Thanks for starting this thread, Frieda. There were comments I wanted to make that would be considered spoilers for anyone who had not yet read the book.

As I've said before, I never knowingly read a book where supernatural or non-realistic happenings occur. The first inkling I had about The Terror was when I saw an ad for the book where Stephen King(!) said he was in awe of Dan Simmons. I was already hooked at that point but a little nervous about the thing on the ice. I guess I didn't do my usual research on the book before starting to read.

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that I feel the book would have been just as interesting without the thing on the ice and without the really weird ending. I didn't like the ending at all and it almost ruined how I feel about the book. However, even though I am reading a third book following The Terror, it is still very much on my mind so that must say something.

The story about the men who signed up for the expedition, primarily for money, it seems, makes for a great book in itself. Simmons makes the reader care about the men -- at one point I found myself crying about the fate of one of them. I haven't read the other books about the expedition but did some checking on the Internet and the facts appeared to be followed closely. Since Crozier was a real person, I'm even more surprised that Simmons chose to end the book as he did.

While it was a little difficult at first to get into the story because of the different narrators and time periods, it soon became easy to follow and was even more fascinating because of the way the story was told.

There is much more to say but life is calling. I'm so interested to see more discussion.

I have this one on my bedside chair/reading stand, with all good intentions. I have gotten so enthralled with the equally long "Kristin Lavransdatter" that Simmons has gotten buried for now. I will check back on this thread, if and when I finish it.

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that I feel the book would have been just as interesting without the thing on the ice and without the really weird ending.Frances, I agree and feel that a straight historical-type novel could have been very interesting -- something along the lines of Andrea Barrett's Voyage of the Narwhal, which was imaginative but wholly plausible. As I read The Terror the first time, I was a bit miffed when I realized that Simmons was turning the story of the Franklin Expedition into a supernatural horror tale -- geez, it was horrible enough without a "thing." Yet, I couldn't stop reading because Simmons managed to hook me with this strange mix of realism and, uh, unrealism.

The ending! I was about ready to roust out Simmons and ask him, "Why on earth did you take it that direction and leave it there?"

But on second reading, when I knew what to expect, I began noticing and admiring Simmons's method a bit more. I actually enjoy good horror stories, as long as I know what I'm getting into. Also, I vaguely recognized some of the situations he put the Terrors and Erebuses (lifting Simmons's own terminology for the men of those ships), and that set me off trying to track down where I had read or heard those things. I'm almost positive that one of his inspirations was Poe's The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym -- I remember the killer polar white bear in that story because Poe set his tale in the Antarctic where there are no bears! Hmm, and the Second Venetian Carnivale: the Erebus crewman who instigated the disastrous seven-room maze had lived in the United States and had read Graham's Magazine -- wasn't that the magazine Edgar Allan Poe edited? Is there an actual story of Poe's that has something like that in it? It's been years since I've read Poe's short stories so I'm not sure, but I seem to remember something very similar in one of them.
Since Crozier was a real person, I'm even more surprised that Simmons chose to end the book as he did. I'm not going to say too much about the ending yet, but I do want to say that I think the real Crozier and possibly the American explorer/adventurer Charles Francis Hall were conflated for the purposes of Simmons's story. Hall was somewhat obsessed with finding out what happened to the Franklin Expedition and did "turn native" and had shamanistic interests. That's why I reread Weird and Tragic Shores, which only strengthened my impression; but I'm not absolutely sure, though Simmons does mention Loomis's book in his acknowledgements.

Frieda, I'm wondering if The Terror is a US publication because I haven't heard or seen mention of it over here, and I'm a sucker for all the book reviews in the w/end papers.
We have had a number of interesting TV programmes on Franklin and more recently Shackleton (OK the other cold end of the Earth).
Have you read anything by Fergus Fleming? He is (I think) the grandson of explorer Peter F (brother of Ian) and actress Celia Johnson.
His Barrow Boys and Ninety Degrees North are in part about the events you mention.
On the same topic there is Arctic Grail by Pierre Berton.

