Reading the Chunksters discussion

Here we go!! Please post comments on this section! What are your thoughts on the opening and the introduction of the characters?

Reads very quickly and smoothly. I was surprised to find suddenly that I had read past the first week's section, so have to be careful about spoilers already!

Follett doesn't pull any punches in criticizing the mine owners and showing his pro-union views.

I liked the way he dealt with Billy Williams's ambivalence about starting mining. A nice combination of trepidation, bravado, insecurity, but finally bravery to go down the mine.

But I think he idealizes both Billy and Esther too much. I have a lot of trouble believing that Billy, at his age, would act during the disaster with such courage and quick understanding of the situation. And I don't buy Esther, being a housemaid for all of three years, being so outspoken and taking over so easily, let alone being saucy to the butler and almost fresh with Fitz. They are both way too perfect to be realistic working class teenagers in that time.

But they are fun to read about, no doubt about that.

This is my first foray into historical fiction, so I was surprised as to how quickly I reached the end point for this week-- very engaging and easy reading, so far! (This is also my first read with the Chunkster group, so hi everyone!)

I enjoyed hearing the current events described by those living it, definitely much more interesting than my high school history. I do feel like we've only really heard from one side of the debate. I hope Follett will include in future chapters several first-person perspectives from the ruling classes, without making them clear villains.

Character-wise, as Everyman said, Esther and Billy are fairly unbelievable in their perfection. But to me, the great description of the environment, both social and physical, more than made up for that. I'm excited to read more!

Ken Follet didn't lose a second setting us up for the rest of the book, although I know that most characters have yet to appear. I've some preconceptions as to what will happen (I haven't been reading ahead)... especially between Fitz and Ethel. Knowing Bea's temperament, she WILL inflict a world of pain on Ethel, if the foreshadowing is any accurate.

Ken Follet tells us directly who these people are. E.g Maud being "sensitive to injustice and oppression". Fitz's belief in benign rulers may or may not change later. Follet uses his introductory chapters to set us up for future clashes and adventures.

Billy's side of the story was okay, but he didn't make much of an impression on me. If I had to guess I'd think that he is the one who'd matter least in the scheme of things. He grew up quickly, so unless Follet uses flashbacks, it will be tricky to make our hearts bleed with Billy's troubles as a child.

The easygoing style(or lack of one) of the author makes the book pleasant to read. It's the first Follet book I'm reading and I still don't know how much does he have in common with a favorite author of mine, Jeffrey Archer. Both write historical fiction and their style is user friendly.

Best bit : The talk between the guests at Fitz's place was exciting. It felt real, and it was great to be "privy to" what the great minds of the time thought.

Hi all!

My first post for a book read! Yay!

I am really curious as to where Follet is going with this book. Like I've mentioned before, the two previous books of his I read seemed like a copy of some Ayn Rand novels and I was expecting more of the same with this one. So far, I am pretty surprised that characters are talking about the "greedy capitalists", and there are going to be some definite anti-capitalist protagonists. VERY anti-Rand! I am just really really hoping that we also get some "greedy capitalists" as sympathetic characters so we can see both sides of the story, but that might be a stretch. To me, that'd be the ultimate mark of a good historical fiction writer! As it stands, though, I am going to wind up thoroughly confused on Follet's political leanings and philosophies... Actually, does anyone here know anything about his politics? I'm just curious why the "pillars of the earth" and "world without end" seemed so vastly different from the early socialist lean that this book is taking.

But as per the characters, many have already commented that they are too much...too good, too smart, too brave. This is also something I noticed with previous Follet novels - the characters are more a symbol than an actual character. Something not uncommon with Rand, as well.

I know already that I am going to enjoy the book. Follet's writing is easy to digest and he makes topics I wouldn't otherwise care about (mining!) seem interesting and I want to read more.

Kaycie- I can totally relate about finding the mining descriptions interesting! I'm hoping his writing style will make some of the topics I found drier in history books (class relations, the structure of ruling classes, etc) to be just as fascinating.

