I gave this novel a five star review in the rush following the end of such a big book. In retrospect, I actually rate it more around a 3.5 stars. Why? Well, mostly because even if seen in its summarized entirety it feels in way perfect, that is exactly what makes it flawed.First of all, let me explain the "perfect" vibe I got from this book. It felt like a nice overview of history from the early nineteen-thirties to the late forties. It gave several point of views, introduced the important political parties and countries of that time period, and seemed to explain at least a little bit about every important happening in the Occidental world. It also tied everything together well, maybe not in terms of happy endings, what with the looming prospect of a new war, but at least in terms of all the characters interacting with each other.After having posted my rating, I read a couple of reviews ranging from one star to five as I always do. This helped me pick out a couple of flaws that I'd seen while reading but had apparently promptly forgotten after finishing the book. One of the biggest is probably the weak dialogue. I thought at first that this might be the result of a bad English to French translation, but then figured that they could not have changed it that much and still gotten approval from the author. It was so cheesy (one of the best examples is probably Daisy's reaction when she sees Lloyd for the first time in months at Ethel's house and says something along the lines of "Oh, darling, I love you!") and felt stiff and not very human. I understand that it's probably hard to make it perfectly realistic, but something is wrong when it starts to distract you from the story itself.Another problem I had was with the different characters' interaction. Follet has many (and by many I mean most of) his main characters think and/or say that the world really is small at some point in the story. While I do agree that the world can seem like a village sometimes, it is not so small as it is depicted in the novel. In fact, it was probably a hell of a lot smaller back then as not that many people used to be able to afford international travel which makes the whole story even more unrealistic.However, I did not (unlike several reviewers) feel as though poverty and the viewpoint of those who suffer from it was completely forgotten is this second installment of the series. I did notice that the focus had shifted slightly onto higher social classes, but mostly because the main "poor" characters of the first book (Lev, Grigori, and the Williamses) had all in one way or another climbed the social ladder. But actually, that is one of the interesting points of the book because it shows that anyone can not only move up and down the social ladder, but can also lose or win considerable amounts of money in the blink of an eye. This was especially clear to me in the case of the von Ulrichs. (Side note: what ever did happen to Robert, though?).Finally, I have one last criticism for the book : the fact that it only skimmed on certain events that could be considered as major (such as, oh, I don't know? the Depression maybe? Or the traumatizing and/or deathly experience of concentration camps?). But apart from those missing but already widely known elements, I did learn more about the extermination of physically and mentally disabled people and the cruel debauchery of the Soviet soldiers.So all in all, this book this teach me some about politics and history but also had get attached to fascinating characters (and not so attached to others) even if it did only skim on some main events of this time period. I can only hope that the next book in the series will have less of an "it's such a small world!" approach and improved dialogue.Random question for anyone who happens to read this: who were your favorite and least favorite characters? Mine were Carla, Werner, Lloyd, and especially Daisy thanks to her awesome character development. Special mention to Woody. My least favorite was probably Greg because he was too cold and manipulative, and even when he wasn't, he turned a blind eye to his father's own dirty manipulative ways. Volodia probably gets mentioned somewhere in the least favorite list as well even though I think he's mostly just too indoctrinated to fully understand what "saving the revolution" really mean throughout most of the book.Thanks for reading! I put off reading this book for a long time--mainly because the massive size if the hardcover meant it was difficult to read in bed. Glad I finally picked the book up, the storytelling is reminiscent of Follett's Pillars of the Earth. He does an excellent job of exploring the world war two conflict from numerous world perspectives. I typically don't like war historical fiction, but this was well done and was more about the people than the war.
What do You think about El Invierno Del Mundo (2012)?
Awesome! I loved the whole sweep of the book across the years and countries.
—blaghh
[part of a trilogy, covered in my review of Ken Follett's Edge of Eternity]
—enotaras
Book two of the trilogy - follows the same families through World War 2
—jenif
Not as good as The Fall of the Giants but still very entertaining.
—Furqan
