Scott and Amundsen: Last Place on Earth (Paperback)

Read it if you must, but be sure to read some of the books that put the other side (Susan Solomon's "The Coldest March" or Ranaulf Fiennes "Scott" being two recent examples. I was all set to dislike the Fiennes book in particular but its actually very sensible argued.)

Ultimately Huntford set out to make his reputation with this book and probably felt he had to take an extreme stance to do so. Its up to the reader what they feel about that.

The basis of this tale is to build up Amundsen and knock down Scott.While Amundsen obviously deserves enourmous credit for his achievments,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 Amundsen 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.

I approached this book having already accepted that Capt. Scott had got things monumentally wrong. However, I now realise that much of what I'd heard to change my view of Scott as hero was probably rooted in this book. But this book fast becomes a fiction to fit the Author's startling prejudices.

It is apparent that Huntford has an almost maniacal hatred for Scott! The book is so biased, that any attempt at even-handedness is swept aside.

Both men clearly had their failings, neither was perfect. Huntford however gives a negative interpretation to Scott's every utterance, written word, thought and deed. While Amundsen is accorded the sort of positive spin that any policitician would die for.

For example, Scott is slammed as being high-minded, arrogant, dictatorial, uncaring and snobbish. Amundsen, as a strong caring leader. Huntford debunks himself when he describes an incident where Amundsen gets caught out by bad weather on an early abortive start to the pole. He retreats to his base to save his own skin, leaving his men to fend for themselves. Two men narrowly cheated death and when one dared to complain - he was sacked from the team. Huntford calls this a sensible decision to maintain Amundsen's authority! Converseley Scott, who refused to abandon his men, even when they had to be carried dying on a sledge, is undermined by Huntford, as having constant thoughts (supported nowhere by the facts) of leaving the men to die.

This book is therefore nothing less than character assasination, it is, in fact, a fiction to call it non-fiction. I believe that Huntford, when he wrote this book had one thing in mind. Making cash from the sensationalism that would result. It's the literary equivalent of a Sun front page expose.

The damage this book caused to Scott's reputation, the hurt to the families of the dead has been immeasurable, and will take time and books like the recent one by Ranulph Fiennes to set right.