Location:Pittsburgh, PA, United States
Top posted review by reader Emily May says it all really.
I would only add in summary: like it's 2 predecessors, close to 1000 pages of historical fiction focused on a town in England, with romance and thrills that Ken Follett knows how to deliver. Unlike the previous two very good outings, this one has a broader historical scope (going beyond England to involved major events across the backdrop of European conflict, royals, aristocrats, merchants, sailors, civil war, and Protestants vs. Catholics), but less depth (in terms of featuring characters who are not quite as engaging).
I highly recommend the first 2 novels to any fan of historical fiction and the era, and this one (with the above disclaimer/caveat.)
[A mild spoiler ahead]
Absolutely loved Part 1.
Part 2 started to lose me as the focus came off the main character a bit, and the story really changed by taking a new turn.
Then came [here comes mild spoiler]...
....a torture scene.
I should say I generally dislike such scenes. This is partly because of the kind of violence it portrays disturbs me. However, if it fits into the story and are done well, I can accept it and move forward.
However, I also partly dislike such scenes often because of how they are usually portrayed. That is, objectively wrongly and irresponsibly. Unfortunately, the one I'm referring to in this book does just that...and then some.
When I say wrongly and irresponsibly I mean: by suggesting that critical information is usually able to be extracted from someone through the torture (when in reality the opposite is true). Such portrayal perpetuates misconceptions and mistaken beliefs about torture, which has real world implications. (How many have suffered because we tolerate torture based on wrongheaded notions?) I find this irresponsible portrayal – in whatever media – as disturbing, grotesque, unnecessary, and frankly, unethical. So I chose not to engage with media that do so.
To make it worse, not only does this novel in a particular scene do so, but it makes it worse because the hero present – who we are supposed to empathize with, who (generally) does the right thing, who we are rooting for – does not condemn the torture (either outwardly or in their thoughts), or frankly seem to have much concern about the ethical implications of the torture. I found myself then having a difficult time rooted for and empathizing with this hero afterwards (as well as the character that committed the heinous act, who was also a “good guy”).
Now, if torture doesn't bother you, or the potential ethical implications of how it is portrayed in the context of the story doesn't matter to you, or you don't find issues with empathizing with heroes that are not “good” in terms of their actions ethically and morally, or real world horrid implications of perpetuating misconceptions doesn't bother you, then this novel may not be problematic for you. It is for me. Which is why I didn't finish it after that.
It's unfortunate, because I was really liking the story, and I really wanted to follow it to the end. It just lost me at that point.
I hope to find a similar novel without this unfortunate issue (and open to suggestions, please!)
Disliked so much, did not finish. Did not find characters or story engaging.
1/3 the way through, and quite enjoying it. Much less plot- and action-oriented (read: obsessed) than sci-fi often seems to be. Also no overwhelming info-dump at the start to orient you to the future world; it nicely was slowly revealed/unveiled/rolled out on a bit of a need-to-know basis. Really focuses on the characters and their wants/needs/motivations, along with character aspects, foibles, and quirks. It means that the narrative has yet to put one as the reader in that awkward position where characters act outside of or against character in service to the plot. It's the reverse (again, so far).