Oceania Books

The book is visually stunning: some readers may be disappointed, depending on what they are seeking. The book consists of superb shots of pieces from Asia, Africa, Oceana, and (South)America. The pieces consist of a variety of head ornaments: combs, bands, nose ornaments, etc., but do not include earrings (which are covered in A World of Earrings) or hats. The representation is uneven, with the collections for Asia and Africa being much stronger than for Oceana (perhaps 24 pieces) or South America (perhaps a dozen pieces). Since this is a catalog of a personal collection, one obviously cannot have pictures of what is not there, and this is not a criticism. However, the person researching international jewelry should recognize the limitation.

The pictures themselves are stupendous: large with extremely clear detail. Depending on the item, there may be several on a pages (as with small hairpins) or one piece may have a double spread. The pictures are solely of the pieces; there is no attempt to display them as they would be used. They are arranged in geographical sections, with a brief introduction to the jewelry of that area. All of the caption information is collected at the end of the book, which I suppose avoids detracting from the pictures, but which some may find annoying. At least every page seems to have a discreet page number, so it is easy to match them to the captions. Anyone with a scholarly interest may find this disappointing: there is minimal information about the size of the pieces, generally the largest dimension only, and only one, even if multiple pieces are shown in the same picture. Only a very broad provenance is given, and little about the age. One comb for example, notes that this style was derived from the Spanish mantilla beginning in the 17th century, but it does not indicate if it is also contemporary. I a a little confused by the notation in the caption about a piece from Nigeria referring to Pharaonic Egypt. Does this reflect cultural sharing? Does this mean that the piece is from the time in history? The precise comment is that the ancient Egyptians often copied natural forms, but looking through the pictures, isn't that true of most cultures?

The index is very detailed in that one may, for example, look up pieces from Ming Dynasty China under either Ming or China. It would be helpful if a time period was specified for the dynasties. Also, the page numbers refer only to text, either in the section introductions or the captions. Thus, one is directed to the captions for the jewelry, and goes from there to the pictures. There are also maps and an extensive bibliography.

Well worth oohing and ahhing over, but will be only a supplement for a person with scholarly interests.

Before starting to read PT's travel books, I had to search for a book to read and I started many which I ended up throwing away after reading a hundred or so pages and I decided to give up on writing negative reviews as a result. Then I read Dark Star Safari and now I want to read all of PT's books.

Theroux mentions so many different things during his travels that it is difficult to tell you just what the books are like, except to say that while reading, it feels like you are there witnessing these people and places with him. I will give just one example from Oceania which I found great fun to read, namely his description of Dame Cath Tizard's way of eating. He wrote, "She scraped food onto her fork, but before she heaved it she nudged more onto the fork with her thumb. And after she ate the forkful she licked her thumb. Once I caught her grinning at me, but she was not grinning. She was trying to dislodge a bit of food that had found its way between her teeth, and still talking and grinning, she began picking her teeth. Having freed the food from her teeth, she glanced at it and pushed it into her mouth. (while talking of her being chosen governor-general)...Her finger was in her mouth, fishing for bits of trapped lamb sinews... And she slurped the food off her finger, and then began scraping the plate...." I'm not saying I have the greatest table manners myself, but I simply revelled in reading this description.

I can understand that there are many people who wouldn't like reading him and who would disagree with Paul Theroux's views. I am saying I find his writing thoroughly entertaining and relaxing because I like to see the world the way it really is, the beautiful as well as the ugly, and this book satisfies my curiosity about much of the South Pacific.

This is a good read. Theroux gives it to us straight. I found it refreshing to read the good and the bad of all the islands and I strongly disagree with two of the previous reviews. This is not about Theroux's children and wife and if he does whine his melancholy only enriches his experience.

I did not have high expectations for this book as I picked it up at a library sale for a quarter and a friend of mine that had lived in Tonga said he disagreed with Theroux's perception of that Island. After reading the section on Tonga I felt it interesting, humorous and I felt as if I had been there myself and would have experienced it as Theroux did, the outsider "Palangi", not as my friend did with a two year Peace Corps stint.

Theroux likes some places he visits and dislikes others. I would not have believed anything else and would not have wanted to read a superficial treatment of the area. Not every island is a paradise, certainly not American Somoa but he does reveal the paradise of the Cook Islands, The Marquesas, and the fascination of Easter Island.

Theroux may not be the perfect person but he is very nearly the perfect travel writer and I very much enjoyed seeing Oceana through his eyes.

To be honest, it took me a while to get into this one. I found the sections on Australia and New Zealand uninteresting and somewhat disorderly, and not any way as compelling as what was to come. The book took off as soon as he hit the north-eastern coast of Australia, camping on the beaches around Cookstown etc., and his subsequent journey to the Trobriands, and on across the pacific. The portrayal of the characters was really excellent, and I found myself sharing in Theroux's humiliation at the hands of the islanders, escpecially the teasing he endured from the children in the Trobriands, frightening really.
Like my title suggests, this was a pleasant enjoyable read.

