My first encounter with Antarctica
|
I had this book on my shelf for ages ... when, in a semi comatose state of absolute boredom I decided to give it a go. Well, within an hour I was in Antarctica. The adventures and tales detailed in this book filled my head for months after I had finished reading it. It started a very real interest in all of the Scott, Shackleton and indeed Fiennes adventures. My enthusiasm for this subject has not yet diminished and I credit this book with starting it all off. Its written in a seemingly understanding way, exploring what the pressures, blind ambition and harsh conditions may have done to affect the decisions made by Scott. The unravelling of all the demands, decisions made, and their consequences allow you to decide for yourself whether they were correct or not - it is of course written in a way which sympathises with Scott, but you can choose, like I did, to read other accounts and form an opinion of your very own.
I have read many books on all sorts of subjects and I reckon this could be my number one book. Whether your interest is history, adventure, psychology, sociology, tactics or pure escapism with a bunch of brave souls, I thoroughly recommend this book.
|
|
Egocentric and no substance
|
As a `defence' of Scott this account is feeble and to argue that only those that have man-hauled are qualified enough to make any kind of informed judgement is arrogant; Sir Ranulfph Fiennes, as far as I am aware, never took ponies to the Antarctic, yet he still seems to think he is qualified enough to criticize Oats for `bitching' about Scott's ignorance and stupidity over the selection and subsequent care of the ponies. Fiennes claims that he doesn't really identify with Scott, but thinks he has had unfair treatment and sets out to attack Huntford's account of Scott. However, much of Fiennes' criticisms are about Huntord the man, perhaps believing that an attack on Huntford's character will in some way strengthen his own argument - there are also a number occasions throughout the book were Fiennes seems to resort to fatuous remarks and sarcasm in the misguided belief that he is discrediting the Scott critics.
Fiennes' account seems to be based from an egoistic point of view, I lost count of the number of times he makes reference to the first person singular; there are many. Also, from Fiennes point of view, Scott never merely does something, according to Fiennes `Scott quite rightly' or `Scott correctly' or `Scott wisely' or `it was clear to Scott. As they were to me [Fiennes].' Or Scott did it as `I [Fiennes] would have done the same thing' (so that makes it right then, Job done).
Fiennes is tirelessly inconsistent throughout in that he condemns Scott's critics as malcontents or glorifying their own case, yet he is more than happy to quote the very same critics when they have something favourable to offer Scott. He is blatantly mistaken when he claims that Oats stopped his `bitching' when Scott hugged him after he had `come out of himself': Oats in reality stopped complaining when the last pony had been killed as at that point Oats had done all his work and had no more reason to complain about Scott. Fiennes tries to argue that the lack of critics among the men was evidence that Scott had few failings as a leader: however, this expedition was all but a naval project and for men to criticize their Captain would have been tantamount to Treason or even piracy - with both offences carrying the death penalty it's not surprising that critics from the men were few-and-far-between and certainly none would be foolish enough to commit anything to writing.
Considering that Fiennes bases his argument on the fact that he has man-hauled in Antarctica, some of his comments are surprisingly silly, for example, Scott stopping to `geologise' and carry a hundred pounds of rock seems to have no baring on Fiennes, who claims it would have made little difference and that it is the surface that is the factor here. No matter what the surface, dragging two tonnes on a rough surface is harder than dragging one tonne on the same surface; men who are in the latter stages of starvation and exhaustion and who are pulling and pushing a sledge over pressure ridges often at ninety degrees and six-foot high will without any doubt feel the extra one-hundred pounds of rubbish which gradually sapped the life out of them.
For me this account did nothing in Scott's defence and seems to be more about Fiennes stroking his own ego. There is no real substance to his arguments and I couldn't really recommend this book to anyone other than those who want to read it, well, because it's there.
|
|
|
Awesome
|
|
A really wonderful biography and so sad. I really loved it and it totally changed my opinion of Scott.
|
|
|
Essential reading
|
The previous review is so infuriatingly poor and uninformed so as not to warrant a response, however for those who may read it and think of this book badly, I feel compelled to write a retort. Firstly, the analogy drawn between the critic Huntsford being as qualified to run the rule on an Antarctic expedition as a judge is deemed qualified to supervise a murder trial is a nonsense. The two examples are so far removed that to draw a comparison is absurd. For a start the role of a judge at a murder trial is to shepherd the jury to an objective decision based on the factual evidence, from what Fiennes reveals of Huntsford's biography it was neither factual nor objective. What the previous reviewer fails to understand is that Antarctic life is so far removed from our own experience of the world, that to claim someone like Huntsford, who never went to Antarctica, is as equally qualified as cRanulph Fiennes to write a critique of Scott's final expedition is bizarre. Without this first hand experience Huntsford resorted to the critical diary entries of Scott's colleagues penned under difficult circumstances to create a distorted version of events.
