Zurich 1917, a marvellous subject. The meeting point of the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries on one side, and of the new « revolutionary » artists, be they James Joyce and the stream of consciousness writers, or Tristan Tzara and the Dada movement.

The first interest of the play is to situate the dynamic of each revolutionary movement very well. Lenin is the figurehead of the revolutionary politicians, James Joyce and Tzara of the modern literature movements.

Then Stoppard makes them meet. In Zurich it is more or less an artificial meeting though they share most of their ideas (the files that are unknowingly exchanged at the beginning and exchanged back at the end show how identical their ideas are) and yet they have styles, general postures that make them unable to have a real dialogue.

Tom Stoppard goes even further by tracing along Lenin's positions on art. He shows the perfect contradiction contained - as Walt Whitman would say - by the man. On one side (Tolstoy), he understands that a work of art is a reflection (hence not a purely identical image) of social contradictions and therefore of society, and also a reflection of the contradictory artist (all artists contain contradictions) and his contradictory position in society (hence in the social contradictions of this society). On the other side, once in power, he condemns, at first, then wavers on the subject, Mayakovsky and the Futurist mocement, and definitely considers intellectuals as bourgeois individualists. But the artists of 1917 represent exactly a similar contradiction between the absolutely nihilistic approach of the Dada movement, and the mentally realistic movement represented by James Joyce. The former rejects all heritage. The latter rearranges the full heritage within a modern man's consciousness, hence within a revolutionary or disturbing consciousness.

The play is at times funny, at times realistic, at times dramatic, according to the points of view, but the essential one of these is the recollections two (minor) characters have of the period sixty years later. We are forced to accept that historical perspective : what it was then and what we can do of it now.

The conclusion of the play is typical perpetual movement, here perpetual syllogism : « Firstly, you're either a revolutionary or you're not, and if you're not you might as well be an artist as anything else. Secondly, if you can't be an artist, you might as well be a revolutionary... I forget the third thing. » Unfinished of course, like any historical achievement. History is always unfinished, in spite of Marx's dream of a contradiction-free communist society. This is the biggest sham of western philosophy ever dreamed of by a man of the amplitude and intensity of Karl Marx. You can be a genius but reality is more real than philosophy. The proof, as Marx liked to say, of the pudding is in my eating it. Full stop. Period.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

This is probably my favorite Stoppard play. Everything about it is raised to such a level of excellence that it's difficult to imagine how it can be surpassed.

Stoppard showcases his linguistic talents at their most dazzling and expects the reader to keep up intellectually. Not to sound daunting, but in order to enjoy "Travesties" properly, it helps to know some rudimentary German, French, and Russian; be well familiar with Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" and James Joyce's "Ulysses"; and also to have a good factual knowledge of the Great War and the Great October Revolution. If you do not have this background knowledge, you risk missing out on most of Stoppard's witty insight and leaving the theatre/closing the book confused and disappointed.

The most important thing to remember about Travesties is that it is essentially Stoppard arguing with himself. This really shines through in his "derailed" scenes, where the characters have to abort a scene half-way through because it's obviously going in a wrong direction. Basically, it starts out with the characters being themselves, but as it progresses, one can see that they are simply two sides of Stoppard's own mind speaking to the audience through masks. And then it's as if the author remembers to keep his distance from the audience and steps back into the shadows. The effect is rather mystical; it's as if we are granted a brief glimpse beyond the fabric of what we take to be reality. What remains unclear is whether we are now looking into the "true" reality or yet another scene setting.

In short, buy the book, read it outloud, amuse yourself, alarm your neighbors.

This is one of my most favorite plays, and I was lucky enough to see it performed on stage. In 1917 Zurich, James Joyce, Tristan Tzara and VI Lenin are all converging on the movements that define their very careers later in life. The tale is narrated by Henry Carr, an actual historical figure, as an old man in 1972, who was with the three celebs as a young man, and his memory is a bit faulty! He once played Algernon in "The Importance of Being Earnest" which required him to buy some new trousers, and he insists that Joyce reimburse him. Thus starts a legal battle.

