What do you think?
Rate this book
The Red Wheel #2
November 1916
The month of November 1916 in Russia was outwardly unmarked by seismic events, but beneath the surface, society seethed fiercely. In Petrograd, luxury-store windows are still brightly lit; the Duma debates the monarchy, the course of war, and clashing paths to reform; the workers in the miserable munitions factories veer increasingly toward sedition. At the front all is stalemate except for sudden death's capricious visits, while in the countryside sullen anxiety among hard-pressed farmers is rapidly replacing patriotism. In Zurich, Lenin, with the smallest of all revolutionary groups, plots his sinister logistical miracle. With masterly and moving empathy, through the eyes of both historical and fictional protagonists, Solzhenitsyn unforgettably transports us to that time and place--the last of pre-Soviet Russia. Translated by H.T. Willetts.November 1916 is the second volume in Solzhenitsyn's multi-part work, the Red Wheel, following August 1914. The final volumes will deal with March and April of 1917. Each volume concentrates on a historical turning point, or "knot," as the wheel rolls on inexorably toward revolution.
1040 pages, Paperback
First published June 5, 1985
About the author
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
297 books4,268 followersalso known as
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)
Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.
This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.
Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...
Alexander Solzenitsyn (English, alternate)
Αλεξάντρ Σολζενίτσιν (Greek)
Works, including One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962) and The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975), of Soviet writer and dissident Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970, exposed the brutality of the labor camp system.
This known Russian novelist, dramatist, and historian best helped to make the world aware of the forced Gulag.
Exiled in 1974, he returned to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn fathered of Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a conductor and pianist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksan...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
June 18, 2011
My Amazon review, pasted in here:
In this work, and its preceding volume, August 1914, Solzhenitsyn attempts to recapture for readers, especially for his countrymen, the events leading up to the Revolution. To do this, he uses evidence in the form of letters and debates, and shows real and fictional characters trying to live and work in a time of crisis and hysteria.
His own creations, as others reviewers have mentioned, are somewhat clumsily handled (but not always so, and not to the detriment of the novel), but his imaginative penetration of Lenin and other historical figures shows Solzhenitsyn capable of great, and sustained, power. This goes against the views of some who consider him rather old-fashioned and out of touch, not quite the writer he once was thought to be.
In this book, as in volume one, Solzhenitsyn accomplishes some very important tasks: he recovers from the shadows much history that to many Western readers is inaccessible, or unfamiliar, and renders it in lively prose; he provides the historical characters with convincing personalities that throws over our stereotyped notions of them; and he writes of past events, which we may know the outcomes of, with suspense. None of these are small feats.
But it is History, the great sweep of events that takes up everyone and everything in its embrace, that emerges as the most skillfully drawn 'character' in his portrait of Russia on the eve of its transformation. The debates crackle with excitement and contained emotions, and the personal letters add those grace notes of melancholy and complete bewilderment which allow small insights into the real historical personages.
This projected trilogy - the next volume can't come out soon enough - is entertaining, humourous and sharp, and strongly written. It offers a view into a disappearing world which can't be ignored or disregarded simply because of changing tastes in literature. It is a long read, yes. Who can object to that, when the read is a good one as well?
In this work, and its preceding volume, August 1914, Solzhenitsyn attempts to recapture for readers, especially for his countrymen, the events leading up to the Revolution. To do this, he uses evidence in the form of letters and debates, and shows real and fictional characters trying to live and work in a time of crisis and hysteria.
His own creations, as others reviewers have mentioned, are somewhat clumsily handled (but not always so, and not to the detriment of the novel), but his imaginative penetration of Lenin and other historical figures shows Solzhenitsyn capable of great, and sustained, power. This goes against the views of some who consider him rather old-fashioned and out of touch, not quite the writer he once was thought to be.
In this book, as in volume one, Solzhenitsyn accomplishes some very important tasks: he recovers from the shadows much history that to many Western readers is inaccessible, or unfamiliar, and renders it in lively prose; he provides the historical characters with convincing personalities that throws over our stereotyped notions of them; and he writes of past events, which we may know the outcomes of, with suspense. None of these are small feats.
But it is History, the great sweep of events that takes up everyone and everything in its embrace, that emerges as the most skillfully drawn 'character' in his portrait of Russia on the eve of its transformation. The debates crackle with excitement and contained emotions, and the personal letters add those grace notes of melancholy and complete bewilderment which allow small insights into the real historical personages.
This projected trilogy - the next volume can't come out soon enough - is entertaining, humourous and sharp, and strongly written. It offers a view into a disappearing world which can't be ignored or disregarded simply because of changing tastes in literature. It is a long read, yes. Who can object to that, when the read is a good one as well?
March 29, 2010
This is a remarkable book. I really enjoyed the first, but this one is even better. Solzhenitsyn chronicles the spiritual demise of Russia leading to the communist revolution. Where August 1914 deals primarily with the beginning of WWI, this book deals with the war's impact on the homeland as well as the political climate of the nation at war.
Though there are long stretches of historical narrative in this, and they sometimes get a bit long, the book still moves at a fast pace. I was fascinated with what brought Russia to the point of accepting Bolshevism. As Solzhenitsyn answers elsewhere, it is because "They forgot God."
Those interested in Russian literature and history will love this book. But those that have read and enjoyed other Russian novelists will almost certainly enjoy this one as well.
Though there are long stretches of historical narrative in this, and they sometimes get a bit long, the book still moves at a fast pace. I was fascinated with what brought Russia to the point of accepting Bolshevism. As Solzhenitsyn answers elsewhere, it is because "They forgot God."
Those interested in Russian literature and history will love this book. But those that have read and enjoyed other Russian novelists will almost certainly enjoy this one as well.
October 23, 2017
2.5/5 again
I did not feel this instalment has improved much compared to August 1914. The same laborious writing and the mix of historical fact with fiction when you cannot really make a difference what is his opinion what is the fact. Also i found irritating that there is no dialogue, instead the encounters between the people are described through the internal monologue of the main character in the chapter. It works once or twice, but then it feels pompous.
There where are few stronger parts. The complexity of romantic feelings of the main character stuck between two women - his wife and his new lover- is very honestly and emotionally depicted. I did not like the man. But I believe that such man does exist, then and now.
From the historical perspective, the novel has nudged me to look for more information about Parvus. He appears in the novel in conversation with Lenin about financing the Bolsheviks and moving back to Russia from Zurich. I did not know about his existence at all. He appeared to be quite a character who took part together with Trotsky in masterminding the revolution of 1905 and later was collaborating with the Germans in financing under-cover operatives on the Russian territory. I certainly will try to find out more about his role. But unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn was not very helpful in terms of the facts in this area either.
