Fall of Giants (Enhanced Edition) (The Century Trilogy Book 1)

Editorial Reviews. leondumoulin.nl Review. Amazon Best of the Month, September Book 1 of 3 in The Century Trilogy (3 Book Series).
Table of contents

I am cool with historical novels and such I know i already am about to start reading in a few minutes I finished it in 1 week - only reading it on my commute which is 30 minutes. I also loved Pillars of the Earth but that one took me 5 …more Definitely. I also loved Pillars of the Earth but that one took me 5 tries.

This one I got into immediately. Only sorry I didn't carry the 2nd book with me. See all 18 questions about Fall of Giants….


  • Burn Card;
  • Crave: Number 2 in series (Fallen Angels)!
  • ?
  • The Book of Church Growth!
  • .
  • Practical Intracardiac Echocardiography in Electrophysiology;
  • Fall of Giants (The Century Trilogy, #1) by Ken Follett;

Lists with This Book. Feb 26, Beth Bedee rated it it was amazing Shelves: It's a little disappointing that people are rating this book on Amazon out of protest of its price.


  • Claimed For The Italians Revenge (Mills & Boon Modern).
  • Get A Copy.
  • In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument.
  • The End Of Time?
  • Paperback Editions.
  • Productgegevens;

It's low rating does not give the book the recognition it deserves. This is my first Ken Follett novel, and I am hooked. I've read where some people have not been that interested in the subject matter of Fall of Giants and prefer the Middle Ages. I'm fascinated with 20th Century history, so this is right down my alley. This novel covers the years of WWI and the Russian Revolution and follows 5 fami It's a little disappointing that people are rating this book on Amazon out of protest of its price.

Their stories all connect at some point. While you invest in the characters, the story is plot driven and moves pretty swiftly through the years. There are times that a character may be left for a year before we hear from him again. But you don't feel like you're missing any crucial information. My favorite portions were before and after the war. There is quite a bit of battlefield sections in the middle. They are well written, but I am more interested in the people than military tactics.

I was surprised at how quickly this book reads. Despite it's huge size, you can read it pretty quickly if you have the time to devote to it.

Fall of Giants: 1/3 (The Century Trilogy) eBook: Ken Follett: leondumoulin.nl: Kindle Store

I thoroughly enjoyed this. My Review of Winter of the World View all 34 comments. Dec 27, Mohammed Arabey rated it it was amazing. View all 44 comments. Sep 14, Melissa Rochelle rated it really liked it Shelves: One of the early reviews I read stated that this book lacked one of Follett's infamous villains. The ultimate villain in this enormous book is clearly war and perhaps the arrogance of world leaders.

I've always had a difficult time understanding the why surrounding World War 1 and this book helps put it in perspective even if it is fiction. I remember learning in history class that the US got involved because the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania. And it did play a part, but that hap One of the early reviews I read stated that this book lacked one of Follett's infamous villains. Obviously, WW1 was fought because a bunch of arrogant world leaders didn't want to look weak. Looking back, they all look like spineless jerks that killed millions of people because they wanted to "rule the world".

By destroying the German economic system after all the fighting was done, they helped Hitler gain power and kill millions more in WW2. Way to go earlyth century world leaders I really enjoyed this book and think it's worth it for everyone to read! While the beginning was a little slow primarily because of all the character introduction required , it picked up speed and was difficult to put down despite how heavy it was! If you liked this, try John Jakes' North and South trilogy. Review of Book 2: Winter of the World View all 25 comments. Jan 17, Matt rated it it was ok Shelves: This book is utter trash.

Is that too harsh? This book is a steaming pile of garbage. Still a bit mean? Ken Follett does not care. His editor and publisher do not care. His accountant certainly is indifferent to this complaint. Rather, he achieves those astronomical sales with the apathetic approbation of cr This book is utter trash.


  1. Navigation menu;
  2. Klanten die dit item hebben gekocht, kochten ook.
  3. Fall of Giants - Wikipedia.

    4. Rather, he achieves those astronomical sales with the apathetic approbation of critics usually quick to slash and burn. Ken Follett cannot be criticized. He is covered in Teflon, Kevlar, and Valyrian steel. Book reviewers understand this and have given up. Still, it needs to be said. This book is awful. Let us start with what Ken Follett is not.

