Customer Reviews

Winter of the World (Century Trilogy 2)

5 star:		(403)
4 star:		(121)
3 star:		(47)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(28)

 

 

Ken Follett's new novel, "Winter of the World", is the second in the planned three volume set about the history of the 20th century. Beginning in 1933, Follett brings his huge cast of characters along from the years up to the end of the Great War. To talk about the plot of the new book is impossible. Way too many characters and too many plot points. BUT, Follett's such a good writer that he brings the reader up to date with ALL his characters. Follett gives most of his characters enough nuance that few seem like caricatures.

The interesting thing about Follett's second book is the breadth of the coverage of the 1930's and 40's (and into the `50's). Everything from the burning of the Reichstag to the T4 Euthanesia program under the Nazis, to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the battle of Midway to the development of the atomic bomb is covered. Now, in a regular novel, the reader would think, "oh yeah, how can one character or family of characters be present at all these historic events?" But Follett has developed so many characters that what happens is not unlikely. His characters seem to merge with each other and then separate much like the designs in a kaleidoscope. The American heiress from the Russian-emigree father goes to England in the mid-1930's and marries the son(s) of members the British/Welsh nobility. The German characters interact with both the British and the Russians. All these families had been introduced in Follett's first book and all interacted in Follett's second.

Something else interesting I noticed from Follett's first book and his second is the fact that none of the major characters in the first book died. They had to survive to make the second book possible. Now in the second book, several of the main characters do die, which, given the war setting, is a bit more believable.

Also, and this is important. Follett doesn't do a lot of reintroducing characters, their relationships, and plot points from the first book to the second. I guess he just assumes most readers have read the first book and so know the characters of the second. As a result, there's little awkwardness to his writing and the second book flows pretty naturally.

A question a new reader might ask is if he should read the first book,"Fall of the Giants" before "Winter of the World"? This second book could be a stand-alone novel. Follett sets an ambitious course with his proposed three volume set. So far, with the first and second books, he's done quite well.

I don't normally write such short reviews but there's no way to talk about the plot except to say Follett is a master. And if you don't like the book, you can always use it as a door stop. It is a large volume, containing a great story. Enjoy.

Reluctantly I have decided to givie up half way through this book. My main problem is that each time I return to it i feel as though I am starting a new book I just cannot seem to gel the characters to the 'plot'. Maybe it's me. I may take it on holiday next year and try again.

Really poor. It's the Secret Seven meets the Commando comics. Two dimensional characters, stereotypical good guys and bad guys. Over simplified history. No depth to story line (despite the length of book). I've read a few Ken Follet books before and this is undoubtedly his poorest.

I don't know what it is about Ken Follett, but his books just get better and better. Fall of Giants the prequel to Winter of The World was simply fantastic with, as usual, something happening on every page.
How he does it, I don't quite know, but even when he writes about casual goings on, it still reads like a "what's going to happen" type of read.
Winter of The World is another biggie at 818 pages but the story is so complex and enthralling that you're going to wish it would go past so many pages.
This is the continuing story of five different families (from the Fall of Giants) going through the middle of the twentieth century, 1933 to 1949 which of course would include mainly the Second World War. It's a page turner with Follett's usual mastery story telling. All the plots in the book are written so well together and in such a way that we are educated as well as entertained. And, as with all Ken Follett's books, there are no boring pages anywhere! Not one!

First, I must say I'm a major Ken Follett fan and bought the book (Kindle version) on the day it was released. I particularly love his medieval novels. I love the way he writes about regular people rather than decision makers... Or maybe I should say "wrote". In this book, every character is always "where things happen". They are all (well, the men at least) politicians, spies, or elite military staff who either somehow personally cause every major decision or world event, or at the very least describe it first-hand. And all that in their early 20s! They're everything but the random people on the street I wanted to read about. The way in which the story bends in order to let the young major characters attend particular historical events in person borders on the ridiculous (and the predictable), and often makes it difficult to suspend disbelief. Which also begs the question of why every single major character needs to be in their 20s in the first place.

I was also quite disappointed by the relative lack of interesting female characters, at least compared to Mr. Follett's other books. I liked Maud in the first book, but in this one she seems to become broken and passive after the first chapter. Carla is nice enough but cliché'd, and Daisy hopelessly boring - that is, when she is not downright exasperating: even after she gets character development, she remains very bland, if slightly less superficial. We don't see much of Ethel, whom I loved in the first installment. In any case, none of them are the real protagonists of the story. I would have liked to see more of Zoya, for instance, and of another character who dies too early to fulfill her promises.

