Referring back to the
Sail article, we have the absurd and unsupported remark: "Maritime history is filled with stories of inept captains who, unable or unwilling to relinquish control, forged ahead against the better judgement of others."
An "inept" captain unwilling to relinquish control? This kid (the author) must be watching (and accepting) too many Hollywood versions designed to create movie tension. After all, there has to be a good guy and a bad guy for a scenario. Reminds me of the strife portrayed between the captain and mate of the
Essex in:
In the Heart of the Sea. Or maybe that little scene from
The Finest Hours where the skipper of the doomed tanker maintained course and speed against the advice of the Chief, etc. Or perhaps that scene in
The Caine Mutiny where Queeg froze during a typhoon, refusing to come about, head to sea, and was relieved by his XO to "save the ship." And don't forget
Run Silent, Run Deep where the skipper, Capt. Richardson, was being harassed by the crew and his XO for his decision to attack the
Akikaze in the Bungo Strait. The immortal line from commander Bledsoe to Richardson: "You're through playing with people's lives." Do folks really believe this made-up stuff? That a sea captain should or might "relinquish" his/her command to a crew member with less authority in a time of crisis b/c he or some other crew become frightened?
What about: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Or, Columbus's refusal to turn the
Santa Maria about b/c of a frightened and mutinous crew? Then of course--the eternal: "I have not yet begun to fight!" OMG--Captain Jones, it's a bigger boat with more guns of greater range--we should strike (our colors) now!! Mercy, mercy! You're being pig-headed!! We need a conference!!?? I remember reading that Magellan rounded up and executed his mutineers before proceeding through the Straits that bear his name to the completion of the world's first circumnavigation. (Of course, he did not make it himself.) So, what is this "maritime history" I wonder.
