"When Abdulrazak Gurnah won the Nobel Prize in literature last year, not nearly enough people had read anything by the Tanzanian-born writer. The author of 10 English-language novels, Gurnah had attracted critical praise, but fans knew his stories of East Africa and exile should be reaching a wider audience. In response to the Nobel Prize news, Gurnah’s British editor confessed, “It has been one of the great sadnesses and frustrations of my career that his work has not received the recognition it deserves. . . . I had almost given up hope.�

That hope was well placed. Propelled by the worldwide recognition that the Swedish Academy conferred, Gurnah’s books are finally being reprinted in America, and his latest, “Afterlives,� is being released by Riverhead, the savviest U.S. publisher of literary fiction. Consider this a late invitation you should not ignore.

Now 73, Gurnah fled to England as a teenage refugee after the 1964 uprising in Zanzibar. He began writing fiction in English � his first language was Swahili � and eventually became an English professor at the University of Kent, where he taught for several decades. Throughout his career, he has worked to impress upon a forgetful world the experiences of people displaced and rendered invisible. . . .

To read the rest of this review, go to The Washington Post:
"

"I am impressed. Catherine the Great lived from 1729-1796. She was 14 when she first came to Russia, This book covers this entire time period meticulously. I understand how her childhood experiences came to shape her as an adult. I understand her need for love and why she came to have twelve lovers. At the same time she was motivated to seek power. She played a huge role in European history. All of this history is detailed in the book. You meet her as a person and as a leader. Everything one could possibly wish to know about her life is in this book........except gossip that is unsubstantiated.

Do yourself a favor - read the book! You will learn a lot and enjoy yourself most of the time. I think every time you reread the book you would enjoy it more. The parts most difficult for me were those where my knowledge is lacking.

*

Through 45%: The NYT Sunday Book Review has an article on the book this week. Here is the link: I must warn you that there are spoilers. One reason alone to read this book is to laugh at crazy Peter. I mean this guy is so juvenile; it is mind boggling. In to his 20s he plays with toy soldiers in his/their bed. He even has real people marching up and down his room. Marching drills, tight uniforms, whips........ Is he real? Unfortunately - yes!

**

At 35%, the beginning of Part IV: I believe this book will appeal to a different group of people than those who appreciated Nicholas and Alexandra. Catherine the Great is a strong, politically minded person. The book does not focus upon a child with hemophilia. Although you do learn details of Catherine's childhood, and it certainly is essential to know these details to understand who she became as an adult, politics must be the central theme of this book.

Empress Elizabeth is reaching the end of her life. Catherine, who has never been allowed contact with her children, is now considering her next step toward power. It is power that she seeks.

Panin, believing that Peter was unfit to rule and should somehow be removed, wished Paul (Catherine's first child) to be placed on the throne as a boy emperor with Catherine as regent. Catherine pretended to agree with Panin; "I had rather be the mother than the wife of the emperor," she told him. In reality, she had no desire to be subordinated to her own child; her ambition was to occupy the throne herself. (35%)

If you are not interested in a woman seeking power and a place on the political stage, perhaps one should look elsewhere. I am curious to know how many stars I will finally give this book on completion.

**

I have now read 30% of the book. I am somewhere in Part III. The difficult job of keeping track of who is who is not a problem any more. For me, I get most enjoyment from the book when I am left undisturbed. What I want to mention here is that perhaps you think that the life of the nobility is a piece of cake. Forget that. There is no way you will envy their lives. I do not want to tell you why I say this, because that would be a spoiler. I will give you one example though. Moscow in the 1750s was a city constructed primarily of wooden houses. Sometimes the fancy houses were painted to look like stone. Even the nobility lived in houses of wood. Houses that were cold and infested with vermin. Even the palaces burned. Yes, I think it was in 1753 that the palace where Elizabeth and Peter and Catherine were residing burned. Then they moved to the governess' and governor's house, the house of their arch-enemies, the Choglokovas Only these two were no longer arch-enemies at this point. The description of their residence, that one would assume would be of high quality, is utterly deplorable! During the fire, what is most interesting to observe is what valuables are "lost/saved" by each. Elizabeth lost the most - thousands and thousands of dresses. Peter, he was embarrassed when a cabinet was hauled out of his room and it opened with liquor and wine bottles spilling out over the mud. And Catherine? Her pile of books by Voltaire and other such authors - they were saved. The articles most important to each says volumes! The author provides direct quotes from existing diaries.

