Customer Reviews

Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The topic is indeed a fascinating one, and Lee Miller has asked many important probing questions from all sides of this story. She has done a good job of conjuring the excitement and drama of this historical mystery, bolstered by impressive research and a keen perception. However, I must agree with some of the reviewers below that her persistent failure to write in complete sentences makes for choppy reading at times. Perhaps she intended this fragmentary style to heighten the drama - I can think of no other way an editor would allow it. Also, I agree with someone below who said that another map or two would be helpful. She mentions many specific place names, many of which have changed since that time, and it was a little hard to follow the exact whereabouts of certain events, even though I am familiar with the Outer Banks. Be that as it may, the story itself is so compelling that I recommend the book and commend the author for her valuable probing. Above all, Miller makes it clear that there is ample evidence from which we may conclude what really happened to the colonists (and she does a convincing job interpreting every scrap that remains) and that much of it has been suppressed or forgotten for 400 years. Perhaps the Lost Colony is a mystery no more! This fact alone justifies reading this book.

Was the lost colony a tragic disaster, or a shrewdly engendered mass murder? Miller has made some fantastic connections to piece together her version of the mystery. It is a fascinating idea, and I found some of her proof and reasoning quite compelling. The use of intertextual first person accounts was also quite helpful.

However, while "Roanoke" had some great ideas, it was so poorly written as to be almost unreadable at times. Sentence fragments float wildly. Ideas are begun and then abandoned only to reappear from nowhere two pages later. The short choppy paragraph structure is highly distracting, and left me constantly feeling unsatisfied. I did manage to finish, but only because I am really interested in the Lost Colony. If you are not, I suggest a more clearly written account.

Most Americans are probably familiar with the bare outlines of the story of Raleigh's colony at Roanoke. Many will, like me, remember history text pictures of the stunned John White staring in awestruck perplexity at that awful word, CROATOAN. Few will, like me, have mothers who explained that the Croatians came for them.

The basic story is familiar. Miller presents us with the entire story, from the Spanish pressure on England that led to privateering, to the court intrigues. We learn about the social and political situation in England, with much interesting detail that helps us understand how these people lived. Lane's dealings with the Native Americans, killing and burning for a wretched silver cup, are sickening. The poor Indians must have felt that unwonted doom had descended on them out of a clear blue sky.

Miller's research is highly impressive. All the pieces slide into place, even the preposterous Welsh Indians. I know nothing about American languages, so I cannot comment authoritatively on her conclusions there, but if this stands up to peer review, it should settle the case. If nothing else, she has convinced me. (Samuel Morison's Oxford History of the American People says the Lumbee Indians believe the blood of Raleigh's colonists runs in their veins. I wonder what Miller says about that.)

The case should be settled, but the melodramatic writing style has caused comment. A writing gimmick, used sparingly, is clever, often repeated becomes distracting, obnoxious, and causes you to wonder about the writer. Her health. Her qi. She can barely build up the steam to write a complete sentence. Fragments. Almost the whole book. She's okay when she's concentrating on scholarly evidence, and oh how she piles on the footnotes! But when she's telling a story, you want to stand by her desk and cheer, Take a deep breath, Lee, push that pen! All the way to the end! You can do it, you can do it! Push that pen! Rah rah rah!

If you can muck your way through all those fragments, you will find a superb story, nailed down with meticulous scholarship. One thought will not leave my mind. The lost colonists who survived must have heard that their countrymen were searching in the region, but as slaves they were unable to meet them. Pity their despair!

The real mystery in "Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony" is whether the book is writen for a popular audience, or scholars.

Whether 'tis better to write for academics or laymen seems to be a question Lee Miller never quite resolved. Or perhaps her publisher thought that neither would sell well, so they decided to create a book for both. In the end they've created a book that's probably ideal for neither.

Miller does a heroic job of taking scraps of evidence and constructing a more or less believable tale. And one that has a certain fascination. Unfortunately, there is far too little evidence remaining from the 16th century to come close to being able to convincingly prove motive, villainy or fate. Are the threads of evidence substantial enough to justify the spinning of the tale in a non-fiction form?

I enjoyed the read, but really had to work at it. The heart of the book is only 260 pages, with 60 more pages of footnotes, plus another 30 or so of epilogue, appendices and bibliography. (And a complete index.) Most annoyingly, while the bulk of the footnotes are simple citations, peppered throughout the notes are extended analyses critical to support of the hypotheses.

