Customer Reviews

The Last Place on Earth

5 star:		(59)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I recently read "Scott's Last Expedition", the edited version of his diaries from his South Pole expedition. This left me interested but unfulfilled: I wanted to learn more about Amundsen and the context for both expeditions, and to get more analysis of the bald facts as related in Scott's diaries. So I turned to Huntford's "The Last Place on Earth".

I was not disappointed. Huntford narrates the entire lives of both Amundsen and Scott, with edifying discursions on Nansen, Shackleton, and other Polar explorers. Huntford knows Norwegian and thus was able to consult primary sources for Amundsen's expedition directly; he provides many excerpts from the letters and diaries of both British and Norwegian expedition members. He also reveals some of the omissions in the edited version of Scott's diaries.

As a minor quibble, Huntford only rarely gives full dates, so that I found myself frequently having to page back a considerable way to remind myself which year or even which month it was. An appendixed chronology would have been immeasurably helpful.

As other reviewers have noted, the author is highly critical of Scott -- occasionally unfairly so, as when he notes that Scott's first depot journey brought "a ton of supplies not quite to 80 degrees South" where Amundsen's party had "moved three tons another two degrees of latitude closer to the Pole", omitting to mention that Amundsen started about a degree farther south than Scott. But from the evidence Huntford adduces, even without his interpretations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Scott was criminally unprepared, negligent, and generally incompetent. It is not as though he had no information about what he would be facing -- his previous expedition encountered nearly all the same problems, but he seems not to have learned anything from it. Huntford shows how Scott's diaries and their careful editing combine to portray Scott in a much more favorable light than he deserves -- a case of the loser writing the history books.

Huntford also reveals what might charitably be called "traditional" attitudes toward women. For example, speaking of Kathleen Bruce, Scott's future wife, Huntford says, "She was a predatory female; more predatory than usual, that is." Fortunately, since nearly all the principal figures in the book are male, this only surfaces occasionally, as when Huntford describes Amundsen as having "an almost feminine sensitivity for the undertones and cross-currents on which a leader has to play".

Despite its flaws, "The Last Place on Earth" should be among the first books you read on Polar exploration, or true-life adventure in general. Once the race for the Pole was on, I found it as hard to put down as any fictional thriller.

"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.

This book works at several levels. First, it is a thrilling adventure story. Second, it is a wonderful management study in planning, goal setting and organization. Third, it is a classic debunker, undermining the aura (at least in the English speaking world) surrounding Robert Scott and his tragic assault on the South Pole.

Scott and Roald Amundsen engaged in a great struggle to reach "The last place on earth," the South Pole. Each had been to polar regions before, each had become national and even international celebrities due to their trekking. Each was aware of the other party's presence on the Antarctic Continent during the same months of 1911-1912 as they raced to be the first men to stand at the bottom of the world.

Scott and Amundsen were two different breeds. Scott was a helpless romantic. Even after bitter experience and near tragedy in previous expeditions, he refused to learn from Eskimos, Norwegians or others who were battling around the turn of the century to achieve various cold weather firsts (first to the north pole, first to traverse the Northwest Passage -- which went to Amundsen -- first to cross Greenland, etc.) Thus, Scott relied on British pluck and manliness instead of skis, dogs, deer and seal suits and a properly suited diet.

Amundsen was a consummate student on the other hand. He possessed not only the gift of great vision and the ego necessary to pursue it, but also the humility to know that his trip did not have to feature every facet made anew, but should be the culmination of what others had learned when surviving and moving over the planet's most forbidding environment. Thus, Amundsen took dogs to Antarctica, wore clothing he observed the Eskimos using during his journey through the Northwest Passage, relied on skis for human transportation and dieted in a way observed to prevent scurvy.

Amundsen also worked at his project. Starting years before his trek, he organized the people, finances, equipment (much specialty made and field tested in Norway's northern regions) and talked, talked, talked to those whose experiences had something to teach them. Contrast this disciplined approach to organization and logistics with Scott's haphazard throwing together of men, equipment and élan and the outcome of the race is preordained to the reader before it has begun.

(the contrast between the two approaches is such a stark lesson on planning and organization that I suspect this book will show up in business school reading lists if it has not already).

Amundsen's journey to the South Pole was uneventful compared to Scott. Conditions were harsh, temperatures low, blizzards raged, but the Norwegian's party averaged a workman like 15 or so miles a day with dogs, skis and proper provisions. Scott, on the other hand, was not sure of his starting date, did not map out nor account for food consumed during the trip and relied on man-hauling his sleds the 1400 miles round trip to the Poles and his main camp. With the same weather and conditions, Scott and his polar attack team wound up dead after what their diaries reveal was a miserable existence on the Polar Ice Cap (they did reach the Pole, expiring on the way home).

The only area in which Scott excelled over Amundsen was in romantic writing. Scott's published works on his earlier journey to Antarctica are apparently a moving and heroic read. Amundsen was about as workmanlike a writer as he was a captain. For this and other reasons lain out by the author (in his mind much having to do with a decaying empire's need for heroes performing heroic deeds -- even heroic dying) Scott is remembered much the way Pickett's Charge is -- a glorious and manly statement of such heroics that it has made the underlying (and preventable) disaster a footnote to the story.

This is a riveting book that I found hard to put down. Although the author probably takes a few too many turns at whacking Scott when his shortcomings are evident (we get the point), he has succeeded in writing a first rate thrilling adventure, historic debunking and interesting management study.

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.

