Rating: 
Summary: You won't be able to put it down!
Review: This book was past around my family, and none of us could put it down. If you're the slightest bit interested in English custom/history this is a good book for you. The depiction of the stuggle to power for both royalty and religion is compelling. I found it unreal how the characters really moved me to laugh, cry, and truly hate the villians. When you're done with this book, you'll want to visit every cathedral in England to see for yourself the amazing architechture that is still standing today!
Rating:
Summary: Great Read
Review: This is a tremendous achievement representing the pinnacle of Follett's brilliance. A must-read for anyone interested in the time period, a must- read for anyone interested in a great story that reaches across the centuries.
Rating: 
Summary: Golding first
Review: I suggest reading the original (and better) story: William Golding's THE SPIRE.
Rating: 
Summary: A surprisingly oringal and complex book for Follett
Review: The Pillars of the Earth is a surprisingly original and complex book for Ken Follett. Those familiar with his other writings know that his books tend to be much shorter and more formulaic than this one, and, except for The Eye of the Needle, seldom carry much punch. This sparwling novel with a several generations cast of characters has as its central figure, not a person at all, but a building - a gothic cathedral from its inception to completion with a multitude of interrelated stories forming the book's plot.I don't know how accurate this book is as history or architecture, but I know that it is a very satisfying book as fiction. It is original, in its way, and has the added satisfaction of giving us mulitple stories - each as self contained as a good short story, but all naturally related to the overriding story of the building of the cathedral. I have recommended this book to many people and have discussed it with many others who had already read it. I have yet to find one who didn't feel that they had had a wonderfully rewarding reading experience with this book. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Great Classic
Review: This is definitely one of the best books I have ever read. I read the whole thing in a couple days, I couldnt put it down. If you liked Braveheart, you'll love this. Any age.
Rating:
Summary: The best book I've ever read . . . really.
Review: What can I say? I've never read a book that affected me more than this one, and I have to say that it surpassed my former favorite, Stephen King's "The Stand". Yes, I know they're nothing alike, but I read EVERYTHING. That's what makes my opinion a bit less biased. Go Follett! I've read every book he's written before or since!
Rating:
Summary: Not a Text Book
Review: Unfortunately, some of the "scholars" who review this book seem to believe that there is something wrong with enjoying oneself while reading, or in an author taking literary license. Assuming you sometimes read just for the entertainment and not to study for your doctoral thesis, this is an outstanding book. Is it Catcher in the Rye? No. Is it a delightful diversion? Of course.
Rating:
Summary: A way to read, pray and fight . A mystical adventure.
Review: I was about to start producing the videogame of a cathedral builder when my boss gave me the book. I loved it and read it in 10 days and night. Easy litterature but give somany idea about mediaval time that I surely will produce someday this video games...
Rating:
Summary: One of the finest adventures I've read.
Review: It is usually agreed that one of the finest adventure stories in the English language is "The Lord of the Rings" by Tolkien. Having read this book, I would daresay that it is equal to, or almost, to Tolkien's adventure. The medievel setting is fascinating, the various stories which Follett has interweaved are engaging, and his style of narrative is direct and still provides a magnificent picture. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves well written adventure stories and who can manage the 1,000+ page read...in the end, it's worthwhile. (-;
Rating:
Summary: Why isn't this a movie?
Review: Like many of the 265 others who have posted here before me, I found this book amazingly absorbing. I read the last 500 pages in one night because I couldn't bring myself to go to sleep before I had finished the novel. I am nearly 60 years old and an accomplished scholar and there are not many books I have read since childhood which have caused me to lose so much sleep. The question is, what standards should we bring to bear on a book like this? Does giving it 5 stars mean I think it is as good as The Brothers Karamazov or Pride and Prejudice or War and Peace? No, not really. I give it 5 stars because it was a wonderful and informative book and I would love to have others share the experience of reading it. The characters are great, but not as rich and profound as in books like the ones I mention above. But if you compare The Pillars of Fire with classics of historical fiction such as the novels of Walter Scott or Alexandre Dumas, I think it holds up very well, and that, in my opinion, is the appropriate basis of comparison. My title question is serious. I think this book would make an extraordinary movie or TV mini-series. Some readers have said that they found the plot obvious. I personally don't share that view -- or, rather, I enjoyed the obvious skill with which Follett has constructed his plot, his efficiency in using just about every detail to advance the plot. But in my opinion this kind of plot technique is really more suited to drama than to the novel. Except in the case of mysteries, the novel as a literary form does not depend as much on plot mechanics as on the development of character and personality. Drama, on the other hand, depends almost entirely on plot, and I think that what appears as obvious in the novel might make for an extremely taught drama on the screen. Finally, let me say something to those academics who have complained that the book is not historically accurate. Apart from the fact that, as a novel, historical accuracy is hardly required here, and that the book is clearly at least as accurate as the novels of Scott or Dumas, there is at least one detail in which the book is strikingly more accurate than most of the textbooks. I am referring to the discussion about the function of the flying buttress. Even today you will find encyclopedias and textbooks which perpetuate the myth that the structural function of a flying buttress is to absorb the outward thrust generated by the weight of the roof or the interior vaults of a gothic cathedral. About twenty years ago, however, it was demonstrated by means of mathematical modeling that the flying buttresses would have been unnecessary for this purpose. What made them necessary is something that armchair builders tend to forget about, thinking that the only important force a builder needs to deal with is gravitation, but which a practical builder can never afford to forget, namely wind pressure. And increasing the height of a wall dramatically increases the amount of wind that it intercepts. Therefore, it is striking that Follett gets this right when the Encyclopedia Britannica still has it wrong.
| 