All in all, I enjoyed reading this book, and it's definitely a page-turner, but it would have been a lot better with more complex, realistic characters.

Having very much enjoyed Fall of Giants, as well as virtually all of Ken Follett's other works, I had long awaited the second part of the trilogy. I can only say what an enormous letdown - I thought I was reading the history of the 1930s as a comic strip. Or maybe I had bought the Jeffrey Archer trilogy by mistake?

The story has now reached Spain and I've just given up - I can't bear to see the Spanish Civil War treated in the same way. Ah well, at least I only wasted 20p.

This is an attempt to tell the story of the 1930's & 40's using a small group of characters. Individuals are put through convoluted situations & story plots to place them at key events and portray them as key decision makers in this period

So, the Russian woman who developed the Soviet nuclear bomb is married to a Soviet spy who is the illegitimate son of an American Gangster. The Gangster has another illegitimate son working on the development of the US nuclear bomb. That American has an (Black) illegitimate son himself (we get side tracked into early Black Civil rights at this stage).

The Americans half sister is married to an English Socialist MP (who is the illegitimate son of a UK Lord), but not before she was married to her husband's half brother who was a UK fascist.

The English Socialist MP has an Aunt in Germany whose daughter married the man running the Soviet spy ring in Germany during WW2, which was in turn controlled by the Soviet Spy married to the Russian Nuclear scientist

And the War in the pacific is told though the story of 2 gay sailors who, when not hanging out in gay bars at Pearl Harbour, also break the Japanese Naval code that leads to the destruction of Japanese Naval power in the pacific.

I used to like Ken Follett's books but this was a great disappointment. The whole book was riven with his political views and, what was worse, the whole thing was one great big bore. All socialist politicians were wondermen and all the others were it would seem a 'waste of space'. I liked from aged 9 to 15 in the war years, and I can tell him that Churchill was, even to me, a great boost to everyone. We all listened avidly to his talks to the nation and always felt uplifted by them. How dare he even suggest that Attlee would have had the same effect on us. Get off your political hobby horse, Mr Follett!

I accepted the socialist ideals in the first book due to the times they were set in. Pre the 1st World War and shortly after. However, in this book, it is non stop socialist drivel all the way through and spoils what could have been a good read.
Also, without spoiling the story for anyone wishing to read. The info the spies get and the level of person they receive the secrets from are totally unbelievable.
Think along the lines of Dallas or Dynasty but set during and after WWII.
Absolute rubbish.

I cannot understand why this book has so many good ratings. This appears to have more to do with loyalty to Ken Follet than any merit this book has. The good ratings encouraged me to buy this book, despite finding the first volume in the trilogy a chore to read.

The characters are wooden, devoid of a humanity that might make a reader warm to them. They don't just 'say' anything, the dialogue is typically along the lines of,

"Don't come any nearer", he said, bravely.
"Why don't you come in?" she said, coyly.

Describing the demeanour of the speaker is not necessary in a well written book. The reader's knowledge of the context and the character informs them naturally whether the speaker is being brave, coy, etc. These additions slow the narrative and make it clunky.

Also the situations seem contrived and the characters are stereotypes, socialists are good; unless they are communists. The rich are either empty headed and kind or empty headed and cruel.

The landscape described is often wrong, Daisy and her paramour travel from London to Wales. They left from Paddington, which is the last accurate bit. As soon as they pass through the Severn tunnel they are in the Welsh valleys, all mines bedraggled sheep. Actually the line passes through the Gwent Levels which would have been picture post-card scenery in 1936. To get to the fictional village of Aberowen they would have needed to change trains at Cardiff and head North. Until they did so they would have enjoyed a view of prosperous farmland and villages.

You will not find a single `slag heap' in Aberowen or any real Welsh mining village. Slag heaps are only found where iron was worked, Merthyr and similar. Aberowen is a single pit village, the spoil on the hills was, and still is, called a `tip' by locals. The tragedy at Aberfan, 1966, was caused by a tip, not a slag heap.

The speech in the village is all Hollywood Welsh, `boyo' is something an Englishman says when trying to mimic a Welshman. You would call your grandmother `Nan' not `Grandmam' , as in the book.

This sloppy work is not an enjoyable read, which is a pity as Mr. Follet does have the necessary imagination to tell a good tale. I found `Pillars of the Earth' and `Eye of the Needle' much more fun. If you like historical epics read James A. Michener and Bernard Cornwall. Both these writers are much better and more consistent.