What do you think?
Rate this book
A First Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole
On November 12, 1912, a rescue team trekking across Antarctica's Great Ice Barrier finally found what they sought -- the snow-covered tent of the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott. Inside, they made a grim discovery: Scott's frozen body lay between those of two fellow explorers. They had died just eleven miles from the depot of supplies that might have saved them. The remaining two members of the party were nowhere in sight, but Scott's eloquent diary revealed their nightmarishly similar fate. It is a story that continues to haunt the popular imagination, and which has never been told more grippingly or with greater compassion than in this book.
269 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1997
12 people are currently reading
760 people want to read
About the author
Diana Preston
42 books116 followersBorn and raised in London, Diana Preston studied Modern History at Oxford University, where she first became involved in journalism. After earning her degree, she became a freelance writer of feature and travel articles for national UK newspapers and magazines and has subsequently reviewed books for a number of publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times. She has also been a broadcaster for the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and has been featured in various television documentaries.
Eight years ago, her decision to write "popular" history led her to The Road to Culloden Moor: Bonnie Prince Charlie and the '45 Rebellion (Constable UK, 1995). It was followed by A First Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole (Houghton Mifflin, 1998), The Boxer Rebellion (Walker & Company, 2000), Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy (Walker & Company, 2002) and now, Before The Fallout: From Marie Curie to Hiroshima.
In choosing her topics, Preston looks for stories and events which are both compelling in their own right and also help readers gain a wider understanding of the past. She is fascinated by the human experience-what motivates people to think and act as they do‹and the individual stories that comprise the larger historical picture. Preston spent over two years researching Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy. She did a remarkable amount of original research for the book, and is the first author to make full use of the German archives and newly discovered papers that illuminate both the human tragedy and subsequent plots to cover up what really happened. Preston traveled to all the key locations of the tragedy, experiencing firsthand how cold the water off the Irish coast near Cobh would have been in early May when the Lusitania sank, and how eerie it was to stand inside what remains of the U-20 (now at the Strandingsmuseum in West Jutland, Denmark) where the U-boat captain watched the Lusitania through his periscope and gave the order to fire. Of the many artifacts she reviewed, it was her extensive reading of the diaries and memoirs of survivors that had the biggest impact on her. The experience of looking at photographs and touching the scraps of clothing of both survivors and those who died when the Lusitania sank provided her with chilling pictures: The heartbreaking image of a young girl whose sister's hand slipped away from her was one that kept Preston up at night.
When not writing, Preston is an avid traveler with her husband, Michael. Together, they have sojourned throughout India, Asia, Africa, and Antarctica, and have climbed Mount Kinabalu in Borneo, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, and Mount Roraima in Venezuela. Their adventures have also included gorilla-tracking in Zaire and camping their way across the Namibian desert.
Diana and Michael Preston live in London, England.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
June 14, 2024
“It is a bleak spot – what a place to strive so hard to reach…”
- Henry “Birdie” Bowers, member of Scott’s Polar Expedition, in a letter to his mother.
“Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale…”
- Robert Falcon Scott, “Message to the Public,” written shortly before his death.
“It is important to strip away the improving tales that accrete to heroes and to reveal the true characters underneath. However, to believe that [Robert Falcon] Scott and his companions achieved something heroic is not to imply that they were perfect. Heroes are not required to be. Scott undoubtedly made mistakes. He could be difficult, impatient, and short-tempered. He suffered crises of confidence and periods of abstraction but that does not detract from his stature. In the same way, the story of the South Pole expedition of 1910 continues to fascinate and inspire but it is not without light and shade. It is a tale of perseverance and unquenchable spirit in the face of terrible odds, but it is also a story of stubbornness, sentimentality and of men who were deeper and more complex than we sometimes acknowledge. Heroes, but humans too…”
- Diana Preston, A First Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole
Robert Scott’s doomed mission to the South Pole in 1912 ranks among the great mishaps in the annals of British exploration. And – it should be noted – that mishaps in British exploration is its own sub-genre of history. Take, for instance, the 1845 Franklin Expedition, that vanished in the Arctic while searching for the Northwest Passage. Or George Leigh Mallory’s failed attempt to climb Mount Everest in 1924.
Unlike those two examples, however, the death of Scott and four other companions – who reached the Pole but could not make it back to safety – is not an enduring mystery. To be sure, there are unanswered questions. But unlike Sir John or Mallory, who disappeared into the void, Scott and his men left a written record of their demise, in the form of diaries and letters. Indeed, Scott seemed to have been writing up until he died in his tent, weakened by starvation and exposure.
So, with Scott, the question is not what happened, since we have a pretty good idea from the expedition diaries, but why? The answer, generally, is that Scott was an amateur. The man who beat him to the Pole, the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, made use of dogs and skis, and completed his journey with relative ease (emphasis on “relative”). On the other hand, Scott relied on man-hauling; did not stress skiing proficiency; and wasted time experimenting with ponies and motor sledges. Thus, the verdict of history has been that Scott, for all his guts, is much to blame for killing himself and his companions.
Diana Preston’s A First Rate Tragedy does not necessarily disagree with the apportionment of Scott’s guilt, but she certainly does her best to rescue his character, or at least make you sympathize with his choices.
***
A First Rate Tragedy is a brisk and compact book. It begins with a streamlined biography of Scott, including a chapter on the wooing of his fascinating wife, Kathleen. Preston also includes Scott’s initial Antarctic expedition (the one where he didn’t perish tragically), as well as the fundraising efforts and planning (such as it was) for the second trip (the one that ended poorly). Things proceed chronologically, a sturdy structure eminently suited to exploratastrophes, with the tension rising as the mistakes accumulate, the food runs low, and strength starts to wane.
***
Preston is a meticulous historian and a good writer. Her book on the Lusitania (Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy) was admirably thorough in the way it attempted to track down every last thread. Here, she demonstrates incisiveness and wit in describing the major players, not just Scott and his wife, but the members of the fatal journey, including Dr. Edward Wilson, “optimistic and approachable,” a man of deep religious faith, and L.E.G. “Titus” Oates, the reserved, upper-class horseman and soldier. I appreciated Preston’s willingness to attempt characterizations of these men. She takes the facts known about them, including their copious writings, and uses that to – for lack of a better word – interpret them. The characters of Robert Scott, Edward Wilson, Titus Oates, and the rest, would play a huge role in the challenges they faced, and how they responded.
***
Unsurprisingly, the highlight of A First Rate Tragedy is Preston’s recounting of Scott’s second and last Polar foray. The material is good enough, dramatic enough, to stand on its own, and Preston does well to stitch the men’s own words into the narrative, jumping in now and then to amplify, explain, or theorize. As catastrophes go, this one was particularly slow-moving. Scott’s mission succeeded, to an extent. They did reach the South Pole, dragging their sledges behind them, only to find they had been beaten by Amundsen. As Preston writes, this must have deflated their morale for the home stretch. On their way back, their food ran low; their fuel for the stoves ran lower; they battled injuries and frostbite; and they made some curious decisions, such as a diversion in which they collected a bunch of rocks and put them on the already-heavy sleds. Their last resting place was approximately eleven miles from a supply cache that might have at least prolonged their lives. It is a grueling tale, one that makes you grateful for a comfy chair, a warm blanket, and a fortified drink.
***
Typically, I try not to perseverate on other reviews. Literary reactions are subjected, and to each their own. Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that A First Rate Tragedy has been sharply criticized. The chief allegation is that Preston is hopelessly biased in Scott’s favor, to the denigration of his vanquisher Amundsen.
For the most part, I love a good historical argument – meet me at the bar, buy me a drink, and we’ll discuss the apportionment of blame in the First World War for hours – but I don’t have a lot of skin in this game. Undoubtedly, Preston attempts to defend many of Scott’s decisions, but she does not do so stridently. Indeed, I think compassionate is the best word to describe Preston’s portrayal. She is acutely aware of Scott’s humanness, of his flaws, and how those flaws intertwine with own destruction. Only in the last chapter, devoted entirely to excavating Scott’s expedition, does she even approach an apologia. She never denigrates Roald Amundsen, and her description of his achievement as a “Viking raid” simply echoes the contemporary view. For the most part, Amundsen doesn’t play a huge role, for the obvious reason that it’s not Preston’s chosen topic. This is about Scott, and at 234 pages of text, she is isn’t interested in making this a comprehensive epic of the conquering of Antarctica.
***
A disaster like this has to be catalogued as a “first-world tragedy,” like when your yacht sinks, after colliding with your other yacht. There are people dying of malnutrition every single day, who go unsung; Scott and his companions traveled thousands of miles out of their way to do the same thing, and they are immortalized. Yet, the drive to explore, to go to the hard corners of earth, not because it has monetary value, but because it is a challenge – because “it’s there,” as Mallory quipped – says many deep things about humanity. Important things, I believe.
***
The lasting image for me is Scott, starving to death in his tent, his companions by his side, continuing to write. At some time, we all face the end. Scott knew his was coming, and yet he had the presence, the grace, to pen some remarkable sentiments. Say what you will about Scott. Say he did not know what he was doing. Say that he lost the race to the South Pole. Say that he made mistake after mistake. You cannot say he did not die well, if such a thing exists.
Reflecting on the last view of Mallory and Irvine disappearing up the slope of Everest in 1924, one of the expedition members wrote: “[I]t was quite easy to realize that the price of life is death.” Mallory never got to leave us his final thoughts, written down for posterity. Scott did. And in his final moments, he tried to do a lot. He eulogized his companions. He briefed his defense. He wrote of love, and what he would miss. He wrote his wife.
“What lots and lots I could tell you of this journey. How much better has it been than lounging in too great a comfort at home. What tales you would have for the boy. But what a price to pay.”
- Henry “Birdie” Bowers, member of Scott’s Polar Expedition, in a letter to his mother.
“Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale…”
- Robert Falcon Scott, “Message to the Public,” written shortly before his death.
“It is important to strip away the improving tales that accrete to heroes and to reveal the true characters underneath. However, to believe that [Robert Falcon] Scott and his companions achieved something heroic is not to imply that they were perfect. Heroes are not required to be. Scott undoubtedly made mistakes. He could be difficult, impatient, and short-tempered. He suffered crises of confidence and periods of abstraction but that does not detract from his stature. In the same way, the story of the South Pole expedition of 1910 continues to fascinate and inspire but it is not without light and shade. It is a tale of perseverance and unquenchable spirit in the face of terrible odds, but it is also a story of stubbornness, sentimentality and of men who were deeper and more complex than we sometimes acknowledge. Heroes, but humans too…”
- Diana Preston, A First Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole
Robert Scott’s doomed mission to the South Pole in 1912 ranks among the great mishaps in the annals of British exploration. And – it should be noted – that mishaps in British exploration is its own sub-genre of history. Take, for instance, the 1845 Franklin Expedition, that vanished in the Arctic while searching for the Northwest Passage. Or George Leigh Mallory’s failed attempt to climb Mount Everest in 1924.
Unlike those two examples, however, the death of Scott and four other companions – who reached the Pole but could not make it back to safety – is not an enduring mystery. To be sure, there are unanswered questions. But unlike Sir John or Mallory, who disappeared into the void, Scott and his men left a written record of their demise, in the form of diaries and letters. Indeed, Scott seemed to have been writing up until he died in his tent, weakened by starvation and exposure.
So, with Scott, the question is not what happened, since we have a pretty good idea from the expedition diaries, but why? The answer, generally, is that Scott was an amateur. The man who beat him to the Pole, the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, made use of dogs and skis, and completed his journey with relative ease (emphasis on “relative”). On the other hand, Scott relied on man-hauling; did not stress skiing proficiency; and wasted time experimenting with ponies and motor sledges. Thus, the verdict of history has been that Scott, for all his guts, is much to blame for killing himself and his companions.
Diana Preston’s A First Rate Tragedy does not necessarily disagree with the apportionment of Scott’s guilt, but she certainly does her best to rescue his character, or at least make you sympathize with his choices.
***
A First Rate Tragedy is a brisk and compact book. It begins with a streamlined biography of Scott, including a chapter on the wooing of his fascinating wife, Kathleen. Preston also includes Scott’s initial Antarctic expedition (the one where he didn’t perish tragically), as well as the fundraising efforts and planning (such as it was) for the second trip (the one that ended poorly). Things proceed chronologically, a sturdy structure eminently suited to exploratastrophes, with the tension rising as the mistakes accumulate, the food runs low, and strength starts to wane.
***
Preston is a meticulous historian and a good writer. Her book on the Lusitania (Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy) was admirably thorough in the way it attempted to track down every last thread. Here, she demonstrates incisiveness and wit in describing the major players, not just Scott and his wife, but the members of the fatal journey, including Dr. Edward Wilson, “optimistic and approachable,” a man of deep religious faith, and L.E.G. “Titus” Oates, the reserved, upper-class horseman and soldier. I appreciated Preston’s willingness to attempt characterizations of these men. She takes the facts known about them, including their copious writings, and uses that to – for lack of a better word – interpret them. The characters of Robert Scott, Edward Wilson, Titus Oates, and the rest, would play a huge role in the challenges they faced, and how they responded.
***
Unsurprisingly, the highlight of A First Rate Tragedy is Preston’s recounting of Scott’s second and last Polar foray. The material is good enough, dramatic enough, to stand on its own, and Preston does well to stitch the men’s own words into the narrative, jumping in now and then to amplify, explain, or theorize. As catastrophes go, this one was particularly slow-moving. Scott’s mission succeeded, to an extent. They did reach the South Pole, dragging their sledges behind them, only to find they had been beaten by Amundsen. As Preston writes, this must have deflated their morale for the home stretch. On their way back, their food ran low; their fuel for the stoves ran lower; they battled injuries and frostbite; and they made some curious decisions, such as a diversion in which they collected a bunch of rocks and put them on the already-heavy sleds. Their last resting place was approximately eleven miles from a supply cache that might have at least prolonged their lives. It is a grueling tale, one that makes you grateful for a comfy chair, a warm blanket, and a fortified drink.
***
Typically, I try not to perseverate on other reviews. Literary reactions are subjected, and to each their own. Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that A First Rate Tragedy has been sharply criticized. The chief allegation is that Preston is hopelessly biased in Scott’s favor, to the denigration of his vanquisher Amundsen.
For the most part, I love a good historical argument – meet me at the bar, buy me a drink, and we’ll discuss the apportionment of blame in the First World War for hours – but I don’t have a lot of skin in this game. Undoubtedly, Preston attempts to defend many of Scott’s decisions, but she does not do so stridently. Indeed, I think compassionate is the best word to describe Preston’s portrayal. She is acutely aware of Scott’s humanness, of his flaws, and how those flaws intertwine with own destruction. Only in the last chapter, devoted entirely to excavating Scott’s expedition, does she even approach an apologia. She never denigrates Roald Amundsen, and her description of his achievement as a “Viking raid” simply echoes the contemporary view. For the most part, Amundsen doesn’t play a huge role, for the obvious reason that it’s not Preston’s chosen topic. This is about Scott, and at 234 pages of text, she is isn’t interested in making this a comprehensive epic of the conquering of Antarctica.
***
A disaster like this has to be catalogued as a “first-world tragedy,” like when your yacht sinks, after colliding with your other yacht. There are people dying of malnutrition every single day, who go unsung; Scott and his companions traveled thousands of miles out of their way to do the same thing, and they are immortalized. Yet, the drive to explore, to go to the hard corners of earth, not because it has monetary value, but because it is a challenge – because “it’s there,” as Mallory quipped – says many deep things about humanity. Important things, I believe.
***
The lasting image for me is Scott, starving to death in his tent, his companions by his side, continuing to write. At some time, we all face the end. Scott knew his was coming, and yet he had the presence, the grace, to pen some remarkable sentiments. Say what you will about Scott. Say he did not know what he was doing. Say that he lost the race to the South Pole. Say that he made mistake after mistake. You cannot say he did not die well, if such a thing exists.
Reflecting on the last view of Mallory and Irvine disappearing up the slope of Everest in 1924, one of the expedition members wrote: “[I]t was quite easy to realize that the price of life is death.” Mallory never got to leave us his final thoughts, written down for posterity. Scott did. And in his final moments, he tried to do a lot. He eulogized his companions. He briefed his defense. He wrote of love, and what he would miss. He wrote his wife.
“What lots and lots I could tell you of this journey. How much better has it been than lounging in too great a comfort at home. What tales you would have for the boy. But what a price to pay.”
December 5, 2017
I read The Terror first which lead to no! I take that back, first was The Birthday Boys which was about Scott's failed last trip, but was a novelization of the event so I didn't understand some of the references. Then I read The Terror which is a SCARY novel written about Franklin's failed expedition to the North Pole. Now we come to First Rate Tragedy in which Ms. Preston lays out the voyage and overland trip to the South Pole and then dissects why things went so wrong. I found this book very thorough and thoughtful and fair. The Birthday Boys tended to blame Scott. I believe he was a great man, but flawed. He was not a good judge of men and he was an autocrat. He did not buy enough food, and using ponies for carrying, instead of dogs was completely wrongheaded. But Scott believed in something larger than himself, greater than life. He was one of the dreamers and he has instilled this trait in others who have been inspired by him.
January 27, 2013
Although the author seems to be trying to portray Scott in an heroic light, it seems to me that Scott royally screwed up and that his legacy as a hero in Britain rests on the fact that he died trying to accomplish his goal and was beaten by a foreigner--a kind of negative heroism. He was unprepared, made some ridiculous choices, wouldn’t admit mistakes and was just generally stubborn, all of which led to his and four of his teams deaths. Where’s the heroism? An interesting history, but hardly an effective defense of Scott.
May 27, 2022
Based on reading this book and perusing other professional and layperson reviews of her other books, Preston seems to enjoy history quite wholeheartedly. Yay for that! Still, I prefer my history fact-heavy and unvarnished with opinions, suppositions, emotional asides, concerns about reputations, maybes, and mostly apologetics, of which this book has altogether too many. Preston writes well enough, but sends too much time enhancing her telling with opinion-based commentary about Scott, his men, and others involved directly or peripherally, and she covers too much polar history too broadly and with a heavy hand of pro-British sentiment. Another reviewer commented this is written as less a rigorous analysis of Scott’s tragedy and failure, and more akin to a compassionate rendering of the man - and Man as archetype, full of failings and virtues alike, but always striving - but ultimately leaving Scott a hero due to his character and some ill-defined British love of the understated and their unique brand of the “sweet lemon”. In a truly ironic twist, Scott rose to legendary status due to his failure to survive augmented by his literary skill in penning his and his men’s final days, hours, and minutes for posterity. Preston's near-assurance that Scott died last seems hopeful at best, an unprovable myth-supporting guess at worst. Amundsen was made the “foreign cheat” and derided for being “unsporting”, “trying too hard”, or being "willfully deceptive". As it Scott would have beaten a better prepared Amundsen if only he had known sooner? Rather ex post facto reasoning. Or, having lost, claiming the victory was in the man-hauling and effort expended. Ah, those Brits! Stiff upper lip and delusions of superiority die hard and slow. Still, the book isn’t trying to provide a wide-angled view of the Race to the Pole, simply Scott’s share of the lens, as clouded and biased as that view is. And while it chronicles Scott's efforts, I found the tenor of the narrative much too mythical, fantastical almost, nearly a paean to the Heroic History of Britain and the British Explorer, or something similarly titled. Maybe "A Defense of the British Way of Exploration", which lent more credence to one’s upbringing, connections, and willingness to follow social-political hierarchies than any true evaluation of a man’s skills, leadership qualities, or willingness to learn. That is not to diminish Scott, who was a great man for the polar expeditions, though his need for esteem and lack of adaptability to new and better trends for polar treks (the insistence on man-hauling instead of utilizing dogs, for one…) likely cost him and his men their lives unnecessarily. To blame the weather or other men for not saving him seems misdirected (and whittles away at Scott's supposed leadership and acumen at selecting a crew) and untrue (Amundsen succeeded, and all his men lived, using better tactics in the same wilderness of ice). As Amundsen said, paraphrased, success is tied to luck, while failure to bad luck. A view he did not share. Fortune favors no one, as fortune is a word, there is no force so named that rewards anyone for anything. Yet Preston's assessment left me unsurprised as we seem to have entered a time where blame and responsibility for failure are ignored or not allowed. Failure just happens now, or it is the fault of others or due to multiple causes we are unwilling to suss out, though strangely people have no qualms about claiming their successes as of their own doing. Anyway. I think Preston “apologizes” for Scott and his obvious mistakes, in memoriam, and it rings rather false for me based on what is known through Scott's own cataloguing of his trek. Still, that is merely my opinion of Scott and how his image has changed as times change and attitudes about heroism and the like get redefined, and maybe rightfully so. Still, there is a difference between a recoloring and a blotting out. Scott was a great explorer and complex man who lived a grand life filled with adventures few could ever imagine, and yet still died needlessly due to his own failings, no more. Preston spends much time wandering around this point, making it seem like the legend of Scott was already written before the inevitable national sacrifice was even made. Overall, a well-written book that reads more like a mythology than a history, so if you tend toward drama taking precedence over truth and fact, this might be more to your liking than it was for me.
February 14, 2008
Robert Falcon Scott was an arrogant imbecile, but I still wish he'd beaten Admundsen to the pole.
For those who don't know the story: spoiler alert:
Scott prepares badly and arrives late, finding the Norwegian flag already flying at the world's southernmost point. He turns around dejected and exhausted, makes a series of godawful decisions, and freezes to death among his men just a few short miles from the next supply depot. "Raise the children to believe in God," the devoted atheist wrote to his wife in his final dispatch, found beside his frozen corpse. "For I have seen what a comfort it is to the men."
I mean geez. If that doesn't get to you.
This is very well written.
For those who don't know the story: spoiler alert:
Scott prepares badly and arrives late, finding the Norwegian flag already flying at the world's southernmost point. He turns around dejected and exhausted, makes a series of godawful decisions, and freezes to death among his men just a few short miles from the next supply depot. "Raise the children to believe in God," the devoted atheist wrote to his wife in his final dispatch, found beside his frozen corpse. "For I have seen what a comfort it is to the men."
I mean geez. If that doesn't get to you.
This is very well written.
April 14, 2024
do you ever think about scott, wilson and bower's bodies left forever frozen and unchanging where they lied down to die
June 19, 2025
An exasperating read. So much so that I need a pause before writing a review.
It's quite as partisan as Huntford but also written with frustration-inducing circumlocutions at every point.
Update: here comes the review.
So I have read Amundsen's account of his expedition and The Last Place on Earth by Roland Huntford. Admittedly I haven't done Scott's diaries, and am no longer certain I should. In any case, Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage or South: The Story of Shackleton's Last Expedition 1914-1917 would probably come first.
And, out of all the books I mention, this one had the least substance, the most hypotheticals, and the vaguest inconsequential asides. Why do I need to know what Kathleen Scott said of Winston Churchill? What has it to do with a brief history of Scott's exploration?
Probably a direct reaction to Huntford, Preston's book makes a great effort to justify and idealize Captain Scott at the expense of everyone else. She quotes letters or diaries his colleagues and team members wrote, and then either takes them to prove Scott's good qualities or, when bad qualities come to light, explains how they are obviously mistaken, frustrated at the time of writing, or even maliciously lying. Some people are quoted on both sides of Scott's character, and their words get different treatment depending on that - when they praise, it's clever and true, go no further; but when they criticize, well, it's wrong and impossible, let's weave a good circumlocutious story about why.
Preston makes much of every bad thing that could possibly be attributed to outside circumstances. But even she can't obscure bad preparation, bad planning, failure to learn even from his own mistakes - forget the mistakes of others. Fuel seepage, for goodness' sake.
She does sort of address the British cultural things like the glorification of failure, the whole gentlemen vs. players class issue, and the naval view of discipline. Those have all influenced the outcome.
The one thing Huntford raises and Preston is dead silent on is the willingness to accept foreign expertise. Huntford makes much of Amundsen's adoption of Inuit techniques of surviving in the extreme polar climate: clothing, building, and most importantly, managing the dogs. Scott, and other British commanders, despised "the native ways" with the true white man's shortsightedness. Okay, they were probably just raised like that. But I feel that an author writing in 1997 could have brought herself to address this.
It's quite as partisan as Huntford but also written with frustration-inducing circumlocutions at every point.
Update: here comes the review.
So I have read Amundsen's account of his expedition and The Last Place on Earth by Roland Huntford. Admittedly I haven't done Scott's diaries, and am no longer certain I should. In any case, Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage or South: The Story of Shackleton's Last Expedition 1914-1917 would probably come first.
And, out of all the books I mention, this one had the least substance, the most hypotheticals, and the vaguest inconsequential asides. Why do I need to know what Kathleen Scott said of Winston Churchill? What has it to do with a brief history of Scott's exploration?
Probably a direct reaction to Huntford, Preston's book makes a great effort to justify and idealize Captain Scott at the expense of everyone else. She quotes letters or diaries his colleagues and team members wrote, and then either takes them to prove Scott's good qualities or, when bad qualities come to light, explains how they are obviously mistaken, frustrated at the time of writing, or even maliciously lying. Some people are quoted on both sides of Scott's character, and their words get different treatment depending on that - when they praise, it's clever and true, go no further; but when they criticize, well, it's wrong and impossible, let's weave a good circumlocutious story about why.
Preston makes much of every bad thing that could possibly be attributed to outside circumstances. But even she can't obscure bad preparation, bad planning, failure to learn even from his own mistakes - forget the mistakes of others. Fuel seepage, for goodness' sake.
She does sort of address the British cultural things like the glorification of failure, the whole gentlemen vs. players class issue, and the naval view of discipline. Those have all influenced the outcome.
The one thing Huntford raises and Preston is dead silent on is the willingness to accept foreign expertise. Huntford makes much of Amundsen's adoption of Inuit techniques of surviving in the extreme polar climate: clothing, building, and most importantly, managing the dogs. Scott, and other British commanders, despised "the native ways" with the true white man's shortsightedness. Okay, they were probably just raised like that. But I feel that an author writing in 1997 could have brought herself to address this.
June 15, 2017
I've read lots of books on the subject of my beloved Captain Scott, but I'm not certain if I've read any that so cautiously examined the Edwardian sensibilities of the time period. The main goal of this book is to counter at least some of the negativity thrown so violently at the captain during the '70s and '80s (started by Huntford?), viewing the expedition through its proper and fair historical lens. It doesn't shy away from the fact that the men weren't angels. They were of an entirely different age. Trying to ascribe modern sensibilities and hindsight to their tragedy and mistakes is so easy, but distracts from reality.
As any book on the topic does, the last chapter tries to understand why it happened, and why it happened so terribly. Which it does in acceptable amounts, although other authors have tackled the whys and whynots with more clarity and direction, picking a single aspect to focus on rather than trying to cover so many topics in one go. It does get a bit scattery. It also tries to address just about every myth ascribed to Scott (such as, he forced Oates out of the tent or he forced Birdie and Wilson to stay with him at the end, yeah, right, where are you guys getting these wild and wacky assumptions). It can be a lot to deal with in a brief period of space.
The book is at its very best when it tries to paint a "penportrait" of Scott as a human, with all his flaws addressed. Admittedly, not addressed fully. You can tell very well which side of the debate Preston sits on--verrryy pro Scott. But then, I'm pro-Scott, so. You know. But the picture of a character it creates is deeply compelling. The writing is lyrical, fluid, and easy to read. It addresses everyone's major concerns (and just about every minor concern you could care to name), and it uses lots of excellent sources in abundance, creating a very well-rounded journey to the Pole and back. In fact, the first half of the book is just Scott's lead up to the 1910 expedition, including a lovely and detailed discussion of the Discovery voyage.
It treats those who often get a bad rep [especially in Pro-Scott tales] with great respect and reverence. It doesn't force you to draw conclusions about anyone except perhaps to beg you to regard Scott with more respect than he had been shown in the two or so decades leading up to this book's publication.
It hedges with a few too many "perhaps"es and "maybe"s in the interest of being fully accessible, but that does help its arguments reach a wider audience.
All in all, I find this an excellent start to the time period, focusing on the people--the very best part of the expedition, in my opinion. Pick this one up nearer to the start of your Antarctic research, or go to it after a long spell without any research as a welcome return to the familiar faces and sounds and sights of the beautiful ice.
