Patrick O'Brian vs. C.S. Forester
Jeff Dege
the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
"The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
may have had something to do with my expectations.)
I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
style or the energy of the originals.
Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
Any opinions?
--
Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another,
"What! You, too? thought I was the only one."
-C.S. Lewis
Brian Kettler
> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
>"The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
>may have had something to do with my expectations.)
>
> I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
>admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
>thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
>style or the energy of the originals.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
>Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
>Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
>
> Any opinions?
I haven't read the Hornblower novels, but I have read all of Patrick
O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels and am starting through them again!
I like them for the fact that you can read them on several levels.
There are the in-depth character studies of Capt. Aubrey and
Dr. Maturin, both of whom are somewhat unconventional in the
respective professions and whom are very different from each other. I
think the friendship between them is unique (and probably somewhat
unique in literature too). There's the social commentary on issues
such as colonialism, slavery, corporal punishment, medicine, class
structure, politics, etc. There are the period details about life in
the navy during the Napoleonic wars, life in Britain, etc. O'Brian
has "invented" an "older" dialect of English in which the characters
converse. There's the details about the societies and characters in
other countries that they meet during their voyages. There are the
descriptions of exotic animals pursued by Maturin in his avocation as
a botanist in the years before Darwin.
Then, of course, there's the naval action. O'Brian describes the
battle scenes, in my opinion, with just the right amount of detail.
They don't take pages and pages because, I believe, it would get
repetitive after awhile and leave no room for all of the other stuff I
mentioned in the previous paragraph. Many of the naval engagements
are based on actual historical episodes which O'Brian has research in
the Admiralty archives. There's also plenty of action ashore
including Dr. Maturin's capers as a secret British agent who works not
for money but out of hatred of Napoleon's imperialism.
After all this gushing, I should mention that it took me awhile (the
first couple of books) to get the "flow" of these books and develop a
full appreciation of them. The naval lingo and period dialect took me
awhile to pick up.
So read on, it's well worth it!
Brian
--
Brian P. Kettler, Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Maryland, College Park
--- "The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness
--- on the subject and it is probable that, if they continue, we shall
--- soon know nothing at all about it." - Mark Twain
Gregg Germain
: I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
: the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
: "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
: may have had something to do with my expectations.)
: I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
: admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
: thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
: style or the energy of the originals.
I couldn't finish a Hornblower book.
I devour the Aubrey/Maturin books.
There is a distinct difference. For one, as you progress
through the series you'll find that O'Brian treats the more..um..shall
we say..delicate topics of people's shortcomings in a much more
realistic way. I can't say this authoritatively but I bet you don't
see many of the choice 4 letter, Angl-Saxon words in Forrester's books
that you see in O'Brian's...and I don't mean "damn".
Then there's the wit which I didn't begin to recognize
until the 3rd or 4th book. The battles get better and better and the
"secret agent" aspects of Maturin read like very modern stuff.
Since I couldn't finish a Hornblower book I can't say
Forrester didn't do this; but starting with Master and Commander, you -
the reader - are being taught how to sail a square rigged ship (via
the ignorance of the Good Doctor).
: Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
: Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
: Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
The language is Period so it's going to seem a little odd to
us at first. In fact I'm bothered by the reverse - when I think
O'Brian slipped and allowed modern usage to sneak in.
: Any opinions?
I love `em and can't get enough of them.
--- Gregg
Saville
gr...@hrc2.harvard.edu #29 Genie
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics #1762 CRIS
Phone: (617) 496-7713 "A Mig at your six is better than
no Mig at all."
Andrew Hannah
Dege) wrote:
> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels.
<snip>I'm only part-way through the second novel,<snip>
> thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
> style or the energy of the originals.
> Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
> Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
> Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
> Any opinions?
It doesn't surprise me that you feel that way part-way through the second
novel. I felt the exact same way. Post-Captain is the dreariest of the
entire series, IMHO. Master and Commander indeed kept me making
comparisons to Forester . . . Post-Captain depressed me.
But believe me, trust me, it gets better, MUCH better. If intense plots
and derring-do and swashbuckling are what interests you, you'll find it in
O'Brian, but buried deep, deep under layers of language and dialog
certainly more fitting to the 19th century--but characterization is very
late 20th-century. There are no quick resolutions to many plot
threads--some take a half-dozen novels to work their way out. Like the
voyages themselves, they can seem interminable at times. But that is part
of their romance. And when they are resolved--when the voyages finally do
end and the ships sail home--or actually arrive in home port--there is
such an emotional resolution because it is the characters who have
achieved the results--not the plot that has conveniently concluded on the
last page of each book.
Good luck, give it a chance. If you can make it to Desolation Island I
trust you'll truly be hooked.
-Andy Hannah
aha...@interaccess.com
Donald R. Morris
No comparison between Hornblower and Aubrey. The Hornblower stories are
thumping good adventure material, with a somewhat wooden, sterotyped
protagonist, and no more attention to periodicity than is necessary. (And the
best of C.S. Forester isn't Hornblower, but "Rifleman Dodd" and "The General.")
O'Brian is steeped in his period to a degree never surpassed in
historical fiction. Speech, dress, diet -- the law, customs and usages, class
distinctions and, above all, the nautical side -- are uncanny. This is living
history. The characters, moreover, aren't wooden but rounded, warts and all, to
a fare-thee-well. And the beauty is that, despite the profusion of nautical
technology, it doesn't slow the lay reader down a whit; it never interferes
with plotting. If you happen to known what a cathairpin is, fine -- you'll
appreciate the exchanges on this score. If you don't, well, neither does
Maturin.
The humour, moreover, is unique -- the material is studded with
hilarious situations and throw-away one-liners.
The novels as whole are an open window on a couple of by-gone decades;
there's nothing to compare with this except the Pepys diaries.
Donald R. Morris
Carter Lupton
in 1977 I began reading O'Brian along with Alexander Kent, C. Northcote
Parkinson and Dudley Pope. Aubrey did not impress me at first as much as
Kent's Bolitho, who seemed to have more modern sensibilities which
frankly were easier to relate to, as is Hornblower. Over the years, I
continued to read all of these authors as new books appeared, and by the
mid '80s it was obvious to me that O'Brian's books were not just an
entertaining read like the others, but fascinating living history, truly
classic writing. Long before the New York Times proclaimed O'Brian the
greatest historical novelist, I was doing so and winning converts. It
takes getting used to, but once you get into Aubrey & Maturin, you'll
understand the order of magnitude that these books are above the others
of the genre, including Forester.
JLSM...@ibm.net
In article <NEWTNews.26081.7...@phoenix.phoenix.net>,
<drmo...@phoenix.net> writes:
> Path:
news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!newsgate.advantis.net!newsjunkie.
ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!gryphon.phoenix.net!news
> From: "Donald R. Morris" <drmo...@phoenix.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.hist-fiction
> Subject: Re: Patrick O'Brian vs. C.S. Forester
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 95 11:16:11 PDT
> Organization: Phoenix Data Systems
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <NEWTNews.26081.7...@phoenix.phoenix.net>
> References: <3mvf92$m...@blackice.winternet.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial45.phoenix.net
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
All of these points are well-taken, particularly that Rifleman Dodd and
The General are Forrester's best work. And O'Brian's humor does outshine his
many other stellar qualities.
I have some sailing experience, including offshore, but only with fore
and aft rigs. "Your God damned cross-catharpings, sir," as one character put
it, sent me to the OED. Result: "Cat-harpings: the ropes (or now more
generally) iron cramps that serve to brace in the shrouds of the lower masts
behind their respective yards so as to tighten the shrouds and also give more
room to draw the yards in when the ship is close hauled." Clear enough? I
assume cross-catharpings must be a more elaborate ordering of the rigging in
question.
Anyway, let me offer a suggestion for an obviously discriminating
historical fiction buff. If you haven't already encountered anything by the
late Alfred E. Duggan, try him. Perhaps my favorite of his titles is Three's
Company, set at the end of the Roman republic. I'm sure his work is all out of
print, on this side of the Atlantic at least, but libraries still have some of
his books.
Ronald James Wanttaja
Donald R. Morris <drmo...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
>No comparison between Hornblower and Aubrey. The Hornblower stories are
>thumping good adventure material, with a somewhat wooden, sterotyped
>protagonist, and no more attention to periodicity than is necessary.
>historical fiction. Speech, dress, diet -- the law, customs and usages,
> class distinctions and, above all, the nautical side -- are uncanny.
I'm one of those who like both... for different reasons.
I agree with Mr. Morris that the Hornblower stories are "thumping good
adventure material". However, Forester beats O'Brian in putting the
reader _inside the head_ of the main character. The whole irony of
it... a man who's one of the best naval officers the RN has is saddled
with an inferiority complex a mile wide... is delicious. Forester
excells in handling characters riden with self-doubt... read _The Good
Shepard_ to see Hornblower in WWII.
That's not to take away from O'Brian, though. The charcterization is
exquisite, but I've never felt Aubrey's or Maturin's pain like I can
Hornblower's. His period detail is astounding... Forester's ships are
settings; but you feel you're actually *on* the _Surprise_.
I'll reread either, happily.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
P.S.: Eat your heart out... on Friday I'm going
sailing on a reproduction 18th-century brig (The
_Lady Washington_... which was the brig in the last
"Star Trek" film!)
Steven Grady
so my opinion comparing the two may not count for much, but my recollection
is that while they were great naval adventures, there didn't have a lot
else to offer.
In contrast, the Aubrey/Maturin books are everything you could want --
great plots, wonderful characters, battle, intrigue, romance, evocative
imagery, high drama, comedy... The first thing I noticed when I was
reading the starting book was that it seemed _perfectly_ authentic, in
speech, description, attitude of characters, technology, etc. I think
that I went back to look at the copyright date at least 5 or 6 times,
because I kept on being convinced that the books had been _written_ in
the 19th century. I was particularly tickled by a scene in which Stephen
discusses the possibilities of seeing some of the more amazing animals
in the African sub-continent: the zebra, the rhinoceros, the unicorn.
The fact that the unicorn was not known to be mythical was a wonderful
bit of authentic detail that really enriched the scene.
Aside from the authenticity, I think the books achieve a superb balance of
story-telling -- O'Brian moves smoothly between battle scenes, political
intrigue, emotional tangles, humorous supporting characters, beautiful
description, etc. Just before you have started getting tired of a tactics
scene, he'll switch to a compelling bit of natural philosophy, or a
confrontation between seamen. Impossible to put down.
Finally, of course, there's his love of things naval. I come to these
books with essentially zero knowledge of nineteenth century ships, but
that does not decrease my enjoyment of the scenes describing the shipboard
activity in the slightest, because O'Brian seems so interested, and draws
them in such vibrant detail. While reading these books, I've become a
bit more interested in such things, and recently found myself staring
with fascination at a model of a nineteenth-century privateering ship
in the lobby of a government building -- I'll probably head over to the
S.F. Maritime museum soon...
BTW, all this is fresh in my mind, since I just finished "The Letter
of Marque" today, and will probably start "The Thirteen Gun Salute"
tonight. I will mention that it took me a few books to really get
into them. A friend loaned me the first, and I thought it was okay,
and was willing to read the second. By the third or fourth, I was
demanding the next one every time I saw him, until I finally started
getting them out of the library. In all probablility, I'll buy the
entire series soon after I finish my first reading of them (I _know_
I'm going to read them again, and probably not long from now).
And the coolest thing of all: a group of us are going to see Partick
O'Brian LIVE tomorrow in San Francisco! I'll make an effort to post a
summary of the talk/Q&A period/reading/whatever it is.
Steven
wata...@asimov.ai.uiuc.edu
>I read the Hornblower books about 15 years ago (when I was around 12 or 13),
>so my opinion comparing the two may not count for much, but my recollection
>is that while they were great naval adventures, there didn't have a lot
>else to offer.
Just out of interest, C.S. Forester's son is John Forester..
author of "Effective Cycling". I have often wondered about
the effect of Hornblower as a role model...and how much
cycling owes to Hornblower :)
Shel Talmy
into the mix as they are the same genre, and so doing, how
would you rate them for authenticity/readability etc.
Troyce
I haven't read the Patrick O'Brian books, but will after reading this
thread. I read all of the Hornblower books and liked them a lot, but I've
found I prefer Alexander Kent to Hornblower in some ways. I think
Forrester was a better writer about sailing, and his description of the
intricacies of sailing a ship is better than Kent's. Kent, however, writes
a more 3-dimensional character than Forrester did. Bolitho has more depth,
and is more accessable to a modern audiance. Hornblower is a little
stuffy, though he is probably closer to the character of the period than
Bolitho.
My bottom line impression: Forrester writes about seamanship in the
Napoleonic Wars, Kent writes about a character who happens to be a seaman.
I enjoy both.
Troyce
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Read THE ELEMENT OF FIRE by Martha Wells, a Tor hardback now ****
**** out in paperback. Coming in June, 1994: ****
**** CITY OF BONES, the new hardback by Martha Wells, an all ****
**** new adventure in an all new world! ****
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Goldberg
> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
> the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
> "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
> may have had something to do with my expectations.)
>
> I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
> admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
> thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
> style or the energy of the originals.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
> Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
> Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
>
> Any opinions?
>
I tend to agree with you, Jeff, although I do enjoy both.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"When lions have gone, hyenas dance."
Kikuyu Proverb
Larry Goldberg € lmg...@mcs.com
g.p.stewart
> We might as well throw the Alexander Kent and the Parkinson
> into the mix as they are the same genre, and so doing, how
> would you rate them for authenticity/readability etc.
>
This is actually my second attempt at sending this as the
first time the system broke down (much wailing and gnashing
of teeth.) :(
Now where was I..
Right, I have to say that I haven't a clue who this Parkinson
person is, but I have read the other three authors.
I can't really say too much about their authenticity,
but what I have read all seemed to adhere to all I knew, plus
my father has this book called Nelson's Ships which goes into
their construction, which I flicked through, and there were,
not surprisingly, a lot of the terms used by the three authors.
Readability
Well here is my two groats, ha'pennies, whatever.
C.S.Forester. When I read the Hornblower books I found
them ok. By that I mean I could quite happily read them but
there wasn't much vitality. There was a distinctly bland aspect
to the books. I was never really taken with Hornblower, to be
quite frank the only reason I kept reading was that there was
little choice at my school library, which was a military boarding
school, so access to the outside world was limited. I had read
a few of Kent's books, so as it was in the same genre I read them,
and found them more readable.
Alexander Kent. The Richard Bolitho books I found to be
your fairly standard adventure on the high seas type of affair,
with not much of interest happening until an action started, then
things started to pick up. His stuff is not taxing at all.
Patrick O'Brian. When I first tried to read his books I
found the language a put off, not that its crude as such, just that
it is period, so differs somewhat from current usage. When I got
used to the language, I never looked back. It makes so much diff-
erence. You get the feeling that you are actually there, not in
the present day with someone telling you the story. This in turn
brings the characters to life in a way that I never found the other
authors did. This was not the only improvement, the characters them-
selves have character. Stephen Maturin, the eternal alnd lubber,drug
user[1], physician,spy, and keen naturalist (not naturist!). At the
opposite end of the scale you get his greatest friend in Captain Aubrey,
who is fairly clueless to nature, a great seaman,and totally hopeless
at jokes and sayings[2]. Their only common love being that of music
and many is the time that they play duets in the Captain's cabin,
Maturin on cello and Aubrey on violin. Another thing about Aubrey is
that whilst he is in his element on the sea, on land he can be totally
out of touch and quite often in financial trouble.
The career of Captain Aubrey also differs from the other two
captains in, in that his is not an easy time.
As you can see I really like O'Brian's books and look forward
to the day that I can afford to get all the books in hardback, so that
they can sit in pride of place on my bookshelf next to Terry Pratchett?!
Yep you guessed it I have peculiar tastes in reading material.
If you like the Nelsonic navy type of thing and haven't read Patrick
O'Brian, rush out and find one of his books, preferredly "Master and
Commander" since that is his first.
Gordon Who would write more but got the feeling that it was
turning into a great big essay.
[1] It was not thought of in the same way as today.
[2] Counting your chickens after the horse has bolted!
Philip Johnson
their local library.
Remember Nelson: The Life of Captain Sir William Hoste by Tom Pocock.
published: Collins 1977(?)(can't remember the exact date).
William Hoste was a protege of Nelson's, but was part of a mission to one of
ythe North African states at the time of Trafalgar. He served maibnly in the
Mediterranean and Ionian seas. He finished his career as Captain of the
Royal Yacht.
He is obviously the character on whom O'Brian based Aubrey. The relationship
with his father is almost identical and Hoste's career in the Ionian sea has
obvious parallels. O'Brian has conflated two of Hoste's exploits into one in
the set piece siege in 'Ionian Mission'.
Remember Nelson is one of those rare biographies which leave me, not merely
admiring and respecting its subject, but bitterly regretting that I am living
over a century and a half too late to meet him. He comes across as a
thoroughly decent and likeable bloke; and in this, too, he strongly
resembles Aubrey.
--
| FFFFFF IIII WW WW WW
Philip | FF ==== II WW WW WW WW ATTWN
Johnson | FFFF II WWWW WWWW EFR
| FF# IIII# WW WW #
Jon Howland
anything else I have come across in 20 years. I've read all except
"The Commodore" at leas twice, many three or four times.
I have spent a fair amount of time at sea, and O'Brian gets the feel of
being at sea perfectly. Forester may be a more exciting reader, but
its hard to believe that O'Brian hasn't himself spent his life at sea.
My father was a career sailor, and sailed to Europe 5 times on a square
rigger (as crew) as well as spending years at sea on warships and other
craft. He has yet to find a sailing or nautical mistake in an O'Brian
book. He gives Forester high marks too in this area.
In my opinion, the Dewey Lambdin books are the least realistic of
almost anything I've read. Alexander Kent is better, but not in the
same class as O'Brian or Forester. I'm not saying anything about the
reading quality people might get from them--apparently, people really
like the Lambdin stuff.
---
Jonathan Howland, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI DSL)
Woods Hole, MA 02543 "j...@jargon.whoi.edu"
Ken Ewing
Jeff Dege <jd...@winternet.com> wrote:
> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
>"The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
>may have had something to do with my expectations.)
>
> I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
>admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
>thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
>style or the energy of the originals.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
>Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
>Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
>
I'll take a risk and put my thoughts on the table.
I read the Hornblower novels some years ago. I am about 1/3 through
number 5 in the O'Brian novels right now. Here's how I compare them:
o I don't think I would classify the O'Brian novels as "Hornblower
takeoffs." C.S. Forrester published the Hornblower novels around
the 1960s (I believe thereabouts). O'Brian began writing sailing
novels in the 40s and 50s. He tried for many years to get his novels
published without much success. It's a surprise even to him as to
why they have suddenly exploded in popularity. (Source: the
Patrick O'Brian newsletter.)
o While I like both series, I've become a little more partial to the
O'Brian series. I think that Jack Aubrey is a more realistic,
believeable character (more flaws, faux pas, personal growth, etc.)
than Horatio. Also, in my opinion, the historical descriptions in
the O'Brian novels are more detailed and paint a grander mental picture
of the times. (Book number 4, "The Mauritius Command," is based on an
actual naval campaign in the Napoleanic Wars.)
o From what I can tell, the O'Brian novels were actually written in
linear order, whereas the Forrester novels were not (book 5, "Beat
to Quarters," was the first of the Hornblower series to be
published, I think). Therefore, the continuity between books is
better with the O'Brian series.
o Yes, the language and description of the O'Brian books is somewhat
awkward. O'Brian doesn't always "connect the dots" for the reader.
For example, he may put a dialogue between two characters in one
paragraph and end the paragraph with one character saying something
like, "I must discuss that with Person X." Then the immediate first
line of the next paragraph begins the discussion with Person X, and
you the reader must figure out that this new paragraph has suddenly
jumped forward some amount of time. O'Brian threw me off track quite
a bit with his style, but now that I'm used to it (or maybe because his
style has developed into something more smooth as the books progressed),
I'm rarely thrown by it now.
o I must say that the first book was a bit of a struggle for me to get
through. I moderately enjoyed the book (enough to want to check out
more). The second book was much the same, but about halfway through
it, something clicked for me. I suddenly found the story engrossing.
I found book 3 entirely engrossing (better than book 2). Book 4
surpassed book 3. My experience so far is that each book surpasses
the previous one.
o O'Brian is intense in his details (sometimes boringly so, especially
in his descriptions of the medical practices of the day). But he is
also a master at description and at weaving a story. In book 3 he
describes a storm in the southern Indian Ocean so vividly that I felt
like I'd lived through it myself. He also builds heavily on previous
books. The novels are kinda like a "Hillstreet Blues" of the Royal
British Navy. Characters from two books ago reappear. At times it
seems like each novel is more like a mere chapter in a huge mega-novel.
All this is, of course, only my own subjective view.
Well, that's more than I set out to write. I only started reading this
newsgroup about a week ago specifically to see if there were any disucssions
of the O'Brian novels. Timing was good.
Ken Ewing
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Beaverton, Oregon
ke...@sequent.com
...!uunet!sequent!kene
Ken Ewing
Ken Ewing <ke...@sequent.com> wrote:
> o I don't think I would classify the O'Brian novels as "Hornblower
> takeoffs." C.S. Forrester published the Hornblower novels around
> the 1960s (I believe thereabouts). O'Brian began writing sailing
> novels in the 40s and 50s. He tried for many years to get his novels
> published without much success. It's a surprise even to him as to
> why they have suddenly exploded in popularity. (Source: the
> Patrick O'Brian newsletter.)
OK, I did some checking on the dates for the Hornblower series, and
my listing shows that the first Hornblower novel came out in 1937
(originally titled "The Happy Return" and retitled in 1939 as
"Beat To Quarters").
My allusion to the Patrick O'Brian newsletter as a source refers only to
the information about O'Brian's writing career, not Forrester's.
I'm looking at the newsletter right now, and here are a few highlights.
The reference to the 40s and 50s really refers to his book "The Golden
Ocean," which he wrote for recreation after completing two other difficult
books. While the publishers liked the book, the public did not. However,
"some years later" a publisher asked O'Brian to try a nautical novel once
again (the exact year is not mentioned). Since naval history was a
particular interest of his, and because he had "sailed in most rigs,"
he decided to pursue the task and wrote "Master and Commander."
O'Brian makes no mention of Forrester as an influence (which doesn't
necessarily prove anything).
By the way, I also just stumbled onto a great book for O'Brian fans.
It's called "A Sea of Words, a Lexicon and Companion for Patrick O'Brian's
Seafaring Tales" by Dean King. I have two dictionaries of nautical terms
at home, and even they do not carry many terms that O'Brian uses. This book
not only provides a comprehensive dictionary of nautical terms, but includes
historical information such as naval history during the Napoleonic War;
naval medicine in the Age of Sail; maps; diagrams of rigging; etc.
g.p.stewart
> In article <3mvf92$m...@blackice.winternet.com>, jd...@winternet.com (Jeff
>
> > I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
> > the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
> > "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
> > may have had something to do with my expectations.)
> >
> > I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
> > admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
> > thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
> > style or the energy of the originals.
> >
> > Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
> > Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
> > Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
> >
> >
> I tend to agree with you, Jeff, although I do enjoy both.
>
I have to say that the language that O'Brian uses helps to transfer the person
to the time in the book, so that you are ever aware of when the books are set.
Thus making them sound more as if the author were there, as if the story is
being told by someone of that era. This is something that I never really found
with Hornblower. I was never really taken with the character.
Gordon Scotland
Peter Timothy Jackson
I've read all the Hornblower stories and some of Forester's other work.
I've read 8 or 9 Bolitho books by Alexander Kent.
I've read all the Audbury and Maturin books upto and including The Commodore.
IMO Patrick O'Brien work is the best. The Post Captain is a little slower than
the rest of the books, but it introduces characters and story lines that
remain interesting through many books.
The Bolitho stories are good, but lack the depth of the Audbury and Maturin
ones.
The Hornblower stories are more variable. At their best (e.g. Lieutenant
Hornblower) they are as good as Audbury and Maturin, but some stories are much
weaker (Hornblower and the Atropos).
