The Coldest March (referring to the month as well as the verb) is about British explorer Robert Falcon Scott and his team of explorers and scientists who raced a Norwegian team led by Roald Amundsen to the South Pole in 1911-12. Amundsen was the first ever to reach the Pole. Scott and four of his crew (hand-chosen by Scott) reached the Pole a month later. Amundsen's team made it back but Scott's did not. Many books and reports have been written since trying to explain why Scott failed to return. Many critics site several bad decisions on the part of Scott leading to the legend that he was a bumbler. Scott kept a journal right to the end and sometimes his self-effacing entries fueled the criticism.

Susan Solomon may seem to have an agenda. Throughout the book, Solomon attempts to defend many of Scott's decisions and actions. She has tremendous expertise in the subject. Solomon studied the Ozone layer in the Antarctic. She is a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. When considering the legend of Scott, Solomon admits that she assumed the Brit explorer foolishly disregarded the power of Mother Nature until she studied the data and diaries left by Scott and his crew (xvii). While Solomon often defends Scott against highly critical historical accounts like Huntford's The Last Place on Earth, she is no apologist. She also points out Scott's errors and baffling decisions.

At the beginning of each chapter, Solomon includes part of the experiences of a modern-day Antarctic visitor. This visitor is not a specific person but a conglomeration of typical visitors. At first I was confused as, while reading about this modern experience, the story would shift gears to 1911-12. Soon, I figured out the pattern. The modern stories are at the beginning of each chapter (only about 2-3 pages each) and are in bold print. These stories are able to demonstrate clearly the issues or problems surrounding the Scott legend: i.e. comparing the huge stock of frozen vegetables at the warehouse there today and the comfortable living conditions against what Scott and his him men faced (pp. 71-2), the importance of drinking plenty of water in higher elevations versus the meager cups of tea Scott and company could drink each day with the scarce fuel they had, (p. 209), how much a visitor suffers in just a short period in extreme conditions (p. 286), etc. These stories, especially one explaining the need to risk snowblindness to better see crevasses (p. 183) helped me, as a reader who will never experience anything remotely close to the Antarctic, better understand the issues people face there.

Solomon clearly refutes points of criticism of Scott: i.e. that his men suffered from scurvy because they refused to eat seal meat or their ponies (pp. 3, 176), that the final five men who journeyed to the Pole did not have enough to eat because they only prepared food for four (p. 213), etc. She does point out Scott's weaknesses and mistakes. For example, he put too much faith in the opinions of some of his men (p. 86) and, even more importantly, he planned by the margins, putting too much stock in past experiences and not preparing for the possibility of worse case scenarios as did Amundsen. The inferior sleeping bags and faulty fuel cans were significant problems stemming from a lack of proper testing and preparation. Solomon is no sycophant and makes a fair assessment based on Scott's and his men's diaries and other primary sources.

What makes this work a fresh approach is the information on weather conditions taken from stations set up near Scott's path. They provided data for several decades demonstrating that the conditions Scott faced during the last month of their lives (March 1912) were extremely rare and perhaps unprecedented. What is puzzling is Solomon's conclusions which are contradictory. She discusses the rarity of the blizzard they faced in March 1912 and then shifts to explain that a 10-day blizzard noted in Scott's diary probably did not occur and that the men stayed in their tent for other reasons; one possibly being Scott's frost-bitten foot. Then, out-of-the-blue, Solomon mentions a suicide plan Scott wrote in his diary on March 11 involving opium tablets (p. 322). They decided not to take them but it seems odd to only mention such an entry briefly towards the end of the book. They probably lived another 18 or more days. Her confusing and inconclusive ending is the only criticism I have of this well-written and fascinating book. It is extremely well-researched and, on a historical level, offers fresh ideas and approaches. She also discusses the men on Scott's team (Edward Wilson, Lawrence Oates, Henry Bowers, Edgar Evans, Lt. Edward Evans, Apsely Cherry-Garrard, etc.) describing some of their backgrounds, characters, and personalities which added a lot to the human side of the story.

I am not an avid reader of polar exploration but I found this tale of adventure, exploration and bravery very much like a good detective story. Even though you know from the beginning what the ending will be, the author slowly reveals facts and builds suspense about the outcome of parts of the story. While reading this book in the comfort of my home, I could imagine what it must have been like in that frozen world: spending several hours inching my way into an ice-filled sleeping bag or rescuing my companions when they repeatedly fell into one of the hundreds of crevices in the ice. The controversy about Scott's leadership was fully discussed, with the author showing his flaws as well as his contributions. I had my favorites among Scott's party and was so involved with them that I found myself almost talking to them. I particularly enjoyed the stories about the modern visitor to Antarctica at the beginning of each chapter which revealed how difficult life there can still be. The "visitor" plot lines always tied into some aspect of the story, illustrating some point or raising a question.
There cannot be final proof about the cause of the polar party's deaths but Susan Solomon makes a convincing case that unusually cold weather was a deciding but not the only factor. The author poses an interesting hypothesis at the end of the book about the final factor that prevented the party from reaching the one-ton depot and safety, but I won't spoil it for you.
Most of us will never have the opportunity to go to Antarctica, lead explorations or perform feats of daring. This is the appeal of Scott and his men and why this is such an interesting story.

This is a really thoughtful, well-researched assessment of Scott's fatal Polar expedition. It is insightful and gives the reader a clear explanation of many issues that affected the outcome of one of the most interesting expeditions of all times. It is full of information that brings to life what these MEN did almost a hundred years ago. Exploration is on a different level these days. Nothing like it was for Scott's party and those of his era experienced. Brave and daring like nothing we can imagine.I think anyone interested in Polar exploration will be thoroughly satisfied with the subject matter covered in this well written book. It covers survival issues like no other book on the subject I have seen to date.It is a subject that I find fascinating and this book brings out the horrific circumstances that they had to contend with and is a more fair appraisal of Scott's effort to reach the South Pole. Well worth your time and consideration.