Rasputin. La vera storia del contadino che segnò la fine di un impero

Radizinsky's approach gives a fresh perspective on Rasputin's life, but I wonder if this focus was driven by available sources or a narrative decision. How much of this was based on new evidence?

The way the narrative builds tension around his power and the political intrigue made me uneasy. Was this feeling intentional to mirror the real atmosphere of chaos and suspicion?

The book reads like a thriller but is rooted in history. I'm curious about how much creative license was taken versus strict adherence to sources.