Als Mutter ebenfalls zweier Kinder bin ich bestens mit der Thematik vertraut uns kann die Sorgen, den Stress und natürlich auch die manchmal aufkommende Verzweiflung verstehen und gut nachvollziehen. Mir, sowie auch anderen Eltern auch, wird das Buch in dieser Beziehung also kaum etwas Neues bzw. Überraschendes zu Tage bringen.

Was allerdings den Leser offensichtlich schockieren soll ist der Ton in dem es geschrieben ist und von den Autoren gleich zum Anfang angekündigt wird. Dieser ist, um es noch milde auszudrücken, unangenehm zynisch und durchweg abwertend. Die detailtreue Erzählweise betont die Ehrlichkeit dieses “Elternbuchs”, jedoch hinterlässt es einen unangenehmen Nachgeschmack des offensichtlich stark überforderten Elternpaares, das sich den Frust vom Herzen schreibt. Diese Darstellung ist allerdings nicht nur subjektiv und eindimensional sondern auch enttäuschend und man fragt sich welches Zielpublikum damit erreicht werden soll? Sind es andere frustrierteund enttäuschte Eltern oder sind es kinderlose Paare (die sich Kinder wünschen)? Beide würde das Buch einfach nur verwirren. Lösungsvorschläge zu den angesprochenen Problemfeldern bringt das Buch ebenfalls kaum.

Wie schön das Elternsein doch ist, trotz der ganzen Schwierigkeiten, kommt erst im letzten Kapitel und sozusagen “auf den letzten Drücker”. Wäre es nicht viel angenehmer auch zwischendurch mal etwas Positives zwischen die Zeilen zu schreiben anstatt vehement zu behaupten wie “kacke” das Leben mit Kindern oftmals ist? Sollten (werdende) Eltern vielmehr motiviert werden in ihrer überaus wichtigen gesellschaftlichen Rolle, insbesondere Frauen, die oft mit vielen Dilemmata zu kämpfen haben?

Die Autoren haben ein Buch über sich selbst geschrieben, welches für andere Eltern allerdings meiner Meinung nach eher uninteressant ist und kaum auf Begeisterung stoßen kann.

One day, both  couples discover a warehouse of CHEESE at a time. The CHEESE is delicious and there is more of it than you need in a life-time! Happy about their finding, the two midgets are resting, eating the CHEESE not thinking about the future -  enjoying the feeling of security. The mice are keeping on  being on the lookout for CHEESE, not thinking about future and hoping to discover new sorts of more CHEESE!

After a while, the CHEESE warehouses are dispelled – all the CHEESE is gone – nobody knows WHERE and WHY! The mice, as well as the midgets have to fight for their livelihood again!

Now the strategies of the two couples are drifting apart.As usual, the mice are running around trough the labyrinth, looking out for NEW CHEESE. The midgets are sitting around – appalled, frustrated, angry – trying to understand who and why had suddenly taken THEIR CHEESE away from them! Time is passing, the two are speculating and puzzling  about the present situation. Nobody is motivated to go out in the large and dangerous labyrinth to look out for NEW CHEESE. This is just too unfair and stressful to start from the beginning, not even knowing about the success of the new quest!

Eventually, one of the midgets takes the risk and goes out into the labyrinth, hoping to find a new warehouse of CHEESE. His partner preferred to stay and wait for CHEESE at the usual place – safe but hungry…- hoping somebody bringing him back HIS CHEESE.

Did you  recognize yourself in one of the characters – `cause this is the point of this short-story, which  is visualizing and simplifying diverse tricky situation out of our life. It makes us think about our own strategies to deal with problems and to solve them. The CHEESE – a picture of our values in life, our secret disires and hopes. The labyrinth – the difficulties we  meet with, while trying to  achieve a target.

This book probably helps you to find out the right strategy, offering ten strategic directions to the reader . Read it – and find out!

She differed from her forerunners, as it turned out, in many ways. She spent ten years at the side of the famous artist and could study his works and personality more precisely than anybody else. Living, working and having two children with Picasso – a life which had a strong influence on her own personality and led eventually to the breakup between them.

With just 21 years Gilot met Picasso (62) at a cafe in Paris. Not long before their acquaintance she decided, against her father`s plans, for a life as a paintress and moved to her grandma`s house. In her youthful inexperience and her admiration of Picasso`s art she fell in love with him, ready to devote to him all her time and attention. Pablo has been fascinated by her intelligence and erudition and not at least by her devotion.

At the beginning, their relationship was characterized by almost philosophical nightlong discussions about art.  His possessive manner pushed Françoise to isolate even from her beloved grandma, when she moved to Picasso`s studio in the Rue-Grand-Augustine. From now on she got to know him as a quite capricious, jealous sometimes soft but often crude character. Everybody in the household – the butler Sabartés, the maid Ines, the chauffeur Marcel – had to obey him without any contradiction. When he fired Marcel after 25 years or debased Sabartés, he didn`t bat an eyelid. His attitude related to women he verbalized like this: “There are two categories of women – door scraper and goddesses”.

Those extremes between good and bad as well as his own complete devotion to his art paraphrased his nature. Usually Picasso worked from the early afternoon until late evening every day. He worked and experimented with several kinds of materials – ceramics, tone, glazing, garbage- and produced with his perfectionist and prolific manner a great artistic legacy. Himself he described his work as something, that should and could “touch” everybody not only the “happy few“. His art would be the same as the work of Moliere or Shakespeare – open to the public, “burlesque and sometimes even vulgar” (see Demoiselles  d `Avignon). Françoise understood the importance and the weight of Picasso`s work for the Modern Art and developed her own painting at the same time, certainly influenced by Pablo.

After the birth of their first child Claude and the longish stay at the Côte d’Azur, where Pablo`s  ex-wife Olga Khlokhova daily observed and pursued them, feelings of doubt and concern mixed up with jealousy troubled their relationship for the first time. The birth of Paloma worsened  the difficult situation. The past wasn`t still  cut off and Pablo seemed to be even amused about the persistent conflicts between Olga, Dora, Marie-Therese and Françoise.

The physical exhaustion and the daily duties as well as the absent assistance from Pablo, who didn`t want to be disturbed from working, stressed their relationship. The family assumed an ever larger part of their life,  and that was it, what Pablo couldn`t and wouldn`t never cope with.  There was no feeling of security and heartiness. Pablo`s coolness was the answer to her long-years of devotion.

More and more he withdrew from the “annoying” family. From now on he travelled often alone and stood for weeks, sending just short telegrams given up by Sabartés. Reluctant but self-confident, making no claims Françoise clearly differed from Olga and Dora with their flashy and demanding manners. Conscious of his fame, Pablo got used to their and also other´s admiration. Her wish to a breakup has been something unforgivable and absolute unbelievable. She seemed to be the winner and he the loser of this long battle which he has been fighting all the time being in a relationship with a women worth him.

He did never forgave her. She did never see him again.

Without reading this fascinating autobiography about her life at Picasso`s side, it`s hardly possible to understand the depth and the sense of his work. Her own full admiration of Pablo and the sensitive understanding of his work give their relationship a very special degree of fulfillment for both of them. Their breakup is bound to happen due to Picasso`s strong, stubborn and adamant character. Gilot allows a very deep and touching insight into one short period of  Picasso`s life from an unconventional perspective.

Zunächst einmal zu dem Inhalt des Kapitels, welches die Privatisierungsreform der 90er Jahre in Russland behandelt.

Der Autor idealisiert den Erfolg der russischen Reform, die sich seiner Ansicht nach vor allem durch die hohe aktive Beteiligung der russischen Bevölkerung sowie die schnelle Durchführung auszeichnet und einen wichtigen Schritt zur Ent-Politisierung der Unternehmen geleistet hat. Als wichtigste Aspekte zur erfolgreichen Durchführung benennt Schleifer: Privatisierung, Wettbewerb auf Märkten und Eigenkapitalbeteiligung.  Er thematisiert die Notwendigkeit der Privatisierung zur Steigerung der Effizienz von Unternehmen, sodass die Kosten der Politisierung (Subventionen, günstige Kreditvergabe oder illegale Zahlungen) von Unternehmen steigen. Auf diesem Wege wird es für die Politiker immer ungünstiger ihre Machtstrukturen zu erhalten und Kontrolle auszuüben.

Das Privatisierungsprogramm, dass unter Jelzin 1992  gestartet wurde, ist vor allem durch die Voucherausgabe  (1 Voucher hatte einen Wert von 10 000 Rubel) an die gesamte russische Bevölkerung, bekannt geworden. In den s.g. Voucherauktionen wurden zehntausende Staatsunternehmen privatisiert. Diese erste Etappe der Massenprivatisierung brachte dem Staatshaushalt nur geringe Einnahmen ein, weil die Unternehmen weit unter ihrem Wert verkauft wurden. Zudem schwankte der Wert ein und derselben Aktie von Region zu Region. Die ab 1994-96 durchgeführte zweite Etappe der Privatisieung sollte dem defizitären Staatshaushalt höhere Einnahmen sichern, was durch die berühmt berüchtigten Pfandauktionen erreicht werden sollte.

Soweit ein kurzer Abriss des besagten 3. Kapitels…

Was mich aber beim Lesen stutzig gemacht hat war, dass Schleifer in seinen Ausführungen mit keinem Wort folgende Fakten erwähnt hatte:

1. Desinteresse großer Teile der Bevölkerung an Voucherauktionen und Tauschhandel mit Vouchern (1 Voucher = 2 Flaschen Vodka)

2. Das Entstehen von Investmentfonds und Banken, die sich durch Aufkauf großer Voucherpakete Mehrheitsanteile an Großunternehmen erwarben

3. Entstehen einer reichen Oberschicht der Oligarchen und von ihnen initiierte Pfandauktionen, in deren Rahmen Unternehmen der Erdöl-und Gasindustrie zu Schleuderpreisen erworben wurden

4. Die Verarmung großer Teile der Bevölkreung und den Verslust ihrer Bankguthaben

5. Den Ausschluss ausländischer Auktionäre

Und es gibt siherlich noch mehr Fakten, die das von mir vervollständigte Bild der realen Geschehnisse, noch ergänzen. Diese Fakten sind kaum zu widerlegen, belegt durch Zeitzeugenberichte und zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen. Wie und aus welchem Grund hatte Schleifer bei seiner Analyse der russischen Privatisierung diese wichtigen Tatsachen unterschlagen?

Um diese Frage beantworten zu können ist es vielleicht ganz interessant, wenn man ein Paar Details aus der Karrierelaufbahn des Autors – Professor Andrej Schleifer- recherchiert.

Andrej Schleifer emigrierte 1976 mit seinen Eltern (jüdischer Abstammung) in die USA. Dort studierte er Mathematik und Wirtschaft an der renomierten Harvard  University. Hat dort eine glänzende Karriere gemacht und mit nur 29 Jahren eine Professur  an derselben Universität erhalten. 1991 fuhr er im Auftrag der US-Regierung mit mehreren Kollegen des Harvard Insitute for International Development (HIID) nach Moskau um die neue “demokratisch” gewählte russische  Regierung Sachen Etablierung marktwirtschaftlicher Strukturen zu beraten. Er arbeitete eng mit den Reformisten Egor Gaidar (Ministerpresident unter Jelzin) und Anatolij Chubajs (Vorsitzender des GKI – Privatisierungskommitees ) zusammen. Konnte durch seine muttersprachlichen Russischkenntnisse Insider Kontakte knüpfen. Da im Auftrag der US-Regierung tätig, war es ihm und seinen Kollegen strengstens untersagt sich an Privatisierungsauktionen zubeteiligen und auf dem neuen Markt Investitionen zu tätigen. Gegen diese Regel hat Schleifer, sein Kollege und Vertrauter J. Hay und ihre Ehefrauen verstoßen indem sie Millionen von Dollar in russische Erdöl-und Gasindustrie investierten.

Erst 1997 flog der Skandal durch US-Revisoren auf und es folgte 2005 in den USA ein Prozess gegen Schleifer und seine Kumpanen. Sie und die HIID sollten 30 Mio.$ Schadenersatz an die US-Regierung zahlen. Entgegen der Erwartung, dass Prof. Schleifer seinen Titel los ward, konnte er die Professur weiterhin an der Harvard University behalten.