I find Paul Theroux's travel books to be a delight to read, and Happy Isles of Oceania is one of my favorites. Reeling from a split with his wife, PT begins his journey on a book tour in NZ and Australia, and then travels around much of Oceania. He kayaks and camps on most of the islands, and makes many discoveries about the various people and cultures. Most notable is the natives' consistent use of the ocean as a toilet and a garbage dump. He hikes in NZ's southern alps; explores the Aussie bush; attends the unusual Yam-festival in the Trobriands; meets the King of Tonga; insults a politician from NZ; plays Robinson Crusoe for a week; contracts a disease; gets stung by jellyfish; makes friends; drinks kava; wonders what drew Robert Louis Stevenson to Samoa and Paul Gaugain to Tahiti; and visits a Hawaiian island that few are allowed on. If you like PT's other travel books, you'll love this one. If you haven't read any, this is a great one to start with.

This book is a prolonged snivel about the pain of voluntarily going to places the author then found tacky, hostile or boring. By his own account he had not a moment's pleasure from his travels until he reached Hawaii, where it was all American and OK and Not Foreign. The only puzzle is why he did not at a much earlier stage of the trip get on a plane and go there direct; presumably he'd taken an advance from his publisher and had to deliver a book of some sort. The whole thing carries a moral for modern travellers: if you can't engage constructively with the places you go to, then please, please, stay at home - that way you'll be happier, the foreign people will be happier, and you won't needlessly contribute to airline CO2 emissions.

Mary and Peter are two U.S. school children on their way to visit their uncle in Adelaide, Australia. Mary is fourteen and Peter is nine. While flying over Central Australia their plane crashes and the children are the only survivors. How are two modern children to survive in the Sturt Desert? Soon Mary and Peter meet a thirteen year old, native, Aboriginal boy. He seems to be their savior but Mary cannot bring herself to trust him and modern civilization is a very long way off.

This book raises important questions about the supposed superiority of Western civilization over 'native' cultures, and the supposed inferiority of 'colored' people. It also illustrates the terrible misunderstandings that can result when people of different cultures meet.

This book was published in 1959 and it is important to realize that Australia has changed a great deal since then. Non-English speaking Aboriginals who have never had contact with white people are definitely a thing of the past, and were very rare even in 1959. Beyond the fact of a plane crash the author has not given any indication of the time in which the story is set.

Mary and Peter are two U.S. school children on their way to visit their uncle in Adelaide, Australia. Mary is fourteen and Peter is nine. While flying over Central Australia their plane crashes and the children are the only survivors. How are two modern children to survive in the Sturt Desert? Soon Mary and Peter meet a thirteen year old, native, Aboriginal boy. He seems to be their savior but Mary cannot bring herself to trust him and modern civilization is a very long way off.

This book raises important questions about the supposed superiority of Western civilization over 'native' cultures, and the supposed inferiority of 'colored' people. It also illustrates the terrible misunderstandings that can result when people of different cultures meet.

This book was published in 1959 and it is important to realize that Australia has changed a great deal since then. Non-English speaking Aboriginals who have never had contact with white people are definitely a thing of the past, and were very rare even in 1959. Beyond the fact of a plane crash the author has not given any indication of the time in which the story is set.

"Walkabout" is the novel that inspired the Nicolas Roeg-directed 1971 film that is considered a masterpiece. And the film is a masterpiece, so original and so beautiful to look at that it has a hypnotic quality to it. Then there's the book, which has the same plot outline but bares few similarities to the film. In the novel, we meet two American siblings. Fourteen year old Mary and six-year-old Peter, who are the sole survivors of a plane crash and are now forced to wander the Australian desert. During their walk, wondering how they're going to get food and water, they meet a young naked Aborigine boy doing his walkabout. The walkabout is a six month period of time in which a young Aborigine man-child must wander the outback of Australia using his survival skills and knowledge of hunting to stay alive (or not). Sensing that they're weak, the Aborigine begins leading the children through the desert. Since they don't speak the same language, Peter begins to try and communicate with the boy. Mary, who is a typical 14-year-old girl, doesn't try and communicate with the boy. The theme of the novel and the film is "miscommunication" and it ruins the lives of both Mary and the Aborigine, although a little more so in the movie. The book doesn't pack a real dramatic punch. It's a brisk 158 page read that is entertaining, but it amazed me while reading it that it managed to inspire such an incredible film. First off, the way the children are stranded in the desert is much more haunting in the film. The fate of the Aborigine is much more poignant in the movie. The film has a magical and hypnotic quality that the book simply does not possess. If the movie didn't exist, I'd recommend you read the book. The movie does exist though and so I must say that the only reason you should read the book is if you've already seen the movie and you're curious. I think there's a real danger that reading the book and then seeing the movie will ruin that magic of it. The movie is a masterpiece, the book is entertaining and provides a small history lesson. The book is also much more character driven then the film, obviously, because you hear what the characters think and say. The film doesn't even bless the characters with names and it gives them sparse dialogue. If you want to read the book, go ahead but I suggest you see the film first.

GRADE: B-

If you like the survival books (Hachet, the Cay) you'll probally like this book. But unlike the other survival stories it occurs right in the middle of the Austrailan Outback. An American boy and girl meet up with an Aborigine boy and face the rough desert together. The author of the story tells of the flora and fauna that normally coudn't survive in that habitat, but is still facinating to learn about. They have to get used to each other's culture of life, which gets the bushboy killed. It is a great book about culture and life and I think you would like it to.

As dated as this book is and remember it was first published in the 1950s, there is something compelling about it that makes you want to read it from cover to cover.

The plot in itself is quite simple, two white children, a boy and a girl are lost in the Australian outback after a plane crash which kills the crew; neither child has any experience in the art of surviving in a hostile environment and it is only by luck they are found by a young Aborigine boy who is on Walkabout, a trek he must make alone before he can be called a man.

The story follows the children and their saviour through the outback until the death of the Aborigine caused either by the racial prejudice of the white girl who fears the Aborigine along possibly with her own blossoming sexuality (however I am not so sure about this because of the era the book was written in) or the fact he (the Aborigine) did not have any immunity against the diseases that while people carried such as the common cold.

Either way the children are on their own again but they now have the survival skills they need to make their way back to their own world which is filled all the trappings of supposed civilisation, such as technology and racism.

A surprisingly haunting read even now in the 21st century and it was made into a film some years ago with Jenny Agutter in the leading role.

J. Maarten Troost is the funniest travel writer around today. Like his previous bestseller, The Sex Lives of Cannibals, this book takes him to remote areas of the Pacific to learn about the people, customs, dangers, and weirdness. Troost and his intrepid, "beguiling" wife Sylvia are adventurers most of the time, but cowardly when they need to be--for example, when standing on the ridge of an active, suddenly discovering they're swimming in an active shark area, or dealing with natives who just might be the last remaining cannibals. This books is entertaining, enlightening, and hilarious.

Centipedes from hell, landslides and plenty of naked dancing men. Now that's entertainment! I also admire any man who has enough balls to follow his woman to the ends of the earth. The only problem I have with the book is the title, but I know sometimes writers don't have much say in that area.

Not as good as the first, even though more timely. As I read about the coup in Fiji four years ago in Troost's book, the day's headlines on Yahoo.com included a story describing the continuing infighting!

Troost's strengths are not as a journalist, but as an observer of the cultural and social divides and denominators that bring us together and tear us apart. His first book, perhaps with the fresh eyes of innocence, was better.

Following The Sex Lives of Cannibals: Adrift in the Equatorial Pacific with Getting Stoned, I can't wait for the third installment on rock and roll.

This was my first Troost book, and I found it laugh out loud funny, witty, and a light, fun, fast read. It was well worth the day it took to read it. I'm not going to suggest it was profound, thought provoking, or a must read from a literary sense, but it's one of those books that you read when you want something funny and light. It sounds like the people who first read "Sex Lives of Cannibals" were somewhat disappointed in this book. (Which just tells me that "Sex Lives of Cannibals" must be hilarious! Maybe everyone should read this one first.) Without having read that to compare to (therefore rating purely on a stand-alone basis), I found this book really enjoyable. Troost's witty humor, sarcasm, and ability to poke fun at himself make for an enjoyable read (especially between books tackling heavier subject matters). It's like taking your own mini vacation.

excellent book. funny and unpredictable. makes you believe you can invision his trips. highly recommended

I struggled through 106 pages before I gave up on it altogether. The book held every potential of a great adventure but sorely lacked in its characters - the whining and vain Stiller coupled with a boorish Tony made for a literary flop. Their trip was doomed from the beginning, the two seemed to be in a state of constant bickering - where was the camaderie? The whole thing begged for credibility and substance. Sorry - just couldn't take it. Save your money and buy Chris Duff's 'Southern Exposure'.

I picked up this book as my husband is Australian and we both kayak. I can't imagine trying to accomplish this feat, and I found the tale pretty accurate of a long kayaking trip.

I wished they could have finished the trip, but it kind of seemed like they wanted it for the wrong reasons. Don't get me wrong they accomplished quite a feat and I"m not trying to take away from that. It's just that Eric and Tony seemed to grow up rich and be given all the oppurtunites in life, so when presented with severe obstacles they had a hard time dealing with them. It seemed more like an extended vacation rather then an expedition. Maybe, I"m just a little biased after reading Paddle to the Amazon and discovering all they went through. Still, this book isn't as bad as some say, it's good read, and you get a good sense of thier journey, it just could have been better.

Caffyn's "Dreamtime Voyage" is the best on kayaking around Australia. It is more of a 5 star book. And his NZ book "Obscured by Waves" is back in print!

I got this one for my birthday and started reading it with great enthusiasm. Few people have attempted to circumnavigate Australia in a kayak and except of Paul Caffyn no one succeeded so far. Therefore, Eric Stiller (the author) and Tony Brown (his paddle partner) are in good company with their failed attempt to complete the circumnavigation. This book is Eric's account of five months of paddling over 3500 miles from Sydney along Oz's east and north coasts to Darwin.

Paddling almost half the way around Australia in a Klepper foldable boat in five months is a great adventure. It must have been quite an amazing journey along one of the worlds most beatiful shorelines. However, there is hardly any of this aspect in the book. Instead you'll get bored of Eric's dwelling in endless complaints about his sore butt, the always higher-than-expected swell, and his ever ongoing struggles with Tony. The only thing more disappointing than Eric's whining about all the evil surrounding him is the stretch of lousy b/w pictures (on all of which the water is as flat as a mirror, so there must have been a couple of good days at least).

The title refers to Tony's rejection of Eric's request to buy charts for the trip. Instead, he recommends, to simply "keep Oz on the left". I would not want to go on a week-long trip with a guy as naive as that. Tony's naive attitude and Erics subordination to Tony's moods borders on stupidity more often than not. Day after day the two get up too late to make their distance in daylight, they have to make a dangerous landing at some beach they can hardly see in the dark, they find some food and exhaustedly fall asleep, which makes them get up too late the next morning and so on. They once take off in a storm out of a "cabin-fever" mood and almost die that day, triggering a coast guard search. A long list of misjudgements and rants of self-pity later, the duo almost get themselves killed in the gulf of carpentaria and, to the big relief of the reader, give up their journey shortly thereafter.

Eric does not seem to really enjoy any of this whole trip - everything always seems to be worse than expected. He doesn't seem to live the journey, he seems to long for it to end before it even started. The book reads as if all this was pushed onto him, and this way it ends up to be a depressing account of quite a tremendous achievement. Unfortunately, Eric does not seem to understand anything of what has happened. Instead of writing a pity-party of a book like this, he should fall down on his knees and thank his god for the fact, that he pulled his sorry butt out of this alive.

I am a BIG fan of Lori Wick. I have read most of her books. I found this book hard to read. It took me a long time to get through it. I usually eat up her stuff. The book was just a bummer in my opinion. I usually save the books and reread them but this one I didn't bother, I donated it to the library.

This was the first Lori Wick book I ever read and I LOVED it. I immediately went to the library and read through every book of hers that they had. "Sophie's Heart" and "The Princess" along with this book are probably my favorites, but picking a favorite is like trying to pick a favorite child. Lori does such a good job telling a story and getting you involved in what happens to the character. If I had to say something bad about her books it is that it is always makes me a little sad when I am done with the book, I would love to go on reading forever!

I picked up this book recently when we were traveling and read it on the road. I have not read Lori Wick before so didn't have preconceived ideas of her writing. I enjoyed the book immensely. When I finished I went back and re-read parts of it as I tend to miss things the first time around. I thought the part where the book skips to Riggs finding Lorri on the Island was actually an interesting style of writing. Little by little it comes out what happened after the plane crash. Reading the other reviews I noticed no one mentions the grandfather and the impact he has on Lorri's life and helping her to recover such a trauma. From the beginning I was sure Riggs and Lorri would find romance but was curious how the author was going to get them together. I thought his character took such special care of Lorri and was going to make a special person in her life. Even though some of the reviews were pretty critical, I enjoyed the book. Since reading this one, I have read a few more Lori Wick books (The Princess, Who Brings Forth the Wind, To Know Her By Name) and have enjoyed those also. Sometimes I think I want the story to go a little differently but yet understand what the author is trying to accomplish. I enjoy the historical times even if they aren't completely accurate. Anyone enjoying historical Christian romance, another excellent author is Gilbert Morris. I really enjoy his books and as a rule the history in them are right on.

Having been a fan of Lori Wick's series, I sometimes have a hard time getting into her stand alone books. For instance, "The Princess" was not one of my favorites. However, "Every Storm" is one of my favorites. Some of the other reviews were critical of the book, but the story line is good, and although some were disappointed by the gap between the sisters boarding the plane and servicemen finding Lorri on the island, I felt it added to the book. Instead of getting all the info. in a neat little package, you get little hints on what happened.

It's a good read. If you really get into the characters when you read keep kleenex handy.

Usually I love Wick's books and have sincerly enjoyed her tuckermills books and have read all of her other novels, enjoying Pretence and others the most, but this book was terribly hard to get into. I actually couldn't finish it and gave it to my husband to trade for commentaries (He's a seminary student). I was really disappointed, because when I learned Wick had written a WWII novel I was excited, but my excitement was misplaced.

The Cowboy is Krentz's finest. It is my first audio book and I liked it so much I bought several more. That say's it all.

I suppose this is meant to tickle the ladies? fancies.
The Pirate, Jared Hawthorne is diffinately the alpha male with a son, David who decides to become a matchmaker.
Jared is widowed but [maybe] looking for a wife. The Colonel is willing to lay a bet on it.

