This classic American novel is, unfortunately, not well known by many people. Published in the early 70s, its themes and concerns are more pertinent now than when it was written and its influence can be seen for example in the works of Don Delillo, David Foster Wallace, and the entire genre of 'Cyberpunk.' In pop culture, the "X-Files" exemplifies the obsession with tracking the factionalism and cross-purposes of the invisible power structures in our society that Pynchon set the standard for in "Gravity's Rainbow." Its complexity and grand structure make it comparable to the works of James Joyce.

This is by far, the best book i've ever read.

In 1984 William Gibson changed the face of Science Fiction when he published his first novel, "Neuromancer". Overnight serious SF abandoned its jingoistic-epic tradition and became a contemporary forum for dystopian social commentary. "Neuromancer" single-handedly created the sub-genre of Cyberpunk; a literary trend that dominates SF books and films to this day. Gibson's ability to extrapolate current social trends into the near future, and his concern for the classic existential elements of 20th century literature make him one of the few serious speculative fiction authors of the last twenty years. In that first book, Gibson coined phrases and invented concepts that we now take for granted in pop culture; and his handling of the potential of virtual reality raises disturbing philosophical issues that read very much like the mystical paranoia of Philip K. Dick. His work since "Neuromancer" has consistently dealt with these literary and philosophical themes.

If you're wondering what possible connection there could be between UFOs, John Dillinger, Aleister Crowley, JFK, H.P. Lovecraft, Nazis, atlantis, Albert Einstein, quantum physics, freemasonry, LSD, the CIA, James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, George Washington, marijuana, the Knights Templar, Hassan I Sabbah, Karl Marx, numerology, the I Ching, the Rosicrucians, the Comte de St. Germain, Buckminster Fuller, Timothy Leary, Wilhelm Reich, Emperor Norton, Al Capone, Henry Ford, Stonehenge, and the Lost Continent of Mus... then this is the book for you. The pop culture classic that made 'conspiracy theory' a dirty word.

This is easily Delillo's best work, combining the pathos of "Libra" with the cultural criticism of "White Noise"; a meditation on baseball, garbage, J. Edgar Hoover and the Bomb. "Underworld" may very well be the novel that captures the zeitgeist of the end of this American century.

Orlando Figes is a middle of the road British social democrat; a trait that works to his advantage in his extensive new history of the Russian Revolution. It's very difficult to find a work on this subject that is not either a rabid rightwing tract (Richard Pipes), or an apology for the Bolshevik abuses (Edward Hallett Carr). Figes work, though, seems to reflect a more sophisticated post cold-war position that recognizes the legitimacy of the revolution without placing the credit and/or blame solely in the hands of Lenin and his cronies. By placing his sympathies with the faceless peasants and urban poor rather than the few well known urban intellectuals that most histories depend on, Figes position on the subject seems surprisingly close to the almost forgotten critiques of the Revolution offered by the anarchists of the day; Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman both praised what was happening early on as a great spontaneous uprising of the nation, and both condemned the Bolsheviks for what amounted to a Coup by a small group of controlling elitist intellectuals that, in a very short time, crushed the inherently democratizing nature of the uprising. On the other hand, Figes does not make the mistake of most polemicists by ignoring the brutal ignorance of the peasants and working poor; by closely following the life of Gorky, his early work with the peasantry and his later disillusionment with the revolution, Figes shows how the masses were constantly metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot, creating more than enough hysteria and fear to provoke even the mildest of authoritarian tendencies. The one glaring weakness I was able to find in this work was Figes laughable sympathy for the Romanov family. Only a British scholar could lament Russia's lost opportunity for a smooth transition to a British-Monarchist style democracy. Luckily, this stuff is only in the early chapters so it wasn't too difficult to get through. Solid reading for anyone interested in the event that truly set the standard for the 20th century.