Scan barcode
timburbage's review
5.0
This was an amazing book.
We start with Scott's life before the Antarctic came calling, before journeying on the Discovery, and then the fatal journey on the Terra Nova. It is a fascinating look into life in the deep unforgiving tundra. Scott may have died in the ice, but he was not a failure in any way.
Ranulph Fiennes uses his experience of exploration, plus a lot of research, to defend Scott. Scott is someone who had greatly gone down in Britsh eyes since his death as a bit of a bungler, and for being a gallant loser. Fiennes does a great job defending him, and the fact that he was the first person to do anything on that continent, so of course he made mistakes and miscalculations.
Fiennes does a great job of showing that modern biographers, led by Ronald Huntford, set it up as a race between Scott and Amundsen to the South Pole, and that Scott lost because he made bad decisions. In fact, Scott didn't even know he was in a race because Amundsen lied to absolutely everyone what he was doing, even hiding when Scott came to visit. Amundsen used dogs to get to the South Pole and get out of there as quickly as possible. He didn't even make maps or any observations. Scott was there to explore the region, and his team's work in meteorology and science still stand up today. Scott was an explorer, Amundsen was a glory hunter.
When the end came, it was really sad to read. It just showed how much Fiennes managed to get me to care about these intrepid adventurers in the deep cold, some of whom will be there forever.
We start with Scott's life before the Antarctic came calling, before journeying on the Discovery, and then the fatal journey on the Terra Nova. It is a fascinating look into life in the deep unforgiving tundra. Scott may have died in the ice, but he was not a failure in any way.
Ranulph Fiennes uses his experience of exploration, plus a lot of research, to defend Scott. Scott is someone who had greatly gone down in Britsh eyes since his death as a bit of a bungler, and for being a gallant loser. Fiennes does a great job defending him, and the fact that he was the first person to do anything on that continent, so of course he made mistakes and miscalculations.
Fiennes does a great job of showing that modern biographers, led by Ronald Huntford, set it up as a race between Scott and Amundsen to the South Pole, and that Scott lost because he made bad decisions. In fact, Scott didn't even know he was in a race because Amundsen lied to absolutely everyone what he was doing, even hiding when Scott came to visit. Amundsen used dogs to get to the South Pole and get out of there as quickly as possible. He didn't even make maps or any observations. Scott was there to explore the region, and his team's work in meteorology and science still stand up today. Scott was an explorer, Amundsen was a glory hunter.
When the end came, it was really sad to read. It just showed how much Fiennes managed to get me to care about these intrepid adventurers in the deep cold, some of whom will be there forever.
benfast's review
4.0
I enjoyed this book more once it got to the actual Antarctic experience of the crews (the first journey in 1902 and the later more famous one in 1913). The earlier biographical lead-up about Scott and his progress towards Antarctic exploration was important backstory, but took a long time and was only useful for character foundations that Fiennes uses later as a defence for Scott.
The book features a lot of Fiennes, acting as an expert, and thus one of the only people to be able to comment on Scott's actions and reasoning that resulted in (or that coincided with) his death and four of his crew on their journey back from the South Pole. Fiennes does paint a picture of Scott as an incorrectly maligned giant of the golden age of exploration, a man whose good name was tarnished by jealous, unknowing, and, in one case, senile crew members and later revisionists. I think they are fair points, Scott's story was polarized and selectively used for patriotism or reflecting changing society, but the argument at times sounds overly defensive and reflects Fiennes's own right-wing political views.
What makes the book amazing is the story of Scott and his men. The journeys they took, the conditions they faced, and the successes they had even with the tragic end in The Tent are phenomenal and well-documented feats of strength, courage, and leadership. Shackleton gets much more press for his Elephant Island voyage (and because he survived), but Scott in this book is shown as a more genuine, effective, and "British" leader who was only foiled by changing circumstances and some bad luck. Scott made the poll, and did so while conducting a hugely influential scientific program along the way, and was only beaten because Amundsen changed his plans and went hell for leather into a race (that itself nearly ended in tragedy) that had no great impact on the world other than being first. That's why Scott is still so well known today, that's why his name is on the South Pole Station alongside Amundsen's. I think that's an important thing to remember, and an interesting study of difference between the two men and their outcomes. Scott, nearly to the end, carried 35 pounds of rocks that it was hoped would show Antarctica was a continent once attached to others in the world, or with animals from the age of dinosaurs. Amundsen just covered miles, judge them as you wish.
The stories of life on the ice and the life of these men conducting scientific experiments and human travel expeditions is remarkable, and there were times where I was left shaking my head with wonder. Not that I think it was a good idea - I would never want to live through what they did and of course today we don't need to - but it is amazing to see how it progressed within 100 years. The fact that Scott was the last man at the Pole for almost 50 years is also quite remarkable, and that his journey is still a benchmark for modern-day explorers' distances and paces... wow. These stories make up for the defensive writing and for the boring preamble.
