Customer Reviews

Trotsky: A Biography

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

"A book that fails to meet the basic standards of historical scholarship" - "Service fails to examine in a serious way Trotsky's political ideas in his writings and speeches - nor does it appear that he has always bothered to familiarize himself with them."

That is how the American Historical Review described this book. Also "Service relies on cheap shots and slanderous asides to keep his readers convinced that Trotsky is a despicable man."

The book is simply embarrassing.

The photo of Trotsky on the book's jacket is one of the most arresting I've ever seen. The face -- young, intelligent, earnest and, unobscured by the beard, appealing -- explains much about this man's complex character. And the book is billed by The New Yorker as, "unlike much work about Trotsky...the work of a historian, not an ideologue," alluding presumably to Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky's Marxist biographer. So I was well-disposed towards this book.

There's obviously much an historian's work behind Robert Service's book, but alas, I can't see much of the historian's craft in it. I was a history major and attended Oxford, and my impression was that the historian's prime directive is rigor. I fail to see much of that here. Besides editorial sloppiness and uneven annotation, there's a lack of detachment. It belies an eagerness to announce, "See, see, I told you he was a bad guy!" which I find unseemly in an historian.

Specifically:

Service makes it clear early on that his mission is to serve as an antidote to what he regards as the hagiography surrounding Trotsky. What he comes up with is this rather mean-spirited effort to bring Trotsky down a notch or two, mainly by gratuitous and petty personal jabs, often following faint praise. While admitting to Trotsky's intellect, organizing acumen and faithfulness to his creed, Service apparently finds the revolutionary's narcissism a worthy counterweight.

Service relates Trotsky's scrupulous reading of a friend's book:

"[T]he exclamation marks in the margins testify to angry self-righteousness and intellectual self-regard."

I've done that before -- exclamation marks noting something interesting or that I agree with strongly. Was I being self-righteous or egotistical? Risibly, Service opens himself to the same charge later, when he quotes Trotsky relating how, after being on a prison barge for three weeks in Siberia, he "was put ashore with one of the women exiles, a close associate of mine from Nikolaev". Service then uses his own exclamation mark, as he observes: "The last sentence refers to his pregnant wife Alexandra. Just possibly Trotsky was trying to spare her feelings at the time of writing. Even so, what misleading primness!" A rather innocent remark is construed (with that Trotskyist exclamation mark) as marking a character flaw.

Service thanks a half-dozen people for reading his manuscript. Apparently their only task was to tell the author how brilliant he is (or maybe how brilliant they are), because they certainly did a lousy job of proofreading.

Service identifies one figure as Karlson, then the same person in following passages as Carlson.

Service's use of commas evidently depends on his mood. Sometimes he uses them to separate independent clause, but usually not. So we are treated to the likes of (speaking of a Trotsky cousin): "He had recently married Fanni who was the principal of the state school for Jewish girls in Odessa and it was her salary that kept the couple afloat...." This kind of run-on is everywhere.

In one paragraph, Service starts calling Bronstein, Trotsky; then in the next calls him Bronstein again. In fact, Service gives a sloppy, off-hand treatment of Lev Bronstein's becoming Leon Trotsky. When did Bronstein finally settle on calling himself Trotsky? Did colleagues and intimates call him Trotsky or did they call him Bronstein or Lev or some nickname?

Service gives no explanation about how Bronstein/Trotsky got busted the first couple of times. What exactly were the charges? (Sedition?) We aren't told -- only the rather vague connection with Lev's published polemics, but nothing specific about Trotsky as an agitator, even though Service says Trotsky believed that street agitation was necessary. You'd think there would be transcripts for Service to access.

Service is inconsistent in his digs. He says Trotsky "disliked boastfulness," then in the next sentence describes how Trotsky "went on loudly about himself". Service says Trotsky was not well regarded, yet in next passage says he was "marked for leadership". Really?

Service is sketchy about Trotsky's unifying beliefs; he doesn't provide at the outset a précis of Trotsky's political philosophy. He talks about Trotsky's "permanent revolution" without explaining what he meant by it.

The footnotes are haphazard. Example amongst many: "His eloquence was recognized but the feeling was strong that..." (no footnote). Here Service belies his membership in the Wikipedia school of weasel words.

Service tells us of Trotsky's scorn for the Red Cross, as an imperialist tool, then opines that this exposes Trotsky's "lack of humanity". A proper historian would allow the reader to draw his own conclusion or at least limit this kind of stuff to a preface or end chapter.

By the way, I don't see any anti-Semitism here, as others claim to have found. Service's coverage of Trotsky's Jewish background seems mattter-of-fact and uncolored by prejudice.

In summary:

The charitable view of this book is that the enormous body of research Service claims to have done has biased him unfavorably against Trotsky and informs every detail of his narrative. I think it more likely that Service has approached Trotsky like Trevor-Roper approached Hitler: "Trotsky as monster -- a Russian Robespierre -- is a given, and I must remind readers from time to time that I've not fallen in love with my subject."

This may work for a polemic but not for a purportedly sober history. And this is very frustrating for a book that is, if you can filter out the editorial sloppiness, the gratuitous asides and the run-on sentences, quite readable and informative, which is why I give it three stars.

An appallingly inaccurate, jaundiced, two-year wonder of a bio. I stopped counting errors after the first 20 pages. I simply cannot believe this fellow is a full professor at a leading university. Claims to be the only "full length bio" of Trotsky by a "non-Trotskyite," which is also not accurate: Isaac Deutscher was no Trotskyite. Unfortunate, this, because the cover pic will undoubtedly sell a lot of books. Also, because there's lots of new archival material available that should have helped us to have, finally, a more objective account of this fraught, complex, but undeniably important historical figure. Of all the injustices that Trotsky has suffered, before and after death, this bio is surely one of the worst. If you must read it, please don't buy it here....just wait around for a remaindered copy to become available.

As others have already noted (American History Review for example) this is close to worthless as history. More than that, it is so politically tendentious you'll think you're watching Fox News. If that's what you're looking for, have at it. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it drove me back to reading Deutscher, a most admirable biography which -- contrary to the assertion in Gilbert Taylor's 'Editorial Review' above -- does not whitewash Trotsky's failings, either personal or political, and has a much better grasp of the political and social narrative. Less than zero, but of course, Amazon won't let you post anything less than 1 star.

This biography, despite it detractors, offers a good introduction to the life and times of this influential twentieth century politician. It shows the events in his life that influenced him and motivated his behaviour and whilst the author claims he isn't Trotskyist this still manages to be relatively positive towards his subject. You see how Trotsky's political views developed, explore his time in exile in Siberia, see how he helped form and run the early USSR government and see his fall from grace, deportation and finally his assassination.

This book does point out his numerous flaws and overall this seems reasonably balanced. One thing I found highly frustrating was how the author refers to later events in Trotsky's life before they have yet to happen, as if the reader already has a knowledge of Trotsky's life and knows what he is talking about, and if this was the case I wouldn't have been reading the book in the first place! This ruined some passages for me, and some of the suspense was taken out of the narrative.

It has extensive maps at the beginning, three photo sections on the usual glossy pages and extensive notes at the back for those who are reading this for more academic reason. I haven't read the other books by the author about Stalin or Lenin and I would imagine there is a lot of cross over between them, but I can also imagine that if they are as well written as this they would provide an in-depth look at the main protagonists of the Russian revolution and USSR formation. This has lots of short chapters which help you progress through it at a reasonable rate and whilst I found some chapters relatively dry and uninspiring, this was in the main a fascinating and informative read. Worth considering.

Feel free to check out my blog which can be found on my profile page.

Leon Trotsky, once a household name, has recently fallen into eclipse. Scholarly research has also fallen off, apparently coincident with the demise of the USSR and the abject failure of Marxism as an historical/economic framework. Now, Professor Robert Service has resurrected Trotsky from premature oblivion and has written a widely publicized biography on the man and the myth. Knowing Service's perspectives and appreciating how they have shaped of the story, the Trotsky biography can be appreciated as a flawed, occasinally tedious, often-times derivative, sometimes insightful and relatively interesting book.

