The Kitchen Boy: A Novel of the Last Tsar

Volodya’s hindsight dominates Chapters 8 through 12. As he reconstructs his own version of events surrounding the Romanovs’ assassination, his guilt and regret over his role in their deaths is apparent. Alexander develops Volodya’s mental state through narration, taking advantage of its subjectivity. He uses narration to both propel the plot and reveal implicit details about Volodya’s inner thoughts (regarding Tsar Nikolai and Komendant Yurovsky), emotions, and ethics.

Volodya views Tsar Nikolai in a positive light, but this deference evolves into confusion—and even disgust—in Chapters 8 to 12. As Volodya grows closer to recalling the assassination, he becomes increasingly bitter. This bitterness is even directed toward the tsar himself, particularly regarding the latter’s inability to see the dark fate that awaits him and his family in the summer of 1918. At the end of Chapter 11, Volodya reveals that the tsar attempted to call off the “White Army’s” rescue attempt; Volodya is shocked by his desire to spare his family and the Bolsheviks from harm. In response, he muses “How could he have been so stupid? Couldn’t Nikolai, didn’t Nikolai, see the tidal wave of blood flooding toward them, toward all of Rossiya?” (126). He quickly shifts from praising the tsar’s concern for everybody’s safety to condemning him for being so naïve as to miss the warning signs of his own death. Volodya’s questioning could also be read as a condemnation of himself. As Volodya “travels back in time” to recount the events of 1918 to Kate, he reinhabits his youth. This dredges up old resentment toward himself and his naivete, having been drawn into the violence of the Bolshevik party at a young age. As Volodya condemns the tsar for being too foolish to realize his own fate, one can read his poisonous tone as being self-reflective—with the older Volodya lambasting his younger self for being too foolish to realize what the Bolsheviks would make him do.

Volodya’s hindsight and its effect on his tone can be seen again in Chapter 12, when he describes Komendant Yurovsky. The introduction of Yurovsky marks an important shift in two ways. Firstly, Volodya’s introduction of Yurovsky serves as a confrontation with the man, the group, who destroyed his life. Yurovsky had significant influence and power over Volodya—not only in terms of commanding him to action, but also ideologically. Being a Bolshevik commander, Yurovsky represents the destructive hold the Communists had on Volodya and others’ lives. They drew him into the Bolshevik party—only to use him to violent effect. As Volodya recounts Yurovsky’s calm and deceptive chivalry toward the Romanovs, it is yet another point where his tone can be read as self-reflective. When a disgusted Volodya describes Yurovsky’s fake kindness toward the Romanovs, he asks “How did he do it? With blood on his mind, how did Yurovsky go about interacting with this husband and wife and these children?” (134). While this narration describes Yurovsky’s character, it also enlightens Volodya’s. Like he does with Tsar Nikolai, Volodya addresses his younger self when recalling his disgust toward Yurovsky. In this quote, Volodya asks his younger self how he could have been deceived by Yurovsky’s kindness.

Secondly, the introduction of Yurovsky is historically important. Komendant Yakov Yurovsky was the real life officer in charge of the Romanovs’ assassination. As such, when knowing readers encounter the name “Yurovsky” in Chapter 12, they know it is truly “the beginning of the end” for the royal family (160).