The Worst Journey in the World · Chapter
XIX: Never Again explained
Cherry-Garrard reflects on the expedition ten years later, contrasting the tragic heroism of Scott's journey with Amundsen's efficient success.
What happens
Cherry-Garrard reflects on the expedition ten years later, contrasting the tragic heroism of Scott's journey with Amundsen's efficient success. He argues that the expedition's scientific ambitions and diverse goals, while noble, contributed to its fatal outcome. He criticizes the reliance on man-hauling and ponies instead of dogs and ski, and calls for future polar exploration to be properly funded and organized by governments, using modern technology to avoid unnecessary suffering.
Themes in this chapter
Contrast Between Ambition and Reality
Cherry-Garrard contrasts the ambitious scientific and exploratory goals of the expedition with the harsh reality of reaching the Pole only to find Amundsen had already been there, rendering their journey 'superfluous.'
Tragedy and Futility
The chapter emphasizes the tragic nature of the expedition—'a first-rate tragedy'—and the futility of the polar journey given that it added no new knowledge after Amundsen's success.
Exploration and Scientific Inquiry
Cherry-Garrard defends the expedition's scientific work, including geological specimens and the Winter Journey for penguin eggs, arguing that knowledge was a primary goal alongside the Pole.
Characters to notice
- Apsley Cherry-Garrard
The author and narrator, reflecting on the expedition with ten years of hindsight, analyzing the contrast between Scott's tragedy and Amundsen's success, and critiquing the expedition's methods.
- Captain Scott
Cherry-Garrard discusses Scott's leadership, his decision to include scientific work alongside the polar journey, and the fatal consequences of the chosen transport methods.
- Roald Amundsen
Praised for his efficient, businesslike approach, use of dogs and ski, and daring route choice; his success is contrasted with Scott's tragedy.
- Birdie Bowers
Mentioned as being glad to see the last of the Norwegian tracks after the polar party realized their journey was superfluous.
- Edward A. Wilson
Referenced for his desire to obtain an Emperor penguin egg, a dangerous and exhausting feat that added to the expedition's burdens.
- Victor Campbell
Mentioned as the leader of a party that self-extricated and survived, contrasting with the polar party's fate.
Key passages
“I now see very plainly that though we achieved a first-rate tragedy, which will never be forgotten just because it was a tragedy, tragedy was not our business.”
Cherry-Garrard realizes that the expedition is remembered as a tragedy, but that was never the intended purpose.
Reflection on the legacy of the expedition.
“On the one hand, Amundsen going straight there, getting there first, and returning without the loss of a single man... Nothing more businesslike could be imagined. On the other hand, our expedition, running appalling risks, performing prodigies of superhuman endurance, achieving immortal renown... yet reaching the Pole only to find our terrible journey superfluous, and leaving our best men dead on the ice.”
Cherry-Garrard contrasts Amundsen's efficient, casualty-free success with Scott's heroic but fatal journey that ended in death and disappointment.
Central contrast of the chapter between two approaches to polar exploration.
“We did not suffer from too little brains or daring: we may have suffered from too much.”
Cherry-Garrard suggests that the expedition's intellectual and ambitious scope may have been a liability.
Critique of the expedition's divided focus on science and the Pole.
“The practical man of the world has plenty of criticism of the way things were done. He says dogs should have been taken; but he does not show how they could have been got up and down the Beardmore.”
Cherry-Garrard acknowledges common criticisms but argues that the practical challenges of using dogs on the Beardmore Glacier were not fully understood.
Defense of Scott's transport choices.