Vee, yes, The Terror is American, but from what I understand it was released almost simultaneously in Canada and the UK. In fact, I found out about it from my British friends (only one of whom had actually read it at the time). Simmons lives in Colorado, according to his official web site (see the link below), therefore I should be more familiar with him; however, he usually writes science fiction/fantasy, which, as you probably know, is not my favorite genre. That's why I'm astonished that I enjoyed this book so much.

At Simmons's web site, read his review of The Terror (scroll down on the page I linked), which I found especially interesting because he mentions that the Franklin Expedition tragedy "haunts" Canadian literature. The Arctic Grail by Berton is another longtime favorite of mine.

On the other hand, though, I've read that British historians and other writers were more reticent (until rather recently) about this disaster because it was seen as a profound embarrassment. Perhaps so, but it is such an engrossing mystery that even they have been coming around more to it as time passes and the ignominy wanes.

Indeed, I have read Barrow's Boys by Fergus Fleming -- it's a really good account. I had no idea that Celia Johnson was of that family.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dan Simmons

At Simmons's web site, read his review of The Terror...Oops! I meant: read Ken McGoogan's review.

Frieda, I am in awe that you've read The Terror not once, but twice.

I first saw the book listed on the local public library's website for ordered books, but when I saw that the author was Dan Simmons, I decided I would skip it. It's not that I have anything against Mr. Simmons, but I knew what type of novels he is best known for writing and decided I wasn't that interested. For some reason, though, when I was browsing the Amazon bookstore, I clicked on the book when it came up as being something I might be interested in reading. When I started reading the reviews from readers, some of whom were avid fans and some of whom had never read Dan Simmons before but were in absolute awe of the book, I decided to give it a try. Luckily, I ended up being the only person on the waiting list for the book and got it as soon as it was received from the library.

What immediately struck me about the book was Simmons' in depth yet never dull attention to detail. I thought I would be bored to tears, but I found myself drawn in through his description of unbelievably bitter temperatures and the day-to-day life of being frozen in place, not for months, but for years. I found myself wondering about the type of men who would willingly place themselves in such peril and what type of mental strength they would need to endure months of darkness.

And before I forget, Frieda, it's my personal opinion that the Second Venetian Carnivale segment was inspired by Poe's The Masque of Red Death. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It has always been one of my favorite Poe stories.

I have to admit that when I was reading the book, there was something niggling in the back of my mind that I have either read something very similar to it (the ship frozen in the ice in the polar region and crewmen being attacked by a creature) or I've seen a movie with a similar story. For some reason, I'm thinking it was a movie, but since I always imagine very vivid visuals when I read, maybe I'm mistaking my imagination for a movie. I also found myself thinking, in imagining how each character looked, that the perfect little weasel to portray Crozier's human nemesis (I can't remember his name, but he's the one whose "friend" was the very large man) would be the actor Robert Knepper, who plays T-Bag on the television program Prison Break. ;-)

I'm out of time for now, but I will be back. I confess to being conflicted about the ending and would be interested in discussing the supernatural/horror angle with you all.

Aha! The Masque of the Red Death -- colormeconfused, I believe you are right, though I haven't reread the story yet.What immediately struck me about the book was Simmons' in depth yet never dull attention to detail.Yeah, that amazed me too. For instance, several times he listed the men and their positions on one or the other ship -- names that, for the most part, didn't mean a thing to me. Normally this would have annoyed me, but instead it sent me scurrying for the Erebus and Terror musters printed as an appendix in, for one, Cookman's Ice Blink. I found that, as far as I can tell, Simmons used all their names and ranks correctly. But since most of the men were merely anonymous names, it's interesting how he projected them into characters. Why did he make Cornelius Hickey into such a despicable villain? Why was Henry Peglar made to be an admirable, out-of-the-ordinary Captain of the Foretop who sought book learning? John Bridgens is listed in the Erebus muster, sure enough, as age 26. Is the reversing of the numbers by Simmons merely fanciful? This is where the mind of the novelist piques my interest as much as the story he tells.

The other thing that fascinates me is how Simmons took the known incidents and evidence and gave them explanations, such as the incoherent message Crozier added around the perimeter of Lieutenant Gore's earlier message deposited in the cairn (though it's believed that the Clerk Helpman actually did the transcription -- it matches his known handwriting). Another enigma: Why was the abandoned cutter with the remains of two men in it, along with all kinds of useless but "valuable" things, pointing away from the direction the whole party was supposedly going? I don't really like Simmons solution but it makes sense the way he writes it.

Now, the Thing in the ice: I really don't know what to make of this addition, except that Simmons is incorporating Inuit mythology. From all the references to Greek mythology in this story and because Simmons seems to use several mythologies in his other writing (Song of Kali, for instance), I suspect that he couldn't resist adding another myth tradition to his repertoire. I have to admit that mythology is one of my least favorite things to read, and that's probably why Simmons lost me, for the most part, after Crozier was hoodwinked, "murdered," and then nursed by Silence.

I've had people ask me, quite validly, why I like ghost and unexplained-phenomena stories but dislike mythology. The only way I can explain it that makes sense to me is that the former might have logical explanations, no matter how roundabout, but mythologies are legends that have been invented wholecloth and embroidered without logic (usually by accretion). I guess it all depends on whether and when a reader can suspend disbelief, which in the case of mythology I have a very hard time doing. I disliked that part of my cultural anthropology classes intensely -- we had to read such things...

WARNING to the unsuspecting: This post contains spoilers.

Frieda, I think you hit the nail on the head for me when you mentioned your dislike of mythology, although you like ghost and unexplained-phenomena stories. I share this same view, and I expect that explains why I felt conflicted about the ending chapters. I would have preferred that the beast had never been explained or at best made the assumption that it was the personification of man's inhumanity to man such as what was exhibited by some members of the crew.

I also think that the ending chapters were somewhat of a shock after the very detailed, down-to-earth, factual feel of the book (except for the occasional attack by the beast, of course). It was as though the book suddenly veered off course into a realm where it didn't belong. However, I'm not saying that the end was without merit, and I liked the book so much that I didn't let the ending spoil anything for me. I think I would have just preferred that Crozier met his end in a somewhat logical way instead of his mysteriously living on in such a far-fetched conclusion.

What did you think about the end when Crozier and the others went back to Terror and found it, for want of a better word, haunted? I had never gotten the impression that there was anything evil about the ship except for some of its human inhabitants, and they were all gone. I'll confess that I didn't understand why Simmons took that approach.

I also think that the ending chapters were somewhat of a shock after the very detailed, down-to-earth, factual feel of the book (except for the occasional attack by the beast, of course).colorme, that struck me too. Simmons did a bang-up job with the realistic parts: the everyday life of the Terrors and Erebuses, their horrible situation of being hemmed in by the ice, and the cold -- especially the cold. His description of the lightning and thunder will stay with me for a long time, I think. Even the way he handled the Thing on the ice, initially, was natural enough to not jar the sense of realism. The Thing lurking in sight but not identifiable was creepy, yes, but at first I wasn't at all sure that it was something supernatural. And I think Simmons handled the suspense -- the feeling of impending disaster -- very deftly. Then the horror when it came left me breathless a couple of times; those were great action sequences, as my sons would say.

No, everything was rocking along, though it was increasingly gutwrenching and I knew the outcome was not going to be happy for hardly anyone. Yet, I had developed such an attachment and admiration for Crozier that I thought maybe, just maybe he would make it to Back's River and eventually to the post on the Great Slave Lake, at least in Simmons's fictional account. He could've had Crozier "go native" and that would have suited me fine enough -- there were even rumors amongst the Inuits that Crozier did exactly that -- but instead I felt letdown that Simmons chose the mystical. Oh well, like you, I found the rest of the book so far above average that I can't pan it entirely for what I think is a lousy ending.

The part about Crozier finding the Terror "haunted": I didn't think that was necessary at all, and that the Terror was destroyed deliberately...no, that doesn't sit well with me at all. I still have hopes that someday some physical remains of the real Terror, or Erebus, will be discovered. It could happen, and wouldn't that be fascinating?!