Apart from it his historical narrative is represented by lengthy extracts from the Duma's sitting protocols and reminded me the notes from a lecture by a diligent, but not very proactive student.
I think i had enough of this epos and try to read the proper history about the period instead.
I did not feel this instalment has improved much compared to August 1914. The same laborious writing and the mix of historical fact with fiction when you cannot really make a difference what is his opinion what is the fact. Also i found irritating that there is no dialogue, instead the encounters between the people are described through the internal monologue of the main character in the chapter. It works once or twice, but then it feels pompous.
There where are few stronger parts. The complexity of romantic feelings of the main character stuck between two women - his wife and his new lover- is very honestly and emotionally depicted. I did not like the man. But I believe that such man does exist, then and now.
From the historical perspective, the novel has nudged me to look for more information about Parvus. He appears in the novel in conversation with Lenin about financing the Bolsheviks and moving back to Russia from Zurich. I did not know about his existence at all. He appeared to be quite a character who took part together with Trotsky in masterminding the revolution of 1905 and later was collaborating with the Germans in financing under-cover operatives on the Russian territory. I certainly will try to find out more about his role. But unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn was not very helpful in terms of the facts in this area either.
Apart from it his historical narrative is represented by lengthy extracts from the Duma's sitting protocols and reminded me the notes from a lecture by a diligent, but not very proactive student.
I think i had enough of this epos and try to read the proper history about the period instead.
November 28, 2020
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. November 1916.
Let’s use the metaphor of a train to introduce the characters. The train leaves with Sanya (from the previous novel) on board. After a few chapters we leave him and see Vorotyntsev. Vorotyntsev actually boards a train and meets the Cossack writer Fyodor. Both Vorotyntsev and Fyodor leave the train and Vorotyntsev’s sister takes him to a party.
One of the things essential for a good novel is pacing. Solzhenitsyn’s other novels have that. This one does not. It’s worth reading, as he prophecies the rise of Antifa. It’s hard reading, though. He intersperses “historical reports” between some chapters. They are fascinating but don’t really contribute to the novel. There is also the problem of a character from page 300 of August 1914 appearing on page 700 of November 1916, and you have to think back to the connections. Nonetheless, it is worth your time.
Into the Maelstrom
If August 1914 was specifically about the encirclement and defeat of Russia, November 1916 explores more of the causes leading to Lenin. There was no fixing Russia. Solzhenitsyn is clear. He outlines several probable courses of action, but there was little chance of their being enacted.
Solzhenitsyn continues his “nodal theory of history,” and in these nodes we see tinier knots within the knot. One of these sub-knots is the problem of the Old Believers, illustrated in a dialogue between Sanya and a chaplain. The Old Believers were Russian Christians who maintained that their traditions were unchanged from time immemorial. Consequently, they opposed the reforms of Patriarch Nikon.
The Old Believers' specific arguments and praxis were often wanting, but the evidence was on their side. In any case, the Tsars, otherwise orthodox good men, attacked them and relegated them to the edge of society. As a result, Russia lost its most pious and monarchical section of society. It also lost a fighting segment whose frenzy in battle could have stopped the Communists.
Unfortunately, the Russian establishment (and church) didn’t simply attack the Old Believers’ bodies. They targeted their souls as well. Sanya mused: “If they refuse communion--burn them: that was Sofia’s decree. If they take communion under protest--burn them afterward. Lower jaws were wrenched open and the ‘true host’ stuffed down their throats. For fear of weakening, of accepting the sacrilegious element, they had sometimes set fire to themselves” (Solzhenitsyn 43).
It isn’t surprising that the Old Believers saw the establishment as the Antichrist. Sanya continued his musing by thinking “Maybe we trampled the finest of our race. Maybe there was no schism.”
From there the narrative moves to an attack on Tolstoy, which is right and proper to do. After the proper bashing of Tolstoy, the priest explains, quite correctly, that war is not the greatest evil. Tolstoy said abolishing the state, while entailing smaller evils, would get rid of the greatest of evils. This is not so. The state was created to protect us from violence (53).
War isn’t the vilest of evils. “An unjust trial, for instance, that scalds the outraged heart, is viler...Or the ordeal at the hands of a torturer. When you can neither cry out nor fight back….All these things are spiritually dirtier and more terrible than war” (53).
We choose not between war and evil, but peace and evil. War is just a specialized form of evil, limited in time and space.
Previous Knots
This part is complicated. He interrupts his narrative to explain some of the history that led to the problems. There was an initial attempt to liberalize (in the good sense of the word) land ownership and put decision-making back into the hands, if not of the people, then of heads of landowning-areas. The problem is that Russian liberalism, like all liberalism, found itself caught between traditionalism and communism (59).
Solzhenitsyn points out that the liberals, while not being revolutionaries, ran interference for them (until the moment the revolutionaries hanged them. Like weak Christians today, they engage left, punch right.
This leads to the Russian idea of the zemstvo. It is a “social union of a given district” (60). At its best it provided a social shield between the lower class and other classes. Tsar Aleksandr II sought to empower the zemstvos and give them more autonomy. This would have functioned as a pressure valve on society, allowing the legitimate criticisms of the monarchy, that it didn’t allow for representation, to find its voice in the land. As a result, “we might have had, with the monarchy intact, a self-governing society, ethical in complexion, and free of party politics.”
It was never to be. Later tsars considered zemstvo “networking” to be revolutionary activity, and so cut their own legs out from under themselves. The socialist outsiders soon moved in. Solzhenitsyn here introduces one of his heroes, Shipov. Shipov came up with a brilliant networking system that would have staved off socialism, if it were to be realized (69). Rural districts elect county “zemstvo assemblies,” which elect provincial assemblies, and the provinces an all-Russian assembly.
Can the Monarchy Hold?
The hero of the story is Vorotyntsev. I use the word advisedly. He is actually a terrible husband. He’s home from the front. Through him we see that the Germans weren’t so much the bad guys. Russia and Germany had more in common with each other than with England and France. Vorotyntsev knows the Tsar is incapable of correcting society, but it would be far worse to throw one’s lot with the forces of revolution.
We see the true genius in Solzhenitsyn’s writing in that he is capable of giving air-tight cases for and against monarchy.
Against the Monarchy
1) Tsar Nicholas allowed himself to get played by entering the war. The terms of the war were dictated to him by Britain and France (207).
2) Nicholas smarted from his defeat in the Japanese War, where he was perceived as not taking an active enough role. He decided to assume full command of the military in this war. That was a big mistake.
Nodal Point: The Russian army was defeated in the West in 1914-1915. “One of the most destructive consequences of our defeat in the West was the flood tide of refugees. The waters had risen and no governmental channel could control them” (220).
