Pardon me, but I am not willing to accept anyone as a "historian" who creates stories out of whole cloth and then wraps them in a semblance of fact. This is particularly true of Titanic because of the many myths and legends that surrounded the ship in 1912.
Any author who cannot back up his assertions with easily-checked references is writing fiction and his books must be considered as such. Unfortunately, some writers have used the guise of historical fact to conceal their true motives. Shame once on them for doing it, but shame twice on any serious Titanic researcher for accepting this sort of writer as any sort of "historian."
Perhaps I'm a bit touchy on this subject, but I have been the butt of personal and professional slanders as a result of writing my book, "Last Log." True, I presented some radically different views on many events during the tragedy, but I also presented documentation for every claim. You can trace my research. When you--the book buyer--spend good mony on a work that purports to discuss the history of Titanic, you deserve no less than that sort of thoroughness.
Readers should always insist on documenttion. They should force authors to cite quotations in testimony, specific newspaper articles, or the exact page(s) in books. Any serious historical writer will be glad to provide "chapter and verse" with regard to sources. That's the ordinary practice of historians.
Of course, we are all free to accept or reject what any author puts forth. The point is that nothing should be accepted as "fact" without proof. That's why serious works about Titanic document even mundane items such as the temperature of the water or the desserts at the last meal.
Where is the documentation for claims of switched ships, blazing smoking rooms, attempts at barratry, engines pounding in reverse, etc? There is none because these are flights of fantasy. Please put them on the correct shelf in the library--fiction.
--David G. Brown
