Take a photo of a barcode or cover
daws_online 's review for:
The Pillars of the Earth
by Ken Follett
adventurous
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This book is a funny combo. Once you know the context that this book was a passion project and huge departure for an author of thrillers, everything clicks both in a good and a bad way.
On one hand, Pillars has a sincere Name of the Rose like interest in the medieval world even to the level of dry detail. I came away knowing a little bit more about the flavor of what it was really like to live back then, and I imagine most readers did too. This was a charm of the book for me, because I could really feel the passion of the writer as he was doing all this research, but it was also kind of a weakness, because often that research just flatly interjected itself in a non-artful way. There's lots of passages that go into detail on, say, a piece of agricultural technology or the physics of church architecture which don't really make sense to include in the character narration and are very "out-of-voice". I appreciate that Follett cared to really understand the time period and make the world real, but at times it becomes so tell-don't-show that it ends up disrupting the reality of the book.
This fully fleshed medievalist study gets merged with a multi-generational melodramatic action story, which, forgive me, I believe the most apt point of comparison that I could find was Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. It's one of the real pleasures of the story to see, over such a long timespan and pagespan, the characters age and their material conditions ebb and flow. And as time flows, the same characters face off against each other again and again, fated to battle like by forces beyond the story like Hatfields and McCoys. Rivalries just grow and grow with each layer of intensifying plot, and romances build up with the same fervor. Even though I am definitely someone who tends to read more dry and academic these days, this bursting at the seams epic style was definitely far more appealing to me then the attempts at seriously approaching theology or medieval culture. It's been a minute since I've read something I truly felt was plot driven rather than character driven, so it was a refreshing experience. And maybe making something high stakes plot driven like this comes at the cost of needing to have single faceted, simplistic characters that are plot engines more than compelling portraits. My biggest critique was that the writing was often just way too simple for me to savor, and that characters showed their personality and intentions on their sleeve. (Alongside that, I found the sexual violence gratuitous and a bit unnecessary. William is so obviously a character an audience loves to hate from the get go, but Follett acts like he is obligated to show every horrible act to prove that. Maybe again a creative impulse from his thriller background?)
As I was articulating these two criticism/compliments of the book, I did end up thinking, well hey, Les Miserables could be faulted for the same issues on both fronts. And I think that's a fair cop, and that Follett honestly might be taking a page out of the book of Hugo or Tolstoy in making this grand scale historic epic where the forces of fate and morality duke it out. But I do think that Hugo, although his characters are just as obvious, wrote more sublimely and incorporated historic detail much more smoothly than anything Follett had to offer here. Overall a really fun read and, even with all its ambition, not something you have to take seriously to enjoy.
On one hand, Pillars has a sincere Name of the Rose like interest in the medieval world even to the level of dry detail. I came away knowing a little bit more about the flavor of what it was really like to live back then, and I imagine most readers did too. This was a charm of the book for me, because I could really feel the passion of the writer as he was doing all this research, but it was also kind of a weakness, because often that research just flatly interjected itself in a non-artful way. There's lots of passages that go into detail on, say, a piece of agricultural technology or the physics of church architecture which don't really make sense to include in the character narration and are very "out-of-voice". I appreciate that Follett cared to really understand the time period and make the world real, but at times it becomes so tell-don't-show that it ends up disrupting the reality of the book.
This fully fleshed medievalist study gets merged with a multi-generational melodramatic action story, which, forgive me, I believe the most apt point of comparison that I could find was Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. It's one of the real pleasures of the story to see, over such a long timespan and pagespan, the characters age and their material conditions ebb and flow. And as time flows, the same characters face off against each other again and again, fated to battle like by forces beyond the story like Hatfields and McCoys. Rivalries just grow and grow with each layer of intensifying plot, and romances build up with the same fervor. Even though I am definitely someone who tends to read more dry and academic these days, this bursting at the seams epic style was definitely far more appealing to me then the attempts at seriously approaching theology or medieval culture. It's been a minute since I've read something I truly felt was plot driven rather than character driven, so it was a refreshing experience. And maybe making something high stakes plot driven like this comes at the cost of needing to have single faceted, simplistic characters that are plot engines more than compelling portraits. My biggest critique was that the writing was often just way too simple for me to savor, and that characters showed their personality and intentions on their sleeve. (Alongside that, I found the sexual violence gratuitous and a bit unnecessary. William is so obviously a character an audience loves to hate from the get go, but Follett acts like he is obligated to show every horrible act to prove that. Maybe again a creative impulse from his thriller background?)
As I was articulating these two criticism/compliments of the book, I did end up thinking, well hey, Les Miserables could be faulted for the same issues on both fronts. And I think that's a fair cop, and that Follett honestly might be taking a page out of the book of Hugo or Tolstoy in making this grand scale historic epic where the forces of fate and morality duke it out. But I do think that Hugo, although his characters are just as obvious, wrote more sublimely and incorporated historic detail much more smoothly than anything Follett had to offer here. Overall a really fun read and, even with all its ambition, not something you have to take seriously to enjoy.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence
Moderate: Domestic abuse, Misogyny, Violence