The Myth of the Titanic

Abstract

I have the impression reading the Centenary Edition of "The Myth of the Titanic" that the author, like many sociologists, enjoys deconstructing myths so much he goes out of his way to nitpick, making assumptions about them to allow as destructive analysis as possible and drive home the total randomness and meaninglessness of live events. A notable example here is the extent to which he parses the story of the band playing "at the end"--to "prove" that it could never have happened, he makes the assumption that 1. contemporary 'memorial' books were all written to be taken with absolute literality, not with any post-Victorian hyperbole, 2. that accounts meaning "at the end" must mean literally as the ship breaks up (so that he can point out the physical impossibility of standing on the deck), 3. parses to death what was meant by the Titanic's band (ie arguing that the fact the ensembles contained piano players means "the band" could not play because how would they get a piano on deck), and 4. wanders into the already-analyzed waters of which rendition of "Nearer My God To Thee" might have been played. (Any serious Titanic scholar has already encountered this issue multiple times, and Nowells disregards or is unaware of, for example, sources indicating Hartley had once indicated the presumably Anglican version of the hymn would be the song he'd chose to play if he knew he was likely about to die, and like many on the Titanic he certainly had some idea.)