The Death of Jesus is a great book for those of us who were reared in a blindly religious house and community but always questioned the authenticity of the mythical tales of the New Testament. The book postulates an excellently researched hypothesis that ties into the many of the post-Jesus history that may not be everything we have been taught in Sunday school. For that reading, I suggest Dr. Carmichael's The Birth of Christianity, which demonstrates clearly that the notion of Jesus- the one we still believe today- was peddled around the influential Mediterranean seacoast for years after Jesus' death. Great marketing, but not accurate even to what Yeshua bin-Joseph (Jesus) himself believe. It is possible to see that the beliefs of the good rabbi from Gallilee were exploited, especially after his death, so the reader comes away with a feeling that the entire episode of Jesus' short career reflects very little on what we have been told in Sunday sermons. Get both books! It will open your eyes.

This work is a seminal look at the February and October Revolutions by a member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet (later executed by Stalin) who was nominally a Menshevik, but whose view of these events was remarkably neutral and detached. He offers glimpses of most of the major players such as Trotsky, Kerensky, Miliukov, Lenin, Chernov, Martov, etc.
although NOT Stalin, which may have been one reason for his eventual destruction. A strong primary source about the events of the critical year 1917 in Russian history.

If you're interested in learning about what went on in Russia from the overthrow of the Czar to the establishment of a system by the Bolsheviks, then this is definitely the book for you. I would recommend this book to anyone, from a person clueless about the topic up to a historian, because it covers so many different major aspects and of the period, yet explains them well enough also. The main focuses are the February riot, July Days, and Bolshevik Victory in October. A personal account of the February riot is included, which is totally amazing. For most of the book, I couldn't put it down. I had to really push myself through about 20 pages that didn't make sense to me, but certainly a second reading of the book would clear up problems like this.

After completing this book, I would definitely pick up Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed (an American Journalist who travelled to Russia during the Revolution). This whole book is a personal account that is often referred to in A Short History of the Russian Revolution. Although it doesn't cover the amount of time that the latter book does, it certainly gives you a view of how the individual was treated and the great sense of unorganization and chaos that was going on in Russia during the time. Reed talks about his experiences inside of the Winter Palace, and so many more small accounts that aren't included in "A Short History...". This book also includes many, many speeches given by figures such as Lenin and others in the Congress of Soviets.

In conclusion, I would definitely pick up both of these books if you are interested in this subject.

Was Leon Trotsky "shy"? As strange as it may seem, Carmichael has provided possible evidence for such a diagnosis in his superb biography. Trotsky, who was perhaps the greatest orator of the twentieth century (which is why the "shy", accusation seems so paradoxical), never formed his own faction, and displayed "passive" behavior while Stalin and his clique of idiots overran the country, and in addition, he relied mainly on Lenin for his own political fortunes. While health incapacitated V.I. Lenin, Trotsky showed complete ineptness, ideologically, and personally, with his own actions. Lenin was preparing a "bombshell", which would have resulted in the ouster of Stalin from the Bolsheviks in 1921, Trotsky was aware of what this info was (the nationalities issue), but when Lenin was attacked by another stroke, Trotsky just made a "compromise" with Stalin! Instead of destroying Stalin politically, he passively watched as Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev betrayed the Bolshevik Revolution (certainly not the actions of a genius!). Trotsky had a myriad of opportunities to consolidate his own position in the USSR, but didn't; he was head of the army and navy, was perhaps Lenin's closest comrade, but yet, he, instead of Stalin, ended up with a pic-axe in the skull thousands of miles from the Kremlin. The only explanation is that Trotsky was "shy" (or passive; Carmichael traced this passiveness to Trotsky's ideology, which apparently states that the role of the individual is minimal).

Unlike other bio's of Trotsky, such as Deutscher's and Volkogonov's, Carmichael focuses a large amount of words to the psychological motive behind some of Trosky's actions. For instance, why did he not just eliminate Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin through a coup d'etat? His explanation was that this would have been percieved as Bonapartism, and the country would have degenerated into an ineffective bureacracy. But isn't this what happened anyway! Clearly, Trosky's description of his unwillingness to seize power through a coup d'etat is unsatisfactory. Anyway, although this book is out-of-print, I would still recommend you somehow find yourself a copy, because it's a superb book.

Yes, it is a classic. Yes it is a masterpiece, and true, it is an unbelievably big novel.

I had to read Anna Karenina for a 19th century writers course, and I must admit I was intimidated by the size of the book - bearing in mind the length of the semester and the other books one ought to read.

Tolstoy starts his masterpiece with a Biblical quote: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay"
The relevance of those words will be evident to the reader as the novel progresses; the novel is simply about life, passion. There are no perfect beings in this book, there is no right or wrong, but simple, even mundane day to day details - no matter what people say about Anna Karenina, you have to read it for yourself. You will feel the urge to judge, but you will not be able to do so. Tolstoy is a genius, he will make you understand, and that's the correct word. You might sympathise, or feel that the characters are justified, and you might not, and it's all irrelevent in the light of understanding.

The novel is a feast of pathos and linguistic genius; in fact I did not want the book to end. Don't be discouraged by the book's length, reap the rewards at your own pace.

'You frightened me, 'she said. 'I am alone and was expecting Serezha. He went for a walk; they will return this way.'
But though she tried to be calm her lips trembled.
'Frogive me for coming, but I could not let the day pass without seeing you, 'he continued in French. In Russian the word You sounded cold and it was dangerous to say Thou, so he always spoke French to her."

Tolstoy took care of the finest details and whims that go in the characters' heads about the smallest details in life, and you will love him for it! You will be surprised by the things you will learn in this book, like for example the names of the silliest things around the house in Russian! :)

This Edition, Pevear and Volokhonsky (Viking 2001), supposedly renders Tolstoy's Russian more faithfully than earlier ones, which attempted to "soften" him a bit for Western sensibilities. I actually bought this for a class, and my teacher, who reads it in the Russian, simply couldn't praise the translation enough, so if you're determined to read Anna Karenina already, you should probably get this edition.

As for the story, I found that the 800 pages just melted away. Long doesn't mean hard, after all, and I was sorry to see it end, to tell the truth.

The story revolves around seven different people in 1870s Russia. Superficially, it tells how Anna Karenina left her husband for another man, destroying her family, how Stiva Oblonsky ruined his family without leaving it, and how Konstantin Levin courted Kitty Shcherbatsky and they built a new family together.

Although it's enjoyable even on the superficial level, Anna Karenina rewards careful study, revealing intricate structure and interlocking symbolism throughout. Tolstoy thought it was his best work; critics have called it one of the best novels ever written; don't miss it.

I read Anna Karenina for the hype - so many people talk of it being one of the best books ever written. I was also interested in Tolstoy, who is a fascinating character.

At time of reading, I found the novel okay. The characters came alive on the page, and many of the scenes in the novel were beautifully delineated. But I found the pace too slow, and was bored by all Levin's socio-political musings on Russia at that time.

Months later, and I find that the book still resonantes in my mind. I find myself still thinking about Anna and her fate; about that excruciating moment where Karenin approaches total forgiveness and then veers away; about Dolly, Kitty and Oblonsky. About how different the world of Anna Karenina is from my own, in some ways, but still so relevant. And the differences are illuminating.

In this novel, Tolstoy manages to weave together a whole world of stories and people and events. I can't really describe it other than saying that it is a very very human story. Greater than the sum of its parts.

Don't read this book if you think you might become impatient 'getting through' it. It deserves better that that. But if you're reading these reviews wondering whether it's worth taking all that time to read one of the world's reputed classics, then my anonymous 25-year-old word, for what it's worth, is that yes, it definitely is.

Joel Carmichael presents a most compelling argument for the evolution of the Christian paradigm from Jesus being one of many "End of the World" zealot agitators, to becoming the Son of God, to becoming "Lord." He paints an historical picture of Palestine (and the rest of the Roman empire) during the period immediately preceeding the life of Jesus until a century afterward that changes the way most of us will think of that place and time again. Furthermore, he helps explain the critical role of Paul and the pagan "gentiles" (with their own mythology) in creating the mystery of Jesus out of the Man Jesus. Students of systems, complexity theory and chaos theory will recognize the forces at play in the evolving nature of Jesus, an evolution that continues to the present day. Just like the study of paleontology, however, it is impossible to understand the systems we witness today without a thorough understanding of the context in which they evolved. This book attempts (rather well) to do just that. There are many devout Christians who decry the need for understanding the context because they believe the scriptures to be perfect as they are, preserved by the very hand of God. Yet to study their context causes you to see immediately the flaw in that line of reasoning. Carmichael helps us see the scriptures from the point of view in which they were written, not from a 21st century point of view, and the difference is not insignificant! It is kind of a shame that the modern-day zealots are not likely to either read such a book, or appreciate its merits...it might make a difference in our world if they did...

Carmichael provides a wonderfully tight account of the early events of the time of Jesus and afterwards. For readers in any way familiar with history rather than the apologetics that made mythology of the Jesus story, this book will provide the most cogent view of the available knowledge. He accounts for the events in ways that make sense, considering the religious, political, and cultural contexts of the Mid-East. This book made apparent to me why the magical stories arose and why the maneuverings of Paul enfolded as they did. Carmichael's progression of ideas is a bit confusing, and I found that reading the notes first made the going easier. Nevertheless, his historianship makes this the best of the growing ranks of "historical Jesus" books available.

The Author, Joel Carmichael takes us back in time to the period spaninning the life of Christ, focusing in on one hundred years before and after the crucifiction. He accurately accounts for the periods, customs, the raging battle with the foreign occupational power of Rome, the conflicts between the religious practices, the struggle between the [fundamentalist] purists and the placaters to Rome. He makes the time period come alive and shows a different picture than one we are led to believe. Was Christ a bringer of peace and love or was Christ a rabble-rouser with a militant agenda. Who invented Christianity: Christ, Paul, the apostles, Constantine? You'll have to read the book. It is quite a fascinating journey through time.