This book report is about the book"In the footsteps of Scott" written by Roger Mear. He was born in 1950 and gained a fine art's degree at Norwich. This Antarctic Expedetion was suggested by Robert Swan while he was still at University. He then met Roger Mear, an was soon joined by Gareth Wood. They set out to walk to the South Pole, manhauling their sledges, with the intent of tracing Captain Scott's route. The most impressive part of the story to me was when they heard that their ship, The Southern Quest, was crushed and sunk in pack-ice off Cape Evans, cutting off all their radio-links. Their hopes of getting back alive were tremendously threatening. Throughout this electrifying journey, they faced strange, interesting, and even humorous events. They dined away the well-dresed Emperor Penguins at Cape Cozier. These strange and majestic birds were in groups huddling against the ice-cliff. From this book I learnt how people survive in harsh conditions, in a cold isolated place. I would highly recommend this book to all my friends, because it's interesting and adventurous, and one learns much about this expedetion to one of the most dangerous and unspoilt landscapes in the world. Antarcica.

Susan Solomon has tried very hard in this well-written and documented new book to exonerate Captain Robert Falcon Scott, the leader of the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition to the South Pole in 1911-1912. In recent years Scott has been accused of everything from simple incompetence to real stupidity by critics of his leadership and organization, which Solomon, an NOAA scientist with a distinguished career and Antarctic experience, clearly finds unjustified. By extensively researching not only the original documentation - diaries of Scott and his men, the expedition's meteorological records, information from other Antarctic expeditions of the day such as Shackleton's 1908-1909 try for the pole and Amundsen's successful polar bid of 1911-1912 - but also modern meteorological data, now available for some years along the entirety of Scott's route to the pole (now the course for aircraft bound for the Amundsen-Scott Station), she has tried her level best to suggest that abnormally cold weather was the deciding factor in the loss of the five-man polar party. And indeed cold weather must have been a factor. The poor weather conditions not only would have debilitated the men and caused severe frostbite, the friction of cold snow would have made it almost impossible for the men to pull their sledges more than a few miles a day. Indeed Solomon has charted the progress of the polar party, comparing it with the two supporting parties that turned back short of the pole, and her information does demonstrate how badly slowed up Scott and his four companions were.

The trouble remains, however, that while poor weather clearly contributed to the loss of Captain Scott and his men, Scott's own mistakes and poor planning were also a factor, and to her great credit Solomon does not conceal them, just as Scott, an undeniably courageous and honest man, did not conceal them in his own writings. Scott's assiduous copying of Shackleton's mistakes in 1908-09 (the use of ponies, reliance on unproven motor transport), his own short cuts (spending time testing his motor sledges but not clothing, tents, or other gear), and his failures in leadership (taking five men instead of the planned four to the pole) were instrumental, I believe, in his failure to survive the trek. One also must question why, after the blizzard that trapped the men in their tent 11 miles from a depot of food and fuel, the two well men, Dr. Wilson and the redoubtable Lt. Bowers, did not leave Scott, who was crippled by frostbite, and go to the depot for supplies or even, in the finale extremity, leave Scott to die and save themselves, something Solomon herself seems to find as mysterious as others who have pondered the question, although she advances a possible explanation.

Overall this is a very good book, the first to take into account modern knowledge of Antarctic weather and apply it to Scott's tragic expedition. Although I don't feel that the author has entirely proved her thesis, it is a valuable and useful contribution to the controversy over Captain Scott's expedition.

This is a really thoughtful, well-researched assessment of Scott's fatal Polar expedition. It is insightful and gives the reader a clear explanation of many issues that affected the outcome of one of the most interesting expeditions of all times. It is full of information that brings to life what these MEN did almost a hundred years ago. Exploration is on a different level these days. Nothing like it was for Scott's party and those of his era experienced. Brave and daring like nothing we can imagine.I think anyone interested in Polar exploration will be thoroughly satisfied with the subject matter covered in this well written book. It covers survival issues like no other book on the subject I have seen to date.It is a subject that I find fascinating and this book brings out the horrific circumstances that they had to contend with and is a more fair appraisal of Scott's effort to reach the South Pole. Well worth your time and consideration.

I've always been more interested in Arctic exploration than the Antarctic -- it seems less two-dimensional, and far more colorful in terms of history. But this book really got my attention. Solomon isn't some armchair theorist, she is an Antarctic professional, and an expert on weather conditions there. Taking a close look at what happened to Scott's 1911-12 expedition, and contrasting it with his earlier journey (with Shackleton) plus Shackleton's 1908 attempt, and the rival Amundsen polar bid, she shakes out a lot of rumors, innuendos and plain nonsense about what Scott 'knew' versus what he 'ought to have known.'