Another problem was Russia’s size and army: it was too big. It fought upon old Napoleonic principles. What was needed was “an army of crack troops” (278). Russia’s supply lines were unwieldy. She was still doing logistics for moving huge numbers of horses in a railway age.
Of all people a female history professor gives a moving defense of monarchy.
For the Monarchy
A female professor, Olda Andozerskaya, gives a most unprogressive defense of the monarchy. It’s romantic, far-fetched, but quite beautiful (and no worse than 2020, or 2016 or 2012 or 2008 or...you get the idea).
1) Monarchy does not mean stagnation. “A cautious approach to the new, a conservative sentiment, does not mean stagnation. A farsighted monarch carries out reforms--but only for those whose time is ripe. He does not go at it mindlessly, as some republican governments do, maneuvering so as not to lose power” (340).
2) An established line of succession saves a country from destructive rebellions. Political strife is reduced. We might respect a republican government because of Romans 13 (JBA), but we don’t actually respect it. We know they probably lied to get to office and even if they do fulfill their promises, it’s only to pay off a debt.
3) Persuading a monarch is no more difficult than a republican government. A republican government has to persuade the public, and that public is often at the mercy of ignorance, passion, and vested interest (341).
4) A monarchy doesn’t necessarily make slaves of the people. A commercial republic is just as likely to de-personalize them. Why is subordinating myself to a faceless electorate (e.g., Dominion voting machines and the unelected bureaucracy behind them) preferable to a monarch?
5) Solzhenitsyn faces the biggest objection to monarchy: what happens when you get an idiot? His answer is probably the best in the literature: “”The accident of birth is a vulnerable point, yes. But there are also lucky accidents. But a talented man at the head of a monarchy, what republic can compare? A monarch may be sublime, but a man elected by the majority will almost certainly be a mediocrity” (342).
Solzhenitsyn goes on to list that republican governments have their own Achilles'’ heels: ambitious politicians, a morass of red tape hampering reform, etc. And his interlocutor asks a very uncomfortable question: why should we suppose equality and freedom to be preferable to honor and dignity? Maybe they are, but we rarely hear arguments to the point.
Anytime a republican points out that monarchies make tyrants possible, the monarchist should reply that a republic is just as likely to descend into anarchy and civil war.
Alas, but nothing gold can stay. Andozerskaya is not a fair maiden. She has a morally tainted past. Solzhenitsyn is telling us that she, too, is an ideology. True, she is a better ideology than liberal democracy. She doesn’t have the body count of Marxism, but in the end she, too, will fail.
Let’s use the metaphor of a train to introduce the characters. The train leaves with Sanya (from the previous novel) on board. After a few chapters we leave him and see Vorotyntsev. Vorotyntsev actually boards a train and meets the Cossack writer Fyodor. Both Vorotyntsev and Fyodor leave the train and Vorotyntsev’s sister takes him to a party.
One of the things essential for a good novel is pacing. Solzhenitsyn’s other novels have that. This one does not. It’s worth reading, as he prophecies the rise of Antifa. It’s hard reading, though. He intersperses “historical reports” between some chapters. They are fascinating but don’t really contribute to the novel. There is also the problem of a character from page 300 of August 1914 appearing on page 700 of November 1916, and you have to think back to the connections. Nonetheless, it is worth your time.
Into the Maelstrom
If August 1914 was specifically about the encirclement and defeat of Russia, November 1916 explores more of the causes leading to Lenin. There was no fixing Russia. Solzhenitsyn is clear. He outlines several probable courses of action, but there was little chance of their being enacted.
Solzhenitsyn continues his “nodal theory of history,” and in these nodes we see tinier knots within the knot. One of these sub-knots is the problem of the Old Believers, illustrated in a dialogue between Sanya and a chaplain. The Old Believers were Russian Christians who maintained that their traditions were unchanged from time immemorial. Consequently, they opposed the reforms of Patriarch Nikon.
The Old Believers' specific arguments and praxis were often wanting, but the evidence was on their side. In any case, the Tsars, otherwise orthodox good men, attacked them and relegated them to the edge of society. As a result, Russia lost its most pious and monarchical section of society. It also lost a fighting segment whose frenzy in battle could have stopped the Communists.
Unfortunately, the Russian establishment (and church) didn’t simply attack the Old Believers’ bodies. They targeted their souls as well. Sanya mused: “If they refuse communion--burn them: that was Sofia’s decree. If they take communion under protest--burn them afterward. Lower jaws were wrenched open and the ‘true host’ stuffed down their throats. For fear of weakening, of accepting the sacrilegious element, they had sometimes set fire to themselves” (Solzhenitsyn 43).
It isn’t surprising that the Old Believers saw the establishment as the Antichrist. Sanya continued his musing by thinking “Maybe we trampled the finest of our race. Maybe there was no schism.”
From there the narrative moves to an attack on Tolstoy, which is right and proper to do. After the proper bashing of Tolstoy, the priest explains, quite correctly, that war is not the greatest evil. Tolstoy said abolishing the state, while entailing smaller evils, would get rid of the greatest of evils. This is not so. The state was created to protect us from violence (53).
War isn’t the vilest of evils. “An unjust trial, for instance, that scalds the outraged heart, is viler...Or the ordeal at the hands of a torturer. When you can neither cry out nor fight back….All these things are spiritually dirtier and more terrible than war” (53).
We choose not between war and evil, but peace and evil. War is just a specialized form of evil, limited in time and space.
Previous Knots
This part is complicated. He interrupts his narrative to explain some of the history that led to the problems. There was an initial attempt to liberalize (in the good sense of the word) land ownership and put decision-making back into the hands, if not of the people, then of heads of landowning-areas. The problem is that Russian liberalism, like all liberalism, found itself caught between traditionalism and communism (59).
Solzhenitsyn points out that the liberals, while not being revolutionaries, ran interference for them (until the moment the revolutionaries hanged them. Like weak Christians today, they engage left, punch right.
This leads to the Russian idea of the zemstvo. It is a “social union of a given district” (60). At its best it provided a social shield between the lower class and other classes. Tsar Aleksandr II sought to empower the zemstvos and give them more autonomy. This would have functioned as a pressure valve on society, allowing the legitimate criticisms of the monarchy, that it didn’t allow for representation, to find its voice in the land. As a result, “we might have had, with the monarchy intact, a self-governing society, ethical in complexion, and free of party politics.”
It was never to be. Later tsars considered zemstvo “networking” to be revolutionary activity, and so cut their own legs out from under themselves. The socialist outsiders soon moved in. Solzhenitsyn here introduces one of his heroes, Shipov. Shipov came up with a brilliant networking system that would have staved off socialism, if it were to be realized (69). Rural districts elect county “zemstvo assemblies,” which elect provincial assemblies, and the provinces an all-Russian assembly.
Can the Monarchy Hold?
The hero of the story is Vorotyntsev. I use the word advisedly. He is actually a terrible husband. He’s home from the front. Through him we see that the Germans weren’t so much the bad guys. Russia and Germany had more in common with each other than with England and France. Vorotyntsev knows the Tsar is incapable of correcting society, but it would be far worse to throw one’s lot with the forces of revolution.
We see the true genius in Solzhenitsyn’s writing in that he is capable of giving air-tight cases for and against monarchy.
Against the Monarchy
1) Tsar Nicholas allowed himself to get played by entering the war. The terms of the war were dictated to him by Britain and France (207).
2) Nicholas smarted from his defeat in the Japanese War, where he was perceived as not taking an active enough role. He decided to assume full command of the military in this war. That was a big mistake.
Nodal Point: The Russian army was defeated in the West in 1914-1915. “One of the most destructive consequences of our defeat in the West was the flood tide of refugees. The waters had risen and no governmental channel could control them” (220).
Another problem was Russia’s size and army: it was too big. It fought upon old Napoleonic principles. What was needed was “an army of crack troops” (278). Russia’s supply lines were unwieldy. She was still doing logistics for moving huge numbers of horses in a railway age.
Of all people a female history professor gives a moving defense of monarchy.
For the Monarchy
A female professor, Olda Andozerskaya, gives a most unprogressive defense of the monarchy. It’s romantic, far-fetched, but quite beautiful (and no worse than 2020, or 2016 or 2012 or 2008 or...you get the idea).
1) Monarchy does not mean stagnation. “A cautious approach to the new, a conservative sentiment, does not mean stagnation. A farsighted monarch carries out reforms--but only for those whose time is ripe. He does not go at it mindlessly, as some republican governments do, maneuvering so as not to lose power” (340).
2) An established line of succession saves a country from destructive rebellions. Political strife is reduced. We might respect a republican government because of Romans 13 (JBA), but we don’t actually respect it. We know they probably lied to get to office and even if they do fulfill their promises, it’s only to pay off a debt.
3) Persuading a monarch is no more difficult than a republican government. A republican government has to persuade the public, and that public is often at the mercy of ignorance, passion, and vested interest (341).
4) A monarchy doesn’t necessarily make slaves of the people. A commercial republic is just as likely to de-personalize them. Why is subordinating myself to a faceless electorate (e.g., Dominion voting machines and the unelected bureaucracy behind them) preferable to a monarch?
5) Solzhenitsyn faces the biggest objection to monarchy: what happens when you get an idiot? His answer is probably the best in the literature: “”The accident of birth is a vulnerable point, yes. But there are also lucky accidents. But a talented man at the head of a monarchy, what republic can compare? A monarch may be sublime, but a man elected by the majority will almost certainly be a mediocrity” (342).
Solzhenitsyn goes on to list that republican governments have their own Achilles'’ heels: ambitious politicians, a morass of red tape hampering reform, etc. And his interlocutor asks a very uncomfortable question: why should we suppose equality and freedom to be preferable to honor and dignity? Maybe they are, but we rarely hear arguments to the point.
Anytime a republican points out that monarchies make tyrants possible, the monarchist should reply that a republic is just as likely to descend into anarchy and civil war.
Alas, but nothing gold can stay. Andozerskaya is not a fair maiden. She has a morally tainted past. Solzhenitsyn is telling us that she, too, is an ideology. True, she is a better ideology than liberal democracy. She doesn’t have the body count of Marxism, but in the end she, too, will fail.
November 20, 2017
Earlier this year, preparatory to reading this novel, I read the post-exile version of August 1914, which I described as "a shapeless mess." This volume is slightly less of a mess, but is rather shapeless, and is hopeless as a novel. As with its predecessor, the Red Wheel version of August 1914, the book is part-documentary, part historical diatribe, almost entirely a lightly-disguised infodump, and very little novel. It is neither fish nor fowl, with beautiful passages amid pointless storytelling.
The book is a major disappointment, especially given that AS has been one of my favorite modern authors.
[I have only just learned that some anonymous donor has made it possible for the third and fourth Knots of The Red Wheel, to be translated into English. They are apparently even more bloated than this thousand-page whale, with the Third Knot being divided into four volumes, of which the first is nearly 700 pages. That alone should warn the reader that the author had lost all control of the project.]
Many of the characters of August 1914 reappear here, often with big gaps in their stories that don't quite get filled in. I suspect the author originally intended to have it start with Vorotnytsev at the front, and end with Vorotnytsev returning to the front, which would have given the thing some sort of shape. In fact, he doesn't appear until Chapter 12 (we get his wife in Moscow in Chapters 8, 9 and 11) and he bows out of the book several chapters before the end, but he's dithering at GHQ in Mogilev, not yet returned to his unit. The story wanders from character to character, bouncing all over Russia, then to Switzerland for Lenin, a few chapters about this one, a chapter about that one, lots of snapshots, but no connected narrative. Nothing seems balanced, and there seems to be little motion. There is a lot of betrayal, both political and sexual. (We get a chapter, almost at the end, which should be an important location, in which a character who has no other scene in this book gets out of bed, reluctantly, and goes down to the front door to get the newspapers, and then thinks about how he's addicted to the papers, but finds them empty. It makes a point, but not much of one, and not in any interesting way. Not to mention that it took me 20 minutes of combing through the tables of contents of two books to figure out who this guy was, anyway.) Hmmm.
As with the previous volume, AS keeps cramming in long history chapters (they're in a smaller font, and he half apologizes for them in his author note, admitting that they don't really belong in a novel, but he can't help himself), which are frankly annoying because the author's voice keeps breaking in to make wisecracks or accusations about the text the author has composed, or the quotes, but then he pretends to use the POV voice of a historical figure (or a party bias) to comment, and it's difficult to sort that all out. So, one can't really take it as history, because it isn't. But it isn't fiction; not of any kind that is supposed to engage a reader. Sometimes the style reminds me of Carlyle's The French Revolution, (and maybe that's its excuse for existing?) but that work wasn't pretending to be a novel. Hmmm.
The use of Point of View is very problematical throughout the book. Most of the book doesn't consist of scenes told "as they happen" but as memories in some character's head, given as a summary infodump. So, we get a paragraph in someone's mental voice, with their slant, followed by a paragraph from the narrator's POV, with the narrator's slant, then back, then back, and we often have to read a sentence or two to make out which is which, if we CAN make out which is which, and sometimes this allows AS to make clever commentary on the character's thoughts, but often it just creates muddle. The book is strongest (some of the Lenin sections being standout) when AS shuts up and gives us, for instance, Lenin rattling around in his own schismatic self, telling us all we need to know.
