Buy Ken Tankersley's In Search of Age Age Americans instead. Informative and pleasant to read.
This book rehashes the history of American archaeology then castigates the author's perceived enemies unfairly. Both Vance and Tankersley have stated that people were in NA before Clovis. They just have doubts about the author's dating at Meadowcroft.

Adovasio's book can be summarized in three bullet points:

1. Until recently, there has been a general consensus in archaeology that the first human arrivals in the Americas were the Clovis culture, around 10,500 BP (before present). Several older sites were proposed before 1970 or so but all turned out to be wrong dates.

2. However, Adavasio at Meadowcroft, Pennsylvannia and Tom Dillehay at Monte Verde in South America have really good archaeological sites which are definitely much older. This new evidence demands that the entire Clovis-first idea should be replaced.

3. And archaeologists who say otherwise are just plain mean. At great length, and naming names. They should be compared to religious fanatics and Mafia hit men and "Star Trek" scriptwriters in their meanness-based refusal to face facts. There's no point in talking to those people.

The meanness theme crowds out several points I would have liked to have read more about. Adovasio mentions in passing that he has recovered Meadowcroft-like artifacts from other sites near the Meadowcroft rock shelter, but never goes into detail. He also mentions a site called Fell's Cave at the south end of South America which is apparently post-Clovis, but so barely post-Clovis that humans getting so far so fast after the start of the Clovis period beggars the imagination. Again, no more details. I also wish I could have read more about the linguistic evidence for earlier and more widespread human arrival in the new world.

About two-thirds of this book is a pretty well-written first-hand review of a very interesting area of archaeology. The other third is like going out to dinner with friends and having them not only launch into a loud family argument in the middle of a restaurant, but try to drag you into taking sides.

I am of two minds about "The First Americans." On the one hand, it is a well-written and interesting history about what scientists know (or think they know) about how and when the Americas were populated. Based on his own extensive work at the Meadowcroft rock shelter in Pennsvlvania and on the work of Tom Dillehay at Monte Verde in South America, Professor Adovasio argues passionately that the Americas were populated much earlier than 11,000 years ago, which is the approximate date usually given for the appearance of Clovis culture.

But Professor Adovasio's passion is what gives me pause. Although I suspect that he is probably right in rejecting the "Clovis bar," I have the definite feeling that I am only getting one side of a complex story.

I also found the book's numerous ad hominem attacks to be off putting--while complaining about the personal invective that has been directed at him and other advocates of pre-Clovis populations in the Americas, Professor Adovasio repeatedly slams his bete noir Vance Haynes and his allies. At one point, the author announces that "the sad fact is that the evidence is not going to make any difference to Vance, a man who, as one of his colleagues said, is now an example of someone whose mind has snapped shut, never to open again" (p. 262).

That sort of statement makes Adovasio sound somewhat hypocritical, although I suppose he would argue that his opponents have given him plenty of reasons to retaliate in kind. In any event the condition of Vance Haynes' mind is of little interest to me--Professor Adovasio and his supporters either win on the merits or they don't, and the book would have been more convincing if it had stuck to the facts without trying to make the reader dislike the "other side" as much as the authors obviously do.

"The First Americans" is worth reading, and I generally enjoyed it. But I'm still looking for a more balanced discussion of this fascinating subject.

Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe is neither the best nor the worst book I have ever read. I have long been a lover of classical language. As such, I am enchanted by the engaging rhythm of Defoe's words. His dialogue is charming as he uses a tongue and accent not much different from today's but far more elegant. The plot of the story, however, disappoints me. The story is wholly comprised of events, making it nothing more than a flowery timeline of one woman's life. For me, this odd combination of excellent language and mediocre plot makes for an ultimately readable yet slightly dissatisfying novel.

Moll Flanders is the story of one woman's struggle to avoid the plight of poverty in seventeenth-century England. Moll is born in Newgate prison and orphaned by her criminal mother. From there, she is taken in by a kindly woman and raised as a "gentlewoman," and thus her story begins. Moll's childhood innocence is quickly transformed as her life turns from that of a simple servant into that of a common prostitute. She soon learns that sex and marriage are merely tools for bartering with, and love is only worth its weight in gold. Eventually, Moll turns from prostitution to stealing in order to supplement her finances, and her life goes drastically downhill from there. Her story is littered with unresolved sin and shame, until one momentous event changes her entire outlook on life and on love and teaches her what it means to be righteous.

Ultimately, what sounds like an intriguing story line results only in one continuous stream of events. Defoe's style of writing, although nicely worded, is impersonal in that he includes very little about the thoughts and feelings of Moll. Everything the reader learns about the main character is derived entirely from the events that comprise her life. Although this is supposed to be Moll's story, she has no reaction to the world around her. She simply reiterates what actions she has taken on her journey through life and what the resulting consequences are for those actions. Though hardly imagined to be a complete imbecile, Moll has absolutely no thought. The only words that I hear spoken directly from her mouth to the reader are words of dialogue to another character. The banality of this style of literature is highly disappointing in my eyes.

I am also highly disappointed with the content of the story. Only the first few pages and the last few pages are void of any criminal or adulterous behavior. Every other page contains a perfect recollection of one sin after the other. Although the story claims that this unrelenting wickedness should be useful to deter other sinners, I find that the continuous stream practically drowns me with boredom. Eventually, I lose track of Moll's numerous husbands and her countless thieving exploits. Any time a reference is made to her past history, I am forced to flip through the pages to find the mentioned sin as I have gotten it confused with some other of a similar nature. By the end of the story, every adventure sounds the same and every man has the same amount of money. I would have liked to see more variety in these pages.

I would not discourage another person from reading this book, however. I would gladly recommend it to those who love classical language, for I find Daniel Defoe was a great author for the words he could write, not necessarily for the stories he could create. The language is beautiful and enticing, for that alone I would recommend the book. Keep track of events and people while reading, though, because everything starts to sound the same after awhile.

This book is about a woman, Moll Flanders, who was born in a prison and raised by a governess that brought her up as a "gentlewoman". ALthough her manners were that of a gentlewoman, circumstances led her to become a thief and a "whore" (her own term), and her spirit kept her in that trade until she re-lived her mother's fate.
It is hard to believe that this book is written by a man, for he knows female nature very well and looks very critically at the actions of men towards Moll. I would almost call this book feminist, although I don't like to use that term, since it makes men run from those books. I use that term very loosely, since it really does not go into any deeper feminst issues. This book is filled with adventures and is funny and witty, although its storyline is somewhat grim. I really wanted to give this book 3 1/2 stars because it left me wanting for more, not just at the end, but throughout. All events are described in very little detail, and I personally wanted to know more about Moll and other characters. Overall, I liked it because it managed to entertain me and because it's fast and short, it grabs your attention.