Service has done little to conceal his disdain for the Communist enterprise and its paladins, first displaying his ideological persuasions in a biography of Lenin, then one on his successor Stalin and now on the remaining figure in the Communist "Big Three", Leon Trotsky. Given the apparent depth of his opposition to the (Russian) implementation of Marxist economic "laws", Service actually appears restrained in his editorial commentary, but he emphasizes certain things and minimizes others in conformity with his prejudices. As expected, his attitude is largely condemnatory and sometimes (rarely) laudatory, as if the author was forced by circumstances to marvel at the intellectual powers of the ideological adversary. Probably because of Service's all-too-obvious bias, opinions on "Trotsky" have been sharply polarized. Some (such as David North, whose scathing review is available on World Socialist website) have painstakingly dissected from it an array of factual errors and misstatements. Others, less swayed by facts and more by myth, are incensed that the anti-fascist, anti-Stalinist idol has been loosened from its pedestal. Still others (such as myself) are concerned that this book, written as it was by an expert in the field, will obscure further serious scholarly attention to an historically important figure. Around the time the book was published, the former Trotskyist intellectual, Christopher Hitchens, was interviewed in the company of Robert Service on the topic of Trotsky (an on-line clip can be found at Fora TV). Paradoxically, despite the self-evidently antagonistic postures of Hitchens and Service toward their subject, neither made any effort to engage in debate. Would this have occurred, a much more illuminating perspective on this still influential historical figure would have emerged.

In brief, Leon Trotsky (a pseudonym, of course, adopted as was the custom in the Bolshevik pantheon), rose from bourgeoise origins to a position of international prominence, first as a Marxist theoretician, later as head of the Petersburg Soviet (1905 Revolution), then as a critic of Leninism, followed by an impassioned conversion to the Leninist revolutionary posture, moving later to defense supremo (essentially creating and directing the Red Army during the solidification of the 1917 revolution and later during the Red/White Civil War), negotiator of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, leading member of the Worker's Opposition, exile and martyr of the Fourth International. All the while, Trotsky was an author, pamphleteer, critic and avatar of international revolution. Even a critic such as Service was impressed with the breadth, depth and sophistication of Trotsky's intellect, his unswerving dedication to Marxist revolution and his ambition.

As was correctly noted by Service, Trotsky was his own worst enemy. He had an unerring tendency to antagonize, criticize, alienate, berate and belittle enemies and, worse still, friends and potential allies. Amongst the litany of shortcomings catalogued by Service are that Trotsky was egotistical. He was fractious. He was pedantic. He was annoying. He lacked "humanizing" qualities. All these shortcomings were, naturally, well known prior to Service's biographical effort; its just that this book elevates them, along with Trotsky's Jewish background, to annoying and disproportionate significance. For example, while Trotsky's "theory" of "Permanent Revolution" is mentioned several times, Service never adequately defines or discusses the idea, nor makes much of an effort to place it in useful context. Furthermore, he proffers various assertions (for instance, Trotsky's lack of intellectual "originality") without adequately referencing his claims (e.g., that much of Trotsky's ideas were derivative from Parvus' and other's work). Parenthetically, when dealing with a set of proscriptive "laws" explicating the course of social, economic and governmental progression, how much room is there for creative interpretation? Still, mountains of arcana and oceans of ink were spilled in service of the goal of adapting Marxist revolutionary "theory" to an agriculturally-based society (Russia) and confining the socialist revolution to a single state. Service extols Trotsky's writing abilities on these matters, commenting on the "brio" demonstrated in, for example, "My Life", Trotsky's autobiography. This book (I refer to the Pathfinder edition) was, to my mind, tedious and laden with irrelevant and arcane detail. If this is "brio", Service has closely followed suit, sometimes missing the grand perspective for the quotidian and mundane occurrence. Mostly, this happens when dealing with Trotsky's political life and only rarely when detailing his personal affairs. This aspect is, perhaps, the strongest segment of the work.

