Dedicato dall’autore alle cinquanta spie al femminile inglesi che si dedicarono a opere di sabotaggio dietro le linee durante la seconda guerra mondiale, ed in particolare alle 14 che perirono in azione, Le gazze ladre è un romanzo solido, storicamente ben ambientato, che si legge (come direbbero gli apneisti) d’un fiato (io l’ho completato in una notte insonne fra toni, lampi e motociclisti che sgasavano sotto le finestre di un convento, ma questa è un’altra storia). Azione pagina dopo pagina, la giusta dose di suspense e l’unica pecca di indugiare eccessivamente su aspetti sentimental-romantici che a un bruto come me, a caccia di semplici sparatorie del ’40, sono apparse un filo melense. Tutto sommato promosso.

Da Wikipedia su Ken Follett:
Considerato uno dei più grandi narratori al mondo...

Quanto è vero! La sua padronanza narrativa non si discute. A qualsiasi suo romanzo mi sia approcciata sono stata fagocitata e ammaliata dalla storia raccontata. "Le gazze ladre" riesce a tenere viva l'attenzione in modo particolare, tanto che al primo momento libero, fossero solo dieci minuti, correvo a prendere il libro per andare avanti anche di pochissime pagine.

"Nel corso della Seconda guerra mondiale, cinquanta donne vennero inviate in Francia come agenti segreti del Special Opertaions Executive. Trentasei sopravvissero, le altre quattordici persero la vita in azione. Questo libro è dedicato a tutte loro."

Follett prende spunto da questo evento e cuce su misura un romanzo meraviglioso, ambientato appunto in Francia poco prima dello sbarco degli Alleati in Normandia e non lascia nulla al caso scrivendo una storia completa che può soddisfare, a mio avviso, tutti i tipi di lettori. Non manca nulla: c'è suspense, azione, spionaggio, violenza, vendetta, riscatto, sentimenti romantici e non, e tanta, tanta storia. Quella storia che sui banchi di scuola sembrava così monotona e noiosa, ma che con Follett assume contorni così intriganti, tanto da portarmi a fare ricerche personali di approfondimento. Non è da tutti. Se non lo avete fatto, leggetelo e non fatevi spaventare dalla mole, va via in un attimo.

3.5 ⭐️ not a genre I would usually read but quite enjoyed this book

A group of female British secret agents are sent to France to act as spies, and to thwart the ability of the Nazis in France to obtain and transmit information on the planned "D-Day" invasion. Based on a true story! A good read.

I am an avid reader. My husband, not so much. This is one of the few books that he brought into our married bookshelves, and that's because he had to read it for a class. I read anything I can get my little hands on, so I grabbed this one up.

I loved it. I loved the main characters, the gathering of the team, the constant action, all that friction.... everything. It kept me excited and I couldn't put it down. I love tough, unique, women characters and this was full of them. I feel like it'd be a great movie- spy/war stuff for the guys and several little romances and girl power for the gals.

Now that I've read Pillars of the Earth and this one, I won't hesitate to read others by Ken Follett because I've really enjoyed both of these.

That's the last time I take a book recommendation from the head cashier at Barnes. The fact that she also recommended The Wedding by Nicholas Sparks should have been warning enough. I think I'll be pulling the fluff out of my eyes for days. Good try, Mr Follet, with your Nazi insignia designed cover and scattering of knowledge about code breaking and writing of LGBT characters. It was not a story about women fighting in the war effort so much as women arguing with each other and hooking up, sometimes with one anither, a Nazi with a twisted love of torture and Judas doors (No, really, we get interogation is about betrayal). I'll always have a special place in my heart for Pillars and World Without End, but no lasting love for Jackdaws.

Jackdaws could have been a very good World War II novel. It's about a group of women operatives (most of them criminals or malcontents) who are given a chance to serve their country and clear their records if they undertake a dangerous mission in France to blow up a Nazi communications center just as the D-Day invasion begins. Yes, the premise is very much a female Dirty Dozen.

The action and characterization of the book are okay but typical. There were just too many sex scenes. And the sad thing is those scenes were entirely unecessary. Follett has caved to the contemporary temptation of explicit sex. Too bad. Otherwise, it would have been better.

Livro muito bom de ler e descreve a morte de vários nazistas, só vi vantagem!

Em primeiro lugar começo por dizer que não só o autor, como também o livro me surpreenderam.

Este foi o primeiro livro que escolhi para dar início às leituras de Ken Follett, pois nunca tinha lido nada deste autor. Fiquei um pouco de pé atrás quando li a sinopse, pois pensei ser mais um de tantos livros que iriam descrever espiões e situações horríveis passadas durante a Segunda Grande Guerra. No entanto, este livro surpreendeu-me pela positiva, uma vez que não entramos apenas na trama que se situa ao redor da Grande Guerra, mas também tomamos conhecimento da vida de cada uma das personagens, o que são e de onde vêm.

Flick Clairet, uma agente secreta britânica, tem uma missão a cumprir que irá apaixonar o leitor. Com a Segunda Guerra Mundial como pano de fundo, somos levados a "presenciar" algumas das situações mais horrendas e sufocantes que jamais poderão ter acontecido na história da humanidade.
O que poderia ser uma história aborrecida, tornou-se num turbilhão de emoções e aprendizagens.

