Here's something to think about:

The Titanic was only one of three nearly identical ships. The Britanic, the last of the sisters was actually larger in gross tonnage. Olympic, which lived into the 1930's was only slightly smaller, but virtually identical in design and fittings. It was sent to the breakers with little fanfare. Photos and documentation of Titanic, and her sisters, is sketchy at best. Titanic's "legendary" luxurious interiors especially were not well documented. The "unsinkablility" of Titanic was not something that the White Star Line was even touting - no one at the time gave such claims much thought - until it sank that is.

Every recent documentary I've seen on Titanic plays down these facts. The ship is always presented as something far and above its contemporaries - a radical innovation in scale and luxury, not just the next small evolutionary step. Technologically, there was nothing special about Titanic. Its engine design is actually considered a throwback compared to competing liners of the time such as the Mauritania and Lusitania. Both those ships were only slightly smaller and much faster than Titanic.

My point is, the only thing that made Titanic special was its death, and the death of its wealthy passengers, on its maiden voyage. No one would even know about the Titanic otherwise. I suspect that if the ship had met with disaster not on its maiden voyage, but... say...its 23rd voyage, no one today would care even if all other circumstances were the same. If no one of importance had died, just 1500 poor immigrants, again no one would care.

The passengers and crew aboard the Titanic that "fateful" night were unfortunate victims, that is for sure. That some acted heroically and others with great cowardice is not unusual though. Ismay boarded a boat - shocking! Smith went down with the ship - again, big shock! There were a few interesting personal stories of triumph and tragedy. But they were not THAT interesting or unique to such circumstances. Every time there's a plane crash, there are at least 10 people who say they felt uneasy or just KNEW something was going to happen. Some of them even refuse boarding or fortuitously miss the flight by seconds. You never hear about the 100,000 flights that make it where people have done the same. If I hear that "flying in the face of God" line from that Titanic survivor recounting her mother's fears one more time I think I'm going to scream!

All the hype, first started in the 50's by Lord's "A Night To Remember" (the disaster was forgotten quickly in its aftermath, even before WWI) is just that - hype. The Titanic disaster is NOT nature's revenge against man's hubris. The Titanic disaster is NOT an unusual story of human behavior either. It's not even an unusual story of avarice or recklessness. And it's definitely NOT the watershed event that it's been made out to be. The Titanic has been freighted with so much bogus "meaning" that it would have sunk from the weight alone. The most important legitimate consequence of the Titanic disaster is that ships must now carry enough lifeboats for all aboard. Where does that rank in the grand scheme of human progress? Perhaps somewhere below the discovery of penicillin?

So what IS the Titanic disaster? As far as successful mass-marketing schemes and blowing a minor historical transportation accident WAY out of proportion go, it's KING OF THE WORLD!

-- Contribute This. Or maybe his valet. (foo@bar.com), January 11, 1999

Answers

How many deaths would have to occur at one given time for you to consider it to be major? The fact is, the sinking is interesting, and not for one reason. There are countless reasons, which I won't bother to list because I don't want anyone to have to read such a long posting (lol). You certainly make some valid points, but Titanic is still fascinating for me.

-- anonymous (foo@bar.com), January 11, 1999.

Yes, perhaps the Titanic was indeed, capitalized on to the point of beating a dead horse. No one is going to deny that many people have made quite a lot of money from the sensationalization of the tragedy. I do feel, however, that to say that the incident was forgotten even before WWI is a bit presumptuous. You might want to try speaking with contemporary family members of those involved in the building and/or sinking of the ship in Britain and Ireland before sounding off with such a conclusion. The Irish have long memories, of pride in the ship they built, as well as the awful loss of life of loved ones and fellow countrymen and women. Around Cork and Cobh, the people still remember with pride and sadness the tragedy that occurred. I know a man whose grandfather was one of the workers building the ship, and he would talk of the terrible sadness of such a loss for many years to come. Perhaps he is representative of other families involved. But through the remembrance of this incident, have come the romanticisms of today, and people still remember. Opinion of the movie is simply that. Opinion. But to take such a cold indifference to the deaths of 1500 people, be they poor immigrants or rich and famous, Titanic victims, or plane-crash victims over Lockerbie, the loss is still the same to those who do remember, and in their lives, it is not just another shipwreck, another capitalistic adventure, another movie. Try not to speak for those you have not spoken with.

{fixed bold close tag}

-- Rebecca Fox (beckiyowee@hotmail.com), January 11, 1999.

Contribute This. Or maybe his valet.,

I agree with some of your points. It is very easy to capitalize on a disaster, be it the Titanic or the Oklahoma bombing. That's what media do all the time. It is their job...

