Nathan

[A mild spoiler ahead]

Absolutely loved Part 1.

Part 2 started to lose me as the focus came off the main character a bit, and the story really changed by taking a new turn.

Then came [here comes mild spoiler]...









....a torture scene.

I should say I generally dislike such scenes. This is partly because of the kind of violence it portrays disturbs me. However, if it fits into the story and are done well, I can accept it and move forward.

However, I also partly dislike such scenes often because of how they are usually portrayed. That is, objectively wrongly and irresponsibly. Unfortunately, the one I'm referring to in this book does just that...and then some.

When I say wrongly and irresponsibly I mean: by suggesting that critical information is usually able to be extracted from someone through the torture (when in reality the opposite is true). Such portrayal perpetuates misconceptions and mistaken beliefs about torture, which has real world implications. (How many have suffered because we tolerate torture based on wrongheaded notions?) I find this irresponsible portrayal – in whatever media – as disturbing, grotesque, unnecessary, and frankly, unethical. So I chose not to engage with media that do so.

To make it worse, not only does this novel in a particular scene do so, but it makes it worse because the hero present – who we are supposed to empathize with, who (generally) does the right thing, who we are rooting for – does not condemn the torture (either outwardly or in their thoughts), or frankly seem to have much concern about the ethical implications of the torture. I found myself then having a difficult time rooted for and empathizing with this hero afterwards (as well as the character that committed the heinous act, who was also a “good guy”).

Now, if torture doesn't bother you, or the potential ethical implications of how it is portrayed in the context of the story doesn't matter to you, or you don't find issues with empathizing with heroes that are not “good” in terms of their actions ethically and morally, or real world horrid implications of perpetuating misconceptions doesn't bother you, then this novel may not be problematic for you. It is for me. Which is why I didn't finish it after that.

It's unfortunate, because I was really liking the story, and I really wanted to follow it to the end. It just lost me at that point.

I hope to find a similar novel without this unfortunate issue (and open to suggestions, please!)

Summary: Underwhelming. Didn't meet high expectations. Unfortunately became a bit of a slog to get through.

The Good: Herbert creates a world, highly realized, with its unique cultures and language and history and politics. With depth and detail. Well plotted, bringing together many threads and characters with political intrigue.

The Bad: Despite such a variety of characters, with a variety of roles and actions, somehow they lack humanity. All their dialogue, all their thoughts, all their actions, tend to be in the service of the plot, or exposition, or enlightening the reader to this world. But despite seeing deep into the thoughts of the characters, we seem to get little enlightenment of their feelings on the matters at hand, let alone personal, particular, character-driven, and character-revealing aspects of their thoughts and feelings. Characters often seemed hyper-intellectual. I don't think there was a single argument based upon emotional conflict, or bit of humor in the entire book. Another for instance: the deaths of characters close to others did not seem to elicit much emotion, thought, or feelings on the matter. Characters felt too often unrelatable (as a result). I think this is why I did not feel enough care for what happened to the characters.

The Ugly: Suspenseful moments there were, but more as a result of the plot, and less the result of how he handled those plot moments, or how they actually played out on the page. Similar with the action scenes, which were intense almost despite the writing itself. A great hero, but one which did not have a lot of endearing or relatable qualities. And one who felt too entrenched in the tired (and even racist) trope of the civilized/western/white hero going in to lead and save the savage/exotic/eastern people of color (a la the films “Dances with Wolves” or “The Samurai,” which while I might have enjoyed, can nonetheless be rather troubling and problematic from a race perspective). Chapter introductions from books written about the events of the story, giving interesting insights and commentary, but whose foreshadowing crossed the line into actual spoiling what otherwise would have been suspenseful events if the outcome wasn't already known. A glossary that was helpful, but also felt a bit of a crutch, as Herbert then appeared to feel free to simply not bother to try to integrate the explanations of their meaning within the text itself (which would have required a more deft hand with storytelling, but which would have been more enjoyable and easier for the reader. The metaphysical/supernatural aspects lent some more other-worldliness to the story, but at times left me a bit confused or uncertain about their meaning, significance, or even a good sense of what was actually happening. A compelling tale, but one which at times seemed rather derivative of history (see T.E. Lawreance “of Arabia.”) Interesting cultural idea, but ones which also seemed extremely derivative. A story which might be an interesting analogy on the times in which it was written (Middle East politics, oil), but if there was something beyond just being borrowed or derivative, and which actually might be a commentary, I did not see it (though I acknowledge both that it might be my failing to see it, and that all works are derivative in some sense).

Disclaimer: Expectations can be important. I did see (at least most of) the 1984 film something over 20 years ago. My rather awful impression of it colored my view of the book. I wish I had not seen it beforehand. On the other hand, my expectations were high due to the rave reviews and #1 rankings on the all-time-best science fiction lists.

Top posted review by reader Emily May says it all really.

I would only add in summary: like it's 2 predecessors, close to 1000 pages of historical fiction focused on a town in England, with romance and thrills that Ken Follett knows how to deliver. Unlike the previous two very good outings, this one has a broader historical scope (going beyond England to involved major events across the backdrop of European conflict, royals, aristocrats, merchants, sailors, civil war, and Protestants vs. Catholics), but less depth (in terms of featuring characters who are not quite as engaging).

I highly recommend the first 2 novels to any fan of historical fiction and the era, and this one (with the above disclaimer/caveat.)