I am not very interested in fiction or its liberties. I would rather get as near to truth as I can.
In fictional accounts of the sinking of the Titanic, which happened 100 years ago today, liberties are often taken: maelstroms of nature and human panic are imagined and inserted, and were from the first.
The reality may have been much more eerie and haunting. The best eyewitness account was provided by Lawrence Beesley, in his book The Loss of the S. S. Titanic. What follows is an excerpt from the book that recounts the sinking of the ship—in silence, on gentle ocean swells with no waves.
The book is in the public domain. Hope you enjoy reading this.
Mike
The Loss of the S. S. Titanic
by Lawrence Beesley
Excerpt from Chapter IV, "The Sinking of the Titanic,
Seen from a Lifeboat."
...We had no eyes for anything but the ship we had just left. As the oarsmen pulled slowly away we all turned and took a long look at the mighty vessel towering high above our midget boat, and I know it must have been the most extraordinary sight I shall ever be called upon to witness; I realize now how totally inadequate language is to convey to some other person who was not there any real impression of what we saw.
But the task must be attempted: the whole picture is so intensely dramatic that, while it is not possible to place on paper for eyes to see the actual likeness of the ship as she lay there, some sketch of the scene will be possible. First of all, the climatic conditions were extraordinary...
Jessica, look how the floor of heaven
Is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold.
There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
But in his motion like an angel sings,
Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubims;
Such harmony is in immortal souls;
But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.
But it seemed almost as if we could—that night: the stars seemed really to be alive and to talk. The complete absence of haze produced a phenomenon I had never seen before: where the sky met the sea the line was as clear and definite as the edge of a knife, so that the water and the air never merged gradually into each other and blended to a softened rounded horizon, but each element was so exclusively separate that where a star came low down in the sky near the clear-cut edge of the waterline, it still lost none of its brilliance. As the earth revolved and the water edge came up and covered partially the star, as it were, it simply cut the star in two, the upper half continuing to sparkle as long as it was not entirely hidden, and throwing a long beam of light along the sea to us.
In the evidence before the United States Senate Committee the captain of one of the ships near us that night said the stars were so extraordinarily bright near the horizon that he was deceived into thinking that they were ships' lights: he did not remember seeing such a night before. Those who were afloat will all agree with that statement: we were often deceived into thinking they were lights of a ship.
And next the cold air! Here again was something quite new to us: there was not a breath of wind to blow keenly round us as we stood in the boat, and because of its continued persistence to make us feel cold; it was just a keen, bitter, icy, motionless cold that came from nowhere and yet was there all the time; the stillness of it—if one can imagine "cold" being motionless and still—was what seemed new and strange.
And these—the sky and the air—were overhead; and below was the sea. Here again something uncommon: the surface was like a lake of oil, heaving gently up and down with a quiet motion that rocked our boat dreamily to and fro. We did not need to keep her head to the swell: often I watched her lying broadside on to the tide, and with a boat loaded as we were, this would have been impossible with anything like a swell. The sea slipped away smoothly under the boat, and I think we never heard it lapping on the sides, so oily in appearance was the water. So when one of the stokers said he had been to sea for twenty-six years and never yet seen such a calm night, we accepted it as true without comment. Just as expressive was the remark of another—"It reminds me of a bloomin' picnic!" It was quite true; it did: a picnic on a lake, or a quiet inland river like the Cam, or a backwater on the Thames.
And so in these conditions of sky and air and sea, we gazed broadside on the Titanic from a short distance. She was absolutely still—indeed from the first it seemed as if the blow from the iceberg had taken all the courage out of her and she had just come quietly to rest and was settling down without an effort to save herself, without a murmur of protest against such a foul blow. For the sea could not rock her: the wind was not there to howl noisily round the decks, and make the ropes hum; from the first what must have impressed all as they watched was the sense of stillness about her and the slow, insensible way she sank lower and lower in the sea, like a stricken animal.
The mere bulk alone of the ship viewed from the sea below was an awe-inspiring sight. Imagine a ship nearly a sixth of a mile long, 75 feet high to the top decks, with four enormous funnels above the decks, and masts again high above the funnels; with her hundreds of portholes, all her saloons and other rooms brilliant with light, and all round her, little boats filled with those who until a few hours before had trod her decks and read in her libraries and listened to the music of her band in happy content; and who were now looking up in amazement at the enormous mass above them and rowing away from her because she was sinking.
I had often wanted to see her from some distance away, and only a few hours before, in conversation at lunch with a fellow-passenger, had registered a vow to get a proper view of her lines and dimensions when we landed at New York: to stand some distance away to take in a full view of her beautiful proportions, which the narrow approach to the dock at Southampton made impossible. Little did I think that the opportunity was to be found so quickly and so dramatically. The background, too, was a different one from what I had planned for her: the black outline of her profile against the sky was bordered all round by stars studded in the sky, and all her funnels and masts were picked out in the same way: her bulk was seen where the stars were blotted out. And one other thing was different from expectation: the thing that ripped away from us instantly, as we saw it, all sense of the beauty of the night, the beauty of the ship's lines, and the beauty of her lights,—and all these taken in themselves were intensely beautiful,—that thing was the awful angle made by the level of the sea with the rows of porthole lights along her side in dotted lines, row above row. The sea level and the rows of lights should have been parallel—should never have met—and now they met at an angle inside the black hull of the ship. There was nothing else to indicate she was injured; nothing but this apparent violation of a simple geometrical law—that parallel lines should "never meet even if produced ever so far both ways"; but it meant the Titanic had sunk by the head until the lowest portholes in the bows were under the sea, and the portholes in the stern were lifted above the normal height. We rowed away from her in the quietness of the night, hoping and praying with all our hearts that she would sink no more and the day would find her still in the same position as she was then. The crew, however, did not think so. It has been said frequently that the officers and crew felt assured that she would remain afloat even after they knew the extent of the damage. Some of them may have done so—and perhaps, from their scientific knowledge of her construction, with more reason at the time than those who said she would sink—but at any rate the stokers in our boat had no such illusion. One of them—I think he was the same man that cut us free from the pulley ropes—told us how he was at work in the stoke-hole, and in anticipation of going off duty in quarter of an hour,—thus confirming the time of the collision as 11.45,—had near him a pan of soup keeping hot on some part of the machinery; suddenly the whole side of the compartment came in, and the water rushed him off his feet. Picking himself up, he sprang for the compartment doorway and was just through the aperture when the watertight door came down behind him, "like a knife," as he said; "they work them from the bridge." He had gone up on deck but was ordered down again at once and with others was told to draw the fires from under the boiler, which they did, and were then at liberty to come on deck again. It seems that this particular knot of stokers must have known almost as soon as any one of the extent of injury. He added mournfully, "I could do with that hot soup now"—and indeed he could: he was clad at the time of the collision, he said, in trousers and singlet, both very thin on account of the intense heat in the stoke-hole; and although he had added a short jacket later, his teeth were chattering with the cold. He found a place to lie down underneath the tiller on the little platform where our captain stood, and there he lay all night with a coat belonging to another stoker thrown over him and I think he must have been almost unconscious. A lady next to him, who was warmly clad with several coats, tried to insist on his having one of hers—a fur-lined one—thrown over him, but he absolutely refused while some of the women were insufficiently clad; and so the coat was given to an Irish girl with pretty auburn hair standing near, leaning against the gunwale—with an "outside berth" and so more exposed to the cold air. This same lady was able to distribute more of her wraps to the passengers, a rug to one, a fur boa to another; and she has related with amusement that at the moment of climbing up the Carpathia's side, those to whom these articles had been lent offered them all back to her; but as, like the rest of us, she was encumbered with a lifebelt, she had to say she would receive them back at the end of the climb, I had not seen my dressing-gown since I dropped into the boat, but some time in the night a steerage passenger found it on the floor and put it on.
It is not easy at this time to call to mind who were in the boat, because in the night it was not possible to see more than a few feet away, and when dawn came we had eyes only for the rescue ship and the icebergs; but so far as my memory serves the list was as follows: no first-class passengers; three women, one baby, two men from the second cabin; and the other passengers steerage—mostly women; a total of about 35 passengers. The rest, about 25 (and possibly more), were crew and stokers. Near to me all night was a group of three Swedish girls, warmly clad, standing close together to keep warm, and very silent; indeed there was very little talking at any time.
