Reading the Chunksters discussion

Sorry this is late getting posted, was sick this weekend. What did you think of this section?

Well, I read my section in one day, so I'm a bit hazy in my details, but I have two views. First, that the first week's read was better. Second, that the best is yet to come and will blow first week out of the water.

The reading experience was a little less fluid. I thought Ethel's bouncing from pride to anger to arousal was bad writing. But part of me reasons that it was a side of the story that needed to be dealt with ASAP. I reserve further opinion of this bit for after others have posted.

Fitz's progression and his teaming up with the American - Dewar - was nice. I groaned at Lev Peshkov(sp?) and his prospects. Sounds like Billy Mark two in character. But, like with almost everything else, I have second thoughts. Part of me does think that Lev's story was cliched but well written.
The more we go on in future weeks, the less unsure I'll be of my impressions.

I don't like the relationship between Fitz and Ethel. He is using his position as her social superior and employer to push her farther than she wants to go. It made me uncomfortable when he started kissing her when she was crying, but then the sex scene came up... He should have listened to the voice in his head telling him that he was doing something wrong. Not that they wouldn't have got together eventually anyway, but he is only concerned about himself and the pace that he is comfortable with. Ethel is in love but she doesn't know what she is dealing with.

I liked the Russian section. Grigori seems very alert to injustices and can throw a proper punch and I am interested in seeing where that takes him, now we are on the edge of WWI and the Russian revolution.

Nina wrote: "I don't like the relationship between Fitz and Ethel."

I agree. Totally inappropriate. She's a servant. How could she say no to his advances? But she's likely to become a ruined woman, and where will he be then? Not marrying her or even recognizing their relationship, that we can be pretty sure of. At least, if the novel is at all realistic, that we can be pretty sure of. (If she's lucky he may set her up on a squalid cottage on the borders of the estate with an allowance barely sufficient to survive on.)

But even before that, I found her elevation to head housekeeper totally unrealistic. A woman that young and still quite inexperienced would never have been given the housekeeper's job in a house of that size and status. The housekeeper in a country house was a person of great dignity and importance, responsible for the hiring, supervision, and oversight of all the female servants, the household budget (which would be considerable), and maintaining the standards of the house. Ethel is what, about twenty one or two at this point? Far too inexperienced to be entrusted with this position.

I guess my problem is that he presents this as historical fiction. My view of historical fiction is that it should be realistic to the period portrayed, and that while the characters are fictional, they should fairly represent the actual lives of people of the time. Am I the only one who feels that he is massively falling down on this realistic aspect of the book?

I'll probably be accused, with some accuracy, of beating a dying horse, but once again I'm disturbed by Follett's creating scenes and situations which I think are historically unjustified.

For certain there were strikes and labor unrest in the Welsh coal mines early in the 20th century; the Tonypandy "riots," although grossly exaggerated by union writers, did reflect the tension between owners and miners. But I know of no historical precedent for the alleged eviction of all the miners, let alone the miners actually leaving their homes en masse, nor for any major labor action in 1914 (the next major action after the Tonypandy action of 1911 was the General Strike of 1926).

I could understand perhaps Follett taking the historical strike of 1911 or that of 1910 and for dramatic purposes migrating it to 1914. But to create out of whole cloth in a purported semi-historical book an event which never even remotely happened, at least as far as I'm aware, is a different thing.

It makes me wonder quite seriously how honestly he will treat the rest of history in the book. Will he create whole battles of WWI which had not historical justification? Invent nations to add to the war? If he is willing to be this loose with history, both actual history and social history, in these early chapters of the book, what can we expect of him in the long remainder of the book?

Everyman wrote: " I found her elevation to head housekeeper totally unrealistic. "

YES!! And I think that this is one of my bigger problems with Follet's characters. This isn't totally uncommon in his books, and it is what I was trying to get at before when I was saying the characters were "too something." They are frequently soooo much better or worse than your average person in that position at that time. I find that I actually enjoy the books much more if I sort of ignore the characters and don't pay tons of attention to their direct stories and just read it for the history that you get.

