I have avoided this thread over the past few years as it seems to be a no win argument. I have read both books and have a big problem with someone writting a book that is not factual. Since I was not on the boat regarding the chapters in shadow divers I don't have first hand knowledge of errors, however I do know someone who was actually in the book and during the course of diving with them about 20 times they recounted the events in the book when they were actually there to witness them. Their accounting was different from the SD version which makes me wonder what else was changed for literary benefit. I do believe my source and short of putting them both in a room I'll never know with absolute certainy what happened and even then people have a tendency to remember things differently.
Because of these recent threads involving John Chatterton, Gary Gentile and others, I went back and re-read Shadow Divers and the Last Dive. In doing so, I did note one difference in the recounting of the Rouses' evacuation from the Seeker on the day they died. In the Last Dive, it was stated that the crew wanted the Rouses to be air lifted together because they thought that Chrissy would need to see his father to know that he was still alive and give him hope to keep fighting. In the Kurson account, he told a story of an argument that ensued with the Coast Guard over taking Chrissy alone because he was still alive and Chris Rouse was obviously dead.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed both books... again. But I am sure that there are other discrepancies made that I missed.
It would seem these authors attempt to tell a story, and they modify things on their own (i.e. without permission from the people that were there) to make the story flow better or to create drama. Who can say for certain without physical proof (recordings, etc.) that things were one way or the other? Only the people that were there actually know these details, and then only what they personally saw, for sure. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter to the author or most people that read these books? Probably not. Being "based on a true story" as we have all seen in televison and other presentations hardly ensures that the program is 100% factual.
I guess the question really becomes, then, at what point does embellishment cross over a hazy almost indiscernable line of poetic license and become a falsehood, an out and out lie? And if it becomes a falsehood, are there consequences? Does the statement harm others, or does the difference just make for more drama or good copy?
I guess I was always taught that Columbus "discovered" America in 1492... 500 years to the day the Rouses died, BTW. The FACT that Columbus discovered America has been printed in the history books for centuries. But is that fact really the case? Still, that being said, the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria are a great story, nonetheless.
