Helpful Score: 2
I have grown up under communism in Czechoslovakia, and was excited to read this book.
The book started slow and the writing was choppy and un-engaging. I was surprised that the first pages were full of bitterness, negativism, and self obsession. I have diligently dragged my feet thorough the initial muck in hopes for a memoir style telling. I couldn't wait to read about all the illogical things I have witnessed my self but couldn't word clearly enough to put in a book. I found those stories... "200%" exaggerated, out of context, full of negativism and body image obsession. The book is a big disappointment. Here is why in detail:
My first issue with this book is that it is not dated. None of the events are approximated to certain time frame. So when S.D talks about her travels I'm never sure if she talks about the time of my granny's youth (1945s) My mom's youth (1970s) or my own childhood time (1980s).
My related second problem with this book is that her narrative is based on short stories in the life of her family and friends, in different time frames not chronologically organized. So it is difficult for the reader to determine correct timeframe.
Why is the timeframe such a big issue? If I write about the shortages of certain things, I must also account for the item's availability elsewhere at that time. In post 2 W.War era, there were shortages everywhere. So to rave about the lack of choices in perfumes, or lipstick colors when there were shortages everywhere is a form of deception.
Another issue was her outlook, or if you may the spirit with which this was written. I believe the author meant to ridicule and discredit communism as a whole based on the lack of consumer choices. This approach is simplistic and short sited. She for ever stresses the lack of diversity in manufactured goods and the importance of body image. S.D makes a point to ridicule those who wear out of style makeup or cloths, while at the same time she looks down on those who follow magazine fashions with sew-it-your-self-at-home imitations of said fashions. Her approach is shallow and shows lack of understanding.
I would like to correct some misconceptions from the book:
Though it is true that many things were made in limited diversity, their price made them affordable for everyone. A pair of winter boots w. rabbit fur cost today's equivalent of whooping $15, basic flats run around $8. There were about 20 designs available at any one time. My mom had her hair colored and curled regularly since her 20s. There were 8 different color choices readily available anywhere. There was a full pallet of eye shadows and lipstick colors. If Polish women wore red hair it is because their hair on average is dark brown or black (often previously died mahogany to enhance the shade and to make them shine in sunlight). It does not take a chem. genius to figure out, that their hair would not go fully blond no matter how much peroxide they used or how much they pinned for blond, (as was the fashion obsession at the time).
The trade women that sold stuff in Yugoslavia, and then exchanged thus gained currency in Czechoslovakia or Poland, had a specific nick name 'vekslak'. It implies a dishonest person intent to gain in excess through little or no work. Those women were more often then not gipsies, and were just as often incarcerated for being a burden on the state or other criminal activities. In other words, everyone had the right to have a job. Everyone had a duty to go to work. Those who skipped work were not only an embarrassment to their families, but were committing felony. Also and more importantly, being a 'vekslak' or vagrant was often the gateway crime. Once you got on the shady side, redistribution of stolen property, prostitution, drugs, smuggling or robbery were often part of the 'occupation'. To speak so fondly and with such pity of people who were considered the scum of society shows lack of understanding.
And here is THE BIG QUESTION: Why should we condemn communism based on such shallow crimes such as lack of quality toilet paper? I'm not sure how to answer this one. If this was a humorous book, I could laugh about the ridiculousness of such regime, and know it is good it is just a memory now. But it has the feel of Shakespearian drama, without the smooth writing. S.D does not give the reader a single positive thing that made lives of the citizens of communist countries better. Such as free schooling, free daycare, free school books, free medical care, retirement at 50, guaranteed jobs, free housing (apartments with low rents) free summer camps for kids (or priced at today's equivalent of $40 for 3 weeks stay).... there are many things that were centered on improving the life of a family as it was considered THE nucleus on which the state is build. On the other hand S.D fails to mention the political suitability tests, where a little child's single out of the crowd clap for president's speech could put 'unsuitable' on its political profile, that would prevent it from studying for the occupation of it's dreams. There is nothing about persecution and incarceration of religious representatives (Priests) and their family members, of writers, thinkers, or those whose family member emigrated behind the iron curtain. There is absolutely no food for thought, be it positive or negative.
This book is a shallow mish-mush of S.D. life, views and opinions without reliable references, or the truly important events that mattered to women under communism. I have never seen my granny worrying about the lack of eye shadow choices, she worried about earning enough money to support 3 children with her husband loosing his legs in work related train accident. And even though she had hard manual job, her appearance was always flawless. With makeup and tailored dresses and suits (home made) she looked smart, and attractive. She was also 6F tall and very strong not just physically but also mentally. She was the matriarch of our family. She also was the living, breathing representation of the poster girl for the communist's ideal of perfect womanhood; beautiful, efficient, strong, productive. But in no way has she EVER resembled this image S.D draws for us, this drab, overworked, over-weight, bla-bla woman, with McDonald's red hair, wild colored, ill fitting cloths and obsession of self.
Summed up, it makes me wonder if S.D. ever truly lived under communism, for any prolonged period of time.
The book started slow and the writing was choppy and un-engaging. I was surprised that the first pages were full of bitterness, negativism, and self obsession. I have diligently dragged my feet thorough the initial muck in hopes for a memoir style telling. I couldn't wait to read about all the illogical things I have witnessed my self but couldn't word clearly enough to put in a book. I found those stories... "200%" exaggerated, out of context, full of negativism and body image obsession. The book is a big disappointment. Here is why in detail:
My first issue with this book is that it is not dated. None of the events are approximated to certain time frame. So when S.D talks about her travels I'm never sure if she talks about the time of my granny's youth (1945s) My mom's youth (1970s) or my own childhood time (1980s).
My related second problem with this book is that her narrative is based on short stories in the life of her family and friends, in different time frames not chronologically organized. So it is difficult for the reader to determine correct timeframe.
Why is the timeframe such a big issue? If I write about the shortages of certain things, I must also account for the item's availability elsewhere at that time. In post 2 W.War era, there were shortages everywhere. So to rave about the lack of choices in perfumes, or lipstick colors when there were shortages everywhere is a form of deception.
Another issue was her outlook, or if you may the spirit with which this was written. I believe the author meant to ridicule and discredit communism as a whole based on the lack of consumer choices. This approach is simplistic and short sited. She for ever stresses the lack of diversity in manufactured goods and the importance of body image. S.D makes a point to ridicule those who wear out of style makeup or cloths, while at the same time she looks down on those who follow magazine fashions with sew-it-your-self-at-home imitations of said fashions. Her approach is shallow and shows lack of understanding.
I would like to correct some misconceptions from the book:
Though it is true that many things were made in limited diversity, their price made them affordable for everyone. A pair of winter boots w. rabbit fur cost today's equivalent of whooping $15, basic flats run around $8. There were about 20 designs available at any one time. My mom had her hair colored and curled regularly since her 20s. There were 8 different color choices readily available anywhere. There was a full pallet of eye shadows and lipstick colors. If Polish women wore red hair it is because their hair on average is dark brown or black (often previously died mahogany to enhance the shade and to make them shine in sunlight). It does not take a chem. genius to figure out, that their hair would not go fully blond no matter how much peroxide they used or how much they pinned for blond, (as was the fashion obsession at the time).
The trade women that sold stuff in Yugoslavia, and then exchanged thus gained currency in Czechoslovakia or Poland, had a specific nick name 'vekslak'. It implies a dishonest person intent to gain in excess through little or no work. Those women were more often then not gipsies, and were just as often incarcerated for being a burden on the state or other criminal activities. In other words, everyone had the right to have a job. Everyone had a duty to go to work. Those who skipped work were not only an embarrassment to their families, but were committing felony. Also and more importantly, being a 'vekslak' or vagrant was often the gateway crime. Once you got on the shady side, redistribution of stolen property, prostitution, drugs, smuggling or robbery were often part of the 'occupation'. To speak so fondly and with such pity of people who were considered the scum of society shows lack of understanding.
And here is THE BIG QUESTION: Why should we condemn communism based on such shallow crimes such as lack of quality toilet paper? I'm not sure how to answer this one. If this was a humorous book, I could laugh about the ridiculousness of such regime, and know it is good it is just a memory now. But it has the feel of Shakespearian drama, without the smooth writing. S.D does not give the reader a single positive thing that made lives of the citizens of communist countries better. Such as free schooling, free daycare, free school books, free medical care, retirement at 50, guaranteed jobs, free housing (apartments with low rents) free summer camps for kids (or priced at today's equivalent of $40 for 3 weeks stay).... there are many things that were centered on improving the life of a family as it was considered THE nucleus on which the state is build. On the other hand S.D fails to mention the political suitability tests, where a little child's single out of the crowd clap for president's speech could put 'unsuitable' on its political profile, that would prevent it from studying for the occupation of it's dreams. There is nothing about persecution and incarceration of religious representatives (Priests) and their family members, of writers, thinkers, or those whose family member emigrated behind the iron curtain. There is absolutely no food for thought, be it positive or negative.
This book is a shallow mish-mush of S.D. life, views and opinions without reliable references, or the truly important events that mattered to women under communism. I have never seen my granny worrying about the lack of eye shadow choices, she worried about earning enough money to support 3 children with her husband loosing his legs in work related train accident. And even though she had hard manual job, her appearance was always flawless. With makeup and tailored dresses and suits (home made) she looked smart, and attractive. She was also 6F tall and very strong not just physically but also mentally. She was the matriarch of our family. She also was the living, breathing representation of the poster girl for the communist's ideal of perfect womanhood; beautiful, efficient, strong, productive. But in no way has she EVER resembled this image S.D draws for us, this drab, overworked, over-weight, bla-bla woman, with McDonald's red hair, wild colored, ill fitting cloths and obsession of self.
Summed up, it makes me wonder if S.D. ever truly lived under communism, for any prolonged period of time.
Helpful Score: 1
I have grown up under communism in Czechoslovakia, and was excited to read this book.
The book started slow and the writing was choppy and un-engaging. I was surprised that the first pages were full of bitterness, negativism, and self obsession. I have diligently dragged my feet thorough the initial muck in hopes for a memoir style telling. I couldn't wait to read about all the illogical things I have witnessed my self but couldn't word clearly enough to put in a book. I found those stories... "200%" exaggerated, out of context, full of negativism and body image obsession. The book is a big disappointment. Here is why in detail:
My first issue with this book is that it is not dated. None of the events are approximated to certain time frame. So when S.D talks about her travels I'm never sure if she talks about the time of my granny's youth (1945s) My mom's youth (1970s) or my own childhood time (1980s).
My related second problem with this book is that her narrative is based on short stories in the life of her family and friends, in different time frames not chronologically organized. So it is difficult for the reader to determine correct timeframe.
Why is the timeframe such a big issue? If I write about the shortages of certain things, I must also account for the item's availability elsewhere at that time. In post 2 W.War era, there were shortages everywhere. So to rave about the lack of choices in perfumes, or lipstick colors when there were shortages everywhere is a form of deception.
Another issue was her outlook, or if you may the spirit with which this was written. I believe the author meant to ridicule and discredit communism as a whole based on the lack of consumer choices. This approach is simplistic and short sited. She for ever stresses the lack of diversity in manufactured goods and the importance of body image. S.D makes a point to ridicule those who wear out of style makeup or cloths, while at the same time she looks down on those who follow magazine fashions with sew-it-your-self-at-home imitations of said fashions. Her approach is shallow and shows lack of understanding.
