Child of the Revolution by Wolfgang Leonhard

Child of the Revolution by Wolfgang Leonhard became one of my favorite books ever. Probably the best memoir about life under communist regime.                              

Since early childhood, Wolfgang Leonhard was exposed to Marxist ideology. His mother was a member of communist party, and introduced her son to the system. After they escaped to Soviet Russia, she became victim of Stalin’s purge and was sentenced to 12 years forced labor.

After his mother had been sent to the gulag, Leonhard joined one of the Soviet schools. He caught attention of The Party and was selected for the fast- track training. Consequently, he became a member of the Soviet intelligentsia. He then came back to East- Germany with the ''Ulbricht group'' to pave the way for communist state. When he finally realized that he did not want to play his part in bringing Eastern Europe under Stalinist control, he escaped to Yugoslavia and then to West Germany. He became an academic and worked at Yale University.

Although the system took his mother from him, he still was blindly believing in the rightness of the system. On one hand, he was suffering, on the other he believed that was the way it should be because the communist system could not be wrong. Individual lives could not compromise the communists’ vision for the world order.

Leonhard offers deeply- informed account of every facet of life under communist regime. The book is a vivid picture of evolution of Marxist ideology, rules of Soviet communism, indoctrination and political blindness. Despite manipulation, brainwashing and omnipresent fear, Leonhard was able to break up with Stalinism and to choose his own vision of socialism.

I would recommend this book to everyone who is interested in history and communism. This highly informative book not only gives insight into life under communist regime but also shows the mechanism of political indoctrination in general. I wish The Child of Revolution received more coverage because it truly deserves it.

Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg- Huge Disappointment

I am always skeptical about books written by celebrities. Usually, I do not buy books which became bestsellers because of author’s well-known name and expensive promotion campaign rather than its value. Lean In is another book proving my theory. It was good decision to borrow it from company library rather than to buy it. Big disappointment…                                   

Lean In is about need for social and structural changes to fights against inequality between men and women in a workplace. Sheryl Sandberg tells women to change their behavior and to believe in themselves, if they want to succeed in their professional life.

While Lean In is very readable book and includes references to many important studies on women in work market, it has serious flaws and does not deserve the praise it gets. Despite Sandberg’s position, experience and knowledge she did not succeed with this publication. What she offers is self-gratification and call for social and structural changes without suggestions how to introduce them. She created a long list of “we should”, “we must”, “we can” without explaining how to change people’s behaviors. I guess many of us have long list of should- be- done things, but we do not become best-selling authors. Sandberg became one because of her celebrity status. I could not believe when I was reading review of Lean In in one of “reputable” newspapers; the author was praising Sandberg like she was a writer of the decade!

She graduated from Harvard, worked for American government, then for Google, and currently she is a chief operating officer of Facebook. She says she wants to transform the role of women in the workplace. With all due respect, what does she know about situation of average woman in the workplace? Does she have any idea what life looks like when you are not graduated from Harvard, you do not have millions on your bank account, and you do not work for Google Schmoogle or Facebook? There is a huge rift between her, the privileged and rich, and women around the world who need to fight like lions to succeed in their lives. Sandberg reveals that she got admitted to Harvard not because of her intellect but personality. Well, maybe her personality made her successful at Harvard but it did not help her to write avaluable book.

For me, Lean In is about Sandberg’s privileged and fabulous life, perfect husband, and prestigious companies she have worked for. She did not meet my expectations, she was not even close to that. How she wants to change the workplace for women, while she is unable to offer any practical advice for working women? Sure we “should”, “must” and “can” a lot but the question is how to do this???

What really surprised me is that she never mentioned how she became such a successful woman. When I was reading the book I was thinking that her life was so easy: she got to Harvard, then worked for government, Google and Facebook. Why she did tell us about her struggle? What was her way to do all of this? Or, maybe it is all about being privileged. You get everything so easily and then you cannot even explain your fight because there wasn’t any fight actually. Maybe that is why the book lacks of depth; it is just simply superficial.

