No comments about Moscow Travel Reference Map.

No comments about Russia and Iran in the Great Game: Travelogues and Orientalism (Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Historyá).

1 comments about Moscow City Map by ITMB.

1. The map is great! Finally, I can place where hotels, historic sites, etc. are from the Kremlin - and especially place my compass points into a perspective.
   
   It would have been nice to have a bit more detail on where river boats dock, etc. However, the tips are concise and to the point.

No comments about Russia Political Map by Cartographia (Michelin National Maps).

No comments about Tropical Islands 2009 Calendar.

3 comments about Motherland.

1. A friend sent me a copy of "Motherland" as a gift, knowing that I had spent eight years in Russia prior to returning to a more predictable, "normal" (boring) suburban American life two years ago. I have not been back to Russia, since, though my wife is Russian, and two of our children were born there. As time passes, memories of the Russia I became a part of begin to fade; images of the people I met and places I visited begin to blur. But what time and a failing memory have taken away, Simon Roberts' "Motherland" has helped to restore.
   
   Russia is not as tragic or desparate as the nightly news would have us believe, and much of what Roberts in his travels with his wife has managed to capture is the softer, more human side of the country that would simply never make the editor's cut. While some of his photographs do capture the desparation of a country in painful, often violent transition, he also uncovers the hope and dignity of the people they encountered on their journey. The honesty he is able to coax from his subjects and onto the page is very unusual. What passes for ordinary or every-day in Russia is what for me in many ways is the real Russia, and Roberts manages masterly to capture the true essence of the country, with all its warts and beauty.
   
   Roberts and his wife spent a year traveling throughout the vast country, riding trains, mixing with locals, and going to places that ordinary tourists - or even those of us who spent most of our time in the expatriate ghetto of Moscow - would never dream of venturing. In the process, they seem to have come away with an intimate understanding - and empathy - for the people and places that make up "the other" 99% of the country. Roberts' photographs seem to be taken from the inside looking out, not the other way around. In the process, he has, for me, captured in this book the essence of what is so often referred to as the "Russian soul." It's what I miss the most.



2. This a beautiful and evocative book. The photographer really got all over the country and he really caught the essence of the Russian people. Every image is stunning and tells a story.
   
   It's got a permanent (and prominent) place on my coffee table!



3. Motherland is a fascinating insight into Russian life and people. As someone who has never been to Russia, I was particularly impressed with Roberts' accessible and open style, which allowed me to experience the surprising diversity and beauty of Russia from the comfort of home. I know that Roberts and his wife spent a year traveling across this enormous territory and their knowledge, sympathy and regard for the country really shines through. The photographs are sensitive but unsentimental, honest but never critical. For me, Roberts' Motherland opened a door onto another world; I haven't seen a better photographic representation of contemporary Russia.

5 comments about Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel.

1. One of two aspects of Mr. Zimmerman's book that most reviewers seem to have missed is his recounting of the many errors, problems, and dilemmas, large and small, trivial and hazardous, that the cosmonauts encountered. Mysteriously missing antennae, fogged-over helmet visors, balky space ship hatches and no power are just some of the hardships that had to be surmounted.

   Another aspect of the book is the recounting of the many personality conflicts between the cosmonauts. Grueling work schedules, close quarters, and differing backgrounds of the cosmonauts drove wedges between the crew members. Oftentimes they would just stop speaking to each other. Other times, the crew member with the higher ranking would pull rank in the most inconsiderate manner.

   I found the examination of these weaknesses (structural and psychological) to be fascinating. They brought a human element to the book and made it a very interesting recounting. The same holds true for the examination of how politics, economics, and the fall of the Soviet government changed the Russian space program.

   I highly recommend this enjoyable and informative book




2. Every page of this interesting book is packed with details of the evolution of the Russian manned space program. It is very well researched and Robert Zimmerman does an excellent job describing the interaction between on-the-ground politics and space science. The stories of life, survival and endurance on the space stations is facinating. This book is a must read for anyone who is interested in the history of man's quest for conquering the many problems of surviving in the harsh space environment.



3. Robert Zimmerman, space historian and enthusiast, combines a love of technical issues with extensive background research in this account of the nine space stations flown so far by the Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States. As the full title suggests, Zimmerman sees an important rarely stated purpose for the stations: learning how to maintain, operate, and work within vessels that closely resemble those that will first carry humans between the planets.
   
   This detailed historical account of space station development is a powerful demonstration of how people have learned critical skills for living in space through repeated failure of almost every imaginable variety.
   
   Today we remember Mir and Skylab, but the early Soviet Salyut stations were where much of the real learning happened. Fires, propellant leaks, repeated docking failures and failures in all sorts of science experiments (particularly attempts at plant growth) characterize much of the early history. Failures in crew relationships were at least as frequent - some crews (generally 2 men for the Salyuts) got along famously, but others quickly got on one another's nerves and bitterly endured through months of orbital isolation.
   
   Human failure is here too - the toothaches, infections and heart problems of normal life, and then also the worrying problem of loss of bone mass - up to 2 percent a month, in zero gravity. And political failure, which showed up in relationships with ground controllers who seemed to cease caring, in later years, about what were very serious problems in orbit.
   
   The first failures were docking problems, and sadly, the loss of three cosmonauts. Brezhnev gave the go-ahead to the Salyut program apparently to improve international public relations for the Soviet Union, and so missions were much more public than they had been in the past. Soyuz 10, the first mission to Salyut 1, failed in attempts to dock, and had to return. Soyuz 11, carrying a last-minute crew, successfully docked, and was met by the smell of burning insulation when they opened the hatch. At least half the equipment they'd been asked to work with didn't work
   as planned in zero gravity. The three men spent three weeks on the station, dealt with another electrical fire, broadcast to the world from orbit, and managed to magnify a few personality conflicts along the way. And then, in their descent module shortly after leaving the station, a pressure equalization valve opened, and, despite their best efforts, they were dead in minutes.
   
   The US Skylab came next, and it too started in failure - the last launch of a Saturn V rocket - during launch part of the meteor/heat shield was ripped away, destroying one solar panel and tangling another so it could not open, and exposing the workshop enclosure to direct sunlight, raising its temperature to as high as 130 degrees (F). Skylab's first crew, launched 10 days later, managed to fix essentially all the problems (except for the lost solar panel) through ingenuity and hard work.
   
   Follow-on crews learned a lot about living in space - but ironically, the science experiments approved did not include any of the plant-growth experiments the Soviets were so keen on - growing plants in zero gravity was not something US scientists were funded to study, despite the apparent usefulness for long-term living in space.
   
   The Soviet Salyut stations followed one after another; the first really successful one, as described by Zimmerman, being Salyut 6, launched in 1977. They had learned a lot from earlier failures and experiences, and now had a station that could sustain itself for long periods in orbit, with human assistance. Salyut 6 had a fire too - these early experiences with fires in space explain why the later fire on Mir was much more frightening to the American on board, than to the Russians. Salyut 7, which was still orbiting when Mir's first pieces launched in 1986, suffered a very severe propellant leak that nearly disabled the station; a later crew ripped open the outer shell of the station to get at the various bits of tubing they needed to test and replace, and managed to make the repairs needed over a series of space walks
   that amounted to more than all previous Soviet space walks combined.
   
   The Russians had learned how to deal with problems in space, how to fix them with their own ingenuity. Since Salyut 1 they have not lost a single person, not even had any severe injuries. There had certainly been some very close calls - the fire on Mir and the later collision of a Progress freighter with the station could have been very serious. But somehow they managed, through luck and ingenuity, to keep things working. As Zimmerman puts it, the station had proved that the technology for going to other planets was available, and buildable. "Provide human beings with the necessary tools and supplies and they can go anywhere."
   
