Polar Regions Books

I would recommend a good detailed map of the artic at hand when reading this book. Ann Savours assumes the reader is intimately familiar with artic geography. Once you get a hand on the geography it is a very good read for the non-fiction addict.

This book is an interesting first hand account of the Shackleton expedition and their journey by small boat to South Georgia Island. As a narrative by the captain of the Endurance, it can make for laborious reading, as it is not written as a spell-binding novel. As well, it requires some basic foreknowledge of the Shackleton expedition; their mission and the result. The Endurance sinks on the first page of this book, so there is really no background information about the expedition. If you know nothing about Shackleton, you probably should read a more comprehensive history before you read this book. If you already know a bit about it, though, this narrative provides an interesting look at their boat journey from the perspective of the captain. The details of the journey are clearly understated, but you can still gain a glimpse of the horrors of the voyage by reading between the lines. This was a nearly impossible journey, completed by tough and capable men who triumphed against the odds. The story is awe-inspiring and powerful, just make sure you have some background knowledge before you read it.

Amazing ponies eduring incredibly harsh conditions. Brilliant read about the hardyness of horses, the mayhem they caused and the sacrifices they made.

The year is 1954. Katharine Scherman, her husband and a number of other scientists / amateur scientists from the US Northeast paid their own way for a six-week trip to the remote island of Baylot in the Canadian arctic where they live with an Inuit community. Unlike much literature of the Arctic, this is not a story of exploration, physical hardship or overcoming impossible odds - it is a happy and relaxed trip where nothing particularly noteworthy happens - they tramp around with Eskimo's in a care-free existence, take trips around the island via dog sled, observe birds and wild-life, listen to Inuit stories and myths, become like family with the natives. Katharine's writing is very vivid and easy to visualize, one becomes "lost in the book", living the day to day life with the Inuit, experiencing the joy of a spring on an Arctic island. It has qualities similar to the classic "Kabloona" by Gontran de Poncins written about 10 years earlier.

I happened to pick this up at a book fair for a dollar, published in 1956 it appears to be the only edition. Judging from the number of copies available on the used market and cheap price and large publisher (Little, Brown) it was probably a popular book in its day (it had TWO separate lengthy advertisement-like reviews with pictures in the New York Times within 3 weeks of each other - someone had connections), but has since slipped into obscurity like so many books do; but this book deserves to be read today, it is a historical document of what things were like after the age of heroic explorers, when travel to the north was possible in relative safety, but before the north became the mass tourism destination it is today. It contains a map (on the inside end-boards) and a dozen or so B&W pictures.

Even though this was written before the US environmental movement really started, and way before global warming was even known, she comments on how local people said the Arctic appeared to be getting warmer each year, and concerns about what would happen if the permafrost were to warm. She is also tuned into the difficulties of the Inuit clashing with modern culture.

Straight to the Pole is funny book about a boy with a very active imagination. He's all bundled up for the cold trip to school. As he goes he tells himself things like "I'm doomed" and "Must go on". He's almost ready to give up when he hears his friends in the distance. They tell him some good news! School has been called off due to the snow. Now he's free to go sledding.

The book is a good read for all ages. I liked the illustrations in the book.

I would recommed this book to others. It's a good winter time theme book. It can lead to discussions on weather and snow storms. It only has a few words per page making it easy to share with lots of age groups.

A rare look at a little known chapter in US military history. Looks at the largely unknown Polar Bear odyssey - the North Russian Expeditionary Forces made up of American servicemen who, with other allies of WWI, went on fighting in the Russian arctic after the war was over

If you've ever wondered what it would be like to manhaul sledges across a good portion of coastal Antarctica in the dead of winter (meaning in pitch black darkness) to be the first to see Emperor penguins laying eggs and then nesting on them, and then on the return journey to come within an ace of running out of food before finally making it back to base camp...then this is the book for you. The saddest part of this is that Apsley Cherry Garrard was a young man when this adventure occurred. He never recovered basically, and lived quite a long life, haunted by the death of the noble but thoroughly incompetent Robert Scott in 1913.

