|
|
I may have pre-empted the official beginning date by a few days, but I usually forget things if I postpone them, and I suspect similar problems with other members have contributed to leaving a heroic Alec to carry on a group read almost single handedly. Mentioned in Dispatches, Alec.
At about halfway through FSOW, a few points have cropped up, but I don't think any spoiler warnings need be applied.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on superstition in this book. These are the examples I have remembered so far: pointing at St. Elmo's fire is unlucky; Macbeth makes regular appearances (borderline, that one); the unluckiness of parsons and women aboard ship, and in the same vein, Jonahs ); whistling, scratching of backstays, and in a less pagan manner, prayers for rain; tempting fate is mentioned, as is unlucky Friday, and finally 'the sun must not be offended with the sight of dust. It is a very superstitious ritual, I am afraid.'
Those reading for the first time, take note and see how this theme is developed later. This is O'Brian subtlety, yet strongly, setting the scene, emphasising more strongly (surely) than in any other book the sailor's superstitions, and showing their affect from the captain, all the way through to the men. As we go along, it might be useful to point out any more that appear, especially if pertinent to the plot.
Maturin, as usual, proves himself immune from superstition, another important point for later in the book.
On a different tack: Mowett and Maturin are together discussing Homer during a night watch, Maturin providing a word of warning for would-be O'Brian metaphor hunters: 'there were a great many busy fellows who found out hidden meanings in Homer by the score: and some would have it that the Odyssey in particular was an enormous great bloated metaphor, the way the way the writer of it would have seen a superior acrosticmonger. But as far as I know not one of the inky boobies ever saw what is as clear as the sun at midday - that as well as being the great epic of the world, the Iliad is a continued outcry against adultery. Hundreds, nay thousands of herocial young men killed, Troy town in blood and flames, Andromache's child dashed from the battlements and she led away to carry water for Greek women, the great city razed and depopulated, all, all from mere adultery.'
(Harper 125-126)
With this in mind, and Maturin's comments proceeding - 'The book is full of death, but oh so living.' - What is O'Brian's grand theme as we Group Readers reach half way? The column recently posted to the list from the Chicago Tribune gave one view: 'These are books about male friends and comrades'.
How does this suit as a descriptor of the series? If you had to write a one-sentence summation of the books for the one volume edition, what would it be?
Sit back, take your eyes away from the page, and view the expanse of the Aubrey-Maturin novels in their entirety, and decide what O'Brian's work is telling you. You never know, it could be you never noticed before.
Then, email the rest of us!
Sam Bostock
Can the one sentence be as long as some of O'Brian's opening sentences heheheh?
How about?:
A prodigious work.
While an accurate description of the great epic, it wouldn't inspire me to purchase the great tome that will be the one edition version (printed small). I would probably move on to 'How to be a domestic goddess', and miss a literary wonder. Come on Susan, if anyone can do it, you can - sum up the canon: what is it ABOUT ?
Love, life and laughter; war, humanity and intrigue; friendship, betrayal and revolution; O'Brian will touch your heart, mind and soul.
Heather
suspecting that is not entirely original and a bit mushy
Sailing,Seduction,Spies and Sex(plus Surprises)on the Seven C's.
Sorry S's
a
I apologize in advance to the group for my inability to resist this set-up:
--- Samuel Bostock Come on Susan, if anyone can do it, you can - sum up the canon: what is
it ABOUT ?
It's about 4000 pages.
It is a sea dog story.
Peter, picking up on that "prodigious".
And by no means cur-tailed.
London Lois, hoping against hope that though limited to Digests she may have
flashed this out before any of the other lissuns find the opportunity
irresistible
51º 26' 22" N 000º 03' 05" E
Lois Anne du Toit
"Man is the only animal that both laughs and weeps for man alone is struck
by the difference between what things are and what they ought to be."
Lois, I would purely love to say that I was waiting for someone to smoke
it, but I had no idea at all. I was thinking of the shaggy dog story of
Tristram Shandy. Well done, Ma'am!
