Scan barcode
A review by rjvrtiska
The Impossible First: From Fire to Ice—Crossing Antarctica Alone by Colin O'Brady
4.0
An enjoyable read, especially as a human progress update after having read “Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Journey” and having toured the Fram, the ship Roald Amundsen used for his expedition to the South Pole.
The most intriguing feature of O’Brady’s book is the comparisons of his many physical feats, from professional Iron Man training to summiting Mt. Everest. As with many such extreme personalities, he mixes grit, focus, strength, and a good measure of stupidity (fire jump-roping?!) into his narrative.
I was aware of the criticism against O’Brady before reading the book, and read more about it afterward. I’m of 2 minds regarding this. I agree that he absolutely writes and speaks about his feats in a way that’s advantageous to his brand and charity, and this isn’t always completely genuine. It seems to be well-documented that he’s been at least disrespectful of his fellow athletes and adventurers on several occasions. He clearly focuses on speed and goal checklists above his and others’ experience of awe, though I don’t think he misrepresented this in his book.
On the other hand, he is a product of his time. His claim of being the first to complete this specific trek is accurate, even if it’s not ultimate. The criticism against his claim is that he didn’t achieve his goal in the hardest way possible. But that doesn’t negate the fact that he achieved his goal; one that few people on Earth are capable of even considering. No, he didn’t trek across the longest possible path over Antarctica, nor did he choose the most arduous and life threatening path. He did, however, complete a trek that would be wholly impossible for 99.99% of the population. Haven’t all original explorers striven to meet their goals in easier rather than harder ways? The most thorough article I read critiquing O’Brady had nothing to say about the fact that Louis Rudd, a respected, experienced Arctic trekker, was attempting the almost identical route at the same time as O’Brady. Would the accomplishment have been similarly degraded if Rudd had finished first?
The most intriguing feature of O’Brady’s book is the comparisons of his many physical feats, from professional Iron Man training to summiting Mt. Everest. As with many such extreme personalities, he mixes grit, focus, strength, and a good measure of stupidity (fire jump-roping?!) into his narrative.
I was aware of the criticism against O’Brady before reading the book, and read more about it afterward. I’m of 2 minds regarding this. I agree that he absolutely writes and speaks about his feats in a way that’s advantageous to his brand and charity, and this isn’t always completely genuine. It seems to be well-documented that he’s been at least disrespectful of his fellow athletes and adventurers on several occasions. He clearly focuses on speed and goal checklists above his and others’ experience of awe, though I don’t think he misrepresented this in his book.
On the other hand, he is a product of his time. His claim of being the first to complete this specific trek is accurate, even if it’s not ultimate. The criticism against his claim is that he didn’t achieve his goal in the hardest way possible. But that doesn’t negate the fact that he achieved his goal; one that few people on Earth are capable of even considering. No, he didn’t trek across the longest possible path over Antarctica, nor did he choose the most arduous and life threatening path. He did, however, complete a trek that would be wholly impossible for 99.99% of the population. Haven’t all original explorers striven to meet their goals in easier rather than harder ways? The most thorough article I read critiquing O’Brady had nothing to say about the fact that Louis Rudd, a respected, experienced Arctic trekker, was attempting the almost identical route at the same time as O’Brady. Would the accomplishment have been similarly degraded if Rudd had finished first?