Travesties is a non-stop energetic creative retelling of history in its most fantastical setting. Read it, and if you ever get the opportunity, go see it!

This is a good book on strength training, which reminds me of Fleck and Kraemer's "Designing Resistance Training Programs" (DRTP). While Zatsiorsky says that he tried to write this book for the coach, he admits that there is more science in it than he would have liked. In my opinion, it is more theoretical than DRTP, which I found to be a scientific, but more practical book.

There are things here that you won't find in Fleck and Kraemer's book, but I think the average practitioner would find DRTP more useful overall. Although I'm not really an expert myself (I'm an interested layman), I think this book would mainly be of interest to strength and conditioning experts, and to those with a keen interest in comparing former-Soviet vs. western training ideas. I may have been inclined to give this book five stars if I hadn't already read DRTP and "Essentials of Strength and Conditioning", both of which I think are slightly stronger than this book.

On the other hand, Arthur Drechsler in the annotated bibliography of his "The Weightlifting Encyclopedia" says this about Zatsiorsky's book: "A very interesting and imaginative work by one of today's best thinkers and researchers on this subject, especially in the area of training for increased power." He lists DRTP without comment, so I have to assume he liked this book better.

This book is based on decades of methodically documented training of Russian athletes. Rather than use hypothesis of what training methods SHOULD work, found so commonly in U.S. training literature, what you'll read in this book is scrupulous analysis of what actually worked and what didn't work. There is no equivalent in the U.S. athletic training system; no one has tracked and scientifically analyzed the training of U.S. athletes like the Russians did with their centralized training programs.

This is a must-read book for serious sports strength and conditioning coaches. It's a little too technical for the average fitness trainee, however. The format is a bit like a scholastic textbook, not a how-to book.

This book is probably the best overall book when it comes to serious weightlifting science. Most of the "science" regarding strength training done in the west is of poor quality. Most exercise science in the west has been focused on cardiovascular (aerobic) exercise. However in the east, in the former Soviet Union weightlifting science was taken very seriously and was far more advanced than in the west. This book is one of the better Russian translation books on strength training science. If you are looking for solid strength training science grounded in the basics, this is the book you should read. There is good discussion of the critical nature of the central nervous system on strength and power, in the west so much attention has been placed upon hormonal (steroid and testosterone) aspects of strength. The Russians found the CNS to be the critical aspect of successful strength training.

This is the one book you should read before you read any other "serious" strength training books. To get a solid foundation, then move onto other stuff.

Eric

I don't like THE KING'S EQUAL because the characters were horrible. I don't think Raphael should close the school and higher taxes. The story was about a prince who tried to be a king but he has to marry someone his equal. But the prince was arrogant . The girlwas poor but she was smart and intelligent and little rich than him. I learned you shouldn't be arrogant because no one will like you.

I like this book. It was fun because in the kingdom the prince looks stupid. In the beginning of the book I don't like this book but as I keep reading it was fun and exciting. Rosamund told him "I am rich and intelligent and beatiful." I wonder how come she is intelligent, rich and beautiful .Raphael was very very very very very bad because Raphael closed the schools and took gold and money and some really important things. And then Rosamund told him, "You must go to the mountain and live with goats for 1 year." He came back to the castle and married with Rosamund and lived a good life. I learned your mind has to be open not closed.

I liked the book The King's Equal. I liked the book because Rosamund shows the prince how not to be selfish. I think people and kids should read this book because it shows how you should act and talk to people. Prince Raphael's father died and Raphael's father gave him a blessing. His blessing was,"You should be married to your own equal but if you're not then you will not wear my crown." Then Raphael searches for a wife. Up in the mountains there was a girl named Rosamund and she meets a wolf that talks then the wolf said that he was a good friend of her mother. And then he told her "Your mother gave you a blessing that you will be with your own equal". Then when Rosamund heard from the people that the prince was so selfish and took everything from the people and when she heard she felt very bad and the wolf made her a magic gold necklace. The prince saw Rosamund and said she was the most beautiful woman he had ever seen and when Raphael asked Rosamund to marry him she said,"If you want to marry me then you have to go to the mountains and take care of four goats and return after one year." Then a year goes by and when he returns he brings all of the goats back and when Rosamund saw him she said, "I will marry you." I learned from this book how not to be selfish in life.

