Thursday, April 25, 2013
Roberts made some assumptions in his analysis of Konrad's journal that I think were a bit brash. Considering the sparseness of Konrad's entries, there's not much in the way of material to inform the history of the events surrounding Albanov's voyage in the Arctic. I just wanted to say briefly that some of the jumps Roberts makes I'm not entirely convinced of; for example I'm not convinced that Albanov and Konrad agreed not to mention in their diaries that Konrad had been a thief. Roberts even suggested that Konrad had fabricated entries for several days previous of that upon which he'd been 'found out.' This seems rather elaborate for two men fighting for their own survival, with no guarantee of ever seeing civilization again. I think that the only sure thing we can take from Konrad's journal is that he was entirely unprepared for the voyage - he cared for food and didn't seem to understand the gravity of the situation, nor did he have a care for others than himself. Particularly the fluctuation between first and third person within Konrad's diary is troubling and suggests a level of mental instability. I just think Roberts made a lot of assumptions about the events of the trip, and I question the apparently insatiable need to know, for sure, exactly what happened. Why can't we just take the journals as they are? Humans are strangely fascinated with speculation. I'm no exception, either.