Catherine's birthing experience and the way her child is kept from her are heart wrenching, even considering usual customs of the time. Contact between mother and child was made impossible. Elizabeth had brought Peter and Catherine to Russia. It took years for an heir to be "produced"! After that, Catherine and Peter had little significance to Elizabeth. They role was finished, as far as Elizabeth was concerned.

I find the book fascinating. Massie's choice of the specific details to include are balanced, descriptive and engaging.

***

I have begun part two and am at 15%: At first I liked Empress Elizabeth, but now I despise her. Sophia, now called Catherine after her official conversion to the Orthodox faith, has married Grand Duke Peter Ulrich. Neither she nor her husband were told anything about sex. This is rather ironic given all the hullabaloo and planning behind the wedding! Rather essential bits were skipped! What is shocking is Elizabeth's volatile personality. Fortunately, Catherine is intelligent and is learning quickly. She is only seventeen and completely on her own. In a sense she has always been on her own with so one tor rely on since her birth. Lives are destroyed on the whims of Empress Elizabeth.

Let me take this opportunity to give you an excerpt concerning Empress Elizabeth:

...Elizabeth, whose concerns and fears were personal: she feared for the security of her person, her throne, and the future of her branch of the dynasty. In her plans, of course, Catherine, Peter, and their future child were of supreme importance. For this reason over the years ahead, Elizabeth's attitudes toward both the young husband and the young wife oscillated dramatically between affection, concern, disappointment, impatience, frustration and rage.

Not only in appearance but also in character, Elizabeth was her parents' child. She was the daughter of Russia's greatest tsar and his peasant wife, who became Empress Catherine I. Elizabeth was tall, like her father, and she resembled him in her energy, ardent temper, and sudden impulsive behavior. Like her mother, she was quickly moved to sympathy and to lavish spontaneous generosity. But her gratitude, like her other qualities, lacked moderation and permanence. (15%)

I appreciate how the author summarizes the descriptive incidents previously depicted. The reader is first part of the whirlwind events and then stands back and looks at what these events say about the individuals.

I do not think I have properly shown you Elizabeth's character/ Listen to this:

To maintain her dazzling preeminence at court, Elizabeth made certain that no other woman present could shine as brightly. Sometimes, this required draconian coercive measures. During the winter of 1747, the empress decreed that all of her ladies-in-waiting must shave their heads and wear black wigs until their hair grew in again. The women wept but obeyed. Catherine assumed that her own turn would come, but to her surprise, she was spared: Elizabeth explained that Catherine's hair was just growing back after an illness. Soon, the reason for the general pruning became known: after a previous festive occasion, Elizabeth and her maids had been unable to brush a heavy powder out of her hair, which became gray, coagulated, and gummy. The only remedy was to have her head shaved. And because she refused to be the only bald woman at court, bushels of hair were cropped.

What do you think of her now? I have seen tender moments too.

****

I have read 12% of the book. I am somewhere in chapter 11. I have noted that several say that although they enjoy the book, they put it aside and read other lighter books occasionally. I take the opposite approach. I came to a point where the future husband of Sophia, who will later come to be called Catherine, died....... What! I obviously had something confused. The truth is that if you bother to try and understand the different family members and how they are all related, you do need to pay attention. If I had chosen to put the book aside for a while, I would have had to start over from the beginning. My head leaks. Instead I backtracked to the beginning of the chapter and determined that I would sit and pay close attention for at least one hour. No breaks, nothing, just reading. And this did the trick. That was a different Peter, who died! I would not recommend reading this book on a noisy metro, or in a noisy room while the kids are looking at TV. No, read it when you can pay attention, at least in those parts where the complicated family relations are discussed. You run into such sections and then you do need to pay attention. Other sections are not at all as difficult.

