Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I liked Birdsong, but not for the 1970s plotline, which doesn't really fit in the book. It adds nothing. It also encourages us to look at the Great War from the vantage-point of the 1970s. But why would we? They are themselves now 40 years ago, and aren't relevant to the rest of the story.

This magnificent book was weakened only by flashback to the 1970's when Faulk tried to get the reader interested in Stephen's granddaughter Elizabeth. Elizabeth became interested in Stephen's World War I service and tried to research his life. I felt these sections from the 70's were unecessary and did little to add to the story, which could have been told in the first person from Stephen alone. Beautifully written, wonderful prose, its a great read. I would recommend it to anyone seeking a tale on love and loss in the time of war

Agreed, the 70s was a strange perspective. And to boot Elizabeth was a shallow person. I liked the book but the female characters were not well developed and were downright weird. In other areas it was interesting for ideas about WWI and men of the time.

The 1970's plotline is nothing more than an attempt to get across a message: We must never forget.

Sadly Elizabeth is a vacuous airhead lacking in character and any trait to inspire sympathy.

Don wrote: "For those who have read Birdsong, do you consider the 1970s plotline, with Stephen's granddaughter, to be a distraction from the book's general Great War plot and setting? Or does it add to the bo..."

I didn't find it necessary at all until I read her childbirth, when she said, "I know. It's...John." I was weeping.

I guess it's more of a way Faulks brought out this story. The TV series left out the modern life part entirely, which didn't hurt the power of the story at all.

Well, I like the idea. Wars may end, but they have consequences that lasts for generations and generations. I don't think it was particularly well done, but I salute the attempt.

I think it was important to demonstrate how easily a younger generation may lose its history. Elizabeth does not even know if her grandfather was in the war. She rides in the London underground without realizing it was excavated by the same people who served with her grandfather. She also goes on to complete the promise that Stephen made to Jack--that he would have the children Jack would never have. Elizabeth's research opens her world and changes her just as Stephen's experiences have shaped him. We are all connected.

I found the Elizabeth/Robert strand of this powerful novel irritating and intrusive. It added very little. Perhaps if the characters had been better rounded, and given more space, it may have worked better. But it all seemed a bit weak and "pasted in". As a result, I was quite disappointed with the end, especially as it was seen through Robert's eyes. After sharing so many of Stephen's intimate moments, thoughts and feelings, it seems a shame to see the birth of his great-grandson only through the thoughts of his hapless, shallow father, a very minor character in the narrative. Yes, young John is a symbol of the future and hopefully a better world.... the kind of world that Stephen longed for even in his darkest moments. But - especially coming so hard on the heels of the harrowing scenes in which Stephen and Jack suffered in the tunnels - the final scene of the book is a let down, and almost seems like an insult to the memory of Stephen and his comrades and all they endured. Robert rejoices in the birth of his child, but with little or no awareness of his roots. The man appears to see the child almost as a tribute to his own baby-making skills and we are left with an image of a "product" of a rather sordid "bit on the side", a guilty secret to be hidden from his own long-suffering wife. What a shame to end on this note. Thankfully it won't be this scene that lingers in the mind.

In some ways yes, I just hated the fact that she did what she did at then end, have a baby with a married man. I was hoping she would break up with him and realize that she deserved better *maybe she didn't.