In "Trotsky", Robert Service has a mission and that is not to retrieve his subject from "the dustbin of history". Rather, it appears that Service, as with Brutus, has come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. This book often assumes a polemical rather than an historical posture and that is a serious criticism of a supposedly objective study, even allowing the limitations of objectivity in history. By abjectly failing to provide historical context for the revolutionary imperative (the horrible living conditions of the Russian peasantry, the nightmarish employment circumstances of the nascent proletariat, the corruption, frivolity and ostentation of the ruling nobility and, in particular, the disasterous conduct of the First World War by the Romanov regime), Service seems intent on presenting an aggravated view of Communism and its purported shortcomings.

Thus, for the reader looking for a comprehensive, single-source biography, Service's to "Trotsky"is probably not the best choice (Dmitri Volkogonov's is more balanced). For the more widely read student, this book would lend a valuable, if flawed, perspective. For the iconoclast, it confirms all the worst that could have been suspected. For Trotsky's final legacy, its probably gone the way of Ozymandias. To borrow from Percy Shelley (with apologies), "My name is Trotsky, king of revolutionists: "Look on my works, ye Mighty Capitalists, and despair!" To which Service might gleefully add, "Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away." This book lubricates the leveling momentum.

Having read the numerous critical reviews about the book, I decided to read itself, keeping a list of alleged "errors" and "omissions" for reference.
The book is an absorbing read, and even if one accepts all the "factual" corrections by the various reviewers, this does not change the central thesis by one bit.
Trotsky was no romantic hero, but rather a criminal of the type produced in such abundance by Communism (of whichever type) and Fascism.

An even-handed review of the complex and contradictory character of Trotsky. A charismatic man, with abundant literary gifts, including polemics and oratory, absolutely committed to revolution. His fearless leadership and organizational skills are celebrated in his pivotal roles in the October Revolution and the Red Army. His factiousness led to his demise from party leadership, expulsion, exile, death, and murder. Despite his many gifts, the myth of Trotsky is debunked by his egotism, coldness, lack of introspection, and human empathy. The romanticized vision of Trotsky's leadership of the soviets is revealed to be no better, and possibly worse, than Stalin, due to similar governing methods of terror and totalitarianism. Trotsky dedicated his life to the 'proletarian revolution.' After reading this account, it's with a bittersweet awareness that his talents were directed a to misguided experiment. Personally, he avoided self-negation precisely by not deviating from the cause, but one can't help to feel that his purpose and talents were compromised.

Robert Service's, "Trotsky: A Biography," is less a work of historical examination than it is a polemic on the evils of Marxism. Service, working under the aegis of Stanford's ultra-conservative Hoover Institute, attempts to destroy Trotsky's character in order to cast aspersions on his political philosophy. Service even tells us this in his Introduction, in which he admits that he had no sympathy with Trotsky's ideas long before he began his biography. For details on the distortions and downright inventions Service uses to advance his own neoconservative views, read David North's review, "In the Service of Historical Falsification." Long after Trotsky's actual assassination by one of Stalin's hit men, Service has rendered another hatchet blow post-mortem.

The main aspect of this book is the poor quality of the writing.Unfortunately Robert Service simply can't write;the man can't construct a paragraph that has flow or consistency. If you read page one of Isaac Deautscher's biography of Trotsky you are immediately assailed by great prose as against the mish mash on display here.Then the content........Service has allowed his opinion of Trotsky to colour the whole work and it comes across as just that ...opinion.There is a complete lack of intellectual rigour here and it is hard to believe that Service is a professor of history at a leading British institution.The book reads like the Readers Digest story of Leon Trotsky in that vastly complex issues are skimmed over and simplistic conclusions deduced.Whether you think Deutscher's 3 volume biography of Trotsky is hagiography(and I don't)it can't be challenged as a great work of literature.This colourless diatribe from Service fails on all fronts-among them bad history and appalling prose.