I have the Honour to be
Peter Mackay
35° 17' 30" S, 149° 9' 59" E
peter.mackay@bigpond.com
The Admiral St. Ives who was introduced in TH was a fictional composite. In the first chapter of FSOW, there is a bit of Sir Edward Pellew, the actual CIC of the Med fleet at the time, but the character draws heavily upon "Old Jarvie", Admiral St. Vincent. The series of letters on discipline, particularly the remarks on proper saluting and the usage of fresh water by women aboard ship, are very much the views held by St. Vincent, and I strongly suspect that these letters are taken word for word from his actual correspondence.
The incident with Lt Cumby who was caught writing a parody skit about the admiral is real, and happened when St. Vincent commanded the Med fleet in the late 1790's.
Don Seltzer
Spoilers, of course:
I am sure that we have all noticed how whaling and whales are a theme of
this book; Jack is commissioned to hunt down the American frigate Norfolk
to keep it from taking English whalers and their precious cargo, and he is
thankful to have a Mr. Allen aboard, who is an ex-whaler and knows the
locales where whales are likely to be found in the Pacific Ocean. There is
much talk about finding and harpooning whales, rending them for oil,
collecting spermaceti, etc.
Then I realized that poor Mrs. Horner, the gunner's young wife, has
herself been harpooned, in a way, by the quack assistant whom Stephen had
reluctantly enlisted, because he is such a dab hand at pulling teeth. She
is pregnant by her lover, and fears that her husband will kill her if he
knows. Mr. Higgins performed the abortion that Stephen refused to do;
somehow she survives the ensuing infection but she and her lover, the
midshipman Hollom, are murdered by her husband.
Jack had felt sorry for the older midshipman who so badly needed a ship
and hired him on, knowing full well that the crew would term him a Jonah,
yet another whale connotation. Hollom's last ship had been the "Leviathan,"
and he was too old for a midshipman's berth, with no real interest or skill.
O'Brian points the way to this theme. As the Surprise enters colder
waters, an enormous whale surfaces and swims alongside for a time, and then
dives just as Stephen is called to attend to Mrs. Horner, who has undergone
the abortion and is now suffering terribly from infection.
Horner kills the couple when they are all on Juan Fernandez Island and
comes away bloody, as if he'd been stripping a whale. He later gives
Higgins (all these H'aitches) a "Jonah's lift" into the sea and then hangs
himself.
I think that it was O'Brian's intention to link the harpooning of a whale
to the abortion--what d'you think?
~~ Linnea
Well done, ma'am, with three times three and a rumbelow!
Charlezzzzz, hoping that somebody will make up a list of all the
human/animal correlations in the canon. (There won't be any cats in it, will
there?)
A whale of an observation!
- Susan
From: "Linnea" I think that it was O'Brian's intention to link the harpooning of a whale
to the abortion--what d'you think?
Well, now you've pointed it out, Linnea, I can't doubt it. Very well read.
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret) I think that it was O'Brian's intention to link the harpooning of a whale
to the abortion--what d'you think?
It hadn't occurred to me before, but there certainly are some pointers in
this direction. Another example, Horner accusing Stephen, "You used an
instrument on her."
Also, the scene before Horner's death when everyone on the ship is
horrified by hideous screams, theorized to be the cries of a manatee
whose calf had been killed by a Marine earlier that day.
Katherine
I think it was pure genius that POB decided to add the character of
Martin, the gentle man of the cloth, to several of the books, who loves to
study the natural world with Stephen. They are touching, profound and
comical at all times when they are together.
It is a great device for the author to describe the flora and fauna as the
ship traverses the globe without sounding pedantic--the two of THEM sound
pedantic at times, but it is so natural that we accept it, and learn a lot.
Without Martin, we should have to learn our natural philosophy from the
author's narration or from Stephen's journals.