Katherine Inskip is a stress out divorced romance writer who is sent to Amethyst Island by her friends Margaret Lark and Sarah Fleetwood. Sarah just has a feeling about the Island.
Kate is definitely agravating, definitely loose, and nosey.

There is a lot of sass with Kate unwinding and a tittilating attraction with the owner of the Island. The inevitable seduction is a bit run of the mill, the info about the founding Pirate and his kidnapped bride fits into the plot nicely and a slight mystery with his castle was a bit of a chuckle.

The villians were a bit wishy, washy but necessary. There proved to be no privacy on the Island and interesting stories flew faster than a telegraph line.

Thoroughly enjoyable read - quick and easy just like Kate.
Recommended --M

Katherine Inskip's ideal man didn't exist in this century. Nevertheless, her dreams and the books she wrote were dominated by a swashbuckling pirate. She'd never imagined she'd encounter him in the flesh... until she met Jared Hawthorne.

Owner of the South Seas island where Kate was unwinding, Jared could have stepped off the pages of a historical romance. In almost every way was her perfect fantasy - bold, dashing, domineering... But when Kate began to suspect that Jared had something more in common with his piratical ancestors - something that wasn't all 'by the book...'

1st in trilogy.

A little predictable but fun. Kate's behavior was childish at times. There was lots of passion. The Pirate is a decent read.

"The Pirate" (book one of three, followed by "The Adventurer" and "The Cowboy") is a great short story. It was hilarious and witty, Krentz at her best.

The only thing some readers might find exasperating is that this is an older Krentz book, so the hero was a little too alpha male at times. There were a couple of scenes in the book where I mentally gritted my teeth at his behavior.

Nevertheless, this entire trilogy is excellent, guaranteed entertainment. Buy them all and read them in order!

Somehow I received and was charged for 2 books. I only wanted 1 book. Any ideas?

An excellent planning guide, especially the tips about school holidays and how to avoid the crowds.

I bought this book primarily because it was the most recent book published. I saw some of the bad reviews and figured it was for older version and decided to try it anyways. What a mistake!
I think the writer just find the most expensive accomodation/restaurant and rated it the highest. I'm sure they're great for $500/night. But I think the point is to find good values that we can't otherwise find ourselves.
There were major mistakes too! I went to a company in Franz Josef and not only they got their prices wrong (keep in mind I went 1 month after the release of this book), they also incorrectly say there's a discount when showing the book.
I think "writing" this book is just a way for the author to try the most expensive things in NZ that she couldn't afford herself otherwise.
Save yourself the weight and try a different book.
Oh yeah, don't rely on this book for maps.

A friend and I had 5 New Zealand travel books between us on our trip. This was the best book by far. We would look at the other books then would always go back to the Frommer's. We ended up using it exclusively by the end of the first week. The information was accurate and easy to follow.

I bought this book because it had a good name behind it, but this guide is lacking what I need, pictures and MAPS! Not a great start to a trip to a country I've never been. After recently browsing a book store I found New Zealand by Insight Guides to be much more sufficient! It is under Discovery Channel so it's legit! Overall this book has been helpful but I think the target audience is older and much better off monetarily than I.

I have travelled to New Zealand many times. When in bookshops I always take a peek in the section they have for NZ, and enjoy travel literature on the topic. Reading a book on one's journey through this country is like taking a mini trip back there again, a place I am very fond of. I've never had a bad experience there. It's a place I have gone alone for months at a time, and a place I have gone with family and friends. This book however, was so negative! He spends most of the story whining about his recently ended relationship, complaining about the weather, and his health problems. He seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, which results in poor experiences with locals as they don't appreciate his negativity (and sometimes rude demeanor). There are points when he complains about the eco-tourism and the lack of environmentally friendly tourist attractions (jet boats and such), yet fails to have a bigger picture that New Zealand is much more advanced than most countries in limiting this activity thanks to it's citizens voting for preservation and supporting their Department of Conservation. No place is perfect, but in the bigger picture, NZ is far more ahead in this subject than most countries, and I mean MOST. I am saddened that he tends to place himself in situations where he invites negative experiences. Finally, if you are reading this book having little experience in NZ, please keep these things in mind, as it is an amazing place with some of the most kind and interesting people you'll ever meet. Aside from 2-3 tourist towns, which cram the typical stuff down your throat, it's one of few places you can go that is safe and you can get happily lost on a beautiful beach or mountain, all your own.

First off, I loved this book. I have a great desire, if not budget, to see New Zealand. This has only increased my longing to visit this country. Stevenson's writing is very subtle in its humor. I laughed more reading this book than any other travel book I have read before. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in travelling and especially in New Zealand.

Andrew Stevenson has successfully accomplished what very few others are able to do.
He has written a travel guide that is actually enthralling to read. From its pages you will gain a wonderful sense of the flora, fauna and people of "The Land of the White Cloud."
Although the title suggests it to be a book on hiking... it is not. It is a personal account of his time in New Zealand, where he spends 4 months marching through some of the most beautiful places on earth.
The casts of characters that he introduces us to are not "over the top" hard to imagine people, but... simply the everyday folks of New Zealand and the foreigners that are vacationing there too.
I look forward to reading all of Mr. Stevenson's works.
Andrew... if you ever need a hiking buddy... drop me a line!

