I learned that Peary had discovered the North Pole. Turns out that may not be true. Bruce Hendeson tells the story of Cook and Peary both trying to be the first to reach the North Pole.

Both men had worked together on an earlier norther expedition. Cook had parted ways and explored Alaska. Then took a shot at reaching the North Pole. At the same time Peary was organizing another attempt at the unexplored top of the world. ( )

It took a little bit to get into this book, but once I did, I listened to it everyday on my way home from work as a way to let go of the thoughts of work. As the polar race progressed, the author's bias did show, but after listening to the whole book, I think some bias towards Cook was really deserved.
What I learned from this book: Peary was a rat bas*&^d. I shouted this at the CD player more than a few times. He was a rat bas*(&& to his wife, to his obligations with the Navy, to the Eskimo peoples, to anyone else who got in his way of fame in the Arctic, and especially to Cook and anyone associated with Cook. RAT B(*&*&^.
Cook most likely found the North Pole first, but his proofs could not be found. Peary most likely missed the Pole.
Polar exploration works much better if you go as a small expedition and work closely with the native peoples, who live there all the time.
Eventually the truth will out, although it may take a long, long time. ( )

One of the great controversies in American history centers around the discovery of the North Pole. Was Peary the first there? Or Cook? Or neither? In “True North,” Bruce Henderson marshals the evidence now available into a compelling narrative of the quest. To the world of 1900, the race to the northernmost point on earth was just as hotly contested as the race to the moon two-thirds of a century later. In Henderson’s telling, the question as to who was actually first to stand on an ice floe atop the Arctic Sea pales in comparison to the motivations of the two individuals. We are left with no doubt as to where Henderson’s sympathies lie, as he describes Peary driven toward conquest of the Pole at all costs, and brooking no competition in his lifelong campaign to achieve fame. We see Cook, by contrast, as a medical doctor who developed a passion for adventuring in a world of ice, in the company of the native people whom he studied and admired. Roald Amundsen, another great explorer of the period, would say that Cook had as good a claim as Peary to have been first at the Pole. In “True North,” Bruce Henderson strongly suggests that, whatever the facts of the race, Dr. Cook was head and shoulders above Peary when it came to character and human decency.

True North: Peary, Cook, and the Race to the Pole by Bruce Henderson places itself within the longstanding debate of who reached the North Pole first: Dr. Frederick A. Cook or Navy Officer Robert E. Peary. Both claimed to have reached it within one year of each other, Cook in April of 1908 and Peary in April of 1909. Historically, credit for the North Pole discovery has gone to Peary, and much criticism has been aimed at Cook for fabricating his story. Henderson addresses the possibility that Cook may have reached the Pole first and has thus been cheated of his acclamation. A reexamination of evidence, Henderson hopes, will shed more light on the controversy because recent history has charged that Peary lied about the distances he travelled while Cook has gained merit due to his accurate descriptions of the northern regions verified by later explorers. Henderson begins True North when the two are just children, setting up a foundation to help readers understand the two men and what may have motivated their drive to reach the pole. It is not until the middle of the book, in fact, that the race to the North Pole becomes the focus.

Cook and Peary initially worked together to cross and map the Greenland ice cap. Due to conflict during the expedition, Cook decided not to work with Peary again when called upon to do so, instead choosing to lead Greenland expeditions of his own. Peary returned to Greenland to collect iron meteorites sacred to the native people while Cook returned to take up tourist groups of hunters and explorers. Beginning in 1898, Peary made a few failed attempts to reach the North Pole and Cook ventured to the South Pole (1897-1899) and to the summit of Mt. McKinley (1906). During the years in Greenland he spent to achieve his goal, Henderson describes in detail how Peary abused the native people of Greenland, cheated on his wife, and grew increasingly obsessed with fame. Contrasted against this was Cooks modest desire to explore and record. It was not until 1907 that Cook secretly decided to try to reach the North Pole, setting out with two natives and one white man in early 1908, covering the 500 miles in just two months. During the return trip, the Cook explorers got trapped over winter and did not return until 1909. Over the course of this delay, Peary reached the North Pole and claimed the discovery for himself, though he had yet to announce it by the time Cook returned from his expedition. Before Peary was even back from his mission, Cook sent off his own story to a newspaper and proclaimed to the world that he had discovered the North Pole. After Peary declared that he had discovered the North Pole first, it had to be decided who had really done it first, if at all.

Back at home, the controversy began when Cook, challenged to produce his data, could not because Peary refused to bring it home on his ship. Embroiled in a smear campaign against his honor, Cook was soon denied notoriety and credit for the discovery of the North Pole, which was given to Peary despite his own questionable data. Though Henderson never explicitly states who he believes discovered the pole and does not take sides throughout the book, it is clear that he believes the honor of the discovery should go to Cook, since it appears from record that he got the closest to the pole. Evident in his depictions of Cook versus Peary, Henderson’s motive is to prove that Cook was indeed cheated out of a victory that was rightfully his. Through Henderson’s descriptions, Peary is shown to be an egotistical and hard-handed man concerned only with fame, with a boisterous attitude and little respect for other people. In opposition, Cook is portrayed as being very humble and quiet, an inventive man who is content to share victory. When the events of the contested pole discovery come about, Henderson details how Cook was thwarted his due by Peary’s sabotage, and raises suspicion for Peary’s claim by pointing out that Peary would not hand over his own notes for inspection before Cook released a statement, insinuating that Peary was getting information from Cook to use in his own dubious notes. As told by Henderson, Cook’s evidence, though he produced no notes as proof and with only a diary and the statements of him and his Eskimo companions to back him up, is still more credible than Peary and the incomplete notes he supplies. It is even insinuated that Peary was responsible for Cook later going to prison for mail fraud because the judge trying the case was a friend of the family. Henderson finishes up his assessment by listing all of the ways in which Cook was right or credible in both his pole and Mt McKinley claims. So, despite Henderson never explicitly stating to support Cook, it comes through in his presentation of facts and their evident bias. Whether or not the facts are true as stated, Henderson clearly wants us to see things a certain way.

Henderson’s source usage raises concerns over his presentation of facts and how they support his central purpose. True North is rich in detail and follows the separate and intertwining paths of Cook and Peary closely, even to minute detail. Yet the background provided, including an array of personal stories and emotions too intimate to be part of common knowledge, is given no footnoted documentation, which calls into question the validity of the information, its truthfulness, and whether or not Henderson is being true to the facts and portraying them accurately. A reader would have a difficult time verifying many of the things said and claimed to have happened by Henderson. Henderson does provide a selection of source notes at the end of the book, which serve the purpose of explaining where some of the specific personal statements come from. These are actually very informative and valuable to the credibility of the story because they are all primary sources, sources that come direct from people involved or in the time- they are the words of Cook, of Peary, of people witness to the events in question. There is included a bibliography at the back, but without the aid of footnotes, one cannot tell if the books listed at the end are indeed used and where.

True North is a very well written and engaging book, not at all difficult to read and follow. Bruce Henderson is a writer by career with over 20 nonfiction books in his catalog, and he instructs writing classes at Stanford University. Though very skilled at writing, capable of writing a book that is as informative as it is entertaining, it is important to keep in mind that Henderson is not a trained historian and therefore may have approached his subjects with an eye for writing a good story rather than telling balanced fact based history, which would explain his treatment of sources and clear bias. Even with Henderson’s notable favoritism, however, the book does present a complete story and sequence of events for both camps. Additionally, the book is full of information about ice travel, geography, and Eskimo culture. For anyone interested in the lives of Cook and Peary, in Arctic travel, or in exploration in general, True North would be well worth the read. ( )