bkbroiler Posted February 20, 2014 About halfway through, so please don't spoil it for me. I just got through some major shit in it, so I'm taking a small break from it. One interesting thing is I'm reading it right after finishing the Game Of Thrones series, and the differences in writing styles is pretty vast. Pillars is a much easier read. There are a lot of "That made him feel [blank]" statements that seem kind of odd sometimes. Whereas Game Of Thrones sort of took on the narrative point of view of each character so strongly that you couldn't really believe anything as true without cross referencing it with other character's thoughts, Pillars will even sort of broadly summarize what is happening. I'm not saying one way is better or worse, it's just interesting to read the differences. I'm reading this on a recommendation from my mom. She quit reading Game Of Thrones because she got sick of the way women are treated in that, which I could understand. To me that novel was about following the few specific women that were able to break out of the shitty way the medieval times treated women. However, she loves this book, which has one of the most disgusting scenes I have ever read that involves horrible treatment of women. I just got past the part where Tom dies. Super bummed about that, I really liked him as a character. I guess it makes sense, though - there has to be more obstacles to building the cathedral. Still really sad that he won't see it finished. Man. Anyway, I'm really digging this book. I think it handles multiple viewpoints, a long timeline that skips years at a time, and presents the technical aspects of building a huge church in a really interesting way. Sorry if this post is kind of long and rambling, just wanted to get some thoughts out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
