Rating: 
Summary: THE COLDEST mARCH
Review: A well written book is one that keeps you interested to the last page, but even more than that, is one that makes you think. The Coldest March opened new areas of consideration of the purpose and possibilities of exploring unknown areas in this world. More than who got to the Pole first, but how the missions were prepared and executed, and how much past experience, or even the influence of the individuals' home environments, had to do with the planning thereof, was quite interesting and gave more thought to why some succeed and why some fail. Reading this book motivated me to read many more books about the subject of exploration in the polar regions, and introduced me to a new field of study. Regardless of whether the reader agrees or not with the author's conclusions, the reader must agree that the information given from the vast research Soloman obviously did to bring us the facts and the easy to understand the details goes to make a well written book.
Rating: 
Summary: Not even close to Huntford's book...
Review: As a person who has summered in Antarctica, from Oct '95 to Feb '96, I witnessed how brutal these so called warm months can be. I spent the bulk of my time in the field at remote areas accessed by either SnowCats or Helos. I also got to view Scott's Discovery Hut and the Cape Evan's camp along with all the junk, stripped and mummified seal carcasses, skeletal and mummified dog that still remains on it's leash outside the hut to this day and the stables that housed the ponies that perished before their masters did. Scott looms pretty large down there, and his memory is one of triumph. But after reading Huntford's book "Last PLace on Earth" I am convinced that Scott's attitude towards polar research and discovery was at the root of his demise and that of his men. The Norwegians planned a very long time and put their supplies in caches that were more numerous than Scott's. And yes, the weather in February and March is quite volatile as the austral summer moves into fall, but once again, only poor planning had those men out there in the first place, cold, miserable looking at no way home.
No matter What argument the author brings to bear on Scott's plight due to the weather, his own lack of proper prior planning and British 'stout fellow' doomed him. One has to only look at the stables for those poor ponies to see it. Shackelton had already proven ponies were useless. The gas driven vehicle (which failed miserably too)is another look at how things went.
Rating:
Summary: An intriguing polar mystery story
Review: I am not an avid reader of polar exploration but I found this tale of adventure, exploration and bravery very much like a good detective story. Even though you know from the beginning what the ending will be, the author slowly reveals facts and builds suspense about the outcome of parts of the story. While reading this book in the comfort of my home, I could imagine what it must have been like in that frozen world: spending several hours inching my way into an ice-filled sleeping bag or rescuing my companions when they repeatedly fell into one of the hundreds of crevices in the ice. The controversy about Scott's leadership was fully discussed, with the author showing his flaws as well as his contributions. I had my favorites among Scott's party and was so involved with them that I found myself almost talking to them. I particularly enjoyed the stories about the modern visitor to Antarctica at the beginning of each chapter which revealed how difficult life there can still be. The "visitor" plot lines always tied into some aspect of the story, illustrating some point or raising a question.
There cannot be final proof about the cause of the polar party's deaths but Susan Solomon makes a convincing case that unusually cold weather was a deciding but not the only factor. The author poses an interesting hypothesis at the end of the book about the final factor that prevented the party from reaching the one-ton depot and safety, but I won't spoil it for you.
Most of us will never have the opportunity to go to Antarctica, lead explorations or perform feats of daring. This is the appeal of Scott and his men and why this is such an interesting story.
Rating: 
Summary: Antarctic Trip Gone Bad
Review: I bought this book shortly after I saw a documentary on TV outlining this whole situation. The subject of the book - Robert Falcon Scott's deadly walk to and from the South pole. Along with 4 other men, Scott trudged off in the bitter cold and blinding Antarctic. He made it to the South Pole (900 miles one way) only to realize that he'd been beaten two weeks earlier by fellow thrill-seeker Amundsen. On their return trek, they encountered severe wind, continual snow, and record setting bitter cold. With only 160 miles to go, the group under Scott's command decided to set up camp (and only 11 miles from a camp site with food & fuel). There in the tent the remaining 4 men died... dazed and confused and so frost-bitten they probably were unable to walk. So many details of the trek are well documented... the hot dinners to warm their insides; sleeping with the sleeping bags zipped closed all the way to keep the chilled air out; the stench of inside the sleeping bag from continuous moisture, bad breath and body odor; the moist pants crackling; the utter desire to stay dry; and the slow process of getting the ice out of their boots by placing their bare hands or feet in them to melt it away with the body's warmth. It may always remain a question - why did the other 3 men decide to stay with Scott and die in the tent? Personal opinion - many have said that Scott was a bumbling fool for going when he did... that he should have known the weather patterns. He could have and should have used sled dogs, but was too sympathetic (other men on similar treks used sled dogs for the haul and along the way killed them for their meat... Scott was to sympathetic to do this to the kind animals). How good were the meteorology instruments in 1911? Another issue - how could he have forecasted weeks or months in advance the worst winter cold spell (probably) ever recorded at that particular point in time? I admire Scott's bravery & courage and the men he took with him who stuck with him until their doom. 400+ pages with some great vintage black & white photos. Just knowing it's something men did for the sake of exploration - close to 100 years ago - is just amazing. A long but very good read.
Rating:
Summary: Dr. Tony's Thoughts
Review: I found the book extremely well researched. As a medical doctor I particularly found the scientific focus intruiging. It reads like a Sherlock Holmes mystery, with excerpts from the explorers themselves and Dr. Solomon's analysis of Scott and the crew trials, tribulations and ultimate fate.
From growing up in Northern Minnesota on the icy shores of Lake Superior the book resonated shivers down my spine.
To quote Scott's words "This surely is a god-awful place."
Rating:
Summary: Modern "adventurers" take note
Review: I'm not a researcher in the area of the historical facts behind the ill-fated Scott expedition (though Lawrence Oates was a distant relative). But read this book as an account of the severe conditions Scott, Amundson, Bird, and other turn of the century explorers willingly endured in the name of exploration and glory. Contrast their experiences with modern explorations which seem to be all government sponsored. If an astronout gets so much as a hang nail, the program stops to insure that injury or death is essentially impossible (though the Challenger accident shows us to be a bit more humble: we simply don't know everything). Exporation and adventure is supposed to be dangerous since we are going into the unknown, and we do it purposefully. A bit of the now seemingly forgotten sense of adventure would be welcome for modern explorers.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Meteorological Detective Work
Review: I've always been more interested in Arctic exploration than the Antarctic -- it seems less two-dimensional, and far more colorful in terms of history. But this book really got my attention. Solomon isn't some armchair theorist, she is an Antarctic professional, and an expert on weather conditions there. Taking a close look at what happened to Scott's 1911-12 expedition, and contrasting it with his earlier journey (with Shackleton) plus Shackleton's 1908 attempt, and the rival Amundsen polar bid, she shakes out a lot of rumors, innuendos and plain nonsense about what Scott 'knew' versus what he 'ought to have known.' Scott has always seemed a stiff-upper-lip bumbler to me, and to some extent he was, but what happened is not as simple as it appears. He made some educated guesses, and he also made some mistakes. Using motor sleds was a waste of time, considering the poor engine technology of the time. He allowed someone else to select some unsuitable Manchurian ponies. He didn't trust dogs, based on prior experiences. He didn't pay enough attention to suitable clothing and sleeping bags. But he did set up a workable logistical system for his polar attempt, that should have worked. So what went wrong? The factors above, plus too great a level of fatigue for his team. Poor Bowers ended up walking 400 miles in snow, instead of skiing. They didn't know, as we do, what a menace dehydration at high altitudes would be. Scurvy was poorly understood, and they probably suffered marginally from this, too. And finally, they set out for the Pole a month too late, and got caught in an extremely cold spell that made sledding by manhauling almost impossible. Solomon proves every contention with solid data from the expedition's copious records and from modern survey work. In the end, Scott died -- with Wilson and Bowers keeping him company, in all probability -- because he contracted severe frostbite in -40 degree weather. The idea that he was trapped by a '10 day blizzard' just eleven miles short of a supply depot is disproved by Solomon: the katabatic winds don't blow from the south for more than two or three days, it now seems. This is a well-written, highly documented piece of work, and is not in any sense an attempt to 'whitewash' Scott. Starting late, and hitting some extremely bad weather was all it took to kill him and his four brave companions.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful, Informative Read
Review: Solomon does a superb job of analyzing what went wrong on Scott's ill-fated trip back from the South Pole in 1912. She skillfully interweaves the writings of those on the journey (the diaries of Scott and his companions survived), modern meteorological observations, and the reflections of a fictional present-day visitor to the South Pole to tell one of the great exploration stories ever. The book is packed with facts, but they don't get in the way of the terrific narrative. Solomon is a careful researcher and a skilled writer, a combination that makes this book irresistible.
