The Last Place on Earth

Rating:
Summary: A Groundbreaking Book
Review: "The Last Place On Earth" is a book that I read some time ago, and is a volume I would not willing part with. Roland Huntford brilliantly relates the history of Antarctic exploration through the telling of the lives of Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Amundsen. The book is well written; the kind you are unwilling to put down. For me, he treats his subjects objectively. There are some reviewers who believe him biased against Scott but it is well to remember that Mr. Huntford was granted access to Scott's journal by his son so he was able to read the unvarnished truth about the British expedition, which until then was seen as a glorious failure. The book was a revelation to many people who had considered Scott a hero (I recall the comments of a surprised Alistair Cooke) because much of his rougher spots were glossed over. It is the contrast between the British and Norwegian expeditions that brings home the points of leadership and makes this book groundbreaking in upsetting notions of glory.

I recommend this book for its information about the exploration of the Arctic and Antarctic and the story of the rivalry to be the first to the South Pole.

Rating:
Summary: Take with a pinch of salt
Review: Huntsford's book may be impressive in terms of the amount of material he has assembled, but, as other reviewers have pointed out, there is such an obvious anti-Scott bias that it is sometimes hard to take his analysis at face value. It left me wondering what the motives for his conclusions were: surely the object of historical biography is (as far as possible) a dispassionate presentation of the facts. Huntsford certainly cannot be accused of that. Huntford seems to start from the position that Scott was an incomptent fool, and assembles the evidence to support that view. There can be no doubt that Scott was a flawed leader, but the aims of his expedition were very different from those of Amundsen and so direct comparison of the two expeditions will always be problematic. Scott's expedition was ostensibly scientific; Amundsen wanted purely to reach the south Pole first (after initially claiming to be heading for the Arctic - he waited until Scott was far South before announcing his real intention). Further, the claims of some of your reviewers that Scott refused to use dogs and skis is plain wrong.

Ultimately Huntsford's account is a valuable contribution to the literature surrounding these two contrasting voyages to the Antarctic, but is too single-minded in its pursuit of Scott's reputation. If readers want to know why Scott's men would largely follow him unquestioningly to the ends of the Earth, read Apsley Cherry-Garrard's wonderfully written and moving account of his own travails on Scott's expedition, The Worst Journey In The World. If I had to choose whose opinion to take most seriously regarding Scott - that of Huntsford, or that of a man who spent two years in the Antarctic with Scott, through thick and mostly thin, I have to take Cherry-Garrard's. Read both and make up your own mind.

Rating:
Summary: Should be a classic.
Review: Controversial perhaps, but also an exceptionaly well-researched, page-turner story. The author, Roland Huntford has also written several other biographies, all of which stand at the top of the large heap of related polar-exploration books. This book was renamed from "Scott & Amundsen" after a PBS series was produced, based on this account -- which used the new title. I strongly recommend reading this, and if you believe that the author takes a biased view (against Scott) then you should read on to the many other accounts available.

Rating:
Summary: A book that should feature in every manager's bookshelf !
Review: The beauty of this brilliant book is that it fills you with a sense of wonder, thinking of the dramas life can sometimes compose. As if it wants to show fiction writers how it is done ! Amundsen and Scott's race to the South Pole is one of those cases, in fact one of the greatest dramas of the 20th century. Fortunately, in Roland Huntford it finds the chronicler it deserves. Huntford is not only evidently interested in the story and the characters, but also approaches the facts with Thoukididean objectivity asking all those "Whys" and "Why nots" that had been pending for decades. His research is clearly painstaikingly exhaustive and thorough and deserves praise. But more so does his courage to shed light on all those annoying details pertaining to Scott's fatal shortcomings, in what is without doubt one of the most painful debunkings ever. In Huntford's words Scott is the "necessary hero" and absolute personification of an Empire in decline.
But in its core this book is not about Polar exploration. It is a relentless study on leadership and human nature. It this sense it makes no effort to disguise what was the primary reason for reaching the Poles: ...they were there and nobody else had gone there before ! Managers or aspiring managers will do themselves and their subordinates a great favour by reading this classic account of Dos and Donts of leadership.
But even if you are simply an exploration buff you will not regret reading this book. Around the two main characters all the household names of Polar travelling, Nansen, Ross, Shackleton, Peary, etc., contribute to the twists of the tale. The author does a great job in presenting events vividly and in their historical context and not just as dry logbook accounts. It should be noted that the book includes fairly detailed accounts of all the Polar expeditions before the Race, such as Nansen's Greenland crossing and Arctic expedition, Amundsen's Belgica and Gjoa expeditions and Scott's Discovery Antarctic expedition. This means that if you really want one book covering the whole period, this is the book you need to read !
Nevertheless, I would also suggest Amundsen's "South Pole" and Cherry Garrard's "The worst Journey in the World". However, I would strongly recommend that you read "The Last Place" only after you have read the other two. This way you will better appreciate how all the details come together in the broader context that Huntford offers in his enthralling work.

In short, this is a highly enjoyable and informative book and I certainly recommend it. Money and time well spent ! Full marks to the author !

Rating:
Summary: There are so many reasons to read this book.
Review: In brief, the book is a facinating journey in and of itself. It is incredibly detailed and well researched. The richness of texture of the events and peoples lives surrounding antarctic exploration is nearly overwhelming. The writing is surprisingly fluid, and sustains the flow of the story without losing detail. The actual maps contained in the book were somewhat lacking, and left me wanting a bit more. The story, however, is so well told I could litterally feel myself at the pole itself! The story so absorbed my mind that it filled my dreams night after night.

The Last Place on Earth, the telling of the story of Scott and Amundsen, is both a sharp study in contrast between to styles of leadership, and a compelling drama of the lives of two men who had the eyes of the world upon them. A fantastic read end to end!

Huntford takes some chances at times speculating at the motives of these explorers, as well as some liberty with the thoughts and feelings of the people surrounding the expeditions. The supositions he makes, however, he makes strong arguments for, relying on notations from diaries and letters of key players. With quotes, facts, dates, and some intuition Huntford tells a gripping and convincing tale. I admire Huntford for the way he analyzes the characters: without being manipulative, he gives a forceful accounting of the main players and their motives.

On style I feel Huntford was magnificent. With the telling of history stories can often become dull and slow, bogged down in names, dates, and places. Huntfords account is fluid and dynamic, interweaving the personal stories with the plain logistics an accurate accounting demands.

If there is one caveat I would add, and this is a small one, it is that at times I got the sense that Huntford had more than a little emnity towards Scott. It would be hard not to learn all that was involved in the journey to the South Pole and not feel some contempt for Scott, but Huntford seems to feel it deeper. I actually wondered at times if he had been a person who had idolized Scott for some time, but then felt betrayed when he learned the truth. This does not, however, detract from the story at all.

To me this is as good as reading gets. This is as close as you can get to real life human drama without being there. Not a fantasy, but a powerful reproduction of actual events. A rare opportunity to be touched by the lives of two famous explorers and the men who knew them. A chance to live and die with men who held center stage as the world watched. It really is an opportunity that should not be missed.

Rating:
Summary: Superb. (Don't feel offended if you're english)
Review: Mr. Huntford really makes the grade.

It is hard to find any literature by the English on Amundsen's feats if not only to be used as a dark background to those of their fellowcitizen, Scott. It is very disappointing indeed and were it not for Mr. Huntford's excellent book, one would think anglosaxons simply cannot discuss their own failures.

Is the book biassed? Of course, wherever there is a human being as an author there is subjectivity. Don't make me laugh. The whole thing is to try to stick to healthy criterion and sound information when discussing your subject matter. This Mr. Huntford does extremely well.

And yes, the man has a certain dislike for Scott. Easy to understand: there are lots of anglosaxon books praising Scott's ultimate failure (unless your goal is martyrdom, euthanasia or the like, if you don't finish your journey alive you HAVE failed)
So what? aren't all those other books about Scott often simply sentimental elegies to Scott? and they lack the profoundness of research and open discussion of the facts we can enjoy in this one.

