Well, back to Radszinsky. I loved his Nicholas book, yes, it might be romanticzed, but it is very readable and evocative. You can tell he was a playwright before he wrote that book, that was his background, because some of the dialogue sounds like it was from a play. But, like a play, it tells you not only the facts of the story but the meaning of it. The facts of the story are there, if a bit distorted, and yet the meaning is as well, more than in books of just dry facts. I think you should take him with a grain of salt, for sure, but you should also take away the meaning that he gives events that no other book can give. I think he just brings things to life, one way or the other. That is not a bad thing when you are writing history, as long as you don't stray too far from the facts of course.