Hallo Pat!
I can see where you’re coming from, and by and large completely agree with you. I also understand your reservations in criticising the work of one of the Titanic community’s most respected researchers (and respected for good reasons). I’ve made Susanne aware of my own quibbles with her work, and we have discussed them more or less amicably (although without resolution).
Firstly I have to second your remarks about the phenomenal effort that Susanne has put into researching this work. I’m in a better position than many to appreciate the sheer amount of effort, ingenuity and expense that goes into compiling material on a comparatively obscure historical figure, and the difficulties in assembling a fair idea of their life and career when, unfortunately, so little direct personal material remains extant. Take, for example, the crew agreements / official logs, which she has drawn on extensively. There is no single archive holding or even a consistent dispersal of these items, and finding where in the world (because they aren’t even in the one country) they are can be a right cow of a job. Having had to do it myself with some of the Titanic’s other officers, I admire how many of these Susanne was able to track down.
I also admire her efforts to put William Murdoch within he context of his era, and her use of contemporary material to try and explore what life would have been like for him both in sail and steam. While there is unfortunately little in the way of direct source material for what William Murdoch specifically experienced, she had done a good job in compiling a sense of what he would have had in common with others in his profession going to sea.
That being said, I must admit to feeling rather disappointed in her treatment of Murdoch’s colleagues on the Titanic. I came away with the distinct impression that she was hypercritical of these men while at the same time seeking to present Murdoch in the best possible light. It reminded me of Joseph in Wuthering Heights — but where Bronte’s fictional character ‘ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself and fling the curses to his neighbours’, Susanne has mined sources, including the inquiry testimony, for material that reflected well on William Murdoch and, conversely, badly on the men he worked with. The result, I feel, not only did a great disservice to Murdoch’s fellow officers, but to Murdoch himself. I came away from reading the book not with a greater admiration for Murdoch, but actually feeling he had been de-humanised and reduced to a caricature. Like Mary Poppins, we are asked to believe that he was ‘Practically perfect in every way’ (he merely had the misfortune to sail with the greatest bunch of ill-principled, lacklustre fellow officers White Star ever assembled). I have always had a tremendous respect for Murdoch both as a seaman and as a man, but have never felt the need to denigrate his colleagues to enhance his own performance.
Take, for example, her treatment of the incident involving a passenger during the loading of #1. Traditional interpretations have suggested that the officer who thought a passenger's ungainly entry into the boat amusing was Murdoch — I, however, have questioned this (in the past on this board), and thought it just as likely if not more so that the man in question was Lowe. When Susanne wrote her first book, she thought it was Murdoch and wrote the following:
When boat number one was to be filled, the Titanic's bow had already sunk deeper into the water. This caused most of the passengers to go aft, they thought this was the safer place. And so Murdoch had some trouble in finding passengers to fill boat number one ... The Duff Gordons and their maid went in ... Then two American gentlemen came to the boat and asked if they could get in, too, and were allowed to do so by Murdoch. One of these men was very stout, and he had difficulty in getting into the boat. Finally, he simply climbed onto the rail and then rolled into the boat. Murdoch, who had watched the scene, laughed very amused: 'That's the funniest thing I've seen this night!'
This incident shows Murdochs good sense of humour, and he had not lost it even in the worst moments of his life. But he probably was still hoping for the other ship which was near by to come in time, and this may have eased the situation for Murdoch.
As late as the BTS convention last year, Susanne still adhered to the idea that the officer in question was Murdoch, and she used it in her talk to bolster her contention that Smith was on the bridge and in command of the Titanic during the collision (according to her argument, Murdoch could not have found anything funny if he had thought his career was certainly as doomed as it would be if he were in command). I remember being surprised and commenting to a colleague sitting next to me that I didn’t think it beyond any reasonable doubt that Murdoch was the man who made the remark.
Susanne has evidently come to the same conclusion, as in ACAS we find the following passage:
And quite frankly: It does not sound like Murdoch’s sense of humour, although it would fit with Lowe’s — at least if compared to the 5th officer’s behaviour in lifeboat 14, which caused much dismay amongst the passengers and put Lowe under the suspicion of being drunk.
In other words, when she thought Murdoch said it, it showed courage under adversity, a ‘good sense of humour’ that he somehow managed to retain under the worst of circumstances. But when Lowe said it...well, that just fits in with his appalling behaviour, which caused ‘much dismay’ and put Lowe under suspicion of intoxication. I feel compelled to ask, though — how do we know what exactly Murdoch’s sense of humour was? Although she states authoritatively that it doesn’t sound like Murdoch’s humour, there are precious few examples of it extant to compare with as far as I can tell — certainly few in Stormer’s books.
I questioned Susanne further on her characterization of Lowe, btw — was very curious as to who, exactly, felt ‘much dismay’ besides Daisy Minahan at Lowe’s behaviour in the lifeboats (I am, after all, always on the lookout for new sources, and thought she might have uncovered something). The answer was essentially Daisy Minahan, Daisy Minahan, and then Daisy Minahan. She could produce no other accounts that expressed ‘dismay’. I asked her about the many other accounts that specifically commended Lowe on his conduct in the lifeboats…Sara Compton (who was quite categorical in her remarks about how he personified for her the finest examples of British sailorly tradition), Clear Cameron, Nellie Walcroft, Rene Harris, Selena Rogers, Edith Haisman, etc etc., but received no response. Their evidence regarding Lowe (and she savages him some more elsewhere) is completely ignored. Likewise, it would have been rather fairer and more even handed to state that Lowe was a total abstainer and therefore could hardly have been drunk — having raised the ‘suspicion’, she does nothing to dispel it (I also asked her if she had any other source than — once again — Minahan for the allegation that his conduct created an impression of intoxication. I did not receive a response. One woman’s allegations do not mean that there was general impression Lowe was drunk, nor does her disapproval amount to ‘much dismay’).
One thing I was glad to see Susanne do was to attempt to bring Wilde’s role more to the forefront. This officer is so often marginalised in accounts of the sinking that it was pleasing to see she had done some work on him and had a few positive things to say about the Chief Officer. I remain unconvinced, however, about Lightoller’s supposed antagonism towards Wilde.
Susanne is scathing of what she believes is Lightoller’s ‘editing out’ of Wilde’s role during the Titanic — she goes so far as to accuse Lightoller of ‘literally’ killing Wilde again (a disconcerting phrase — one wonders what he used the first time…knife, candlestick, the Webley?). While I don’t think there is any real evidence at all to support her contention that Lightoller regarded Wilde in an adversarial manner, in effect Susanne metes out the same ‘editing’ treatment to James Moody of which she accuses Lightoller.
Murdoch is depicted as manfully and heroically launching the starboard aft lifeboats without the assistance of any of his fellow deck officers. During the loading of No. 9, we are told that:
Quartermaster Wynn, an Oceanic man, was ordered by 6th officer Moody, another Oceanic man, to got [sic] to boat 9 and take charge of it as Wynn did not know to which boat he belonged. However, there is no indication that Moody was working on the starboard side then or on future occasions.
Murdoch, we are then assured, was supported by ‘the Adriatic family’.
Come again?? No evidence that Moody was then or later on the Starboard boats? Let’s look at exactly what Wynn said:
13320. I do not want to take you through the whole story, I presume it is quite unnecessary; after a time did you hear this, the Captain giving an order to you and another quartermaster, to go and get the two accident boats ready? - Yes.
13321. I want to omit the earlier part, you see. Did you obey that order? - Yes.
13322. After that did you go and help to clear away at various lifeboats? - Yes.
13323. After that did you meet the Sixth Officer Mr. Moody, who told you to go to your own boat? - Yes.
13324. Did you know your own boat? - No.
13325. Did you ascertain what was your own boat then? - No, not then.
13326. Did you go to a boat? - Mr. Moody told me to go to number nine boat and take charge of number nine.
13327. Whether that was your right boat or not, you do not know? - It was all ready swinging out on the davits and he told me to take charge of No. 9, as I did not know my own boat.
13328. Did you take charge of No. 9? - I got in and assisted the ladies in; and when we started to lower away the boatswain's mate got into the boat, and I handed charge over to him, and took an oar.
So Moody specifically ordered Wynn to go into #9, which was then ready for loading and lowering. Wynn makes no mention of crossing over the boatdeck — and why, one wonders, would Moody send him over the other side of the deck? If Murdoch was in charge of loading #13, why would Moody — on the other side of the boatdeck — order him to take command of a boat he (Moody) had nothing to do with loading?
Furthermore, there *is* - in spite of Susanne’s claim — other evidence that Moody was working at the Starboard boats. Hemming specifically mentions him working at collapsible A. Susanne, however, discounts this — in the book, for no reason other than that she believes Moody was working with Lightoller. (The sole justification she gives for this belief is Gracie sighted a man he later identified as Moody early in the evacuation, possibly near 4 — oddly, we are to assume that Moody then followed Lightoller around like a puppy. We are therefore asked to believe for no discernable reason that Lightoller lied about not remembering having seen Moody all evening).
There is also evidence that Moody was working at #13 — moreso, I believe, than there is testimony that Murdoch was there!
Lee gave the following evidence:
2527. You mean there was scarcely anybody in No. 13 boat? - Yes. Mr. ---- , I cannot tell you what his name is - a tall Officer, about 6 feet in height, fresh complexion - I forget his name; I could not remember his name - he was there attending to passing the passengers into the boats.
2528. Was it Mr. Wilde, the Chief Officer? - No, He is about the Sixth Officer, or the Fifth Officer.
2529. At any rate, he was a very tall man, according to you? - Yes, tall and spare. I think he was drowned.
A tall spare man (and he got Moody’s height correct to within an inch), fresh complexion, ‘the Sixth Officer, or the Fifth Officer’, who was drowned. I think there can be little doubt about whom is being referred to here.
So as for there being no ‘evidence’ that Moody was on the starboard boats, we have Wynn, Hemming and Lee. There is also a singular *lack* of evidence to the contrary that places Moody on the port side after the loading of 14-16 (She also makes the rather bizarre assertion that we have only Lowe’s evidence that Moody was at 14-16 — this is factually incorrect). But why should Susanne be apparently so determined to place Moody anywhere else but in the proximity of William Murdoch? The answer seems to be that it does not accord with her Oceanic v. Adriatic ‘Families’ theory. She gives a glorious description of a last stand by the Adriatics’ crew at A, under their near superhuman leader, William Murdoch…indeed, perhaps he was going to take command and save them all!
Did Smith recognize the Adriatic family who was at that boat? Murdoch, steward Brown — possibly also the ABs George Clench, Holman and Matherson…they had been serving with this 1st officer for many years, would they really leave him alone when the end was that near? Had they silently agreed that boat A was to become their boat — with Murdoch in charge? Time was working against them. Did they believe that nothing would happen as long as they were with Murdoch? Surely this lad could face and master anything and surely he could even force the sea to obey his orders…
Shades of King Canute!
James Moody was, in Susanne’s sharply polarized ship’s crew, an ‘Oceanic Man’. He could not therefore, by her reasoning, have been at Collapsible A…or assisting Murdoch at the aft starboard lifeboats…or even, God forefend, be in charge of loading 13 himself. That would be putting a cuckoo in the Adriatic nest!
I could go into greater detail as to why I strongly disagree with her characterization of the supposed Adriatic / Oceanic schism, which I think is a tremendous disservice to the professionalism of many men — among them James Moody, who was every bit as heroic as William Murdoch, and who does not deserve to be edited out because he doesn’t fit an author’s pet theory.
This is getting rather lengthy, or I’d like to go into more specific examples of other criticisms. The tendency to interpret sources to the enhancement of Murdoch and detraction of his colleagues (Lightoller in particular) becomes almost comical at times, as in her highly subjective ‘analysis’ of some of the photos. Her comments on the Medic photo of the deck officers are quite amusing (unintentionally so), and her remarks about the ‘last photo’ taken at the gangway door verge on the bizarre, so biased are they and so determined to wring every last drop of praise for Murdoch possible from any source.
I also had issues with the romantic idealisation of Murdoch’s relationship with his wife Ada. On the remarkably scant evidence available, the resulting portrait is rather unconvincing. I also took issue with her presentation of some pieces of evidence — where is the source for her claims regarding the woman who interrupted the American Inquiry asking about Murdoch’s fate? This passage is unfootnoted — a curious omission in such a heavily footnoted work, and it leaves me wondering if this is pure speculation on Susanne’s part, although unidentified as such.
Poor Lightoller is taken to task for having a good time on his off-watches. I wonder what Susanne would think of the boisterous camaraderie of the crew of the Terra Nova in the officer’s wardroom on their way to the Antarctic — they put any of Lightoller’s rollicking to shame. I sincerely hope that William Murdoch had as good a time as Lightoller did, and got up to precisely the same sort of shenanigans.
There are some striking facts and material compiled in this book, and some interesting theories and rather beautiful passages. But if William Murdoch was even half the man Susanne says he was, I think he’d be the first to leap to the defence of his colleagues after the mauling they received in this book. The pity of it is, I don’t think Murdoch needed to have those around him cut down to make the Titanic’s First Officer look good by comparison. He already stands high enough on his own two feet, and doesn’t need to be propped up by the pulverized reputations of others.
