These days, biographies seem to be reaching new extremes at both ends of the "length spectrum." At the long end we have all those exhaustive multi-volume essays on political figures and the literary life; at the short end has stood the compact line of Penguin Brief Lives books that cover everyone from Saint Augustine to Elvis Presley.

Now comes Overlook Press with the second entry in its Overlook Brief Lives series --- thin volumes loaded with pictures and text not much longer than an ambitious New Yorker profile. The first of these dealt with Samuel Beckett. Now comes a similar effort, devoted to Vladimir Nabokov and written by Jane Grayson, a British academic and Nabokov specialist.

Nabokov, who died in 1977 at the age of 78, makes a fascinating subject. Most general readers remember him best as the author of LOLITA, that literary sensation of the late 1950s whose title has become a lower-case noun in our dictionaries. But Nabokov also wrote several other estimable novels too, in addition to many short stories, poems, essays, translations and literary criticism (much of it in The New Yorker). He was also an expert on butterflies, a master chess player, the constructor of the first Russian crossword puzzle and the translator of ALICE IN WONDERLAND into Russian.

He inherited a fortune and a vast estate at the age of 17, but was forced to leave Russia because of his father's political activities at the time of the 1917 revolution. He matriculated at Trinity College, Cambridge (England) and lived and wrote in Germany until the advent of Hitler. This forced him to seek a livelihood in the U.S., where he practically had to start his life over again --- both personally and professionally.

LOLITA was published in Paris in 1955 but was greeted "in silence," until Graham Greene singled it out for high praise in a London newspaper. Publication in America three years later gained Nabokov instant notoriety on this side of the Atlantic. His tale of sexual predator ...was condemned as highfalutin pornography. I was so they did not print it.

Nabokov returned to Europe in 1958 and lived out his life in Switzerland. The biggest event during this time was a sulfurous literary feud with Edmund Wilson, who had been a close friend during his years in America.

Jane Grayson covers all of this ground quickly and efficiently in this short biography. Understandably there is little development of themes or in-depth literary criticism here, but the basic facts are laid out concisely. She stresses Nabokov's aloofness from political action and his butterfly-like agility in crossing borders between languages, literary styles and nations alike. Her own style is eminently readable and obvious errors are few (she places the rise of McCarthyism in the "late 1940s" although it did not begin until 1950 and a picture caption tells us that Boris Pasternak was "pressurized" into refusing the Nobel Prize for Literature). The pictures are mostly interesting, though there are a few that are only vaguely relevant to Nabokov's career.

Vladimir Nabokov was a colorful character, a brilliant teacher and a masterful writer in two languages. LOLITA put him on the literary map, but his other novels (PNIN, PALE FIRE, ADA) are worth reading too. If this little book leads more readers to them, it will have served a useful purpose.

--- Reviewed by Robert Finn

This is a niche book for those interested in the late communist period of the Soviet Union. This was the period after the stagnation of Breznev. He was suceeded by a succesion of rulers. Andropov and Chernenko. THis book details the many assets that Andropov brought with him to the Kremlin. His acitvities as head of the KGB. And most astonishing the fact that he was a reformer, who died to soon. An important work. Autopsy of an empire by Dmitri Volkogonov also has insights on the Andropov period.

This is a technological biography of the man who came to be known as the "father" of the technology he worked on for much of his life -- television. In many places Zworykin the man is displaced by the work he was engaged in. However, those are actually the most interesting and best-written parts of the book, sometimes becoming almost exciting reading. The chapters on Zworykin's early life in Russia tend to plod, even when recounting his adventures during the Russian Revolution.

Abramson is the principal television history researcher in the US , and his work is exceptionally detailed and as even-handed as any human can make it. He comes down on the side of Zworykin in the "who invented television" question, and has compelling data to back it up, but is careful to give credit where it's due to each of the many inventors who contributed to the technology. Abramson's biggest fault as a writer is that he loves his research too much, and includes EVERYTHING, to the detriment of narrative flow. The footnotes section is well over 10% of the book, and is interesting in its own right.

Despite the sometimes-clumsy prose, this is a fine book that illuminates the life of Zworykin and the history of early television technology.