So, technically, this book is mostly an example I could point my students to of How Not To Execute POV. (With individual paragraphs that are shining examples of exactly how TO do it.) The dialogue is even worse. Frankly speaking, it's mostly pure bullshit. It's true that the book is set among political characters, but tons of the dialogue is just people speechifying at each other, in polished Duma speeches (and then we get big chunks of speeches from the Duma...), making their various arguments at length in a completely artificial manner. Scene after scene starts decently and then turns into speeches. And if they don't speak the speeches, they go over them in their heads. Infodump. Infodump. Infodump.
And then you get a simple, brilliant observation like: "Where the train had passed, the rails had a wet metallic gleam, ahead of it they were coated with white frost." And that puts you right in the scene. Until the next endless speech. And then you get exposed to the villagers' complaints about the towns, and why they will never like nor trust them, marvelously clear, but then we get speeches about that.
I'm very interested in the historical period, so I never got completely bored; but the little snatches of good novel (and there are hundreds of them in these thousand pages) kept reminding me how awful the rest of it really was. It doesn't help that AS seems to have convinced himself that "things really weren't all that bad" for Russia in WWI, and that the supposed causes of the Revolution weren't the millions of dead or the grinding poverty of 90% of the population, but Kadet propaganda, funded in part by the Germans. (Yes, the Germans did really fund subversion, but blaming Russia on the Germans is, well, stupid.) He seems to ignore his own evidence, and his own narrative.
You could get a good Master's Thesis out of Solzhenitsyn's Treatment of Women in November 1916, but for myself the book isn't worth the trouble to analyze that closely. It's a mess. It's a slog to read. I read it mostly out of duty, out of respect for an important writer. But now I think I'll stop, and leave the rest untouched. Life is too short.
The book is a major disappointment, especially given that AS has been one of my favorite modern authors.
[I have only just learned that some anonymous donor has made it possible for the third and fourth Knots of The Red Wheel, to be translated into English. They are apparently even more bloated than this thousand-page whale, with the Third Knot being divided into four volumes, of which the first is nearly 700 pages. That alone should warn the reader that the author had lost all control of the project.]
Many of the characters of August 1914 reappear here, often with big gaps in their stories that don't quite get filled in. I suspect the author originally intended to have it start with Vorotnytsev at the front, and end with Vorotnytsev returning to the front, which would have given the thing some sort of shape. In fact, he doesn't appear until Chapter 12 (we get his wife in Moscow in Chapters 8, 9 and 11) and he bows out of the book several chapters before the end, but he's dithering at GHQ in Mogilev, not yet returned to his unit. The story wanders from character to character, bouncing all over Russia, then to Switzerland for Lenin, a few chapters about this one, a chapter about that one, lots of snapshots, but no connected narrative. Nothing seems balanced, and there seems to be little motion. There is a lot of betrayal, both political and sexual. (We get a chapter, almost at the end, which should be an important location, in which a character who has no other scene in this book gets out of bed, reluctantly, and goes down to the front door to get the newspapers, and then thinks about how he's addicted to the papers, but finds them empty. It makes a point, but not much of one, and not in any interesting way. Not to mention that it took me 20 minutes of combing through the tables of contents of two books to figure out who this guy was, anyway.) Hmmm.
As with the previous volume, AS keeps cramming in long history chapters (they're in a smaller font, and he half apologizes for them in his author note, admitting that they don't really belong in a novel, but he can't help himself), which are frankly annoying because the author's voice keeps breaking in to make wisecracks or accusations about the text the author has composed, or the quotes, but then he pretends to use the POV voice of a historical figure (or a party bias) to comment, and it's difficult to sort that all out. So, one can't really take it as history, because it isn't. But it isn't fiction; not of any kind that is supposed to engage a reader. Sometimes the style reminds me of Carlyle's The French Revolution, (and maybe that's its excuse for existing?) but that work wasn't pretending to be a novel. Hmmm.
The use of Point of View is very problematical throughout the book. Most of the book doesn't consist of scenes told "as they happen" but as memories in some character's head, given as a summary infodump. So, we get a paragraph in someone's mental voice, with their slant, followed by a paragraph from the narrator's POV, with the narrator's slant, then back, then back, and we often have to read a sentence or two to make out which is which, if we CAN make out which is which, and sometimes this allows AS to make clever commentary on the character's thoughts, but often it just creates muddle. The book is strongest (some of the Lenin sections being standout) when AS shuts up and gives us, for instance, Lenin rattling around in his own schismatic self, telling us all we need to know.
So, technically, this book is mostly an example I could point my students to of How Not To Execute POV. (With individual paragraphs that are shining examples of exactly how TO do it.) The dialogue is even worse. Frankly speaking, it's mostly pure bullshit. It's true that the book is set among political characters, but tons of the dialogue is just people speechifying at each other, in polished Duma speeches (and then we get big chunks of speeches from the Duma...), making their various arguments at length in a completely artificial manner. Scene after scene starts decently and then turns into speeches. And if they don't speak the speeches, they go over them in their heads. Infodump. Infodump. Infodump.
And then you get a simple, brilliant observation like: "Where the train had passed, the rails had a wet metallic gleam, ahead of it they were coated with white frost." And that puts you right in the scene. Until the next endless speech. And then you get exposed to the villagers' complaints about the towns, and why they will never like nor trust them, marvelously clear, but then we get speeches about that.
I'm very interested in the historical period, so I never got completely bored; but the little snatches of good novel (and there are hundreds of them in these thousand pages) kept reminding me how awful the rest of it really was. It doesn't help that AS seems to have convinced himself that "things really weren't all that bad" for Russia in WWI, and that the supposed causes of the Revolution weren't the millions of dead or the grinding poverty of 90% of the population, but Kadet propaganda, funded in part by the Germans. (Yes, the Germans did really fund subversion, but blaming Russia on the Germans is, well, stupid.) He seems to ignore his own evidence, and his own narrative.
You could get a good Master's Thesis out of Solzhenitsyn's Treatment of Women in November 1916, but for myself the book isn't worth the trouble to analyze that closely. It's a mess. It's a slog to read. I read it mostly out of duty, out of respect for an important writer. But now I think I'll stop, and leave the rest untouched. Life is too short.
January 22, 2017
Solzhenitsyn is a great historian and 1916 is a political junkies book. Unlike 1914 which is more of a warriors history, 1916 looks at the politics of Russia and leaves the actual war to grind to a halt. If you are a political junky this one is for you. The research is meticulous and Solzhenitsyn's research is very mathematical. Not unusual since before Denisovich Solzhenitsyn was a mathematician. Unlike 1914 1916 has much better transitions. One is not dropped from one invigorating scene into a Kiev kitchen table and this makes 1916 much more readable. The history is dry and the fine print pages can be tedious but, if you stick with it an enjoyable read.
November 28, 2017
A masterpiece of literature that attempts to reconstruct the world of pre- Bolshevik Russia and somewhere in the processes finding an explanation of the causes, social and political. Thus a wide array of characters are presented (including transcripts from real historical figures like the Duma people and the Tsar's family) each with his point of view of the state, fate and solutions for saving Russia presented in a fair way. Through all this diffrent and conflictiong ideas, many times only partialy correct and all with a small part of confusion we have our main character, Vorotynsev, who's thoughts are clearly the authors judgment and reflect the knowledge of things past that the other characters do not have.
You are left wondering... Why no one understood the situation correctly and did no one acted... ?
You are left wondering... Why no one understood the situation correctly and did no one acted... ?
October 9, 2018
Kirjana aika väsyttävä mutta toisaalta ajatuksia herättä kuvaus siitä mihin johtaa kun yhteiskunta jakaantuu kahtia. Venäjän tapauksessa jako oli a) heikon tsaarin johtamaan autoritääriseen harvanvaltaan, jonka kannatus yhteiskunnassa oli hyvin alhainen, ja b) valtiovallan kokonaan hylkäävään kansalaisyhteiskuntaan.
Edellisen kykenevyys hallita heikkeni koko ajan kun lahjakkaimmat ministerit - kuten pääministeri Pjotr Stolypin - murhattiin.
Jälkimmäinen irtosi arjesta ja radkalisoitui. Kaikki poliittinen terrori koettiin jälkimmäisessä hedelmälliseksi ja radikaalein aines pääsi työväenliikkeessä henkiseen yliotteeseen. (Radikalisointuminen heijastui tietysti Suomeenkin ja loi perustan 1918 sisällissodalle.)
Seurauksena oli helvetti. Vaikka niin pitkälle kirjassa ei päästä. Aiheena on syksy 1916.
Edellisen kykenevyys hallita heikkeni koko ajan kun lahjakkaimmat ministerit - kuten pääministeri Pjotr Stolypin - murhattiin.
Jälkimmäinen irtosi arjesta ja radkalisoitui. Kaikki poliittinen terrori koettiin jälkimmäisessä hedelmälliseksi ja radikaalein aines pääsi työväenliikkeessä henkiseen yliotteeseen. (Radikalisointuminen heijastui tietysti Suomeenkin ja loi perustan 1918 sisällissodalle.)
Seurauksena oli helvetti. Vaikka niin pitkälle kirjassa ei päästä. Aiheena on syksy 1916.
August 14, 2024
An improvement in every way on the book. It feels more focused and in it there's this oppressive feeling of the war that keeps one there. It still is very much for people interested in the history, but that just so happens to be me :D
May 2, 2020
If you are interested in the past and future of Russia, November 1916: The Red Wheel: Knot II is a must read. But set aside significant time for this task -- it's hard work battling through these thousand pages.
This is the second volume of a still-unfinished multi-part work. The first volume, August 1914, was first published in English in 1972. This one came out in 1999. In between, the Soviet Union crumbled and our perspective on 20th century history totally changed as well. No longer was Communism vs. Capitalism the main theme. No longer was it presumed that the Soviet state was the natural, inevitable outcome of previous Russian history. Suddenly, other tendencies and themes from Russia's past, such as religion and nationality, emerged from the background and became important once again. The focus and tone of the new book reflect the new perspective. Solzhenitsyn's detailed analysis and fictionalized portrayal of the World War I era brings to the fore all the possibilities, tendencies, and diversity of the Russia that seemed to vanish with the Revolution and that has now resurfaced. It is as if Russia is now a country with an identity crisis -- if we are not Communists what are we? -- and this book seeks to resurrect an historical moment that had been largely forgotten and misrepresented when told by Communists and by anti-Communists, events and facts that were irrelevant to Communism but are very relevant today.
While technically this book is fiction, the heart of the story is, in fact, meticulously researched and exhaustively presented history. The central figure is a Colonel Vorotyntsev, who also figured prominently in August 1914. Much of the story is seen through his eyes, as he moves from the Eastern Front to Moscow and Petersburg, then to Russian military headquarters in Mogilev. He has his personal ambitions and concerns, his love life, his human weaknesses. But he is driven to understand what is happening to Russia and try to find out if and how he can intervene to save his nation.
There are literally hundreds of other characters, some historical and some meant as representatives of different tendencies and perspectives that were important at that time. But the real "hero" of the story is Russia itself, for Solzenitsyn seems far more interested in the fate of nations than in the fate of individuals. Repeatedly, his characters ponder what is the nature of national character? How does the character of the Russian nation differ from that of German, English, and other nations? What is it that holds a society together? What makes it all work for everyone's benefit, in peace and in war? While novelists typically place their main characters in crisis to test them and reveal their true nature, Solzhenitsyn picks the historical moment that places the Russian nation in crisis and tests it. In a sense, he is exploring the nature of man, in that each nation has a developing personality, like an individual, and each nation expresses different aspects of human possibility. But first and foremost, Russia is what matters to the author -- every spoken word and every characteristic incident that uncovers previously forgotten trends and possibilities, that might shed light on the nature and destiny of Russia needs to be dramatically presented and analyzed in context. In fact, this book seems to have no beginning and no ending -- it's all middle, with the texture of life and the trends of thought more important than the fate of any individual character.
Considering the monumental task that the author set for himself and the style of presentation that he has chosen, it is remarkable that this book works at all -- and it does, driven by his personal passion and the passion of his diverse characters, not just to understand the destiny of Russia, but also to influence it. For that is what makes this book stand apart from mere fiction or mere history -- Solzhenitsyn is a player, someone with the stature to be heard and respected by his countrymen, and someone with a sense of his own personal mission to redefine his nation, to give it new self-confidence and pride, to give it a new sense of identity and direction.
This is the second volume of a still-unfinished multi-part work. The first volume, August 1914, was first published in English in 1972. This one came out in 1999. In between, the Soviet Union crumbled and our perspective on 20th century history totally changed as well. No longer was Communism vs. Capitalism the main theme. No longer was it presumed that the Soviet state was the natural, inevitable outcome of previous Russian history. Suddenly, other tendencies and themes from Russia's past, such as religion and nationality, emerged from the background and became important once again. The focus and tone of the new book reflect the new perspective. Solzhenitsyn's detailed analysis and fictionalized portrayal of the World War I era brings to the fore all the possibilities, tendencies, and diversity of the Russia that seemed to vanish with the Revolution and that has now resurfaced. It is as if Russia is now a country with an identity crisis -- if we are not Communists what are we? -- and this book seeks to resurrect an historical moment that had been largely forgotten and misrepresented when told by Communists and by anti-Communists, events and facts that were irrelevant to Communism but are very relevant today.
