The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) by Roland Huntford (PDF)

Description

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the South Pole was the most coveted prize in the fiercely nationalistic modern age of exploration. In the brilliant dual biography, the award-winning writer Roland Huntford re-examines every detail of the great race to the South Pole between Britain’s Robert Scott and Norway’s Roald Amundsen. Scott, who dies along with four of his men only eleven miles from his next cache of supplies, became Britain’s beloved failure, while Amundsen, who not only beat Scott to the Pole but returned alive, was largely forgotten. This account of their race is a gripping, highly readable history that captures the driving ambitions of the era and the complex, often deeply flawed men who were charged with carrying them out. THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH is the first of Huntford’s masterly trilogy of polar biographies. It is also the only work on the subject in the English language based on the original Norwegian sources, to which Huntford returned to revise and update this edition.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Amazon.com Review On December 14, 1911, the classical age of polar exploration ended when Norway’s Roald Amundsen conquered the South Pole. His competitor for the prize, Britain’s Robert Scott, arrived one month later–but died on the return with four of his men only 11 miles from their next cache of supplies. But it was Scott, ironically, who became the legend, Britain’s heroic failure, “a monument to sheer ambition and bull-headed persistence. His achievement was to perpetuate the romantic myth of the explorer as martyr, and … to glorify suffering and self-sacrifice as ends in themselves.” The world promptly forgot about Amundsen. Biographer Ronald Huntford’s attempt to restore Amundsen to glory, first published in 1979 under the title Scott and Amundsen, has been thawed as part of the Modern Library Exploration series, captained by Jon Krakauer (of Into Thin Air fame). The Last Place on Earth is a complex and fascinating account of the race for this last great terrestrial goal, and it’s pointedly geared toward demythologizing Scott. Though this was the age of the amateur explorer, Amundsen was a professional: he left little to chance, apprenticed with Eskimos, and obsessed over every detail. While Scott clung fast to the British rule of “No skis, no dogs,” Amundsen understood that both were vital to survival, and they clearly won him the Pole. Amundsen in Huntford’s view is the “last great Viking” and Scott his bungling opposite: “stupid … recklessly incompetent,” and irresponsible in the extreme–failings that cost him and his teammates their lives. Yet for all of Scott’s real or exaggerated faults, he understood far better than Amundsen the power of a well-crafted sentence. Scott’s diaries were recovered and widely published, and if the world insisted on lionizing Scott, it was partly because he told a better story. Huntford’s bias aside, it’s clear that both Scott and Amundsen were valiant and deeply flawed. “Scott … had set out to be an heroic example. Amundsen merely wanted to be first at the pole. Both had their prayers answered.” –Svenja Soldovieri Review “A remarkably vivid picture of the agonies and feuds, as well as joys,of polar exploration . . . a fascinating book.”–The New York Times”An extraordinarily rich reading experience.”–Los Angeles Times From the Back Cover “A remarkably vivid picture of the agonies and feuds, as well as joys,of polar exploration . . . a fascinating book.”–The New York Times”An extraordinarily rich reading experience.”–Los Angeles TimesAt the beginning of the twentieth century, the South Pole was the most coveted prize in the fiercely nationalistic modern age of exploration. In this brilliant dual biography, the award-winning writer Roland Huntford reexamines every detail of the great race to the South Pole between Britain’s Robert Scott and Norway’s Roald Amundsen. Scott, who died along with four of his men only eleven miles from his next cache of supplies, became Britain’s beloved failure, while Amundsen, who not only beat Scott to the Pole but returned alive, was largely forgotten. This account of their race is a gripping, highly readable history that captures the driving ambitions of the era and the complex, often deeply flawed men who were charged with carrying them out.The Last Place on Earth is the first of Huntford’s masterly trilogy of polar biographies. It is also the only work on the subject in the English language based on the original Norwegian sources, to which Huntford returned to revise and update this edition.Roland Huntford is the former Scandinavian correspondent for the London Observer. He is the bestselling author of two critically acclaimed biographies of Ernest Shackleton and Fridtjof Nansen as well as the novel Sea of Darkness. He lives in Cambridge, England.Jon Krakauer is the author of Into Thin Air, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and Into the Wild. His work has appeared in many magazines, including Outside, Smithsonian, and National Geographic. He chose the books in the Modern Library Exploration series for their literary merit and historical significance–and because he found them such a pleasure to read. About the Author Roland Huntford is the former Scandinavian correspondent for the London Observer. He is the bestselling author of two critically acclaimed biographies of Ernest Shackleton and Fridtjof Nansen as well as the novel Sea of Darkness. He lives in Cambridge, England.Paul Theroux’s highly acclaimed novels include Blinding Light, Hotel Honolulu, My Other Life, Kowloon Tong, and The Mosquito Coast. His renowned travel books include Ghost Train to the Eastern Star, Dark Star Safari, Riding the Iron Rooster, The Great Railway Bazaar, The Old Patagonian Express, and The Happy Isles of Oceania. He lives in Hawaii and on Cape Cod. Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. IntroductionPaul TherouxWhat most people know of the conquest of the South Pole is that Captain Scott got there and then died heroically on the return journey; that when the Polar party lay tent-bound and apparently doomed, Captain Oates unselfishly said, “I am just going outside and may be some time,” and took himself out to die, so that his comrades might live; that Scott represented self-sacrifice and endurance, and glorious failure, the personification of the British ideal of plucky defeat. Scott’s expedition was essentially scientific; he was beset by bad weather. Roald Amundsen is a sort of afterthought: Oh, yes, the dour Norwegian actually got to the Pole and planted his flag first, but that’s a detail; he was very lucky and a little devious. So much for the Pole.Mr. Huntford proves all of this wrong, and much more, to boot. Thus, the kerfuffle.It is a measure of the power of this book that when it first appeared in Britain, it caused an uproar; and a few years later, a television series that was adapted from it created a flurry of angry letters to newspapers and a great deal of public discussion in which the book was rubbished and its author condemned–even vilified in some quarters for suggesting that Fridtjof Nansen was engaged in a sexual affair with Kathleen Scott while her husband lay freezing in his tent. But what had Mr. Huntford actually done? He had written a riveting account of two expeditions intending simultaneously to achieve the South Pole. His book is well documented, soberly and sometimes wryly written, much of it is thrilling, some of it as dramatic as exploration can possibly be, and to my mind few things are more dramatic.But the Polar quest was not just exploration, a journey of discovery. It was indeed (although Scott tried to deny it) an unambiguous race to be the first at the South Pole. National pride was at stake–Norwegian and British; two different philosophies of travel and discovery–skis versus trudging, dogs versus ponies, canvas and rubberized cloth versus fur anoraks and Eskimo boots; two cultures–Norse equality (“a little republic” of explorers) versus the severe British class system; and two sorts of leadership, more particularly, two different and distinct personalities–Roald Amundsen’s versus Captain Scott’s.The great surprise in the book is that Amundsen is not a moody, sullen Scandinavian, but rather a shrewd, passionate, approachable, thoroughly rational man, who tended to understate his exploits, while Scott–quite the reverse of the British stereotype–was depressive, unfathomable, aloof, self-pitying, and prone to exaggerate his vicissitudes. Their personalities determined the mood of each expedition: Amundsen’s was spirited and cohesive, Scott’s was confused and demoralized. Amundsen was charismatic and focused on his objective; Scott was insecure, dark, panicky, humorless, an enigma to his men, unprepared, and a bungler, but in the spirit of a large-scale bungler, always self-dramatizing.Mr. Huntford’s judgments are unsparing: “It was Scott who suited the sermons. . . . He was a suitable hero for a nation in decline.” Amundsen had made the conquest of the Pole “into something between an art and a sport. Scott had turned Polar exploration into an affair of heroism for heroism’s sake.” Mrs. Oates, who was privy to a running commentary on the Scott expedition through her son’s letters home–Oates was throughout a remarkable witness–called Scott the “murderer” of her son. As for Oates’ opinion, “I dislike Scott intensely,” he wrote in Antarctica.Far from being a belittler or having an ax to grind about the phlegmatic British (for he has written elsewhere with justified admiration of Shackleton), Mr. Huntford merely points out that Britain took Scott as a necessary hero; it is not the British character that is being assailed in this book. Mr. Huntford demonstrates that, all along, Scott was the problem. Though he knew little of actual command (and was unsuited to it), Scott was ambitious, seeking advancement, even glory, in the Royal Navy. He was a manipulator, and he knew how to find patrons, which he did in Sir Clements Markham, a wonderful sly subsidiary character in the narrative–vindictive, pompous, queenly, attracted to Scott more for Scott’s being strangely epicene. This femininity in Scott’s personality was remarked upon by one of Scott’s own men, Apsley Cherry-Garrard–the youngest in the expedition–in his masterpiece of Polar exploration, The Worst Journey in the World. Cherry-Garrard also mentioned how Amundsen had been underrated as “a blunt Norwegian sailor” rather than “an explorer of the markedly intellectual type,” sagacious and weather-wise. And Scott, Cherry-Garrard wrote, was easily reduced to tears.The weather has always been regarded as the determining factor in Amundsen’s success and Scott’s failure. Yet it offered little advantage: Conditions were pretty much the same for both expeditions. The fact was that Amundsen was far better prepared, and Scott left no margin of safety for food, fuel, or weather. In a journey of four months Scott had not allowed for four days’ bad weather. Parallel diary entries in a given period show Amundsen hearty and bucked up as he skis through fog, and just behind him Scott’s diary shows him fatigued, depressed, complaining, slogging along. Mr. Huntford sees this not as a difference in style but in approach:Scott . . . expected the elements to be ordered for his benefit, and was resentful each time he found they were not. This was a manifestation of the spiritual pride that was Scott’s fatal flaw.The difference between the two rivals is expressed in the way each called on the Deity. Scott did so only to complain when things went wrong; Amundsen, to give thanks for good fortune. In any case, Scott was an agnostic and believed in science; Amundsen was a Nature-worshipper. For that reason alone, Amundsen found it easier to accept the caprice of blizzard and storm. He and his companions were in tune with their surroundings; they were spared the angst that tormented Scott and, through him, pervaded the British expedition.The Norwegian expedition, though vastly underfunded, were all of them skiers, had a better diet, simpler but more sensible gear, and the bond of friendship. Skis were a mere novelty to the non-skier Scott, whose class-ridden expedition had plenty of money and patrons. He had planned to depend upon ponies and motorized sledges, but when these proved useless he was forced to haul sledges by hand. In the base camp, long before Scott’s party set out for the Pole, one of Scott’s men–significantly, it was the one Norwegian, Tryggve Gran–wrote, “Our party is divided, and we are like an army that is defeated, disappointed and inconsolable.”Amundsen had heart and compassion but could also be an odd fish in his way. He had a prejudice against doctors. He wouldn’t take one on an expedition. “He believed that a doctor,” Mr. Huntford writes, “because of his priest-like rôle, meant divided command.” On the other hand his men were master navigators. Only one of Scott’s men could navigate and he was not taken on the Polar party, though at the last moment Scott decided to take an extra man, which meant that rations would inevitably be short.The long shadow over this quest for the Pole was cast by the towering figure of Nansen who, Mr. Huntford wrote, was canoodling with Kathleen Scott, who was in her way just as formidable a person. The loan of Nansen’s ship, the unsinkable, the uncrackable Fram, was an immense benefit to Amundsen; Scott’s creaky Terra Nova was no match for it, and indeed the Fram ultimately had the distinction of sailing both farthest north and farthest south. The Fram was crucial, for Amundsen needed a seaworthy and powerful purpose-built, expedition-tested ship. His mission was secret, he left home much later than Scott, and had almost no patronage. Yet in almost every instance, Amundsen makes the right, most astute judgment and Scott the wrong, most ill-informed one, which is why this book seems to me so valuable, for it is a book about myth-making and heroism and self-deception, the ingredients of nationalism.This book was a sensation when it first appeared, and now rereading it twenty years later I still find it an engrossing and instructive narrative, with vivid characterization and a mass of useful detail. When you finish it you know much more about human nature, for it is more than a book about the South Pole. It is about two explorers, two cultures, and about the nature of exploration itself, which is to me a counterpart to the creative impulse, requiring mental toughness, imagination, courage, and a leap of faith. Most of all, this book about a race, which was the last great expedition that ended the Age of Discovery, is a study in leadership.Paul Theroux’s most recent book is Sir Vidia’s Shadow. His new book of travel writings, Fresh-Air Fiend, will be published in the spring of 2000. Read more

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐One of my favorite genres is non-fiction, exploration accounts. From Stephen Ambrose’s Undaunted Courage (Lewis and Clark) to Jon Krakauer’s Into Thin Air and Alan Morehead’s White Nile and Blue Nile, accounts of the travails faced by explorers have always fascinated me.One subset of this genre is polar exploration. I’ve read several works whose subject was the Northwest Passage and the Franklin Expedition. I’ve read of the journeys of Ernest Shackleton and the Endurance. This book focuses on the race to the South Pole, and the two protagonists who participated in that race, Norwegian Roald Amundsen and Englishman Robert Falcon Scott.Both of these explorers had spent time in the south polar region before setting their sights on a 1911 expedition whose aim was to be first to the pole, with national pride on the line. History reveals that Amundsen was the victor and Scott has been mythologized as the hard luck loser, who, along with four companions died on the return trip after reaching the pole five weeks after Amundsen.This book, when first published in 1979 blew the Scott mythology to smithereens and was greeted with great outrage in Britain. Scott’s expedition was converted from a star-crossed, superhuman and heroic effort, to a completely bungled, poorly planned and even more poorly executed travesty, led by a man wholly unsuited for the task.The author closely examines both expedition leaders, along with the steps taken to prepare for and execute the many steps necessary to successfully accomplish the task of reaching the pole. In each instance, Amundsen was tireless and laser focused on the research and implementation, whereas Scott was negligent and seemingly uninterested, even many times categorically wrong in his assessments (such as the idea that dogs could not perform under Arctic conditions and that skis were a hindrance rather than a benefit).In fact, it is difficult to believe that Amundsen was the absolutely perfect expedition leader painted by the author, while Scott was a bumbling idiot, making the wrong decision and painfully obvious errors, every single time his leadership skills were needed. It is almost as if the author had an agenda to elevate Amundsen and denigrate Scott and took every opportunity to do so.Certainly, it cannot be argued that Amundsen reached and returned from the pole first, whereas Scott and his companions died in the effort. However, hindsight is 20/20 and many of the methods utilized by Scott were state of the art for the period. Amundsen incorporated many new and revolutionary methods in his expedition and proved to be correct. He was rewarded with success, at a relatively modest cost. That does not, however, mean that Scott was necessarily an utter fool. He was not exceptional, whereas Amundsen was. Scott was a man of his time and behaved as such. Perhaps he was even not up to the standards of his countryman, Ernest Shackleton, but it is worth noting that Scott at least reached the pole, whereas Shackleton did not. There is certainly an easily recognized difference in the philosophy of the Norwegians, who were almost clinical in their analysis of how to achieve the ultimate goal as efficiently as possible, and the Englishmen, in whose mind the method of attaining the goal was of equal importance (no pain, no glory).Maybe Scott was every bit as bad as painted by the author. Or perhaps the author knew that a contrarian viewpoint, trashing a heretofore national hero, would generate the kind of interest and notoriety needed to gain interest for his work. In any event, the account of both expeditions was fascinating and well presented with a number of very helpful maps. I can highly recommend this book for anyone that enjoys history in general and accounts of exploration in particular.

⭐OK, so this LOOKS like a book on polar exploration, and there certainly is a lot to recommend it on that front, but ultimately it’s the story of two different management styles. In a past company, we’d have an annual offsite meeting and each year a different one of us was supposed to give a book related to our business to the others. We got the usual stuff like Good To Great or Crossing the Chasm, books written by people who sit in academic offices and try to figure out what makes groups of individuals successful.But you couldn’t ask for two more diametrically opposed approaches to the business of making it to the South Pole than Scott and Amundsen. Amundsen prepares relentlessly: prior to the South Pole attempt he’s been in the Canadian Arctic studying the way the Inuit are able to survive. He learns how they make their clothing to stay warm, how they make igloos, how they use their dogs. He knows that dogs work best in high output, short duration stretches, and he learns to ski along side the sleds at the pace the dogs want to go. He spends a year on the Belgica locked in the ice through the first Antarctic night experienced by Europeans, and he knows about scurvy and the emotional toll that the dark takes. He lives closely with his men, knows them well, and does everything he can to foster camaraderie within the group. When it doesn’t work out, he’s willing to cut out those who don’t fit from making the journey. Even the way he measures out the area around the South Pole to be certain he actually got there shows how intent he is on leaving nothing to chance.Scott on the other hand has one other piece of high latitude work under his belt from the first British expedition to the Ross Sea area in which he’d made a sprint towards the South Pole with Shackleton and showed no compassion for the latter’s sickness, sending him home disgraced afterwards. His general attitude was that as a member of the British naval officer corps, he had what it took inside him and “it” would somehow see him through. He shows up at his camp with four different transport means, none of which he had done extensive training with: barely tested mechanized sledges, skis, dogs, and ponies. He discounts the dogs because they don’t work well when used at a pace equal to what a man can achieve hauling a sled by himself. He doesn’t make any training program for his men to learn to ski – some of them are motivated to fool around with the skis, but most do nothing. He holds himself aloof from his men and although some of them hold him in high regard, others feel dismissed. As they begin to approach the pole, Scott refuses to recognize the reality that he is too late and should turn back short of his objective to have a chance of survival.And in the end the results are no surprise – Amundsen breezes to the pole and back like he’s on a modern day eco-tour, and Scott and the men who came with him all perish.Huntford’s book is a gripping story that still has time for details that make the reader understand how vastly different it is to go to the South Pole than the North Pole. You can feel the tension of crossing fractured sections of glacial ice where any step could plunge through the snow and send you hundreds of feet to an icy death in a chasm. There’s the frustration of trying to get your sledge to cross the high plateau leading to the pole when it’s nearly dead flat but carved with sastrugi that makes it a maze of difficult-to-cross ruts. And the desperation of hoping to find the next cache of supplies and wondering if your last bearings were really accurate. All this comes home vividly in this superb book. I’ve read a couple dozen books on Arctic and Antarctic exploration, and to me this is the best.