    He is not a poet. He is not a short story writer. He does not craft literary fiction. Instead, Ken Follett writes dumbbell-sized works of historical fiction that manage to be simultaneously prodigiously researched and absolutely inauthentic. What is Ken Follett? Ken Follett is a wizard.

    He is an alchemist. He takes magic beans, plants them in fallow earth, and grows trees that shed money. He turns charcoal into diamonds, iron into gold; he sleeps in a room built from emeralds, and blows his nose in the finest silk. His ingredients are horrible characters, lack of psychological insight, lumbering plots, and striking coincidences. He mixes all these into 1, pages and creates a bestseller. Ken Follett has entered into a dark pact. To be fair, Fall of Giants does not aspire to be great, National Book Award-contending literary fiction.

    There isn't a very high bar for this kind of book. Johnson appear as Dostoyevsky. Instead, there are at least 2, more pages of inanities to come. The plot of the first installment is easily summarized: The historical realities dictate everything that happens in this novel. You will find more drama, however, on any Wikipedia page. It would be a stretch to call these characters archetypes. There is no wit, warmth, or ingenuity to be found. The only surprise is that Follett does exactly what you expect him to, every single time. Sleeping with his maid.

    But this is Follett. And if you also surmised that this German man will be suspiciously anti-imperial no spiked helmet or pointy mustache here! Or what about the Williams family? As though there is a difference. It is the extent of the use of any idioms, really. Every character, whether English or Welsh or Russian or American or German speaks in the exact same way: That is, they converse in robotic monotones meant to deliver historical exposition to keep us moving down the timeline toward the sequel. There is never a moment when two characters share original thoughts, insights, or profundities.

    I found no evidence, on the basis of the many interactions and conversations that occur, that anyone in this novel is a human being. Take, for instance, an exchange between Gus and Rosa.

    Gus works for President Wilson. He also has a big head. Rosa has one eye. That is the extent of their characterizations: And perhaps some future president will want your help. Sometimes she had an unrealistically high opinion of him. I hope I can carry on covering the White House. In Pillars of the Earth and World Without End , Follett demonstrated his inability to create memorable personages or write convincing dialogue.

    Yet he also did a marvelous job cramming period-specific detail into the story. Nothing like that level of detail is present here. Instead, famous events are often passed off in the form of exposition. Towards the end of the novel, there is a nice little scene showing rampant inflation in postwar Germany. This small, intimate, anecdotal moment, shows Follett at his best, working his research into his larger story. Historical fiction gives you the chance to breathe new life into actual people. Follett decides to ignore this opportunity completely. Despite walk-on roles by dozens of famous people, none of them is giving even the hint of a spark.

    I'm not asking for something along the lines of Tolstoy's creative realization of Napoleon. But you have to do more than simply mention Sir Edward Grey's name and expect me to swoon at the verisimiltude. His earlier work Eye of the Needle , Night Over Water showed him to be a precise plotter of containable dramas. I compare it to a movie director like Kevin Smith director of small budget, dialogue-centric films directing a big action movie.

    His battle scenes are silly and empty and fake. His big Russian Revolution moments are a confusing mess. I used to be able to count on Follett to prepare three or four euphemism-free adult encounters that would leave me searching for a bottle of wine. As Follett has reached his widest audiences yet, he seems to have toned down his erotic impulses.

    All we get is a handjob during an opera. Perhaps the only interesting thing about this novel is its unusual political undercurrents. Generally, I think most people still hew to the Germans-were-the-aggresors-and-the-Allies-were-the-heroes line of World War I. Follett takes a different tact, lingering on Great Britain's questionable decision to enter the war.

    His recollections of Unions and workers's revolutions is also generally favorable, though I doubt the masses realize they are reading their fake-history with a leftist slant. Even so… I am a slow reader. Since I do a lot of reading on the exercise bike, I have been able to track my pace.

    A sturdy hardcover history of the Civil War recently saw me at a 30 page per hour pace. With Fall of Giants , though, it was 50 pages. His books go down easy. I think they are horrible in every objective way. Though I give all credit to Follett for finding actual roles for his women.

    They are just as one-dimensional as everyone else, but they're never window dressing. Despite the quality of his latter-day novels, they are also fun to read. To me, the horribleness is even a bit endearing. View all 21 comments. Do not say that I don't like historical fiction - because I do. Do not even say I don't like Follett - because I rather do.

