We all know historically boats have been known as 'she', not just in English but in contemporary European languages as well...... This leads us to invest some emotional attachment to our bucket of glass, screws and wood.
Sorry, but this whole "she" business and "boats have personalities" is, in my book, total nonesense. With the exception of the fuel on board, which is volatile, a boat is a collection of totally inert, uncaring, un-alive chemicals, wood, and metal. Even the wood is dead by the time it gets put on a boat.
Anthromophising this collection of inanimate materials is totally meaningless. Like the re-naming ceremonies. You think the boat gives a hoot in hell what name is painted or stuck on it?
I understand why people feel this way about boats, of course. It's the same thing that caused Walt Disney to put big eyes on the pilothouse of a tugboat and whatnot. People like to get all emotional about stuff and Walt realized that if he turned inanimate objects into "people" he could make a hell of a lot of money selling the concept to the public.
If people want to get all emotional about these things and name their cars and boats and so forth, that's fine of course. It makes them feel good about them in some way or another and that's what's important.
But the reality is that attaching a personality to a boat is no different than attaching a personality to a driveway.
Boat's make possible wonderful experiences. But they don't make the experiences, the people on it do. The boat is just a tool, like a hammer.
The only reasons our two boats have names is because we need them for the radio and in the case of the GB, for its documentation. But we never call either boat by its name even when talking to other people abut them. They are the "little boat" and the "big boat."
Our boats don't "bring us home when things get dicey."
We bring us home using the boat. The only reason everything worked out okay is that we used the boat correctly. Just like if I use a hammer correctly I don't smash my thumb. If we used the boat incorrectly we'd end up on the rocks like in Northern Spy's photo in another thread. But the boat itself didn't have squat-all to do with the outcome other than whatever role its design and construction played in the conditions we were in.
The Costa Concordia didn't think, "Oh, look, a rock. I'm in a bad mood because the captain didn't pet my wheel this morning so I think I'll go hit it." No, the dumbass captain drove the ship into the rock on his own. The ship didn't care one way or the other.
Living things, absolutely I acknowledge their personalities and feelings. Boats? Sorry, they're just things. Like planes, trains, and automobiles. I don't need to pretend they're "people" to get enjoyment and good use out of them. Perhaps that's too realistic for a lot of people, but I can't see wasting thought or emotion on something that is incapable of responding to it. There are plenty of other things in life that do.
