class struggle. Clearly, it played a significant role in the politics and life of the period, but there is a good chance that WWI actually was not an issue of class struggle. It had its own set of complex and unpleasant reasons, and some of them were class-related, while the majority was not. Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century especially, one cannot write the class differences in the same way one does in the 11th century (or whenever it was that The Pillars of the Earth was set). Relationships changed, notions changed (actually improved somewhat), and it becomes that much more difficult to present upper class people as the villains, as ones assuming they are 'born to command' or, and this bothered me especially, as uniformly stupid.
The book came out with gems like "all the officers were idiots, all the sergeants were smart" or something in that vein. Sergeants being working class, while officers, of course, belonged to the upper classes. There is definitely everything in the world to be said for merit, but the notion that in a huge, conscripted army, officers as a whole had not a scrap of talent among them is almost a statistical impossibility.
The problem is not the mere presentation of the facts; it is well-known that they were not much better than Follett presents, and in some ways even worse - though generally the guilty parties were not so much the nobility, anymore, as the great industrialists. The problem is that he shoves everything and every situation into the same tired framework, presents even quarrels of ideology in the light of 'if two women from different classes fight, the upper-class arrogance must be at fault', and has some serious trouble determining who 'people' are. For instance, in the description of the Russian revolution, he seems to neatly forget that the middle classes are as much 'people' as the factory workers are. The same is true for certain situations in England.
The double standard the author applies tends to show in intelligence, awareness, common sense, (Now there's a pretty reverse prejudice for you; people of the working classes universally seem to possess more common sense and presence of mind in the 'real world' than their airy, upper class counterparts. This propensity is so universal, it practically smacks of stereotyping.) and emotional breadth. After 920 pages, it tires one quickly.
If the novel's only problem were excessive political correctness - expressed also in the descriptions of the war itself - I would chalk it up to modern sensibilities, misplaced, perhaps, but generally laudable. Though it still irritates me, I should not criticize the novel so severely as, meant for the popular reader, it seems that the historical writer almost feels obliged, today, to prop up the wretched of this world. Unfortunately, these are not its own detriments. The author, once again in a nod to popular, modern literature, makes much of passionate love, ascension from the 'everyman' and the superiority of that same 'everyman'. All topics which are the permeating slogans of the present day but whose actual validity is dubious.
It's astonishing how many of his positive characters somehow wind up in key political roles. Two siblings from the same family, not to mention some three or four others. The coincidences that are created to somehow bring these characters to the top walks of life are not particularly inspired, nor endearing.
The writing itself, though, was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. A well-written book should be able to cover up for its flaws with the language it uses; this one, sadly, only emphasized them.
The problem appears to be twofold; the author writes a shopping-list, rather than a story. "He went. He came. He sat down. he saw her." Even I, amateurish writer though I am, know better than to do that. Also, the transitions, sometimes within the same paragraph itself, sometimes between paragraphs, are fantastically awkward. We may well have the sentence "He picked up the glass. The war was beginning. He put the glass down." He also manages to turn such events as a birth out of a hospital, the battle of the Somme, and a family throwing its daughter out, to completely maudlin and quotidian.
The second problem with the writing is that it is staggeringly, unabashedly didactic. Follett clearly writes for an audience which he supposes to be clueless, and makes no effort at all to conceal the history and sociology lessons he is giving. That also makes the dialogue sound awful, along the lines of: "You know, of course, that H. H. Asquith, the current prime minister..." Who in the world talks like that? Nobody in their right mind. His speech writing is tortuous in exactly the opposite way of Ford Madox Ford's elliptical ambiguity, and murder one's sense of reality in almost the same way.
I wish this were a better book, because I wanted very much a good book that deals with WWI. I wish this were the wide-scope, sweeping, thrilling epic it's supposed to be, because there is nothing more enjoyable than an epic that leaves you breathless, gulping it down, wanting more. Something like M. M. Kay's Far Pavilions, without the colonialism. I wish it were all of these things, but it really isn't. It's a book far too long for its own good on the one hand, and not nearly long or detailed enough on the other. The author gulped down so much time and space, he literally has no time or room to descent to descriptions much. It's a didactic, preachy, fantastically un-nuanced piece of writing, which suffers from laundry0list qualities, and apparently did not go through the capable hands of an editor.
August 25, 2018
A sweeping epic with the pace of a thriller, I could scarcely put it down.
This ambitious novel, the first of a projected trilogy covering most of the 20th century, tells the story of five interrelated families—American, German, Russian, English and Welsh—as they negotiate the tremendous events of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Through the various characters—and there are quite a few—we witness the First World War in the trenches and in the halls of government, from each side of the conflict. Revolutions on the home front, from women’s suffrage to the rise of the workers, keep pace. It is a period of intense change, a time when giants, be they royalty, tradition, or whole nations, are destined to fall.
Follett’s story builds like the coming of far-off artillery fire. Barely rumbling at first, the tempo quickens until it breaks in a crescendo of world-changing events. With Follett’s considerable talents as a storyteller, one experiences a fast-paced, unforgettable journey with characters rich in emotion and intellect. These are people we care about. We feel the plight of an unwed mother trying to survive in a society that affords her few rights and little help. We’re with the workers of St Petersburg, oppressed by the brutal regime of the Tsar. Although personalized through the lives of these and others, the history is not trivialized. This period is described accurately – even one well versed in history may pick up something new – yet it manages to be superbly entertaining as well. This excellent work is destined to be a classic, and holds great promise for the following two novels.
This ambitious novel, the first of a projected trilogy covering most of the 20th century, tells the story of five interrelated families—American, German, Russian, English and Welsh—as they negotiate the tremendous events of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Through the various characters—and there are quite a few—we witness the First World War in the trenches and in the halls of government, from each side of the conflict. Revolutions on the home front, from women’s suffrage to the rise of the workers, keep pace. It is a period of intense change, a time when giants, be they royalty, tradition, or whole nations, are destined to fall.
Follett’s story builds like the coming of far-off artillery fire. Barely rumbling at first, the tempo quickens until it breaks in a crescendo of world-changing events. With Follett’s considerable talents as a storyteller, one experiences a fast-paced, unforgettable journey with characters rich in emotion and intellect. These are people we care about. We feel the plight of an unwed mother trying to survive in a society that affords her few rights and little help. We’re with the workers of St Petersburg, oppressed by the brutal regime of the Tsar. Although personalized through the lives of these and others, the history is not trivialized. This period is described accurately – even one well versed in history may pick up something new – yet it manages to be superbly entertaining as well. This excellent work is destined to be a classic, and holds great promise for the following two novels.
May 26, 2019
After being highly impressed with the Pillars series created by Follett, I hoped to find as much depth and development in the Century Trilogy.The premise, following the fates of five interrelated families against a backdrop of world events is brilliant in its imagining and stellar in its delivery. The reader is introduced to Billy Williams early in the novel, as he enters the Welsh mining pits. His family acts as a wonderful bridge as Billy's sister, Ethel, a housekeeper for the aristocratic Fitzherberts, takes a fateful step outside her accepted caste. Lady Maud Fitzherbert herself crosses deep into forbidden territory, bridging the story into another family, when she falls in love with Walter von Ulrich, a German living in London while tensions mount and the Great War is imminent. Filling out the cast of characters is Gus Dewar, an American law student who begins new career in Woodrow Wilson's White House, and two Russian brothers, Grigori and Lev Peshkov, who seek the freedoms that America alone can offer them. Follett lays the early foundations of a very powerful and deeply intertwined novel sure to grow as history progresses, putting families, nationalities, and alliances to the test throughout.
The historical arc of the novel, 1911-1924, covers a great deal and touches on some very important events. With the rise of the Great War developing throughout the early part of the novel, the reader is pulled in to view things from all sides. Additionally, the snapshot of Russia shows the discontent seen in the streets and the eventual rise of revolutionary sentiment. Underlying these political changes, discussion about universal suffrage cannot be ignored or discounted as important both within Europe and North America. Follett captures these threads and spins them inside the larger character development seen throughout the novel. It only adds to the greatness and intricate detail of this novel.
This was my second reading of this novel, the first coming soon after its release. I felt that once the trilogy was done, I ought to take the time to read all three and see, with no interruptions, how the series grows and its characters develop. Fans of the Edward Rutherfurd multi-generational sagas will surely fall in love with this book, as will those who loved the nuanced character development of Jeffrey Archer (who is currently penning his own multi-generational series). Follett has bitten off much in this trilogy, but has shown his ability to keep all his characters under control and following a decisive path. He captures the reader's attention and allows them to choose a favourite storyline, knowing full well that it may merge with another before the novel is done. I cannot wait to see how things develop as families intermingle and offspring hold alliances that may and will clash. Stellar work and I am so glad I came back to this for its full effect.
Kudos, Mr. Follett for this wonderful opening novel in the series. You have my rapt attention.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
The historical arc of the novel, 1911-1924, covers a great deal and touches on some very important events. With the rise of the Great War developing throughout the early part of the novel, the reader is pulled in to view things from all sides. Additionally, the snapshot of Russia shows the discontent seen in the streets and the eventual rise of revolutionary sentiment. Underlying these political changes, discussion about universal suffrage cannot be ignored or discounted as important both within Europe and North America. Follett captures these threads and spins them inside the larger character development seen throughout the novel. It only adds to the greatness and intricate detail of this novel.
This was my second reading of this novel, the first coming soon after its release. I felt that once the trilogy was done, I ought to take the time to read all three and see, with no interruptions, how the series grows and its characters develop. Fans of the Edward Rutherfurd multi-generational sagas will surely fall in love with this book, as will those who loved the nuanced character development of Jeffrey Archer (who is currently penning his own multi-generational series). Follett has bitten off much in this trilogy, but has shown his ability to keep all his characters under control and following a decisive path. He captures the reader's attention and allows them to choose a favourite storyline, knowing full well that it may merge with another before the novel is done. I cannot wait to see how things develop as families intermingle and offspring hold alliances that may and will clash. Stellar work and I am so glad I came back to this for its full effect.
Kudos, Mr. Follett for this wonderful opening novel in the series. You have my rapt attention.
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
June 22, 2020
Enjoyed the way historic events are intertwined with the fate of five families of different walks of life and nationalities. Ken Follett manages to tell a story and include details describing the end of the Edwardian era, the dawn of the Russian empire and the Prussian military ambitions. This is an epic tale that equally focuses on Welsh miners or Russian workers and on the aristocrats. The fourth star is for keeping me interested.
April 8, 2022
Fall of Giants (The Century Trilogy #1), Ken Follett
Kenneth Martin Follett is a British author of thrillers and historical novels. The first book covers notable events such as World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the struggle for women's suffrage. The sequel Winter of the World covers World War II and was published on September 18, 2012. The third book, Edge of Eternity, covers the Cold War and was published in 2014. Fall of Giants follows five interrelated families throughout the course of the 20th century. A historical saga from 1911 to 1924 covering principally, the World War I. The story is about a thirteen-year-old Welsh boy enters a man’s world in the mining pits. ... An American law student rejected in love finds a surprising new career in Woodrow Wilson’s White House. ... A housekeeper for the aristocratic Fitzherberts takes a fateful step above her station, while Lady Maud Fitzherbert herself crosses deep into forbidden territory when she falls in love with a German spy. ... And two orphaned Russian brothers embark on radically different paths when their plan to emigrate to America falls afoul of war, conscription, and revolution.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز هفتم ماه مارس سال2022میلادی
عنوان: سقوط غولها کتاب نخست از سری سه گانه قرن (سده)؛ نویسنده: کن فالت؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده21م
سقوط غولها داستان سه خانواده از سه کشور در نخستین سالهای سده بیستم میلادی در اروپا است، که اعضای آن هر کدام به گونه ای از هم میپاشند؛ اعضای یک خانواده آلمانی – اتریشی، یک خانواده انگلیسی و دو برادر روس، شخصیتهای این کتاب هستند، و سرنوشت آنها در رویدادها به هم گره خورده است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 18/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Kenneth Martin Follett is a British author of thrillers and historical novels. The first book covers notable events such as World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the struggle for women's suffrage. The sequel Winter of the World covers World War II and was published on September 18, 2012. The third book, Edge of Eternity, covers the Cold War and was published in 2014. Fall of Giants follows five interrelated families throughout the course of the 20th century. A historical saga from 1911 to 1924 covering principally, the World War I. The story is about a thirteen-year-old Welsh boy enters a man’s world in the mining pits. ... An American law student rejected in love finds a surprising new career in Woodrow Wilson’s White House. ... A housekeeper for the aristocratic Fitzherberts takes a fateful step above her station, while Lady Maud Fitzherbert herself crosses deep into forbidden territory when she falls in love with a German spy. ... And two orphaned Russian brothers embark on radically different paths when their plan to emigrate to America falls afoul of war, conscription, and revolution.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز هفتم ماه مارس سال2022میلادی
عنوان: سقوط غولها کتاب نخست از سری سه گانه قرن (سده)؛ نویسنده: کن فالت؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان ایالات متحده آمریکا - سده21م
سقوط غولها داستان سه خانواده از سه کشور در نخستین سالهای سده بیستم میلادی در اروپا است، که اعضای آن هر کدام به گونه ای از هم میپاشند؛ اعضای یک خانواده آلمانی – اتریشی، یک خانواده انگلیسی و دو برادر روس، شخصیتهای این کتاب هستند، و سرنوشت آنها در رویدادها به هم گره خورده است
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 18/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
February 7, 2019
So addictive!
I am posting a review on YouTube. My review is entirely character-based, because the plot is just World War I. If you enjoy multi generational family sagas this trilogy is a must read. It has a healthy batch of heroes and assholes that make your skin crawl. I don’t want to give away any spoilers so I’ll just end this with Eff you Earl Fitzherbert you’re a selfish prick 😂
I am posting a review on YouTube. My review is entirely character-based, because the plot is just World War I. If you enjoy multi generational family sagas this trilogy is a must read. It has a healthy batch of heroes and assholes that make your skin crawl. I don’t want to give away any spoilers so I’ll just end this with Eff you Earl Fitzherbert you’re a selfish prick 😂
January 23, 2018
The story was enjoyable enough and certainly kept me entertained for a couple of days. The recreation of the early 20th Century was very vivid, and I was impressed by how well Follett applied his considerable skills in this respect to a variety of nations and social classes. To cover so many years in any decent amount of depth was a great challenge, to which Follett rises well. The story was fast-paced and the build-up to the War was particularly well managed. The particularly notable aspect of Follett's storytelling is that he manages to weave together a great many themes in one fluid story: the First World War; political reform in Britain; social upheaval in Russia and the development of the United States as a significant world power. This was well executed and allowed a free-floing narrative to become established. Given that long periods of time could elapse between two appearances of each character, anticipation builds significantly over the course of the story and it is interesting to see how each character's situation has developed over days, months or even years. Nevertheless, there are some problems with the book, mainly in characterisation and in the relations between the characters in the story.
Rather than allow the characters to be merely players on a bigger stage, Follett insists on engineering direct connections between them, no matter how unlikely the circumstances. Many of the meetings and sightings between characters, particularly during the War, are highly contrived. For instance not once, but twice, two characters, one German, one English, are posted directly opposite each other in the trenches: convenient, given that they are old school friends. While this did allow a reunion over the Truce of Christmas 1914, enabling Follett to detail this interesting occurrence and add some emotional depth to the section, the second time it happens seems rather less well considered and seems to stretch the boundaries of belief. In another instance, the same German is noticed by an American soldier who believes he 'may have known him before the War'. Again, the sighting seems somewhat heavily contrived and does not add much in the way of emotion or character development. There are many occurrences like this within the book, and the more there are, the less easy they are to accept. It is a shame, as this does somewhat derail the narrative and as a result I could never quite find myself immersed in the story. One can't help but feel that the narrative my have been served better if Follett had not deliberately created links between so many characters, rather allowing more to progress through the story unnoticed by the others.
Characterisation did also become a problem. For example, Earl Fitzherbert begins the story as very much a product of his time: a Conservative peer with a revulsion towards reform. However, he is not an unplesant person and, despite his infidelities, generally comes across reasonably well. When he reaches the War his natural gallantry and sense of honour come to the fore when he is forced to battle against the wills of stubborn senior officers in order to persuade the BEF to put up stauncher resistance against the Germans. Unfortunately, after this he becomes rather more of a charicature, almost becoming a pantomime villain towards the end. He becomes the typical 'donkey' officer, so beloved of mainstream history and so clear in the modern public imagination.
Indeed, this is a problem with the recreation of the War throughout the book. Follett's is a modern, mainstream interpretation, mainly based on the thoughts of anti-war poets from the trenches and is firmly rooted modern perceptions. Much recent history on the period has demonstrated the gallantry of officers, as well as the numerous new tactics implemented by British high command in order to win the War: Follett prefers to rely on the popular imagining of waves of brave privates and NCOs being thrown repeatedly against barbed wire and machine guns while the officers sat safe in the dugouts. Such interpretations are not true. By the end of the War, the same officers, notably the much-maligned Douglas Haig, had turned a loose bunch of several million conscripts and volunteers into an extremely efficient military machine: no mean feat when one considers that the pre-War British army was only around 100,000 men at its height. Even during the peak of the Peninsular War and Waterloo campaign the army only reached the dizzying heights of 150,000 men. Moreover, Follett seems to create an anti-war feeling throughout the lower classes, with only the upper classes in all the countries in the book showing support for the War. This is certainly untrue and there is plenty of poetry from front-line troops who enjoyed their War and believed wholeheartedly in their purpose. I don't deny that there was anti-war feeling, but I do feel that Follett's interpretation is somewhat misleading in suggesting how widespread it was. The novel also seems to suggest that German support for the War extended no further than the upper classes and the diplomatic service: this is, again, disingenuous. I am no expert on the matter, but for a very convincing argument, Gordon Corrigan's 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' is an essential counterpoint to many modern assumptions.
Finally, the rapidity and ease with which the characters seemed to fall in love with each other became tedious. Every time it led to some rather stilted love scenes which broke the flow of the narrative. Furthermore, the relationships seemed reasonably unimportant and did not deserve as prominent a place in the overall story as they seemed to receive. The numerous times when characters declared their undying love for each other, or fell in love after the briefest of associations became irritating rather than engendering any emotional response to the situation.
That said, I would recommend the book as it was an entertaining story and Follett's attention to historical detail is highly admirable, making it an enjoyable story. I look forward to the rest of the trilogy and my only hope is that the later characters might be more deserving of a response from the reader.
EDIT: On reflection I'm not sure I would recommend this book. Since I wrote the review the sequel has come out and I haven't even thought about picking it up. It's a shame, because I had heard good things of him, and will probably still try Pillars of the Earth (which has sat on my shelf for far too long).
Rather than allow the characters to be merely players on a bigger stage, Follett insists on engineering direct connections between them, no matter how unlikely the circumstances. Many of the meetings and sightings between characters, particularly during the War, are highly contrived. For instance not once, but twice, two characters, one German, one English, are posted directly opposite each other in the trenches: convenient, given that they are old school friends. While this did allow a reunion over the Truce of Christmas 1914, enabling Follett to detail this interesting occurrence and add some emotional depth to the section, the second time it happens seems rather less well considered and seems to stretch the boundaries of belief. In another instance, the same German is noticed by an American soldier who believes he 'may have known him before the War'. Again, the sighting seems somewhat heavily contrived and does not add much in the way of emotion or character development. There are many occurrences like this within the book, and the more there are, the less easy they are to accept. It is a shame, as this does somewhat derail the narrative and as a result I could never quite find myself immersed in the story. One can't help but feel that the narrative my have been served better if Follett had not deliberately created links between so many characters, rather allowing more to progress through the story unnoticed by the others.
