Rating: 
Summary: Apologist nonsense. Scott was a fool and paid with his life.
Review: The author identifies too much with the meteorologist in Scott's expedition and it colors everything in the book. The gist of this book is that Scott died because of "bad weather". No doubt that's what finished him off, but it overlooks the inconvenient fact that Amundsen was out in the same weather and didn't just survive, he gained weight on the journey. Yes, Amundsen started earlier than Scott and so avoided the thermal inversion that was probably the cause of the very low temperatures that Scott experienced at the very end. It is possible that Scott could have muddled through if the weather had been -exactly- as planned, but he left essentially zero margin of error and that was the real cause of his disaster. Amundsen started early in the season, not just to beat Scott to the pole, but also because he would not presume on the weather late in the season. I highly recommend Roland Huntford's "Last Place on Earth" for a critical comparison of the methods of Scott and Amundsen. This will let you see the real reason that Scott died in the antarctic.
Rating: 
Summary: Despite bungling, Scott might have made it back alive.
Review: The Coldest March is a well-written and compelling enough book, that I feel bad to suggest it would have made a far better magazine article. Susan Solomon's exhaustive research does indeed convince one that the weather that year was extraordinarily harsh. But the essence of her argument as I saw it, is that despite undeniabley bad decisions and willfull ignorance, Scott probably would still have made it back alive 14 years out of 15. Instead of leaving it at that however, which really is a facinating and original perspective, she tries quite hard to explain or rationalize Scott's decisions, which is usually a stretch, often requiring strategic ommission. She does not try to entirely exonerate the man, and I completely support her desire to avoid the shallow condemnation of Robert F. Scott as an incompetent bumbler, but I found myself again and again cringing at the examples she employed in his favor. The suggestion that the winter expedition of three men to Cape Crozier was a proper scientific experiment to determine nutritional requirements for the polar party is simply absurd. Scott, Amudson and Shackleton were all facinating and complicated figures, sharing as do all great leaders, a mix of strengths and weaknesses that is almost impossible for the rest of us to really understand. They were also products of a unique historical era, social class, and national ideologies. Roland Huntford's book - The Last Place on Earth has done the best job of trying to consider all these factors, but there is definitely an anti-Scott sentiment to it. Actually, after reading a good 8 or 9 books on the subject now, I have been amazed at the "polarization" of opinion and the slant each author places on their telling. Huntford describes Scott as foolishly loosing two dogs down a crevasse. Diane Preston (A First Rate Tragedy) describes the same event as Scott gallantly going down a crevasse to rescue the two dogs! Cherry-Garrard (A member of the expedition and author of The Worst Journey In the World - if you read just one book, read this!) has it most accurate, that Scott did go down to rescue the dogs, and then two died of their injuries. Still, I recommend this book as a vital contribution to the facinating world of polar literature.
Rating:
Summary: Whitewashing of a fallen "hero"
Review: This book is nothing less than a bald-faced attempt to whitewash the bumbling ineptitude of one of the 20th Century's most famous losers - Robert Falcon Scott. To blame Scott's failings on weather requires both an ignorance of the facts and a willing suspension of reality. Any REAL "scientific explorer" would not have placed his life (and worse, the lives of his men) in the hands of something as fickle as meteorology. Amundsen certainly didn't, and he was rewarded with success. Amundsen was the TRUE scientist in the saga of finding the South Pole - next to Amundsen, Scott was nothing but a rank and pompous amateur. To lionize a faulty leader such as Scott is almost criminal. Solomon goes to great lengths to extoll the genius-quality predictive abilities of Simpson, Scott's meteorologist, but then lightly passes over the very fact that Simpson's predictions were WRONG. She also never addresses the issue that meteorology TODAY is still half "black art and magic," and that to expect perfect accuracy in 1910 of a new science like meteorology in an unexplored land like Antarctica (as Scott did) smacks of pure idiocy! This book adds nothing of worth to the literature of polar exploration.
Rating:
Summary: Whitewashing of a fallen "hero"
Review: This book is nothing less than a bald-faced attempt to whitewash the bumbling ineptitude of one of the 20th Century's most famous losers - Robert Falcon Scott. To blame Scott's failings on weather requires both an ignorance of the facts and a willing suspension of reality. Any REAL "scientific explorer" would not have placed his life (and worse, the lives of his men) in the hands of something as fickle as meteorology. Amundsen certainly didn't, and he was rewarded with success. Amundsen was the TRUE scientist in the saga of finding the South Pole - next to Amundsen, Scott was nothing but a rank and pompous amateur. To lionize a faulty leader such as Scott is almost criminal. Solomon goes to great lengths to extoll the genius-quality predictive abilities of Simpson, Scott's meteorologist, but then lightly passes over the very fact that Simpson's predictions were WRONG. She also never addresses the issue that meteorology TODAY is still half "black art and magic," and that to expect perfect accuracy in 1910 of a new science like meteorology in an unexplored land like Antarctica (as Scott did) smacks of pure idiocy! This book adds nothing of worth to the literature of polar exploration.
Rating:
Summary: New Insight Disturbing
Review: This book is very readable and enjoyable, even for those familiar with Scott's story. The reason for the one star deduction is the author's half-hearted defense of Scott. Several of the examples she uses to demonstrate that Scott was not a total idiot actually confirm Scott's deficiencies. Scott's largest flaw was his inability to learn from his previous experience. In his initial foray into Antartica, he took two excursions that found him making it back barely alive. In his trip to the pole, he cut his margin of error too close yet again. The author makes a strong point that Scott had been informed by Simpson of the March temperatures and expected temperature differences further south, yet Scott did not alter his plans to accordingly. What the author may have missed is that the Scott/Amundsen dielectic is one of the dying empire/doing it the British way with human fortitude (ie. stiff upper lip) versus a new country/adjusting to the circumstances as required. Scott was doomed by the paradigm he was working within. Amundsen represented the new paradigm that would eventually replace Scott's paradigm. Scott's failure was a harbinger of the decline of the British Empire. The major contribution of the book is the revelation that Scott in the final days was not held back by the weather. The obvious conclusion, that the author dances around, is that Scott, due to his back frostbite and inability to go on himself, failed to follow in Oates' heroic footsteps and allow Wilson and Bowers the chance to survive. Scott's vanity and lack of courage cost may have cost them their lives. I had a very low opinion of Scott before reading this book. Knowing that Scott lied about the weather and the reason their party was stalled lowers my opinion of him further. Someone interested in polar exploration should begin by reading The Last Place on Earth. When done with that, Solomon's book adds an interesting twist on the story.
Rating: 
Summary: The wrong questions
Review: This book is worth having and reading as a contribution to the pool of information available to the general reader to frame an informed imagining of what it might have been like, what could have happened, how people might have felt in Antarctica with Captain Scott. However, many of the points the author raises in defense of Captain Scott seem to be in answer to the wrong questions. Why were Scott's people wearing fabric clothing? Because fur clothing would have been too hot for manhauling. This is an entirely reasonable answer to the wrong question. The expedition had ponies, dogs, and motor-sledges, and yet the expedition was dressed for man-hauling; and why was that? That underlying decision process may have been a good one, but it is not touched on, leaving us with a good answer to the wrong question. The author's election of a frame-story puts me in mind of that used by Josephine Tey for her wonderful "The Daughter of Time." I enjoyed reading the real-time comparisions but quickly got tired of being preached at, and I find remarks such as "The visitor shakes his head at his own ignorant failure to truly grasp . . . the enormity of the task that Scott and his men faced" (p. 264) to be unnecessarily confrontational. Susan Solomon writes well; I have no doubt that she is very intelligent, highly educated, passionate about her subject, and persuaded that an historical injustice has been committed. This book earns three stars well and truly for the shocking implications of the final chapter, "The Winds of Chance and Choice." Her book sheds interesting light on what was going on during the Scott expedition, and I fully empathize with her desire to right what clearly seems to her to be a grotesque wrong done in the court of public opinion to Captain Scott's memory. She vigorously defends Scott on several issues raised about his decisions and conduct, frequently by shifting the blame to his subordinates -- a tactic distasteful to people with a military background. But her answers are to the wrong questions, and the book provides no grounds for defense of Captain Scott against many of the pertinent questions raised about avoidable errors of judgment contributory to the failure of the Scott polar expedition beyond that of "He made a mistake."
Rating: 
Summary: The Coldest March-High Adventure in Antartica
Review: This is a fascinating tale of high adventure in Antarctica that is well documented with all the scientific facts that a scientist or scholar would demand in a research paper. I chose to read it as a true story of a heroic struggle by a determined group of men who willingly followed Scott out of love and respect, despite terrible hardships. Besides the obvious hardship of the cold, the men also faced death by drowning, starvation, disease and were even threatened by Killer Whales trying to break through the ice to get to the men and the horses. A must read for the real or would be adventurer!
Rating:
Summary: The Coldest March-High Adventure in Antartica
Review: This is a fascinating tale of high adventure in Antarctica that is well documented with all the scientific facts that a scientist or scholar would demand in a research paper. I chose to read it as a true story of a heroic struggle by a determined group of men who willingly followed Scott out of love and respect, despite terrible hardships. Besides the obvious hardship of the cold, the men also faced death by drowning, starvation, disease and were even threatened by Killer Whales trying to break through the ice to get to the men and the horses. A must read for the real or would be adventurer!
Rating:
Summary: Interesting assessment of Scott's Polar journey......
Review: This is a really thoughtful, well-researched assessment of Scott's fatal Polar expedition. It is insightful and gives the reader a clear explanation of many issues that affected the outcome of one of the most interesting expeditions of all times. It is full of information that brings to life what these MEN did almost a hundred years ago. Exploration is on a different level these days. Nothing like it was for Scott's party and those of his era experienced. Brave and daring like nothing we can imagine.I think anyone interested in Polar exploration will be thoroughly satisfied with the subject matter covered in this well written book. It covers survival issues like no other book on the subject I have seen to date.It is a subject that I find fascinating and this book brings out the horrific circumstances that they had to contend with and is a more fair appraisal of Scott's effort to reach the South Pole. Well worth your time and consideration.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent historical adventure book
Review: This is the best book I've read on Scott's ill-fated expedition to the "bottom of the world," the South Pole. Solomon does an excellent job of defending Scott's 1912 expedition but early in the book the reader will wonder who were the audacious judges to to criticize and second guess Scott. He and his crew journeyed 900 miles through snow and ice, with long periods where the average temperatures were minus forties degrees Farenheit. In blizzards and storms, and with the primitive tents and clothing of 1912, where nobody can escape severe frostbite, they propelled themselves through brutal conditions as much for national glory as for scientifc discovery. They were amazing men.
| 
