Disney’s Pocahontas has been overtly critiqued throughout the decades for its romanticization of European colonists and the subjugation of the Powhatan people, portraying years of hostility as a forbidden romance between factions. This is not only a discomforting depiction of Colonialism, but is factually incorrect from a historical standpoint, as seen in John Smith’s “A True Relation of Occurrences and Accidents in Virginia, 1608.” In turn, this cites Pocahontas (1995) as a poor secondary source, and should not be credited or taken as an accurate accounting of the past. First and foremost, the depiction of Pocahontas is one of many inaccurate portrayals littering this film. John Smith notes that Pocahontas is “a child of tenne years old,” establishing her as a young girl rather than the independent and consenting woman depicted in the film. Furthermore, it is one of the few instances where John Smith addresses Pocahontas, only deliberating entreating her by name (one of which is an assumed variation, “Pocahuntas”) twice throughout the text. This provides no deeper intricacies that could be interpreted as a romantic relationship beyond describing their mutual engagement in trade: “and after prayer, gave them to Pocahontas, the Kings Daughter, in regard of her fathers kindness in sending her.” However, there are a few instances in this film which can be credited as accurate as it possibly can be, or at least an appropriate extension of the truth. The depiction of hostility between the Colonists and the Algonquin is portrayed with some substance of accuracy, as John Smith notes that, upon entering the Bay, he and other men were “assalted with certaine Indians, which charged them within Pistoll shot,” and the Colonists “made a shot at them” in turn. This reflects one of the initial scenes in Pochanatas, where the Powhatans and Colonists engage in a brief skirmish, firing upon each other in a blatant display of hostility; warfare is a prominent fixture throughout John Smith’s accounts and Disney’s Pochanatas alike. – Bailee Eberenz

There are many things wrong with the retelling of Pocahontas and the events between her tribe and the English colonists in this movie, but I think there are things we can take away that strengthen our understanding of the past. For example, while we know today that the colonization of the Americas was exploitative and destructive to the existing environment and communities, the movie does capture the desires and motivations of the English colonists for coming to Virginia, all the way from the investors and people in power to the average man. I've even listened to some of the songs in my middle school history classes to learn about the Virginia Company and “Gold, God, and Glory,” which were both factual and real concepts that are portrayed in the movie, and strengthened our understanding of colonization in the 17th century. I think also if we look past (for a moment) the interpretations Disney made with the source material, we can also see an example of the cultural differences between American Indians and the English at the time, and the different ways (although at times very inaccurate) they reconciled or otherwise reacted to those differences. – Grayson D.

So. The movie can work as a secondary source because it shows how people today imagined and interpreted the past. The movie got some historical details right, like with the English settlers arriving in Virginia and their conflicts with Native Americans. However, it changes many of the real events and relationships to make the story more entertaining for audiences. Overall, it is useful for understanding how history can be represented in popular culture, but it should not be treated as a completely accurate account of the past. — Caitlyn Edwards.

Disney's Pocahontas works better as a secondary source for understanding the broad themes of early English colonization than it does as a factual account of Pocahontas and John Smith. It correctly portrays the English search for wealth, the importance of Jamestown, the power of Powhatan, English dependence on Native food and trade, and the complicated mixture of cooperation and conflict between the two groups. Where it fails most dramatically is when it turns those historical circumstances into a romance between Pocahontas and John Smith, something Smith's 1608 account does not support at all. - Todd H.

As a secondary source, the film functions as a popular twentieth-century retrospective interpretation of early seventeenth-century colonial contact, synthesizing folklore and fragmented historical records to construct a palatable narrative for modern viewers. In terms of factual accuracy, the film correctly includes historical figures such as Pocahontas (Amonute/Matoaka), Chief Powhatan (Wahunsenacawh), and Captain John Smith, while reflecting the physical arrival of the Susan Constant and the English establishment of the Jamestown settlement in 1607. It also accurately highlights the fundamental cultural clash, mutual suspicion, and underlying English drive to extract material wealth from Indigenous land, even if these elements are largely simplified into musical set pieces. - Tyler J.

