Archives

Yellow Fever: America’s Plague

An American Plague: The True and Terrifying Story of the Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793 by Jim Murphy.

Fever 1793 by Laurie Halse Anderson.

The American Plague: The Untold Story of Yellow Fever the Epidemic That Shaped our History by Molly Caldwell Crosby.

I read the nonfiction 2003 Newbery Honor book for children and young adults by Mr. Murphy first. All I knew, or thought I knew, about yellow fever before I read it was that it’s carried by mosquitoes, it’s common in the tropics, and Walter Reed figured out about the mosquitoes. It turns out that yellow fever isn’t confined to tropical climates, it is spread by mosquitoes, and Walter Reed had a little help. Oh, yes, and by the way, yellow fever hasn’t been eradicated, and there’s no cure. Treatment consists of rest, fluids, and time. You may or may not survive if you contract the disease. Thousands of Philadelphians in 1793 didn’t. Of course, many of them may have been bled to death by Dr. Benjamin Rush and his colleagues—who also believed in dosing patients with strong, nearly lethal, purgatives to make them vomit and eliminate all the “bad blood” collected in the digetive system. Rest, fluids, and time are starting to sound good, aren’t they?

The American Plague by Molly Caldwell, a nonfiction book for adults, focuses on two events: the yellow fever epidemic in Memphis, Tennessee in 1878 and the work of the Yellow Fever Commission in Cuba in 1900. Over one hundred years after the 1793 epidemic, doctors were still arguing about what caused yellow fever and how to prevent or to treat it. For prevention, some public health officials argued for a quarantine during the summer months if any cases of yellow fever were reported; others favored better sanitation and waste removal. Treatment came back to purgatives, quinine (good for malaria but ineffective against yellow fever), rest and fluids. Over five thousand people died in Memphis during the yellow fever outbreak of 1878 —more lives lost than in the Chicago Fire, the San Francisco Earthquake, and the Johnstown Flood combined.

In the fictional account of the Philadelphia 1793 yellow fever epidemic, Fever 1793, Laurie Halse Anderson illustrates the deadly nature of yellow fever and its effects on the community with a story about Mattie Cook, a girl of fourteen who lives above a coffeehouse that provides her family’s livelihood. Since Mattie’s father is dead, Mattie’s mother, her grandmother, and the black cook, Eliza, run the coffeehouse, and Mattie and the serving girl, Polly, help. At the beginning of the book in August 1793, Mattie worries about her mother’s temper and about how to get a little extra sleep and avoid as much work as possible. By the end of the story, Mattie has been forced to take on adult responsibilities: nursing, providing food for her family, repelling thieves and intruders, and running the coffeehouse, to name a few. The tone and the narrative voice of a young lady growing into a woman are quite similar to that of Ann Rinaldi’s historical fiction novels, anchored by specific historical people and events.

Interesting factoids:

Alexander Hamilton fled Philadelphia to avoid the fever in August 1793. He got it anyway, but recovered so tat he could die in his infamous duel with Aaron Burr ten years later.

George Washington also left the city of Philadelphia, which was at the time serving as the U.S. capital, but he neglected to take many of his important state papers with him. Nobody wanted to go back inot fever-infested Philadelphia to fetch the papers, and Madison and Jefferson contended that it was unconstitutional for Comgress to convene outside of the capital city anyway. So, the country survived without much government at all for the weeks that it took for the yellow fever to run its course in Philadelphia.

Dolly Payne Madison lost her first husband, Mr. Payne, and her young son to the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. Aaron Burr then introduced her to his friend James Madison, and she married Mr. Madison in 1794.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a devout Christian and generally a good doctor, stayed in Philadelphia to treat the il, and at the height of the epidemic, he saw as many as 120 patients a day. Unfortunately, he truly believed the “cure” for yellow fever was to bleed and poison the fever out of his patients, and so he probably caused many of them to die. Dr. Rush himself fell ill with the fever during the 1793 epidemic, used his preferred treatment on himself, and survived.

George Washington laid the cornerstone for the U.S. capitol in Washington, D.C. on September 18, 1793 at the height of the yellow fever epidemic.

LOST Rehash: The Man Behind the Curtain, or Ben Is the Wizard of Oz

SPOILERS: Do not enter. Pay no atention to the man behind the curtain unless you’ve already seen the May 9 episode of LOST.