⭐I must say at the start that I found this book very entertaining and a real page turner. I already have read some works about the exploration of the South Pole, but this book was by far the most readable, I found myself picking it up at every opportunity.The way that Huntford writes is very compelling, and I shall certainly be reading his book about Shackleton.However, this praise comes with a but, and it is a big but.I am not aware if Huntford has a grudge against Scott and his family, but this must be the least objective book I have ever read. Amundsen is praised from the off, and hardly comes in for any criticism at all, even though his methods of man management at times left a lot to be desired. As did his deception of his men, his creditors and his friend and mentor Nansen.There is never a word of praise or respect for Scott or any of his team. Huntford attaches psychological analysis that he cannot possibly support, to many of Scott’s men. His character assassination of Dr Edward Wilson is particularly harsh. At Wilson’s death he writes ‘he was a born loser, that he understood’. This is terribly unfair, considering the great respect and affection that ‘Uncle Bill’ was held in by most of Scott’s party, and his achievement in reaching the Pole, even though Amundsen was first.Huntford seems to have the American obsession with winners and losers. After the suicide of Johansen, years after the Norwegians return home, who Amundsen shunned after an argument on the expedition, Huntford says that Johansen paid the loser’s penalty .Ultimately I would agree that the Norwegians prepared better, were better organised, more thorough, and left nothing to chance, and deserved their victory.But I also feel that the men of Scott’s party deserve praise for their determination, and ultimately although they died on their return, Scott, Wilson, Bowers, Oates and Evans deserve huge respect for their own achievement.I am now reading Sir Ranulph Fiennes biography of Scott, which I suspect will have a more objective view by a man who has been there and done it, unlike Mr Huntford.

⭐It is well researched, informative and rightly acclaims Amundsen’s expertise and prowess as an explorer. This is achieved a little though by decrying Scott through countless and sometimes tedious fault finding. It argues also that Scott allowed emotion to influence his choice of men for the Pole. The rival camps were so different in many many ways that an absolute critique is well nigh impossible. This said, the book justifiably challenges an English icon from a bygone era.

⭐I have been meaning to read ‘Scott and Amundsen’ (The Last Place on Earth) for some time, and have finally got round to it. And I have to say, that despite all its innaccuracies, omissions and one-sided appraisal, I enjoyed it as a book. I found it well written and researched.It is however written by a journalist and its writing style is more reminiscent of a popular newspaper, than even-handed research. However it should be remembered that it was first published in 1979. At that time, Robert Falcon Scott’s achievement in reaching the South Pole in 1912 was still being viewed relatively uncritically. And Amundsen’s achievement was relatively unheralded. Huntford was the first to seriously challenge the received wisdom of the Scott/Amundsen expeditions to the Pole. He clearly started with a view that Scott was an inept bungler and by contrast Amundsen was a supremely competent polar explorer, and he set about to put the record straight, as he saw it. In doing so, he went to great lengths to castigate Scott’s planning, his methods and his character by means of selective assertions, at every opportunity. So much so, that I as a reader became irritated at the constant repetition. I was less concerned about his views on Amundsen, who I would agree was a great man whose multiple achievements have not always received the acclaim they richly deserve. But even there, Huntford deploys the journalistic style of conveniently omitting any evidence which runs counter to his central assertion. And he virtually invents some of Scott’s motivations. And though Huntford certainly went to great lengths to research his material, I was somewhat disappointed that he omitted specific references to his sources.Having read a large number of accounts by those who accompanied Scott – Cherry-Garrard, Evans, Wilson, Debenham, Simpson etc. I am forced to conclude that Huntford’s view of Scott’s character is extremely skewed. Despite his faults, Scott was clearly a much admired leader by many of his team. But Huntford does do us a service by raising key questions about Scott’s methods. I have read Susan Solomon’s appraisal of the relative climatic conditions in 1911/12 (The Coldest March), where she challenges Huntford’s assertion that Scott did not encounter unpredictable cold conditions. I found her argument convincing. I have also read Sir Ranulph Fiennes defence of Scott (Captain Scott). And I too found a number of his points very convincing. But without wishing to take away from Scott a jot of what he achieved, especially in the new science which he championed, there remain some fundamental issues about his methods – especially his means of travel and his planning, and I am grateful to Huntford for at least initiating a debate.In conclusion, I enjoyed the book. But it should be read in context. It makes some very valid points. But it also maligns a man, who clearly achieved more than any of us will ever achieve.

⭐This book has changed my beliefs about Captain Scott and his expedition to the South Pole. Roland Huntford (author) portrays Captain Scott as a poor organiser, paranoid and unable to lead men in a humane way. Where as he describes Captain Amundsen who was first to the South Pole as being very experienced in polar conditions and very knowledgeable due to the research he had done prior to the expedition. I would recommend reading this book.

⭐Greatly enjoyed this account of the two expeditions to the South Pole. It’s true that the author does take every opportunity to lambast Scott, while giving Amundsen an easy ride but that’s a minor matter. The book is well written, very easy to read and presents both attempts on the pole very clearly. The reader can reach his or her own conclusions. Mine is that Scott’s poor planning and decision-making led to the loss of his life and his four fellow explorers but, nonetheless, reaching the pole was a stupendous achievement based on herculean effort. Coming second to Amundsen doesn’t diminish that.

Keywords

Free Download The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) in PDF format
The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) PDF Free Download
Download The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) 1999 PDF Free
The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) 1999 PDF Free Download
Download The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration) PDF
Free Download Ebook The Last Place on Earth: Scott and Amundsen’s Race to the South Pole, Revised and Updated (Modern Library Exploration)