Tải về Bút Ký Người Đi Săn Ivan Tuốcghênhép miễn phí trong Pdf

Jessy Chantre _essychantre — This and Russian Thinkers would make a perfect introduction to leftist revolutionary thought of the 19th century. Not finished with it yet, but so far it's good, though I have some quibbles. [ETA: finished; loved it.] It corrects the common perception that Communism was an invention of mostly Marx and partly Engels by detailing the movement's antecedents in Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owens, and others, most of whom were inspired in turn by the French revolution. I hadn't realized that in the case of both Marx and Engels, it really did take a village. The sense of genealogy goes a long way toward removing early Communism from the drawing room and planting it in the streets, and also makes Marx look a little less original, but considering his sophistication compared to the lunatics who inspired him, it makes him look smarter, too. On the other hand, the book necessarily engages its protagonists' ideas in broad strokes. That's OK, but at times Wilson needed to rein it in. We are told that the newly empowered French postrevolutionary bourgeoisie's "ideas" became "vulgar"- excuse me? Wilson is comfortable with the nuts and bolts of the labor theory of value, but as Menand points out in the excellent introduction, he's fuzzier when it comes to dialectic. (Menand observes that Americans are uncomfortable with the both/and nature of Hegelian philosophy, preferring to give things "thumbs up or down." Thus we here are saddled with leftists whose abstemiousness leads them to expect to save the world by buying only organic lettuce.) Why not start with Hume or Kant or Hegel or Fichte? Because, Menand implies, Wilson liked writing stories about eccentric industrialists more than he liked discoursing on Feuerbach. Who can blame him? It's an unusual intelligence that can assimilate stories about Marx's romance with Jenny von Westphalen but can't bear to muster more than a few sentences on The German Ideology. The other thing this book lacks is a sense of the complexities of Russian politics. After reading Orlando Figes' book on the Revolution, I was impressed with how many different factions had to fall into place just so during the period 1905-1917 for the Bolshies to win the day. Wilson has nothing but derision for the very important Populist movement and does not even mention the Slavophiles, opinions on whom split the Russian intelligentsia down the middle for such a long time. All in all, Wilson approaches 19th century nationalism as a blip on the radar where most sources today seem to see it as much more influential than that. But this book was written nearly 80 years ago, and if it had said everything I wanted it to then reading it would have been pointless. Engels comes off better than anyone here. Wilson lovingly details his tireless support of the Marx family despite Marx's insensitive and obnoxious nagging, and manages to make Engels' business dealings consistent with his ideology. This is no small feat. Engels was the convivial one; Marx was the crank, and once Marx died, Engels took to having dinner company over again, remarking that he had been underrated while Karl was alive and overrated after he died. While Karl and the subsequent savageries of Lenin and Josef "Care Bear" Stalin make it hard to read this book with too much sympathy, Engels makes it all seem like it could've worked. What an astounding work of narrative history, though. I heartily recommend this to anyone with an interest in 19th and 20th century European politics and thought.

Nick Burchell _ick_urchell — An extraordinary book, filled with insights into the nature of pacifism, liberalism, war, military, bureaucracy, and civil disobedience. The least successful part of the "novel" is the meta-fictional construct. I'm still not entirely sold on the "history as novel" and "novel as history" concept. Mailer does become extremely self-indulgent and repetitive in passages; the book may have been stronger with 100 pages lopped off. As a novel, indeed, it suffers from a lack of action. Despite these flaws, an important and lyrical book. I look forward to reading more of Mailer's work.

Bryllupsfotograf Aalborg bryllupsfotoaalborg — Read the book after already seeing the movie. I'm Glad that the movie was almost identical to the book; I hate it when parts are altered or left out altogether.

Mohammad Suhairi mohammadsu703b — Good book; honset and encouraging.

Joaquin Robles joaquin_robles — Se confirma la caída en barrena de la serie. De una idea inicial tremenda y unos primeros momentos de exploración que mantienen el interés, ha ido degenerando hasta este añadido a la serie, una especie de cuento sobre el poder "ilimitado" con un toque de policiaca que no se sostiene. Añade unas pocas respuestas que no convencen e incluso estropean más el final seco y soso del cuarto volumen. Mejor quedarse solo con "A vuestros cuerpos dispersos", en las continuaciones hay cosas interesantes de leer pero la zanahoria con las explicaciones viene ya pocha, no merece la pena.

Maiyueyue Maiyueyue djmax00 — A classic. I read it for the class "Imagination in Religious Literature," and boy was it imaginative -- but I loved it! Jesus is portrayed as very human in this novel, but of course, that`s not the only thing that sparks controversy. The first 100 pages were a bit tough to get through, but after that it just gets better and better.