The author has thoughtfully, and necessarily, provided extensive background on the politics and social scene of England at the time in order to support her targeted villain and his motivations. However, she has gone beyond what was necessary to the point where this reader thought for a while we had left Roanoke for good and would finish with a book focusing only on English history. Padding to make the book large enough to sell? Only the author and her editor know.

Finally, the tempo of the book is uneven, building interest, then losing focus, once again raising the beat, then ebbing.

Scholars may judge the author has overreached based on the evidence available ... even if her hypotheses are (unprovably) correct. As a layman I am not a good judge of that, and really have little interest in academic reaction.

As a layman, though, I found the book less well crafted than I would like, unnecessarily difficult to read. That said, the tale, if not the telling, is fascinating.

If the topic is one of your keen interests, buy the book at once. Otherwise, if you run across the book in a library or on a friend's coffee table, give it a try.

I'm a fan of history. I'm also a fan of suspense. And I love a good "unsolved mystery." So there was no way I could pass up Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony. I've always been fascinated by the fate of England's first colonist in the US - where did they go? How could they disappear so completely - not just the people but their homes and their things? Were they killed? Kidnapped? Lee Miller attempts to answer those questions and others in her book - with mixed results.

On the one hand, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and could not put it down. It was a fascinating glimpse into a side of Elizabethan and 16th century world history that I'd never delved into-the wars with Spain and the race to colonize the "new world." Her character sketches are detailed and, in my opinion, her detective work was well-researched. She manages to weave together an exciting tale based on 400-year old facts and some creative thinking. And it almost had me convinced.

Almost. While Roanoke makes for a suspenseful story filled with treachery, malice, double-dealing, and action on the high seas, it all seems a bit too complex for me. In my experience, the truth is often much simpler than the stories we create to explain things-perhaps the colonists moved to another area, perhaps they were abducted by the local Indians, perhaps, perhaps. It seems more likely that this was the case, more likely, say, than one individual setting a plan into motion that would eventually strand and kill over a hundred innocent people-all for the sake of getting back at a fellow courtier. I understand that people in Elizabeth's court were politically motivated and often cut-throat in their dealings with both friends and rivals (who were often one and the same). But this strikes me as a bit unrealistic. Also, I found Miller's writing style sometimes difficult to follow-her use of italics made for a choppy reading experience.

So, if you're looking for a good read with lots of details about 16th English life and politics, I recommend this book. But if you're looking to solve the mystery of Roanoke-your best bet is to use this as a reference to gauge the historical climate at the time and continue searching for the answers. But kudos to Miller for crafting such an interesting story!

The mystery of the Lost Colony has always been fascinating to me and I am always interested in reading books about it, so I bought this one as soon as it came out. While it is clear that the author has done a great deal of research, her methodology leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't like how she interspersed quotes from primary materials into her text, because it was often impossible to determine what those materials were or who wrote them. Also, I have to wonder if she is taking these quotes out of context and placing them where they fit her arguments best. This approach weakens her arguments. Also, her constant use of incomplete sentences annoyed me and I am surprised her editor let her get away with this. Whereas she makes some interesting observations about the mystery, I suspect that this book will not be taken very seriously by the historical community because of its methodological flaws and its grammatical errors.

This could have been a first rate book. It has almost everything--great subject, impressive research, history from both sides of the Atlantic, even a great looking cover. I could hardly read it--and I LOVE to read history. Why, why, why did Miller write in practically nothing but incomplete sentences? I would just start to be swept along with the fascinating story when I would be caught up short with yet another incomplete sentence. Quite disturbing.

I found Miller's work to be remarkable. With an assorted cast of individuals spanning race, belief, social class and geographical barrier, Miller has assembled scattered fragments into a cohesive portrait of surprising detail. She has taken a fascinating and very speculative chapter of early American history and effectively transformed it into a living, breathing tale. Her craft employs thoughtful consideration and exploration where general history has often paid but a few dry paragraphs.

Are there holes in her conclusions? I think that's hard to say with certainty. But even though the author, herself, allows for dispute, Miller reveals understanding through clear logic and vastly informed (at times quite granular) detail.

But why only four stars? Perhaps for nothing more than giving small credence to the harsh criticisms found among a number of these related reviews, to offer fair balance to the brazen judgement of our pedantic reviewers.

Sure, I can understand why readers may complain about less than perfect syntax. My thoughts, however, are that Miller may have been intending to apply a more natural or casual flow of speech than one tends to see in historical writing, producing a book that in style befits the contents: MYSTERY.

Guess what....I think she pulled it off. Is it perfect? Who knows? Miller is mixing vast differences between content and style. You can be the judge of whether or not that works. But as for me, I have observed the odious and torpid styles of certain historians acclaimed for years for doing nothing more than reciting boring facts, dates and names. History is so much MORE than that!

I say "bravo!" to Miller for walking off the beaten path.

The story of the lost colony of Roanoke gets little more than a blurb in most history textbooks, but captures the imagination nonetheless: a failed expedition, a ruined town, carvings on a tree, rumors of survivors. Lee Miller (the author) explores the event in every detail, and does so with a narrative flow that's rare to history. She treats it as a 400 hundred year old crime to be solved, and comes very close to doing so. The possibilities outlined for sightings of colonists are spooky at least. The writing style takes some getting used to, but you will appreciate it as you go on. If you like big names, you have Sir Walter Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth. If you like action, you have pirate attacks and the war between England and Spain. And if you like intrigue, Roanoke is the first true American mystery. A well written book on a fascinating subject.

This was so bad. Oh, my God, this was soooo bad. I wish I could give it negative stars.

What was wrong with it? Well, first, Lee Miller writes very badly, with lots of incomplete sentences and clumsy foreshadowings. Second, there is not a shred of evidence for most of her contentions. the one solid piece of evidence, a letter by the colony's governor, is never presented in its entirety in one place for the reader to judge it, but is quoted piecemeal throughout the book.

Miller's writing is so bad that it is very difficult to comprehend her argument. However, if I have it correct, it goes like this: Francis Walsingham was eager to screw up the position of Sir Walter Raleigh because they were rivals at Queen Elizabeth's court. His chosen method was to make sure Raleigh's plans for a colony in Virginia failed through all the colonists getting killed by being landed in the wrong place where the local Indian tribes were already mad at English colonists and would be guaranteed to kill them all. The only "evidence" Miller cites for this is the fact that the colonists' ship's pilot worked for Walsingham and had had such long and thorough training and experience as a ship's pilot that he could not possibly get lost, so if he landed them in the wrong place it must have been on purpose.

As our British cousins would say, BOLLOCKS!!! The idea that a pilot could not get lost in an age of sail and navigation by stars and dead reckoning is just plain flat absurd. A ship under sail could wander miles off its course without anyone on board being aware of it; even if you could work out a navigational fix, a point of latitude/longitude covers miles of water (note how much trouble salvagers had finding Titanic even though its last position was on record from its SOS transmissions). As great a sailor as Francis Drake got lost twice in the year before the Spanish Armada, sailing from England to Spain to raid Spanish shipping - a route he knew well and had sailed often as had many of his colleagues. This also happened to the Spanish Armada itself on the way to England; the Spanish fleet ran into a storm and had to put into port at (I think) Corunna in order to gather all the stragglers. Some of them never did find the main fleet -- and this right off their own Spanish coast!! In short, a sailing ship could get lost, without intending to at all.

Second, the idea that the failure of a colony would totally discredit Raleigh doesn't ring right to me. The Roanoke colony was a speculative venture, and its loss would not do Raleigh any good. But the idea that it would discredit him totally - in a very tough age in which losses at sea were almost routine - is pretty farfetched. Also, for God's sake, Walsingham was a spymaster. Surely he could have arranged a lot of simpler, easier, quicker and surer ways to discredit Raleigh.

All of this is mixed in with a lot of speculation about the colonists leaving England because they were religious dissenters. Again, no evidence at all is presented to support this and the most obvious explanation for their leaving England is overlooked - by the time the Roanoke colonists sailed, the Spanish Armada was being gathered, this was well known all over Europe (since you can't order ships and supplies from every country in Europe and keep it secret). Spain's plan was to invade England and return the country to the bosom of the Catholic Church, and the smart money of the day thought Spain was going to succeed in its invasion and conquest. Plenty of reason for Protestants of an adventurous bent to try their luck elsewhere.

In short, this book is sheer speculation with minimal hard evidence to support it and should not be treated as serious history. it would work as a 16th century conspiracy-theory novel except that it is too badly written to be entertaining.