As for the rest us, general public, Titanic remains a warning about our limits, a story placed at the border between two ages, a disaster that almost wiped out Cobh (have you seen the little map of this place showing the geographic distribution of the 1912 victims?), and so on.

And finally, as for the statement in general, applying the same logic we would never have a Bible today, now would we? What was so original in the story of Jesus? Many pretended and still pretend to be the Mesiah. Was Jesus cricified? Big deal, thousands were... Was he resurected? Oh, well, maybe some of his followers stole his body... And so on... If we don't judge certain things with our hearts, we'll just say "We've been on the Moon and there was no God. So he doesn't exist."

I repeat what Cameron said about "Titanic:" It's a story for people with hearts. Fortunately or not, not everything in the world is logical. We do combine our understanding of this world through a combination of messages we receive from both heart and brain. And it's probably a zero sum game in the end. Some are realists, others are idealists, but there is no human standard. We are shaped by our personal experiences and background. For example, I might say, "Big deal about the Vietnam War. I was born in Romania, what do I care?" But would I be saying the same if I was born in America and had a close relative lost in that war or returning as a handicaped person (physical or mental)? Oh well, your life will teach you more than a stupid comment made by myself here and today on this board. Life is a good teacher, it has taught me many things... There is always a perfect time for everything.

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), January 11, 1999.

P.S.: I apologize for my text being bolded. It was not my intention. Thomas, can you please un-bold it? Thanks!

-- Dan Draghici (ddraghic@sprint.ca), January 11, 1999.

Interesting question; one that illuminates a few points that I've been trying to get my head around for over the past year.

The historical facts that "Contribute This" points out are basically correct: without the sinking, there would have been no story. However, the ship did sink (as everyone now knows)...and from that has arisen a cultural phenonemon.

The book Down with the Old Canoe: A Cultural History of the Titanic Disaster is a must read.

I get the feeling that when the first starship leaves our solar system for Alpha Centauri, people will *still* be remembering and discussing the 20th century, book-ended by the Wright brothers and Titanic on one end and the Internet on the other.

-- Thomas M. Terashima (titanicshack@yahoo.com), January 12, 1999.

Well, I agree with some of this but to call the Titanic sinking a minor transportation accident is a stretch. To comment on a few points:

"The Titanic was only one of three nearly identical ships. The Britanic, the last of the sisters was actually larger in gross tonnage. Olympic, which lived into the 1930's was only slightly smaller, but virtually identical in design and fittings."

That was the plan. Each ship was to be just a little better than her older sister(s). Britannic was originally to be named Gigantic until the Titanic sank. The plan was always size and comfort, never speed.

"The "unsinkablility" of Titanic was not something that the White Star Line was even touting - no one at the time gave such claims much thought - until it sank that is."

No, but the media certainly was and it did not take long for the description to be permantly affixed to the Titanic. White Star did tout the watertight integrity of the ships but never said they were unsinkable.

"The ship is always presented as something far and above its contemporaries - a radical innovation in scale and luxury, not just the next small evolutionary step. Technologically, there was nothing special about Titanic. Its engine design is actually considered a throwback compared to competing liners of the time such as the Mauritania and Lusitania. Both those ships were only slightly smaller and much faster than Titanic."

Speed and speed records were not what the owners had in mind for the Olympic class liners. They knew that to try to compete with Mauretania and Lusitania for speed records would be futile. Their efforts were directed at sheer size and luxury. Bruce Ismay, however, was apparently trying to beat Olympic's best time to New York in order to draw attention to the newest of his liners. Well, he certainly drew the attention but not in the way he wanted to.

"Ismay boarded a boat - shocking!"

Not really. I suppose were I in the same situation, I would do the same. However, his whitewashing of the facts afterward and his attempts to dodge the American Inquiry and obvious witness tampering was cowardly. He would have made a classic politician, in my opinion (apologies to any politicians out there).

"All the hype, first started in the 50's by Lord's "A Night To Remember" (the disaster was forgotten quickly in its aftermath, even before WWI) is just that - hype."

Hype?? You've got to be kidding me! Walter Lord researched this event to the hilt. He interviewed and endeared himself to many, many survivors and made sure all his facts were straight as much as could be done at that time. "A Night to Remember" was in no way sensationalistic (is that even a word?) or embellished in any way. Most of us that were around in the 50's were really introduced to the Titanic formally by his book. To this day, I thank him for that and wish I could one day, meet him. At the ripe old age of nine, he crossed the Atlantic on the Olympic. His interest in Titanic and the sisters was evident then as he drove the crew nuts with his questions. Obviously, he is not a man interested in hype, but in history. As for the Titanic disaster being forgotten quickly, even before WWI, I don't agree. It may have been overshadowed by the world turmoil of the war for a time but if it was forgotten, we would not be having this conversation today, 87 years later.