The Wizard of Oz

So, Ben is the Wizard. And there’s no one behind the curtain, no Jacob, unless Jacob is an invisible poltergeist. I agree with Locke. Ben’s the Wizard of the Island, manipulating the curtain, producing his own special effects. And Ben, as I’ve said all along, ia a liar. However, just as there is in The Wizard of Oz, there is “magic” or something supernatural that supersedes Ben’s machinations. He was surprised that “Jacob” spoke to Locke, and now Ben realizes, if he didn’t already, that there are forces or personalities on this island that he doesn’t understand or control.

Jack, on the other hand, thinks he’s still in control. He finally has a plan that he deigns to share with the other Losties. They’re going to have a big battle, and Jack’s the general. Sayid couldn’t be trusted to take part in Jack’s wonderful planning process even though he’s the only one they’ve got who know anything about fighting battles. And no one else could be told until now either. (Can you hear the sarcasm in my writing?) I don’t know who Jack thinks he is, but we don’t have time to argue about it now. Live together, die alone—whatever that means. It’s time to circle the wagons and fight off the Others who are appaarently not Dharma folks, but rather “Hostiles.” Hostiles kidnap pregnant women. I think we’d better put a guard around Sun. And would somebody (Sun) please clue Jin in on what’s going on ASAP? They’re going to need all hands on deck. (I mix metaphors and cliches just as well as LOST mixes symbols and allusions.)

Symbols and stuff in this episode that I don’t really understand completely:

White rabbit: Why is Ben so fond of white rabbits? White Rabbit was the title of the episode in Season 1 when Jack kept seeing his dad —his dad who was already dead. In this episode, young Ben sees his mom —who is also supposed to be dead. Is this island a place where dead people who have unresolved issues with their kids re-appear as ghosts? Alice followed the White Rabbit in Wonderland. Ben sort of followed the White Rabbit into Hostile Land. Ben also used a white rabbit to con Sawyer into thinking that he had a pacemaker implant that would kill him if he got excited.

The empty rocking chair: Jacob is supposed to be in the rocking chair, but it reminds me of Psycho. I think Ben’s psychologically disturbed, probably as a result of his dead mom and verbally abusive dad.

Skeletons: Skeletons abound on this island. There are skeletons in the slave ship, skeletons fall out of airplanes and a VW van, and now we have skeletons in a pit. Is this the Island of Death? Are the skeletons meant to imply that the Losties are already dead, too, or that they will be soon? Doomed.

The pit: People die or sometimes live in pits on this island. Anna Lucia had Other Goodwin down in a pit. Nikki and Paolo died in a large grave/pit. Now Locke’s dying or dead in the pit along with a bunch of Dharma skeletons. Of course, the hatch which preoccupied all of us first season was just big pit which became a death trap. Only no one died? Didn’t Rousseau live in a large underground room or pit?

Alice in Wonderland. The Wizard of Oz. The Pit and the Pendulum. Psycho.
I think those stories about summarize tonight’s episode.

Next week: Apocalypse Now?

Shannon at Rocks in My Dryer: They Don’t Call it LOST for Nuthin’.

Amanda: The Wonderful Wizard of Lost.

Olive: Ben’s as crazy as we thought.

LOST Rehash: The Brig, or Who’s In Prison?

Brigantine Built in Nova Scotia in 1861
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD! You say, I can’t do that: don’t tell me what I can’t do!

I. don’t. get. it.

O.K., it’s called “The Brig.” A brig is a ship’s prison. Obviously, Locke locked his daddy up in the brig, and James/Sawyer was locked up, too. James has also been “imprisoned” in his revenge, and now he’s free? Are all the LOSTies in the brig, so to speak? Imprisoned on the island until they work out their own salvation with fear and trembling? We’re back to purgatory. Locke’s dad Sawyer thought they were all dead and in hell, but if someone’s already dead, how could James/Sawyer kill him?

I don’t think they’re in hell or in purgatory.

Why did The Others want Locke to kill his dad? And why didn’t Locke either do the deed or tell Ben and The Others to go jump in the lake? If Locke’s capable of finding his own private assassin and sitting outside listening while Assassin James strangles his dad, why couldn’t he just do it himself. Why does the whole plot remind me of a Greek play? Not Oedipus, but some other Greek play where a guy is supposed to kill his father out of revenge? Locke’s on his own journey. O.K., Locke is a loose cannon, no more to be trusted than is Jack.

