Scan barcode
lizzyfields's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
loubelle17's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
revolta's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
amloth's review against another edition
girl ive never abandoned a ken follett book but this one i couldnt handle anymore. because i know about the 60s it all felt so predictable and also Ken is a fucking pervert and i couldnt handle it anymore
thaggstrom50's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.25
paupas's review against another edition
1.0
Los libros de Ken Follett solían ser como culebrones de la hora de la siesta para mi: sé que no son muy buenos, pero el cotilleo puro y duro me hacía seguir leyendo, "ay, a ver qué pasa".
Sin embargo, al leer "Edge of Eternity", me he encontrado con un culebrón tan malo tan malo que no quería saber qué pasaba después, no quería seguir leyendo. Me ponía de mal humor pasar la página de una obra que no podía soportar. Sé que es culpa mía por empezarlo y por terminarlo, pero quería tener derecho a criticarlo sin escuchar "pero si ni lo has terminado". Vale, lo he terminado, muy a mi pesar, ahora voy a desahogarme. Así que tened en cuenta que esta "lista" se puede leer como si estuviera escrito en mayúsculas.
1. No voy a comentar los aspectos estilísticos generales, porque sabía en lo que me estaba metiendo cuando cogí este libro.
2. Los personajes no son personas, es decir, no he podido creerme a ninguno. Cada vez que empezaba a pensar que alguno podría ser un hombre o una mujer de verdad, ahí estaba Ken Follett para sacarme de mi error. Hay personajes buenos y hay personajes malos: los personajes buenos son muy buenos y si hacen algo malo, no tardan en disculparse y enmendar su error, ¡jo, qué buenos son!; en cambio, los personajes malos tienen más opciones, pueden ser o gente mu mala mu mala desde la primera a la última página, o gente que finge ser buena hasta que un personaje bueno DE VERDAD hace algo que puede dañar a esa persona. En este caso en particular, Ken Follett emplea una técnica literaria maravillosa que se podría llamar "huida de todo conflicto interno interesante".
3. El libro está cuidadosamente escrito para que un lector estadounidense se sienta tranquilo, porque vive en el país en el que ya está todo bien. Por otra parte, da la sensación de que en la URSS nunca nadie intentó hacer nada con buenas intenciones. El autor lo demuestra mediante la recurrente frase:"it was ADJETIVO NEGATIVO even for USSR standards".
4. Ay, Ken, lo has intentado con el feminismo, pero no te ha salido bien. Aquí te dejo unos truquitos para la próxima: las mujeres podemos interactuar las unas con las otras sin necesidad de mediación masculina; las mujeres no somos malas por no querer a hombres desagradables o que nos han hecho daño; no vale proclamar ideas feministas razonables si el adjetivo "attractive" se ha referido a todas las mujeres del libro y todas ellas dependían de un hombre. En resumen, está bien que te intereses por el feminismo, Ken, pero recuerda que se basa en que las mujeres somos seres humanos.
Sin embargo, al leer "Edge of Eternity", me he encontrado con un culebrón tan malo tan malo que no quería saber qué pasaba después, no quería seguir leyendo. Me ponía de mal humor pasar la página de una obra que no podía soportar. Sé que es culpa mía por empezarlo y por terminarlo, pero quería tener derecho a criticarlo sin escuchar "pero si ni lo has terminado". Vale, lo he terminado, muy a mi pesar, ahora voy a desahogarme. Así que tened en cuenta que esta "lista" se puede leer como si estuviera escrito en mayúsculas.
1. No voy a comentar los aspectos estilísticos generales, porque sabía en lo que me estaba metiendo cuando cogí este libro.
2. Los personajes no son personas, es decir, no he podido creerme a ninguno. Cada vez que empezaba a pensar que alguno podría ser un hombre o una mujer de verdad, ahí estaba Ken Follett para sacarme de mi error. Hay personajes buenos y hay personajes malos: los personajes buenos son muy buenos y si hacen algo malo, no tardan en disculparse y enmendar su error, ¡jo, qué buenos son!; en cambio, los personajes malos tienen más opciones, pueden ser o gente mu mala mu mala desde la primera a la última página, o gente que finge ser buena hasta que un personaje bueno DE VERDAD hace algo que puede dañar a esa persona. En este caso en particular, Ken Follett emplea una técnica literaria maravillosa que se podría llamar "huida de todo conflicto interno interesante".
3. El libro está cuidadosamente escrito para que un lector estadounidense se sienta tranquilo, porque vive en el país en el que ya está todo bien. Por otra parte, da la sensación de que en la URSS nunca nadie intentó hacer nada con buenas intenciones. El autor lo demuestra mediante la recurrente frase:"it was ADJETIVO NEGATIVO even for USSR standards".