Rating:
Summary: Still not exonerated
Review: Susan Solomon has tried very hard in this well-written and documented new book to exonerate Captain Robert Falcon Scott, the leader of the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition to the South Pole in 1911-1912. In recent years Scott has been accused of everything from simple incompetence to real stupidity by critics of his leadership and organization, which Solomon, an NOAA scientist with a distinguished career and Antarctic experience, clearly finds unjustified. By extensively researching not only the original documentation - diaries of Scott and his men, the expedition's meteorological records, information from other Antarctic expeditions of the day such as Shackleton's 1908-1909 try for the pole and Amundsen's successful polar bid of 1911-1912 - but also modern meteorological data, now available for some years along the entirety of Scott's route to the pole (now the course for aircraft bound for the Amundsen-Scott Station), she has tried her level best to suggest that abnormally cold weather was the deciding factor in the loss of the five-man polar party. And indeed cold weather must have been a factor. The poor weather conditions not only would have debilitated the men and caused severe frostbite, the friction of cold snow would have made it almost impossible for the men to pull their sledges more than a few miles a day. Indeed Solomon has charted the progress of the polar party, comparing it with the two supporting parties that turned back short of the pole, and her information does demonstrate how badly slowed up Scott and his four companions were. The trouble remains, however, that while poor weather clearly contributed to the loss of Captain Scott and his men, Scott's own mistakes and poor planning were also a factor, and to her great credit Solomon does not conceal them, just as Scott, an undeniably courageous and honest man, did not conceal them in his own writings. Scott's assiduous copying of Shackleton's mistakes in 1908-09 (the use of ponies, reliance on unproven motor transport), his own short cuts (spending time testing his motor sledges but not clothing, tents, or other gear), and his failures in leadership (taking five men instead of the planned four to the pole) were instrumental, I believe, in his failure to survive the trek. One also must question why, after the blizzard that trapped the men in their tent 11 miles from a depot of food and fuel, the two well men, Dr. Wilson and the redoubtable Lt. Bowers, did not leave Scott, who was crippled by frostbite, and go to the depot for supplies or even, in the finale extremity, leave Scott to die and save themselves, something Solomon herself seems to find as mysterious as others who have pondered the question, although she advances a possible explanation. Overall this is a very good book, the first to take into account modern knowledge of Antarctic weather and apply it to Scott's tragic expedition. Although I don't feel that the author has entirely proved her thesis, it is a valuable and useful contribution to the controversy over Captain Scott's expedition.
Rating: 
Summary: Last Place on Earth is better!
Review: Susan Solomon's 400+ pages of closely reasearched and well written material can't disguise Capt. Scott's failings in leadership. He may have possessed a modern scientific outlook in his thinking, but his methodology was so often flawed that his expedition was probably doomed from the start. The PBS companion program "Secrets of the Dead" also does a great diservice to Roald Amundsen, characterizing this professional polar explorer's successful journey to the South Pole as "lucky" and "unplanned." Amundsen's achievement--traversing nearly 2000 miles of unknown territory in the harshest climate on the planet with a mixture of meticulous planning and hearty self-reliance--completely eclipses Scott's slavish & unimaginative repetition of Shackleton's route & methods. Roland Huntford's excellent "The Last Place on Earth" remains the classic study of the Amundsen/Scott polar journeys--don't read Solomon without Huntford.
|
