Tale of Hoffman

[Laura Melinda Varjo]

I was reading Tale of Hoffman(good job) a couple of nights ago and I finally have time to ask a few questions: What is this supposed to mean ? "He has given her back her life, and lost his own. Good enough for him, she thought at first. And then, at lenght, she saw that it was good enough. Good enough of HIM." Maybe I'm too critical, but if it means what I think it does, which is that Marcelle did not even care Michel perished and saying he deserbed it, because he was the one who left and took the boys away from her, like nice try! That was so MEAN ! Sometimes we say some sharp things, without much thought, but this was totally messed up of Marcelle to say this. Wasn't she grateful for Michel's final message for her ? Or, as angry as she was at him did not buy the message and thought it was bogus, just trying to make it nice what he did. (I think Michel really did mean it, because he said it, why would he say it, if it was untrue ?) Marcelle was just cold. If I think this all through, everything, I feel so sorry for Michel. It was nice of his older son to visit his grave(I will too) and tourists, that he was not completely uncared for and forgotten.

Another question, I thought Michel said his sons' names "were" Louis and Lolo, not John and Fred. I can see the official documents, with their names listed on them as John and Fred, but then where does Walter Lord get Louis and Lolo from ?

Again, nice job on the article, and that picture of the boys is so adorable, when they are sitting on their mom's lap in the chair.

 

[Senan Molony]

Laura, you have raised one of my favourite bugbears - the supposed message from Mr Navratil to his wife, transmitted through his four-year-old son after Titanic sank.

I make no mention of this nonsense in the article for the very good reason that it is a practical impossibility and undoubtedly belongs to someone's fertile imagination.

Don Lynch in his otherwise excellent tome tells us (p. 171) that "before placing young Michel in the lifeboat, he had held him close and spoken words the boy would never forget..."
Kleenexes ready? Here it is:
"My child, when your mother comes for you, as she surely will, tell her that I loved her dearly and still do. Tell her that I expected her to follow us, so that we might all live happily together in the peace and freedom of the New World."
We are asked to believe that Michel, not yet four, although listed as such, could have retained all the above for regurgitation...
"The peace and freedom of the New World" is my favourite bit, and a totally superfluous addition to an already strained message.
Now I actually have a four-year-old.
I have just read the above to her, asked her to remember it carefully, and then said it to her again. Then I said it a third time. Then I asked her to tell me exactly what I just said.
This is her reply:
"Mother said she loved them very much and she would follow us together to bring us to the New World."

The boy Michel supposedly delivered this parting shot over a month after it was said to him. I'm sorry, it's ridiculous. The father had all he could do to get the boys into Collapsible D in the first place.

Parents on this board will be familiar with the following quotidian exchange:

Parent (slightly cross): "What did I say to you only yesterday?"
Child: "I don't know."

They don't remember parental messages, a truth universally acknowledged. I do not believe this rubbish was ever uttered by the unfortunate Mr Navratil. I note also that these words are not relied upon by Mr Navratil's granddaughter, Elisabeth Navratil, in her book "Les Enfants du Titanic," 1982.
My four year old is now going to bed. I'm not even going to bother asking her in the morning.

 

[Inger Sheil]

Now I actually have a four-year-old.
I have just read the above to her, asked her to remember it carefully, and then said it to her again.

I might add that this is a particularly bright four-year old, who at the age of three already had words such as 'obelisk" in her lexicon.

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

It was a great honor to serve on many occasions as Mr. Navratil's interpreter over a ten year period. On various panels and interviews, conventions and lectures, he was always asked this question about his father's behavior and any memories he could bring to mind. Michel distinctly recalled some of the meals taken in the dining room, seeing the horizon through the ship's windows, seeing his Papa at the railing,and his father saying, (and I 'm sorry not to have proper French accent symbols here)- to give his "amities" to Michel's mother. That word translates more as friendship than love, and can even be given the possible translation "Remember me to your Mother" or "Give my regards to your Mother" and it is believed he was trying to make some sort of peace to what was a bitter situation at the end. He may also have wanted to comfort the boys with the thought that they would see their mother soon. I went to Halifax to the cemetery with Michel in 1996 and was so moved by his emotional response to being reunited with his father at long last.

