April 10th 2001
Andrew Clarkson
Southampton berth, carrying hopes and dreams, pride and passion.
Her destination..... New York. In five days time, the ship will lie in two
huge pieces, her guts spilled across the Atlantic seabed, and many of her
crew and passengers will be floating corpses, firemen, clergy, deckhands,
children, the blood in their veins almost turned to ice..... ironic.
--
All the best,
Andrew Clarkson
Stuart
Southampton berth, carrying hopes and dreams, pride and passion.
Her destination..... New York. In six days time, the ship will arrive in New
York, her maiden voyage having been an outstanding success, carrying a full
complement of passengers and surrounded by much pomp and ceremony. This was
to be the first of many successful voyages over the next 24 years. However,
in concerned circles this was to be almost completely obscured by her
sistership titanic (which sailed for 13 days in total)... a morbid
fascination with death and disaster seeming to have set in... ironic
"Andrew Clarkson" <andrewc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9aufdh$isl$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE
Olympic is handed over, but all pride goes into her sister Titanic and her
launch, to be bigger and better. Titanic maybe only sailed for 13 days, but
she will be remembered much longer than her big sister.
All the best
James (Jim) Alexander Carlisle
http://www.nireland.com/uts
Titanic Convention Bangor, 4th - 7th April 2002
Bringing Titanic Home
Belfast, Birthplace of Titanic
"Stuart" <castl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4hIA6.1410$FD1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Stuart
from the time (i.e. the ones that were published before the Titanic sailed,
like the Shipbuilder, Engineering magazine and indeed the White Star's own
publicity) mention Titanic almost as a footnote; reflecting that the two
ships were more or less identical. Titanic was an exact copy of the Olympic
with a few adjustments. Furthermore, none of the material relating to the
Olympic's demise in 1935 that I have seen mention the Titanic connection at
all.
I just wonder if Walter Lord had not written a book back in 1955 if we would
be having these conventions and special interest societies concerned with
what was, after all, a disaster in which 1500 people were killed.
"JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE" <carl...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:fUIA6.180$Sq.1...@juliett.dax.net...
Paul Goodwin
Stuart wrote in message ...
>>
>I just wonder if Walter Lord had not written a book back in 1955 if we
would
>be having these conventions and special interest societies concerned with
>what was, after all, a disaster in which 1500 people were killed.
>
I have no doubt that had he not, someone else would've. The elements of the
story are just too strong to have been overlooked all these years.
Paul
Natty
invention of planes. If anyone could have their way, which would you prefer?
Travel overseas by boat, it might take a few days, but at least you have a
bed to sleep in, nicer food, you don't have to stay seated in your seat, you
can basically do whatever you want... or travel by plane, sit in a cramped
seat for a few hours, but be at your destination in a fraction of the time
A few months ago I went to Tasmania by boat (that's the little island state
of Australia, many people tend to forget it's there though) and I was amazed
by how laid back and fun it was, I think I would rather travel by boat, it's
an adventure getting there, but what does everyone else think
"Paul Goodwin" <pgoo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9b0aa5$76mio$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de...
Tom Pappas
of my twenty-first December. The air temperature was around freezing, so
there were no deck games. I went outside once, watched the freezing spray
off the bow for a half a minute, and never ventured out again.
We hit some rough weather for a few hours on two occasions. It was
impossible to even eat at the table because the food wouldn't hold still
even with the tablecloths wet down, which was the usual method of
controlling sliding.
I spent most of the days in the lounge - a magician called The Great Cardini
was working his passage by giving shows in the evenings, and he and I used
to challenge each other during the long afternoons.
The feeling of isolation that sets in after a few days is remarkable. Just
seeing another ship's lights pass on the horizon is an event for all on
board.
The food is vastly superior to airline fare (except, perhaps, on Singapore
Airlines) and unlimited in quantity. We spent a lot of time eating, because
there was little else to do except read or drink.
