![]() ![]() Too frequently Niven puts words and thoughts into the participants' mouths and heads that may not have been there due to the lack of (corroborating or existing) evidence. This fact is unfortunate for those of us who would like more depth and more accuracy to the story. Those whose diaries survived and/or whose parents wrote the most surviving letters are the ones who get to write the history. ![]() Winston Churchill wrote that "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." That rings very true for this work as well. Ada didn't write or talk much so how can we really know who she was beyond the surface? She merely scratches the surface of these individuals. ![]() (I don't include Fred Maurer in the above list since his diary didn't survive and hence he doesn't get as much coverage as the others.) So the question Niven poses on page 2, "Who was Ada Blackjack?," is not fully answered. It isn't any more her biography than it is of Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Allan Crawford, Lorne Knight, or Milton Galle. Ada Blackjack isn't a bad book, by any means, and I enjoyed it, but it isn't nearly as good as The Ice Master.įirst of all, it is supposed to a biography of Ada Blackjack. If you go into this book expecting a better book than Niven's brilliant first effort you'll be somewhat disappointed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |