Rasputin's Daughter is a cleverly-written blending of fact and fiction attempting to recreate the mystique of the controversial monk from the perspective of his daughter, Matryona Grigorevna Rasputina, known as Maria. For the purposes of this story, Maria has returned to the Winter Palace, now ransacked and overrun by the people, where she is captured and interrogated by Aleksander Aleksandrovich Blok (once her favourite poet), who has been drafted and mandated by the "Exraordinary Commission to transcribe the Thirteenth Section's interrogation of those who knew Rasputin."The story begins with the record of an interrogation of one of the murderers -- a man who remains a mystery until almost the end of the novel. His confession (in italics) about what he knows of the plot to assassinate Rasputin, and the events as they unfolded the evening of the 16th December, 1916, is told in pieces between the story Maria tells of the weeks leading up to the murder as she is discovering the many contradictory facets of her famous (or infamous) father's character. The juxtaposition of the two stories is carefully planned and provides some suspense to a story that is, by now, well-documented and universally known.Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg) is a city of great contrast and Alexander paints them all in a compelling way. There is the aristocracy -- extremely wealthy, well-fed, living in amazingly lush palaces, dressed in elegant fur coats to brave the harsh Russian winter -- contrasted with the workers, the destitute, the wounded soldiers, and the deserters -- who, often dressed with only a ragged blanket over their shoulders, and with only the alleys to sleep in, create a seamier, dangerous side to the back streets and narrow passageways behind the shops and palaces. We meet the pompous and the pathetic who line up on a daily basis to meet Rasputin in his study, to have a cup of tea from the steaming samovar (a heated metal container traditionally used to heat and boil water in and around Russia), and beg for healing, favours, or influence from the starets. Then there is Tsarskoye Selo, the sumptuous palace of Tsar Nicholas II and the Tsarina, and their family of 4 daughters, the grand duchesses, and the heir to the Romanov throne, Aleksei Nikolaevich, a hemophiliac whose sufferings are only alleviated by Rasputin.Unlike the great cities of Europe, the capital of unruly Russia was, ironically, a planned metropolis, conceived of and built by Peter the Great according to his strict vision. Not only had the swamps been drained and the rivers contained, our roads were straight and methodical, lined with brick buildings covered with decorative, colorful stucco. Behind the endless, orderly façades, however, it was a different matter. Archways led to alleys, alleys split into passages, and passages dissolved into nooks and crannies, the lost corners that the lost characters of Dostoyevsky loved to inhabit and wallow in, festering in a dirty stew of anxiety and poverty. And it was through just such a filthy maze that I now followed the agent.Maria struggles as she increasingly has no idea who she can trust in the deteriorating political scene in Petrograd. She knows her father is hated by many of the aristocracy but also by members of the clergy, and even influential politicians in the Duma. She mistrusts Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich who is known to have a "dark. . . lascivious" relationship with Prince Felix, and who she finds waiting for her father, naked in his bed. Hateful letters are left under their door which she tries to read to her father to alert him to the danger. A speech in the Duma by Vladimir Purishkevich blames the waning fortunes of war on an evil "[springing] from the Dark Forces, from those who push into high places people who are not worthy or capable of handling them. And these influences are headed by Grishka Rasputin." In an attempt to obtain information, Maria finds herself in the dangerous underworld of the "filthy maze" where desperate people lurk with evil intent.Not only is the writing exquisite, but the story rings true and is quite compelling despite our foreknowledge of the final outcome. The final chapter tells what happened to all of the main characters of the story, and there is a timeline of events, as well as a glossary of all the Russian terms used by the author throughout the book. Alexander seems to have included every rumoured characteristic of Rasputin to help present Maria as a young woman confused about who her father really is, and how he fits into the political scene: is he a debauched and corrupt social climber or a gifted healer who struggles against his own temptations? is he a catalyst for revolution or simply a scapegoat for a disintegrating social condition? I'm a bit puzzled by the placid setting of the cover for such a tale of turmoil, and there was, perhaps, a bit too much of unsubstantiated rumours thrown into the mix to create a sensational story, but overall, I felt it was a plausible rendition of the life and times of Maria Rasputin who became the sole survivor of the Rasputin family. A very enjoyable read.