Characterisation did also become a problem. For example, Earl Fitzherbert begins the story as very much a product of his time: a Conservative peer with a revulsion towards reform. However, he is not an unplesant person and, despite his infidelities, generally comes across reasonably well. When he reaches the War his natural gallantry and sense of honour come to the fore when he is forced to battle against the wills of stubborn senior officers in order to persuade the BEF to put up stauncher resistance against the Germans. Unfortunately, after this he becomes rather more of a charicature, almost becoming a pantomime villain towards the end. He becomes the typical 'donkey' officer, so beloved of mainstream history and so clear in the modern public imagination.
Indeed, this is a problem with the recreation of the War throughout the book. Follett's is a modern, mainstream interpretation, mainly based on the thoughts of anti-war poets from the trenches and is firmly rooted modern perceptions. Much recent history on the period has demonstrated the gallantry of officers, as well as the numerous new tactics implemented by British high command in order to win the War: Follett prefers to rely on the popular imagining of waves of brave privates and NCOs being thrown repeatedly against barbed wire and machine guns while the officers sat safe in the dugouts. Such interpretations are not true. By the end of the War, the same officers, notably the much-maligned Douglas Haig, had turned a loose bunch of several million conscripts and volunteers into an extremely efficient military machine: no mean feat when one considers that the pre-War British army was only around 100,000 men at its height. Even during the peak of the Peninsular War and Waterloo campaign the army only reached the dizzying heights of 150,000 men. Moreover, Follett seems to create an anti-war feeling throughout the lower classes, with only the upper classes in all the countries in the book showing support for the War. This is certainly untrue and there is plenty of poetry from front-line troops who enjoyed their War and believed wholeheartedly in their purpose. I don't deny that there was anti-war feeling, but I do feel that Follett's interpretation is somewhat misleading in suggesting how widespread it was. The novel also seems to suggest that German support for the War extended no further than the upper classes and the diplomatic service: this is, again, disingenuous. I am no expert on the matter, but for a very convincing argument, Gordon Corrigan's 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' is an essential counterpoint to many modern assumptions.
Finally, the rapidity and ease with which the characters seemed to fall in love with each other became tedious. Every time it led to some rather stilted love scenes which broke the flow of the narrative. Furthermore, the relationships seemed reasonably unimportant and did not deserve as prominent a place in the overall story as they seemed to receive. The numerous times when characters declared their undying love for each other, or fell in love after the briefest of associations became irritating rather than engendering any emotional response to the situation.
That said, I would recommend the book as it was an entertaining story and Follett's attention to historical detail is highly admirable, making it an enjoyable story. I look forward to the rest of the trilogy and my only hope is that the later characters might be more deserving of a response from the reader.
EDIT: On reflection I'm not sure I would recommend this book. Since I wrote the review the sequel has come out and I haven't even thought about picking it up. It's a shame, because I had heard good things of him, and will probably still try Pillars of the Earth (which has sat on my shelf for far too long).
April 17, 2018
*** 3.33 ***
"...“Men were the only animals that slaughtered their own kind by the million, and turned the landscape into a waste of shell craters and barbed wire. Perhaps the human race would wipe itself out completely, and leave the world to the birds and trees, Walter thought apocalyptically. Perhaps that would be for the best.”..."
Here we are again, reading another tome by Ken Follett and trying to pinpoint my feelings about it. Not an easy task, I tell you that. As always, he is being hailed both as a genius and a complete failure as a writer, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I also think it depends on your expectations of his work. Do you expect perfect historical account seen from multiple POV's, or do you read him for the human drama and interpersonal relationships? Either way, I doubt you will be fully satisfied.
"...“A baby was like a revolution, Grigori thought: you could start one, but you could not control how it would turn out.” ..."
For those who look for character development and interpersonal human relationships, let's be honest, Follett is not the man to turn to. The way he writes how people communicate with each-other is stiff, cold, unnatural and very robotic. There are no gradations, no nuances, no color to any of it. It is like a overly-dramatic Mexican soap-opera, where all the evil folks are only evil and all the good ones are pure as snow. Yes, they supposedly always go through some ethical or moral dilemma, supposedly they are tempted toward the darkness or light, and very predictably they go with their initial inclinations. If this type of drama works for you, you get plenty of it:)
"...“His talent was to express his readers’ most stupid and ignorant prejudices as if they made sense, so that the shameful seemed respectable. That was why they bought the paper.” ..."
There is something to that, I think:)
If you are in it for a sweeping Historical Fiction, you are in the right place. The novel takes place predominantly in England, France, America and Germany in the years before WWI and all the way to several of years after it finishes. It gives a very good overall look at the class, political, and international tensions which led the world to the first really major war in the 20th century. However, once again Follett is very ambitious at attempting to cover most of the war and the conditions of the people of the different sides under them, thus falling short in truly expressing the horrors of that time. Don't get me wrong, I think he does great in a "WWI History Review Class 101" kind of way, but when you take on this type of scope, it is difficult to make a real point of the different struggles, since everything becomes more of a lesson and less of a human condition portrait... His prose does not help the matter. It is stiff and emotionless, despite being informative and succinct. At times I felt like I was reading telegrams from the front lines of the war. I can see how it would be very interesting and illuminating for people new to the subject or those who have learned only from one side of the conflict and this is why I think it has its place in contemporary historical fiction, but just as always, I wish there was more!!!! So much more! Funny to say that about a book of close to a 1000 pages.
"...“Tommy stood on a chair and made a speech of welcome; then Billy had to respond. “The war has changed us all,” he said. “I remember when people used to say the rich were put on this earth by God to rule over us lesser people.” That was greeted by scornful laughs. “Many men were cured of that delusion by fighting under the command of upper-class officers who should not have been put in charge of a Sunday school outing.” The other veterans nodded knowingly.” ..."
The other big issue I have with his attempt at staying neutral is not necessarily through historical facts omissions, although there are plenty of those because of the scope and all, nor the equally preachy takes on the core of aristocracy, peasantry, capitalism, socialism, communism, and so on. He takes sides by making the characters representing the ones he sympathies with the smart, likable, honorable and honest ones, the ones which by the positive slant of the story, the readers will gravitate to and root for. Thus we get the smart, independent and much more honorable than all others Billy, a Welsh miner with barely anything to his name, juxtaposed against the stick-in-the-mud conservative, oblivious of real life and emotions, unthinking, hating, callas and also a bit weak aristocrat Fitz, who has everything but wants more and the status-quo preserved as far as the class system is concerned. It is not the only example where we get to hate the aristocracy and think them incompetent and stupid, while the uneducated, simple, poor, and hard-working guys seem to always come up with the moral high ground. We are used to that though, since we got plenty of it in the Pillars of the Earth series. However, he changes that when it comes to Russia and goes another way with the wealthy in America and the uneducated classes there... Gus, the American wealthy class politician who works for the president comes off as a boy-scout in training, earnest, honest and honorable, while the immigrants in the country are all criminals and rubbish.... Obviously not everything is neutral... If I am being completely honest with myself, I do not think that any of us can write with complete neutrality, since everything goes through our perceptions and our personal ideologies and prejudices do end up on the page, no matter how much we try not to, so I am not really complaining, just pointing it out...
"...“How exciting to be at the center of power.” “It is exciting, but strangely enough it doesn’t feel like the center of power. In a democracy the president is subject to the voters.” “But surely he doesn’t just do what the public wants.” “Not exactly, no. President Wilson says a leader must treat public opinion the way a sailor deals with the wind, using it to blow the ship in one direction or another, but never trying to go directly against it.” ..."
So, trying to summarize my feelings, I have to say that Follett sucks at writing about relationships and he only uses them to hang the lesson-review of History on the characters' backs, so he has a way to make it more personal. As long as you look at it this way and forgive omissions due to impossibility to cover everything in this format, I think this is a good book to give you the feel for the World during WWI. Don't expect something too deeply emotional, he does tend to point and tell, not so much stop and look for the hows or whys of human sensibilities. I know I will read the rest of the books in the series and will try to keep my expectations to the limits of those conditions:):):)
"...“The ability to listen to smart people who disagree with you is a rare talent” ..."
Now I wish you all Happy Reading and may you always find what you Need in the pages of a Good Book!
"...“Men were the only animals that slaughtered their own kind by the million, and turned the landscape into a waste of shell craters and barbed wire. Perhaps the human race would wipe itself out completely, and leave the world to the birds and trees, Walter thought apocalyptically. Perhaps that would be for the best.”..."
Here we are again, reading another tome by Ken Follett and trying to pinpoint my feelings about it. Not an easy task, I tell you that. As always, he is being hailed both as a genius and a complete failure as a writer, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I also think it depends on your expectations of his work. Do you expect perfect historical account seen from multiple POV's, or do you read him for the human drama and interpersonal relationships? Either way, I doubt you will be fully satisfied.
"...“A baby was like a revolution, Grigori thought: you could start one, but you could not control how it would turn out.” ..."
For those who look for character development and interpersonal human relationships, let's be honest, Follett is not the man to turn to. The way he writes how people communicate with each-other is stiff, cold, unnatural and very robotic. There are no gradations, no nuances, no color to any of it. It is like a overly-dramatic Mexican soap-opera, where all the evil folks are only evil and all the good ones are pure as snow. Yes, they supposedly always go through some ethical or moral dilemma, supposedly they are tempted toward the darkness or light, and very predictably they go with their initial inclinations. If this type of drama works for you, you get plenty of it:)
"...“His talent was to express his readers’ most stupid and ignorant prejudices as if they made sense, so that the shameful seemed respectable. That was why they bought the paper.” ..."
There is something to that, I think:)
If you are in it for a sweeping Historical Fiction, you are in the right place. The novel takes place predominantly in England, France, America and Germany in the years before WWI and all the way to several of years after it finishes. It gives a very good overall look at the class, political, and international tensions which led the world to the first really major war in the 20th century. However, once again Follett is very ambitious at attempting to cover most of the war and the conditions of the people of the different sides under them, thus falling short in truly expressing the horrors of that time. Don't get me wrong, I think he does great in a "WWI History Review Class 101" kind of way, but when you take on this type of scope, it is difficult to make a real point of the different struggles, since everything becomes more of a lesson and less of a human condition portrait... His prose does not help the matter. It is stiff and emotionless, despite being informative and succinct. At times I felt like I was reading telegrams from the front lines of the war. I can see how it would be very interesting and illuminating for people new to the subject or those who have learned only from one side of the conflict and this is why I think it has its place in contemporary historical fiction, but just as always, I wish there was more!!!! So much more! Funny to say that about a book of close to a 1000 pages.
"...“Tommy stood on a chair and made a speech of welcome; then Billy had to respond. “The war has changed us all,” he said. “I remember when people used to say the rich were put on this earth by God to rule over us lesser people.” That was greeted by scornful laughs. “Many men were cured of that delusion by fighting under the command of upper-class officers who should not have been put in charge of a Sunday school outing.” The other veterans nodded knowingly.” ..."
The other big issue I have with his attempt at staying neutral is not necessarily through historical facts omissions, although there are plenty of those because of the scope and all, nor the equally preachy takes on the core of aristocracy, peasantry, capitalism, socialism, communism, and so on. He takes sides by making the characters representing the ones he sympathies with the smart, likable, honorable and honest ones, the ones which by the positive slant of the story, the readers will gravitate to and root for. Thus we get the smart, independent and much more honorable than all others Billy, a Welsh miner with barely anything to his name, juxtaposed against the stick-in-the-mud conservative, oblivious of real life and emotions, unthinking, hating, callas and also a bit weak aristocrat Fitz, who has everything but wants more and the status-quo preserved as far as the class system is concerned. It is not the only example where we get to hate the aristocracy and think them incompetent and stupid, while the uneducated, simple, poor, and hard-working guys seem to always come up with the moral high ground. We are used to that though, since we got plenty of it in the Pillars of the Earth series. However, he changes that when it comes to Russia and goes another way with the wealthy in America and the uneducated classes there... Gus, the American wealthy class politician who works for the president comes off as a boy-scout in training, earnest, honest and honorable, while the immigrants in the country are all criminals and rubbish.... Obviously not everything is neutral... If I am being completely honest with myself, I do not think that any of us can write with complete neutrality, since everything goes through our perceptions and our personal ideologies and prejudices do end up on the page, no matter how much we try not to, so I am not really complaining, just pointing it out...
"...“How exciting to be at the center of power.” “It is exciting, but strangely enough it doesn’t feel like the center of power. In a democracy the president is subject to the voters.” “But surely he doesn’t just do what the public wants.” “Not exactly, no. President Wilson says a leader must treat public opinion the way a sailor deals with the wind, using it to blow the ship in one direction or another, but never trying to go directly against it.” ..."
So, trying to summarize my feelings, I have to say that Follett sucks at writing about relationships and he only uses them to hang the lesson-review of History on the characters' backs, so he has a way to make it more personal. As long as you look at it this way and forgive omissions due to impossibility to cover everything in this format, I think this is a good book to give you the feel for the World during WWI. Don't expect something too deeply emotional, he does tend to point and tell, not so much stop and look for the hows or whys of human sensibilities. I know I will read the rest of the books in the series and will try to keep my expectations to the limits of those conditions:):):)
"...“The ability to listen to smart people who disagree with you is a rare talent” ..."
Now I wish you all Happy Reading and may you always find what you Need in the pages of a Good Book!
October 26, 2020
At 985 pages, Fall of the Giants is a massive tome and the first book in The Century Trilogy, follows the fates of five interrelated families—American, German, Russian, English, and Welsh—as they move through the world-shaking dramas of the First World War, the Russian Revolution, and the struggle for women's suffrage.
These characters find their lives inextricably entangled in a saga of unfolding drama and intriguing complexity, Fall of Giants moves seamlessly from Washington to St. Petersburg, from the dirt and danger of the coal mines to the glittering chandeliers of a palace, from the corridors of power to the bedrooms of the mighty.
As with all Ken Follett novels the characters and historical events are extremely well researched. I love his attention to detail. I really enjoyed following the lives of all the families involved as well as reading the dramatic historical events at the beginning of the 20th Century. I think Follett’s prose flows and his storytelling is effortless which makes a novel of this volume so easy to read.
I love books that can incorporate history with fiction and not make the reader feel bogged down with facts but yet you come away with a little more knowledge than you started with.
Fall of Giants is a big read and I started the novel by listening to it as an audio book but switched in favour of a paperback.
For me this was a great historical read and I am really looking forward to Part Two of this trilogy.
These characters find their lives inextricably entangled in a saga of unfolding drama and intriguing complexity, Fall of Giants moves seamlessly from Washington to St. Petersburg, from the dirt and danger of the coal mines to the glittering chandeliers of a palace, from the corridors of power to the bedrooms of the mighty.
As with all Ken Follett novels the characters and historical events are extremely well researched. I love his attention to detail. I really enjoyed following the lives of all the families involved as well as reading the dramatic historical events at the beginning of the 20th Century. I think Follett’s prose flows and his storytelling is effortless which makes a novel of this volume so easy to read.
I love books that can incorporate history with fiction and not make the reader feel bogged down with facts but yet you come away with a little more knowledge than you started with.
Fall of Giants is a big read and I started the novel by listening to it as an audio book but switched in favour of a paperback.
For me this was a great historical read and I am really looking forward to Part Two of this trilogy.
February 22, 2016
Ken Follet’s style quickly engrossed me into the characters and their lives. The book follows the lives of several families in the events that led up to the First World War and the crisis afterwards. We see it from the perspective of an English Noblemen, an English working class family, a pair of Russian brothers, a German with strong prospects in government and an undersecretary working for the Wilson administration. Through this we get a multi-dimensional view of the war.
A complete picture of major powers
This allows the reader to understand the turmoil these events caused on everyday people from both sides of the fence. We see the effects the war had on ordinary people, and how political events that did not really concern them changed their lives. I think this does wonders to evoke the time period this was set in; it captures the opinion of nations and their fears towards a world that is quickly becoming enveloped in War. In addition to this, we see the nobility, and the gentry, respond to the crisis in ways that reflects their station. I think through combining these perspectives we get a strong admission for what the world was like during world war one.
Moreover, the characters themselves are incredibly interesting people. Their lives are not exactly remarkable, but I think the way Follet writes captures something that many authors fail to do. It may be because they are realistic; thus, they can be related to very easily. They feel like the kind of person that would have existed at the time, and the problems they face reflect the age in which they lived. Indeed, the book covers social issues such as inequality of women and racism, mostly toward Jews. This again enhances a reading experience that is true to the age. It’s very rare that in a book with as many points of view as this one that none of the characters stands out in particular, to me, because they are all equally well written.
A neutral judgement of the war
I especially like the way the book is told from a neutral sense. The Germans are not blamed for the war, by the author, as they were at the time by other nations. Follet hints at what could have happened during the war if the Germans made different decisions. Through his narration he suggests that if the Germans were less concerned with their country’s honour, and the appearance of power, then perhaps the war would have had a different resolution. I think this is an interesting social comment because the Germans, at the time, were blamed for a war they didn’t really start. The English too, and the French, could have quite easily made some war avoiding decisions.
“In every country, those who were against war had been overruled. The Austrians had attacked Serbia when they might have held back; the Russians had mobilized instead of negotiating; the Germans had refused to attend an international conference to settle the issue; the French had been offered the chance to remain neutral and had spurned it; and now the British were about to join in when they might easily have remained on the sidelines.”
This is a very long book, but it does not feel like one. Follett’s prose writing is fantastic as this book only felt as long as it needed to be. The only reason I gave this book four stars, and not five, was that I personally prefer reading novels based upon ancient or medieval history. I really liked this book, but I would have preferred to see Follet spend his time writing more books like The Pillars of the Earth and The World Without End. Follet is one of my favourite authors and because of this I read a book that isn’t my personal taste. I’m glad I read it, but I could only ever give it four stars because the history is too recent for my liking.
A strong four stars
A complete picture of major powers
This allows the reader to understand the turmoil these events caused on everyday people from both sides of the fence. We see the effects the war had on ordinary people, and how political events that did not really concern them changed their lives. I think this does wonders to evoke the time period this was set in; it captures the opinion of nations and their fears towards a world that is quickly becoming enveloped in War. In addition to this, we see the nobility, and the gentry, respond to the crisis in ways that reflects their station. I think through combining these perspectives we get a strong admission for what the world was like during world war one.
Moreover, the characters themselves are incredibly interesting people. Their lives are not exactly remarkable, but I think the way Follet writes captures something that many authors fail to do. It may be because they are realistic; thus, they can be related to very easily. They feel like the kind of person that would have existed at the time, and the problems they face reflect the age in which they lived. Indeed, the book covers social issues such as inequality of women and racism, mostly toward Jews. This again enhances a reading experience that is true to the age. It’s very rare that in a book with as many points of view as this one that none of the characters stands out in particular, to me, because they are all equally well written.