    In fact, this highly praised - and very thick - volume I'd been anticipating eagerly, both because I had pleasant memories from The Pillars of the Earth and because currently I am rather WWI mad; I read Tuchman's classic works, Maddox Ford, not to mention Hemingway and Remarque, because I am fascinated by the subject. So what in the world went wrong with this book? This story Do not say that I don't like historical fiction - because I do.

    This story, which is, like many Folletts, incredibly wide in scope and encompasses a decade, about fifty characters, and several countries, described the beginning of the 20th century, with a special focus, so the book blurb claims, on WWI. It begins with a prologue in though the main thrust of the book occurs in and ends with an epilogue in The title, Fall of Giants is rather deceptive; one may think it refers to the fall of empires which was brought about chiefly by WWI, but in fact it refers to the fall of aristocracies.

    Here begin our issues.

    Fall of Giants

    While the historical research that went into this book is clearly good - though with occasional snags and eyebrow-raising issues - the lens through which it was painted is speculative and political. Follett chooses to view everything - women's suffrage, personal relations, random little quarrels, and especially the World War - as one big struggle of the 'workingman' and the 'people' against their oppressors, the upper classes.

    For one, you simply cannot simplify an entire era to class struggle. Clearly, it played a significant role in the politics and life of the period, but there is a good chance that WWI actually was not an issue of class struggle. It had its own set of complex and unpleasant reasons, and some of them were class-related, while the majority was not. Secondly, at the beginning of the 20th century especially, one cannot write the class differences in the same way one does in the 11th century or whenever it was that The Pillars of the Earth was set. Relationships changed, notions changed actually improved somewhat , and it becomes that much more difficult to present upper class people as the villains, as ones assuming they are 'born to command' or, and this bothered me especially, as uniformly stupid.

    The book came out with gems like "all the officers were idiots, all the sergeants were smart" or something in that vein. Sergeants being working class, while officers, of course, belonged to the upper classes. There is definitely everything in the world to be said for merit, but the notion that in a huge, conscripted army, officers as a whole had not a scrap of talent among them is almost a statistical impossibility. The problem is not the mere presentation of the facts; it is well-known that they were not much better than Follett presents, and in some ways even worse - though generally the guilty parties were not so much the nobility, anymore, as the great industrialists.

    See a Problem?

    The problem is that he shoves everything and every situation into the same tired framework, presents even quarrels of ideology in the light of 'if two women from different classes fight, the upper-class arrogance must be at fault', and has some serious trouble determining who 'people' are. For instance, in the description of the Russian revolution, he seems to neatly forget that the middle classes are as much 'people' as the factory workers are. The same is true for certain situations in England. The double standard the author applies tends to show in intelligence, awareness, common sense, Now there's a pretty reverse prejudice for you; people of the working classes universally seem to possess more common sense and presence of mind in the 'real world' than their airy, upper class counterparts.

    This propensity is so universal, it practically smacks of stereotyping. After pages, it tires one quickly. If the novel's only problem were excessive political correctness - expressed also in the descriptions of the war itself - I would chalk it up to modern sensibilities, misplaced, perhaps, but generally laudable. Though it still irritates me, I should not criticize the novel so severely as, meant for the popular reader, it seems that the historical writer almost feels obliged, today, to prop up the wretched of this world.

    Unfortunately, these are not its own detriments. The author, once again in a nod to popular, modern literature, makes much of passionate love, ascension from the 'everyman' and the superiority of that same 'everyman'. All topics which are the permeating slogans of the present day but whose actual validity is dubious. It's astonishing how many of his positive characters somehow wind up in key political roles. Two siblings from the same family, not to mention some three or four others. The coincidences that are created to somehow bring these characters to the top walks of life are not particularly inspired, nor endearing.

    The writing itself, though, was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. A well-written book should be able to cover up for its flaws with the language it uses; this one, sadly, only emphasized them. The problem appears to be twofold; the author writes a shopping-list, rather than a story. Also, the transitions, sometimes within the same paragraph itself, sometimes between paragraphs, are fantastically awkward. We may well have the sentence "He picked up the glass.

    The war was beginning. He put the glass down. The second problem with the writing is that it is staggeringly, unabashedly didactic. Follett clearly writes for an audience which he supposes to be clueless, and makes no effort at all to conceal the history and sociology lessons he is giving. That also makes the dialogue sound awful, along the lines of: Asquith, the current prime minister Nobody in their right mind.

    His speech writing is tortuous in exactly the opposite way of Ford Madox Ford's elliptical ambiguity, and murder one's sense of reality in almost the same way. I wish this were a better book, because I wanted very much a good book that deals with WWI. I wish this were the wide-scope, sweeping, thrilling epic it's supposed to be, because there is nothing more enjoyable than an epic that leaves you breathless, gulping it down, wanting more.

    Kay's Far Pavilions, without the colonialism.

    Ken Follett: Fall of Giants Source

    I wish it were all of these things, but it really isn't. It's a book far too long for its own good on the one hand, and not nearly long or detailed enough on the other. The author gulped down so much time and space, he literally has no time or room to descent to descriptions much.

    It's a didactic, preachy, fantastically un-nuanced piece of writing, which suffers from laundry0list qualities, and apparently did not go through the capable hands of an editor. View all 74 comments. Doc And because you didn't like it it sucked? Why couldn't you just say that you didn't like it instead of how bad it was? I don't get t To me it And because you didn't like it it sucked?

    To me it was great. Genia Lukin What do you expect me to say? Aug 25, Dana Ilie rated it it was amazing Shelves: A sweeping epic with the pace of a thriller, I could scarcely put it down. This ambitious novel, the first of a projected trilogy covering most of the 20th century, tells the story of five interrelated families—American, German, Russian, English and Welsh—as they negotiate the tremendous events of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. Through the various characters—and there are quite a few—we witness the First World War in the trenches and in the halls of government, from each side of A sweeping epic with the pace of a thriller, I could scarcely put it down.

    Through the various characters—and there are quite a few—we witness the First World War in the trenches and in the halls of government, from each side of the conflict. It is a period of intense change, a time when giants, be they royalty, tradition, or whole nations, are destined to fall. Barely rumbling at first, the tempo quickens until it breaks in a crescendo of world-changing events. These are people we care about. We feel the plight of an unwed mother trying to survive in a society that affords her few rights and little help.

    Although personalized through the lives of these and others, the history is not trivialized. This period is described accurately — even one well versed in history may pick up something new — yet it manages to be superbly entertaining as well. This excellent work is destined to be a classic, and holds great promise for the following two novels. View all 12 comments. Jun 10, Graeme rated it did not like it. The story was enjoyable enough and certainly kept me entertained for a couple of days. The recreation of the early 20th Century was very vivid, and I was impressed by how well Follett applied his considerable skills in this respect to a variety of nations and social classes.

    To cover so many years in any decent amount of depth was a great challenge, to which Follett rises well. The story was fast-paced and the build-up to the War was particularly well managed. The particularly notable aspect of The story was enjoyable enough and certainly kept me entertained for a couple of days. The particularly notable aspect of Follett's storytelling is that he manages to weave together a great many themes in one fluid story: This was well executed and allowed a free-floing narrative to become established.

    Given that long periods of time could elapse between two appearances of each character, anticipation builds significantly over the course of the story and it is interesting to see how each character's situation has developed over days, months or even years. Nevertheless, there are some problems with the book, mainly in characterisation and in the relations between the characters in the story. Rather than allow the characters to be merely players on a bigger stage, Follett insists on engineering direct connections between them, no matter how unlikely the circumstances.

    Many of the meetings and sightings between characters, particularly during the War, are highly contrived. For instance not once, but twice, two characters, one German, one English, are posted directly opposite each other in the trenches: While this did allow a reunion over the Truce of Christmas , enabling Follett to detail this interesting occurrence and add some emotional depth to the section, the second time it happens seems rather less well considered and seems to stretch the boundaries of belief. In another instance, the same German is noticed by an American soldier who believes he 'may have known him before the War'.

    Again, the sighting seems somewhat heavily contrived and does not add much in the way of emotion or character development. There are many occurrences like this within the book, and the more there are, the less easy they are to accept. It is a shame, as this does somewhat derail the narrative and as a result I could never quite find myself immersed in the story. One can't help but feel that the narrative my have been served better if Follett had not deliberately created links between so many characters, rather allowing more to progress through the story unnoticed by the others. Characterisation did also become a problem.

    For example, Earl Fitzherbert begins the story as very much a product of his time: However, he is not an unplesant person and, despite his infidelities, generally comes across reasonably well. When he reaches the War his natural gallantry and sense of honour come to the fore when he is forced to battle against the wills of stubborn senior officers in order to persuade the BEF to put up stauncher resistance against the Germans. Unfortunately, after this he becomes rather more of a charicature, almost becoming a pantomime villain towards the end. He becomes the typical 'donkey' officer, so beloved of mainstream history and so clear in the modern public imagination.

