South. Account of the Endurance and Aurora Expedition 1914-1917

Well yes, dear children. In case anyone doesn’t know it, we are facing one of the greatest survival stories that polar exploration has given (and look, there are stories!). A ship that is trapped in ice until it sinks, an agonizing drift on ice and through stormy seas, an inhospitable island, a 1,300 km journey across the Southern Ocean to reach South Georgia (and then having to cross the island in a 36-hour walk), a rescue to the limit, etc. Come on, not even Jules Verne, tetes!

This is the summary summary of the odyssey that the Endurance expedition had to undergo, led (in its own way, which needs to be demystified a little) by Sir Ernest Shackleton and this is what, broadly speaking, is narrated in On.

But as is often the case, this is only part of the story. And the Transantarctic Expedition was not just “Shackleton’s expedition” nor On It’s just the story of the Endurance. Because there were two ships that headed to the frozen continent (although the “Official” History speaks only of the Endurance in which Sir Ernest was on), because there are characters, like Worsley or McNish, keys to understanding the happy outcome of the adventure that did not have been duly recognized, because Sir Ernest perhaps was not that “mega-wonderful” leader whose merit, on the other hand, would be unfair to deny (but from there to almost canonization there is a way), etc.

From all of the above, a possible double reading of the book is derived, depending on whether or not the reader has prior knowledge about the adventures of Shackleton and company. Get in trouble!

If this is the first time you hear about the expedition, you will be amazed by the trip. An adventure that borders on the incredible, men in extreme situations in the middle of the polar night, drama, tragedy, the human condition, culinary recipesetc condensed into nearly 600 pages.

On the other hand, for those who have already seen or read something about the expedition On It could be other things. The adventure is still brutal and has all the elements that make it something almost mythical, but the most “expert” reader will see how that “example of leadership” that Shackleton seemed to be may not have been so and will discover other names and other stories with which you can feel more identified.

About Shackleton’s leadership, four things stand out:

• his little or no gratitude to two key characters in the entire story. And Sir Ernest and the James Caird They would never have reached South Georgia after a 1,600 kilometer journey, orienting themselves as best they could without Frank Worsley, but Worsley and Shackleton might still have been raising hollyhocks in 1916 if it hadn’t been for McNaish (the carpenter, simply put). for that bastard Sir Ernest).
• The few references to the organization of the group during the expedition, which together with certain references to drastic measures, reveal a Shackleton very much in his role as a boss. (Let’s see, who the hell is Sir on this fucking ship, are you useless?)
• his lack of self-criticism. Yes, your whole group arrived alive and everything you want but you had to do something wrong, right?
• the little attention he pays to the feelings or stories of his expedition companions. The tone of the narrative is rather cold and focused on external aspects or on the narrator himself (although there are moments in which the desperation and boredom of the group clearly shines through) and distances him from guys like Nansen, a better writer and (it seems that ) better person than Sir Ernest.

As for other names and other stories, I am referring mainly to the diaries of one of the members of the expedition of the Aurora: Ernest Joyce. The adventure (with echoes of the last days of Scott) of his group with the food warehouses, with two thousand kilometers on their back, blizzards, terrible cold, etc. and the dark poetics hidden in their laconic diaries should be among the best of polar exploration.

I reread the above and it seems that this is a settling of scores with Sir Ernest. If it is, it is with the Shackleton “myth”, which does not mean that it does not recognize the merits and value of a text that is truly recommended for lovers of tragic polar adventures with a (not so) happy ending.