Title: There are better books around
Product review: This book has been touted as a good way to introduce readers to the history of twentieth-century Russia. In fact, however, there are many other better books that deal with this period that are available to readers. The chief problem with McClellan's book is that it perpetuates myths and stereotypes about Russia that should have been discredited long ago. Its style at times reminds one of either Cold War studies of Russia or of romantic treatments of Russian culture. If the purpose of introductory surveys of Russian history is to correct misperceptions as well as to educate, this book fails. Readers would be much better served by Hosking's First Socialist Society, Riasanovsky's History of Russia, or even Hedrick Smith's New Russians.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
