 | A WRITER'S WIT |  W. Golding |
MY BOOK WORLD
Shapiro, Laurie Gwen. The Aviator and the Showman: Amelia Earhart, George Putnam, and the Marriage That Made an American Icon. New York: Viking, 2025.
I grew up in the state of Kansas, and, as a child I heard a lot about aviatrix Amelia Earhart. The ironic thing I learn from this biography is that she and her family don’t spend all that much time in her hometown of Atchison. Yet her brief life there is foundational because her well-to-do grandparents see to it that she and her sister are educated by way of local elite schools. Amelia will later graduate from Columbia University in NYC. Another surprise for me: Although Earhart does become a noted pilot, her main career is that of social worker, and she stays with it a number of years before beginning to devote more time to aviation.
Most readers realize how and when Earhart is going to die, but Shapiro does seem to “foreshadow” Amelia’s path to that end throughout the book, beginning with “However, dating an aviator came with exasperating asterisks, and Sam lived in fear that he might one day discover his sometimes girlfriend, whose commitment he was finally winning over, had perished, despite spending hours in the field” (68). In addition, Amelia experiences several aviation failures, including crashes that destroy a number of expensive airplanes.
The book skillfully weaves together the stories of two individuals, Amelia Earhart and her husband George Palmer Putnam, and both narratives are important in order to understand the couple as a “unit.” Putnam is heir to the Putnam and Sons publishing empire, but though George works there for some time, he never flourishes to the degree that he becomes qualified to take over the reins when the opportunity arises. Instead, he becomes sort of a high-class huckster, selling (mostly) literary talent—but most especially he promotes the aviation career of his wife. Earhart, it turns out, isn’t as disciplined as she should be. For one, she doesn’t put in enough flight hours to be top-notch, and later on, particularly during her final hours over the Pacific Ocean, her failure to master Morse code will more than likely affect her ability to handle the perilous situation she sets up for herself and her alcoholic navigator, Fred Noonan (yet another error in judgment, but because of her weak reputation she can’t find a more reputable person to fly with her).
Shapiro sums up Earhart’s epic failure in 1937 this way: “The technical limitations of Amelia’s onboard equipment soon became apparent. Inadequate equipment, an off-calibrated compass, and erroneous chart coordinates converged into a navigational catastrophe. These issues, worsened by unexpected headwinds and a major navigational deviation, led to a bleak conclusion: Amelia Earhart and Fred Noon had vanished, possibly due to running out of fuel. Luck had been a lady before, but this time, she could no longer outrun fate” (388).
Though Shapiro is an excellent journalist and writer, I can’t help but be put off by some typos and sloppy copyediting:
Here Shapiro is writing in the past tense but then she shifts to the present for no apparent reason: “When the crayon heiress felt that a bigger house was needed and asked her parents for the money, George couldn’t be more pleased” (14). “. . . couldn’t have been more pleased” seems the preferable usage here, and I wonder why a copyeditor doesn’t catch the slip.
Needless repetition: “George told the candidate that he wanted to do one more discreet background check but would report back as soon as he could” (88). How about eliminating the second “back”?
Needless repetition: “. . . a protective smile gracing her face as memories of her own childhood curiosities flooded back. With her background as a social worker . . .” (148). How about “flooding into her mind” or similar?
Needless repetition: “. . . leaving him furious after defeat. After Elinor underwent . . .” (182). How about replacing the first “after” with “following”?
Needless repetition: “She recounted an encounter with a flock of pigeons . . .” (283). These are both embedded in other words but repetition is still avoidable. How about “She recounted a set-to with a flock of pigeons”?
Overall, I wish to say that the book is a very satisfying read, especially for fans of Amelia Earhart. It certainly gives readers a fuller and more accurate view of the woman’s life than the short feature I was forced to teach my sixth graders from the basal reader in the 1980s. Nothing there indicated Fred Noonan’s alcoholism or Earhart’s shortcomings.
Up Next:
MON 9/22: WHAT I'M THINKING ...