I just wish, just this one time, that they would all survive to the end.
As any book on the topic does, the last chapter tries to understand why it happened, and why it happened so terribly. Which it does in acceptable amounts, although other authors have tackled the whys and whynots with more clarity and direction, picking a single aspect to focus on rather than trying to cover so many topics in one go. It does get a bit scattery. It also tries to address just about every myth ascribed to Scott (such as, he forced Oates out of the tent or he forced Birdie and Wilson to stay with him at the end, yeah, right, where are you guys getting these wild and wacky assumptions). It can be a lot to deal with in a brief period of space.
The book is at its very best when it tries to paint a "penportrait" of Scott as a human, with all his flaws addressed. Admittedly, not addressed fully. You can tell very well which side of the debate Preston sits on--verrryy pro Scott. But then, I'm pro-Scott, so. You know. But the picture of a character it creates is deeply compelling. The writing is lyrical, fluid, and easy to read. It addresses everyone's major concerns (and just about every minor concern you could care to name), and it uses lots of excellent sources in abundance, creating a very well-rounded journey to the Pole and back. In fact, the first half of the book is just Scott's lead up to the 1910 expedition, including a lovely and detailed discussion of the Discovery voyage.
It treats those who often get a bad rep [especially in Pro-Scott tales] with great respect and reverence. It doesn't force you to draw conclusions about anyone except perhaps to beg you to regard Scott with more respect than he had been shown in the two or so decades leading up to this book's publication.
It hedges with a few too many "perhaps"es and "maybe"s in the interest of being fully accessible, but that does help its arguments reach a wider audience.
All in all, I find this an excellent start to the time period, focusing on the people--the very best part of the expedition, in my opinion. Pick this one up nearer to the start of your Antarctic research, or go to it after a long spell without any research as a welcome return to the familiar faces and sounds and sights of the beautiful ice.
I just wish, just this one time, that they would all survive to the end.
April 23, 2017
This was my first book on Antarctica exploration and it did a great job of fascinating me and capturing my interest for the subject.
I think I will go on to read at least Amundsen's account as well. And maybe Shakleton, too. However, I may read the original diaries to give me a less preinterpreted account.
It's difficult not to judge Scott from a modern perspective... even more difficult not to judge him against Amundsen or to understand the heroism he has earnt. But considering the times he lived in and society makes for extremly interesting reflection.
It is highly important to contextuzalise his character and understand his pressure in order to have an accurate understanding of why he acts the way he does. This, to a certain extent, is done for the reader by Preston's book, which is a good thing if one has little pre-existing knowledge of Edwardian society and little interest in doing the appropriate research/reflection. Preston is sufficiently objective to not give an impression of idolisation or justification. Important events are just described from different angles. Sometimes I wish that her style would have been more academic, more detailed exploring more deeply the facts and ifs and whens...But the overall impression was good.
The book is well structured and coherent and refers parallel events where necessary without going off on a tangent. Preston often refers to back to previous facts to highlight how one decision influenced anone futher down the line.
Apart from that, Scott's story in itself is enough of a page turner. Somehow, even if you know the end, and may have started to prejudge him as a leader, you continue to hope he'd somehow make it.
I think I will go on to read at least Amundsen's account as well. And maybe Shakleton, too. However, I may read the original diaries to give me a less preinterpreted account.
It's difficult not to judge Scott from a modern perspective... even more difficult not to judge him against Amundsen or to understand the heroism he has earnt. But considering the times he lived in and society makes for extremly interesting reflection.
It is highly important to contextuzalise his character and understand his pressure in order to have an accurate understanding of why he acts the way he does. This, to a certain extent, is done for the reader by Preston's book, which is a good thing if one has little pre-existing knowledge of Edwardian society and little interest in doing the appropriate research/reflection. Preston is sufficiently objective to not give an impression of idolisation or justification. Important events are just described from different angles. Sometimes I wish that her style would have been more academic, more detailed exploring more deeply the facts and ifs and whens...But the overall impression was good.
The book is well structured and coherent and refers parallel events where necessary without going off on a tangent. Preston often refers to back to previous facts to highlight how one decision influenced anone futher down the line.
Apart from that, Scott's story in itself is enough of a page turner. Somehow, even if you know the end, and may have started to prejudge him as a leader, you continue to hope he'd somehow make it.
March 10, 2017
Detailed and readable account of Robert Falcon Scott and his doomed journey. I walked away with what I feel to be a well-rounded picture of who Scott was and the pressures and ideals of the time period. This book encapsulates Antarctic exploration at the turn of the century with grace and dignity. I read this at the same time as Endurance, the tale of Shackleton's ill-fated Trans-Antarctic Exploration, and I still thirst for more Antarctic adventure. This book made me excited to read Amundsen's account as well.
March 1, 2010
It actually deserves 3.5 stars. The story about the race to the pole is amazing. I wasn't at all familiar with it until I picked up this book. The book wasn't one that I just couldn't put down - at least not until the last 40 pages or so. I found it very interesting to read what they wrote during their last few weeks. The men were brave, tough, and maybe a little crazy. Oates's bravery and selflessness were incredible.
May 8, 2013
A very readable account of Scott's race to the pole.
January 10, 2016
Interesting subject. Didn't find the writing particularly inspiring though.
May 4, 2022
While informative, the first 2/3 of the book were hard to get through. A lot of background information that was hard to string together with a lot of different people!
June 9, 2025
This is a fine biography of Scott, in which Diane Preston has both ably outlined the events of his life and provided some insightful and balanced analysis. One helpful question that she poses is, why was Scott's expedition and death greeted with such enthusiasm and rapture in Britain, and why has it exhibited such an enduring power on the popular imagination?
She outlines several reasons for this. One relates to the contemporary fear that the British had become decadent, in the face of which Scott's Antarctic odyssey was seen as reassuring. It was brave and daring to venture into the unknown continent where British men could prove that the old values of courage in adversity, cheerfulness, persistence, loyalty and self-sacrifice had not died. Scott's letters and diaries were greeted with deep emotion because they showed that he and his comrades had held to these ideals until the end. Scott had considerable literary talent, and his writing could not fail to appeal to the heart of a nation that was lacking in confidence. Related to this is the fact that Scott and his companions seemed to epitomise the nobler side of man, demonstrating self-sacrifice for the benefit of others and loyalty even in death. Their dedication to the quest for knowledge also struck a chord with a nation that prided itself on its learning and contributions to human culture.
Aside from heroism and lofty ideals, there was also the timeless factor of human interest. The public could relive the details of moving events as they unfolded, an impulse that is as strong today as it was then. If Scott and his party had vanished without a trace, if there were no diaries and letters left behind, then he may have faded from memory. Another important factor was Amundsen, as in the eyes of the contemporary British public, he provided the villain and foil to the heroic Scott (although much contemporary tribute was also paid to Amundsen's achievement). To some, Amundsen's feat, which had not relied on hauling sledges himself, seemed less virile and manly than Scott's did.
The sheer mystique of Antarctica itself, the last frontier, also contributed. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the British popular imagination had become gripped by descriptions of a place of surpassing beauty, awesome solitude, mystery, melancholy and danger. The accounts from Scott and other explorers were lyrical and exhilarating, capturing both the beauty and the macabre grandeur of the Antarctic continent. Take this description from Wilson's diary: "The sunlight at midnight in the pack is perfectly wonderful. One looks out upon endless fields of broken ice, all violet and purple in the low shadows, and all gold and orange and rose-red on the broken edges which catch the light, while the sky is emerald green and salmon pink, and these two beautiful tints are reflected in the pools of absolutely still water which here and there lie between the ice floes only intensifying the wonderful stillness and beauty of the whole fairy-like scene as the golden glaring sun in the south just touches the horizon." We must also remember that when Scott set out on his first expedition with the Discovery in 1901, less was known about Antarctica than about the moon before the lunar landing in 1969.
Finally, timing was also an important factor. If Britain had needed heroes in 1913, she had an even greater thirst for them as the First World War progressed and a generation of young men were consumed by the greatest conflict the world had ever seen. After the war, as Britain began to ask whether the terrible cost was justified, Scott's heroism and sacrifice in the pure, clean wastes of Antarctica seemed comfortingly unsullied amid doubts about what the mud, pain and squalor of the Western Front had achieved.
Our modern age, of course, is much less comfortable with heroes and is cynically eager to show its sophistication and scepticism by digging for feet of clay. Much recent debate has centred on the true scale of Scott's achievement, and he has often been compared unfavourably to Amundsen (on this score, it is often forgotten that the scientific achievements of Scott's final expedition were more than sufficient to justify it, while Amundsen, although he won the race, provided virtually nothing in terms of scientific information). Logistics, methods of transport, the merits of dogs versus ponies, the quality of rations, the effectiveness of planning, the routes that were followed, and the risks that were run are all important considerations, but we must not lose sight of the essential humanity of what happened in the great white south. And while it is important to get as close to the truth of what happened as possible and to discern the true character of the men involved, it is also important to remember that believing that Scott achieved something heroic in no way implies that he was perfect. Scott exhibited many flaws of character and undoubtedly made mistakes, particularly on his final expedition. Some mistakes were of his own making, and some were unavoidable to a man of his time and background. He was overly preoccupied with Shackleton, both his route and methods (particularly, it was a mistake to use ponies), and he did not exploit the use of skis. The issue of evaporating fuel was known from the Discovery expedition, but was not followed up on, and Amundsen had encountered the same problem in the Arctic and solved it. The expedition suffered from a poor diet that was insufficient in calories and lacking in vitamins. Overall, it was probably a mistake to take five men rather than four to the pole, and it was a mistake to allow Wilson and Bowers to go on the winter journey to Cape Crozier. Personally, Scott could be difficult, impatient and short-tempered, suffering crises of confidence and periods of abstraction. None of this should detract from his essential stature and what he achieved. His Terra Nova expedition is a tale of perseverance and unquenchable spirit in the face of terrible odds, and it is a story of stubbornness, sentimentality and of men who were deeper and more complex than we often acknowledge. It is, in other words, a story of real, imperfect people trying to achieve something great, and that is the main reason that I continue to be fascinated by it.
One aspect of this fascination is the cast of characters that surrounded Scott. Foremost among these is Wilson, who in many ways was the perfect foil to Scott. He had a much more appealing personality, being optimistic and approachable where Scott was pessimistic and remote; tolerant where Scott could be impatient and critical; cheerful where Scott was quick-tempered and moody. He also had a deep and enduring Christian faith, believing that things would ultimately turn out as they were ordained to and refusing to worry overmuch about the future. This made him neither fatalistic nor naive, but rather more steadfast and balanced, whereas Scott tended to fret and worry. Wilson's focus was on the present and what could be achieved for the glory of God and good of man in the moment in which he currently found himself. Nor was Wilson a willing martyr, saintly, passive, and all too ready to embrace death. He had a huge love for life and a clear conviction that it was God and not man who should decide when life should end. Scott was a practical atheist and suffered grave crises of doubt about both himself and life in general. Wilson's serenity and sense of purpose were like an anchor to Scott in those times. In return, Wilson was drawn to Scott's sincerity and love of justice.
Wilson, of course, was present on both of Scott's Antarctic expeditions, as were many members of his crew. This suggests that for all his faults, he succeeded as a leader and was not the cold-blooded, egocentric and jealous individual, and the doctrinaire, rigid and unapproachable leader that he is often portrayed as. Although not best fitted to lead by temperament, overall, he mastered his weaknesses. He was generally liked and respected by his men, some of whom were veterans of the Discovery expedition and knew exactly what kind of leader he was. Inevitably, there were flashpoints among a group of men living in such close and unbroken proximity, especially during the long Antarctic winter. Isolation, monotony and claustrophobia take their toll, and the leader becomes an obvious target for criticism. We must consider this context when evaluating the complaints about Scott recorded in various letters and diaries, and be cautious about reading too much into them. It is also important to note that these kinds of complaints and criticisms were not limited to Scott, and were less pronounced than on other Antarctic expeditions, particularly Shackleton's Nimrod expedition (ironic, give how Scott's and Shackleton's leadership abilities are often contrasted today). It is best to see them as a safe way for the men to let off steam. An Antarctic expedition cannot be run as a democracy, and against this background, Scott's leadership of his expeditions and their general harmony look remarkable. The formality and discipline of naval life probably helped preserve this equilibrium, even if it somewhat impeded communication.
Leaving aside Scott's leadership, it is also fair to note the series of misfortunes that affected Scott's final expedition and eventually led to tragedy. Constant worries about funding dogged the planning phase and beyond, leading Scott to have to focus on fundraising, time which would have been better spent evaluating sledging clothing and equipment, training and studying cold weather technique, all things that Scott has been criticised for failing to do thoroughly enough. Scott was also unfortunate in being unable to obtain the Discovery for his final expedition, as she was quicker and more fuel-efficient than Terra Nova and might have enabled him to reach Antarctica more quickly. Bad weather was also a factor, and this has now been conclusively proved, particularly as it affected Scott's march back from the pole. Perhaps the most significant piece of misfortune, and certainly that with the greatest psychological impact, was Amundsen's intervention and how he made it. Scott was under pressure from the moment he learned Amundsen was going south, when Fram was spotted in the Bay of Whales, and, of course, when he learned that Amundsen had beaten him to the pole. At that point, exhausted, malnourished and facing a gruelling return journey, the disappointment must have been tremendous.
These, and many other factors, represent a plethora of ifs, buts and maybes. Criticism is all too easy with hindsight and, tempting as it is to focus on what went wrong, the fact remains that Scott and his companions achieved something remarkable, exhibiting courage, loyalty and extraordinary physical endurance. If the Polar party had managed only 350 yards further a day after leaving the Pole, then they would have made it to One Ton Depot. The point is not that they failed, but that they so very nearly succeeded. As Cherry-Garrard put it on behalf of his dead comrades, "although we achieved a first-rate tragedy, tragedy was not our business."
