The Coldest March 77
The Coldest March: Scott's Fatal Antarctic Expedition | |
author | Susan Solomon |
pages | ~400 |
publisher | Yale University Press (Australasia: Melbourne University Press) |
rating | 8.5 |
reviewer | Duncan Lawie |
ISBN | 0-300-08967-8 |
summary | "Cold equations" throw a new light on significant events of the Heroic Age of Antarctic exploration. |
The Coldest March is the outcome of Solomon's interest in her hobby. It is, in essence, a history of Captain Scott's voyages to the Antarctic, a story which has been told many times in the decades since Scott's death. Yet, never before has the history been focused through the lens of true science. Science was held in high esteem by these Edwardian explorers and is the continuing basis for human occupation of the Antarctic. Solomon's close attention to the meteorological record becomes genuinely interesting as it is possible to make an intelligent comparison between the historical data and the automated data collection of recent decades. The modern route to the Pole from McMurdo Sound is close to that used by the British explorers 90 to 100 years ago. Whilst few attempt the journey on the ground, automated weather stations are vital for US Antarctic Research Program flights in the region. This data, collected every ten minutes since 1984, provides a statistically significant basis for investigation.
The technical substance of what Solomon has to say in this book first reached publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in a paper co-authored with Charles R. Stearns. Those few dense pages form a scientific data quality check and comparison, with the conclusion that the March of 1912 was significantly colder than the average, that Scott's weather forecasters had collected sufficient data to have a good idea of what that average was and that the unexpected cold was a primary factor in the deaths of the party returning from the Pole. These cold facts have been expanded into a solidly researched history of Scott's Antarctic career, with a strong focus on the collection and interpretation of weather data.
The basic point of this book should prove within the grasp of anyone capable of interpreting a graph. The historical issues, however, require a larger context. The book approaches the debate on Scott through the clever technique of "the visitor". At the start of each chapter, there is a vignette offering a view of the modern Antarctic experience which parallels the main subject of the chapter. In this space, Solomon can provide informal commentary and bind the historical discussion with description of the achievements and misunderstandings that are still possible after over 40 years of continuous human occupation of the continent. The visitor provides an access for the modern reader to a well known story. Scott's Pole party arrived at the South Pole in January 1912, five weeks after Amundsen. He and his four companions died on the return journey, Scott, Wilson and Bowers only 11 miles from a supply depot. At the time this tragedy quickly became a heroic example; some modern writers have considered Scott's whole Antarctic experience closer to farce. The heritage of the expedition often turns on the perceived reputation of Scott himself; this book reflects positively on Scott and his colleagues, principally because of the primacy of doing good science in their work. Nevertheless, it acknowledges the mistakes made by both Scott and his rival and recognises the strengths of each party. It is a decent account of the so-called "Race to the Pole", providing a setting in which the relevance of the weather thesis to Scott's death can be fully developed and strongly argued. By dredging bare facts to the surface, The Coldest March has rendered almost every published history of the period out of date.
Each generation seems to find its own vision of Scott. Solomon sees him as a frustrated scientist and, at its centre, this book is a celebration of scientific method. It is tempting to think that the author has seen most strongly the elements of Scott that a modern scientific mindset might wish to find -- as earlier generations have praised him as a heroic exemplar of the British Empire or damned him as a middle class bumbler. Countering this are the words of members of Scott's own scientific party, many of whom relished his ability to ask the right question. Coming from such an original perspective, and providing genuinely new information, this is as significant a book as Apsley Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World, published 80 years ago. The Coldest March is a wonderful (re-)introduction to the Matter of Scott.
You can The Coldest March at Fatbrain. If this review interests you, perhaps you'll enjoy the Coldest March website. More information, incuding sample chapters from the book, are available at Yale University Press.
Antartica, eh? (Score:1)
New Year's Eve (Score:2)
Re:Actually the days and night at the pole (Score:1)
Re:Actually the days and night at the pole (Score:1)
Re:New Year's Eve (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:New Year's Eve (Score:1)
As to the champagne freezing, it's the middle of summer - at the coast, it frequently gets above 32F. They just set an all-time high at McMurdo last month - 51F!
Antarctic Marathon; creature comforts (Score:2)
Re:Antarctic Marathon; creature comforts (Score:1)
We also jump in the ocean, but not near a thermal vent - the water is 29.2F (there's that much salt in it). In the summertime, the jump is somewhat pleasant. In the winter, the wind-chill was -35F or so.
Having wintered-over, I have a deep respect for the explorers at the turn of the 20th century. We had hot meals almost every day (in the field, we might get hot drinks and cold sandwiches), running water, warm housing, space-age clothing and the Internet. Things improved dramatically from even 1960 to 1990.
Amazing... (Score:2)
I find it almost impossible to believe that they didn't PLAN for severe weather. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but I figure if you are going to an extremely cold area, you plan for extremely cold weather. Seems like a major blunder in an otherwise profitable journey.
Re:Amazing... (Score:2)
Amundsen went through the same weather, but had much wider margins -- not only because he used dog-teams, but also when the loads got lighter, he killed the extra dogs, and fed the carcasses to men and dogs...
Different Weather (Score:1)
The fascinating thing about this book is that is shows that, even in 1912, Scott had an excellent idea of what _normal_ weather was.
Re:Different Weather (Score:2)
The point is (from what I've heard) that Scott consistently reported worse weather than Amundsen at the time where they were in the same area.
Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:4, Informative)
In October 1915 the ship Endurance was crushed by Anarctic ice, and the crew became castaways in one of the harshest regions of the world. Their adventures make one of the most intense, gripping stories ever written.
Description from The Reader's Catalog
The story of polar explorer Shackleton's survival for over a year on the ice-bound Antarctic seas. "One of the most gripping, suspenseful, intense stories anyone will ever read"--Chicago Tribune
From the Publisher
In August 1914, explorer Ernest Shackleton and his crew set sail from England for Antarctica, where Shackleton hoped to be the first man to cross the uncharted continent on foot. Five months later, the Endurance - just a day's sail short of its destination - became locked in an island of ice, and its destiny and men became locked in history. For ten months the ice-moored Endurance drifted until it was finally crushed, and Shackleton and his crew made an 850-mile journey in a 20-foot craft through the South Atlantic's worst seas to reach an outpost of civilization. Inspired by the ordeal that Time magazine said "defined heroism," author Alfred Lansing conducted interviews with the crew's surviving members and pored over diaries and personal accounts to create his best-selling book on the miraculous voyage. In Audio Partners' abridged recording of Endurance, reader Patrick Malahide renders a masterful portrayal of these courageous men.
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:1)
I second this recommendation. If you decide to get the book, don't get the edition mentioned in the link, though. There's another edition with the photographs of Frank Hurley, the expedition's photographer that are absolutely haunting.
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:1)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/07867084
Shackleton Expedition Photos (Score:2)
D'Oh! (Score:2)
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:3, Informative)
Shame they messed up on the historical accuracy by having the crew sing songs that weren't written when they were stuck on the ice though. Whoops.
Its probably coming to a small screen near you soon.
Baz
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:2)
This is the film actually shot DURING Shackleton's expedition, and for a black and white silent film is absolutely stunning because it's real!
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:4, Informative)
All that large-format B&W stuff taken until they set off on foot after losing the ship was especially amazing. A year or so ago I was in Boston and ran up to the museum in Salem, MA where there was an exhibit of Hurley's photography. Beautiful 16x20, 20x24'ish prints from those big, beautiful B&W negatives. Just stunning.
The most famous, perhaps, and my favorites at least are those he took during the long hours of darkness they experienced at those latitudes when the ship was icebound, but before the spring shifting of the ice crushed it. These are the exposures that make the ship seem almost ghost-like, made by putting his large-format camera on a tripod, opening the shutter, then walking around popping off his flash equipment.
The same technique is a popular and overworked trick used perhaps too frequently today, but Hurley's use would've seemed fresh to his audience. The images are mysterious and compelling and far superior to most of those made today using this technique.
Even more interesting in some ways were the collection of COLOR transparencies he took, using an early color process (I forget which, unfortunately, though I bet a few minutes in Google could uncover the answer). Somehow seeing the scenes in color made the human connection that much more vivid, though as photographs go the B&W ones were much stronger.
Unfortunately, when they left on foot they couldn't keep all of Hurley's negatives (remember, they were glass plates back in those days). They kept 150 of the best and destroyed the rest. Shackleton made certain they were destroyed because he feared that Hurley might secretly try to bring them along, one of many hard decisions made by Shackleton during their adventure.
And of course the unused plates, large-format camera and the motion picture camera were all left behind. All Hurley had available was a Kodak Vestpocket with a single load of film, a few tens of exposures only.
He used them carefully and wisely as he still had a few unexposed frames left when Shackleton finally rescued those left behind when he'd gone off to South Georgia Island seeking help. As he got there too late to get a ship in time to rescue his crew that winter, those left behind had to survive several more months waiting for "The Boss" to return, not knowing if he'd succeeded in his cross-ocean travel in the ship's boat they'd modified for the trip.
Hurley's grainy, poor-quality shots are incredibly poignant, with the crew, who'd nearly given up hope, waving from shore and the rescue ship steaming towards them in the distance. "Poor quality", in this context, refers only to the technical quality of the prints. Think "disposable camera" to get some idea of the crudity of the small Kodak Vestpocket.
Now
And while the Shackleton work is by far Hurley's most famous work, he had a solid career as a photographer for some decades afterwards.
OK
I JUST finished reading it (Score:2)
Oh hell, I might as well plug my own Amazon link too. Here is Shakletons own telling of the story South : A Memoir of the Endurance Voyage [amazon.com]
Here is Alfred Lansing's classic book - It does have a few of photos but there are only a few and they are printed rather small Endurance : Shackleton's Incredible Adventure [amazon.com] (this is the one I just finished reading)
And here is Caroline Alexander's in hardcover with much better photography The Endurance : Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition [amazon.com]
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:2)
Re:Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage (Score:1)
The amazing thing about Scott (Score:4, Insightful)
Amundsen adopted a plan that made it much easier to get the food up the glaciers, although it the English professed to be shocked when they heard about it. He surveyed a route that went several hundred miles on sea ice, then up a glacier, then a long, nearly flat run to the pole. He started with heavily loaded sleds and enormous dog teams. By the time they reached the glaciers, the sleds were lighter, so the dogs didn't have much trouble pulling them uphill. At the top, Amundsen got out a pistol, shot the extra dogs, and loaded up the sleds with fresh meat.
And you probably thought "dog eat dog" was just an expression.
Luck (Score:2)
In the spirit of this quote, those "in the know" among Norwegian mountaineers and expeditionists will not wish each other good luck. Luck isn't a part of it for these people. If you want to express support, you'll say something like "I am confident that you will successfully achieve your goals".
Amundsen was a cold-hearted man, but he had a few good points.
Oh yeah... (Score:1)
Oh yeah, I'm sure that missing New Year's eve was this guy's biggest concern.
A Great Read (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A Great Read (Score:1)
Scott wasn't "scientifically minded" as much as he was promotionally minded. Leading an Artic Exploration was a quick way to rise in the British Navy (at the time).
Read "The Last Place on Earth [amazon.com]" for a different account. Whereas Amundsen took years to prepare his exploration (studying Nansen's journal, studying Eskimo survival, learning to drive sled dogs), Scott did virtually no preparation.
Susie talks in Denver tonight about this book (Score:4, Informative)
Susie is upbeat about Scott (Score:2)
My first introduction to this topic was about a decade ago with the PBS special "Race to the Pole". This documentary essentially blasted Scott as being ignorant and bureaucratic- thus costing his life.
Susie calls Scott the careful and scientific one and Amundson a gambler (who succeeded). Scotts expedition compiled very accurate weather temperature profiles - similar to current results. However they hit the "1 in 20" bad year when winter starts a month early than normal. Scott was "on plan" until winter arrived early. Its was so cold that sleds and skis would not slide. Slipperness is caused by thin frictional melt beneath the skis.
