Edge of Eternity: Book Three of The Century Trilogy

So falls Ken Follett's Century Trilogy. Edge of Eternity leaves off with such a wonderful hopefulness, doesn't it? The Berlin Wall falls to the forces of libery and harsh financial realities that even socialism must abide by; Obama and his young fam standing on a Chicago stage, ready to usher in an intellectual nuance that the Bush years stole from us. Ah, but it is impossible to read Ken's words and not feel the spectre that the Trump era would impose less than a decade after first publication, in 2014. The cynical would say that description of Lyndon Johnson being intellectually weak is all about a cadre of intellectuals thinking they don't have to sell fly-over country (before the tag would come to be) on policies that leave the little people on the outside, the people that have often been displaced in the information economy. Those peeps vote too. And when far-left social movements further alienate and mobilize those being told they are on the wrong side of history, when liberal political organizations are disjointed and lacking in enthusiasim (see on Hillary Clinton), yeah, that elitist arrogance is a recipe for an unapologetic snakeoils salesman with authoritarian tendencies to promise that he can make America great . . . ugh . . . don't even want to finish that phrase. By no means am I saying that we have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in electioneering, but, yeah, the intellectualism that is accused of the Kennedys and Obama's worldview can have its drawbacks when liberal politics forgets that they have to message for all, taking into consideration that internal divisions must be mended to ensure that their constituency is pulling in the same direction. Gawd, Follett's redux of 60s politics reminded of 2016s horrid November date with destiny. Follett's take on the colossal electoral failure of Hubert Humphrey perfectly fortold of America's penchant to seek comfort in conservatism in alternating electoral cycles, again, fotelling of the appeal of a political candidate that promises to make things better and the voter who gravitates to that message. The rejection of Humphrey, the rise of Nixon, is illustrated in the discussion Jasper had with a voter who threw in with the Republican message in the latter 60s. For most folks not being oppressed racially or otherwise in American society, indeed, rioting Blacks, drug-taking Hippies, and fears about Communists in the midst were enough to push the needle away from the Dems, especially when you consider the anti-war movement surrounding Johnson's handling of Vietnam. Follett's fictonal 'average voter' just wanted a country stable enough that he could work towards the American Dream of financial security without the newscycle sreaming that the world was on fire. How different is that political and social condition of the latter 60s, the early 70s, from what Trump ran on in 2016? How different is that political tumul, domestically, internationally, from the cost-of-living crisis and uncertain international relations dilemmas of 2024? You can be critical of a presidential candidate, or a voter vulnerable to that candidate's message, for not having an ability to think about the issues abstractly, to think intellectually, but you can't question that we are all subject to the stresses of life that need cash flow every month when the bills come due. The importance of energizing the base is more than just a cool sounding phrase. When politics or political movements prevent a stable environment for people to take care of the fam, yeah, that gins up the base of a candidate who promises to make all the bad go away, depressing the base of a party that appears impotent to encourage a safe and predictable socio-economic environment. For as much as Kamala has injected enthusiasm into the race for 2024, peeps, the little peeps that were once lured and bouyed by Trumpy's messaging in 2016, are feelin' the squeeze of housing and food costs. So too are the all-important independents. Is it, electoral politics, all about the economy, stupid? We'll see . . .

For me, this was an unfortunate and unworthy finale to this series. Clumsy (not to mention wordy) narrative that spent too much time on peccadillos rather than politics. The characters were at best derivative caricatures of whatever period the book was in. The major players were unlikeable either for their morals or their monumental stupidity. I was so very disappointed.

As a young teenager, my family traveled in Europe for one year (my father, a teacher, was granted a travel sabbatical). I vividly remember visiting Berlin and crossing Checkpoint Charlie in 1971, into a very bleak East Berlin. This last book in the series was especially interesting to me as I lived through many of the events portrayed in the book. I enjoyed the use of real-life people and events, woven into the fictional characters of George and Maria, Tanya and Dimka and others. Dramatic real life stories of America's civil rights history and Europe's fall of the Iron curtain were the backbone of the book. I learned a lot of invaluable, important historical details. For me, the recurring sexual escapades of the characters was distracting and often felt gratuitous. However, my biggest criticism of this book is the unabashed denigration of pretty much every single conservative mentioned. It's unfortunate the author presented such a lopsided, unfair portrayal of conservativism.