A neutral judgement of the war
I especially like the way the book is told from a neutral sense. The Germans are not blamed for the war, by the author, as they were at the time by other nations. Follet hints at what could have happened during the war if the Germans made different decisions. Through his narration he suggests that if the Germans were less concerned with their country’s honour, and the appearance of power, then perhaps the war would have had a different resolution. I think this is an interesting social comment because the Germans, at the time, were blamed for a war they didn’t really start. The English too, and the French, could have quite easily made some war avoiding decisions.
“In every country, those who were against war had been overruled. The Austrians had attacked Serbia when they might have held back; the Russians had mobilized instead of negotiating; the Germans had refused to attend an international conference to settle the issue; the French had been offered the chance to remain neutral and had spurned it; and now the British were about to join in when they might easily have remained on the sidelines.”
This is a very long book, but it does not feel like one. Follett’s prose writing is fantastic as this book only felt as long as it needed to be. The only reason I gave this book four stars, and not five, was that I personally prefer reading novels based upon ancient or medieval history. I really liked this book, but I would have preferred to see Follet spend his time writing more books like The Pillars of the Earth and The World Without End. Follet is one of my favourite authors and because of this I read a book that isn’t my personal taste. I’m glad I read it, but I could only ever give it four stars because the history is too recent for my liking.
A strong four stars
December 30, 2015
Definitely my favourite WWI history novel I have read thus far. Beautifully captures the troubles of WWI on all spectrums, not just politically or on the battlefield.
August 5, 2010
5.0 out of 5 stars Captivating epic tale!, August 5, 2010
This review is from: Fall of Giants (The Century Trilogy) (Hardcover)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
This is a fantastic epic, the first in a planned trilogy by the author of The Pillars of the Earth (now a miniseries) and World Without End. I simply raced through the pages, unable to put this book down even though it was a hefty nearly 1000 pages.
The story moves seamlessly and logically, starting in 1911 and ending in 1925, and has a large cast of characters -- all so beautifully developed that the reader comes to care about each one -- the good and the bad. A helpful CAST OF CHARACTERS is provided at the beginning of the book that may be copied and used as reference, but it is really not needed as the reader is introduced to each and they are so memorable that it's easy to keep them straight. The families are American, English, Scottish, French, German and Austrian, Russian, and Welsh. There are Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Duchesses, Kings, Queens, Earls, Dukes -- even the servants, miners, and other assorted people populate this work of fiction. The author has also inserted real historical figures into the story, and their interaction with Follett's characters is very well done.
Book one of the CENTURY TRILOGY is set in Europe before, during and after World War I. From a mining town in Aberowen, South Wales, to the drawing rooms of the privileged aristocracy in Russia, Britain, Germany, and to the War Room in the White House of Woodrow Wilson -- the narrative captivates as it tells the tale of the people involved in the conflict and their lives during this period of change in the world.
The story is intriguing and complex, but eminently readable. The violence and gore that were present in Follett's previous works is absent here, and the action is fast and the storytelling fantastic. I have a fondness for historical fiction, and this work does not disappoint as the author has obviously thoroughly researched the era and has rendered it beautifully.
I won't and can't provide a synopsis of this book other than to say that it's a drama about life and love during these fateful years and I promise you that this will go down as being one of the best books you've ever read.
I cannot recommend it highly enough and can't wait for the sequel! Historical fiction at its best.
This review is from: Fall of Giants (The Century Trilogy) (Hardcover)
Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?)
This is a fantastic epic, the first in a planned trilogy by the author of The Pillars of the Earth (now a miniseries) and World Without End. I simply raced through the pages, unable to put this book down even though it was a hefty nearly 1000 pages.
The story moves seamlessly and logically, starting in 1911 and ending in 1925, and has a large cast of characters -- all so beautifully developed that the reader comes to care about each one -- the good and the bad. A helpful CAST OF CHARACTERS is provided at the beginning of the book that may be copied and used as reference, but it is really not needed as the reader is introduced to each and they are so memorable that it's easy to keep them straight. The families are American, English, Scottish, French, German and Austrian, Russian, and Welsh. There are Lords and Ladies, Dukes and Duchesses, Kings, Queens, Earls, Dukes -- even the servants, miners, and other assorted people populate this work of fiction. The author has also inserted real historical figures into the story, and their interaction with Follett's characters is very well done.
Book one of the CENTURY TRILOGY is set in Europe before, during and after World War I. From a mining town in Aberowen, South Wales, to the drawing rooms of the privileged aristocracy in Russia, Britain, Germany, and to the War Room in the White House of Woodrow Wilson -- the narrative captivates as it tells the tale of the people involved in the conflict and their lives during this period of change in the world.
The story is intriguing and complex, but eminently readable. The violence and gore that were present in Follett's previous works is absent here, and the action is fast and the storytelling fantastic. I have a fondness for historical fiction, and this work does not disappoint as the author has obviously thoroughly researched the era and has rendered it beautifully.
I won't and can't provide a synopsis of this book other than to say that it's a drama about life and love during these fateful years and I promise you that this will go down as being one of the best books you've ever read.
I cannot recommend it highly enough and can't wait for the sequel! Historical fiction at its best.
January 5, 2020
“Las vejaciones a las que sometes a los demás regresan, tarde o temprano, para torturarte.”
Insisto, Ken Follett nunca me decepciona! y jamás me desanima cuando agarro un libro suyo y me encuentro con más de 1000 páginas, sé que no voy a perder el tiempo.
Poco sabía de la I Guerra Mundial y de la Revolución Rusa, pero el autor ha hecho un excelente resumen con personajes excepcionales (reales y ficticios), mostrando como cinco familias de diferentes nacionalidades, culturas y niveles socio económicos viven un momento histórico.
Es una historia de nobles y plebeyos, ricos y pobres, imperios contra imperios, la historia del siglo XX hasta 1924. Ya nadie a estas alturas puede negar que Follett es un escritor completo y complejo, al que le encanta poner estas diferencias sociales como parte de su trama, poniendo énfasis en el abismo que existe entre ellos. Así como tampoco, el hecho de mezclar situaciones ficticias perfectamente entretejidas con hechos históricos.
100% recomendado
Insisto, Ken Follett nunca me decepciona! y jamás me desanima cuando agarro un libro suyo y me encuentro con más de 1000 páginas, sé que no voy a perder el tiempo.
Poco sabía de la I Guerra Mundial y de la Revolución Rusa, pero el autor ha hecho un excelente resumen con personajes excepcionales (reales y ficticios), mostrando como cinco familias de diferentes nacionalidades, culturas y niveles socio económicos viven un momento histórico.
Es una historia de nobles y plebeyos, ricos y pobres, imperios contra imperios, la historia del siglo XX hasta 1924. Ya nadie a estas alturas puede negar que Follett es un escritor completo y complejo, al que le encanta poner estas diferencias sociales como parte de su trama, poniendo énfasis en el abismo que existe entre ellos. Así como tampoco, el hecho de mezclar situaciones ficticias perfectamente entretejidas con hechos históricos.
100% recomendado
June 5, 2011
I have loved just about everything Ken Follett has written, but I think this one fell short of his usual standard. Most of his novels grab you from the beginning, with fully-drawn characters and gripping plot lines. I wasn't even done with the second chapter before I began to wonder if I was even going to like this. I think he may have tried to accomplish too much with this story. There were so many characters with so much going on in their lives. There was not enough time to give more than a glimpse of each character's personality and motives, even though the novel was almost a 1,000 pages long. I will grant that quite a lot of research had to have gone into it before the writing. However, the political details read more like a history book and made it very hard to dredge though.
One part that did make me chuckle was when one of the characters had a chance to view a chapel that was built around 1000 AD. He couldn't figure out why other people were so enchanted with old churches. Remembering "Pillars of the Earth", which might be argued as Follett's greatest novel, I think that was a little "tongue-in-cheek".
This is the first book of a planned triology and I probably will read the others. I will wait until they come out in paperback, though. This novel didn't leave me breathlessly waiting for the next.
One part that did make me chuckle was when one of the characters had a chance to view a chapel that was built around 1000 AD. He couldn't figure out why other people were so enchanted with old churches. Remembering "Pillars of the Earth", which might be argued as Follett's greatest novel, I think that was a little "tongue-in-cheek".
This is the first book of a planned triology and I probably will read the others. I will wait until they come out in paperback, though. This novel didn't leave me breathlessly waiting for the next.
January 25, 2013
Esta foi a minha estreia nos livros de Ken Follett. E foi uma excelente estreia! Adorei o tema, a escrita, os personagens... A única coisa que tenha a dizer é que de facto é um livro muito, muito grande, difícil de transportar e até de ler, pelas suas dimensões. Compreendo que o autor tenha querido pormenorizar o mais possivel a história e não senti que fosse demais, mais por favor, quando for assim dividam o livro em 2 volumes... Recomendo a leitura, sem duvida e espero ansiosamente a leitura do próximo, que já foi editado no nosso pais
October 24, 2022
Listened for nearly 38 hours to this first part of the trilogy.
A very detailed story about several European and American families before, during and after World War I.
A very detailed story about several European and American families before, during and after World War I.
July 19, 2021
Follett is the master of the historical thriller, and with what unbelievable range! I thought 'Pillars of the Earth' (13th century England) was a master work. Here, 'Fall of Giants' begins a trilogy of 20th-century stories with characters living the upheaval of The Great War and the Bolshevik revolution.
