Talk:The Pillars of the Earth

message: Being totally ignorant of the book, how much is the location of Kingsbridge connected to the real Kingsbridge?  Is this just a name that has been used, or is it a fictionalisation of a town with a roughly similar position or type?  I have linked the town in the article, but am a little troubled by the lack of a link before - should some explanation be put? Stevebritgimp 05:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely takes place in England; there is further information now in the article about the timeline of the book and events that took place that are particular to England's history. María (críticame) 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: This book is number 91 on the American Library Association's list of 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000.   Anybody have any information that could be added to the article why it is so controversial?  Neil916 (Talk) 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About a third of the way into the novel one of the characters takes umbrage at the priory and publicly urinates on their Bible(?) by way of protest. At mealtime, no less. The C-word that isn't cancer is also used once or twice (literally). One pithy usage could be considered particularly blasphemous in addition to which it's articulated by a bishop. That's all original research, but it might help when searching for objections to the book. Note that these isolated incidents are effectively window-dressing in extremis and infinitely less integral to the plot or themes of the book than murdering old women is to The Wizard of Oz say 79.78.194.43 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of the novel's status as a "Frequently Challenged Book", but can imagine why it might be.  "Challenged books" tend not to be simply the most egregious or offensive ones but the ones that are on the edge of acceptability for a generally-protected audience.  This novel "brings history alive" and is written at a fairly simple vocabulary level and could easily be seen as a useful addition to a school library on that basis.  On the other hand it does have the themes and language mentioned above and also several explicit sex scenes (including a rape), any of which might draw the ire of a concerned parent or community guardian and lead to a "challenge".   Jgm (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, placing at #91 on this list may not mean much, considering that Where's Waldo shows up two places higher. Jgm (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just saw that some parents in Cleburne, TX are challenging this book's inclusion on a required reading list. (Came here to look for a trusty "Controversy" section to see what the problem is; alas there is none.) --216.62.101.13 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Frequently Challenged Books

message: There appears to be an inconsistency since Martha is described as unmarried, but in the follow-up, according to Godwyn's reading of "Timothy's book" his family were direct decendants of Tom Builder through Martha.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.105.124 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So Martha wasn't married or pregnant as of the end of this book. 'Twould seem her whole story is untold, eh? --76.102.243.117 (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  characters -  Martha 

message: This article seems to keep saying that William was hanged for his part in the plot to kill Thomas Becket. I was under the impression that he was hanged for attempting to steal the remains of Thomas Becket, which was why he was charged with sacrilege, and that the murder itself went pretty much unpunished. Maybe I can look up some quotes to support this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.41.195 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, the sacrilege was the murder of Thomas Becket inside a church.Nortmannus (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  William's Death 

message: I would like to see a section on historical accuracy written from a neutral (meaning also critical where need be) perspective - not just a fan praising it. Apparently Follett has done some research but not extensive, and thus some bits are accurate while there are also blatant anachronisms etc. I think this would benefit even the fans of the book. Just googling for "historical accuracy" with the title brings up lot of discussion on this which I think should be summed up in the article. (This also relates to the point made above bout William's Death)
--81.107.78.224 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the section on historical errors means to destroy the article's neutrality. This section must be restored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.131.116 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the historical accuracy section. I agree that it is a necessary section in order to keep the article balanced. Especially because there are explicit and implicit claims about accuracy, for example, in the Background section with its list of sources. --Gemena (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have added a comment and dictionary reference to that effect. JabberJaw (talk)  00:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this just be removed entirely?  It's placed under "historical inaccuracy," when in fact it would only qualify as historical ignorance on the part of some readers.  Dolewhite (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text: You are absolutly right. Sugar as a food substance is mentioned, so it is an inaccuracy. The "arch bishop" is neither an arch bishop nor named Sugar, Abbot Suger. I deleted this part. 188.174.235.126 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I added something about that in the section -Historical accuracy-, changing details after some researchs.Nortmannus (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Old and Middle English and Anglo-Norman documents, Cherbourg is mentioned with different spellings to the 15th century : Kiæresburh in 1091, Chirburg(h), Chierebour, ChIeerebourg, Chierbourg(h), Ch(i)erburg(h), Chierbourc, Chirbourg(h), Chirburt, Chireburgh, etc. (London, Rolls of Brequigny). Etymology : 1/ from Old English *ċir(i)ċesburg / *ċir(i)ċesburg "town of the church" or "castle of the church" (like Chirbury, GB) 2/ from Old Norse *kjarresborg "town, castle of the marsh".Nortmannus (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy 

