杏吧原创

Captain Scott was a morbid romantic, the victim of a tradition of heroic failure, says Roland Huntford 鈥� and Amundsen鈥檚 diary makes much better reading

You made a reputation taking apart the Scott legend. But if he was so incompetent, how did he become a national hero?
In Britain there is a tradition of admiration for the glorious failure, a Nelsonian idea of death in the hour of triumph. The other thing is a streak of morbidity. People love a good death, so Scott鈥檚 story appealed to that undercurrent.

But Scott鈥檚 diaries are eloquent, poignant鈥�
People say he鈥檚 eloquent. I find his writing appallingly maudlin and self-regardant, almost pathologically inward-looking, a bit like Lawrence of Arabia. In Scott鈥檚 diary there鈥檚 self-pity and comments about poor luck with the weather. I read Amundsen and much prefer his writing. Scott鈥檚 diary is designed to make things seem heroic; Amundsen underplays things: there鈥檚 underlying humour, irony, self-deprecation. Returning to Scott, I thought, 鈥渙h no, not more of this romanticised trash鈥�.

So why do most people only remember Scott?
For British people, Amundsen was a foreigner, whom you don鈥檛 celebrate. He beat our man and I think that is resented. There鈥檚 been a tortuous effort to show Scott was the real winner because he suffered and died 鈥� he鈥檚 the sacrificial hero. People feel that when someone does something very competently and, even worse, plays it down, it is somehow cheating.

What do you say to the criticisms of explorer Ranulph Fiennes, who says you can鈥檛 judge Scott as you have never been to the South Pole?
I鈥檝e not been to Antarctica, but I鈥檝e got a background of Nordic skiing 鈥� I鈥檝e been skiing for longer than I care to remember. When I read Scott鈥檚 Last Expedition I thought, what鈥檚 he going on about, moaning about the snow? He鈥檚 describing perfect snow for skiing.

People like meteorologist Susan Solomon also disagree with you about Scott鈥�
Solomon belongs to the school that says but for the weather, Scott would have got through. But there鈥檚 a saying in Scandinavian countries that there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. It is much easier to protect yourself against the cold than heat 鈥� as warm-blooded creatures, we are walking furnaces, so all we need is proper insulation. If Scott鈥檚 party had worn fur, there would have been no problem. But there was a lingering belief that civilised men didn鈥檛 use furs 鈥� they were for savages. It was OK to use reindeer fur in sleeping bags but not for clothing. Amundsen, however, understood the Inuit, learned from them, and wore fur clothing.

What were Scott鈥檚 biggest mistakes?
His first mistake was to depend on hauling sledges by foot. This is idiotic, because it is slow and tortuous. But even allowing for that, he could have still survived had he arranged his food depots at intervals which were adjusted to manhauling 鈥� which he didn鈥檛. On 13 February 1912, during his return, he nearly ran out of food. He wrote: 鈥淚n future food must be worked out so鈥� we do not run so short if the weather fails us.鈥� I am still outraged when I read this. There was no margin of error. When he was returning, it was a case of march or die.

Did Scott know they weren鈥檛 going to make it?
Scott鈥檚 letters and diary, written in language eerily like Peter Pan, read like a long suicide note. I don鈥檛 think he could face failure, so it was a kind of suicide, lying down in the tent.

The diary implies that expedition members Edward Wilson and Henry Bowers were ready to start for the next depot to fetch supplies. It was only 11 miles, but something held them back. Even if one accepts Scott鈥檚 record of a continuous blizzard 鈥� which I don鈥檛, on meteorological grounds 鈥� it was a following wind. Other explorers, such as Amundsen, travelled gratefully in such conditions. By the mores of the time, if Wilson and Bowers had survived but not Scott, they would have been accused of deserting their captain and been socially dead. Scott鈥檚 writing implies he was interested in his reputation, not the lives of his followers. He probably persuaded the two to wait on the grounds their records would be found if kept in the tent but not if they fell on the trail. Wilson鈥檚 letter to Mrs Oates [mother of the team鈥檚 Captain Lawrence Oates] hints tragically at such pressure, and that, left to himself, Wilson would have kept going.

But Scott didn鈥檛 just focus on the South Pole, he wanted to do new science. After all, his sleds were loaded with 15 kilograms of specimens when he died. Don鈥檛 you have any sympathy?
Not really. Five lives were lost out of sheer incompetence. This is a dreadful thing. Scott was putting records ahead of human lives. Science is not worth sacrificing life for.

You write that Scott used science as a 鈥渕oralistic fig leaf鈥�. What do you mean?
Scott was using science in order to give the geographical exploration a higher meaning, to enhance his stature because of intellectual snobbery. He also wanted it as insurance in case of failure to win the race to the South Pole. This dishonesty of purpose has an unfortunate effect. I believe it induces an almost schizoid state, which is not helpful when you鈥檙e on the edge of survival. Amundsen understood you have to concentrate your efforts 鈥� you cannot spread yourself when you have got a goal.

But wasn鈥檛 Scott鈥檚 team ahead technologically?
Yes. But the problem was there was no proven technology for low-temperature travel. Scott told the engineer not to bother testing the tractors in cold chambers, and they failed. This was blind faith allied to slovenliness in the application of technology. Scott once said that gentlemen don鈥檛 practice.

鈥淪cott was consumed with hubris, which is what killed him in the end鈥�

So Scott was interested in the glory of scientific discovery while Amundsen took the best ideas from science to be successful?
Exactly. Here鈥檚 an example. When Arthur Hinks, the Royal Geographical Society鈥檚 cartographer, knew Scott was going south, he held a seminar on navigation, explaining that longitude doesn鈥檛 matter very much at high latitudes because the effect on your course is minimal. Hinks wrote a paper which came to the attention of one of Amundsen鈥檚 officers. Amundsen realised instinctively that at the edges of survival you have got to save energy so didn鈥檛 bother measuring longitude. Scott ignored Hinks, so Bowers wasted time looking up tables and doing calculations for a few hundred yards of meaningless accuracy.

Do you think that it鈥檚 only when compared with Amundsen鈥檚 seemingly effortless expedition that Scott can be truly understood?
Here鈥檚 a telling statistic. Amundsen鈥檚 party had around 100 years of skiing between them; Scott鈥檚 could barely muster five. It seems to me that Amundsen had what the Greeks called arete, meaning being suited for what you do. By contrast, Scott was consumed with hubris, which is what killed him in the end.

It鈥檚 very painful to read how easy Amundsen found it all 鈥� and how terrible Scott did鈥�
When Olav Bjaaland [ski champion and a member of Amundsen鈥檚 team] got to the South Pole, he said: 鈥淗ere it鈥檚 as flat as the lake at Morgedal [Norwegian village known as the cradle of skiing] and the skiing is good.鈥� To understand Amundsen, we must remember they regarded the South Pole as the world鈥檚 longest ski race. Scott came from the romantic culture of heroism, where there is no heroism without suffering. He gloried in driving himself to the limit and this was a recipe for disaster.