Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Sax Solo
Feb 18, 2011



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.

‘I am glad Martin is not here,’ said Stephen in Jack’s ear. ‘He could never have approved these licentious postures and wanton looks.’
It sounds like Stephen put a little poison in the well. More than that, Jack is not a fool, and if Stephen is broadcasting, "I don't actually like Martin anymore" then he and other people are going to pick up on that.

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.’

Martin tapped a sheaf of papers together and after a moment he said, ‘I have no notion of these palliatives, which so soon become habitual. Look what happened to poor Padeen, and the way we are obliged to keep the laudanum under lock and key. Look at the spirit-room in this ship, the only holy of holies, necessarily guarded day and night. In one of my parishes there are no less than seven ale-houses and some of them sell uncustomed spirits. I hope to put all or at least some of them down. Dram-drinking is the curse of the nation. Sometimes I turn a sermon in my mind, urging my hearers to bear their trials, to rely on their own fortitude, on fortitude from within, rather than their muddy ale, tobacco, or dram-drinking.’

‘If a man has put his hand into boiling water, is he not to pull it out?’

‘Certainly he is to pull it out – a momentary action. What I deprecate is the persistent indulgence.’

Stephen looked at Martin curiously. This was the first time his assistant had spoken to him in a disobliging if not downright uncivil manner and some brisk repartees came into his mind. He said nothing, however, but sat wondering what frustrations, jealousies, discontents had been at work on Nathaniel Martin to produce this change not only of tone but even of voice itself and conceivably of identity: the words and the manner of uttering them were completely out of character.
This is an, "I am so loving done w/ you" response going on in Stephen's mind.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

builds character
Jan 16, 2008

Keep at it.

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.

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:

It sounds like Stephen put a little poison in the well. More than that, Jack is not a fool, and if Stephen is broadcasting, "I don't actually like Martin anymore" then he and other people are going to pick up on that.

Later when Martin criticizes habitual drug use, Stephen actually goes kind of broke-brain about it:

This is an, "I am so loving done w/ you" response going on in Stephen's 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."

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013

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.

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:

It sounds like Stephen put a little poison in the well. More than that, Jack is not a fool, and if Stephen is broadcasting, "I don't actually like Martin anymore" then he and other people are going to pick up on that.

Later when Martin criticizes habitual drug use, Stephen actually goes kind of broke-brain about it:

This is an, "I am so loving done w/ you" response going on in Stephen's 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!"

Nuclear War
Nov 7, 2012

You're a pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty girl
Also, Dutourd (de turd?) Is such a poo poo

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound
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

PerilPastry
Oct 10, 2012
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 :(

Fire Safety Doug
Sep 3, 2006

99 % caffeine free is 99 % not my kinda thing

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?

yaffle
Sep 15, 2002

Flapdoodle

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”?

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound
It's always weird when I'm re-reading Cornwell's Sharpe novels and I get to Sharpe's Trafalgar.

PerilPastry
Oct 10, 2012

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.
Are they worth a read?

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

PerilPastry posted:


Are they worth a read?

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.

Phenotype
Jul 24, 2007

You must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.



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

InediblePenguin
Sep 27, 2004

I'm strong. And a giant penguin. Please don't eat me. No, really. Don't try.
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.

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


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.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

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 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.

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.

Fire Safety Doug
Sep 3, 2006

99 % caffeine free is 99 % not my kinda thing

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.' "

O'Brian calls him a clumsy great brute at one point too. :)

Thank you! That whole passage is very Maturin.

PerilPastry
Oct 10, 2012
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.

Nuclear War
Nov 7, 2012

You're a pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty girl
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.

Notahippie
Feb 4, 2003

Kids, it's not cool to have Shane MacGowan teeth

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.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

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.

I like the Sharpe novels, but none of the characters are anywhere near that fully realized - they're clearly written for a modern audience.

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.

InediblePenguin
Sep 27, 2004

I'm strong. And a giant penguin. Please don't eat me. No, really. Don't try.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Sharpe just sort of ignored the issue because he was too busy brooding

standard

Notahippie
Feb 4, 2003

Kids, it's not cool to have Shane MacGowan teeth

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.

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


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.

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013

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.

Raskolnikov2089
Nov 3, 2006

Schizzy to the matic
I particularly enjoy how in each book Sharpe Uhtred meets a new beautiful woman (after the last one dies) and a new arrogant noble (after the last one dies) who plots against him because of his upbringing, while simultaneously fighting against his country's foes and winning more treasure (after he lost the last one).

ovenboy
Nov 16, 2014

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."

Hogge Wild
Aug 21, 2012

by FactsAreUseless
Pillbug

Raskolnikov2089 posted:

I particularly enjoy how in each book Sharpe Uhtred meets a new beautiful woman (after the last one dies) and a new arrogant noble (after the last one dies) who plots against him because of his upbringing, while simultaneously fighting against his country's foes and winning more treasure (after he lost the last one).

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


Raskolnikov2089 posted:

I particularly enjoy how in each book Sharpe Uhtred meets a new beautiful woman (after the last one dies) and a new arrogant noble (after the last one dies) who plots against him because of his upbringing, while simultaneously fighting against his country's foes and winning more treasure (after he lost the last one).

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

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound
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.

Fire Safety Doug
Sep 3, 2006

99 % caffeine free is 99 % not my kinda thing
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.

Class Warcraft
Apr 27, 2006


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.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006

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.

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013

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?

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006

Pretty sure it was Cornwallis now that you mention it.

Notahippie
Feb 4, 2003

Kids, it's not cool to have Shane MacGowan teeth
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.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

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?

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.

Well, Maturin's marriage to Christine Wood. They lived happily ever after.

Notahippie
Feb 4, 2003

Kids, it's not cool to have Shane MacGowan teeth

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Well, Maturin's marriage to Christine Wood. They lived happily ever after.

After she escaped her really awful first marriage.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006

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?

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.

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

Bloody Hedgehog
Dec 12, 2003

💥💥🤯💥💥
Gotta nuke something
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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Notahippie
Feb 4, 2003

Kids, it's not cool to have Shane MacGowan teeth

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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply