What Really Caused The Sinking of The RMS "Titanic"

[Cousi]

Very well put, Dillo. I think you may have crystallized the definition of the attraction.

What he said, excellent summary of the endurance of the Titanic story.

The real one, not the movie. I never saw the movie and have no interest in seeing it.

[Doug Palumbo]

Well said indeed Dilo. I respect your position. However, I still don't find the story enduring or interesting for the most part. I see why others might but not me. I find it to be yet another example of the 'upper elite' of society looking down their noses at the 'common folk'. Societal oppression at it's most opulent.

[n11pilot]

Well said indeed Dilo. I respect your position. However, I still don't find the story enduring or interesting for the most part. I see why others might but not me. I find it to be yet another example of the 'upper elite' of society looking down their noses at the 'common folk'. Societal oppression at it's most opulent.

In a way I see your point but I manifest it a little differently. I always wonder what would have happened if at the point the crew realized the ship was doomed the officers had opened the gates between the classes and requested that all carpenters, machinists, seamen, and craftsmen among the passengers assemble on deck. Then informed them that the ship was going down in water that was too cold to sustain life and that they were needed to use their skills to make as many drop rafts as possible out of any fitting, fixture, or furnishing that floats. I wonder what the response would have been and if it would have saved any more lives.

[AeroDillo]

Well said indeed Dilo. I respect your position. However, I still don't find the story enduring or interesting for the most part. I see why others might but not me. I find it to be yet another example of the 'upper elite' of society looking down their noses at the 'common folk'. Societal oppression at it's most opulent.

... the officers had opened the gates between the classes and requested that all carpenters, machinists, seamen, and craftsmen among the passengers assemble on deck.

One regrettable side effect (of many) from Cameron's movie is the notion that the ship was divided by full-sized cattle gates. While there were gates in places, most research I've seen indicates they were more like dog/baby fences - about waist high and no real obstacle to anyone with the motive to get across. Though I didn't see it, I understand the British miniseries made the same error, so this goof is likely to be with us for a while.

Third-class wasn't kept below by force. They were, however, waiting with the expectation that they'd have a chance at the boats. To this end, the officer in charge of loading (Lightoller, I think) had intended to put lifeboats in the water, then fill from the boarding hatches on lower decks. Several accounts I've read note that he sent some of his people below to facilitate that, but that once the boats hit water they didn't stick around. It also explains his rationale for putting them over the side half empty.

Meantime, I get what you're saying, Doug. I don't so much have an issue with the point that class difference was factual and deeply felt at that time - I have an issue with modern viewers who look back and see nothing but opulence and shiny things (which is pretty much Cameron's audience). I have a similar issue with steampunk - neat as it can be, I can't get my mind wrapped around everybody being a brilliant wealthy beautiful scientifically-minded noble who thinks like a teenaged Obama supporter in 2012. Especially when the setting is Victorian/Edwardian.

Nothing against a little fantasy, mind you. But if you mean to use history as a backdrop it's probably best to understand it first.

[n11pilot]

Well said indeed Dilo. I respect your position. However, I still don't find the story enduring or interesting for the most part. I see why others might but not me. I find it to be yet another example of the 'upper elite' of society looking down their noses at the 'common folk'. Societal oppression at it's most opulent.

... the officers had opened the gates between the classes and requested that all carpenters, machinists, seamen, and craftsmen among the passengers assemble on deck.

One regrettable side effect (of many) from Cameron's movie is the notion that the ship was divided by full-sized cattle gates. While there were gates in places, most research I've seen indicates they were more like dog/baby fences - about waist high and no real obstacle to anyone with the motive to get across. Though I didn't see it, I understand the British miniseries made the same error, so this goof is likely to be with us for a while.

Third-class wasn't kept below by force. They were, however, waiting with the expectation that they'd have a chance at the boats. To this end, the officer in charge of loading (Lightoller, I think) had intended to put lifeboats in the water, then fill from the boarding hatches on lower decks. Several accounts I've read note that he sent some of his people below to facilitate that, but that once the boats hit water they didn't stick around. It also explains his rationale for putting them over the side half empty.

Meantime, I get what you're saying, Doug. I don't so much have an issue with the point that class difference was factual and deeply felt at that time - I have an issue with modern viewers who look back and see nothing but opulence and shiny things (which is pretty much Cameron's audience). I have a similar issue with steampunk - neat as it can be, I can't get my mind wrapped around everybody being a brilliant wealthy beautiful scientifically-minded noble who thinks like a teenaged Obama supporter in 2012. Especially when the setting is Victorian/Edwardian.

Nothing against a little fantasy, mind you. But if you mean to use history as a backdrop it's probably best to understand it first.

Well, it was just a thought.

[AeroDillo]

Now, now.

You know our policy on thinking.

[n11pilot]

Now, now.

You know our policy on thinking.

It burns! It burns!

[The Oracle]

I often wonder about situations like Titanic. I’m not quite sure that the allure for most is because of some “harp strings moan” over the death toll, or the tragedy. Sure there is a romantic vision of the era and that should not be looked away from. I actually think many people like the idea that the arrogant got what was coming to them. Aside from the loss of innocent life, we have a tendency to cheer the failure of the arrogant and root for the underdog. “Sink the unsinkable”, “Beat the unbeatable”.

So perhaps the attraction for many is similar to watching the rich and famous self-destruct in the public eye. We can quietly snicker at having their bubbles busted and take pleasure in the fact that those who have an abundance material possessions fail too. Perhaps Titanic represents this because we often forget about the lower class passengers that were taken down with them.