Pipes, a former security advisor to President Reagan, has been accused (often) of having a particular ideological axe to grind, viz a deep seated anti-bolshevism, so it is to be expected that his long awaited history of the Bolshevik coup would be critical of Lenin and his associates - and it is. However, Pipes does not lean towards ascribing any greater morality to many of Lenin's opponents and he is uncompromising in the harshness of his judgment over the anti-Bolshevik Whites and the ineffectual socialists. Katkov, Kenez, and Figes recently have produced esteemed works on the period, but Pipes have transcended their works by producing a tome that covers all of the manifold social, political and military events of 1917-1923. Along with Orlando Figes, Pipes characterises Red October as ultimately an incomplete revolution, one which swept away the vestiges of the old aristocratic and commercial order but which was stymied by the resilence of the peasants. It is increasingly recognised that the dreadful collectivization programmes of Stalin were not an aberation, as claimed by leftists, but a continuation of Lenin's policies. By reading this work, amongst others, the legend of the good Lenin and his revolution being somehow hijacked by the villanous Stalin is finally buried. Since the fall of the CCCP new documentary evidence has clarified the true nature of the Soviet Union, and Pipes has taken advantage of this material to support his thesis that Lenin and Stalin were part of a revolutionary continuity. Pipes' grasp of his subject and the inclusion of material in one volume that is unavailable in a score of other works makes this THE book on the period. The full drama of the Civil War is revealed and illuminated as no one else, save for Peter Kenez, has ever done. There are chapters on the new Soviet art, politics, and intrigue. It is recommended that the book be read with Orlando Figes' "A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924", to illuminate this important period in Russian history.

Simply stated: a must read for those who have read Russia Under the Old Regime and Thr Russian Revolution. Pipes continues his survey of Russian history and his explanation of how governments in general work. Thsi historian is brilliant in all respects, not least of all his understanding of Russian history under communism. This book should be read by anyone studying political movements or by anyone who plans to initiate a political movement!

This is definitely one book that sheds light on the early years of Lenin's regime. This book covers many different aspects of the early regime, from the trials of the civil war to the regime's early attempts to spread communism across the western world. Other aspects included the early education programs of the regime and the government bureaucracy that grew like wildfire. The main time frame of this book is from just after the revolution to about the time of Lenin's death, although many topics extend into the 1930s. One can also pick out the topics that were obvious problems in the early 1920s, yet were still present upon the regime's demise in 1991.

Richard Pipes does an excellent job of providing the reader with a comprehensive view of the early regime - few topics go untouched. More importantly, this book is based on a large amount of factual, documented information, some of which has been made available by the recently opened archives in Russia.

This is one of the most authoritative books I have read about the Soviet Union. In the words of the person who recommended it to me - "You'll understand nothing about the Soviet Union if you haven't read this book."

I wasn't expecting this book to be as accessable as I found it. I know next to nothing about life in Russia during the outbreak of WWII, and I knew going in that this was a novel about a man in the Russian army. I figured there'd be numerous names and references to people, places, and policies I'd have to gloss over, and just hope I'd get an idea of the book. I was wrong.

I was also wrong in thinking that it wouldn't be that funny. I found it amusing and entertaining to see slapstick in a "European Classic". But, it wasn't stupid humor. It seems as though Voinovich had a lot of thought behind it, twisting it around so it not only made the reader laugh, but also tied into the plot.

The only thing I thought it may have lacked was character development. It is a short novel, but I felt as if I didn't really get to know Gladishev, Chonkin, or Nyura. Perhaps given a few more pages, I could have identified with these characters a bit more. But, since they are from a culture so foreign to myself, perhaps it would have taken a lot more for me to identify with the characters. Perhaps it's my own sheltered way of life that inhibited a stronger connection with this novel.

If anything, this book is a fabulous introduction into Russian culture at the beginning of WWII. Being that it is a fiction/comedy however, there may not be a lot of accuracy in its content, but it at least leaves one with a sense of lifestyle to which these characters live.

This was the selection of my book club. I was a little leery, because unless it's EXTREMELY well done, satire doesn't work for me - it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Anything less than Mark-Twain-level and I can't be bothered.

Well, "Private Chonkin" was a pleasant surprise. I had the feeling that the writer and/or translator had a lot of fun with this one - I kept hearing a giggle off the page as I read. As is always the case with satire, it helps to be somewhat familiar with the reality that's being skewed, but in this case, it's not a requirement for enjoying the book.

The premise is pretty good, and ripe for satire - hapless nudnik of a soldier is assigned to guard a downed plane in a remote village in the Soviet Union just before the beginning of WW II. His superiors forget about him as he settles into the life of the village, and when they finally remember him, all hell breaks loose as he proves to be a lot smarter than any of them. The author skewers everyone and everything, but none as savagely as the Party and the Army.

The depictions of life in remote areas can be hair-raising; the villages, the people, and their lives are pretty primitive. I had the sense that this part of the world hadn't changed in centuries. And I also had the feeling that these were accurate descriptions, rooted in some pretty harsh realities. The only parts that I felt bordered on tedium were the lengthy descriptions of Private Chonkin's dreams; they played a role in the overall satire but otherwise didn't move the story forward.

With translations, it's hard to tell what you're really appreciating: the art of the writer or that of the translator. Obviously, the translator has to have something to work with, but the nuances could be credited to either. That said, I found this book well-written and highly amusing, and I recommend it to anyone who appreciates this kind of writing.

Voinovich was expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union, because of his poignant satire. The guardians of the communist order could not stand his free, humorous exposition of the follies of the Soviet society. "Private Chonkin" is his masterpiece. Voinovich shows much that plagued the Soviet society: pervasive alchoholism, bureaucratic intransingence, sychophantic officials, horrific abuse of power, and the spread of pseudo-science (much fun is made in the book of Lysenko's approach to evolution.)

Voinovich is not bitter or angry. He finds a place for good-natured humor, even amid the appalling conditions of Russian's brutal rural communism. This book is invaluable to all those who want to be acquainted with the character and spirit of communist despotism in Russia in the twentieth century. But in the end, one does not put down this book feeling discouraged and sad. Orwellian gloom does not prevail here. And why is that? Because people retain the ability to laugh at themselves and at the life around them, not taking too seriously grave doctrines and events. Chonkin survives the advent of terror, and his simplicity and good nature prove superior to dogma and repression, suggesting, at least to me, that a single human being is generally more valuable than all utopian doctrines and insane plans for implementing them.

This novel is a good first effort, with vivid characters and a bìt of a surprise ending, which is one of Nab's trademarks. While I would never have read it for itself alone, it is interesting to see how a genius began in a new medium.

Putting my obsession for Nabokov and for first novels in general aside, reading this was still pure bliss. Sometimes narrative breaks for the author to sneak in some philosophical musing about memory, but somehow it fits. Immature writer syndrome, I suppose, which i've caught in my own work.

It is a book about first love, and losing her, and then finding her again, but engaged to another man, who's not half the man you are. Nabokov questions how much you're in love with only the memory, and whether finding the flesh and blood girl again will ever fill the hole that your memory and desire have dug.

Makes interesting reading next to Martin Amis' first work, The Rachel Papers.

Though I found this book in some pasages quite boring none the less I liked it very much ganin is a great character easy to hate for alot of reasons but mainly the guy like most of us lives in the past trying all his life to recapture a moment he thinks was the greatest and happiest moment of his life in the hopes of living it again in this case with mary the love of his life...but ofcorse sadly for all of us that can never happen again I dont think there are hollywood endings in the stories of nabkov just realistic ones...but still what a great ending an ending that confirmed the idea I had all through the book that some sort of awakening has to happen in his life and realization that the past no matter how beautiful it was can never be resurrected except in our memories and the reality of his dull,poor and ugly life is still a reality.But I think as ganin realised in the end that other maries waiting to be loved happier moments waiting to be lived can still exits in the future.