She outlines several reasons for this. One relates to the contemporary fear that the British had become decadent, in the face of which Scott's Antarctic odyssey was seen as reassuring. It was brave and daring to venture into the unknown continent where British men could prove that the old values of courage in adversity, cheerfulness, persistence, loyalty and self-sacrifice had not died. Scott's letters and diaries were greeted with deep emotion because they showed that he and his comrades had held to these ideals until the end. Scott had considerable literary talent, and his writing could not fail to appeal to the heart of a nation that was lacking in confidence. Related to this is the fact that Scott and his companions seemed to epitomise the nobler side of man, demonstrating self-sacrifice for the benefit of others and loyalty even in death. Their dedication to the quest for knowledge also struck a chord with a nation that prided itself on its learning and contributions to human culture.
Aside from heroism and lofty ideals, there was also the timeless factor of human interest. The public could relive the details of moving events as they unfolded, an impulse that is as strong today as it was then. If Scott and his party had vanished without a trace, if there were no diaries and letters left behind, then he may have faded from memory. Another important factor was Amundsen, as in the eyes of the contemporary British public, he provided the villain and foil to the heroic Scott (although much contemporary tribute was also paid to Amundsen's achievement). To some, Amundsen's feat, which had not relied on hauling sledges himself, seemed less virile and manly than Scott's did.
The sheer mystique of Antarctica itself, the last frontier, also contributed. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the British popular imagination had become gripped by descriptions of a place of surpassing beauty, awesome solitude, mystery, melancholy and danger. The accounts from Scott and other explorers were lyrical and exhilarating, capturing both the beauty and the macabre grandeur of the Antarctic continent. Take this description from Wilson's diary: "The sunlight at midnight in the pack is perfectly wonderful. One looks out upon endless fields of broken ice, all violet and purple in the low shadows, and all gold and orange and rose-red on the broken edges which catch the light, while the sky is emerald green and salmon pink, and these two beautiful tints are reflected in the pools of absolutely still water which here and there lie between the ice floes only intensifying the wonderful stillness and beauty of the whole fairy-like scene as the golden glaring sun in the south just touches the horizon." We must also remember that when Scott set out on his first expedition with the Discovery in 1901, less was known about Antarctica than about the moon before the lunar landing in 1969.
Finally, timing was also an important factor. If Britain had needed heroes in 1913, she had an even greater thirst for them as the First World War progressed and a generation of young men were consumed by the greatest conflict the world had ever seen. After the war, as Britain began to ask whether the terrible cost was justified, Scott's heroism and sacrifice in the pure, clean wastes of Antarctica seemed comfortingly unsullied amid doubts about what the mud, pain and squalor of the Western Front had achieved.
Our modern age, of course, is much less comfortable with heroes and is cynically eager to show its sophistication and scepticism by digging for feet of clay. Much recent debate has centred on the true scale of Scott's achievement, and he has often been compared unfavourably to Amundsen (on this score, it is often forgotten that the scientific achievements of Scott's final expedition were more than sufficient to justify it, while Amundsen, although he won the race, provided virtually nothing in terms of scientific information). Logistics, methods of transport, the merits of dogs versus ponies, the quality of rations, the effectiveness of planning, the routes that were followed, and the risks that were run are all important considerations, but we must not lose sight of the essential humanity of what happened in the great white south. And while it is important to get as close to the truth of what happened as possible and to discern the true character of the men involved, it is also important to remember that believing that Scott achieved something heroic in no way implies that he was perfect. Scott exhibited many flaws of character and undoubtedly made mistakes, particularly on his final expedition. Some mistakes were of his own making, and some were unavoidable to a man of his time and background. He was overly preoccupied with Shackleton, both his route and methods (particularly, it was a mistake to use ponies), and he did not exploit the use of skis. The issue of evaporating fuel was known from the Discovery expedition, but was not followed up on, and Amundsen had encountered the same problem in the Arctic and solved it. The expedition suffered from a poor diet that was insufficient in calories and lacking in vitamins. Overall, it was probably a mistake to take five men rather than four to the pole, and it was a mistake to allow Wilson and Bowers to go on the winter journey to Cape Crozier. Personally, Scott could be difficult, impatient and short-tempered, suffering crises of confidence and periods of abstraction. None of this should detract from his essential stature and what he achieved. His Terra Nova expedition is a tale of perseverance and unquenchable spirit in the face of terrible odds, and it is a story of stubbornness, sentimentality and of men who were deeper and more complex than we often acknowledge. It is, in other words, a story of real, imperfect people trying to achieve something great, and that is the main reason that I continue to be fascinated by it.
One aspect of this fascination is the cast of characters that surrounded Scott. Foremost among these is Wilson, who in many ways was the perfect foil to Scott. He had a much more appealing personality, being optimistic and approachable where Scott was pessimistic and remote; tolerant where Scott could be impatient and critical; cheerful where Scott was quick-tempered and moody. He also had a deep and enduring Christian faith, believing that things would ultimately turn out as they were ordained to and refusing to worry overmuch about the future. This made him neither fatalistic nor naive, but rather more steadfast and balanced, whereas Scott tended to fret and worry. Wilson's focus was on the present and what could be achieved for the glory of God and good of man in the moment in which he currently found himself. Nor was Wilson a willing martyr, saintly, passive, and all too ready to embrace death. He had a huge love for life and a clear conviction that it was God and not man who should decide when life should end. Scott was a practical atheist and suffered grave crises of doubt about both himself and life in general. Wilson's serenity and sense of purpose were like an anchor to Scott in those times. In return, Wilson was drawn to Scott's sincerity and love of justice.
Wilson, of course, was present on both of Scott's Antarctic expeditions, as were many members of his crew. This suggests that for all his faults, he succeeded as a leader and was not the cold-blooded, egocentric and jealous individual, and the doctrinaire, rigid and unapproachable leader that he is often portrayed as. Although not best fitted to lead by temperament, overall, he mastered his weaknesses. He was generally liked and respected by his men, some of whom were veterans of the Discovery expedition and knew exactly what kind of leader he was. Inevitably, there were flashpoints among a group of men living in such close and unbroken proximity, especially during the long Antarctic winter. Isolation, monotony and claustrophobia take their toll, and the leader becomes an obvious target for criticism. We must consider this context when evaluating the complaints about Scott recorded in various letters and diaries, and be cautious about reading too much into them. It is also important to note that these kinds of complaints and criticisms were not limited to Scott, and were less pronounced than on other Antarctic expeditions, particularly Shackleton's Nimrod expedition (ironic, give how Scott's and Shackleton's leadership abilities are often contrasted today). It is best to see them as a safe way for the men to let off steam. An Antarctic expedition cannot be run as a democracy, and against this background, Scott's leadership of his expeditions and their general harmony look remarkable. The formality and discipline of naval life probably helped preserve this equilibrium, even if it somewhat impeded communication.
Leaving aside Scott's leadership, it is also fair to note the series of misfortunes that affected Scott's final expedition and eventually led to tragedy. Constant worries about funding dogged the planning phase and beyond, leading Scott to have to focus on fundraising, time which would have been better spent evaluating sledging clothing and equipment, training and studying cold weather technique, all things that Scott has been criticised for failing to do thoroughly enough. Scott was also unfortunate in being unable to obtain the Discovery for his final expedition, as she was quicker and more fuel-efficient than Terra Nova and might have enabled him to reach Antarctica more quickly. Bad weather was also a factor, and this has now been conclusively proved, particularly as it affected Scott's march back from the pole. Perhaps the most significant piece of misfortune, and certainly that with the greatest psychological impact, was Amundsen's intervention and how he made it. Scott was under pressure from the moment he learned Amundsen was going south, when Fram was spotted in the Bay of Whales, and, of course, when he learned that Amundsen had beaten him to the pole. At that point, exhausted, malnourished and facing a gruelling return journey, the disappointment must have been tremendous.
These, and many other factors, represent a plethora of ifs, buts and maybes. Criticism is all too easy with hindsight and, tempting as it is to focus on what went wrong, the fact remains that Scott and his companions achieved something remarkable, exhibiting courage, loyalty and extraordinary physical endurance. If the Polar party had managed only 350 yards further a day after leaving the Pole, then they would have made it to One Ton Depot. The point is not that they failed, but that they so very nearly succeeded. As Cherry-Garrard put it on behalf of his dead comrades, "although we achieved a first-rate tragedy, tragedy was not our business."
Read
October 5, 2025A good intro to Scott's life and expeditions, with a focus on the Terra Nova. I liked that we learn about the background of some of Scott's men, and of Kathleen, in addition to Scott. (Cool that Kathleen knew Isadora Duncan!) In these backgrounds the author doesn't try to make the Terra Nova's men look perfect. She acknowledges their flaws and their prejudices, which is important. I think it's good to humanize, rather than heroize people.
In other connections, R. F. Scott was friends with J. M. Barrie, who wrote Peter Pan. And the author of "Rebecca" is the niece of the family that inspired Peter Pan. And "Rebecca" came up in conversation recently because Taylor Swift has a song inspired by that story...
In other connections, R. F. Scott was friends with J. M. Barrie, who wrote Peter Pan. And the author of "Rebecca" is the niece of the family that inspired Peter Pan. And "Rebecca" came up in conversation recently because Taylor Swift has a song inspired by that story...
September 6, 2025
Molto bello
All'inizio è una breve biografia e poi inizia la narrazione della Spedizione Scott.
Investiga gli errori commessi che hanno portato ai risultati critici in cui si sono trovati i membri della spedizione e le difficoltà affrontate (Congelamento, tempeste, scorbuto). È in parte una storia di altruismo e sacrificio, come per esempio Oates che, conscio di star semplicemente rallentando gli altri, decide di suicidarsi buttandosi nella bufera, conscio di essere un problema per il resto del gruppo -che tuttavia non voleva abbandonarlo- e dando loro una minima possibilità di salvarsi.
Il resto è storia ormai, il libro è scritto molto bene.
All'inizio è una breve biografia e poi inizia la narrazione della Spedizione Scott.
Investiga gli errori commessi che hanno portato ai risultati critici in cui si sono trovati i membri della spedizione e le difficoltà affrontate (Congelamento, tempeste, scorbuto). È in parte una storia di altruismo e sacrificio, come per esempio Oates che, conscio di star semplicemente rallentando gli altri, decide di suicidarsi buttandosi nella bufera, conscio di essere un problema per il resto del gruppo -che tuttavia non voleva abbandonarlo- e dando loro una minima possibilità di salvarsi.
Il resto è storia ormai, il libro è scritto molto bene.
January 13, 2019
La vicenda dell'esplorazione del Polo Sud è descritta benissimo sia nei primi tentativi sia nella gara finale tra Scott e Amudsen. Uomini e tragedie di altri tempi che ci devono insegnare moltissime cose a noi, uomini e donne di oltre un secolo dopo le straordinarie gesta di questi Uomini con la lettera maiuscola.
March 16, 2021
Having read other accounts of the tragic south pole expedition of Robert Falcon Scott and party, this was a more contained, but also more direct retelling of their fate. I liked that it delved more into the thoughts of the men around him, and also of his unconventional wife back home in England. So many "if onlies"....
February 9, 2024
I don't think I've really heard of Scott before and it was interesting to learn about his race to the Pole vs. Shackleton and Amundsen. This telling was really well researched and thoroughly presented the story of this man and his crew's attempt to reach the South Pole first. What an incredible attempt, what a tragic story.
March 12, 2024
I’d really like to eat a penguin
February 1, 2025
Oh the humanity
April 10, 2025
clear and eloquent history of Scott and the Antarctic expeditions.
November 29, 2015
Never was a book more aptly named than this one. The tale of Robert Falcon Scott's failed attempt to reach the South Pole (or rather, his failed attempt to get back!) is a tragedy of downright Greek proportions. I really liked how the book got into the personalities of the 'main players' and also covered the first expedition to the Pole, setting the stage for the later attempt. Scott is described in all his shades of grey. On the one hand I kept facepalming at his decisions ("let's manhaul the sledges, it's the MANLY way!"), but on the other hand circumstances were so much against him that it made him a tragic figure, too. I adored Wilson as he's exactly the kind of person I wish I was, except perhaps a little less self-sacrificing. :p Both he and Scott were SUCH Edwardian Brits. I even ended up liking Oates in the end, though he had annoyed me for most of the narrative - committing suicide-by-snowstorm will do that I guess!
I do wish the book had included a map so I could track their movements (or maybe it had a map but I missed it - I read the ebook version), but otherwise this is a great book and a great introduction of Scott and his team.
I do wish the book had included a map so I could track their movements (or maybe it had a map but I missed it - I read the ebook version), but otherwise this is a great book and a great introduction of Scott and his team.
March 9, 2010
I was not very familiar with Robert Falcon Scott's story and the race to the South Pole before reading this book. I've got to say, I admire his gusto in wanting to explore unknown territory in the harshest climate possible. While I appreciated the journal entries used throughout the book to convey first person accounts, overall I felt the book read too much like a compilation of journal entries. I didn't feel as though I could truly get in to the book until probably 2/3 of the way in to it. Preston does a great job of presenting the facts and helping the reader envision what these men (and their spouses at home) must have been going through at the time, but I think one time reading it was enough for me.
February 19, 2008
I learned that trudging across Antarctica back in the early 20th century with a party comprised of stubborn, moody, ill-prepared British men isn't condusive to...well, to staying alive. Without modern technology, it just isn't going to work. The downside to early tundra-travel was that one tended to die in a particularly horrific way (falling into a glacial fissure, starvation, gangrene, respretory failure, exhaustion... hypothermia was far and away the least terrible egress from this mortal coil these men could hope for, to give you an idea). I've read this brilliant account of the early 20th century British expedition to the South Pole at least four times.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 2, 2015
Wow, this was incredibly depressing. But also very intriguing. I've never heard about Scott before and I'm not sure what to think about him. Some of his decisions seemed absolutely ludicrous to me, but since I really don't know anything the Antarctica, expeditions or the way people saw the world at the time, I'm not going to judge him. The author did a great job explaining Scott's decisions and believes.
February 18, 2009
A great telling of one of my favorite historical tales - the race to the South Pole by the teams of Scott and Amundsen. This book was great because of its generous use of actual journal entries of those involved.
March 8, 2013
I'd heard the story of the death of Scott and the rest of the polar party, but it wasn't until I read the words of Scott himself in the diary he kept that this event in history became not just a fact to me, but a tragedy. Great read! But sad.
July 21, 2009
Probably read this book 10 times. A great account of the race to the Pole.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews