“Pillars of the Earth” — yuck/ahh/wow!
-
I finished reading “Pillars of the Earth” by Ken Follett, and I was really conflicted about whether to say anything about it or not. It’s a hot-selling fictional treatment of how a 12th century English cathedral might have been built. That could have been a great book … heck, judging by the sales, a lot of people thought it was a great book.
My problem is that it seemed like three books rolled into one — one of them was mechanical but fascinating, one of them was surprisingly inspirational for a non-Orthodox work … and the third one was so revolting to me that it may negate any good I’d derive from the other two. So what were those three books?
1. How to build a Gothic cathedral in only 974 pagesThis third of the book is fantastic. Ken Follett, who is known for thrillers, was someone who simply got the cathedral-visiting bug at some point and got curious to know why they were built. According to his preface, he’s not a spiritual person, just a storyteller who found something that so many others have missed. It is impossible to go inside these magnificent structures and not wonder at the cost in human capital — passion, labor, raw strength, love expressed in craftsmanship, not to mention money — that went into them. There have been books that explained the engineering behind a cathedral, and those are amazing enough. But by delving into people’s lives and taking the narrative over the course of 39 years, Follett is able to show the human side of the story — the politics, the courageous stands, the false starts, the unexpected triumphs, the catastrophic miscalculations and the devotion that provided the reason for everything. So far, so good. But then …
.
2. Medieval times meets “Gone with the Wind”This third of the book I detested. This was the juicy part, the kind of stuff that gets a book about building cathedrals to the top of the bestseller list. It’s “The Young and the Restless” with plagues and castles, “Beverly Hills 90210″ with peasants and torture chambers. And rape … lots of rape. Let’s not spare any detail. This is the 21st century and this is a book from Oprah’s Book Club, so for goodness sake, let’s have some rape scenes in graphic detail. Oh, and let’s throw in some torture, mutilation and gratuitous cruelty to men, women, children and beasts. Unenlightened people would call that sadism, but today’s bookworm just considers it the hallmark of “serious” fiction.
Now, I will admit two very relevant facts here. First, I don’t read much modern fiction — for some reason, I had gotten the impression it was all hog-swill (can’t think why). Second, it is absolutely historically accurate to include brutality in a book about the middle ages when most people’s lives were, as Hobbes said, nasty, brutish and short. I would say that it would possible to allude to that fact of medieval life without sliding so close to the realm of pornography.
But maybe that’s just me. On a lighter note …
.
3. A saint in the makingGiven my disgust with the “corset-ripper” third of this book, I was downright shocked to find that there was a character that I really liked — Prior Philip, the monk-priest of Knightsbridge Abbey who ends up commissioning the cathedral and negotiating his way through devious politics, civil wars and times of chaos.
It’s so very, VERY common for non-Christians to write about these sorts of individuals as if they must be either repressed sickos, hypocritical control freaks or benign weirdos. If they are given credit for true Christian faith, it’s usually just a set-up to frame their obligatory crisis when they are either don’t get what they want or just come to their senses. But Follett’s Prior Philip didn’t behave according to any of the religion-challenged stereotypes, and for that, I am grateful to the author. I could’ve done without the flamboyantly atheistic witch-heroine-nymphomaniac that seems to appear lest we have too much sympathy for a devout clergyman, but I hate to nitpick.
.
So there you go. Three books in one. As with so much of what passes for literature these days, if someone would just separate the good from the bad, there might be something there a person could read.
Related posts:
- Have you noticed that earth-shattering writer’s strike going on? Nope, neither have I.
- Yuck
- Got a favorite Lenten book?
- Harry Potter — yeah, why not?
- Harry Potter thoughts — w/o spoilers
Leave a Reply
14 Responses and Counting...
I read this book many years ago and, sadly I don’t remember the Prior Philip character. I do remember the more sordid portions, however, much to my dismay. Including the crazy woman who did something quite despicable on the altar… even as a Protestant I knew that was sacrilegious — and it upset me even then. It seemed that the author wanted to make the bad *really* bad, which I found frustrating and forced.