With his earlier novels, such as King, Queen, Knave, and The Defense, Nabokov was unable to come up with stories that contained both the literary ripple of pleasure and the kind of plotting, page-turning stuff that makes people actually want to finish a book. Here the balance is more neatly struck; Hermann Hermann, a deluded precursor of Lolita's Humbert Humbert, is funny and engaging without being entirely sympathetic. He wants to fake his own death to escape from humdrum life, enlists the aid of his 'double', goes on to kill the double and dress him in his own (Hermann's) clothes. Problem is, the 'double' was Hermann's own creation, for the man he has killed does not resemble him in the least. Therein lies the crux of our tale: afterwards come police, pursuit, complications, etc. Now there is no one lovable here, but the fine net of perceptions, crystalized weaves of sense and sensation, are a pleasant counterpoint to the arch looniness of Hermann et al. The tone, above all, is one that will not be taken up again until Pnin, and and then followed hard upon by Lolita, Pale Fire, and Ada: arch and diabolically funny, the devil here being as usual in the details

The focus of a book review should supposedly be on the novel itself and not on the author, but I can't resist; Nabokov is a master. It's as if language were his own personal playground. The way he toys with words is amazing, and adds much to his books. I simply can't think of a writer with more linguistic talent. But on to the novel itself: Don't read Despair (or any of his other novels, for that matter) if you're looking for a simple, pleasant read. This book is dark, comedic, and often grotesque (but that's hardly a bad thing). It can be confusing at times, because the narrator is sly; the reader must be alert and ready to spot his outright lies, as well as his half-truths and truth-twistings. This makes for a very entertaining, if somewhat skewed, point of view. The plot itself isn't anything breathtaking or boldly original; however, Nabokov's style makes it seem that way. This is an intriguing, sharp-witted book by one of the most interesting authors to ever put pen to page. I dare say it's one of his best.

This book possesses something very rare: the ability to entertain as well as just about any Agathe Christie book along with a wildly rich variety of diction, intrigue, and (though the author denies it in his prologue) meaning. I have read it three times and each time I chuckle over some droll detail I missed on my last reading. Moreover, a great introduction to Nabokov: Ada and Pale Fire require much more cerebral work, and unlike Despair, don't lend themselves as easily to being happily re-read - something pretty much required if Nabokov can begin to be truly appreciated, as his stylings are difficult. A wild romp that will particularly be appreciated by worshippers of Dostoevsky and Pushkin, as critical extensions of some of their work are oddly offered (and strangely juxtaposed)as well. A solid, muscular masterpiece that makes much of Lolita look tame.

I confess to finding Nabokov a strange writer. In novels such as "Bend Sinister", I find his style frequently irritating, almost as if he's writing the novel purely to amuse himself - this self-indulgence becoming almost unbearable. Indeed, in his introduction to this novel, Nabokov states that "in the long run...it is only the author's private satisfaction that counts". Really? Either this is monstrous egotism or vast insecurity. In my view, Nabokov is not the great author he perhaps thought himself to be (if one is to take such statements, and others, at their face value).

Nonetheless, I think that he is an interesting and at times challenging writer. In this book as in most of his others, it is fatal to give up half way through, as often the book's full effect and meaning only become apparent at or near the end. It's best to read this novel in as few sittings as possible to get the best effect - I shouldn't think that it would work as well in many, short bursts of reading. You need to immerse yourself in the claustrophobic and melancholic world created by Nabokov.

The story revolves around Adam Krug and his son David, who is seized by by agents of a totalitarian state. Will Krug recover the boy by submitting to the demands of the state? Thus the central theme of the novel is the love of the father for his son, most often conveyed in flash-backs. Nabokov confirms in his introduction that this indeed was his main theme, and disclaimed any idea that the novel was a political critique or satire. Take such statements at face value if you wish, but there's too much satire/criticism in the novel for that to be true. It would not be the novel it is without that totalitarian background: the claustrophobia and near Kafkaesque feeling of individual helplessness enhance the feelings of worry and despair Krug feels when his son disappears.

So, a novel to take time out to immerse yourself in, and overall to be patient with.

In 1984 Orwell gave us a terrifying study of the mind of a totalitarian socialist state. With BEND SINISTER, Vladimir Nabokov confronts a similar beast but instead of dissecting its addled brain, he explores its pathetic heart.

And BEND SINISTER, for my money, is the more frightening of the two. Bad ideas often prove less dangerous than madmen and madwomen who would tear down to world to avenge childhood slights.

Look out. The common man has taken over Ekwist and his name is Paduk. Paduk, the socially inept son of an inventor of insane gadgets such as a typewriter that duplicates one¡¯s own handwritten script, has seized control of the Eastern European backwater and only one thing stands in his way of complete domination: Adam Krug.

Krug, a world famous though colossally misunderstood philosopher, is Ekwist¡¯s only claim to global fame. Paduk needs Krug¡¯s allegiance if he is to have legitimacy. There are also unspoken old scores to settle: Krug and Paduk went to school together and the young philosopher had tormented the young dictator, dubbing him with the nickname toad, embarrassing him sexually and sitting on his face at every opportunity.

When Krug refuses to be bought with the highest academic post in the land, one of his friends after another starts disappearing. Krug, however, still refuses to sign a ridiculous oath of allegiance (which is partly plagiarized from Lenin). His resistance appears less heroic than an act of sheer stubbornness and intellectual snobbery, almost a personal indulgence.

But Paduk¡¯s henchmen finally get to Krug through his young son, David. How they do it is simply too horrible for me to repeat. Imagine something nearly unthinkable and you are half-way there. To be honest, the unspeakable fate David suffers (far worse than anything Lolita endures) soured the book for me. But such as with Nabakov¡¯s other controversial works, LOLITA, with its pedophilia, and ADA, with its paean to teenage incest, I can¡¯t honestly say that I regret reading the book, nor would I deny the experience to anyone else. Nabokov is that damn good.

I also can¡¯t honestly deny that this book is the work of a genius. It boasts several comic scenes worthy of the best of Monty Python. In one, Krug bounces from checkpoint to checkpoint on a bridge manned by idiotic and paranoid soldiers because he has no entry pass for one gate and no exit pass from the other. Equally side-splitting is Krug¡¯s savage dismissal of a mediocre academic sent by Paduk to woo him.

An optional course in this mini-feast of a book (it is only 201 pages) is this red herring served by Nabokov in his later essays, in which he claimed (it is hard to spot this when reading BEND SINISTER) that during the book Krug becomes aware that he is only Nabokov¡¯s creation, prompting him to undertake an existential revaluation of his own bonds with his friends and family. Krug seems to come to the conclusion that his love for his son is real whether he is or not, which may be Nabokov¡¯s biggest joke or his greatest truth or both.

Bend Sinister (1947) was the first novel Vladimir Nabokov wrote in the United States, and his second novel in English. Like one of his later Russian-language novels, Invitation to a Beheading, it is explicitly political, in a way generally foreign to Nabokov. (Indeed, to write a "political" novel was rather against Nabokov's usual artistic philosophy, and in his 1963 Introduction to this novel, he takes pains to point out that the focus of the novel is the main character's relationship with his son, not the repressive political conditions which drive the novel's plot.) Bend Sinister opens with the death of Olga Krug, beloved wife of philosopher Adam Krug. Krug is left with an 8-year old boy, David, in a country torn by a revolution led by an oafish schoolmate of Krug's, Paduk, called the Toad by his fellows at school. The new regime attempts to gain Krug's support, offering both the carrot of a University presidentship and the stick of veiled threats conveyed by the arrest, over time, of many of Krug's friends. The brutal climax comes when the new regime, almost by accident, realizes that the only lever that will work on Krug is threats to his son, then, due, apparently, to grotesque incompetence, manages to fumble away that lever.
The novel is (one is tempted to say "of course") beautifully written. Passage after passage is lushly quotable, featuring VN's elegant long sentences, lovely imagery, and complexly constructed metaphors; as well as his love of puns, repeated symbols, and humour. The characters are well-portrayed also -- Krug, of course, and his friends such as Ember and Maximov, as well as villains such as the Widmerpoolish dictator Paduk and the sluttish maid Mariette. The novel, though ultimately quite tragic, is filled with comic scenes, such as the arrest of Ember, and comic set-pieces, such as the refugee hiding in a broken elevator. As VN asserts, the relationship between Adam Krug and his son is the fulcrum on which the novel turns, and it is from that the novel gains its emotional power. But much of the novel is taken up with rather broad satire of totalitarian communism. The version portrayed here is of course an exaggeration of the true horror that so affected Nabokov's life, but it still has bite. The central philosophy of the new regime is not Marxism per se, but something called "Ekwilism", which resembles the philosophy satirized in Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron" -- it is the duty of every citizen to be equal to every other, and thus great achievement is unworthy. (It is not to be missed that Paduk was a failure and a pariah at school.) All this is bitterly funny, but almost unfortunate, in that it is so over the top in places that it can be rejected as unfair to the Soviet system which it seems clearly aimed at. That's really beside the point, however -- taken for itself, Bend Sinister is beautifully written, often very funny, and ultimately wrenching and tragic.