Scott has always seemed a stiff-upper-lip bumbler to me, and to some extent he was, but what happened is not as simple as it appears. He made some educated guesses, and he also made some mistakes. Using motor sleds was a waste of time, considering the poor engine technology of the time. He allowed someone else to select some unsuitable Manchurian ponies. He didn't trust dogs, based on prior experiences. He didn't pay enough attention to suitable clothing and sleeping bags. But he did set up a workable logistical system for his polar attempt, that should have worked.

So what went wrong? The factors above, plus too great a level of fatigue for his team. Poor Bowers ended up walking 400 miles in snow, instead of skiing. They didn't know, as we do, what a menace dehydration at high altitudes would be. Scurvy was poorly understood, and they probably suffered marginally from this, too. And finally, they set out for the Pole a month too late, and got caught in an extremely cold spell that made sledding by manhauling almost impossible. Solomon proves every contention with solid data from the expedition's copious records and from modern survey work. In the end, Scott died -- with Wilson and Bowers keeping him company, in all probability -- because he contracted severe frostbite in -40 degree weather. The idea that he was trapped by a '10 day blizzard' just eleven miles short of a supply depot is disproved by Solomon: the katabatic winds don't blow from the south for more than two or three days, it now seems.

This is a well-written, highly documented piece of work, and is not in any sense an attempt to 'whitewash' Scott. Starting late, and hitting some extremely bad weather was all it took to kill him and his four brave companions.

I am an unsatiable reader of polar exploration adventure history. There are so many books such as "Mawson's Will" and "Endurance" that provide intricate details to gain insight into the explorer's thoughts and condition. Ms. Preston provides so much boring detail regarding each character that I skipped chapters to get to the subject. In one passage, she describes one of the crew as "studying at Oxford where he read the classics". This book is full of English dribble. I completely agree with another review who stated:

"This book merely perpetuates that success (non-British) was bad, and ridiculous failure (British) was herioc. I don't even know if the word tragic is correct, as that implies some sort of unforseen bad luck. Scott didn't have bad luck - he made it fail all through his own incompetence. The only ones who suffered any tragedy were his men, for the bad luck of having Scott as their commander."

Men like Mawson and Shackelton proved to be some of the greatest leaders despite great adversity and until recently, were only footnote in polar exploration

Read this book, it does provide good background on the crew and Scott but, beware of it's boring details.

After reading Caroline Alexander's account of Shackleton's adventure in the Antarctic, I then read this book. How anyone can say that this is not an apologist account is beyond me! Scott's mistakes are so terribly glaring and numerous, I am baffled as to why his status as a hero remains when true leaders like Shackleton are virtually unknown to most people. The tone might be more tolerable if the author was only trying to defend Scott, however, she continuously berates both Shackleton (seemingly more on the grounds that he is Irish) and Amundsen (characterizing him as a Nordic barbarian) throughout the book and promotes Scott as the "gentleman" explorer. Shackleton was able to keep over 20 men alive over the course of 2 years, cross a 1000 miles over the ocean in something akin to a row boat and then hike over mountains to save his men. In contrast, it was almost painful to read about Scott's errors in judgment and wonder what was motivating his thinking at the time - worrying about killing the dogs for food, bringing an additional person on the trek to the pole without enough food, making sure that they did a "man" haul - which finally and collectively sealed Scott's fate as well as the fate of his men. I use the term "fate" lightly because so many of the errors in judgment could have been avoided, I finished the book believing that if Scott had been a stronger leader, he and his men would have survived the ordeal.

I still rate this book 5 stars, because regardless of the tone, I found it to be a fascinating study of weak leadership and the fatal consequences that can result from it

Books on North Polar exploration seem to take a pro-Peary or pro-Cook slant. Even the National Geographic Society pushes Peary's claim, because it also helped fund his expedition. So when a book like Bryce's COOK AND PEARY comes out, saying what many of us believed all along, that both men were unscrupulous liars and neither deserve polar priority, it's a breath of fresh air on the subject. Nevertheless, Bryce also tempers this conclusion by saying both men were skilled in extreme conditions and remarkable real achievements below their belts before they started lying on a big scale and claiming for themselves what they had not achieved. Bryce tries in a valiant book to put an end to the nonsense that if Cook failed, Peary won, and vice-versa.

Books on South Polar exploration must be different. Amundsen reached the pole. It's indisputable. Scott died bringing back the proof that he didn't get priority. Because he reached the pole and -- to the anti-Scotteans, more importantly -- he got back. However, Scott's expedition was not a failure. It was, first and foremost, a scientific expedition; Scott wanted polar priority and probably deserved it (Amundsen wanted the north, denied him by the charlatans Cook and Peary, so he jumped Scott's claim).

Scott's reputation, unlike Amundsen's, has undergone a roller coaster ride for almost a century. First he was made a hero. Then the iconoclasts set in. Roland Huntford's book on Scott and Amundsen was the Big Nail for the anti-Scott forces. To them, Huntford's book is gospel, and to question it is to question reality.

But Huntford, a fine biographer of polar explorers (Nansen, Shackleton), was distintly and unapologetically anti-Scott. And while Scott made errors (the biggest being his modern-minded "diversity" in taking seaman Evans along), his expedition was meticulously planned and employed the latest scientific and techonological advances. Solomon's COLDEST MARCH lays some Scott criticism aside (and since Solomon is a scientist who has actually worked in Antarctica her credentials should carry more weight with the anti-Scotteans than it does). Scott and Amundsen were products of their class and their era, but both also had been on polar adventures before and both men knew what they were up against. Scott is often, these days, portrayed by his detractors (euphemism) as mercurial and indecisive and, in some cases (as in the dramatization of Huntford's book) cruel.

In fact, Scott's polar expedition was a tragedy, in the classic sense as well as the modern. Many events beyond his control led to his death, but decisions he made did go woefully wrong. In any event, it seems, in light of more recent evidence than Huntford's, the whole party would have made it back in most years, but conditions were different on that part of the Antarctic than had been scientifically observed previously. Scott made some bad decisions that led to the tragedy, but it also seems he had a run of bad luck, while Amundsen (and this is not a detraction of him to say so) had a run of good luck. It's ironic that Amundsen left a letter for Scott to take back (and he did) in case Amundsen died, but it proves Amundsen knew that, even with his methods, which seem the "right" ones because he lived, he ran the risk of death in those extreme conditions.

In A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY Preston presents her case clearly and with fairness, and without the judgmentalism that mars Huntford's well-researched and iconoclastic study.

To lighten up some on Scott, folks, does not demean Amundsen's achievements. It's not the silly either/or with the partisans for Cook or Peary. Both Amundsen and Scott could have died (probably should have died) and both might well have made it back alive. There seems to be, in the anti-Scotteans, the fear that if someone treats Scott with a modicum of non-judgmentalism and doesn't bludgeon Scott as a downright fool, it somehow makes denigrates Amundsen. Nonsense. Both men were brave, courageous and intrepid leaders. Their men deserve every bit of praise as being the brave men they were. Scott's expedition was more interested in the scientific end and Amundsen's willy-nilly chase for hte pole was an opportunistis to get the fame to do researches in the north, but the achievements of both neither man, unlike Cook and Peary, need to be given proper appreciation without the need to bludgeon the other.

Preston's A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY is a study of Scott whose time has come.

I wanted to point out that there are supposed to be five reviews accessible and I can only view the one from Austin, Texas. Where are the others?

The authoritive reference for what happened on Scott's polar journey - since it was written by the man himself. Don't be put off by the appalling introduction by Bainbridge (which ruins the story if you don't know all the details since it is just a brief summary of the rest of the book - just skip it!). I wouldn't recommend reading this first (try Scott by Elspeth Huxley as an intro) but for historical interest if you get into the history of the antarctic this is a must. The actual description of the southern journey only makes up the final section of the book, most of it is concerned with the depot laying and over wintering parts of the expedition. As such most of the book is mostly concerned with the details of preparing for the journey and hence probably won't appeal as a general introduction to Scott's last expedition.

While the story is known to most armchair explorers, nothing beats the saga right from the horse's mouth. Yes, the journal does drag in places, but so do long days of waiting in the Antarctic. It makes us impatient and edgy, wondering if the storms will ever end or what equipment will break next. Knowing the climax detracts nothing from how they got there--or didn't. This and Shackleton's own story really have to be read if one enjoys this kind of tale.

The book "A flag at the pole" is pretty good. Its a really cool book. At some times its exciting and at other times it gets boring. The reason i like this book is because it is weird. Its about 4 people that go to the North Pole and get really lost. they are from Britain. Their names are Jack, Maria, Joey, and Beth. They try to get home but they run into a lot of trouble. In the story they run into a polar bear that is really big but they.......... you have to read the book to find out what happens. The book has many exciting parts. I like the polar bear part the best. There are a lot of more problems than what I wrote. They run into deer, storm, and a lot of other things. THis book was pretty fun to review. I am done with the review now so take this book out at the library a.s.a.p. because it is a really great book