One conversation took place that is, I think, worth repeating: one more proof that the world after all is a small place. The ten months' old baby which was handed down at the last moment was received by a lady next to me—the same who shared her wraps and coats. The mother had found a place in the middle and was too tightly packed to come through to the child, and so it slept contentedly for about an hour in a stranger's arms; it then began to cry and the temporary nurse said: "Will you feel down and see if the baby's feet are out of the blanket! I don't know much about babies but I think their feet must be kept warm." Wriggling down as well as I could, I found its toes exposed to the air and wrapped them well up, when it ceased crying at once: it was evidently a successful diagnosis! Having recognized the lady by her voice,—it was much too dark to see faces,—as one of my vis-à-vis at the purser's table, I said,—"Surely you are Miss———?" "Yes," she replied, "and you must be Mr. Beesley; how curious we should find ourselves in the same boat!" Remembering that she had joined the boat at Queenstown, I said, "Do you know Clonmel? a letter from a great friend of mine who is staying there at——— [giving the address] came aboard at Queenstown." "Yes, it is my home: and I was dining at———just before I came away." It seemed that she knew my friend, too; and we agreed that of all places in the world to recognize mutual friends, a crowded lifeboat afloat in mid-ocean at 2 A.M. twelve hundred miles from our destination was one of the most unexpected.
And all the time, as we watched, the Titanic sank lower and lower by the head and the angle became wider and wider as the stern porthole lights lifted and the bow lights sank, and it was evident she was not to stay afloat much longer. The captain-stoker now told the oarsmen to row away as hard as they could. Two reasons seemed to make this a wise decision: one that as she sank she would create such a wave of suction that boats, if not sucked under by being too near, would be in danger of being swamped by the wave her sinking would create—and we all knew our boat was in no condition to ride big waves, crowded as it was and manned with untrained oarsmen. The second was that an explosion might result from the water getting to the boilers, and dèbris might fall within a wide radius. And yet, as it turned out, neither of these things happened.
At about 2.15 A.M. I think we were any distance from a mile to two miles away. It is difficult for a landsman to calculate distance at sea but we had been afloat an hour and a half, the boat was heavily loaded, the oarsmen unskilled, and our course erratic: following now one light and now another, sometimes a star and sometimes a light from a port lifeboat which had turned away from the Titanic in the opposite direction and lay almost on our horizon; and so we could not have gone very far away.
About this time, the water had crept up almost to her sidelight and the captain's bridge, and it seemed a question only of minutes before she sank. The oarsmen lay on their oars, and all in the lifeboat were motionless as we watched her in absolute silence—save some who would not look and buried their heads on each others' shoulders. The lights still shone with the same brilliance, but not so many of them: many were now below the surface. I have often wondered since whether they continued to light up the cabins when the portholes were under water; they may have done so.
And then, as we gazed awe-struck, she tilted slowly up, revolving apparently about a centre of gravity just astern of amidships, until she attained a vertically upright position; and there she remained—motionless! As she swung up, her lights, which had shone without a flicker all night, went out suddenly, came on again for a single flash, then went out altogether. And as they did so, there came a noise which many people, wrongly I think, have described as an explosion; it has always seemed to me that it was nothing but the engines and machinery coming loose from their bolts and bearings, and falling through the compartments, smashing everything in their way. It was partly a roar, partly a groan, partly a rattle, and partly a smash, and it was not a sudden roar as an explosion would be: it went on successively for some seconds, possibly fifteen to twenty, as the heavy machinery dropped down to the bottom (now the bows) of the ship: I suppose it fell through the end and sank first, before the ship. But it was a noise no one had heard before, and no one wishes to hear again: it was stupefying, stupendous, as it came to us along the water. It was as if all the heavy things one could think of had been thrown downstairs from the top of a house, smashing each other and the stairs and everything in the way. Several apparently authentic accounts have been given, in which definite stories of explosions have been related—in some cases even with wreckage blown up and the ship broken in two; but I think such accounts will not stand close analysis. In the first place the fires had been withdrawn and the steam allowed to escape some time before she sank, and the possibility of explosion from this cause seems very remote. Then, as just related, the noise was not sudden and definite, but prolonged—more like the roll and crash of thunder. The probability of the noise being caused by engines falling down will be seen by referring to Figure 2, page 116, where the engines are placed in compartments 3, 4, and 5. As the Titanic tilted up they would almost certainly fall loose from their bed and plunge down through the other compartments.
No phenomenon like that pictured in some American and English papers occurred—that of the ship breaking in two, and the two ends being raised above the surface. I saw these drawings in preparation on board the Carpathia, and said at the time that they bore no resemblance to what actually happened.
When the noise was over the Titanic was still upright like a column: we could see her now only as the stern and some 150 feet of her stood outlined against the star-specked sky, looming black in the darkness, and in this position she continued for some minutes—I think as much as five minutes, but it may have been less. Then, first sinking back a little at the stern, I thought, she slid slowly forwards through the water and dived slantingly down; the sea closed over her and we had seen the last of the beautiful ship on which we had embarked four days before at Southampton.
And in place of the ship on which all our interest had been concentrated for so long and towards which we looked most of the time because it was still the only object on the sea which was a fixed point to us—in place of the Titanic, we had the level sea now stretching in an unbroken expanse to the horizon: heaving gently just as before, with no indication on the surface that the waves had just closed over the most wonderful vessel ever built by man's hand; the stars looked down just the same and the air was just as bitterly cold.
• • •
The entire book can be found here.
Open Mike is a series of off-topic posts that are published on Sundays.
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Alan Ramsey: "Just for the record, it was the RMS Titanic, not the SS Titanic. An ordinary ship would be SS (Steam Ship) or MV (Motor Vessel). RMS is Royal Mail Ship (not only a steam ship; a sailing vessel can be RMS as well). It's a distinction because of the carriage of the mail. Royal Mail Ship, usually seen in its abbreviated form RMS, is the ship prefix used for seagoing vessels that carry mail under contract by Royal Mail. They have the right to fly the pennant of the Royal Mail when sailing."
Mike replies: Thanks Alan. I just went from the book title, which uses S.S.
Featured Comment by Michael Ryan: "An interesting article from the BBC about Titanic myths."
Thanks a lot for that, Mike.
Posted by: Michael | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 05:05 PM
What a beautiful piece of writing. Thanks for posting this Mike.
Posted by: Patrick Dodds | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 05:21 PM
Wow!
Posted by: Neil Larsen | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 05:48 PM
"I am not very interested in fiction or its liberties. I would rather get as near to truth as I can." -- Mike J.
I think what you mean is not truth, but "actuality." You'll get damn little truth from non-fiction, but you will get a lot of facts...or some facts, anyway. With fiction you sometimes get the truth, if not much in the way of reliable fact.
Posted by: John Camp | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 06:41 PM
It is eloquently written.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Posted by: D B | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 06:43 PM
Quite the most moving piece of prose I have read for some time. It has the ring of truth about it as is beautifully written. The passage about the baby had me shed a tear. God bless all those lost at sea.
Posted by: martsharm | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 07:26 PM
Beautiful.
Posted by: Nico Burns | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 07:30 PM
"S.S." Titanic?
Posted by: Mark Roberts | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 07:30 PM
I am shivering, frightened and strongly feeling empathy. Llois Stein
Posted by: llois stein | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 08:36 PM
Of course we know now that Titanic did, indeed, break up immediately prior to sinking. Not something the author could have known at the time though.
Dr. Robert Ballard makes a good point about claims of design flaws and substandard steel plate/rivets, namely that RMS Olympic, built alongside Titanic at the same time, served a long and relatively normal life (aside from being the only merchant ship in WW1 ever to successfully ram and sink a U-boat!). She was modified to address some lessons learned in the loss of Titanic, but was made from the same materials.
As us Northern Irish folk will often say, she was just fine when she left us...
Posted by: Paul Glover | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 08:59 PM
"'S.S.' Titanic?"
Stands for "steam ship." But see Alan Ramsey's comment.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 09:18 PM
A great read; thanks for posting it. One of the many fascinating subplots is related to the fact that White Star had three gigantic sister ships: Olympic, Titanic, and Britannic. All three ships had serious accidents (the latter two sank), and one woman was on board each of the three when it did: Violet Jessop. Hard to say whether she's one of the unluckiest people in history or one of the luckiest.
Posted by: MM | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 10:30 PM
"The reality may have been much more eerie and haunting. The best eyewitness account was provided by Lawrence Beesley ..."
Why necessarily the "best" account?
I'm sure a stoker trapped below decks with an exploding boiler wouldn't find the situation as "eerie and haunting".
I can understand Bessley's perspective, but it is only one of many witnesses. Wikipedia has a good write-up, from numerous sources.
I suspect Bessley (being a 2nd class passenger rather than 3rd class or in the engineering crew) had a relatively easy escape from the ship. The fact that he -- as a male -- made it onto a lifeboat indicates a relatively ordered exit.
Wikipedia describes many lifeboats only containing women and children and leaving the ship half full!
Posted by: Sven W | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:21 PM
"Dr. Robert Ballard makes a good point "... gah, my bad, I misremembered. It wasn't Bob Ballard who made that point, it was Bruce Beveridge, one of the authors of the book "Titanic: the Ship Magnificent".
I'll just go over here and sit facing the corner...
Posted by: Paul Glover | Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 11:57 PM
Beautiful. Thanks for this Mike.
Posted by: Caleb Courteau | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 12:40 AM
I liked John Camp's observation, in a cynical kind of way. The writing of history, which ostensibly should be about the facts, is coloured by selection and opinion even more so than photography
Posted by: Richard Tugwell | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 01:42 AM
"Of course we know now that Titanic did, indeed, break up immediately prior to sinking. Not something the author could have known at the time though."
@Paul Glover, quite the contrary actually - there were eyewitness accounts of the breakup.* But those accounts were pooh-pooed by the Learned Experts, which lead the Board Of Trade to conclude that she hadn't. Toss in the romantic notion of her sitting intact and ghostly on the bottom... and, voila! the legend was born that nobody knew she had broken up.
* And it worth noting that the account above differs in detail from others, and from the probable sequence of events as the ship actually sank. It may not be fiction filled with liberties - but it is highly romanticized.
Posted by: Derek Lyons | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 01:53 AM
Exactly.
Posted by: Rick Wilcox | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 02:22 AM
I have avoided like the plague all the brouhaha about the Titanic, generated I feel by the success of that poor film but the provenance of this piece (T.O.P.) prompted me to read it and I am very thankful that I did.
The shipyard that built it was notoriously bigoted and lots of stories circulated among the minority population about the tenor of the graffiti writ on its side. (I was born and bred 8 miles outside Belfast). I still hear these stories today but have never seen them verified.
Posted by: Paul Mc Cann | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 03:54 AM
Wonderful reading. (On a side note: aren't we happy that this is in the public domain?)
Posted by: Bob Sacamano | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 05:42 AM
Beautiful. Somehow, a subjectively true account like this one conveys the magical side of life in a way that fantasy never will. And makes me empathize with all those involved.
Thank you, Mike.
Posted by: Hans Muus | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 07:55 AM
"Why necessarily the 'best' account?"
All right, Sven--the best account I have read. I'm not a Titanic aficionado, although I am a fan of good writing.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 08:55 AM
Thank you for sharing this, Mike. Really an amazing read, the so well written with such great imagery you can really put yourself there as it happened. I fully intend to read the entire book.
Posted by: Keith I | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 09:07 AM
About the brightness of the stars.....there are some that claim the Titanic and the 1500 souls lost fell victim to what is called an "cold air mirage". This would have resulted in the optical illusion of a shortened and raised horizon thus obscuring the iceberg from the view of the icewatch. The fact that binoculars when missing is true but binoculars (especially small once like the once that were issued to the iceguard) don't function that well. The iceberg could only be seen as a "hole" in the stary night like the ship itself is in the above description of the sinking.
I have seen as NGC documentary last week about this theory and it sounded and looked verry convincing to my ears and eyes. Byt the way, the theory is from Tim Maltin, who also arguees that:
a) the Titanic was build to more sound quality specification then the Austin Princess, much more sound in fact.
b) the speed of the Titanic was not unusual since she was easily capable of avoiding an iceberg when spotted on the horizon as "she could turn on a sixpence".
c) the reaction of the crew was in accordance with standard procedure (allthough I wonder what would have happend when a full reverse in combination with a midships ruther would have ment, thus ploughing the ship straight into the iceberg, and possibly damaging less compartments).
d) The 1500 places in the lifeboats were tribute to the fact that the compartimented build of the Titanic should insure that she herself was the best lifeboat, since she could be damaged beyond repair but she would never end up 4000 meters down. The lifeboats were simply there to fascilitate the transfer of passanger from her decks to a resque boat.
