Grann explores evidence that both supports Fawcett’s case and attempts to debunk it. Why does Grann try to provide both sides of the story, and how does it affect the reader’s perception of Fawcett and his theory?

How does the idea of obsession change the perspective of modern scholars on Fawcett’s expeditions and theories?

Is Grann’s narrative a reliable one? How does his exploration of the topic demonstrate a good scholarly work? How does it fail?