Amudson built his base camp on the ice shelf edge which breaks off every year. He set up a minimum of food depots, compared to Scott's abundance. Shakleton's earlier expedition that ran out of food was the motivation for Scott's extra depots. The Brits had bad luck with dogs and good results with Siberian ponies. Amundson knew to how to get good and fast fast results out of the dogs.
Titanic, a month later in April 1912 (Score:1)
I'd always wondered why it was no longer a problem for modern ships on the same route...
Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is pretty much what we here in Norway hear. Scott is portrayed as rather stupid, failing to heed advices from expeditionists much more experienced than himself, not testing his equipment, and had very little experience to foresee what would await him. Amundsen OTOH was a very cold-hearted man, but extremely efficient and a logistical genius.
One of the stories is that during some of the preliminary expeditions in Antartica, one of the teams got in serious trouble. The leader of the group successfully saved the life on one of members of the team, who had come to the brink of exhaustion. Amundsen did not like this act, it was his clearly stated opinion that everyone who signs up to one of his expeditions must be able to support himself and not delay the expedition in any way. If he is unable to follow, he must be prepared to be left to die. When the team leader did not follow this policy, Amundsen punished him by not allowing him to be on the party that went for the pole.
When I read foreign texts, it is interesting to note that Scott is portrayed as a great hero, who suffered the ultimate hardships. In Norwegian literature, there is nothing glorious about getting yourself killed. He failed, miserably. Besides, he made so many mistakes, for example, leaving the dog-sleds behind, there is really no wonder he failed. Another thing is Scott's spirituality. He put his faith in God's hands. When you're in Antarctica, this is a fatal mistake. There are no hands there but your own. Unless you realize that it is only what you can do that decides whether or not you'll live, you're doomed.
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway (Score:1)
I guess I have to read the book.
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway (Score:3, Insightful)
1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life
It's nothing to do with being well prepared and doing stuff "right". It's all to do with how you react when things go pearshaped. This is why IMHO Shackleton is more of a hero than Amundsen.
It is true there is nothing especially glorious in getting yourself killed, but there can be something glorious in the way you go about it. When Oates, who presumably was in no doubt about the seriousness of his condition, walked outside to die, he didn't go to a glorious death in the freezing cold, but he did do something heroic. Something perhaps more heroic than good planning.
0.02 etc
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway (Score:2)
No argument there. I never intended to say that Amundsen was a hero. Going on expeditions like these are IMHO not heroic in the first place, it is something you do for your own enjoyment and experience.
That is what attracts me to start doing expedition-like treks anyway.
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway (Score:1)
Close, but not quite correct.
In one of the initial expeditions to set up supply depots, the team ran into bad weather on the way back. When they were within a few miles from the base, Amundsen inexplicably drove his dog team harder and left the others behind. Johansen (who was also Nansen's expedition partner across Greenland and to the North Pole), stayed behind to help the stragglers.
When Johansen reached the base, he gave Amundsen a piece of his mind. Amundsen was a control-freak, and since Johansen's outburst was done in front of the others (undermining Amundsen's authority), he punished Johansen by not including him in the party that went to the south pole.
Not cold, malnutrition (Score:3, Informative)
cold + malnutrition + stupidity + foolishness (Score:3, Informative)
There have been discussions about the weather findings. Not surprisingly, Huntford largely dismisses them as a complication Scott should have been more prepared for. Let's itemize some of the things Scott did wrong. (1) He didn't have his team learn to ski; (2) He didn't believe in dogs; (3) He sent someone who didn't know horses to get them, and left behind someone who did (poor Oates); (4) He didn't lay adequate supplies -- His "one ton depot" was half the size of Amundsen's, and was to support larger parties; (4) He chose to bring an unqualified crony in P.O Evans, who should have been discharged for drunkeness.; (5) He brought along physically unqualified Cpt. Oates (war injury) to keep "the army" involved; (6) He broght along Bowers at the last minute, complicating the distribution of provisions; (7) His final party had 4 on skis, and Bowers on foot, having had Bowers leave his skis the day before; (8) he did not mark his depots well, and lost time looking for them; (9) He didn't supervise unloading of his motor sledges, and two of three fell into the ocean when non-qualified people didn't recognize the weak ice; (10) he left behind the motor sledge development engineer, so they had little expertise when the last one broke down. (11) Dragged 50 punds of rocks around when his party was in desparate straights.
On the positive side, he wrote a beautiful diary blaming it all on the weather, not the plan, execution or personnel decisions he had made. This made him the poster child of the "noble failure" for 60 years, and the very model of the upright Englishman who would walk into the trenches of WWI.
Bah. Proving he did have bad luck with the weather doesn't excuse the other suicidal decisions he made.
-dB
ObBias, My great-great-uncle Charlie liked Amundsen, and had some credentials [amazon.com] from which to form an opinion.
Re:cold + malnutrition + stupidity + foolishness (Score:2)
1. Men trained on skiis
2. Lots of dogs
3. No tractors
4. No ponies
In other words, explicit acknowledgement that Scott planned poorly while Amundsen planned well.
Even the Englishmen can learn given half a chance
Scott did not.
Of course, Shackleton's expedition never got on the ground despite being well-prepared. But that preparedness was the key to survival after catastrophe struck, along with sound leadership and a crew which brought a wide range of skills to the table as well as an ability to put up with almost unbelievable hardship.
Re:cold + malnutrition + stupidity + foolishness (Score:1)
Re:cold + malnutrition + stupidity + foolishness (Score:1)
Yes they did know (Score:2)
Haven't you ever heard of "Limeys"? (Score:2)
Re:Not cold, malnutrition (Score:2)
Oh great, you TOTALLY ruined it for me now.
And that, kids, is why I hate history books.
Weather Cause (Score:4, Interesting)
Doomed, weather or no (Score:2)
Scott killed his crew in the worst way: he starved them to death. More particularly, he killed them with scurvy. Scurvy had been understood for a century at the time of his expedition, so there could be no excuse.
Even if he had brought fruit, they still would have died, frozen. He didn't bother sealing his fuel cans properly, so when he came back to them, three quarters of the fuel was gone. The method of sealing fuel cans for arctic conditions was also well-known at the time, to anyone who cared to know.
He brought horses to haul supply caches because he couldn't be bothered to learn to handle dogs. (They froze.) He brought the first three snow tractors ever built, and left behind the mechanic who could have kept them working. He dropped one of them through the ice just from impatience. He marked his supply caches poorly, so missed them on the way back. He brought skis, but didn't even try them until after he got there, and discarded them barely tried. (Skis might have make it look too easy.) That they died of scurvy was an accidental choice; they might have died from any number of idiocies.
Scott's failure was as much a British failure as a personal one. British society at the time valued pluck and endurance over everything, including intelligence and care. Thorough preparation was considered cheating; you had to plan on suffering if you expected to be hailed as a hero. Your men had to die to demonstrate suffering. The British thought they were great because they were good at suffering.
Scott remains a national disgrace; his failure was an essentially British failure. No mere weather report can change that. It took Shackleton to teach the British a lesson in true heroism. None of his men died for his reputation.
Also see the documentary (Score:1)
I saw this film on Saturday. Almost needed a parka when it was over - damn it was cold.
Coupled with The American Experience: Return with Honor about the American Vietnam POWs the two films provide ample evidence of what resources human beings have at their disposal with which to survive.
Another excellent book (Score:1)
He also goes over the history of some of the early South Pole expeditions; while all opinions are expressed by the characters, not the author, it's clear he has considerable sympathy for the "Scott wasn't a *complete* screwup" point of view.
Check it out.
Amundsen vs. Scott vs. Shackleton (Score:1)
While reading another comment [slashdot.org] that highly recommended a book about Shackletons famous Endurance journey, I remembered a comparison of the three explorers which I found in the book: Shackleton's Way - Leadership Lessons [amazon.com].
The first page of chapter eight contains the following quote from Frank Wild, crew member on three of Shackleton's expeditions.
Actually, if the subtitle might turn you off, don't worry. The book is really worthwile reading. It's not literature just for simpleminded MBA's. NB: I just earned such a degree too, but I'm more proud about an earlier M.Sc. in physics).
Re:Amundsen vs. Scott vs. Shackleton (Score:1)