Ten Days that Shook the World, John Reed

[Cymru]

Just starting to read this book for a University Assignment due in a few weeks. Just a standard book review, nothing major, I'm curious as to what others think of the book and if anyone knows of any major points I should watch out for as I'm reading through it.

[ComradeOm]

Its good. Unfortunately its been so long since I've read the book that that's all I can remember. But it is very good. It manages to convey a real sense of the excitement and passion that must have been swirling around Petrograd those days... even if he does contrast them with the continued procession of everyday life. I can't remember if its Reed or another journalist that was having dinner in a restaurant when the waiter started boarding up the windows, explaining that the 'shooting was about to start'

That is something to remember though - Reed was a journalist and this is a work of journalism. So don't take it as history or anything. Conversely of course its also a work that crops up time and time again when studying the Revolution. I don't think I've read one secondary account of 1917 that didn't mention how Reed managed to waltz into the Winter Palace a few hours before the assault; interview a few defenders; and just as easily wander out again. He had a real knack for being the right place at the right time

Might want to note as well that Reed was hardly an impartial witness. He identified very strongly with the Soviet cause and this does come across in the text

[RED DAVE]

Lenin loved it.


With the greatest interest and with never slackening attention I read John Reed's book, Ten Days that Shook the World. Unreservedly do I recommend it to the workers of the world. Here is a book which I should like to see published in millions of copies and translated into all languages. It gives a truthful and most vivid exposition of the events so significant to the comprehension of what really is the Proletarian Revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. These problems are widely discussed, but before one can accept or reject these ideas, he must understand the full significance of his decision. John Reed's book will undoubtedly help to clear this question, which is the fundamental problem of the international labor movement.

V. LENIN. 
End of 1919http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Days_that_Shook_the_World

RED DAVE

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's been a while since I read it but I agree with ComradeOm and Lenin:lol:. It does a good job of conveying the sense of what it must have been like. It was one of the first books I read after I became a socialist and if you are not familiar with the revolution, I would recommend reading a general history of the Revolution first. I remember it being rewarding to read, but also a bit difficult to keep the Russian names and places straight.

Actually, I should re-read it sometime soon now that I'm more familiar with the history.

[RED DAVE]

Its good. Unfortunately its been so long since I've read the book that that's all I can remember. But it is very good. It manages to convey a real sense of the excitement and passion that must have been swirling around Petrograd those days... even if he does contrast them with the continued procession of everyday life. I can't remember if its Reed or another journalist that was having dinner in a restaurant when the waiter started boarding up the windows, explaining that the 'shooting was about to start'

That is something to remember though - Reed was a journalist and this is a work of journalism. So don't take it as history or anything. Conversely of course its also a work that crops up time and time again when studying the Revolution. I don't think I've read one secondary account of 1917 that didn't mention how Reed managed to waltz into the Winter Palace a few hours before the assault; interview a few defenders; and just as easily wander out again. He had a real knack for being the right place at the right time

Might want to note as well that Reed was hardly an impartial witness. He identified very strongly with the Soviet cause and this does come across in the textI get a strong sense of condescension towards the book here. What's the problem? All journalism is partisan. Reed was honest enough to be up front about it.

On a completely different note, in the film version, directed by Eisenstein, as it circulated in the US when I was younger, there were two important changes: The name of the movie was changed from "Ten Days That Shook the World" to "From Tsar to Lenin."

More important, when Lenin addresses the Congress of Soviets, in the Stalinized version he says, "Let us now begin to build socialism in Russian." In the original he says, "Let us now begin to construct the socialist order." Big difference.

RED DAVE

[Antifa94]

I only wish that john reed was in moscow rather than st.peterburg,because all the violence and action took place there...I found it somewhat anti-climactic.

[Communist]

.
Interesting Red Dave, I was unaware of the second title you mentioned. The film - a masterpiece - is on dvd in an excellent restored print and called "October". I am a silent film enthusiast and, of course, the early USSR movies are among my favorites.

.

[RED DAVE]

I only wish that john reed was in moscow rather than st.peterburg,because all the violence and action took place there...I found it somewhat anti-climactic.Comrade, the seat of government at the time was in Petrograd (the name of the city after the 1905 revolution). The "violence and action" that took place in and around Moscow was during the Civil War which followed the seizure of power in 1917.

RED DAVE

[x359594]

....I was unaware of the second title you mentioned. The film - a masterpiece - is on dvd in an excellent restored print and called "October"...

The second title Red Dave mentioned was for a re-titled release when the US distribution rights were acquired by a different company. The Russian title was Octobyr, and the first US release title was Ten Days That Shook the World to take advantage of Reed's book which was at the time the most popular account of the Revolution. By the way, there's a 1967 UK-USSR documentary with that title made on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Revolution. It was released by Granada Television in the West and is narrated by Orson Welles. It's not an adaptation of Reed's book.

Concerning Reed's book, the edition that I read was the restored text edited by Bertram Wolfe and published in the Vintage Russian Library. After the first edition appeared, the book was redacted and given footnotes by International Publishers after they acquired the copyright from Boni & Liveright to reflect the changing political landscape of the USSR.

[ComradeOm]

I get a strong sense of condescension towards the book here. What's the problem? All journalism is partisan. Reed was honest enough to be up front about itThat this is a work of partisan journalism is not a problem once you are aware that this is the case. Hence the disclaimer

[KurtFF8]

I think the book is excellent. It's interesting that it was banned under Stalin's rule for not portraying Stalin enough (at least I remember reading that somewhere, don't quote me on that).

I've lent my copy to a few anarchist friends of mine and even they enjoyed it quite a bit. It gives an excellent account of the revolution and in my opinion it demonstrates the popular support it had, not just a "coup"

[Madvillainy]

It's an excellent book and a very enjoyable read. But as ComradeOm points out we shouldn't take it as history or anything, Reed's book is a novelisation of the events.

[RED DAVE]

Ten Days That Shook the World (http://www.bartleby.com/79/)

online text

RED DAVE

[Cymru]

It's been a while since I read it but I agree with ComradeOm and Lenin:lol:. It does a good job of conveying the sense of what it must have been like. It was one of the first books I read after I became a socialist and if you are not familiar with the revolution, I would recommend reading a general history of the Revolution first. I remember it being rewarding to read, but also a bit difficult to keep the Russian names and places straight.

Actually, I should re-read it sometime soon now that I'm more familiar with the history.

I've been doing the Revolution all year, I've read far than enough I think :lol:

[Durruti's Ghost]

I wish my professor had assigned Reed for our end-of-the-year segment on the Russian Revolution. Instead, we're reading Figes. :(

[ComradeOm]

I wish my professor had assigned Reed for our end-of-the-year segment on the Russian Revolution. Instead, we're reading Figes. :(If you want an historical study of the Revolution then Figes, for all his faults, is infinitely superior to Reed

[Durruti's Ghost]

If you want an historical study of the Revolution then Figes, for all his faults, is infinitely superior to Reed

I suppose that's true, but his ideologically-driven assessments of the motivations of the Russian revolutionaries can get really annoying. Take for example his claim that when Lenin called for "All power to the Soviets!" he "did so in the knowledge that it would lead to chaos and thus strengthen the need to return to centralized management under the party's control." Though at least he acknowledges that "there is of course no proof of this."

I guess it's not that I would necessarily view Reed's book as a superior historical study that we should read instead of Figes; rather, I think that it would be best to use Reed (or any other Bolshevik historian) as a source to read alongside Figes and, preferably, some left-wing author critical of the Bolsheviks (Emma Goldman comes to mind). Instead, we're getting exactly one side of the story, and it's the side most popular with the current ruling elite.

[ComradeOm]

I suppose that's true, but his ideologically-driven assessments of the motivations of the Russian revolutionaries can get really annoying. Take for example his claim that when Lenin called for "All power to the Soviets!" he "did so in the knowledge that it would lead to chaos and thus strengthen the need to return to centralized management under the party's control." Though at least he acknowledges that "there is of course no proof of this."

I guess it's not that I would necessarily view Reed's book as a superior historical study that we should read instead of Figes; rather, I think that it would be best to use Reed (or any other Bolshevik historian) as a source to read alongside Figes and, preferably, some left-wing author critical of the Bolsheviks (Emma Goldman comes to mind). Instead, we're getting exactly one side of the story, and it's the side most popular with the current ruling elite.I don't like Figes and I think he wears his liberal biases terribly. He does however have the advantage over Reed of actually being a historian and presenting a work of history. A People's Tragedy is very flawed but it is also very detailed and covers close to thirty years of Russian history. Ten Days a journalistic work that is, as its name suggests, rather more condensed in its scope. The two cannot really be compared

I am of course in favour of a varied reading diet (see my sig for a few suggestions) but I am convinced that primary sources, like Reed or Goldman, should be used to supplement more comprehensive academic works. That the former might be more ideologically biased in your direct does not necessarily count in their favour

[A.R.Amistad]

John Reed is my true hero. Seriously, he is one revolutionary character whom I aspire to be like. I too, am currently reading "Ten Days that Shook the World." I think its a great book for anyone who is curious about what the Russian Revolution was really like, how revolutionary socialist theory and practice plays out, how the soviets were organized and worked, etc. But the only problem I have with it is that it literally gives me a headache! I don't necessarily mean this in a bad way. I think maybe Reed was just a little too good at capturing feelings and emotions in his writing. It seems like the week around the time of the October revolution was one where the soviets where rank with yelling, arguing, cheering and booing, caterwauling, etc. as it would make sense since it was a revolution. But every time I read the book I have to put it down because I feel like I just got done with a shouting match against a bunch of SRs and Cadets! But its an important book, especially for westerners who want to understand Marxist-Bolshevism. I also like the writings and charts that Reed includes in the back: it helps to demolish many myths by showing that the Bolsheviks really did have mass support from the toiling masses, and it also demolishes the myth that the Bolsheviks had some sort of racial cleanising program directed at the Cossaks.

[x359594]

...I am convinced that primary sources, like Reed or Goldman, should be used to supplement more comprehensive academic works...

Like you said, these are primary sources and as such they're the sort of material historians use when constructing their histories.

An old history of the revolution that I like is the one by William Henry Chamberlain published in 1932 and '33 in two volumes called simply The Russian Revolution. Chamberlain started gathering his data circa 1924 and had access to many participants and much written material no long extant, and each volume has an appendix of source material that's of great interest in and of itself.

Anyway, Reed's book is terrific journalism, no more and no less.

[RED DAVE]

I hope that everyone dropping in on the thread has seen Reds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds_%28film%29): the movie based on the lives of John Reed and Louise Bryant together, ncluding amazing scenes depicting the Russian Revolution. It's amazing.

RED DAVE