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's story appealed to that undercurrent.
But Scott's diaries are eloquent, poignant...
People say he's eloquent. I find his writing appallingly maudlin and self-regardant, almost pathologically inward-looking, a bit like Lawrence of Arabia. In Scott's diary there's self-pity and comments about poor luck with the weather. I read Amundsen and much prefer his writing. Scott's diary is designed to make things seem heroic; Amundsen underplays things: there's underlying humour, irony, self-deprecation. Returning to Scott, I thought, "oh no, not more of this romanticised trash".
So why do most people only remember Scott?
For British people, Amundsen was a foreigner, whom you don't celebrate. He beat our man and I think that is resented. There's been a tortuous effort to show Scott was the real winner because he suffered and died - he's the sacrificial hero. People feel that when someone does something very competently and, even worse, plays it down, it is somehow cheating.
Read Full Article »