Top critical review
Should be better...
Reviewed in the United States on March 14, 2006
I'm not really a big fan of this book at all. I guess most people who have read it, have read This Cold Heaven: Seven Seasons in Greenland and The Solace of Open Spaces, both of which I will probably read even though I didn't like this one. The author is a huge fan of the winter, the north, and her obvious sadness about global warming is what makes the book worth reading. I think that reading a book about the eventual (and possibly soon) death of winter will have an impact as long as it is a partial good read. The Future of Ice is, but there are just so many things I don't like about it.
There are a ton of cliches. She repeats words all the time, and some of her "poetic" phrases aren't really that poetic. They're forced...WAY forced. In the first half of the book, she uses the word "womb" so much that everything she tries to say while using that word falls on deaf ears. I was so sick of seeing the word "womb." She uses an insane amount of personification, too. Much more than necessary.
This woman is obviously a very, very good writer, and even more importantly, someone passionate about ice and snow. Her passion is vital to even writing this book, and through her travels, from Patagonia to Wyoming to Spitsbergen, her fear, her apprehension about the disappearing snow, ice, glaciers....it's heartbreaking. I think the description, though, is kind of off. There's not much science at all in this book. Arctic dreams had quite a bit of science, but this book is very low on scientific fact, and that seems to be a description word for the book.
Either way, I'm glad I read this book, but it is far from one of the better nature books about ice and snow. The idea was good, the writing is alright, but there are a lot of things that were just done too many times and too intensely, and they ended up destroying the entire mood of the book. What's important to me is that I know where this woman is coming from and how she sees, but I don't know that what she's saying is the right rendition of what she feels. A little less "poetic" intensity, and a little more scientific fact, would be nice.