No comments about In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography.

5 comments about The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (Annals of Communism Series).

1. Richard Pipes' presentation of archival material concerning Lenin is of great value to anyone interested in the paper trail leading from the millions of corpses scattered across Soviet history to the feet of comrade Lenin. The reviews of this book are interesting since, speaking literally, Pipes did not write the book: Lenin et. al did. Lenin himself and his various murderer flunkies, wrote the documents that comprise the book. So those that squeal like a stuck pig over this book do so in the face of the fact that Pipes did not write it -- Lenin and his accomplices are the authors of most of the material. Pipes selected documents that demonstrate Lenin's hand in various murderous terror campaigns (the persecution of the Orthodox Church), his creation of a police-terror state, and his subversive work with the Germans. This is Lenin, these are the things he did. Others suggest that somehow Pipes' selection is 'unbalanced.' Hmmm . . . Does that mean that somewhere in all the archival material there is something like an order taken by Lenin's assistant asking that flowers be sent to his wife; a photograph of Lenin passing out candy to children; a letter where the diligent Lenin promises to come over to a common prole's house to roll up his sleeves himself and fix his leaking pipes? Better yet, perhaps in the Soviet archives there is a heartwarming birthday greeting Lenin sent to Dzhirnsky: 'Happy birthday! Don't gas too many peasants in the woods on this, your special day!" Did Pipes select only those documents that portray Lenin in a bad light? It is nonsense to suggest that Pipes purposely left out documents that allow a kind, gentle, loving, zany Lenin to come through. This book testifies to the fact that Lenin was simply a nihilist, someone who did not believe in anything and simply wanted to destroy out of hatred. There is no intellectual substance to communism. It is nihilism pure and simple and thrives on darkness. Read the book for yourself and don't let those who condone murder and destruction try and make it sound as if this book is somehow 'biased.' Lies beget lies and this is what nihilists live for.



2. Richard Pipes was in Ronald Reagan's administration, simple facts state that he is an old cold warrior. Through his hatred for the communists and Lenin (no doubt Lenin was a ruthless man), he gives too many one-sided and biased accounts of Lenin. Perhaps Pipes should know that Lenin tried to please non-Russian nationalities of his empire programs such as Ukrainization, he even forgot communist ideology for one moment when he set up the New Economic Policy allowing his starving countrymen to sell their products and keep the money. The main thing Pipes is good for is history of Russia before the October Revolution where he is deprived of his prejudices.



3. For many people from the left, Stalin was the ultimate gravedigger of the Revolution (Trotsky).
   The first one was Lenin, by creating a one party state ruled by him.
   One should remember that in the free elections of 1919 in Russia, the bolshevik party got only a good 17% of the votes. But Lenin kept his power. As Tomsky said : there was only one party, the others were in prison.
   Pipes' picture is all too real: Lenin was - and there are reasons for it : his brother's death for instance - a cynical, ruthless, aggressive agitator, who despised humanity and the workers to whom he told he was to create a paradise for them.
   He understood that farmers and industrial workers saw only their own interests, not his: to create a new society with new human beings.
   The results of his policies were dreadful: the USSR stopped to communicate health statistics to the WHO in the seventies, because they were too disastrous.
   When I was in Moscow, an important person in Russia (I saw recently a quote from him in an international newspaper) told me the following joke: why are Lenin's statues on the market place of every village? Because his arm indicates where vodka is sold. That was the future of the country.
   No, Julia Voznesenskaya is more than right: communism was the power of the soviets and the alcoholisation of the country (The women's Decameron).
   I recommend this necessary political essay to everybody.



4. While this is a slender volume, it provides very important documentary evidence of what had been hinted at and alluded to previously. The criminal nature of the Soviet Union can no longer be explained away as a corruption by Stalin of the pure and noble ideology of Lenin. The documents provided here clearly demonstrate Lenin's criminality and his role in building the terror state that was the USSR.

   Dr. Richard Pipes, a great scholar on Soviet history, has done a great service for us in putting this material together so concisely and powerfully. It is another important volume in the Annals of Communism series that I cannot praise enough.

   Dr. Pipes provides an introduction and a biographical sketch of Lenin, a few pictures, commentary on the importance of each document. The documents themselves are often excerpts while many are presented in full translation. There are a couple of them also provided in the original by a photograph of the actual document.

   This is a vital book in understanding the origins of the Soviet Union and the nature of the relationships among the founders of what led to so many horrors and so many deaths.




5. I read this book and I felt dissapointed. The author (who I later discovered is a well-known anti-communist in America) simply shows a serie of notes and documents that, according to him, say how ruthless Lenin was. I am sayin "according to him" because sometimes he dare to guess what those notes say, even when you can't possibly read them (some are illegible). The book has a total lack of impartiality and it reminds me to those books by Dmitri Volkogonov, whose hate against communism blinds him from doing a good and impartial book. My opinion is that if you want to read a good book on a political personality (or on any other theme) try to find an author that has no direct implication in the story (like Volkogonov) or that has not a blinding hate to the topic (like Pipes).

5 comments about Bobby Sands: Writings from Prison.

1. Although this will not go down as a classic it is nevertheless fascinating, compelling and informative. My favorite poem is "I Wish I Was Back in Derry", which was put to music by Gordon Lightfoot. Some may call him a thug, but most people would be hardpressed to find many thugs who are willing to die for their beliefs.This book shows in detail the horrible treatment these political prisoners received at the hands of their captors and reminds one of the general mistreatment of Catholics and Nationalists which is an everyday occurence in Northern Ireland. It also makes one wonder if terrorist organizations such as the Ulster Defense Association would have the same courage if the British army wasn't there to back them up. If you're not sure what opinion to draw then add to your reading list, The Committee: Political Assassination in Northern Ireland. Enjoy the read, it's a good one for both books.



2. Bobby Sands, equipped with only a contraband ballpoint pen refill cartridge and toilet paper, wrote some of the most affecting and powerful poetry of this century. His prison diaries give poignant insight into the soul of a man who was willing to die for his beliefs. In this case, the right to be treated as a human being. Regardless of your political perspective, this is a book that should be experienced to gain a greater understanding of the complex politics that led to 10 men dying on hunger strike.
   
   There is a good reason that Nobel Peace Laureate Sean MacBride wrote the introduction to this book. It deserves to be read by anyone who cares about the Troubles in the North of Ireland. Indeed, it deserves to be read by anyone with a love of the indomitable human spirit, of which Bobby Sands was one.
   
   Rest in Peace, Bobby.



3. This is an incredible book. Although I lived in Ireland during the Hunger Strike, I still have a hard time remembering that this book is not a work of fiction. I have to continually remind myself that Bobby and so many others died, and lived tormented lives, for the sake of my freedom. Bobby was a beautiful thinker and writer. This book should be read by every person in Ireland and Britain. RIP Bobby.



4. For anyone who has any interest in Republican politics this is a must read. It is because of Bobby Sands and his other nine comrades that Republican politics is able to be as vibrant as it is today. At the start of the book there is a Preface by both Sean MacBride and Gerry Adams, from then on it is all Bobby Sands. In the section "A Day in my life", Bobby tells us about the routine harrassment that the Republican prisoners would have to endure, the sheer brutality and naked harshness of their oppressors who in their cruelty and naivety could not possibly understand what it was that the prisoners were going through. For a man who is imprisoned, his poetry betrays the mind of a man who is free. Refusing to live in a country that sees him as a second class citizen, Bobby decided to fight and it was because of this taht he ended up in prison. Bobby often touched on this in his poetry. His Trilogy about life in jail is a work of art, a poem that deserves much more recognition than it actually got. Two of his poems have been turned into songs by Christy Moore, these are McIlhatton and The Voyage (I wish i was back home in Derry). The book concludes wuth a section that he wrote in the first 16 days of hunger strike before lack of strength robbed him from writing anymore. All in all a superb read, buy it and understand. Tiocfaidh ar la.



5. I think Bobby Sands was a very interesting person and decent writer, especially considering that he had no formal education to speak of. He shows a veriety of writing styles, prose and poetry. However, I think he becomes incredibly repditive! I understand that this is all he has to write about, but I think he obsesses over certain issues and becomes rather self-indulges on hiss own suffering. He seems to leave out many things, such as what the "screws" would taunt them with, perhaps this was because they would say how the IRA killed innocent people! He also leaves out the fact that he abondoned his own child and wife, though she divirced him because of his decision to hold the IRA above his own family. I admire his endurance and unwavering belief in hos cause, something which too many people lack today. Conviction!

No comments about Bevan (Life&Times).

2 comments about Rooikraal Revisited: Farming During Apartheid.

1. Rooikraal Revisited is a poignant account of the author's life on a farm in Africa during Apartheid. Always vivid, often touching, and sometimes disturbing, Weston's stories introduce us to the colorful characters - both black and white - who were part of her experience, detail events in that unique time and culture, and share some valuable insights regarding racism, humanity, and the passage of time. Particularly haunting is the story entitled "Elizabeth's Potato; " I read this some time ago and still can't get it out of my head. The only criticism I have about the collection is that I wanted some of the stories to be longer; I wanted to know more.



2. I loved it! I wish Dylan would write a nice long book, she is very entertaining and is a pleasure to read!

4 comments about Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature.

1. Lear's detailed biography offers an unmatched look at Carson's personal and professional life. This book takes the reader behind the scenes of Rachel Carson's brilliant works in order to demonstrate the difficulties that dogged her every day existance. Lear chronicles Carson's personal perservance and dedication to the environmental cause in an immensely readable format. A wonderful and inspiring book to read!



2. The first reviewer, Shari Just, has captured perfectly the quality, scope and value of Lear's biography. If you have ever wondered "can one person make a difference" this is the proof. A readable blend of history, place, people and events describing a modest scientist that loved to communicate scientific findings to a wider audience.



3. How many people today remember Rachel Carson? When you see an eagle or a falcon or a hawk, you can than k Rachel Carson. Her book "Silent Spring" incited action almost immediately against irresponsible pesticide use, including DDT, and launched an ecology movement that led to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This is quite an accomplishment for an author of natural history books; Rachel Carson must have been larger than life, practically immortal, in order to have pulled this off.
   
   But...as Linda Lear documents in extraordinary detail, Rachel Carson was entirely mortal, and all too human, and was not lacking in the faults most of us possess. Success came to Carson late (almost too late), but Carson's love of nature and her dogged determination allowed her to complete what is, perhaps, the most important book of the 20th Century before she succumbed to breast cancer. Lear's detail is incredibly deep; over and again she recounts instances from Carson's life that seem trivial and mundane until the reader feels bogged down in the excess of it. But this detail is critical, because Carson's life itself seemed mundane and trivial, that is until the last decade of it. Carson was a regular person-she was no superstar-and Lear's depth of detail is necessary in order to explain Carson's journey from a less-than-middle-class upbringing to government functionary to the preeminent nature writer of her time. Carson's life evolves slowly and ends tragically; she never married and she never had children-it is almost as if she was born to deliver "Silent Spring" at exactly the right moment in history, when it was needed the most, and then pass on.
   
   In "Witness for Nature", Linda Lear does not allow Rachel Carson to become a cardboard icon of an earlier time; Lear recreates Carson as a complete person with loves and fears and faults. Carson's greatness rises on its own from Lear's writing.



4. An absolutely fabulous book on an environmental pioneer, "Witness for Nature" offers up three very important reminders: (1) We must never forget the prophetic contribution of Rachel Carson; (2) we must carry on her bold and visionary mission, never backing down from, as the book described them, the "powerful adversaries" of the chemical industry, corporate agriculture and others that seek to impose their technological will on the rest of us; and (3) we must treasure every day we have left and take the time to cherish our gifts in the natural world. I only wish Rachel Carson had lived to be 100 so she could have carried on her ecological vision for many more decades.

No comments about Patterson for Alabama: The Life and Career of John Patterson.

5 comments about Machiavelli in 90 Minutes (Philosophers in 90 Minutes).

1. Even though you should be able to read it in well under 90 minutes, it does deliver what it says. More a biography of the improtant world-view shaping events in Machiavelli's life. Thin on what Machiavelli actually said and what it means. Maybe the author assumes you already knew. Nevertheless, a good read and worth the few dollars it costs.



2. It is impossible to understand Machiavelli in 90 minutes, or even 90 days, though I have no doubt that books like this sell. Still, unsuspecting students who really want to learn something should beware. There are no good short cuts for stuff this difficult, and this is worse than a bad shortcut--it's downright misleading.



3. Paul Strathern does a good job of providing a very useful description of the historical and biographical context of Machiavelli's works. Without this kind of background, those who attempt to read Machiavelli's most famous work, THE PRINCE, will find their efforts to be frustrating and futile. Strathern's little book is best seen as a useful adjunct to and preparation for Machiavelli's works, not as a kind of CLIFF'S NOTES which provides a systematic delineation of his contribution to political thought (although Strathern does help the reader to understand Machiavelli's view of political theory "as a kind of science independent of morals"). Strathern offers a good contribution with his brief comparison and contrast of Machiavelli's THE PRINCE and DISCOURSES ON LIVY, alerting the reader to the more temperate and considered contribution to political theory provided by the latter work. As Strathern notes, in THE PRINCE, Machiavelli writes from the ruler's point of view, providing guidance for the ruthless consolidation of power. However, in DISCOURSES, he writes from the citizens' point of view, giving them advice on how to run things, "especially how to achieve freedom within the state." In relation to the latter, Strathern cites Machiavelli's seemingly out-of-character assertion that "people are more prudent, more stable, and have better judgment than a prince." All in all, Strathern writes clearly and engagingly, although he tends to indulge in a bit of historical gossip (e.g., his discussion of Cesare Borgia's sister, Lucrezia, daughter of Pope Alessandro VI). In sum, this book is useful as an introduction to Machiavelli's contributions, but is not an adequate substitution for a reading of Machiavelli's works.



4. I'm perplexed by the people who write angrily about the "90 Minutes" series because they are disappointed not to find a serious, in depth treatment of the works of these philosophers. The books obviously don't purport to be anything but what they are: an entertaining, high level view of basic concepts and life history.
   The author shows in this book how Machiavelli's life and times may have affected his writings. I have other books that delve into Machiavelli's philosophy, but none of them mention his personal circumstances and history, which surely would affect his writing and philosophy. These books are good in that they put these great thinkers in a social and historical context which many books fail to do.
   I enjoyed the books I've read by this author a great deal.



5. As with all the works in this series this work is clearly written and provides a good outline of the life and the work. Machiavelli is seen by Strathern as a wily and subtle man of action and tells the story of his political career well. The turning point comes as it sometimes does in life with a failure. When Machiavelli loses his political position he retires to his Tuscany estate and there writes the masterpiece for which he will be infamous and famous. As Strathern understands him Machiavelli is above all a keen observer of the political world he knew who described what he saw and understood in the Italian Renaissance world of political in- fighting. 'The Prince's is the handbook which tells the Ruler how to maintain his power. And the ruthlessness, lack of Christian sentiment, required is essential to the prescription. Better to be feared than to be loved, though of course desirable to be both. The formula Machiavelli gives for ruling requires ' virtu' which Strathern perhaps incorrectly likens to Nietzsche's will-to-power. Keeping the ruler in power according to Machiavelli also requires other measures such as not relying on mercenaries, and seizing opportunities for compromise as his native Florence failed to do when it might have in doing so preserved its freedom.

1 comments about Richelieu.

1. This is not a comprehensive biography, which is what initially attracted me to this book. Knecht's RICHELIEU is part of a series of what are supposed to be short, concise that address the power and politics of various great figures in European history. Thus, we thankfully don't have to read about Richelieu's preference in wine and ad nauseum speculations on whether he died a virgin. The focus is supposed to be on what made this person succeed politically in their time and context, and what they did when they achieved power.

   All in all, while I understand the desire for consistency, I found the book often vague about significant events while spending time offering random speculation and criticism of other work in the field. Claims are made without adequate support or argumentation. I also question whether the organization of the book was best strategically. Devoting distinct chapters to Richelieu's use of propaganda or his relationship to the nobility is arguably valuable, but I think the whole work suffers since there isn't a focus towards understanding how these different elements interrelate.

   For the most part, though, I just found the prose dull, and only moderately informative. Ultimately, I think the exposition of how Richelieu exercised power suffers as a result.

No comments about Roosevelt's Thrilling Experiences in the Wilds of Africa Hunting Big Game.