This book is for those who care more about substance than style. Dr. Ginzburg's subject-the toroidal spiral field and its study by scientists beginning with Archimedes-is fascinating and its significance hard to overestimate. Dr. Ginzburg clearly believes the toroidal spiral field is the mathematical representation of what can also be called the "universal field," insofar as it constitutes the essence of the structure of the unverse: nothing less. Readers of The Tao of Physics, The Physics of Immortality, The Dancing Wu Li Masters and Wholeness and the Implicate Order will profit from this book.

Dr. Ginzburg (who maintains an interesting related web site: Helicola@aol.com) has self-published this work, which suffers from a lack of editorial polish, although this detracts far less than might be feared from the fundamental importance of the work. While much of the book is a fictionalized account of the transmission of the apocryphal "Archimedes File," in which is found the initial discovery of the importance of the toroidal spiral field, the story-telling method employed makes for an entertaining introduction to profound subject matter and incidentally provides a pleasant "tour" of the evolution of the physical sciences through the early Twentieth Century. The book would also have benefitted from footnoting, but given that it is not presented as an academic text, this is easily overlooked as well.

What matters here is the message, as Dr. Ginzburg well knows. Dr. Ginzburg has a passion or his subject and is committed to making toroidal spiral field theory beter known. "The scientist... who sees geometry as the divine proportion of created things," wrote Claudio Magris in Danube, describing Kepler, who himself wrote that "[i]t is the geometrician who approaches closest to the design of the Deity." Dr. Ginzburg is seeking to reveal that design-which he believes to be the toroidal spiral field-to his readers, and has written a book which will compel its readers to think long and carefully about what they have read.

"The term 'particle' has no physical meaning," Dr. Ginzburg gives as the conclusion of Peter Tait, a Scots physicist who died in 1901. "What we perceive as a particle is actually a toroidal spiral field." If this is true-and this reviewer believes it to be so-,the implications are enormous. It is hard to imagine a more exciting field of inquiry and speculation: physics melding into metaphysics. Dr. Ginzburg hopes to continue his tale of the Archimedes File and its place in the Twentieth Century, in the Twenty Fist, today and tomorrow. It is to be hoped that he does, and that deserved attention is given to his work.

Unified Spiral Field and Matter. Author: Vladimir B. Ginzburg Publisher: Helicola Press 1999, ISBN: 0-9671432-0-9. Subject: A Story of a Great Discovery.

Unified Spiral Field and Matter is an independent continuation and expansion of a previous 1996 publication, Spiral Grain of the Universe, by Dr. Vladimir B. Ginzburg. It is a unique and a brilliant book, for the layman, as well as the learned.