John Smith is not a reliable narrator by any means but his recount of events confirms the violence experienced between the two sides of the conflict at Jamestown. In his writings he relays how he was captured by Indigenous Americans in the area, but his life wasn’t threatened so dramatically like it is in the film. He also talks about Pocahontas as “…a child of tenne years old: which, not only for feature, countenance, and proportion, much exceedeth any of the rest of his people: but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his Country.” In actuality Pocahontas was not more than 10 or 11, which is overwritten in the film to create a romantic relationship between the two characters. This chosen change to the original source material is heavily problematic and changes how we see the events and the historical figures. Hollywood heavily influences the American understanding of the world around them, so making the choice to display events like they are portrayed in this Disneyfied adaptation of the truth changes how people remember important historical happenings. - Leah B.

This film has many blatant historical inaccuracies, taking unabashed liberties with any primary source material they may have used to write the storyline. Firstly, there is of course the matter of Pocahontas' age, in which they aged her up so that she could be involved in a romance plot with John Smith's character. Pocahontas was, in the reality of their initial meeting, around 10-12 years old, while Smith was 27. John Smith wrote about her being a mediator, negotiator and trader. Her impact on his life had no romantic connotations in the slightest. Smith would actually only go on to embellish his colonial venture in a later publication and portray her as his savior from execution 16 years later (in his 1624 memoir The Generall Historie), 7 years after she died, which indicates a likely fabrication. John Smith also worked to trade with the natives and actually had a somewhat amicable relationship with them (he of course however still did not see them as equals). His main goal was to prevent his men from starving, as they were sorely under-prepared for this excursion, a mistake which cost the lives of many of his men. He returned to England for medical treatment following an accident in which a bag of gunpowder exploded at his waist. Relations between the Powhatans and the colonists worsened drastically soon afterwards, resulting in mass casualties. Overall, things were actually much more gritty, violent, and politically complex than what was presented in the Disney film. - Leo Tooks

Some issues with historical accuracy arise from Pocahontas’ age in the movie. When John Smith and Pocahontas meet, they both seem to be around the same age — or at least Pocahontas is presented as a woman. However, in 1607, when the English arrive and the year in which this movie is set, Pocahontas is believed to only be 10 or 11, and John Smith who have been more than twice her age being 27 years old in 1607. John Smith even includes this in his writings about her from the time. This is obviously done to paint a romantic relationship between the two, but it blatantly goes against the historical record. Also included within the movie’s timeline is a marriage proposal from Kocoum, but in 1607 Pocahontas isn’t considered marrying age within Powhatan culture. In real life, Pocahontas and Kocoum do not marry until 1610. Within the movie, Kocoum doesn’t even make it this far, he is killed by the Englishman Thomas after he attempts to kill John Smith. It is believed that Kocoum is killed in 1613 with an interaction with Englishman when they kidnap Pochontas. — Nora M.

Some of the historical accuracy comes from John Smith's reputation. The John Smith depicted in Pocahontas (1995) has this reputation of being a hero, leader and overall, a likeable type of guy. In reality John Smith definitely had a reputation just but it's the complete opposite. Another inaccuracy is the age difference. During their first meeting John Smith was 27 while Pocahontas was only 10-12 years old. In the movie they are depicted to be the same age with her now appearing as a young woman. This would allow the writers to make a romance plot point between John Smith and Pocahontas. Finally, is the inaccuracy between Kocoum, in the movie he is killed off rather quickly by Thomas, but it is believed that he was killed in 1613 and not 1607. — Shelby Hawley

The first glaring inaccuracy that I glanced at was the character––and in this portrayal, he’s certainly more a character than a historical figure––of John Smith himself. Disney, to make him look more like a “hero,” decided to make him a blond, clean-cut, and well-put-together man––akin more to an Arthurian legend than to a late 16th-century, early 17th-century Englishman. Of course, to get it out of the way, John Smith did not tie a rope around his waist and jump headfirst into the Atlantic to save a crewmate––pure Disney fantasy and magic. The actual way in which Powhatan and his people’s societal organization is very different from what we discussed in class. For example, the women, rather than being close to leadership positions (i.e., matrilineal, matrilocal, matriarchal), it is the men who occupy said positions, with women relegated mostly to fieldwork and little else. The system of marriage, too, conflicts with what we learned about in class, as the Natives of this region had a community-based decision and debate as to which individuals should marry each other, in contrast to Powhatan deciding for his daughter. Speaking of their relationship, the film makes it seem that she’s his only child––thus giving them a special relationship from birth––meanwhile she had dozens of half-siblings whom she fought against for her father’s attention and respect––which she did. The actual relationship of Smith and Pocahontas is a gross depiction, not only because it is inaccurate, but because it exploits the inherent power dynamic of colonist (Smith, Rolfe, etc.) and colonial subject (Pocahontas) into a Disney-made consensual romance. Second off this point, it wasn’t even Smith who “fell in love” with Pocahontas and married her, but rather John Rolfe––who’s not seen, mentioned, or heard of in this film. Lastly, the film goes a step further by completely making up a point that, according to the Grandmother Tree, Pocahontas, through her prophetic dreams, is supposed to be with Smith throughout their lives––a sick twist on both the reality of their real-life tenuous relationship and the spiritual sybloism/meaning of the Tree. A last point I want to make is of the attempted execution of Smith, which was dramatized with Powhatan standing over the former, on a peering rock, to smash Smith’s head with a similar instrument. The reality that we discussed in class, however, was the fact that a) the bashing of the head was reserved for warriors, and torture was the preferred method for prisoners, and b) that Powhatan, if this occurred, did it to make Smith a respected liaison––not a cadaver to dispose of. Of course, in this dramatic moment, Smith’s love hurls herself over him, one of the last triumphs of this film’s cinematic misportrayals of history. –– Walker R.

Pocahontas (1996) depicts John Smith as a notable “savage killer,” (who is implied to kill every Native he sees on sight) which makes Pocahontas and his romance more ironic and forbidden. This depiction is not entirely accurate to Smith’s writings—Smith traded and hired Natives for help throughout his time in the New World. Another inaccuracy within the film is that Pocahontas is seemingly an only child, which adds more tension between her father and his want for her to marry Kocoum. However, the real life Pocahontas had many half-sisters and half-brothers, which obviously created a different dynamic between her and her father (though she was considered her father’s favorite as a child). Bringing both points together—Koccoum’s death within the film heightens both inaccuracies to create the infamous scene where Pocahontas throws herself on top of Smith at his execution (which is not historically accurate as John Smith’s 1624 version of the events were likely exaggerated). – Aaliyah A.

Much of the historical inaccuracies come from information being completely left out. When Pocahontas “saved” John Smith’s life, it was most likely exaggerated or misunderstood. Along with this, the movie glazes over the fact that Pocahontas was already married to Kocoum. Also, instead of simply choosing to help the settlers, she was taken as a hostage and converted to the beliefs of the English settlers and John Rolfe took advantage of her being her capture. -Alyssa G.

The events of the movie Pocahontas diverge from John Smith’s accounts to an extreme degree. Almost nothing involving Pocahontas herself is accurately portrayed in the film. Most notably, while Pocahontas is the first Native that Smith encounters in the movie, his accounts detail encounters, both peaceful and violent, with various groups long before meeting Pocahontas. He also encounters Powhatan and negotiates with him before Powhatan sends Pocahontas to Jamestown to make peace. Overall, Pocahontas was at best a footnote in the story of John Smith’s arrival in Virginia. - Hunter M.

One of the most glaringly obvious details that this movie includes that deviates from historical sources is the fact that John Smith and Pocahontas have a romantic relationship, which never happened in any account, even ones historians deem accurate. Another factor that I think kind of goes along with this is that Pocahontas in the cartoon is depicted as a young woman, whether that be late teens/early twenties, when in reality she was an 11 or 12-year-old girl around the time she met John Smith. I think this was done to make the romantic relationship between her and Smith a plot line for the movie, but it also scews our modern understanding of Pocahontas and her experience/choices. In the movie, we see Pocahontas not wanting to marry Kocoum, defying her father's wishes for her, and wanting to be and discover more about life beyond her community and expectations placed on her, which arguably is a powerful message for the young girls this movie is mostly targeted towards. However, by making this change in her age, some viewers might be more critical of why Pocahontas made the decisions she made, or think she had more say in the way the events of her life turned out, but in reality, she was a child who had only an understanding of the world that her community and family taught her, who was then thrust into being somewhat of a pawn, bridge, whatever you want to call it between the American Indians and English Colonists. While we can speculate that maybe Pocahontas did enjoy aspects of English culture and life, we can't forget that the young adult woman depicted in the movie is not the person (or rather child) experiencing living in 17th century colonial Virginia. – Grayson D.

