Is it worth writing a review of a work that is considered a classic? Why am I doing this at all? I read ‘The Pillars of the Earth’ more than 30 years ago, and it played its part in me studying medieval history (and later making it my profession). I've now re-read the book and wondered whether I would view it differently as a medievalist - especially as I tend to be sceptical about historical novels covering events I know a lot about.

Before we start, two important notes: The following review contains a few spoilers, and I read the German translation of the book (but as most of my comments are concerned with the contents of the book rather than the style, they should be valid for the English original as well).

The historical background is the dispute over the English kingdom between Stephen of Blois and Empress Matilda (sometimes called ‘The Anarchy’, 1135-1153), though the book as a whole covers the period from around 1120 to 1173. This background story is historically accurate, but only plays a subordinate role for long stretches. It is only in the last third of the book, including the agreement between Stephen and Matilda and their son, Henry II, as well as the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket, that some of the (fictional) protagonists are directly involved in historical events. For me, this part of the novel is one of the best sections. Of course, Follet dramatises the events, and they certainly didn’t happen exactly as they are described here, but the historical facts are usually only slightly stretched, not overstretched, and after all, this is a historical novel, not a scientific treatise. Only the White Ship Desaster, which is interpreted as a plot to murder the king’s son, is out of the ordinary.

Generally speaking, the conditions of the time are portrayed quite credibly. This applies to the lives of nobles as well as life in the monastery - a large part of the plot takes place in these areas. On the other hand, I found it annoying that most of the main characters are divided into ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in a somewhat simplistic way. They also develop little or not at all over the course of the story. Some of the protagonists’ motives are presented plausibly, but in some cases I was unable to fathom why they act the way they do – especially in the case of the ‘evil’ characters such as Alfred, Count William, Bishop Waleran or Peter of Wareham. Individual characters do change in the course of the story, but in my opinion this mainly serves to ensure that the good side ‘wins’ in the end. Overall, I think that hate and love take up too much space in the plot motifs. Ultimately, however, this only slightly detracts from the reading pleasure, as the book is very excitingly written — a typical Follet.

The real protagonist of the story, however, is the cathedral, whose construction is followed over the entire period. The architectural descriptions bring the transition from Romanesque to Gothic to life in the mind’s eye and are also some of the best the book has to offer. Overall, I found it a varied and entertaining read with a very well-researched historical background. Even after more than 30 years — and with considerably more knowledge of the period covered on my side — I enjoyed reading the book.