I get that Titanic enthusiasts love the details, and this book certainly delivers. However, it is at the same time a startling example of a history book that focuses on fact gathering with little to no explanation, analysis, or historical context.
It seems that half of the book (almost equal to the narrative itself) is footnotes that get into the pros and cons of various sources. Normally, this is my jam, and the Kindle version is excellent for clicking back and forth effortlessly. The appendices also devote a lot of space to Titanic minutiae, such as whether an officer shot himself or passengers that night, or what happened to individual passengers like Thomas Andrews or Captain Smith (which in turn raises questions about why focus on these particular matters or people). That said, I think newcomers to this subject will leave with many questions unanswered, perhaps because the authors aren’t trained to answer them.
It’s striking what the authors chose to focus on, and what they left out. I read the main narrative attentively, and for as long as the section on the ship’s construction is, I can’t say that I recall a helpful explanation of how the ship was designed or thought to be unsinkable. Later, we get no explanation of why the bulkheads failed or how they were surpassed. We get no description of the damage, or what was thought to have occurred by Smith, Andrews, or any other officers and engineers.
Instead, the book recreates the experience of the tragedy through first-hand narratives of survivors, who by and large seem to be first-class passengers. Very little, if any, space is given to the second- or third-class passenger experience of the trip or that night. Officer and crew testimonials are used as well. Why these sources were selected or weighted in certain ways is not clear. Maybe it was due to the media coverage of the time, or who could write their own accounts, but this is not addressed in the main narrative. There are also so many footnotes that important decisions like this are easy to overlook.
At the very least, an explanation as to why ships were designed with immigration laws in mind would be helpful. I have seen in other sources the survival rates by class; none of that is included in this narrative. Not only that, but even passengers’ corpses were treated differently during the recovery. Or, as I have read elsewhere, passengers were buried in Nova Scotia because White Star asked their family members to pay for the bodies to be transported back to Great Britain and elsewhere: shockingly callous. For as detailed as the book purports to be, I had to wonder why details like these were left out.
For a book of this length, I would have expected to see more on the decisions of Captain Smith. Who is to blame for the disaster, really? The authors give cursory details on the two inquiries, but absolutely no meaningful analysis of whether the inquiries drew the right conclusions, or ignored uncomfortable truths. Standard protocols of the time for such situations would have been helpful. A very simple compare-and-contrast between Captains Rostron, Lord, and Smith would suggest that Smith should have posted extra lookouts as Rostron did, or stopped completely until daylight, as Lord did. I kept reading hoping to finally get this from the authors, but it never came, even after the descriptions of the event. And I love historical nautical nitty gritty like this.
The authors also seem to focus on some details but not others. Countless passenger descriptions could have been easily summarized. Meanwhile, a crucial decision was made that Titanic, which was due into New York at 5 a.m. Wednesday, should be pushed forward to get into port Tuesday night. It would be helpful to know the context around this (cruise line rivalries, the Blue Riband, and so forth). No exploration of this critical and fateful decision is provided, even though Ismay survived. So often, the tragedy is held up to show how the era was obsessed with conquering elements, but the obsession with mastering time, even at the risk to human life, is a fresh takeaway for me (which I reached on my own, without the authors’ help).
Another topic that bears scrutiny is the working conditions and assumptions of Marconi operators in these ships. I don’t recall an explanation that the Marconi men were primarily focused on passenger telegrams. While there were two operators on Titanic, there was only one on other nearby ships, and they were apparently often overworked. Indeed, the operator on Titanic was in touch with his counterpart on Californian, but abruptly cut him off because he was “working Cape Race.” Thus, a variety of factors led to a crucial communication breakdown between the two ships at just the wrong time. Worse, the officers on Titanic received several warnings of ice from other ships, but plowed forward anyway.
For as much as I was craving the authors’ thoughts on these matters, I was struck by their inclusion of a chapter on the sinking in popular culture. In their review of films, they neglected to include the German film, even to say it was used as Nazi propaganda. They could have included just to say it is an example of how inaccuracies are cast to the wayside to make a point, which is indeed probably true for all of the historical fiction about the sinking. Whether passengers like Jack and Rose in James Cameron’s film could have had a romance on the ship would seem to have been a chief and central inaccuracy, one that the authors (with all of their research) could have shed some light upon.
More than that, though, is the meaning of the whole event. It has been used as a metaphor and is still used in phrases like “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” We just had another tragedy with people who paid to see the wreck first hand lost their lives. Why is it still important, and why does it still fascinate?
And this is where the book ultimately fails. There are deeper truths that historians can bring out, not just by collecting data and weighing sources, but also by connecting these individual threads and weaving them into a higher narrative.
I was reminded in this regard of David Glantz. He specializes in translating reams of archival Soviet sources from WWII. Often, that is all that his books contain, with little narrative glue or military analysis overlaying the basic research. He, like the authors of this book, has a “just-the-facts” approach. This is all well and good, and it does contribute to the historiography, but only superficially.
This approach can only go so far, and the fact that it is the newest or includes an exhaustive number of passenger narratives is not enough. It’s the historian’s job to collate the facts and first-hand accounts and give them meaning. Ultimately, why the tragedy happened, and what decisions assumptions lay in the background that led to that night, are sorely missing from this account.