I Was Anastasia: A Novel

Very disappointing. Written largely in the backward style of "Memento" where every chapter is earlier than the one before it, which makes it very difficult to follow with each chapter being made pointless with the next, earlier, chapter. But my biggest complaint is the author herself gloating at the end of the book for making an idiot of you for reading the book in the first place (suggestion: read the "I Told You So" note at the end, first). This author clearly has an ego problem and this is the last book of hers I will ever read. The story is great, she should have just told it and left it at that, and not played condescending games with the readers at the end.

I have read extensively on the lives of the last Czar and his family. Included in my reading are books related to Anna Anderson. So, when I heard about this book- a novel based on the story of the Czar and his family and specifically the person that claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia (Anna Anderson) - I was intrigued. I was a little turned off by the 2 time lines - one running forward in time and another running backward. I hung with it and realized it was an interesting way to run the two different timelines. It was unique but may be a real turn-off to many readers. However, overall in the end I did not like the novel at all. I felt the author took way too many liberties with the story and went in strange directions. The depiction of the royal family was not what I know from my reading of historically based books and painted an often sleezy, unbecoming portrayal. I felt the reverse time-line that ran throughout the book (this is not a spoiler) ended upruptly and suddenly with little explination or support of the plot. I can't recommend this book.

(historical spoilers below)I always hate to admit it, but I will give up on a book about halfway through if it doesn't hold my attention. I thought about it with this one about 1/3 of the way through, but continued on and I'm glad I did. The second half of the book races along and not getting to the end was unthinkable.The writing throughout is excellent, but I think I was at a bit of a disadvantage, knowing the stories of both Anastasia Romanov and Anna Anderson extremely well. I went into the book skeptical, and perhaps that's what the author intended. By the end, I was actually saddened by the historical outcome, even though I know better.The time distortions in the story do start out as confusing, I'll admit. There were quite a few times where I had to scroll back to double check what year and approximate date I had just read. But they begin to make sense the further you read, and they become a natural part of the narrative.If you're unfamiliar with the Romanov's history, this is a great starting point. If you are familiar with their history, especially Anastasia's, you'll find this book gives her a new voice and it's well worth a listen.

I considered beginning this review with a spoiler alert, but after brief consideration realized that really, none is needed. The logical base for this novel - those Tsar-struck and Romanov groupies among us - know the story well, and, unless one was hiding out in the Lost City of Z for most of the 20th century, there is no way the non-Russophile wouldn't know the tale, either. I am not a fan of fiction - especially historical fiction, where a character-creating author attempts to give speech to people who actually existed, complete with their own speech - so I was prepared to dislike this book (one of the reasons I, one of those aforementioned Romanov groupies, passed over it in the bookstore and bought it used on Amazon). We all know, and have for years, that DNA proved Anna Anderson was not the Grand Duchess. So what could this book present that was at all new and interesting?I began it with pad and paper at hand the moment the Anna character (written in the third person - except for the prologue and afterword - and regressing in time) is defined as being "in her seventies" in 1968. Anastasia would still have been in her 60s. The fact that Anderson is in her seventies is mentioned about three times. I then noticed that the Anastasia portion (written in the first person, normal time sequence) mentions her age a few times - and it is correct. So, was the Anna portion in error, or a subtle way of already letting us know they aren't the same person, almost from the first page? I'm not sure. But other minor errors - why change the breed of Anastasia's dog - or was it an error? Why get Tatiana's French bulldog's name wrong? Not to mention an orthological error here, a grammatical error there, and the continuous mis-accenting of a French name which any first year French student knows needs an accent grave...sure, these are minor quibbles, but this is a historical novel, and one that claims to hew closely to fact. The author cites all the books she used in her author's notes at the end, and there are quite a few, all of which are pretty solid historical works. She notes how she combined certain historical personages into one character or changed the fate of Anastasia's dog (the likely spaniel [though I've also read it was a Pekingese, which I doubt] died with its owner, but she has the husky live for personal reasons - fair enough, she explains it) - but all in all, the result is that the book, while being a novel, doesn't actually stray far from historical fact. Even some of the dialogue she takes from published letters and diaries. So why get these little things wrong? Didn't anyone at that renowned publishing house (Doubleday) catch it?In the end, even I, the grand skeptic prepared to dismiss this book entirely, decided it didn't matter. Even I, having read every book and article published about the subject since the 1970s, who knew the details, found myself hurtling along with the narrative and actually surprised at the end. How? How could I be surprised by a story I knew the ending to?I'm not sure how to describe it. Perhaps it was just not knowing how the author was going to wind this up. One notices, progressing, that some of the reasons folks believed Anderson was Anastasia gradually are explained...that all makes sense. Yet I still didn't quite know where the author was heading. By this time the misused diacritical marks or number-subject disagreement were no longer creating slight indignation...I just wanted to see how this wrapped up. Of course, the backward timeline for the Anderson character keeps us in "suspense" (even knowing the answer) until her timeline merges with Anastasia's - Anastasia's progresses to July, 1918, and her murder; Anderson's regresses to her fiance's death in the war, giving birth in a refugee camp, being gravely wounded in a munitions factory accident. I knew all this, and yet I felt somehow surprised, and utterly disappointed that, once again, no Romanov survived that Ekaterinburg basement. It was as if, somehow, the book made me hope again - stupidly, yet it still had that effect - that there'd be a different outcome. The afterword said it all: Anderson rationalizing that we "needed [her] to be Anastasia". Then, the fictional framework for the story makes more sense, and I realized that it really was a much better book than I had anticipated.As I was nearing the denouement, I also wondered why - once DNA proved once and for all that Anderson was the Polish factory worker she was always suspected of being, and not a Grand Duchess - no further books or articles were published about her. Peter Kurth's "Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson" was the definitive work before the DNA testing - not only of Anderson, but of the remains found in 1970 in Russia and publicized in 1991 with glasnost - proved the truth once and for all. Kurth came to believe that Anderson was Anastasia, and it's difficult not to agree. Once the truth was out, Anderson appears only as a footnote in some articles or tomes as the most famous of the many Romanov pretenders.It's interesting that the only book to deal with this fascinating story - perhaps more fascinating now that the truth is known - is this novel. The Author's Notes mentions that she felt Anderson's story was as worthy of telling as Anastasia's, and she has done us a service in partially doing so. I say partially, because we are still looking at Anderson (even knowing the truth, as I said) through Romanov-colored glasses through the book. There have to be living relatives who know something about her early life, who she was before she either perpetrated this grand hoax (or was she convinced she was Anastasia?). The story of one of the greatest frauds (or delusions) of the 20th century certainly deserves to be told. How did she manage to fool even those who should have known better? Did they really just want to believe so badly, like we did? How did she fool handwriting experts and pass that ear-identification in Germany? This is a poor Pole who hobnobbed with royalty and who managed to live on the charity of believing and loyal friends for the rest of her life, passing herself off as Russian royalty. That's worthy of investigation - the supreme human interest story - but no one seems to even have considered it once Anderson's true identity was confirmed. Credit goes to this author who at least saw it, even though she structured the book as a novel and thus still didn't get into the whys and wherefores of Anderson's transformation and their subsequent effects, which take on an entirely new and exciting cast since Kurth et al. reported.The most telling line in the book comes from the lips of the fictionalized Ingrid Bergman, who meets Anderson in preparation for her role in 1956's "Anastasia" (in which the title character was an amnesia victim). Anderson asks Bergman "Do you think I'm lying?" Bergman replies, "I don't care". In the end, the fact Anderson turned out not to be Anastasia is moot for the purposes of this book. We all know that they're not the same person, but in the end, we don't care. Anderson's story is one that deserves to be told especially now that we know who she really was...and it still hasn't been. This novel is the closest to come to it. No wonder the author didn't want to write it but felt she had to. Now, someone, pick up the gauntlet and write the Anderson book that goes on the non-fiction shelf!

Just a word to the wise, this book was written in a backward timeline telling Anna’s story and forward timeline telling Anastasia’s story. The truth lies in the middle, which’s the end of the book. I wasn’t sure if that was going to annoy me enough to stop reading. It wasn’t. Wow, what a great Book. I thoroughly enjoyed it and had a hard time putting it down. Well written and characters well developed. Highly recommend.

Sometimes it is hard to read a book when without a doubt you know that the ending will not be to your liking. Historical fiction which tells a story such as this one which is intricately woven is a joy to read. A conundrum? Maybe so, but trust me this a book that will be enjoyed by lovers of historical fiction. Thanks for a great read!

I love historical fiction, but hated this book. The back and forth of time periods was jarring. But, the biggest disappointment was the character development. It was impossible to figure out the imposter's motivation or how she was able to get away with her deception (if one thinks she did get away with it).

Very interesting,as maybe that was how it was. It amazes me a woman could impersonate Anastasia all those years, i feel she must have been convinced she was Anastasia, there are so many discrepancies, and there could have been a reason, some didn't want to acclaim her, as there were monetary interests involved. It may not have suited certain surviving members of the Romanov's, who can say? the only thing I didn't like, was that it didn't seem historically accurate at times, and people being in places that they weren't, but never mind, still intriguing all the same.

I have studied Anastasia and the Tsar's family for many years-and this book is "Anna Anderson" morre or less writing her diary as Anastasia. Very well written and very interesting, but difficult to follow as the chapters go back and forward in time and you're never quite sure where you are. I love the fact that the author says at the end that she knows the rreal Anastasia's body has been found and Anna Anderson was an imposter.

Ive always been interested in the Romanov family and was looking forward to reading this for ages. Just could not put it down once I started. Told so intelligently and with such attention to detail. Wish there was more! Loved it! Book of the year so far!!!

An intriguing and realistic read. However, I gave it 3 stars because, personally, I did NOT appreciate the structure of the writing. For example : one chapter might take place in 1917 in Russia, the next in 1940 NYC, then the next " 3 days earlier", followed by a new date in 1917 etc etc. .....very annoying for me.

I found this book hard to follow. One characters story was written in reverse chronological order but even then it skipped around and it was hard to know where you were in her story. A chapter would start out with 3 different years and then would skip to 6 months prior, 3 weeks prior and so on. I did like the storyline. I would recommend this book but with a caution that it is hard to follow.