OT: Aubrey-Maturin Books Queries
htn963
Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
pay attention to?
Do I need a nautical dictionary or any other technical or historical
background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
series ok without needing all that.)
(And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
Commander" with Russell Crowe. It was turgid, and Crowe looked
constipated.)
--
Ht
Mike Dworetsky
Constipation was a frequent medical hazard on board 18th and 19th C sailing
ships. Maybe he was just trying to stay "in character".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Matt Hughes
> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
Mileages vary, but for me, they are better written. Certainly more
depth of character and in a leaner, though richer, prose. Perhaps a
little less derring-do per page, but the action scenes are excellent.
> Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
> pay attention to?
Read them all, and in order. The characters develop, as do their
relationships. And some plot lines can extend over several volumes.
> Do I need a nautical dictionary or any other technical or historical
> background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
> series ok without needing all that.)
Then you'll probably be all right.
> (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
> Commander" with Russell Crowe.
It's rare that a movie measures up to the book, especially if the book
-- or in this case, books -- are superb.
I envy your being on the starting line.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Mike Ash
<ac1a33f7-1fba-4910...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Matt Hughes <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
> > Commander" with Russell Crowe. �
>
> It's rare that a movie measures up to the book, especially if the book
> -- or in this case, books -- are superb.
I disagree. There are plenty of movies that are as good or better than
the book they're made from. Frequently this is accomplished by starting
from a poor book, rather than by creating an exceptional movie. You just
don't hear about those very much, because who hypes a mediocre book?
(For example, I had no idea that the _Godfather_ movies were based on a
book which is, by all reports, not very good, until somebody brought it
up in one of these books-are-better-than-movies discussions.)
My theory is that the quality of a movie is independent from the quality
of the book it's based on. But, since you probably won't hear about a
movie being based on a book unless it was of at least reasonable
quality, and 90% of everything is crap, odds are that the ones you most
hear about will end up worse than the book.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Dorothy J Heydt
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
>Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
>the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
>How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
Hornblower's better. :)
For one thing, Forester actually knew a fair amount about ships.
O'Brien knew *nothing* about ships until a publisher approached
him and said, "Hey, C. S. Forester's dead so we need somebody to
write nautical novels, are you game?" O'Brian said "Sure" and
started reading reference works ... but there's a limit to what
you can get out of reference works. I've read only one of his
(as compared to *all* the Hornblower), and that one smelled of
the lamp ... old Latin metaphor meaning its research stuck out
all over it.
Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Matt Hughes
> In article
> <ac1a33f7-1fba-4910-b039-09fb26dc0...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Matt Hughes <archon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
> > > Commander" with Russell Crowe.
>
> > It's rare that a movie measures up to the book, especially if the book
> > -- or in this case, books -- are superb.
>
> I disagree. There are plenty of movies that are as good or better than
> the book they're made from.
I disagree with your disagreement. The essential problem is length.
To get all of a good novel's content into a movie requires a running
length of seven to eight hours. The Godfather, which you cite, needed
three movies to cover its material.
Screenwriters trim subplots, eiliminate or combine characters,
abbreviate backstory and simplify motivations.
When the process works the other way around, you end up with
novelizations that run to large print and plenty of white space,
because the book is really a padded out novella.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Louann Miller
news:KvDDs...@kithrup.com:
> Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
> horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
They're both pretty alien to the 20th century in their mindsets. Was it
Jack's matter-of-fact adultery (or matter-of-fact fornication, if you're
looking at him before marriage) that bugged you or something else?
Dorothy J Heydt
That's one of the things. (Note that even the doctor, who is his
best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) He also suffers
from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
to the Napoleonic era.
Will in New Haven
> In article <irydnRXafuFceKXWnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>,
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >news:KvDDs...@kithrup.com:
>
> >> Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
> >> horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
>
> >They're both pretty alien to the 20th century in their mindsets. Was it
> >Jack's matter-of-fact adultery (or matter-of-fact fornication, if you're
> >looking at him before marriage) that bugged you or something else?
>
> That's one of the things. (Note that even the doctor, who is his
> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) He also suffers
> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
> to the Napoleonic era.
