Scott And Amundsen: The Last Place on Earth

I enjoyed the very detailed descriptions of all the elements in this book. It seemed to give a very honest appraisal of the people involved and fine explanations of the journeys.

This is an iconoclastic study of two very different men from two very different societies and countries, yet both intent on reaching the last unexplored place on earth. Roland Huntford deconstructs the myth attaching to Captain Scott in a meticulous and methodical critique. He considers the motives of Scott and Amundsen for embarking on their quest and demonstrates how one was destined to succeed while the other, inevitably, was bound to fail. In the process the reputations of both are reappraised to the advantage of the Norwegian and the detriment of the Englishman. This book is not only about discovery and adventure but a well researched and informed revision of history.

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.

I found it quite difficult to rate this book but finally decided on four stars on the basis that it is a very interesting read and keeps you hooked until the end. It is without doubt a controversial story.The basis of this tale is to build up Amundsen and knock down Scott. While Amundsen obviously deserves enormous credit for his achievements, almost everything Scott did throughout his life is knocked in some way and any credit he gets is grudging. At times the constant sniping of Scott gets to be a little wearing and you feel like screaming 'Give the guy a break!!!'. It is an obvious fault of the author and he is biased without a doubt. In fact I felt that he was so biased towards Amundsen that he actually detracts from his achievments because you begin to feel that Huntford is perhaps exaggerating what Amundsen did although he was a truly great explorer.There is no doubt that if it had been Scott who had kept the mission for the South pole a secret as Amundsen did, Huntford would have torn him to pieces whereas he fully justifies the reasons Amundsen gave. Scott had his faults without doubt but he was brave and his determination was obvious. As stated earlier, this tale of two legends isn't particularly balanced and that is the big weakness of this book.Having said all of that however there has been excellent research done and you will learn a hell of a lot about both men. Whatever your views of how this story is presented it is always engrossing and well worth reading. Perhaps having finished this book you will want to read more about Captain Scott, if only to discover if he really was as bad as he is painted here.