Finally! I've managed to finish Ken Follet's
Book Without—Oops! My bad!—
World Without End, the sequel to his
The Pillars of the Earth. I mention both books right from the start because I found it impossible to read and/or review
World without making comparisons to
Pillars, which really impressed me. Sad to say,
World didn't—a judgement I made when I started noticing specific words. Writers of novels and/or play set in a time not the writer's own need to make sure nothing can disturb the reader's or viewer's "willing suspension of disbelief." Language, particularly the author's choice of words, can do that. Then I wondered if I'd noticed the same thing in. Ultimately I decided it didn't matter whether I did or didn't. Truth was: whatever it was that broke my disbelief in
[i]World[/i], the story in
Pillars was strong enough that the detail didn't matter.
I mention the above because in this review of
World my usual "specifics" will be divided into two areas: general stuff and words that made me go "AARGH!"
General stuff: (I started to label this section "general specifics," then thought:
No, Martha. The last thing English needis yet another oxymoron.)
1) Merthin, a 14th century architect and the hero in
World, is struggling with the local priory for permission to build a bridge. He does not receive it and asks how the town will obtain the much-needed bridge. "Trust in God" is the response from the prior. Merthin counters with "Those who trust in God and sow a seed may reap a harvest. But you're not sowing a seed." (page 80) Interesting idea, but is it too modern? Not in the way the character is developed. But is he too modern? Tougher question.
2) "Caris (Merthin's main squeeze, the heroine of
World Without End) stood back, hiding her irritation. Everyone believed the monks were powerful doctors, able to work near-miracles, whereas the nuns just fed the patients and cleaned up. Caris had long since stopped fighting that attitude, but it still annoyed her." (page 507) Modern thought again creeping in? I dunno. I once read a friend's play about a feisty young black woman, a nurse, fighting the army in order to take on nursing rather than cleaning duties during WWII. The play takes place at her trial—I can't remember for what she was on trial—but the writer had her roll-them-shoulders defiant while in the witness chair. The character was from the South, and I mentioned perhaps it would be truer if she was less fiery, considering that such behavior in the 1940's South could have brought about an early death. His defense was along the lines of "guess there were people who defied conditions of any era." Still dunno, but he could be right. Now I'm thinking of Scarlet O'Hara, who was in no way the typical southern belle.
3) "Caris had to fight back her own grief. … She did not know why God so often took the good people and left the wicked alive to do more wrong. The whole idea of a benevolent deity watching over everybody seemed unbelievable at moments such as this. The priests said sickness was a punishment for sin. Mark and Madge loved each other, cared for their children, and worked hard: why should they be punished?" (page 649) And some questions last from era to era.
4) As the plague rips through Caris's Village a second time, "Fury stoked up in Caris as she worked with the other nuns to tend these patients. All their injuries arose from the perverted notions of religion brought about by men such as Murdo (a misguided clergyman). They said the plague was God's punishment for sin, but people could avoid the plague by punishing themselves another way. It was as if God was a vengeful monster playing a game with insane rules." (page 835) And, for many, the times have changed … exactly how?
5) "'I didn't ask your permission,' Ralph said contemptuously. 'I'm your earl, and you are my serfs. I don't ask. I command.'" (page 959) Ralph, always acting on such beliefs, is the super villain of
Earth. But evil as he is, he doesn't hold a candle, IMHO, to the super villain of
Pillars, somebody's "half crazed mother. Is the difference simply that Ralph is a man and the "half crazed mother" a woman? Our expectations of behavior are often based on sex.
Words (ands other oddities) that made me go "AARGH!"
1) The first word I questioned was, of course, the F word, which was used frequently throughout the book. But did it exist in the fourteenth century? A quick visit to
www.dictionary.com revealed it might have existed—but probably not. The source cited the name John le F…er being used in a manuscript in 1278, but claims that today's version of the word first appeared in 1535. Thus the earliest uses remain cloudy. And I started to question every odd word that appeared in
World Without End.
2) "'Righto!' the monk called back." (page 251) Righto? Origin: 1895-1900. Seems Ken Follett's research habits take second place to his comfort with more current British slang.
3) "So cocksure were the …" (page 551) Cocksure, 1520s; according, again, to
www.dictionary.com. Look out, Mr. Follette, the grammatically picky are closing in.
4) Sometimes Mr. Follett does get one right. On page 914 a listing of the luxurious items found in a villainous clergyman's priory is found. Among them is "silver tableware." I remember a scene in the play
Becket where Henry II says he brought forks home from France to his English knights and they were having such fun stabbing each other. So which came first—Becket or the thirteen hundreds? Follett did get it right. Becket lived from 1118 to 1190. But I'm still wondering: Did Follett research the dates or did he, this time, simply guess and get it right?
One good thing—at least I guess it's good—is that I waited too long to write this review. That delay meant that I could remember why I dog-eared pages less than half the times dog-eared pages occurred. Geez! Just think how long this review could have been.