So the fact that the icewatch was not able to see the iceberg untill it's distance to the ship was to close to turn the bow around was responsible for her sinking. Usually a dissaster is brought upon us due to the combination of several factors but in this case a SPF (single point of failure) probably caused a disaster.
Greetings, Ed
Posted by: Ed | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 09:10 AM
A very compelling passage indeed. Somehow, I couldn't stop myself from remembering scenes from the Cameron movie as I was reading, but I guess that's how our minds tend to work.
I recently started reading the 'Game of thrones' books, and it's the same: there's no way I can imagine the characters or locations any different to what they look like in the tv series. That's the power of images, specially for someone more image-oriented than the average person, as photographers tend to be.
Incidentally, this post is a good reminder that there must be tons of great books like this in the public domain that we're unaware of.
Posted by: Fer | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 10:38 AM
RE: truth and fiction--Melville said it best in Moby Dick:
"Queequeg was a native of Kokovoko, an island far away to the West and South. It is not down on any map; true places never are."
Posted by: Edd Fuller | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 12:35 PM
Beesley's account is beautifully written but, as others have pointed out, much depends on your perspective. Beesley was a fair distance from the ship when it went down. Others who were closer describe much more violence. An account by 17 year-old Jack Thayer describes the ship breaking up on the surface, and the bow coming up while the stern pivots around. He described it to an artist named Skidmore, who produced the drawing that appears here amont other places:
http://acrazychicken.blogspot.com/2010/06/forgotten-americans-jack-thayer-titanic.html
His story was dismissed for decades, until Robert Ballard found the wreck, with the main and stern sections separated and pointing in opposite directions, much as Thayer described. Ballard has referred to the drawing as "the Rosetta Stone of the Titanic."
You can only begin to imagine the physical force involved in the breakup of something that large. Cameron's film treatment may have been on the money.
Also, several survivor accounts by those close to the hull describe the sound of the passengers and crew struggling in the water - like the sound of the crowd at a football match, one said.
So maybe, to paraphrase Capa, if your Titanic story isn't violent enough, you weren't close enough.
That's not to detract from Beesley, who writes superbly and very likely experienced things as he described. But it wasn't all stars and tranquility.
Thanks for posting, though - I haven't looked at Beesley for years and enjoyed getting reacquainted.
Posted by: Alan_A | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 01:19 PM
@ Derek Lyons: true. Might have been a matter of distance in this case. As to why eyewitness reports of those closer in were disregarded by the inquiry and the "experts" we may never know.
Posted by: Paul Glover | Monday, 16 April 2012 at 11:38 PM
I must add my thanks too. I was supposed to be repairing a computer but I was halted until finishing your excerpt!
Posted by: Dave Van de Mark | Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 01:22 AM
Hi Ed. Glad you enjoyed the Nat Geo documentary. I wrote and directed it.
We used the Beesley piece in the doc, and what was so interesting about it from my point of view was how he was using the language of poetry to try to come to terms with the disaster, but at the same time was providing an eye witness account of the phenomena that led to the disaster.
Sometimes the best witnesses are those that aren't aware of how their testimony could be important. Unguided thoughts are often the most revealing.
Nigel
Posted by: Nigel | Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 09:59 AM
Nigel, Beesley's work was anything but unguided - it was specifically written to provide [Beesley's version of] an 'unbiased' and 'correct and true' account of the sinking.
Posted by: Derek Lyons | Tuesday, 17 April 2012 at 06:59 PM
You're right. What I should have emphasised is that Tim (Maltin, whose work informed everything in the documentary) used Beesley's non-analytical writing to uncover what happened that night. Beasley talked about the flashing stars in a poetic sense, but was inadvertently providing an analytical description of the atmospheric conditions.
Posted by: Nigel | Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 04:01 PM