One thing that struck me immediately was the detail invested in these accounts, particularly Hakluyt's and Hariot's. I can easily see how Hariot's account could be regarded, as the blurb preceding it tells us, was the most important travel account of the 16th century. The detail invested in his writing creates a vivid impression, particularly coupled with White's paintings.

Hariot obviously has an agenda to his writing but the act of reporting seems to take precedence, the same with Hakluyt who in the middle of his Pacific travel account spares space for descriptions of what they see on the land.

Another thing that struck me was the ignorance, or at least pretense of it, in Hariot's account. Does he really not put two and two together and realize that natives are dying in villages only they encounter because of different physiologies? Or is he pretending, like the Indian elders who pretend to suck out the "invisible bullets" and calm the common folk?