(Unreliable) Books to avoid?

[grandduchessella]

I appreciate the warnings about books, myself, though I still might read them.

I had never known, before this group, that Mouchanow was so unreliable, for instance. That's valuable information to know before you read a book that relies heavily on her.

One of the books I'm always warning people about is Anne Edward's Matriarch. I've discussed it on the Prince Albert Victor thread in the Windsors. Horrid.  

Kitty Kelley's royal books are another though I don't think anyone takes her too seriously. Her books are awfully fun though.  

[Louis_Charles]

I always feel like hosing down with Lysol after reading Kitty.

[Arleen_Ristau]

Personally I read everything that I can get my hands on.....for various reasons.  Mostly I am curious and want to know it all....good, bad or indifferent.  Some of the worst books are perfectly entertaining.

What bothers me is that people would label books and authors as unreliable and not fit to be read.....censorship at its worst!

As human beings we are all so different and I just love knowing everyones point of view....be it in books or on forums like this one.  After all we KNOW if something is patiently false or lies when we read it!

Cheers!
Arleen

[Sarushka]

What bothers me is that people would label books and authors as unreliable and not fit to be read.....censorship at its worst!

As human beings we are all so different and I just love knowing everyones point of view....be it in books or on forums like this one.  After all we KNOW if something is patiently false or lies when we read it!

I don't see this as censorship -- more like heightened awareness. I don't think I'd tell someone not to read Mouchanow, but I have no problem advising someone not to believe her information. Sure, we can all spot bunk to a certain degree, but so much Romanov info has turned out to be mythology, so-to-speak, that I think it's unwise not to verify and/or  question authors & their sources.

I agree with you on the value of differing points of view, though.

[Louis_Charles]

Personally I read everything that I can get my hands on.....for various reasons.  Mostly I am curious and want to know it all....good, bad or indifferent.  Some of the worst books are perfectly entertaining.

What bothers me is that people would label books and authors as unreliable and not fit to be read.....censorship at its worst!

As human beings we are all so different and I just love knowing everyones point of view....be it in books or on forums like this one.  After all we KNOW if something is patiently false or lies when we read it!

Cheers!
Arleen

 

If anyone was actually being prevented from reading what they want, I would agree with this post. I have a Master's in Library Science from UNC-Chapel Hill, and I have to say, this is the kind of question that librarians field all of the time. "Which is the better book?" It's not censorship, it's an opinion. And given the levels of expertise some of the posters here have, an informed opinion.

Simon

[catt.sydney]

If I may...
    If you want a jolly romance/fantasy then read a romance/fantasy ...just don't imagine such a book to be a historical texts!

(I am very disappointed to here about Pipes reaction to Figes work - but I'm not surprised at all. Then again I consider Pipes theories and arguements to be far too based in a "creature of the Cold War philosophy" to be entirely viable...nevertheless it's good to have both sides.)

[rjt]

What bothers me is that people would label books and authors as unreliable and not fit to be read.....censorship at its worst!
 

Again, this is a fallacy. It is important in the pursuit of information and knowledge to know which writers are basing their words on solid, ethical research and investigation and which are just slopping the hogs, so to speak.

I've no problem reading fiction, but I want it to be clearly marked as such or know going in that it is. This is not censorship, rather it is forearming oneself in the face of fiction disguised as fact. If I choose to read the writers or books mentioned here, I am now going to be looking for invention where I might not have done before.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.

[Marlene]

If anyone was actually being prevented from reading what they want, I would agree with this post. I have a Master's in Library Science from UNC-Chapel Hill, and I have to say, this is the kind of question that librarians field all of the time. "Which is the better book?" It's not censorship, it's an opinion. And given the levels of expertise some of the posters here have, an informed opinion.

Simon

I have a master's in library science from Suny-Albany (and my reference classes were taught by someone name Katz ... bet you used his book!)


It is my job to decide what we need for the library or not ...
as for royal stuff, I have published a newsletter, Royal Book News  (or Royal Book Mews, as the cats actually write it) for more than 20 years now ... and I have given raves, thumbs up, thumbs down, etc to hundreds of titles ... but I never want to be the last word on a royal title.   Royal Babylon was not worth lining the litter box with, but reading it provided enjoyment and laughter (at how bad it was)

[Romanov_fan]

Just read everything, that's what I do, and your knowledge is better that way. I think some books are going to be liked by others some not, some are more unreliable, sure, but as long as you know that what is the risk of reading it. Everyone finds different things relevant, and each writer/historian has their own truth, that they might display in their work. In some sense, all history is informed by bias, and by reading all of it, you know it all, as much as can be captured from long ago days, and you are not the victim of just any historian.  the Best of it to read original documents, what these people themselves wrote, which is at least from them however inaccurate it might be.

[Louis_Charles]

Indeed I did use Katz's book --- I specialized in both reference and cataloging, back in the day, until I was seduced back to the Dark Side of theatre. You were actually taught by Katz? It's like hearing from someone who has Walked With Giants! If you knew how many times our reference teacher began a statement with the phrase "As Katz would advise . . ."

And of course you are exactly right about how librarians, or indeed experts in any field, sift through the mountains of material that demand to be bought. Let's face it, resources are limited, both for institutions and our own personal collections.

I also agree about the occasional guilty pleasure, although I have to admit that there are some authors/books I avoid on principle. Here the name "Kitty Kelley" appears in blazing letters of fire. But heck yeah, read everything you can get your hands on!

Hmm. Now I need to go check my shelves to see if I still have the Katz book.

Best,

Simon

[Robert_Hall]

Oh, I admit to getting a kick out of Kitty. She reminds me to not take any of this or myself too seriously. A decent read for a long haul flight then bin it- or leave it for the next bored passenger.

[Alixz]

Also, we must remember that some of the books were written before more definitive proof was found.

Hunt for the Tsar is a good example.  I read in the early 70s when it was new and the bones had not yet been found.

I truly wanted to believe that the whole family had escaped and that book, along with its base Rescuing the Tsar had not yet been proven to be suspect.

We know more now than we did, then, but Hunt is interesing for those who like to read about "survivors".  There were a lot of "survivors" in the early years, right up to the death of Anna Anderson almost 70 years later.

[Romanov_fan]

I have read that book, and it is interesting for early perspective on the Romanovs, and survivors. It certainly isn't totally accurate, nor should it be regarded as a fool proof source, but from a certain perspective, it is interesting. Unreliable, yes, but also worthwhile reading from some vantage point. I think I understood early perspectives, and survivors better after reading it.

[M_Breheny]

Regarding the postings of Louis_Charles and Marlene, first of all I have to say that I, too, have a Master's in Library Science from UNC-Chapel Hill, and I, too, remember Katz's book well.  How thrilling to have been taught by him!

As for reading unreliable books, I have to admit that there was a time when I read everything I could get my hands on about the Romanovs.  Some of these books I am embarrassed to say almost bordered on the romance novel.  Now, however, I limit myself to more scholarly works.  There are many, many excellent books out there - most of which have already been mentioned in other posts.  

In closing, I have to give my librarian's spiel: read everything but know how to recognize unreliable information.  (Of course, that is not always so easy to do.)

Mary

[Margarita Markovna]

"Hunt for the Czar", if it's the same one I read, I found to be a complete joke, but of course I knew that the bones were found while the authors didn't. But they have a picture of OTMA in there that they label as the girls in the 20s-it's funny.

*hopes that it's the same book*