Jonathan, I'm afraid it's always dangerous to 'read' too much into the tone of a post - as has been amply demonstrated on this board in the past
. If I might make a suggestion in the most constructive way possible, I recommend that you avoid jumping to the conclusions you did in the above post - ascribing motives to me such as "sour grapes" and “raining on the parade” is potentially inflammatory, and does nothing to promote reasoned debate. What reason do you have for supposing that either motive should prompt my response, other than your own subjective interpretation of my ‘tone’? ‘Painfully obvious’? Howso? Simply because I don’t agree with George on every point doesn’t mean that we’ve got a ‘long-standing feud’.
Researchers can differ quite honestly and openly without either malice or jealously being a motivation. I have frequent and vigorous debates with the researchers I most admire - not just on line, either, as I've sat in restaurants, pubs, hotel foyers and in museums with them as we've tossed theories, arguments, points and counterpoints at each other. As you're new to the board, you are possibly not aware of the fact that George and I have been interacting both privately and publicly online for a few years now and, while we disagree on many issues, have both professed a personal respect for each other's work. George has even been known to call me a friend from time to time ;-). If I have George’s permission, I wouldn’t mind reproducing a comment from one of his emails about the character of our exchanges, which we both enjoy (or at least we’ve told each other we enjoy them). I’ve sent him printed material in the past, we’ve made each other mutual offers of research assistance, and I’ve invited him to visit me here in London. You’re jumping to the defence of someone who doesn’t need it, and defending him from someone who is not ‘attacking’.
What you have 'somehow re-ignited' is not a long running feud, but rather a long running discussion that has taken place over several forums and in private emails. You'll have to excuse me if I allude to matters rather than go into them in laborious detail, as we've been round and round this a few times. I gather you're new to this debate and have just read T:SS&S, so I appreciate that you wish to discuss it in great detail. However, you will understand that it is perfectly natural that after having covered this ground with George and others a good many times I would casually refer to issues that I have raised in the past with George rather than attempt to make a federal case against him
George's 'Three previous berg warnings' theory relies heavily upon second hand accounts attributed to the Titanic's lookouts that contradict their inquiry testimony. At no point does in T:SS&S, to my recollection, does George investigate the possibility that Fleet and Lee might have a motivation other than coercion and/or bribery from the WSL for changing their story from that attributed to them on the
Carpathia. Whatever way you cut it, these men were not disinterested witnesses. In the atmosphere on the
Carpathia, where male and crew survivors were resented, they were in the unenviable position of having been the lookouts on duty when the Titanic struck the berg. No matter how blameless they were in the situation, they must have feared scapegoating from the passengers and even fellow crewmen - how easy, then, to blame the men on duty on the Bridge who - being dead - weren't in much of a position
to contradict them. George believes that the stories were garbled, accounting for the different versions that were reported. The alternative is that they were telling different stories - that they saw more than one berg, that they reported the fatal berg much earlier than they did, etc.
While the majority of remarks attributed to Fleet came from secondhand sources, in one instance he does cite an interview between Fleet and a researcher - Reade's interview with Fleet (referred to above). However, George does not
give the reader the very important piece of information that Fleet in this interview admitted that he hesitated before ringing the bell (if true, then that delay would be quite sufficient for the man to feel somewhat anxious at the inquiries).
George also draws on some less than reliable witnesses - Hichens, for example, I would characterise as a self-aggrandising liar. Even this account is not a direct statement from the man himself, but rather another second hand report. I note your comment that “Certainly, other crew members -- Mr. Lightoller, in particular -- seemed far from eager to respond with the utmost forthrightness, leading one to the conclusion that coercive intervention by White Star's management was indeed a strong possibility.”. You would be intersted to know, however, that the siege mentality demonstrated by the Titanic’s crew was common to seaman asked to testify at inquiries. Take this comment from Frank Bullen in his book “Men of the Merchant Service” (Macmillan & Co, 1900 p. 87:
I do not mean to speak evil of dignities, God knows; but the proceedings of some of these courts, abroad especially, are sufficient to make angels weep.”
These aren't the beginning or the end of my quibbles with George's book, just a couple of points that spring to mind. I felt that too much of the material was drawn from second hand, often garbled accounts, and that the key witnesses were by no means disinterested observers of events, but rather central participants themselves. You find George's arguments convincing, and that's your prerogative. I find aspects of it interesting and thought provoking, but I remained unconvinced of his three iceberg conspiracy theory after I'd finished.
I suggest that my position is an honourable one, and that my motives need not be the negative ones you deduce from a reading of my 'tone'.
All the best,
Inger