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

After the memorial service, 1996. Michel and Edith Haisman. aboard Island Breeze over the Titanic. (TIS Archive)

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

Edith and Michel in the World Trade Tower 1996. (TIS archive)

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

In Halifax at Fairview after a private service for Michel's father with a priest at graveside.

(TIS archive)

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

Wreath dedication at Fairview with Edith and Michel and Alan Ruffman, Father Gagner.

TIS Archive

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

Leaving a floral tribute at Titanic's final resting place. (TIS Archive)

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

In the lobby smiling, with his doctor (Marie)prior to sailing.

TIS archive

 

[Laura Melinda Varjo]

Nice pictures.

Yeah, you know, the truth is, that I, too, wondered how a three year old child can remember ALL THAT word from word in that confusion going on, and recite it over a month later, when as I've read in an other article, when asked a question all he could reply is "Yes" for every question asked. But, I still believed he said that, or in some other way of expression, like you have mentioned.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

In fairness to Michel Navratil and also to Don Lynch, the statement in question can’t be compared to anything one might say to a child in ordinary circumstances. Michel was remembering the last words his father ever spoke to him, not something he was being told in a casual atmosphere. Michel was only 4 but he was old enough to know he was facing danger, an emotion underscored by the knowledge that his father was leaving him. What his dad said to him at that moment might well have resonated with the boy beyond what would be psychologically possible for a child in a normal situation.

It’s also unfair to call the elder Navratil’s words, as recalled by his son to Don Lynch, "rubbish." Even if they were romanticized, the words aren’t rubbish.

 

[Senan Molony]

The words are preposterous.

Don Lynch doesn't have children. Do you? Or do you just like romanticized sentiment?

(Enters facetious mode)

Shelley, do you say that Michel didn't express any immediate gratitude in your hearing on entering once more into "the peace and freedom of the New World" ??

I know it was only Canada, but still... given how strife-torn and shackled France was in 1912...

Yes, that would certainly resonate in the child's mind. Given that it was "not a casual atmosphere" and there was panic, and shooting, and screaming, and sinking, of course he would remember his father's last words a month later.

(end of facetious mode)

None of this reflects in any way on the actual individuals, merely in the rubbish we are being asked to take at face value.

 

[Shelley Dziedzic]

Not being present at the incidence of the interview in which the words "peace and freedom of the New World" were uttered, I can only comment on what I have heard many times from Mr. Navratil,which I have posted above. French, like most languages, does not translate word for identical word into English, and some attempts to make it so result in hilarious results. I would also wonder if the ability of the interpreter present might have influenced the clarity of the translation. Mr. Navratil enjoyed conversation, especially near the end of his life, and would wax philosophical in his reflections. Don Lynch, Michel, Henri Navratil and I once shared a table at lunch in Wilmington. Delaware at a THS convention in 1985. Don does speak German, as did Michel, so the three-way translation of their German to English, to my French for the benefit of Henri who did not speak German, provided a memorable dinner conversation, and I bet a few things were missed in the connections between sentences! Having been a parent, and teacher of young children for many years, I am no longer surprised at things which make an impression on young minds. Lusitania survivor Barbara McDermott recalls holding her dinner spoon on deck, the two tiers of the dining room, being tossed into the lifeboat-and she was only 2 years, 11 months old. Marshall Drew, who had just turned 8 had vivid memories of all that happened on Titanic, right down to being unable to cross between the third and fourth funnel because the deck was so cluttered, the blackout in steerage, and what he did on Carpathia and afterwards at the hotel in New York. This is all I have to offer on the subject, but I do believe it is possible for a young child to recall events of an impressive nature. I also agree that the interpretation of the phrase in question seems a little stilted. I would want to know more about that actual interview or source. I truly believe Madame Navratil was mentioned to the boys by her husband and Michel's memory in that regard is accurate. It is exactly what I would expect a father to say under the circumstances.

 

[Senan Molony]

Shelley,

You and I don't disagree in the slightest. I agree children can remember the most vivid details of even commonplace scenes. What they cannot do is remember long-minded messages very well, at age four particularly.
What I am deriding is this 48-word jingoistic message, which contains an obvious falsehood - that Mr Navratil expected his wife to follow them in due course.
They would all have signed on in their own names in that case, ne c'est pas?

Off to work. From out of the mouths of babes...