For those who might be prone to seasickness (I'm not, thankfully), spending
six or seven days retching seems like too high a price to pay for the
ability to walk around.
Unless it's a quick hop (like crossing the English Channel by Hoverspeed), I
much prefer flying.
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
"Natty" <natty...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:IgOA6.46543$Xx3.2...@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
JETman
Tom Pappas wrote:
>
>
snip
>
> The food is vastly superior to airline fare (except, perhaps, on Singapore
> Airlines) and unlimited in quantity.
Without a doubt, Singapore Air is the best of 'em all. I have about
300,000 miles on this airline.
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Home of the Annual Spam-O-Rama Festival!!!
Stuart
Titanic and it is upheld as being a good thing.
"Paul Goodwin" <pgoo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:9b0aa5$76mio$1...@ID-46095.news.dfncis.de...
>
JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE
She was when she left Belfast. If Titanic hadn't been launched the same day
as Olympic and Titanic hadn't sunk, the main ship would have been Olympic
today in Belfast.
Sorry Stuart, but my ratings are Titanic, Canberra and Olympic in that
order!!
--
All the best
James (Jim) Alexander Carlisle
http://www.nireland.com/uts
Titanic Convention Bangor, 4th - 7th April 2002
Bringing Titanic Home
Belfast, Birthplace of Titanic
"Stuart" <castl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0nUA6.3360$FD1.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Joe Sweeney
Natty <natty...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:IgOA6.46543$Xx3.2...@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au...
> invention of planes. If anyone could have their way, which would you prefer?
> Travel overseas by boat, it might take a few days, but at least you have a
> bed to sleep in, nicer food, you don't have to stay seated in your seat, you
> can basically do whatever you want... or travel by plane, sit in a cramped
> seat for a few hours, but be at your destination in a fraction of the time
>
> A few months ago I went to Tasmania by boat (that's the little island state
> of Australia, many people tend to forget it's there though) and I was amazed
> by how laid back and fun it was, I think I would rather travel by boat, it's
> an adventure getting there, but what does everyone else think
I would definitely rather travel by ship. Having said that, I've never been on anything bigger than a skiing boat. I haven't been on a plane in nearly five years and the things I'm hearing about them these days makes me want to stay away forever.
I probably have a romanticized idea about what traveling on a ship was like. Like Tom said, it's not always fun. I just think getting there is half the fun.
--
Joe Sweeney
Visit the alt.movies.titanic website:
http://www.geocities.com/amt102600/amt.html
Stuart
in 1912 Titanic very much stood in Olympic's shadow, at the end of Olympic's
life in 1935, Titanic was not even spoken of. The stuff you hear these days
lead me to think when I was a child that Titanic must have been the largest
ship ever built. Of course it wasn't long before I found that ships of over
1000 ft in length and nearly double the tonnage of Olympic/Titanic came only
a generation later them. All this overblown language does is perpetuate
myths and myths are anathema to the study of history.
"JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE" <carl...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:coVA6.281$Sq.2...@juliett.dax.net...
JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE
> I don't see what the big deal is, the two ships were well nigh identical
and
> in 1912 Titanic very much stood in Olympic's shadow,
But not in Belfast. That's my point or didn't you get that impression when
you were over!!
Jim
Stuart
from the way it is elsewhere.... i.e. that Titanic was the best ship ever
built.....(despite her being little different from her two sister ships)
I don't know about what Belfast's reaction to the Olympic's launch and
maiden voyage was exactly... maybe you could help me out, Jim. Surely you're
not going to say well it was a low key affair on 20th October 1910? If
Titanic's launch was a bigger affair I would imagine it would have been
because of the momentum being built up by one ship being ready and one
identical to it being launched.... Harland & Wolff would have been going
from strength to strength on 31st May 1911 because of the two ships..... not
just the one.
<carl...@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:Df2B6.393$Sq.3...@juliett.dax.net...
Mark Green
Stuart wrote:
> I don't see what the big deal is, the two ships were well nigh identical and
> in 1912 Titanic very much stood in Olympic's shadow, at the end of Olympic's
> life in 1935, Titanic was not even spoken of. The stuff you hear these days
> lead me to think when I was a child that Titanic must have been the largest
> ship ever built. Of course it wasn't long before I found that ships of over
> 1000 ft in length and nearly double the tonnage of Olympic/Titanic came only
> a generation later them. All this overblown language does is perpetuate
> myths and myths are anathema to the study of history.
>
I think you miss the point not only of the content of the Titanic histories,
but of history itself. History is meaningless if it is not contextual.
Understanding the past can only be accomplished to the degree that we can put
ourselves in the place of the people who lived the events. Given that, the
story of the Titanic becomes a morality play of Greek tragedian proportion:
she was the largest in the world at the time she sank, the most luxurious,
filled with a complement that neatly encapsulated the social conditions of her
surrounding cultural context, and ballyhooed with much hot air about how she
represented humanity's triumph over the forces of nature. And the gods, of
course, as they will in such a Greek tragedy, smote the hubristic
self-appointed human masters of the Universe and, in so doing, exposed the
hypocrisy, double standards and grotty underside of the supposedly superior
culture of the Edwardian Age. All this, at the exactly moment that cracks were
beginning to appear in the mythology that that social system was perfect:
workers and women were organizing for rights and their plight was being seen
with increasingly sympathy, the Robber Barons of the 19th century had gone from
being Heroes of Capitalism to exploiting scumbags in the eyes of much of the
public over the past ten years, resulting in the Progressive Republican
movement that created the initiative, referendum and recall processes in many
states, elected the "trust-buster" Teddy Roosevelt (whose hand-picked,
ineffectual successor, Taft, was President at the time of the sinking), and
changed the process by which US Senators (known prior to these reforms as the
"Millionaires Club" are chosen from election by the state legislatures to
direct election by the people.
A time of dramatic change, and all the blind optimism of technological
solutions to all problems was shattered by the sinking and the subsequent
carnage of WWI. The Titanic wasn't just a pretty boat that died young. If she
had been, the public at large would be every bit as aware of the Normandie.
But they aren't...in fact, there isn't nearly as big a "cult following" of the
Lusitania, which shares the qualities of large-scale human tragedy, a lot of
"what-ifs" about things that could have changed the outcome of her sinking.
Saying "get over it" misses the point. One could say the same about Hiroshima,
the Holocaust, the Bataan Death March or the Civil War. And I agree that to be
obsessed about these, "stuck" in history and unable to accept that, awful as
they were, these events happened and our charge is to see to it that such
things don't happen again, rather than spend the rest of our lives acting like
victims, is a sensible perspective.
But that doesn't mean that we ignore the lessons of history. In the case of
the Titanic, the lessons are deep and the story itself is fascinating, in its
infinite detail. And the many, many "what-ifs", as Walter Lord would have it.
Mark
JAMES ALEXANDER CARLISLE
Not many of the workers were permitted to attend the launching of Olympic
whereas this rule was relaxed for the launching of Titanic, so Titanic
became better known in Belfast than her big sister. More money was collected
at the launch of Titanic than Olympic's launch. the money went to the Royal
Victoria Hospital in Belfast.
--
All the best
James (Jim) Alexander Carlisle
http://www.nireland.com/uts
Titanic Convention Bangor, 4th - 7th April 2002
Bringing Titanic Home
Belfast, Birthplace of Titanic
"Stuart" <castl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YJ2B6.4450$Ow3.9...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Stuart
the Titanic was true of many ships and disasters that have occurred.....
it's just the Titanic has this peculiar cult following which I would say is
(and I know this is controversial saying it here) over the top. In 1912, the
Titanic was just another ship, the Olympic the previous year as well as
Lusitania/Mauritania in 1907 had attracted much more publicity than the
maiden voyage of Titanic. Indeed, the WSL was making drives in March 1912 to
attract more passengers for the Maiden Voyage and this was even before the
coal strike managed to get the passenger complement up to about two-thirds
full. If the ship had not sunk with such disastrous consequences would we
have this industry arising decades after the ship sank? The inspiration for
my train of thought probably comes from the epilogue Walter Lord wrote to
ANTR (people recalling the Titanic having a golf course and cinema when it
obviously had neither) and the sequel, The Night Lives On.... I would
strongly recommend The Night Lives On to anyone with a Titanic interest as
he seeks to clear up a lot of the nonsense... including the stuff about the
ship being claimed to be 'Unsinkable'
History is indeed contextual and the Titanic should be put in the context of
other ships and other disasters. Certainly there is good reason for interest
in the Titanic but there seems to be this totally overblown and inaccurate
rhetoric about the Titanic which seems to be both chicken and egg to the
obsession some people have.
"Mark Green" <mgr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3AD4C7FD...@sonic.net...
Mark Green
my post completely and flies in the face of what happened. The Titanic
*wasn't* just another ship in 1912, by dint not only of size and luxury but of
who was aboard in First Class, and her sinking shocked the world. That alone
is empirical evidence that the disaster had a meaning for a great many people.
No one has claimed that there would be such an interest in the ship if she
hadn't sunk under such incredible and strongly metaphorical circumstances. But
the fact is that she did. And "in the context of other ships and disasters",
as you put it, none has ever been as big a deal for so many people as was the
sinking of the Titanic. You can say that you don't see what the big deal is
about, but you appear to be quite alone in that opinion, given that even 85
years after the disaster, a film about it became the highest-grossing in
history by an enormous margin; as, 44 years after the sinking, ANTR became a
runaway bestseller and has remained in print ever since. There has to be a
reason for such phenomena. The sinking of the Titanic is one of those rare
circumstances where truth created a story that no one would have believed if it
had been fiction: a modern morality play.
I'm not sure I know what you mean about "overblown and inaccurate rhetoric".
The ship was generally acknowledged by the people of its day and after as a
remarkably beautiful one and was unquestionably the most luxurious vessel in
the world at the time of its single voyage (yes, more so than the Olympic, in
several significant ways). Those who professed this opinion included
professionals in the business, such as the publishers of "The Shipbuilder", and
even those writing about ocean liners years after the sinking would describe
more recent vessels (Aquitania and Majestic come to mind) as lacking the grace
of the overall lines of the Olympic class, excluding the Britannic, which lost
much of that grace to towering lifeboat davits. There's no point in arguing
taste, but in my experience, generally speaking, the literature on ocean liners
seems by and large to present either the Titanic or the Normandie as the most
beautiful ship of all time, and much more often the former.
When the Lusitania was sunk, people were shocked and outraged by the sinking,
but survivors didn't wax rhapsodic about the beautiful appointments of the
Lucy, although she and her sister were very beautiful ships indeed. The loss
of the SHIP didn't seem to figure in anyone's thinking, while the loss of the
PEOPLE was seen, appropriately, as tragic, senseless and savage. This was
never true of the sinking of the Titanic. The loss of the ship herself was in
many ways eulogized every bit as intensely as the many who died.
Ismay's plan had been from the beginning to create oceangoing luxury at an
entirely new level in the Olympic class ships, and Thomas Andrews and Harland
and Wolff had, indeed, delivered that.
What was true of the Titanic quite simply was not true, Stuart, "of many ships
and disasters that have occured." You might ask yourself why this "peculiar
cult following" you decry managed to get itself going if there were no reason
to be interested in the ship and disaster in particular. Can you name anything
else which has attained cult status without any reason for the interest?
You should be careful when you make generalized claims that only apply in
specific cases. The WSL did not, of course, advertise the Titanic as
"unsinkable". "The Shipbuilder" did, however, conclude that the safety
features of the ship made her "practically unsinkable", and the "practically"
got dropped in popular public discussion of the ship. I think the fact that
F.W. Franklin of the WSL's New York office used the "U" word to reassure
inquirers as the first news of the collision filtered in shows that this
impression was quite deeply sown.
An "industry", as you put it, cannot thrive without a consumer market. The
fact that this event, this brief moment in history has so seized the
imagination of generations of people throughout the world is evidence enough
that there is something unique, gripping and meaningful to the Titanic story in
a way that cannot be ascribed to other disasters and ships.
Mark
Mark Green
Mark
Mark Green
weird happened. Sorry.
MG
Tom Pappas
--
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. She can, and she will."
"Mark Green" <mgr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3AD52268...@sonic.net...
Janelle
I think what he's tryin to say is
"You can be blase about some things, but NOT about Titanic!"
Interesting posts by all =)
--
Jan-L Rob-ertz
Foogen Snot!!
^^
><
"Mark Green" <mgr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3AD51FAC...@sonic.net...
: Stuart, I'm not sure what to say at this point: your response seems to
:
:
Stuart
sailed the previous year. The nearly identical ship had had a much more
successful maiden voyage. Had it not been for the coal strike the Titanic
would have sailed barely half full; not what you would expect for this
supposed wonder ship, now is it? Violet Jessop, who sailed on both maiden
voyages, said indeed the two ships were near exactly the same with the
Titanic being only slightly more refined. She may also have said that
Titanic's maiden voyage was just like one of the routine voyages of the
Olympic....(I can't check for sure as I have just given my copy to someone
else) The industry I refer to is indeed the Titanic movie and the masses of
books that have appeared (which just re word the same material over and
over), namely that the Titanic went on its maiden voyage, struck and iceberg
and sank with 1500 people killed) and I think I lot of it is inaccurate and
perpetuates myths. Don't get me wrong, I've got a lot of respect for serious
historians like Walter Lord and John Maxtone-Graham but producing hundreds
of books which basically all say the same thing is a bit much. An author of
a book about the Olympic and Britannic is also of that opinion. I have found
that after reading ANTR, the Night lives on and Titanic:an illustrated
history that trying to read other books which tell the story of the sinking
was a waste of time. The period and subject matter in question is very
confined and specialised. There's not much scope for new research without
splitting hairs.
The obsession I see in some people does worry me sometimes and it is partly
because a friend said to me soon after my interest revived in 1999 I was
obsessed with the Titanic that I reassessed my position. I had built up a
fair knowledge of the sinking from previous times when I was interested when
I was about nine, twelve and sixteen years of age. (I am now 23) and was
fond of telling her about it after taking her to the hotel which has the
First Class Lounge from the Olympic. I would say my interest comes from the
fine art/actual history point of view, the society and economics associated
with these two ships is very typical of the Edwardian age, a period of
history I am very fond of. Also, the interiors were beautiful. For example,
at one of the hotels that had lots of fittings from the Olympic (I can no
longer mention its name at the request of the Owner) had a totally weird guy
last summer who flew into a violent rage when the Owner told him the Olympic
fittings were no longer there. He eventually calmed down but his behaviour
was quite alarming and hence she has asked me not to mention the hotel's
Titanic connection anymore.
Mark Green
Tom Pappas wrote:
> Some things just bear repeating. Most eloquent.
Thanks. Today's post still makes me wonder why I bothered. The Titanic
*was* a great deal more luxurious than the Olympic, and carried a far more
prominent complement of passengers (before killing most of them). There
doesn't seem to be a way to say that or a pile of evidence to support it
that will convince Stuart, though.
Mark
Stuart
> *was* a great deal more luxurious than the Olympic, and carried a far more
> prominent complement of passengers (before killing most of them).
Where's your evidence to support that? According to the shipbuilder (which
devoted only 4 pages to the "Improvements" made to B deck and other areas,
approx. 500 words of text and four illustrations) the modifications were
not major with the odd carpet here and there where there had been tiles or
lino on the Olympic, such as in the First Class Smoking Room (which was
never photographed on Titanic). How can one be a great deal more luxurious
than the other when the two ships were consistently advertised as being a
pair, using the same interior illustrations and photographs?? Prior to the
Olympic sailing from Belfast in May 1911, there was an extensive photo shoot
of her interiors. There was no such photo shoot on the Titanic in March 1912
only the handful of rooms (the cafe Parisien and the suites on B deck) that
were not on the Olympic (but were added to the Olympic in later refits) were
photographed. The reason being that the rooms were so similar it was not
worth taking photos of them. Furthermore, several of the items located at
the wreck site are identical to ones from the Olympic which still exist.
Where's the outstanding physical difference between these two ships?
I readily admit to not know the celebrities that were on Olympic's maiden
voyage but the 'far more prominent complement of passengers' on Titanic that
you refer to would have easily got a place on Titanic as the WSL was having
difficulty getting passengers for Titanic's maiden voyage. They would not
have found it so easy with Olympic 10 months earlier which was fully booked.
Mark Green
Stuart wrote:
> The Titanic
> > *was* a great deal more luxurious than the Olympic, and carried a far more
> > prominent complement of passengers (before killing most of them).
>
> Where's your evidence to support that?
At this point it seems clear to me that you're not really very open to the
point of view I'm expressing, but why don't we ask someone who was actually
there?
" 'There will never be another like her,' " says baker Charles Burgess, who
ought to know. In forty-three years on the Atlantic run he has seen them
all--Olympic...Majestic...Mauretania...and so on. Today (1954), as carver in
the kitchen of the Queen Elizabeth, Burgess is probably the last Titanic
crewman on active service.
'Like the Olympic, yes, but so much more elaborate,' he reflects. 'Take the
dining-saloon. The Olympic didn't even have a carpet, but the Titanic--ah, you
sank in it up to your knees...' " (ANTR, p. 193 illustrated edition of 1976).
Now, you have dismissed the differences between the vessels as "a carpet here
and there, the enclosed promenade", but anyone who knows anything about
decorating knows that the difference between a sense of luxury and that of mere
comfort is exactly such details. Clearly, they were enough to convince
Burgess, who is far more qualified to issue an opinion than either you or I.
Given that neither you nor I will ever be on any of the Olympic-class vessels,
Stuart, I think that this statement weighs pretty heavily. Your opinion, like
mine, can never be anything more than a theory based on what you consider to be
good evidence. But here we have a man who was there, saw both vessels, and
moreover had a chance to check out more than four decades' worth of the great
transatlantic steamers, and puts the Titanic squarely at the top of the list.
>
> I readily admit to not know the celebrities that were on Olympic's maiden
> voyage but the 'far more prominent complement of passengers' on Titanic that
> you refer to would have easily got a place on Titanic as the WSL was having
> difficulty getting passengers for Titanic's maiden voyage. They would not
> have found it so easy with Olympic 10 months earlier which was fully booked.
And your point is what? How do the fluctuations of the transatlantic travel
market have anything to do with the relative merits of the Titanic and
Olympic? Are you suggesting that the prime motivator of passengers on these
vessels was not to get to the other side of the ocean, but rather simply to
travel on the vessels themselves? If you ask me, such a suggestion is absurd.
In those days, people got on ships not to take a ride, but to go somewhere. If
there didn't happen to be as many desiring travel to New York at the time of
the Titanic's departure, it is a long stretch indeed to claim that this implies
some kind of superiority on the part of the Olympic.
Once again: the complement of prominent figures who elected to sail with the
Titanic on her maiden voyage was very likely the largest nautical gathering of
Edwardian luminaries ever assembled (and the fact that J.P. Morgan intended to
make the sailing adds even more credibility to this claim). Empirically, this
points to the Titanic's being seen as a very prestigious, very desirable
booking. Since you acknowledge that you can't produce a similar list of
prominent figures from the maiden voyage of the Olympic, it seems as though you
might drop the argument until you have some evidence to support your claim.
And with this, I'm done with this discussion. I hope that you will listen to
what I have to say and consider the points and arguments I have raised.
I am in full agreement about the dangers of becoming a "cultist" about
anything: the Titanic, stamp collecting, the Civil War, submarines,
dirigibles, Beanie Babies, Christian Science...ANYTHING. A sense of
perspective is important for a well-balanced person, and spending every
available waking hour mooning over the Titanic is not a sign of mental health.
But that doesn't mean that interest is undeserved. She was special and unique,
and her loss was an incredible story, or gathering of stories: a morality
play, a fable, an object lesson. Not so the Olympic, nor even other famous
sinkings like those of the Lusitania, Andrea Doria or Empress of Ireland.
Mark
Rudolf Kemnitz
Hello Mark,
All you was writing is what I also think about it. It's the point to be open
to new and better Ships. And the TITANIC was a better ship then the Olympic.
And the Britannic was a better ship then the TITANIC.
But now in ower Time. We only hafe the QE II, the only ship what can let the
Dream allive. But ther is no ship, now, or in the past, wich have that
flair, Styl, and magik, and, and, and,... like the good old TITANIC.
(Sorry about my English, but i came from Germany; and I'am not that perfekt
in that langwish...)
Nice Greadings from Germany by Worms, from Rudolf
--
Rudolf Kemnitz - Web Design
RKem...@t-online.de
Titanic Homepage from Rudolf Kemnitz: http://home.t-online.de/home/rkemnitz/
"Mark Green" <mgr...@sonic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3AD76B62...@sonic.net...
Stuart
the
> dining-saloon. The Olympic didn't even have a carpet, but the
Titanic--ah, you
> sank in it up to your knees...' " (ANTR, p. 193 illustrated edition of
1976).
In that same passage, Lord talks about the apparent false memories some
survivors had of the Titanic, like it having a golf course and a cinema. I
think they, just as you have, fallen victim to a sense of nostalgia about
something that has been lost. In the human mind, something which is
irretrievable is often ascribed much more value than it actually had or has.
Burgess was making this claim after decades had passed. What we are
exploring here how Titanic & Olympic were perceived before the Titanic sank.
A lot of baloney is said about the Titanic as is common with many modern
historical events e.g. the second world war when Britain was completely
united behind Winston Churchill, The American Civil War was a war to end
slavery, George Washington cut down an apple tree and told his father 'I
cannot tell a lie....': things which are commonly said but are far from
being wholly true. This bullshit culture has a lot to do with the growth of
the popular press in the 19th century, when you could say anything to a wide
group of people and they would believe it, having no means of finding out
otherwise.
My point about the passenger numbers on the respective maiden voyages
relates to the fact that I believe that The Titanic was not seen as this
pioneering wonder ship that everyone talks about but was seen as a being
basically a copy of the Olympic. Violet Jessop notes the stress that was
common on maiden voyages being present on Olympic but being absent from
Titanic, i.e. the two ships were basically the same that was why so much of
Olympic's crew had been transferred over.
Stuart
http://www.theolympic.co.uk
Mark Green
Stuart wrote:
> > 'Like the Olympic, yes, but so much more elaborate,' he reflects. 'Take
> the
> > dining-saloon. The Olympic didn't even have a carpet, but the
> Titanic--ah, you
> > sank in it up to your knees...' " (ANTR, p. 193 illustrated edition of
> 1976).
>
> In that same passage, Lord talks about the apparent false memories some
> survivors had of the Titanic, like it having a golf course and a cinema.
Yep. In fact, the way he does it makes it clear that he sees Burgess'
statement as an authoritative one, based on a broad range of comparative
experience, whereas others' are tinged by nostalgia. The point stands.
MG