Interesting story. There's something about that time in scientific exploration paired with the exotic Arctic that makes this novel work. Zeke and Erasmus are fantastic characters, but I felt their relationship wasn't explored/developed as much as it could be. Also, I felt conflicted about what the author intended regarding Dr. Boerhaaves and, especially, Alexandra. Were they supposed to be major characters? They seem uncomfortably stuck somewhere in the middle.

Early Arctic exploration has been a popular topic the last few years, as we can warmly and safely look back in wonderment at the amazing courage, persistence, and discoveries of these men.

But the histories focus on the adventurous aspects of the journey, not on the organizational and human aspects of small groups of men in close quarters under harsh conditions for long periods of time. This work of fiction goes there where the histories don't and can't in examining how the men thought about each other and interacted with each other.

I have read some of the histories, and this book rings so true to their spirit that I thought it was based on a true story. It works on all levels as history, adventure, and a novel.

I struggled to finish this book. The characters were not engaging. It could have been really interesting.

A good adventure story and well written. Not the best I've read, but certainly an enjoyable read.

Voyage of the Narwahl surely has its barely plausible moments, particularly the key plot twist after Erasmus Darwin Wells has returned to Philadelphia from the doomed Narwahl. And there are any number of times when I felt Wells and most of the other characters deserved nothing so much as a few good slaps upside the head to bring a little sense to them. That said, this book is a steady page-turner. Barrett knows her subject thoroughly, writes lucid prose, and shifts smoothly between the Arctic and Philadelphia as she recreates the Arctic's popular lure in the mid-19th century and the beauty and terror of the ice. Her themes - including honor, the pursuit of fame, loyalty - matter. And, plot spoiler here, it is good to see justice served in the end, on a Civil War battlefield, in a return to the Arctic and, not least, in deserved personal happiness.

The entire thesis of the book is that Scott's fate was a darn good attempt, despite the result. Unfortunately, Ms. Preston's arguments fall flat. By the end, the reader has but no choice but to deem the mission a failure on a grand scale through Scott's incompetence more than anything else.

Ms. Preston's failed arguments have been summed up by other reviewers well, so I won't rehash all of them, but I will add this. One of the aruguments she tries to use that Scott was a product of his time and that his actions, such as the pseudo-scientific mission, were reasonable given the times. However, she then also tries to justify certain actions, such as man-hauling , by stating that this is now fashionable with modern adventurers. Well, you can't rightly defend him both in and out of historical context. It's cherry picking and it's scholarly dishonest.

Ok, given my criticisms above why then did I give it even two stars. Well, it was fairly well written in the story-telling sense, if not logic. I also think it provided a good look into the British colonial mindset, which Ms. Preston still clings to in a lovely wigged-Parliamentarian manner. So while the thesis of the book is laughable, the book does provide some good, if unintended, entertainment. In other words, I finished it.

Please read other works of Antarctic exploration before you read this book of fiction promoted as a work of historical research. Read books like Huntford's "The Last Place on Earth", Amundsen's "South Pole", Cherry-Garrard's "The Worst Journey in the World", and from Scott's own diaries "The Diaries of Captain Robert Scott" for reliable information on which to make up your own mind about Scott's expedition. Read these books with a nuanced view, using your critical thinking to come up with your own conclusions. I doubt you will agree with Preston's thesis when you have done so.

In my readings, I have identified 31 separate areas in which Scott's methods were inadequate for safe polar travel as compared to his contemporaries (Amundsen, Peary, Cook, Borchgrevink, Nansen, Shackleton, etc.). Could all 31 areas really have been a matter of bad luck, Ms. Preston? I think not.

If this is the only book you are reading on Antarctic exploration, don't even bother. While she writes a good story, it is just that - a story.

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 Amundsen (and this is not a detraction of him to say so) had a run of good luck. It's ironic that Amundsen left a letter for Scott to take back (and he did) in case Amundsen died, but it proves Amundsen knew that, even with his methods, which seem the "right" ones because he lived, he ran the risk of death in those extreme conditions.

In A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY Preston presents her case clearly and with fairness, and without the judgmentalism that mars Huntford's well-researched and iconoclastic study.

To lighten up some on Scott, folks, does not demean Amundsen's achievements. It's not the silly either/or with the partisans for Cook or Peary. Both Amundsen and Scott could have died (probably should have died) and both might well have made it back alive. There seems to be, in the anti-Scotteans, the fear that if someone treats Scott with a modicum of non-judgmentalism and doesn't bludgeon Scott as a downright fool, it somehow makes denigrates Amundsen. Nonsense. Both men were brave, courageous and intrepid leaders. Their men deserve every bit of praise as being the brave men they were. Scott's expedition was more interested in the scientific end and Amundsen's willy-nilly chase for hte pole was an opportunistis to get the fame to do researches in the north, but the achievements of both neither man, unlike Cook and Peary, need to be given proper appreciation without the need to bludgeon the other.

Preston's A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY is a study of Scott whose time has come.

Diana Preston was written a concise, good book about Robert Falcon Scott who led a 1910-1913 expedition that reached the South Pole. Scott and his four companions died on the return from the Pole, but left journals that told of their ardous journey right up to the end. Scott lost the race to the Pole to Norwegian explorer Raoud Amundson who beat him by a month but in death Scott became a great English hero nevertheless.

Preston's book is not as good as two others about the expedition. Apsley Cherry-Garrard was with Scott for the expedition, but did not accompany Scott to the Pole. His account, "The Worst Journey in the World" is a classic of travel adventure. Roland Huntford's, "The Last Place on Earth" is a blistering attack on Scott's competence and character along with a favorable account of Amundson.

Was Scott incompetent? Well, Amundson made the 1400 mile plus trek to the Pole and back from his base camp in 99 days, averaging about 15 miles per day. Scott averaged less than 10 miles a day, the short Antarctic summer ended, the weather got worse, and he and his companions died. Amundson made good use of skis and dogs; Scott relied on man-hauling his supplies. The British apparently loved Scott in death because of his amateurism, rather than in spite of it. A timely and tragic death can be enhancing to one's reputation.

Preston is generous with Scott and tells a touching story of Scott's relationship with his ambitious and independent wife.

Smallchief

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 love this book. Could not put it down. The author has researched the facts and gives excellent detail to the history. It is a fascinating story and if you like to read about the real explorers you will not regret purchasing this book

I was always intrigued by the disappearace of the ill-fated Franklin expedition, having seen the NOVA presentation some years ago. So I sat down and read this book and couldn't put it down. The story in itself is tragic and heartfelt. The reasons behind it all the more tragic. The NOVA story focused on lead and botulism poisoning as well as scurvy. But having read this book, I've come to the conclusion the Cookman was too lenient on the Admiralty who employed Goldner. 29,000 cans of food is an astounding amount of food to the say the least even in this day and age of automation. In their race to find the passage, they didn't question where Goldner was going to obtain all this fresh meat he was contracted to provide. Not even Queen Victoria ha instant access to the gourmet food he offered. Canned Lobster? Curried rabbit? They didn't inspect his factory and being located in Whitechapel should have been enough to raise eyebrows. That's the place where Jack the Ripper plied his trade and where you wouldn't be caught at night! There was no quality control. No one in the Admiralty had the balls to question where all this fresh food was going to come from! He was contracted to provide fresh beef, roast beef, mutton, fresh vegetables ( all of which not even the very wealthy had access to at the time). All they knew was that he had this patented new process, he was cheap, and he was going to deliver on time. If Goldner was greedy, then the Admiralty was more so at wanting to save money on the deal. Though Cookman calls Goldner the culprit, he should have added the Royal Navy too! The chapter titled Houndsditch was quite disgusting and shocking. Goldner basically hired London's poor, dirty, bacteria riddled workers on the cheap, made the cans on the cheap, and put anything into dirty cans. He used what you and I throw out! The meat was poor quality ( he used any kind he could get his hands on, bones and cartilage even garbage!) rotten vegetables that he didn't wash and canned it and hoped his patented heating process would make everything okay! These were sailors and Royal Naval officers! You'd think a little more care would have been put into this by the Navy. Nope. I'll never look at another can of creamed corn again without thinking how fortunate we are that we've perfected the canning process to some degree and think how those poor souls should have gotten the same. Because of the faulty and careless canning method, most of the officers including Franklin most likely died from botulism poisoning and if you've read about it, it's not a pleasant way to die! Of the many things that killed the entire expedition one can also say that technological arrogance was partly to blame. The ships were huge! Why send so many men? With so many mouths to feed, didn't anyone question Barrow? The ships were heavy because of all that food they had to carry and most of their coal was depleted that first winter just heating the enormous things! The whole thing was a set up for disaster on the scale of the Titanic. It should have been planned more carefully and just like the Titanic (who couldn't sink because of the latest technology) but because of greed and faith in the latest technology, men got trapped and starved and turned to each other for food. I don't know of any disaster that shouldn't have happened but did all because no one thought these things through. I suppose if anyone's to blame, it is man's arrogance that he can defeat anything with anything. Canned food and steam engines would defeat the cold and the merciless artic. In the end, technology didn't amount to a hill of beans. They were poisoned by their food, ran out of fuel, didn't know anything about the land (save Crozier) and how to live off it, and were doomed from the get-go. If Crozier survived it was only because he knew the land and respected it for what it was. Hopelessly unforgiving. Great book, tragic story.