Is Kate an idiot? She decides to tell Jack about Parachute Girl, Naomi, and then because Juliet won’t leave immediately, Kate blurts out everything to both of them. Again, is Kate an idiot?

Is Naomi telling the truth? I rather doubt it. I think she’s a plant. Maybe she’s one of the Others or someone sent by the Dharma folks to spy on them. That communication device isn’t going to work.

Oh, nice touch, Sawyer’s fake name was “Tom Sawyer,” the ultimate con artist. Tom Sawyer was really interested in pirate ships and kidnapping people and finding treasure, too.

LOST Rehash: D.O.C., or Dead or CompletelyDead

What does D.O.C. stand for? I must be acronym-impaired.
There wasn’t any time for literary references in this episode. It was an action packed hour.

My Like list: Hurley‘s still Numero Uno. “Oops!” he said when he shot off the flare. He knew they needed help, and he knew excatly what he was doing to summon some help. And did he try to use the phone to call his mom?
Desmond also knew what had to be done and did it. Promise the guy whatever he wants to get medical attention for Miss Multilingual Parachutist. And he told Charlie the truth, “You’ve killed more of Them than have have of you.” How many Others have the Losties killed (not counting Mr. Eyepatch Mikhail)? Ethan, What’s His Name from the Pit that Ana Lucia killed, the lady that Sun shot, and Whosit that they killed while escaping from the little island. Is that all? Anyway, Desmond’s right; they need to keep their word, not go around gauging out eyes. Bad Charlie!
Sun is a fine lady —even if she does come from a Korean Mafia family. She knows that you should never pay blackmail —unless it’s your mother-in-law that’s doing the blackmailing. And then you tell her to be satisfied with the $100.000 or else your Mafia daddy will get her. Are there any good dads in this story? Are there any good moms? Good parents at all?
Jin: Did you see those martial arts moves? Jin has the skills to be running this island, but unfortunately he can’t effectively communicate with anyone except his wife.

Bad List: Sun’s right. Jack is acting strange(ly). Charlie is also acting strangely. Maybe he thinks he’s going to die any minute, and it’s making him a little jumpy. It would make me a little nervous. Still, he needs to settle down and quit talking about poking someone’s eye out.
Mikhail does not seem like a nice guy to me. Ben indicated that he was trigger-happy, and he’s a phone thief, too. How did he come back from the dead? Didn’t Kate or Locke or someone check to see if he was really dead?

Ambivalent List: Juliet looked truthfully happy (not fake, smarmy happy) when she and Sun saw the baby on the ultrasound. What kind of samples is she getting from the other women? Pregnancy test samples? Or the samples they took from Walt? Didn’t they? So she hates Ben? That’s a point in her favor.
Kate is too clean and well-groomed to be living on an island. And I’m tired of her ambivalence, so I’m ambivalent about her—even though she didn’t have much to do in this episode.

I’m reading elsewhere that the Purgatory Theory is back in full force in light of the final revelation at the end of the show that the LOST guys were really lost, or rather dead. So did they recover any bodies because it seems to me that the only people who stay dead on this island are those whose bodies are actually buried in the ground?
Shannon at Rocks in my Dryer: “And Then There Are the Days When a Strange Woman Parachutes Out of the Sky To Tell You That You Are, In Fact, Dead.”

The Thinklings: De liveblogging the episode with pertinent comments.

LOST Rehash: Catch-22, or Mt. Moriah Here We Come


So Brown Bear Daughter and I are caught up on back LOST episodes, and we watched the one tonight.

***********SPOILER ALERT***************
I’ll start with my good list/bad list.
LIKE: Hurley, my Number One Best Guy on the Island, Jin telling ghost stories in Korean, Sayid, still the most level-headed of all the men on the island, Spunky Sun, Rose (I want her back).

DISLIKE: Locke the Loser, Kate the User, Jack the Sap, Juliet the Spy.

AMBIVALENT: Charlie (kind of whiny but still cute), Claire (a good match for Charlie), Desmond (still running), Sawyer. I like Sawyer With Attitude, but Sawyer Mooning Over Kate is a little hard to stomach.

Ben’s in a class by himself. What a complicated character! Could he really be as omniscient as he appears to be? Definitely not likeable, but Ben’s keeping the whole story going.

Joseph Heller and Catch-22. Has anyone here read Catch-22? I haven’t although I know the basic meaning of the phrase; isn’t it supposed to be an Army term, d—— if you do, and d—- if you don’t? Desmond was in a bit of a sticky predicament. So if he hadn’t saved Charlie, would the parachutist have turned out to be Penny after all. Of course not. How many times can he manage to save Charlie’s life? Maybe Dominic wants off the show at the end of this season.

Why did the monks decide to “fire” Desmond? Because he drank a bottle of their best wine? Did I miss something there?

Desmond keeps having these visions. He’s a prophet, like Abraham. Maybe he keeps having the visions of Charlie’s death because he’s supposed to save Charlie’s life each time. Otherwise, it seems that if Someone really wanted Charlie to die, He’d quit sending the visions. Desmond’s never told NOT to save Charlie; what would you expect him to do? Or are the visions Satanic? Or is someone praying for Charlie? Poor Charlie. It might be hard to be Desmond, but it would really be a pain to be Charlie. I always thought Isaac had the more difficult test of trusting his father, too. After all, Abraham heard directly from God; Isaac had to trust that his dad wasn’t insane, climb up on the altar, and see the knife coming down.

I have some questions and observations abou the previous episodes, too. Did the Others take Locke’s father with them when they left? If so, why were they so reluctant to “forgive” Kate, who as far as I know had done nothing to them, and perfectly willing to take Locke’s dad, a nasty piece of work if I ever saw one?

The Nikki and Paolo episode was a detour, but it was a nice imitation of a murder mystery. I read that Sawyer was even reading an Agatha Christie mystery, Evil Under the Sun, during the episode.

Oh, and I knew that Juliet was evil from the beginning. I don’t know how evil she is; she may have been blackmailed into working with Ben. Nevertheless, she’s bad.

And Jack is blind. I hope Sayid decides to ask some questions—and get some answers. I’m worried about Sun’s pregnancy.

Previously on LOST

Druring Lent while I was taking a blogging break, Brown Bear Daughter and I also decided to forego television. Hence, no LOST.

So now we are trying to catch up. We just watched the episode where Nikki and Paolo are buried alive. I don’t want to know want happens next. I only have one question: is it just me, or do the Nikki and Paolo characters seem obviously shoe-horned into the whole saga? Has anyone else complained about this?

OK. I have another question. When you saw this particular episode, did you hope that the two of them would stay in the grave? ‘Cause I don’t like Miss Pouty-Face and Mr. Brazilian Gigolo.

LOST Rehash: Flashes Before Your Eyes

I want everybody to tell me I’m wrong —and why I’m wrong. However, I think the LOST guys have messed up big time. They haven’t read enough science fiction or theology. First of all, however, I give the obligatory SPOILER ALERT. Probably there are spoilers here. I don’t know. If we live in a self-correcting universe, then the spoilers get corrected, too. Right?

Either everything is predestined or determined or nothing is. A basic law of science fiction and of theological speculation is that you can’t have it both ways. Right? If the guy in the red shoes is meant to die under a falling building, then in a deterministic universe, he has to die under the building. He can’t die in a car wreck the next day, as the universe “self corrects,” because that would affect other people and their predetermined fates. What about the guy who’s driving the other car? Was he meant to kill Red Shoes in a car accident? Won’t the accident, or the lack thereof, affect his life in profound ways? If Charlie was supposed to be struck by lightning, then who was supposed to save Claire when she was drowning? Not Desmond; he just stepped in to save Charlie. Or was Claire supposed to drown? In that case, Claire’s fate is messed up, too, and the Universe will have to do some more self-correcting. The universe can’t “self correct.” There are too many factors. An impersonal force like the Universe can’t make everything work the way it’s supposed to as people make choices in opposition to the Will of the Universe. Shoot, the Universe can’t even have a will in the first place.

So maybe Desmond is crazy, and the universe is not predestined. Desmond is just using predestination or determinism as an excuse for his own cowardice. But that can’t be so because Desmond really is having flashes of true precognition. Claire really does almost drown. The soccer team on TV really does win the game. So Desmond must be seeing things that really are planned to happen or have already happened. By whom? The Universe? If so, why don’t they happen? How can Desmond prevent something that is supposed to happen without changing the Plan completely?

There is a Third Way. But I don’t think the writers of LOST have left room for a God who is in control of the Universe and yet allows human beings to make real choices. A God who is powerful enough and intelligent enough could weave corrections into the predetermined plan for the universe without making human choice into a farce. It’s the only path I see between determinism and chaos. But I’m no philosopher.

I’ve just read a little sci-fi and a lot of Bible.

Aside from all that philosophical junk, I think Desmond has a great accent. And Pen’s father is a particularly nasty villain —the kind everybody loves to hate. Very satisfying.

Oh, and they can’t kill off Charlie. If the Orcs couldn’t kill him and Saruman couldn’t get him, then what chance has a puny old universe that can’t even keep Desmond from buying a ring that he wasn’t supposed to buy? And if the universe self corrects, what was the white-haired lady so upset about? It would all get corrrected anyway, right?

I give this episode a C-. Was Henry supposed to die of cancer, and is Jack messing around with the universe?

“Que Sera, Sera,
Whatever will be, will be
The future’s not ours, to see
Que Sera, Sera
What will be, will be.”

(I wish I knew how to do accent marks. It bothers me to see it without the accents. Maybe the Universe will correct it for me.)

LOST Rehash: Not in Portland (nor in Kansas)

*******LOTS OF SPOILERS. CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED ********


So Juliette wants to go home and see her sister’s baby. And Alex thinks she’s Ben’s daughter. (But I don’t.)

What else did we learn tonight on LOST?

Kate’s ruthless; Juliette’s ruthless. Sawyer’s a softie.

Somebody doesn’t do anesthesia too well.

Ben may or may not be Alex’s father, but he surely keeps a tight rein on her and won’t be happy if she leaves Alcatraz.

Alex has a boyfriend (Carl?) who is the subject of some very bizarre experiment or torture or something. What were some of those messages on the screen? God loves you as he loved Jacob. Think about your life. I can’t remember the rest, which means that I wouldn’t be a very good subject for their little experiment. I hope.

We’ll never know whether Jack would have let Ben die or not. Jack will never know whether he would have let Ben die on the operating table. Kate still doesn’t know whether she’s in love with Sawyer or with Jack. Sawyer’s not sure Kate has a heart at all; I’m not either.

Since the hatch exploded, they’re all stranded on the island, and I don’t think Ben can send Juliette home now. Unless he has a pair of ruby slippers in a closet somewhere.

Did anyone see who was in the “cheesy pictures” that the scary job recruiter guy showed Juliette to get her to come to “Portland”? Whay was it so great that Juliette’s sister could get pregnant? Because she had cancer? Or because she had other infertility problems? What’s up with the pregnant male mouse? And do the Others know that Sun is pregnant? If they do, she’s in danger because some of their research has to do with Juliette’s fertility experiments.

Tom seems like a nice guy. He’ll probably die soon.

Juliette’s been on the island for 3+ years. How long has Ben been on the island? Didn’t he say something to jJack about having been on the island all his life? Long enough to kidnap Rousseau’s baby and pretend she’s his child? How old is Ben anyway?

Finally, Kate doesn’t listen to Jack (as usual) and leads a commando raid to rescue him. When are they going to run out of guns? Didn’t their arsenal get blown up with the hatch?

See you next Wednesday and for the following fourteen Wednesdays on LOST.

Camilla by Madeleine L’Engle

This book is the second book I’ve read in my plan to read or re-read all of Ms. L’Engle’s books this year. The first one I read was A Winter’s Love, published in 1957. Camilla, published several years earlier in 1951, deals with the same themes of the later book: marital compatibility and infidelity and the effect of marital problems on young adult children forced to confront their parents’ imperfections. I think A Winter’s Love shows some growth and maturity in the author’s ability to confront these issues, but Camilla is a very “young adult” sort of book, full of teen angst and idealism and some progress toward maturity on the part of the young protagonist.

Camilla is fifteen years old, but as a child of the 1940’s and a child of wealthy parents, she’s led a sheltered life. She acts more like a twelve or thirteen year old in our day and time, which I think is a sad commentary on the way we encourage our children to grow up faster and sooner nowadays. That aside, Camilla begins with the line: “I knew as soon as I got home Wednesday that Jacques was there with my mother.

And so Camilla must grow up and deal with the fact that her mother is having an affair and her father is unable to express his love for Camilla’s mother in a way that will keep her from pursuing another man. Throughout the novel, Camilla tries to hide from the truth of her parent’s failings, longs to crawl back into some safe place where her mother and father take care of her instead of betraying her trust, but it’s not possible. She finds safety and comfort for a while in her budding romantic friendship with her best friend’s older brother, but that relationsip, too, is imperfect and impermanent.

