Scan barcode
A review by benfast
Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes
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.