Rating: 
Summary: Insightful thoughts on Russian culture
Review: I first learned about this book from a review in the Guardian in which the author was convinced that this sort of thinking about national culture was one of the many stops on the road to ethnic cleansing, what a lot of tommyrot. Of course I had to read this book for myself.
I thought, do we really need another book on Russian culture? Didn't Professor Billington have the final word on this in "The Icon and The Axe?" Then there was W. Bruce Lincoln's work. Is there anything really new that Orlando Figes could hope to add?
I am happy to report that there is. I am very pleased to recommend this book and am thrilled that Figes was not put off from this worthy achievement. The point of departure for this book is "the generation of 1812," a landmark generation and one which many who have read "War and Peace feel they know closely. I suppose my love for this book made me an easy sceptic to convince. I think that Figes breaks new ground with this work and it will in some respects supersede all of the other works (with the exception of "War and Peace") in many important respects. Despite my enthusiasm, I think the book has two shortcomings. The first is that the development of a uniquely Russian culture came about after the 1812 invasion. This rise in the development of a national culture was not limited to Russia, but included nearly every place Napoleon conquered. I would have enjoyed a comparison. Also, why is it that all cultural histories of Russia are unable to advance beyond 1960? There are studies of Soviet popular culture that go into the 1990s, what about something that deals with high culture. Russian culture did not end with Anna Akhmatova or Nabokov, or Stravinsky. There are many stories worth exploring here. But these weaknesses should not discourage reading this book. If you are interested in learning about the civilization and culture of Russia, there are few better places to begin or continue than this marvelous work.
Rating:
Summary: Leaves you wanting more
Review: I have always approached Russian history with varying degrees of interest. If my university course in Russian history had been this interesting I not only would have done better but I would have maintained the craving I now have for it after reading this book. In spite of its length, even a book of this size cannot be exhaustive and so several figures are used as examples of the themes or periods Figes presents, e.g the Sheremetevs, the Volkonskys, Mussorgsky, Stravinsky, Akhmatova, etc. Sometimes this left me wondering what else was going on at that time but on the whole this technique worked. Figes' style is highly readable, there is scarcely a dull page in the book, and he even manages to make the Soviet period seem interesting, something it never seemed to be from a cultural point of view. Now I have to read more!
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: I have an amateur's interest in Russia, especially the novels of Tolstoy. The first chapter alone--on the founding and legacy of Petersburg--is worth the price of the book. I learned much from this book (though, as one reviewer pointed out, inevitably much is omitted). I confess that I found Prof. Figes's history of the Russian Revolution rather tough going. This book, by contrast, is a joy to read: well written and informative. All in all, this is the best book on Russia I've ever read. Highest endorsement for a good and informative read.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant!
Review: I thought this was one of the best books I have ever read on Russia. In 500 beautifully written pages, it manages to say an awful lot - not just about the Russian arts and literature, nor simply about Russia as a place, its history, its customs, its religious traditions - but about that thing we call "culture". Figes shows how the arts were intertwined with politics, religion, folklore and beliefs, to create a "national consciousness". His main argument - that Russian culture was defined by a dialogue between the high culture of the aristocracy and the folk culture of the peasantry - is brilliantly developed - and original. No doubt there are minor points where academic critics may pronounce that there is more to say - or something to be said in a more complex way. This is not an academic book (thank God for that!) though Figes does provide a comprehensive guide to academic works on what seems like almost everything... But for the general reader this book is unparalleled. It is more exciting, and a better read, than The Icon and the Axe by James Billington, which is a more traditional cultural history of Russia. In sum - the highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Best Book I Read In 2002
Review: I usually like to give my reviews catchy little titles. I was going to call this one "Fabulous Figes". I finally decided it was more important to just come right out and say this is the best book I read this year. Of course, if we were in January or February, that statement wouldn't mean too much! (Kind of like movie reviews that come out early in the year..."Best Darn Romantic Comedy I've Seen...So Far!) Since we're in December, and considering I've read about 70 books this year, that makes the statement a little more impressive. Okay, so now I've got to "put my money where my mouth is" and tell you what makes "Natasha's Dance" so good. First, the book is beautifully written. It is lyrical, poignant, funny, thoughtful, etc. Like all good popular historians, Mr. Figes has a novelist's flair. Second, the book is wonderfully structured. The author decided to give each chapter a particular theme. So, despite the daunting task Mr. Figes has assigned himself (a cultural history of Russia!), the book doesn't ramble. It has a tight focus. On the other hand, there are enough themes covered that you don't feel anything relevant has been left out. Some of the themes that are covered: how Russian culture was influenced by both Asia and Western Europe; peasant life- the reality vs. how the urban intellectuals imagined it to be; Moscow vs. St. Petersburg (i.e.- their competition with each other, and changing fortunes as cultural centers); the search for the Russian soul- the religious beliefs of some of the famous Russian authors (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, etc.); the distortion and manipulation of culture by the Bolsheviks; and, finally, the effect that emigration from "Mother Russia" had on various cultural figures- such as Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Gorky and Nabokov. Mr. Figes also makes sure not to neglect those who chose to stay- people such as the poet Anna Akhmatova, the film director Sergei Eisenstein and the composer Dmitry Shostakovich. Some of these people hated the Revolution and pined for the past. Others welcomed the Revolution and later on became disillusioned. All of them either suffered (materially and/or spiritually) or lived in fear during the nightmare years under Stalin. Third, besides each chapter having an interesting theme, within each chapter Mr. Figes gives details concerning what was going on in the lives of various artists within a particular creative field. So, you get lots of interesting biographical material concerning novelists, poets, composers, etc. The threads of their lives intersect in interesting ways: Tolstoy, who had a lifelong fear of his own death, going to visit Chekhov- Tolstoy thought Chekhov was on his deathbed and wanted to see how Chekhov would "handle" his own mortality! Tolstoy was amazed that Chekhov could still laugh and joke and put on "a brave face". (Chekhov was amused. He knew Tolstoy and suspected the reason for his visit.). Another interesting "artistic intersection" was when Prokofiev decided to leave America because he didn't want to play "second fiddle" (or maybe I should say "second piano!) to Rachmaninov. Prokofiev apparently had quite a large ego, and when he saw how popular Rachmaninov was in the United States (Rachmaninov had emigrated first) he decided to return to Europe (part of this was style- Prokofiev felt that he was too "modern"- that Americans preferred Rachmaninov's more "traditional" and "romantic" music). Regarding Prokofiev, there is the touching footnote that he had the misfortune to die on the same day that Stalin did, March 5, 1953. As Mr. Figes writes, "(Prokofiev's) funeral (was) a sad affair that was scarcely noticed by the Soviet public...There were no flowers left to buy, so a single pine branch was placed on the composer's grave." I hope I have been able to convey some idea of the richness of this book. It is a remarkable achievement by Mr. Figes. If you have any interest whatsoever in Russian cultural history, you will definitely love this book. And, as sort of a wonderful dessert after a gourmet meal, the author has provided a section called "A Guide To Further Reading". This section is almost 30 pages long. Mr. Figes lists many books in this section but also indicates his particular favorites. I've already found at least half-a-dozen titles I want to buy. We bibliophiles should have a "universal tattoo"- "So many books, so little time!"
Rating:
Summary: Figes covers an awful lot of ground.
Review: I'm just beginning to get interested in learning about Russian culture and history, and this book provided a good starting place. Figes has produced a book that is incredibly ambitious in scope, attempting to cover hundreds of years of Russian thought about what it means to be Russian, right up until the present day. He's a little too dialectical for my taste--he tends to present Russian identity as being developed in response to a perceived Western European identity, either in an attempt to embrace it or to reject it, and I'd like to see a little bit more about in situ trends of Russian identity; I also think he spends a little too much time discussing what elites thought (although this may be because like most societies until very recently, it was the elites that left most of the written records) and it might be interesting to spend a bit more time with non-elite individuals. It's also a little heavy-going at times, although that may simply be because of the density of the subject. Still, I feel that this book is a fair starting place for people who are developing an interest in Russian culture.
Rating: 
Summary: Europe, Asia or Russia?
Review: In "Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia" Orlando Figes presents the idea of Russia as being trapped between two worlds. According to Figes Russians have been preoccupied by the idea of what it means to be Russian vis-a-vis their ideas of what is Western and Asian. Russians have believed themselves to be trapped between two worlds and their cultural works depict this feeling of limbo. Russia has been divided into three spheres for many centuries. There is the European Russia represented by the city of St Petersburg, the peasant/native Eurasian Russia represented by Moscow, and the wild/barbarous Russia represented by its Asiatic lands to the east. Figes presents this trichotomous division as the driving force behind Russia's cultural achievements. It even seems today that Russia is struggling with this schizophrenic existence. Figes offers no conclusion as to which way Russia will eventually go. In fact, he presents this struggle as a uniquely Russian cultural aspect. Other civilizations have had to struggle with the concept of Westernization ever since the European powers became global empires. But none of them have had to struggle for so long as Russia has done. This struggle between a Western or a 'Russian' future has been the spark of genius for so many Russian artists. There is much to recommend Figes' study of Russia's cultural history, especially the time he gives to the Asiatic peoples of eastern Russia. There is also much holding it back. The primary complaint I have is that Figes tries to convince the reader that the Russian people are some how more in tune with their cultural heritage than other peoples. However, "Natasha's Dance" is certainly a book I would recommend for anyone interested in what makes Russia tick.
