Customer Reviews

Race To The Pole: Tragedy, Heroism, And Scott's Antartic Quest

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have not had the chance to post many reviews at Amazon for some time now but after reading this excellent biography I had to sit straight down and start typing. This new biography on Captain Scott by Ranulph Fiennes will rank in my top ten books for 2003 (released in Australia last year). I have to confess that I have no in-depth knowledge on artic travel and exploration other than having read a few good books on the subject.

Having said that, out of the books that I have read on the subject this has to be the best so far. In any book I read I always have a look at the background (or pedigree) of the author. In this case Ranulph Fiennes has the personal experience of many years of artic travel & exploration to back up his claims and theories in his account of Captain Scott.

By referring to his own experiences in the same areas and similar circumstances you get a much better idea of what was possible and why and what wasn't possible and why. He also is able to put to rest many of the myths and fairy tales surrounding Scott's South Pole expedition and the fate of himself and his companions.

After finishing this book I really felt I had a much better understanding of what these brave men attempted and why they failed or didn't fail depending on your point of view. As other reviews have indicated, maybe the author tends to lean to Captain Scott's defence too much but then again maybe Captain's Scott's reputation needs to be picked up from the dust of history and given a good polish again, its well deserved.

I would have no hesitation in recommending this book to anyone who wants to know what really happened to Captain Scott. Anyone who enjoys accounts of adventure, of man overcoming adversity or just a decent history book to read, this will suit them down-to-the-ground. I am indebted to the author for passing on his passion for this man, I have learnt a few things and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to read such a well-researched and well-written book, well done to Mr Fiennes!

From the back cover: "The real story of one of the greatest explorers who ever lived by the man described by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's greatest living explorer."

This book is not so much a story of Scott's Antarctic expeditions but a debunking of Roland Huntford's version of Scott. Fienees argues his case best when he directly addresses the Huntford version of history in his final chapter. However the rest of the book has many weaknesses and is less convincing.

Fiennes denies he is biased towards Scott. This is hard to be entirely convinced of as he repeatedly raises Scott up by dragging down Shakleton, other members of the expedition and especially Amundsen. The chapter that describes Scott reaching the pole ends with a vitriolic paragraph out of nowhere on Amundsen and his failure in life after his polar success. Scott is made out to be almost without a flaw. The only flaw is his moodiness which somehow everyone else just seem to laugh away. Scott is just too squeaky clean with a neat excuse for any failing.

Most of the negative material that exists on Scott from Cherry-Gerard or Atkinson is dismissed by Fiennes as being written long after the fact so it becomes questionable and can be dismissed. This can be argued the other way that only then did their loyalties and being honourable not prevent them from saying the truth. Up to the reader to choose.

Much value in this books analysis seems to be based on Fiennes incredible achievements in exploration. His analysis sometimes seems odd, like when he himself says that in manhauling across Antartica he couldn't take a toothbrush due to the extra weight yet he dismisses Scott hauling back 35 pounds of rock as not making much of a difference. There are several instances of these odd statements.

He also seems to excuse or argue favourably for some of Scott's questionable decisions or preparations. The taking of five men to the pole, which is hard to argue as a right decision (Fiennes is unconvincing) or his suggestion that Scott possibly planned this earlier even though he even references Wilson's wondering whether he will be "one of the final 4" seems weak. His dismissing the evaporation of fuel (a problem Amundsen had solved) shows more that Scott was an amateur.

Fiennes raises the man hauling factor as both superior and more noble somehow. Man hauling may be better now as Fiennes asserts, with modern sleds, equipment and food etc, but at Scott's time the proof is in the pudding in the heroic age, Amudnsen did a much better job. He was quicker, traveled in all conditions and survived. Fiennes likes stating Scott could do 12 miles a day, yet Amundsen was doing only a similar figure, but he fails to mention how much longer it took Scott while Amundsen chose to do only that number and the rest even though he could have done more. Scott may have died in the freakishly cold weather, but Amundsen with his dogs was already safely on his way home.

