There was book in my school library about the Franklin expedition. There was something haunting and fascinating about the old drawings/paintings of one of the ships locked in the ice, pictures of the incredibly well-preserved sailors, and the failed trek across the ice which ended in cannibalism. It is probably a relatively unknown story (at least in the US - this article suggests that resonates with Canadians), but there's something that draws you to it. Actually, the polar expeditions produced a lot of incredible stories. You've got Shackleton's legendary return to civilization, and what I think is one of the more heroic and tragic pieces of writing, Robert Falcon Scott's Message to the Public:
"We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last.
...
Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale, but surely, surely, a great rich country like ours will see that those who are dependent on us are properly provided for."
It's rather strange that such a desolate environment could produce such interesting stories.
> Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.
can't wait for the same ad for the trip to Europe. Though i hope at least low wages and bitter cold willn't be part of the package this time. Bitter cold replaced by high radiation though.
Funny enough, Amundsen who prepared much better and actually succeeded doesn't get nearly the same amount of press that the Scott does. It seems true heroes fail.
> Amundsen [...] doesn't get nearly the same amount of press that the Scott does
... in the English-speaking world, maybe. My father knows all about Amundsen and very little about Scott, because in (fascist) Italy, English activities were played down.
Anyway, it's hardly surprising that the English-speaking world would elevate their own failed champions above other countries' more successful ones, at a time when extreme nationalism was widespread.
I think it's because he was hated at the time for taking his investors' money and going to the South Pole rather than the North (basically Kickstarter rage), especially when he knew about the British expedition, then announcing it by sending the British expedition a sniggering telegram. Another reason, is that Scott and his four died carrying his joke letter back (the both one rubbing in and proving that Amundsen arrived first.) Lastly, I'd say that it's influenced by Amundsen taking almost the exact same route as Scott had previously announced.
At the time, I think he was seen as a heel that pretty effortlessly ended up as champion. The British with their bizarre obsession with manhauling definitely saw the usage of dogs as less manly. Also: Amundsen was not photogenic. More evidence that he was a cartoon villain.
Part of this is just because people prefer a dramatic story, and "we prepared ourselves to overcome X, and then we found X and overcame it" is less dramatic than "we encountered all sorts of unexpected difficulties! and had to struggle to overcome them!"
The other part is a peculiarly English cultural tendency, particularly pronounced during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, to raise up for veneration losers who went down with style -- not just Scott, but figures like Gordon of Khartoum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_George_Gordon) as well. There was a strong strain in the culture boys were raised in during that era that stressed chivalry and a particular sense of good sportsmanship as being much more important than whether one actually wins or loses.
There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
This is the word that year by year,
While in her place the School is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
There is a line of historical thought that argues that this philosophy had a profoundly negative impact on British military thinking during the first half of the 20th century, with boys who grew up soaking in an emphasis on "playing the game" over winning becoming generals who presided over disasters like the horrific charnel-house offensive at the Somme in 1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme). There's a very good book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Rules-Game-Jutland-British/dp/0719...) that examines this exact question through the lens of how the Royal Navy fought the Battle of Jutland, if you're into this sort of thing.
Thanks, I will check it out. I am currently reading a book called and about Britain's War Machine, that argues that Britain had much more material (especially tanks) and advanced technology than Germany in WWII. That the Germans got so far was mostly because of superior soldiering and that the new British gadgets did not actually work all that well at the beginning of the war.
I've been reading "The Last Place on Earth", and the author is quite disdainful of Scott, who he views as a dilettante who never prepared properly, refused to learn from his mistakes, and who was never involved in an expedition that didn't run out of food.
The last bit is definitely true- he died after four or five days in a blizzard, ten miles from resupply. After heroics coming back from the pole with men collapsing from malnutrition.
Maybe someone like James Cameron when he ventured to the deepest part of the ocean. For me, this is the a fascinating place, with many unknown living creatures swimning about.
Sorry, this is already a book thread. So I post my recommendation here too:
It is a brilliant novel about Franklin and his expedition: The Discovery of Slowness (Sten Nadolny) It has originally been written in german (Die Entdeckung der Langsamkeit). Very well investigated. Especially John Franklin seemed to have been a very interesting character.
Read the amazon reviews: people start to get philosophical, when they write about this book.
A great weekend read, well worth the time. Maybe I should grab it again, too...
I came in here to recommend this too. Great book. It's a fictional story that kind is accurate in that it keeps with the known time line of events and fills in all the blanks with a supernatural twist to the whole thing. Quite a scary book, too, as I remember.
Brilliant book. Every detail about the expedition that was known at the time is very accurately depicted. The parts that were not known are woven into a fantastical, supernatural horror story. I felt cold just reading about the cold.
Absolutely agreed. There's another (non-fiction & not about Franklin, but excellent Arctic survival from the age of exploration) book that just came out by Hampton Sides called "In The Kingdom of Ice", which is really excellent. NYT review: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/books/review/in-the-kingdo...
Unfortunately, Harper isn't really interested in finding a piece of Canada's history. Rather, he is looking for evidence of early arctic exploration to justify nationalistic sovereignty claims of the artic, so Canada is well positioned for northern trade routes and oil exploration once all that nasty ice melts.
I'm no fan of Harper but you are incorrect. He's a huge history buff and has been interested in this exact expedition since well before he became PM. It just happens to help with the sovereignty issue.
He is a huge history buff - Stephen Harper actually wrote a book about history relevant to Canada, while acting as Prime Minister! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Great_Game - It got pretty bad reviews though)
Reminds me of the story of Ernest Shackleton and his crew getting stuck in Antarctic ice, then remarkably surviving. It was one of the greatest adventure books I've ever read:
Do you know where your can get on a trip for 5K? Last i checked, those trips would cost around 2x that amount: i would be absolutely delighted if i can find one for 5K!!!
> The underwater archeologists soon put their survey and diving boat, Investigator, in the water to look for a wreck near the island, using a side-scan sonar towfish pulled on an armoured cable.
"We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last.
...
Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman. These rough notes and our dead bodies must tell the tale, but surely, surely, a great rich country like ours will see that those who are dependent on us are properly provided for."
It's rather strange that such a desolate environment could produce such interesting stories.