Saw this one in Science News and thought I might like it. But then when I got it Dad snaked it, and took forever to read it, and I just got it back last week. It's a non fiction book detailing the life of a French peasant who was, astonishingly, the first woman known to circumnavigate the world. Dad loved it, but I bailed about half way through. The author just couldn't resist editorialising and speculating. I understand that she had extremely limited sources, especially once they left France: ship's logs and just a few diaries from the voyage itself. She did a good job supplementing these with information from similar voyages, but she couldn't stop writing things such as, "Beret was doubtless feeling..." whatever she figured Baret was feeling, which you know what, wasn't doubtless at all. Ridley also took every opportunity to paint Baret in the best possibly light at the expense of basically everyone else on both ships, which I didn't think was especially fair. It felt at times that Ridley really wanted to write a novel, but still wanted the credit of non-fiction and showing of her extensive research. Too bad, it would have made a better novel.