Scan barcode
A review by topdragon
Edge of Eternity by Ken Follett
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.