:: roanoke - or, what really happened at OBX ::

for a very long time, I've been utterly fascinated by the lost colony of roanoke. where did they go? how? why?
   I've never known many details: at the most basic, that 115 people landed at roanoke in 1587 to start a colony. three years later, a supply ship from england arrived… to find no people, no houses -- nor any sign of distress. on a tree was carved one word: "croatoan" -- the name of a nearby island. but by the time any englishman made it to that island, there were no settlers. faint rumors were spread some years after about gray-eyed, pale indians, but many miles inland where the settlers had no plans to go; and no one ever heard from these lost colonists again.
   so what happened?

  at barnes & noble a few weeks ago, I saw a book called roanoke: solving the mystery of the lost colony, and was so intrigued that I bought it to read on the plane home (it was a west coast b&n, incidentally). and I read it.
   hm.

  the author -- historian lee miller -- brought an interesting perspective to the table: her theory is that the going-missing of the colonists was just a part of a smear campaign directed at sir walter ralegh (the one who backed the settlement plan). she suggests that rather than just the accidental, coincidental loss of a colony, this was an intentional move on someone's part back in england, who wanted to make sure none of the colonists survived. this is not the case of difficult communication between america and england back then, she postulates; this is a case of premeditated murder. ultimately, ms. miller suggests that, caught up in swirling hostilities between the nearby indian tribes, the weakened settlers were captured (as was planned by the powers that be) -- the men killed, the women and children sold as slaves, eventually so intermingled with the indians that no trace of the english remained.
   interesting, no?
   but far-fetched. that's what I thought at first. however, ms. miller mixes quite a few excerpts from original documents (they make up a good 50% of the book) and detailed dissections of politics -- both in elizabeth's court as well as among the surrounding indian tribes.
   if the colonists were not just your typical group, but instead a political and religious minority who used this opportunity to flee persecution; if the failure of this settlement could be worked against ralegh's character by appearing utterly funded by self-interest; if these 115 people could be erased by surrounding, hostile indian tribes, hiding the real culprit whose responsibility could be easily disclaimed; if a double agent managed to land the colonists -- not where they were supposed to be placed, but -- on a terribly situated island called roanoke, miles away from where it would be said they had settled, to reduce any chance of being located by supply ships…her theory is at least possible. she rather won me over.
 
   that is, if I understand correctly what ms. miller was trying to say: I have never read such terrible prose in a published book. it was ungainly, confusing, and terribly punctuated.

London is a very old, walled city. So old, in fact, that in the sixteenth century Roman artifacts and ruins are frequently unearthed layers below the current street levels -- much to everyone's amazement. Mute testimony to the strata of human life long sustained here by the Thames. Along the southern edge of the city the river charts a smooth course, gliding past the Tower, the wharves, the ruins of Baynard's Castle, the ancient monastery of Blackfriars by the western wall. Sweeping everything in. A history steeped in water.

   how did that get past the editor?? it was a lot of cruddy writing to wade through. so I think I know what her conclusion was, but I can't be sure -- it gets a little convoluted.
   part of ms. miller's trouble was trying to add drama to the narrative (I think was her intention?) by putting her words, her slightly fictionalized narrative* in present tense. unfortunately, every old document she quotes is written in past tense, making for very choppy reading. unnecessarily, too, because I feel like the suspense and drama the author was shooting for could have been much more easily attained by past-tense storytelling.

   provided that I understood her conclusion, ms. miller did a fine job persuading me. I can accept this conspiracy-theory-meets-warring-tribes theory -- if only to feel some closure on the lost colony question.
 
language, scale of mild to spicy: mild.
book hangover: approximately 30 minutes.

*by "slightly fictionalized narrative", I mean she adds some little scenes that maybe didn't happen: captain john white (real dude) watching roanoke fade into the distance, waving goodbye to his daughter (also real) on the shore (yes, she was left, with her husband and infant). …but did he really wave? that's what she 'slightly fictionalizes'.