Scan barcode
A review by rayarriz
Fall of Giants by Ken Follett
3.0
First I read a couple hundred pages in two sittings, and then today I finally finished it.
The good:
lots of drama, history and sex. Historical fiction fans love that about Ken Follett, and so do I. The characters were somewhat typical, but you get fond of them in the way you do all of Follett's books. I especially was interested in Grigori and Lev. I've always been fascinated by the Russian Revolution and the events just prior that led to it. I also thought they were really compelling characters.
The book itself is hard to put down too. At some point I just had to keep reading to know the conclusions. I think the ending really sets up a big premise for the next book in the series, which I'll have to read asap. I usually avoid WWII novels (personally feel they're overdone in historical fiction) but I'd read anything by Follett, he's one of my favorite authors.
And I also appreciated this angle, this look at WWI first and the general theme. About old ways and old empires falling and being replaced by new systems. So that's all great.
The other:
I am realizing how stilted some of the writing is? When I read Pillars of the Earth, it was like walking into a dark room and being seated comfortably watching the most immersive movie play out on a giant screen. But reading this book I realized that Follett writes almost stilted. It's the only word I can think of to describe it. Sometimes it flows along, it actually always does to a certain degree, but it's not easy writing that lends itself to subtext.
And don't get me wrong, I can't stand flowery writing. I prefer simple clean sentences. But I think sometimes I was a little annoyed when things were told to me without me having the chance to deduce it like readers should. For example, saying, "Maud was nervous." So that kind of thing gets repetitive.
And the dialogue was definitely unnatural many times. People would casually reference dates to things, go on very long rants, or give speeches at dinner time, things that people don't really do unless they're actually...lecturing.
And sometimes the political explanations got way too dense. I love politics, but in historical fiction I prefer it to be inserted seamlessly. Not saying he didn't do this, but that in the conversations it was a little awkward.
And I just glazed over the war scenes. I read for domestic drama, not actual battle descriptions.
Overall:
enjoyed the book, great story, great setup to the next book, would recommend.
The good:
lots of drama, history and sex. Historical fiction fans love that about Ken Follett, and so do I. The characters were somewhat typical, but you get fond of them in the way you do all of Follett's books. I especially was interested in Grigori and Lev. I've always been fascinated by the Russian Revolution and the events just prior that led to it. I also thought they were really compelling characters.
The book itself is hard to put down too. At some point I just had to keep reading to know the conclusions. I think the ending really sets up a big premise for the next book in the series, which I'll have to read asap. I usually avoid WWII novels (personally feel they're overdone in historical fiction) but I'd read anything by Follett, he's one of my favorite authors.
And I also appreciated this angle, this look at WWI first and the general theme. About old ways and old empires falling and being replaced by new systems. So that's all great.
The other:
I am realizing how stilted some of the writing is? When I read Pillars of the Earth, it was like walking into a dark room and being seated comfortably watching the most immersive movie play out on a giant screen. But reading this book I realized that Follett writes almost stilted. It's the only word I can think of to describe it. Sometimes it flows along, it actually always does to a certain degree, but it's not easy writing that lends itself to subtext.
And don't get me wrong, I can't stand flowery writing. I prefer simple clean sentences. But I think sometimes I was a little annoyed when things were told to me without me having the chance to deduce it like readers should. For example, saying, "Maud was nervous." So that kind of thing gets repetitive.
And the dialogue was definitely unnatural many times. People would casually reference dates to things, go on very long rants, or give speeches at dinner time, things that people don't really do unless they're actually...lecturing.
And sometimes the political explanations got way too dense. I love politics, but in historical fiction I prefer it to be inserted seamlessly. Not saying he didn't do this, but that in the conversations it was a little awkward.
And I just glazed over the war scenes. I read for domestic drama, not actual battle descriptions.
Overall:
enjoyed the book, great story, great setup to the next book, would recommend.