In a typical murder mystery, information is revealed as the detective discovers it, so that to read the novel is to become a partner in the detective’s work. The first part opens with an epigraph from Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, which Anastasia’s father reads to her from the Sherlock Holmes stories, as “he puts a bit of straw into the fire and uses it to light his pipe.” Much like a mystery novel, “I Was Anastasia” is designed to force the reader into the role of detective. The Russian Revolution isn’t immediately evocative of Sherlock Holmes, but Lawhon seems to have this iconic detective in mind as she constructs her novel. As the two stories unfold at the same time, Lawhon introduces parallels between the lives and characters of the two women, but does not answer definitively whether they are one and the same, leaving that up for speculation. The novel ends as the stories collide in 1918.

The novel switches between chapters entitled “Anna,” (which begin 1970 and then move backwards through time) and ones entitled “Anastasia,' (which begin in 1917 and move forward). The novel tells two stories simultaneously, that of the young Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov during the Russian Revolution as her family is dethroned and shipped off to exile, and the other of a mysterious woman called Anna, who claims to be Anastasia and to have escaped the firing squad that destroyed the rest of her family.

In the end, “I Was Anastasia”’s promising concept sets expectations high, which makes the novel’s less-than-perfect execution slightly disappointing. The epigraph is an omen of what is to come: a novel with an interesting story and refreshing structure that falls slightly short.

Ariel Lawhon’s novel “I Was Anastasia” opens with an epigraph, a bold assertion from the iconic novelist Rudyard Kipling: “If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten.” It’s a powerful sentiment, compelling yet undoubtedly grandiose.

I was anastasia ariel lawhon