I believe she has good intentions and vision of change but she does not have the slightest idea how to introduce the social and structural changes into life.

I want Sandberg to consider all reviews and comments and rewrite the book after few years. If she really wants to transform workplace for women so instead of making long list of wishes, she should propose the solutions. So many women admire and respect her, she should not disappoint them.

And a few words as a conclusion. What is really annoying is that there are so many female writers who actually have something important to say and they do not get enough attention. We live in the world of celebrities, where nobody cares about those who are wise and smart. People cherish what is shallow and what doesn’t have any value. Actually, it is not annoying, it is pathetic.

Gypsy Boy by Mikey Walsh

I have hesitated to write about this book for a very long time… Talking about a child relentlessly abused is the hardest thing to do.       

Mikey Wash is a Gypsy boy, living in a closeted community. He barely knows world outside the caravan camp and people other than Gypsies. Since he can remember he has been beaten by his father every single day. He has been beaten because he could not fight like other Gypsy boys, he wet the bed or…he dared to live. When Mikey’s mother tries to defend him, she is beaten too. Father is not the only one that abuses Mikey, pedophile uncle makes child's life even more miserable. 

When Mikey realizes that he is gay he does not want to be a part of the community and keep secrets anymore. The only way is to escape…

I suppose that every racist and bigot would use The Gypsy Boy to support their arguments against Gypsies communities. Indeed, the book is pandering all the stereotypes regarding Gypsies: child and women abuse, lack of education, earning money in illegal way etc. In other words, the book focuses only on negative aspects of life in Gypsy community. Moreover, while Gypsies know very well what it means to be discriminated and rejected, they are racists themselves against Georgians and Irish Travelers. Nobody can deny that racism and discrimination against Gypsies do not exist and that they are not regarded as social outcasts. However, it is also true that Gypsies live as they please and do nothing to improve their conditions and make their children’s lives better.

Mikey’s story is heartbreaking and devastating. You attach to the boy very quickly, he makes you part of his small but terrifying world through honest and detailed description of what he went through. Cruelty of his father could not break him tough. He always was good, lovely and funny child.  I was reading Gypsy Boy in the mornings on the way to work. Then, during a day I was unable to not focus on my job! I was thinking only about Mikey and what he was going through. I could not get rid of the picture of his father beating him every single day! Some people might ask why he did not escape earlier, why he stayed for so long. When you are a part of closed community, escaping is very hard. If you know only that small group of people, you do not know outside world, and you do not have place to go, your choices are very limited. And, his father made him believe he was nothing!

One might argue that Mikey’s father was violent because he was Gypsy and all Gypsies are the same. I would say that somebody is violent because he chooses to be this way. He beats his child or wife not because he is Gypsy but simply because he is evil. Even in so- called best families abuse and bullying happen. Somebody can be well- educated, having good job, but still can be violent toward others.

I am surprised that author did not try to make people understand Gypsy community better. He focused on violence issue only. I would like to read more about Gypsy history and the way they live. Author gave some insight into customs and traditions though. In my opinion, it is not enough.

Nevertheless, I think that it is important read because this is one of the few book about Gypsies. It is hard to find other books written from insider’s perspective. Moreover, even in academia you cannot find enough research on Gypsy community. As though nobody thinks Gypsies are worth to write about them…

Chris, Hitch or Christopher Hitchens

I would like to dedicate my first post to the memoir of Christopher Hitchens, one of the most influential public intellectuals known for his wit, style and erudition.

Hitch-22, is a memoir of citizen of both the UK and the USA, a socialist opposed to the war in Vietnam and a supporter of the US war in Iraq, an ardent atheist raised as a Christian, a war correspondent,  a literature lover with thirst for booze, friend of those admired and those disliked… Chris, Hitch or Christopher Hitchens.

Without a doubt, Hitchens was a prolific and colourful writer. In a candid way, he detailed his childhood and relations with parents. Certainly, the most dramatic and heart- breaking experience in his life was the suicide of his mother, Yvonne, to whom he devoted first chapter. He gave insight into, sometimes very cruel, life in boarding school and reminded first affection to another man. In a beautiful way, he described how his identity, or rather identities, changed over the years. He dedicated some chapters to the people who had special place in his life, such as Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie or Edward Said. Furthermore, he did not disappoint with articulate description of turning point events of the last few decades. Hitchens would not be himself if he did not include his unchangeable views on religion. What is more, at the end of the book he evoked discovering his Jewish identity.

Several elements make this memoir truly interesting and amusing piece. First, it is not a simple memoir; it is a book about modern history describing revolutions and wars. With Hitchens, you go to Cuba, Prague, Poland, 11/9 New York, Iraq under dictatorship of Saddam Hussain and many other places. That is to say, you get a lesson from a person who was a witness of events that changed the history. Next, Hitchens portrayed those who he admired and those who he despised.  In fact, his life was so fascinating and inspiring because of people he had a chance to meet. He interviewed dictators and he was a friend with great authors.  Finally, what stole my heart was his deep admiration for the literature. You need to be really well- read to try to understand Hitchens.

I really appreciate Hitchens for the part that he devoted to Salman Rushdie. Hitchens criticised journalists, scholars and the Left, who instead of attacking Ayatollah attacked Rushdie.  As he put it ‘It seemed that the assassins were winning without a fight, and those who should be defending the citadel were weeping and scattering before they had even heard a shot or felt a wound’. What Hitchens highlighted was the fact that the same multiculturalism that brought Rushdie and other distinguish figures to the West, bases on moral relativism and moral blackmail and is uniculturalism now. He stated it clearly that the modern relativism promoted by some groups, excuses terrorism, violence, and religious fanatism.

A few people would wish to get into argument with Hitchens and not feel foolish at the end of it. I think this memoir shows the biggest debate of Hitchens, a debate with himself. Some critics condemn him for his conversion from the Left to the Right. In my opinion, this book demonstrates fascinating process of transformation of views and believes, which is inseparable part of people’ lives.  What I truly admire is a very open way that Hitchens talked about good and bad choices in his life. He always was a man of multiple identities. In fact, through whole his life he was trying to learn who he really was. Interestingly enough, after so many years he found out about his Jewish roots, which led him to Poland. While he admitted his political change of heart, his atheism never shifted. He had strongly and clearly manifested his unchangeable attitudes to religion even in the last interviews before he passed away. One of the reason for his detest of the religion was a tendency of religious people to believe that the universe is designed with ‘you’ in mind, or that there is a divine plan into which one fits whether one knows it or not.

Nevertheless, Hitchens disappoints with his endless and effortless defense of 2003 Iraq war. Actually, it is quite surprising that such a brilliant man, with very sober and logical approach to any aspect of life and politics was so stubborn in justifying the war.

And that memorable visit in brother house in New York with Martin Amis… What strikes me was his attitude to the women working there. A man who fought against injustice around the world, who promoted empowerment of women, described women in brothel house as ‘cynical little witches’. Frankly speaking, Hitchens disappointed me so much…

Those who expect hot details of his intimate life will be deeply dissatisfied. Hitchens did not want readers to know anything about the relationship with his wife. He never said anything about falling in love, in the first place.

Let me recall messages that Hitchens included in his memoir: Margaret Thatcher was a kind of sexy, while Marxism was good Communism not necessarily, life in boarding school can be brutal, Mother Teresa was not as good person as people believe she was, do not drink alcohol on an empty stomach, we learn whole life who we really are, true friends are always there for you, sometimes you need to be a fox.

The best summary of Hitch-22 would be Christopher Hitchens’s motto: ’Get on with your own work, and behave as if you were immortal’.