This is a book about the Vera Zasulich that shot the governor of St.Petersburg in 1878, not about the Vera Zasulich that sent a prescient letter to Karl Marx in 1881, though they are the same person. Zasulich's correspondence with Marx is mainly how she's remembered these days, and what introduced me to her. However, if you want to read a book about the thought of Vera Zasulich, or how she came to her politics, or even a book that incorporates some of life's work into a biographical sketch of her early days, this isn't that book. In the first chapter, Siljak refers to Zasulich's "impenetrable writings on socialist theory" and "illegible notes on Marx and Hegel," so you know this isn't going to be any kind of theoretical book nor an intellectual history. Instead you will find out if Vera was pretty or not (she wasn't, and that's a fact that will be mentioned multiple times), what she wore (very plain clothing), and who her boyfriends were. That said, this is a well-researched and engagingly written account of 19th century Russian radicalism. For much of the text, Zasulich isn't there at all. Mostly this is useful and good, as Siljak gives ample background on the emergence of socialist politics in Russia, and fully develops the auxiliary set of characters. (Really, the emergence of radicalism in Russia IS the narrative, and Zasulich is more of a framing device than the main story.) Occasionally, it drags on, such as the endless description of rural childhood, which will tire anyone who's read at least one Russian novel in her life, although it's possible I was just cranky that day.
As deeply informative as it was, I had some problems with the tone of this book. 'Tone' is a terrible hook to hang a critique on, but it's also a bummer to read a book about 'Russia's Revolutionary World' that could be subtitled "Really, tsarist Russia wasn't that bad." If I had the time or energy, I'd comb the text looking for examples to develop my point; the most specific one I can think of off the top of my head are the strangely loving descriptions of new prison architectures (so healthy and scientific!). It's not as if there isn't plenty to critique about revolutionary Russians- they were often naive, some were prone to bizarre and shameful bursts of extreme violence against their own cohort, and many were susceptible to manipulative and charismatic men. But they were also responding to systemic violence and injustice in their societies, extending their concern for those outside of and beneath their social class
There is also the problem with Siljak's use of the word 'terrorist.' It appears in the text without a definition. Terrorism in a notoriously slippery term, but if we are to believe that Dmitrii Karakozov, who attempted to assassinate Tsar Alexander II in 1866, was "Russia's first terrorist," I want to know why. It must mean that peasant rebellions were not terrorism, no matter how many landlords were killed in those uprisings. It wasn't terrorism when a rival royal factions staged a coup, say when Catherine's supporters assassinated Tsar Peter III in 1762, or when Tsar Paul 1 was assassinated in 1801. And it certainly wasn't terrorism when an oppressive regime held people in horrific conditions, without official charges, for years at a time. So what makes a depressed noble, who thought the Tsar was responsible for suffering of the Russian people, a terrorist? He didn't target civilians to achieve his political aims. He was, however, part of radical socialist group. There is a moment after Zasulich's trial for attempted assassination that the radicals themselves begin to use the appellation of terrorism, or so Siljak led me to believe, and I also want to know what that term meant to them. Terrorism is a deeply loaded term, and although I know this book is intended for a wide reading audience and not just nit-picky academics like myself, I think it's critical to define one's terms.