The Russian Revolution This is a set text for Cambridge historians, and i think it shouldn't be. Let me explain why.
This work is a good summary of the Russian Revolution by a cultural historian. I personally disagree with the author on many respects and find that her approach is mired in the dense bog of unnecessary parallelisms, with the main revolutionary characters and events being treated in a rather simplistic way. This gives rise to a number of generalisations that are nothing but useless shorthands that belong to an outdated historiographical tradition. Perhaps it is the format of the work itself rather than the scholarly aptitude of the author that is to blame, however i could not help feeling that the history which was being invoked by S. Fitzpatrick deserved rather more vigour and intensity, especially in the treatment of evidence. To give one example, i consider the entire chronological framework of the work to be flawed and do not think that Lenin's October revolution is to be bundled together with Stalin's totalitarianism. The recurrent metaphors of upheaval as well as the constant referring back to the French Revolution are presented in a somewhat bland and stale manner. Crucially, the Lenin presented here is an emasculated version of the great revolutionary and this picture, it seems, is based primarily on evidence provided by his polemical rivals.
Overall this is very good as a summary of recent scholarship, and for that it deserves 5 stars, but the methodological approach is rather blunt and rusty, not going beyond 2 star rating. As an average then we have 3 stars.