As with his earlier historical works, this book is dauntingly long. The length, however, is necessary for the structure of following seven protagonists. One might wish for this book to be divided into three or four normal-length novels, each with one or two protagonists. But that wouldn't be as satisfying--Follett does a brilliant job of interconnecting the characters' stories, leaving me with the feeling that the story could not have been told in a better, or more abbreviated way. In effect, we have seven novels about seven protagonists condensed into one efficient, well-connected story only three times as long as a a single novel. I do think the 100-page wind-down at the end could have been condensed, but, of course, it also serves to position the characters for the next book in the series.
As with his earlier historical works, this book is dauntingly long. The length, however, is necessary for the structure of following seven protagonists. One might wish for this book to be divided into three or four normal-length novels, each with one or two protagonists. But that wouldn't be as satisfying--Follett does a brilliant job of interconnecting the characters' stories, leaving me with the feeling that the story could not have been told in a better, or more abbreviated way. In effect, we have seven novels about seven protagonists condensed into one efficient, well-connected story only three times as long as a a single novel. I do think the 100-page wind-down at the end could have been condensed, but, of course, it also serves to position the characters for the next book in the series.
March 3, 2017
Fall of Giants is a door stopper, one of those books that makes me glad I have an e-reader for the sake of my wrists. At close to 1000 pages, it's long, and at times it feels like it. The first time I tried to read it, I didn't have the patience, but this time, I settled in for the long haul, determined to give it some time. That patience made all the difference.
This is an astounding historical epic. It takes the events leading up to World War I and the Russian Revolution and fills them with characters on all sides that you can relate to and feel for. I didn't like all of the characters, but I understood them and their motivations, and they were so real. Follett paints them in neat brushstrokes - just a few lines here and there for each character that bring them to life. And then he proceeds to take you through the war and its aftermath through their eyes, through dashed hopes and picking up the pieces of lives.
It is surprisingly not bleak, and surprisingly spends little time on the actual battles of the war. Those are only the focus when they move something forward, when they are pivotal for a character or for the direction of the war. Even then, the focus is more on strategy or what is happening to the character than on the violence. (Not that you don't get a sense of that, too, but it's not a battle slog.)
I really appreciated that it didn't get bogged down in the trenches, dwelling on the horror and slaughter. Instead, it stepped back and looked at the reasons why people did what they did, and how the world got into such a mess and then couldn't get back out. It's been a while since I learned about the Great War in school, so this was a fantastic way to refresh my memory - and to realize with my more adult understanding that there was good and bad on all sides, humans exploiting others and grasping for power, and other humans just trying to find a way to live in peace.
If anyone was bad in this take on history, it was the upper classes, not restricted to any nation - although Russia got the worst of it. It was the elite who dragged the poor working people into the war, who oppressed them and allowed them to starve while they continued living in style. It was the elite men who didn't want working women to have the right to vote, etc. So this addresses social issues such as class and women's rights, and just briefly, race. And it does it in such a readable way. There were only a couple of times that I felt it was slow, and that was when the focus was on characters that I wasn't so interested in.
I'm amazed at how easy it seems for Follett to bring all of these strings of sweeping historical and social change together in real people that you fear for, and make it understandable as well as engrossing. It is magnificent and deeply personal at the same time. Highly recommended to anyone who reads historical fiction and is in the mood for a rewarding epic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Initial DNF Review, September 19, 2012:
I gave this a decent try, but just couldn't get into it. I really enjoyed the The Pillars of the Earth - it was one of the first historical fiction novels that I discovered and loved - but I felt more connected to the characters and their challenges, not to mention the epic cathedral project, from the beginning. This one is more 'sweeping' as it has been described. For me, that's not necessarily a good thing.
The difference of time period may also be a factor - I enjoy reading about the Medieval Era, but have never really been able to get into books about the 20th Century wars. Pillars was centered around a priory town with lots of political intrigue and the building of a cathedral (cool architectural stuff!) and how ordinary people were affected by these things. Since that initial experience, I've discovered by trial and error that not all historical fiction is for me (it turns out I'm picky), and I think this is simply another mismatch for me.
Whatever the reason, I put it on hold when I was tired of trying so hard to like it, and never felt compelled to come back to it. I suppose that could still change, but for now I'm happy to leave it where it is.
This is an astounding historical epic. It takes the events leading up to World War I and the Russian Revolution and fills them with characters on all sides that you can relate to and feel for. I didn't like all of the characters, but I understood them and their motivations, and they were so real. Follett paints them in neat brushstrokes - just a few lines here and there for each character that bring them to life. And then he proceeds to take you through the war and its aftermath through their eyes, through dashed hopes and picking up the pieces of lives.
It is surprisingly not bleak, and surprisingly spends little time on the actual battles of the war. Those are only the focus when they move something forward, when they are pivotal for a character or for the direction of the war. Even then, the focus is more on strategy or what is happening to the character than on the violence. (Not that you don't get a sense of that, too, but it's not a battle slog.)
I really appreciated that it didn't get bogged down in the trenches, dwelling on the horror and slaughter. Instead, it stepped back and looked at the reasons why people did what they did, and how the world got into such a mess and then couldn't get back out. It's been a while since I learned about the Great War in school, so this was a fantastic way to refresh my memory - and to realize with my more adult understanding that there was good and bad on all sides, humans exploiting others and grasping for power, and other humans just trying to find a way to live in peace.
If anyone was bad in this take on history, it was the upper classes, not restricted to any nation - although Russia got the worst of it. It was the elite who dragged the poor working people into the war, who oppressed them and allowed them to starve while they continued living in style. It was the elite men who didn't want working women to have the right to vote, etc. So this addresses social issues such as class and women's rights, and just briefly, race. And it does it in such a readable way. There were only a couple of times that I felt it was slow, and that was when the focus was on characters that I wasn't so interested in.
I'm amazed at how easy it seems for Follett to bring all of these strings of sweeping historical and social change together in real people that you fear for, and make it understandable as well as engrossing. It is magnificent and deeply personal at the same time. Highly recommended to anyone who reads historical fiction and is in the mood for a rewarding epic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Initial DNF Review, September 19, 2012:
I gave this a decent try, but just couldn't get into it. I really enjoyed the The Pillars of the Earth - it was one of the first historical fiction novels that I discovered and loved - but I felt more connected to the characters and their challenges, not to mention the epic cathedral project, from the beginning. This one is more 'sweeping' as it has been described. For me, that's not necessarily a good thing.
The difference of time period may also be a factor - I enjoy reading about the Medieval Era, but have never really been able to get into books about the 20th Century wars. Pillars was centered around a priory town with lots of political intrigue and the building of a cathedral (cool architectural stuff!) and how ordinary people were affected by these things. Since that initial experience, I've discovered by trial and error that not all historical fiction is for me (it turns out I'm picky), and I think this is simply another mismatch for me.
Whatever the reason, I put it on hold when I was tired of trying so hard to like it, and never felt compelled to come back to it. I suppose that could still change, but for now I'm happy to leave it where it is.
August 27, 2024
There are some books that, at first glance, seem incredibly grand and impressive. They received numerous awards, have eye-catching titles, and have moved countless readers in many countries. They've been translated into dozens of languages and have topped bestseller lists for extended periods. In reality, it's all just a marketing ploy - and this book is a prime example.
It's incredibly difficult to read.
It's essentially a slow-paced novel. The entire book drags on, feeling quite verbose, and many of the plot points are incredibly boring. After reading each section, I felt a sense of weariness and boredom, so I would switch to another book. After a while, I would remember this one and pick it up again, repeating this cycle until I finally finished it, which took me weeks to finish.
Another issue is the overly rigid and stereotypical characters: the anti-war sentiments of the Germans, the bravery and justice of the British, the poverty and hardship of the Russians, and the "world savior" image of the Americans. Everything seems so neatly categorized, feeling overly artificial and distasteful. Such a rigid and formulaic approach lacks innovation.
People always had the impression that Western writers portray historical figures in a stereotypical manner: nobles are ignorant, incompetent, and conservative; the working class is hardworking, brave, and just; peasants are honest and hardworking; and Americans are free, romantic, and peace-loving. This novel reinforces these stereotypes. Almost everyone in the story is righteous and anti-war, but paradoxically, war still happens. The author simply attributes it to the stupidity of the politicians - this is too unrealistic and filled with fantasy.
The truth is, Germany's initiation of war and America's entry into the war were not, as Follet suggests, acts of desperation or impulsiveness, but rather premeditated political actions. The secret maneuvering of international politics is not as pure and simple as imagined. The kings and politicians of those countries wouldn't start a war over the casualties of one or two soldiers. It's wrong to treat history as a fantasy novel.
Follett's portrayal of international politics is too naive. While his depiction of the details of war is fairly realistic, his portrayal of the power struggles between nations is far removed from reality. I cannot agree with his construction of the abilities and actions of the leaders during World War I based on his limited imagination.
Lastly, I find Follett's writing to be pandering. The book is filled with anti-war and feminist sentiments, which is probably considered "politically correct" in the West. And from the portrayal of the countries and characters in the book, he seems to have a desire to beautify them, aiming to appeal to readers in more countries and increase sales. This deviates from the essence of storytelling. Almost everyone in the book is portrayed as good: kind British people, intelligent Germans, brave Russians, and righteous Americans. So why war? Why?
Although his portrayal of characters' actions and psychology is fairly accurate, and he pays attention to historical details (initially, it felt like watching a historical epic drama, which was exciting), I still doubts about his ability to write a book on such a grand scale with so many major biases.
So, although Fall of Giants gave me a little surprise and shock at the beginning, the anticlimactic structure ultimately left me unsatisfied.
Perhaps I should have separated history from fiction to appreciate this "masterpiece"?
2 / 5
It's incredibly difficult to read.
It's essentially a slow-paced novel. The entire book drags on, feeling quite verbose, and many of the plot points are incredibly boring. After reading each section, I felt a sense of weariness and boredom, so I would switch to another book. After a while, I would remember this one and pick it up again, repeating this cycle until I finally finished it, which took me weeks to finish.
Another issue is the overly rigid and stereotypical characters: the anti-war sentiments of the Germans, the bravery and justice of the British, the poverty and hardship of the Russians, and the "world savior" image of the Americans. Everything seems so neatly categorized, feeling overly artificial and distasteful. Such a rigid and formulaic approach lacks innovation.
People always had the impression that Western writers portray historical figures in a stereotypical manner: nobles are ignorant, incompetent, and conservative; the working class is hardworking, brave, and just; peasants are honest and hardworking; and Americans are free, romantic, and peace-loving. This novel reinforces these stereotypes. Almost everyone in the story is righteous and anti-war, but paradoxically, war still happens. The author simply attributes it to the stupidity of the politicians - this is too unrealistic and filled with fantasy.
The truth is, Germany's initiation of war and America's entry into the war were not, as Follet suggests, acts of desperation or impulsiveness, but rather premeditated political actions. The secret maneuvering of international politics is not as pure and simple as imagined. The kings and politicians of those countries wouldn't start a war over the casualties of one or two soldiers. It's wrong to treat history as a fantasy novel.
Follett's portrayal of international politics is too naive. While his depiction of the details of war is fairly realistic, his portrayal of the power struggles between nations is far removed from reality. I cannot agree with his construction of the abilities and actions of the leaders during World War I based on his limited imagination.
Lastly, I find Follett's writing to be pandering. The book is filled with anti-war and feminist sentiments, which is probably considered "politically correct" in the West. And from the portrayal of the countries and characters in the book, he seems to have a desire to beautify them, aiming to appeal to readers in more countries and increase sales. This deviates from the essence of storytelling. Almost everyone in the book is portrayed as good: kind British people, intelligent Germans, brave Russians, and righteous Americans. So why war? Why?
Although his portrayal of characters' actions and psychology is fairly accurate, and he pays attention to historical details (initially, it felt like watching a historical epic drama, which was exciting), I still doubts about his ability to write a book on such a grand scale with so many major biases.
So, although Fall of Giants gave me a little surprise and shock at the beginning, the anticlimactic structure ultimately left me unsatisfied.
Perhaps I should have separated history from fiction to appreciate this "masterpiece"?
2 / 5
April 3, 2016
Ένα εκπληκτικό πέρασμα σε μια από τις πιο σημαντικές δεκαετίες του ταραχώδη 20ου αιώνα. Γραμμένο με ευλαβική προσήλωση στην ακρίβεια των ιστορικών αναφορών και ταυτόχρονα με διασκεδαστική δράση. Οι ήρωες είναι πολλοί, Άγγλοι ευγενείς και Άγγλοι ανθρακωρύχοι, ένας Γερμανός πρέσβης, ένας Αμερικανός και δυο ρωσικά αλητάκια. Βιώνουν απίστευτες στιγμές της ιστορίας και μέσα από τις υπέροχες περιγραφές του Φολλετ, και εμείς μαζί τους. Βιώνουμε τον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο από την σκοπιά της Αγγλίας, της Γερμανίας της Ρωσίας και της Αμερικής και όχι μόνο από την μεριά των πολιτικών και των στρατιωτικών αλλά και του απλού λαού. Επίσης βιώνουμε και τις κοινωνικές αναταράξεις. Από μια απεργία ανθρακωρύχων στην Ουαλία, τις διαδηλώσεις των σουφραζετων στο Λονδίνο, μέχρι την Ρωσική επανάσταση (δεν σήκωσα κεφάλι σε εκείνα τα σημεία, ο Φόλλετ τα έσκισε). Και φυσικά πολλά πολλά κουτσομπολιά. Το ξέρατε ότι ο Λένιν έβριζε σαν βόθρος; Ότι ο Τσόρτσιλ ήταν μικρόσωμος και άσχημος αλλά σαματατζής και απρόβλεπτος ;
Τώρα αν με ρωτάτε γιατί έβαλα 4 και όχι 5 αστεράκια εφόσον λέω τοοσο καλά λόγια, θα σας πω ότι σαν κλασικο κοριτσάκι που είμαι, δεν συμπαθώ τόσο τις μάχες και τις πολιτικές συζητήσεις. Σε αυτό το βιβλίο βρέθηκα χαμένη σε ένα μεγάλο πλήθος από αυτές.
Τώρα αν με ρωτάτε γιατί έβαλα 4 και όχι 5 αστεράκια εφόσον λέω τοοσο καλά λόγια, θα σας πω ότι σαν κλασικο κοριτσάκι που είμαι, δεν συμπαθώ τόσο τις μάχες και τις πολιτικές συζητήσεις. Σε αυτό το βιβλίο βρέθηκα χαμένη σε ένα μεγάλο πλήθος από αυτές.
December 21, 2022
A gripping re-telling of the history of World War I
When Ken Follett was asked why he chose to write FALL OF GIANTS, the first novel in his planned CENTURY trilogy, the intersecting history of five families beginning in the early years of the twentieth century, he responded:
"The 20th century is the most dramatic and violent period in the history of the human race. We killed more people in the 20th century than in any previous century, in the trenches of World War I, in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in Germany under the Nazis, Spain under Franco. There was World War II and the bombing of Dresden by the British and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a horrible century and yet it is also the century of liberty."
"Very few countries were democratic before the First World War. In Britain in 1900, fewer than a quarter of the adult population had the vote. None of the women had the vote in any of these countries, so that's 50 per cent of the people who weren't allowed to take part in democracy. And the franchise was gradually extended to working class men, so democracy really only had a toehold in the world in 1900. Now we take it for granted, certainly in all the countries we think are "civilized." And that's a big contrast with what we did in terms of killing each other."
FALL OF GIANTS, by telling the engaging stories of the lives of these five families, also tells the story of Europe and its politics as so many nations stumbled foolishly into World War I; as many countries extended the franchise to a small fraction of women and working class men; as Russia toppled their monarchy and moved towards an equally repressive Communist dictatorship after the Bolshevik Revolution; as the USA unilaterally assumed the role of the world's policeman and spearheaded the development of The League of Nations; and as a minor German radical, in the teeth of a crippling imposed peace settlement, implemented the National Socialist party beginning the steady march to a second global conflagration even as many European nations swore, "Never again"!
Some reviewers have criticized Follett's characters as being flat stereotypes. For my money, I saw them as exceptionally well-developed metaphors for broad classes of people that, for one reason or another, would have experienced World War I differently and would have seen the politics and the results of the war from dramatically different perspectives.
Billy Williams, to draw only one example from Follett's heavily populated dramatis personae, was an apt representative of England's working class man who, prior to the war, was a coal miner subject to the brutal and self-centered whims of capitalist mine owners. Despite a quick mind and keen wit, he was once again subject during the war to the orders of officers who frequently seemed to lack even a modicum of common sense as to the prosecution of an offensive against Germany. Finally, as the franchise was at long last extended to working men, he served as the illustrative example of the rise of the Labour Party as it came to power in England immediately after the war.
It is through this type of metaphorical character that Follett has achieved nothing less than a compelling re-telling of the history of Europe through the first 25 years of the twentieth century! It is not often that I can say that a 1000 page monster has managed to keep me glued to the pages from first to last but FALL OF GIANTS certainly managed it. The depth of understanding of the progress of world history that Follett conveys by looking at events through the eyes of such an enormously varied spectrum of characters can hardly be overstated. English speaking secondary schools around the world might do themselves and their students a favour by considering this as mandatory reading for their history curricula.
Highly recommended ... and now I sit and wait for the second instalment in the trilogy! Sigh!
Paul Weiss
When Ken Follett was asked why he chose to write FALL OF GIANTS, the first novel in his planned CENTURY trilogy, the intersecting history of five families beginning in the early years of the twentieth century, he responded:
"The 20th century is the most dramatic and violent period in the history of the human race. We killed more people in the 20th century than in any previous century, in the trenches of World War I, in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in Germany under the Nazis, Spain under Franco. There was World War II and the bombing of Dresden by the British and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a horrible century and yet it is also the century of liberty."
"Very few countries were democratic before the First World War. In Britain in 1900, fewer than a quarter of the adult population had the vote. None of the women had the vote in any of these countries, so that's 50 per cent of the people who weren't allowed to take part in democracy. And the franchise was gradually extended to working class men, so democracy really only had a toehold in the world in 1900. Now we take it for granted, certainly in all the countries we think are "civilized." And that's a big contrast with what we did in terms of killing each other."
FALL OF GIANTS, by telling the engaging stories of the lives of these five families, also tells the story of Europe and its politics as so many nations stumbled foolishly into World War I; as many countries extended the franchise to a small fraction of women and working class men; as Russia toppled their monarchy and moved towards an equally repressive Communist dictatorship after the Bolshevik Revolution; as the USA unilaterally assumed the role of the world's policeman and spearheaded the development of The League of Nations; and as a minor German radical, in the teeth of a crippling imposed peace settlement, implemented the National Socialist party beginning the steady march to a second global conflagration even as many European nations swore, "Never again"!
Some reviewers have criticized Follett's characters as being flat stereotypes. For my money, I saw them as exceptionally well-developed metaphors for broad classes of people that, for one reason or another, would have experienced World War I differently and would have seen the politics and the results of the war from dramatically different perspectives.
Billy Williams, to draw only one example from Follett's heavily populated dramatis personae, was an apt representative of England's working class man who, prior to the war, was a coal miner subject to the brutal and self-centered whims of capitalist mine owners. Despite a quick mind and keen wit, he was once again subject during the war to the orders of officers who frequently seemed to lack even a modicum of common sense as to the prosecution of an offensive against Germany. Finally, as the franchise was at long last extended to working men, he served as the illustrative example of the rise of the Labour Party as it came to power in England immediately after the war.
It is through this type of metaphorical character that Follett has achieved nothing less than a compelling re-telling of the history of Europe through the first 25 years of the twentieth century! It is not often that I can say that a 1000 page monster has managed to keep me glued to the pages from first to last but FALL OF GIANTS certainly managed it. The depth of understanding of the progress of world history that Follett conveys by looking at events through the eyes of such an enormously varied spectrum of characters can hardly be overstated. English speaking secondary schools around the world might do themselves and their students a favour by considering this as mandatory reading for their history curricula.
Highly recommended ... and now I sit and wait for the second instalment in the trilogy! Sigh!
Paul Weiss
July 31, 2021
Tudo em Família
Lido há demasiado tempo para uma resenha detalhada!
Só posso afirmar que gostei deste gigante que fala de gigantes. Ficou tudo em família 😜🌟🌟🌟🌟
Lido há demasiado tempo para uma resenha detalhada!
Só posso afirmar que gostei deste gigante que fala de gigantes. Ficou tudo em família 😜🌟🌟🌟🌟
December 31, 2018
Normally I can rate a book pretty quickly, without giving much thought to it, but this one, was difficult. I'm fairly neutral with how I feel about this book. I've definitely read worse, but then I've read better as well. This has been hailed as a masterpiece. This is no masterpiece and in my experience, it quickly became a headache.
There are some aspects of the book that I did like, though. I liked the fact that the characters Maud and Ethel were from very different backgrounds but were both confidently fighting for women's rights. I'm going to say that though, as I'm a feminist. I feel their characters themselves were not as developed as I would have liked though. I appreciate the amount of research that has gone into the writing of this book, especially when one is talking about the war itself. My problem is, that the majority of the second half of the book was eaten away by these battle scenes, and that quickly became tedious for me. I usually enjoy historical fiction based on war but this was too much and the main plot kind of got lost in it.
Despite this book being nearly 900 pages long I do think Ken Follett tried to accomplish way too much in this book. We are introduced to a vast array of characters with stories to tell but we only get half of these stories and glimpses of their lives, which made me feel so much less for those characters, as I felt I couldn't relate to them. I feel that the writing was simple and phrases were definitely overused. If I read the term "After they made love" once more, I'll scream! Seriously, throwing that phrase in there in every chapter major things dreadfully cumbersome.
This book was certainly readable but it dragged too much for me to really enjoy it.
There are some aspects of the book that I did like, though. I liked the fact that the characters Maud and Ethel were from very different backgrounds but were both confidently fighting for women's rights. I'm going to say that though, as I'm a feminist. I feel their characters themselves were not as developed as I would have liked though. I appreciate the amount of research that has gone into the writing of this book, especially when one is talking about the war itself. My problem is, that the majority of the second half of the book was eaten away by these battle scenes, and that quickly became tedious for me. I usually enjoy historical fiction based on war but this was too much and the main plot kind of got lost in it.
Despite this book being nearly 900 pages long I do think Ken Follett tried to accomplish way too much in this book. We are introduced to a vast array of characters with stories to tell but we only get half of these stories and glimpses of their lives, which made me feel so much less for those characters, as I felt I couldn't relate to them. I feel that the writing was simple and phrases were definitely overused. If I read the term "After they made love" once more, I'll scream! Seriously, throwing that phrase in there in every chapter major things dreadfully cumbersome.
This book was certainly readable but it dragged too much for me to really enjoy it.
January 26, 2022
Book 1 in the Century Trilogy published 2010
A 4 star sweeping world saga.
This is a history of the first quarter of the twentieth century as seen through the eyes of the opposing classes of various nationalities and the divide between the genders of that time.
Heady stuff to say the least.
World War 1.
The Russian Revolution.
Female suffrage.
The rebellion of the working classes against their so called betters.
At a little under 900 pages nothing is glossed over.
Become a suffragette. Witness the horrors of trench warfare. Be at the coal face of a Welsh mine. Be a starving Russian peasant. Be in the White House as Woodrow Wilson tries to get the world to agree to a League of Nations. Be in the Winter Palace to witness the end of the Romanov dynasty.
All the real giants of history are here as well as many fictional ones.
Five families are central to the plot. Some will become giants whilst other giants will fall.
I for one enjoyed all 846 pages and now look forward to the next instalment.
A recommended read for all lovers of historical fiction.
A 4 star sweeping world saga.
This is a history of the first quarter of the twentieth century as seen through the eyes of the opposing classes of various nationalities and the divide between the genders of that time.
Heady stuff to say the least.
World War 1.
The Russian Revolution.
Female suffrage.
The rebellion of the working classes against their so called betters.
At a little under 900 pages nothing is glossed over.
Become a suffragette. Witness the horrors of trench warfare. Be at the coal face of a Welsh mine. Be a starving Russian peasant. Be in the White House as Woodrow Wilson tries to get the world to agree to a League of Nations. Be in the Winter Palace to witness the end of the Romanov dynasty.
All the real giants of history are here as well as many fictional ones.
Five families are central to the plot. Some will become giants whilst other giants will fall.
I for one enjoyed all 846 pages and now look forward to the next instalment.
A recommended read for all lovers of historical fiction.
March 13, 2019
La idea de mostrar cómo se desenvuelven cinco familias muy diferentes entre ellas en el marco de la Primera Guerra Mundial es buena.
La novela está perfectamente estructurada y la trama, muy bien narrada, se funde a la perfección con los contrastados hechos históricos.
Los personajes y sus actos me resultaron interesantes y a medida que avanzaba, deseaba conocer lo que iba a ocurrir a continuación.
—¿Pero?
—¿Por qué dices pero?
—Porque pese a todo lo bueno que has dicho... solo le has dado tres estrellas.
—¡Ah! Pues el "pero" es que a ratos me pareció lento . Es complicado que el ritmo no decaiga a lo largo de las 1000 páginas y hubo fases que me sentí un poco atascado deseando que el motor volviese a arrancar.
—¿Aún así lo recomendarías?
—¡Por supuesto!
La novela está perfectamente estructurada y la trama, muy bien narrada, se funde a la perfección con los contrastados hechos históricos.
Los personajes y sus actos me resultaron interesantes y a medida que avanzaba, deseaba conocer lo que iba a ocurrir a continuación.
—¿Pero?
—¿Por qué dices pero?
—Porque pese a todo lo bueno que has dicho... solo le has dado tres estrellas.
—¡Ah! Pues el "pero" es que a ratos me pareció lento . Es complicado que el ritmo no decaiga a lo largo de las 1000 páginas y hubo fases que me sentí un poco atascado deseando que el motor volviese a arrancar.
—¿Aún así lo recomendarías?
—¡Por supuesto!
July 9, 2013
Antes de se começar a ler, o tamanho do livro pode ser assustador (930 páginas), mas depois adora-se! Pessoalmente, se tivesse outras tantas páginas teria continuado a ler com o mesmo prazer! A escrita é extraordinária, a história fantástica... Liga de forma soberba realidade e ficção.
Dá-nos uma lição de História sobre o início do Séc. XX que, sem ser demasiado aprofundada (para isso existem os livros especializados), nos dá o suficiente para que possamos entender melhor uma época conturbada onde guerras, revoluções, lutas por novos caminhos estão na ordem do dia. Acima de tudo “espevita-nos” para que façamos a nossa própria pesquisa pessoal.
A ideia de criar personagens de países, estratos sociais, culturas e políticas tão diferentes foi magistral. A sua interligação e interacção foi, na minha opinião, extremamente bem conseguida e dá-nos uma visão, ainda que romanceada (no fim de contas isto é um romance e não uma aula de História) dos sentimentos que moviam pessoas e nações naquele início do século dando através delas voz à insatisfação, aos medos, às ansiedades e inseguranças e às lutas que começavam a nascer e que deram origem a muito do que hoje somos e temos! E no meio de tão intensa época não esqueceu aquilo que move o mundo e a Humanidade: o Amor!
Foi com tristeza que cheguei ao fim. Queria ter podido continuar a acompanhar aquelas personagens que já me eram tão familiares… Resta-me a consolação que muito brevemente vou ler o segundo volume!
Ken Follett sabe mesmo como contar uma história que nos envolve desde a primeira à última página!
Correndo o risco de me repetir, só tenho uma palavra para descrever o livro: FANTÁSTICO!
Recomendo!
Dá-nos uma lição de História sobre o início do Séc. XX que, sem ser demasiado aprofundada (para isso existem os livros especializados), nos dá o suficiente para que possamos entender melhor uma época conturbada onde guerras, revoluções, lutas por novos caminhos estão na ordem do dia. Acima de tudo “espevita-nos” para que façamos a nossa própria pesquisa pessoal.
A ideia de criar personagens de países, estratos sociais, culturas e políticas tão diferentes foi magistral. A sua interligação e interacção foi, na minha opinião, extremamente bem conseguida e dá-nos uma visão, ainda que romanceada (no fim de contas isto é um romance e não uma aula de História) dos sentimentos que moviam pessoas e nações naquele início do século dando através delas voz à insatisfação, aos medos, às ansiedades e inseguranças e às lutas que começavam a nascer e que deram origem a muito do que hoje somos e temos! E no meio de tão intensa época não esqueceu aquilo que move o mundo e a Humanidade: o Amor!
Foi com tristeza que cheguei ao fim. Queria ter podido continuar a acompanhar aquelas personagens que já me eram tão familiares… Resta-me a consolação que muito brevemente vou ler o segundo volume!
Ken Follett sabe mesmo como contar uma história que nos envolve desde a primeira à última página!
Correndo o risco de me repetir, só tenho uma palavra para descrever o livro: FANTÁSTICO!
Recomendo!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 16,523 reviews