   The Soviet space program had become, in the new Russia, independent and profit-oriented - driving hard bargains and keeping a technology edge. In the US, in contrast, things had become very rigid, bureaucratic, and "focusless". In Zimmerman's phrase, the two "ships passed in the night": America's efforts in space now resemble those of the early Soviet Union; astronauts have little freedom to do their own things, with everything prescribed down to the minute. No room for learning, or ingenuity among those who are actually experiencing spaceflight firsthand. Problems and risks are ignored or downplayed by the bureaucracy. Commonsense is thrown out the window. And tourists like Dennis Tito are seen as threats, not vindication.
   
   One of the strengths of Zimmerman's book is the focus on the people - but this also leads to many somewhat formulaic biographies of many cosmonauts and figures such as Boris Yeltsin. The psychological interactions among the different crews are certainly interesting, as are all the wonderful historical details Zimmerman has dug up. A great book for space history buffs, and anybody interested in the experiences of the first to practice what we'll need to do to travel between the planets.



4. Zimmerman's book is the detailed story of the first space stations. Anyone interested in manned spaceflight should
   read it. My criticisms would be of two sorts; First, he speculates too much about the politics behind the decisions. I especially object to the all too american right-wing bias in his judgements. Secondly, he fails to make connections with the concurrent unmanned space research. "Exploration" is not humans going places and doing sightseeing. Exploration is doing science and doing science is more about unmanned spaceflight.



5. This book was quite interesting and eye-opening in many ways. I have to agree with one of the back-cover reviews that many Americans, even ones very familiar with NASA and western space activities, don't know much about all that the Russians have been doing in space since the 1970's. At least that applied well to me.
   
   The overall focus is on space station research since the 1970's, which necessarily centers on the Soviets/Russians, esp. the Salyuts and Mir. The account is fascinating, detailing crew working relationships and personality conflicts, medical research on long-term zero-G flights, space greenhouses and biology experiments, and many, many instances where cosmonauts and ground controllers had to improvise repairs to keep things working. It's a survey account, and a good jumping-off point to get into this subject more deeply. The bibliography has some very good references here.
   
   I also enjoyed very much the author's focus on using space station research as a means towards preparation for interplanetary flight. That's an angle you don't hear much. (Though I don't believe he addressed the question: If you're studying bone less etc so much, then why don't you also study the possibility of artifical gravity through rotating stations?)
   
   There were a couple criticisms. Photographs would have been nice, and the diagrams could have been labelled better. The author tends to romanticize and not really express the gravity of some Russian near-catastrophes in space. He presents a fairly one-sided view of ISS, though his points are well taken about NASA's over-control and bureaucratic tendencies.
   
   Overall though, I enjoyed very much the spirit of the book. The focus was on using Space Station research to learn how to live and work in space and for possible missions of the future, rather than as a jobs program. The Russians are shown as being inventive and clever, conducting solid research and solving multiple problems with limited resources. There are some very nice passages about what it's like to experience space, especially seeing the universe when out on spacewalks. It gets one thinking about what might be accomplished in the years ahead, given a similar attitude.

5 comments about Lonely Planet st Petersburg (Lonely Planet St Petersburg).

1. As the founder of a company devoted to enriching cultural and business travel to Russia, we are always looking for a good, general guidebook for clients. "Lonely Planet St. Petersburg " details several sights and museums not covered in many other guidebooks, such as the GUVD Museum and a guide to the little-visited southern St. Petersburg (which was to have been the new city center after the Siege of Leningrad). The history and art sections are also strong for a guide book. The entertainment, bar, restaurant and hotel suggestions are comprehensive (as far as quantity, quality and general pricing range, although the pricing itself is not accurate).
   
   One annoyance is that there are no Cyrillic displays of a sight's name (or even transliterations into Latin script), which means that you are likely to miss a sign right in front of you for, for instance, the Toy Museum.
   
   Note, however, that we always tell clients and other visitors to Russia that you should get the most current guidebook, as attractions, hotels, restaurants and transportation options do often change--AND THEN VERIFY THE INFORMATION! All in all, we recommend "Lonely Planet St. Petersburg " as a good guidebook to bring if you are staying more than a few days, or if you want comprehensive entertainment and restaurant listings before departing for your journey of Discovering Russia's second city, St. Petersburg.
   
   Marc David Miller, Discovering Russia, New York



2. I just returned from St. Petersburg. The Lonley Planet guide was amazingly helpful. This little pocket sized book contains virtually everything one needs to navigate the city, find hotels, restaurants, visit the important and novel sites, and gain a perspective on the city's history.

   There is also a section on language and phrases as well as easy to follow maps of the subway. If you go, I also recommend a companion purchase, Lonley Planet's map of St. Petersburg. It is laminated and fits easily into one's coat pocket.




3. This is the guide to use for Moscow. The beautifully illustrated contents include self guided tours that are so easy to follow you will feel like you were born there. BUY IT!!



4. the book is really informative.
   the only downfall is the russian pronunciation. as i am a russian language major, i can personally say there is definitely a better way to write out a lot of the words.



5. Lonely Planet does a good job but this is the 2002 edition. go for the new edition

5 comments about In Wonderland.

1. The publisher calls this a "loving portrait of the people and culture of Russia." Hamsun's anti-Semitism, though, leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It is more evident here than in any of his other writings.
   
   I'll give a few examples. I translate directly from my own Norwegian edition of the book:
   
   "Two Jewish ladies, apparently mother and daughter, complain to the waiter that their napkins are not clean. Other napkins are brought to them on a plate, but neither do these seem clean to them, and they must have new napkins for a third time. Then they wipe glass, knife, and fork before they use them. Their fingers are fat and dark, covered with jeweled rings. Then they eat. They are obviously very rich, and they sit and act so fine with their thick fingers. When they've eaten, they demand water bowls and wash their hands. It is as though they do this every day at home when they eat with their Abraham or Nathan. Then each takes her toothpick and cleans her teeth with it, while she covers the toothpick with her other hand as she has no doubt seen other fine folk in Batum do."
   
   "I thank the officer. He's a fat, slightly older man with strangely foppish manners. He speaks many languages loudly and boldly, but incorrectly. His face is unpleasant, Jewish [ubehageligt, jødisk]."
   
   "One hears singing from the Armenian Jews farther back in the car. It's a really fat old Jew [en rigtig fed gammel Jøde] and that fat eunuch who are singing a kind of call and response song. The unseemly behavior goes on forever, for two hours. Now and then they both laugh at what they've sung, then begin again with their monotonous song. The eunuch's voice is more a bird's than a person's voice."
   
   "He was a swindler, a Jew who tried to blackmail me."
   
   "A Jew can swindle ten Greeks."
   
   Lyngstad's translation is fine. He doesn't hide anything. All of the passages that I've translated here appear in Lyngstad's translation. Perhaps he softens Hamsun's ugly racism here and there. Take Hamsun's description of the Jewish ladies at table. Hamsun wrote:
   
   "De sidder og bærer sig saa fint ad med deres tykke Fingre."
   
   Lyngstad translates this:
   
   "They use their thick fingers so daintily."
   
   My translation is closer to the original and suggests, as I think Hamsun meant to suggest, that these women are not at all fine. They are merely aping their betters.
   
   It's interesting that Hamsun describes in this book his encounter with a Jewish peddler who attempts to sell him a cheap and useless watch that has one special feature that makes it valuable -- "there is a highly obscene picture in there. The picture seems to amuse him. He lays his head to one side and looks at it." I find the incident interesting because Hamsun resurrects the Jewish peddler of cheap watches ("klokkejøden" -- really a swindler) in Landstrykkere (Vagabonds), one of his better novels.
   
   This book (In Wonderland) should be of interest primarily to Hamsun enthusiasts who may not know about the writer's anti-Semitism. In his preface, editor Lyngstad acknowledges "the prejudiced and reactionary attitudes displayed in certain passages of the book." He points to Hamsun's "racial and other slurs on Jews." One has to take Hamsun as he is. Those interested in Hamsun as a stylist would be better off reading the novels -- Pan, in particular. Those interested in the Caucasus can no doubt find better books on the subject. Those interested in Hamsun as flawed human being should read this book.



2. This means you, "Gill Doyle". You are an idiot.
   
   Hamsun's "In Wonderland" is not an anti-Semetic diatribe. The tired old charge of Hamsun's "collaborationism" during WWII has been discussed to death and has been proven to be a red herring. Drop it, please.
   
   Nothing to add, review wise. It's a damned fine read, although something of an afterthought in the Hamsun canon. Be sure to read the more famous works, and come back to this as a completist, if thou art so inclined.



3. This is a travel journal of Knut Hamsun and his first wife from their trip to the Caucasus. The book begins in St. Petersburg, and details their journey by both train and horse-carriage towards Asia and Persia. The book captivated me totally, and I felt I saw the world of a hundred years ago through the words of Hamsun. As in all his books, he includes surrealistic episodes and warm humour from his small encounters with various characters and situations. He made me laugh several times, and it was wonderful to read about the different cultures and races he meets. He has a unique Germanic Norwegian view of things, and it's very interesting to follow his train of thought around what he witnesses. It's also a bit more of a political book than his other early novels, but I enjoyed that. As one of the few "right-wing" anti-modern conservative Norwegian authors, for once this fact really shines through in the text. I enjoyed his various racial descriptions, and for once his anti-Zionism is open. It's strange to think about that a famous author only 100 years ago could write so openly about this issue, compared to today's censured intellectual climate. A lovely light read, that makes you get to know Hamsun as a person even better. Highly recommended!
   
   (I read a different edition)



4. I have read a number of books by Knut Hamsun who is certainly an interesting writer. Recently I read several accounts of his travels in America where he freely expressed his opinions of the USA and various aspects of its' culture circa the 1880's. He has a keen sense of observation and a unique perspective of his fellow man. This is true in his book "In Wonderland" where he details an account of his travels in Russia just before the turn of the previous century. He details a lot of interesting observations from food to ethnic groups to travel accommodations. It comes across as a very interesting trip (with his "companion") and an interesting look at a world that has changed greatly since his visit. That look at a world that no longer exists is the real greatness of "In Wonderland".
   
   Hansun was a gregarious individual with freely expressed opinions that will (or, at least, SHOULD) ruffle some feathers. His disdainful comments about Jews keep popping up. However, looking past that you'll find he is disdainful of others as well. The bedbugs kept me from wishing I was along for the ride but I was able to appreciate the scenery nonetheless thanks to Hamsun's candid literary skills.



5. This book is a very much condensed version of the original, as told to me by old-timers, which detailed Knut Hamsun's trip through Russia in 1900. The original book was about 4 times longer and was worthy of a Nobel prize winner. This book only has a few stupid anecdotes, and portrays Knut Hamsun as an idiot.

2 comments about The Wreck of the Sv. Nikolai.

1. This is a truly remarkable story. Russian fur traders moving down the west coast in search of more Otter (only a few years after Lewis & Clark headed home from Oregon), their ship wrecked on the Olympic Peninsula. The sailors escaped the wreckage only to have their women, including the captains wife captured by local American Indians. By the time the ships captain and men come up with a plan to rescue the women, the women do not want to go back with the sailors! The story is historically accurate, and has been retold here from Russian ship logs and the Quinalt oral history of the event. It is a fun one to read.



2. This is a very short book about the Russian exploration effort in Washington and Oregon. The Russians were exploring this area to see if there was a wealth of fur bearing animals. Their merchandise was shoddy, and few Indians wanted to trade for this. The Sv. Nikolai then was stranded on a beach in a storm. The crew escaped with some weapons, but few provisions. Then began the journey into poverty and want and then slavery for the crew. Some Indians were merciful, and treated their captives kindly. Some did not. Twenty of the crew were eventually rescued when an American in Russian employ ransomed them.
   
   The editor tells this tale from two perspectives. First, he starts with the Russian perspective, and then an oral tale from the Indians who captured the Russian crew. This is not exciting reading. It did show the rivalry of Great Britain, Russia, Spain and the United States for this valuable area. This is an OK read for those interested in early European exploration.