    Indeed, this is a problem with the recreation of the War throughout the book. Follett's is a modern, mainstream interpretation, mainly based on the thoughts of anti-war poets from the trenches and is firmly rooted modern perceptions. Much recent history on the period has demonstrated the gallantry of officers, as well as the numerous new tactics implemented by British high command in order to win the War: Follett prefers to rely on the popular imagining of waves of brave privates and NCOs being thrown repeatedly against barbed wire and machine guns while the officers sat safe in the dugouts.

    Such interpretations are not true.

    Hardback Editions

    By the end of the War, the same officers, notably the much-maligned Douglas Haig, had turned a loose bunch of several million conscripts and volunteers into an extremely efficient military machine: Even during the peak of the Peninsular War and Waterloo campaign the army only reached the dizzying heights of , men. Moreover, Follett seems to create an anti-war feeling throughout the lower classes, with only the upper classes in all the countries in the book showing support for the War. This is certainly untrue and there is plenty of poetry from front-line troops who enjoyed their War and believed wholeheartedly in their purpose.

    I don't deny that there was anti-war feeling, but I do feel that Follett's interpretation is somewhat misleading in suggesting how widespread it was. The novel also seems to suggest that German support for the War extended no further than the upper classes and the diplomatic service: I am no expert on the matter, but for a very convincing argument, Gordon Corrigan's 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' is an essential counterpoint to many modern assumptions.

    Finally, the rapidity and ease with which the characters seemed to fall in love with each other became tedious. Every time it led to some rather stilted love scenes which broke the flow of the narrative. Furthermore, the relationships seemed reasonably unimportant and did not deserve as prominent a place in the overall story as they seemed to receive.

    The numerous times when characters declared their undying love for each other, or fell in love after the briefest of associations became irritating rather than engendering any emotional response to the situation. That said, I would recommend the book as it was an entertaining story and Follett's attention to historical detail is highly admirable, making it an enjoyable story. I look forward to the rest of the trilogy and my only hope is that the later characters might be more deserving of a response from the reader.

    On reflection I'm not sure I would recommend this book. Since I wrote the review the sequel has come out and I haven't even thought about picking it up. It's a shame, because I had heard good things of him, and will probably still try Pillars of the Earth which has sat on my shelf for far too long. View all 15 comments. Apr 16, Choko rated it liked it Shelves: Perhaps the human race would wipe itself out completely, and leave the world to the birds and trees, Walter thought apocalyptically.

    Perhaps that would be for the best. Not an easy task, I tell you that. As always, he is being hailed both as a genius and a complete failure as a writer, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I also think it depends on your expectations of his work.

    Do you expect perfect historical account seen from multiple POV's, or do you read him for the human drama and interpersonal relationships? Either way, I doubt you will be fully satisfied. The way he writes how people communicate with each-other is stiff, cold, unnatural and very robotic. There are no gradations, no nuances, no color to any of it. It is like a overly-dramatic Mexican soap-opera, where all the evil folks are only evil and all the good ones are pure as snow. Yes, they supposedly always go through some ethical or moral dilemma, supposedly they are tempted toward the darkness or light, and very predictably they go with their initial inclinations.

    If this type of drama works for you, you get plenty of it: That was why they bought the paper. If you are in it for a sweeping Historical Fiction, you are in the right place. The novel takes place predominantly in England, France, America and Germany in the years before WWI and all the way to several of years after it finishes. It gives a very good overall look at the class, political, and international tensions which led the world to the first really major war in the 20th century.

    However, once again Follett is very ambitious at attempting to cover most of the war and the conditions of the people of the different sides under them, thus falling short in truly expressing the horrors of that time. Don't get me wrong, I think he does great in a "WWI History Review Class " kind of way, but when you take on this type of scope, it is difficult to make a real point of the different struggles, since everything becomes more of a lesson and less of a human condition portrait His prose does not help the matter.

    It is stiff and emotionless, despite being informative and succinct. At times I felt like I was reading telegrams from the front lines of the war. I can see how it would be very interesting and illuminating for people new to the subject or those who have learned only from one side of the conflict and this is why I think it has its place in contemporary historical fiction, but just as always, I wish there was more!!!! Funny to say that about a book of close to a pages. He takes sides by making the characters representing the ones he sympathies with the smart, likable, honorable and honest ones, the ones which by the positive slant of the story, the readers will gravitate to and root for.