I am worried about some of your later points as well, Everyman, because I don't know much about the history of this period, especially details of Europe, and was assuming at least the basics were founded in real events. Hmm...might turn out to be more fiction than historical!

Otherwise, I am enjoying the book. The weeks reads go very quickly, and I want to keep reading each time I reach the end point.

I am also excited to see some characters in Russia, though I also find them highly unbelievable as real people! :-)

I did have a question, though - I don't know much about Russia, either, except what I've read in say Tolstoy and now some of this. In these books, there are always lots of Russian princesses, to the point where it seems like almost every major character is one. That leads me to ask the questions of how many Russian princesses ARE there? Are princes/princesses direct children of the ruler like I assume them to be, or is there another, broader class of people that can be labeled as this?

I agree that Ethel becoming housekeeper is unrealistic. Surely Follet could have portrayed her as ambitious and successful in some other way. But maybe it is just to make her fall from grace (I'm assuming that will happen) that much bigger? It still annoys me though.

The only other of his books I have read is Pillars of the Earth which I found very entertaining, but I would never come to it for historical accuracy. Many of the characters seemed like 21st century people who had entered the Tardis and been transported 1000 years back in time. I enjoyed the book but not for its accuracy. I guess I see his books as more “inspired by historical events” than “come to me for historical facts”, if that makes sense. Still, it’s entertaining and easy to read.

Ethel being promoted to head housekeeper was totally unrealistic. If anything, I'm not sure that the other servants would accept her as I believe there was a a strong pecking order with those "downstairs" as well.

I also didn't know much about the mining strikes so thanks for sharing that. I think that Nina has the right idea in that the book is great for setting up the historical setting, but not for learning the actual historical facts. Historical fiction as a genre does not have to cover actual events or real people. The most common definition of historical fiction is a work that is set at least 50 years prior to publication. The underlying assumption is that the author has to do some historical research to getting the setting right.

So far, the book is very readable but not very subtle. For example, (view spoiler)[ I think that Katerina will fall in love with Lev (hide spoiler)]. I do hope that as the book progresses that some of the characters will have more shades of gray --- meaning they aren't all good or all bad.

Are princes/princesses direct children of the ruler like I assume them to be, or is there another, broader class of people that can be labeled as this?

It's been a LONG time since I was familiar with Russian history. But I do remember that they use prince and princess much more loosely than in other European nations. There is a big distinction between royal princes and princesses and the rest. The rest are pretty much just aristocrats.

On the section, I must be honest, I enjoyed it. I want characters to root for. If I want realism, I'll read the news. Historical accuracy doesn't bother me all that much - I read non-fiction when I want accuracy. And I read quite a lot of non-fiction so I like my fiction to be fictional.

Esther wrote: "Historical accuracy doesn't bother me all that much - I read non-fiction when I want accuracy."

It depends on who is the reader and whether the liberties taken are worth the gamble. Personally as a history ignoramus, I wouldn't blink if a fictional country came into play here. But that seems unrealistic for the tone employed by the author. Many authors do worse than dislocate the date of a major incident. Some authors make their characters meet too many artists and celebrities. It can be distracting if Ethel or even Fitz meets Picasso, Faulkner and Joyce all in one day. But I don't get that from the style in the book.

But I do remember that they use prince and princess much more loosely than in other European nations.

Ah, that at least makes some sense. I was wondering if I just happened to pick ALL of the books that were about the princesses, or if there was something I was missing.

I want characters to root for.

I see what you mean, and I know lots of people that agree with you. Personally, though, I find it easier to root for a character that seems real for me. These characters don't seem super real.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this section also. It just wasn't because of the people.

I enjoyed this section. The separation of the classes was illustrated well when Ethel was struck upon leaving Ty Gwyn with its order and beauty and entering the real world with its ugliness. The use of the word "real" tells me Ethel knows which world is hers.