I would like to correct some misconceptions from the book:
Though it is true that many things were made in limited diversity, their price made them affordable for everyone. A pair of winter boots w. rabbit fur cost today's equivalent of whooping $15, basic flats run around $8. There were about 20 designs available at any one time. My mom had her hair colored and curled regularly since her 20s. There were 8 different color choices readily available anywhere. There was a full pallet of eye shadows and lipstick colors. If Polish women wore red hair it is because their hair on average is dark brown or black (often previously died mahogany to enhance the shade and to make them shine in sunlight). It does not take a chem. genius to figure out, that their hair would not go fully blond no matter how much peroxide they used or how much they pinned for blond, (as was the fashion obsession at the time).
The trade women that sold stuff in Yugoslavia, and then exchanged thus gained currency in Czechoslovakia or Poland, had a specific nick name 'vekslak'. It implies a dishonest person intent to gain in excess through little or no work. Those women were more often then not gipsies, and were just as often incarcerated for being a burden on the state or other criminal activities. In other words, everyone had the right to have a job. Everyone had a duty to go to work. Those who skipped work were not only an embarrassment to their families, but were committing felony. Also and more importantly, being a 'vekslak' or vagrant was often the gateway crime. Once you got on the shady side, redistribution of stolen property, prostitution, drugs, smuggling or robbery were often part of the 'occupation'. To speak so fondly and with such pity of people who were considered the scum of society shows lack of understanding.
And here is THE BIG QUESTION: Why should we condemn communism based on such shallow crimes such as lack of quality toilet paper? I'm not sure how to answer this one. If this was a humorous book, I could laugh about the ridiculousness of such regime, and know it is good it is just a memory now. But it has the feel of Shakespearian drama, without the smooth writing. S.D does not give the reader a single positive thing that made lives of the citizens of communist countries better. Such as free schooling, free daycare, free school books, free medical care, retirement at 50, guaranteed jobs, free housing (apartments with low rents) free summer camps for kids (or priced at today's equivalent of $40 for 3 weeks stay).... there are many things that were centered on improving the life of a family as it was considered THE nucleus on which the state is build. On the other hand S.D fails to mention the political suitability tests, where a little child's single out of the crowd clap for president's speech could put 'unsuitable' on its political profile, that would prevent it from studying for the occupation of it's dreams. There is nothing about persecution and incarceration of religious representatives (Priests) and their family members, of writers, thinkers, or those whose family member emigrated behind the iron curtain. There is absolutely no food for thought, be it positive or negative.
This book is a shallow mish-mush of S.D. life, views and opinions without reliable references, or the truly important events that mattered to women under communism. I have never seen my granny worrying about the lack of eye shadow choices, she worried about earning enough money to support 3 children with her husband loosing his legs in work related train accident. And even though she had hard manual job, her appearance was always flawless. With makeup and tailored dresses and suits (home made) she looked smart, and attractive. She was also 6F tall and very strong not just physically but also mentally. She was the matriarch of our family. She also was the living, breathing representation of the poster girl for the communist's ideal of perfect womanhood; beautiful, efficient, strong, productive. But in no way has she EVER resembled this image S.D draws for us, this drab, overworked, over-weight, bla-bla woman, with McDonald's red hair, wild colored, ill fitting cloths and obsession of self.
Summed up, it makes me wonder if S.D. ever truly lived under communism, for any prolonged period of time.
The book started slow and the writing was choppy and un-engaging. I was surprised that the first pages were full of bitterness, negativism, and self obsession. I have diligently dragged my feet thorough the initial muck in hopes for a memoir style telling. I couldn't wait to read about all the illogical things I have witnessed my self but couldn't word clearly enough to put in a book. I found those stories... "200%" exaggerated, out of context, full of negativism and body image obsession. The book is a big disappointment. Here is why in detail:
My first issue with this book is that it is not dated. None of the events are approximated to certain time frame. So when S.D talks about her travels I'm never sure if she talks about the time of my granny's youth (1945s) My mom's youth (1970s) or my own childhood time (1980s).
My related second problem with this book is that her narrative is based on short stories in the life of her family and friends, in different time frames not chronologically organized. So it is difficult for the reader to determine correct timeframe.
Why is the timeframe such a big issue? If I write about the shortages of certain things, I must also account for the item's availability elsewhere at that time. In post 2 W.War era, there were shortages everywhere. So to rave about the lack of choices in perfumes, or lipstick colors when there were shortages everywhere is a form of deception.
Another issue was her outlook, or if you may the spirit with which this was written. I believe the author meant to ridicule and discredit communism as a whole based on the lack of consumer choices. This approach is simplistic and short sited. She for ever stresses the lack of diversity in manufactured goods and the importance of body image. S.D makes a point to ridicule those who wear out of style makeup or cloths, while at the same time she looks down on those who follow magazine fashions with sew-it-your-self-at-home imitations of said fashions. Her approach is shallow and shows lack of understanding.
I would like to correct some misconceptions from the book:
Though it is true that many things were made in limited diversity, their price made them affordable for everyone. A pair of winter boots w. rabbit fur cost today's equivalent of whooping $15, basic flats run around $8. There were about 20 designs available at any one time. My mom had her hair colored and curled regularly since her 20s. There were 8 different color choices readily available anywhere. There was a full pallet of eye shadows and lipstick colors. If Polish women wore red hair it is because their hair on average is dark brown or black (often previously died mahogany to enhance the shade and to make them shine in sunlight). It does not take a chem. genius to figure out, that their hair would not go fully blond no matter how much peroxide they used or how much they pinned for blond, (as was the fashion obsession at the time).
The trade women that sold stuff in Yugoslavia, and then exchanged thus gained currency in Czechoslovakia or Poland, had a specific nick name 'vekslak'. It implies a dishonest person intent to gain in excess through little or no work. Those women were more often then not gipsies, and were just as often incarcerated for being a burden on the state or other criminal activities. In other words, everyone had the right to have a job. Everyone had a duty to go to work. Those who skipped work were not only an embarrassment to their families, but were committing felony. Also and more importantly, being a 'vekslak' or vagrant was often the gateway crime. Once you got on the shady side, redistribution of stolen property, prostitution, drugs, smuggling or robbery were often part of the 'occupation'. To speak so fondly and with such pity of people who were considered the scum of society shows lack of understanding.
And here is THE BIG QUESTION: Why should we condemn communism based on such shallow crimes such as lack of quality toilet paper? I'm not sure how to answer this one. If this was a humorous book, I could laugh about the ridiculousness of such regime, and know it is good it is just a memory now. But it has the feel of Shakespearian drama, without the smooth writing. S.D does not give the reader a single positive thing that made lives of the citizens of communist countries better. Such as free schooling, free daycare, free school books, free medical care, retirement at 50, guaranteed jobs, free housing (apartments with low rents) free summer camps for kids (or priced at today's equivalent of $40 for 3 weeks stay).... there are many things that were centered on improving the life of a family as it was considered THE nucleus on which the state is build. On the other hand S.D fails to mention the political suitability tests, where a little child's single out of the crowd clap for president's speech could put 'unsuitable' on its political profile, that would prevent it from studying for the occupation of it's dreams. There is nothing about persecution and incarceration of religious representatives (Priests) and their family members, of writers, thinkers, or those whose family member emigrated behind the iron curtain. There is absolutely no food for thought, be it positive or negative.
This book is a shallow mish-mush of S.D. life, views and opinions without reliable references, or the truly important events that mattered to women under communism. I have never seen my granny worrying about the lack of eye shadow choices, she worried about earning enough money to support 3 children with her husband loosing his legs in work related train accident. And even though she had hard manual job, her appearance was always flawless. With makeup and tailored dresses and suits (home made) she looked smart, and attractive. She was also 6F tall and very strong not just physically but also mentally. She was the matriarch of our family. She also was the living, breathing representation of the poster girl for the communist's ideal of perfect womanhood; beautiful, efficient, strong, productive. But in no way has she EVER resembled this image S.D draws for us, this drab, overworked, over-weight, bla-bla woman, with McDonald's red hair, wild colored, ill fitting cloths and obsession of self.
Summed up, it makes me wonder if S.D. ever truly lived under communism, for any prolonged period of time.