Or maybe you don't have to pay close attention. What I most enjoy in this book so far is the way the author describes the people in a nuanced manner. Take Empress Elizabeth. She was the daughter of Peter the Great. She did not seek power. She was vivacious and fun loving and had several affairs. But no kids. However there comes a point where either the regent Anna Leopoldovna is going to stick her in a nunnery or she had to fight for the reign. She had no intention of sitting in a nunnery. When she fights to become Empress you are rooting for her. As all people, she had kind, wonderful characteristics and others qualities less admirable. You see all the different sides of her personality. It is the author's ability to show us who the characters really are that I most enjoy. So maybe you can just forget the difficult sections that are hard to follow. That is another approach.

You will come to understand Elizabeth and Sophia and her future husband Grand Duke Peter Ulrich. It is important to know of what happened to them in their childhood. They both had very difficult family situations. Wait till you hear of how Sophia's mother, Johanna, treats her daughter. When they leave on a secret trip, in the winter to travel to St. Petersburg absolutely no clothes are bought for Sophia. Johanna spent the money on clothes for herself! Sophia was off to meet her future betrothed with the fewest of garments imaginable. This is just one indication of the horrible mother/ daughter relationship. And Peter, put under the supervision of Brümmer. You will be shocked. Peter is not particularly handsome or stable, but you will understand why. He was practically starved to death as punishment for slight misdemeanors. Both Sophia and Peter are starving for kindness. I will not say more, but their lives are very interesting. I have only come to the point where they are betrothed. Peter is still sexually immature, so marriage must be delayed. But the clock is ticking for Elizabeth. There are scenes that will make you laugh - men dressed as women and women as men and dancers falling over each other! All so that Elizabeth can display her shapely legs. Well, read the book and you will understand.

So I like the book. Either you see that you are left in peace to understand the sections that are a bit complicated, or you don't worry too much and just enjoy that which is easily engaging. Your choice depends on your own personality. But don't skip the book! So far, I think it is fascinating.

**

BEFORE READING: This WILL be available in Kindle format on November 8, 2011!!!!!! YAY! Does fussing help? I have also requested his Peter the Great book on Kindle......"

"Timothy Snyder has coined two terms to reflect political states of mind that are ahistorical. The first is inevitablilty, as in "the politics of inevitability;" the second is eternity, as in "the politics of eternity." Once defined, both will feel familiar to us.

The politics of inevitability is a childlike state in which we assume the way things are is inevitable, unchangeable, and meant to be, since we've gotten used to it and forgotten about alternatives. In the West, once the Berlin wall came down, and once the Soviet Union had collapsed, we thought liberal (small l) democracy had won, once and for all. After a while, too, no one had experienced anything else. This is akin to the logical error that says because things have always been some way, they always will be. When the politics of inevitability prevails, we as individuals really have no meaningful political responsibility, since the current situation is, after all, inevitable. And, for the same reason, we don't have concern for caution or limits, since what is inevitable can neither need support nor suffer damage.

Then some new mental framework or attitude against which we have no ready defenses descends on society, perhaps in response to some unexpected trauma or shock to the system (think Trump, or Brexit), perhaps aided and abetted by a new disruptive form of media. In the sixteenth century, that disruptive media was the printing press; at some earlier point, it was writing itself. Now we're talking the internet and social media. After the politics of inevitability is dispatched, the politics of eternity settles in. The politics of eternity is "us-them" on steroids. "We" are innocent victims of "them" for all eternity, in an endlessly repeating cycle of drama and spectacle, with nothing to be done except get with the program, get on board, get brainwashed, and accept, along with everyone else, the acceptable beliefs. Don't think (and without thought there is no dissent). A modicum of coercion and a dash of violence will season the stew.

Between the two--inevitability and eternity--is a space for history. Only in history can we think and act and make a difference. That's what the author is aiming for. That's the good. His heroes are the investigative journalists who see and observe, often at risk to themselves, enabling us to remove from our eyes the enveloping and blinding shroud of eternity. His book's dedication:

For the reporters, the heroes of our time

Snyder organizes his book into six chapters with the title of each a political virtue juxtaposed to its opposite. The first is "Individualism or Totalitarianism." In that first chapter he describes Ivan Ilyin, the rehabilitated fascist and conspiracy theorist of the early-to-mid-twentieth century, whose thinking informs the political ideology of Putin's Russia where the politics of eternity is in full sway--helped by the fact that most Russians receive their news via state-controlled TV and at the national (not local) level. Russia, white and Christian, and meant to be at the forefront of the nations, is for all time the pure and innocent victim of fascist violation; the West, along with its liberalism, freedom, and factuality, is by definition that violator, and in the defense against it, all is justified. The individual, too, is evil except as a part of the state, about which status the individual has no choice. The second chapter is "Succession or Failure:" either the state has a succession principle by which power changes hands lawfully, or it doesn't--the Ilyin ideal being a manly leader who mystically embodies and represents his country and retains power, the model that supports Putin's Russia in its current oligarchical manifestation. In contrast, if the rule of law prevails at the top, meaning a real principle of succession, then imperfections in the system, such as corruption or inequality, are potentially correctable. Chapter Three is "Integration or Empire." In contrast to Yoram Hazony's book The Virtue of Nationalism, which has been making waves lately, Snyder argues that our notion of independent states is rooted in myth. He says that in actuality, what we formerly had were empires whose attempted persistence as independent states could not be maintained, and from which failed effort they were rescued by the EU. The imperial mode is colonization, which is familiar so far; but what Snyder points to is colonization within Europe, with disputes settled, not by diplomacy, but by invasion and annexation. That's the mode to which a Russia looking backward to the age of empire aspires and which its fascist and totalitarian ideology aims to justify. Inherent in those views is that circa 2010 or 2012 Russia gave up early efforts to modernize and liberalize, that is, to compete with the West on its own terms, embarking instead on its current course.

Next comes Chapter Four, "Novelty or Eternity." About halfway into that chapter, Snyder gets to what happened in Ukraine in 2013 and, eventually, 2014. Novelty means Ukraine as an independent, democracy-pursuing country intent on closer integration with Europe, while eternity as used here refers to Russian mythology that Ukraine is and always has been Russian, so that Russia was going to put its foot down and put a halt to Ukrainian independence. Thus, Snyder at this point in his book reaches recent history. He movingly describes the solidarity resulting from the Maidan protests (some of which I believe found expression in his earlier book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century). And he tells what happened--a lot of which received inadequate attention in the West. In Chapter Five, "Truth or Lies," he continues with the information war: how Russia played Ukrainian and Russian speakers within Ukraine against each other, created propaganda that the Maidan independence demonstrations were fascist endeavors engineered by the US, and also propagandized its own citizens from outlying parts of the country with outrageous stories--for example, that Ukrainians had crucified a three-year-old Russian boy--in order to galvanize them to come fight, and sometimes die. Again, Snyder highlights what journalists were doing--as long as they could--to get out the truth of what was happening. Russia had limited success on the ground in Ukraine but practiced its infowar techniques for use in Europe and then in the US. And that last area is the subject of Chapter Six, "Equality or Oligarchy," regarding the election of their man in Washington, Donald Trump.

Discussion of whether Ukraine is a fascist state still persists, and during 2014, the country was hamstrung by what Snyder terms propagandistic accusations--schizofascist propaganda that in essence accused Ukraine of being what Russia was. (Another example of schizofascism is accusing Jews of causing the Holocaust.) Snyder argues his case well, though, and he supports his argument, on this point and otherwise, with ongoing references to reports of journalists and other documentation. He does not use conventional footnote markers but instead provides running references by page and paragraph at the back of the book.

In a manner of speaking, what Timothy Snyder does in this book is celebrate and defend our institutions, even as Michael Lewis does in another, very different, book I recently read, The Fifth Risk. Many, it seems, are content to condemn the institutions that support them, with the far-Right now co-opting and outdoing the Left in that endeavor. Since nothing is perfect, warts can always be uncovered, yet Snyder looks to the conditions that support improvement. He looks, in other words, to history, change, thinking, individual effort and heroism, and solidarity. The conditions we regard as virtues, he says, cannot exist in the abstract. The virtues can exist only in the institutions that embody them.