With regard to the assertion that at the time of Scott's pole attempt dog-sledging was the best means to travel in Antartica is another erroneous statement. Shackleton only years before had demonstrated that ponies had their own advantages when he came to within 100 miles of the pole with fewer supplies. Manhauling too had its own benefits. The truth is at this stage each method had its own pros and cons - Antarctica at this time was unchartered territory and therefore which method best suited its landscape was indeterminate. Using dogs posed its own risk, namely the possibility of the pack tumbling into a crevasse with their sledge in tow.
I fear the author of the last review has fallen into a similar trap to that of his hero Huntsford, that at the expense of fact and impartiality he has opted for sensationalism and debunking.
There is no doubt this book is flawed, at times Fiennes does seem to give Scott the benefit of the doubt in certain cases, but not so much as to rewrite history. But for me, this book is essential reading not only because it is well written and well researched, and at its heart honestly impartial; not only because if tells a thrilling tale of adventure, comradeship and enterprise, where you are literally urging Scott and his team to make it to safety, but mainly because it demonstrates the indomitable strength of the human spirit in the face of physical adversity. This is a great book, in which a national hero has been restored to his rightful place in the nation's psyche.
On this I must disagree with the Finance professional and "adventurer", who has "written about [his] transcontinental motorcycle adventures". Big deal!
|
|
|
A book for the die-hard Scott camp
|
Lots of ridiculous comments below like ...
"Sir Ranulph is one of only a handful of men who have earned the right to criticise or not as he has been in Scott's position himself. " and
"book that has been written by someone who has done some exploring himself"
... that seem to imply Huntford's criticism of Scott can not be valid as Huntford has not man-hauled across Antartica. By the very same logic, it also should imply Fiennes is unworthy of passing comment on Amundsen as he has never dog sledded to the South Pole and back.
To say Huntford is in no position to criticise Scott because he has never done it himself is frankly preposterous. Its a akin to saying no judge at a murder trial can be appropriate unless he himself is a murderer. To have that kind of juvenile perspective to start with pretty much invalidates the whining against Huntford seen below right off the bat.
Then there are comments below like ...
"At the time there was no proof that dog-sleds were significantly more effective than man-hauling"
There was to Amundsen. His experience in the Arctic had PROVEN to him beyond any doubt that the winning mode of transport was crystal clear, and he prepared for it. Scott was still experimenting with dogs, horses, machines, and manhauling ... during the expedition itself!!. The idea supported in the book that there was "no proof" of the likely success of dogs, reflected only Scott's relative ignorance on the issue relative to Amundsen's.
Again the idea that in a time of no knowledge of vitamins, it was mere luck that Amundsen ate fresh meat where possible, thus preventing scurvey is a sham. He lived with and learned from people whose entire lives are icebound ... He saw how the Inuit dressed, he saw how they travelled, he saw what they ate, so he KNEW what was required to get the job done. The was no need for experimentation on the Ross Ice Shelf.
As Amundsen himself sums it up:
"Victory awaits him who has everything in order -- luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck."
But the die hard flag waving for Scott goes on ... theres the point about how Scott's expedition was so much more than just planting a flag at the South Pole. He was gathing scientific data as well.
Who are you kidding? Scott wasn't there to collect scientific data, he wanted to be the first man to the South Pole ... everything else was a sideshow. He was unable to fund the expedition without sideshows, where Amundsen was. Sorry, but that goes down as another failure on Scott's part. A failure in planning, organisation, focus and ability to raise capital without sideshows. If you cant raise the money for your planned expedition then you cant be a great expedition leader. Its kind of a vital attribute.
Like it not, Huntford's book is an important part of revisionist literature and has rightly changed the view of Scott from the Victorian fairy tale standard.
However if fairy tales are your bag, and Huntford has stolen your teddy bear, then this book could well be your panacea.
Robert Falcon Scott can still ride again, and you can have your hero back, even if it is just to make YOU feel good.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada