Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Food
Since we live a society and country where food is not an issue for most, it is hard to imagine what it means to truly be hungry. I once participated in an activity when I was in middle school where we ate the average meal of people from impoverished nations around the world. I was lucky enough to get africa so my dinner that night consisted of a few pieces of okra, cornmeal paste, and a half glass of water. Basically what I took out of it was that I know what it feels like to experience an uncomfortable lack of food, but not true hunger. I can't even begin to imagine the psychological stress that the hunger and confinement the men on the Endurance had to face once they became trapped. The stress caused by killing the dogs and simply surviving each day must have been simply intolerable for the men. I found myself trying to empathize with the men in this book more than any other that we have read so far. To me, they seem more human and real, with personality and vices that make them much easier to relate to.
Teammates & Leadership
Here's an entry I wrote when I first finished Part 1 (but forgot to post). Like Nicole, I wanted to write while it was still fresh.
I'm impressed with the team dynamics within the Endurance expedition during the months of darkness. Compared to some of the other narratives we've read this semester, Shackleton's group is remarkable in their group relations and ability to stay positive and work together despite unimaginable weather. "The gathering darkness and the unpredictable weather limited their activities to an ever-constricting area around the ship...But instead of getting on each other's nerves, the entire party seemed to become more close-knit" (42). Some of the other narratives we've read did not have the same strength in team dynamics. Tabor's Forever on the Mountain details how poor team relations due to leadership conflicts and a group that didn't all know each other beforehand contributed to the tragedies on that expedition. Herzog focused primarily on himself and not on his fellow climbers (at least in his writing). Blum spent a significant portion of her Annapurna account discussing group dynamics and how she hand-selected all of the members of her expedition. Shackleton similarly chose most of the members of his expedition (besides the stowaway), but his selection method was much briefer and instinctive than Blum's careful process. Despite this, Shackleton's group proved their strength by not falling apart during the dark Antarctic winter as so many others have done in the same drastic circumstances; rather, they became closer. Even though the voyagers didn't know each other before they set out on their trip, the group members became close despite the harsh environment. "There was very little depression on board the Endurance. The coming of the polar night somehow drew the men closer together" (38).
This in part reflects Shackleton's capabilities as a leader. Lansing describes how Shackleton mediated conflict when problems arose and also joined in on humor; I think that this balance between acting in an authoritative role and allowing himself to have fun with his crew helped him earn the respect of the others on the expedition. Leaders are critical for team building, and I believe Shackleton's "genuine leadership" (13) brought the team together. To go back to our broad question of heroes in adventures, does being an effective and important leader make one a hero? (and yes, I do consider this experience to be an adventure! Shackleton and his team had no real economic or nationalistic motives behind their expedition besides to be the first to cross the continent, it was more for the adventure: "[the] volunteers were motivated solely by the spirit of adventure" (15)).
I'm impressed with the team dynamics within the Endurance expedition during the months of darkness. Compared to some of the other narratives we've read this semester, Shackleton's group is remarkable in their group relations and ability to stay positive and work together despite unimaginable weather. "The gathering darkness and the unpredictable weather limited their activities to an ever-constricting area around the ship...But instead of getting on each other's nerves, the entire party seemed to become more close-knit" (42). Some of the other narratives we've read did not have the same strength in team dynamics. Tabor's Forever on the Mountain details how poor team relations due to leadership conflicts and a group that didn't all know each other beforehand contributed to the tragedies on that expedition. Herzog focused primarily on himself and not on his fellow climbers (at least in his writing). Blum spent a significant portion of her Annapurna account discussing group dynamics and how she hand-selected all of the members of her expedition. Shackleton similarly chose most of the members of his expedition (besides the stowaway), but his selection method was much briefer and instinctive than Blum's careful process. Despite this, Shackleton's group proved their strength by not falling apart during the dark Antarctic winter as so many others have done in the same drastic circumstances; rather, they became closer. Even though the voyagers didn't know each other before they set out on their trip, the group members became close despite the harsh environment. "There was very little depression on board the Endurance. The coming of the polar night somehow drew the men closer together" (38).
This in part reflects Shackleton's capabilities as a leader. Lansing describes how Shackleton mediated conflict when problems arose and also joined in on humor; I think that this balance between acting in an authoritative role and allowing himself to have fun with his crew helped him earn the respect of the others on the expedition. Leaders are critical for team building, and I believe Shackleton's "genuine leadership" (13) brought the team together. To go back to our broad question of heroes in adventures, does being an effective and important leader make one a hero? (and yes, I do consider this experience to be an adventure! Shackleton and his team had no real economic or nationalistic motives behind their expedition besides to be the first to cross the continent, it was more for the adventure: "[the] volunteers were motivated solely by the spirit of adventure" (15)).
Characteristics of a Leader
We spent much of the first two months talking about adventuring as though an escape for normal life and so it might reasonably follow that one would approach life with a different set of guidelines. In our discussion of morality either on the mountain or in a boat, we
often talk as though what we take to be valuable on an expedition is
judged differently than when in the "real world." What about leadership? I have always thought one of the most important characteristics of a leader was humility. A leader needs humility in order to listen to others, to make them feel as though their contributions are valuable, and to bring a group together. Some people find bonding as a team important, while others might see keeping morale high as simply a pragmatic way to get everyone to work the hardest, and thus achieve the goal--whatever the motivation, humility seems a crucial piece of leadership.
But what type of leadership? Does this still apply outside of the "real world"? How about when things get desperate?
He is described as having a "monstrous ego and implacable drive" with often unrealistic expectations that led to accusations of being "immature and irresponsible." This is not the description of a leader I'd want as part of a sports team, or group at work, or creative project. But when the situation becomes hopeless, who better than someone who believes unconditionally in the success of the mission, who can motivate when others lose the will to do so, who will push on no matter what?
Shackleton has "one pervading characteristic," that he was "purposeful," and for this reason alone, "when there is no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton."
While it is interesting to see that we value different characteristics in leaders in extreme situations compared to daily life, what is more interesting is to discuss what exactly we can take from adventure stories and apply it to our own lives. That is to say, what do we really get out of armchair adventuring? We clearly enjoy it, and yet have a tendency to cast some of the recurring themes as outside the realms of our normal daily guidelines.
But what type of leadership? Does this still apply outside of the "real world"? How about when things get desperate?
He is described as having a "monstrous ego and implacable drive" with often unrealistic expectations that led to accusations of being "immature and irresponsible." This is not the description of a leader I'd want as part of a sports team, or group at work, or creative project. But when the situation becomes hopeless, who better than someone who believes unconditionally in the success of the mission, who can motivate when others lose the will to do so, who will push on no matter what?
Shackleton has "one pervading characteristic," that he was "purposeful," and for this reason alone, "when there is no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton."
While it is interesting to see that we value different characteristics in leaders in extreme situations compared to daily life, what is more interesting is to discuss what exactly we can take from adventure stories and apply it to our own lives. That is to say, what do we really get out of armchair adventuring? We clearly enjoy it, and yet have a tendency to cast some of the recurring themes as outside the realms of our normal daily guidelines.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Discussion question teaser and some awesome Endurance links-
I’m hosting the discussion this week, and since we’re not
having class tomorrow to discuss this text I wanted to offer a little bit of
what I’ve been thinking about in terms of discussion questions. We’ll certainly
be able to talk about these things and several others when we meet on Thursday,
but I figure that it’ll be helpful to be able to think some of these things
through a little bit before class—especially if we’re going to be spending only
one day discussing it. I also have a few links for everyone to check out—this
is the first expedition we’ve studied with an artist and a photographer
documenting as well as fully participating in the adventure, so there's some cool stuff out there.
To start, I’m really excited to delve into this story, I
think its unbelievably interesting and hits on some of the things we’ve been
talking about all semester. I’ve known the basic story of this expedition from
other texts, but this was my first time reading Lansing’s account and I found
it really engaging. I read Shackleton’s own account of the voyage years ago,
and even though I don’t remember it quite well enough to ably compare them, knowing
the events of the story ahead of time helped me focus on Lansing’s choices,
delivery and depiction of the narrative rather than just the shocking facts. I
do remember Shackleton’s account being pretty dry, so Lansing’s journalistic skill
definitely improved the experience somewhat.
Basically, one of the most important things I want to ask is
what do we think Lansing aimed to accomplish with this narrative, and do we
think he was successful? We’ve talked a lot about an adventurer’s duty to write
about or tell their stories, but obviously that doesn’t apply here because,
unlike most of the other books we’ve read, the author wasn’t a participant in
the events he’s describing. Further, do we see any bias or unnecessary sensualization
going on here? These issues are two that I really want to tackle in class,
along with Lansing’s portrayal of Shackleton, the concept of heroism, the
ways this narrative further complicates our definition of adventure and more. See
everyone on Thursday!
Some cool Endurance stuff on the internet:
Some of Hurley's video footage of the Endurance sailing through ice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqb69dMvpBM
Super detailed biographies of every crewmember, with pictures
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_whos_who_endurance.htm
Interactive Kodak feature on Hurley as a photographer, with some cool color photos
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/features/endurance/
Page for the school in London where you can still visit the James Caird.
http://www.dulwich.org.uk/college/about/history/the-james-caird
Killer Landscapes
In this narrative more than any other, nature itself seems
to fight back and even actively attack the men. We have read other works in
which mountains seem to send avalanches or storms down on expeditions to try to
stop them from summiting. For example, in Touching
my Father’s Soul, Norgay describes the mountain as a goddess. This goddess
simply allowed men to stand on the summit, but she often prevented expeditions
from succeeding. Norgay’s is not the only account of personification of nature.
Human imagery is often applied to mountains, and avalanches seem to be sent
down specifically to wash men off to the bottom.
The
personification of nature and all of the elements is even more prominent in Endurance. Not only does the ice move,
but it seems to chase them. It is an enemy that requires constant surveillance-
it never sleeps, it is unpredictable, it has unlimited power. The reader gets
the sense that the men on the expedition only survived because the ice allowed
them to escape its grasp. The ice is a powerful enemy that knows its own power.
Lansing describes it, saying, “the impression of its titanic power was
heightened by the unhurried deliberateness of the motion” (pg 4). The ice
abuses the ship, trying its best to break her in half. Worsely describes the
ice as a “grinding, hungry pack” (pg 55).
Coupled
with the ice is the unending night that accompanies winter, and the storms that
blow hurricane force winds and snow into the tents. While these elements are
not personified nearly as much as the ice, they still seem to chase the men
wherever they go. This environment is extremely hostile, and the descriptions
in this narrative make nature into everyone’s enemy, who chases and makes
everyone sleep with one eye open.
Heroes and Symbols of Greatness
What struck me most about this text so far is the romantic descriptions of the men on Shackleton's voyage. Lansing emphasizes their charm and masculine demeanor at multiple points in the book. "Temperamentally, Shackleton and Worsley had some of the same characteristics. Both were energetic, imaginative, romantic men who thirsted for adventure" (Lansing 21). Lansing really builds these characters up as idealized heroes, not quite gods, but more than men. These men, especially Shackleton, are the only men capable of surviving this journey. Lansing goes as far as to compare Shackleton to a Napoleonic figure. He lists off men who have been heralded as great leaders of entire societies; Shackleton is obviously a far cry from this group. "But the great leaders of historical record--the Napoleons, the Nelsons, the Alexanders--have rarely fitted any conventional mold, and it is perhaps an injustice to evaluate them in ordinary terms" (Lansing 13). This idealized description of Shackleton, the leader and hero, provides an inspiring force for both his men and the readers of this book to look to. It may be corny, but this description makes the reader want to believe in Shackleton. I read this more of a children's adventure than most other texts so far in this course. Children would be swayed by such a grandiose description of Shackleton. They would be immediately won over and would want to see him succeed.
The depiction of Shackleton made it easier to root for him rather than Albanov. Shackleton shows compassion where Albanov always seemed to be lacking that. Shackleton has his hand in every little task because he wants to make sure that the person can do it. His concern for the group's overall health seems sincere and more fatherly. These fatherly characteristics add to his hero and leader image. "Shackleton suddenly remembered Blackboro's feet. In the excitement of the landing he had forgotten, and he felt ashamed. How and Bakewell jumped overboard and pulled Blackboro farther up the beach" (Lansing 174). Here Shackleton makes a mistake and feels remorse for it. He also shows genuine concern for the young man in a fatherly way. These instances of concern and his long conversations over the viability of rescue allow Shackleton to shine as an admirable character.
Aside from the positive, heroic qualities Shackleton possesses, I found the rest of his life intriguing. As a constant adventurer, he felt a sense of restlessness. He constantly had to be on the move and he was unsatisfied by a normal life. Sometimes heroes have a fatal flaw, like we talked about in class. A common trope for this flaw may be recklessness combined with restlessness. Adventure heroes desire to push themselves until they can push no more. Shackleton did something similar, dying on an expedition. Shackleton's Achilles heel may be his unwillingness to step down from a challenge.
The depiction of Shackleton made it easier to root for him rather than Albanov. Shackleton shows compassion where Albanov always seemed to be lacking that. Shackleton has his hand in every little task because he wants to make sure that the person can do it. His concern for the group's overall health seems sincere and more fatherly. These fatherly characteristics add to his hero and leader image. "Shackleton suddenly remembered Blackboro's feet. In the excitement of the landing he had forgotten, and he felt ashamed. How and Bakewell jumped overboard and pulled Blackboro farther up the beach" (Lansing 174). Here Shackleton makes a mistake and feels remorse for it. He also shows genuine concern for the young man in a fatherly way. These instances of concern and his long conversations over the viability of rescue allow Shackleton to shine as an admirable character.
Aside from the positive, heroic qualities Shackleton possesses, I found the rest of his life intriguing. As a constant adventurer, he felt a sense of restlessness. He constantly had to be on the move and he was unsatisfied by a normal life. Sometimes heroes have a fatal flaw, like we talked about in class. A common trope for this flaw may be recklessness combined with restlessness. Adventure heroes desire to push themselves until they can push no more. Shackleton did something similar, dying on an expedition. Shackleton's Achilles heel may be his unwillingness to step down from a challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)