 Good read
Very detailed account of the race to the South Pole between Robert Falcon Scott and Roald Admunsen. This book will appeal to readers who have a more pragmatic and result oriented outlook on life and not so much to the more romantic and idealistic. Huntford conveys in a brilliant and well researched narrative the fundamental differences between both expeditions: Scott's, driven by the past, the glory of the British Empire, and the British people; and Admunsen's going forward toward the future and a more modern "professional" attitude in exploration and sports in general.
This change in the approach to Polar expedition is paralleled in the mountaineering world.
 Fantastic
An interesting and in-depth book of exactly what they went through to pave the way for those who dream of ploring. The last of the great discoverers. An insightful glance into how tough these men really were. A fantastic read.
Can't Put It Down!
The Last Place On Earth most deservedly earns the many five-star ratings listed on Amazon. Neither an avid reader nor a Antarctic aficionado, I found myself unable to put this book down. Huntford sets out on his own ambitious quest to tell the parallel tales of Scott and Amundsen's race to the pole in 560+ pages crafted to maintain the reader's interest. In this quest, Huntford is the master.
Huntford switches between Amundsen and Scott on a roughly per-chapter basis. A lesser author would render such a work either too choppy or slow enough for the reader to lose track. Huntford's treatment of the expeditions flows nicely, provides all of the detail of interest and none of the superfluous page-filler. "The Last Place On Earth" seems daunting at over 1" thick, but turns out to be a pleasantly brisk read. It was a sad moment to actually finish the book.
Yes, as so many point out, Huntford clearly holds Amundsen in a great light and Scott, well, shall we say "at the other pole". Yet one cannot help but understand this sentiment, as Huntford thoroughly explains and "justifies" this view. Is it unfair to call Amundsen the master, and Scott the bungler when the objective evidence leaves no other conclusion? This bias, though pervasive, does not detract from the book's factual and adventure value.
Amundsen's triumph and Scott's tragedy serve as object lessons in leadership, logistics, and planning. One can learn much from this book and apply it to almost any enterprise. It is only the sharp contrast in the explorers' styles that provides these lessons, and warns of their profoundly different outcomes.
The section about Kathleen Scott's alleged affair could just as well have been left out. I saw no reference notation in the text, and without substantiation, it really doesn't belong especially in light of the book's matter-of-fact tone. This was one of the few instances where Huntford seemed unjustifiably hard on Scott. Although Huntford convinced me that Scott was clueless and brought his fate on himself, Scott's last chapter made me feel truly sorry for him.
Read "The Last Place On Earth". It will pay great dividends for a small investment of your time.
Just excellent. Read it to learn the truth.
This book is so good and so changed the hero worship apologist views of Scott that, all by itself, it spawned a whole set of NEW apologist rebuttals. Some of these books just can't accept the truth, and perhaps the only one that deserves a response is the work by Susan Solomon, a meteorologist, who contends that Scott may have made errors, but was basically the victim of "bad weather".
First, it's entirely unsurprising to expect a certain amount of bad weather at the South Pole(!), but the contention is that that the weather was even worse than what should have been expected. Perhaps, but the uncomfortable truth remains that Amundsen and his crew completed the journey (and gained weight on the return from the Pole), while Scott literally froze and starved.
What accounts for the difference?
Aside from much better technique, in all matters large (dogs vs ponies) and small (food that was less prone to cause scurvy), Amundsen did not presume on the weather. He started early---even a little too early with a false start---and was thus finished with the journey when the cold weather came to finish off Scott.
Is this luck on the part of Amundsen or bad judgement by Scott? Deciding that question is a matter of hindsight, but we can compare the record of the two on other matters. In every case, Amundsen allowed generous, even enormous safety factors (for example, literally abandoning food on the return from the pole, while Scott was starving), while Scott cut everything close. In essence, Scott expected all variables, including the weather, to be arranged for his convenience, while Amundsen took a humble and conservative approach since he was venturing into a total unknown.
Scott followed closely, in fact almost exactly, the route that had been pioneered by Shackelton, who came within 90 miles of the pole. This may have encouraged Scott to believe that he knew more of what to expect than was actually the case. Amundsen, in contrast, was blazing a trail on an unknown route with every step. He was forced to include large safety factors because of this.
Was Scott the martinet depicted in this book? This is probably what has provoked such vehement defenses of Scott, but in the larger picture, it doesn't matter. Scott made numerous errors in technique and finally paid the ultimate price for it. Arrogance, incompetence, bad luck, or all of those? Probably all, with only the proportions subject to debate.
Huntford wrote this book to give proper credit to the man who quietly planned and brilliantly excecuted the expedition that succeeded. Scott may have had "bad weather" or "bad luck" but he also had poor execution of a bad plan and he presumed too much.
Read the book. It's excellent, and you can then judge for yourself.
Unbelievably Good
Stellar story that was painstakenly researched. This is the kind of book that inspires one to take a trip to Antarctica - or read everything available about polar exploration. Nansen, Shakleton, Scott and the mighty Amundsen are not just interesting characters - they are Goliaths of exploration who braved the elements with panache and bravery second to none. Excellent read, try to stay warm while doing it.
|
