Who is Alfred Lansing anyways?

Sorry this is a bit late... 

I just wanted to start out by saying that this is probably my favorite narrative that we've read so far this semester.  It is much better written than most of the other texts, and Alfred Lansing manages to present a gripping story without resorting to melodrama.

That being said, Lansing's approach to recording Shackleton's journey is much different from that of most of the other authors.  Though Krakauer, Tabor, and Harrer were not present for any or some of the events they describe, the authors' duties as reporters play a central role in their texts.  They often describe their interviews with survivors, the research process, and their reasoning behind their conclusions drawn from various pieces of evidence.  In a sense, the authors' search for the "truth" becomes the primary focus of the text, and the expedition members become secondary, cast as characters.  

Lansing, on the other hand, does not refer to himself or write in first-person except in the one page preface.  He briefly explains the research process, and tells the reader that his information comes from diary entries and interviews with survivors.  He begins the preface by boldly stating that "The story that follows is true," and he describes his efforts to "record as accurately as possible the reactions of the men who lived them."  Of course, these two statements are problematic since he at once makes a claim of "truth" and admits that he can only portray the story "as accurately as possible," suggesting that complete truth is an impossibility.  Contradictions aside, Lansing's opening statements reveal an attitude very different from that of Tabor and Harrer, who refer to the "men who lived" the tragedies as "characters" and construct a buffer between the real-life events and their narratives by employing language such as final act, stage, and tragedy (in the theatrical sense).  Lansing, though, tries to emphasize the reality of the men's struggles from his opening sentence.  Then, he is essentially absent for the rest of the narrative.  He never interjects personal reactions, opinions, or anecdotes.  And, when he does feel that an explanation of his reasoning/research methods is necessary, he includes such information in the footnotes (see page 120 for an example).  This distances the author from the text and allows the reader to become absorbed in the story of the expedition rather than the author's detective process.  Interestingly, I found that this approach made the narrative read more like a novel, even though Lansing makes his claim of "truth" clear, writes about men instead of characters, and avoids language that characterizes the men's struggles as a play.

 

Food stress

Food is such a unifying component of our culture, and I thought it was effective how Lansing incorporated food into the narrative because for me it was easier to understand how the group was coming together under such conditions and I could more easily relate to how quickly the group came together. Meals are a time for groups to come together and share a common experience. So even though people may be in a different state in one way or another, meal time is when everyone is at least on some level of an equal playing field. That constancy of something familiar - eating dinner - helps build the bonds that create a form of group identity. The constant reminders that the rations were getting smaller and the contrasting descriptions of Christmas dinners helped emphasize not only the severity of their situation (I have to remind myself that they're in Antarctica and temperatures are below freezing while I'm reading in the sunshine). The fact that there is only one instance in the narrative in which people complain about a decision Shackleton makes regarding hunting seals despite such meager rations helps emphasize the solidarity within the group. When Shackleton decides to leave the seals behind and not hunt for a while. Greenstreet writes that he considered the decision to be "'rather foolish.'" I thought it was interesting that Lansing choses this particular incident, when disagreement arises over food, to be the moment where he analyzes Shackleton's leadership in a bit more detail. It seems odd to me that there is not more disagreement about when and if rations are cut in other instances when Shackleton limits the food supply, although now that I think about it, adding more to a supply differs greatly from taking away food.

Also, I was amused by the conversations that Lansing depicted regarding the thoughts of food from back home. The conversations about "good bread and butter, Munich beer, Coromandel rock oysters, apple pie and Devonshire cream are pleasant reminiscences rather than longings” (103) reminded me of times on trail when my thoughts traveled back to foods that I did not have on trail but that I was looking forward to upon arriving back home. At points in my journals I've written lists of food that I couldn't get on trail but I was so bored with trail food that I started thinking about alternatives.

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)).

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.

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.