I also enjoyed the building of the Cathedral part, but overall my feelings were it was not a book I could recommend.
I haven’t read it, but it is on my mountainous “list” of someday readings.
Have you read Sarum by Edward Rutherford about the Salsbury plain — so it disucsses Stonehenge, the Salsbury Cathedral, and the Protestant reformation in England. I don’t remember it being particuarly smutty, but then it’s been a long time, and my smut tolerance is fairly high.
Deb:
I was trying to guess how long the statute of limitations would be on some of this imagery, how long I’d be stuck with having these images in my head. You’re making me think that it might be years. (heavy sigh)
Yep, that “witchy woman” Ellen with her unrelenting hatred for the Catholic Church was really a stitch, wasn’t she? I’ve heard they’re going to make a movie out of this, and if they did, it seems certain to me that they’ll find a BIG star for her part. But I thought she was sad and disgusting.
Mimi:
I was thinking that if a person did have the ability to not be affected by the “smut factor”, they might find the book enjoyable.
I didn’t find his characters terribly interesting except for Prior Philip, but if you count the cathedral itself as the main character, we could almost give him a pass.
My only other caveat is that he takes a LOT of words to cover the action sometimes. I was skimming a lot, and I don’t usually do that.
I should point out that I do get annoyed with smut, but that it has to be pretty smutty for me to get to that point. I just read a fabulous book “The Bronze Horseman” about a couple during the Siege of Leningrad and it was 90% fabulous and 10% smut, where I was so skimming — I mean, really.
I also know what you mean, I’m a big time skimmer. Which means sometimes I have to go back and read a paragraph again because I realize that I missed something.
If I read more fiction, I’d probably get a little more thick-skinned about it. I’ve actually been working to try to “toughen up” where violence in movies is concerned. It’s not easy, though. Just when I think I can take coarser fare, Hollywood turns up the volume. It seems endless.
I’m a firm believer in closing my eyes in the difficult scenes. I haven’t missed a plot point yet.
Mimi Said:I’m a firm believer in closing my eyes in the difficult scenes. I haven’t missed a plot point yet.
I do that as well…especially for book club books thats I’m not particularly enjoying.
Oh, Deb, me too!
I found this quite interesting, because my son gave it to me for my birthday, and I’m about halfway through it. My wife read it when it first came out about 20 years ago, but she borrowed it from the library, so we didn’t have a copy, and it’s been out of print for a while.
I’ve read a couple of other novels by Ken Follett, and I must say that this is above his average novel, but I wouldn’t say it is great literature.
A similar novel was Credo, by Melvyn Bragg, though it deals with an earlier period, and I thought it was rather better. I think Bragg had a better grasp of early medieval faith than Follett had of later medieval faith, though I think he does try quite hard.
Steve:
Thanks for the recommendation. I may try “Credo.” I thought Follett gave the religion angle a more fair treatment than other modern fiction I’ve read, but that’s not saying much. Someone who was doing a better job would be a welcome change.
Ken Follet and his book deserve every bit of the success they’d garnered for this wonderful work. People will praise the Prior Philip character and his actions when he’s every bit as flawed as the other “heroes” of the book, yet they are either too blind to see it or simply find it as “acceptable” because he’s a “man of God”. You left off a couple possibilities when you mentioned that non-Christians view the overly religious as “repressed sickos, hypocritical control freaks or benign weirdos” — in many cases they’re none of those…sometimes they’re brainwashed, overtly naive and/or lacking in logic and common sense. There’s simply no such thing as a rationale, logical, intelligent fundamentalist.
“There’s simply no such thing as a rationale, logical, intelligent fundamentalist.” Someone would do well to learn to treat his fellow man with charity. I fear many would find you disturbingly arrogant.
I have read Pillars of the Earth and enjoyed it immensely. Although being tolerant of all religions; including witch-heroine-nymphomaniac types, I was not in the least offended by any of the characters. After all, it is fiction.
I will agree with a comment made here regarding Edward Rutherfurd’s Sarum being very much worth reading as is London but then I am a huge Rutherfurd fan and his books are some of my closest friends.