Peter
Alternative email address - p...@uvo.dec.com
Nicholas H. Renton and John E. Carlson
The best novels are Lieutenant Hornblower and the three in the middle of
Horny's career: Beat to Quarters (U.S. title?), Ship of the Line, and
Flying Colors. Many of the others were serialized, and thereby suffer
with chapter-specific cliffhangers.
The novels are first and foremost psychological novels. They were also
written in the dogged patriotism of World War II, and also serve as a
meditation upon English vices and virtues. I say English because much of
the emotional repression and stuffiness evident in Hornblower capture a
vein of a (perhaps dying) middle-class English ethic that annoys many
people--other Englishmen and -women included!
I have not read the Aubrey novels, but they do sound very interesting.
I'm curious, however, how the self-consciousness of their archaic style
meshes with the more modern genre of the psychological novel.
Aubrey fans claim the novels reveal great psychological depth; I'm
wondering how this technique is done. How does one show the introspection
and knowledge of the unconscious that Forrester can use more readily with
his more modern style? I'm curious as to how O'Brian solves this
narrative task.
One more point--how do you know when a historical novel is authentic? I
mean, beyond questioning anyone's historical perspicacity, is it not true
that what seems authentic to the late 20th century reader must surely
differ from the expectations of authenticity that an early 19th century
(or is it 18th century?) reader had?
When you Aubrey fans claim this is authentic, are you saying that you feel
that you are reading the words of an older man from an earlier age, as in
other books you have read from this period?
Or are you saying, that, in this text, an earlier age has come to life,
which, based upon your knowledge and aquaintance of history, conforms to
the past as you perceive it?
Or are you perhaps merely saying that O'Brian has succeeded in an artistic
creation that "hangs together" and displays a remarkable internal
consistency and true-to-life depth?
Any comments?
--Nicholas
Duane Morse
>In article <3mvf92$m...@blackice.winternet.com>, jd...@winternet.com (Jeff
>Dege) wrote:
>> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>> the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
>> "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
>> may have had something to do with my expectations.)
>>
>> I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
>> admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
>> thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
>> style or the energy of the originals.
>>
>I tend to agree with you, Jeff, although I do enjoy both.
I've read the entire Hornblower series and have listened to the first 3
Aubrey/Maturin novels as unabridged recorded books, and I don't plan to
pursue the latter, though I plan to go through all of the Hornblower
books as recorded books.
Though there were some enjoyable passages and in the Aubrey/Maturin
books, I found the pace just too slow to endure.
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "When lions have gone, hyenas dance."
> Kikuyu Proverb
> Larry Goldberg € lmg...@mcs.com
--
Duane Morse e-mail: du...@anasazi.com
(602) 861-7609; Phoenix, Arizona
Philip Johnson
want...@chinook.halcyon.com "Ronald James Wanttaja" writes:
>
>Interestingly enough, the Bolitho "formula" is also followed by the
>books written by "Douglas Reeman"; interestingly enough**2, some of
>those Reeman books are published by "Bolitho Maritime Productions". I'm
>assuming Reeman and Kent are the same dude... anyone got any "real"
>author data?
>
Yes, 'Alexander Kent@ is the nom-de-plume of Douglas Reeman, used for his
historical novels.
Personally, I fingd Bolitho too much a twentietyh-century character in his
attitudes and outlook; and the same goes for Dudley Pope's Ramage,
redoubled in spades.
I don't regard O'Brian as Forseter's successor, his writng being on an
altogether higher plain.
This is not to decry the Hornblower books, which I greatly enjoy. I think
Forester's trues successor (ion the sense of writing the same sort of sea-
goiung adventure) was an American, Ellis K. Meacham. His first two books
were *The East Indiaman* (first UK punblication 1968) and *On the Company's
Service* (UK 1972) there was also a third *For King and Company*(date
unknown). Unfortunately all are Out of Print, but are worth trying to get
through your local library.
The hero, Perceval Merewether, is a Captain ifn the Naval Service of
the Honourable East India Company, colloquially known as the Bombay Marine.
There are several American characters (whose presdennce does not seem at all
cpntrived) and the author displays considerable knoowledge of current
technical advances. The action takes place in a little-known theatre of war,
and in a Service about which most people have never heard. Get'em; read;
enjoy.
Philip Johnson
want...@chinook.halcyon.com "Ronald James Wanttaja" writes:
>
>For those interested in technical and other details, there are a few
>other good books besides _Life in Nelson's Navy_. Similar ground is
>coverd in _The Cutlass and the Lash_, a history of discipline in the
>Royal Navy... though get Pope's book by preference. _A Sea of Words_ is
>actually a companion volume to the O'Brian series, it defines all the
>terms, provides maps, etc. The _Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea_
>has been mentioned, as has _Seamanship in the Age of Sail_. An
>extremely entertaining reference is _Man of War_, one of the "Stephen
>Biesty's Incredible Cross-Sections" series of books. You may have to
>look in the children's section for this one... and it's also available
>on CD-ROM.
>
Also: *The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy* by N.A.M. Rodger.
This is an examination of The Royal Navy in the mid-18C, more specifically
during the Seven Years War. Chapter heading are: The Sea Service;
Shipboard Life; Victualling and Health; Rattings' Careers; Manning;
Discipline; Offivers; Politics. It is a useful corrective to the popular
'rum, sodomy and the lash' view of the Navy. Quote: 'The eighteenth-
century Navy combined the disciplined efficiency of a man-of-war with
large elements of the playground, the farmyard, and the travelling circus.'
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet
>In article <3mvf92$m...@blackice.winternet.com>, jd...@winternet.com (Jeff
>Dege) wrote:
>> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>> the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
>> "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
>> may have had something to do with my expectations.)
They're not quite that. Mary Renault wrote those. Though O'Brian may
well surpass her.
>> I'm only part-way through the second novel, and while I have to
>> admit that they are better than much of the tripe I've read lately,
>> thay are, in essence, just another Hornblower takeoff, without the
>> style or the energy of the originals.
They are certainly more subtle. They are also, over the course of the
series, far, far more varied. I find most of the resemblances to the
Hornblower books to be superficial, however.
>>Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
>> Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
>> Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
That is precisely what I love about them. If I want seventies prose,
I can find it anywhere. Nobody, including Defoe, writes just like
O'Brian. The wit and precision are a joy to deal with and color the
whole series.