Also, understand that the contrast between factuality and fiction is not a debate. I recently received an email from my local paper thanking me for my support and making reference to a "debate" about the news media. There is no debate, as the attacks on news are not fact-based. In fact the attack on the mainstream media for being "fake news" is another example of schizofascism. Similarly, there is no debating Trump on his wall since his story of why the wall is needed represents a departure from reality. This is my point, although based, I hope, on what Snyder says about political fiction.

Snyder has heard a call and has written this book to try and educate and alert us. He has a difficult task. What he is saying can be hard to understand. It takes study. I had to read the first part of the book twice to understand all the historical phenomena and related mythologizing, not to mention all the Russian names--I who once upon a time studied Russian. Meanwhile, a succinct slur can lodge in the mind and rally the wrong troops. The fact that the truth is more complicated than fiction can appear to be a weakness. Not only is the simplistic easier, it's also convenient. And the fact is that Trump (and Russia) won. Many people here are going around saying that nothing has changed, this is just more of the same, and this, too, will pass. In other words it's all an anomaly--a bad dream--and the inevitable will soon resume. Just as "This is not really happening" is not a good strategy to deal with a mugging, neither will it work in these times.

In a sense, Snyder has done what Nassim Nicholas Taleb says he did in The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: create a story to fight a story. Most of the time he does well, the complications and difficulties notwithstanding. Sometimes when he's talking about the US, I can see him painting with too-wide brushstrokes that could catapult him into difficulties--for example, writing as though "Southern whites" are a monolith. If he does that in areas of the globe with which I'm relatively more familiar, perhaps others would notice the same for their areas.

Also, he focuses on racial and economic inequality as fueling divestiture from democracy, but perhaps instead the problem at bottom is the lack of dignity and recognition: people not finding worth, meaning or any sense of belonging. Anomie, in other words. Money, after all, is a form of recognition.

Nevertheless in writing this book he's done us a major service. Kudos, Timothy Snyder.


Even though the subtitle of this book is Russia > Europe > America, here are a couple of quotes from Americanah, about Nigeria, showing that people elsewhere know about the politics of eternity. How other people in the world have heretofore looked toward America and the West!

Alexa and the other guests, and perhaps even Georgina, all understood the fleeing from war, from the kind of poverty that crushed human souls, but they would not understand the need to escape from the oppressive lethargy of choicelessness. They would not understand why people like him, who were raised well-fed and watered but mired in dissatisfaction, conditioned from birth to look toward somewhere else, eternally convinced that real lives happened in that somewhere else, were now resolved to do dangerous things, illegal things, so as to leave, none of them starving, or raped, or from burned villages, but merely hungry for choice and certainty.


Obinze envied them for what they were, men who casually changed names and passports, who would plan and come back and do it over again because they had nothing to lose. He didn't have their savoir faire; he was soft, a boy who had grown up eating cornflakes and reading books, raised by a mother during a time when truth-telling was not yet a luxury.

A highly touted National Affairs article by Jonathan Rauch entitled "The Constitution of Language" shows how disinformation works. Rauch is more sanguine about our institutions than Snyder, I think, and he focuses directly on Trump (not via Russia or Putin), yet the article is very good.

A 2015 piece for Foreign Affairs with more on Ivan Ilyin:

April 13, 2019
I've only read Timothy Snyder's two most recent books, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century and this one. Here's a new article reviewing his work that puts those two books into a context and could help with perspective:

October 13, 2019
Here is a current New York Times piece that is in line with Snyder's contentions about Russia:

...Western security officials have now concluded that these operations, and potentially many others, are part of a coordinated and ongoing campaign to destabilize Europe.... ...
...The Kremlin sees Russia as being at war with a Western liberal order that it views as an existential threat. ...
...A former intelligence officer himself, Mr. Putin drew a direct line between the Red Army spies who helped defeat the Nazis in World War II and officers of the G.R.U., whose “unique capabilities� are now deployed against a different kind of enemy.... ...

"