Eye of the Red Tsar discussion

Does someone actually believe any of the "history" parts in this book? The background of Pekkala is so ludicrous that I don't think I can suspend my disbelief. How can someone get even the most simple details so wrong..?

Some examples:
- Finnish men didn't go to Petrograd to become officers. Some did leave the country to get military training and become officers but they went to Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLDFm...
- Also you just didn't join the Imperial Guard, being a member of a nobility and having money probably helped a lot.
- There was no "Finnish regiment" where Finns served, at least at that time and never in St.Petersbourg. Finns opposed the conscription and in the end paid Russia "military millions" and were excluded from it as a result. "Life-Guards Finliandsky Regiment" has nothing to do with Finland or Finns.
- Undertakers wouldn't have made much of a living in Finland, they simply weren't needed. Finns took care of their dead themselves, family members washed them in a sauna and they were put in a coffin.
- Finns in general didn't speak Russian. Only boys who got higher education were taught it but in those days it was considered an honour to fail in Russian as a sign of opposition to the Russification efforts. Business would have probably suffered if patriotic people had heard that someone's son was serving in the Russian Army.
- No, Finns don't go around carrying Kalevala. Most of us have never even read it.

Does someone actually believe any of the "history" parts in this book?

I'm reading it now.
To answer your question, no, I don't take fiction books as historical fact.
Things get made-up, created, added in, left out, etc for plot. That's fiction for you.
I don't read fiction, historical or otherwise, and expect it to be 100% true to life. And I don't think authors who write fiction should be required to only tell 100% the facts. It'd then not be fiction, but non-fiction. If I want to read non-fiction, I'd read it. The things you pointed out, honestly, don't mean much to me in the long run and won't get in the way of any enjoyment I have in reading it. Though it is interesting to see the things pointed out. In the end, I just don't see them as that important though. *shrug*

;-)

It's not about telling only 100% facts, more like twisting the existing history so it can't be recognized at all. It's like the author expects that the reader doesn't know the history and is able to believe everything that is told and won't even be bothered to read about it from Wikipedia. Maybe he is correct.

I wonder if people would think that it doesn't matter if someone wrote about a Jewish character happily serving Hitler. I mean if someone writes about a person willing to betray his own country and people, he should at least be able to explain it somehow. And Pekkala does it twice!

I don't mind any historical inaccuracies. This is a work of fiction, and is meant only to entertain. And I admit, I'm extremely entertained with Pekkala. I love him and his story.