(Unreliable) Books to avoid?

[rjt]

Hello all. I apologize if this has been mentioned previously in a thread of its own, but I didn't find one.

My question is simple: Who are the authors one should avoid reading (because of either obvious agendas or presentation of fictitious "information" as fact, etc.)? Conversely, then, who are the most reliable writers out there?

I've picked up some tips from the discussions, such as Radzinsky tops the Avoid List, but what about others, such as Richard Pipes?

Just for kicks, here is my Amazon Wish List. Where am I making a mistake and what changes should I make?
[Removed]

Thanks!!

[Elisabeth]

Dear rjt,

Why should you avoid Richard Pipes? He's the perfect antidote to Orlando Figes: they counterbalance each other (in fact they hate each other and Pipes accused Figes of plagiarism!). Seriously, though, it's good to read both. Get both sides before you make up your own mind.

The real author to avoid is Maria Mouchanow. She wrote a "Secret History" of the last tsaritsa which is completely fabricated and not to be believed. Fortunately this book is pretty rare and long out of print. It's interesting, but only as a means of discovering what the popular press in the States and elsewhere wrote about the IF while they were still alive. Mainly nonsense.

I wouldn't totally discount Radzinsky, if you have a historical mind that has a good bs-detector. Radzinsky is a Romantic Historian, which means he should more properly be writing in the 19th century, the age of Heroes and Heroines and Melodramatic Deeds. But he has lots of fascinating inside anecdotes which nobody else has (mainly because he has a lot of inside sources due to his position as a leading Russian playwright). His book about Stalin is definitely worth a gander. Just add a large pinch of salt when he starts going off on some Melodramatic riff... but the most readable, accessible and reliable biography of Stalin is Simon Sebag Montefiore's At the Court of the Red Tsar.

I would also definitely add Dominic Lieven's Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire to your wish list. It's a very well balanced biography of the last tsar and at the same time sympathetic overall. Read it side by side with Figes and you can't go wrong. Also, if you haven't read it already, Rosemary and Donald Crawford's Michael and Natasha, about Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich and his great love. This is a very romantic tale, with the requisite tragic ending; keep a box of tissues or a hanky on hand...

P.S. You like Charmed, but not the series to which it owed its very creation, Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Wondering much!    

[Annie]

I cannot respond as I would like, as the author I avoid and would like to advise others to avoid has been known to frequent this forum, and I don't want any trouble. Perhaps this isn't the best idea for a thread, since many associated with Romanov history, including several authors, have or still do read and post here

[Russian_Duchess_#5]

Annie, you could PM rjt.  

Sofia

[Robert_Hall]

Personally, I do not think you should avoid anyone.  Read any and all, that way you can make up your own mind. I have read some real trash but would not have know it was unless I had read it, after all.

[Sarushka]

I also wouldn't avoid Radzinsky -- just be aware that he indulges in a docu-drama style. His biggest downfall is inventing thoughts and feelings for his subjects without telling the reader that they're his own undocumented imaginings. Just be wary when he starts relaying someone's internal thoughts.

An author who disappointed me recently is Douglas Myles, who wrote Rasputin: Satyr, Saint or Satan. At the beginning of each chapter, he presents a short fictionalization of Rasputin's life -- a bit like Radzinsky, more far more obvious -- followed by straightforward non-fiction. This was initially fine with me, because the fiction and non-fiction were clearly separated from each other. As the book continued, however, the lines began to blur, and those fictional interludes popped up much more frequently. I quickly got irritated with having to wade through the fiction to gather legitimate info, and ended up never finished the book.

I heartily agree with Elisabeth on the subject of Marfa (also called Martha) Mouchanow. Absolute bunk, from what I understand. Unfortunately, Carroly Erickson's bio of Alix, Alexandra: The Last Tsarina relied heavily on Mouchanow -- even though Erickson seems to have known it was a fabrication -- and so really can't be considered accurate. Greg King occasionally referred to Mouchanow in his book, The Last Empress, but he clearly cited his sources within the text, so if you keep an eye on the source notes at the back, it's easy to sort out fact from fiction. His book is much better than Erickson's, IMO

Greg King & Penny Wilson's collaboration on Fate of the Romanovs has stirred up some controversy, but to my knowledge, they haven't done anything unethical with regard to sources. Some people don't agree with their interpretation of particular issues, but the underlying facts seem to be in order.

[Eurohistory]

Personally, I do not think you should avoid anyone.  Read any and all, that way you can make up your own mind. I have read some real trash but would not have know it was unless I had read it, after all.

Making a subjective list of "authors to avoid" smacks me as some sort of censorship effort.  I agree with Robert Hall - read first, then make up your own mind...God gave us a brain to put to good use and base our opinions on our own impressions, not on the opinions held by others.

Arturo Beéche

[Sarushka]

Making a subjective list of "authors to avoid" smacks me as some sort of censorship effort.  I agree with Robert Hall - read first, then make up your own mind...God gave us a brain to put to good use and base our opinions on our own impressions, not on the opinions held by others.

Point well taken.

We ought to make up our own minds regarding an author's interpretation of the facts, but to do that, it's necessary to know who does solid, ethical research.

Maybe we should alter the subject to "Authors Known to be Unreliable"?

[Elisabeth]

Yes, Sarushka, I agree, we're really talking about authors who are known to be unreliable - or whom you should read with your b-detector on maximum strength. But I can certainly understand where rjt is coming from. If you have never had the chance to take college courses on Russian history, how can you know, when approaching such an overwhelming number and variety of sources, exactly where to start and what to avoid? How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

My own advice to someone who is beginning to explore the big picture of the last days of the Romanovs is that they should read some really major book about the Russian Revolution - like those of Figes or Pipes - side by side with the more popular biographies that are available about the imperial family. In terms of the latter, I think Massie is an excellent writer, and generally very reliable, although he greatly, greatly exaggerates the role Rasputin played in the downfall of the monarchy (this is where you need Figes or Pipes to set you straight on the more important forces in Russian history that were at work).

Sarushka is right about the importance of an author citing sources and bibliography in the text. This is the sign of a more professional work, as is a good, detailed and lengthy index. As long as you can trace the sources for an author's particular interpretation of a historical event then you are free to read the primary sources yourself (unless they are only available in the archives) and then decide for yourself whether or not you agree with that interpretation. For example, FOTR is much discussed and sometimes dismissed here, and I personally don't agree with all of the authors' conclusions, but since they are so scrupulous about citing their sources, the book taken as a whole is a goldmine of information. I guess the point is, take what you can from a given work.

Another excellent resource for the last days of the Romanovs is Steinberg and Khrustalev's The Fall of the Romanovs. This is a collection of primary sources - letters, diary extracts, etc. - many of them published in English for the first time. Again, Steinberg and Khrustalev, who are both professional historians, provide a good counterweight to a more "popular" book like FOTR.  

[rjt]

Making a subjective list of "authors to avoid" smacks me as some sort of censorship effort.  I agree with Robert Hall - read first, then make up your own mind...God gave us a brain to put to good use and base our opinions on our own impressions, not on the opinions held by others.

Arturo Beéche

Sir, I certainly didn't mean any offense nor would I ever champion censorship of any kind. My question was related to those writers who feel it necessary to either advance an agenda or blatantly and without acknowledgement blend fact with fiction, which, in my mind, is far worse than any censorship. As Sarushka said, it is important to know who has done credible, ethical research and then written adhering to those same standards. Greg King, on this very board, once admitted to ignoring evidence he didn't like because it conflicted with his emotional attachment to the Empress at the time he wrote The Last Empress. While I understand this type of situation is sometimes hard to avoid in biographical studies, it is important (to me, at least) to know of this type of bias going in.

While we all have brains and opinions (to wit, your post quoted above), not all of us have either the time or the money to spend purchasing purposely inaccurate works. The intent of this thread was merely to gain a sense of those writers whose efforts are intellectually honest and, therefore, worth purchasing and those who are decidedly not.

I am perfectly capable of coming to a decision on my own, thank you very much, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with soliciting the advice of those who have previously been there and made those mistakes.

Thanks to all of you who have responded.
Elisabeth, I've only just discovered Pipes' books on Amazon, so I was looking to others to for their opinions of his credibility and balance. You have reassured me. I'll check out Steinberg and Khrustalev's work. Thanks.
Annie, please PM me with your thoughts.
Mr. Hall, I was hoping to avoid the trash you spoke of! lol But I'll probably wind up reading it all anyway, as you did.
Sarushka, your posts were exactly the answers I was looking for, thank you. That you would acknowledge disagreement with King & Wilson's book but recommend it anyway is the sort of objectivity I was hoping to find.

Sarushka said, " Maybe we should alter the subject to "Authors Known to be Unreliable"?" Perhaps that would be best, as it is truer to my thoughts when I posted this thread.

Elisabeth, I have read Michael and Natasha. I found the odd parallels to Nicholas and Alexandra astounding but was annoyed that Crawford spent so little time on the Countess after the revolution and that Crawford's animosity towards Alexandra was so obvious, but I was fascinated by the details of the time between Nicholas' abdication and Michael's death. It provided a lot of information I was unaware of before.

Oh, and I adore Charmed but never got to see much of Buffy. Holly Marie Combs rocks! ;)

[Eurohistory]

Perhaps it hsould not be "list of authors" but "list of books."  Certainly there are some books that are quite bad, filled with the wrong information or with a certain obvious slant to prove a point, at whatever cost, like the Anna Anderson saga, or do a hatchet job on someone.

Those one should keep away from and instead purchase seriously researched, reliably written books.  On that note I am in complete agreement with you.

Arturo Beéche

[rjt]

Perhaps it hsould not be "list of authors" but "list of books."  Certainly there are some books that are quite bad, filled with the wrong information or with a certain obvious slant to prove a point, at whatever cost, like the Anna Anderson saga, or do a hatchet job on someone.

Those one should keep away from and instead purchase seriously researched, reliably written books.  On that note I am in complete agreement with you.

Arturo Beéche

An even better suggestion! Thank you. Do you have any you would like to submit to this list of books to avoid?

(PS - I'll PM a Mod with a request to change the thread title.)

[Robert_Hall]

Some the most worthless books [ well that is relative, as they tend to be the most costly] are the most fun to read.  Mouchanow, as has been mentioned, is pure fantasy from somebody's mind and agenda. BUT- it is interesting. I remember  making a goal with it when I finished the thing, which now I regert as it is so hard to find and costly.  "Count Vassili" is another [I think that was actually Radziwil?].  " Rescuing the Czar" a much discussed and deservedly maligned book is another fun read, and although also rare & $$ last I saw it was available online free.
I would think the best idea is what area of the Romanov story you would like to focus on, at least to begin with.  As Arturo mentioned, the whole Anastasia soap opera should have been put to rest years ago, yet it continues. Ella is a saint to some yet a lot that I have read about her lately is frankly devotional, not very interesting- to me. For some reason Rasputin is back as a hot topic [movie coming up perhaps?]  but then again, most of what has been written about him is drivel.
Some dismiss the Felix Yussoupoff books as nonsense- I see them as required reading.
Looking for the big picture books ? Well, spend the money on the newer ones, they seem to contain, for the most part, all the old pictures as well as new [never seen] ones.
That is just the last of the Romanovs.  There were almost 300 years of them before N&A !
Collecting books is a costly endeavor, but one should never buy a book for what it may be "worth" in $. What it has inside, is what you get out of it.  Could be trash, could be a goldmine- to you.  Like I said before, the trash can be just as entertaining as the  gold.
Cheers,
Robert

[Eurohistory]

Count Paul Vassili was Princess Catherine Radziwill!

Arturo Beéche

[Caleb]

I'd pretty much avoid "Royal Babylon" if you're doing research, but some of the stories, though not necessarily true, are quite amusing. For me the top book to avoid is Edmund Backhouse & J.O.P Bland's "China Under the Empress Dowager" which is the work of frauds & con-men (Bland & Backhouse)