Reading the Chunksters discussion

Since there is a lot of discussion in the threads about the historical inaccuracies in the book, we can discuss them here. This way we can read about this if we choose, and if not we can just read the book and discuss the content there.

Happy discussing!

Follett made a few notes on his official website about various errors in his books. The list is obviously incomplete, because several debatable episodes were purposefully manipulated to make the story flow more smoothly, but stuff that fell through the cracks is there.

For those who are interested: Errata

Thanks for sharing.

I am pretty forgiving if there is a good authors note at the end which talks obout the liberties.

In the Week 3 thread, Zulfiya wrote:

As for the questions of the weapons, now we know that they were supplied by John Wesley De Kay and Leon Rasst, BUT at the time when the events happened the newspapers reported that the German government was responsible for this chain of supply.

I am more inclined to believe that it is not Follett who is willingly twisting and turning the facts, neither is it the result of his poor research, but it might be his intention TO SHOW WHAT THE WORLD AND PEOPLE BELIEVED WAS TRUE.

I would agree with you IF the context were a discussion of the characters about Germany having supplied the arms. I agree that for a time the newspapers did report that Germany had supplied them (presumably because Russia shipped them through the German port of Bremen.)

BUT, the facts came out, so Follett knew (or should have known) that the Germans didn't have anything to do with supplying them. But instead of a conversation in which there was a discussion of why or whether Germany should have done that, which would have been consistent with the beliefs of the time period, he had a specific statement that the Germans WERE going to provide them. Which was NOT the case, and Follett should have known that.

It may be a bit of a subtle difference, but for me the issue is, we are getting a lot of information about the events leading up to WWI which I really want to believe are accurate, but if some aren't accurate, how can I trust ANY of the information he offers that I haven't personally verified from other sources (which for me defeats half the purpose of reading this book and turns it from historical fiction to pure fiction).

So -- today I went and read the author's note, about historical context so it didn't specifically call out anything regarding this specific situation.

I agree with Everyman, that it is fine for the US to think that Germany had shipped the arms since that was the prevailing theory at the time. However, by having the discussion between the Walter's father and the Mexican consulate, it is putting into the story that Germany really did supply the arms. Of course, maybe by the end of the book, we find out that even though there was this conversation --- it was never acted upon.

The name of the Quaker Joseph Pease as one who approved of the war (10.VI) piqued my attention, since he is a direct ancestor of mine (though through a maternal line at one point, so my last name isn't Pease, though my father's middle name is).

I was surprised to find that he, reputedly President of the Peace Society, would approve of the war, so did a bit of research, and I wonder whether Follett was mixing up several Joseph Peases (there are many of them!) The Peases were a very notable and powerful North English Quaker family, important in railroading and banking, among other things, with several family members elevated over the years to the peerage.

Let's start with Joseph Pease (1799-1872). Call him JP1. He was the first Quaker admitted to Parliament and was indeed the President of the Peace Society, and one of its founders along with his uncle (another Joseph Pease).

JP1 had a son, Joseph Whitwell Pease (1828-1903). He was also a member of Parliament, but died before the time of this book. He was elevated to the peerage as 1st Baronet of Hutton Lowcross, presumably for his services to the nation. Call him JP2.

His first son, Alfred, became the second Baronet of Hutton Lowcross, but isn't important to us. His second son, Joseph (Jack) Albert Pease (1860-1943), was a member of parliament from 1892 to 1917, when he was elevated to his own peerage, as 1st Baronet of Gainford, and so had to leave Parliament. Call him JP3. (He was also a member of Asquith's cabinet between 1910 and 1916.) This was presumably the Joseph Pease referred to by Follett. But I can find no record that he was President of, or even a member of the Peace Society at that time (or at any time). But I'm wondering whether Follett mixed up JP3 and JP1, or put them together incorrectly as a single person. (It's possible, of course, that JP3 did follow in his grandfather's footsteps as President of the Peace Society, but if so I would think that the family records I have access to would have mentioned it.)

I also note that Follett didn't include him in the cast of characters, either as a fictional or as a historical figure. Maybe Follett didn't consider him important enough, but still, if he's important enough to make a point of, shouldn't Follett be clear whether he is considering him a fictional or historical character?

It probably makes no difference to anybody but me whether he was correctly presented, but if not, it's another blow to Follett's stated commitment to historical accuracy.

By the way, JP3 had a son Joseph (JP4), and he had a son Joseph (JP5) who died in 2013, but he had no sons (the peerage descended to his brother George). But as you can imagine, all this sequence of Joseph Peases makes researching the family genealogy somewhat of a challenge!

Article from the Daily Beast (affiliated with Newsweek magazine) on histories of the start of WWI, which contends that Tuchman's The Guns of August is still the definitive history of the period.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...


BTW, the article notes that "Historians have never stopped debating the Great War’s causes and consequences, and they never will....[there is] a general recognition that the mindboggling complexity of the event permits even the most learned person only glimpses of the truth, rather than the Whole Animal."

Perhaps we should give Follett a bit of slack for even attempting the task, though still I think his facts should be correct. (As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.)

I am not sure whether it was a major oversight or his attempt to covey the zeitgeist of the time, but because we are potentially dealing with the trilogy that is read by thousands of readers, I find it hard to believe that no one ever pointed out that there was a historical discrepancy.

I wish I knew for sure, but I reserve my judgement at least for the end of this novel, but he might have redressed the issue in his later novels.

At least, this man has guts to set a page where he can comment on the mistakes in his novel. How many writers have ever done this? So kudos to Follett for being literary gutsy:-)

Everyman wrote: " (As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.) "

Let me be snarky and not politically correct about this one. If facts ruled the world, there would not be a debate about the climate change or the whole idea of Friday/Saturday/Sunday worship would be the thing of the past or at least a cultural tribute to the spiritual history, but people sincerely confuse facts and spiritual fiction and twist and turn the irrefutable facts.

I know this statement might be painful for some people - after all , it is their constitutional right, but again, people claim that they own the facts.

I wish Follett would be more accurate with his research, but if the work is labeled 'fiction', this is the definition of fiction, so he might get some criticism for the inaccuracies, but can you say that the book is not what it is? It is the work of fiction, even if he is too frivolous with the facts.

I look at the both sides of the argument and see valid points. But I think there can never be a conclusive verdict in regards these liberties taken by Follett, where we can label one part right and the other wrong.

From my personal experience, I don't give a damn about Follett changing some facts to suit his story better, but that is probably because I don't know much about WWI to begin with. To put it in perspective, a few years back I was reading The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory, another historical fiction novel. I am extremely interested in the Tudor era of English history and like to think I know a lot about it. Because of that I absolutely HATED how Gregory twisted historical fact to create sensationalist piece of work. I wanted to get a hold of her, shake her well, and scream in her smug face, That's not how it all happened!! I hated the book, but know plenty of people that adore it and I can understand why. It's a decent novel, but the historical inaccuracies drove me up the wall. I just couldn't love it.

I think maybe it's the same way for people who know WWI history very well?

Andrea wrote: "I look at the both sides of the argument and see valid points. ."

Not meaning to be critical or snarky, but I'm fascinated by the idea that in historical fiction, historical accuracy doesn't matter if the reader is ignorant, but maters a lot if the reader is well informed.

That's not exactly what you said, I know, and maybe not what you meant, but it sounded that way to me!

I'm actually fascinated by Andrea's comment as well...I also read the Other Boleyn Girl but know very little about the Tudors. I loved the book and went on to read her others. I really cannot remember very many details at all about the book now, but I can now remember the all of Henry's wives and their order...something I didn't know before and something that is historically accurate.

I am assuming that Fall of Giants will be similar for me. I wouldn't remember these details that are inaccurate later, but I might remember a few of the biggest WWI events in order.

And, in both cases, not knowing the history allows me to enjoy the book. Gregory, especially, can weave an exciting tale in her historical fiction novels.

What I meant by my comment is that some people are more invested in the topic and feel more offended by inaccuracies than people who only have a passing interest. At least with me, that is the case.

I can completely understand where Kaycie and Andrea are coming from here. I recently read an Elizabethan mystery that aside from the murdered girls, every single person, including the first person narrator, were real people. I was insanely frustrated by this book because I've read so much about that time period and these events didn't happen . If I hadn't read about that time period, I wouldn't know that all of the characters were real and I would have been able to enjoy the book.

I know that the word ignorant is generally not what I want to be called. But in this case I think that in order to enjoy a historical fiction novel you really do have to be ignorant of the facts. Otherwise, everything that is out of sync with what really happened kicks up the level on your indignation meter until you've read enough that you're ready to explode.

As long as I don't take the historical part of the fiction as the absolute truth, then for me at least, the ideal situation would be to be ignorant of the facts before reading, but then have a good non-fiction reading binge of the time period afterwards so I know what the facts are.

This is exactly why I will never watch the mini-series Attila EVER AGAIN :)

Thank you Sarah for putting my theory into better articulated comment. I suck at trying to express myself precisely.

I agree with Andrea....I would liken it to watching TV. If you are watching a medical show and are actually a nurse or a doctor, than a fictional depiction of a hospital would be off-putting and you couldn't enjoy the show. However, non lay people don't even notice.

As said before, I don't mind a historical fiction writer to play with some of the facts. But I also like it if they fess up to it in an author's note. I don't have the greatest track record for finishing non-fiction history books..... So even if intrigued, I don't always get around to all the fact checking.

I don't have the greatest track record for finishing non-fiction history books

Agreed! Which is also why I prefer historical fiction. I figure slightly muddled history is probably better than none at all.

I guess for me, I like reading historical fiction because I have a hard time keeping just straight facts in my brain without putting a face and a person with them. So just "The Roman Empire ruled over Gual and Germania around the birth of Christ" is all well and good, and I can generally get that, but create a character for me who is maybe a servant in the household of Caesar, overhearing tales about the military campaigns, etc, that actually happened helps me to get a better picture of what the popular thought and political climate of the time were. Made up characters and conversations to advance the plot and make certain events more clear doesn't bother me in the slightest. But something like creating the assassination of a real historical figure, or fabricating a romance that never happened with a famous world leader, etc, makes it harder for me to put all those pieces together in my head and muddles my understanding of history.

Does that make sense?

This is the complete list of errors from ken follett's website, http://ken-follett.com/errata/, which he is willing to admit having made in Fall of Giants. Can anybody find any others?

Fall of Giants

Aberowen: In the map in the US edition, Aberowen is incorrectly placed in north Wales, whereas it should be just near Cardiff, in the south.

Blagny and Gagny: During the defence of Paris, a French colonel commandeers five hundred taxis to transport troops some 50 miles east to Nanteuil-sur-Marne, via the village of Blagny. I meant Gagny. Blagny is also to the east, but is 166 miles from Paris, which would be quite a detour.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: I refer to the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” as one of the religious groups in Aberowen. However, the congregations associated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania did not adopt the name Jehovah’s Witnesses until 1931.

President Woodrow Wilson and Josephus Daniels:
I state that Woodrow Wilson was the first US President to leave the country while in office. This is incorrect. Theodore Roosevelt was, as he visited Panama in November 1906, to check the progress of the Panama Canal. I also mis-spelt the name of President Wilson’s Secretary of the Navy, who was Josephus Daniels, not Joseph.

We’ll Keep a Welcome in the Hillside: The song “We’ll Keep a Welcome in the Hillside” was actually written in 1940 by Lyn Joshua and Mai Jones for a BBC Cardiff radio revue called “Revue of Autumn” broadcast on the 24th September 1940.

The great taxi caper is one of the things I wanted to look up. It was outrageous and I loved it.

Everyman wrote: "President Woodrow Wilson and Josephus Daniels:
I state that Woodrow Wilson was the first US President to leave the country while in office. This is incorrect. Theodore Roosevelt was, as he visited Panama in November 1906, to check the progress of the Panama Canal. I also mis-spelt the name of President Wilson’s Secretary of the Navy, who was Josephus Daniels, not Joseph."

I don't know why, but this is one of the few historical inaccuracies that bothered me most. It shouldn't, being that it (for now) does not have much to do with the actual story, rather than attempting to present a fact.

I know virtually nothing of the Russian Revolution. How accurate is the chain of events as it plays out in the novel (minus Grigori's involvement, obviously)?