As I’ve started reading Lise Eliot’s What’s Going On in There, I’ve realised that my brain, at least, works the same now as it did in university. I cannot read a work of non-fiction and expect to remember its contents, unless I actively work with the text. Exercises, quizzes, taking notes, underlining and summarising… Otherwise I read, take in the text, think “Aah, this is interesting!”, and yet I remember very little of it later.

After reading 2 chapters of this book I looked back and realised I couldn’t tell you a single thing I’d learned from it. So I’m going back to the beginning and starting over, this time taking notes. And since typing is faster than writing by hand, I’m going to post my notes here.

I kept running into Follett books in bookshops and elsewhere so I thought I’d try one. This is not the most representative of his works, but it was the most prominent one in the bookshop, so I took it.

The Pillars of the Earth is centred around the building of a new cathedral at Kingsbridge priory. Over several decades, prior Philip and Tom Builder struggle to build the cathedral, while various forces try to hinder them for political as well as personal reasons. While the story is fictional, it is anchored in real historical events – from the death of King Henry I to the murder of Thomas Becket.

I have to say that despite all the glowing reviews, and the very interesting-sounding premise (I love Gothic cathedrals, and generally find monastic life and medieval stories very interesting) I found very little to like in this book.

First of all, at over 1000 pages the book is simply too long. The back cover is full of epithets such as “epic”, “saga of breadth and density”… which just means that it’s a big book. And it’s big because it sprawls. Follett can’t make up his mind about what to write about. Family drama? War and politics? Cathedral-building? Let’s just do all of that. So there’s everything from love stories to descriptions of cathedral architecture and bloody battles. He also cannot make up his mind about how to tell a story of such scope. I found the pacing very odd: sometimes he skips many years with little warning; other times he spends many pages on a relatively minor scene. And for some reason he has the habit of recapping things that had been said earlier – almost like a TV series. “Last week on TPOTH…”

The plot was very predictable. Good guys build a bit of the cathedral. Bad guys come up with a sneaky, underhanded way to stop them. Good guys suffer. Good guys think of a way to outwit bad guys. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat again.

The characters were hardly better than the plot. They were the staple fare of thrillers: colourful and memorable, admittedly, but very one-dimensional, and as predictable as the plot. The good ones are innovative, intelligent go-getters. The bad ones are mean and intensely egoistic, and generally have some sort of obsession about destroying one of the good guys. After you’ve met a character once, you can easily predict their reactions throughout the rest of the book, because none of them really develops – and you’d think that over thirty–forty years they would learn something other than how to best build a cathedral.

I thought that several of the characters seemed like 20th-century people thrown into a medieval setting. I rather doubt that medieval women freely discussed their virginity, for example, or that they had as much economical power as Aliena does in the book. Their language also kept bothering me. I don’t expect the book to be written in (or the characters to speak) Middle English, but when the language gets too modern, it becomes jarring. Talking about “organizing” or describing a girl as “sexy” kicks apart any illusion of the Middle Ages.

Follett seems to be very fond of violence. The violent scenes are not too frequent, but when they come, he spends several pages on detailed descriptions, really wallowing in the blood and gore. Some of these rapes and murders are admittedly central to the story, but even those got far too much space in my opinion. And then there are the totally gratuitous scenes of violence that he seems to have included just for the sake of it – for example, two entire pages filled with a moment-by-moment account of bear-baiting. Towards the end I learned to recognise these scenes early on and simply skipped them.

The story-telling seemed to be aimed at unexperienced readers. Follett apparently hasn’t learned the “Show, don’t tell” rule, and explains everything. Every conclusion is pointed out, every reason listed. “A said B. He felt like C.” All the characters are made totally transparent, which makes them even more boring. There is no sense that the characters think or feel anything beyond what Follett tells us.

I guess Follett is so used to writing thrillers that even when he tries to write something else, he produces a thriller. This is a cheap page-turner in a historical setting. It has a simplistic plot, delivered in simplistic language, for easy reading: action, sex, suspense, and colourful characters.

Tired of wasting my time, I skimmed the last third. I would not recommend this book for anyone, except as light entertainment on a rainy day when you’re locked in with no other books at hand – roughly on par with The Da Vinci Code.

If you want to read the opposite point of view, head to Amazon, which is full of glowing reviews. Lots of people seem to have found the characters believable and memorable, and the story gripping and fascinating. They love the straightforward battle between good and evil, and enjoy the strong-willed women characters.

Amazon US, Amazon UK.

On the positive side, I found two blogs that agreed with my opinion about this book (here and here) and about others as well, so I am sure I will find some good book tips there.

Having thought more about this weaning thing, and read more stuff on the internet, I’ve changed my mind about feeding Ingrid solids.

Ingrid liked the taste of carrots, but wasn’t that interested in them as food. So I guess she can live on milk for another while. We’ll try again in a month or so.

Addendum:
Why? Basically because I think she wasn’t really ready for solids. I wanted to try this because I was interested in seeing how she would react, not because I urgently want her to eat “real food”. The reaction told me that it was probably a bit too early.

I also read more about the official recommendations. The recommended earliest starting times ranged from 4 to 6 months, but no one ever said why. I got the impression that the recommendations focused on “breast milk is good” rather than “solids are bad”, so introducing solids alongside breast milk didn’t seem like a bad idea. Now I stumbled upon an article that actually explained what happens in babies’ guts, and that made up my mind.

Some studies suggest that waiting until 6 months gives a baby’s digestive system more time to mature. Some enzymes that break down foods don’t reach adequate levels until 6 or 7 months of age. Babies are also born with what is a called ‘open gut’ – this means the spaces between the cells of the small intestines will allow intact macromolecules to pass directly into the blood stream. This allows the beneficial antibodies of breastmilk to pass more directly into a baby’s bloodstream. But it also means that large proteins from other foods (which may lead to allergies) and disease-causing pathogens can pass right through too. This open gut closes anywhere between 4 and 6 months of age – but without looking inside your child’s intestines, you won’t know when it’s closed, so it’s best to wait. This applies to breastfed and formula fed babies.

I couldn’t find any more solid sources – all the articles I came across were about pigs, calves or rats. And because the audience for those is rather narrow, they were all very technical. If you know of any articles about the development of the human digestive system, I’d be interested!

Mothers are the same everywhere, apparently.

Today Ingrid fell asleep on her own for the first time, with no crying and no help from me. This may sound about as newsworthy as “Dog bites man” but for me this is a big thing.

It’s been 4 weeks since Ingrid first fell asleep in the bed (although with a lot of help in the form of rocking and patting). But it only worked during the day: in the evenings she got very distressed as soon as I put her down on the bed. So for her night-time sleep she’s still been falling asleep in the sling.

This week she moved into her cot, and getting her from sling to cot seemed like a fair bit of trouble… so I thought I’d try without the sling again. And it worked surprisingly well. There was a little bit of crying that was easily stopped with some rocking, but she never got really upset.

Today I put her down in her new cot, propped her up with a heavy firm pillow behind her back, and waited for her to show her displeasure. After a minute or two I got bored waiting so I left the room and decided to come back as soon as I heard a peep. And it never happened. She put a thumb in her mouth and lay there until she went to sleep (which took around 15-20 minutes). Totally awesome. That was over 2 hours ago and she hasn’t woken yet.

I am so impressed with my baby, and so glad that I had the patience to let her learn this skill at her own pace. (I hadn’t been at all sure about that!)

The picture was taken during a daytime nap. She’s sleeping in her lovely Grobag, for which I really want to thank my friends at work! I don’t think she could have managed this evening’s performance without it, because she would probably have kicked off her covers before she had time to fall asleep.