A review by linsey1828
The Rasputin File by Edvard Radzinsky
2.0
I feel like this book had a lot of potential, a new perspective on a larger-than-life historical figure but I had two main problems with this book.
The first being how he framed his arguments, often times it seemed like he would completely discount someone's whole testimony because of a small lie, or the exact opposite, and trust the testimony of someone else without giving a clear reason why. I do think he is right to be critical of his sources, but he seemed to jump from one extreme to the other, either completely trustworthy or not at all.
My second issue was his writing style. Often times his writing seems clunky, full of unnecessary details and repetitive foreshadowing. I've noted some standout ones that I think are worth sharing.
When talking about his search for the file itself. " He paused, but I already knew what was next. And he said, '...It's a complete file, an enormous one. And do you know what it's about?' I knew. and he then finished. "It's about Rasputin." (This is after he has spent about 13 pages on his quest for the necessary file) (pg. 19)
This is in the same section. "The birth date of our hero has been a riddle" a few lines later, "As with Hitler and Stalin, all the preceding children died."(pg. 25)
Talking about a girl who wished to meet Rasputin. "She had already experienced a great deal, including cocaine."(pg. 211)
"Let us remember that, and remember it well: he did not eat sweets." (215) He will not let you forget this fact, and brings it up at least two more times later.
"But Our friend was not not only preforming the duties of the tsarina's wise parrot" (pg. 312) what a metaphor
And finally, "Thus did Rasputin pass through each of the four elements: water, earth, fire, and air" (pg. 494)
If you have a deep interest in Rasputin or Russia as a whole in this time period, it's worth considering the read, but if you're someone who just wants a casual read on one of history's most infamous people, this probably is not worth the time.
The first being how he framed his arguments, often times it seemed like he would completely discount someone's whole testimony because of a small lie, or the exact opposite, and trust the testimony of someone else without giving a clear reason why. I do think he is right to be critical of his sources, but he seemed to jump from one extreme to the other, either completely trustworthy or not at all.
My second issue was his writing style. Often times his writing seems clunky, full of unnecessary details and repetitive foreshadowing. I've noted some standout ones that I think are worth sharing.
When talking about his search for the file itself. " He paused, but I already knew what was next. And he said, '...It's a complete file, an enormous one. And do you know what it's about?' I knew. and he then finished. "It's about Rasputin." (This is after he has spent about 13 pages on his quest for the necessary file) (pg. 19)
This is in the same section. "The birth date of our hero has been a riddle" a few lines later, "As with Hitler and Stalin, all the preceding children died."(pg. 25)
Talking about a girl who wished to meet Rasputin. "She had already experienced a great deal, including cocaine."(pg. 211)
"Let us remember that, and remember it well: he did not eat sweets." (215) He will not let you forget this fact, and brings it up at least two more times later.
"But Our friend was not not only preforming the duties of the tsarina's wise parrot" (pg. 312) what a metaphor
And finally, "Thus did Rasputin pass through each of the four elements: water, earth, fire, and air" (pg. 494)
If you have a deep interest in Rasputin or Russia as a whole in this time period, it's worth considering the read, but if you're someone who just wants a casual read on one of history's most infamous people, this probably is not worth the time.