And, Luffy- Billy made so little of an impression on me that I thought for sure that he was going to be one of the mine explosion fatalities.

I just finished the section. It was a surprisingly quick read! My favorite part was the historical details--my interest in this time period is definitely piqued. I especially want to learn more about the South Wales Miners' Federation. Unfortunately, I've found surprisingly little by way of free online resources. I seriously miss having access the a university library system! For now, I guess I'll be trusting Follett to fill in those details. :)

Re: the writing style. I'll probably post more later, but for now I'll just say.. wow, this Follett guy is about as subtle as a heart attack! I notice that he is quite literally telling the reader what to think, as opposed to trusting us to make "correct" judgements based on the blatantly one-sided information he presents. This is totally unnecessary!

And I know I'm going to sound "off" with this next comment. But here it is. Many of the dialogue scenes left me feeling embarrassed. Yeah, embarrassed! As in, the scenes were so flimsy that I felt embarrassed in the way that I might feel while watching a colleague falter during an important presentation. I'm embarrassed to be watching. Hoping the narrative recovers. Trying to repress negative judgement, because, really, who am I to be judging this? Just waiting for the awkwardness to end.

Caroline wrote: "Billy made so little of an impression on me that I thought for sure that he was going to be one of the mine explosion fatalities. "

It will be good to wait for other comments and see if any one differs totally to ours. The way he was written- his little struggles- mean that a few readers might prefer him as a character.

E :) wrote: "Re: the writing style. I'll probably post more later, but for now I'll just say.. wow, this Follett guy is about as subtle as a heart attack![...]And I know I'm going to sound "off" with this next comment. But here it is. Many of the dialogue scenes left me feeling embarrassed. Yeah, embarrassed!"

For once I totally get that. I get both polarizing sides. Follet is not subtle. "Clearly God intended the Fitzherberts to rule over their fellow men"[...]"A man could not let his wife dictate to him, after all."

His saving grace is the way he strings together his ideas and makes things happen. I cannot put my finger on what made the reading fast, but the writer did do something right.

A little late to the party/discussions, so firstly let me apologize for that.

I just finished the first part and found it a fast as well as interesting read.

I loved reading about the mining life and industry as it existed then, something that I was not aware of and hadn't read earlier. Would love to read more about that, if only to increase my knowledge base.

Similarly, I loved the conversation that took place during the dinner as it did give some insights into the thought processes of the people living in those times.

However, as characters, I was not particularly impressed with any. Like everyone else, I found Billy and Ethel extremely unbelievable. Billy grew up too soon and there was no information about that and suddenly he is not only mature enough to handle a crisis but is actually accepted by others as a leader (more experienced workers at that) - this I found totally unbelievable.

With Ethel, I agree with Everyman, I doubt anyone in that position could have been so outspoken and more importantly also accepted the way she was.

IMHO the friendship between Maud and Ethel while understandable to a certain extent was made unbelievable by the exchange of gossip, which I think was an exaggeration on Follett's part.

With regard to the writing, I have to agree with the others, it felt as if the author wanted to impose his opinions on the reader instead of allowing the reader to form their own opinions.

However, despite these facts I am extremely curious as to how the author takes it forward and learn more about the roles, each of those introduced in this first part, play in the overall plot of the book.

I have to say that I'm really surprised that people found Ethel's character to be too perfect. She's flirting with her Lord, who happens to have a truly horrible wife that believes servants need to be slapped around just because. This is pure idiocy and definitely not perfect. I have a feeling she's going to see some horrible times in the future.

And on to Billy. Yes, he acted decisively and with unusual maturity, but it also showed that he was nervous, doubting himself, and scared. He more or less was doing what he was doing because he didn't want to back down and look like a fool. He's also only accepted as a leader because he's the only one DOING anything at all. Everyone was so dazed that they would have followed anybody who took the lead.

