Reading the Chunksters discussion

Thoughts?? I'm also going to open the last thread today so we can all discuss the book as a whole and final thoughts for those of you who are done.

I am past caring. The Russian revolution was a long read. I don't know what part of it was accurate and what not. Follett's style is unsuitable for historical events. He downplays and dumbs down and cannot describe a scene or a thought in a remarkable way.

Lev is the most ridiculous character in this book, though in this section Walter tried to give him a run for his money. Since when is Walter a consummate spy? I won't harp on him and his adventures because all this farcical buffoonery has numbed my brain.

I liked how Chuck died without firing a gun and Gus's thought about the waste of it all. Now that the book is nearing an end, I think that none of the major characters, even those who are in the dugouts, in the Great War, none of them is going to die. Is that why FoG has such a high rating? I don't know, I'm asking questions. How can you be a writer and have built up some major and other less important characters, then failed to kill any of them off? First I thought Ethel would die in childbirth, then Billy would in the mines...Fitz, Walter, Gus, Grigori, Billy...etc...none of them dies. Freaking Gramper is still among the living.

You know how I knew beforehand that Valeriya was dead meat? It was because Ken Follett didn't make her a blonde. Okay, that was a lie, but the dull, dull, dull way to describe his expendable characters lowered my IQ, and insulted my intelligence. But I've said more than I intended. That is all.

I found it interesting that Maud was so against the bill on women's right to vote. She has fought so hard for that and I agree with Ethel (for once) here. It seems almost petty to say no to voting because it comes with limits.

I found it quite interesting (if Follett wasn't lying) that the Conservatives voted in favour of women's right to vote because they needed their votes. Pragmatic politics win the day. Of course Fitz was against it. That guy goes from bad to worse in my opinion.

As expected the enthusiasm in Russia has now turned scary. Grigori's hatred for "old Russia" has made him so radical he looks down on democracy and coalition governments as being too slow and full of compromise. I can see why his past experiences has made him think so, but it is still scary.

Many weeks ago I actually thought Lev was going to redeem himself. He was so selfish, stupid and irresponsible I though he would have to change for the better. Apparently not.

I see Maud's point. The Conservatives definitely were playing quite safe. They were going to allow the most conservative women (who like to feel secure and are often matronly) to vote. As a result, the conservative position would only be strengthened, and then this argument could be used to say that women still voted in the same vein as men did; thus, their voices were not decisive and might be classified as expandable or unnecessary.

Surprisingly, I also see the other viewpoint. It is best to chose the least of the two evils.

Luffy, of course, it is not the high-brow fiction, and it does not satiate my literary cravings like Infinite Jest does, but there is still something redeeming about the book, maybe because Follett is not judgmental about his characters.

You are the more dedicated reader, since I possess no literary craving to speak of. Maybe it's the very fact that I find seriousness in light, popcorn fiction and I'm satisfied with adventure and fun laden books that I found FoG not to my liking. I'm glad the book worked on some level for you.

Luffy wrote: "I am past caring. The Russian revolution was a long read. I don't know what part of it was accurate and what not. Follett's style is unsuitable for historical events. He downplays and dumbs down an..."

I'm basically with you. Nicely criticized. This has become a massive soap opera. I haven't found a single realistically drawn and portrayed character in the whole work. (Oh, wait -- I forgot Billy William's father. He's a fairly well portrayed character. But are there any others?)

Characters are bigger than life, I totally agree, but will we remember a subtly drawn, nuanced character when there were so many of them there?

I watched an episode of "Andrew Marr's History of the World" where he talks about the Enlightenment. After the French Revolution and Napoleon's coronation he says, "Since then many revolutions have followed a similar pattern: First idealism, then extremism. The revolution begins to eat its own children, and the power ends up in the hands of a brutal military leader." The quote made me think of the Russian revolution, which is why I include it here.

Zulfiya wrote: "Characters are bigger than life, I totally agree, but will we remember a subtly drawn, nuanced character when there were so many of them there? "

Dickens, Dumas and other great writers cannot be said to have only used well-drawn, nuanced characters either. I am not comparing Follett to them, but I agree with you that a huge cast often leads to less nuanced characters.

I think that we should form a committee to recommend the best committee structure for revolutionary committees :-D

I continue to admire the fact that Follett has tried to represent so many different viewpoints. However, the fact that he is loose with the facts is irritating. I don't really trust much of the particulars of the story-lines.

Luffy -- I agree with you on the death front. With so many of the characters in the action of the war and no one dies?? I have only just finished Chapter 31 so maybe someone kicks it in the final chapters.

Zulfiya wrote: "Characters are bigger than life, I totally agree, ..."

They are bigger than life, true, but I would say they aren't characters but caricatures.

I think this was the most outrageous section of the entire book. Seriously, Grigori goes from not being able to say no to a little brother who is a complete ***hole, to now virtually having a hand in running an entire revolution and country? What part of that is even REMOTELY believable?

And Lev and Fitz are more displicable than ever. No redeeming qualities in either of them, although maybe some resourcefulness.

And I had to agree with Ethel, too. Most victories are won one little piece at a time, usually not just one fell swoop. I hate that Maud and Ethel have their relationship fracture over this.

As far as no one dying, I guess we're too used to George R. R. Martin, lol.