Within Disney’s Pocahontas, our main character expresses real doubts about marrying the warrior Kocoum, believing he is too boring and serious. While it would be hard to glean from the historical record if Pochaontas had any qualms about marrying Kocoum, we know that in many Eastern North American indigenous groups, women held a decent amount of power compared to women in European cultures. Everyone in the community would have to agree to the marriage of two individuals, including the woman. If Pocahontas truly didn’t think the two were a good match, mostly likely, the two would have not gotten married. Here, the movie interprets Powhatan culture as being the same or at least having similar qualities to European ones. This one incident in the movie demonstrates that larger misinterpretation of the historical record and indigenous social strucutre through a Eurocentric lens. Another example of this would be that because Pocahontas is a daughter of Powhatan, that automatically makes her this ‘princess’ and gives her sway over her father. In reality, she is having to compete for her father’s attention and whatever power she has through him is never guaranteed. — Nora M.

One significant way that the film deviates from the scholarly historical sources is the relationship portrayed between John Smith and Pocahontas. Smith and Pocahontas met first when she was a 10-year-old girl and he was middle-aged. Because of their large age gap and difference in language and cultural practices, it is unlikely the two could have formed a close relationship. Additionally in his accounts he never mentions a significant personal relationship between the two of them. In reality, Pocahontas has a much more personal relationship with colonist John Rolfe as the two marry. - Kendall

Pocahontas works as a primary source about late 20th century views on colonial times. By the 1990’s, most Americans no longer held beliefs that Native Americans were inherently backwards savages, and therefore the culture allowed for successful films to be made from their perspective. However, compared to the present day, there was less concern for accurately portraying the nature of their relationship with the colonists. The movie very much tries to “play both sides” with the conflict between colonists and Natives, and it mostly portrays both sides as equally misguided in clashing with each other. Generally, Pocahontas acts as a primary source to a time where films centering on Native Americans’ perspectives existed, but were often guided by presenting both Natives and colonists as equally right and wrong. - Hunter M.

The movie was released in 1995, and likely in production through the early 1990s. During this time period, ideas about the past were changing to be more like modern day. This is the first and only Native American princess Disney has released, and also the same time period Mulan and Tiana came into fruition. This could mean more of an emphasis on diversity to appeal to a wider audience. The movie, having been geared towards children, will never be as accurate as the real story. But to fit the Disney Princess mold, the story was over romanticized. The choices of the writers of the film as well to include John Smith using the term “savage” so much also points to what was accepted in the 90’s. Smith also bragged about killing Natives all over the Americas earlier in the film. Pocahontas in the story just took it for some reason. Besides the problematic parts of the film which do speak to public attitudes at the time, Pocahontas did employ Native Americans to be voice actors which is a step up in representation from prior years. All in all, the messages are a bit confusing. -KD

Disney’s Pocahontas came out in 1995, putting production of the film in the early 1990s, which was a time in which romanticization of the past was met with less scrupulosity than in the present day. However, that does not excuse the film’s blatant disregard for retelling history in a manner that is truthful in any way. Depiction of a romantic relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith as the center of the movie’s plot is more than simply factually inaccurate, it’s also incredibly tone deaf considering the events that are being retold in the film were in actuality a brutal colonization that would decimate 90% of the indigenous American population. - Leah B.

I think this movie works as a pretty good primary source for its time. It does well in that it explains the attitudes of the general American populace in regards to media depicting Native Americans and colonization in a more palatable and entertaining (and also flagrantly embellished) manner. This film won multiple Academy awards and seemed to be very highly praised at the time, both by critics and audiences. And from what I know, it seems like it was only after some time people started to more largely question its problematic nature. To me it is without question that Disney would never produce something like this film in 2026 without a significant overhaul. This film also serves as a good primary source for cartoons of the time, being an example of one of Disney's many renaissance era successes. Released right after Lion King, they used both beautifully hand-inked cels and a minimal amount of CGI to create this animation. The film is also noticeably very formulaic, in that many of Disney's renaissance era films had similar plot structures and character archetypes (villain song, cutesy animal sidekicks for comic relief, kindhearted princess who is a friend to all animals, romance, etc.). - Leo Tooks