In a way, I was surprised that Simmons chose Crozier as the main character/hero. Perhaps he did so because it was rumored that Crozier was the last one seen alive, and Crozier had the experience of his five other polar expeditions. But in other respects, he was an unlikely choice because, after all, he was 49 years old (in 1845); a good, solid seaman but apparently melancholic and hard-drinking. A more romantic writer than Simmons would probably have chosen the documented-hero Commander Fitzjames who was only 33 (in 1845) and, quoting Scott Cookman in Ice Blink: "[he] was well-educated, aristocratic, wealthy, of good family, Church of England, fast-rising in the service -- and thumpingly, lispingly English to the core." He was said to be "the handsomest man in the navy"; he was ebullient and much admired. He was also an expert in steam-powered engines, as the Erebus and Terror were newly outfitted to be. In other words: poor,...

I skimmed part of this last night and think I will return it to the library. I'm not certain that I'm of a mind to spend so long at the Arctic Circle! (almost 800 pages worth!) In this instance, I think it's just the wrong book at the wrong time for me. I note the author states it is a work of fiction, so clearly he took many liberties with the actual facts, for poetic reasons.

More Spoilers.

I also felt that the ending came out of nowhere, but I had no problem with the introduction of mythology, because I rather like mythological motifs in my fiction. Having recently finished Campbell's Primitive Mythology, I was interested in Simmons' use of the hunter-gatherer myths. I felt rather that mythology was handled rather clumsily, coming in a clump to transition Crozier from ship's officer to shaman.

One of the reviews I read named the creature "Wendigo" and when I looked it up, I felt that it adds dimension to the story, since the Algonquin (not Inuit, I noticed) legend is that a Wendigo arises from a human who has had to resort to cannibalism during famine, and transforms into the inhuman monster you see in the novel. Knowing that, it becomes a foreshadowing device.

I felt that the story was strong enough without the excursion into mythological monsters, and got rather impatient with this shadowy Bigfoot during the realistic parts of the novel. But Simmons actually merged several different ideas into the book, until at the end I'm not quite sure what all the messages were! The realistic portrayal of the hardship and despair of the trapped crew was horrific enough, both the physical aspects as well as the social. Then the culture clash, paranormal events, and ending with an enviro-message. My goodness! I actually felt that after merging so many different things into the book, that he wrapped things up rather neatly. In comparison, I thought the ending to Olympos was a major disappointment.

I happened to read it immediately after Margaret Atwood's Alias Grace, an interesting juxtaposition of 2 speculative novels based on real events and people.

donnamira, I've heard of legendary "Wendigos," or entities by other names, associated with cannibalism. The Wendigo is Algonquin, but the concept must be fairly widespread in mythologies. Interesting. Yeah, I can see that Simmons used the Thing as a foreshadowing device. I guess it was the precursor of some terrible decision the Terrors and Erebuses would have to make -- is that right?

I took a look at the synopses of Hyperion and Ilium and Olympos. As impressed as I am with The Terror, I'm not sure I can make the leap into "large-scale space opera," as Publishers Weekly calls Simmons's sci-fi endeavors. Now, if he manages to make them realistic in the way he did with the Franklin Expedition story (does he?), I might be able to get into those kinds of stories.

Hmm, I, too, discerned an "enviro-message," yet I'm not entirely sure what that message is. I could use some help if anyone would point it out to me.

I think the most fascinating part of the whole Franklin Expedition disaster is its cause, which according to the most recent writers I've read (Beattie and Cookman) can be blamed on Goldner's tinned provisions which probably gave the crews of the Erebus and Terror debilitating doses of lead and deadly botulism. Simmons wrote this into his story -- the physicians' suspicions, etc. -- but naturally enough he couldn't go into great detail because then he would've been giving them credit for suspecting things that they simply had no way of knowing, although they knew something was horribly wrong. Just imagine their perplexity and fear.

I suppose that's the way most mythology gets started, anyway -- as an explanation of the inexplicable. In that sense, I can see how mythological beasts are constant presences on the peripheries of daily life; and then when calamities occur, the causes are these beasts getting up close and personal, so to speak. That's formally called allegory, I think, though I'm really awful at interpreting symbolism, so I may just be blowing hot air. "Hey, at least I'm trying!" was my usual plea to my literature teachers when I was muddling around trying to relate to arcane (in my mind) stylisms.

