We are reading The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. I think that, if anyone should need it, I have a .mobi version of the book. Let me know if you need it.

Sorry for the delay, I've been juggling two jobs in recent times, one of them part-time, the other pretty much full-time, and time was not kind to me.

Just ordered it from Amazon so, with the end of term coming up, should be able to get down to some serious reading! From reading the "blurb" I was reminded of "Sarum" by Edward Rutherford, am I way off the mark?

I've never read Sarum, so I have no clue, however, it's along the lines of the books that James A. Michener writes, only far less wordy and far more interesting.

In that case it probably is a bit like Sarum. I've never read this at all, got it out of the library today so am looking forward to starting it.

This novel concentrates on only one era though, although the sequel, World Without End, picks up a hundred or so years after this one finishes.

Hmm, I have never read Sarum, but I have read several Michener "doorsteps", and thoroughly enjoyed most of them. I think I started with "Alaska" when I was about 16 and have read several others over the years since then.

Pillars of the Earth is the same kind of a blockbuster, but covering a shorter timespan, therefore much more detailed and with clear evidence of good research and reasonably accurate historical data. Character development is much deeper as the characters are central to the advancement of the storyline, rather than illustrative. I think this is one of the things which makes Pillars more appealing than Michener's travelogues through the eons.

I'm going to dig out my copy of Pillars and have a reread to refresh my memory ready for the discussion.

Just started this, about 150 pages in. I'm quite enjoying it and thinking about how the separate strands of the story will start to come together.

I'm actually from Sarum, or rather, the city of New Sarum (Salisbury), and that Edward Rutherford book made my eyes bleed. I might have enjoyed it more if it had been set somewhere else because then I wouldn't have been watching out for every little thing he got wrong or been so irritated by the tweeness of some of it. Of course, then it wouldn't have been called Sarum and would probably have irritated someone else.

Now I shall have to read Pillars of the Earth because the cathedral is based on Salisbury and Wells - and if it's horribly wrong I shall scream!

I have "Pillars of the Earth" but have not read it yet so I will start now. I also bought "Sarum" because I liked his book "London" so much. I have only been on a day trip to Salisbury when I was staying in London but it was a wonderful place. You are very lucky to live there, apart from the English weather.

I find the war between King Stephen and Maud interesting, as I know little about this period. More compelling though is the family conflict between step brothers Jack and Alfred. It surprises me that Tom doesn't seem to do more to stop Alfred bullying Jack. I suppose he is too wrapped up in the cathedral and his relationship with Prior Philip.

I finished the novel last night. I enjoyed it and thought Follet brought the story lines together well overall. However, I didn't get a sense of atmosphere or any deep feelings for the characters. To me it seemed somewhat "soap operaish" (if that's a valid description), lurching from one disaster to the next. I did enjoy reading it but I don't think it will be a novel I'll read again.

I know what you mean. It's a bit like watching Eastenders, too many things going wrong for the same people for it to be believable. It starts off with you feeling something for the people involved, but then you get to the stsge of, not again, this just wouldn't happen. Like you I enjoyed it, started off being intrigued by the family and political relationships, then got to thinking we were going a disaster too far.

I agree, Christinap. I had the feeling at the end that it had been written with either television or cinema in mind. Lots of big set pieces linked by small stretches of narrative.

Yes,I can see it as one of those mini series. It doesn't come under the heading of one I would read again. Glad I only got it out of the library and didn't actually buy a copy.

It is a mini-series in the U.S.
http://epguides.com/PillarsoftheEarth/

I watched it. All in all, it was fairly good.

I've read about 200 pages and I find the story about the conflict between Stephen and Maud interesting, as is the one about the Abbey but Tom is a very irritating character. He seems so emotionally immature and very irresponsible for a man with a family. I wonder how he ever became a master mason. He lacks reality, in my opinion, for to be a master in the Middle Ages was to occupy a high position in a guild and to be an important man in town society.

Yes, that's a very good point. A master of any trade at that time was important in the local society and would probably have been somewhat older than Tom seems to be as well. The guilds of the time were very strict on behaviour, as was the Church and I think, in reality, Tom would not have been given master status.

I read the book and enjoyed it, despite some parts being a bit overdone to be believable. The conflict between Maud and King Stephen is portrayed very well considering what we do know of this period, and the intrigues of the English court at the time could have been.

I am confused as why Jack and Alfred grow to be at odds, after all, they aren't even half-brothers so they should feel none of the regular sibling rivalry that kids often feel. However, they seem to have a healthy dose of it.

I think it's that both of them resent their parent giving attention to someone else who has come into the family coupled with a good dose of professional jealousy.

While reading the book I felt that the fact that William Hamleigh got away with so much was unrealistic but, after doing some research into the era, I found that the law was not able to be properly enforced for about 20 years. It was not unusual for lords to change sides and it happened with surprising regularity. I have no idea why they were trusted, but perhaps they weren't. The monarch just hoped for the best.

Overall I enjoyed the book but, as an historical novel, it is not a patch on "Wolf Hall".

If I could put in a suggestion for a future book choice I would like to recommend "Such a Long Journey" by Rohinton Mistry.

Good point that. I think the Monarch tried to buy loyalty, land, titles, that sort of thing, but if someone came along with a better offer, or if it looked as though whoever was paying wasn't actually winning, then a quick switch of loyalties seemed to be quite in order. All previous misdeeds forgiven in exchange for men for the Army. Things swing the other way, switch back again. As far as the monarch was concerned winning the war was the most important thing, not some minor rural lordling switching sides at the drop of a hat. If he provided money and/or troops all could be forgiven at least until the war was settled.

You're right. The monarchs were desperate for troops because the bigger the army the greater chance of winning. With victory came spoils which could be given out ensuring future loyalty.

I did learn a lot about this confusing time and it made me investigate it further.

When loyalties switched all that often, does it make characters like Tom and Jack seem a little less believable? They managed to stay true to their ideals and didn't switch sides at all, but, there must have been some ideologically-motivated people, even back then... (before the Internet).

I think there probably were a lot of people who were ideologically motivated, who could see the wrongfulness of the way people were treated etc. However, as today, those that don't "have" are at the mercy of those that do "have" - be it wealth, power or position.

I agree. You can find these people throughout the ages from the early Christian martys right through to Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. For me it doesn't make Tom and Jack less believable. You need "anchored" characters to make a story work. I think that although various lords, squires, landowners would change to protect their property the views of the population at large probably didn't change much. They had no choice other than do as they were ordered a lot of the time, but it didn't necessarily change the way they thought.