Scott and Amundsen

Rating:
Summary: Please read the corrective to Huntford -- by Ranulph Fiennes
Review: "Captain Scott" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the man described by the Guiness Book of Records as "the world's greatest living explorer". I've just finished this book, which is described as "a valuable corrective to the trend of Scott debunking". Before giving five stars to the Huntford book, you should *really* read this book. For some reason it's not available on Amazon. I bought my copy here in Hong Kong -- its' by Hodder & Staughton and was published in paperback in 2004.
A review says: "... a fascinating read and a powerful argument against the conventional view of Scott as second best." Another: "Stirring... now one is better placed than Fiennes to understand what Scott may have experienced or to appreciate the enormity of his achievement."
Remember -- Huntford *never* went to the Antarctic. Fiennes, on the other hand "...visits the poles as casually as most of us visit the pub."
This is a debunking of the debunker. It should be read as corrective to Huntford's tendentious put-down.
PF
Hong Kong
June 04

Rating:
Summary: Please read the corrective to Huntford -- by Ranulph Fiennes
Review: "Captain Scott" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the man described by the Guiness Book of Records as "the world's greatest living explorer". I've just finished this book, which is described as "a valuable corrective to the trend of Scott debunking". Before giving five stars to the Huntford book, you should *really* read this book. For some reason it's not available on Amazon. I bought my copy here in Hong Kong -- its' by Hodder & Staughton and was published in paperback in 2004.
A review says: "... a fascinating read and a powerful argument against the conventional view of Scott as second best." Another: "Stirring... now one is better placed than Fiennes to understand what Scott may have experienced or to appreciate the enormity of his achievement."
Remember -- Huntford *never* went to the Antarctic. Fiennes, on the other hand "...visits the poles as casually as most of us visit the pub."
This is a debunking of the debunker. It should be read as corrective to Huntford's tendentious put-down.
PF
Hong Kong
June 04

Rating:
Summary: Scott and Amundsen
Review: An excellent book. Being English I was raised on the myths surrounding Scott. This book exposed his shortcomings as an explorer and planner of an expedition. By contrast I was overwhelmed by Amundsen's lifelong committment to polar exploration. The lengths to which he went to make sure that he was as well prepared as possible contrasted sharply with the Brittish expedition. This book is well written and spurred my interest in the Antartic. The photographs and additional information such as the dietary allowances per man found at the back made it even more interesting that it's spectatcular subject matter.

Rating:
Summary: A great story wonderfully told
Review: By far the best book I've read in the last thirty years. The comparison between Scott and Amundson's efforts will be of great interest to psychologists and anyone interested in a vivid comparison of sane and neurotic behavior. Better than any case study. Fully detailed, wonderfully accurate, a brilliantly told story.

Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth!
Review: It has been over 80 years and only now the truth about 2 different Antartic expeditions have come to light.We can finally see Capt. Robert Falcon Scott as the bumbling, incompetent that he was. For his lack of planning, his weakness towards animals, and his general lack of coming to terms with the enviromental conditions he would be experiencing caused the deaths of 4 of his team mates, and his own as well.But we also see Capt. Roald Amundsen as a hard, cold man. He wouldn't accept criticism of his ideas and concepts. He could never forget an insult, or deny a friendship.This book details the ups and downs in both expeditions. Giving the reader of being along side each of the groups, and trying to cope with the hardships that each group endured.

Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth!
Review: It has been over 80 years and only now the truth about 2 different Antartic expeditions have come to light.We can finally see Capt. Robert Falcon Scott as the bumbling, incompetent that he was. For his lack of planning, his weakness towards animals, and his general lack of coming to terms with the enviromental conditions he would be experiencing caused the deaths of 4 of his team mates, and his own as well.But we also see Capt. Roald Amundsen as a hard, cold man. He wouldn't accept criticism of his ideas and concepts. He could never forget an insult, or deny a friendship.This book details the ups and downs in both expeditions. Giving the reader of being along side each of the groups, and trying to cope with the hardships that each group endured.

