Inspired by the AMC’s series, I read the novel (by Dan Simmons).
Spoilers below
Do you think the final chapters of the book, wherein Captain Crozier “goes native,” were actually his dying fantasies? The end was in stark contrast to much of the novel (except for the Terror beast, of course).
I didn’t take it that way, because the rest of the novel was set up with that supernatural theme (the singing Silence did with the beast and so on). Very different than the TV show.
What did you think of the book? I quite liked it. Very different beast (heh) than the TV show, but I enjoyed them both.
It’s been more than ten years since I read the book, but as I recall, the main theme regarding Crozier’s survival (and salvation) was that he accomplished it only by relinquishing his “Englishness” (not to mention his tongue) in surrender to the Arctic (which I think the Tuunbaq or monster symbolized). The other Englishmen all died because they couldn’t adapt to the situation and insisted on clinging to their “modern” culture and beliefs.
So no, I don’t feel that the ending was Crozier’s dying fantasy. But it’s a very elusive and beautiful novel, and other interpretations are just as valid.
As an irrelevant aside, one of the reasons the novel affected me so much was that I read the last part on a weekend in February 2007 or 2008 when it was below zero outside and my power went out. I finished the novel on the couch in my down sleeping bag, reading by gas lantern light, and that made the story just that much more vivid. I’ve read and enjoyed other Dan Simmons novels, but none of them had nearly the impact of The Terror.
I haven’t had a chance to see the TV series, but I hope to someday if it’s available on DVD. I hear nothing but good things about it. Russell Potter, a professor at Rhode Island College and an authority on the Franklin Expedition, has high praise for it (even more so than the novel) on his blog Visions of the North.
Probably not relevant to the OP (though I enjoyed the book while thinking it could have used some editing). But, I’ve tried to watch the show on the AMC app on AppleTV, and it is unwatchable. Not the show, which seems good, but it just throws randomly to commercials constantly and then rewinds or fast forwards or even jumps to a different episode while watching it. I finally gave up despite enjoying the show.
I didn’t read the story as fantasy, but reality. The whole thing had a supernatural tinge to it, so I was able to buy into the ending.
I too took the ending of the novel at face value; Crozier was necessarily transformed.
Although I enjoyed the book very much, this is one of the few times I prefer the screen version.
I liked both, which is unusual because I tend to be in the “book is better” camp.
Spoiler below (I can’t do spoiler boxes on my phone):
I thought the series finale suffered from not following the book’s Crozier-Silna pairing conclusion. Perhaps the serie’s conclusion points toward a season two? OTOH, they killed off Murder Bear, who was important to keep alive in the novel so he could induct Crozier into shamanism.
I think they pointed to it though. At the very end, he’s on the ice with a child by him. He’s also with the eskimaux, telling them what to say to the visitors, but then he leaves the village. I think it could be one thread in the next season.
I could see it: a disguised, phantomlike Crozier secretly assists Rae and McClure, thus redeeming his failure to save his own crew. Third season: Robert Falcon Scott.
I’m with you on this, I hope there is another season. I drove Wife crazy while we watched, I was a jerk who kept saying “well, it’s different in the book . . .”
I’m reading a good nonfiction book about the expedition, “Frozen in Time: The Fate of the Franklin Expedition.” It was published in 1987 and has recent updates. I’m to the chapter of exhuming John Torrington’s body for forensic testing – they’re looking for answers about what killed so many of the crew when many other Arctic expeditions had much fewer fatalities: lead poisoning? Scurvy? Opportunistic diseases?
I haven’t seen the TV series or read the novel, but I have read Frozen in Time and seen the recent major National Maritime Museum exhibition in Greenwich on the subject (done in collaboration with the Canadian Museum of History).
Frozen in Time really pushes the lead poisoning thesis as the interesting explanation of what happened. It’s therefore rather striking that the exhibition, done in the wake of the discovery of the ships and all the archaeology that followed, rather ducked the question of what killed them. There was a section on the question, but one positing about a dozen different mechanisms. Most of which were completely plausible.
What doomed the expedition? At this point I think we’re all agreed Victorian hubris did for them, in one form or another.
Yeah, I’ve done a bit of research on the lead theory and the latest consensus seems to be there is no consensus.
It’s darkly hilarious to read about the useless stuff they crammed into the sledge boats (a writing desk and curtain rods wouldn’t be on my “Stuff I Need in Order to Survive the Arctic” list). Then they mount tons of crap onto unwieldy, heavy sledges and use themselves as dray horses until they basically drop dead in their traces. Definitely a Victorian mindset that killed British explorers in jungles, deserts, mountains, and so on.
I’m not sure what the right thing was to do with the men who were clearly at Death’s door after they abandoned the ships and wandered around on land. Toward the end it’s thought that some of the dying were just left to die, but it appears prior to this they hauled around lots of dying men in the already heavy sledges. Code of Valor and all that . . . a more and more difficult choice as the spectre of cannibalism arose (I think evidence of cannibalism is generally agreed upon?)
McClure, too, managed to lose a ship, so it may be informative to compare the two expeditions.
Also, contrast with Amundsen’s later strategy:
One of the major questions raised, but not remotely answered, by the recent exhibitions is that of what they abandoned and what they tried to save. For what we now have (courtesy of the recent discoveries) are the set of stuff they left on the ships and the set of stuff they tried to drag out. What’s then weird is that these aren’t immediately obviously different. Yet they must be. And figuring all that out is evidently the serious problem given the recent discoveries.
Well-stated! I’m so fascinated with the expedition, I’m going to read everything I can get my eager paws on.
Did they ultimately contribute to knowledge about the Northwest Passage? They obviously didn’t conquer it.
Aside: I learned that polar bears can grow to 11.5 feet and weigh over 1,900 pounds - now THAT’S terror!
The Arctic strikes me as an eerie place. Shackleton and modern explorers have spoken about their “third man” experiences, as have other adventurers to hostile places like Everest:
I’ll look for this right now.
It is amazing that they took all that extra stuff. No wonder there are mutinies.
I don’t know how many of you have looked up Franklin. When I did, most of the immediate information on him was about his wife’s achievements. He was a governor in Asia, and she did any number of important things for the people there, for example. (I was trying to find out more about the scandal that came up in one episode.) She seemed a remarkable woman.
His wife comes off as the brains and ambition behind the man; in a later era she probably could have commanded a ship and zipped right through that damned Northwest Passage in time for dinner.
I finished the book, really enjoyed it. There are sone photos of the exhumed sailors that are jarring but intensely interesting.
Let me know what you think of the book when you finish.
Unsurprisingly, one of the reasons they hauled around useless accoutrement – they really did sledge curtain rods around while they were dying – was in defiance of going native. The later and more successful parties emulated the Inuit hauling and supply strategies.
It’s like the British colonists wearing wool suits in the heat of India ("Only mad dogs and Englishmen . . .)