|
Genghis Cohen posted:I think this is a rather harsh interpretation! I exaggerated a little, but Stephen can be a harsh character. Stephen is blind to some aspects of himself and I think it's interesting to read the books with that in mind. For example at some point Stephen writes to Diana that a large part of Martin's downfall was that Jack did not like him, and the crew sensed this and never fully warmed up to him. Stephen says that in short Martin did not, "accomplish the feat of making a friend of his friend's close associate." Yet earlier, when Martin begs off a social event to avoid Clarissa: quote:There were some of the exactly-timed evolutions and manoeuvres they had seen far to the south, in Annamooka, and they were received with applause; but not with nearly such hearty applause as the much freer hula, danced with great skill, grace and enthusiasm by a number of young women. Later when Martin criticizes habitual drug use, Stephen actually goes kind of broke-brain about it: quote:'...Yet providing we do not die of thirst, I comfort myself with the thought that even this languid pace brings us nearly a hundred miles closer to my coca-leaves – a hundred miles closer to wallowing in some clear tepid stream, washing the ingrained salt from my person and chewing coca-leaves as I do so, joy.’
|
# ? Mar 15, 2019 07:15 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:41 |
|
Sax Solo posted:I exaggerated a little, but Stephen can be a harsh character. Stephen is blind to some aspects of himself and I think it's interesting to read the books with that in mind. True, but the second one is at least partly the running joke of Stephen getting addicted to everything and always being like "nah, doses of these drugs that would kill a small herd of cattle are good for me and fine and I do not have a problem."
|
# ? Mar 15, 2019 07:28 |
|
Sax Solo posted:I exaggerated a little, but Stephen can be a harsh character. Stephen is blind to some aspects of himself and I think it's interesting to read the books with that in mind. Very interesting, shows how complex the characterisation is in these books. I interpret Stephen's remark to Jack as a more usual observation about a clergyman (which admittedly is a bit of why Jack never warms to Martin) and he seems more irritated but sympathetic than simply angry when Martin checks him with addiction. It is a very good point though, we are often told that Stephen is of a vengeful temperament, but it is generally hidden behind his position as a protagonist or the complete odiousness of most of his enemies. "Draw, man, draw, or I shall stick you like a hog!"
|
# ? Mar 15, 2019 18:28 |
|
Also, Dutourd (de turd?) Is such a poo poo
|
# ? Mar 15, 2019 23:50 |
I'm going to make a plug for this month's BOTM because I think it might appeal to the folks who have this thread bookmarked: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3886115 It's one of the Nero Wolfe mysteries, a particularly interesting one. Reasons I think it might appeal to folks reading this thread: 1) In a weird way, because the Wolfe books were always set contemporaneously to the writing, they've become historical fiction; 2) the core of those books, like the core of these books, isn't so much the specific plot as it is the bromance 3) there's forty five of them total so they almost equal this series in length
|
|
# ? Apr 1, 2019 16:41 |
|
I just finished Treason's Harbour, and, aside from the pillory scene later on, it's always the fate of poor Ponto that leaves me the most affected on rereading the series
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 16:12 |
|
PerilPastry posted:I just finished Treason's Harbour, and, aside from the pillory scene later on, it's always the fate of poor Ponto that leaves me the most affected on rereading the series Now you’ve got me trying to remember the highly O’Brianesque word Stephen uses to describe Ponto at one point. Worthy?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 22:30 |
|
Fire Safety Doug posted:Now you’ve got me trying to remember the highly O’Brianesque word Stephen uses to describe Ponto at one point. Worthy? Noble? Was Ponto named after the lion in Hillare Belloc’s cautionary tale “Jim”?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 08:52 |
It's always weird when I'm re-reading Cornwell's Sharpe novels and I get to Sharpe's Trafalgar.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 09:52 |
|
Fire Safety Doug posted:Now you’ve got me trying to remember the highly O’Brianesque word Stephen uses to describe Ponto at one point. Worthy? Maturin calls him "Heroic" at one point while trying to explain the variety and virtues of bats to Mrs Fielding: "'Not bats,' cried Mrs Fielding. 'Certainly bats,' said Dr Maturin. 'There is as much variety in them as in other creatures: I have known some very high-spirited, cheerful bats, other sullen, froward, dogged morose. And of course the same applies to dogs - there is the whole gamut from false fawning yellow curs to the heroic Ponto.' " O'Brian calls him a clumsy great brute at one point too. On rereading Treason's Harbour, one thing that annoyed me a little was the fact Stephen is told of an escaped English lieutenant with a wife in Valetta who's thought to be cuckolding him, and only when he's explicitly told his last name does he realize it just might be Mrs. Fielding's husband. Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's always weird when I'm re-reading Cornwell's Sharpe novels and I get to Sharpe's Trafalgar.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 17:35 |
PerilPastry posted:
I'd say so. They're not on the same level as O'Brian but they're not far below him either. Read in chronological order not publication order (he wrote them out of sequence but using a pre-established character timeline). The books basically track Wellington's career in India and then Spain and Waterloo (Sharpe ends up at Trafalgar en route from India to Britain). If nothing else, the naval battles are such well trod ground that it's nice to read a take on the land war.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 17:57 |
|
I read the first 2 or 3, and seeing the land side of things is interesting. I thought they seemed quite a bit trashier(?), though, less historical fiction and more adventure story set in the early 1800s. I've been reading the Alan Lewrie books after I lost interest in Sharpe, and these have been pretty fun. They're also a little more trashy adventure story than O'Brian, and I could do without the occasional sex scene, but they seem stronger from a historical perspective than Sharpe. Lewrie takes part in a lot of interesting stuff, like the fight to resupply Cornwallis at the end of the American Revolution, the fall of Toulon during the French Revolution, and meeting Nelson and Napoleon. I liked his books quite a bit more than Sharpe, although in general I think I prefer the naval side of things over the army. Why do both of those series seem so much more anachronistic than O'Brian? I can't put my finger on exactly how or why, but no one else has captured the feeling of actually being in that time period half as well as he did. (Except Jane Austen, but well.) And speaking of which, should I generally take O'Brian's word over Lewrie's author when they contradict eachother? The Lewrie books had stuff like lieutenants in charge of sloops, commanders in charge of frigates, and often had naval battles where one ship sunk her opponent in a couple broadsides, versus the day-long hammerings in the Aubrey-Maturin books. Phenotype fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 20, 2019 |
# ? Apr 20, 2019 18:43 |
|
O'Brian's writing style is closer to that of Jane Austen and other period authors, while Cornwall writes historical novels you can buy at an airport kiosk. Don't get me wrong, I like Sharpe too, but it's definitely a quite different style and that's probably a large part of why it feels much more anachronistic than the Aubreiad.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 19:01 |
|
Reading a Cornwall book is a lot like watching a Bond movie - you pretty much always know what you’re gonna get. There is always the incompetent aristocratic officer, the damsel in distress, the worthy French adversary, etc. That being said, as long as you don’t read them back to back they’re always entertaining and the battle sequences are well written.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 19:30 |
Phenotype posted:The Lewrie books had stuff like lieutenants in charge of sloops, commanders in charge of frigates, and often had naval battles where one ship sunk her opponent in a couple broadsides, versus the day-long hammerings in the Aubrey-Maturin books. Pretty much all of O'Brian's battles are coming directly from period accounts, as in almost all his battles are based on actual contemporary records of specific individual sea battles that O'Brian went and looked up in the british archives then swapped in "Aubrey" for the actual ship captain. So yeah, believe O'Brian over anybody else writing that kind of fiction. Class Warcraft posted:Reading a Cornwall book is a lot like watching a Bond movie - you pretty much always know what youre gonna get. There is always the incompetent aristocratic officer, the damsel in distress, the worthy French adversary, etc. Yeah, and from what I can tell, Cornwell usually gets his historic details mostly correct, or at least if he breaks a rule or changes a historical fact he knows why he's doing it and there's some sort of in-universe explanation (e.g., if no rifle units were recorded as present at a given battle, he cooks up some reason why Sharpe is there even so). The comparison with Bond is pretty apt -- like Fleming's Bond novels, the books are schlocky but they're not stupid, if that makes sense.
|
|
# ? Apr 20, 2019 19:38 |
|
PerilPastry posted:Maturin calls him "Heroic" at one point while trying to explain the variety and virtues of bats to Mrs Fielding: "'Not bats,' cried Mrs Fielding. 'Certainly bats,' said Dr Maturin. 'There is as much variety in them as in other creatures: I have known some very high-spirited, cheerful bats, other sullen, froward, dogged morose. And of course the same applies to dogs - there is the whole gamut from false fawning yellow curs to the heroic Ponto.' " Thank you! That whole passage is very Maturin.
|
# ? Apr 21, 2019 10:43 |
|
Thanks guys, I'm going to check Cornwell out. As for regular historical naval fiction, I'm afraid reading O'Brian has ruined the genre for me. Sitting down with the Hornblower or Ramage novels when instead you could be hearing Killick whining about the captain's breeches being all a-hoo again is a really tough sell.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 11:13 |
|
There's a book called "the long ships" which to me captured the feel of being written in the "style of the time" more than a description through modern eyes, much like the Aubrey books a lot. I've read it in English and Swedish I think, and they were both good.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 11:21 |
|
InediblePenguin posted:O'Brian's writing style is closer to that of Jane Austen and other period authors, while Cornwall writes historical novels you can buy at an airport kiosk. Don't get me wrong, I like Sharpe too, but it's definitely a quite different style and that's probably a large part of why it feels much more anachronistic than the Aubreiad. I also feel like the O'Brien's characterization is very carefully period, while Cornwall mostly follows typical adventure tropes. I really hate when authors have characters whose worldview or morals conveniently follow 21st century norms, but I also give authors who don't acknowledge the period racism and classism the side-eye. O'Brien is the best author I've ever read at navigating that - Maturin is aggressively antislavery for period-appropriate reasons, and cluelessly racist while trying to be nice (as per his interactions with the Native American orderly in the US hospital), while Aubrey is casually pro-slavery out of ignorance until he's directly exposed. I like the Sharpe novels, but none of the characters are anywhere near that fully realized - they're clearly written for a modern audience.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:25 |
Notahippie posted:I also feel like the O'Brien's characterization is very carefully period, while Cornwall mostly follows typical adventure tropes. I really hate when authors have characters whose worldview or morals conveniently follow 21st century norms, but I also give authors who don't acknowledge the period racism and classism the side-eye. O'Brien is the best author I've ever read at navigating that - Maturin is aggressively antislavery for period-appropriate reasons, and cluelessly racist while trying to be nice (as per his interactions with the Native American orderly in the US hospital), while Aubrey is casually pro-slavery out of ignorance until he's directly exposed. yeah, that's exactly what sets apart the very tippy top tier of historical fiction authors (O'Brian, Mary Renault) from all the rest. I can definitely see why a different reader would feel the Sharpe books were too fast-and-loose with this aspect but for me personally I feel like the Sharpe novels don't do *too* much violence to then contemporary norms though. The characters are all definitely very tropey but there's a certain basic respect paid to class divides and the like that B and C tier historical fiction writers tend to just ignore in favor of making everyone Super Enlightened (the Temeraire series is particularly bad on this). OTOH the books tend to just ignore and duck issues rather than have the characters react to them (so far on this readthrough I've seen exactly one reference to slavery and exactly one gay character, and in both cases Sharpe just sort of ignored the issue because he was too busy brooding). Sharpe doesn't have to worry about fitting into modern morals because he's not a particularly moral character either way and he doesn't have well-thought-out ideals; he's mostly just id fantasy + class resentment mary sue + fightin' round the world, and so the moral aspects go sailing over his head.. In essence Cornwell ducks the problem rather than addressing it but for me at least that's better than turning the protagonists into magically enlightened beings.
|
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:50 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sharpe just sort of ignored the issue because he was too busy brooding standard
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:02 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:OTOH the books tend to just ignore and duck issues rather than have the characters react to them (so far on this readthrough I've seen exactly one reference to slavery and exactly one gay character, and in both cases Sharpe just sort of ignored the issue because he was too busy brooding). Sharpe doesn't have to worry about fitting into modern morals because he's not a particularly moral character either way and he doesn't have well-thought-out ideals; he's mostly just id fantasy + class resentment mary sue + fightin' round the world, and so the moral aspects go sailing over his head.. In essence Cornwell ducks the problem rather than addressing it but for me at least that's better than turning the protagonists into magically enlightened beings. Yeah, that's my read - the books are aimed at middle-aged dads who don't want to think too much, and so a lot of issues just slide by without much commentary (doesn't Sharpe "inherit" a wife from a dead buddy of his?), but they're not nearly as bad at modernizing as most historical fiction is. Honestly, I think the Sharpe books & Cornwall in general are pretty good historical fiction that at least try to be historically on-point, but it just shows the huge gulf between the good and the great historical fiction authors.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 21:05 |
|
As someone who has read a lot of Cornwall over the years, I will say this: you can really see his progression as an author depending on when he wrote it. In his early books his characters are basically just bags of tropes with no shades of grey or nuance whatsoever. But in his Last Kingdom books, while some characters are once again traditional stock characters, there also some really weird and interesting dudes that I could never imagine showing up in early Sharpe books. The books also thread back and forth between the various cultures and religions of the era, which is fun to read about. The tv show adheres pretty closely to the books and is on Netflix, if you're interested in giving it a shot.
|
# ? Apr 22, 2019 22:12 |
|
Nuclear War posted:There's a book called "the long ships" which to me captured the feel of being written in the "style of the time" more than a description through modern eyes, much like the Aubrey books a lot. I've read it in English and Swedish I think, and they were both good. That is a great book, and I think it is consciously written in the style of Viking-period sagas. No psychological introspection or detailed focus on feelings, mannerisms and mood (or descriptive writing loaded with similes and metaphors). Things just happen, characters' feelings and motivations are plainly stated up front. Really puts the focus on the narrative, it's an interesting change from most historical fiction. And as you say, the characters absolutely resemble characters written at the time.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 00:17 |
|
I particularly enjoy how in each book
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 04:47 |
|
Nuclear War posted:There's a book called "the long ships" which to me captured the feel of being written in the "style of the time" more than a description through modern eyes, much like the Aubrey books a lot. I've read it in English and Swedish I think, and they were both good. I adore The Long Ships. It is one of those books that I feel I can reread now and again for my entire life, much like O'Brian. Frans G. Bengtsson, when asked about his motivations for writing it: "Oh, nothing in particular. I just wanted to write a readable book that people wouldn't feel like chucking into a wall, without any literary pretenses. Something along the lines of The Odyssey or The Three Musketeers." The language is terse and to the point, like when one character tells a friend of the aftermath of an attempt on his life and says something along the lines of: "He ran for his life, but for the same life ran I."
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 09:29 |
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:I particularly enjoy how in each book
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 15:40 |
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:I particularly enjoy how in each book the circle of wife -- Let's be honest, the Patrick O'Brian books do kind of run in circles as well. Between Jack and Stephen I think they get rich, lose it, and get rich again about a dozen times. Nevermind Jacks rollercoaster relationship with the admiralty - in favor one day, out of favor the next
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 16:16 |
Yeah, any long running series is gonna ring changes on a formula; it's always theme and variation. O'Brian unquestionably does it with a lot more depth and complexity though.