I'm a bit surprised no one has responded to my comment about the Platypus Pond. I thought that scene stuck out in its implausibility, but maybe I'm the only one who thinks so. The later sex scene with Crozier and Silence, I can accept better because Simmons was in the imaginary realm at that point. And there's another scene that, though I found it unpleasant, it was entirely appropriate in its context. I'm not puerilely bringing up those scenes -- or at least I don't intend to provoke -- but I thought it was interesting how Simmons handled them. They are a bit too graphical for my taste, and I'm thankful there weren't more of them because that sort of thing doesn't seem to be his forte, anyway.

Do you think this book, The Terror, will catch on with general readers or do you think it is more...

I have received several emails about The Terror, so I'm bringing this discussion back to the first page of the thread list.

I don't think I can do justice in replying to some excellent observations and questions in those emails. But if I can coax lurkers to post here, other readers of this book probably can do a much better job.

I'm happy to post some answers to general inquiries, though.

Unfortunately I don't remember exactly what spurred my interest in the Franklin Expedition because it must have been at least forty years ago. What interested me most: it was such a mystery but one that could possibly be solved at some point. The Beattie, et al, book Frozen in Time and Cookman book Ice Blink did a lot to explain it, I think -- the plumbism and botulism theories, in combination especially, seem sound.

Yes, I expected historicity in Simmons's novel, and I'll admit disappointment in the mythologizing. But, though Simmons pursues a mystical tangent, I was enthralled with the realistic aspects of his story enough to forgive him -- somewhat. As a horror story, it's quite something, in my opinion.

Please, lurkers don't be bashful. Your opinions and interpretations are every bit as legitimate as mine.

Frieda, I'm glad you brought this thread back up since I had intended to respond to your earlier posts and forgot. Memory is the first thing to go, you know. In addition, I would love to know what others out there think about the book, so I hope that any bashful lurkers will feel free to post their thoughts.

You brought up the point about the sex scene at Platypus Pond, and I agree that it appeared to be gratuitous. I thought it seemed oddly out of place and somewhat bizarre, to be truthful.

You also asked the question whether the novel will catch on with general readers. I don't think so. For one thing, I think the size of it would intimidate the casual reader. I also think that Simmons' incredible knack for detail might be offputting for those who just want the meat of the story and not all the background. It's a shame, though, since his intricate and in-depth research really shines in the book and is part of its intensity.

Thank you for your discussion, which placed The Terror on my list and which I truly enjoyed.

I, too, didn't like the way the book ended although I usually love books that weave in the mythological. As Donnamira suggested, I think the transitions didn't work. Crozier's second sight musings are too clumped. Although certainly the delirium tremens are the time to have visions. (James Lee Burke artfully uses the DTs to turn In the Electric Mist with Confederate Dead from a hard-boiled detective novel to mystical realism.) It just feels thrown in without preparation. I did like the non-magical parts of tale at the very end, but it didn't feel like the same book I'd been reading.

I was also a bit disappointed that we had the imagined details of almost every death, but never learned, other than vaguely, what happened to the two non-Hickey groups that left Rescue Camp alive. I get that we learn the Male et alia group make it back to the Terror and sail south, but Simmons creates more unexplained mysteries in the locked hatches and the 3 inch long teeth. Or are we to believe that the surviving sailor was beginning the transformation into a Wendigo before he died?

Freida, I only kept rough track of the dates and missed the wrong date on the Franklin segment. Would that date be intentional on Simmons part? After all, Franklin wrote the wrong date on the note he left in the brass canister.

The sex scene on Platypus Pond struck me as adolescent, which these two were not. Could be 19th versus my 21st century perspective, however. Still and all, I think it was to demonstrate that the Lady Jane Franklin and her niece were unusually progressive women. Sir John comes across as a dolt, but not a bad man to have such a wife.

Crozier vs. Fitzjames as hero didn't bother me. I'm prejudiced that way, I never expect beautiful men to be interesting. And Simmon's hero in Ilium and Olympus was a middle-aged balding guy without a lot of muscle, for what it's worth.

Still thinking about this one. It was interesting to read it as the temperature here ramped up. It felt wrong, somehow, to turn on the air conditioning. And as I said over in the general reading thread, I was counting my blessings as I read.

This novel also had me reflecting on the consequences of modern society's extremely risk averse culture. A lot of the very good have come from inventions that initially killed a lot of people. Canned foods turned out to be a very good thing. Could tin cans have survived in today's litigious environment to become the safe storage we know today? Our governments wouldn't tolerate the risks those sailors took, either. Will progress slow to the incremental, now, rather than leap forward?

Chris, I read this book twice and I've had several conversations (orally and via email) about it, but truthfully I'm probably more confused now than when I was reading it the first time. Also, I have such poor retention of what I read these days.I get that we learn the Male et alia group make it back to the Terror and sail south, but Simmons creates more unexplained mysteries in the locked hatches and the 3 inch long teeth. Or are we to believe that the surviving sailor was beginning the transformation into a Wendigo before he died?Is this how Terror wound up so far south where it was found derelict? If so, I don't think I made that connection. I think I thought it was a ghost ship, like the Mary Celeste. But, as I said, I am having a hard time resurrecting the whys of my impressions. Yeah, if the sailor was transforming into a "Wendigo," that would explain the hatches and teeth; but that makes me even more dissatisfied, in a way, with that whole business about the last days of the Terror, the ship. Dadgummit, I want possibility, not more mysticism!

Chris, the dating thing is in the boxes below the chapter numbers and titles, along with latitudes and longitudes. Chapter 12 is dated 24 May--3 June, 1847. Chapter 13 is dated 3 June, 1846, though it is obviously a continuation of Chapter 12, though this time concerning Franklin. I really think it's a simple typographical error; otherwise I don't think it makes sense.
Crozier vs. Fitzjames as hero didn't bother me. I'm prejudiced that way, I never expect beautiful men to be interesting.Hee! Chris, I don't like too handsome heroes, either...shades of Cyrano, don't you think? My sympathy is with Crozier because the way he was treated by the class system in the British navy, but I'm sure that's more typically an American, 20th/21st-century attitude.

Franklin has been painted as a doddering old fool for so long. I agree that he couldn't have been too idiotic because Lady Franklin obviously revered him. The niece, hmm...I don't have a favorable impression of her, as she was characterized by Simmons, but also how she seems to have been in real life, though I realize that she might not have been accurately portrayed in biography/history, either.

Excellent point, Chris, about risk taking. I'll think some more about that.

Frieda, how did the sailor woman in you respond to this? I'm thinking I'll pass it on to a pal who spends a lot of time sailing the Chesapeake with just his two cats, Port and Starboard. Doubly spooky, I'd think.

Have I ever mentioned that a neighbor built an igloo one very snowy winter at Seven Springs Resort in PA? It really did get warm enough inside with 3 or 4 people to take jackets off. Alas, I was never invited to get naked with him, so I cannot speak to Lady Silence's comfort under those conditions.

Chris, I like the idea of sailoring more than the reality. If I had started earlier, I think I would have gained stronger sea legs, but I didn't have the opportunity until I was in my forties -- too late, I'm afraid, for me to ever feel completely confident.

Yeah, part of the appeal to me of The Terror is my long-held fascination with seafaring and people who have had the gumption to take risks: the adventurers and explorers -- especially the sea-goers. My favorite tales when I was a kid were Swiss Family Robinson, Captains Courageous, Robinson Crusoe, Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped and Treasure Island, and Jack London's The Sea-Wolf. I got interested in the real-life versions, too, and I think the first of those that I read was The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst by Nicholas Tomalin and Ron Hall (I knew Nick Tomalin as a fellow journalist and was greatly saddened by his untimely death).

Anyway, yes, I think your sailing pal, Chris, could find The Terror quite diverting. Port and Starboard as names for cats: Heh, I love that! Cats are good luck on board boats and ships. Dogs, unfortunately, aren't. Speaking of animals, can you imagine the expeditions with shipboard menageries of cows, goats, pigs, chickens and other fowls that were mostly kept on deck as eventual food? When horses were hauled, they were kept below deck. I don't think I can imagine the half of what the smells were like. Simmons conveyed horribly well the rat infestations on Terror and Erebus and the putrid grunge of 19th-century orlop decks. I'll say it again: the realism and immediacy of danger are some of the best I've read.

Ooh! Lady Silence's igloo. I always wondered why, since it gets quite cozy inside an igloo, respiration and body warmth don't melt the thing, and there's not constant dripping. An Alaska friend who has some experience with experimental igloo habitation told me that the ice blocks do melt and there are some drips but the melt almost immediately refreezes and produces an icy glaze that actually further insulates. I still can't imagine getting naked in an igloo, though. Chris, if you ever get an invitation, you might want to try it out!

An interesting note, I think: So far, I have run across and corresponded with only one male reader of The Terror. Here at RP, there are five of us women readers, and I know five other women who have read it. I think you pegged it, colorme, that The Terror is probably not a book for general readers, but is it surprising that women are just as apt as men to read it? Personally, I have the notion that women are likely to read anything and everything...much more so than men. Or am I stereotyping?

Frieda, that's an interesting thought, because in "real life," I don't know anyone else who's read it, male or female. I think the size is just too daunting for many. Evidently, it's not selling too well either, because when I was at Barnes & Noble today looking in the bargain section, there were a couple of copies of The Terror there. Thinking they must be there by mistake, I picked one up and saw the discount sticker on it. Since I had borrowed the copy I read from the library, I hastily grabbed one and paid $4.50 for it after the B&N discount.

I am waiting to read this one in its entirity, when it comes out in paperback. As the hardback edition is really to heavy for me to carry around easily.

I will say this, what parts of it I have read, it seems to be quite realistic in its portrayal of what happened. Probably more realistic than any "factual" account, as we know that everybody on the expedition died.

Which I think makes up part of the horror of the book. Knowing that everybody will die. That there will be no survivors.

Lurker King, Part of the fun is that Simmons takes all of the information available, even the bewildering facts, and makes them part of the story. Rather like Dan Brown in his Richard Langdon series, don't you think?

Frieda, My first experience sailing was an impromptu midnight sail on the Chesapeake. No trip since has lived up to the thrill of that first night. I suspect it is because I have to go hours without reading while under sail. Unsupportable!

The Today Show is visiting the Arctic Circle and Antarctica this week and seeing the ice floating in the water reminded me of The Terror and what a really horrible feeling it must have been to know that the ice was freezing them in place for an unknown period of time.

The Terror is a book that seems to have made a lasting impression on me. Even though I did not like the ending at all and thought it would have been an excellent book without the "thing" on the ice, I am so glad I read it.

Frances, me too, about The Terror's lasting impression and glad that I read it. I was thinking about Crozier the other day and I realized it was the way Simmons portrayed him that was projected into my mind.

What a coincidence. I was just thinking about The Terror a day or two ago when the temperatures started dropping. I may have to read it again once winter sets in this year. It doesn't seem right to read it when it's hot outside.

Sorry, chris. Never read the Richard Langdon series by Dan Brown. Yet to read "The Terror" as well. As I have December 24th off from work, hope to get to Barnes & Noble to pick up a copy, finally.

I got "The Terror" for Christmas and am about halfway through it. As an polar armchair adventurer (I have a fair collection of books on the subject, mostly non-fiction) I am finding this tale intriguing and well-written. Mostly, I prefer to think of "the thing" on the ice as a kind of madness with teeth, although the details--like Lady Silence's dance with the thing, and the injuries of the sailors--make this at times a difficult concept to cling to!

Well... I didn't start this til late last week, so I'm just finishing up. For the most part, I liked it. I did think the first half was a little slow and overlong in places, but once the men start their long trek on the ice, it's quite riveting. Some of the Crozier chapters, written in the present tense, felt a little awkward to me. I also thought the mythology could have been handled a bit more gracefully. The telling of the Inuit myths toward the end felt too much like an info dump. Overall, though, I thought it was very good.

There are certain things I've come to expect from a Simmons novel: well researched, great detail, an interesting cast of supporting characters who often flesh out the novel, and many references to works from literature, film and philosophy. All these things are present, and I think the author's great strength has always been in how he synthesizes them. I especially liked his sardonic use of the fictional Book of the Leviathan.

Frieda stated above: An interesting note, I think: So far, I have run across and corresponded with only one male reader of The Terror. Here at RP, there are five of us women readers, and I know five other women who have read it. I think you pegged it, colorme, that The Terror is probably not a book for general readers, but is it surprising that women are just as apt as men to read it? Personally, I have the notion that women are likely to read anything and everything...much more so than men. Or am I stereotyping?

