|
I've got a copy of The Ice Balloon but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I did really like The Balloonist by MacDonald Harris, which is a novel inspired by that expedition. It's a dense read that skips around between the journey and the main character's halting attempts at romance, but it's basically meant to be the guy's diary as he's realizing what he's led them to. And some of the jumps that seem disjointed at first make a little more sense as the book goes on. The protagonist is interesting without being very sympathetic, but towards the end of the story some of his lies feel like a kindness. I like reading about the Scott expedition, and it's frustrating when authors refer to him like he's some epic idiot. It's fair to point out his mistakes, but some of the criticism has been overly harsh (especially considering that people seem quick to blame Scott for decisions made by others back at his base camp). I guess that when it comes to exploration stuff, I think tragedies are more thought-provoking than overwhelming successes. Amundsen's accomplishment was really impressive. He's just so dull for me to read about. I'm also not as interested in the guys whose only interest was getting into the record books. I know everyone wanted the poles, and everyone wanted to be first. But I prefer the gloryhounds who also wanted to increase our knowledge of an area to the ones who clearly didn't give a poo poo about that.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
No worries, I think it's just a difference in our basic outlooks. I approach things like this from more of an emotional response kind of place than a logical one; I can't look at that kind of situation and judge it based on which team I'd rather have been a part of. The story of Our Poor Doomed Heroes is just far more interesting than the story of some guy who's plan worked really well, especially because I appreciate Scott's overall approach in terms of actually doing research in the area more than Amundsen's pure focus on achievement. Society learned a lot about these environments from all the folks who failed to make it before Amundsen got there. He benefited from that knowledge without really caring to contribute to it. And some of the anti-Scott claims that I've come across again and again may not hold up, they feel a little like just-world stories about how, since he died, then he must have somehow deserved it. It's all a little strange to me because I rarely see the same level of vitriol expressed towards other deadly expeditions. I guess it's pushback against how he was so idolized at first? Skepticism is important, and the North Pole shenanigans were a good lesson in that. But we also shouldn't be so quick to blame Scott for every poor decision made by every person on the team, especially considering that the base camp survivors naturally had an interest in looking as if they did everything possible once the worst happened. Sure, Scott could have planned better. He should have made some better decisions in the field. They should have left the samples when things got dire; someone could have gone to recover them later. But I also believe he had some rotten freaking luck along the way, and I'll never like the idea that he got as far as he did by being some reckless, thoughtless idiot. My other big nonfictional interest is shipwreck stories though, and luck plays such a huge role in those that I'm probably more inclined to be sympathetic to it as an argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I think calling him a failure is unnecessarily harsh. He made it there after all, and they came very, very close to getting back. I guess differing opinions are what make the subject interesting. Of course we shouldn't accept new research without question, but it was a peer reviewed paper and it sounds like they found documentation of a written plan calling for heavier use of the dog teams. That journal has a pretty clear agenda, but that doesn't mean the anti-Scott crowd is perfectly objective either. Both sides seem solidly entrenched at this point. It'll be interesting to see how later books interpret the findings. I definitely sympathize with one side more than the other, but it's a good story either way. All the follow-up drama is fascinating too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 00:00
|
|