juliterario's review against another edition
3.0
Debería darle 4 estrellas, pero no lo haré. Le doy 3 estrellas (o 3.5) porque, para mí, eso es lo que siento que debo darle como libro. Eso sí, tengan en mente que lo disfruté como a un libro de 4 estrellas.
¿Por qué decidí leer esta novela? Verán, el otro día llevé a cabo toda una búsqueda de libros de ficción histórica y me encontré con este. No sabía mucho sobre la historia así que, bueno, me aventuré por este relato de la Revolución Rusa en 1917. ¡Y valió la pena completamente!
Les recomiendo este libro bajo un criterio muy específico porque realmente no me parece que sea algo que todo el mundo disfrutará. Es más, es algo que pocos leerían, ya sé. Les recomiendo esta novela si les gusta la Historia (sobre todo la Historia rusa). Punto. Como novela, I Was Anastasia es muy extraña. Está contada en intervalos de tiempo que están todos mezclados y se hace MUY difícil seguirle el hilo a la historia. En serio, fue un desastre leerlo porque el orden estaba todo revuelto. Y como novela no es ninguna maravilla. Históricamente hablando, es muy buena. Me encantó llegar a conocer más sobre Anastasia Romanov y todo el asunto con Anna Anderson, así que este es un libro que no me arrepiento de haber leído. Y después la nota de la autora... y ese final... EL TRABAJO DE ARIEL LAWHON ME PARECE SUMAMENTE PODEROSO. PUNTO FINAL.
nakbari's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
tamara_mousa's review against another edition
5.0
Ariel Lawhon beautifully weaved I was Anastasia in a sequential order. This historical drama sheds light on the lavish life of Anastasia when her father was the Tsar of Russia, and the Russian and Bolshevik revolutions, which landed them into imprison. This book also described in a reverse chronological order the story of Anna Anderson, the Polish woman who claimed to be Tsarevna Anastasia Romanov.
But to give every woman's life its right, the stories of these women will be posted separately. So the current post will present the life story of Anastasia Romanov.
To the author, thank you for alerting me not to read the author's note as it would have spoiled my reading of this novel!
There is a summary about it in my blog - https://www.tamarayousefmousa.com
But to give every woman's life its right, the stories of these women will be posted separately. So the current post will present the life story of Anastasia Romanov.
To the author, thank you for alerting me not to read the author's note as it would have spoiled my reading of this novel!
There is a summary about it in my blog - https://www.tamarayousefmousa.com
loyaultemelie's review against another edition
1.0
(Trigger Warning for book and review: sexual assualt and rape)
This book was a bit painful to read. Being a massive Romanov enthusiast I had hope, but alas.
I suppose the biggest problem for me is the fact that the author includes rape where there was none, and downplays it quite severely. If one has to put rape in a book, even worse when there was none, you cannot cop out and act as if there’s next to no reaction, other than nightmares and derision for someone engaging in consensual sex. It makes the author seem to think assault is “not that bad”, or something easy to get over, I’m not saying the author thinks that I’m quite sure she doesn’t, but it does make reading it infuriating. The worst being her assertion such things actually happened, lack of sources for that aside, if a soldier actually attempted to do such a thing my guess is their next stop would be prison, even if the Ural Soviets had no love for the Romanovs it would be too easy to martyr them, and that’s one thing the Soviets always sought to avoid. This, combined with the fact Olga and Tatiana have little characterization of than being horrible assaulted, is infuriating because use of rape in fiction is often disastrous and this book is no exception. Two dimensional characters are only made worse by their sole characteristic being battery and assault.
On the topic of the Imperial Family in this book, they’re portrayed as extremely haughty, much more than their diaries, letters, etc would have you believe. The idea they were forced to have a vegetable garden at Tsarskoe Selo and resented it is baffling considering they took pleasure in the task in reality.
Other historical inaccuracies include:
Anastasia and Maria never contracting measles. In fact all five of the children had measles, Maria being the last one to fall ill, and being so ill she was put on oxygen and quite well may have died.
OTMA’s hair being long, in reality their hair was shaved off once they were in recovery.
Olga and Tatiana having no personality other than that of cowering waifs horribly assaulted. Olga was a bit of a dreamer who became depressed in captivity, and Tatiana was shy but extremely organized and mothering.
Maria ever engaging in sex. She was caught receiving cake for her birthday from a soldier but nothing more.
Xenia and Olga were younger than Nicholas II, not older.
Alexandra believing Alexei’s illness was cured by Rasputin (something dropped rather quickly anyways).
Nicholas and Anastasia both hating Grigori Rasputin, all members of the Imperial Family adored Rasputin, well, NAOTMAA specifically the extended family had different opinions. In fact the Romanov sisters died wearing icons given to them by Rasputin.
The Romanovs seeing Rasputin’s grave being defiled.
