Rating: 
Summary: A First Rate Justification
Review: Please read other works of Antarctic exploration before you read this book of fiction promoted as a work of historical research. Read books like Huntford's "The Last Place on Earth", Amundsen's "South Pole", Cherry-Garrard's "The Worst Journey in the World", and from Scott's own diaries "The Diaries of Captain Robert Scott" for reliable information on which to make up your own mind about Scott's expedition. Read these books with a nuanced view, using your critical thinking to come up with your own conclusions. I doubt you will agree with Preston's thesis when you have done so.In my readings, I have identified 31 separate areas in which Scott's methods were inadequate for safe polar travel as compared to his contemporaries (Amundsen, Peary, Cook, Borchgrevink, Nansen, Shackleton, etc.). Could all 31 areas really have been a matter of bad luck, Ms. Preston? I think not. If this is the only book you are reading on Antarctic exploration, don't even bother. While she writes a good story, it is just that - a story.
Rating: 
Summary: A kinder, gentler view of Scott, but a truer one?
Review: This is a brief, very brisk rehearsal of Scott's fateful (and fatal) trek to the South Pole and partway back. If you are interested in this story and pressed for time this book concisely sets out the facts. It is well written and well organized; it is,however,also controversial because it attempts to refurbish Scott's reputation from the drubbing administered by Roland Huntford in "The Last Place on Earth." It is a nice try but it won't wash. Huntford's tome sits atop the tomb of Scott's reputation and is not budged by the light breeze of this sympathetic potrayal. The verdict must stand: Preston kind but false, Huntford mean but true.
Rating: 
Summary: Scott as Tragic Hero
Review: This is a great tale of the fateful journey of Mr. Scott to the South Pole and the disaster that became him on the return journey. Instead of rehashing the story of the book in this review, which other reviewers have already done, it's more interesting to focus on the book itself. I notice that many of those who rate this book poorly seem to do so because the author was too sympathetic to Scott, too hard on Schackelton or Amundsen, or point to other works as superior accounts of this historic tale. I give this work 5 stars for a couple of reasons. First, she develops the inner psyche of each participant, digging into their personalities, explaining what made them tick and how that caused them to make the decisions that they made. Second, it's obvious a well-researched book. The author continually points out inconsistencies between the participants published (and sanitized) works vs. what they said privately in their journals. Third, the story is balanced. I supposed this is a point that other reviewers disagree on, for what one person calls "balanced" another person calls "biased". She points out what they did right and what they did wrong, not dwelling on either point. People who downgrade this book seem to do so because the author didn't berate Scott more for his mistakes and blunders, of which he made many of. However, I'm interested in history, and not finger pointing. Fourth, it's a great story. The reading of this book is easy and interesting, and I recommend it.
| 
