Marshall Everett (1863–1939)

I found this on my great-grandmother's shelf during one of our Easter vacations back in the innocent days before Dallas. It had been hurriedly published after McKinley's assassination, probably sold by drummers (door-to-door salesmen). Must not have been an easy sell down South, since one of the chapters details McKinley's "patriotic service" as a captain for the Union army in the Civil War. But my great-grandparents bought it anyway. I guess the fascination with the horror of a presidential assassination outweighed their political feelings. I was fascinated, too, when I read it, even the medical bulletins incorporated into the text. Didn't understand all the words, but the gruesomeness came across.
The author modestly identifies himself on the title page as friend of the martyred President. Have to look for his book on the Titanic (apparently he made a career of rush-to-press coverage of disasters of all sorts) to see if he was a friend of all the passengers, too.… (mais)

"Wreck and Sinking of the Titanic: the Ocean's Greatest Disaster" was an interesting look at both the Titanic disaster itself and the world of 1912. It was an interesting reprinting of a 1912 book dealing with the disaster published not too long after the event itself. It contains individual essays on various topics, reprinting of statements and articles from several different newspapers, testimony given during the Smith Committee, details of the sinking from multiples persons and numerous other personal accounts.

It was highly repetitive and was overly sentimental regarding the "heroic" deaths of men that could have and should have been saved, but for a useless sense of honor that dictated to them that it was better to leave a seat on a lifeboat empty than to fill it himself. Also, many of the facts contained with in were erroneous, with some even known to be so in 1912. For example, the statement "the entire length of the great ship on the starboard side was ripped" (p. 26) was ludicrous, if that had occurred Titanic would have sunk in 20 minutes, not 2 1/2 hours. Even back in 1912, the evidence did bore out this assessment. Another example would be the assertion that "the fact that the awful loss of life was avoidable by the simple provision of sufficient lifeboats" (p. 9). This was patently false, as the officers of Titanic didn't even have enough time to launch the 20 boats she did have, before her list was too great to effectively launch them, let alone the 20 that would have been needed to removing all passengers and crew.

Though the first hand accounts are quite interesting, as is the details included from the Smith Committee, there was far too much repetition and an excess of sentimentality to make this book an easy read; instead it is one that must be taken in small sections, spread out over days. Also, any data contained within its pages must be suspect, even the first person accounts, and thus would need to be cross-checked before being used in any sort of research paper or book. In fact, I would shy away from using it in this context, instead it might be useful when writing about the public's reaction to the disaster.

Finally, unfortunately, though I strove to "love" "Wreck and Sinking of the Titanic: the Ocean's Greatest Disaster", I was unable to accomplish anything higher than merely "liking" it.… (mais)

"Wreck and Sinking of the Titanic: the Ocean's Greatest Disaster" was an interesting look at both the Titanic disaster itself and the world of 1912. It was an interesting reprinting of a 1912 book dealing with the disaster published not too long after the event itself. It contains individual essays on various topics, reprinting of statements and articles from several different newspapers, testimony given during the Smith Committee, details of the sinking from multiples persons and numerous other personal accounts.

It was highly repetitive and was overly sentimental regarding the "heroic" deaths of men that could have and should have been saved, but for a useless sense of honor that dictated to them that it was better to leave a seat on a lifeboat empty than to fill it himself. Also, many of the facts contained with in were erroneous, with some even known to be so in 1912. For example, the statement "the entire length of the great ship on the starboard side was ripped" (p. 26) was ludicrous, if that had occurred Titanic would have sunk in 20 minutes, not 2 1/2 hours. Even back in 1912, the evidence did bore out this assessment. Another example would be the assertion that "the fact that the awful loss of life was avoidable by the simple provision of sufficient lifeboats" (p. 9). This was patently false, as the officers of Titanic didn't even have enough time to launch the 20 boats she did have, before her list was too great to effectively launch them, let alone the 20 that would have been needed to removing all passengers and crew.

Though the first hand accounts are quite interesting, as is the details included from the Smith Committee, there was far too much repetition and an excess of sentimentality to make this book an easy read; instead it is one that must be taken in small sections, spread out over days. Also, any data contained within its pages must be suspect, even the first person accounts, and thus would need to be cross-checked before being used in any sort of research paper or book. In fact, I would shy away from using it in this context, instead it might be useful when writing about the public's reaction to the disaster.

Finally, unfortunately, though I strove to "love" "Wreck and Sinking of the Titanic: the Ocean's Greatest Disaster", I was unable to accomplish anything higher than merely "liking" it.… (mais)