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 16:26 |
|
I recently read the Hornblower series and while I found them perfectly enjoyable, I did find his ascent through the ranks remarkably smooth compared to Jack. Of course there are setbacks, but he still conducts himself honourably enough to keep his career going.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:11 |
|
I actually really like the books where Jack and Stephen leave the navy and outfit their own ship(s) - it was an interesting new dynamic.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:08 |
|
Yeah it was fortunate that Collingwood really did get booted out of the service and provide a model for Aubrey to go in a different direction the second half of his career.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:19 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah it was fortunate that Collingwood really did get booted out of the service and provide a model for Aubrey to go in a different direction the second half of his career. Surely Cochrane?
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:19 |
|
Pretty sure it was Cornwallis now that you mention it.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:23 |
|
One of the things that strikes me when I read the books is what looks like O'Brien's negative view of relationships. There's at least a few couples who are described as basically hating each other - there's one couple who he describes as "constantly battling for moral supremacy" or something like that, and there are fairly few examples of true partnerships in the series. Jack & Sophie clearly love each other but arguably don't understand each other at all, while Diana and Steven seem to understand each other perfectly but are constantly deciding whether to stay together or leave. Is there an example of a really positive romantic relationship in the series? I know he was divorced at least once, and I've always kind of suspected that the relationships in his books described his view the world.
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 23:47 |
Notahippie posted:One of the things that strikes me when I read the books is what looks like O'Brien's negative view of relationships. There's at least a few couples who are described as basically hating each other - there's one couple who he describes as "constantly battling for moral supremacy" or something like that, and there are fairly few examples of true partnerships in the series. Jack & Sophie clearly love each other but arguably don't understand each other at all, while Diana and Steven seem to understand each other perfectly but are constantly deciding whether to stay together or leave. Is there an example of a really positive romantic relationship in the series? Well, Maturin's marriage to Christine Wood. They lived happily ever after.
|
|
# ? Apr 23, 2019 23:55 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, Maturin's marriage to Christine Wood. They lived happily ever after. After she escaped her really awful first marriage.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2019 00:01 |
|
Notahippie posted:One of the things that strikes me when I read the books is what looks like O'Brien's negative view of relationships. There's at least a few couples who are described as basically hating each other - there's one couple who he describes as "constantly battling for moral supremacy" or something like that, and there are fairly few examples of true partnerships in the series. Jack & Sophie clearly love each other but arguably don't understand each other at all, while Diana and Steven seem to understand each other perfectly but are constantly deciding whether to stay together or leave. Is there an example of a really positive romantic relationship in the series? Stephen and Diana don't understand each other at all and it takes them 10 years you court for that reason exactly. Both of them have pretty extreme self esteem problems
|
# ? Apr 24, 2019 01:18 |
|
I think it's just an accurate portrayal of "relationships" of the era. Getting married for love is a very 20th century concept. Prior to that marriage was more about making a proper match to consolidate wealth and power and status. At least in the social strata that Aubrey and Maturin find themselves in. Whether the two parties getting married loved each other, or were even friendly with each other, was secondary.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2019 01:30 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:41 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Stephen and Diana don't understand each other at all and it takes them 10 years you court for that reason exactly. Both of them have pretty extreme self esteem problems You think so? I always read their relationship as a near-perfect intellectual connection that Diana just wasn't interested in turning into a romantic relationship. They obviously get a lot of pleasure out of talking with each other, and they frequently communicate in subtext in a way that Sophie and Jack never would. Diana acknowledges from pretty early in their acquaintance that she knows Stephen is attracted to her but she's looking for someone who can set her up in style. The only genuine misunderstanding I can think of is the question of whether he's cheating on her, and there was a lot going on to drive that misapprehension.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2019 19:26 |