Um...what personal conclusions I've drawn about this matter are probably closer to Reade's than any other author, so I don't know if I'm lumped in with the 'emotional backlash' John perceives! Having voiced in the most emphatic way agreement that
the Californian saw rockets, I don't see that as an issue of contention so have left it unaddressed.
Eric stated that
The process of evaluating history is not one of a constant state of mutual uncertainty about the truth of an event. Experience with those who had the misfortune of formally instructing me in historical methodology at Sydney University, as well as my own subsequent dabbling in various historical fields, has taught me that 'history' is a highly artificial construct and a constant battlefield of ideas and interpretation. The pendulum of revision and counter-revision swings constantly, and advocates of ideas aggressively contend with their interpretation. Personally, I don't have a problem with this.
In the case of
the Californian, I have absolutely no brief to exonarate Lord or his crew, or desire to do so. I believe that the evidence establishes that distress rockets were sighted from the Bridge of the Californian. I'm still savagely jetlagged, so hopefully can get away with just reciting the following anti-Lordite catechism [you'll have to forgive me for the phrase 'anti-Lordite', John - it's easier shorthand for some of the more cumbersome phrases describing my position in relation to the Californian's crew]. I believe that the crew on watch were aware something was amiss. I've lost count of the times I've declamed as the argument's clincher - often across a restaurant or pub table - Occam's razor (in Latin if the memory is up to it on the day)...usually with a defiant ring of 'and that settles that' to the tone.
I don't forsee that broad view changing (unless someone produces something very new and very startling). I do believe, however, that there is room for discussion and assessment over the culpability of individual players - Lord's admission that there was a slackness on the Californian I take as correct, but who was slack and to what degree? Lord, I believe, covered up after the fact (as did several of his officers), but what exactly did he and his officers do or not do, and why did they do (or not do) what they did? That is far less clear to me, and I think the case is far from closed.
As for other issues regarding the mystery ship, such as whether there was another ship sighted from the Titanic, it is here that I find the ground far more slippery. Molony first strongly inspired me to challenge my complete acceptance of Reade's interpretation of events, but it was
Boxhall's and Lowe's words that really made me wonder...
Perhaps Reade is correct about the ship the Titanic saw - I'm very willing to concede that is a possibility. At the same time, I have to confess to doubts and acknowledge that the other side can be argued very effectively as well.
I'm not trying to 'subtract the Californian' (in Reade's memorable phrase). What I'm simply trying to do, as a student of certain historical events, is come to a fuller understanding of both what happened and why it happened as it did. If you're absolutely certain in your own mind that you know the truth in all its broad and intimate detail, then good luck to you and God go with you in your delightful certitude. I'm afraid, though, that I feel considerable discomfort with that. It doesn't sit particularly well with my own critical thought processes.
As I said in another thread, I make the basic assumption that those on this board participating in this discussion are neither fools, knaves, intellectual charletons or blithering idiots. Those who have actually
read Senan Molony's book - some of whom have posted to this board - are among the most well-read Titanic researchers in field...and their praise of the book is warm and enthusiastic. To what do those who have
not read the book, yet presume to attack it, attribute these responses? Do you think we are fools, knaves or charletons?
John wrote:
Reade's work, on the other hand, is a scholarly tome -- a solid, factual history. I don't agree with *all* of his conclusions either. But I can identify with a high degree of certainty what he based them on, via those copious endnotes. Reade's analysis proceeds from readily identifiable research, not from his own mere say-so.
This not only very precisely expresses how I feel about Reade, but also how I feel about Molony's book. I have - and continue to - debate issues pertaining to the 'mystery ship' at great length with him. He is very well aware of the points on which I disagree with him, and has always extended to me the courtesy of believing my position - even when at its furthest from his own - an honourable one based on my own attempts to understand and interpret events as best I can with the data to which I have access.