Finally, facts and science and her ambition to become an astronomer give at least a place of retreat and stability in a world that has become dreadfully unpredictable. Camilla’s plight mirrors the plight of the world at large in the late forties/early fifties, just recovering from a world war and fairly sure that another war is inevitable. David, one of the characters in the novel, says as much, “Always another war . . Always has been, always will be. Frank will go off to it and he’ll come back looking like me, or he’ll come back blind, or without hands, or arms. Or not at all. Or perhaps I am being optmistic. Maybe there won’t be anything to come back to.”

Camilla’s facing life and choosing life even though her parents can no longer be her protectors is likened to the intelligentsia facing the facts about life in the modern world where war destroys and maims and kills. The idea is that people are powerless to stop the madness of war and evil, but individuals are able to choose to respond to life with perseverance and spirit. It’s a kind of a “do not go gentle into that good night” attitude that serves the main characters in the novel as a philosophy of life.

Camilla and her boyfriend, Frank, discuss God quite a bit, but they talk more about the kind of God they don’t believe in than the one they do. Both profess a belief in God, but they’re obviously confused about His place in the universe and the about the whole question of how and why God allows evil to continue. They say they don’t believe it’s God’s will for “bad things to happen to good people,” but they haven’t figured out how God does work in the world. (Neither have I totally figured that one out, for that matter.) Frank has a theory that resembles reincarnation, but involves people being reborn on other planets “until at last we’d finally know and understand everything—absolutely everything—and then maybe we’d be ready for heaven.”

I don’t think that Ms. L’Engle really became committed to any sort of orthodox Christian worldview until after this novel was written, so it’s not surprising that the characters in the novel are torn between a belief in some kind of God and a desire for a doctrine that enables human to somehow perfect themselves. In later novels, this religious dead end drops away, and L’Engle’s characters are much more drawn to a specifically Christian outlook on the world. However, her novels never do become preachy nor her characters even completely orthodox in their theology. People are still people in L’Engle’s novels, and that’s a good thing in view of the discussion about “contrived fiction” that we had a few posts ago.

Camilla was L’Engle’s fourth novel, and it reads like an early effort. It was republished in 1965. How much changed, I don’t know. Nevertheless, the novel is well worth the reading for fans of Ms. L’Engle’s fiction. Camilla Dickinson, the character, reappears as an elderly astronomer in the 1996 novel A Live Coal in the Sea.

Desperate Journey by Jim Murphy

That’s what she felt like, Maggie realized. A boiler filled with steam, wanting to go and go fast, but held in place, steam pressure building and building.

Nice description. I’ve felt that way.

Author Jim Murphy is well-known for his nonfiction titles about historical events, including The Great Fire about the Chicago fire of 1871, Blizzard: The Storm That Changed America, and An American Plague: The True and Terrifying Story of the Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793. He’s won the Newbery Honor twice and other awards.

Desperate Journey is different, however, since it’s a fictional account set in 1848 of the life of a twelve year girl, Maggie Haggerty, and her family, living on a canal boat on the Erie Canal. In historical fiction the author must tell a made-up story with all the drama and details of history, but that comes across as both plausible and interesting. Mr. Murphy does a fine job of creating characters and a story that draw the reader in and keep us invested in the outcome of the story. Maggie and her family have lots of obstacles to overcome, and they do what needs to be done in spite of the difficulties. I guess you could say they’re examples of inspiring characters in historical fiction.

I’m working on a post on “God talk” in children’s literature, a continuation of some thoughts I had after reading MotherReader’s post on Hattie Big Sky. Desperate Journey is certainly another example of a book in which God and talk about God play a role. Maggie and her mother and brother are caught in desperate race to get a load of cargo down the canal, and God sends help in the form of a strange character who sees visions and hears God speaking to him in dreams. It’s a sort of a “touched by an angel” situation, but there is little indication that the visionary character, Billy Black, is anyone other than a man with a troubled past, redeemed and sent to help Maggie and her family in their desperate journey. The God talk is an integral part of the story, and Maggie reacts to all this talk of visions and messages from God as one would expect a normal twelve year girl to react—with skepticism and a bit of curiosity. Billy Black remains a mysterious character all the way through the novel, and I enjoyed that bit of ambiguity.

Desperate Journey would make a fine addition to the American history curriculum. I would recommend it to homeschoolers who use Sonlight or Tapestry of Grace, curricula that make heavy use of historical fiction to teach history. I think I’ll add it to our read-aloud list for the next time we cycle through U.S. history.