The Wordy Shipmates
Nov. 24th, 2008 02:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerIn future times, I should check whether there's anywhere to post these fics before I start writing them. Is there anywhere on LJ to post Pushing Daisies fic? All the comms seem to be icons only.
***
After reading![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
xferinoc's review, I read Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates this weekend. Its a discursive history of the New England Puritans, or more particularly of John Winthrop, John Cotton, and Roger Williams, with excursions to discuss Henry Vane, Plymouth, and Anne Hutchinson, and pretty much everything else under the sun.
It reminded me of reading a blog entry - very energetic, not very focused, overtly political, amusing, and suspect in its accuracy. For the first fifty pages or so Vowell never goes more than a couple of paragraphs without tossing in a pop culture reference or a joke, and even with that cushioning doesn't trust her material enough to sustain any topic for more than a page, except for her anti-Reagan rant.
And why was there an anti-Reagan rant stuck in a book about the Puritans? Reagan liked the Puritans (or rather some cardboard cut-out quasi historical figures with Puritan hats) and he liked to paraphrase a Winthrop quote about America being " a shining city on a hill," which is apparently as good a reason as anyone needs to wax political at great length.
Maybe I'm a curmudgeon. I thought it was an irritating thing to do in a history book, and I was mostly in agreement with her politics; I can't imagine how a Republican would feel.
That being said, once I got past those first fifty pages its a good book. She discusses her topics at more length and spaces out the jokes, and the pop culture references start to give insight into the character of Puritans instead of being tortured to fit into the narrative.
Also, Vowell has a lovely compassion toward her subject. Yes, the Puritans did stupid things sometimes, but so does everyone; they're human, and Vowell recognizes that, and accepts their foibles and mistakes and foolishness without writing either an apologia or a diatribe.
It's worth reading the book for her treatment of Winthrop alone. She's very interesting on Roger Williams too, but he seems to be everyone's one good Puritan, probably because a VERY cursory reading of Williams makes him sound modern when in fact he was so devout even the other Puritans thought he wasn't quite right in the head, so a kind treatment of him isn't as noteworthy.
***
After reading
xferinoc's review, I read Sarah Vowell's The Wordy Shipmates this weekend. Its a discursive history of the New England Puritans, or more particularly of John Winthrop, John Cotton, and Roger Williams, with excursions to discuss Henry Vane, Plymouth, and Anne Hutchinson, and pretty much everything else under the sun. It reminded me of reading a blog entry - very energetic, not very focused, overtly political, amusing, and suspect in its accuracy. For the first fifty pages or so Vowell never goes more than a couple of paragraphs without tossing in a pop culture reference or a joke, and even with that cushioning doesn't trust her material enough to sustain any topic for more than a page, except for her anti-Reagan rant.
And why was there an anti-Reagan rant stuck in a book about the Puritans? Reagan liked the Puritans (or rather some cardboard cut-out quasi historical figures with Puritan hats) and he liked to paraphrase a Winthrop quote about America being " a shining city on a hill," which is apparently as good a reason as anyone needs to wax political at great length.
Maybe I'm a curmudgeon. I thought it was an irritating thing to do in a history book, and I was mostly in agreement with her politics; I can't imagine how a Republican would feel.
That being said, once I got past those first fifty pages its a good book. She discusses her topics at more length and spaces out the jokes, and the pop culture references start to give insight into the character of Puritans instead of being tortured to fit into the narrative.
Also, Vowell has a lovely compassion toward her subject. Yes, the Puritans did stupid things sometimes, but so does everyone; they're human, and Vowell recognizes that, and accepts their foibles and mistakes and foolishness without writing either an apologia or a diatribe.
It's worth reading the book for her treatment of Winthrop alone. She's very interesting on Roger Williams too, but he seems to be everyone's one good Puritan, probably because a VERY cursory reading of Williams makes him sound modern when in fact he was so devout even the other Puritans thought he wasn't quite right in the head, so a kind treatment of him isn't as noteworthy.