TUES 9/23: A Writer's Wit | Liz Murray
WEDS 9/24: A Writer's Wit | F. Scott Fitzgerald
THURS 9/25: A Writer's Wit | Barbara Walters
FRI 9/26: A Writer's Wit | T. S. Eliot
My Book World | Allan Massie, Dark Summer in Bordeaux
I grew up in the state of Kansas, and, as a child I heard a lot about aviatrix Amelia Earhart. The ironic thing I learn from this biography is that she and her family don’t spend all that much time in her hometown of Atchison. Yet her brief life there is foundational because her well-to-do grandparents see to it that she and her sister are educated by way of local elite schools. Amelia will later graduate from Columbia University in NYC. Another surprise for me: Although Earhart does become a noted pilot, her main career is that of social worker, and she stays with it a number of years before beginning to devote more time to aviation.
Most readers realize how and when Earhart is going to die, but Shapiro does seem to “foreshadow” Amelia’s path to that end throughout the book, beginning with “However, dating an aviator came with exasperating asterisks, and Sam lived in fear that he might one day discover his sometimes girlfriend, whose commitment he was finally winning over, had perished, despite spending hours in the field” (68). In addition, Amelia experiences several aviation failures, including crashes that destroy a number of expensive airplanes.
The book skillfully weaves together the stories of two individuals, Amelia Earhart and her husband George Palmer Putnam, and both narratives are important in order to understand the couple as a “unit.” Putnam is heir to the Putnam and Sons publishing empire, but though George works there for some time, he never flourishes to the degree that he becomes qualified to take over the reins when the opportunity arises. Instead, he becomes sort of a high-class huckster, selling (mostly) literary talent—but most especially he promotes the aviation career of his wife. Earhart, it turns out, isn’t as disciplined as she should be. For one, she doesn’t put in enough flight hours to be top-notch, and later on, particularly during her final hours over the Pacific Ocean, her failure to master Morse code will more than likely affect her ability to handle the perilous situation she sets up for herself and her alcoholic navigator, Fred Noonan (yet another error in judgment, but because of her weak reputation she can’t find a more reputable person to fly with her).
Shapiro sums up Earhart’s epic failure in 1937 this way: “The technical limitations of Amelia’s onboard equipment soon became apparent. Inadequate equipment, an off-calibrated compass, and erroneous chart coordinates converged into a navigational catastrophe. These issues, worsened by unexpected headwinds and a major navigational deviation, led to a bleak conclusion: Amelia Earhart and Fred Noon had vanished, possibly due to running out of fuel. Luck had been a lady before, but this time, she could no longer outrun fate” (388).
Though Shapiro is an excellent journalist and writer, I can’t help but be put off by some typos and sloppy copyediting:
Here Shapiro is writing in the past tense but then she shifts to the present for no apparent reason: “When the crayon heiress felt that a bigger house was needed and asked her parents for the money, George couldn’t be more pleased” (14). “. . . couldn’t have been more pleased” seems the preferable usage here, and I wonder why a copyeditor doesn’t catch the slip.
Needless repetition: “George told the candidate that he wanted to do one more discreet background check but would report back as soon as he could” (88). How about eliminating the second “back”?
Needless repetition: “. . . a protective smile gracing her face as memories of her own childhood curiosities flooded back. With her background as a social worker . . .” (148). How about “flooding into her mind” or similar?
Needless repetition: “. . . leaving him furious after defeat. After Elinor underwent . . .” (182). How about replacing the first “after” with “following”?
Needless repetition: “She recounted an encounter with a flock of pigeons . . .” (283). These are both embedded in other words but repetition is still avoidable. How about “She recounted a set-to with a flock of pigeons”?
Overall, I wish to say that the book is a very satisfying read, especially for fans of Amelia Earhart. It certainly gives readers a fuller and more accurate view of the woman’s life than the short feature I was forced to teach my sixth graders from the basal reader in the 1980s. Nothing there indicated Fred Noonan’s alcoholism or Earhart’s shortcomings.
Up Next:
MON 9/22: WHAT I'M THINKING ...
TUES 9/23: A Writer's Wit | Liz Murray
WEDS 9/24: A Writer's Wit | F. Scott Fitzgerald
THURS 9/25: A Writer's Wit | Barbara Walters
FRI 9/26: A Writer's Wit | T. S. Eliot
My Book World | Allan Massie, Dark Summer in Bordeaux
RSS Feed