In conclusion, I think I understand what you are trying to say and I think you are relating to the last year with all that has gone on with Cameron's Titanic. That was not the case before his film. Don't get me wrong, I loved the film and have my copy but Titanic goes back way, way before that with me. The Titanic disaster was not a terrorist attack, mechanical, electrical or design failure or an act of war. It was arrogance, overconfidence, pushing the envelope of technology way too far, mismanagement, poor seamanship or to put it in more general terms, the ultimate definition of Murphy's Law. All of those factors that were present on April 14th, 1912 don't come together all at once all that often. When they do, the results are usually catastrophic and that is what constitutes history, or the tragic side of history anyway and that is why I remember and study it and am fascinated by it. I do agree that there was nothing prophetic about the event. It wasn't God punishing us for our sins. It was just plain stupidity. Let the flames begin.....

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 12, 1999.

I agree with Peter about the Titanic not being a prophetic event. It was a symbol of selfishness ("Think of the headlines...the morning paper...What would they say if we arrived in N.Y. on Tuesday night. Surprise them all, retire with a bang..,") and stupidity that will be remembered to this day as a reminder of man's arrogance. Smith, in my opinion, was an idiot, as was Ismay. But Smith was the man responsible for the deaths of 1500 women and children. He was a fool to listen to Ismay and Ismay was a fool to instruct him to push the engines. Well, must go. Talk later! :-)

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), January 12, 1999.

Just a thought: Imagine how Andrews must have felt as he was last seen by the fire place in the 1st class lounge. His ship, his beautiful masterpiece, was going down. The realization was sinking in. And to think, he had opted for more life boats, but was over-ruled. Imagine, being him, in utter despair, thinking how in the hell this happened. I can't imagine. He must have felt guilt and helplessness. Guilt for not pushing harder for more boats, and helplessness for he knew that half the people on the ship were going to die. I truly do feel for him - who would have thought? Another example of man's arrogance - no one even considered the fact that the ship could go down.

One might recall the story of one first class woman who had an unsettling feeling about boarding Titanic at South Hampton. When she collided at the harbor with another ship by the strong force of her propellers, the lady said, "A ship that cannot complete its departure will never reach its destination." Soon after this, she left the ship at Cherbourg. You can only imagine her shock and dread when she read the headlines of the morning paper Monday morning. Ironic, sad, and heartbreaking, it is. I'm looking beyond the movie and seeing the real story of the ship. Well, just a thought. Any thoughts? :-)

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), January 12, 1999.

It's interesting to note the different portrayals of Captain Smith in the three most prominent movies: Titanic (1953) ANTR (1958) and Titanic (1997). To me, Brian Ahearn in the 1953 "Titanic" was the Captain I would expect. The one in the 1997 "Titanic" seemed to be a bit of a buffoon and a "yes man". I don't think the real E.J. Smith was that at all. If he was, he never would have had the career he had. I do think he fell victim to the power of a manager way too full of himself. Bruce Ismay was certainly basking in the glory of his position and certainly was able to play the "boss breathing down my neck" game(been there, done that!). Just a thought.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 12, 1999.

Hello Kelly: I've never heard that quote before, but how true it was. There were some interesting statements that came out of this whole thing, Eva Hart's "Flying...." notwithstanding!

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 12, 1999.

Speaking of Eva Hart - she's still alive, right? How old is she now? Just curious. I do remember her being 6 or so, but if anyone knows it would cure my curiosity. I remember seeing that IMAX 3D thing on the discovery of the Titanic, and Eva Hart was telling the story, I believe. Well, just wondering! And indeed how true that quote was. I do believe that saying is still used today. Well, just a thought!

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), January 13, 1999.

Hello Kelly:

Eva Hart passed away a couple of years ago. The interviews with her were used extensively after Robert Ballard discovered Titanic. She was quite colorful but my favorite was Ruth Becker Blanchard (also gone now). Her description of what the boats did after the Titanic dissappeared was very moving and you could tell it still affected her deeply even after all those years.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 14, 1999.

Oh, that's terrible. I had no idea that Eva hart had passed away; the last I remember was seeing the IMAX movie "Titanica" with her telling the story. ( You can get this at movie stores now; it's out for rent ) I thought she was the last known survivor! Are there any left? I had no idea she passsed away. Do you know exactly how long ago this was? If not, it's not important.

About Ruth Becker Blanchard: is there a book I can read that tells her story, or an interview that I can rent at the movie store? I am still trying to understand the tragedy, and not just the movie. Hearing it from a survivor would be as direct as I could get. Thanks:-)

-- Kelly (foo@bar.com), January 14, 1999.

Well First I have to say that I don't think the Titanic Disaster was a minor thing at all. And as for it and it's sister not being well documented with photos ect....have you really looked?! I got a book for Christmas that is about all three ships and there are LOTS of pictures, many which I had never seen before, in there. And you seem to make light of the fact the Ismay boarded a boat and the Captain went down with the ship. First I think you have to consider the age that they lived in, Bruce Ismay was treated like slime after he boarded that boat because it was thought that women and children should go first. I think he gained a little more attention since he was employed by the WSL. They and everyone else probably expected him of all people to know his place. The Captain went down with the ship, I don't see whay that seems a shock to you because that was expected of him back then. Also (Peter) It has been said that Smith was somewhat in shock and not giving orders about the lifeboats in a really comanding way, which we would all like to think he was. Whether or not that's actually true...I don't know. The point is that Titanic was then and obviously still is a big deal to a lot of people. It's in part because not very many people actually got to see the inside of Titanic and that the ship never really got to know it's full potential that makes it so interesting. Then you combine all the things that crew and passengers did before and during the sinking that was unique to that time. Example: how many people would willing stay with their husband and be doomed to death by drowning or freezing like Ida Strauss? Wouldn't most people you know save themselves. This is not to say that people today don't do things like this it's just to say that it is fairly rare and we today still hear about people putting themselves in harms way to save a stranger (Oklahoma bombing) And it's mainly because of these events that so many people can find a way to connect with this event and continue to make it a big deal.

-- Miranda Swearingen (Kylen1@hotmail.com), January 16, 1999.

Hello Miranda:

I agree and it was evident that Capt. Smith was in somewhat of a state of shock. Either that or he just did not know what to do. Cdr. Lightoller's testimony was that he had to shout at E.J. to get him to respond and the response was disjointed at best and not decisive, much like it was presented in the film. However, regarding the film, I did not think that the character of Lightoller was portrayed properly. He was far too nervous and high strung and I don't think Mr. Lightoller was that way at all. I have always regarded Cdr Lightoller as he was depicted in ANTR although that was probably a bit too heroic. In Cameron's Titanic, he had that "deer in the headlights" look and I have never thought of him in that way. At any rate, E.J. Smith was, if not in shock, at least not really aware of what was happening and certainly not in control of the situation.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 16, 1999.

The Titanic was only one of three nearly identical ships. The Britanic, the last of the sisters was actually larger in gross tonnage. Olympic, which lived into the 1930's was only slightly smaller, but virtually identical in design and fittings. It was sent to the breakers with little fanfare. Photos and documentation of Titanic, and her sisters, is sketchy at best. Titanic's "legendary" luxurious interiors especially were not well documented. The "unsinkablility" of Titanic was not something that the White Star Line was even touting - no one at the time gave such claims much thought - until it sank that is.

Of the Olympic Class Ships they were all Identical in size. The difference you refer to is indeed gross tonnage after the ships were fitted out and all mechanical systems were installed. The Olympic WAS NOT identical to the Titanic. Titanic had an enclosed 2/3 Promenade deck due to complaints from passengers on Olympic regarding spraying. A verendah cafe, 2 millionaire suite. The Titanic had more staterooms and accomodations for passengers of all classes. Harland and Wolff of Belfast maintains an extensive collection of photos and records on the olympic class ships as well as the Ulster folk and Transport Museum and the United States Library of Congress. As well as the Father Browne collection from his trip aboard Titanic. Concerning "unsinkable" At no time prior or after the sinking of Titanic or the construction of her sister did the White Star Line say that they were unsinkable. The press of the day reprinted and exsaserbated an article published in the Ship Builder Magazine that stated they were "practically unsinkable" due to the construction of water tight doors. The press did at the time prior to the sinking make a big deal out of each of the launching and construction of the Olympic Class Liners. 100,000 people lined the River Lagan to watch the launching of the Olympic and to see the progression of the Titanic in her stocks.

Every recent documentary I've seen on Titanic plays down these facts. The ship is always presented as something far and above its contemporaries - a radical innovation in scale and luxury, not just the next small evolutionary step. Technologically, there was nothing special about Titanic. Its engine design is actually considered a throwback compared to competing liners of the time such as the Mauritania and Lusitania. Both those ships were only slightly smaller and much faster than Titanic

The Titanic was above its contemperaries. Technologically speaking. The Titanic was superior. Each of the Olympic class ships were to be grander than the previous. The Titanic had rubberrized floor installed because of crew complaints of fatigue. Its furnishings were slightly grander than on the Olympic. The ship contained ammenities that were not heard of at the time. Electric Lifts for both 1st and Second Classes. Squash court. The first swimming bath (pool), a turkish bath, Verandah cafe, Ala Carte Restaurant, Full beam dinning salons, Reading and Smoking rooms, The marconi radio the largest transmitter yet afloat. Fire dectection Systems. Fulltime Fire station. 50 Telephone switchboard. etc etc the list goes on. I n regards to the engine construction they were the best at that time in history. The Mauratania was subsidized by the British Crown and was designed with NAVAL CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY being developed at that time.

I take issue with your statement that the only thing that made Titanic special was her death and the death of her Passengers. Titanic was special because she signified the end of an era. A period in history where there was no income taxes. The world had been at peace for many years. There had been no major distasters. Man held the belief that he could control nature and God's world. It was the height of the industrial revoulution, the telephone automobiles, assembly line technologies, advancement in industral applications as a whole. To quote Lawrence Beasley "the world awoke with a start on the night of April 15, 1912" mans beliefs that he ruled god's world were shattered. Her demise marked a more dark and turbulent world with WW I and II.

The Titanic has been freighted with so much bogus "meaning" that it would have sunk from the weight alone. The most important legitimate consequence of the Titanic disaster is that ships must now carry enough lifeboats for all aboard. Where does that rank in the grand scheme of human progress? Perhaps somewhere below the discovery of penicillin?

I take issue again with your statements here. I ask you. When certainly not in this present day would the engineering crew remain at there posts to ensure electric lights when they had been released from their duties KNOWING that they were sealing there fate by doing so. Titanic is the bookmark in history for the end of this period. Plain and simple. As the Russian Revolution marked the end of the Czarist rule in Russia. Or Moses leading the Hebrews from Egypt. How bout the fact that many persons gave up their seats in a life boat to allow another to survive. Or that the band played to the very end?

As far as the sinking losing its appeal prior to world war I. You need a history lesson. 40,000 mourners turned out for Wallace Hartley's funeral, The US COAST GUARD every April 15th has a dedication cermony at the spot of the sinking. The graves in Halifax, Nova Scotia to this day are continually researched for identifaction of those survivors unkown and buried. The Cunard-White Star Line (today known as Cunard) Flies the house flag of the White Star Line to remember the The Dead, the Survivors, and THE SHIP the 15ht of April. The city of Cobh (Queensland) Ireland continues to grieve. Only only has to look at the memorials that to this day are being dedicated. The Woman's memorial in Washington DC, NY Lighthouse Memeorial, The Arlingtion National Cemetary, The engineer Mememorial, The Thomas Andrews School, The Marker of the UNKNOWN CHILD at Halifax. Captain Smith's Statue inwhich the two towns are fighting over to this day. Almost every country somewhere has a mememorial to the Titanic. Many erected after the World Wars.

I take issue that the most single important consequence of the Titanic disaster is that ships must carry adequate life boats for all souls on board. The Titanic made the world take a step back and look at itself. In response of both the American and British inquires and the SOLAS convention in 1914 and subsequent years. Shipping and Passenger Saftey have benefited from the NOT forgotten events of April 15, 1912.

It has become mandatory that all passenger carrying ships carrying more than 50 passengers maintain 24hour radio contact.

The establishment of The International Ice Patrol-the fore runner to the United States Coast Guard-to monitor the shipping lanes of the north atlantic and subsidized by 16 member nations. Paying the US to maintain monitor and track icebergs. Interesting to note that another end to an era is approaching as of April 15th, 1999 it will be illegal to use SOS to seek emergency assistance. So I ask you....have you taken a step back and REALLY studied the message and the lessons of the Royal and United States Mail Ship TITANIC!

{added block quoting to excerpts of original questions, for clarity}

-- R. L. Memeber Titanic Historical Society (Adak3@riconnect.com), January 22, 1999.

Thank you, "R.L.", for putting what I think I was trying to say in much more precise terms with much more detail. How easily we all forget about the memorials and such over the years. Titanic has been with me since I was very young and remains with me still. With the original Marconi station here on Cape Cod, and really not being that far from where it all happened might have something to do with my never ending fascination with this event in history. You are obviously not new to this event either and I, for one, welcome your input.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), January 23, 1999.

eerie

-- juhu (titaniclhack@yahoo.com), April 19, 2004.