Who Was First? by Russell Freedman

[Mandy]

Who Was First?: Discovering the Americas is a well-written, well-documented book on a fascinating subject. The illustrations are mostly paintings and other artworks, and I appreciate how well labeled they are (captions explain the subject of the illustration, as well as the artist and timeframe when the piece was created).

The first chapter focuses on Columbus, the most recent discoverer of the Americas, and each subsequent chapter works its way back in time to earlier explorers. I really like this set up, but I found the introduction to be misleading because it lists a couple of the discoverers out of order. I was also disappointed to find that Saint Brendan, who receives an entire paragraph explanation in the introduction, is only briefly mentioned in the body of the book. This Irish monk whose "legendary voyage has inspired endless speculation" sounds very interesting. I wish he had been given a chapter of his own.

I also found it odd that Freedman spent so much time on the theory that the Chinese reached the Americas in the early 1400s. This chapter is filled mostly with arguments against this theory and gets tiresome to read after a few pages.

So I found faults with the book, but overall I really did like it. What did you think?

[Teresa]

I haven't had the chance to read this one yet, but I know I must before we meet on January 5. I would imagine though that an entire chapter about a "legendary voyage" and "endless speculation" would not do much for the informational aspect of the book, even if it would be a fun addition.

[Mandy]

Good point, Teresa. I guess I just found it odd that this guy got a pretty big mention in the introduction, but then I didn't get to learn any more about him in the rest of the book.

[Teresa]

I hadn't heard of him (the Irish monk), but it makes me figure that in the Irish-American community, he is well known enough that Russell Freedman knew he would get letters with no mention of him.

I didn't mind the China theory argument at all. I thought it showed how finding evidence is important and, also, how passionate scholars and expert amateurs are about their areas of interest. Which ties into the monk story too. There is story tradition but no sound evidence.