4. Ay, Ken, lo has intentado con el feminismo, pero no te ha salido bien. Aquí te dejo unos truquitos para la próxima: las mujeres podemos interactuar las unas con las otras sin necesidad de mediación masculina; las mujeres no somos malas por no querer a hombres desagradables o que nos han hecho daño; no vale proclamar ideas feministas razonables si el adjetivo "attractive" se ha referido a todas las mujeres del libro y todas ellas dependían de un hombre. En resumen, está bien que te intereses por el feminismo, Ken, pero recuerda que se basa en que las mujeres somos seres humanos.
karenh823's review against another edition
3.0
It was a long trilogy....I enjoyed it, but think the story could have been told in fewer pages.
topdragon's review against another edition
3.0
After the first two lengthy novels in Ken Follett’s Century trilogy ([b:Fall of Giants|7315573|Fall of Giants (The Century Trilogy, #1)|Ken Follett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1470384630s/7315573.jpg|8842841], [b:Winter of the World|12959233|Winter of the World (The Century Trilogy #2)|Ken Follett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1369453743s/12959233.jpg|18116611]), I had a pretty good idea of what to expect in this one. In many ways, he fulfilled my expectations but in a couple of ways I felt disappointed and a bit let down.
First the positive. Ken Follett continues to be adept at creating interesting fictional characters and let them interact with actual historical figures in a way that seems natural and logical while also providing a rich historical context for the reader to experience firsthand. The plot picks up in the early 1960’s covering such major historical events as the Kennedy presidency, the Civil Rights movement, the music (rock and roll) scene and drug culture, Vietnam, and of course the assassinations that occurred in the 1960’s in America. Simultaneously, we are treated to what’s happening in the Soviet Union at this time, including the inner circle of Nikita Khrushchev and the lead-up and resolution of the Cuban Missile crisis.
Chief among the major plot points of the entire book is the Berlin Wall, acting as bookends for the theme of the novel. We see it built in the early 60’s and its ultimate razing at the very end of the book. It’s the perfect symbol of what transpired in the second half of the 20th century, and Follett takes full advantage. And, as in the first two volumes, there is a lot of page space devoted to the characters’ love lives and romantic entanglements, sometimes leading to happiness and sometimes to heartbreak.
Now for the negative. It comes down to a question of balance. I completely understand that when an author attempts to cover forty-plus years of world history in a fictional, character-driven single volume, that author is forced to choose which events to include and which historical characters upon which to focus. Follett concentrates on the political climate of the times and how that changes through the years. While the 1960’s were obviously a key decade of turbulence and change, Follett chose to devote most of the book to that time. In fact, nearly the entire first half covers only the years 1961-1963. While those were certainly tumultuous years, at times the story felt bloated and in desperate need of an editor. I had a growing need to “get on with it” for surely there was interesting history in the 1970s-1990’s…right?
Not so much, it would appear. Other than the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, it would seem to be a very boring 30-year stretch. Nothing about technological change, the advent of computers, the Space Race, Middle Eastern conflict, etc. The Cold War is largely ignored with only a single, uninteresting character being used as a semi-spy. Nothing even about Desert Storm, etc. As I stated earlier, I understand not everything can be included, and in this kind of novel, for an event to be included, a fictional character from one of the five families would need to be involved somehow. But it would have been nice to at least acknowledge some of these things by having a couple of characters mention it. (i.e. “Did you see in the newspaper what so-and-so just did?) There are certainly many scenes like this throughout the book...just limited to certain focus subjects. It’s as if the main characters were not interested in anything except their own single issues. That in turn led to some flatness of many of the main characters. Perhaps there should have been a fourth novel and allow this third one to have been solely devoted to the 1960s.
The other issue I had with balance is one of political viewpoint. I never have a problem with a fictional character being left, right, or center, as long as they are realistic in their viewpoint. But throughout this novel, the author allows his own political views to intrude. And it gets worse and more intrusive the further one reads in this book. It gets so bad that it interferes with the story and makes the whole thing seem contrived. For example, democratic and liberal leaders such as JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. are all presented as actual characters, interacting with our fictional characters. That allows us to see them make mistakes, learn from them, and move on to better things. It makes them realistic and historically accurate (as far as we know). It makes them human. However, the Republican and conservative leaders such as Helmut Kohl, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and their ministers and cabinet secretaries are not allowed to have any “screen time” at all and are described as complete incompetent buffoons at best and mass murderers at worst. Margaret Thatcher isn’t even mentioned in the book. The collapse of the Soviet Union is, apparently, solely due to Mikhail Gorbachev and a drop in the price of oil. No credit is given to European and American leaders who brought financial and military pressure to bear, leading to a bankrupt Soviet Union. Again, I don’t mind my characters being of any particular political persuasion as long as they are presented appropriately and fairly. Otherwise the novel is much reduced in stature and risks being classified as alternate history. I might as well read something by Ann Coulter or Chris Matthews.
So overall, I generally enjoyed reading the book. I won’t go as far as other reviewers and describe it as revisionist history. But I will say the balance issues reduced my enjoyment considerably. I enjoyed the first two books immensely and I wonder if this one suffers in my mind because I lived through most of it and already have my own viewpoints on what transpired and why. I’m not sure.
First the positive. Ken Follett continues to be adept at creating interesting fictional characters and let them interact with actual historical figures in a way that seems natural and logical while also providing a rich historical context for the reader to experience firsthand. The plot picks up in the early 1960’s covering such major historical events as the Kennedy presidency, the Civil Rights movement, the music (rock and roll) scene and drug culture, Vietnam, and of course the assassinations that occurred in the 1960’s in America. Simultaneously, we are treated to what’s happening in the Soviet Union at this time, including the inner circle of Nikita Khrushchev and the lead-up and resolution of the Cuban Missile crisis.
Chief among the major plot points of the entire book is the Berlin Wall, acting as bookends for the theme of the novel. We see it built in the early 60’s and its ultimate razing at the very end of the book. It’s the perfect symbol of what transpired in the second half of the 20th century, and Follett takes full advantage. And, as in the first two volumes, there is a lot of page space devoted to the characters’ love lives and romantic entanglements, sometimes leading to happiness and sometimes to heartbreak.
Now for the negative. It comes down to a question of balance. I completely understand that when an author attempts to cover forty-plus years of world history in a fictional, character-driven single volume, that author is forced to choose which events to include and which historical characters upon which to focus. Follett concentrates on the political climate of the times and how that changes through the years. While the 1960’s were obviously a key decade of turbulence and change, Follett chose to devote most of the book to that time. In fact, nearly the entire first half covers only the years 1961-1963. While those were certainly tumultuous years, at times the story felt bloated and in desperate need of an editor. I had a growing need to “get on with it” for surely there was interesting history in the 1970s-1990’s…right?
Not so much, it would appear. Other than the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, it would seem to be a very boring 30-year stretch. Nothing about technological change, the advent of computers, the Space Race, Middle Eastern conflict, etc. The Cold War is largely ignored with only a single, uninteresting character being used as a semi-spy. Nothing even about Desert Storm, etc. As I stated earlier, I understand not everything can be included, and in this kind of novel, for an event to be included, a fictional character from one of the five families would need to be involved somehow. But it would have been nice to at least acknowledge some of these things by having a couple of characters mention it. (i.e. “Did you see in the newspaper what so-and-so just did?) There are certainly many scenes like this throughout the book...just limited to certain focus subjects. It’s as if the main characters were not interested in anything except their own single issues. That in turn led to some flatness of many of the main characters. Perhaps there should have been a fourth novel and allow this third one to have been solely devoted to the 1960s.
The other issue I had with balance is one of political viewpoint. I never have a problem with a fictional character being left, right, or center, as long as they are realistic in their viewpoint. But throughout this novel, the author allows his own political views to intrude. And it gets worse and more intrusive the further one reads in this book. It gets so bad that it interferes with the story and makes the whole thing seem contrived. For example, democratic and liberal leaders such as JFK, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. are all presented as actual characters, interacting with our fictional characters. That allows us to see them make mistakes, learn from them, and move on to better things. It makes them realistic and historically accurate (as far as we know). It makes them human. However, the Republican and conservative leaders such as Helmut Kohl, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and their ministers and cabinet secretaries are not allowed to have any “screen time” at all and are described as complete incompetent buffoons at best and mass murderers at worst. Margaret Thatcher isn’t even mentioned in the book. The collapse of the Soviet Union is, apparently, solely due to Mikhail Gorbachev and a drop in the price of oil. No credit is given to European and American leaders who brought financial and military pressure to bear, leading to a bankrupt Soviet Union. Again, I don’t mind my characters being of any particular political persuasion as long as they are presented appropriately and fairly. Otherwise the novel is much reduced in stature and risks being classified as alternate history. I might as well read something by Ann Coulter or Chris Matthews.
So overall, I generally enjoyed reading the book. I won’t go as far as other reviewers and describe it as revisionist history. But I will say the balance issues reduced my enjoyment considerably. I enjoyed the first two books immensely and I wonder if this one suffers in my mind because I lived through most of it and already have my own viewpoints on what transpired and why. I’m not sure.
theawadhireader's review
4.0
Time's glory is to calm contending kings,
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light,
To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
To wake the morn of sentinel the night,
To wrong the wronger till he render right,
To ruinate proud buildings with thy hours
And smear with dust their glittering golden towers.
Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrere
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light,
To stamp the seal of time in aged things,
To wake the morn of sentinel the night,
To wrong the wronger till he render right,
To ruinate proud buildings with thy hours
And smear with dust their glittering golden towers.
Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrere