I've been trying to figure out how to review this novel for days now. I have a pretty strong background in Russian history, both Soviet an4 1/2 stars.
I've been trying to figure out how to review this novel for days now. I have a pretty strong background in Russian history, both Soviet and not, and so I kind of feel like I shouldn't have been surprised by anything in this book, but I was. I was gutted, my heart was shredded, I kept saying, "no!" aloud, to the story on the page, not least because Pulley draws her story from true events. Not least because my reading of Soviet history and the genocide perpetrated against the Russian people (to say nothing of everyone else) supports every single awful thing that happens here.
It is a marvel of a book. It is also utterly shattering.
Solzhenitsyn's In The First Circle tells the story of his time in the gulag, and the opening of The Half Life of Valery K reminds me strongly of it. The tone is similar enough to serve as a warning of things to come, and it's also a clue that every word Pulley writes is deliberate. Every line of dialog and every bit of self-censorship is intentional and eventually so ingrained that the characters don't even dare think their concerns, they only circle them allegorically.
It is harrowing.
Somehow Pulley wrangles a (relatively) happy ending out of this journey through horrific moral relativism , and along the way we see her usual themes of iron-willed women, gender dysphoria, and desperation for human connection in settings that literally kill people for seeking it. There's a polyamorous love story between the protagonist and his married male love interest and some wonderful m/f friendship.
The real life setting that inspired the novel is the Mayak complex nuclear waste disaster that took place at Lake Karachai in the late 1950s and its shuttering in the early 1960s. This resulted in a radiation poisoning event 20 times worse than that of Chernobyl.
I had a couple of quibbles, as usual. First, it was weird to me to read Russians using British slang. I get the desire to convey colloquial conversations, but it was distracting. Second, the sex scenes are so oblique as to only exist in hindsight. This is clearly intentional: homosexuality was illegal & people learned from childhood to censor their very thoughts, much less words, when it came to anything that might land one in the Lubyanka. But readers are not actually able to read the author's mind and most people haven't read as much history as I have, so I wish there were more -- words like "texture" or "rhythm" or "pressure" or "strength" in the narrative would have drawn in the outlines while maintaining sufficient terror of discovery.
That said, this was an amazing book. Excruciating at times, and surprisingly literary for historical fiction, but amazing all the same.
I don't get why he draws on so many sources from the 1970s, and not just for the hostage crisis & Khomeini Era. Weirdly anglocentric for a book that oI don't get why he draws on so many sources from the 1970s, and not just for the hostage crisis & Khomeini Era. Weirdly anglocentric for a book that ought to address Iranian foreign relations with its own neighbors. Bizarre digressions on some religions but not others. Full of judgmental microaggressions toward historical figures under discussion. Painfully inconsistent and semicoherent literary analysis of Persian poetry. Nothing resembling a thesis or critical discussion. Shallow....more
3.5 stars. Incredibly useful for the bibliography. Less useful if you want to know the west-central Asian perspective on post-medieval history.
I learn3.5 stars. Incredibly useful for the bibliography. Less useful if you want to know the west-central Asian perspective on post-medieval history.
I learned a lot about global economics in the European age of empire, and this finally put together for me how Iran got roped into the British/Russian conflict (before oil was discovered). Tying things into Spanish colonial economics was really helpful, as well, though I'm pretty sure there ought to have been a vast segment on the papacy's involvement in driving early modern European empire and how that impacted the silk roads region. I wanna know what the Vatican thought of Safavid Persia, given that they received Safavid gifts. But I suppose that's a different book.
Which is what always happens with a vast survey like this. Pique my interest, then leave me wondering where to find more info in English. ...more
All about wars and empires, with a boring emphasis on Britain, France, and Germany as if none of the other countries in Europe counted after the GrecoAll about wars and empires, with a boring emphasis on Britain, France, and Germany as if none of the other countries in Europe counted after the Greco-Roman period. This volume IS dated and its author was an elderly British professor when he compiled this, so it isn't surprising that certain prejudices show. At least they're easy to identify and ignore. (FYI, don't bother with the last section. You can't write history out of current events & JMR should have known not to try.)...more
Some of the policy wonk years before ambassadorship are kind of a slog to read -- and were probably a slog to live through -- but I found 4 1/2 stars.
Some of the policy wonk years before ambassadorship are kind of a slog to read -- and were probably a slog to live through -- but I found everything on location in Russia totally worth the book as a whole. It's also a solid policy-centric background primer for understanding how US-Russia relations got to the state they're in now.
Epic, extremely well-researched nonfiction. As much a study of the New Russia as a biography of Putin himself. At times horrifying. An object lesson iEpic, extremely well-researched nonfiction. As much a study of the New Russia as a biography of Putin himself. At times horrifying. An object lesson in how absolute power corrupts absolutely. ...more
Really good momentum, nice twist ending. Wish there were more women. Appreciated the token lesbian both surviving her segment AND being not-evil, knocReally good momentum, nice twist ending. Wish there were more women. Appreciated the token lesbian both surviving her segment AND being not-evil, knock on wood. *impatient for more*...more
Or, how to become a British double agent working against the Nazis, if you're a down on your luck dubiously literate English bank robber.
Oc3.5 stars.
Or, how to become a British double agent working against the Nazis, if you're a down on your luck dubiously literate English bank robber.
Occasionally hilarious, often fun, fairly harrowing, and at times heartbreaking. Drags a little in the middle but the ending knocks it out of the park -- especially the don't-miss epilogue about people who'd come forward following the printing of the first edition.
It's rare that you get a biography that follows a narrative arc with real suspense and sustainable subplots, but this is exactly what it says on the tin and it works really well as a good story AND as an extraordinary case history.
GLBT-interest tag for a number of people mentioned in passing as gay, for Chapman having admitted sodomy in his youth, and for depiction of some intensely loving m/m relationships that may or may not have been platonic.
Also, there were more women than expected given how much histories of WW2 tend to ignore women's presence. Wish there'd been more, though. And more of Dagmar. And that there had been ANY negative repercussions for Chapman treating women like used and discarded tissues...but it was 1944 and he was a cad, so while I'm at it, I might as well wish the second world war hadn't ever happened. Still, the narrative tone could have been less glorifying of his conquests and more critical of his amorality....more
**spoiler alert** And GR just ate my really long review. Gah.
End notes were fascinating. Main text, rather dry in parts but especially valuable for th**spoiler alert** And GR just ate my really long review. Gah.
End notes were fascinating. Main text, rather dry in parts but especially valuable for the post-Stalin leaders. Kind to Brezhnev. As harsh with Gorbachev as some other books I've read lately were fawning toward him. Really curious how that will play out in time.
Biggest criticism is the adulation of Stalin as emperor with no mention in the main text of the many many millions of innocent people Stalin killed. The relevant end notes give dry statistics, but the main text is weirdly laudatory of Stalin's measures (or perhaps for his willingness to murder great swathes of people without a second thought). Also, the only woman mentioned more than in passing is Raisa Gorbachev, who seems to be mentioned -- always as an expert scholar -- in a way meant to undercut Gorbachev's capabilities, as if he was weaker for having an intelligent wife rather than stronger for her aid and participation. It never says that outright, but I don't think I'm wrong in detecting a somewhat snotty undertone when he talks about her. The same tone appears when he discusses Gorbachev's policy of nonviolence.
Which, huh. I'm really not sure what to make of that....more
Loading...
