Fall of Giants
Ken Follett
Reviewed by
Roger Boylan in t
he New York Times
1.09.11
In his review, Roger Boylan mostly focuses on the character development, plot, and themes of Ken Follett’s new novel, Fall of Giants. It is clear that Boylan respects and enjoys the novel, despite the fact that he evokes a feeling that Follett’s book is a little generic and by no means a departure from his earlier work. Praising Follett’s character development and “neither pseudo-quaint nor jarringly contemporary” conversational style, Boylan emphasizes Follett’s skill as a storyteller. He also gives Follett exemplary marks for the near-perfect historical context in which he places is either real or fictional situations. However, I get the feeling that Boylan disapproves of the generic nature of Follett’s novel. It seems as though he has seen each plot development before and knows what will come next. He describes the main theme of the novel as “the superiority of broad-mindedness and liberal thinking over unthinking adherence to the old ways, especially those exemplified by the decadent aristocracy.” This “lacks subtlety, but it provides dramatic conflict and an easy story line to follow and it’s a shortcut to engaging the modern reader’s sympathy.” The words “easy” and “shortcut” lead me to believe that Boylan thinks Follett’s book is pedestrian and cheap; trying to adhere to the reader’s hankering for fast and cheap action. At the end, Boylan also includes a few nit-picky annoyances pertaining to generic dramatizations of mood and editing errors. Boylan’s analysis of Follett reminds me of the class topic pertaining to writing to fit your audience. Hinting that Follett is acutely aware of his reader’s knowledge of history, combined with riveting storytelling, Boylan acknowledges Follett’s appreciation of the audience in his writing. Follett understood that his audience was “probably rusty” on their history, and this gave him license to experiment and create within a plausible framework. He knew his audience was looking for a dramatic and satisfying narrative, not just a history lesson. This supports Boylan’s claim that Follett reserves the horrors of history for his villains, leaving readers sated and filled with righteous thoughts. There is nothing we like to see more than villains getting what is coming to them. Furthermore, Follett knew that the audience willing to read a narrative about history would be interested in history’s grandeur, prompting the all-inclusive and redemptive themes. Boylan reminds us that the real genius in Follett’s work is playing to an audience that will love the narrative set forth.