In 1845, Captain John Franklin and the crews of the Erebus and Terror sallied forth from England in search, once more, of the elusive Northwest Passage. Despite the best technology the time had to offer, not one soul returned from the voyage. In this book, Scott Cookman retells the known story of the voyage and adds some discussion regarding the potential causes of the voyage's failure. Most notably, Mr. Cookman spends several chapters discussing how food canning was done at the time and how it could have, oddly-enough, been the deciding factor in the mission's failure.

Mr. Cookman does a fine enough job extracting the story of the voyage from the relative sparsity of the historical record. Similarly the digression into the nauseating world of mid 19th century food supplying and preservation is enlightening and compelling. Where Mr. Cookman falters , though, is in his somewhat less than convincing attempts to find a single villan of the story. Indeed, much of the discussion of the voyage's food supplier, Stephen Goldner, while quite possibly correct, seems based almost entirely on conjecture or the writer's imagination. Mr. Cookman should be applauded for retelling this interesting story and for adding additional important context. However, unsupported conjecture shouldn't masquerade as history, even pop history.

The author often describes events with novelistic details that he actually has no knowledge about. Most frustrating of all is the protracted discussion of canning in the 19th century. He goes on much too long about such things as cleanliness of the employees in canning facilities, details he cannot possibly know, but only assumes. Though perhaps correct, the obviousness of the matter makes the reading tedious. And on and on it goes. Once the chapter is over, he mentions the points again in the next chapter. But he is not through with it. You'll read it again and again.

Other reviewers here have mentioned that the canning episode is well documented in the book. Some facts are but not all. I also fail to see why this is the main cause of the failure of the exhibition.

Couldn't the failure be that there really isn't a realistic North West Passage in the first place?

The book could have used a few more maps. How can one possibly understand the circumstances without a map showing what Franklin knew of the Arctic. A map showing the escape route and the location of some of the artifacts found could have been very helpful. I am a bit confused about what freezes over in the Arctic, blocking routes, and what does not. How about a map showing that?

The author mentions that the passage was actually found during the escape, that is between Canada's main land and King William's Island. This is the route that Admunsen took, conquering the passage for the first time. I wonder if Franklin took this course, if he really would have made it.

One reviewer has called the book "slightly speculative." That is too charitable. Cookman generally does not contradict known facts about the Franklin expedition, but he invents much more detail than he has evidence to support. The book is unsuitable for academic purposes, but it provides a compelling, though at times poorly written, story. I do not wish to be too harsh on the book. To its credit, many of Cookman's speculations are reasonable and provide information that serious historians withhold in their books on the expedition. It is best to read one of the many other books on the topic in order to know what parts of Ice Blink to trust, and which to take with a grain of salt.