message: Corn in British English is generic for any cereal, so would not be unknown in the twelfth century.24.69.25.223 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a comment and dictionary reference to that effect. JabberJaw (talk)  00:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this just be removed entirely?  It's placed under "historical inaccuracy," when in fact it would only qualify as historical ignorance on the part of some readers.  Dolewhite (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corn 

message: The paragraph on sugar under Historical Accuracy makes no sense. First it says that sugar appears in England during the book, then that Sugar isn't sugar sugar but some 'powerful arch bishop from France'. Next thing you know, its talking about sugar being available around 'courtly circles'. I dunno. Sounds a little fishy to me. 70.27.158.57 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutly right. Sugar as a food substance is mentioned, so it is an inaccuracy. The "arch bishop" is neither an arch bishop nor named Sugar, Abbot Suger. I deleted this part. 188.174.235.126 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugar 

message: Cherbourg could not have been latinized into *Shareburg in English, because it was not its pronunciation in French in the 12th century. The pronunciation was probably something like *[tʃɛrburg] or *[tʃɛrburc] with a short [ɛ], still kept today in the region as [tʃilborc], with a phonetic evolution. A good anglicization would have been something like Chairburg. Nortmannus (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added something about that in the section -Historical accuracy-, changing details after some researchs.Nortmannus (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Old and Middle English and Anglo-Norman documents, Cherbourg is mentioned with different spellings to the 15th century : Kiæresburh in 1091, Chirburg(h), Chierebour, ChIeerebourg, Chierbourg(h), Ch(i)erburg(h), Chierbourc, Chirbourg(h), Chirburt, Chireburgh, etc. (London, Rolls of Brequigny). Etymology : 1/ from Old English *ċir(i)ċesburg / *ċir(i)ċesburg "town of the church" or "castle of the church" (like Chirbury, GB) 2/ from Old Norse *kjarresborg "town, castle of the marsh".Nortmannus (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistical accuracy 

message: In Chapter 1 (iv) Agnes gives birth under "a big horse-chestnut tree". The horse-chestnut is native to the Balkans and I it hasn't been introduced to England until the late 16th century -- I added this with a reference. Also, the conkers, which in the book are collected and ground to a flour to thicken the soup, are toxic without a special preparation due to a high content of saponins; this of course doesn't mean that they couldn't be used as a hunger food. Ngfio (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse chestnut 