He reminded me, in some ways, of Kirk. I agree with you that the
Hornblower books are better. However, I read a few of the Maturin
books and might read the rest some time.
--
Will in New Haven
Joseph Nebus
>On Dec 28, 12:30=A0pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> That's one of the things. =A0(Note that even the doctor, who is his
>> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
>> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) =A0He also suffers
>> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
>> to the Napoleonic era.
>He reminded me, in some ways, of Kirk. I agree with you that the
>Hornblower books are better. However, I read a few of the Maturin
>books and might read the rest some time.
It has been said that _Master and Commander: The Far Side Of
The World_ was the best Star Trek movie to date. It's certainly up
there with _Galaxy Quest_.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hughes
> In article <irydnRXafuFceKXWnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>,
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >They're both pretty alien to the 20th century in their mindsets. Was it
> >Jack's matter-of-fact adultery (or matter-of-fact fornication, if you're
> >looking at him before marriage) that bugged you or something else?
>
> That's one of the things. (Note that even the doctor, who is his
> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) He also suffers
> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
> to the Napoleonic era.
Aubrey has his faults, but he makes up for them, imo, by his better
qualities. Still, he's certainly not a modern protagonist, but that's
part of what I find appealing in Aubrey's character, as well as
Maturin's. It's a case of "The past is a foreign country; they do
things differently there," which has always been, to me, the appeal of
well wrought historical fiction.
I believe that, if we were able to spend some time with our ancestors
of a few generations ago, we would probably find them quite
unlikeable; and I am sure the feeling would be mutual. The same
would apply to our two-or-three-generations-removed descendants.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Shawn Wilson
> I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
> Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
> the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
Goood for you. You are in for quite a treat. I have read the entire
series several times. I love it. Any fans of fantasy out there would
also love it, even though it is historical fiction and thus lacks
elves and magic.
> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
Exactly the same idea. People familiar with both (I am not) say that
the Aubrey/Maturin books are better. The naval details (various
orders and sailing details which were taken from the genuine
records. ...btw, all the battles are taken from real events.) in
particular are supposed to be authentic, unlike Hornblower.
> Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
> pay attention to?
All worth reading and should definitely be read in order. There is a
fair amount of continuing plot material of various types, and reading
them out of order will leave you confused.
> Do I need a nautical dictionary or any other technical or historical
> background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
> series ok without needing all that.)
No, you don't need anything like that. There are a lot of details you
might not understand, but they don't need to be understood. Aubrey
issues a chain of orders to deal with a crisis is all you need to
know. You will pick up the basics and Maturin is specifically naive
about naval affairs, even after years at sea. (it's a running gag
throughout the series) BTW, don't pay attention to Maturin's
'explanations' to other characters. 9 times out of 10 they're wrong.
> (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
> Commander" with Russell Crowe. It was turgid, and Crowe looked
> constipated.)
They movie, while *looking* perfect was not an O'brian story. It is a
mishmash of bits from several different books. (specifically Far Side
of the World and Desolation Island for the main plot). The books are
infinitely better. Jack is pretty much what he seems,a hard ass
successful naval commander, but they left out his propensity to get
into various troubles by land. Maturin, in addition to being a
physician and naturalist, is a *spy* for the British. This comes up
fairly frequently, and naval naivity or not, Maturin is a badass by
land. There are two occasions early on where Aurey and Maturin almost
come to dueling each other. Aubrey's extensive battle experience
notwithstanding, most people believe that Maturin would have killed
him.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 28 Dec, 16:04, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <ac1a33f7-1fba-4910-b039-09fb26dc0...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>> �Matt Hughes <archon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
>> > > Commander" with Russell Crowe.
>>
>> > It's rare that a movie measures up to the book, especially if the book
>> > -- or in this case, books -- are superb.
>>
>> I disagree. There are plenty of movies that are as good or better than
>> the book they're made from.
>
>I disagree with your disagreement. The essential problem is length.
>To get all of a good novel's content into a movie requires a running
>length of seven to eight hours. The Godfather, which you cite, needed
>three movies to cover its material.
No, it didn't; the sequels included lots of stuff that's not in the
book. Very little in them comes from the book.
And there's stuff in the book that never made it to the screen, such
as the long digressions on Sonny's sex life.
(Yes, I read it. Yes, it's vastly inferior to the movies.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Dorothy J Heydt
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 12:30�pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <irydnRXafuFceKXWnZ2dnUVZ_sadn...@giganews.com>,
>> Louann Miller �<louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>> >news:KvDDs...@kithrup.com:
>>
>> >> Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
>> >> horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
>>
>> >They're both pretty alien to the 20th century in their mindsets. Was it
>> >Jack's matter-of-fact adultery (or matter-of-fact fornication, if you're
>> >looking at him before marriage) that bugged you or something else?
>>
>> That's one of the things. �(Note that even the doctor, who is his
>> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
>> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) �He also suffers
>> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
>> to the Napoleonic era.
>
>He reminded me, in some ways, of Kirk.
Well, yes. Not in being a captain, but in the general attitude
of "I'm an alpha male so I get to verb everybody, the females
literally and everybody else metaphorically." Tiger Woods was it,
last week or so. It's distressingly common.
(In both senses of the word.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> writes:
>
>>On Dec 28, 12:30=A0pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> That's one of the things. =A0(Note that even the doctor, who is his
>>> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
>>> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) =A0He also suffers
>>> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
>>> to the Napoleonic era.
>
>>He reminded me, in some ways, of Kirk. I agree with you that the
>>Hornblower books are better. However, I read a few of the Maturin
>>books and might read the rest some time.
>
> It has been said that _Master and Commander: The Far Side Of
>The World_ was the best Star Trek movie to date. It's certainly up
>there with _Galaxy Quest_.
Nah, _Galaxy Quest_ was better. First, because it was a parody
and could exaggerate when a little exaggeration would further the
story. Second, very important, because it was a parody done out
of love. Third, it had some better actors even than the original
ST:TOS.
Consider just one moment. Here's Alan Rickman's Alexander Dane,
who for decades has had to utter that dumb line about "you shall
be avenged" and he just hates it ... and now he delivers it
voluntarily, and in complete sincerity, both because he means it
and because it's what the dying alien, who is very young and who
worships him, needs to hear.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
> Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 12:30=A0pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>> That's one of the things. =A0(Note that even the doctor, who is his
>>>> best friend I guess, comments that what the captain really needs
>>>> is a surgical excision of the membrum virile.) =A0He also suffers
>>>> from a hypertrophy of the ego, which is a failing not restricted
>>>> to the Napoleonic era.
>>> He reminded me, in some ways, of Kirk. I agree with you that the
>>> Hornblower books are better. However, I read a few of the Maturin
>>> books and might read the rest some time.
>> It has been said that _Master and Commander: The Far Side Of
>> The World_ was the best Star Trek movie to date. It's certainly up
>> there with _Galaxy Quest_.
>
> Nah, _Galaxy Quest_ was better. First, because it was a parody
> and could exaggerate when a little exaggeration would further the
> story. Second, very important, because it was a parody done out
> of love. Third, it had some better actors even than the original
> ST:TOS.
Fourth, it actually had spaceships, which brings us actually to Star
Trek rather than being hit by Marvin the Martian's devolution ray.
>
> Consider just one moment. Here's Alan Rickman's Alexander Dane,
> who for decades has had to utter that dumb line about "you shall
> be avenged" and he just hates it ... and now he delivers it
> voluntarily, and in complete sincerity, both because he means it
> and because it's what the dying alien, who is very young and who
> worships him, needs to hear.
>
A tearjerker moment that DESERVED the tears it jerked.
And the perfect Kirk Confrontation moment at the end battle: "What you
fail to appreciate is that MY ship is dragging MINES!"
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Matt Hughes
> No, it didn't; the sequels included lots of stuff that's not in the
> book. Very little in them comes from the book.
>
> And there's stuff in the book that never made it to the screen, such
> as the long digressions on Sonny's sex life.
I stand corrected on Godfather. I tried reading the novel back when
everyone else was, and bounced off it. I just assumed: fat book,
three movies. But then, if the screenwriters were putting in and
taking out, is the result the same story?
On the other hand, an author I think was often improved by cinema
adaptation was D.H. Lawrence. He'd take a page and half to delineate
a character's mood, whereas the combination of a skilled director and
actor could accomplish the same task in a word and a gesture.