As far as sympathy for his character goes, I'm pretty sure we're going to see him grow into an adult, so we'll have plenty of time to sympathize with him. I believe these books actually cover a century between the three, so we're going to see Billy grow up, have kids, and die. Unless he dies in a future explosion. Or gets murdered over pro-union activism :)

My favorite part about this week's read was the conversation at the dining table. It was an excellent way to give us a quick primer of what each country wanted. I also found it interesting that I could see different sides. I can see why access to the Black Sea would be so vital to Russia, but I could also see the need to regain the massive loss of territory involved in the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Based on my prior reading of Follett, I'm confident that we'll see other sides of the story. We'll also see that everyone isn't perfect in the long run. These will be real people before too long. And bad things will happen to the characters we like, while good things are happening to the ones we want killed off.

I don't know anything about his politics. I'm trying to think of prior books, but I never really noticed him bashing you over the head with his views. It makes me hope that we will see some of the other POV. There was a book called A Place Called Freedom that I remember being very harsh on England's policy of shipping convicts to the colonies. I haven't read it in many years though, so I'm really not sure.

So far I'm very excited about this book. I may have to join the speed readers thread though. I was too engrossed! It definitely falls into the group of books that he writes that are my favorites. And following all of these families for a century (assuming you read all three) will be absolutely fascinating. It's like Pillars of the Earth and World Without End without the gap in between. :)

The description of the book stuffs it followed five families, so well definitely get other POV.

Loved reading everyone's comments, and it looks like the discussion is going to be very engaging.

Re: Follett's political views. He is a Labor Party supporter and often campaigned for them in the past, so I am not surprised why he started with Billy. Kaycie mentioned that some of his novels were very pro-Rand, but I think this is the case with the genre. We often easily assume that because someone is writing thrillers, procedurals, cozy mysteries, etc he or she is a conservative writer, but in reality, it is not always the case. In addition, he is Welsh, so the feeling of rebellion is a part of his cultural heritage; it is obviously not on the Scottish level, but it still exists.

I was greatly surprised that Grisham is an outspoken liberal. I am sure I was judgmental, and my biased opinion was only based on the type of books he is writing. I believe we are dealing with the same case.


As for trade unions and their support, let us be honest, he might be only conveying the sense of time, and he is honestly trying to show another perspective. The dinner conversation was indeed the most enjoyable part of the novel so far. He dealt with the big world politics deftly, and the messages were quite insightful.

As for characters, alas, it is true - they are slightly hyperbolized and exaggerated, but if someone is planning to write a massive, humongous trilogy with hundreds of characters, they should be made more tangible than real people just to retain them in our memory. They are bigger than life and somewhat idealistic, but some of them are very young, and life experience might change them.

The only real peeve is Bea as a Russian name - I am Russian and have lived in the USA for the five years - but I am yet to meet Bea either in my real life or in fiction. I know Russian nobility used to give European names as pet names to their children, but officially they were still given traditional Russian names.

For example, at soirees and parties, Stepan could be called Stephen, and Vladimir - Voldemar, and so on and so forth (Leo Tolsoy's Kitty from Anna Karenina is the best example), but Bea does not ring any recognizable bell. Just sayin' :-)

On second thought, she might be Polish and her full name is Beata. Certain regions of Poland were a part of the Russian Empire before WWI.

I would be curious to know why he chose that name. It seems to suit her. I recently read another book that had a Bea in it, but she was English.

I'm still waiting for my book to arrive from the library. Shouldn't be more than a week more, so I am going to be slightly late.

Zulfiya said: "Kaycie mentioned that some of his novels were very pro-Rand, but I think this is the case with the genre. "

Weirdly, this wasn't my exactly my thoughts when reading "Pillars of the Earth". I wasn't thinking that this guy must have been inspired by Rand, but more that if you changed the details (ie. names, setting), the book would BE "The Fountainhead". I do suppose that that lent to me assuming he was pro-Rand, but I swear the characters in that novel were lifted straight from Rand, down to their jobs (architect versus cathedral builder...COME ON!). Some of the scenes, even, were pretty much identical to scenes in Rand.

Frankly, I don't care much if he is pro or anti-Rand. What I'd really like to see, and what I think he has really set himself up for, is an epic historical novel showing both sides of that coin.

I also think I was biased against the characters to begin with because I was expecting another Rand novel. He does tend to have the same types of characters as she does, which could lend to my thoughts on pro-Rand as well. I do understand the point of them being that way, and it doesn't bother me. I was never too in love with any of his characters in previous novels, but that didn't stop me from enjoying them.

And Sarah - I didn't necessarily think Ethel was too perfect...she was just too...something that I wouldn't expect to find in your average girl of her class and position at that time. I think Everyman hit it on the head when he said she was too outgoing, but I guess that isn't necessarily perfect, huh? I know what Everyman is feeling though. I just can't put my finger on the right words. I felt the same about Billy...yes, he was scared to go into that fire, but being scared he still never wavered for an instant when the experienced men did.

I loved Pillars of the Earth and World Without End so I'm excited to read another Follett novel! I went straight past the designated section without realising so clearly I'm enjoying it already.

I've always had a thing in historical fiction for the poorer classes, so I'm finding the information on the mining community fascinating. Billy is an extremely likeable character to me already and the way he reacted during the pit explosion goes to show how quickly boys grow up in that life. I'm starting to like Ethel but I'm curious as to what direction her character is going to go in; she's turned down all the boys in the village and now she has the hots for the married earl? Eek!

Bea is being painted fairly negatively but I'm going to be very interested to see her develop. I have a feeling she's going to be something of an antagonist yet also sympathetic.

I don't know much about WWI, so it'll be interesting to see what Follett does with it.

I would go with the word "bold" for Esther. It's definitely not something you'd find often, especially in a servant, and especially if she actually wants to keep her job. I would probably add "foolish", too. I keep wondering if their Da's liberal ideas would lead both Billy and Esther to act in more assertive ways. Or at least progressive ways? I'm nit sure assertive is the right word. But Da broke the mold when he was raising them.

I'm curious about the comparisons to Rand. When was she publishing?

Sarah, Rand published Fountainhead in '43 and Atlas Shrugged about 15 years later. So maybe 40ish years before Follet's novels.

And Zee, I loved those books, also!

I've read many of Follett's books, but none of Rand's. Actually I almost nominated The Fountainhead for our Classic Chunkster! Can you guys give me an idea of what you mean about the similarities?

Luffy wrote: "Ken Follet didn't lose a second setting us up for the rest of the book, although I know that most characters have yet to appear."

Interesting that you say that. I felt quite the opposite; that if the idea is to show the broad sweep of history from WWI up, he's starting with characters I can't see having that much impact on the world stage. Which is the way he works, or at least the way he worked in Pillars of the Earth, which is the only other book of his I have read, but was left wondering how a lad starting out in the coal mines was going to fit into early 20th century history.

Okay, I get it that real history is what happens to ordinary people, and the people we normally read about in history books are often more led by than leading the "little people," but it's still an unusual way to start a history book.

E :) wrote: "Re: the writing style. I'll probably post more later, but for now I'll just say.. wow, this Follett guy is about as subtle as a heart attack! "

Agreed. But in a way it's a refreshing change to some other books -- just finished, for example, Graham Greene's The End of the Affair for another GR book group, and after that I'm ready tor unsubtle!

Maybe Billy will go off to war. :)

There's a lot of similar comments on the internet. Unfortunately it appears that he's never answered the question. Here's one that's interesting.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/...

Sarah wrote: "I've read many of Follett's books, but none of Rand's. Actually I almost nominated The Fountainhead for our Classic Chunkster! Can you guys give me an idea of what you mean about the similarities?"