This movie could be considered a primary source about the beauty standards of American culture in the 1990s. Rather than portraying Pocahontas in an authentic way that represents her culture, age, and standards of dress, the movie portrays her in an overly sexualized way with long flowing hair, form fitting dress, etc. This is more telling about US culture at the time which may have placed more value on female minority characters if the woman appealed to Western ideals of beauty. – Kendall B

As a primary source of the Walt Disney Company and American culture at large in the mid-90s, Pocahontas is a very telling source. During an era of playing both sides, this Alan Menken musical sanitizes and romanticizes even John Smith's own sensationalized 1624 account. We see Disney telling a crowd-pleasing story in priority over giving a truer accounting of the real history or even the account that had once been so widely accepted. To that end, they aged Pocahontas up (and may have aged John Smith down slightly as well) to better facilitate a Romeo & Juliet style love story. One credit to the filmmakers is they did make sure to strive to cast Native American performers as Pocahontas, Powhatan, and the other tribesmen and women, like Irene Bedard and Russell Means. For the 90s, this was a good step forward, but it is certainly not without its consequences, including some exoticism surrounding Pocahontas (a valid criticism that rises up around other non-white female characters in Disney films of the era). - Ryan A.

As a primary source, Pocahontas tells us much more about America in 1995 than Virginia in 1607. The film reflects growing 1990s concerns about multiculturalism, racism, environmentalism, women's independence, and the darker consequences of European colonization. Disney challenges the older idea that Europeans simply brought civilization to an empty wilderness, but it still reshapes the story for modern American audiences by turning Pocahontas and John Smith into a romantic couple. That contradiction makes the movie especially useful as a primary source for understanding how Americans in the 1990s were beginning to reconsider their own national history. - Todd H.

Pocahontas works as a primary source for the 1990s because it reflects how Americans at the time wanted to welcome diversity in mainstream media more without including the uncomfortable history. The movie tries to celebrate Native American culture, but only in a softened, romanticized way that was safe for mainstream audiences. The message seems to be that both sides need to understand each other highlighting decades of optimism and avoiding deeper conversations about colonial violence. -Alyssa G.

This question can be answered by reflecting on the questions posed earlier: how does this movie work as a primary source about the time period it was made? How does the film’s interpretations deviate from scholarly historical sources? Disney’s Pocahantas’ sparks discussion purely due to its conflicting content, and the various manners in which it can be applied in a scholarly sense. For instance, this film’s romanticization of the colonists' interactions with the Powhatan people leads to an interest in understanding, and subsequently critiquing, that relationship within and outside of that film’s context. – Bailee Eberenz.

I think(we all know) Disney really hyper fantasized the life of Pocahontas to make it ‘Disney coded’ for families to all enjoy. The whimsy, the music, the colors, the storyline all lined up for kids to enjoy. The movie itself doesn’t need to be historically accurate if their main focus was only to make money and appear to children as a new Disney film. This movie came out around the time of Disney’s ‘Classics’ Era, so they had to keep the movie entertaining. If Disney had gone the more truthful way of the story, the only ones who would actually enjoy it would be historians, since no family wants to go watch a movie about one of America’s darkest moments of time. I guess in my understanding, history back then, was still relatively being whitewashed, or ‘not greatly detailed’ in the perspectives of “America. We are soo cool. Sure we had our bad moments. But we are great now!” Kind of mindset. So, if Disney had made a historically accurate, from the smallest faintest detail of her life, the movie itself would have been no longer than ten minutes, full of what she had been through with the colonists and her relationship to John Smith. Though. I am not saying ‘Disney should delete this movie’. Yes, it's a horrible historical film about a historic woman. Yes, its histories are completely wrong. Yes, the second movie, Pocahontas II: Journey To a New World sucks too. But, I think without the Disney movie, not a lot of people would even know who she is. Pocahontas really got popular as a person (in my experience) after watching the movie. That’s how I think of her when I hear her name. I instantly think of the movie and the mid-soundtrack. So, I think we should care about the movie, because Disney brought up a figure of history who isn’t widely spoken about, who isn’t another British/American white figure of history. ——- Cait, Edwards

I am from Virginia — born and raised. I’ve encountered the story of Pocahontas and John Smith many times: in class, in museums, and in popular culture. Disney’s Pocahontas reflects the experience of being taught and believing in this very black and white version of history and that’s why we should care about it. It should make us question the version of history we are teaching American children. We are meant to believe in his romanticized version of the interactions between Indigenous groups and Europeans that admits to the conflict but interjects that both sides quickly reached a peaceful resolution. Watching the movie back, I’m almost a little repulsed by the fact that Pocahontas is essentially the history I was being taught and that many are still being taught. Pocahontas freezes this mindset and this version of history in time and can now serve as a reflection point. This version of history does not allow us question, does not all us to learn the true messy and complicated timeline of human events. This movie should now lead us to ask the question: how do we represent American history to children? — Nora M.

Most can agree that their first encounter with the story of Pocahontas and John Smith is through this movie. As someone who has also lived in Virginia my entire life I've heard the story countless times. Disney is a company that makes its movies through romance. Take Disney's Mulan for an example, the romantic relationship that bloomed through Shang and Mulan, the likeable characters, etc. Then they released the live action in 2020 which told the TRUE story of Mulan and it completely flopped. Pocahontas (1995) does the job of depicting its world building, showing that the settlers came to the New World in search of gold, a way to make profit, briefly showing the conflict between the two groups. However, it wasn't necessarily written to tell the true story. It told the black and white version of their story while changing details that would appeal to the viewers. So, why should we care? We should care because while the story is inaccurate it still shows the core concept of why the Englishmen came to the New World in the first place. — Shelby Hawley

1) As a blockbuster film that has solidified itself in pop-culture history, the diffusion of its messages, themes, and supposed “history” will thus reach a very broad audience. 2) Said audience, no doubt, is primarily that of children (it being a Disney animated film)––a group who’s very sensitive to the inculcation of information presented to them. Because of its historical inaccuracies, and because its primary audience of children is highly susceptible to misinformation, Pocahontas (1995) has affected how we as a society see her and her people’s history in Disney’s retelling rather than in historical consensus and fact. Thus, it is likely that, if individuals who have seen the film in their youth have not received an education about the reality of the film’s history, they still believe in its falsities––a tragedy, indeed.– Walker R.

We should care about this film because Pocahontas (1995) is still how many children view the historical figure Pocahontas and Native Americans as a whole since the moment they initially watch this film (which is then carried well into adulthood). This was made for children and families, but I would argue that the primary children and families this movie was intended for were likely not Indigenous. Providing a romanticised version of Native American history to a primarily non-Indigenous audience is once again an example of how (white) power and institutional forces continue to erase Indigenous voices, histories, and experiences. Yes, this movie brings awareness to Pocahontas the figure, but we also saw in class that the story/legend John Smith created goes well past the movie (into paintings, literature, and, in general, in how we have historically depicted her). The movie ultimately perpetuates the continued romanticization and sexualization of Native women and their stories. So, we should care about Pocahontas and its version of history it represents because it shows the way U.S. history is shaped through societal power, privilege, and racism, even if it is through a Disney film. – Aaliyah A.

Historical movies have a massive impact on how the average person views the past. Popular films reach a far wider audience than academic writing because people voluntarily watch movies in their free time, while very few casually read scholarly history. Film is also visual and immersive; when people picture what the past looked like, what people wore, or how they acted, they usually recall a movie rather than a primary source. Pocahontas is an especially critical example because it depicts early contact between Native Americans and English colonists. Because it is aimed at children, the film serves as many people’s very first impression of Native history and culture. That makes thoughtful, historically accurate representation crucial. Unfortunately, the film failed on both counts, leaving many young viewers with a false, sanitized impression of colonial interactions that often goes unchallenged until much later in their schooling. - Tyler J.

While the importance of historical accuracy in movies will always be contested, there is something to say about the portrayals of different parts of history by a major movie studio. As we’ve discussed in class, if a movie is someone’s first introduction to that time period or conflict, then they are more inclined to take what they see as fact versus interpretation. Disney is the biggest movie studio in the world. They’ve been around for nearly 100 years, and their films are shown all around the world. Disney also makes an effort to keep their animated princesses alive. So Disney releasing Pocahontas means more people will be watching that film rather than reading John Smith’s personal accounts. Ergo, the Disney movie is most likely people’s first introductions to colonial America and Native Americans than other forms of media are. Especially since the movie is geared towards children. It can be argued that because of the studio and age group targeted, media should be held to higher scrutiny as to not overly romanticize an interaction. -KD