Although lighting and set decoration could also play their parts.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Marcus L. Rowland
<26739ee5-6de5-401f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> writes
Just to add that I've liked all of them immensely; one thing to bear in
mind is that since O'Brien is trying to write period characters and does
so rather more thoroughly than Forester you get echoes of e.g. Jane
Austen in some of the characterisation and on-shore plotting; for
example, the romantic subplot of the second book is very reminiscent of
Pride and Prejudice. Pride and Prejudice and Seamen?
As others have said, the film isn't faithful to any one book, and omits
a lot of the best features of O'Brien's writing.
--
Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com
www.forgottenfutures.org
www.forgottenfutures.co.uk
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 28 Dec, 20:36, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
>> No, it didn't; the sequels included lots of stuff that's not in the
>> book. �Very little in them comes from the book.
>>
>> And there's stuff in the book that never made it to the screen, such
>> as the long digressions on Sonny's sex life.
>
>I stand corrected on Godfather. I tried reading the novel back when
>everyone else was, and bounced off it. I just assumed: fat book,
>three movies. But then, if the screenwriters were putting in and
>taking out, is the result the same story?
The central plot line of the first movie is the central plot line from
the book, and there are at least two scenes (at the wedding and the
restaurant hit) that are very much as described in the book, so that's
reasonably close to being the same story. They did cut a bunch of
subplots, but most of them were pretty dumb and irrelevant anyway.
Some of the second movie is from backstory that's in the book, about
Don Corleone's childhood, but it's been rearranged, and the later
stuff is all new.
I don't think there's anything from the book in the third movie, but I
don't remember for sure.
Joe Pfeiffer
> I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
> Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
> the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
Naturally, there are similarities -- after all, they're both based on
the career of Thomas Cochrane. All the same, I found them very
different in tone; O'Brian had a lyrical, poetic writing style that one
either finds very enjoyable or like screeching chalk on a blackboard.
I find I really like it. Also, the relationship between Aubrey and
Maturin is is a real key to the series, and there isn't anything similar
in Hornblower.
> Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
> pay attention to?
They're one really long story. You really need to start at the
beginning and read through them. I will caution you (after seeing
Dorothy's followup) that both Aubrey and Maturin seem pretty unlikeable
at the beginning, but I found they grew on me.
> Do I need a nautical dictionary or any other technical or historical
> background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
> series ok without needing all that.)
A lot of nautical terminology gets thrown around, but it seems like it
almost completely consistently can be allowed to float by or gets
explained.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Rich Horton
wrote:
>I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
>Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
>the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
>How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
>
Considerably better prose (to my taste). More humor.
>Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
>pay attention to?
>
Well, I read them all, in order, and that worked great. Some people
suggest the first couple are not quite as good. I would say, however,
that by at least the third, H. M. S. Surprise, O'Brian has fully hit
his stride, and that book is not missable. It may be that there was
some slight slackening in the last couple of books.
I do think it is better, though not essential, to read them in order.
>Do I need a nautical dictionary or any other technical or historical
>background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
>series ok without needing all that.)
>
I don't see any need for that. Anyway if you have too much historical
background you might be bothered that O'Brian recycles the same year a
couple of times in the middle of the series.
>(And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
>Commander" with Russell Crowe. It was turgid, and Crowe looked
>constipated.)
I didn't dislike it as you did, but it is no comparison to the books.
Joe Pfeiffer
>>
>
> I don't see any need for that. Anyway if you have too much historical
> background you might be bothered that O'Brian recycles the same year a
> couple of times in the middle of the series.
O'Brian apologized for that in one of them -- the problem was he had
more stories he wanted to tell set during the war, and he'd hit the last
year of the war...
Howard Brazee
If we want to see a normal filmable book, a mini-series works better.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
Joe Pfeiffer
> Where would you put David Drake's series in here?
We've seen posts both from people who regard Forester as better, and
who regard O'Brian as better. I think both factions can completely
agree that the lesser of the two (whichever that is) is imeasurably
better than Drake.
Louann Miller
> Consider just one moment. Here's Alan Rickman's Alexander Dane,
> who for decades has had to utter that dumb line about "you shall
> be avenged" and he just hates it ... and now he delivers it
> voluntarily, and in complete sincerity, both because he means it
> and because it's what the dying alien, who is very young and who
> worships him, needs to hear.
That's the best, all right. Along with the moment when he growls "Right"
or something equally bland -- it's the tone that counts -- and goes into
real battle.
Louann Miller
news:arQDHvFi...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a:
> Just to add that I've liked all of them immensely; one thing to bear in
> mind is that since O'Brien is trying to write period characters and does
> so rather more thoroughly than Forester you get echoes of e.g. Jane
> Austen in some of the characterisation and on-shore plotting; for
> example, the romantic subplot of the second book is very reminiscent of
> Pride and Prejudice. Pride and Prejudice and Seamen?
I gather from secondary materials that it was very much intentional, as
O'Brian worships Jane Austen as a creator of character. Quite right, too.
Louann Miller
news:pcvij5hgd85ihtb9g...@4ax.com:
> Where would you put David Drake's series in here?
It's a conscious O'Brian tribute. And a smart one since he used parts of
characters -- Daniel's overactive sex drive, Adelle's various aspects as
duelist, spy, and incurable landlubber -- instead of trying to recreate
them whole. They're their own people. That series is the only Drake I'm
still reading, since I'm not all that military.
htn963
> In article <26739ee5-6de5-401f-aa1a-630946d7f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> >I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
> >Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
> >the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
> >How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
>
> Hornblower's better. :)
>
> For one thing, Forester actually knew a fair amount about ships.
> O'Brien knew *nothing* about ships until a publisher approached
> him and said, "Hey, C. S. Forester's dead so we need somebody to
> write nautical novels, are you game?" O'Brian said "Sure" and
> started reading reference works ... but there's a limit to what
> you can get out of reference works. I've read only one of his
> (as compared to *all* the Hornblower), and that one smelled of
> the lamp ... old Latin metaphor meaning its research stuck out
> all over it.
Well, if O'Brian was mainly trying to ape Forester (like all of these
doorstop fantasists trying to ape Tolkien) then my enthusiasm for
reading him has gone markedly down. However, in fairness, Forester
also took and used most of what he knew about ships from reference
works (particularly the written logs and chronicles of ships officers)
than from direct experience.
> Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
> horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
As long as he doesn't sound and act like Russell Crowe, who looked
like he should be in _Moby Dick_...as the whale.
--
Ht
htn963
<forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Just to add that I've liked all of them immensely; one thing to bear in
> mind is that since O'Brien is trying to write period characters and does
> so rather more thoroughly than Forester you get echoes of e.g. Jane
> Austen in some of the characterisation and on-shore plotting; for
> example, the romantic subplot of the second book is very reminiscent of
> Pride and Prejudice.
That's a very good counterpoint in favor of reading O'Brian as I do
dig Austen and Pride and Prejudice (but not to the point of rifling
the corpse to make zombies.)
>Pride and Prejudice and Seamen?
I think you mispelled "semen."
--
Ht
htn963
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> writes:
> > I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
> > Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
> > the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
> > How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
>
> Naturally, there are similarities -- after all, they're both based on
> the career of Thomas Cochrane.
Hmm, interesting. I hadn't known that. I should read more about him.
> All the same, I found them very
> different in tone; O'Brian had a lyrical, poetic writing style that one
> either finds very enjoyable or like screeching chalk on a blackboard.
> I find I really like it.
Lyrical and poetic works well when describing life and voyage on the
sea, but not quite so well (I think) when describing the brutality
(and sometimes just sheer dumb luck) of short-pitch battles, which I
think Forester's straightforward style serves better.
>Also, the relationship between Aubrey and
> Maturin is is a real key to the series, and there isn't anything similar
> in Hornblower.
Were there ever any homoerotic overtones between them, or any other
such incidents mentioned elsewhere among shipmen locked together on
ships for months at a time? (I get the impression the sea has a
relaxing and "liberating" effect on many, including those who might
think themselves strictly heterosexual. I fish on the docks quite a
lot and would often be approached and hit on by middle-aged men, who
would comment on my "slim figure" and "soft features". Of course,
being near the sea also has a relaxing effect upon me because if I
heard such comments from them inland, my first tendency would be
either to hit them or walk quickly away.)
> > Are they all worth reading (in order?) or is there just a few I should
> > pay attention to?
>
> They're one really long story. You really need to start at the
> beginning and read through them. I will caution you (after seeing
> Dorothy's followup) that both Aubrey and Maturin seem pretty unlikeable
> at the beginning, but I found they grew on me.
No problemo. I've always liked antiheroes, and it's much more
preferable to encounter persons (either in books or in real life) that
you first dislike but grow on you, rather than those you're taken with
right away, but then are later disillusioned with because of the
Familiarty Breeds Contempt law.
--
Ht
htn963
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
> > Where would you put David Drake's series in here?
>
> We've seen posts both from people who regard Forester as better, and
> who regard O'Brian as better. I think both factions can completely
> agree that the lesser of the two (whichever that is) is imeasurably
> better than Drake.
And Bujold. (But then many of you here already knew I that would say
that, didn't you?)
--
Ht
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> I've read that a 110 page novel can generally fill up a movie.
>
Pages are variable in many ways. In most books, though, 110 pages would
barely make -- if it did -- the raw definition of "novel", which comes
from the Golden Age and starts at 40,000 words. In my own _Digital
Knight_, which I happened to have handy, that's about .29 of the entire
length; rounding to .3, and knowing that the actual length of the DK
manuscript was 112,000 words, that comes to 33,600 words, not even a
novel by definition (and by modern standards it's not even vaguely
close; novels these days start at around 80,000 and go up from there).
Which does point up the problem: to do a regular (let alone large)
novel justice, you'll need at least two long, or three moderate length,
movies.
mcdowella
> sea, but not quite so well (I think) when describing the brutality
> (and sometimes just sheer dumb luck) of short-pitch battles, which I
> think Forester's straightforward style serves better.
I recently bought a selection of Hornblower stories cheap and
confirmed that my taste is for O'Brien rather than Forrester. The
Hornblower stories are pretty much Hornblower and a few thin
supporting characters, whereas there is a lot more going on in the
O'Brien books. I happen not to like Hornblower much, whereas I like
and to some extent identify with Maturin - and if I didn't there would
be Aubrey or even Bondin or one of the more ephemeral characters.
Similary, I'd put the Drake books above Hornblower, as I like Daniel
Leary and am intrigued by Adele Mundy.
>
> >Also, the relationship between Aubrey and
> > Maturin is is a real key to the series, and there isn't anything similar
> > in Hornblower.
>
> Were there ever any homoerotic overtones between them, or any other
> such incidents mentioned elsewhere among shipmen locked together on
> ships for months at a time?
The bond between Aubrey and Maturin is largely a shared love of music.
Maturin can also be a confidant of Aubrey in a way that his other
officers and seaman cannot be. Both are entirely straight. In the
first book Aubrey's sailing master has an unrequited passion for him.
Aubrey is pretty much the only person in the ship not aware of this.
I suspect that Aubrey's sex drive is partly a creation of
circumstance. The books point out that establishing a reputation for
physical bravery is essential, both in the Navy and in society
generally. They also state that Aubrey sees declining an advance from
a woman as refusing a challenge, similar to refusing a challenge to a
duel. Of course Aubrey does chase women on his own initiative, but not
to do this would also mark him out as apparently less than a
stereotypical male.
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> Were there ever any homoerotic overtones between them, or any other
> such incidents mentioned elsewhere among shipmen locked together on
> ships for months at a time? (I get the impression the sea has a
> relaxing and "liberating" effect on many, including those who might
> think themselves strictly heterosexual. I fish on the docks quite a
> lot and would often be approached and hit on by middle-aged men, who
> would comment on my "slim figure" and "soft features". Of course,
> being near the sea also has a relaxing effect upon me because if I
> heard such comments from them inland, my first tendency would be
> either to hit them or walk quickly away.)
There are no homoerotic overtones to that relationship, but several gay
sailors are mentioned in passing.
Matt Hughes
> As long as he doesn't sound and act like Russell Crowe, who looked
> like he should be in _Moby Dick_...as the whale.
To be fair, that was a faithful recreation of Aubrey's physique.
Maturin is often after him to lose weight -- or fall foul of an
apoplexy.
Before our modern age, a well fed, thick-waisted fellow was referred
to as a fine figure of a man.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>htn963 <htn...@live.com> writes:
>>
>> Were there ever any homoerotic overtones between them, or any other
>> such incidents mentioned elsewhere among shipmen locked together on
>> ships for months at a time? (I get the impression the sea has a
>> relaxing and "liberating" effect on many, including those who might
>> think themselves strictly heterosexual. I fish on the docks quite a
>> lot and would often be approached and hit on by middle-aged men, who
>> would comment on my "slim figure" and "soft features". Of course,
>> being near the sea also has a relaxing effect upon me because if I
>> heard such comments from them inland, my first tendency would be
>> either to hit them or walk quickly away.)
>
>There are no homoerotic overtones to that relationship, but several gay
>sailors are mentioned in passing.
Did they execute them, the way they did the guy who embraced the
sheep?
Dorothy J Heydt
And I can remember my mother (born 1908) telling me that a woman
weighing 200 pounds or more, all lumpy and Rubenesque, was called
a fine figure of a woman. (Of course, by the time she was a
teenager it was the flat-chested 1920s. I think she was relating
what her mother had told her.)
Matt Hughes
> In article <1bmy11hc0k....@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> >There are no homoerotic overtones to that relationship, but several gay
> >sailors are mentioned in passing.
>
> Did they execute them, the way they did the guy who embraced the
> sheep?
Yes. Sodomy was a capital offence under the Articles of War. IIRC,
Aubrey serves on a court-martial where a seaman is found not guilty
because no penetration could be proved.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
William Hyde
>
> Also, I find the main character (the captain, not the doctor)
> horribly unsympathetic, but maybe that's just me.
Aside from issues of competence (1), Aubry is clearly intended to be
the opposite of Hornblower.
Conservative instead of liberal, upper class instead of middle,
tending to stout as opposed to lean, choleric as opposed to
melancholic, and a fine musician as opposed to being tone deaf. So if
you liked Hornblower as a person, Aubry might not be to your taste. I
didn't like him much in the first book myself.
(1) Though he does lose an awful lot of ships. I'm pretty sure than
anyone who lost three ships, or even two, wouldn't be given another
command unless he had very strong political influence. There was
always a huge surplus of captains.
William Hyde
David Goldfarb
Rich Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Well, I read them all, in order, and that worked great. Some people
>suggest the first couple are not quite as good. I would say, however,
>that by at least the third, H. M. S. Surprise, O'Brian has fully hit
>his stride, and that book is not missable.
I have gone so far as to suggest to people who want to try the books
that they read the third one first, and then if they decide they like
them go back and read the first two. The OP seems to have already
decided to read them all, though, so that's probably not the right
thing to do here.
>if you have too much historical
>background you might be bothered that O'Brian recycles the same year a
>couple of times in the middle of the series.
A couple of times? There's one character who is unmarried at the start
of the War of 1812, who has a six-year-old daughter when the Battle
of Waterloo takes place! You just have to sort of throw up your hands
and let that go.
--
David Goldfarb |"Poor dominoes. Your pretty empire took so long
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to build. Now, with a snap of history's fingers...
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | down it goes."
| -- Alan Moore, _V for Vendetta_
David Goldfarb
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>For one thing, Forester actually knew a fair amount about ships.
>O'Brien knew *nothing* about ships until a publisher approached
>him and said, "Hey, C. S. Forester's dead so we need somebody to
>write nautical novels, are you game?" O'Brian said "Sure" and
>started reading reference works ... but there's a limit to what
>you can get out of reference works. I've read only one of his
>(as compared to *all* the Hornblower), and that one smelled of
>the lamp ... old Latin metaphor meaning its research stuck out
>all over it.
Every single time someone mentions these books, Dorothy says the above;
and I've decided that every single time, I'm going to make the reply
that this is a major failing of the *first* book, but not of the other 19.
(No, Dorothy, nobody's going to make you read the other books. But why
keep trying to give people a false impression of them?)
--
David Goldfarb |"Atheists view their theist friends with
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | much the same feeling as nonsmokers do
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | their smoking friends."
| -- David R. Henry, on rec.arts.comics.xbooks
lal_truckee
> I recall quite a few people here are fans of Patrick O'brian's Aubrey-
> Maturin series so thought I ask, since I just scored a complete set of
> the books for a good deal on my recent buying round.
>
> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
>
> pay attention to?
>
> background aid to enjoy them more? (I got by with the Hornblower
> series ok without needing all that.)
>
> Commander" with Russell Crowe. It was turgid, and Crowe looked
> constipated.)
You could always skip both authors and read a couple of biographies of
Thomas Cochrane - he's the guy upon whom they both based their lead
character. Cochrane's real life adventures would not be believed by any
rational person without copious Admiralty documentation backing up the
tales.
Matt Hughes
> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
A couple of precursor novels, The Golden Ocean and The Unknown Shore,
are more in the Hornblower vein. As I recall, these were midshipman
tales of derring and do.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Joe Pfeiffer
> In article <1bmy11h...@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net>,
> Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>htn963 <htn...@live.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Were there ever any homoerotic overtones between them, or any other
>>> such incidents mentioned elsewhere among shipmen locked together on
>>> ships for months at a time? (I get the impression the sea has a
>>> relaxing and "liberating" effect on many, including those who might
>>> think themselves strictly heterosexual. I fish on the docks quite a
>>> lot and would often be approached and hit on by middle-aged men, who
>>> would comment on my "slim figure" and "soft features". Of course,
>>> being near the sea also has a relaxing effect upon me because if I
>>> heard such comments from them inland, my first tendency would be
>>> either to hit them or walk quickly away.)
>>
>>There are no homoerotic overtones to that relationship, but several gay
>>sailors are mentioned in passing.
>
> Did they execute them, the way they did the guy who embraced the
> sheep?
IIRC, Aubrey and Maturin both avoided noticing, but there was at least
one instance where somebody else was more hard-nosed, and there was a
court-martial. I don't remember the verdict.
Joe Pfeiffer
> On 28 Dec, 09:03, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> How are they different (or alike) from Forester's Hornblower series?
>
> A couple of precursor novels, The Golden Ocean and The Unknown Shore,
> are more in the Hornblower vein. As I recall, these were midshipman
> tales of derring and do.
They are the story of Anson's round-the-world expedition in the 18th
century, told through the eyes of a midshipman. I don't know to what
extent (other than the narrator) they were fictionalized.
Something I forgot when Dorothy made her comment about the
Aubrey-Maturin series being written by an O'Brian who knew nothing about
ships in 1970 is that The Golden Ocean was published in (checking) 1956,
and Forester lived until 1966.
Howard Brazee
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(1) Though he does lose an awful lot of ships. I'm pretty sure than
>anyone who lost three ships, or even two, wouldn't be given another
>command unless he had very strong political influence. There was
>always a huge surplus of captains.
That's how McCain did it.
Mike Schilling
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:30:01 -0800 (PST), Matt Hughes
> <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Dec, 16:04, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ac1a33f7-1fba-4910-b039-09fb26dc0...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Matt Hughes <archon...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> (And fwiw, I didn't care that movie adaptation of "Master and
>>>>> Commander" with Russell Crowe.
>>>
>>>> book -- or in this case, books -- are superb.
>>>
>>> I disagree. There are plenty of movies that are as good or better
>>> than the book they're made from.
>>
>> I disagree with your disagreement. The essential problem is
>> length.
>> To get all of a good novel's content into a movie requires a
>> running
>> length of seven to eight hours. The Godfather, which you cite,
>> needed three movies to cover its material.
>
> No, it didn't; the sequels included lots of stuff that's not in the
> book. Very little in them comes from the book.
Half of the second film (deNiro as the young Vito) came directly from
the book.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Okay, "very little" may be an overstatement.
(Was _all_ of that from the book? I know much of it was, but I don't
remember the throat-cutting scene being in the book.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Mike Schilling
Certainly Vito came to America because his father had been killed by
the local Don and he would have been next. I don't recall if the book
shows him going back to take revenge, but it seems reasonable that it
would.