Product Description

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the South Pole was the most coveted prize in the fiercely nationalistic modern age of exploration. In the brilliant dual biography, the award-winning writer Roland Huntford re-examines every detail of the great race to the South Pole between Britain's Robert Scott and Norway's Roald Amundsen. Scott, who dies along with four of his men only eleven miles from his next cache of supplies, became Britain's beloved failure, while Amundsen, who not only beat Scott to the Pole but returned alive, was largely forgotten. This account of their race is a gripping, highly readable history that captures the driving ambitions of the era and the complex, often deeply flawed men who were charged with carrying them out. THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH is the first of Huntford's masterly trilogy of polar biographies. It is also the only work on the subject in the English language based on the original Norwegian sources, to which Huntford returned to revise and update this edition.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #133206 in Books
• Published on: 2000-12-07
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 528 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
On December 14, 1911, the classical age of Polar exploration ended when Norway's Roald Amundsen conquered the South Pole. His competitor for the prize, Britain's Robert Scott, arrived one month later--but died on the return with four of his men only 11 miles from their next cache of supplies. But it was Scott, ironically, who became the legend, Britain's heroic failure, "a monument to sheer ambition and bull-headed persistence. His achievement was to perpetuate the romantic myth of the explorer as martyr, and... to glorify suffering and self- sacrifice as ends in themselves."

Last Place On Earth is a complex and fascinating account of the race for this last great terrestrial goal. It is also biographer Ronald Huntford's rather heavy-handed attempt to restore Amundsen to glory. Though this was the age of the amateur explorer, Amundsen was a professional: he left little to chance, apprenticed with Eskimos and obsessed over every detail. While Scott clung fast to the British rule of "No skis, no dogs", Amundsen understood that both were vital to survival and they clearly won him the Pole.

Amundsen in Huntford's view is the "last great Viking" and Scott his bungling opposite: "stupid... recklessly incompetent", and irresponsible in the extreme--failings that cost him and his teammates their lives. Yet for all of Scott's real or exaggerated faults, he understood far better than Amundsen the power of a well-crafted sentence. Scott's diaries were recovered and widely published, and if the world insisted on lionising Scott, it was partly because he told a better story. Huntford's bias aside, it's clear that both Scott and Amundsen were valiant and deeply flawed. "Scott... had set out to be an heroic example. Amundsen merely wanted to be first at the pole. Both had their prayers answered." --Svenja Soldovieri

Review
'In 600 wonderfully researched pages ... Huntford has at last written the three-dimensional book this immense drama deserves' SPECTATOR 'Huntford provides an excellent guide to the extraordinary fin de siecle flurry of interest in conquering these two worldly extremes.' OBSERVER

Sunday Telegraph
'Gripping ...enthralling ...Handles a great mass of material with exceptional intelligence and skill'

Customer Reviews

Overrated or just dated?
The truth is that, like the earlier hagiographies it rightly debunks, the arguments have moved on and rather left this book behind. (The first edition is now more than 20 years old) Is there really a Scott myth to challenge any more? It's a good read, and the research is extensive if one sided, but it is a book with a mission rather than a fair account of what happened. The world accoprding to Huntford is as black and white as a John Wayne Western, but not everything Scott did was foolish, and not everything Amundsen did was fantastic. Although Huntford himself has been debunked, ultimately its the gloating tone used to put down Scott's smallest act that weighs heaviest against the book's credibility. Whatever else, can he have some credit for being a brave man? Apparently not. Is there anyone so awful they have no redeeming features? Huntford thinks he has found one.

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.

Always interesting and controversial..
I found it quite difficult to rate this book,but finally decided on four stars on the basis that it is a very interesting read and keeps you hooked until the end.It is without doubt a controversial story.

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.

Chip on shoulder or axe to grind? You decide.
Like everyone, I am fascinated when a lauded hero turns out to have a murky past. When their glories turn out to be undeserved. It's human nature to gloat as the mighty are fallen.

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.