In my opinion, as a reader and a writer, one of the benefits of
writing in the twentieth century rather than earlier is that one has a
wider choice of styles available. There's no need to adhere
scrupulously to modern idiom, especially in cases where it wouldn't
work very well.
Some of the narrative technique and structure is more up-to-date,
anyway.
>> Any opinions?
Far too many, probably.
As a kind of means of calibration, what exactly does either of you
read for?
--
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet (pd...@terrabit.mn.org)
"Do you want to talk about the dramatic unities again?"
Alayne McGregor
> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
> the cover hype, I was expecting something extraordinary. (Quotes like
> "The best historical novels ever writtem"--Richard Snow, New York Times,
> may have had something to do with my expectations.)
> Maybe it's just me, but the language seems contrived---forced somehow.
> Not the dialog, but the description. Reminds me of Defoe, a bit.
> Interesting, but not very natural a novel written in 1970.
I just started _Master and Commander_, the first in the series, and I was
particularly taken with the language: its richness and its appropriateness
to the era. I also really enjoyed the sly wit that O'Brian displays in the
opening scene.
I'm much more impressed with this book than the equivalent series by Kent and
Pope, which bore me now. I can't really compare with Forester, since it's
been more than 20 years since I read the Hornblower books in one big gulp
as an early teenager. I loved them then.
--
Alayne McGregor aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
ala...@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca
mcgr...@cognos.com
Ronald James Wanttaja
>We might as well throw the Alexander Kent and the Parkinson
>into the mix as they are the same genre, and so doing, how
>would you rate them for authenticity/readability etc.
I used to read Kent avidly, but the books became far, far, too
formulaic. The bad guy tricks Bolitho early on, Bolitho brushes the
hair from his scar, and then there's a humungous showdown at the end
where the Bolitho wins and the British "heavy" (i.e., opposing captain,
officious admiral, etc) gets killed as well. In the later books (where
Bolitho is an admiral) there's either 1) A way contrived to put Bolitho
back in a frigate, or 2) An enemy fleet with a huge ship that's much
bigger than anything Bolitho has.
Interestingly enough, the Bolitho "formula" is also followed by the
books written by "Douglas Reeman"; interestingly enough**2, some of
those Reeman books are published by "Bolitho Maritime Productions". I'm
assuming Reeman and Kent are the same dude... anyone got any "real"
author data?
As far as the Delancey series, they've always left me cold. Delancey
himself seems rather colorless; he doesn't really pop out as a
character. Parkinson often uses historical battles to provide dramatic
climaxes. Unfortunately, of course, "Lieutenant Delancey" wasn't
actually *there*, so he can't take a major personal role in the
battle... or something robs him of credit.
It's one way to handle these situations, but that sort of thing doesn't
endear the character to the reader. A better solution was used in Jon
Williams' outstanding "Privateers and Gentlemen" series, specifically in
_Experiment_. Williams starts out with Favian Markham as first
lieutenant under Decatur in _United States_ during the battle with
_Macedonian_; Favian is promoted to Master-Commandant afterwards, and
given command of the brig _Experiment_. Williams thus slightly fictionalizes
the _Macedonian_ battle as a springboard to the rest of the book. The
series is well done... I don't think it's in print anymore, but you can
find the five volumes at used book stores.
I've only read one book of Dudley Pope's Ned Yorke series, set in ye
olde pirate days on the Spanish Main, but the one I read was all right.
The book I read was a middle book of the series, which makes it harder to
get into. If you're interested nautical series in general, though, don't
pass up his _Life in Nelson's Navy_ nonfiction book. A great read.
Similarly, I've read one or two books each in the "Nathaniel Drinkwater",
"Lieutenant Lamb", and "Hazard" serieses. Nothing to make me whip back
for more, but I didn't like _Master and Commander_ when I first read it
twenty years ago, either.
Probably the closest thing to the O'Brian books is Monsarrat's _The
Master Mariner_ (and its unfinished sequel, _Darken Ship_). Monsarrat
wanted to tell the history of the English at sea through the eyes of a
single character. Out sprang Matthew Lawe; damned for cowardice at the
time of the Spanish Armada; aging ten years per century and sailing in
England's naval, merchant, and exploratory vessels. Fear not; the
immortality of Lawe plays no major portion of the plotline. It's just
merely a plot device to allow depicting the great figures of England's
maritime... from Drake, to Hudson, to Pepys, to Nelson, and to the St.
Lawrence Seaway itself... through the eyes of one unchanging character.
Don't let the SF premise scare you off; read it.
For those interested in technical and other details, there are a few
other good books besides _Life in Nelson's Navy_. Similar ground is
coverd in _The Cutlass and the Lash_, a history of discipline in the
Royal Navy... though get Pope's book by preference. _A Sea of Words_ is
actually a companion volume to the O'Brian series, it defines all the
terms, provides maps, etc. The _Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea_
has been mentioned, as has _Seamanship in the Age of Sail_. An
extremely entertaining reference is _Man of War_, one of the "Stephen
Biesty's Incredible Cross-Sections" series of books. You may have to
look in the children's section for this one... and it's also available
on CD-ROM.
A Swedish book has been translated and published in the US under the
title _The Lore of Ships_, lotsa good diagrams. Ship technophiles
can't go wrong with any of Richard Chapelle's books; I've got his _The
History of the American Sailing Navy_. C.S. Forester's _The Age of
Fighting Sail_ is mistitled (it actually is a history of the US Navy
during the War of 1812) but a good historical reference.
And the best reference, bar none, is sea time. I got nine hours of it
today, sailing from Tacoma to Seattle Washington aboard the _Lady
Washington_, a reproduction of a late 18th century brig. Best $75 I
ever spent....
Ron "I braced the fore course today!" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
g.p.stewart
> Interestingly enough, the Bolitho "formula" is also followed by the
> books written by "Douglas Reeman"; interestingly enough**2, some of
> those Reeman books are published by "Bolitho Maritime Productions". I'm
> assuming Reeman and Kent are the same dude... anyone got any "real"
> author data?
>
Douglas Reeman and Alexander Kent Are definately the same individual.
