Book Review: Shackleton's Forgotten Expedition, Beau Riffenburgh

[juushika]

Title: Shackleton's Forgotten Expedition: The Voyage of the Nimrod
Author: Beau Riffenburgh
Published: 2004
Rating: 4 of 5
Page Count: 305
Total Page Count: 557,485
Text Number: 2096
Read Because: cold boys secondary sources; this is a belated review from summer last year and for the life of me I cannot remember how I got my hands on the book
Review:
Riffenburgh is a mediocre technical writer, which makes for clumsy sentence construction and scene transitions. And while I can't fault his research, his agenda is weirdly obvious—he's a complicated and critical Shackleton stan, which nevertheless makes him a Wilson and Scott hater. But, structurally, this is well-balanced: Shackleton's reputation as the failure of the British National Antarctic Expedition vs. the image fostered in the rest of his career hinges at the Nimrod, so there's a lot of the Discovery but a willingness to skim later and better-known details of the Endurance.

As for Shackleton. 1) He reminds me of Borchgrevink of the Southern Cross, chasing fame, uninterested in science, not very good at planning; Shackleton's rapport with (select of) his men and aptitude for leadership sets him apart, but it's clear that public response to the Southern Cross vs. the Nimrod was fueled purely by British chauvinism. 2) He's insufferable! 3) The excess of close calls in the return journeys from both geographic and magnetic pole attempts further cements my opinion that trying to identify the exact causes of Scott's failure in 1912 is a situation of forest and trees, the problem more fundamental than any specifics: as soon as you start a man-hauling across the Antarctic, you are one unlucky run from death.

It's a janky read, but I'm grateful this exists; there's a regretful dearth of secondary sources about the not-big-name Antarctic expeditions. And oh, how I wish more of the journals had ever been published!

Comments

[starshipfox]

further cements my opinion that trying to identify the exact causes of Scott's failure in 1912 is a situation of forest and trees, the problem more fundamental than any specifics: as soon as you start a man-hauling across the Antarctic, you are one unlucky run from death haha that's what I always think about Shackleton too! I always wonder why he's so famous when he made such bad choices.

[juushika]

Here's the normal-person response: haha I know, right; he's insufferable.

Here's the "unfortunately for both of us I actually know the answer to this question" infodump:

Popular success of Antarctic expeditions/explorers hinged on a specific, narrow, "know it when I see it" range of suffering. Quoting "Tainted Bodies: Scurvy, Bad Food and the Reputation of the British National Antarctic Expedition, 1901–1904," by Edward Armston-Sheret (the BNAE was the Discovery):

Suffering was a central component of narratives of adventure – allowing the explorer to demonstrate heroic, manly qualities which appealed to domestic audiences. As one of Shackleton’s companions on the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition (1914–1917) [the Endurance] put it, ‘[p]rivations make a book sell like anything’.103 But while narratives of suffering could be commercially lucrative, some kinds of suffering were more acceptable than others. If suffering was seen to be avoidable, it was difficult to present it as either noble or heroic. The different renderings of scurvy reflect a broader challenge that explorers faced.

Because there was little agreement on how much suffering an explorer should experience or to what degree hardships like scurvy were inevitable, the very privations that would demonstrate masculine heroism and devotion to science to one audience could suggest mismanagement to others. Moreover, while descriptions of vulnerability and weakness had long been techniques used to stress the strength of an explorer’s character and their benevolent intentions, some – reflecting broader concerns about degeneration and national fitness – saw bodily breakdown as troubling rather than heroic, particularly when other countries appeared to be carrying out similar journeys with far less trouble. These disagreements reflected the fact that by the early twentieth century broader questions were being asked about the primary purpose of exploration: were Antarctic expeditions a matter of heroic adventure, scientific research or demonstrations of national and naval hegemony?

Obviously, all this suffering was "avoidable," but the good kind, a moving target, was: a test of physical endurance (haha) (this is an Endurance joke) in service of an objective (doesn't generally count if you're just overwintering in place but it sucks) which is a near disaster saved by [insert positive, masculine, British traits here: persistence, ingenuity...]. Enfeebling weakness can invalidate success; a little death is good but a lot can invalidate success; a lot comes down to how you spin it. Thus the BNAE/Discovery was highly controversial, a mixed success (scurvy and need of rescue = wrong suffering, but it sure was British doing Adventure!), the Swedish Antarctic Expedition got traction despite it being foreign (great suffering, one tragic death, overwhelming success = good suffering), and Shackleton ... gave a lot of popular lectures. And had learned how not to do Bad Suffering after being disgraced by scurvy on the BNAE. And then hit the jackpot of "great suffering, with a defined goal, finding success" in the Endurance.

In this book, Riffenburgh's admiration for Shackleton vs Scott hinges on: he retreated from the pole attempt; they could have gotten there, IF he was willing to sacrifice a successful return. The return was barely successful, and obviously Scott's unsuccessful return in 1912 had more to do with mismanagaged caches than "they should have turned back"; as established above, A Shackleton and Scott had near-identical issues, just one got lucky and the other not so much. But. Riffenburgh is kind of right. Part of Shackleton's popular appeal, established on the Nimrod, was, "I led my men into hell and then out again," the exact right kind of suffering; and then, via the Endurance, he exemplified it.

So. Famous.