While technically this book is fiction, the heart of the story is, in fact, meticulously researched and exhaustively presented history. The central figure is a Colonel Vorotyntsev, who also figured prominently in August 1914. Much of the story is seen through his eyes, as he moves from the Eastern Front to Moscow and Petersburg, then to Russian military headquarters in Mogilev. He has his personal ambitions and concerns, his love life, his human weaknesses. But he is driven to understand what is happening to Russia and try to find out if and how he can intervene to save his nation.
There are literally hundreds of other characters, some historical and some meant as representatives of different tendencies and perspectives that were important at that time. But the real "hero" of the story is Russia itself, for Solzenitsyn seems far more interested in the fate of nations than in the fate of individuals. Repeatedly, his characters ponder what is the nature of national character? How does the character of the Russian nation differ from that of German, English, and other nations? What is it that holds a society together? What makes it all work for everyone's benefit, in peace and in war? While novelists typically place their main characters in crisis to test them and reveal their true nature, Solzhenitsyn picks the historical moment that places the Russian nation in crisis and tests it. In a sense, he is exploring the nature of man, in that each nation has a developing personality, like an individual, and each nation expresses different aspects of human possibility. But first and foremost, Russia is what matters to the author -- every spoken word and every characteristic incident that uncovers previously forgotten trends and possibilities, that might shed light on the nature and destiny of Russia needs to be dramatically presented and analyzed in context. In fact, this book seems to have no beginning and no ending -- it's all middle, with the texture of life and the trends of thought more important than the fate of any individual character.
Considering the monumental task that the author set for himself and the style of presentation that he has chosen, it is remarkable that this book works at all -- and it does, driven by his personal passion and the passion of his diverse characters, not just to understand the destiny of Russia, but also to influence it. For that is what makes this book stand apart from mere fiction or mere history -- Solzhenitsyn is a player, someone with the stature to be heard and respected by his countrymen, and someone with a sense of his own personal mission to redefine his nation, to give it new self-confidence and pride, to give it a new sense of identity and direction.
November 17, 2014
I began this review at about page 750 of 1000-how this will rate below 5 stars based on what I have read so far is unfathomable. This book is EPIC, as in War and Peace epic-no, as in put War and Peace as almost childs play epic. This is even more so as one considers this as the 2nd part of a multi-part Red Wheel series. This is a book to be read with patience and endurance and as a hybrid between a "historical novel" and history from Solzhenitsyn's view. I found this volume easier to read in terms of the fiction compared to August 1914 with more history written into the first one. As of this review the remaining portions of the Red Wheel are not translated into English, but rumors suggest that they may be and may be occurring even now. Oh how I hope so.
Anyone with interests in "the great war" (WW1), the Russian revolution, Russian history or related topics will find much to love about this series. It still surprises me that more do not recognize what a writer Solzhenitsyn was. IMO greater than Tolstoy and an equal to Dostoevsky. This book leaves me wanting to read the last two "knots" in the series even more.
Last chapter was certainly non-resolving.
Anyone with interests in "the great war" (WW1), the Russian revolution, Russian history or related topics will find much to love about this series. It still surprises me that more do not recognize what a writer Solzhenitsyn was. IMO greater than Tolstoy and an equal to Dostoevsky. This book leaves me wanting to read the last two "knots" in the series even more.
Last chapter was certainly non-resolving.
December 1, 2016
Giving this a numbered rating is so trite. This book is so potent, so profound, that giving it three or four stars feels like shrugging it off.
Reading this was a lot of work. It took effort and discipline. But I was determined to read it for the centennial, and while I didn't love every moment, and had to physically battle my way through sections, finishing it gives me almost more satisfaction than anything else I've read this year.
Solzhenitsyn was a great voice of the 20th century. He was brilliant and insightful while at the same time poetic. Some parts of this, I couldn't tell you if it was Russia 1916 or America in 2016 -- it's just that timeless.
Beautiful and terrible. A piece of literature awesome not in the colloquial sense, but in the sense of overwhelming the reader that anyone could take on and complete such a project. I salute the translator as well; he had a gargantuan undertaking, and his work put Solzhenitsyn's work in my hands. Well done.
Reading this was a lot of work. It took effort and discipline. But I was determined to read it for the centennial, and while I didn't love every moment, and had to physically battle my way through sections, finishing it gives me almost more satisfaction than anything else I've read this year.
Solzhenitsyn was a great voice of the 20th century. He was brilliant and insightful while at the same time poetic. Some parts of this, I couldn't tell you if it was Russia 1916 or America in 2016 -- it's just that timeless.
Beautiful and terrible. A piece of literature awesome not in the colloquial sense, but in the sense of overwhelming the reader that anyone could take on and complete such a project. I salute the translator as well; he had a gargantuan undertaking, and his work put Solzhenitsyn's work in my hands. Well done.
December 12, 2011
Volume 2 of Sozhenitsyn's monumental trilogy about Russia on the Eve of the Revolution. Vaguely reminiscent in approach of Dos Passos' USA trilogy; Sozhenitsyn blends factual data from the contemporary political scene with fictional set pieces from the military and social events of the period. Fascinating, if perhaps overly long and a little confusing as far as the political parts are concerned -- the myriad of Russian names, many obscure (at least to me), frequent interchangeable use of the patronyms -- all in all, more than I wanted to know about the Duma and its activities. Still, it's a period about which I knew little, and Solzhenitsyn's characters are compelling. Recommended, if you can deal with the length of it.
November 21, 2016
Just as it felt right to read August 1914 in August of 2014, it felt right to read this one in this month. Another fascinating glimpse into the Russia of 1916, rotating views between fictional and real characters. Although I felt that some of the historical accounts dragged just a touch and sometimes the sheer volume would cause you to get to a person who you didn't remember, I thought the ending was absolutely sublime. I am disappointed that I won't be able to read the next two knots in their proper time, as they have yet to be translated into English. (I'll keep working on my Russian to read in the original- someday, someday)
October 13, 2014
Received as a Goodreads First Reads giveaway. Just beginning 12/12/14. Excited to delve back into Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn!! Review to come - won't be for a while :-)
March 12, 2024
Another historical tome exploring the diverse people and viewpoints surrounding the Russian Revolution. I enjoyed many of the characters and discussions, I find this time period fascinating.
However, I grew increasingly frustrated with some of the sexist overtones. The nature of this book is that the narration is heavily biased towards the characters' personal viewpoints, so one can argue that the sexist comments or general limiting attitude towards women is the result of characters' personal views being expressed in the narration... but with very few female characters this leads to a pretty biased tone overall.
My other complaint also has to do with bias. I found the sections with paraphrases of the Duma (the political representative discussions) to be very reminiscent of Dostoevsky's "A Writer's Diary". They were very interesting but interpolated with a very caustic sarcasm which worked at times but felt a little too heavy-handed at others. I think that Solzhenitsyn gets a little too carried away in his rebukes of the Left, but I am no Russian, I didn't live through any of this or experience the effects of it, so perhaps that's just my ignorance showing. Whenever he gives some credence to the desires of the Left were when things felt most believable in my opinion. It seems to me that they weren't complaining about nothing... when censorship (for a good cause!) is presented as something positive it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Overall, I enjoyed the writing, I think this time period is fascinating and though the amount of viewpoints could be a bit overwhelming, they help to convey the diversity of opinions on where the country should go.
However, I grew increasingly frustrated with some of the sexist overtones. The nature of this book is that the narration is heavily biased towards the characters' personal viewpoints, so one can argue that the sexist comments or general limiting attitude towards women is the result of characters' personal views being expressed in the narration... but with very few female characters this leads to a pretty biased tone overall.
My other complaint also has to do with bias. I found the sections with paraphrases of the Duma (the political representative discussions) to be very reminiscent of Dostoevsky's "A Writer's Diary". They were very interesting but interpolated with a very caustic sarcasm which worked at times but felt a little too heavy-handed at others. I think that Solzhenitsyn gets a little too carried away in his rebukes of the Left, but I am no Russian, I didn't live through any of this or experience the effects of it, so perhaps that's just my ignorance showing. Whenever he gives some credence to the desires of the Left were when things felt most believable in my opinion. It seems to me that they weren't complaining about nothing... when censorship (for a good cause!) is presented as something positive it makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Overall, I enjoyed the writing, I think this time period is fascinating and though the amount of viewpoints could be a bit overwhelming, they help to convey the diversity of opinions on where the country should go.
February 3, 2021
This novel brought me as close as I feel comfortable to get to tactical warfare nowadays. Nota bene: I only made it a little more than a quarter of the way through.
This means that Solzhenitsyn accurately depicted what happened as far as I could tell.
It's not for lack of trying to make sense of the morass on my part.
Look for yourself: I have been trying to read this book for such a long time now. I finally decided to give up since there are many more books out there vying for my attention.
You see, I kept up with this tale for this long because I also had some people from my undergrad university telling me about the various details depicted within.
War makes no sense - I found this just a mess to decode. I don't know why I liked the first book in this series better. My previous rather fangirly review of the first book I'm trying to understand now. It seems I was just high on caffeinated tea when I wrote it.
I don't have that book with me right now to rewrite it. Next time I'm at the library, I suppose.
I thought this book was a good story, the part I could stomach of it, anyway.
This means that Solzhenitsyn accurately depicted what happened as far as I could tell.
It's not for lack of trying to make sense of the morass on my part.
Look for yourself: I have been trying to read this book for such a long time now. I finally decided to give up since there are many more books out there vying for my attention.
You see, I kept up with this tale for this long because I also had some people from my undergrad university telling me about the various details depicted within.
War makes no sense - I found this just a mess to decode. I don't know why I liked the first book in this series better. My previous rather fangirly review of the first book I'm trying to understand now. It seems I was just high on caffeinated tea when I wrote it.
I don't have that book with me right now to rewrite it. Next time I'm at the library, I suppose.
I thought this book was a good story, the part I could stomach of it, anyway.
April 29, 2020
This is the second in a series. I've also read the first one, August 1914, and the third one, March 1917. They are all very long, around 1000 pages, so it might seem a daunting task to read them. But it is well worth it. The three books together tell the story of the historical background leading up to the Russian Revolution. Solzhenitsyn also tells the story of several different individuals, many of them historical figures, and a few, fictional characters. His writing style is cinematically vivid. In fact, part of March 1917 is written like a film script. He deserved the Nobel Prize in literature he won. I wish more people would take the time to read his books.
June 9, 2022
The mediocre rating is not because of the writing style or quality, as Solzhenitsyn is clearly exceptional as an author. It is because of the content, and distress of the time that harkens foreboding for the situation in Eastern Europe today (indeed it took such a time to read this book for want of the reminder of how it may go with their war at this time). I dread and look forward to reading the remainder of this series as it is translated (and as I have time, since they are quite lengthy works).
January 26, 2022
It’s a weighty book that can become tedious at times when it gets into the actual history of the time. This is the second of the red wheel series and they have, I think, given me some insight about Russia in that period of time. Being a baby boomer I have a lot of misconceptions about Russia and Russians in general. I think that I never really thought of them as people much like ourselves and these books along with my recent readings by Tolstoy have given me a much greater respect for them.
October 13, 2023
A very long work, but immersive. Like August 1914, this work has so many characters that it is off-putting. Stick with it because you’ll be engrossed in Russia during a hectic period where the fractured Duma resorts to demagoguery, the government is ready to fall, the regime is accused of treason, the Press is censored, the Army dispirited, inflation runs amuck and the society is on the verge of the Revolution in November, 1917. It parallels our current world.
September 25, 2021
This was almost 2 1/2 stars. It was a slog to get through. I usually like Solzhenitsyn’s work, but this was hard to get through and couldn’t wait to be finished with it. It was disjointed with historical facts and then the plot line. The main character, Vorotyntsev wasn’t very likable. There were some interesting parts for sure, but not worth the 1000 pages.
April 4, 2022
I bought this book and it's prequel (Aug 1914) years ago and finally read both of them. As historical fiction, it was a good read. With the current 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the story seemed to resonate even more to blur (project) fiction & fact in my mind.
June 25, 2022
Solzhenitsyn is one of my favorite authors. "November 1916" is an incredible book and confirms why I so much love Solzhenitsyn. For lovers of Russian Literature and History this book is a must read but start with "August 1914." These volumes are part of a series.
August 1, 2023
I respect the epic sweep here and also, there are some very compelling sequences and characters (fictional and non). But there is still a kind of synthesis between the two that isn’t *quite* achieved organically.
March 24, 2018
A somewhat rambling fictional account of the last months of Czarist Russia.
October 13, 2020
If you enjoy reading and find yourself with an abundance of time and thought about what the Russian Empire from 1914-1917 would be like as a soap opera - Drop everything and read this NOW!
Read
June 6, 2022..Incredible parallels that can be drawn with modern day Russia...not a pager turner, but nourishing and well translated.
Read
July 15, 2022Better than vol. 1. Tolstoyan both in its concentration on multiple individuals, as well as its emphasis of Christianity. Well written, but I don't think I shall continue.
Read
December 13, 2023Russian Revolution
This book, like the one preceding it, gave me a much better feeling and understanding of Russia before and during World War I
This book, like the one preceding it, gave me a much better feeling and understanding of Russia before and during World War I
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews