You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
informative
sad
tense
fast-paced
The book follows in detail the last week or so of the Romanovs. There is background information scattered throughout as well. Lots of information but delivered a bit on the dry side for me. Recommend if you want to learn more about the final days of the Romanovs. Not recommended if you want background on how they got to that point.
This was a bit of a slog. It had some interesting facts, but just took forever to get through.
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
Shockingly biased and not well-researched.
The author’s disdain for Alexandra is palpable, calling her masculine, overbearing, and prudish; referring to her illnesses as “real or imagined”; and diagnosing her with one of Freud’s women’s disorders. All without objective proof (although how do you prove that a woman is “masculine” or has a Freudian disorder that is, in fact, make-believe?)
She also goes so far as to say that the Romanovs captivity must have been unbearable because it required four menstruating women—a group of people who are “subject to mood swings”—and one “likely menopausal” woman to share space. Apparently, to the author, women are crazy and hard to be around, whether menstruating or not. You would think that she’d never heard of a women’s dorm. It’s a lot.
But it’s also hard to take anything she says at face value, given her cavalier handling of the facts.
She reports (emphatically and repeatedly) that Maria was found in a “compromising position” with a guard and was iced out by her mother and sisters because of it. The only source for this little factoid is a man that the author herself admits was a drunk and an unreliable witness. Also, not someone who was actually a guard at the house at any point or in any real position to know.
There’s definitely some irony in the “Notes on Sources” section saying that the Romanovs’ legacy has been commercialized and romanticized beyond all reasonable fact, when it was written by the author of a slew of Romanov books capitalizing on the craze and sensationalizing the information. I get her point— certainly, no human family was as good and pure as this one is often represented as having been, but rectifying that situation would require the author to emphasize the harm this family did to the Russian people. Instead, she has written roughly a dozen books about them purposefully catering to popular gossip and intrigue, spreading falsehoods and her own opinions about their personalities.
The more I read history, the more I understand that history books tell you as much about their authors as they do about their subject; and I don’t think I care for Helen Rappaport.
The author’s disdain for Alexandra is palpable, calling her masculine, overbearing, and prudish; referring to her illnesses as “real or imagined”; and diagnosing her with one of Freud’s women’s disorders. All without objective proof (although how do you prove that a woman is “masculine” or has a Freudian disorder that is, in fact, make-believe?)
She also goes so far as to say that the Romanovs captivity must have been unbearable because it required four menstruating women—a group of people who are “subject to mood swings”—and one “likely menopausal” woman to share space. Apparently, to the author, women are crazy and hard to be around, whether menstruating or not. You would think that she’d never heard of a women’s dorm. It’s a lot.
But it’s also hard to take anything she says at face value, given her cavalier handling of the facts.
She reports (emphatically and repeatedly) that Maria was found in a “compromising position” with a guard and was iced out by her mother and sisters because of it. The only source for this little factoid is a man that the author herself admits was a drunk and an unreliable witness. Also, not someone who was actually a guard at the house at any point or in any real position to know.
There’s definitely some irony in the “Notes on Sources” section saying that the Romanovs’ legacy has been commercialized and romanticized beyond all reasonable fact, when it was written by the author of a slew of Romanov books capitalizing on the craze and sensationalizing the information. I get her point— certainly, no human family was as good and pure as this one is often represented as having been, but rectifying that situation would require the author to emphasize the harm this family did to the Russian people. Instead, she has written roughly a dozen books about them purposefully catering to popular gossip and intrigue, spreading falsehoods and her own opinions about their personalities.
The more I read history, the more I understand that history books tell you as much about their authors as they do about their subject; and I don’t think I care for Helen Rappaport.
I read this for a college research paper I'm currently writing.
The Romanov family story is an interesting one. When reading over several pages of scholarly articles, there are hardly any reports on what happened, so having a book dedicated to their last days in Yekaterinburg was a spectacular thing to find.
I've found myself obsessed with knowing everything there was to know about the Romanov family, because their life was cut short. All four girls, Alexei, and those that stayed with the family till the end. The democratic movement was needed, I agree, but the red army thinking the greatest idea was to kill an entire family even after abdication of the throne blows my mind! I still don't get it and chances are I never will.
Finally holding a book in my hand that explains that of their last days helps to understand what they really went through those last few days in Yekaterinburg.
The Romanov family story is an interesting one. When reading over several pages of scholarly articles, there are hardly any reports on what happened, so having a book dedicated to their last days in Yekaterinburg was a spectacular thing to find.
I've found myself obsessed with knowing everything there was to know about the Romanov family, because their life was cut short. All four girls, Alexei, and those that stayed with the family till the end. The democratic movement was needed, I agree, but the red army thinking the greatest idea was to kill an entire family even after abdication of the throne blows my mind! I still don't get it and chances are I never will.
Finally holding a book in my hand that explains that of their last days helps to understand what they really went through those last few days in Yekaterinburg.
“Ekaterinburg is the name of the town the Romanovs, the Imperial family of Russia were kept in the weeks leading up to their execution. Helen Rappaport, the author, writes well and I like the way the book is laid out, with each chapter taking on a day in the house they were kept in and a different member of the family.
The only gripe I have with this book is that for a complete novice on Russian history, which I have to confes myself to be, it doesn't give enough information on the social and political background of Russia at the time.
Yes in 1918 Russia was sill embroiled in World War I, so was virtually every country at th time. The book tells me that Nicholas Romanov was probably not the best person to be Tsar of Russia, him and his wife Alexandra were very private, insular people who didn't make themselves visible to their countrymen. Alexandra was German, which could not have been good n that political climate.
Still, it isn't made completely clear why Nicholas Romanov was called "Nicholas the Bloody". Russia was in the midst of a revolution, but why?
In short, as well writtten ad interesting as this book is, there is not enough detail given asto Why Nicholas Romanov and his family were executed by firing squad. What was it that made him to blame for Russia's state at the time considering at this time he'd already abdicated?
Basically this book conjured up more questions than answers for me. In a way that's a good thing it will lead me to read up more on the subject but as a stand alone book that wasn't what I wanted from it.
Ms Rappaport you are a good writer but us Russian history novices need more detail please!”
The only gripe I have with this book is that for a complete novice on Russian history, which I have to confes myself to be, it doesn't give enough information on the social and political background of Russia at the time.
Yes in 1918 Russia was sill embroiled in World War I, so was virtually every country at th time. The book tells me that Nicholas Romanov was probably not the best person to be Tsar of Russia, him and his wife Alexandra were very private, insular people who didn't make themselves visible to their countrymen. Alexandra was German, which could not have been good n that political climate.
Still, it isn't made completely clear why Nicholas Romanov was called "Nicholas the Bloody". Russia was in the midst of a revolution, but why?
In short, as well writtten ad interesting as this book is, there is not enough detail given asto Why Nicholas Romanov and his family were executed by firing squad. What was it that made him to blame for Russia's state at the time considering at this time he'd already abdicated?
Basically this book conjured up more questions than answers for me. In a way that's a good thing it will lead me to read up more on the subject but as a stand alone book that wasn't what I wanted from it.
Ms Rappaport you are a good writer but us Russian history novices need more detail please!”
challenging
dark
reflective
tense
slow-paced
dark
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced