I acquired this book today at the local bookstore for half price. Although purported to be the "complete, definitive" story of the disaster, it mostly concentrates on the Senate hearings. Wade may be one of the first Illiad-Titanica bards out there . . . after, of course, Walter Lord. The book shows its age with all the dripping Greek Tragedian anaologies, and heavy Romanticism about Titanic.
Oddly enough, Wade seems to think Bruce Ismay was not treated fairly, and in fact, refers to him as a "scapegoat."
Indeed, his view of Ismay is somehow tied in with the "End Of A Dream" posture throughout the book. He says:
"In reducing the mistakes of the calamity to the evil of a few, society absolves itself of all culpability."
That's not true. The maliciousness of just a few highly placed persons can do a lot of damage. And the problem is not that society "absolves itself" but that society lets the few evil ones get away with it.
Wade sees the fault for the disaster as an "Anglo American" failure. "This Age of Security and Splendor automatically condones its grave social injustices; and responsibility for these conditions has yet to be owned completely by Anglo-americans in the late twentieth century."
Notably, Wade's book focuses significantly on African Americans, the women's sufferage movement, and other social injustice issues - - to bring them into the Titanic's realm by way of linking Titanic and social injustice to "the Guilded Age." He concluded, about Titanic, that "she is Hubris."
There's nothing wrong with focusing on social injustice. But in this context it's contrived. I could be wrong but it seems to me that Wade should have dispensed with the platitudes and just sat down, and imagined the night of April 14-15, 1912 from the vantagepoint of being in a lifeboat. Listening to those screams, the disappearance of the ship, and experiencing the inability to do anything about it, in effect, letting people (men, women and children) die - - Wade probably wouldn't see it as a "dream" or "splendor" at all. In all likelihood, as many survivors subsequently expressed about the disaster, he wouldn't have wanted to hear anything about it ever again.
Do I recommend the book? No, because there are books out there with a much less sublime, much more critical - - perspective on the Titanic disaster. Certain people are to blame, and I believe Ismay has always been one deserving candidate.
Oddly enough, Wade seems to think Bruce Ismay was not treated fairly, and in fact, refers to him as a "scapegoat."
Indeed, his view of Ismay is somehow tied in with the "End Of A Dream" posture throughout the book. He says:
"In reducing the mistakes of the calamity to the evil of a few, society absolves itself of all culpability."
That's not true. The maliciousness of just a few highly placed persons can do a lot of damage. And the problem is not that society "absolves itself" but that society lets the few evil ones get away with it.
Wade sees the fault for the disaster as an "Anglo American" failure. "This Age of Security and Splendor automatically condones its grave social injustices; and responsibility for these conditions has yet to be owned completely by Anglo-americans in the late twentieth century."
Notably, Wade's book focuses significantly on African Americans, the women's sufferage movement, and other social injustice issues - - to bring them into the Titanic's realm by way of linking Titanic and social injustice to "the Guilded Age." He concluded, about Titanic, that "she is Hubris."
There's nothing wrong with focusing on social injustice. But in this context it's contrived. I could be wrong but it seems to me that Wade should have dispensed with the platitudes and just sat down, and imagined the night of April 14-15, 1912 from the vantagepoint of being in a lifeboat. Listening to those screams, the disappearance of the ship, and experiencing the inability to do anything about it, in effect, letting people (men, women and children) die - - Wade probably wouldn't see it as a "dream" or "splendor" at all. In all likelihood, as many survivors subsequently expressed about the disaster, he wouldn't have wanted to hear anything about it ever again.
Do I recommend the book? No, because there are books out there with a much less sublime, much more critical - - perspective on the Titanic disaster. Certain people are to blame, and I believe Ismay has always been one deserving candidate.