Either way the book is essential, but as any book discussing this topic it should not be taken as gospel. Books written after this will help put this part of history into a better perspective now. Scott probably was not Huntfords evil hopeless case, but really was just like the other explorers of his time as a man of guts, determination, leadership but also failures.

I had never of Sir Ranulph Fiennes before I read this book. I knew nothing about him or his exploits as an antarctic traveler. Now, having read this book, I feel that Fiennes is a man I would like to know. I do know that I like his book very much.

What are the things I like about Fiennes? First and foremost, he has written a well-researched, fascinating account of Robert Scott's two expeditions to Antarctica, focusing on the final trip of 1911-12 where Scott reached the South Pole a few weeks after the Norwegian Roald Amundsen and perished on his return journey. Whatever else one wants to say about this book, it lives on Fiennes very engaging prose. For that alone, he has my respect. But there's more.

I am not the kind of man who likes reading books where the main purpose is to tear down historical figures. There is a tendency these days to make sure we have no more heroes in history but this is a trend I deplore. Fiennes makes it very clear that he feels the same. Scott's reputation has been damaged by biographies in recent decades and Fiennes wants to set the record straight. He doesn't do so by making Scott an angel and Shackleton & Amundsen devils, but by presenting Scott as a man who faced challenges most of us cannot even imagine and did the best he could which, usually, was pretty good.

Which leads to another important point: unlike any previous biographer of the recent past, Fiennes knows whereof he speaks. I cannot stand cold weather and dread the approach of the New York winters I have to live through. Fiennes has manually pulled a sled across Antarctica much like Scott did. Fiennes has experienced many of Scott's challenges and understands what it takes to succeed and survive. In my mind, this makes Fiennes' analysis much more valuable than the typical biographer. I trust his judgement.

Before reading this book, Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen were names to me. I knew trivia about them. Now I feel like I know something about who these men were and what was good and bad about what each of them accomplished. They may not be on pedestals but they are heroes. Few of us will likely ever travel to the South Pole but, for a moment, I had the urge to push myself to the limit like Scott and experience what few ever will. I will likely never make it to the Antarctic but the taste of it I gained from this book will stay with me for a long time.

Having read "Last Place on Earth", this book, and the journals of Scott, Wilson, Bowers, Evans, and Cherry-Garrard, I can safely say that this book carefully cultivates on the most positive aspects of Scott, while hiding almost all of the negative; the little that was mentioned was casually dismissed as no fault of his own.

Fiennes, a seemingly obsessive fan of Scott himself, has gone to great lengths to recreate Scott's manhauling techniques (albeit with modern clothing, gear, and expedition food) in his own transarctic expedition, if only to show that it can be done today. He completely wallpapers over the mistakes in Scott's assessment of dogs, skis, clothing, nutrition, and caloric intake, as well as Scott's poor judgement in setting cairns, preventing fuel loss, staying in tents during moderately bad weather, navigating, and stopping for scientific samples when his time and supplies were running short. This clearly shows this work to be more propaganda than a neutral look at the evidence.

However, Fiennes brings out important background information on Scott not found in print today that proves helpful in better understanding Scott. For that, I bump up my rating to 2 stars.

The truth of the matter dear reader lies well between this book and Huntsford's account of Amundsens' (RA) trek to the South Pole. I grew up the son of a Northern Ontario Bush Pilot who flew all over the north and I lived for years in cold climates hunting, fishing , trapping and working throughout the winter so I am no stranger to cold, ice and snow. I do not in any way presume to know anything about polar travel but a careful study of this book shows it as biased towards Scott as Huntstsford is to R.A. Before reading Race to the Pole (RTTP) i was struck by Huntsfords bias towards Aundsen to the point where it did not ring quite true. Unfortunately Fiennes is just as bad. Both men disparage each others hero which is sad since both had good and bad qualities. RTTP tries to portray Amundsen as racing to the pole while Scott plodded along on a scientific expedition while the title itself call it a race!!. Scott himself admitted it was a race according to Fiennnes.In all honesty we know that's what it was all about.. first country planting the flag wins .Scientific matters were a ploy to appeal to a greater range of funding sources. This book continually portrays RA as the polar expert up against the more inexperienced Scott; while Scott himself had already made a previous unsuccessful attempt. Fiennes attempts to make Scott the hero and RA the scoundrel while dismissing Shackleton as "...the Irishman ..." Shackleton was knighted for his journey to try and place the British flag at the end of the earth yet Fiennes dismisses his valiant attempt in very disparaging terms and show his contempt is his description as if someone from Ireland is less a British subject than Scott.Fiennes makes multiple repeated references to Scott as the man-hauler vs Amundsen the dog driver and tries to make them two completely different treks. The truth is that Scott used a combination of tracked vehicles (which this book says worked better than planned) along with horses for hundreds of miles, coupled with dogs (that went even further than planned ) and lastly man hauled sledges; so let's give up the "Scott walked while Amundsen rode a dog sled " stuff.(And what about that front cover picture of a man sitting at the back of a dog team!!) The honest truth is that RA headed south after the north was won and using dogs alone reached the South pole ahead of Scott and then got back again safely. Amundsen pioneered a completely new route while Scott followed in the footsteps of Shackleton who had pioneered the route earlier and almost made it. Fieness blathers on about Amundsen landing on the unsafe sea ice which in a picture is shown breaking away almost a century later while Scott himself lost a tractor through the ice while unloading at his supposedly safer location and later several of his horses also went through. Amundsen went to great lengths to mark his cairns and depots using black flags to the right and left of each cache for several miles at intervals as small as 1/6th of a mile while Fiennes says where useless since they were a mile apart and ...took too much energy while man-hauling..." This is an example to me of poor inaccurate writing just as much as Huntsford's assertions of Scott's benefactor being a homosexual without adequate proof along with Nansen bedding Scott's wife while he was dying in his tent. The truth is that Scott made a great attempt but failed and if he had returned would have faced great criticism for the loss of lives on his journey. To me he shares the same position as Mallory who is believed to have climbed Everest but died on the return.To this day Everest is still the peak of Tensing/Hillary .Scott and Amundsen on many days made the same miles but Scott took twice the time and energy. Amundsen traveled a set number of miles each day and spent twice the time of Scott; sleeping, eating and resting. Amundsen made his return trip with lots of extra food and fuel and although some time had problems was usually able to find his depots quite easily.Scott as in his previous attempt was continually at the bitter end of his supplies and had a much harder time finding his depots. To me Scott is a hero for what he accomplished given the desperate situation he was in and the weather he encountered but he cannot be elevated while putting Amundsen down or vice-a-versa . Both Fiennes and Huntsford should be read along with Scott's own journals to come close to the truth. Neither author to me really addresses the fuel issue from the critical perspective of it's use for melting snow for water to avoid the effects of dehydration. . Amundsen and his men made their own fuel cans and soldered the caps shut while Scott depended on leather washers under the caps which allowed for evaporation and spillage.The many references to Scotts' sledges capsizing are telling and also indicate where fuel could have been spilled . Sadly spilled fuel also contaminated Scotts food supplies. Fiennes dismisses Amundsen's better system by talking about leaking US Jerry cans and saying it would be dangerous to cut open the soldered lids...but the fact is they worked excellently. For years Coleman gas cans had a solid metal washer under the cap which had to be pried out before using the Coleman fuel. How hard would it have been to carry one undamaged fuel tin and pour the contents of a punctured can into it. Fiennes seem to ignore the fact that they were quite able to use a can opener to access tins of cocoa, and other food stuffs. Fiennes does great analysis of the quality and food which is very illuminating and says Scott had enough fuel for cooking but not for heat since it was not needed. I am very curious how badly the lack of water for Scott and his men affected their return trip or if they were even able to supply their needs.It would be interesting to know if dehydration caused any of their problems. I know that when you are reduced to eating snow your thirst is never really quenched. On the whole both authors present two extremes and to me reading both books gave me great insight into what happened. Along with the journals of Scott and other participants the reader will be even more educated.. Perhaps someday a more balanced book will arrive that is fair to both the winner and the loser.. and the heroes they both are to all of us. thanks.. keep your nose and toes warm and dry !!

Clearly, as has been stated, there is a de-constructive zeal that's been applied to almost all of our traditional heroes for decades, a trend I find deplorable and, I think, based on the most obvious of politically correct motives. At the end Fiennes identifies the national self-loathing and malaise that Britain has allowed itself to slide into, and into which America has been sliding for some time. A society and culture that despises itself can not have the will to defend itself. Fortunately in this case, Fiennes is one of the few on this planet that can speak with authority and from experience on the subject of polar man-hauling and general survival in those regions. Fiennes's de-construction of Huntford and subsequent biographers has changed my mind about Scott, a man about whom I had a most negative opinion since I read Huntford's "Scott & Amundsen" in 1990. Scott has been de-debunked and rehabilitated for me.

After reading Roland Huntford's The Last Place On Earth, it's difficult not to wonder whether any book sympathetic to Robert Falcon Scott is equally biased in the opposite direction. However, the beauty of Ranulph Fiennes' perspective is that he's actually HAD decades of experience in polar exploration and travel, unlike the armchair-critic, Brit-loathing Huntford. Overall, I found this book very informative (if perhaps slightly too critical of Roald Amundsen), especially its emphasis on the freak weather Scott's polar party encountered, en route to Cape Evans from the South Pole, as the primary cause of the disaster that ensued. However, the last chapter is absolutely priceless for its utter dismantling of Huntford and his various excesses and pretenses, and for that reason alone the book is a valuable addition to the history of polar exploration.

This is a frustrating book, where a modern artic manhauling ace is "objectively" debunking the critics of Scott, one of the pioneers of artic man-hauling who died with 2 of his comrades only 11 miles from safety after a 1200 mile round-trip trek to the south pole in 1911-1912. The book is very defensive of Scott, and seems squarely aimed at the revisionist analysis of Roland Huntford, about whom he leaves little doubt what he thinks. While Fiennes goes out of his way to attack Huntford's more sensational claims about the personal lives of the actors, and the allegedly duplicitous methods of gaining access to historical material, he unwittingly time and again reinforces Huntford's main assertion: that Scott was from the start in a race for his life against the elements, starvation, and scurvy and knew it, yet made many decisions that hurt his chances. Fiennes' frequent interludes about his own artic man-hauling experiences, while admirable on their own, are distracting in the flow of the narrative and are unhelpful within the context of which Scott made his decisions. After reading Fiennes' book I certainly have a better feeling for the "pro-Scott" side of the debate, and the antipathy directed at Huntford (a modern substitute for Amundsen?), but I don't have any fuller insight into the tragedy of the events. In some respects Fiennes' book is an updated treatment of the Edwardian issue heroic Scott biography, with his own travelogue interspersed. The book is very readable, but ulimately unsatisfying.

This is an opinionated retelling of the experience of Captain Robert Scott's attempt to be the first to reach the South Pole. Although Mr. Fiennes has great experience as a Polar explorer in his own right, his claim to be the only author in a position to comment on Scott's decisions, does little to prove he is giving us an objective history of the expedition. Fiennes takes every opportunity to make Scott appear to be a selfless and overly self critical hero, interested primarily in scientific discovery, who was loved by all who are worthy, and has the sole claim to the greatest physical achievement in history. He makes Roald Amundsen out as a selfish, unpleasant, and dangerous man with no friends. Although it is an interesting point of view, it will not satisfy readers who are looking for objective history.

This is a great book. Scott and his men are true heroes. Their fortitude in the face of severe privation, relentless bone chilling cold and unimaginable pain and suffering is nothing short of awesome. Like the soldiers mentioned in the book who found inspiration in Scott's story, I too can now tap into an inner strength I didn't know I had. Thank you Sir Fiennes!