> Ron "I braced the fore course today!" Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
>
Gordon Scotland
Will Duquette
o I don't think I would classify the O'Brian novels as "Hornblower
takeoffs." C.S. Forrester published the Hornblower novels around
the 1960s (I believe thereabouts). O'Brian began writing sailing
novels in the 40s and 50s. He tried for many years to get his novels
Hmmm. I believe my dad read the Hornblower novels when he was a
kid...and he was born in 1926. Are you sure they were published in
the 1960's?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Duquette, JPL | William.H...@jpl.nasa.gov
But I speak only | wi...@hal9000.jpl.nasa.gov
for myself. | It's amazing what you can do with the right tools.
Carter Lupton
through 1966, when Forrester died. Does anyone know the original
publication date of the last Hornblower story set in the 1850s, which is
included in Hornblower During the Crisis?
Ronald James Wanttaja
> takeoffs." C.S. Forrester published the Hornblower novels around
> the 1960s (I believe thereabouts). O'Brian began writing sailing
> novels in the 40s and 50s.
While I (a Forester fan) ALSO don't consider O'Brian's novels as
"Hornblower takeoffs," it should be noted that Forester died in 1966...
and that the first Hornblower novel (_Beat to Quarters_ aka _The Happy
Return_) was published in 1937. In _The Hornblower Companion_, Forester
says the germ of the character was first planted in 1927.
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
Larry Goldberg
wi...@hal9000.jpl.nasa.gov (Will Duquette) wrote:
> In article <1995Apr20.2...@sequent.com> ke...@sequent.com (Ken
Ewing) writes:
>
> o I don't think I would classify the O'Brian novels as "Hornblower
> takeoffs." C.S. Forrester published the Hornblower novels around
> the 1960s (I believe thereabouts). O'Brian began writing sailing
> novels in the 40s and 50s. He tried for many years to get his novels
>
> Hmmm. I believe my dad read the Hornblower novels when he was a
> kid...and he was born in 1926. Are you sure they were published in
> the 1960's?
>
I recall Hornblower books in the late 40's.
Phil Austin
>Aubrey fans claim the novels reveal great psychological depth; I'm
>wondering how this technique is done. How does one show the introspection
>and knowledge of the unconscious that Forrester can use more readily with
>his more modern style? I'm curious as to how O'Brian solves this
>narrative task.
>
The psychological insight is delivered through the journal entries (in
encrypted Catalan, but we get clear text) of SM. One nice touch is
also the way that the reader is allowed to see SM's self-delusion
about his opium addiction. JA's take on things is usually presented
through letters to his wife.
Phil Austin INTERNET: ph...@geog.ubc.ca
(604) 822-2175 FAX: (604) 822-6150
Atmospheric Sciences Programme
Geography #217
University of British Columbia
1984 W Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2
CANADA
--
Larry Shurr CB7211
Nicholas H. Renton and John E. Carlson <johna...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This newsgroup is very recent at this site so I am joining an old thread
at a late date. At the risk of being irrelevant, I continue...
>The best [Hornblower] novels are Lieutenant Hornblower and the ["Captain
>Horatio Hornblower trilogy"].
No argument there. The Captain Hornblower stories were the first to be
written and, I think, they are the liveliest and freshest of the series.
_Lieutenant Hornblower_ was written from Lieutentant Bush' point of view,
-- the only story I can remember which employs any other perspective
besides Hornblower's own -- and provides a refreshing counterpoint to
Hornblower's relentless self-analysis.
>I have not read the Aubrey novels, but they do sound very interesting.
>I'm curious, however, how the self-consciousness of their archaic style
>meshes with the more modern genre of the psychological novel.
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think that the Aubry/Maturin
stories are archaic in their style. To be sure, the settings, the tech-
nology, the characters and their manners, mores and language, etc... are
necessarily archaic, but the writing seems quite modern to me, despite
all that. Some apparent anachronism may be observed in some passages,
but they are part of author's narrative rather than mistakes in the
portrayal of contemporary dialog, attitudes, behavior, politics,
technology and the like.
>Aubrey fans claim the novels reveal great psychological depth; I'm
>wondering how this technique is done. How does one show the introspection
>and knowledge of the unconscious that Forrester can use more readily with
>his more modern style? I'm curious as to how O'Brian solves this
>narrative task.
Of the primary protagonists, Stephen Maturin is very introspective --
though nowhere nearly as self-absorbed as Hornblower -- and provides much
of the psychological component through his internal dialog, his encrypted
diary, and his occasional letters to Diana Villiers after they are married.
It is his analysis of both himself and others which provides much of the
psychological depth. Maturin may seem a bit anachronistic, but mostly
because we tend to associate "psychology" -- in the modern sense --
with the late-late 19th century and the 20th century. If he is, then at
least he does not mistakenly employ language and concepts which were not
enumerated for another hundred years after his fictional lifetime.
>One more point--how do you know when a historical novel is authentic? I
>mean, beyond questioning anyone's historical perspicacity, is it not true
>that what seems authentic to the late 20th century reader must surely
>differ from the expectations of authenticity that an early 19th century
>(or is it 18th century?) reader had?
It is almost surely the case that a late 18th centry to early 19th centry
reader, confronted with the Aubry/Maturin stories, would have, at least,
to make some adjustment. I don't imagine that I have to write a formal
thesis to elicit an agreement that what a late 20th century reader would
notice and think important is likely to differ from that of a reader from
any earlier era -- most especially, perhaps, compared to a reader from
the era and ethos portrayed in the writings in question.
>When you Aubrey fans claim this is authentic, are you saying that you feel
>that you are reading the words of an older man from an earlier age, as in
>other books you have read from this period?
Of the alternatives you propose, I think only this one is essentially
incorrect. I reassert my belief that the Aubry/Maturin stories, despite
their setting and their "authentic" portrayal, are essentially modern works
written for modern readers rather than an imitation of a style contemporary
to that of the era being portrayed.
>Or are you saying, that, in this text, an earlier age has come to life,
>which, based upon your knowledge and aquaintance of history, conforms to
>the past as you perceive it?
>Or are you perhaps merely saying that O'Brian has succeeded in an artistic
>creation that "hangs together" and displays a remarkable internal
>consistency and true-to-life depth?
>Any comments?
I think the concept might be called verisimilitude. This differs from
authenticity -- mostly, perhaps, because the latter, in its most extreme
reduction, becomes finely detailed re-enactment. In these terms,
verisimilitude requires a degree of factual correctness and a consistency
of presentation without necessarily being simply a re-enactment of what
an earlier writer might have said. Verisimilitude essentially means
"resembles the real thing" -- a useful concept, I think, but one with a
nebulous quality which can cause trouble if two parties disagree over the
degree of accuracy (factual correctness) and precision (level of detail)
required to achieve it.
The person from whom I first heard this distinction was trying to explain
his idea of the differences between a good courtroom drama, a bad courtroom
drama and a real courtroom. Anybody who's been in a real courtroom knows
that much of what happens there is excruciatingly boring and must be omitted
or summarized in a courtroom story lest tedium exhaust the reader's interest.
Furthermore, tearful witness stand confessions, last-minute evidence
hurriedly brought in by breathless investigators just as the verdict is
about to be pronounced, and a number of other recognizable cliches of the
genre are not the norm in a real courtroom, and must be used sparingly,
if at all, to avoid the catagory of bad courtroom drama. This person
summarized his thesis by saying that courtroom drama must, among other
things, display "verisimilitude" in that it must be factually consistent --
or, more generously, at least not be wildly inaccurate -- in order to avoid
the twin pitfalls of bad (cliched and/or unconvincing) portrayal and simple
re-enactment (presumed, in this case, to be tedious and unengaging).
On the other hand. Maybe this whole post is just so much phlogiston :-).
Excuse me while I go read _The Commodore_.
Larry
--
Larry A. Shurr (l...@cbnmva.cb.att.com or lsh...@freenet.columbus.oh.us)
Norman, listen carefully. I am lying. Are you sure your circuits are
registering? Your ears are green. Logic is a little bird singing in a
meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad! - Mr. Spock
John Pritchard
"Hornblower and the Crisis" was left unfinished when C.S. Forester
died in 1966. The book also contains "The Last Encounter", relating
to a time when Hornblower was a retired Admiral of the Fleet: the
copyright information in my paperback edition shows "1950, 1966,
1967", so this story dates from either 1950 or 1966. (I suspect the
latter.)
The Hornblower books, in order of publication, are:
The Happy Return (1937)
(published in the USA as 'Beat to Quarters')
A Ship of the Line (1938)
Flying Colours (1939)
The Commodore (1945)
Lord Hornblower (1948)
Mr Midshipman Hornblower (1950)
Hornblower and the 'Atropos' (1953)
Lieutenant Hornblower (1954)
Hornblower in the West Indies (1958)
Hornblower and the 'Hotspur' (1962)
Hornblower and the Crisis (1967)
The Hornblower Companion (1964) is an explanation of how the books
came to be written.
Another book which may be of interest is "The Life and Times of
Horatio Hornblower", by C. Northcote Parkinson (1970), a mock-serious
biography.
Jan Smith
>In a previous posting, Jeff Dege (jd...@winternet.com) writes:
>> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>
>I just started _Master and Commander_, the first in the series, and I was
>particularly taken with the language: its richness and its appropriateness
>to the era. I also really enjoyed the sly wit that O'Brian displays in the
>opening scene.
>
Yes, the language is wonderful, and it's the funniest book of its kind
I've read. BUT the technical detail, well! It's all beautifully researched
and probably totally accurate (I'm no judge), but I feel that pages of
descriptions on heights of masts, lengths and widths of spars and rigging
can get a *little* boring, don't you think? (In a novel, I mean?)
>I'm much more impressed with this book than the equivalent series by Kent and
>Pope, which bore me now.
>
Alexander Kent is more easily readable, I think, but light on the technical
stuff. We want a happy medium, I suppose. I've not read much of Dudley Pope,
not his fiction, but his book on the Battle of Copenhagen was tremendous,
_The Great Gamble_, all the facts and written with the skill of a novelist.
(Sorry, this newsgroup is for hist-fiction, sorry).
I can't really compare with Forester, since it's
>been more than 20 years since I read the Hornblower books in one big gulp
>as an early teenager. I loved them then.
>
I am hoping to read more of Forester soon. I've only read the one about
Hornblower being a midshipman, and I found that very dull.
>--
>Alayne McGregor aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
>ala...@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca
>mcgr...@cognos.com
Jan
Paul J Hollander
>In article <D7Eyy...@freenet.carleton.ca> aa...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Alayne McGregor) writes:
>>In a previous posting, Jeff Dege (jd...@winternet.com) writes:
>>> I'm just starting the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin novels. From
>>
> <***text deleted***>
>
>>I just started _Master and Commander_, the first in the series, and I was
>>particularly taken with the language: its richness and its appropriateness
>>to the era. I also really enjoyed the sly wit that O'Brian displays in the
>>opening scene.
>>
>Yes, the language is wonderful, and it's the funniest book of its kind
>I've read. BUT the technical detail, well! It's all beautifully researched
>and probably totally accurate (I'm no judge), but I feel that pages of
>descriptions on heights of masts, lengths and widths of spars and rigging
>can get a *little* boring, don't you think? (In a novel, I mean?)
>
>>I'm much more impressed with this book than the equivalent series by Kent and
>>Pope, which bore me now.
>>
>Alexander Kent is more easily readable, I think, but light on the technical
>stuff. We want a happy medium, I suppose. I've not read much of Dudley Pope,
>not his fiction, but his book on the Battle of Copenhagen was tremendous,
>_The Great Gamble_, all the facts and written with the skill of a novelist.
>(Sorry, this newsgroup is for hist-fiction, sorry).
I find the Bolitho novels a bit on the gloomy side, and I haven't gotten
around to dipping into the O'Brien books. I do like Dudley Pope's
Ramage series, though. And he did a fact book (_The Black Ship_) about
a mutiny on a British frigate in the Napoleonic Wars. It is interesting
to read that either just before or just after _Commodore Hornblower_.
And Pope's appendix about the cat o'nine tails is pretty chilling. So
TBS isn't a novel. I like to see how much history there is in the
fiction.
Paul Hollander phol...@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.