In fact most of the Preface consists of questions that are editorially legitimate ("Why did John White take his colonists to Roanoke, and not to Chesapeake Bay as planned?" And "…If the Powhatan didn't kill them, then where were the Lost Colonists?"), and they cry out for answers, which the author attempts to provide throughout the book. What can be said about the substance -- if not the style -- of Miller's narrative is that she is certainly thorough. Her training as an anthropologist comes through very plainly when she takes several pages to show she has done the research on all the characters in this book. As to John White, and why his name isn't mentioned other than in an "…anonymous 1585 ship's log," Miller takes great pains to explain why there would be no record of him even being on board. When she builds a case against a character, for example Fernandez, the pilot of the ship that brought the settlers to Roanoke, she spares not the tiniest tidbit of knowledge in attempting to fully present his purposes, his attitudes, his actions and the possible ramifications of all he does in the context of this voyage. Why did Fernandez not tell the colonists about the poison fruit, since he knew full well it was harmful? Did he tell them it was okay, and that explains why they didn't just take a tiny sample of one piece of fruit, but in fact they all munched down and got sick?

It's Miller's detailed accounts of what certain characters did or did not do that leads the reader to the potential answer for the myriad riddles in the complicated plot lines.

My Reaction to the Book

I have always enjoyed reading the history of the discovery, the settlement, the challenges of the early settlers of North America -- and how as the country grew and became independent, the people carved out a culture for themselves. And so this book is interesting and even fascinating from the point-of-view of an author / anthropologist who is attempting to find truth among the rubble of old historical documents,...

Already I have mentioned that the narrative isn't always smooth, but in the context of a professional anthropologist digging through history to find the truth, this book is very interesting and valuable.
Her case against Walsingham is brilliant. The documented history of this man's skullduggery is so competently expressed by Miller that an alert reader cannot help but link him to the demise of those 116 men, women and children. Clearly there is far more available documented evidence in British history books and letters than there is vis-a-vis the actual Roanoke episode, hence Miller's ability to track down Walsingham's likely involvement in this nefarious matter. I was struck with the dreadful and depressing vision of starving people on an island, where they had been left, apparently deliberately, to die -- and with obscure power struggles in distant England that could be linked to the pathos experienced on Roanoke Island.

In conclusion, this paper has criticized the technical flaws in Miller's book, but there is much to praise as well. The details that help explain why characters like Fernandez and Walsingham behaved as they did, the power struggle in England and Walsingham's cutthroat behaviors within that milieu, are very well presented. Even the fictional recreations of how the settlers probably responded and behaved when White's boat sailed away ("Birds pass quietly overhead, adrift on the breeze, as a cold horror descends on those who wait…" [261]) work well for Miller. Her thoroughness alone deserves great credit, but she has gone well beyond just being thorough. When she challenges the theories of other authors that have gone before her (but didn't have anthological background she had) she is not vicious, just editorially crisp. One can tell she put her heart and soul into this research, and the pride she feels as a result shows through.

Works Cited

Miller, Lee. Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony. New York: Arcade Publishing,