|
 Here be spoilers. I've blanked out the more serious bits, but the whole post has spoilers.Decius posted:his apparently sexually healthy relationships They actually touch on that during another part of the conversation. Jack's all for sleeping with a woman, but he doesn't make sure she enjoys herself. He does what he needs to enjoy himself, which (evidently) Captain Apollo doesn't. Smashurbanipal posted:The very end of the book when the crowd of Navy men shows up to cheer for him while he's placed in stocks ? Here's Patrick Tull reading that scene. For those who don't know, Patrick Tull read the entire series for Books On Tape and was quite possibly one of the best readers ever. If you haven't heard him, go to your library, make sure there's a copy read by him (there's another guy who did the series for Blackstone Audio who isn't anywhere near as good), and enjoy. Piedmon Sama posted:I actually started on HMS Surprise, for some reason, but I think it's still my favorite book--the best in terms of balancing the action between Aubrey and Maturin, and still one of the best battle descriptions in the series. The Mauritus Command had an interesting setup, but kind of fizzled out I thought, the last battle being a little anticlimactic (and I still don't really understand what the point was of that flashy sloop captain killing himself at the end, it kind of spoiled the book for me) Alright, backstory time. When Jack was a young man, he and Clonfert served together on the same ship as Lieutenants. They both took part in cutting out a privateer. For some unnamed reason, Clonfert and his boat did not join in the climactic assault. Jack and his crew carried it out on their own with very heavy casualties, including serious injuries to Jack. This left the impression that Clonfert was a coward, something no man with pride at the time could live down. Clonfert transferred to another ship while Jack was recuperating. Fast forward to The Mauritius Command. Clonfert was temporarily off the lists (possibly a court-martial, but maybe just unable to get a ship, I can't find the reference at the moment) and is now only a Commander and thus subservient to Aubrey. Clonfert has been following Aubrey's career and consistently comparing himself to Aubrey, to the point that he has developed what we would consider a serious complex. Every time Clonfert messes up, gets checked by Aubrey, or Aubrey simply does something awesome, Clonfert gets sweats and serious muscle spasms. Part of this is due to his being brought up a Lord and thus convinced that he's above everyone else. Instead, he's not much of a seaman, comparatively speaking (he went to sea late), he's about 5'3, and he mocks the doctor that practically brought him into the world and who is still a friend. The only thing he has going for him is his looks. Then comes the Ile De La Passe attack. The attack is an utter failure with two frigates lost and two captured. This is mainly due to Captain Pym being a stubborn, unimaginative bastard, but the tricky navigation certainly didn't help any. At the height of this, Clonfert gets seriously, almost mortally, wounded. If this were simply, say, a bar-shot across the belly or grape shattering his arm, things might have been different, but what happened was basically a sharpened 2x4 hitting his face and neck along with some grape shot. He is now hideous. So, we have the final scene. Clonfert's wounds aren't healing because he's worried about his looks and keeps picking at the bandages that are basically the only thing keeping his carotid artery from being exposed to the air, and he's fretting about Aubrey winning the campaign. And yes, Aubrey being the Commodore would mean that he'd get serious praise for capturing the islands, even if he had only done half as much. So, even though the fleet is talking about what a great job he and his men did holding out so long on the Nereid, he's incredibly unhappy. He's ugly, which takes away his biggest advantage in life, and he has once again come second to Jack. His pride is in tatters and he is probably secretly hoping to hear that the plan of attack that Jack and Colonel Keating put together has failed. But instead it succeeds almost perfectly and right as the capitulation is signed, he hears that Jack is coming to see him. Jack is only bringing a letter from Clonfert's wife, to talk about what a good job Clonfert did with the Nereid, wishes for a speedy recovery so Clonfert can resume command, and other sorts of pleasantries. But part of the social contract is going to require that Clonfert congratulate Aubrey on his victory. As MacAdam says, "It was the cheering that woke him. 'What are they cheering for?' says he. And I said, 'The French have surrendered. Aubrey will be here, and you shall have your Nereid back.' 'Never, by God,' says he. 'Not from Jack Aubrey. Run out MacAdam, and see if they're coming.' And when I stepped out of the door, so he did it (ripped away the bandages, severing his jugular). And so, bloody Christ, he did it." Basically, everything that Clonfert didn't want to happen, happened, and he chose what he felt was the only honorable way out. I might be biased because I first heard this passage read by Patrick Tull who injected so much emotion into it, but I always found it to be a very moving part. ...Yeah, I've been through the series a couple of times.
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
I've always assumed it to be Jack's cousin, Isobel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Halfway through Post Captain and holy poo poo, I think I have a new favourite set of books. To different extents, yes. Less bro sometimes, but there's almost always a house. BeigeJacket posted:Is Steven actually loving Diana Villiers at this point? It's heavily hinted at, what with his midnight 'visits' and all but O'Brian never actually confirms it, and I'm still getting used to his spare, compacted prose. O'Brian leaves a lot unsaid, I think so we can make our own interpretation. That being said, mine has always been that Stephen isn't. He's paying calls, telling stories, sharing drinks, listening to her talk about her previous life (and maybe previous lovers), and getting the occasional kiss, but that's it. withak posted:The other related term is "missing stays" which is an embarrassing thing that happens when they don't pull the maneuver off correctly and instead of a 90-degree turn to the left or right into the wind they have to make a 270-degreee turn in the opposite direction to end up pointing the direction that they need. Just a heads up, the 270 degree turn is called "wearing round" and was a common maneuver with inexperienced/short-handed crews or if the captain wanted to be careful of his spars and sails. Aubrey does it on occasion, but usually has enough experienced people on hand to tack. Mahasamatman posted:I picked up Far Side of the World because I found it cheap in a local bookstore. Would I be remiss to start right into that? Or should I read the series in order. I jumped from Post Captain straight to The Hundred Days and had to stop after a chapter as I was completely lost. On the other hand, I somehow completely missed Wine Dark Sea until I had finished Blue at the Mizzen and didn't have any real problems. So I'd say that you could make the jump, seeing as O'Brian has a habit of giving a short re-telling of any salient points in the backstory. However, I wouldn't recommend it as there will be a large number of smaller things that you will have missed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
Decius posted:The editing/spell checking was pretty bad with this edition as far as I know. It has its issues, but it's still readable. Most of the problems are punctuation-based. Don't forget that O'Brian purposefully spelled things as they were spelled around 1800 ("connexion", etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
Alright, I've checked around where I think it occurs (I think it's in Thirteen Gun Salute), but I can't find a quotation. Stephen is writing a letter to Diana and writes something like, "When I was a child, I used to begin my letters with, "I am fine, I hope you are fine."" Anyone remember around where that is? I'm almost certain it's after Ionian Mission.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
Lord Yod posted:One thing I'm curious about : did any of the rest of you goons know how to sail before you started reading these? I grew up racing small sailboats with my dad, so I pretty much knew what most of the rigging and sails were going in. (A modern sloop doesn't have royals but they do have jibs and halyards, for example) I knew starboard from larboard and stem from stern, but that's about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Octy posted:Mind you, I still feel lost when the writing becomes even slightly technical. My eyes glaze over when 'catharpin' and 'lateen sails' are mentioned. pixelbaron posted:Unfortunately, they didn't have A Sea of Words or anything, so I imagine I will be zoning out a bit once the nautical terms really start picking up. Sheets are really just ropes 'Fore' is in front (before) and aft rhymes with 'rear end' if you're juvenile like me 'Port' and 'left' have the same number of letters and are thus the same 'Larboard' is opposed to 'starboard' and, going on the above, is also 'left' 'Staysails' run up the ropes that make the masts stay upright 'Fore' and 'Main' and 'Mizzen' are alphabetically arranged front to back Think of the masts like social structure. The biggest bits are on the bottom (and often just called society/masts). Above them are the topmasts. Then you have the topgallants (like knights are gallant). Then you have the royals. After those bits, you can just substitute some word or phrase for the technical bits if you don't want to look something up right away. "Mr. Babbington, are those <things> going to be brought to the <other things> this watch or not?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Rexim posted:I'm making my way from one novel to another, and I'm currently reading The Far Side of the World (how different things are from the movie of the same name!). I think you've mixed up two different groups of people. One group Jaleel Brenton, the man who leaned his chair against the door, and I think maybe a bailiff (not sure) actually were Navy agents who asked some very leading and very stupid questions trying to get Jack into hot water, politically speaking. Then there's the other group. The dude who shaved hair from his arm (Butcher something, one of the first group recognized him), the Emperor of Mexico, the woman whose husband 'put her to a dog', Aunt Putnam the werewolf, and all the rest actually are lunatics, put into the asylum. The problem came up when the first group came in and the man introduced himself as Jaleel Brenton. In the Royal Navy, there is a Loyalist captain by the same name, so Jack assumed that this man from the first group was part of the second group. This leads to his declaration that he's the son of the Pope, that the whole Admiralty is composed of Catholics, and that he blasted the <ship he supposedly attacked> out of the water, all of it horseshit made up to fit in with the nutjobs that usually inhabit the asylum. This admission becomes almost impossible to retract when it turns out that the first group are not inmates but government officials and intelligence agents (more like desk jockeys at Langley than a CIA spook like Maturin is). So take heart that you made the same mistake as Jack!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
The raspberry shrub recipe in that book has become the staple drink I bring to parties. It's goddamned delicious. As a warning, though, it has to sit for six months to be excellent, four to be really good, and a month to not taste like "brandy with raspberries in it".
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Disappointing egg posted:Has anyone listened to any of the audiobooks? There are two readers. Get Patrick Tull. I don't remember the other guy's name because he seriously pales in comparison to Mr. Tull. Patrick Tull was a genius and you'll be very very happy you listened to his versions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
Octy posted:So I'm up to The Surgeon's Mate and it's currently about 1812-13 and time has seemingly sped up for the two characters. Only a few books ago it seemed to be about 1808 or so, I think. There are lots and lots of books in the series left so am I right in thinking that a few of the later ones go back to his early career, in the same way the Hornblower series did? I'd read the wiki only I'm afraid of accidentally spoiling myself in some way. Patrick O'Brain himself actually answered this one. He said that it soon became apparant that if he kept going at his current pace, he would soon run out of time for the interesting things to happen in, so he came up with what I consider a brilliant solution. He used imaginary years, "an 1813a and an 1813b if you will". Don't worry, the books are all linear, they just stop mentioning what the year actually is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:It's best to just not think about the years. That way when you get to the last book, it makes it easier to think that Jack and Stephen and Killick are still out there somewhere, exploring and fighting the French.  We're all thinking that, you're just saying it 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
withak posted:If there is any nautical jargon that is actually critical to understanding the plot then someone will stop and explain it to Dr. Maturin (i.e. you). Pretty much this. Try and do like my sister recommended I do and just go, "Bring the <ship bits> to the <other ship bits>." Like in Fortune of War when one of the members of the Java is asking Maturin, "Surely you heard when the vangs parted?" There's no need to know what, exactly, vangs are. The point of the scene is that Maturin's trying to escape so much war talk and can't even do it on a completely different ship.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Anyway, as far as historical fiction goes, I'm surprised no one mentioned Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series, which is another buddy series with two great dudes during the Napoleonic age (but riflemen instead of sailors). Sharpe's good (and one of my guilty pleasures), but I really get a much better historical vibe from Aubrey/Maturin. Or maybe O'Brian's just a better writer. The first time through A/M, their set-backs always seemed like things that might continue in perpetuity. Sharpe and Harper always seem to have either long-running minor problems (oh no, the British don't trust an officer up from the ranks, what ever will Sharpe do oh wait he just saved the day again) or major problems that don't go much beyond the end of the book (don't hook up with Sharpe, it rarely ends well). Aubrey's debt problems, Maturin's drugs, Aubrey's lechery, Maturin's bastardy, all of it feels much better written and much more of a struggle that, if overcome, will only be overcome at a great personal price. No, I think for historical Cornwell, you'd be better off reading the Warlord series (working my way through them now).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Cacafuego was also a Spanish ship that didn't stay up to the British standards of clearing for action, cleanliness, order, etc. This. Don't have the book on me at the moment, but the quote from Jack is something like, "Do you know the great thing about fighting the Spanish, Mr. Ellis? They are never, never ready."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:It's been a while, but IIRC the letters are yea from Wray, who is mostly just being a jerk at Stephen since he dislikes him. I seem to recall it implies later that Jagiello is too innocent to pursue a relationship with Diana, especially as it would be viewed very distatefully in his native Lithuania. Not sure why Diana runs off, probably just bored. You know, I never assumed those letters were from that guy. I always assumed it was just some random person or other friend who was either mistaken about what they'd seen or were, well, trolling Stephen. And as for Jagiello, from everything he's said about Diana, I think he'd be very much in favor of sleeping with her if given half of a chance, even if you account for his friendship with Stephen. Dude is smitten with Diana. And as to Diana running off, Stephen compared her to a falcon he had known as a boy that he had once not fed first and which had never come when he called ever again. Diana heard rumors about Stephen running around with another woman, sent him letters asking what was up, and never heard back from him, so she left. The reason she never got the letter was because Stephen handed the responses to Wray, who is a dick. The Dregs posted:I love these stories so much that I started an ill-fated thread in GWS wherein I made recipes from the books. Some of it was surprisingly good. The Little Balls of Tripe a Man Might Eat Forever were surprisingly bad. Hey, I loved that thread! I just was afraid I was doing too much. Never got up the courage to try making the Tripe Balls, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's just not that much that can be done with Diana at that point as a character, and (correct me if I'm wrong) she's said she never wants him to leave her again, i.e., never go to sea. She basically had to die in order for the series to keep going. I think you're quoting The Commodore and forgetting The Yellow Admiral. They have a very happy home life ahead of them, whenever he's back home from his travels. And there's a whole set-up, including Maturin asking Diana explicitly to never have Brigit riding [on some especially dangerous part, the details escape me]. What part did Sophie play in furthering the series?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:Any other writer would have written Maturin as an 18th century Physician who has crazy ideas about cleanliness and sterilization, which the medical community mocks him for, but we the readers know he's right. I see the same thing with Jack's opinion on slavery. He doesn't really have a problem with it, but you can tell that not owning slaves, he's never given it much thought. I've always taken it that he has given it thought, just not enough to put it into action. In one book, when the maid's quitting, he laments that she's the fourth one to leave that year and muses to Stephen about wanting to have "a couple of able-bodied blacks who can't give two weeks' notice". And he has a tendency to equate slavery to impressment so while he may not be committed to the idea "stock and fluke", he can see the benefits to him. Of course, in The Commodore, he encounters a bunch of slave ships and you can see how the horror of the situation starts to alter his views, but that's one of the great things. The character development. And it's nice to have a further difference between Stephen and Jack (Stephen being a raging abolitionist) and see how they can still be particular friends.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
Hornblower's good, but sometimes he has a tendency towards being kinda emo. Drives me up the wall when it happens. Not a bad series, though, and I've read or listened to the whole series twice through. Sharpe's my guilty pleasure. It's not great literature, but it's damned fun to read. Which reader are you listening to? Vance or Tull?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
Patrick Tull also read some of the Sharpe books. He unfortunately passed away before he read the whole series, but the ones he got to are excellently done. Sharpe's Havoc and Sharpe's Escape are the two that spring to mind. But before this turns into the Sharpe/Tull Appreciation Station, I've got a question for those of you who have read Treason's Harbour. I've probably heard or read this book a half dozen times, but something just occurred to me. Was Mr. Hairabedian actually a French agent? I had always assumed it was just a cover that Wray and Lesueur cooked up, but after the theft of Hairabedian's effects (when one of the thieves loses a finger), Wray meets with Lesueur who says, "There wasn't the slightest indiscretion." Before now, I had always assumed that there had been planted evidence or something like that. Is my new interpretation correct?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's how I always read that, especially the bit with the Chelengk (that's in that book, right?) Yeah, that's the right book. Huh. I figured the chelengk was either just greed or got planted (somehow). Looking back, I have absolutely no basis for thinking what I did. Makes me wonder why I thought that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
I always picture Russell Crowe as being about the right weight. Aubrey is frequently described as tall and muscular. I definitely can't haul Stephen's 9-stone (126 pounds) up the lubber's hole 1-handed, but I'm definitely not fat. I'm 5'7 and 190 lbs (13.6 stone). Aubrey goes back and forth between about 14 stone and 16 stone, depending on if he has a French cook aboard. In my mind, he's hardly fat. Dude just has a bit of a belly and gets picked on by Stephen and Henneage because they're both small, slight guys. Definitely don't picture Stephen as Bettany, though. He looks more like a pale-eyed, Spanish Pete Postlethwait in my mind. Short, spare, black haired, kinda ugly. Definitely wish they'd do a series, though!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I very much enjoyed Master and Commander but didn't care for the Jane Austen adventures of Jack Aubrey in the second book. Brace yourself, it pops up plenty more in future books. Luigi Thirty posted:I do a lot of driving for work and have a few accumulated Audible credits, how are the audiobook versions they have? Colonial Air Force posted:The Patrick Tull versions are the standard by which all other audiobooks ought to be judged. This is quite true.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Holy poo poo, did I just read a passage with Stephen's Dad?!? Stephen's been mentioned as being part of the Fitzgerald family before. I think it was by Sir Joseph. I've always taken the guy to be a cousin, just once or twice removed (older, obviously).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
From the OP:quote:BIG IMPORTANT NOTE: I’ve never read these books before. Don’t spoil them for me or anyone else. We've all been guilty of not using spoiler tags in the right spots, it's no big deal, just do better in the future. And no, O'Brian doesn't make it clear. As you can see, there are plenty of people in the thread who don't think that's the case. For a more spoilered discussion (and a personal pet theory), In The Thirteen Gun Salute, I'm convinced that Mr. Fox and Ledward are former lovers, probably from when they were in school together but I don't have a whole lot of proof to back the second part up. Part of me also thinks that Fox is feeling jilted at Ledward choosing Wray as a lover.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:Who on earth doesn't think Sam Panda is Jack Aubrey's son? Glaring context clues aside, O'Brian makes it very clear in The Thirteen Gun Salute among others: My understanding of the quote is that he was responding to the bit with Stephen, which is what I believed you to be responding to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Patrick Tull, full stop.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
BriceFxP posted:Actually, I prefer Simon Vance. I've listened to Tull and feel at times his pronunciation on things is a bit off. Simon's voice is also more comfortable on the ears over the long haul to me. Really? I've always gotten annoyed at Vance's re-use of voices more than Tull's mispronunciation ("stem to stem" instead of "stem to stern" and so on, although I think some of those are in the source material). Tull's ability to give almost everyone a unique voice is what makes me a huge fan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Eau de MacGowan posted:It seems odd to me that in the several minutes it would take to reload a broadside that either the smoke wouldn't clear enough or nobody on the Spanish ships would not see the British ship sailing onwards. I know nothing at all about naval combat Ships routinely sailed a cable's length apart (1/10th of a mile, which is roughly 200 yards, I think), mainly because ships were big heavy bastards that took a long time to turn. Now, this being a night action, everything is damned dark. Like really dark. Ever gone camping somewhere that has little enough light pollution to let you see the Milky Way? It's darker than that. Now this ship that has its lights hidden, and wouldn't have many of them anyways because flame+powder=bad, sails up between you and your buddy and lets off a bunch of really bright flashes. Congratulations, you're now night-blind. After the three to five minutes have passed that are necessary for you to clear your ship for action (at least minimally), your vision is recovering and you see a ship in roughly the right place. So you fire on what is actually your buddy since the other ship was fast enough to get out of the way in the intervening time*. Your buddy, who got the same treatment as you, replies in kind. Now, since you're not one of those captains who believes that long-range accurate fire is necessary, you follow the conventional wisdom of the time and close with this bastard that's shooting you. You get really close, like close enough that your shots can't miss if you tried. Flaming wads start hitting both ships and sooner or later one of those fires takes root. Flames spread, and eventually kaboom. The other ship, now not only on fire but probably missing half its crew due to explosion-related injuries, also blows up for similar reasons. *1 mph = 1.47 fps. 88 feet in a minute, 264 in 3, 440 in 5. And that's assuming it was only sailing 1 knot (which isn't 1 mph, but it's close enough) faster, when it was probably sailing 2 or 3 at least.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I always figured it wasn't that they didn't believe long-range accurate fire was necessary so much as they they didn't figure it was possible. They're on a mobile gun platform that's moving in all three dimensions, firing at another platform that's moving in all three dimensions, only at different speeds and in different directions. The guns are heavy, slow to reload, difficult to aim precisely under shipboard conditions, and they're fixed to the broadside. And, relative to the toughness of a ship, they're not that powerful, so you're going to need a lot of hits to do the job. This is partly true, but it's missing an important piece. It's difficult without practice. For some reason, the British Army was allowed (and even required) to practice with live ammunition but the British Navy had some absurd restrictions on practice powder. For practice shots in the first six months, a captain could only fire 1/3 the number of great guns he possessed and after the first six months it was half that. Aboard the Surprise (28 guns) in a year, Aubrey only had something like 13 shots of practice allowable in a year, which is just shy of a single broadside. So a lot of captains, not being rich enough to supply their own practice powder, just put their ships up against the enemy ships where their men didn't have to aim, just load like maniacs. Fixed to the broadside is also only partly true. Yes, they can't fire straight forward or backward (you need bow and stern chasers specially placed for that), but that doesn't mean the guns cannot be traversed. That's what the handspikes are for in the books. They lever the rear of the gun up and over so the aim can be adjusted. Lastly, the question of whether or not to engage in long-distance fire depends greatly upon what goal you are trying to accomplish. Are you trying to cause general death and destruction, maybe put a few great big holes in the ship? Then it's better to get closer. Are you trying to cut up the rigging, masts, and sails so you can lie athwart the ship and threaten to sink her if she doesn't surrender? Then Long-range fire is a good thing for you. As a side note to this, Philip Broke, who is considered by some to be the father of modern naval gunnery, did all sorts of things like putting levels on the guns so they could be trained to the same elevation and marked angles on the decks so the guns were more likely to be pointing exactly the same way. And also sold off a surprising amount of personal property in order to train his crew to an incredible degree of skill. See Fortune of War for O'Brian's take on him and the famous action with the Chesapeake. Raskolnikov2089 posted:Rear Admiral Sir John Leake criticized the French 'manner of firing chiefly wounding the masts and rigging (as if to secure a retreat rather than a victory)' during the Battle of Malaga. This is mainly each side trying to get rid of the others' strength. The British kept the sea year-round and so became consummate sailors. This meant they could almost literally sail circles around the French. The French responded by trying to get rid of the sails and thus the advantage of the British. The French, on the other hand, often had very large crews (including gunners from the army, apparently). The British responded to this by aiming at the hull, trying to kill as many men as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
To be fair, Stephen does screw with him from time to time, especially when Jack messes up a saying. "...and as they say, every pudding has an end" "Well of course. The mind is incapable of encompassing the infinite, and a limitless pudding surpasses human conception." "No, I mean... I know very well what I mean. I wish you wouldn't confuse my mind, dear Stephen." That and "proving a tree by eating it" are probably my two favorites from Stephen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:Also Stephen messing around with the mideast advisor whose name I forget, then regretting it heavily at dinner when he remembers the guy has both perfect recall and a total lack of humor. Jack tries so hard to salvage it, but the damage is done Professor Graham. Another great character, and in my opinion one of the best foils for Maturin (at least in conversations). Edit: Upshot of that whole passage, we learn where "by and large" comes from.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Even better, you can listen to Patrick Tull read it to you: Recorded in 1998.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:Jack talks about lieutenants not being given a chance because they say BAL-cony instead of bal-CONy. I always read that as the other captain desperately trying to find a way out of a social obligation to Jack. Pullings had just said a word a certain way and Jack either had to take the explanation or call him out (and Jack's a little simple on land). Also, Jack certainly understands captains having preferences for bringing mids/lieutenants on (like his near hatred of bringing aboard mids who don't know mathematics). And to counter the meritocratic part, don't forget Mr. Harvey from HMS Surprise, who pretty much never had to worry about what he did or didn't know. But in general, yes, I agree that the Navy was certainly a better place to be if didn't necessarily have connections/money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Maturin in Boston.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Sydney is Nutmeg of Consolation, Boston is The Fortune of War.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I've thought of Clonfert as a lot of things through the years, but a dummy isn't one of them. Which part(s) are you referring to?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Well, for a broad value of "dummy", I'd have a hard time arguing with you, but I think the real fault lies in his upbringing, not necessarily some inability that's inherent to him. Basically, because he's always been told he's the best from birth (and his mids constantly calling him "My Lord", etc. hasn't helped), he believes that he's the best and doesn't seem to think that defeat's really a possibility. And really, he wasn't defeated. He just got a grand total of nothing out of the encounter. Having half his people away didn't help matters either. Edit: Talking about the first part. The bigger bit afterwards didn't really have any problems stemming from Clonfert.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:I've just started a re-read after doing the whole lot last year, good god I've forgotten what a brilliant writer O Brian is. There's almost no fat to be found in his prose style, even when he's seriously nerding out about sails or seabirds. It's not a question of strength, but of acclimation. My coworker's wife is a confirmed alcoholic and she would power through a 750ml bottle of vodka every day before she went to rehab. The thing is she was perfectly functional. Hell, she didn't have a single traffic citation. Further, my impression of that scene was that the two of them were literally talking all night, like pretty much from dusk to dawn. Your body can process a drink an hour, which would help them keep on the more sober side of things. Between the time taken and their bodies being used to alcohol (and alcohol was pretty much the only way to ensure clean drinking water short of boiling), I never found it odd that they could put down a bottle each and end up saying, "Maybe I'm drunk".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Just finished the first Horatio Hornblower novel and started on the second. The main protagonist is the wettest blanket. Only way for him to get any balls would be if French or Spaniards hit him with cannons or muskets. But the parts about ships are ok, and I don't have anything better to listen to while walking and doing chores. What other wooden ships novel series are there? i actually like Atropos and Commodore. The porblem is that Beat to Quarters, etc., were the first ones written and Forester hadn't found his feet yet. I agree that Aubrey/Maturin is better, though. As my dad put it, O'Brian took Hornblower and split him up into two better characters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 10:23
|
|