Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Perception of place is bound to be conditioned by nationality. The race to the North Pole was
an American race, whereas there were no Americans in the south when Shackleton and Scott were
manhauling across the ice. This partially explains why Antarctica's role in the American national
psyche is less significant than its British counterpart. The media in America has tended to orientate
public interest towards the Arctic, whereas the British press, generally, has done the opposite. An
American scientist I met stooped over a seal hole on the Ross Sea remarked, 'Antarctica seems to
have been like the Wild West for Brits,' and after a pause he added, 'Maybe it still is.'
None the less, to many people at home the Arctic and the Antarctic are indistinguishable. I had
observed it when people issued warnings to me about polar bears and asked, as they frequently
did, 'When are you going back up there?' In reality, the two could hardly be more different. First,
the Arctic is not a landmass, and the North Pole is on floating ice. Second, the Arctic Circle has an
indigenous population. People can live within it unassisted. Musk oxen wander within 800 miles
of the North Pole. Things grow.
Despite the fact that the outer edges of the Arctic Circle are able to sustain life, all the Frozen
Beards agree that trekking to the North Pole is a much harsher business than its southern equi-
valent. Everyone who had been on northern expeditions remembered immediately how bad it had
been, whereas - like an irresistible lover - Antarctica had seduced them into forgetting the pain.
Mike Stroud, who had made three attempts with Sir Ranulph Fiennes to walk unaided across the
sea ice to the North Pole and manhauled across the southern continent via the South Pole, was in
no doubt about which he preferred. 'The Arctic is an evil place. It's infinitely more threatening.
You have to trek in winter, for a start - that's the only time it's frozen over - and getting to the
North Pole doesn't have the same appeal as getting to the South Pole. Why is that? Is it a British
thing? It occurs to me that it might be a remnant of Scott's influence. Antarctica is still very special
in the British consciousness. Also, Antarctica was a mystery for much longer than the Arctic.'
Robert Swan, who has walked to both Poles, was characteristically exuberant on the subject.
'The Arctic is dour and bad-tempered. It's a bastard kind of place. It drip feeds you arsenic in your
tea. The Antarctic is far more beguiling - though it's more of a bastard in a way, as it lulls you into
a false sense of security and then bangs you from behind with a sledge-hammer. It all looks much
softer, but crevasses lurk - it's more psychopathic.' He anthropomorphised both places relent-
lessly. 'Antarctica is like meeting a mass-murderer who looks nice. At least in the Arctic you
know
you're meeting a mass-murderer.' Before I left his huge Chelsea office he tipped his chair back,
paused for a moment and, neatly reversing the biological distinction that separates the two places,
said quietly - as quietly as he could say anything, that is - 'The Arctic is a bit dead. The Antarctic
is definitely much more alive. In the Arctic, it's as if someone has said, “
FREEZE
!”, whereas when
we went up the Beardmore it was as if the landscape were saying “Hi, how's it going?”'
∗
Even in Auckland, I found Antarctica. It was one half of the city's largest tourist attraction, called
'Kelly Tarlton's Underwater World and Antarctic Encounter'. I rode a sno-cat through a penguin
colony, though the birds were still in transit from San Diego zoo and workmen were crouched
on the fibreglass bergs, eating sandwiches, their thermos flasks balancing on the smiling heads of
