Love and Hate in Jamestown - John Smith, Pocahontas and the Start of a New Nation ***

Author - Price, David A.
Published 2003 - Hardcover - Alfred A. Knopf / Random House, Inc.
2005 - First Vintage Books Edition
Pages (readable) 247

OK, this is more like it. This book gives the story behind the facts and details. It probably helped that John Smith took many notes and published several books when he returned to England (That's a story in itself - He was sent back to England because basically he was not very diplomatic and did not get along with the leisure class who were also his superiors, though he very much wanted to return.) . Hence, there are a lot of details to help create the story. The whole story of how Pocahontas saved Smith is told very well.

These are some general impressions or what I learned from the book. The peace with the Native Americans was always shaky. When I read about this event in my 5th grade text book, I get the impression that when there was peace, it was absolute. Not the case. John Smith was only the President for one short year. He of course was very involved in the very first initial years of the colony before becoming president, but in total he only spent a handful of years there. His job was basically dealing with the Indians. He used a balance of intimidation and an understanding and respect of the culture to get what he wanted. Others who dealt with the Natives were far less successful. Smith came from a lower strata of society and therefore, though his skills were appreciated, he was never accepted or liked by the upper class. Partially because he didn't "know his place". He kept telling them how they were wrong in many of the decisions they were making and of course they were. That's the reason they forced him out of Jamestown. In fact at the very 1st arrival of the English, Smith was imprisoned on the ship and accused of trying to start a mutiny on the ship. It was probably not true, but the upper class gentlemen, who of course were not very pragmatic and didn't like to do manual labor,needed to get rid of him. The fact that he was able to become president was a testament to his skill as a leader.

There was nothing between Pocahontas and John Smith. She may have admired him, for his leadership qualities and his manly abilities of making war, hunting etc. But Smith saw her as a young teenage girl. He of course was grateful that she saved him and grew to have an affection and a friendship with her, but that was as far as it went. In fact, Pocahontas ended up marrying John Rolfe, a plantation owner who perhaps was not quite as manly as Smith would have been, which the book suggests she liked because she was tired of that macho attitude from the men of her own people.

After the portion of the book during Smith's era, it gets a little harder to keep track of things. There are a succession of presidents and the troubles with the Native Americans are in a continual flux. Yet there are still some interesting tales to tell. During this time there was a great massacre by the Indians. There was a presumed peace and the natives were allowed to go in and out of the colony as they pleased. This turned out to be a mistake, and the colonists were surprised. The colonists of course retaliated.

This latter time period covered by the book was a longer time period, so there are of course more presidents and events. So while reading this section, events tended to blend into one another and become less distinct. I don't think that is a failing of the writer as he was still able to maintain interest in these later stories. Besides, I think he made a decision to focus on the John Smith/Pocahontas era as he should have done. Even if he wanted to go into more detail of the latter era. there were probably less resources and less was known about that era. Remember Smith had published several books about his travails. On the other hand, it could have been simply a less interesting era.

The author uses much original sources and publishes them in the book. I think that was very successful, except some of the times these quotations were difficult to follow because the language is so different from modern English. He did paraphrase some, but I believe a little more would have been better. On the other hand, too much would have destroyed the fluency of the book.

Rating this book was difficult. When I think of fiction books, I am looking for something profound and prophetic. In a history book, that would be a little difficult to find. So I suppose my standards are a little lower for non-fiction books. I mean, a piece of fiction can touch people (if it is truly a great piece of fiction) in personal ways that can affect their very lives. I don't see a history book doing that. In a history book, I am looking for readability - a book that it is well written and enjoyable to read. I also want a piece of history to be able to draw conclusions - to synthesize the material and come up with its own ideas. This book does that to certain extent.

Margot at the Wedding **1/2

2007
Writer / Director Baumbach, Noah
With: Nicole Kidman, Zane Pais, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, John Turturro (cameo)
Seen on DVD



This is more of a character study than a real narrative. Basically, two sisters reunite at the wedding of the hippyish / free spirit of Leigh's character. after a long and icy separation. Nicole Kidman is the visiting sister who is controlling and neurotic. Leigh's character is going to marry a slacker played by Jack Black. And that's pretty much it! Sure there are the hillbilly neighbors that terrorize the family especially the little boy played by Pais. There is Nicole Kidman's upcoming divorce etc.

The story is the characters and the actor do a very fine job with them. They are a dysfunctional family, perhaps more dysfunctional than any family truly is. ( I ttake that back, there are probably real life families that are more dysfunctional than this. Think of the many uneducated who have drunken or drug addicted parents and criminal children. Or perhaps that is a different species of disfunction that goes by a different name.) The actions of these characters make the viewer squirm. It makes the viewer say to him/her self, "My that person is screwed up!"

Jack Black is of course there for comic relief. But he doesn't overplay it. He plays the darker side of his character much more convincingly. He really is not that funny, and when he tries to be, it is kind of disturbing, almost violently scary, which I think is appropriate to show how dysfunctional he is.

There are lots of hints that some sinister things have happened in the past, but they are never spelled out for us. For instance, we don't know why Kidman's character wants a divorce. The two sisters refer to something bad that happened with their father, but also said that the other sister (who never shows up and might have some sort of developmental delay or psychological problem) got the worst of it. These things are never explained, but do add to the characters personalities. I like that they were never explained. It made me have to think about whatmight of happened.

So over all, I enjoyed this a great deal because of the acting. I also liked it's darker, angsty edge. It can get a tad tiresome sometimes. Sometimes you just want to shout at the character to not be so stupid.

Water for Elephants **1/2

Author - Gruen, Sara

Published 2006 Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill/Workman Publishing

This is a best seller, which I normally try to stay away from. I tend to stay away from them not because I don't think that they would be good, but because I like to find out what else is out there besides the mainstream fare. What are the alternatives? Besides, many mainstream/best seller books are bad. Though certainly not all of them. As it is, I had to read this for a book discussion.

It's a story about a young man about to graduate from veterinarian school, when the bottom falls out from under him and he finds himself alone and hopeless. So he joins the circus. And, with out giving up the story, there's a love interest and of course an obstacle to said love interest. There is also discussion of circus politics and perhaps most interestingly, a discussion of how circuses operated during The Great Depression. This last theme shows the circus to be a gritty, violent place.

Another interesting theme is the author's concern for the animals' welfare. A large part of the narrative is based on how the animals are treated. After all, the protagonist is a veterinarian and his love interest is one of the performers who work with the animals.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and read it in a time span of 3 or 4 days (which is quick for me with all my other obligations - kids, work, hobbies etc.) So why was this book not rated higher? Remember, if you look at the ratings definitions, 2 stars is a good book and 3 stars is an excellent book. So 2 1/2 stars is not a bad rating. To reach the upper echelons of 4 stars, I feel that a book has to have more substance or more significance to reach masterpiece status. While this is a thoroughly enjoyable read, I have to ask myself what are the underlying important themes from which the reader can ponder and come to his/her own conclusions? Where are the lessons to be learned for the reader and society? Where is the philosophy? There might be some of that, but if it is there, it's so subtle and delicate that I was not able to discern any but the ones I have described above. In other words, the profundity of the book is limited, and a large profoundness is what is needed to be a masterpiece (in my opinion).

It should be interesting to see what topics of discussion come up in our book discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit this book after the discussion to see if there are any topics of conversation that I hadn't thought of.