About 50 % of the contents of the book - solid delirium! Do not speak so in Russian. There are separate successful articles. But as a whole - the one who does not know well Russian it is not recommended, as will bring of a harm.

This book is hilarious! Of course about 50-70% of it is the most vile filth imaginable, and those who are easily offended should avoid this book. But there are parts that are genuinely amusing, like wordplays, borrowings from English, and cynical twists on soviet-era expressions that will leave you laughing!

This dictionary is rather comprehensive, including words from Mafia, youth, and prison slang. When I went to Russia, I had a very hard time remembering slang, and especially figuring it out at times. If I had only bought this book before my trip! Since I was communicating mainly with young people of the Zaural region of Russia, they didn't use as much of the a la mode slang of Moscow or Petersburg. The author gives ample explanations of the words, where they come from, their level of vulgarity, and what they normally mean. I haven't seen any other slang dictionaries, so I'd have to say that this is an excellent choice for a student going to Russia.

Nabokov's Lolita spawns from this short book, and it is fascinating to see the thought process behind the masterpiece. The book is translated to English from Russian, so some of the story may be lost. The Enchanter is a bit disappointing after finishing Lolita. Lolita is full of word play, imagery, allusion, and poetic prose, so finding the Enchanter to be merely a story with not much artistry in the language is almost sad! The storyline consists of little complexity, and the work is void of the characterization that draws the reader into Lolita. The narrator has none of the charisma that the brilliant Humbert Humbert possesses, and comes across simply as a villain. Nabokov's concept of the nymphet that left the term "Lolita" forever in the English vocabulary does not appear either. The young girl's character isn't developed at all; instead the reader gets nothing more than physical descriptions. Nabokov didn't intend the Enchanter for publication at all, it is merely a sketch of an idea he later developed for everyone's eyes. This book is worth reading, but without any expectations that Lolita may cause the reader to have. Perhaps it is better to read the Enchanter before reading Lolita.

Like many posthumous works, this first attempt by Nabokov to portray nymphet-love is more interesting to understand the author than as a reading in itself.

Here, the approach is blunter and in a way more shocking - unmitigated by the intellectual rigmaroles that veil the sexual content in "Lolita". The book's plot, with its desperate escape, is a simplified version of the fantastic voyage of Humbert and Dolores. And "The Enchanter" also lacks the mild, educated satire of Middle America which has been a suitable alibi for many readers of the later book.

In a way, "The Enchanter" is like a notebook sketch for "Lolita". It has its basic elements of a story, but none of its richness of colour.

I found this a difficult and disturbing novella: I was uncomfortable with it throughout and finished with a sense of relief, not only because the book ended, but also because of the way it ended.

Other reviews have pointed out that Nabokov was treading a narrow path between literature and pornography, and I could see their point. How anyone can find children sexually attractive is utterly beyond me. However, I think that the first presumption in literature should be one of tolerance - it would be a mistake, in my view, to dismiss "The Enchanter" as a work of pornography. It isn't - yet it's very challenging.

Nabokov examines the mind of a paedophile - in particular his inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality until it is too late. I would have been worried if I had not found the subject matter disturbing. What it did do was make me reflect why I found this novella so challenging, and why I found, for example, Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice" (which deals with a dying man's infatuation with a boy) so moving. I'll need to re-read "Death in Venice" to reflect more on this, but I think it's because in "Death in Venice" the attraction to the boy was the means by which von Aschenbach faced his own imminent demise, and realised that he'd denied his true nature throughout his life. There was no, as such, sexual possibility.

Also, I was reminded of a scene in William Corlett's "Now and Then" in which the main (gay) character shares a bedroom with his young and (I think, though memory may be unreliable) attractive nephew: the nephew enjoys undressing before his uncle, but the saving factor is that the uncle is in control of his life and emotions - he realises that this is merely the boy showing off, that it is not meant as a sexual advance.

What Nabokov does is examine the fact that for some disturbed individuals (males?), there is an inability to rationalise and separate fantasy from reality - and where the fastasy involves children, this is particularly dangerous. Children do not view the world through the same eyes as adults - I can remember in particular two incidents at school (one when I was 10, the other 15), when male teachers let's say, doted very obviously over particular girls. To us at that age, they appeared to be rather dirty and ridiculous old men (one was in his fifties, the other in his thirties). To my knowledge, nothing at all happended. I think what is important is that most of us, as we mature absorb such reflections made in our youth and use them as the foundations for controlling our behaviour as adults. Some however, fail to do this, as Nabokov demonstrated.

In a society where voilence against children seems to be growing, reading a work like "The Enchanter" is not easy, yet it is brave fiction, and if it makes one reflect and therefore learn, it has immense value.

In my experience, this book was not helpful for Step 1 preparation. Partly because Behavioral Sciences is not heavily tested in the exam and clinical vignettes are time consuming. Also, I felt that by studying a standard review book alone, I was able to remember the distinguishing aspects of each disease. However I am sure there are many people who would find this book useful.

This is the worst book of the series and is a waste of time. Pharmacology cannot be taught by clinical vignettes and the author himself recognizes this. In the book review section of First Aid, Dr. Bhushan admits that it is not an ideal review source. The problem is that within two lines of the clinical vignette, the drug is revealed, so there is no chance to guess the answer. There are less time consuming ways to learn the side effects of drugs.

This is the Psychiatry section of the Underground Clinical Vignettes series. If you have trouble getting a general image of psychiatric disorders, or cannot associate important facts with clinical scenarios (keywords etc), this is the book you need. Because, as matter of fact, that is exactly what you need to do during the test. On the other hand, do not think you can get away by just working on this book. This book covers 54 major cases that you frequently see on the exam, but of course this is not enough. This can be a great "supplement", but not enough to use it as a "major source". I especially suggest this book as a good reinforcement if you are using "Blueprint Psychiatry".

_State and Revolution_ is a complicated book in the annals of Marxist thinking. Lenin assigns above all a class role to the State, and therefore ascertains correctly the necessity of a socialist state assuming a proletarian viewpoint. At the same time, Lenin's socialist state lacks a truly political dimension, as it remains, above all, a means for strictly administrative decision-making. Something that would gravely hamper the subsequent understanding of the political character of a future socialist state, specially when you think that this book was written while Lenin hid from the Kerensky government, that's to say just before the October Revolution. Neverthless, the problems put by the book have enormous present value. Therefore it must be taken as entirely questionable the decision to choose as translator an anti-communist like Service, something that would be quite like choosing a neo-stalinist to translate Trotsky's "Revolution Betrayed".

Lenin wrote 'The State and Revolution' as the task of achieving socialism in modern industrial society. He focused on the relationship between the state and classes both in the past and in the future. He asserted that the government and their subordinate agencies were not impartial in handling conflicts amongst classes. For him history was largely a record of class struggle and that the state in every society pursues the interests of the ruling class at the expense of society. The state for Lenin was a vehicle of exploiting the oppressed. No ruling class allows its rule to be abolished without armed struggle therefore revolutions should be expected to be violent. He professed the working class would have to engage in such struggle if it ever was going to gain power. The objective for this struggle would be for the eradication of all class based discrimination. After this privileges and antagonisms and conflicts, which they engendered, would be eliminated classes themselves would disappear.

Lenin affirmed the workers should dismantle the bourgeois state once power was seized; and then the state should be re-constructed after the bourgeois overthrow. The dictatorship of the proletariat would follow. An entire intermediate epoch would separate the destruction of the power of the capitalism and the inception of the fully classless and communist society.

He believed to rid the tyrants a violent struggle was needed. Contrary to the beliefs of Karl Marx that socialist may be able to gain power peacefully. Lenin professed that the bourgeoisie state machine must consequently be smashed; this would be achieved with the removal of the standing army, the police, the civil service, the judiciary and the clergy. For him it was a campaign of through repression.

He believed that the freedom established in the freest capitalistic democracies was fully enjoyable only by the rich, who were not exhausted by the material and spiritual grind of poverty. Lenin contended that the economies of capitalism prevented most people from influencing the politics of any capitalistic society. Under socialism with the inception of dictatorship of the proletariat, the majority of the population would at least gain as distinct from purely formal enfranchisement. The majority would benefit from policies ending mass poverty and would take their unprecedented opportunity to engage vigorously in politics. The means of economic production would have stopped being privately owned. Lenin denied that the material equality was achievable in the first phase of transition to a communist society. The phase would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and would be typified by a pattern of wages rewarding individuals strictly in recompense for the work done by them for society.

This is one of books most interesting and challenging books I've ever read. It is enjoyable and the writing style is wonderful. However, the ideas are what I most enjoyed. Whether you agree or disagree with Lenin, this book is an important marker in modern political analysis. Personally, I loved it and find myself returning to it often for clarity and inspiration.

When the former state known as the Soviet Union withered away in January, 1991, many Communist sympathizers around the globe expressed both confusion and wonder: Is this the indication that the final stage of the worker's revolution is only now beginning? Or, is this final proof that the great Bolshevik experiment has failed? Even now, ten years after the demise of the political aspect of the world's largest and most truculent empire, those who languished in its thrall--Eastern Europeans, Southeast Asians, refugees from the Third World--continue to worry about what could be coming next. After all, most with direct experience of the brutal tactics begun by Vladimir Iliych Lenin know first-hand that nearly 100 years of revolutionary activity don't simply vanish in the space of weeks or months.

Hence, it is often necessary for us to review history, careful to examine what Communism, as envisaged by its leading adherents, really meant or still means. Dimitri Volkogonov's "new biography" of the father of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat seeks to shed some light on this, bringing to the table, he is quick to point out, new information long locked away in the archives of the supreme Soviet. Amazingly, however, Volkogonov repeatedly issues sad news: this document or that document, while reputed to have existed at one time or another, simply disappeared; this document, while extant, has been redacted of crucial information; these documents, while supposedly copied faithfully, may have been changed. In other words, Volkogonov, while his heart seems to be in the right place regarding getting to the "essential truth" of Vladimir Lenin's personality and the cult thereof, is also inadvertently falling victim to the narrow lens of any and all interpretations of history.

This much we know: Lenin, though lauded as a gentle man with a certain compassion for the working class, was not a member of the working class and had a tendency to try to separate himself from the concerns of the working class whenever possible. For example, during the long "locked train ride" out of Germany" in 1917, Lenin, coming upon Bolshevik workers who had been wounded in battle, blanched: He didn't offer aid, nor did he go out of his way to insure the future protection of workers who, it seems, were only tools of the revolution, not human beings.

In the long run, Volkogonov's interpretation of events hinges on a crucial distinction many American readers may miss: The distinction between liberty and power. This is something American commentators have lost over the years. The pursuit of power for the sake of power is altogether different from the pursuit of power for the sake of liberty. Lenin, sadly, seemed to have a cynical attitude towards liberty. He disdained the liberal tradition, just as, oddly enough, do America's right wing AM radio commentators.

This is a very detailed, pretty interesting, and mainly fair biography of Lenin. It certainly does an excellent job in destroying the myth of Lenin as a benevolent figure, a myth that was believed by many, both in the former USSR and outside it. Using evidence from formerly secret documents, it demonstrates Lenin's true ruthlessness and eagerness to use terror to accomplish his goals.

If anything, maybe, this book is a little biased AGAINST Lenin. Although Lenin was a terribly ruthless ruler, he was dedicated to the cause, and held power in the interests of advancing it. In order to totally refute the myth, the author sometimes places insufficient emphasis (in my opinion) on this point. Also, to some extent, Lenin's actions could have been a reaction to the circumstances his regime faced.

Nevertheless, Lenin's actions can't really be justified, so the author is right in judging him harshly. Overall, the book is interesting and really illustrates the reality of Lenin and the Soviet system. It provides many facinating (and horrifying) details and first hand documents as well.

Now I have read a lot of accounts of Lenin's adventures, because I was born and raised in the Soviet Union. But in those accounts he had no character, or rather his character and the characters of everyone described by official sources, was a series of slogans: modest man, friend of the workers, trusted by the people, dedicated to the revolution. In this book fact come out, and the real Lenin does, too. Like many powerful political leaders, Lenin was born in a small provincial town, belonged to a minority or mixed ethnic group, and had a personal vendetta against the system he wanted to overthrow.

Lenin's genealogy is complex and tangled. But this book finally reveals his multiplicitous ethnic origins: Russian, German, Sweedish, Jewish, and Kalmyk. Of this, as you might imagine, not a word was breathed in the Soviet Union, a country where ethnicity has supposedly become irrelevant (what a sad ideological joke!). To amount to anything in life Lenin needed to overcome his provincial roots, prejudice against minorities, and the stigma of being a brother of a criminal, who unsuccessfully tried to assassinated the Russian tsar.

Lenin was a single-minded, driven individual. His life's goal was to overthrow the Russian government, ostensibly for the benefit of the workers and the downtrodden. He spared no effort, no political trick, and no cruelty to achieve this goal. Before he died in 1924, the civil war in Russia was won and the new Soviet state established. Lenin sowed the seeds of totalitarian dictatorship, using Karl Marx as ideological God, and himself as his chosen son who came to Russia to save the world from the evil of capitalism and to build paradise on Earth. When Lenin died, a special tomb was constructed to preserve his body and put it on public display, where it still lies, never mind Lenin's request to be burried next to his mother in a cemetery. In life Lenin was a dictator, and the only person who effectively stood up to him was his mother-in-law. His own wife was less successful and had to put up with Lenin's long love affair with Inessa Armand.

The book is very factual and tends to bog down in details. But it is also full of valuable information and dispells any myth of Lenin as god-like, flawless human being that communists made him out to be.

Yes! Dubal loves to impress the reading public of how knowledgable he is. When you get around this, however, here is an interesting side of Horowitz that allows you to see the excentricities and warmth of one of the greatest pianists of this century. After listening to one of Horowitz's students about his lessons and meetings over three years with the Maestro, I have to say that Dubal has captured the real personality and intellect of Horowitz. The stories are fascinating and for any piano student, like me, this is an absorbing read. Not a great book....but one for travel and vacation that is easy to read, without the voluminous footnotes.

This entertaining book gives a small glimpse into the thoughts and habits of Horowitz in the last few years of his life. The conversations about composers and musicians are fascinating and Mr. Dubal has captured Horowitz's enthusiasm for and knowledge of composers and music admirably. Equally fascinating are the descriptions of the Horowitzes at home or dining out. This is a book to be dipped into and enjoyed.

A quick word about the author. Unfortunately, I do think that he inadvertently reveals himself as being rather unlikeable. Furthermore, his literary ability is questionable: I found the book to be poorly structured and written. Yes, he sometimes comes across as self-important and yes, if it weren't for Horowitz no one would ever have heard of Dubal, but the book is enormous fun and I have read and re-read it so many times that I may need to buy a new copy!

Other reviewers fault Dubal's self-absorption, and while I realize he is quite pleased with himself, I think the book is excellent - delightful to read, full of interesting stories about life with the monster maestro, and displaying the author's considerable musical erudition. There is much to be learned here. As for the ethical question -- when you have been a guest in a famous man's home for a period of years, do you then write a book exposing the flaws of your host? It is easy to look askance. But if Dubal had not written this book, we piano lovers would all be the poorer. I keep Evenings with Horowitz on a central bookshelf in my library, where I often refer to it -- not least for the valuable discography and insightful comments on Horowitz' recordings. I only wish Dubal had been a guest of Franz Liszt in the 19th century -- what a book that would have been!

A review in simple words. The book reveals a Lenin like I have not read in any other book. The Lenin history should remember is the Lenin studied through his personal documents as the book shows. Although as the book explains, an even darker side of Lenin is still to be revealed as soon as more historian access the presidential archives in Russia. Lenin through his own documents reveals himself as man who scorned his own people, an opportunist, a murder and a master of terror and manipulation. I would also like to add that thanks to historians such as Richard Pipes, history will always reveal the true face of the master of the first terror state of this century. My admiration for Richard Pipes.

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.

This book shows genuine documents, notes and other documents signed or sent to Lenin through out his life. This book is a good starting place for any history student doing a biographical essay of Lenin's life. Lenin is portrayed here as he really was. The documents show Lenin, ordering mass executions, conspirations and many other acts of terror which truly award him as the genuine creator of 'totalitarism'in the 20th century. Through the documents in the book one can see the pattern from which future communist and nazi dictators adopted Lenin's model of a totalitarian regime. After reading the book one can truly say that either Hitler, Stalin, Castro and many other dictators were only followers of Lenin's model of a totalitarian regime (in the domestic sphere and in the international area as well).