Note: I've been reading a book about Arctic or Antarctic exploration each year (it seems always in winter), so this was a natural fit to read over Christmas, but it was also a book that was on my shelf for some 5-7 years beforehand. I'm looking forward to learning more about Amundsen or some of the other characters involved in similar events around that time, to see how people like Scott are portrayed differently depending on the book's respective protagonists and the authors' era and views.
The book features a lot of Fiennes, acting as an expert, and thus one of the only people to be able to comment on Scott's actions and reasoning that resulted in (or that coincided with) his death and four of his crew on their journey back from the South Pole. Fiennes does paint a picture of Scott as an incorrectly maligned giant of the golden age of exploration, a man whose good name was tarnished by jealous, unknowing, and, in one case, senile crew members and later revisionists. I think they are fair points, Scott's story was polarized and selectively used for patriotism or reflecting changing society, but the argument at times sounds overly defensive and reflects Fiennes's own right-wing political views.
What makes the book amazing is the story of Scott and his men. The journeys they took, the conditions they faced, and the successes they had even with the tragic end in The Tent are phenomenal and well-documented feats of strength, courage, and leadership. Shackleton gets much more press for his Elephant Island voyage (and because he survived), but Scott in this book is shown as a more genuine, effective, and "British" leader who was only foiled by changing circumstances and some bad luck. Scott made the poll, and did so while conducting a hugely influential scientific program along the way, and was only beaten because Amundsen changed his plans and went hell for leather into a race (that itself nearly ended in tragedy) that had no great impact on the world other than being first. That's why Scott is still so well known today, that's why his name is on the South Pole Station alongside Amundsen's. I think that's an important thing to remember, and an interesting study of difference between the two men and their outcomes. Scott, nearly to the end, carried 35 pounds of rocks that it was hoped would show Antarctica was a continent once attached to others in the world, or with animals from the age of dinosaurs. Amundsen just covered miles, judge them as you wish.
The stories of life on the ice and the life of these men conducting scientific experiments and human travel expeditions is remarkable, and there were times where I was left shaking my head with wonder. Not that I think it was a good idea - I would never want to live through what they did and of course today we don't need to - but it is amazing to see how it progressed within 100 years. The fact that Scott was the last man at the Pole for almost 50 years is also quite remarkable, and that his journey is still a benchmark for modern-day explorers' distances and paces... wow. These stories make up for the defensive writing and for the boring preamble.
Note: I've been reading a book about Arctic or Antarctic exploration each year (it seems always in winter), so this was a natural fit to read over Christmas, but it was also a book that was on my shelf for some 5-7 years beforehand. I'm looking forward to learning more about Amundsen or some of the other characters involved in similar events around that time, to see how people like Scott are portrayed differently depending on the book's respective protagonists and the authors' era and views.
ellesappelle's review
4.0
Fascinating read though a little hagiographic
The details of Scott’s ill-fated final expedition are a fascinating if harrowing read. Fiennes admits early on that his aim is to rehabilitate Scott’s reputation and I think the book must be read with that in mind: in particular the chapter attacking later biographers seemed to be slightly overkill. However, the main stretch of the book is well worth reading, especially if (like me) your knowledge of Scott doesn’t extend much further than Captain Oates and the final diary entries.
The details of Scott’s ill-fated final expedition are a fascinating if harrowing read. Fiennes admits early on that his aim is to rehabilitate Scott’s reputation and I think the book must be read with that in mind: in particular the chapter attacking later biographers seemed to be slightly overkill. However, the main stretch of the book is well worth reading, especially if (like me) your knowledge of Scott doesn’t extend much further than Captain Oates and the final diary entries.
esperata's review
5.0
I cannot recommend this highly enough. Not a hagiography yet sympathetic to the ordeal of Scott and his men. Who better to write of the trials of Antarctic travel than someone who has not only been there but has experience both manhauling and using dogs?
This is a factual account of Scott's travels using quotes from original sources rather than past biographies. Sir Ranulph not only describes what happened but also explains from his own experience the whys and wherefores. He also carefully highlights errors that have become almost accepted truths, giving evidence to support his reasoning.
If you were only going to read one book about the Terra Nova expedition this should be it.
This is a factual account of Scott's travels using quotes from original sources rather than past biographies. Sir Ranulph not only describes what happened but also explains from his own experience the whys and wherefores. He also carefully highlights errors that have become almost accepted truths, giving evidence to support his reasoning.
If you were only going to read one book about the Terra Nova expedition this should be it.
More...