IMO, our sniping at the History Channel's Romanov documentaries is kind of like sending a party of 5-star chefs to Applebee's for dinner and expecting them to enjoy the experience. Come on. We've spent YEARS poring over this information, but the History Channel is probably pulling together a 1-hour overview in a couple months. Of course we're going to find mistakes.
Devil's Advocate:
The mythology of the Romanovs is so well entrenched in the literature that a person could do a lot of well-intentioned research and still pick up a hefty load of crap. The vast majority of bios on Rasputin, for example, are outlandish. The courtiers' memoirs are biased and sprinkled with precisely the kind of minor errors that would have us shouting at our TV screens. Even the good books have their flaws -- Massie is still considered the keystone of Romanov literature, but his book has become dated since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Yeah, they're a little sloppy. But everybody goofs. Even the APTM has some mis-identified photos of Maria and Anastasia. I'm sure someone will find a flub in my book, even if it's only a typo, and I can't tell you how many times my editor and I have been through that thing.
I've been around here almost five years now, and I've seen how much delight armchair critics take in making potshots at films and books. I've been guilty of it myself. But frankly, the more I see it, the more distasteful it becomes.
