This alphabetically arranged Lexicon helps readers to make sense of the dizzying list of blues artists who have contributed to thise body of music. The book is fairly broad and includes many crossover type bands (blues derivation of Rock, for example), with a brief history and list of essential recordings from each artist.

I expected the book to be somewhat more "readable" rather than a catalogue of artists; however, it is useful as the latter. You will not be disappointed with the volume, and you will probably pull it out frequently when shopping for blues music, reviewing artists heard on public radio's blues shows, or when browsing the internet for non-copyrighted blues recordings (many of the oldest recordings are in public domain).

The price also makes it worthwhile. If it guides you toward a single, more satisfying blues recording (or helps you avoid a single stinker), then it's paid for itself.

This book (encyclopedia) gives a description of, and rates nearly every quality blues recording available. Contains detailed histories of the lives of thousands of blues artists.

Contains detailed essays on the roots of the blues, the evolution, and different styles of blues, such as Delta, Chicago, Piedmont, West Coast.....And also has music maps showing the influences on different styles of blues, as well as describing the most influential artist in each respective style.

I don't buy an album without consulting this, or the jazz edition. This blues edition is so comprehensive it even delves into gospel, jazz, and a bit of soul music.

Full of great information. I am sure that this is the best blues encyclopedia available.

I must say that I do not know a whole lot about what makes a good blues cd/album. Well for people like me or people wnating to find out more information about this very popular music form one should this source in question, i.e., All Music Guide to the Blues: The Experts' Guide to the Best Blues Recordings (2nd Ed)
by Michael Erlewine (Editor), et al . In here one will find the biographies of more then 965 blues artists, reviews of recordings historical essays. Highly Recommended,

No doubt we owe a debt of gratitude to Robert Service. He has given us a badly needed new biography of this very important figure, one that incorporates some materials held secret in Russia for over 80 years. What is more, the work is quite complete for a shortened biography (he has a 3 volume version), with a few odd exceptions. Service performs on the whole admirably. His work is without major errors, and he gives us Lenin from start to finish. In workmanlike fashion, he moves chronologically through this active life, addressing the familiar issues with common sense. The style is pedestrian, but, no pun intended, serviceable. If you want to get to know Lenin in one volume, this is the one to choose.
Yet, for all of that, there are a number of areas, a few of them quite significant, where this book is ultimately unsatisfying. I found it odd, for example, that there is not a word in the book about the peculiar Bauman affair in 1904. Bauman (for whom the most famous technical institute in Moscow is named) was a disgusting character who seduced and impregnated a married fellow Bolshevik, and then boasted about it, ridiculing her in public. When her appeals to him for help fell on deaf ears, she appealed to the Party, and ultimately committed suicide. Lenin's decision to laugh this off, as the essentially harmless prank of one of his own, reveals quite early Lenin's basically amoral nature. Similarly, the dispute with the Mensheviks over "Exes", ie armed robberies to 'expropriate the expropriators', as Lenin infelicitously put it, is hardly addressed, even though this issue was not insignificant. It turned on the question of the Party's reputation (and, consequently, its potential for recruitment and its appeal to society) - was it to be a high-minded, even idealistic political organ, or was it to be besmirched by these activities, and thus identified with gangsters and their base criminality? Lenin recognized the Menshevik point, in principle, but actually did nothing to discourage Stalin's and others' gangsterism (indeed, quite the opposite) - again, an episode revealing Lenin's absence of moral standard. Service also ignores the last act of the suppression of the Constituent Assembly on Jan. 6 (OS), when the Bolsheviks gunned down the small demonstration of support, killing 20. (To be fair, this episode is hardly remembered today by anyone, including the most famous names in the writing of Russian history. Instead, they almost uniformly disparage Russian society, particularly the intelligentsia, for cowardice and irresolution in the apparent absence of any support for the Assembly. True, the demonstration was not massive, but those who marched knew, surely, what was likely awaiting them. These victims bear the conscience of Russia's commitment to its first democratic institution, and it is just shameful to ignore or forget them.) Or, the infamous expulsion of the flower of Russian intellectual life, the nearly 300 academics, world-renown scholars, and cultural figures in 1922 who, in a moment of uncharacteristic generosity, were not murdered on the spot, but actually permitted to take two pieces of clothing into permanent exile.
Inclusion of these relatively minor matters might have undermined the work's brevity and accessibility. Perhaps, but what is one to make of more major omissions? In particular, it can be shown that Lenin not only was not disturbed by the development of the Civil War, but actually welcomed and encouraged it. In fact, it is not too much to say that he, far more than any other single individual, caused it. In a series of decrees and directives, he made it impossible for the former "ruling classes", including the only nascent bourgeoisie, to live. Their turn to active resistance was most often undertaken very reluctantly (the sorry defense of the Constituent Assembly is but one example), an act of desperation and a simple matter of life and death, something to which they were goaded and prodded. Lenin was even surprised that it took so long. There is no evidence that Service is aware of the proof of this in Stephan Courtois' "Black Book of Communism" and Nicolas Werth's book-length article there on Russia.
Further, while Service cites some chilling documentation on Lenin's sanguinary attack on the church, he does not detail the well-known incident at Shuya, the most revealing of them all. It was this that served as the trigger for his shockingly violent rhetoric, long concealed, calling for the destruction of the church and the murder of its ecclesiastics. Again, see Werth.
It is in matters of interpretation that the reader is left most dissatisfied. While there is plenty of evidence scattered throughout the book to damn Lenin as completely amoral, the reader comes away from the book without a clear statement or unequivocal understanding of this crucial insight. In fact, I would argue that there is something pathological at work in a man who is absolutely incapable of any introspection, a pathology that remains unidentified and uninvestigated by Service. To cite the most critical example, there is no evidence that Lenin ever questioned, much less regretted, making the Revolution, despite the fact that it had violated all of his own theoretical principles. Yet, early on, certainly by 1920, it was possible to see that the Mensheviks were right in opposing it. It was catastrophic: Mass murder and massive starvation were its direct result. For Lenin, though, ideology takes second place to reality. This unstable balance between theory and necessity is crucial to understanding Lenin. And, the pathology which permits it, without internal debate or vacillation, had devastating implications for his subjects, but it is not explored.
Lenin's view of Russia as nothing but a backwater, only good for igniting the real revolution in the west, and of Russians as incompetent bunglers is never given the emphasis it deserves, nor the ultimate irony of his remaining in state on Red Square. Were it so, Service would perhaps see this, and the current condition of Russia, as possibly the ultimate revenge of history.

