I finished the book on Rasputin. It was interesting, thought-provoking, and yet I'm not really sure what to make of it.
There are a lot of different layers to this. Rasputin himself, of course. The rumors and conspiracy theories surrounding him. The effect of that on Russia, and the Romanov dynasty. How much of it was Rasputin himself, or the tsar and tsaritsa, or I don't even know what.
The author did a good job of portraying the complexity surrounding him, I think. I also think I keep trying to place this in my own context, and run into some definite cultural differences.
What do I mean by that? Well... if I were to consider someone holy, I would expect to see certain things. Great compassion, for example. A lack of the pettiness and fear that is all too common in we more worldly people.
And... maybe this is Peter's influence on the Roman Catholic Church, but... not a lot of sexuality? Or if it's there, it'd be the wholesome kind. (Explaining that would take a whole other blog post, I think. The most conventional example would be a devoted husband or wife, but what I suppose it's really about is the difference between making love and f***ing. And I don't associate 'making love' with the sort of creepy, borderline predatory, behavior that seems to be documented w/regards to Rasputin. He doesn't seem to have crossed that line, so far as we can tell over 100 years later, though there are numerous accounts ascribing some sort of hypnotic power to him and that adds another layer to the incidents described.) Plus there's the drinking...
The reason I say that's a cultural thing is that apparently there's some sort of history of the starets, which I don't quite understand and may be getting mixed up with other things, but seems to allow for a sort of holy peasant, and part of that may include drunkenness? And even rudeness? Idk, I definitely seem to be lacking the cultural context to understand that.
He sounds like... well. Like most people. A mix of good and bad. Except his mix was particularly dramatic, with the 'good' seeming almost holy and the 'bad' making others view him as a con or a fraud.
I can almost see why the tsar and tsaritsa dismissed so much of the criticism of Rasputin. From their perspective, I'm sure it seemed like yet another example of the sort of BS people believe about those in power. The sort of thing you don't give credence to by addressing. Except that, in this case, that seems to have been a mistake.
So I also find myself thinking about what the best way of handling it all would have been. Should have been.
I also wonder, sometimes, why there was so much blatant lying going on. Like... I get how rumors can get exaggerated and twisted. Anyone who has played the childhood game of 'telephone' should know that.
But to deliberately say something you know is false?
I said before that I kept wanting to label people 'good' and 'bad', except it sometimes seemed like it was more a matter of 'a mix of black and white' and 'a mix of even more black, though still some white.'
To add another layer to this, I can't help comparing the events over 100 years ago to the world of today. Oh, not in any obvious way. But that feeling of conspiracy theories growing, and taking on a life of their own? Of the truth not mattering in the slightest?
Of everything balanced on a knife's edge, ready to tip one way or another at any second?
Yeah... that's eerily familiar right now.
So, anyways. Finished the book. Liked the book. Lots to think about.
And, of course, I started another one. This time it's about Stalin, because I've found I sometimes get interesting insights when I read a different book on a somewhat similar topic. Not sure how quickly I'll read it, but that tactic is already showing itself... as I try to place Stalin's childhood experiences and some of the comments on Romanov policies towards Georgia (and a bit of foreshadowing about the fall of the Romanovs) into the context of Rasputin and the history I just finished.
There are a lot of different layers to this. Rasputin himself, of course. The rumors and conspiracy theories surrounding him. The effect of that on Russia, and the Romanov dynasty. How much of it was Rasputin himself, or the tsar and tsaritsa, or I don't even know what.
The author did a good job of portraying the complexity surrounding him, I think. I also think I keep trying to place this in my own context, and run into some definite cultural differences.
What do I mean by that? Well... if I were to consider someone holy, I would expect to see certain things. Great compassion, for example. A lack of the pettiness and fear that is all too common in we more worldly people.
And... maybe this is Peter's influence on the Roman Catholic Church, but... not a lot of sexuality? Or if it's there, it'd be the wholesome kind. (Explaining that would take a whole other blog post, I think. The most conventional example would be a devoted husband or wife, but what I suppose it's really about is the difference between making love and f***ing. And I don't associate 'making love' with the sort of creepy, borderline predatory, behavior that seems to be documented w/regards to Rasputin. He doesn't seem to have crossed that line, so far as we can tell over 100 years later, though there are numerous accounts ascribing some sort of hypnotic power to him and that adds another layer to the incidents described.) Plus there's the drinking...
The reason I say that's a cultural thing is that apparently there's some sort of history of the starets, which I don't quite understand and may be getting mixed up with other things, but seems to allow for a sort of holy peasant, and part of that may include drunkenness? And even rudeness? Idk, I definitely seem to be lacking the cultural context to understand that.
He sounds like... well. Like most people. A mix of good and bad. Except his mix was particularly dramatic, with the 'good' seeming almost holy and the 'bad' making others view him as a con or a fraud.
I can almost see why the tsar and tsaritsa dismissed so much of the criticism of Rasputin. From their perspective, I'm sure it seemed like yet another example of the sort of BS people believe about those in power. The sort of thing you don't give credence to by addressing. Except that, in this case, that seems to have been a mistake.
So I also find myself thinking about what the best way of handling it all would have been. Should have been.
I also wonder, sometimes, why there was so much blatant lying going on. Like... I get how rumors can get exaggerated and twisted. Anyone who has played the childhood game of 'telephone' should know that.
But to deliberately say something you know is false?
I said before that I kept wanting to label people 'good' and 'bad', except it sometimes seemed like it was more a matter of 'a mix of black and white' and 'a mix of even more black, though still some white.'
To add another layer to this, I can't help comparing the events over 100 years ago to the world of today. Oh, not in any obvious way. But that feeling of conspiracy theories growing, and taking on a life of their own? Of the truth not mattering in the slightest?
Of everything balanced on a knife's edge, ready to tip one way or another at any second?
Yeah... that's eerily familiar right now.
So, anyways. Finished the book. Liked the book. Lots to think about.
And, of course, I started another one. This time it's about Stalin, because I've found I sometimes get interesting insights when I read a different book on a somewhat similar topic. Not sure how quickly I'll read it, but that tactic is already showing itself... as I try to place Stalin's childhood experiences and some of the comments on Romanov policies towards Georgia (and a bit of foreshadowing about the fall of the Romanovs) into the context of Rasputin and the history I just finished.
Edit: oh, and what the heck was ip with their police? And administration, in general? Like, the police were investigating Rasputin. Then stopped. Then started again, and followed him for quite a while... But only some of this seemed to be done with the knowledge of the tsar and tsarista? Clearly they weren't as in control as you'd think for an autocratic system. And even though that seems like an obvious statement, in some regards, I always thought that had more to do with the challenges of one (or two) rulers administering an entire nation and not so much that the police seemed to do their own thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment