I have a lot of really mixed emotions on this. I'm fascinated by the Romanov family and the horror that they had to go through. I'm intrigued by the idea that Anastasia could've survived, although recent records prove not. I think this book was okay. I found myself confused by the timeline of Anna's story, which is what the author wanted. I found myself not really rooting for her as a character and wishing to hear more about Anastasia. I think if I had read this with no prior knowledge of the Romanov's, I may have enjoyed it a bit more. Writing was beautiful though.

I just could not keep track of all the was going on in this book.

I didn't love everything about the storyline that ran backwards--I didn't mind the backwards format, just wanted things to fit together a bit more. For example, Maria Rasputin at first seems like she'll be an important character, but then sort of just disappears. I did, however, really enjoy the other storyline, and I loved the ending. How the author wrapped it all up, for me, kind of helped me overlook anything else that I didn't really appreciate. So overall, I really enjoyed it and it kept me interested. (Of course, I didn't know anything about what had been discovered about Anastasia in the last 20 years.)

Some favorite lines:

"Virginia in August feels very much to Anna as though she has taken up residence directly in the white-hot center of Satan's armpit."

"It is the first time I pity my mother, the first time I see her as completely human. A woman who can be broken by something as simple as a headache. It is an unsettling realization, and I wonder, if she, with all her age and experience, can be broken in such a way, what will become of me?"

"He seems like the sort of man who would celebrate feeble attempts."

"Only in Latin can one root word be the basis for myriad appalling descriptors. Horrible, vulgar, violent words. Brutish and masculine. I hate them all and the language from which they originated. Latin deserves to be a dead language, and I do not mourn it."

"Yet I knew now that both Gilliard and Nicolas Poussin were mistaken about the most fundamental aspect of the story: There is nothing artistic about rape."

Thank you to NetGalley and Doubleday for this reader's copy. In exchange, I am providing an honest review.

The story of Anastasia is one made of fairy tales and intrigue. Did she survive her family? Did she go on to live life...sort of?

Lawhon's story of Anastasia is based on a very real person who insisted she was THE Anastasia. To the moment of her death, she insisted she was the Princess. In the early 1990s, it was determined she most definitely was not Anastasia and THE Anastasia did, in fact, perish alongside of her family in 1918.

I don't know what it was about this story but it rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps because I think it is ludicrous that anyone would try and claim to be Princess Anastasia and I'm annoyed that so many did and one woman, in particular, refused to budge. Lawhon brings the Anastasia of the early 1900s to meet up with the Anastasia of present-day(ish). Are they one and the same? She builds the case toward yes.

I found both Anastasia and her counterpart, Anna, annoying. Their voices grated on my nerves. I don't know if that is because of Lawhon's writing style or if I just didn't appreciate their character(s) - maybe a little of both. I was quite bored while reading the book and almost put it down several times but was waiting for the promised, "This thrilling saga is every bit as moving and momentous as it is harrowing and twisted." That was not a promise kept in my opinion.

I'm giving it 2 stars for the effort Lawhon clearly went to in order to craft such a tale from fact for fiction.