    Thus we get the smart, independent and much more honorable than all others Billy, a Welsh miner with barely anything to his name, juxtaposed against the stick-in-the-mud conservative, oblivious of real life and emotions, unthinking, hating, callas and also a bit weak aristocrat Fitz, who has everything but wants more and the status-quo preserved as far as the class system is concerned. It is not the only example where we get to hate the aristocracy and think them incompetent and stupid, while the uneducated, simple, poor, and hard-working guys seem to always come up with the moral high ground.

    We are used to that though, since we got plenty of it in the Pillars of the Earth series. However, he changes that when it comes to Russia and goes another way with the wealthy in America and the uneducated classes there Gus, the American wealthy class politician who works for the president comes off as a boy-scout in training, earnest, honest and honorable, while the immigrants in the country are all criminals and rubbish Obviously not everything is neutral If I am being completely honest with myself, I do not think that any of us can write with complete neutrality, since everything goes through our perceptions and our personal ideologies and prejudices do end up on the page, no matter how much we try not to, so I am not really complaining, just pointing it out In a democracy the president is subject to the voters.

    President Wilson says a leader must treat public opinion the way a sailor deals with the wind, using it to blow the ship in one direction or another, but never trying to go directly against it. As long as you look at it this way and forgive omissions due to impossibility to cover everything in this format, I think this is a good book to give you the feel for the World during WWI. Don't expect something too deeply emotional, he does tend to point and tell, not so much stop and look for the hows or whys of human sensibilities. I know I will read the rest of the books in the series and will try to keep my expectations to the limits of those conditions: View all 8 comments.

    Mar 10, Bookdragon Sean rated it really liked it Shelves: The book follows the lives of several families in the events that led up to the First World War and the crisis afterwards. We see it from the perspective of an English Noblemen, an English working class family, a pair of Russian brothers, a German with strong prospects in government and an undersecretary working for the Wilson administration. The novel begins with the thirteen-year-old Billy Williams, nicknamed Billy With Jesus going to work his first day in the coal mine underneath the fictional Welsh town of Aberowen in Three years later, the main story begins.

    Edward "Fitz" Fitzherbert, Earl Fitzherbert, who maintains a country estate in Aberowen and licenses the land on which the coal mine is built, hosts a party for many powerful people around the world. Major characters introduced after the party include Grigori and Lev Peshkov, two Russian orphans who work in a locomotive factory and have personal reasons to hold a grudge against Princess Bea and the rest of the Russian royal family.

    Grigori and Lev's father was executed by Bea's aristocratic family for alleged improper grazing of cattle on Bea's family's land. The overall theme of the novel revolves around common people trying, and many times succeeding, in throwing off the yokes so often placed on them by a society largely focused on Britain and Russia dominated by the landed aristocracy.

    There are several key themes in this novel. Follett has done a remarkable job in linking several key facets in world history at this point. They include the causes of the 1st World War, the collapse of Imperial Russia, and Germany's role in the continuance of a bloody war that led to economic collapse and the rise of Hitler. Regarding Russian history, he portrays Lenin's role in the rise of the Bolsheviks as a ploy of the German intelligence service as an attempt to divide and conquer Russian resistance on the eastern front.

    He does not clearly explain the rise of Stalin as Lenin died. This may be better explained in the second volume he does this at about page of Volume 2, which seems to understate the role of Stalin in Europe and US history. Throughout the novel, several chapters are devoted to the rise of women's rights in Britain and role of the Labour party in promoting issues affecting worker safety in a mining accident in Wales.

    Through these chapters, he displays the considerable differences in social status of the miners and the owners of the mines in quality of life, health and education. With tragic accuracy, Follett reviews the misery and suffering of soldiers in the trench warfare of the time, including, poison gas, futile charges against artillery and machine gun posts etc.

    Follett focuses on how industrial interests on both sides benefited from the war, continuing it as factory production went up and the dead were brought back to England. The book explores background of Germany at the time, the costs of their endless efforts to "win" leading to a loss that later was cause for a forlorn corporal, Adolf Hitler, to seek his own revenge for the economic devastation of the Weimar Republic under the settlement treaty.

    The characters and their extended families find their fortunes changing for the better and for the worse due to both their interactions with each other and the effects of the First World War.