Synopsis
Examines the exploits of the explorer Frederick A. Cook and offers new evidence supporting his claim to discovery of the North Pole
Reviews
YA-- An intensely emotional biography of one of America's foremost polar explorers. Not only was Cook the first person to reach the peak of Mt. Denali (formerly Mt. McKinley), but according to an analysis of old and new evidence, also the first to plant a flag at the North Pole, in the year 1908. Abramson details the bitterly fought controversy between Cook and popular claimant Admiral Robert E. Peary who was, until very recently, hailed by long-time supporters at National Geographic as the first to reach the North Pole. Were it not so convincingly documented by the author, it would be hard to believe the calculating way in which Cook's claim was ripped apart by Peary's powerful backers, including the New York Times . The narrative moves along quickly, and the documentation seems to be solid. Abramson, however, makes little attempt to be impartial, and his disdain for Peary becomes more and more apparent as he unfolds the drama of Cook's life. The point is that history tends to remember not the victor but the man with the best press. This book is an attempt to set the record straight. --Cynthia J. Rieben, W. T. Woodson High School, Fairfax,
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.
After more than 80 years, the controversy continues: Who really discovered the North Pole--Robert Peary, Frederick Cook or neither? Abramson ( The National Geographic Society ) bases the case for Cook on the explorer's own writings and on conclusions of certain historians and geographers. It is an intriguing exercise, yet not definitive. Reviewing Cook's expeditions from 1891 to 1908, in parallel to Peary's, Abramson examines the efforts--including suborning witnesses, doctoring photos and producing a fake "confession"--of Peary's financial backers and the press to destroy Cook's reputation. He concludes that Cook's 1923 conviction on fraud charges was biased. This is a grand story, full of adventure and intrigue. Photos.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Another entry in the endless furor over who really discovered the North Pole. New navigational computations in 1989 by polar expert Wally Herbert have badly damaged Admiral Robert Peary's claim to priority at the Pole; now Abramson, editor of Traffic Week, strides into the fray to champion Peary's much-maligned opponent. Was Dr. Frederick Cook a cheat and scoundrel, as Peary's supporters claim? Not so, says Abramson, who marshals strong evidence that Cook did indeed reach the Pole on April 21, 1908. Moreover, contends the author, his hero was innocent of the mail-fraud charges that later landed him in Leavenworth for 14 years. This slate-cleaning highlights a biography that too eagerly paints a halo over Cook while planting a pitchfork in the paws of Peary and his crowd. Evidence mounts that Peary was indeed a fake, and his sins--adultery, egotism, greed--are old news. But was the public's acceptance of his claim the result of ``one of the most dastardly media campaigns in history?'' Are respected explorers Donald MacMillan and Peter Freunchen Peary stooges? Is the National Geographic Society, which supports Peary's claims, a den of pseudoscientists? So seems to claim Abramson, who comes off as more boxer than scholar. A biography that stands on solid ground when celebrating Cook's virtues--respect for Eskimos, love of adventure--but otherwise sinks into the mud that has all but obscured the beauty of the polar quest. (Twenty-four photographs and two maps--not seen.) -- Copyright ©1991, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.
Pursuing his quarrel with the National Geographic Society (NGS; see his "Na tional Geographic": Behind America's Lens on the World , LJ 3/1/87), former magazine editor Abramson has weighed in against NGS icon Robert Peary, arguing that Cook was the true "discoverer" of the North Pole in 1909. The reputation of the saint-like but naive Cook was destroyed by the false accusations of Peary's "cabal" of sycophants, bribe-takers, and rich bullies. Despite the "new evidence" promised by the publisher's flyer, this is basically a rehash of the 80-year- old Cook-Peary feud told in extreme terms and turgid prose. Andrew Free man's The Case for Doctor Cook ( LJ 9/15/61) did a better job of presenting the story. Illustrations not seen.
- J.F. Husband, Framingham State Coll., Mass.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