The sections about Bea were revealing. Ethel finds her to be completely selfish and intent on getting her own way. Later Bea watches as Grigori's father is killed for grazing cattle in her meadow. This makes me wonder if Ethel may be setting herself up for making a very cold, powerful enemy. Eager to see how this develops.

Esther wrote: "It's been a LONG time since I was familiar with Russian history. But I do remember that they use prince and princess much more loosely than in other European nations. There is a big distinction between royal princes and princesses and the rest. The rest are pretty much just aristocrats."

I think that's pretty much it. That they use Prince and Princess pretty much as generally as the English used Sir and Lady.

JoLene wrote: "So far, the book is very readable but not very subtle... I do hope that as the book progresses that some of the characters will have more shades of gray --- meaning they aren't all good or all bad. "

I agree. There isn't much complexity in his characters, at least not yet. My recollection from reading Pillars of the Earth many years ago is that it was pretty much the same way, though. So maybe character development isn't something Follett cares as much about as plot, setting, and other aspects of his writing.

Everyman wrote: "It makes me wonder quite seriously how honestly he will treat the rest of history in the book. Will he create whole battles of WWI which had not historical justification?..."

Well that's certainly a concern! Especially for those of us who don't have a strong background in WWI history. To avoid confusion, I've also been reading a couple WWI nonfictions as companions. I'm hoping this will be enough!

JoLene wrote: "Historical fiction as a genre does not have to cover actual events or real people. The most common definition of historical fiction is a work that is set at least 50 years "

That's a fair point. Though, in my opinion, this particular book does not hold much value if stripped of the historical details. Or what am I missing? The characters are shallow and their interactions are unbelievable. The writing itself is not at all redeeming.

I don't think adding events is a problem. It would be a dealbreaker for me if Follet claims WWI to take place from 1927 to 1931 or if Franz Ferdinand was suddenly a Chinese banker. As long as actual events happen at the right time I don't see why he can't add events. It is a work of fiction after all.

Kaycie wrote: "I did have a question, though - I don't know much about Russia, either, except what I've read in say Tolstoy and now some of this. In these books, there are always lots of Russian princesses, to the point where it seems like almost every major character is one. That leads me to ask the questions of how many Russian princesses ARE there? Are princes/princesses direct children of the ruler like I assume them to be, or is there another, broader class of people that can be labeled as this? "


I was wondering if anyone was going to ask this question about princes and princesses.

In my other group, when we were reading The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, there was also a question about princes and princess in Russian literature. I think it is totally acceptable if I copy and paste my reply. The devil is in detail, and the detail here is the lack of proper English word that leads to this confusion.

These are the tricky words. These words do denote members of the royal family but usually either a son or a daughter of a Tsar/Tsarina or brothers, sisters, aunts, and uncles of the true royal family.

At the same time, these words also denote anyone belonging to the high-ranking nobility together with 'Duke' and 'Count'. There was also a huge group of impoverished nobility, something like gentry in the UK. They were called 'dvoryane'

The title was inherited, and some of the nobles were very poor. The class of self-made men could not purchase the title; one could still become a noble man if a tsar signed a decree to grant him a noble rank. Some ranks, obtained for the service, could be only life-long, and some could be inheritable.

As for the word 'Prince', it is used to denote a ruler of the country in the medieval sense. For example, Grand Prince Vladimir the Great was the head of the Kievan Rus. As you see, the word has different meanings in a historical sense.
Before the Romanov Dynasty, princes were rulers; with the Romanovs, the term 'tsar' became widespread, and the word 'prince' was used to indicate people of high noble rank, affiliated with the royal family, but not actual rulers.

I hope the explanation holds water.

JoLene wrote: "So far, the book is very readable but not very subtle. For example, [ I think that Katerina will fall in love with Lev (hide spoiler)]. I do hope that as the book progresses that some of the characters will have more shades of gray --- meaning they aren't all good or all bad. "

The blunt and very direct characterization bothers me a lot, but I am giving Follett the benefit of the doubt. It is a huge trilogy with scores of characters, and he has to make them a little bit unrealistic to make them memorable; otherwise, a potential reader will be lost.

In general, guys, if you want to read something with good and believable characters, read literary fiction or vote for literary fiction. It is definitely less entertaining and more thought-provoking, but at least no one will complain that characters are two-dimensional or plot is too sensational. I am not not trying to be mean, but one should know what you bargain for.

At least, this novel, in contrast to Outlander, discusses moral choices and social issues, but it is still popular fiction, so the consequences are inevitable.

Besides, we do not tend to criticize Dickens or Hugo for their bigger-than-life characters, unbelievable twists, inconsistent plot lines only because they acquired the rank of classical writers with the course of time. They wrote popular fiction, nothing more and nothing less.

I keep forgetting to comment on this thread.

I really enjoyed the addition of the Russian brothers in this one. The story of their mother and father actually brought tears to my eyes.

I also really like Gus Dewar (I actually can't remember his name exactly). I think he'll be a very interesting character to follow.

This book sucks me in so fast! Normally it takes some time to pull me into a book this thoroughly, but this one grabs me within a couple of pages.

One thing about the Russian brothers and the factory: it was interesting that saying they work 6am to 7pm with Sundays off was like a boast. Like they were being treated very fairly. 77 hours per week of physical labor!!!

I really really hate Princess Bea at this point. She's vile. Fitz isn't much better, and Ethel I just want to slap some sense into her. Fitz deserves a swift kick, and I don't mean to the patootie. ;)

Zulfiya, thank you for the description of princes and princesses.

E :) wrote: "Well that's certainly a concern! Especially for those of us who don't have a strong background in WWI history. To avoid confusion, I've also been reading a couple WWI nonfictions as companions. I'm hoping this will be enough! "


I think Follett was trying to show historicity of the events, not true history - to give us the flavor of time, the zeitgeist of the pre-war world. In that aspect, the whole scenes with strikes and the way Russian peasants and workers were treated are quite realistic.

I can vouch for the Russian part - many peasants and workers were treated horrendously (obviously, there were exceptions, but usually among the more enlightened owners of estate), so in that sense it is quite true.

THANK YOU, Zulfiya, for the detailed explanation! Still not sure I'd be able to pick out a russian prince from a differently labeled nobelman, but at least I get the picture of what to expect when I hear of a prince or princess.

In general, guys, if you want to read something with good and believable characters, read literary fiction or vote for literary fiction. It is definitely less entertaining and more thought-provoking, but at least no one will complain that characters are two-dimensional or plot is too sensational. I am not not trying to be mean, but one should know what you bargain for.

I agree with you and hope my comments haven't been taken for too much complaining! I really enjoy Follet's novels and am super glad we voted for this book, but I also knew going in exactly how I would feel about the characters and he hasn't proven me wrong.

In short, love the book, but not because of the characters. And that's perfectly okay with me.

Kaycie wrote: "In short, love the book, but not because of the characters. And that's perfectly okay with me. ."

I am also enjoying the book. I did not vote for it, but it was on my TBR list.

As for Bea, she is a daughter of a nobleman, and because the Russian nobility intermarried like elsewhere in the world, they should all be third, fourth, fifth cousins to each other and even related to the royal family.

Why she is disgusting is because many aristocratic families had young ladies that volunteered to help or were nurses during any military campaigns. I am not sure she has that generosity of spirit. She is way too cold and just unable to give and share.
Even as a spouse, she does her duty without passion ...

I agree about literary fiction for good and believable characters, but the novels that are for sheer entertainment tend to stick with you longer. As long as the author is giving you the flavor of the times and really doing his/her research I think it's an excellent way to get an idea of what happened and what life was like.

This is not the book I voted for and there were others I would have preferred, but I think that Follett is really great at combining history with entertainment. Those of us who are reading some of the challenging reads are probably going to love this for being less dense! We'll breathe a sigh of relief while we're reading this one ;)

Sarah wrote: "Those of us who are reading some of the challenging reads are probably going to love this for being less dense! We'll breathe a sigh of relief while we're reading this one ;) "

Ditto!

Zulfiya wrote: "In general, guys, if you want to read something with good and believable characters, read literary fiction or vote for literary fiction. It is definitely less entertaining..."

Oh, boy, do I disagree with you there! Not about the good and believable characters, but about literary fiction being less entertaining. Not worthy of a long discussion in the middle of a book discussion, but I couldn't let you get away with that without challenging you! [g]

Everyman wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "In general, guys, if you want to read something with good and believable characters, read literary fiction or vote for literary fiction. It is definitely less entertaining..."

Oh, ..."

I've typically found literary fiction to be slower so it's not as exciting to me. I would love to find some that combine both elements.

Sarah wrote: "I've typically found literary fiction to be slower so it's not as exciting to me."

Yes, it's usually slower because it focuses more attention on character development and settings rather than just action. Not as exciting, I can see a lot of the time, though it's hard for me to find any modern books any more exciting than the Iliad.

But Zulfiya's word was entertaining, and that's a different thing from exciting. NFL football is exciting. But a slow movement of Brahams can be every bit as entertaining, if not more so. I consider exciting and entertaining to be two quite different things.

Everyman wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I've typically found literary fiction to be slower so it's not as exciting to me."

Yes, it's usually slower because it focuses more attention on character development and settings ra..."

I totally agree with everything you just said... except that NFL Football is exciting. ;) Yawn.

I'm pleasantly surprised how much I'm enjoying the book. It's my first Follett ever, and his style of writing really works for me. I agree with the comments above: Ethel's rise in rank is suspiciously quick. She is shown quite resourceful and cunning for her age. Not to say that there aren't any eighteen/nineteen-year-olds with overdeveloped intuition when it comes to human interactions, but her high rank among servants didn't seem to have cost her much effort. I wasn't at all surprised that Fitz and Ethel had an affair. A wealthy master taking advantage of his naive servant is an old trick in the hat full of conflict instigators, but I am looking forward to where it leads to, especially with Bea involved.

I loved the scene where the royals visit the widows and thought it was hilarious. The king was so awkward in his conversation with his subjects. At least the queen pretended to be gracious.

I'm looking forward to seeing how all these noblemen who have known each other all their lives will head into a war, ending up on either side of the conflict.

I loved the scene where the royals visit the widows and thought it was hilarious. The king was so awkward in his conversation with his subjects. At least the queen pretended to be gracious..."

This was so incredibly awkward! I don't know what Ethel was thinking. As if people who are grieving want to be in this kind of situation. And it's virtually impossible for royalty to be able to interact well with people who live in such poverty.

I can't believe how horrible the owner of the mine is. I mean obviously there were people who really didn't care about their miners' well being, but to evict 800 people? I think maybe his ego is getting in the way here. Cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Sarah wrote: "I can't believe how horrible the owner of the mine is."

Perhaps you can't believe it because it didn't happen, and almost certainly wouldn't have happened. But it fulfilled its dramatic purpose of making the mine owners out to be 100% bad guys and the miners 100% good guys. Even though in life there are almost never any 100% people either bad or good. That's what was meant, I think, by the poster who called this books soap opera-ish. It's fun, it's exciting, but it's not realistic.

I definitely see your point. I know his other books tend to have ultra-dramatic highs and lows in people's lives.

I don't know that I would read all 3000 pages of the trilogy if it wasn't like this. If it was too stuffed with historical detail it might get dull.

Sorry am late once again :(

However, with my daughter keeping unwell, I just couldn't read or even come here earlier. :( Am not sure if I will be able to post regularly but will definitely try and keep up with the discussions.

Well onto my thoughts about this part -

As I said earlier, I don't have much knowledge about the historical part of it, so am not sure what is fact and what is fiction. However, assuming that fact has been stretched to a great extent to make it readable, I would say that I quite enjoyed this part, despite reading it in parts!

I was surprised and moreover really annoyed with Ethel's character and her sudden rise as a housekeeper. It did not seem realistic to me. As for her affair with Fitz, I have to say that I was expecting it. It is after all an old trick, as someone mentioned earlier, so there is nothing new. I would really like to see how it goes ahead.

The situation with the miners - I did not find it in extreme. Of course, again I am not saying that it is a historical fact, given that I don't know anything about those times and this is the first book that I am reading, which gives me some insight (more fiction than fact of course) into those times. However, living in India today, I have been witness to many such atrocities over the years and I am ashamed to accept that such situations have arisen in the past here and maybe will arise in the future as well. So given my background, I could accept it in the light that it was written and in fact felt that it is the same everywhere. Of course, I have to say that there is no black or white in any situation and lots of grey areas do exist.

Whether this part of the book was factually correct or not, it made a great read and I totally enjoyed it. This is my first experience with Follett on such a large scale and I must say that he knows how to hold the reader enthralled by writing a fast paced story.

I am planning to read it as I would read any other fiction and just keep confirming what are actual facts from your comments - I hope no one minds that :)

I actually think that the conditions in the mines, lack of financing for safety equipment or even accountability for safety regulations was portrayed quite realistically. True, the characters were somewhat black and white, but I the working conditions for labourers and factory workers of the day were indeed abhorring.

Agreed -- the part about the miners and their conditions rung true for me. Not knowledgeable by any means but reading about the poor conditions of the miners didn't set off any skepticism. Creates a good contrast between brother and sister's lives too -- working down in the mine vs serving as a maid / matron.

Andrea wrote: "I actually think that the conditions in the mines, lack of financing for safety equipment or even accountability for safety regulations was portrayed quite realistically. True, the characters were ..."

Ya, I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I agree. I know very little about history, but its honestly not for lack of learning it...I just mostly never care enough I guess for it to stick in my head. So I was thinking bout these characters and Follet's books, and his way of writing these characters and his stories, however much he stretches the truth, makes it stick for me. So even if the exact details about the mining accidents and strikes are not 100% accurate, I wasn't going to remember the 100% accurate details, anyways. I am going to be left with a vague overview and feeling of the miners conditions, for example, and at least I'll have that! Better than trying to read accurate non-fiction and remembering nothing a few months down the road.

B.p. wrote: "Agreed -- the part about the miners and their conditions rung true for me. "

I agree about that part. The description of life in the mines was, from what I know, very realistic, and if anything understated. And the failure to have proper safety equipment in place and functioning was perfectly believable.

What I don't understand, then, is why Follette overdid it with the eviction of all the miners from their homes. The eviction of the widows, yes, that might well have happened. Those were indeed miners homes and were needed for the replacement miners. And that the management was cold and centered on profit and production more than the interests of the workers, that I can believe.

But the eviction of every miner in a matter of one week? That doesn't ring true for me. I simply don't believe it would/could have happened. So why did he make it up?

I thought it was a matter of the man's ego. I don't remember his name, but the guy who was responsible for the lack of safety equipment. It seemed like he wasn't going to let the miners control him through a strike so he "called their bluff" by evicting them. Probably assuming they would give in. I did think the timing was really weird. He was supposed to have certain safety measures in place and when the mine explosion happened, his failures were obvious to everyone. And he got very defensive in front of Fitz and the King, so you would think he would toe the line for a bit, not immediately prove he was a total ******* and an incompetent fool. He's now got a mine that isn't even producing at all. He could have just said it was a mistake, allowed the widows to stay, and gotten everyone back to work. And how fast could 800 workers possibly be found? Could this all be some way of covering his incompetence?

I want to add one quick comment about the idea of this being soap operaish or like a Harlequin. I believe this is actually intended be a saga. Sagas by nature are broad and sweeping and dramatic. Examples would be John Jake's North and South trilogy, his Kent Family Chronicles, or Hermann Wouk's Winds of War and War and Remembrance.

I agree, because I can't stomach soap operas or Harlequin romances, but am thoroughly enjoying the style of this book. "Saga" would be a more fitting description, most certainly.

I can't tolerate soap operas and Harlequin either! I actually have a friend who had a favorite soap opera and she checks in on it once a year! It moves that slowly.

Sarah wrote: " I believe this is actually intended be a saga. Sagas by nature are broad and sweeping and dramatic"

That's a fair comment, but sagas still can have well defined and drawn characters and believable interactions. I find both somewhat missing here, though like you I'm enjoying the book for its pace, which contrary to a soap opera is somewhat frenetic. It has the feel of a Robert Parker novel.

Saga in its traditional definition is about super-heroes, heroes, and arch nemeses, and they are all obviously bigger than life. In this sense, the characters of this novel exactly fit in this definition. They are slightly grotesque and are painted with a broad brush.

With time, though, the definition changed, and we often mean a long, complex narrative with a number of characters and a number of events, usually associated with a certain historical epoch.

It seems like Follett's novel is somewhat in-between. :-)

Zulfiya wrote: "It seems like Follett's novel is somewhat in-between..."

In-between is an excellent way to put it :)

I am super behind but I've caught up on this section now.

This so far seems to me to be a typical Follett historical where he builds up the details of the character's lives making some super successful before absolutely throwing them all to the wolves. In this case, WWI.

I like the Russian brothers. I prefer Grigori over Lev because he seems a little more fleshed out so far, although I'm sure we'll learn more about Lev. Their backstory and the scene where their father was hanged was heart-breaking. Not sure what Katerina brings to the story yet other than a potential love interest.

Grigori's backstory also continued to paint Bea in a very cold and negative light. I'm sure at some point Follett will have to make her sympathetic in some way, has something happened to her that we shall learn about?

Fitz and Ethel, just urgh. I knew it was coming and there are a number of interesting ways that the story could develop in, but there was so many cringey moments. The way that Fitz basically forced himself on her despite the fact that she clearly was in two minds about what to do. It's the first time she's been in love and she's being a bit silly. I hope she doesn't get pregnant, but I have a feeling she's going to be the one to get burned and he's going to get away with it. :-(

Interesting that the Welsh bit was more about Billy's dad than Billy this time. Again I feel like Follett is setting up a massive fall - are all the men going to go to war now leaving even more homeless and penniless widows??

Been so busy the last couple of weeks that I haven't been able to get on GR much, but I found it hard to slow down and not rush through sections of this, as I'm enjoying it so much. I don't want to mix myself up and post spoilers as I'm a little further along than this section, but I echo the sentiments about the historical inaccuracies and the relationship between Fritz and Ethel. It was entirely too predictable, and I just thought "Really? That's the best Follett could come up with?" But I'm hoping, like I'm hoping for Katerina/Lev/Grigori, that it will eventually lead to some further plot development to be revealed in the future (hopefully not just that she ends up pregnant and now she doesn't know what to do, but something a little less obvious).

I'm sure at some point Follett will have to make her sympathetic in some way

This is actually my biggest issue with Follet...the historical inaccuracies, etc. don't bug me that much, but this does. His characters tend to be one thing...all bad or all good, and there isn't usually a ton of crossover. I am crossing my fingers that he will change this since Fall of Giants is a newer book, but we'll see.

Zee wrote: "This so far seems to me to be a typical Follett historical where he builds up the details of the character's lives making some super successful before absolutely throwing them all to the wolves..."

I completely laughed at this. It's so true! I think the all bad and all good is just the start. I'm hoping he starts having a bit more gray area. Either way bad things are about to start happening :)

I suppose when you're writing three 1000 page books, you can take a little extra time to set your characters up? Character development wise that is. Plus with so many characters. I have a very strong feeling that Grigori is going to be a favorite character of mine.