Read "A first rate tragedy" on Scott, by D. Prescott, and you'll see what I mean (on the bad side). On the other hand, read "The noose of laurels" by H. Wally, and you'll have another fine example of thourough presentation of facts and their interpretation.

Amundsen was a real explorer, he succeeded through all of his undertakings, simply because he had a modern approach (professional) to things. All the flaws in Scott's plans would not occur to the most idiotic explorer of our days: i.e. go to the Pole without being able to ski? bring no spare parts for your engine-tractors? Come on, if you heard that on the news tonight you'd think of it as a very bad joke! Scott was a dilettante, and he paid the bitter price.

Scott not even learned form previous experience. At least Shackleton did. The Endurance expedition was a case of bad luck despite good preparation. Terra Nova was a chapuza. Bad luck? Give me a break!

Scott deserves respect, he sure does, but Amundsen deserves not only that, much more than that, he accomplished what many others (not only Scott) were unable to achieve, and not only in the Antartic, also in the Artic. Face reality.

The book is excellent from ALL points of view (good reading too). Only I wish it included more photos and more detailed maps (although it does include enough of both).

Don't be silly, don't waste your time on other books if you want to know about Amundsen and/or Scott.

Rating:
Summary: Amundsen x Scott
Review: Between December 1911 and January 1912, two expeditions reached the South Pole, the last unexplored place on the surface of the planet. Amundsen, the competent norwegian leader, reached the pole and came back to tell his story; Scott, the controversial british leader, reached the pole but could not come back, and died in the middle of the frozen continent. Amundsen's feat is one of the greatest and cleanest of all human history; Scott's tragic outcome became matter of legend.

Human nature and humanity's predilection for heroic (even if useless) accomplishments made Scott widely known, and made Amundsen a bitter old man unitl his death (surprise!: Amundsen's death, years after he reached the pole, was also kind of heroic and widely useless). When Huntford wrote this book (back in the seventies, if I'm not mistaken), Scott was the hero and Amundsen was "that norseman that went to the Pole".

Huntford's is one of the first books to elevate Amundsen to his real and deserved status. Through almost 30 chapters and more than 600 pages, Huntford compares Amundsen and Scott, not only their polar expeditions, but also their background lives in respective countries, past influences, exploration techniques, people they were related to, and much more. From the beginning, using a compelling writing style (academic but never boring or slow) Huntford paints Scott like a buffoon, a pitiable character driven by dreams of glory and power. Maybe Scott was not as bad as Huntford thinks, and maybe Amundsen was not as godlike as well; the reader has to absorb the huge amount of information about the expeditions contained in this book, and decide for himself if he completely believes the biographical information about Scott and Amundsen. Even so, this book is not for readers with a small capacity and willingness for changing his thoughts about Amundsen and Scott. And, no doubt, Scott's admirers will never go past page 100.

This book could be a "Grade:10" if there were photographs of the expeditions included.

To complement Huntford's book I would suggest Cherry-Garrard's "The worst journey in the world", a great account on Scott's side of the exploration. I said "complement" and not "oppose". If you read both books, you'll know what I mean.

Grade 9.3/10

Rating:
Summary: No hero-worship
Review: In the winter of 1911-12, a British naval expedition under the command of Robert Falcon Scott set out to reach the South Pole, but were beaten to it by 5 Norwegians and their dogs.

Roland Huntford's account of this neck-and-neck race through the Antarctic stands out from others in that it gives a complete picture of both British and Norwegian teams, the men leading them, the men following, and the political, nationalistic, scientific, & emotional motives driving both expeditions. This has resulted in a controversial book, because the parallel accounts naturally lead to comparisons, as Huntford explores the question of why the Norwegians succeeded while the British were hampered with delays, shortages, and finally, disaster. He lays the blame at Scott's door, citing evidence of faulty planning & leadership, and comparing it to that of the more experienced Roald Amundsen.

This could be dry stuff for reading, but it isn't. I can open any part of this book and be intstantly drawn into Huntford's narrative--his energetic character sketches, "gentlemen's disagreements", snatches of diaries and letters, diets of the rival camps, scientifically detailed descriptions of the terrain, and all the physical discomfort that comes with sledging for hours in winds of -30 degrees C. It is a scientific rather than heroic account, tracking the teams over glaciers and through nightmarish mazes of crevasses to the accompaniment of sextant and altitude readings.

Scott loyalists will not like this book, as Huntford ruthlessly points up the errors in judgement that led to the death of Scott's party 11 miles short of the main food depot, and shows little reverence for this long-revered British hero. One certainly detects an anti-Scott bias, and in some places I thought Huntford's interpretations of Scott's actions may not have been fair. However, the real damage lies in Scott's own words: "...In future food must be worked so that we do not run so short if the weather fails us. We mustn't get into a hole like this again..."

Told from several viewpoints on both sides, this is so far the most three-dimensional history of the race to the South Pole I've encountered, and the most arresting.

Rating:
Summary: Riveting but blatantly biased
Review: "The Last Place on Earth" (formerly published as "Scott and Amundsen") is Roland Huntford's version of what he calls "the last great voyage of terrestrial discovery" -- the race to be the first person to reach the South Pole in the early 20th century. Huntford weaves a gripping tale of how Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott planned their separate expeditions, laid in supplies, navigated and finally reached the holy grail of 90° South. Amundsen beat Scott to the Pole by a month and returned home to a hero's welcome. Scott and his team, on the other hand, died on the way back from the Pole, and their bodies were discovered months later. It's quite a tale, and Huntford tells it in such a way as to keep the reader engrossed and riveted. Unfortunately, he cannot keep his admiration for Amundsen or his contempt for Scott concealed or even low-key.

In every page, Amundsen is presented as a polar genius, who soaked up knowledge and used it to guarantee (as much as possible) a safe journey to the Pole and back. He develops his own rations and spends endless time fine-tuning his equipment. He uses a pattern of Eskimo clothing to keep warm and dry. He depends on seal meat to ward off scurvy, and brings along far more food and fuel than he actually needs. Generally, he knows exactly what he's doing.

In stark contrast, Scott is depicted as a world-class buffoon, who acheived his station in life through connections rather than talent. Every action he takes is shot through with disaster, from the way he designed his sledges to the rations he took. And let's not even talk about his attempt at going to the Pole with ponies instead of sledge dogs. According to Huntford, he can't do anything right, and he pays for it with his life and the lives of the four men he took to the Pole with him. (His depiction of Scott resulted in Scott's son angrily and publicly disowning the book, once he saw what the author had done to his father's reputation.)

"The Last Place on Earth" is a story of adventure and foolhardiness, life and death in the cold, snowy wastes of Antarctica. The reader, however, is urged to keep the author's bias in mind.

Rating:
Summary: May not incorporate the latest theories about Scott
Review: The 2000 PBS series that featured Scott, "Beyond the Grave", pointed out that Scott was hampered by unusually cold weather, and the plodding nature of his team (which did not use dogs). The unusually cold weather created an anomaly where the ice would not melt under the sled runners, which created friction that slowed down the men fatally. But for this, Scott might have survived. Also interesting in the PBS series is speculation that the last two members of Scott's team, including his physician, stayed with Scott out of loyalty or Hippocratic Oath rather than necessity (there was no blizzard that lasted 10 days). Thus they died heroically but unnecessarily. Finally Scotts' weatherman was within 5% accurate for the average steady-state temperature conditions--and was a pioneer for Antartic weather prediction. He could not of course predict that a fatal temperature inversion would result in abnormally cold weather for a spell. I'm afraid that the book, since it was published before these facts came out, may be a bit too biased against Scott, who, nevertheless was obviously not as good as his Norwegian counterpart, since Scott apparently did not include a large enough factor of safety. Then again, that's what exploration is all about--getting close to the envelope of danger. Nothing succeeds like success.