Und nun 2005 dieses Buch, wo er die russische Privatisierung als gelungen glorifiziert. Will er damit vielleicht seine Spuren verwischen und die Raubwirtschaft der 90er Jahre an der er sich beteiligt hat in Vergessenheit geraten lassen? Man mag sich gar nicht vorstellen wie viele solcher “wissenschaftlichen” und “auf Fakten” beruhenden Werke die “Harvard University Press” noch auf den Markt bringt bzw. schon gebracht hat und welche Lehren solche “Professoren” an dieser renomierten Uni angehenden Ökonomen vermitteln!Ist es normal?

This Post will be translated in English soon!

Hamlet’s classsic “To be or not to be…speech” really shows who he is. Obviously Hamlet is horribly depressed. We have already seen several examples of this, but this speech gives us a clear picture of his sadness. More importantly however, his speech shows his weakness and indecisiveness. Hamlet is consistently melancholy, but he never really acts on it; he just kind of wallows around, full of self-pity and loathing. Throughout the play he seems to wish for death and here we find out why he doesn’t bring it on himself. This speech provides us with a clear understanding of Hamlet and his motivations. He feels that his troubles and his heartache are to to much to deal with. While this speech is not the first time he has mentioned suicide, it does give the clearest picture of just how far gone he is. He seems to be weary of life, as he consistently says to sleep while refering to death. As though he only wishes to rest and forget his troubled soul. It is not that he feels there is too much pain or strife in life, but that he is tired with dealing with it and exausted by his efforts. More interestingly, Hamlet shows here his fundamental cowardice and fear.

He has been going on for the whole play about how terrible his life is and how much pain and suffering he has had to endure, and he starts out the speech on this note. This is the first indication of his weakness. Hamlet, it seems, would rather bemoan his troubles than solve them. He goes on and on about his crappy life but rarely, if ever, even tries to do anything about it. Even in his desire for death he will speak but not act. He doesn’t decide against suicide because of some noble realization (that life is far to precious to be wasted for example), he is just too scared of the afterlife. Hamlet’s motivation for wanting to die and also for remaining alive gives some of the best insight into his personality. In this speech Hamlet elects not to kill himself and discovers why he has not yet done it.

His reason for choosing life over death is also shown here. He is too afraid of the unknown, of the undiscovered country to act on his desire. It is not so much that he is afraid to act, just that he has become so despondant that he doesn’t really care enough to do anything. All of his actions thoughout the play, up through the end of the story, can be viewed as a consequence of his despondence and cowardice. Hamlet lays out in this speech exactly what kind of person he is.

This book is nothing special if you read it and don´t try to figure out why it´s actually written and what is it really about. It´s surreal in a way. In my opinion it is very close to Freud´s theories and I´m sure that McEwan is quite familiar with his work. The examples which McEwen uses to show difficulties of young sexual identity are certainly very exaggarated and that´s why this book immpressed me in a negativ way. It wasn´t pleasant for me to read .
This book is full of metaphors or rather it is actually a parable. The title “Cement Garden” is a symble for this stiff atmosphere in the house and in the souls of the children. It stands also for the education they got from their father. Education is like the foundation out of cement to build a house on it.

Back to our main characters – to Harriet and her husband David Lovatt.
When Hariet was pregnant last time they decided to give it a break for a couple of years. Both are really dismayed when she`s pregnant again. Because they don`t trust the Pill and don`t use any other contraceptives but only the count-days-method, David holds the responsibility for this pregnancy on Harriet. During her pregnancy Harriet developes a hatered to this ”monster”(that`s how she called her foetus) inside her body who tries to hurt her from inside. She cannot sleep because of the permanent moving of the foetus thus the doctor prescribes her a sedative. Poor Harriet takes more and more of these “drugs” to calm down the baby.
After eight months of horrible aches in the belly, which she hardly can stand anylonger, Harriet gives birth to their new family member. It is a boy!
“He was not a pretty baby. He did not look lake a baby at all. He had a heavy-shouldered huncher look, as if he were crouching there as he lay.”

Ben, this is how Harriet called him, has green-yellowish cold eyes and a head, which is too big for his body. From the first moment, this strange child starts his fight! He`s struggling and kicking around with an abnormal strength and he`s insatiable hungry.
The four other children are afraid of Ben. Harriet is sure, she cannot love her own baby and David doesn`t even touch him.
Their dream of a family life in an isolated, protected world of their large house begins to darken.
Nobody admits that Ben is the destroyer of the happyness and pleasure. Herriet is condemned by everybody, even by David, her husband.
When Ben is 6 month old, he tries to hurt his brother Paul. When he`s about one year old, he kills a dog and then also a cat. Ben strangles them! He seems to be uncontrollable and heartless.
Not human!!
The family insists on putting him into an institution for freaks, where they are kept away from the society and are druged to death eventually.

What a RELIEF! Everything turns back to normality. The four other children adore their mother who almost didn`t pay attention to them since her last pregnancy. David and Harriet hope for a new beginning in their torn relationship.
“Harriet understood what a burden Ben had been, how he had oppressed them all, how much the children had suffered,…”

Harriet realizes, how much Ben had influenced the characters of the other four unfold young minds. She owned them and her husband David so much!
At the other side Herriet has remorse having given away her own child, although she never did feel any affection towards him. Her decision is set. She will go and see where and how Ben is now.
Nor David neither her mum are able to talk her out of it.
This is the turning point of the story!
Harriet is torn between the ruthlessness and cruel society and her responsibility as a mother. Her pathetic feelings caused again condamnation from everybody, for the rest of her life.
When she arrives at the institution Ben was brought to, by her family, she doesn`t even think about any other possibilities and decides to bring her son back home. She finds him in a room with walls out of white plastik and smeared with Bens own excrements !
“The doctor” gave him something very strong, so he was away for half a day and moreover they put him in a strait-jacket.
Obviously he would die very soon, because while he was druged he couldn`t eat.

Back home her children and David sat silent.
“He would have been dead in a few months. Weeks probably.” A silence.
“I thought it was the idea!”, said David.

For the next time Harried cared again much more about Ben then about the other children. This was David`s job.
Ben is sometimes like a pet who either trust or doesn`t trust his owner. Herriet threats Ben with returning him to this horrible place if he wouldn`t obbey her. So he is really afraid of her.
Soon he should go to school but Herriet is afraid that he would hurt there somebody. He did.
The two older children want to leave and go to a boarding school. The other two prefere to go to a friends house after school. David is almost never at home but at work. Once a happy family life now it breaks apart. The only reason for it is – Ben.
Lateron Ben becomes part of a street-gang of youths. The teenagers tease him with names like Gobblin, Hobbit or Gnome but he doesn`t mind. They take him to their trips. Harriet is their sponsor because she`s glad when he`s away and she is able to spend time with the othe two children.
Soon, she knew it, they would leave too, to go to a boarding school. The main reason for it again is Ben.
Ben finishes his primary-school and can hardly write his own name or read. In spite of this fact he changes to another school. He starts bringing home his own gang of ten boys who obbey him wordlessly although he speaks seldom.
“When he did say something, it was never much more then Yes, or No.Take this!Get that!”
“They were a bunch of gangly, spotty, uncertain adolescents; he was a young adult.”

After twenty years, Herriet´s and David´s marriage turned in a way they never supposed it would.
They didn`t have a family anymore. The large house, the symbol for family life, should be sold.
Herriet feels terribly lonely. Nobody ever understood her thoughts about this strange creature she has given birth to.
Ben is about to leave too. His gang becomes famous for its brutal crimes. Ben came and went with the same cold blooded mood of an animal. He didn´n even say good-bye.

The russian author emigrated from Moskow in 1990. Living in the German capital Berlin he writes about trivial situations of his everyday life. In particular he reflects and outlines in a funny way special problems which russian emigrants are confronted with in terms of the new mentality and language.

“Russiandisco” iss a light and amusing book to read!  The humourous way to describe russians, who are coming to the West to start a new life and ending up in the Berlin suburb Marzan in an asylum, is very well done and hits the mark!

The russian (jew) community holds together. There are russian “Intelligenzia”clubs, folklore-feasts, restorants and Diskos! The author points out, that customs, mentality and the way of life of russians living in Berlin  didn`t change much throghout years. And it`s quite unlikely that a foreigner of the first-generation will integrate into the new society.