A First-Rate Tragedy: Robert Falcon Scott and the Race to the South Pole

Books on North Polar exploration seem to take a pro-Peary or pro-Cook slant. Even the National Geographic Society pushes Peary's claim, because it also helped fund his expedition. So when a book like Bryce's COOK AND PEARY comes out, saying what many of us believed all along, that both men were unscrupulous liars and neither deserve polar priority, it's a breath of fresh air on the subject. Nevertheless, Bryce also tempers this conclusion by saying both men were skilled in extreme conditions and remarkable real achievements below their belts before they started lying on a big scale and claiming for themselves what they had not achieved. Bryce tries in a valiant book to put an end to the nonsense that if Cook failed, Peary won, and vice-versa.Books on South Polar exploration must be different. Amundsen reached the pole. It's indisputable. Scott died bringing back the proof that he didn't get priority. Because he reached the pole and -- to the anti-Scotteans, more importantly -- he got back. However, Scott's expedition was not a failure. It was, first and foremost, a scientific expedition; Scott wanted polar priority and probably deserved it (Amundsen wanted the north, denied him by the charlatans Cook and Peary, so he jumped Scott's claim). Scott's reputation, unlike Amundsen's, has undergone a roller coaster ride for almost a century. First he was made a hero. Then the iconoclasts set in. Roland Huntford's book on Scott and Amundsen was the Big Nail for the anti-Scott forces. To them, Huntford's book is gospel, and to question it is to question reality.But Huntford, a fine biographer of polar explorers (Nansen, Shackleton), was distintly and unapologetically anti-Scott. And while Scott made errors (the biggest being his modern-minded "diversity" in taking seaman Evans along), his expedition was meticulously planned and employed the latest scientific and techonological advances. Solomon's COLDEST MARCH lays some Scott criticism aside (and since Solomon is a scientist who has actually worked in Antarctica her credentials should carry more weight with the anti-Scotteans than it does). Scott and Amundsen were products of their class and their era, but both also had been on polar adventures before and both men knew what they were up against. Scott is often, these days, portrayed by his detractors (euphemism) as mercurial and indecisive and, in some cases (as in the dramatization of Huntford's book) cruel.In fact, Scott's polar expedition was a tragedy, in the classic sense as well as the modern. Many events beyond his control led to his death, but decisions he made did go woefully wrong. In any event, it seems, in light of more recent evidence than Huntford's, the whole party would have made it back in most years, but conditions were different on that part of the Antarctic than had been scientifically observed previously. Scott made some bad decisions that led to the tragedy, but it also seems he had a run of bad luck, while Amund

This is a great tale of the fateful journey of Mr. Scott to the South Pole and the disaster that became him on the return journey.Instead of rehashing the story of the book in this review, which other reviewers have already done, it's more interesting to focus on the book itself. I notice that many of those who rate this book poorly seem to do so because the author was too sympathetic to Scott, too hard on Schackelton or Amundsen, or point to other works as superior accounts of this historic tale.I give this work 5 stars for a couple of reasons. First, she develops the inner psyche of each participant, digging into their personalities, explaining what made them tick and how that caused them to make the decisions that they made. Second, it's obvious a well-researched book. The author continually points out inconsistencies between the participants published (and sanitized) works vs. what they said privately in their journals. Third, the story is balanced. I supposed this is a point that other reviewers disagree on, for what one person calls "balanced" another person calls "biased". She points out what they did right and what they did wrong, not dwelling on either point. People who downgrade this book seem to do so because the author didn't berate Scott more for his mistakes and blunders, of which he made many of. However, I'm interested in history, and not finger pointing. Fourth, it's a great story.The reading of this book is easy and interesting, and I recommend it.

i found this to be, overall, a good book and worth reading. diana preston's writing style was easy to read, informal and breezy, once i got into the rhythms of her "britishisms" and use of english and military slang. ms. preston's account of robert falcon scott's doomed trip back from the south pole was gripping and poignant, and her distillation of myriad sources, diaries and letters into a cohesive, readable factual, detailed account reveals her to be a first-rate historical biographer, perhaps the best female british biographer since antonia fraser.as i read this book, i found ms. preston to be somewhat apologetic and rationalizing for rfs, but not overly or annoyingly so, as some reviewers contend. what struck me was the focus on the amateurish, stiff upper lip, muddle through, "be a good sport and gentleman and if not live, then die heroically" mentality that seemed to permeate not only the scott venture, but most interpretations of, and rationalizations for it ever since. it struck me as similar to the mentaility that assumed that the men on the titanic -- which went down only a month after RFS and his men died and nine months before the public learned of it -- willingly gave up their lives in response to an edwardian code of honor and chivalry. that assumption was used to rationalize the tragic deaths of rfs and his men, by turning what was really, in large part, the result of miscalculation and ineptitude, into a template example of british superior character, somehow triumphing in failure.ms. preston buys into that explanation somewhat in her account of rfs, but comes up with other, more mundane or logistical explanations for his failures: why he used ill-suited ponies instead of sled dogs; why he used the wrong kind of fuel for his snow sledges; why he picked arguably some of the wrong men, although their hallmark was that, until things got really bad at the end, they all got along and were decent chaps; why rfs, wracked with self-doubt, was perhaps not first rate command material for this arduous mission; why he could not decide if this was a geological exploration or a race to the pole; why, near the end, he insisted on hauling 35 lbs. of rocks when his weakened, scurvied crew, starting to see the deathshead at the end of the tunnel, might have been better served with sledging a lighter load; and why he vainly and pettily got obsessed with shackleton and amundsen, in terms of the race to the pole, rather than put them out of mind and focus on the mission at hand.part of the british phenomenon of embracing rfs's death and wringing every last bit of sentiment out of it -- not unlike the world-wide reaction to princess diana's untimely, tragic death -- was no doubt in reaction to the perception that their good, heroic amateur explorer had fought the good fight but lost -- somehow prized even more than the winning -- and been snookered by a professional exploratory cad, amundsen, to boot. one thing ms. preston alludes to is that

I almost feel as if I read a different book than some of the other reviewers. I have read many books about the "Scott and Amundsen race" and don't feel that I need to judge either one. I feel that the author of "A First Rate Tragedy" very fairly presents the attitudes, social structure, and knowledge of the times...which are critical to understand in reading about the early exploration of the Antartic. It's so easy to sit here and judge what was done 100 years ago! But the fact remains that whether Scott was incompetent or unlucky (probably some of both), his story is incredible just as his journey is incredible. The author tells the story in a very well-researched but interested manner. I recommend this for both the experienced Antarctic reader and the beginner. ENJOY!

After reading Caroline Alexander's account of Shackleton's adventure in the Antarctic, I then read this book. How anyone can say that this is not an apologist account is beyond me! Scott's mistakes are so terribly glaring and numerous, I am baffled as to why his status as a hero remains when true leaders like Shackleton are virtually unknown to most people. The tone might be more tolerable if the author was only trying to defend Scott, however, she continuously berates both Shackleton (seemingly more on the grounds that he is Irish) and Amundsen (characterizing him as a Nordic barbarian) throughout the book and promotes Scott as the "gentleman" explorer. Shackleton was able to keep over 20 men alive over the course of 2 years, cross a 1000 miles over the ocean in something akin to a row boat and then hike over mountains to save his men. In contrast, it was almost painful to read about Scott's errors in judgment and wonder what was motivating his thinking at the time - worrying about killing the dogs for food, bringing an additional person on the trek to the pole without enough food, making sure that they did a "man" haul - which finally and collectively sealed Scott's fate as well as the fate of his men. I use the term "fate" lightly because so many of the errors in judgment could have been avoided, I finished the book believing that if Scott had been a stronger leader, he and his men would have survived the ordeal. I still rate this book 5 stars, because regardless of the tone, I found it to be a fascinating study of weak leadership and the fatal consequences that can result from it