Pomper is a good, if uninspiring, writer whose style can make his content sound more thoughtful than it really is. He is lauded as a "psychological historian" on the book's jacket and, unfortunately, he is very much that.
The book actually does a pretty good job of describing the general intellectual and political milieu of a late 19th century Russia where nihilism (which, in this context, merely denotes a militant, violent and self-destructive if necessary, dedication to secular progressivism) and novosk-ism (the notion that the Russian peasantry, with its tradition of collective ownership of the land, would lead the country to an agrarian form of socialism) were fusing and mutating into a variant of Marxism under an autocratic and backwards regime that, thirty or so years before it would finally fall, was already living on borrowed time. No matter how good Pomper is at describing a collective mood, he insists on reducing history to the actions and characteristics of its most famous actors. There would have been no Russian revolution, Pomper tells us, without Lenin, and no Lenin without the assassination attempt against the Czar by his older brother Alexander. It is indeed indisputable that Lenin decidedly shaped the nature of the revolution, but to say that it would not have occurred, in some form, without him is speculation, not fact, as is the idea that Lenin would not have become a revolutionary without his older brother's example. Pomper, regrettably, proposes far too many such truisms.
Not only does Pomper insist that history revolves around the individuals he is writing about, he claims, with almost psychic certainty, to explain exactly what motivated his subjects and when. For instance, Pomper assures us that Alexander turned his mind to terrorism during a protest when a soldier roughed up his nihilist girlfriend. The author's evidence is little more than that it sounds good within his narrative.
If one approaches this book as a light, historical novel then it's a perfectly enjoyable read. But as serious history, it is simplified at best and simplistic at worst.