!!! Spoiler Review !!!
It's very hard to write anything about this book without spoilers, because of the huge shift in the story partway through. The Ice Maiden is a complicated book. In trying to write a female perspective on early Antarctic exploration, it's trying to do something incredible and admirable--I applaud the effort, and I love the twist. Unfortunately, the book does not accomplish its lofty goals.
There are so many universes in which I would have loved this book. If I knew nothing of the history of Antarctic exploration and went in blind, I'd have loved it (if this is you, you may well like it, and more power to you! It is historical FICTION, after all.) If the book had been more historically accurate, I'd have loved it. As it is, using real historical figures but writing misunderstandings and inaccuracies, I cannot follow the story without being distracted by my external knowledge.
It's not that I'm unwilling to suspend disbelief for historical fiction--I love the invention of a whaling town on Deception Island in 1842, and I can fully follow putting Karina there and having her stow away on the Terror. Her discovery that she stowed away on the one ship that was southbound was incredibly done, and I was fully invested in her adventure. Aside from an uncomfortable racial stereotype, I liked the first part of the book, set during Ross's Antarctic Expedition (knowing what I do from the second half, however, perhaps my enjoyment here was mostly because I know relatively little about this expedition and the true characters of men like Ross and Hooker!).
I am enamoured with the idea of a vengeful female spirit haunting Antarctica. It fits in so well with the way women are forgotten in history, with the hubris of these imperialistic all-male attempts on the ends of the earth. The way Karina's death and ghosthood is written resonated with me, even as a few of the mechanics of how ghostliness works in this universe felt like the writer was justifying them to herself as she wrote.
Sheridan is a very good writer. Her descriptions of the landscape, her emotional insights, the way she's always checking in with the women who are connected to the men, and the sense of time and space bleeding into each other in the second half of the novel are all well-done--her prose is heartfelt.
The trouble is...she plays fast and loose with the facts and personalities of the "Heroic" Age of Antarctic Exploration. Sometimes she gets it right--the way Karina can never reach Cherry because he is already haunted, in particular, really struck me and gave me pause. But many things, from hard logistical facts (she has motor sledges and mentions of airplanes in 1902), to timeline issues (Scott is already married as of his first expedition in this), to grafting modern ideas onto historical voices (why have Shackleton as such a vocal sledge dog advocate when he later brought ponies on Nimrod?) add up quickly. To be clear, these are not nitpicking: a lot of these decisions and made-up things weaken Sheridan's own thesis. There were plenty of real-life foolish happenings on Discovery that she doesn't need to make them up. In particular, the invention of a dietary experiment run by Wilson on Discovery that resulted in Shackleton getting sick because he was eating a vegetarian diet strikes me as just silly (no such thing happened in reality--why would they knowingly weaken themselves on the ship like this?). The invention also of George Vince a) having a wife and b) cheating on her is bizarre--I get that the point is for Karina to feel vengeful for these women scorned as she has been, but if so, why make up a cheating scandal for Vince (who IRL died unmarried at age 21) and ignore real infidelity (Shackleton)?
I'll step back out of the weeds here. My point is, this book is trying to say something profound about heroism through a feminine lens. This is a really great idea and there is so much material for this in the history of Antarctic exploration. The English WERE incredibly foolish and besotted with and poisoned by imperialism. Scott WAS prone to selfishness, passing harsh judgement, and changing his mind. But in making the planning of the English expeditions even worse than it really was, in writing Scott as almost entirely cruel, Sheridan effectively waters down her own argument by resorting to making things up. If she'd leaned harder into the fiction or harder into the history, I'd have loved this. Alas.
For a better feminist take on the history of Antarctic exploration and the nature of heroism, read Ursula Le Guin's story "Sur".