yeaton.net

Rating:

This is a wonderful book that I cannot recommend highly enough. It tells the story of Scott and Amundson's race to the South Pole, and a great deal about the character of each man.

Amundson was a natural leader, meticulous in planning and a great judge of character:

• "One pilot said that Amundson's ship was he most astonishing he had ever seen. "No orders were given, but everyone seemed to know exactly what to do." (p. 84)

• "Amundson grasped the psychology of small groups; he had an almost feminine sensitivity for the undertones and cross-currents on which a leader has to play." (p. 368)

• "It was one of Amundson's principles to keep out of the workshops (at the base camp) as much as possible, until asked to come and look. He delegated thoroughly, and felt that intrusion, however innocent, might appear as snooping, which definitely was not good for morale." (p. 373)

On the other hand there is Scott - ambitious, vain and reckless - leading his team towards disaster:

• "Scott disliked uncomfortable facts and in general ignored them." (p. 405)

• "Poor skiing technique, unintelligent navigation, a badly-loaded, ill-maintained and ill-running sledge, inefficient camping routine, the disruptions caused by the last-minute addition of a fifth man; the list of defects was comprehensive. Scott had been so consistently inept as to almost suggest the workings of a death wish." (p. 491)

• "There is a kind of heroism for which there are no medals because it is unmentionable. It is that of the subordinate stoically following a leader whom he knows is taking him to disaster." (p. 408)

Ironically, despite the disastrous results, Scott was celebrated as a hero, while Amudson's achievement was largely ignored. This was due to several factors including Scott's literary talents (even while writing his farewell letters) combined with England's need for an iconic hero. Perhaps most of all, Scott's suffering in defeat was widely perceived as more deserving of respect than Amundson's methodically executed success.

This book is thoroughly researched and brilliantly told. It is also a wonderful reflection on leadership.

"Adventure," as the American explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson liked to say, "is a sign of incompetence." (p. 172)

Rating:

This is a typical Michael Crichton book: cartoon-like characters engaged in a fast-moving plot delivering usually interesting scientific information. This was best exemplified in "Jurassic Park", which I consumed in one long evening. Here his target is the environmental movement and the near universal concern over global warming.

Not being an expert in the matter, it's hard for me to agree or disagree with his conclusions. However, two points he makes strike me as fundamentally true: we tend to overstate man's influence on our environment, and to falsely assume that the earth is naturally in a static state. Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet, for example, has turned up evidence of abrupt climate changes in the past (when industrialization was not a factor).

Regardless of the merits of his argument, however, Crichton lets his viewpoints dominate the plot to the point of absurdity. An environmentally conscious actor who played the president on TV, for example, turns out to be a lascivious fool. He ends up being devoured by cannibals - I doubt Martin Sheen is interested in the part. The environmental movement is portrayed as universally stupid and corrupt in equal measure. Here's a representative bit of dialog:

"You don't suppose this guy is really a graduate student?"

"Could be, though I doubt it. Eco-terrorists aren't usually well educated."

Interesting since these same misguided fools are apparently capable of inducing killer hurricanes and breaking off huge chunks of the Antarctic ice shelf. Their only motive for these despicable acts appears to be fundraising. Makes me wonder what PBS is up to...

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you should only read this book as part of a supervised anger management program. For everyone else, two stars.