Through miscellaneous readings, and history-type TV shows, I know a fair amount about the Titanic disaster. I had never read a complete book on it, however. I bought The Titanic: Disaster of a Century by Wyn Craig Wade. I had seen this on a bookshelf somewhere, read a few pages in it during an idle moment, and decided it would be good to have. Amazon is my friend, and I soon had a new copy, purchased with a gift certificate.

The book did not in any way prove a disappointment. It was originally published in 1980, before the discovery of the wreck later in that decade. This was an updated version, published as a centenary edition in 2012. Mr. Wade had died in the meantime, and his daughter, Barbara Wade, completed and published this updated edition.

It starts with the news that the Titanic had struck ice and was in trouble. It followed the early reports: first the bare news of contact with ice, followed by reports of damage, followed by reports of all souls rescued and being brought to Halifax, followed by reports that Titanic was being towed to Halifax with all souls on board, followed by the Titanic sank but all souls were on another ship heading for New York.

The book spent a long couple of chapters on this, showing the lack of information and disinformation. Eventually the rescue ship, the Carpathia, arrives in New York and the truth becomes known, how 2/3 of the souls aboard had been lost, how the lifeboats had not been fully loaded, etc.

Into this steps the senator from Michigan, William Alden Smith. He rushes to New York City with a subpoena for J Bruce Ismay, president of the White Star Lines and one of those rescued, who was hoping to skedaddle back to England and avoid an American inquiry. The chapters moved into the hearings held, first in New York then in Washington DC. Through these hearings the story of the disaster came out.

I thought that was an interesting literary technique by Wade. Rather than follow the ship from its points of departure in the British Isles, it concentrated on the decisions that contributed to the disaster. How the crew hadn’t been well trained and didn’t know the ship. How a lifeboat drill had been cancelled the morning of the last day. How ice warnings conveyed by other ships had been noted and ignored by the captain who had never had a bad thing happen in 40 years at sea. How various vessels responded to Titanic’s SOS. How unregulated wireless “traffic” hindered rescue attempts and news forwarding. How the Californian was within sight of Titanic but did nothing to help, their captain apparently not really understanding what was going on.

The book is well-written, well-organized. I enjoyed it immensely, and read the 318 pages in thirteen sittings. I give it 5-stars, and will likely do a review on Amazon.

Is it a keeper, however? I have too many books, and need to begin to get rid of some. I’m not yet ready to get rid of this, however. I’ll pull another book from the shelf, one I’m sure I’ll never re-read, let it go, and keep this.

Sometimes I pick up a used book and place it in my reading pile. Years may go by before I pick it up and read it. I don’t know how many times I never get to a book, or it will be years before I’m looking for something to read, dig deep in my pile, find something, and decide “This is the one for right now.”

That was the case with Jews, God and History by Max I Dimont. When I pulled this from the pile, I found no label on it. Inside was a very faded receipt. I can just make out that I the receipt says I bought three books at Helping Hands, a local thrift store with a great books section, paid a total of $2.00 cash for all three. The purchase was at 10:42 a.m., but the date is too faded to read.

This is a mass-market paperback with cheap binding. While I was reading it, it fell apart into two sections. So much for such books printed in 1962.

This was an informative book. Dimont is a skillful writer. He gives much information, not statistics and data, but sweeping narrative about the Jews throughout over four millennia: where they were, what influenced them, who they influenced, what their motivations were. In 421 pages of 10-point font, Dimont gives a comprehensive documentation of this amazing people.

I have a couple of criticisms of the book, however. By the time I was done with it (two months elapsed between my starting and finishing it), I had pretty well forgotten what had come at the beginning. In other words, while I was impressed as I read, the writing didn’t stick with me. I sometimes, when I finish a book, go back and re-read the Introduction to see if the writer achieved whatever goals were stated there. In this case I haven’t yet done that, and don’t think I will.

My other criticism is that the book is totally unsourced. Along with the information given, Dimont makes sweeping judgments on the why of the history, not just the what. Here’s an example of one of those:

Like a Freudian libido flowing through the unconscious, attaching itself to previous psychic experiences, the Haskala flowed through the body of Judaism, attaching itself to former Jewish values and creating new ones. It attached itself to Hebrew and Yiddish, creating a new literature. It attached itself to Jewish religion and created Jewish existentialism. It attached itself to politics and created Zionism.  Zionism fused the Jews in Eastern and Western Europe with the Jews in the United States and created the new State of Israel. This vast transformation and fusion began with a few Talmudic students fighting the Hasidists, who were preaching a return to primitivism of feeling as a way of relating themselves with God.

To me, such broad statements need to be sourced. Where did these ideas come from? Are they the author’s interpretation? They are stated as fact when they seem to be opinion. I would have liked it to be clearer.

Those criticisms aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, if being maddened at it a few times. I certainly don’t regret taking time to read it. It will not, however, have a permanent place on my bookshelf. I don’t think it would even if it hadn’t fallen apart.

However, while the book is unsourced, it does have an extensive Bibliography. Pages and pages of published works are listed, many of them look inviting. I’m tempted to tear these pages from the weak binding and find a permanent place for them in my library, being a list of potentially valuable sources for future research. The only thing making me think I should do that is the thought: How will I ever find those pages again?

It wasn’t too long ago that I reviewed Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, a book about the JFK assassination. This was the first thing of Mark Lane’s I had read. I’d heard his name often, as he was an early critic of the Warren Commission often cited by other writers. I never read his first book on the subject, until now.

Rush to Judgment was published in 1966. Aside from articles in magazines, I believe this was the first book published critical of the Commission. Lane was in a unique place, having been hired by Marguerite Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother, to function essentially as Oswald’s defense attorney during Commission deliberations. That’s a simplification. But it put Lane in some meetings and hearings, and allowed him to see things, that were denied to most not directly associated with the Commission’s work.

Lane, who died in 2016, was a lawyer. Much of Rush to Judgment deals with the minutia of legal issues. He criticized the Commission for not following rules of evidence and rules of cross-examination as you would have at a trial. He looked at evidence that law enforcement agencies had given to the Commission and found it wanting. For example, Lane spends a lot of time on the paraffin test applied to Oswald to show if he had recently fired a gun. The police said the test was positive, whereas Lane showed the inconsistency in the test and was critical of police statements, even before the test results were available,  that said the test would be found positive.

No witnesses were subject to cross-examination during Commission hearings. Lane took transcripts of the testimony of many witnesses and picked it apart. A woman who saw the murderer of police officer J.D. Tippet is alleged to have identified Oswald as the man, but her statements and response to a police line-up were inconclusive. To Lane, she described a different man. While no official cross-examinations were make, Lane showed how lawyers for the Commission did critically question witnesses who told something other than what the Commission’s foreordained conclusion was.

Lane was critical of the witness list. Many witnesses were never questioned; others were questioned only by the Commission’s lawyers. These were witnesses who were in Dealy Plaza, or who knew Oswald, or who knew Jack Ruby, or who had other information about the three murders (Kennedy, Tippet, and Oswald). He makes a good case that the Commission’s work was sloppy and incomplete and that, had the rules of a courtroom been followed, the Commission never could have come to the conclusion it did.

The book is good. A couple of times Lane heads down rabbit holes, spending too much time on small items. A number of times Lane uses legal vocabulary that requires a dictionary. I looked a few of those up, but further into the book just skipped over them, doing the best I could based on the context. The organization of the book was fine, as was the length and the quality of the writing.

As this is an early book in JFK assassination research, it lacks some details that other authors brought out. One has to remember when it was written, however, in order form a judgment on the book.

As I have accumulated a fairly significant, though far from comprehensive, collection of JFK assassination books, I will keep this one. Will I ever reread it? I don’t know for sure, but maybe.