Race to the Pole : Tragedy, Heroism, and Scott's Antarctic Quest

Rating:
Summary: Not Entirely Convincing
Review:
This book is not so much a story of Scott's Antarctic expeditions but a debunking of Roland Huntford's version of Scott. Fienees argues his case best when he directly addresses the Huntford version of history in his final chapter. However the rest of the book has many weaknesses and is less convincing.

Fiennes denies he is biased towards Scott. This is hard to be entirely convinced of as he repeatedly raises Scott up by dragging down Shakleton, other members of the expedition and especially Amundsen. The chapter that describes Scott reaching the pole ends with a vitriolic paragraph out of nowhere on Amundsen and his failure in life after his polar success. Scott is made out to be almost without a flaw. The only flaw is his moodiness which somehow everyone else just seem to laugh away. Scott is just too squeaky clean with a neat excuse for any failing.

Most of the negative material that exists on Scott from Cherry-Gerard or Atkinson is dismissed by Fiennes as being written long after the fact so it becomes questionable and can be dismissed. This can be argued the other way that only then did their loyalties and being honourable not prevent them from saying the truth. Up to the reader to choose.

Much value in this books analysis seems to be based on Fiennes incredible achievements in exploration. His analysis sometimes seems odd, like when he himself says that in manhauling across Antartica he couldn't take a toothbrush due to the extra weight yet he dismisses Scott hauling back 35 pounds of rock as not making much of a difference. There are several instances of these odd statements.

He also seems to excuse or argue favourably for some of Scott's questionable decisions or preparations. The taking of five men to the pole, which is hard to argue as a right decision (Fiennes is unconvincing) or his suggestion that Scott possibly planned this earlier even though he even references Wilson's wondering whether he will be "one of the final 4" seems weak. His dismissing the evaporation of fuel (a problem Amundsen had solved) shows more that Scott was an amateur.

Fiennes raises the man hauling factor as both superior and more noble somehow. Man hauling may be better now as Fiennes asserts, with modern sleds, equipment and food etc, but at Scott's time the proof is in the pudding in the heroic age, Amudnsen did a much better job. He was quicker, traveled in all conditions and survived. Fiennes likes stating Scott could do 12 miles a day, yet Amundsen was doing only a similar figure, but he fails to mention how much longer it took Scott while Amundsen chose to do only that number and the rest even though he could have done more. Scott may have died in the freakishly cold weather, but Amundsen with his dogs was already safely on his way home.

Either way the book is essential, but as any book discussing this topic it should not be taken as gospel. Books written after this will help put this part of history into a better perspective now. Scott probably was not Huntfords evil hopeless case, but really was just like the other explorers of his time as a man of guts, determination, leadership but also failures.




Rating:
Summary: A Biography By One Who Knows
Review: I had never of Sir Ranulph Fiennes before I read this book. I knew nothing about him or his exploits as an antarctic traveler. Now, having read this book, I feel that Fiennes is a man I would like to know. I do know that I like his book very much.

What are the things I like about Fiennes? First and foremost, he has written a well-researched, fascinating account of Robert Scott's two expeditions to Antarctica, focusing on the final trip of 1911-12 where Scott reached the South Pole a few weeks after the Norwegian Roald Amundsen and perished on his return journey. Whatever else one wants to say about this book, it lives on Fiennes very engaging prose. For that alone, he has my respect. But there's more.

I am not the kind of man who likes reading books where the main purpose is to tear down historical figures. There is a tendency these days to make sure we have no more heroes in history but this is a trend I deplore. Fiennes makes it very clear that he feels the same. Scott's reputation has been damaged by biographies in recent decades and Fiennes wants to set the record straight. He doesn't do so by making Scott an angel and Shackleton & Amundsen devils, but by presenting Scott as a man who faced challenges most of us cannot even imagine and did the best he could which, usually, was pretty good.

Which leads to another important point: unlike any previous biographer of the recent past, Fiennes knows whereof he speaks. I cannot stand cold weather and dread the approach of the New York winters I have to live through. Fiennes has manually pulled a sled across Antarctica much like Scott did. Fiennes has experienced many of Scott's challenges and understands what it takes to succeed and survive. In my mind, this makes Fiennes' analysis much more valuable than the typical biographer. I trust his judgement.

Before reading this book, Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen were names to me. I knew trivia about them. Now I feel like I know something about who these men were and what was good and bad about what each of them accomplished. They may not be on pedestals but they are heroes. Few of us will likely ever travel to the South Pole but, for a moment, I had the urge to push myself to the limit like Scott and experience what few ever will. I will likely never make it to the Antarctic but the taste of it I gained from this book will stay with me for a long time.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Biography of a Great Man
Review: I have not had the chance to post many reviews at Amazon for some time now but after reading this excellent biography I had to sit straight down and start typing. This new biography on Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes will rank in my top ten books for 2003 (released in Australia last year). I have to confess that I have no in-depth knowledge on artic travel and exploration other than having read a few good books on the subject.

Having said that, out of the books that I have read on the subject this has to be the best so far. In any book I read I always have a look at the background (or pedigree) of the author. In this case Ranulph Fiennes has the personal experience of many years of artic travel & exploration to back up his claims and theories in his account of Captain Scott.

By referring to his own experiences in the same areas and similar circumstances you get a much better idea of what was possible and why and what wasn't possible and why. He also is able to put to rest many of the myths and fairy tales surrounding Scott's South Pole expedition and the fate of himself and his companions.

After finishing this book I really felt I had a much better understanding of what these brave men attempted and why they failed or didn't fail depending on your point of view. As other reviews have indicated, maybe the author tends to lean to Captain Scott's defence too much but then again maybe Captain's Scott's reputation needs to be picked up from the dust of history and given a good polish again, its well deserved.

I would have no hesitation in recommending this book to anyone who wants to know what really happened to Captain Scott. Anyone who enjoys accounts of adventure, of man overcoming adversity or just a decent history book to read, this will suit them down-to-the-ground. I am indebted to the author for passing on his passion for this man, I have learnt a few things and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to read such a well-researched and well-written book, well done to Mr Fiennes!

From the back cover: "The real story of one of the greatest explorers who ever lived by the man described by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's greatest living explorer."


Rating:
Summary: Man-hauler Critiques Man-hauler
Review: This is a frustrating book, where a modern artic manhauling ace is "objectively" debunking the critics of Scott, one of the pioneers of artic man-hauling who died with 2 of his comrades only 11 miles from safety after a 1200 mile round-trip trek to the south pole in 1911-1912. The book is very defensive of Scott, and seems squarely aimed at the revisionist analysis of Roland Huntford, about whom he leaves little doubt what he thinks. While Fiennes goes out of his way to attack Huntford's more sensational claims about the personal lives of the actors, and the allegedly duplicitous methods of gaining access to historical material, he unwittingly time and again reinforces Huntford's main assertion: that Scott was from the start in a race for his life against the elements, starvation, and scurvy and knew it, yet made many decisions that hurt his chances. Fiennes' frequent interludes about his own artic man-hauling experiences, while admirable on their own, are distracting in the flow of the narrative and are unhelpful within the context of which Scott made his decisions. After reading Fiennes' book I certainly have a better feeling for the "pro-Scott" side of the debate, and the antipathy directed at Huntford (a modern substitute for Amundsen?), but I don't have any fuller insight into the tragedy of the events. In some respects Fiennes' book is an updated treatment of the Edwardian issue heroic Scott biography, with his own travelogue interspersed. The book is very readable, but ulimately unsatisfying.