I really think this is an anomaly restricted to sites that cater to literature with a capital "L" over anything produced in genre (as in, more females post here, and probably outnumber the male posters on literary boards as well). I've encountered a number of male readers who've read this book -- most of them have been readers who are already familiar with Simmons and will give equal time to genre as well as literary reads. I'm not implying this is a genre book (or that Simmons is a genre writer), though. It isn't, but perhaps Simmons is better known to genre readers.

The cannibalistic scenes reminded me of the film Ravenous (has anyone here seen that film?). Now I can't quit thinking about it. Gruesome thoughts for today.

Have any of you read John Clute's review of this book? IÂve attached the link in case you find it interesting (it includes a lot of spoilers, so I don't recommend for those who haven't read the book yet). Clute is always educational, but sometimes his reviews make my head hurt (such as his use of mimetic).

Here is a link that might be useful: In the Belly of the Thing

Thank you, Georgia, for posting your thoughts while the story is still fresh on your mind. It's only been ten months since I read The Terror twice, but I'm afraid I've already lost a lot of the details. For instance, I had forgotten the use of present tense -- I nearly always find that awkward, too, while I'm reading, but I immediately put things into my memory in past tense once I've read something.

I figure you're right about male readers posting at other sites about The Terror. I still have run across only one additional male reader, though.

The John Clute review:
"No reader who has begun to get used to the literatures of the early 21st century should be flummoxed by the strangeness of The Terror, which seems to be an historically exact recounting of the famous doomed Arctic expedition led by the ineffably stupid Sir John Franklin (1786-1847), who caused the deaths of 130 men in his attempt to find the Northwest Passage by force..."Clute almost lost me completely with that intro sentence because Franklin didn't cause the deaths of 130 men by "force." Franklin may be considered "ineffably stupid" but that's hindsight about a failed expedition -- if he had pulled it off and found the passage his stupidities would have been considered minor. Besides that, Franklin himself died before all but a few of his men succumbed, and those that preceded him had other problems, such as tuberculosis. Clute either didn't know this or he made faulty conclusions.

However, I was more interested in what Clute had to say about Simmons's writing style.

He does like to use lit crit jargon: mimetic and in medias res -- I was half expecting him to tell us about breaching the fourth wall.
"Crozier is still what one might call a victim of the wrong story, and he will not be able to save himself in any sense before he abandons, as it were, the mimetic tradition as applied to the para-mimetic exorbitance of the genuinely extreme, of a set of experiences that stretch mimesis beyond the breaking point."Got that? I don't, but I think I agree that Crozier is the victim of the wrong story. I still say that The Terror was one of the most interesting novels I read last year...maybe in several years. But the more I think about the story and the way Simmons wrote it, I have nagging feelings of dissatisfaction. I agree, Georgia, that the Inuit mythtelling was too much expository lump, and not presented seamlessly enough with the realistic aspects for me to accept with ease.

Georgia, you've brought up some things that I will definitely have to think more about. That's pretty good for a book: to be still analyzing it a year later. I wonder if you will be too.

Thanks for responding, Frieda. Yes... this will be one I'll think about for quite a while.

I haven't read nearly so much about these arctic expeditions as you have, though I did read Barrett's Voyage of the Narwhal (which I thought was a very introspective look at the psychology of men who choose to lead these sorts of expeditions). In one of the John Irving chapters, Irving finally gets sent on an exploratory mission for Crozier. He states he's never been happier. That gave me pause to think about what Krakauer has discussed in some of his books -- the type of men who choose to go on these grueling adventures and pit themselves against nature to test their very human limitations (and, in fact, they seem to need this as a rite of passage). I'm not sure Irving fits the true mold of one of these types, but he certainly feels the romantic pull of it.

I agree about Franklin. If he'd been successful, history would certainly have judged him in a more favorable light. I'm also struck by what Chris mentioned above: A lot of the very good have come from inventions that initially killed a lot of people. Does anyone remember James Burke's Connections series? He used to give example after example of how inventions and discoveries came to us from such unexpected chains of events such as this.