This is probably the best biography of Lenin that I have read. It is interesting, easy to understand, very detailed, and is fair towards a man too often judged superficially. Lenin was one of the major figures of the 20th century, and he had a tremendous impact on the world. He was also far more complex than many of his biographers have made him out to be. He was neither a benevolent idealist (as Soviet propaganda would have one believe), nor was he a Stalin-style dictator (although they had some things in common).

Instead, as Service's book reveals, Lenin was an ideologue who, while having the best interests of the country in mind, was willing to ruthlessly kill thousands of people to maintain his dictatorship. Service does an excellent job of depicting Lenin as a many sided individual, and he includes lots of background information on the personal side of his life that makes it easier for one to view him as a real person (also, it is often easy to see connections between his actions as a politican and his personal life).

All in all - a great biography for anyone wishing to understand the true Lenin.

Service is a British historian of Soviet Russian history who has written this quite good narrative of the life of Lenin. While not definitive, it is nevertheless the best synthesis of the political and personal life of Lenin

One of the better reasons to read Service is that while he has no qualms about outlining the viciousness and brutality of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, he is also not a hard line ideologue. He is a historian and he takes history as he finds it. There is none of the strident cold-war dogmatism of Conquest or the russophobia of Pipes that often make their writings come uncomfortably close to political diatribes rather than analytical histories.

Service walks the fine line between personal and political biography fairly well. He also has the added bonus of being a good narrative historian which makes this an immensily readable book.

Lenin's early life is covered in good detail. What Service does well is to show how, after brother Alexander's excecution, the Ulyanovs were marginalized by the very class of society they had aspired to, and how this effected both Lenin and his sisters. Service goes on to show the interaction between Lenin and his female relatives and how this carried on throughout his life.

Being a total biography- personal and political- the political side gets a bit of a short shrift at times. Lenin as shown as the "bookish fanatic" and hypocondriact who is all revolution all the time with little time to spare in life for other diversions.