For starters, the main characters and love interests in Pillars of the Earth were a builder and a woman who gets into the fur trade. In Fountainhead, they are an architect and a business woman. Both characters spend most of the novel bucking tradition and relying on their own rational observation of facts over superstition, frequently to the dismay of the other characters and when it leads to their own ostracization. The main plot of both books involves heroes who are industrialists, creative thinkers, and inventors. While I was reading "pillars", I pointed out the similarities to a friend who has also read Rand, and for much of the rest of our reading he'd be coming to me with comments like "This character is completely THIS character from Rand...I bet this happens to him..." World Without End also spends much of the book touting a laissez-faire economic system, which is Rand's philosophy exactly. And, to confirm my suspicions that I carried through reading both in the Pillars series, the last scene in World Without End is EXACTLY the last scene in Fountainhead with different character names. I can't remember tons of the exact examples I remember from reading the books, but I will ask the friend I read them with to see if he remembers some. We both definitely thought both of those books closely paralleled the story line of Fountainhead.

On the other hand, though, I can see how Follet is a labor party member, as most of his more sympathetic characters are very working class people, and he does strongly champion their cause against ruling classes.

I do know that we are going to get "both sides" of arguments in this book, but I was disappointed slightly in his other books that the "other side" of the argument was always very strongly the "bad guy." There was never any sympathy for these characters and there was ever meant to be. I am hoping for a more sympathetic "other side" in this book!

Sarah wrote: "My favorite part about this week's read was the conversation at the dining table. It was an excellent way to give us a quick primer of what each country wanted. I also found it interesting that I could see different sides. I can see why access to the Black Sea would be so vital to Russia, but I could also see the need to regain the massive loss of territory involved in the Austro-Hungarian empire."

That was indeed interesting, and using the dinner table conversation for it was a good way to get that information to the readers in a painless, in fact somewhat enjoyable, way. Other authors might have tried just presenting it in the form of letters or press articles or just by the narrator, but he chose a very good way to get us to enjoy reading some fairly technical information.

Everyman wrote: "And I don't buy Esther, being a housemaid for all of three years, being so outspoken and taking over so easily ..."

I agree that Esther's behavior is surprising and that her character is a bit hard to swallow, though I think she may have been a housemaid for closer to 6 years. She's 18 at the start of the novel, and now 2.5 years have progressed (going by Billy's age). Esther was 15 at the time of the tantalus incident.

Luffy wrote: "Best bit : The talk between the guests at Fitz's place was exciting. It felt real, and it was great to be "privy to" what the great minds of the time thought. ..."

This was definitely my favorite scene, too! I like how Follett introduced the pre-WWI geopolitical situation using memorable characters. Typically, it's much easier for me to remember people-details than lists of facts. I expect that these devices will help me to hold on to historical detail. I'm also thinking that, as the novel progress, I'll remember the chronology of historical events based on what happens to the families we follow. Very cool :)

E :) wrote: "Luffy wrote: "Best bit : The talk between the guests at Fitz's place was exciting. It felt real, and it was great to be "privy to" what the great minds of the time thought. ..."

This was definitel..."

The "lists of facts" problem was why I hated History in high school. Now I absolutely love it, but it has to be about the people rather than the events.

Everyman wrote: "Interesting that you say that. I felt quite the opposite; that if the idea is to show the broad sweep of history from WWI up, he's starting with characters I can't see having that much impact on the world stage."

I think that the the book could go any way, but I'll be surprised if the real historical figures appeared a lot. What I meant that the early chapters are not exposition or world building, but they are purely setup chapters. Billy and Ethel may or may not play the biggest roles.

E :) wrote: "This was definitely my favorite scene, too!"

Yes, the summary of the situation in Europe, at that time, is much in a reduced format. One had to read a lot of history to find the gist of these ideas. Credit to the author for this summary.

