H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-Pcaaca@msu.edu (September, 1995)
Robin Gardiner and Dan van der Vat. THE RIDDLE OF THE
TITANIC. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1995.
Reviewed by Richard Howells, University of Leeds, for
H-Pcaaca.
Conspiracy theories make good media, and a theory so
bold as to claim that the "Titanic" never sank was bound to
catch any lively news editor's eye. It is hardly surprising,
therefore that _The Riddle of the Titanic_ proved
controversial even before it reached the bookshops.
Now that it has been more widely read, however, the
controversy has considerably abated. This is not because the
volume has proved its point: rather, it is because the
conspiracy theory which it advocates turns out to be so thinly
argued that it has proved impossible to take it seriously.
Gardiner and van der Vat's theory runs like so: The
"Titanic" did not sink. Rather, her damaged and almost-
identical sister-ship the "Olympic" was substituted and
deliberately sunk in her place as part of a gigantic insurance
fraud.
The "Olympic," as the authors correctly point out, was
the slightly elder of the two ships, and was damaged in
collision with the Royal Navy's HMS Hawke near Southampton,
England, in the autumn of 1911. The owners, it is argued,
discovered that the damage was far greater than they had
feared, and so they decided to write off the "Olympic" on the
"Titanic's" insurance.
This, the theory continues, was accomplished with a
simple switch. To the un-trained eye, the "Olympic" and the
"Titanic" were almost identical, and so a clandestine
slight-of-hand was accomplished while the two ships were in
dock together at the Harland and Wolff yard at Belfast in
March, 1912. Name-plates, life-belts and so forth were
secretly swapped. The "Olympic," now disguised as the
"Titanic," was patched up and deliberately sailed into a known
ice-field...
The authors stress that this is not a mass murder
conspiracy, but "an insurance fraud which went horribly
wrong." The plan, they speculate, was that the
"Olympic/Titanic" would indeed hit an iceberg, but that her
water-tight compartments would keep her afloat for long enough
for other ships of the same line safely to take off all the
passengers and crew before the great ship went down.
Unfortunately for all concerned, they claim, the liner's
"ever-impetuous" Captain Smith got it "wrong" and hit the
ice-field early, resulting in massive and terrible loss of
life.
This is the theory which, understandably, caused such
a furor in the British press as the publisher's publicity
machine went into action. On reading the actual book, however,
two things become immediately clear. First, the conspiracy
theory advocated by Gardiner and van der Vat is at best thin
and at worst untenable. Second, one discovers, quickly, that
the actual conspiracy theory occupies only a very small
proportion of the book, the majority of which simply re-tells
a story which has already been adequately told elsewhere.
Admittedly, the authors do take a more anti- establishment
tone than is usually taken with the "Titanic" saga, but the
conspiracy theory itself is neither advanced nor defended with
anything like the depth or the rigor required if it is to be
taken seriously.
If this is so, then is this book of any interest at
all to the scholar of popular culture? This reviewer would
argue that in spite --and possibly, even, because --of its
shortcomings, it is indeed worthy of some attention. This is
because it touches upon two phenomena: the "Titanic" and the
"conspiracy" phenomena. First, this book, for all its faults,
is indicative of a growing fascination with the "Titanic" in
contemporary popular culture. The audience for "Titanic"
books, films, articles and exhibits is large, and "Titanic"
historical societies flourish world-wide. Why is this? Why did
Gardiner and van Der Vat's book on an Edwardian ship-wreck
create such interest among news editors and the general public
today? Why indeed, is the "Titanic" still news over eighty
years after the event?
Second, this book is also indicative of the
"conspiracy" phenomenon in which contemporary popular culture
seems determined to believe that nothing we are told today is
true. It is a phenomenon which can be noted from assassinated
Presidents to dead rock-and-roll stars. The "authorities" (who
come in for particular and sustained suspicion in all
conspiracy theories) are even believed by some to have
conspired to conceal the existence of extra- terrestrial life.
This, too, should be of interest to the scholar of popular
culture: What are the features, what are the characteristics,
what indeed, are the underlying causes and concerns of the
"conspiracy" phenomenon?
An exploration of these issues is not the duty of this
review. This is a review which seeks, rather, to suggest that
the deeply flawed volume under consideration is still worthy
of our attention due to the fascinating genres which it
--unwittingly, perhaps-- so eloquently represents.
Institute of Communications Studies Richard Howells
University of Leeds, England
Copyright (c) 1995 by H-Net and PCAACA, all rights
reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit
educational use if proper credit is given to the
author and the list. For other permission, please
contact reviews@h-net.msu.edu.