There are many reasons to read this book. For one, it is very well written. It is equally well-researched, and although it talks about events that happened 90 years ago, every modern explorer or wanna-be explorer should read it. Huntford's book "The last Place on Earth" brilliantly reveals the true story of the race to the South Pole between Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott. In terms of Scott it is a myth-shattering account that tells the time-less story of arrogance, unpreparedness in the face of danger and lack of respect for the forces of nature that ultimately lead to inevitable desaster and failure. And if anybody thinks that this theme is outdated, please read the stories of the recent tragedies on Everest. Huntford analyzes very carefully the fundamentally different approaches that went into the preparation and execution of both expeditions and lead to the so different outcomes: success and safe return for the Norwegians, death and suffering for the British. Huntford finds the roots for Scott's arrogant and at the same time helpless approach in Edwardian society. He also shows us the very different situation that Amundsen was coming from. In spite of the large amount of detail presented, the book reads very, very well, almost like an adventure novel. Huntford has been criticized for his sharp bashing of Scott and his myth, but after reading the details and doing some further research on both expeditions I have to say that it was time that Amundsen got the full respect he deserved and the truth about Scott, the "hero" was told.

To those that felt a hatchet job was done to Robert Falcon Scott by this book, I would have to take issue. Huntford takes a hatchet to the attitudes of Victorian/Edwardian England. He points out that Shackelton (a man Huntford admires) had the self-same faults. Fortunately for Shackelton, he was more of a leader, and certainly cooler under pressure than Scott.

I think Huntford is also reacting to the lionization of Scott. For many years, Scott WAS the discoverer of the South Pole to British schoolchildren. The fact that a Norwegian had gotten there first came as something of a shock to Alistair Cooke (certainly an educated man), who hosted the televised version of The Last Place on Earth on Masterpiece Theatre. As Huntford points out, Scott's wife Kathleen and her friend, Sir James Barrie (of Peter Pan fame) had a significant hand in the editing of his diaries, so as to give the impression that Scott was more of an heroic figure.

And as for man-hauling being a vindicated technique over dogsled; only when you're being re-supplied by airdrop (something Scott didn't have the luxury of). I have to laugh at the modern explorers who compare their radio-monitored, airplane resupplied, superlightweight modern technology treks as being "in the footsteps of" Nansen, or Shackelton, or Amundsen, or even Scott. Those men were harder than iron.

The book smashes through the beautiful language of Scott's diaries, and sees into the dry language of Amundsen's. It is an excellent piece of non-fiction, and an adventure tale, and a great pair of biographies. I highly recommend it.

This is an all points beautiful book, well written, well researched, a distinct pleasure to read for its prose style and its information alike.

While Huntford has been criticized for partizanism -- as if it were possible to be passionately interested in anything, and not develop some degree of bias -- his fair and reasoned description of events presents all the information any reasonable reader might need to identify for themselves instances in which a point of interpretation might be contested.

But it would be a sorry mistake to dismiss this book as a polemic. There is no better source for information on Scott's career, Amundsen's life and exploration, or the polar bids of either man available in English today. Mr. Huntford's research and presentation are remarkable. This is a wonderful book and great fun to read, and you will be the richer for the time you spend with the people who populate its pages. My greatest regret on completing the book was that there were not another five chapters for me to read yet (and fortunately for me there are the author's biographies of Shackleton and Nansen to be had).

Truly one of the cornerstones of the modern literature of Antarctic exploration!

The gripping tale of the 'race' to the South Pole from 1910-1912 is told with a deft hand at narrative by Roland Huntford. It is one of those biographical pieces (It also serves as a bio on Scott and Amundsen) which makes you almost believe that you are there with these men.
In saying this however (And I stress that I am a Shackleton person and don't rate Scott much) I question how exact it is in that there is so much debunking of Scott that Huntford seems to just stop short of accusing him of murder (I am also amazed that Sir Peter Scott did not sue Huntford when the book first came out, it says much about the man)with regards to Oates walking to his death. I do agree that Amundsen was a brilliant tactician at Polar exploration and Scott was an arrogant incompetent, but Amundsen was also a bit of a glory-seeking oppurtunist and Scott did have some decent remarkable talents, telling a good story for one, that would have been best suited in areas other than Polar exploration. If the RGS, Markham, Scott etc.. had a dangerous fault it was that they allowed emotions pervade areas where sentimentality was destructive.

This book is a fascinating combination of detailed analysis of the two men, Scott and Amundsen and the wildly different tactics used to reach the Southernmost point on Earth. Although certain sections of the book drag with perhaps too much in-depth analysis (such as a detailed discussion of Amundsen's housekeeper's influence on his life) it moves along well overall.

The final days of Scott's party are laid out in a plain and factual way, but the terror that must have crept over them when they finally realized that there was no way they could reach their main base alive comes through remarkably well. You begin to feel the deep chill of the Antarctic wind and the crushing disappointment when a food depot is missed.

In contrast, the absolute ease of Amundsen's journey is shocking. His men used dogs to pull their sledges to the pole and then killed the weaker dogs on the return trip to feed the remaining team. Detailed planning for the journey, including learning to live in high latitudes from the experts, the Inuit, led to his success. Their skis carried them upwards of 20 miles per day with ease, despite the harsh environment. The team literally had a holiday while "boxing" the pole with flags during the several days used to confirm their position and ensure their place in history.

The pictures reproduced in the book do a good job of filling in the stark images the text roughs out for the reader. The amount of research required to produce this book is simply overwhelming and it should be considered the definitive text on this last great geographic race.

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.