The erasure of half the Imperial entourage.
Focusing on the story itself, the way it was told backwards hindered character development in favor of hiding plot points. More notable experiences, like the encounter with Adolf Hitler - not an actual historical event from what I have read - which by the way should’ve been handled with a lot more care considering how absolutely terrifically evil the man was, were brushed over for it being shocking later in the book.
Another thing is the author’s contempt for the Imperial Family. It is made clear by the author’s note she sees them as of little interest, and is unaffected by what happens to them. This makes the addition of rape ever more infuriating, does she assume the only way we can sympathize with them is by submitting them to such horror? It’d be more compelling if she took what actually happened to them, their friends being carted away, their lack of contact with the outside world, and worked with that, not cramming in sexual assault.
In the end her derision for the Romanovs makes the reader feel a bit insulted but perhaps that’s just me.
For those who wish a more interesting take on the Romanovs, I recommend “the Lost Crown” by Sarah Miller, which shows the family as more fleshed out and real, and is more compelling.
This book was a bit painful to read. Being a massive Romanov enthusiast I had hope, but alas.
I suppose the biggest problem for me is the fact that the author includes rape where there was none, and downplays it quite severely. If one has to put rape in a book, even worse when there was none, you cannot cop out and act as if there’s next to no reaction, other than nightmares and derision for someone engaging in consensual sex. It makes the author seem to think assault is “not that bad”, or something easy to get over, I’m not saying the author thinks that I’m quite sure she doesn’t, but it does make reading it infuriating. The worst being her assertion such things actually happened, lack of sources for that aside, if a soldier actually attempted to do such a thing my guess is their next stop would be prison, even if the Ural Soviets had no love for the Romanovs it would be too easy to martyr them, and that’s one thing the Soviets always sought to avoid. This, combined with the fact Olga and Tatiana have little characterization of than being horrible assaulted, is infuriating because use of rape in fiction is often disastrous and this book is no exception. Two dimensional characters are only made worse by their sole characteristic being battery and assault.
On the topic of the Imperial Family in this book, they’re portrayed as extremely haughty, much more than their diaries, letters, etc would have you believe. The idea they were forced to have a vegetable garden at Tsarskoe Selo and resented it is baffling considering they took pleasure in the task in reality.
Other historical inaccuracies include:
Anastasia and Maria never contracting measles. In fact all five of the children had measles, Maria being the last one to fall ill, and being so ill she was put on oxygen and quite well may have died.
OTMA’s hair being long, in reality their hair was shaved off once they were in recovery.
Olga and Tatiana having no personality other than that of cowering waifs horribly assaulted. Olga was a bit of a dreamer who became depressed in captivity, and Tatiana was shy but extremely organized and mothering.
Maria ever engaging in sex. She was caught receiving cake for her birthday from a soldier but nothing more.
Xenia and Olga were younger than Nicholas II, not older.
Alexandra believing Alexei’s illness was cured by Rasputin (something dropped rather quickly anyways).
Nicholas and Anastasia both hating Grigori Rasputin, all members of the Imperial Family adored Rasputin, well, NAOTMAA specifically the extended family had different opinions. In fact the Romanov sisters died wearing icons given to them by Rasputin.
The Romanovs seeing Rasputin’s grave being defiled.
The erasure of half the Imperial entourage.
Focusing on the story itself, the way it was told backwards hindered character development in favor of hiding plot points. More notable experiences, like the encounter with Adolf Hitler - not an actual historical event from what I have read - which by the way should’ve been handled with a lot more care considering how absolutely terrifically evil the man was, were brushed over for it being shocking later in the book.
Another thing is the author’s contempt for the Imperial Family. It is made clear by the author’s note she sees them as of little interest, and is unaffected by what happens to them. This makes the addition of rape ever more infuriating, does she assume the only way we can sympathize with them is by submitting them to such horror? It’d be more compelling if she took what actually happened to them, their friends being carted away, their lack of contact with the outside world, and worked with that, not cramming in sexual assault.
In the end her derision for the Romanovs makes the reader feel a bit insulted but perhaps that’s just me.
For those who wish a more interesting take on the Romanovs, I recommend “the Lost Crown” by Sarah Miller, which shows the family as more fleshed out and real, and is more compelling.
rrickman33's review against another edition
3.0
I really wanted to love this book. But I didn’t for two reasons.
1. Half of the book was told backwards and it was very confusing.
2. There was so much animal violence in this book no one warned me about and it was very upsetting and kept happening.
1. Half of the book was told backwards and it was very confusing.
2. There was so much animal violence in this book no one warned me about and it was very upsetting and kept happening.
bprinter's review against another edition
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
kriste's review against another edition
3.0
I first found this book interesting; but I grew weary and bored of the constant time period changes and skimmed the last 2/3 of the book.
jodiesackettbrown's review
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0