Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.85 AVERAGE
3.85 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Well written and informative but quite dense. In some places quite hard to keep events straight. Mieville would go on for pages about certain events and then other events, that seemed just as large, would be covered in a single sentence.
It was interesting to see how Lenin was able to keep a semblance of control while rarely being anywhere near the action. He did seem to have a sense for what would happen next
Knowing a broad outline of what happens next it made me feel like all the grand ideas of the soviet for the people were secondary to just wanting to be the ones in power.
It was interesting to see how Lenin was able to keep a semblance of control while rarely being anywhere near the action. He did seem to have a sense for what would happen next
Knowing a broad outline of what happens next it made me feel like all the grand ideas of the soviet for the people were secondary to just wanting to be the ones in power.
Weird that with as much Sci Fi as I read - this would be my first Miéville.
Narrative history, he manages to keep it engaging through the dense thicket of Russian names and places.
Narrative history, he manages to keep it engaging through the dense thicket of Russian names and places.
This was billed as a novelist's take on the Russian Revolution, and I just didn't find it that gripping. The parts that focused on Lenin were compelling, but other parts were bogged down by pages and pages and pages of explanation on this committee, that committee, etc. and too many things to keep straight. The author's stated intent was to write a book that would appeal to non-academic readers, and he failed to do so.
Not your normal Mieville fiction, obviously, but the usual fine turn of words. Only three stars from me though as I struggled with the volume of information - so many names, factions, parties, groups, and I did get a bit lost as this is an incredibly detailed account. But well written, Lenin et al are brought to life, and I certainly know more about it than I did before so mission achieved.
informative
medium-paced
A somewhat condensed history of some pivotal months in the history of the Russian Revolution. Feels like a good starting place for someone who is interested in learning more. Might be helpful to read with a notepad for key groups/names, as the text frequently references names, political parties, and governmental bodies - it is not difficult to get lost, even in a text like this.
The revolution began not with a bang, but in a series of executive subcommittees.
That's the impression I was left with after reading October: The Story of the Russian Revolution. Coming from China Mievelle, I have to confess that I came into the book expecting this to be more of a narrative non-fiction kind of book with perspectives of individuals, scenes from the front lines, and lots of narrative color. Descriptive tomes like Robert Massie's [b:Peter the Great: His Life and World|130363|Peter the Great His Life and World|Robert K. Massie|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1171992814s/130363.jpg|2731382] is what got me into Russian history in the first place after all.
But to hear Mieville tell the tale, the majority of the action in the wake of the arrest and abdication of Tsar Nicholas took place in meetings between activists. The action wasn't in the mutinies at Kronstadt, the desertions on the front lines or in urban factories, but in political sparring between the Petrograd Soviet and the Duma.
Now obviously, Mieville is not wrong. The soviet future lead by the urban working class alongside the rank and file in the military was not a foregone conclusion. Marxist theory talks at length about the necessity of stages of history, and it was believed for a long time that alliances with the bourgeoisie and the peasants were absolutely necessary to progress along these stages in a timely manner. And a very different Russia might have emerged had this political wrangling and infighting gone differently, as Mieville ruminates on in the epilogue.
But by relying so heavily on the notes of these meetings, I think Mieville does both himself and the revolution a bit of a disservice. The event of 1917 had to resonate in an infinite number of ways in the day to day lives of the average Russian, and while we do get some snippets of that perspective here and there, it's just utterly drowned out by the minutiae of political sparring.
I could forgive it somewhat if the character portraits of our big players — Nicholas, Kerensky, Trotsky, Lenin — were rendered in a higher resolution. You get some sense of their characters as you go along, but they feel somehow more like judgements on their historic roles more than insights into their lives and characters. And the near-total glossing over of a figure like Stalin seems almost inconceivable. His role in the revolution proper was not too significant — true — but at least include more foreshadowing of what's to come?
To be fair, this might just be one of those cases where I'm judging a book against a yardstick of my own fantasy, but the premise really did hold such promise. I guess I'll have to go back to the drawing board and try and dig up some proper fiction about the period to scratch the itch I created myself.
That's the impression I was left with after reading October: The Story of the Russian Revolution. Coming from China Mievelle, I have to confess that I came into the book expecting this to be more of a narrative non-fiction kind of book with perspectives of individuals, scenes from the front lines, and lots of narrative color. Descriptive tomes like Robert Massie's [b:Peter the Great: His Life and World|130363|Peter the Great His Life and World|Robert K. Massie|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1171992814s/130363.jpg|2731382] is what got me into Russian history in the first place after all.
But to hear Mieville tell the tale, the majority of the action in the wake of the arrest and abdication of Tsar Nicholas took place in meetings between activists. The action wasn't in the mutinies at Kronstadt, the desertions on the front lines or in urban factories, but in political sparring between the Petrograd Soviet and the Duma.
Now obviously, Mieville is not wrong. The soviet future lead by the urban working class alongside the rank and file in the military was not a foregone conclusion. Marxist theory talks at length about the necessity of stages of history, and it was believed for a long time that alliances with the bourgeoisie and the peasants were absolutely necessary to progress along these stages in a timely manner. And a very different Russia might have emerged had this political wrangling and infighting gone differently, as Mieville ruminates on in the epilogue.
But by relying so heavily on the notes of these meetings, I think Mieville does both himself and the revolution a bit of a disservice. The event of 1917 had to resonate in an infinite number of ways in the day to day lives of the average Russian, and while we do get some snippets of that perspective here and there, it's just utterly drowned out by the minutiae of political sparring.
I could forgive it somewhat if the character portraits of our big players — Nicholas, Kerensky, Trotsky, Lenin — were rendered in a higher resolution. You get some sense of their characters as you go along, but they feel somehow more like judgements on their historic roles more than insights into their lives and characters. And the near-total glossing over of a figure like Stalin seems almost inconceivable. His role in the revolution proper was not too significant — true — but at least include more foreshadowing of what's to come?
To be fair, this might just be one of those cases where I'm judging a book against a yardstick of my own fantasy, but the premise really did hold such promise. I guess I'll have to go back to the drawing board and try and dig up some proper fiction about the period to scratch the itch I created myself.
'October' is one of those books that as soon as you finish the last page, you feel the need to go back to page one.
There are so many meetings, and councils, and factions, and people that it is at times hard to see the wood for the trees. But the author is in a tight spot, does he not mention these meetings etc? No, of course not, to do otherwise as an historian (or at least someone writing about history), would be egregious. In the introduction he acknowledges his partisanship (socialist) but claims that he is fair, and I think that is true. In saying that, I felt it could do perhaps with some footnotes. A few times I was left wondering who the source was.
What lacked at times was context but maybe I’m asking for too much, if the books aim is to only lay out chronologically what went down, then it achieves its goal. It's fair to say that at times the book feels like it is charging towards its end point. It is such an interesting and complex period that regardless, I think the book is worth reading, and could be a good jump off spot for delving into this history.
What I found maybe most interesting was Lenin’s different stances through the months from January to October, leaning ever more toward a libertarian view. I believe he wanted a true socialists society with workers’ control of production and peasant land rights etc. but he also didn’t truly believe it was possible in the Russia of that time. For the socialist utopia to be reality it needed a strong bourgeoisie and a technically advanced society, as his mentor Marx had written. What ends up happening in revolutionary October seems almost like a coup. With all that had happened in February, and the overthrow of the Tsar, he (and Trotsky and the lads) sensed that if not now, when?
With the subsequent civil war, funded in part by the west (via the White army), it seems obvious now that the new government was only ever going to become more entrenched … waiting and increasingly hoping against hope for the socialist wave to sweep the countries that were really ready for it. This never happened of course, and instead of ‘socialism’ it went completely in the opposite direction from its intended aims. Stalinism.
Today, the environment and capitalism is in crisis. The income gap continues to grow and there’s no sign of that stopping. In response, people are electing their Mussolini-next-door. What’s going on? What the hell is going to happen in the next decade or so? It is not partisan or absurd to think that the current way of things cannot sustain (or even that we are currently watching it change). With all this in mind it is quite incredible to think that 100 years ago a group of headers took control and said that the workers’ shall own the production, that peasants should have rights to land, that men and women should have full equal rights, that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, and that education should be universally free.
There are so many meetings, and councils, and factions, and people that it is at times hard to see the wood for the trees. But the author is in a tight spot, does he not mention these meetings etc? No, of course not, to do otherwise as an historian (or at least someone writing about history), would be egregious. In the introduction he acknowledges his partisanship (socialist) but claims that he is fair, and I think that is true. In saying that, I felt it could do perhaps with some footnotes. A few times I was left wondering who the source was.
What lacked at times was context but maybe I’m asking for too much, if the books aim is to only lay out chronologically what went down, then it achieves its goal. It's fair to say that at times the book feels like it is charging towards its end point. It is such an interesting and complex period that regardless, I think the book is worth reading, and could be a good jump off spot for delving into this history.
What I found maybe most interesting was Lenin’s different stances through the months from January to October, leaning ever more toward a libertarian view. I believe he wanted a true socialists society with workers’ control of production and peasant land rights etc. but he also didn’t truly believe it was possible in the Russia of that time. For the socialist utopia to be reality it needed a strong bourgeoisie and a technically advanced society, as his mentor Marx had written. What ends up happening in revolutionary October seems almost like a coup. With all that had happened in February, and the overthrow of the Tsar, he (and Trotsky and the lads) sensed that if not now, when?
With the subsequent civil war, funded in part by the west (via the White army), it seems obvious now that the new government was only ever going to become more entrenched … waiting and increasingly hoping against hope for the socialist wave to sweep the countries that were really ready for it. This never happened of course, and instead of ‘socialism’ it went completely in the opposite direction from its intended aims. Stalinism.
Today, the environment and capitalism is in crisis. The income gap continues to grow and there’s no sign of that stopping. In response, people are electing their Mussolini-next-door. What’s going on? What the hell is going to happen in the next decade or so? It is not partisan or absurd to think that the current way of things cannot sustain (or even that we are currently watching it change). With all this in mind it is quite incredible to think that 100 years ago a group of headers took control and said that the workers’ shall own the production, that peasants should have rights to land, that men and women should have full equal rights, that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, and that education should be universally free.
informative
fast-paced
So fast, I blinked and then we were 2 years into the future
This book is dense and exhausting to read. Keep a dictionary handy.