I found this book thoroughly researched and historically important; it brings out details about the Titanic saga which have previously been unknown or ignored, and it places the entire story within the larger context of the cutthroat turn-of-the-century shipping industry. It's a well-told story that's a great read.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a documentary filmmaker who has worked with John Chatterton and Richie Kohler for over 11 years on multiple projects, including the 2005 Titanic expedition described in this book. I wrote and produced two television documentaries about their discoveries at the Titanic wreck site and subsequent investigations. During that time, I had extensive contact with many of the protagonists in Brad Matsen's account, including former Harland & Wolff employee Tom McCluskie and naval architect Roger Long.
I take issue with a previous review by Daniel Allen Butler, and note that in his review he fails to divulge that he is not exactly a disinterested party, but rather an author with a competing book about Titanic. Mr. Butler also recently panned Jennifer McCarty's book as "yet another book where the authors attempt to attach themselves to the Titanic story..." I have not read Ms. McCarty's book. But it appears that Mr. Butler, whose own Titanic book was published in 1998 (just as the James Cameron film was appearing in theaters), believes he should be the last writer allowed "to cash in on the disaster and the public's apparently insatiable appetite for all things Titanic" (his snide first-line dig at Matsen).
I might be tempted to agree - if there were no new evidence. But new evidence is precisely what Matsen's book is all about. And it delivers a whopper.
While Butler's chief complaint is that Matsen's story lacks "supporting evidence," he completely ignores the two massive pieces of Titanic's double bottom hull that Chatterton and Kohler discovered (and extensively documented) in their final dive to the wreck site in August 2005.
I have spoken to a number of Titanic experts who have scrutinized Chatterton and Kohler's underwater video footage, and they unanimously agree that the 2005 double bottom find is the most significant new evidence since Robert Ballard found the wreck in 1985.
This is physical evidence, previously never analyzed, that we now know comes from the exact point where the ship broke. As Matsen explains, to someone who can read the signs, the edges where the steel fractured tell the tale of how the ship came apart. This leads Roger Long and others to the conclusion that Titanic did not rise high in the air (as shown in the famous scene in the Cameron film), but rather broke apart while still relatively horizontal.
To experts, a low-angle breakup raised an ominous question: should a ship built for service on the stormy North Atlantic have been able to withstand the angle at which Titanic broke? In other words: was the ship strong enough? To me, Matsen makes a convincing case that in light of the newest evidence, this is this is at least a legitimate question to ask.
Mr. Butler attacks Matsen's premise that "there were design flaws and engineering compromises which were known and accepted by Harland and Wolff while Titanic was being built." Matsen offers ample evidence to support this argument: contemporary accounts that Thomas Andrews originally called for thicker steel in his design, proof that Titanic's sister Olympic suffered cracking in early service (and that Harland & Wolff added additional steel to correct the problem), and additional evidence that Chatterton and Kohler uncovered during an expedition to the third sister Britannic in 2006.
Engineers with whom I've spoken make the point that compromises are part of every design. It's easy to make something excessively strong but commercially impractical; the challenge is finding the smart compromise, making it just strong enough yet still affordable to build and operate in the real world. That involves trade-offs. And that is where Matsen says Titanic's builders cut it just a little too close.
Mr. Butler also assails Matsen's treatment of Tom McCluskie. In my experience, Tom is a man of pronounced good humor, with a sharp ironic wit. Tom has told me of his health difficulties following his stroke, and various restrictions imposed by his doctor as a result. I don't find Matsen's account to unfairly paint a picture of "bitterness" toward Harland & Wolff, nor to depict what Tom has said as a "deathbed confession."
As dramatic as Tom's assertions are, Matsen has not relied on McCluskie as his only source; he has done historical homework. (How many non-fiction books for the popular market include End Notes these days? "Titanic's Last Secrets" does, and they are extensive and scrupulously detailed).
To me, Brad Matsen makes a compelling case that, whatever the actual structural strength of Titanic, in 1912 Harland & Wolff had every reason to believe that their ship had broken because it was too weak - and that, acting on that belief, they covered up what they thought about the breakup. That's certainly what Tom McCluskie told me and others, and what Harland & Wolff's actions after the sinking seem to indicate.
I urge anyone interested in Titanic, or history in general, to read this book. In my career I've been fortunate to talk with men who walked on the moon, men who sailed U-boats in Hitler's navy, men who created Mission Control - and men who dive shipwrecks. And there's one thing I've learned: "history," even about a subject as familiar as Titanic, is a work in progress; there's always more to be learned - sometimes a lot more. Matsen's excellent book is a powerful reminder of that enduring truth.