Everyman wrote: "Other authors might have tried just presenting it in the form of letters or press articles or just by the narrator, but he chose a very good way to get us to enjoy reading some fairly technical information."

Well said. The flow of this novel is well-paced and as others say, an easy read. I started reading earlier today and I'm way ahead of schedule! :)

Anna, we have a thread fr speedy readers. You can post there if you read ahead, but mind that you indicate what section you are commenting on and use the spoiler html links.

I'm a fan of Follett. This book is written from multiple perspectives, a uniquely interesting way to tell the story of family life in differing countries. So far, an enjoyable read and I have been reading the discussion posts to see how others are faring. I do believe it's less daunting to read on a schedule. Thanks to the moderator.

I'm looking forward to the perspectives of the two Russian boys that are supposed to be in here.

Zulfiya wrote: "Anna, we have a thread fr speedy readers. You can post there if you read ahead, but mind that you indicate what section you are commenting on and use the spoiler html links."

Will do!

Everyman wrote: "...using the dinner table conversation for it was a good way to get that information to the readers in a painless, in fact somewhat enjoyable, way."

I was so grateful for this section. It really made me appreciate Follett as a writer-- he chose such a clever way to present detailed, confusing (to me, at least) politics in an easy digestible way. It was not my favorite scene (I preferred the detailed accounts of the daily activities of the servants and the vivid descriptions of the mine) BUT it was the scene that I appreciated the most.

I've heard that Follett made the politics of WWI easy to understand for non-history buffs, and that section made me hopeful that this will also hold true for me.

Just finished the first section, so I am a bit late to the party. I also found it very readable, and with so many nationalities presented already it will be interesting to see friends become enemies (I'm thinking especially Fitz and Walther) and how the different characters will cope with a collapsing world order.

Ethel reminds me a bit of Ethel from Downton Abbey; young servant girl with ambitions who fare badly. At least I think Ethel could easily get into deep waters. She is only 20 and I think her self confidence could easily lead her astray. Let's see.

I didn't find Billy boring or too perfect. Sarah said that he took the lead because no one else did and that's why the others followed him, and I agree with that. Plus he must have heard his Da talk a lot about mining safety and what could be done to improve it and what to do in emergencies. His brother died in a mining accident, and I also think that would make him more willing to act; "no one else should suffer the loss of a son".

Very much enjoying the book and looking forward to seeing how the war will change the characters and their relationships.

I just finished up the first section this morning. I'm not sure that I have a lot of new things to add. I'm finding it a very enjoyable and quick read. Follett's writing style, while not subtle, does give you a great sense of period details and I really enjoyed the preparations and dinner party.

I agree that both Ethel and Billy seem like "Mary Sue"s or whatever the male equivalent is. Ethel seem extremely ambitious. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this odd.....but if her father was such a liberal, wouldn't it be strange that she wants to rise in the ranks in the life of service. I would think that someone raised with a lot of liberal ideas would be a teacher or social worker (perhaps service was the only job for woman at the time).

I have only read We the Living by Rand, but am appreciate all of the commentary about the similarity. I started reading The Pillars of the Earth when it first came out and didn't notice a strong socialist message, but I'm not sure how far I got. I was traveling a lot for work back then and didn't want to lug around a big book (it was pre-e-readers).

What did everyone think of the stopping point? I read it before the speed reading thread was up and I was horrified at where it stopped. I needed to know more!

Sarah wrote: "What did everyone think of the stopping point? I read it before the speed reading thread was up and I was horrified at where it stopped. I needed to know more!"

The good and bad thing about Follet is that I feel this at almost every point of all of his books! They are tough to put down, and this one seemed to pick up a bit faster than his others that I've read.

JoLene wrote: "I have only read We the Living by Rand, but am appreciate all of the commentary about the similarity. I started reading The Pillars of the Earth when it first came out and didn't notice a strong socialist message..."

Rand is actually the opposite of a socialist message. But my point wasn't even about the political message of the books, but the actual structure and overall plot. I just assumed he had the same political leanings because those books were so similar.

Oops, sorry I misunderstood. It is very interesting though.

Unlike quite a few others, I really enjoyed Billy's character. I got a bit teary in the scenes after the explosion. For similar reasons to Nina, I thought his reaction to the explosion quite believable.

What struck me the most reading this is how far the first world has come in a hundred years. I've studied and worked in the development field and the similarities between Wales one hundred years ago and parts of the middle-income / developing world was striking. Including, for instance, the lack of proper safety and that early movement to protect workers. Also, living in South Africa, mining disasters are a relatively common feature in our papers and then the discussion about who is too blame.

I suppose when I consider that "developing world" lens, it also makes the characters more believable. Just because people come from poorer, less educated backgrounds doesn't mean they're not bold and capable.

I really liked Billy as well. So far he's my favorite character.

Sarah wrote: "I really liked Billy as well. So far he's my favorite character."

Oh, I like him. I just don't quite believe in him.

I'll use a nice, cheesy "people grew up faster in those days". Then we can all roll our eyes. ;)

I just finished up this section & am also finding this a pleasurable, quick & easy read. This is my first Follett novel but I don't think it'll be my last.

I read How Green Was My Valley back in high school. I found it lyrically beautiful & haunting as well as an eye opener into the life of Welsh miners (it would also be a great Chunkster read!). Follett doesn't treat the topic w/ the same lyricism or nostalgia but I found his descriptions of daily life & hardships of the miners, as well as the Russian factory workers, very interesting.

I don't think any of the characters are very well fleshed out, at this point. Some of the characters do seem to have quite "modern" ideas & personality characteristics that I doubt they would really have had in that era. Don't really buy a that a "cheeky" & "flirtatious" maid would have been trusted to handle a visit from the king & his entourage much less elevated to head housekeeper. Perhaphs Billy had some safety training during the 3 years Follett jumped from his introduction to the mine explosion... Regardless, I do want to like Billy & Ethel & Grigori (being the liberal that I am!) but honestly don't know enough about them to be fully invested in their fates just yet.

I also agree that the political discussion around the dining table was fascinating & quite a good, brief synopsis of the Western world when it was on the brink of WWI. Follett gives us a wonderful peak at what he (& history) has in store later in the story.

I read How Green Was My Valley back in high school.

Your description, as well as Follet's ability to interest me in the hardships of miners has sold me on this one! Now to find the time among all of the group reads that are going on in the next few months...

What I'm quite interested to see is how Follett handles the interaction between the philosophies of his early trade unionists and his early socialists / communists.

For instance, Grigori has this socialist protest history, but his aspiration is to move to the US...

So, there's quite a few philosophies that he portrays sympathetically at this point. And I'm intrigued to see how he gets them to interact with one another.

I'm glad someone else mentioned Downton Abbey... this whole first section (other than the mines) feels exactly like watching Downton, from the servants and their escapades to the rich elite and their cares; not to mention it's basically the same setting, England in pre-WWI era. It's got many of the same character interactions (questionable actions of some of the servants, romantic trysts of both sexes, etc) and the whole manor house and politics discussion (which was quite enjoyable, I agree).

As far as the characters, jury is still out for me. I feel as though I'll have plenty of time to get to know, them, however, so I don't feel rushed into judgment on any of them yet. I quite liked the opening with Billy's adventure into the mine, though: who can't relate to an event when you know you're being put to the test and you really want to come out on top, but you don't want to be a prideful prick about it? It was handled admirably and yes, there are those of character who would handle such things well.

It's interesting timing for this book, as I just started another for an in-person group here in town that is set in 1916, also WWI era. Set in the American West though, so hopefully I won't confuse myself.

I'm coming along on this one quickly, so I'm anticipating it's going to be a fun, interesting read. It's my first adventure with Follett, so I'm curious what I think by the end.