I found this to be an interesting book. If you want to learn all about New Zealand, its flora and fuana, or great "tramps" (hikes, for you and me), this isn't the book for you. However, it is an enjoyable light read, giving the reader interesting snapshots of life in NZ. Stevenson meets some interesting people along his journey and I found the way in which he shares their stories much more engaging than most of his descriptions of his walks in the woods. Yes, at times the book strains credulity and some of the characters may seem a bit cliche, but I, too, stood in wonder of many of the situations he encounters. Ultimately what comes through is that New Zealand is a land both unlike any other and exactly like home, too.

I very much recommend Andrew Stevenson's "Kiwi Tracks," equally well for those who do and do not know personally New Zealand's natural and cultural landscape and her Great Walks. I myself fall somewhat in between these categories - having explored the South Island only, during some six visits in the last 20 years, always tramping, always in awe.

He tells well how the Great Walks (the term had not existed in my early tramps) have turned from a few persons in lonely huts to nearly hundreds of packed-in campers on solo or guided tours -in just a few short decades. Also his South Island walks were unusually impaired by a massive snow storm and so come across a bit off-putting.

Stevenson gave me the best-yet view of what I have been missing in the North Island ("away from the Mainland," as he quips).

Overall, his book is a beautiful, honest, and detailed travel narrative (thank goodness for someone taking the time to name by name the many fauna and flora experienced). But it is markedly canted by his own ah, delicate emotional state during the journey. The book's dust jacket warns us: "... whatever you have in your rucksack, the heaviest baggage is what you carry inside." Stevenson's emotional center of mass during his trip clearly is located a bit outside himself and he is prone to tip over emotionally during the journey. His honesty about this both hurts and helps the narrative - it does give the reader a reference point: The author is working hard to discover that which is truly important to himself in his journey, as well as puzzling over that same question for New Zealand - the colonist vs. native Maori views of national politics, natural heritage, and future directions.

While relating the pristine and inutterably amazing natural beauty of this land, not the least being the almost inconceivable human innocence and generosity of its citizens, he gives us a tutorial in NZ's basic dilemma. When he asks a fellow tramper to quote the best and worst of his travels: [I paraphrase] "The worst is to see the landscape so corrupted by commercialism so quickly." (You can guess - the bus tours, helicopters, jet boats, egregious mountain re-landscaping.) "The best is that New Zealand is still so unbelievable beautiful." This echoed within me, watching once-quiet towns transformed at the snap of a dollar into teaming Disneylands.

Stevenson shows us, by example(s), of how New Zealand transforms and helps its visitors. A German therapist suggests that tramping holds more value than health insurance premiums. I am inclined to agree.

Of the highest value to me in the book is that Stevenson gives us some great insight into the NZ national values debate (still-ongoing) contrasting (via his hitchhiker's car-cabin testimonies) the views of the progeny of the more recent Western, rough-hewn pioneers against the natural spiritualism of
Maoris, who also gave him rides, and to whom he related more. He shows us that the people of New Zealand must finally listen to the Maori, and strive to preserve their naturalist vision (in the face of adventure bungee-jumping tourism). Between the lines, he shows us that the dialog must go both ways,
especially when facing the World's money, foreign buyers and the touristic denizens of the new millennium.

Although this book smacks of comeuppance in the nature/nurture wars,with Freeman somewhat preditorily showing an excessive ... factor with his prey, it is interesting reading nonetheless, as it shows indirectly the whole dilemma of fieldwork, with its question mark, how observe another culture at all. The account of the genesis of Coming of Age in Samoa is convincing, although the issue of the hoaxing of Mead as to the actual facts of this coming of age remains slightly ambiguous. But the overall account suggests that the entire project was a bit thin in substance, of excessively short duration, and a prime example of prior assumptions influencing results. It is also a story of how our theories end up influencing our present, which is a challenge to our claims on science. The influence of this book on general culture is therefore a considerable irony. I think Freeman is on guard, hence his account stands up fairly well, but I would also check the challengers here, to this, and to the previous work on this subject by the author. In fact, what is the basis for any claim to observe another culture? Not via tourist photography, in any case.

Being a researcher myself, I really appeciate this book by Freeman. Though I know little about anthropology, it is not difficult to be convinced that Mead's work in Samoa was deeply flawed. We all make mistakes. It's just Mead became quite famous, seemly benefiting rather than paying for the mistake. On the hand, I trust that Mead knew the problem in her research at least to some extent and must had suffered from this knowledge.

Margaret Mead's decision to become an antropologist was her belief that a scientist could make a useful contribution to knowledge. In 1924, at the age of 23, she was the youngest participant to go to remote parts of the world where their ways of life were vanishing due to 'modern civilization.' She believed that it was imperative to record those unknown ways of life before they were lost forever and was determined to go to the field as soon as she could. And so she agreed to study adolescent behavior in Samoa, where letters descended on her in intermittent downpours, sometimes 70 or 80 at a time, as they traveled at a slow pace back then.

As a consequence, her 1928 book, COMING OF AGE IN SAMAO, was a bestseller and widely popular with college students of the 1960s. It was full of photos of the natives, mostly undressed (as was their custom). It became the best-selling anthropology book of all time, a classic with her assertion of the sovereignity of culture over biology.

This was a drastic change from Barnard civilization in 1922 to the primitiveness she encountered out in the field. As she wrote in her autobiography, BLACKBERRY WINTER (1972), fifty years later, she did have difficulty learning the language even though she'd "studied" Latin, French and German in high school.

Her research in the South Pacific made her the best-known American anthropologist of the century. In her letters, she had characterized Samoan adolescence similar to the "free love" of the '60s, which she ascribed to 'permissive childrearing' and 'tolerant sexual attitudes.' I'd say it was due to their lack of clothing. She'd thought they had been free from the stress associated with more cultured people.

In an earlier book by this author, MARGARET MEAD AND SAMOA (1983), he tried to prove the opposite of her writings. An Australian professor, who spent years of fieldwork and research there on his own, found the opposite with 'restrictive regulations against premarital sex.' He asserted that she had "poor preparation" for the field (having grown up in a white, upper-middle class background in Philadelphia, PA, with an authoritarian father) and, most likely had been duped by her adolescent informants. Could be, she didn't understand their verbal language and based her scientific 'findings' on their body language.

In this book, he tried to prove (with the help of Ms. Mead's traveling companion of 1926) that one of the most influential anthropological studies of the 20th century was unwittingly based on the mischievous joking of the investigator's informants. He's made a lifelong study of the people of Samoa (maybe he could speak their language fluently?) researching the Margaret Mead Samoan fieldwork of 1925-26 onsite and in the Library of Congress. During all this time,(six years spent in Samoa, 1965-68, and 1981) he spent over 40 years teaching the subject at an Australian University. Could be he's a male chauvinist.

He claims she'd neglected to fully investigate the problem assigned her and relied at the last moment on the tales of two native traveling companions who jokingly 'misled' her about the sexual conduct of Samoan girls. She'd been a precocious American girl who admitted in her biography that she "loved the babies."

Calling her findings a hoax and giving his account of how it (possibly) took place, he puts the blame on her lack of training (and maturity) which 'set her up to be hoaxed.' He waited until after her death to use this means to influence the public that her famous study was based on a hoax.

Calling her 'classic' book a myth, he worked many years in various locations to refute her findings, exploring the history of both anthropology, using Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES as a reference, and biology to bring public awareness of what he calls a 'major 20th century myth.'

He went to the island with a formal traveling party from which the Samoans Margaret Mead studied had migrated, just to prove her wrong. Why was he so determined after 24 years to write a refutation? He went to a lot of trouble to prove this highly respectable woman wrong. His aggressiveness and determination to soil her reputation will backfire, and her most famous book may someday be valuable enough to be an item in the Smithsonian Institution, if is isn't there already.

He certainly traveled around those parts on an officious errand but he's only a teacher of Social Studies (1999). He calls this thesis a 'step toward rethinking the foundations of social science.'

Just as the UT professor who plans to "re-do" James Agee's Pulitzer prize-winning novel A DEATH IN THE FAMILY to include the author's additional handwritten notes and place everything in chronological order, it only makes them look the "fool" to attempt to parody a classic. I told him, "You can't ruin this book."

Now, Freeman has published two books sixteen years apart trying the same thing. I hope he is proven wrong, as you should never change another writer's work -- for any reason. Even if he thinks he is right!

When her hosts in Manu'a learned that `Makelita' had made them world famous as libertines, they were dismayed by what to them was an abominable slander. And they were dumbfounded that, after showing her the utmost hospitality and cooperation, she could have so grossly betrayed them. They hit on the explanation that someone among them fed her a line of bull (tala pepelo lava).

This was a generous if implausible explanation. Generous, because it avoided taxing her with outright fabrication. Implausible, because Mead's depiction of Samoan promiscuity drives whoredom into the core of the social psyche. She claimed that Samoans have no sense of sin despite their regular church attendance and the admonitions of pastors (`They are able to count [sex] at its true value. . . [they recognize] the essential impersonality of sex attraction which we may well envy them']. She reported masturbation, homosexuality, and lesbianism as common practices that were regarded as `simply play' between casual heterosexual liaisons. In other words, Mead's Samoans, like Mead herself, were bisexual. She attributed the relaxed attitude to pre-marital sex and to adultery to the fact that Samoans have no deep attachments or strong emotional feelings. There is no parent-child bonding for the same reason. These and like claims construct the cultural `pattern' of a society untroubled by the storm and stress of adolescence. Such thinking was the trendy utopianism of the sexual reformers of her era, but it had nothing to do with Samoa until Mead's arrival from New York.

Freeman's book is a mighty effort to convert the Samoan belief in duping into a well-founded conclusion. He touts two `smoking guns'. One is the sworn testimony of Mead's dear friend during her field trip, Fa'apu'a Fa'amu, to the effect that she did indeed tell Mead fibs in reply to her questions about her relations with men. The other is correspondence between Mead and the supervisor of her Samoan research, Franz Boas.

The first smoking gun is a dud. Fa'amu testified only that she told Mead that `We spend nights with boys, yes, with boys!' and similar non-specific allusions. There is no express admission that intercourse occurred. There is no hint whatever of lesbianism. The duping hypothesis predicts that Mead's field notes would record the information given her by Fa'amu. In fact, the notes never attribute any information to her. The natural conclusion is that despite the affection, Mead did not regard her friend as an informant. It is improbable, in any case, that Mead credited Fa'amu's tease, partly because her notes show that she was alert to tall tales and partly because Fa'amu's status as a taupou, or ceremonial virgin, meant that she was never unchaperoned and hence had no opportunity for `spending nights with boys'. Finally, Fa'amu's non-specific allusions added nothing to what Mead's notes show she already believed she knew about Samoan promiscuity. In sum, the duping episode is irrelevant to understanding how Mead managed get Samoan moeurs so desperately wrong. Since the second smoking gun depends on the first, it too is a dud.

Did she make it up then? Although he repeatedly defends Mead's research integrity, Freeman destroys his noble defense by cataloguing deceit after deceit in things small and great. Mead indeed seems to have been a gamester who got a buzz from pulling the wool over people's eyes. And this was her reputation among her colleagues, who called her `the lady novelist', a `mythmaker', given to exaggeration and hyperbole, to sloppy and impressionistic description of no great reliability. The eminent Edward Sapir bluntly called her a `pathological liar'.

Freeman shows that Mead's fieldwork was premised on two strategic deceits. She concealed from her hosts her married status. By passing herself off as a virgin, she was honored by three villages with title of taupou, which conferred a great advantage-she had, as she said, `rank to burn' and could `order people about'. She second strategic deceit was perpetrated on her supervisor, Franz Boas and indirectly on her funding sponsor, the National Research Council. Boas and the Council expected her to research the personality of adolescent girls, to determine the extent to which nature (puberty) or culture influenced adolescent conflict. But Mead wasn't interested in this project. She accepted it because it got her a ticket to the field. Her real interest was ethnography. Unbeknownst to Boas, Mead struck an agreement with the Bishop Museum (Honolulu) to prepare a monograph on Samoa. Freeman shows by a meticulous reconstruction of her activities that she spent no more than four or five weeks on the funded project, hardly time enough for a systematic investigation of this complex and demanding subject. This is confirmed by her sparse field notes on the adolescent project.

Her strategic impostures led to the massive fraud that made her famous. Having little data, she just made it up and pretended, in the appendices of Coming of Age, to have found it. Mead seems to have delighted in slipping mickies as a kind of sport. She says, for example, that Samoa was untroubled by natural disasters. Yet it's common knowledge that no island is spared the ravages of storm, flood and occasional tsunamis. In fact, a hurricane devastated Manu'a in January of the year of her visit. She says that Samoan children alternately crawl or walk until the age of `three or four'. Every caregiver knows that once the child learns to walk, next it runs and never returns to crawling. She seems to have been supremely confident that no one would call her hand on such whoppers. Deception was so habitual that she lied gratuitously. Thus she told Boas that she was seasick for six weeks (!!) on her return voyage, while in fact she was romancing a new beau-love sick, not seasick. It's not surprising that her epistemological mottoes were: `The truth isn't out there, you know' and `If it isn't [true], it ought to be'.

Freeman's claim that the hoax `effectively solve[s] the enigma of Margaret Mead's research' unfortunately follows the fashion of substituting victimhood for active will. He would have us see her as the unwitting pawn of a mythopoetic fate. Fiddlesticks! Mead's behavior in Manu'a was a disgrace to herself and to her profession. Such conduct had no logical relation to Boasian anthropology. It was entirely her doing. Having deceived her hosts, she disgraced the sacrosanct taupou title by having affairs. That too was her personal choice. She went on to invent a salacious bisexual Samoa as a preamble to the part of Coming of Age that made her famous--her advocacy of educational, family, and sexual reform in America.

Mead's research presents no enigma. She always went to the field to find what she wanted to find-an uplifting story to boost a current social reform. As for those `primitives' who served as fodder, well, they were expendable in the great struggle to reform the world.

Let us see here: Freeman goes on to correct the picture of Samoa, and then uses incomplete and second-hand, and at times downright silly evidence to prove that Mead uses incomplete, second hand, and downright silly evidence.

Now, I am not the biggest fan of Mead, but she is the most misinterpreted anthropologist (probably as she is most popular), and Freeman's sociobiological approach simply goes nowhere.

I also resent the fact that Freeman was an intellectual covard, who chose to wait until Mead's death to publish any critique, in order for her to not be able to respond to it. For shame!