His single-mindedness is such that he dictates executions (never naming individuals just groups) to achieve his ends. What Service show best is how his temperament in childhood carried on to his political life- never brooking disagreement- throwing tantrums and denounciations- and rarely compromising.

And yet Lenin is at heart, a middle class bourgeois in his social manners. His personal relationships with women are not especially notorious save for a life-long relationship with Inessa Armand who may or may not have been his mistress.

Personal without being gossipy and showing Lenin's idiocincracies without being psychoanalytical, Service handles his biography well. All in all this is a highly readable, not perfect, but enjoyable biography of the life of one of the century's most notorious figures.

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 King's Equal. The story had cool characters. Rosamund told the prince to be nice because the prince took everything from the town people. I think people should read this story. The story is about Rosamund and Raphael, the prince who wants to marry Rosamund because Raphael can be king then. I learned lots of things from The King's Equal, things about Rosamund, said she has no food. I learned about the wolf. I think the wolf was a magical wolf. People shouldn't be selfish.

The End

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."

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 one of Nabokov's earlier books, published 22 years before Lolita. In many ways, the plot and feel of the two stories are quite similar (older man falls in love with younger girl who he idealizes, she doesn't love him but realizes her dependence on him, eventually ends in disaster). It's interesting to compare Nabokov's writing from one book to the other - Lolita is much more emotionallty intensive, challenging, has smoother and richer language, has more to say, and seems far less contrived than Laughter in the Dark. There's not so much to enjoy in Laughter outside of a pretty basic, well-written story. If you haven't read Lolita, buy an annotated copy and read that first, if you've already read it and are a fan of Nabokov's other works, definitely give it a shot, but with lowered expectations. A very good little book, just not a classic.

Outisde of Lolita, not much Nabokov screams, "Make this into a Hollywood movie!" But Laughter in the Dark, with its chilling tale of obsession and betrayal, seduction and envelopment, is both so profoundly moving and such a fun read that I wish Brad, Gwynneth, and their pals would put this on the top of their wish list instead of the latest script to roll out of ICM. There is no word in English (and it was Nabokov's first foray into that language) to describe the sinister, spiderlike dance that brings our middle aged hero into a web of sex and intrigue which will cost him forever his family, job, and secure position in society. But we will all recognize the emotions that drive this man to submerge himself further in an illicit relationship -- even when he sees that he's drowning. Read it

Having read many of his books, this is by far my favorite.
Nabokov does not hide from the reader that his main character will have a bad ending, even though at some point in the novel one feels he might have a chance.
This book is delicious. Nabokov's cynicism and his choice of words make this book near perfect. For those who are cynics, this book is very funny and enjoyable. Nabokov is very straight forward and this book is not hard to understand at all, and it is also not psychologically opressive.
For some strange reason, it reminded me of Balzac's Eugene Grandet, another one of my favorite books

This is the book Nabokov fans have been waiting for, but suspected would never (COULD never) be written. From the opening sentences it's clear that Schiff has the stuff equal to her daunting task--to get behind the artfully constructed public face of two of the most brilliant, but most private, people ever to enter the public eye. Schiff does it with awesome research and a, by turns, witty, moving, penetrating, sometimes acerbic, but always admiring prose. The portrait of Vera, you feel, is definitive, but so, too, is the portrait of Vladimir--a portrait that points up the flaws and gaps in earlier depictions, like that of the dutifully plonking Boyd biographies with their laughable "interpretation" of Pale Fire. That Schiff is delineating the dynamic of a highly unique marriage (not just the two complex personalities that made up that marriage) makes her accomplishment seem all the more miraculous. Finally, Schiff's method is ultimately Nabovian in that she gives us a portrait of the master without peering at him directly: the book is Vladimir reflected in Vera's pale fire--which, as it turns out, is the best way to see him whole. Or, rather, to see them BOTH whole. After reading this book, it is impossible to speak of either Vladimir, or Vera, as a single entity, ever again.

In a vein not unsimilar to Brenda Maddox's biography of Nora Joyce a decade ago, Stacy Schiff compassionately and vividly weaves together the beautiful tapestry of Vladimir and Vera Nabokov. For those who thought the master's works can speak for themselves, they may want to think again. This lucid, brilliant book brings together the complex author's life, marriage, loves, ideals, frustrations, and, ultimately, genius as biographies rarely do. At the same time, Vera is no shrinking violet either and one wonders about what would have become of the author had she not been a tad forward about meeting him in the first place; certainly the history of 20th century literature would have suffered by it. My wish is that Ms Schiff continue in this vein...perhaps a different view of Frieda Lawrence or the long-suffering Mrs Dickens? Like this book, they will most likely be indispensable.

"Vera was a pale blonde when I met her, but it didn't take me long to turn her hair white."

The above was taken from one of Nabokov's own journal entries and, although it may seem humorous, it is no doubt true. Pulitzer-Prize winner, Stacy Schiff, suggests, even in the title of her book, that Véra Nabokov was a woman who was only capable of being known as Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov. Her relationship with her famed husband, no matter what its course, was the defining factor of her life. And Véra would have it no other way.

Véra Nabokov has been described as Vladimir Nabokov's "disciple, bodyguard, secretary-protector, handmaiden, buffer, quotation-finder, groupie, advance man, nursemaid and courtier." She is, not unjustly, celebrated as being the ultimate Woman Behind the Man.

Véra graduated from the Sorbonne as a master of modern languages, but, sadly, she did not keep copies of her own work as she did her husband's. In fact, she probably would have denied that her own work was worth keeping, although everything leads us to believe otherwise.

In addition to transcribing, typing and smoothing Valdimir's prose while it was still "warm and wet," Véra cut book pages, played chauffeur, translated, negotiated contracts and did the many practical things her famous husband disdained. This remarkable woman even made sure that the butterflies he collected died with the least amount of suffering.

A precocious child who read her first newspaper at the age of three, Véra was born into a middle-class Jewish family at the beginning of the twentieth-century in Czarist St. Petersburg. In 1921, with the advance of communism, her family settled in Berlin. It was there that she met the dapper and non-Jewish Vladimir. Their marriage would last fifty-two years and be described as an intensely symbiotic coupling.

Although Vladimir traveled and conducted several affairs, Véra supported him throughout, struggling to raise their son amidst the Nazism that was beginning to fester in Berlin. Blaming herself for her husband's infidelity, Véra managed to rejuvenate her marriage and the couple moved again--this time to New York City--where Véra typed Valdimir's manuscripts in bed while recovering from pneumonia. Forever believing in her husband's creative instincts, Véra stood by his art even when debt threatened to overtake them. It was she who intervened on the several occasions when Vladimir attempted to burn his manuscript of Lolita.

Véra Nabokov's tombstone bears the epithet, "Wife, Muse and Agent," and Nabokov knew the immensity of the debt he owed her. Late in life, he even refused to capture a rare butterfly he encountered in a mountain park for the sole reason that Véra was no longer at his side. Like her husband, Véra had highly developed aesthetic tastes and the two enjoyed a "tender telepathy." Often described as "synesthetes," the couple would have debates about "the color of Monday, the taste of E-flat." It is certainly without exaggeration that Nabokov wrote to Véra, "I need you, my fairy tale. For you are the only person I can talk to--about the hue of a cloud, about the singing of a thought, and about the fact that when I went out to work today and looked at each sunflower in the face, they all smiled back at me with their seeds."

Although many feel the Véra should have been encouraged to develop her own considerable talents, it can be argued that she did, and that her greatest talent was that of wife and helpmate. It is certainly one she choose freely and without rancor. The fact that her husband was fortunate, indeed, cannot be denied.

Véra is a book rich in detail, analysis and affection. Like all couples and all marriages, the Nabokovs were unique and they were special. To know one, was to glimpse the other, for with the passing of years, neither was wholly himself or herself. There are those who might not have understood Véra Nabokov's choices and might not have agreed with them, but they are the ones who have never known the ecstasy of a truly close relationship. Véra Nabokov was a most fascinating woman, one that made her own choices in life and lived them most happily. We can only admire her greatly.

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

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.

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.

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.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was stylistically typical of Nabokov and that is a great thing. His style reminds me of Aldous Huxley's. Character-wise, i agree with what has been said in previous reviews. The only character I felt an affinity to was Darwin, who as one reviewer put it, was "yet another Cambridge fop." This is true, but the other characters. particularly our main character, Martin, ellicits no consistent sympathy. I enjoyed this novel, but not necessarily for its characterisation (it was reminiscent of Cocteau's is Les Enfants Terribles), but for his style. I recommend everyone pick up at least one Nabokov novel at some point.

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.