E aproveito para dizer que jamais se poderá comparar o trabalho de Ken Follett ao de Daniel Silva.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this book. Typically, war based stories are so full of minute details that they detract from the story for me. The plot sounded intriguing though, so I decided to give it a shot. It ended up being one of the better WWII stories that I have read. There was enough background information for me to underdstand the historical reference of the story, but it was balanced by a well developed plot. I like reading stories from a non-American perspective since it is a viewpoint that I am not normally exposed to. I do not recall learning in school anything about other countries efforts against the Nazi regime during WWII. While this is a fictional story, I think it serves as an interesting view into the role of the French resistance during the war. My only gripe is that the ending seemed a bit contrite. It was rather convenient that her husband that she no longer wished to be with but had too much respect to leave dies, leaving her able to the marry the man she falls in love with.

Enjoyable yarn from Follett in the old Ken Follett style. Lots of twists, turns and tight jams in this book about British ladies who parachuted behind enemy lines to assist the French Resistance in the days prior to D-Day. Got a tad bit boring at one point in the book, but began moving right along during the last 200 or so pages. Always liked Follett and I am making an effort to read a lot of his older books.

I’m not even going to attempt to be diplomatic, so buckle yourselves in because this book made me angry.

Note: I am aware that I am in the minority for this one, as a few people have ungraciously pointed out. Whilst I welcome informed debate, I will not tolerate hateful comments. Please don't take it personally if I block you.

I’m surprised this has such a decent rating. Jackdaws is a grim mockery of the dedication and fierce bravery of the SOE girls. It exploits a very real and turbulent episode in European history, failing to present the complexity of the sacrifice these women were willing to make - many gave their lives. What is marketed as an intense action-packed thriller is nothing more than a completely implausible troupe of women squabbling, bitching about each other, instigating cat fights and hooking up with every volunteer in a fifty mile radius.

Follett’s presentation of women is sickening. The Jackdaws are never established as real characters beyond constant reminders of their sex appeal. Follett has a needless preoccupation with the objectification of women which seems to serve no other purpose than as an attempt to villainise the antagonist or else add some sort of racy element that the unnecessary sex scenes fail to provide (they read like bad smutty fanfic). It’s also obvious that Follett was attempting some shade of free indirect style by sporadically adopting different characters’ voices, but the female perspectives are especially cringey. Follett endows the Jackdaws with stereotypically ‘girly’ lines in an attempt to emulate the female mindset. Hackneyed examples include: “I’m sorry for being such a girl” and the classic, “My bum is too big!”. Look, as a real life (cisgender) female, I can testify that the size of my arse would be the last thing on my mind if I were facing the prospect of imminent capture and torture.

I guess Jackdaws is supposed to be some groundbreaking feminist masterpiece simply because it puts women center stage amid the androcentricity of war - but to me, the Jackdaws are hardly the epitome of ‘strong female characters’. Flick is nothing but a fighting machine with breasts, ( “a tiny bundle of sex appeal” and yes, that is an actual line) something which apparently makes her an undisputed feminist. Although other characters frequently supply helpful asides about how brave, intelligent, [insert other stereotype here] she is, Flick never does anything to justify these claims. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for female empowerment, but I thoroughly disagree with how Follett went about it. Jackdaws heavily insinuates that for a woman to be on an equal footing with men, she must be endowed with masculine qualities to make her like a man, and/or the men around her need to be degraded to incompetent idiots. To me, this completely contradicts the concept of gender equality and it's not fair - on men or women. Strong in the sense of physicality or capability is only one side of the coin; a character needs some level of vulnerability and empathy otherwise they will never have the need to be brave, or indeed strong. Being able to fire a gun alone does not make you brave or admirable. Besides, a primitive lust for violence is not a particularly appealing trait in anyone.

Every character was achingly stale and prone to stereotype. Flick was a ripoff of Nancy Wake, the openly bawdy SOE agent, complete with a French lover and a codename that I assume was supposed to be lyrical like ‘The White Mouse’... but ‘Leopardess’ was just so obviously sultry that it had me snorting my disapproval. Other characters were defined entirely by their sexuality. It’s honourable that the effort was made to represent LGBTQ+, but these moments are so sporadic and contrived it feels to me as though Follett was trying too hard to be inclusive without actually doing the LGBTQ+ characters justice. These characters have no other values or traits other than their sexuality which does a disservice to both the characters themselves as well as the author. Is there a need to simply label a character as LGBTQ, tick a box, and have them play no other function in the story? People are more than just their sexuality. Ultimately, none of the characters were particularly likeable... besides from the antagonist and his sidekick. You know there’s a problem when you find yourself rooting unconditionally for the killer.

Jackdaws reads like a bad action movie. The writing is, quite honestly, appalling; it’s ameteur and brimming with clunky phrases. My favourite lines included: “Your security stinks.” and 'The torture chamber gave him the creeps.' The juvenile prose is incongruous with the tidbits of historical exposition which feel like transcribed verbatim excerpts from documentaries. This is in many ways a research-heavy piece, and certain scenes were obviously orchestrated with no other purpose than as an opportunity for Follett to show off how much research he’d done rather than offering any helpful insight into the story or moving the plot forward. Jackdaws is also full of specious and convenient plot twists; Follett is excessively melodramatic and uses numerous close calls in an attempt to build tension and suspense - but it only belies the gravity of the situation. Inevitably, this all builds up to a saccharine happy ending. Something that should've been emotionally compelling, wasn’t.

Jackdaws is junk reading. If you like badly written Harlequin Romances masquerading as gritty espionage, give it a go. This was, quite simply, the thriller that failed to thrill.