Rating:
Summary: Required reading for any polar scholar.
Review: Roland Huntford has written perhaps the best study of polar exploration. The contrast between the two , Amundsen and Scott, is so striking, it is a wonder that Scott is generally remembered at all.His methods were so slack, his personality so ill-suited to the task at hand, his leadership bordered on being criminally negligent. Scott became that strange type of British hero, one whose incompetence is romanticized into fame( i.e. The Titanic or the Charge of the Light Brigade). Amundsen however, dispays all the qualities necessary for a polar explorer (or any leader). He was smart, adaptable, inventive, and organized. He did have some faults(somewhat unforgiving, vanity), but his results made him the greatest polar explorer of all time.His deeds included the Northwest Passage, 1st to winter in the Antarctic, Of course the South Pole, first to complete the Northeast and Northwest Passage, first to fly across the Arctic Ocean.He was a modern Viking, always seeking the unknown. It is somewhat baffling that he is not more recognized for his accomplishments.

Rating:
Summary: Required reading for any polar scholar.
Review: Roland Huntford has written perhaps the best study of polar exploration. The contrast between the two , Amundsen and Scott, is so striking, it is a wonder that Scott is generally remembered at all.His methods were so slack, his personality so ill-suited to the task at hand, his leadership bordered on being criminally negligent. Scott became that strange type of British hero, one whose incompetence is romanticized into fame( i.e. The Titanic or the Charge of the Light Brigade). Amundsen however, dispays all the qualities necessary for a polar explorer (or any leader). He was smart, adaptable, inventive, and organized. He did have some faults(somewhat unforgiving, vanity), but his results made him the greatest polar explorer of all time.His deeds included the Northwest Passage, 1st to winter in the Antarctic, Of course the South Pole, first to complete the Northeast and Northwest Passage, first to fly across the Arctic Ocean.He was a modern Viking, always seeking the unknown. It is somewhat baffling that he is not more recognized for his accomplishments.

Rating:
Summary: Scott and Amundsen
Review: Scott and Amundsen is a study of two very different styles of leadership; that of Captain Robert F. Scott, RN of Great Britain and that of Roald Amundsen of Norway. It is a book well worth reading and is better than many contemporary leadership books. It is a study of men as well as countries. The Norwegians were able to maintain an oceanographic research vessel. The British had to make do with a converted sealing ship.

Scotts style was that of a traditional Naval officer in a service that had great traditions but had become stagnant as it entered the 20th Century. Scott gave an order and expected a cherry aye, aye sir, regardless of the difficulty in it's execution. He was also a man who was looking over his shoulder at the runners behind him. In his first expedition to Antarctica, he had managed to alienate one of his co-members and turned him into a fierce rival, Ernest Shackelton. It was this rivalry that drove Scott. Scott is also a perfect example of the concept of responding to new developements with "not invented here". Scott had several years between his two expeditions to plan, acquire proper material and train his expedition. The only original thinking was in the use of motor transport but then he fatally damaged this component when he jetisoned the principal technical officer that had worked on the motor sledges from the outset. Everything else was a rehash of his first expedition or that of Shackelton's. The use of horses in a desert environment, as the Antarctic is, was a tremendous failure that ultimately lead to the death of Scott and his party.

Amundsen on the other hand was a keen student of the exploration craft. He was constantly working to refine his equipment. He was not afraid to adapt the ways of the natives he met on his expeditions, as well as take suggestions and examples from other explorers, such as Frederick Cook. Amundsen never asked his men to do something he would not do himself. He set the example. Of course he made errors along the way but he recognized them, and even if he didn't admit to them directly, he learned from them. He was single minded and remained faithful to his mission. He did not allow himself to be distracted by sentiment and worry. He flet that the prize of being first at the South Pole was the only thing that mattered. He was a trail blazer. The scientists could come after him.

The two expeditions have been contrasted as a ful-blown assault and a raid. Amundsen's daring raid was a success and mounted as it was in the face of the challenge from Scott.

This book by Huntford is not to be missed. It is a first class effort by an author who understands both the British and Norwegian mindsets. I would urge that this book be required reading for all future military officers.

Rating:
Summary: A preeminent work of modern history.
Review: What a fabulous book this is especially if one reads Scott's Diary. The Norwegians come out as amazingly cool and well organized. Their trip to the South pole reads like a pleasant ski trip. What a contrast to Scott. Bang goes one of Britain's heros.