Reading the Chunksters discussion

Thoughts on this section?

Ha. I'm actually posting right away today instead of waiting all week.

There's not much to say about this week, for me at least. Part of that is that it's a fairly short section.

Fitz Fitz Fitz. I know we talked about the black and white characters in this book but I really really hate Fitz!!!

He believed that Britain should issue orders and the world should obey. The idea that the government might have to negotiate with others as equals was abhorrent to him.

and

The crisis was driving him away from both of them, to his profound regret. He loved his sister and he was fond of Walter, but Maud was a Liberal and Walter a German, and in times like these it was hard even to speak to them.

Oh gee. Poor poor Fitz. It's just so very sad that everyone else is inconveniencing him. I really hate this man.

And of course the contrast is Walter. He's really beginning to interest me. He desperately doesn't want war but he's very pragmatic about what his country wants and what will be necessary. Fitz at one point says I want to know why my sister thinks I am a warmonger and you are a peacemaker. Because he wants war and Walter is trying for peace first with war as a last resort maybe?

I'm glad that Maud and Walter got to get married. Their characters are growing on me and I want to see them having that stolen moment.

Why do people always think war will be over in a few months? Yes, that's a rhetorical question ;)

There is a fascinating part where Fitz's seven passenger Cadillac limousine makes an appearance. That is so cool! I had no idea they had limos already back then!

I've read some about WWI on a couple of occasions but it never fails to amaze me that it all started because of the assassination of one man. And the pride of countries. An interesting comment of Maud's was "Nonsense," Maud said, knowing she was being rude but not caring. "International alliances are broken whenever convenient." This is actually a very good point. Follett does a good job here of showing how the dominoes fall but it's amazing and appalling to me that one event caused such tragic and far reaching consequences. This is a war that could have been avoided. I just don't think it was inevitable.

Like I said, I don't think there's much to say about this section (although obviously I found plenty) but I'm very curious to see what other people have to say.

Also, does anyone have any ideas about the reason for the title? I know we're only a third of the way but I was curious. One reviewer thought it had to do with the fall of the aristocracy but I'm leaning towards more of a moral fall. Like a failure to live up to their responsibilities rather than an actual toppling type of fall.

Sarah wrote: "Part of that is that it's a fairly short section."

I don't think it was short. I think the mod mislabeled what sections to be read. It's a small problem and easily fixed but it's there. You should notice that the next section doesn't begin with Ch 11.III, but with Part 2, Ch 12.

I don't have much to say about Week 5, except that though not much happened, I really enjoyed reading this part. The war is now about to happen. Maud and Walter's wedding was nicely written. William's appearance was agreeable even if random. In truth I have no real complaints as the entirety of the chapters were more than the sum of their parts. I give week 5 5/5 stars.

My guess on the title "Fall of Giants" would be the end of several monarchies / empires. For instance, after WW1, the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceases to exist; the Tsar is overthrown in the Russian revolution in 1917; Kaiser Wilhelm is the last emperor of Germany and is forced into exile after ineffectiveness in WW1.

Yeah, chapter 12 is the first page of part 2 in my book. That put us at 4% for the week and we've been averaging 7%. I was grateful because I've been overwhelmed with reading! I'm very interested in starting part 2. I do think u would enjoy this book more if I was reading it straight through rather than in pieces. I'll do that when I read the whole series.

I do think I. Not u. That Autocorrect problem is making me crazy.

Have you noticed that there was much more politics in this section than in the previous ones?

What do you think about the sexual scene in the novel? I appreciated that Follett focused on the mishaps of prima nocta, but I think some of it was gratuitous. I have nothing against sexual scenes in novels if they are well written, sizzling with passion and are very graphic, but this was clumsy and very hilarious. Feminine writers, after all, do it much better than men. The only man was who was superb at describing sex was D.H. Lawrence. His scenes were inimitable. You can feel and visualize passion, sweat, physical warmth, etc. Here it is was clumsy, to say the least. On the other hand, it was not a romantic sugar-coated scene where everyone was gasping with orgasm at the end.

I just rolled my eyes at this one. Nothing could top that ridiculous opera scene. But you're right, it was completely unnecessary. I wonder why he chose to have these scenes? They seem unnecessary.

Politics were discussed more but found it interesting how many people started NOT talking about war strategies. I like the way that Maud is the one that everyone talks to. As long as she's there we know everything that's happening.

Sarah wrote: "I've read some about WWI on a couple of occasions but it never fails to amaze me that it all started because of the assassination of one man. And the pride of countries. An interesting comment of Maud's was "Nonsense," Maud said, knowing she was being rude but not caring. "International alliances are broken whenever convenient." This is actually a very good point. Follett does a good job here of showing how the dominoes fall but it's amazing and appalling to me that one event caused such tragic and far reaching consequences. This is a war that could have been avoided. I just don't think it was inevitable."

I remember when we discussed the outbreak of WWI in school my history teacher said that the war was inevitable, that the shooting of Franz Ferdinand was just the excuse needed to set it all off. Europe was a melting pot of too many nations and empires fighting for power and yet more power, and with a lot of alliances and old "grievances" (e.g. France and Germany fighting over Alsace Lorraine) it was bound to go wrong. Austria definitely seem keen on the war. Not saying that they would have started it if FF hadn't been killed, but I have always remembered my teacher's comment that "it was bound to happen at some point". Europe was like a classroom of teenage boys all fighting for attention and dominance.

I think Follett paints that picture well. The pacifists seem like a small minority, and I wonder if war was seen as a quick fix solution that would settle disputes once for all? As in, "let's just go to war, it will take a few months and we don't have to discuss and debate and negotiate for ages. We'll easily determine our relative strength on the battlefield."

Nina, those are good points. It seems like war and expansionism were the way things were done for so many centuries that people were unable to even comprehend what they were really getting themselves into. Sort of old school methods in a new school world but without any awareness that it was a new school world. The world was ready to burst at this point under any pressure I suppose.

Although I can't think of where I read it, I thought that after the disaster of Napoleon there was some sort of European summit or conference to try to keep the same thing from happening again. I think I read this in a book about Prussia but I don't own the book so I can't look it up. I guess a lot of things are forgotten in a hundred years though. I don't even know if I'm right about this. If anybody could provide clarification I would love to hear it.

The pacifists are such a tiny minority. And then there's that one part where Fitz says There were certain things one had to do before one could really call oneself a man, and fighting for king and country was among them.

Patriotism is something that I find very interesting. If Fitz had been born in Germany and Walter in England, they would still have been just as devoted to the country they were born in. That us vs them attitude seems to be part of our evolutionary development.

Sarah wrote: " I know we talked about the black and white characters in this book but I really really hate Fitz!!!"

Poor guy. Well, not totally, but he is put into such a straight-jacketed position (which he does break out of with Ethyl), but otherwise, he is constrained and restricted and virtually controlled by his position.

Sarah wrote: "Like I said, I don't think there's much to say about this section (although obviously I found plenty) "

What you did find to say was interesting and enjoyable (except for the virulence of your attack on poor Fitz!), but I agree that there isn't much to say about this section. At least not here; most of the section is historical, and while it's interesting in its way, the question of how accurately it reflects history is a major issue, but is to be discussed elsewhere.

Everyman wrote: "What you did find to say was interesting and enjoyable (except for the virulence of your attack on poor Fitz!), ..."

A man who gets a servant pregnant and then kicks her out on her butt is never going to win my love. Especially while he's whining about how inconvenient it is for him. I wouldn't even say he breaks out of his position with Ethel. He's still the lord of the manor getting sexually involved with a servant and feeling he has every right to.

Yeah, I'm just never going to like this guy. I'll try to keep my virulence down :)

I'm conflicted about the Maud/Walter marriage. As a plot device I see its value. But I'm not happy about Maud being so duplicitous and dishonest. And now she's going to have to keep lying about her situation, since she can't openly admit to being married to a German officer. Can any marriage which relies so heavily on deceiving one's friends and family really be a healthy marriage?

As to plot, of course we have to suspect that Maud will get pregnant from her wedding night, which will add an enormous amount of tension and pressure to her situation -- does she admit that she's married, or does she pretend she's having a child out of wedlock, and does she name the father?

Maybe Follett won't be quite that obvious, or maybe he won't want to add such a huge conundrum to the plot, but still, something more than just describing the fighting has to happen in the next five hundred or so pages, and a Maud baby while Walter is off at the front would certainly allow for some major plot action. So maybe.

I realize that I'm of the curmudgeonly generation, but I really don't think that all the graphic details of sex, first Ethel/Fitz, and now Maud/Walter, are either necessary or desirable. Austen did it much better, as did Eliot and Hardy.

Everyman wrote: "I'm conflicted about the Maud/Walter marriage. As a plot device I see its value. But I'm not happy about Maud being so duplicitous and dishonest. And now she's going to have to keep lying about ..."

I hope she doesn't get pregnant because that would make two pregnancies and that would be stretching things.

I've always thought that the sneaking off for quickie marriages right before wars thing was more of a sense of fatalism than anything else. Despite people saying the war would be over quickly I think there's a sense of desperation.

I can't blame Maud for her duplicity. It was the only way she could do what was important to her without Fitz stopping her. Or having her committed. How awful is that?

I totally agree with you about the sex details being completely unnecessary. They come across so poorly that I honestly don't know what he was thinking. Why have it in there if you're not going to do it right? It doesn't advance the plot at all.

Sarah wrote: "I hope she doesn't get pregnant because that would make two pregnancies and that would be stretching things."

Three pregnancies. And of course, she will get pregnant. I think it is inevitable.

Zulfiya wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I hope she doesn't get pregnant because that would make two pregnancies and that would be stretching things."

Three pregnancies. And of course, she will get pregnant. I think it is i..."

I forgot about Bea. Apparently women were quite fertile in 1914. ;)

Sarah wrote: " forgot about Bea. Apparently women were quite fertile in 1914. ;)
"

No effective birth control. Most of those here are too young to remember the days before the pill. Though there was always fermented acacia, which Egyptian women used several thousand years ago and which apparently has some benefits as birth control.

I'm glad someone brought up a pregnancy for Maud! I think I've read too much Follet this year, because I am finding things very predictable. And I am betting Maud gets pregnant. Its too perfect... Ethel is pregnant with Fitz's baby, they'd be cousins, and apparently her and Maud are close. I do think the secret of Fitz's baby's parentage will leak, also.

It would be just way too easy for Maud to keep this secret otherwise.

Despite the fact that I liked Week 5, I'm gloomy about the overall quality of Fall Of Giants. I thought this Follett guy, whose books I've never read before, was a classy writer who didn't stoop to the cheap plot devices employed by second rate authors like Stuart Woods and James Patterson. I had the impression that Follett was underrated, that he wasn't the toast of the town because of his reserved, cultured restraint. Little did I know that he was guilty of stilted writing and bad melodrama like the next guy. All of the books I've read in the past 2 months are better than this book. It may be premature to analyze FoG, but we're still a third through an 800 paged book. A lot has already been read. I see no sign of a sudden improvement. I do like this book enough, but I'm disappointed.

Everyman wrote: "Poor guy. Well, not totally, but he is put into such a straight-jacketed position (which he does break out of with Ethyl), but otherwise, he is constrained and restricted and virtually controlled by his position."

Interesting, I see him as one of the least restricted characters. He is a wealthy and privileged man who can more or less do what he wants - buy what he likes, go where he wants to go, say what he wants, pay off people who are "inconveniencing" him. I'd say the women are a lot more restricted, financially and socially. I think Maud would have been an MP had she been a man, but instead she has only found one man who really takes her seriously - Walter. Ethel is ambitious, but pays the price of her affair with Fitz while he walks away from it as if nothing has happened. Lev and Grigori are restricted because of their position in society, and when the miners stood up for the widowers they all got evicted. Fitz has it easy, I would say:)

I'm with Nina on this one :)

I just realized Maud would make FOUR pregnancies because of Katerina. I guess we need lots of births to fuel the next generations and therefore the next books!

Kaycie wrote: And I am betting Maud gets pregnant. Its too perfect... Ethel is pregnant with Fitz's baby, they'd be cousins, and apparently her and Maud are close. I do think the secret of Fitz's baby's parentage will leak, also.

It would be just way too easy for Maud to keep this secret otherwise. "

The fact that we both think she'll become pregnant after only one sexual encounter emphasizes the soap opera aspects of the book.

Luffy wrote: "Despite the fact that I liked Week 5, I'm gloomy about the overall quality of Fall Of Giants. ... I do like this book enough, but I'm disappointed. "

I'm with you there. It seems to be written for the not very sophisticated reader. I see it as well above dreck, but well below serious literature. Entertaining, but not intellectually stimulating. HBO, not PBS.

Nina wrote: "Interesting, I see him [Fitz] as one of the least restricted characters. He is a wealthy and privileged man who can more or less do what he wants... "

True, but. In one sense, sure, he can do almost anything he wants to. But in another sense, he can't. He is a peer of the British Empire, and to any responsible person that carries a heavy stricture of duties and responsibilities. In theory, Queen Elizabeth could go skinny-dipping at a beach in Aruba, but we know that realistically, she can't. Even Harry is having to tone down what he can do. Rank hath its privileges, but also its obligations.

I can't tell if this book is more soap operaish than others I've read by him or if it's just been too long since I read him.

That whole "growing up" thing can really ruin things.

Everyman, I see what you are saying. But to me Fitz doesn't seem like a man who is struggling between what he wants to do and what he can do. In fact, I think he likes his duties and responsibilities. He is even a bit apprehensive about Maud because as a suffragette, feminist and liberal she is not really what she "should"be, i.e. quiet, feminine and under her husband's control. If he had had more of Lev's personality I would have agreed with you, but not as is:)

Nina wrote: "Everyman, I see what you are saying. But to me Fitz doesn't seem like a man who is struggling between what he wants to do and what he can do. In fact, I think he likes his duties and responsibilities. He is even a bit apprehensive about Maud because as a suffragette, feminist and liberal she is not really what she "should"be, i.e. quiet, feminine and under her husband's control."

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Yes, he is struggling, and with Ethel momentarily failing, but yes, he does like his duties and responsibilities, and because of that he can't just go off and do whatever he wants to. And his attitude toward Maud, as you say, shows that he really thinks his family should act the way they're supposed to and not go off on improper adventures. Even though he does go off on one, briefly.

I agree with a couple of the observations of others.....

First --- the sex scenes seem very awkward and gratuitous. I could do without them entirely or they could have been done in a much better way. I think that the scenes with Maud and Walter in the library and opera were to show their passion for each other....but I think they could have been written better.

I really hope that Maud doesn't get pregnant on the wedding night as well, but I think it will happen. After all, it is called the century trilogy so we know that we will follow several generations of these people.

My impression of Fritz is that he does like his responsibilities and duties. He seems to feel that he is destined for greatness so is looking for someway to distinguish himself and a war would be the perfect vehicle. Perhaps because in previous generations of his family, the men would be involved in incidences related to British colonialism.

I also don't think that this is a literary masterpiece but I am finding it an enjoyable read. My previous exposure to Follett was the spy/thriller genre of his earlier career.

Everyman wrote: "Yes, he is struggling, and with Ethel momentarily failing, but yes, he does like his duties and responsibilities, and because of that he can't just go off and do whatever he wants to"

The way I see it, whatever Fitz wants to do, Fitz does. His duties and obligations and his desires are one and the same thing. Having a mistress was so common back then that I don't see his affair with Ethel as him failing in his duties. If we had been told that what he wanted to do was to fight for Irish independence or become an actor, I could see a struggle, but Fitz enjoys his life and the duties and obligations it entails. If you don't feel the restraint you are under, are you a restrained person?

I think the sex scenes are unnecessary as well, although if any of them, maybe the wedding night was more "appropriate" to the overall plot, as it just shows the awkwardness of this stage of the relationships between the two characters, but still. And yes, it's too predictable that she will be pregnant and I'd forgotten it would make FOUR pregnancies, not just three...

I have to say, despite what may or may not be historically accurate (I'll visit the other thread for that), I'm finding the scenes with the discussions about politics quite fascinating. That's how I honestly imagine a lot of real political conversations happening. Lots of intrigue, balancing what this nation is doing against what this nations LOOKS like it's doing against what another nation WANTS to look like it's doing... and all the interwoven treaties and offenses and feelings and pride getting hurt. It's so typical of how the world has operated for millennia.

On a side note, I just started listening to The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History for an in-person group, and I'm really going to have to pay attention to keep fact vs. fiction, and WWI vs. WWII straight in my head....

Oh, Alana. It might be so confusing. I am still trying to adjust my mind that it is a WWI novel because WWII has become an ingrained cultural mythologem, not in the meaning that it never happened, but in the meaning that so many novels and stories are written about it with fictional stories and stories based on true events plus non-fiction accounts. Fiction sometimes becomes reality, and reality becomes fiction in the literary world.

On the other hand, I believe fiction even if it is fiction has that wonderful feature of telling the truth even if all the events are fictional. That grain of truth what it was to live at that time, the painful and sad zeitgeist of the period, the inhumane atrocities, and unbelievable human sacrifices - they all have become the part of our human heritage.

I couldn't help but compare the sex scenes in Fall of Giants and Outlander - our previous read. Personally I find that I don't mind them in Follett's book at all. They come and go, but don't feel forced on the reader. Outlander on the other hand was bombarding me with awkward sex left and right. I actually liked the scene at the opera, believe it or not. I think it described the urgency in their physical need for each other very well. Not D.H. Lawrence of course, but I had no problem with it. Just my two cents.

Hi, everybody. I've been absent from this group for quite a while but I just started listening to this book during a long car trip and got hooked. I'm just a little bit past Chapter 11 now.

The four pregnancies (assuming it will be) work for me because I think Follett is deliberately trying to show a commonality between the otherwise completely different lives. "No matter who they are, they all get swept up in the course of history" kind of thing.

Not super profound but it does work for me in the context of this book - which we all seem to agree is not literature.

Andrea wrote: "I couldn't help but compare the sex scenes in Fall of Giants and Outlander - our previous read. Personally I find that I don't mind them in Follett's book at all. They come and go, but don't feel f..."

They are funny and hilariously simple and clumsy, but at the same time, they are not stilted or forced or overwhelmingly willing to show how hard one can try while writing sexual scenes. Gabaldon really tried too hard, and I often rolled my eyes when i was reading them. Even passionate love scens could be realistic, and Gabaldon has trouble grappling with this basic concept of good literature.

I am not the biggest and ardent supporter of realism, but if you write sex scenes, either make them realistic or make them overwhelmingly unrealistic , but natural :-) Do my words hold water? :-)

Late, but I've just read this section.

I don't know how many others of you have read Follett's medieval books, but as someone who adored Pillars of the Earth and World Without End, this doesn't seem quite as well written. Very 'he said this' and 'she replied with that', as if Follett is rushing to get us through all the plot he's planned for this very large ensemble of characters.

I like Walter and Maud as a couple, and I'm going to be interested to see how they deal with keeping their secret throughout the war. We know as readers that the war lasts a lot longer than the characters are currently anticipating, and I'm sure the secret will be outed before four years are out. I'm also anticipating that they won't actually see each other again, but maybe that's the pessimist in me. I hope she doesn't get pregnant, that would give the game away straight off.

The sex scene was awkward. All I'll say is that it's so obvious that it's written by a male. Sex scenes written by women seem to be more believable.

I've never read much WWI fiction before and I didn't really study it at school except for the extreme basics (and all I remember about that was looking at conditions in the trenches). It's interesting to me to learn more about the events of this time period while looking at it from the point of view of the characters who are going to be directly affected by it.

I'd like to revisit Lev and Grigori soon. Too much Fitz at the moment.

Sarah wrote: "I just realized Maud would make FOUR pregnancies because of Katerina. I guess we need lots of births to fuel the next generations and therefore the next books!"

I forgot Katerina was pregnant! I was counting up the pregnancies in my head whenever the number was mentioned and couldn't figure out where the fourth was. Glad I re-read the thread.

Zee wrote: "Late, but I've just read this section.

I don't know how many others of you have read Follett's medieval books, but as someone who adored Pillars of the Earth and World Without End, this doesn't se..."

It is, isn't it? It's like it's thinner than the others. Maybe he should have widened it out into four books so he could fill it in better.