Rasputin's Daughter is the story of Maria Rasputin in the days leading up to her infamous father's murder. It reads like a memoir. Maria talks about her father in familiar terms and it is written entirely in the first person. It is easy to believe that this books is a piece of non-fiction, but it's not. It's a fictional take on the lives of real people. Honestly, it left me wondering why I wasn't reading well researched historical non-fiction as Rasputin's Daughter left me not so much caring about the characters as wanting different historical perspectives on them. Rasputin lives on today throughout popular culture as a figure of evil, myths surrounding his relationships and death live on (come on, you can't tell me you didn't think of Ra-ra-rasputine lover of the Russian queen when you first saw this title). Here's the thing, this book offers a very different take on Rasputin. It attempts to tell his story from his daughter's perspective.Now, Maria Rasputin existed and she did escape Russia for America. That's all fact. She also wrote memoirs defending her father's memory and from what I can remember, painted quite the saintly portrait of him. This comes across in this book. Although Alexander attempts to make Maria a well rounded character, questioning her father's motives. He tells a not so typical coming of age story; Maria is going through what many other young people go through, the de-deification of one's parents, but under much more extraordinary circumstances. It was an interesting take on this kind of story. That part was interesting. I liked reading about Maria's furthering disillusionment and how it interacted with her deep familial love. It was compelling. It made her feel real. However, it never answered my question. Why don't I just read Maria's memoirs? This book was good as a starting point. It fueled a lot of questions, but answered very few. It created a need to research to further understand this enigmatic man. However, as a work of literature in and of itself, i'm not quite sure it succeeded. I should want to read the book again because the story is so interesting or because I just couldn't put it down the first time. Instead, I picked this book up and put it back down a few times. It was a bit of a slog and I just kept thinking, I could gain much better perspective on this topic if I read something peer reviewed. Yes. I'm that nerdy. But when all I really have to say about a book is that the historical perspective was interesting, something's wrong. Portions of the story were interesting as I said, but why was there a love story tacked onto it? That I didn't understand. Large portions of it could be cut without losing a lot. The story focused so much on a father/daughter relationship that I don't think this particular coming of age story would have lost much by not having a romantic interest. It was unnecessary and slowed down the story that I actually wanted to read. Alexander succeeded in making me want to further study the Romanov's, but the book itself was not as interesting as it could have been. I love historical fiction and when it's good it blends the history and era together with an original, fictional piece. However, that's far trickier to do when utilizing characters based entirely off of actual history figures. It gives the author far less wiggle room and in this case I don't think it quite succeeded as a work of literary fiction.
What do You think about Rasputin's Daughter (2006)?
I love the Romanovs. I always have. And I have always through Rasputin was a fascinating personality. But for some reason I never thought to look past his surface, so I was very surprised to hear he had a family...and daughters! Silly to think that he wouldn't have, but there you go. This story was incredibly well thought out and researched and I very much enjoyed reading it. Maria, as a character, was so real. The conflict of loving her father but at the same time becoming disillusioned with him was portrayed wonderfully. And the entire story-line that included Sasha, their meeting, first betrayal, love, second betrayal and the ending (where I would like to believe you saw his true feelings) were all well mixed drama and romanticism. And it was also super interesting to read about what happened to all the characters after the revolution...Maria led a crazy life after her father's death! And the implication that she stole the files on the reality of Rasputin's death was both a fun ending and very thought-provoking. Very fun and well done.
—Paige
I wanted to like this book. I'm a big fan of historical fiction and devour any of Phillippa Gregory's books and others like it. I figured this would be in a similar vein, so I eagerly bought it.Well, there was a reason it was in the discounted books bin at Borders. Stink city. The main character, Maria Rasputin, seems whiny and I felt like the book never explained her motives. For example, she witnesses her father's debauchery, but after a brief period of dwelling on it, inexplicably seems to fo
—Shay Mcallister
Easily one of the worst books I've ever read, Alexander's take on Rasputin is drawn nearly exclusively from the 500 pages of testimony given by those closest to him to the Thirteenth Section in the months after his murder. The author's near abandonment of the revolution, despite it being a major player in the lives of all characters involved is a disappointment, not to mention that none of his characters show themselves in any sort of multi-dimentional way. The "shock" at the end is embarassingly contrived and the narrative overly simple. Overall, the book is miserably plebian, its pages better served as a table leveler or fire kindling. For a book worth reading, read its source material in Edvard Radzinsky's 'The Rasputin Files.'
—Meg