message: After reading "the pillars of the earth" and the greater part "a world without end" by mr follett i felt discomforted by the strong contrast between the praise oozing (almost) everywhere about theese novels and the actual feeling i had about the rudely written story and the annoyance caused by the unevenness of the language used. Even here, at usually NPOV wikipedia i foud hardly any mention of literary criticism directed at the author or his work.
I know this is not the place for opinions, but the following critiqe seems so thorough and i find it so much to the point that i think it would be for the good of the article to incorporate some of its insights into the article - as an illustration of the controversy surrounding the reception of folletts novels.
"Jan 15, 2011 Francine rated it 1 of 5 stars
Shelves: books-i-don-t-care-for, historical-fiction, epic
I did not hate this book (hate would be too strong a word, and I can't hate it because I applaud the fact that Ken Follett attempted to write an epic novel). But I did not like it. I didn't like it from the start; his writing style hit me like a brick, but Jim thoroughly enjoyed the book that I kept trying to convince myself that I ought to give it a chance, hoping it would get better. When I was about 500 pages in, he saw how miserable I was and asked why I didn't just stop reading it, but at that point, I was invested in it; I had spent all that time getting that far, that I needed to finish it, and I couldn't wait to come to the end. I kept counting down: "Only 450 pages left; only 300 to go; last 200 pages...yay, I have 50 pages left!" Those fifty pages were the toughest to get through. By the time I was at the end, I thought it was a wasted effort - both on his part and mine.
It's so much easier to explicate on what I did not like because there were so many things:
- I loathed the writing style (he vacillated between pages and pages of highly complex architectural discourses to third-grade level simple sentences grouped into short paragraphs). Sometimes it was bearable. Other times, I wanted to pull my hair out. There were times when I felt the only time he came alive as an author was when he was discussing architecture, but these parts were so didactic in nature that it couldn't hold my interest for long periods of time.
- I did not like the author's narrative style. He had to tie everything together (causality was so prevalent throughout the text that I wondered how he didn't work in how the killing of a fly affected events 60 years later). Every single storyline was wrapped up - too neatly for my liking, in some cases. Everyone was tied to someone else (it was like playing Six Degrees); every single character had to have a denouement; every little plot twist had to be explained; closure had to be achieved, no matter how preposterous the circumstances, over time and space.
- The characterization was poor. In fact, it was appalling how two-dimensional these characters were. Good people were good. Bad people were loathsome. As time went on, the good were always suffering one thing or another; they were put upon; they were harrassed; they were constantly challenged and put to the test like Job (something Follett actually used as a sermon!). The badfolk became more oppressive over time; they were not only detestable, but they had absolutely no redeeming qualities. And to go with a typical medieval stereotype, the good were always excessively beautiful, honorable, intelligent (geniuses or savants, even!) - and if they weren't rich, they would be at the end (I half expected Havelok the Dane and his refrigerator mouth to pop up somewhere, proving once and for all that in the medieval period, to be good was to have the purest light shining out of your mouth each time you opened it). Nevertheless, the bad became uglier, became more despotic, scheming throughout life to get the better of their enemies (the goodfolk). But in the end, good always triumphed over evil; those who could, repented and were forgiven. Those who couldn't, were killed off somehow, because apparently, death is the only way an evil person gets his (or her) dues. And then everyone had a happy ending. I hate happy endings when they're so obviously contrived. And this work was so elaborately, exhaustively, thoroughly contrived. (Maybe it's not too late for me to change my mind and say I hated it. *grin*)
- Historically speaking, there was so much left to be desired. Granted, this novel was written two decades ago, and there have been new discoveries about the medieval period since Follett started his research. But he got it all wrong anyhow. His idea of medieval life was so...off, that it hurt my head to continue reading sometimes. I had to pause periodically and rant to Jim about what I currently found off-putting (for example, there weren't many literate people at the time; at the time this novel was set, there was still a distinct divide between England and Wales; reading and writing were two separate skill sets, and people who knew how to read did not necessarily know how to write and vice versa; orality was a prevalent part of storytelling back then and books not so much and yet somehow, he conflated much of both; manuscript writing was either orally dictated or copied tediously by the monks - his concept of a scriptorium was incomplete, defective - and there has been so much written about this that it saddened me; he used modern translations of medieval poetical/verse works and couldn't explain even alliterative verse form effectively - I even wonder if he knew what it was; his understanding of the languages of the period - Old English, Middle English, Latin, Norman French, Old French, Middle French, etc. - and what was spoken by the aristocrats vs. the peasants vs. the growing middle classes disgusts me; he showed a lack of understanding of medieval law, medieval rights, the social classes, gender roles, even the tales and legends of the period, in both England and France; priests were quite low on the totem pole, in terms of the religious hierarchy, and were quite disparaged yet somehow, that didn't quite come across in this novel...I could go on and on, but I won't).
And the historical part of the novel I just found lacking. There are enough histories and chronicles, contemporaneously written, of the time, that he did not have to deviate much from history. There is so much written about the period between the death of Henry I through the civil wars between the Empress Matilda and King Stephen, to the time that Henry II ascended the throne (including the martyrdom of Thomas a Beckett), that I don't quite understand how he couldn't have mined the chronicles for better material. I understand that this is why it's called historical fiction, and that there will always be some element of fiction interspersed with historical fact. But the fictional aspects usually have to do with surrounding characters and situations that bolster the history. The fiction is not necessarily to the history itself. Many times, when writing historical fiction, the author has to beware the pitfalls of creating a revisionist retelling, interspersing his or her own ideals or beliefs of what should have been to what was. If this novel had been marketed as a revisionary narrative, it would have been okay. But it wasn't. I'm just glad that the historical aspect of the novel just served as the background and not the real story. Because then, I probably would've stopped reading.
The premise was a good one and held a lot of promise. It could've been a great historical epic had it been handled by a more assured writer. By someone who was more of a visionary, someone who had the patience to do exhaustive research or who knew how to craft richly developed characters. It needed an author who understood the epic genre, who knew how to mold the epic, who knew how to keep the narrative going, seemlessly binding time with narration and the human condition, without resorting to stereotypes and grating drama. And most importantly, it needed someone who understood when the story had been told; that while there will always be other stories to tell, that each book has its own natural end, and that these stories may not belong in this book.
Ken Follett may be a bestselling author of suspense novels (and even historical fiction such as Pillars of the Earth and World without End), but he is no writer of epics." (from: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5043.The_Pillars_of_the_Earth#)
Now i apologise for such a long citation, but i hope an editor more adept than me could use this to enhance the article making it more rounded.(94.21.93.88 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism