The foreword by Russell A. Potter really got me hyped for this book and the first chapters were promising, but as the story unraveled, so did the ethos of Martin W. Sandler. Sandler, generally, does a fine job in condensing such an expansive history into a easily comprehensible and compelling story. It does come at a cost however, one that by the end of this book left me without an ounce of credibility for Sandler and compelled me to write a review to forewarn others. History is complicated and not clear cut or simple in any sense, and while truth is often stranger than fiction, it does not always make a "story" in the same ways that fiction allows. Any effective historian knows this and must worship at its altar, no matter how much it sucks. Then go ahead and multiply that tenfold when considering not only the unique case of the Franklin Expedition, but 19th century arctic exploration as a whole. That field is what this book attempts cover in less than 250 pages, but its purpose is just a general overview of it, centered around the story of HMS Resolute.
It is a look at a massive piece of history and it is easily accessible to those who are completely unfamiliar with the subject. However, if you have any genuine interest or regard for the history, I am hesitant to recommend this. Even to those who just want a good yarn, be warned that what you are getting is very much Sandler’s version, and the actual story is far more expansive and convoluted. In following the threads of the "story", at his best, Sandler often trudges right past these more complicated rabbit holes, some that I would consider vital to the story, and at his worst, makes some egregious generalizations, conclusions, misrepresentations, and even outright unverifiable claims.
Even the most verifiable “facts” of history are not so secure and any good historian would recognize and tell you that, and for a history so in entrenched in mystery, it is sad to say that I have seen less generalized/oversimplified assessments made on Wikipedia articles. Sandler assesses the characters of his first hand sources and even secondary sources just fine, but any assessments made by Sandler himself are where his faults lie and which version of events he takes as true, if Sandler was even aware that there were conflicting versions of events that needed to be checked.
For example, certain events described by Sandler were completely different to others I have read:
Pg.176: Sandler presents that Tookoolitoo introduced herself as "Hannah" to Hall. No source or explanation. Pg. 32 of David C. Woodman's Unraveling the Franklin Expedition [included in the bibliography!] states that Hall "renamed" Tookoolitoo and her husband to "Hannah" and "Joe", and sources it to the published version of Hall’s account. Whether which one is more accurate or not, at least Woodman sources his version of events, whereas Sandler constantly makes a lot of assertions with unclear sources or even further explanations. His interpretation of sources is also dubious. He definitely relies on many primary sources and integrates them well throughout, but not for everything and they are absent from a lot of his oversimplified claims and some things I’ve never even heard, or if I have, Sandler's version is often different and presented as so clear cut and definitive, it leaves no room for anything else. Sandler uses the sources to serve the story and never seeks to justify why he believes those sources or finds them to be credible. This is just one such instance I decided to check.
Even those entirely unfamiliar with the history will notice mistakes and inconsistencies within the text. Some of these are certainly not intentional, but there are too many of them for comfort, especially with dates. 1835 on pg. 61 certainly means 1833. 1845 instead of 1855 on pg. 148. Both those instances can only be inferred, but on pg. 248 its rather obvious: "Beginning in 1896, he led five separate expeditions [...] he died 1892."
On pg. 32: For the May 1819 surveying expedition it describes how Barrow chose John Franklin to lead it, despite his lack of skill or experience and also presses the point that: "Moreover, at the age of twenty-three ...". Back on pg. 13: "John Franklin had been born in 1786", making him thirty-two in 1819. Franklin was also a veteran of Trafalgar, which occurred in 1805. All of which Sandler mentions, of course, prior to claiming that Franklin was only 23 in 1819. The beginning of this book includes an over three page long Dramatis Personae of all the most important players in the story. I imagine that if I took the time to, I could identify many other similar mistakes in regards to all of their dates and ages.
Other things I caught from already being familiar with a lot of aspects of the FE: On pg. 138 Captain Crozier and Dr. Peddie are referred to as officers of Erebus instead of Terror. On pg. 82 Rae is referred to as "Alooka", never seen it spelt like that before, but sure. Moreover, Sandler completely omits any mention of the other key players in the story that also got called "Aglooka", which of course is too confusing and convoluted to be included (and maybe it is just me that finds that important). Lieutenant H.T.D. Le Vesconte is shortened to just Thomas Le Vesconte on pg. 189 (why the second first name and not the first first name?)
I failed to catch any in regards to the rescue expeditions that were sent after, which is what I picked this book up for, so it does irk me that I cannot entirely trust the new parts of the history I have learned. Constant simple mistakes like this also make me call into the question the accuracy of just about everything else.
The most egregious and what really turned me against Sandler is when he not only contradicts himself, but gets some very simple things wrong: pgs. 203-204: "The Eothen sailed out of New York on June 19, 1878 [description of crew]. Also aboard were Joe and Hannah”. Tookoolitoo died on December 31. 1876. She never accompanied Schwatka, only her husband did, but I did not need to already know that because on pg. 177 the caption beneath the photo of Joe says that, after her death, Joe served as Shwatka’s interpreter during his 1878 search. Adding to the confusion, on pg. 211 comes from a quote directly from Gilder’s journal: "“the next day Frank, [Hannah], and I went …”". If Sandler is the one who inserted Hannah there, and not another secondary source that then led to Sandler's blunder (which implies that Sandler is not reliable for discerning sources or basic fact checking), I can only assume that an Inuit name was there originally that Sandler mistook or assumed to be Tookoolitoo. A strange confusion to be had as already established, Sandler already knows when Tookoolitoo/Hannah died AND SHE CATEGORICALLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE. Perhaps the captions of the images were written by someone else, perhaps even after the final line edits, so the contradiction could not even be noticed until reading the final book. That case doesn't look good for Sandler either, because instead of just contradicting himself and inserting someone into events that happened after they died, someone else got it right and he didn't! (The caption for the image on pg. 72 lists all men in the image, except for Collins for some reason. So those aren’t the most reliable either!)
Edit: Thanks to the Internet Archive, I found the source! Gilder, William H. Schwatka's search; sledging in the Arctic in quest of the Franklin records. New York, C. Scribners sons, 1881. pg.134: “The next day Frank, Toolooah, and I went with Lieutenant Schwatka to take another look in the vicinity of the cairn, and to see if, with a spy-glass, we could discover any other cairn looking from that hill, but without success.” Toolooah was a dog driver and hunter, one of the Inuit men who accompanied Schwatka and Gilder. Do not even know how Sandler managed that.
Finally, in Chapter 17, pg. 215, it establishes that the Resolute desk was gifted in 1880, then makes mention that two other desks had been made and “one was gratefully presented to Lady Jane Franklin”. Which caught my attention as I recalled that Lady Jane had passed in sometime in 1870s, after confirming that it was 1875 and lacking literally any further explanation from Sandler, I had to turn for the Internet for answers. The Wikipedia article for the Resolute desk had this: “Captain Michael Taylor, a docent at the New Bedford Whaling Museum who focuses his studies on the Grinnell desk, stated in a lecture that "it is believed a fourth may also have been made".[23] Martin W. Sandler notes in his book, Resolute: The Epic Search for the Northwest Passage and John Franklin, and the Discovery of the Queen's Ghost Ship that Lady Jane Franklin, the widow of Sir John Franklin, may have also received a desk.[14]” May have? Well, firstly, she had been dead for five years, and the very existence of the desk is already unconfirmed. HMS Resolute was not even retired until 1879, there is no way a desk was made from its scraps and “presented” to Lady Jane Franklin, if anything, maybe one now elusive desk was made for Sophia Cracroft, her niece, to honor Lady Jane. Three desks were made, Queen Victoria kept one, and only other verifiable desk was given to the widow of Henry Grinnell, perhaps in that same motivation one was also given to Lady Jane’s favorite niece and constant companion. But that is entirely my own speculation that could give Sandler more credit, otherwise it looks like he just pulled it out of his ass or completely misinterpreted an unknown (to me) source. And even if there was an elusive fourth desk, once again, Sandler inserts someone into events that occurred after their death and also does not account for Queen Victoria's desk, now located at Kensington Palace, in his assertion that only two other desks had been made.
I then had to power through the rest of Chapter 17, which is the speculated course of the FE and what went wrong.“It can be assumed” well I don’t believe what you assume anymore, but thanks for spelling that out! At least there he relies and clearly spells out the work done by Woodman and Beattie, so any inaccuracies presented are not entirely Sandler's fault.
Sandler is not a bad writer or storyteller, and to some this may be considered a remarkable feat of condensing a massive narrative, but the errors in even simple facts makes me question if that feat was for the best or not, and because of them by the end I had to pretty much disregard much of what was new information to me because I could no longer trust Sandler as a reliable source. As seen, even his quotes from original sources had the possibility of being misrepresented. Apparently, a new edition of this will be releasing in the near future and hopefully, at the very least, some of the easily edited mistakes are taken care of. Or even: better sourcing. I have no desire to read that to check for any redemptive efforts, but as that edition seeks to update to include the more recent rediscoveries of Terror and Erebus… it may be prudent to fact check, especially as the state of the publishing industry and editors seem increasingly inept or stretched too thin to notice or care about verifying that sort of thing.