Rating:
Summary: Natasha's Song and Dance
Review: In light of other rave reviews I feel absolutely churlish submitting less than five stars for this book. However, I must review this book, in part, on whether it achieved its stated objective, which was to provide a comprehensive overview of all of Russian culture. The answer is no. Let's not confuse "long" with "comprehensive." In fairness to Figes, this book has a lot of strengths, particularly his discussion of the relationship between nineteenth century Russian operas and the texts from which their libretti were drawn, his emphasis on the Old Believer schism, and his treatment of Vassily Grossman, still relatively unknown in the West. However, it has some glaring omissions for a work which wants to be comprehensive. First, Figes basically ignores all literature, architecture, and applied art prior to the period around the founding of St. Petersburg. This means that he fails to address, among other things, the _Tale of Igor_, the literary impact of Slavonic hagiography, icons and their influence on secular painting (other than a lick and a promise to Andrei Rublev's work), and any of Ivan IV a/k/a the Terrible's perorations. This omits a necessary context for the Westernizers (such as Peter I a/k/a "The Great") and the Slavophiles. Second, I think his treatment of _Oblomov_ would not communicate the importance of this work in the public imagination to anyone who was not familiar with this work, and Figes doesn't even mention _The Precipice_, which Goncharov regarded as his true masterpiece. He also doesn't discuss the rift between Goncharov and Turgenev as a result of the similar themes in _The Precipice_ and _Fathers and Children_. This really was an unfortunate omission. This was big news in the nineteenth century. Third, I thought that Figes did not devote sufficient attention to the nineteenth-century anarchists, particularly those of the upper-classes, and slighted Yurij Dombrosky, though I grant you that these might be quibbles. Fourth, given his emphasis on Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and emigre and returnee literature, I was expecting to see more discussion of Solzhenitsyn, who rates only a cursory mention. Solzhenitsyn's work neatly demonstrates and extends virtually all the points that Figes is making, which is why his failure to discuss him at greater length is so odd. Fifth, there were occasional odd minor lapses in scholarship. For example, at one point Figes notes that the word "robot" is "not coincidentally" similar to the Russian verb _rabotat'_, or "to work". However, a few minutes with the Oxford English dictionary told me that the first reported use of the word "robot" was by a Czech playwright, Karel Capek, in the play "R.U.R." released circa 1921, and that "rabota" means forced labor in Czech. In fact, In the days when Czechoslovakia was a feudal society, "robota" referred to the two or three days of the week that peasants were obliged to leave their own fields to work without remuneration on the lands of noblemen. However, that fact does not fit with Fige's theory. It makes me fret about what Figes did in the course of assembling his book with other facts (and artists, such as ones noted above) that do not fit his theory. Finally, his offering of Natasha's dance at the end of _War and Peace_ as the central image of the authentic pure Russian soul revealing itself beneath the veneer of European culture really bothers me. It bothers me because an equally central image of Natasha Rostova and her reaction to Art is Natasha at the opera earlier in the book, suffering _ostranenie_, or a sense of estrangement, from the opera's artifice. Moreover, the final image of Natasha in _War and Peace_ that Tolstoy creates for us is to show her stout, jealous, with a faint mustache, which has always stuck me as cruel both to poor Natasha and to the patient reader. It begs the question to say, as Figes does, that Tolstoy's view is simply that Natasha is "estranged" from Western art, therefore it is bad, and that she responds "naturally" to Russian art, therefore it is good. As Figes admits elsewhere in this book, Tolstoy was far more complex in his personal beliefs than this, and his writing improved when he could abandon his didacticism. Natasha's dance and her reaction to the opera are both examples of a Tolstoyan rigidity into which Figes periodically slips. Conclusion: read it together with _The Icon and the Axe._
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent, Creative interpretation to Russian history
Review: My obsession with wanting a people's history of Russia started with a collection of letters left to me from correspondence between my grandparents in the USA and their families in the Minsk area of Russia. Everything of my heritage is gone except what I hold in my heart from the stories and emotions coming thru in the letters. Using NATASHA'S DANCE as a guide, I have been able to piece together the story of a land torn apart by war but held together by the culture and spirit of the people. Figes takes writers', artists', and musicians' great works and weaves them into a tapestry of daily life giving the reader a window into a fascinating land. This is a history book that rings with facts, creatively written in a style you don't have to be a scholar of history to appreciate. If you have ancestors from Russia or Poland who came through Ellis Island, this book will open your eyes to your roots. If you are a student of history or someone interested in Russia as it was, then this is a book you MUST read.
Rating:
Summary: Natasha's Dance reveiw by Joanny
Review: Natasha's Dance was a really good book! I couldn't put it down! I definetely reccomend it to girls and Boys! I LOVED IT!
|