Like the 1996 book, the Unified Spiral Filed and Matter presents the reader with a story of a great discovery. This is the discovery of the spiral nature of the material Universe. It presents the reader with a discovery, which accentuates the rotational movements of everything in the observable Universe. From the smallest grains of matter to the galaxies, and the role this plays in its construction. The insight climaxes in the creation of models of the fundamental particles of matter, in the form of spirals, which Dr. Ginzburg classifies as Vortices, Spheruses, Helixes and Toruses and which he then describes graphically and mathematically, explaining their dynamics in the terms of contemporary physics.

The book's novel approach in presenting such ideas to the general public is in Dr. Ginzburg's brilliant account of the history of the idea of spirals. This he traces back to Archimedes, and then through the past 2200 years, in the thinking of some of histories profoundest natural philosophers, thinkers, discoverers and physicists. This part of the book is not just a most enjoyable reading for the inquisitive thinker, but thoroughly informative and provocative to the intellect, at the same time as it serves as the accumulative foundation for the groundbreaking discoveries in the theorisations of the Unified Spiral Filed and Matter.

Dr. Ginzburg's ideas may prove to be as close to the fundamental truths regarding the construction principles of the material Universe, as anything being currently presented in physics. This in particular when it comes to our understanding of what forces holds the fundamental particles together.

The Unified Spiral Field and Matter is a brilliant exposition of fundamental ideas and issues in mathematics, physics and the creation of particle field-concepts. I recommend this reading to anyone interested in the big questions in particle physics and humanities possibilities for the construction of the all important and ultimate Theory of Everything.

Paul J. Einarsson.

I found this book easy to read and understand. It was exciting to follow the line of possessors of the Archimedes file, the events that brought the file to each in succession and the importance of each possessor in bringing us closer to an understanding the structure of the universe. It was quite informative about the attitudes and personalities of so many great scientists.

I loved the colour of this novel, the brilliant use of imagery and the way Nabokov develops his character (Martin) so that my appreciation of and sympathy for him grew despite my initial inclinations.

The edition that I read was the Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics edition, with its blurb that largely quotes Nabokov himself. And in his own words he says 'In general Glory is my happiest thing. ................. although nothing much happens at the very end ...........' If this is in any way off putting (novels are supposed to be about tension and resolution after all) I recommend you ignore it. For me, despite what the author says, EVERYTHING happens at the end.

I found this a curious book. Up until the last few pages I did not care about any of the characters: even the main one, Martin, being so feckless, left me totally cold. I expected to finish the novel having appreciated the style in which it was written (which is excellent) but feeling utterly indifferent about the story line: just another well-written though utterly forgettable piece of fiction.

And yet, in the last few pages, Nabokov redeemed the story for me - sometimes it is worth persevering. It's best not to spoil the ending too much for those who haven't read the book, but careful concentration over the last pages bore fruit for me. I even forgave Nabokov for irritating me with the descriptions of yet another Cambridge fop (Darwin): how many of these quasi-Waugh Oxbridge stereotypes pop up in twentieth-century fiction?

One of the messages of the work for me was to engage with life, expect change, accept that people and situations will alter as time moves on. To paraphrase Proust: it's strange that people act as though today will last forever when all of our experience should tell us the opposite, that change is the normal state of affairs.

I wanted to read fairly short, impressive book during my winter break/holidays. So, Nabokov came to my mind. I picked up "Glory" and I was taken from the moment I started reading. Book about young Martin Edelweiss, of Swiss and Russian heritage, follows his quiet life from his early childhood to his life of the grown up, young man. His parents divorce during his childhood, and Martin's father dies soon afterwards. Martin's mother re-marries to his uncle who sends young Martin to the Cambridge University. Here, Martin acquires new friends and even falls in love with Sonia, ruthless daughter of the Russian emigre editor. Sonia seems to enjoy seducing young man but is ever so easy in discarding them in order to avoid long term commitment. Martin is no exception. And after college days are over, Martin decides to travel around Europe: England, Switzerland, Germany. His uncle/stepfather is concerned about Martin's lack of desire to find suitable position in order to ensure steady flow of income. And while Martin's friends are building their careers in journalism, writing and other "honorable" professions, he seems to rather enjoy doing manual labor in order to find his true self. Until one day - he goes away. Forever. Very powerful novel. It made me Nabokov's fan in a matter of moment.