Don't be put off by bulk: despite its 1,151 pages, "Cook and Peary" is a real page-turner. In elegant, concise language, it tells the compelling story of not one but two of the great hoaxes of all time. The story of the two men who falsely claimed to have reached the North Pole is one of mendacity and gullibility and of the victory of faith over knowledge. It highlights the shakiness of the foundations of what we think of as common knowledge. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the start of the great polar controversy, and it shows that the balance is tipping yet again. It began favoring Cook, then swung decisively to Peary, despite many initial doubters. The idea that both men were fakers dates from the 1970s, and it seems to be finally prevailing. Today, the New York Times, once a passionate defender of Peary, reported last November, "most historians believe both explorers lied." In the first part of the book, Robert Bryce, a meticulous researcher who has the wisdom to trust absolutely no one, tells thhis eye-opening story without making any judgments. He leaves you to make your own. In the second part, he examines the available evidence, some of which he was the first to examine, and tries to answer the two essential questions: Did either reach the pole? He concludes that Cook's own long-hidden journals prove he turned back after 100 miles or so on the floating Arctic Ocean ice pack, or less than a quarter of the way. On Peary, he shows convincing evidence that Peary stopped short of the pole, probably between 100 and 50 miles from the northern axis of the Earth. Bryce explains how Peary used his powerful friends to press his case, while Cook relied on his charm, saying over and over, in effect, "trust me." Bryce shows how either would have been believed, even without the proofs that are ordinarily required, if the other hadn't been there to challenge him. But most amazing, he shows the phenomenal chutzpah of both and the credibility of a world before which most of the damning facts were out in plain view. "Cook and Peary" details the slow collapse of the two claims despite a still-vigorous Peary defense by the National Geographic magazine and persistent lobbying work by the Cook Society. It is this collapse that led the Guinness Book of Records to get rid of Peary, replacing him in 1997 by a 1948 Soviet airplane expeditions. The World Almanac, which once tersely reported Peary's conquest of the pole, as had virtually all world reference books since the Encyclopaedia Britannica found for Peary in 1911, now mentions that there are serious challenges to his claim. But this debate is too old to ever die, and someone will no doubt eventually come out with new facts to illuminate a partisan point of view.

As a piece of scholarship, this is a definitive book. I am using it and related materials in a seminar about research methods. It is not an "easy read" and the numerous relevant illustrations are sometimes smaller than is comfortable to examine. However, it is one of the few sources where you can find reams of verifiable references to the lives of Cook and Peary. Those who believe that Cook and Peary told the truth about their polar "adventures" will probably find ways to discount the mountain of evidence that Bryce has made available. The density of detail takes patient reading, but leaves a reader free to compare interpretations with Bryce's clearly marked conclusions. The author has covered the controversy thoroughly, including taking the trouble to evaluate a copy of Cook's diary archived in Denmark. Those wishing to spend time with this book will be rewarded with credible information about one of the fascinating human stories of the last two centuries.

What can you say about a book that is over 1100 pages long yet I still didn't want it to end? This book is just awesome (and quite heavy too!) I am a bit of a polar exploration buff and found this to be the absolute best book out there on the rivalry between Cook and Peary. If you like adventure stories of any sort, I would highly recommend this book.

I haven't read the 1990 National Geographic article on new evidencies of Peary's reaching the N. Pole, but I've certainly read other books on polar expeditions and I sure recommend this one. Although Mr. Wally's literary value is somehow restricted (he's an explorer in the first place, not a writer)and that makes the beginning a bit tiresome, when it gets to discuss facts and attitudes in polar travelling he's certainly very good.

It doesn't matter wether Mr. Peary did or not reach the Pole after all. If you take a look at the history of polar expeditions, you will see that for decades nobody really cared about a sportsmen challenge (albeit formidable)which would not mean any particular contribution to mankind's knowledge or well-being, but they'd rather focus on expanding the limits of science through adecuate research.

I certainly admire polar travellers, and Amundsen's raid to the S. Pole is a paradigma, but none of the qualities or higher ambitions of people like Amundsen (he did many more things), Nansen, Shakcleton or Scott I can see in Peary or Cook.

Peary's atttitude towards the inuit and their belongings (read the episodes about the meteorits and eskimos being almost deported and afterwards dissected) would have been rejected by any of the other explorers I mentioned, and even under the light of early 20th century must be deplored.

Enjoy yourselves

Wally Herbert has presented a very thoroughly researched and documented book on the Peary/Cook race to the North Pole concluding that Cook flat out lied about arriving at the Pole (that's easy to correctly conclude)and Peary carelessly missed it by numerous navigational errors. This is a tale that can seemingly never be put to rest. Sir Wally Herbert is well qualified to research and write such a book as he himself dog sledded from Barrow Alaska, over the North Pole and back below the Arctic Circle to Spitzenberg in 1969. I thought the author was very even handed about his research and his fair presentation of the facts as he could best interpret them. I think however, Wally Herbert mistakenly concludes that Peary missed the Pole and presumably 'lied' about achieving his goal of being the first to arrive at the North Pole. After I read Herbert's book I took the opportunity to re-read a 1990 National Geographic article entitled "New Evidence Places Peary at the Pole". In the article an independent body of geographic, photographic and navigational experts from the Navigation Foundation of Rockville, MD were presented with all of the navigational details of Peary's diary notations, his photographs, ocean depth soundings and preserved navigational equipment. The article makes a very convincing and cogent presentation that Peary's photographs (the angle and extent of shadows within the exposures) when measured photogrammetrically present unalterable proof that the photos were taken with five miles of the pole. Further the ocean depth sounding results taken on the way to the pole by Peary are currently consistent with what we now know about the actual depth of the Arctic Ocean along the meridian travelled by the Peary Expedition. Although National Geographic and the Navigation Foundation have in my opinion substantiated Peary's success in attaining the pole this is no discredit to Herbert's well written book that should be read by anyone interested in polar and arctic history.

Mr. Herbert has laid to rest the question of priority at the North Pole, Commander Peary did not reach it and lied to the world about his claim. Forget the National Geographic, they would look very foolish to refute the story after all these years. We can hardly expect them to be objective. Almost all polar scholars agree. Peary did not obtain his goal(nor did Dr. Cook). Read this book, come to your own conclusion. I'm sure you will agree.