They are most comical when they stand watching seabirds or island life
from afar as the life of the ship flows around them, other ships are
sighted, great decisions are made, but they are oblivious, remarking on
their troop of tortoises or an avian species new to them.
When Jack is striving to avoid stopping to take on water so that he can
crack on in pursuit of the Norfolk, and the ship's last rainwater is
presented for examination as to whether it would be safe to drink, the two
remind me of Hawkeye and B.J. in their delight:
Stephen remarks, "Will you look at this, now? Perhaps the finest conferva
soup I have ever seen; and I believe I make out some African forms." "There
are also some ill-looking polyps, and some creatures no doubt close kin to
the hydroblabs," said Martin. "I should not drink it for a deanery."
"Pray tell the Captain that it will not do," said Stephen, "and that he
will be obliged to bear up, bear down, bear away for that noble stream the
Sao Francisco and fill our casks from its limpid, health-giving billows as
they flow between banks covered with a luxuriant vegetation of choice
exotics, echoing to the cries of the toucan, the jaguar, various apes, a
hudnred species of parrots, and they flying among gorgeous orchids,while
huge butterflies of unparalleled splendour float over a ground strewn with
Brazil nuts and boa-constrictors."
"Martin gave an involuntary skip."
They are also comical as they comment upon nautical affairs and events,
with Stephen at times "showing away" his knowledge of ships and the sea.
I looked Martin up in Anthony Gary Brown's esteemed "Persons, Animals,
Ships and Cannon" (or PASC, as we sometimes term it), and Nathaniel Martin
is first met as a one-eyed, newly appointed naval parson in "The Ionian
Mission."
I was startled to be reminded by Gary Brown that he'd lost his eye to an
owl that was protecting its chicks. In the FSOW, Martin and Stephen are in
heaven when the Surprise is stuck in the mud and they can explore to their
heart's content in Brazil, but Martin is bitten by an owl-faced night ape
to the bone and they had to return to the ship to cauterize the wound. We
have to imagine that this was one of POB's echoes, yet again. Stephen
cries, "Was it a serpent, at all? Was it ever a snake?"
"No," said Martin, with the strangest mixture of delight and pain in his
face. "It was an owl-faced night-ape. "He was in here"--pointing to a hole
in the hollow tree--"peering out: such a pleasant striped round-eyed
inquisitive little face, that I ventured..." Not only is an owl associated
with Martin again, but surely Martin must have had such a face: pleasant
and inquisitive.
~~ Linnea
Great post, Linnea. If you were to ask me my opinion of Martin, I would
tell you I could never love him. Why? I'm not entirely sure. Probably a
little bit of jealousy for Jack. Probably more so because Martin becomes
a bit tiresome towards the end of his tenure in the books (an opinion
held by Stephen, IIRC).
Your post reminds me that he was much more enjoyable in the beginning.
Nathan
This gets my vote for Post of the Day. I am currently reading TIM where the
interaction of Stephen and Martin also adds a great deal, as Linnea notes;
as does Stephen's interaction with Graham which in many ways casts the same
light upon his intelligence activities as does Stephen-Martin upon natural
history.
Thank you, dear Linnea.
London Lois
51º 26' 22" N 000º 03' 05" E
Yes, I second the notion! I really enjoyed the scene of the two
naturalists peering into a barrel of murky water with a mild surmise.
And Martin, like Stephen, sometimes comes to grief when he gets to grips
with the wildlife. Poison spurs on platypodes, and sharp claws and beaks
and teeth on gentle owl-faced creatures.
Wonderful stuff.
I didn't care much for Martin. He was a bore when Jack
was confined, and rather tedious as a person. However,
POB modelled for us the way to behave in the fellowship,
and Martin sometimes served as a negative example, but a
well-drawn one nonetheless; what rare traits POB
possessed as a writer. Even his characters with negative
personal qualities are sympathetically drawn, with a
balance of good traits and bad.
POB makes no secret that the fictious USS Norfolk was inspired by the
Pacific cruise of the USS Essex. The Essex, under Captain David Porter,
set sail in the fall of 1812, intending to rendezvous with the Constitution
and Hornet off South America at the end of December. We know what happened
to the Constitution; in FOW it was distracted by the Java, subsequently
returning to Boston for repairs with Jack and Stephen aboard as prisoners.
The Hornet was similarly distracted a few weeks later, sinking the Peacock
and capturing Lt. Mowett. This left Capt. Porter alone in the south
Atlantic considering his next step. He did capture a British packet
carrying specie, but correctly judged that he was in risky waters, with
various British frigates converging upon him.
He then took the bold step of rounding Cape Horn and entering the Pacific.
Among the risks were that there were no safe ports for the Essex to
resupply, obtain naval stores, or make necessary repairs. The Spanish had
a strict closed port policy on the west coast of the Americas, even to the
extent of imprisoning ship wrecked mariners from other nations.
The opportunity for the Essex was the existance of more than a dozen
British whaling vessels operating in these waters. Besides carrying rich
cargos, the whalers were generally well-stocked with food, alcohol, spare
spars, and other naval stores. The Essex commenced a highly successful
campaign of hurting the British economically and helping the American
whalers in the region, while remaining self-sufficient through captured
supplies. The prize money did not hurt morale either. Because the Spanish
authorities had been overthrown by rebel forces in several of the Chilean
ports, they even found it possible to obtain some supplies and sell prizes
on the mainland.
Almost all of the British whaling fleet was captured, many in the whaling
grounds off the Galapagos Islands. The Essex was hard pressed to provide
enough prize masters and crew for all of their captures, requiring them to
burn several, and release others as cartels with many of their prisoners.
After capturing almost all of the prizes to be had in the eastern Pacific,
the Essex headed west to the Marquessas Islands to refit. The events there
provide a fine story on its own, with points of similarity to the
Surprise's mission to Moahu in CO/TL. After that, the real story diverges
rapidly from the plot of FSOW.
As we have heard reported, the movie version supposedly takes place in
1806, rather than 1813. This removes the US as a possible foe for the
Surprise, and Peter Weir has reportedly replaced the Norfolk with a French
privateer, certainly a more convenient enemy for box office purposes. I
have not come across any historical references to any French warship, naval
or private, operating against British whalers in these waters, but I
suppose that it would have been possible. It is a matter of friendly
debate whether Weir should stick closely to POB's plots, or whether he
should freely draw upon a composite built from several books. I don't have
any strong opinions on the matter, but I do like the concept of creating a
21st book, set in the two year gap between HMSS and DI.
Don Seltzer
Speaking of Shakespeare and double meanings, I noticed on this pass through FSOW that Stephen berates Jack for his jokes, comparing it to some of the low brow humour found in Shakespeare. "It's all Gammon and Bacon", says Stephen.
Don Seltzer
One of my favorite Shakespeare references in FSOW:
"...He smiled at Stephen, who gave him a bitter look, and said, 'Lead on,
Macbeth.' Macbeth instantly sprang from the Larboard gangway, where he had been
standing by a tackle-fall, ready to get on with the ship's urgent business the
moment the ceremony was over. Standing before his Captain with his huge bare
red bony splay feet brought neatly together he plucked off his blue bonnet and
asked, ' Wheer tu, sir?'
"No, no, Macbeth,' said Jack, 'I did not mean you; and in any case I should
have said Macduff...'
'Macduff, Macduff,' the cry went through the ship. Sawny Macduff to the quarterdeck
at the double.'"
Larry
"...He smiled at Stephen, who gave him a bitter look, and said, 'Lead on,
Macbeth.'
Isn't it "Lay on"?
Edmund, hoping he hasn't forgotten the only thing he remembered from high
school.
Yes, but Jack is hardly the classical scholar, as he makes plain a few pages
on. In fact, it is only a few pages more and we are treated to more byplay with
names of seamen - the Captain of the Iris wants a rainbow boat crew, and Jack
muses that he dislikes making sport of the men in that fashion.
I'm afraid Edmund's rememberer needs a trip to the shop. It's MACDUFF, not
Macbeth:
" Yet I will try the last. Before my body Howard
Why the "sic"?
µ
Mark Iliff Yes, but Jack said "Macbeth" in FSOW. He was quoting my quote:
"...He smiled at Stephen, who gave him a bitter look, and said, 'Lead on,
Macbeth.' Macbeth instantly sprang from the Larboard gangway, where he had been
standing by a tackle-fall, ready to get on with the ship's urgent business the
moment the ceremony was over. Standing before his Captain with his huge bare
red bony splay feet brought neatly together he plucked off his blue bonnet and
asked, ' Wheer tu, sir?'
"No, no, Macbeth,' said Jack, 'I did not mean you; and in any case I should
have said Macduff...'
'Macduff, Macduff,' the cry went through the ship. Sawny Macduff to the quarterdeck
at the double.'"
Larry
"Sic", because current grammatical usage requires the verb "to be" to take
the objective case, and would therefore have the line read, "damned be HE......"
That's why.
Howard
Further to my rather pompous reply to Mark; for "the objective case", read
"the NOMINATIVE case". An embarrassing slip, but Hell! , it's MIDNIGHT here!
Howard
do you mean that all of Shakespeare should be quoted with a raft of "sic's
just to make current usage clear?
Now that is what I would call "sic"! :) For all love, if we're going to be pedantic about grammar, the verb to be
requires the nominative case, which is indeed HE. "HIM" is the accusative (which,
of course, it is ungrammatical to say).
-- Well, "to be" and another bunch of verbs are "linking" verbs, rather like
equal signs. But we can go back to the Latin and call them "copulative" verbs,
which is more fun.
I used to make small scholarly jokes in class about this until some bright
kid called out "Is Nancy a copulative verb"? and somebody in the next row called
out, "She's damn sure an active verb," and I hardly knew what to say, so I threw
my eyeglasses at the first kid (a sure way to get the classes' attention) and
an eraser at the other kid, and I said, "It'll be on the final," wch calmed
them down a lot.
Charlezzzzz
From: "Charles Munoz" [...] I threw my eyeglasses at the first kid (a sure way to get the > classes'
attention) and an eraser at the other kid, and I said, "It'll be on the final,"
wch calmed them down a lot.
The latter is a sure tactic, but I always preferred chalk to erasers. Stings
more and it only the reasonable use for those odd nubbins that other teachers
always postponed throwing in the wastebasket.
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret)
As soon as I realized the whale theme in the book, I was well at sea with
Jack and Stephen, who had fallen overboard. Then they were rescued by the
pahi full of South Sea island women whom Stephen realized were perhaps
escaping male tyranny in their old island and setting out, well supplied,
for a new one.
He sees and recognizes the awful "purses" tacked to one of the figureheads.
As I read, I began to think that the scene is another in the
whaling theme. Jack and Stephen are rescued, dragged aboard, and it seems
that the women are preparing to carve them up! They seemed reluctant to
feed the thirsty and starving men, and were disgusted by Jack's white flesh
and yellow hair. One of the women had no trouble attacking and
disembowelling a shark in the water, and the crew were laying out an array
of knives and implements. Stephen saved the day, though.
The only other allusion that was plain to me is at the very last,
when an American whaler plays a dramatic role.
I don't know if I'm stretching things or not by wondering if POB
intended the pahi incident to make us think of whales taken from the sea
and sacrificed.
~~ Linnea Angermuller
Just catching up on things again- and read from Linnea this:-
'Horner kills the couple when they are all on Juan Fernandez Island and comes away bloody, as if he'd been stripping a whale. He later gives Higgins (all these H'aitches) a "Jonah's lift" into the sea and then hangs himself.
I think that it was O'Brian's intention to link the harpooning of a whale to the abortion--what d'you think?
And alec then Remembers reading this:- pages 116/117
'Now Padeen thread the babies on the hooks -handle them as though you loved them-and let them soak up the good red blood till I have .....
'Drop in the first baby' said Stephen and let him hook himself....
'Next baby' cried Stephen, and poured on the rest of the blood.......
The strike of the second shark was even stronger than the first...
But to tell the honest to God truth I'm not sure if we eegits are not creating analogies which may have never have been thought of or intended by me old friend Paddy.
But then again maybe?
alec
Well, you are on to something there. That episode bothered me, as it seemed
out of character for Stephen to slaughter even sharks. You just made my
hair stand on end with that passage about Padeen threading the babies on
the hooks.
~~ Linnea
In a message dated 8/13/02 5:17:14 PM Central Daylight Time, Alec writes:
But to tell the honest to God truth I'm not sure if we eegits are not creating
analogies which may have never have been thought of or intended by me old friend
Paddy. But then again maybe?
Ahh, but that's the best part! -- Seeing what was never intended, and yet
surfaced anyway!
Sarah
I don't know what symbolism POB intended, other than the direct connection
he makes with the bloodletting of the crew, but the details of shark
hunting are spot on. In the writings of Capt. Basil Hall, I can find a
description that contains all the same basic elements. The large hooks
attached to a length of chain that the shark can't bite through, baited
with a large junk of salt pork, and all attached to the mizen topsail
halliards. Even the bowline to haul the snared shark aboard.
Don Seltzer
There is a similar scene in a book published long before O'Brian thought
of it. Look at Stowaway (Random House, NY, 1957, p160). The author
clearly intended that the shark represent the temporary triumph of man
over the natural world. Revenge comes swiftly.
Once, maybe not intended. Twice, maybe we're reading
something into it. As many analogies as PON uses?
Probably he didn't set out to insert cryptic analogies,
it's the way his mind worked. I think they're there,
we're finding them, and they're real. Just think: for
every one we find, there are probably nine more we
missed. That's something to goad us into the next
read-through : }
Almost certainly true of anyone whose mind is as cluttered with words and
ideas as POB and most of us. Someone called me on a double or maybe triple
entendre in that pseudo-offlist post of mine. Thank Heaven it was in private
that she remarked my duplicity. (While apparently enjoying the alternate
meaning beyond all sense of decorum... hmphh.)
Men certainly have a messy subconscious that can produce embarrassing
congruencies. Women appear to have a very explicit consciousness. Surprising
we manage to get along as well as we do. Or maybe that's why.
Women know what they are doing, but not only what we are doing, but also
what we're thinking, and things we don't even realize we're thinking. I know
I've been thoroughly chastised for that last category many times in a long
marriage...
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret)
p. 175
"...Jack Aubrey thoroughly enjoyed life; he was of a cheerful sanguine
disposition, his liver and lights were in capital order, and unless the
world was treating him very roughly indeed, as it did from time to time, he
generally woke up feeling pleased and filled with a lively expectation of
enjoying the day."
pages 116/117
'Now Padeen thread the babies on the hooks -handle them as though you loved
them-and let them soak up the good red blood till I have .....
Maybe it's worth noting that Stephen's "handle them as if you loved them" is
a direct quote from Isaak Walton's "The Compleat Angler" (where Piscator is
advising on the use of frogs as livebait for pike, if memory serves).
Richard O'Neill
Nice one!
not adding any value to the above but i was checking the meaning of 'lights' in the above and came across this-
'In that same column I expressed my bewilderment about another phrase, "to beat the living daylights out of somebody" and that too has produced an interesting response.
[Snip]
"The living daylights", however, immediately produced two camps. Brandishing their Brewer's came those who said that the phrase was boxing slang from the 18th century. 'Daylights' mean human eyes and the object of any boxing match is to knock out the opponent. That would explain the pugilistic reference. It occurred to me that we also have a modern contracted form of the phrase which describes an unconscious person as having been knocked 'lights out'.
But just as I was prepared to write QED to that little puzzle along came other letters, including one published in the press by Geoff Hughes, a professor of history of the English language at Wits University, a perilous man with whom to disagree.
His research suggests that "living daylights" derives from the phrase "the liver and lights". "Lights" is fairly common slang for lungs. There are still butchers in the deeply unfashionable suburb in which I continue to live who use those very words "liver and lights" in signs above their trays of offal.
It is not hard to imagine how "liver and lights" could evolve into "living daylights", and I certainly enjoy the image more. If I were trying to defeat an enemy I would consider the ripping out of his liver and lungs to be a more conclusive indication of victory than a pair of shut eyes.'
alec
If squeamish, stop here.
Concerning warrior "ripping out" techniques:
When I visited the Island of Iona some years ago, a local churchperson told
us the monks who lived there ages ago were frequently raided by Vikings. A
method of killing they favored, we were told, was to open the chest cavity
and bring the lungs through and into the air, but still attached. The
victim was left lying on a slab until death ensued.
So there's apparently some history to the "ripping out of his liver and
lungs" theory.
Lois
Alfred Duggan's "The Right Line of Cerdic" features a Nordic ceremony called the "bloody eagle" in which the ribs are detached from the spine amd, um, sort of spread out.
Gerry Strey
The way I read it, it was called the "blood eagle' because the lungs were
actually pulled out, to flutter ineffectually for a while.
Jean A.
I
googled to find the exact quotation, and this is all that came up...
³Use your frog as if you loved him², wrote ISAAK WALTON.
[Sometimes I wish
Indeed. Arthur Dent's little quatrain hits the frog bang on the nose. I've
often wondered about Isaak Walton's love life...but I don't think I really
want to know.
Charlezzzzz who used to shoot at sharks with a machine gun, but that
was in another ocean, and besides, the shark is dead. Now he won't eat
anything that lives underwater. And -- every few days, Pepys and his friends
eat a "barrel" of oysters (fresh from Thames?) and I wonder how large a
barrel might have been in that context, and how they avoided illness, and
what effect it may have had upon their libidos.
Which you have certainly got the quotation right, Charlezzzzz--I was quoting
from memory. Still, Stephen seems to be echoing old Isaak here. And further
to the Dent quatrain, I have another vague memory-- that Byron (in "Don Juan"?)
denounced Walton as "a cruel old ...[I forget the epithet]" who "in his gullet,
should have a hook, and a big fish to pull it". (again, I stand ready for some
more literate lissun to correct my quote!).
Have lissuns ever discussed certain similarities between Stephen Maturin and
the "Byronic hero"? For that matter, Stephen has certain virtues--notably the
readiness to make sacrifices "that small countries might be free"--in common
with the poetic peer himself (as Jack has with Admiral "Foul Weather Jack" Byron).
Is Lord Byron mentioned anywhere in the canon? From my two readings to date
(just embarking on another), I believe not.
Richard O'Neill
It's here
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext96/tcang10.txt
Certainly an ironic kind of love:
"Now of these water-frogs, if you intend to fish with a frog for a Pike,
you are to choose the yellowest that you can get, for that the Pike ever
likes best. And thus use your frog, that he may continue long alive:
"Put your hook into his mouth, which you may easily do from the middle
of April till August; and then the frog's mouth grows up, and he
continues so for at least six months without eating, but is sustained,
none but He whose name is Wonderful knows how: I say, put your
hook, I mean the arming-wire, through his mouth, and out at his gills;
and then with a fine needle and silk sew the upper part of his leg, with
only one stitch, to the arming-wire of your hook; or tie the frog's leg,
above the upper joint, to the armed-wire; and, in so doing, use him as
though you loved him, that is, harm him as little as you may possibly,
that he may live the longer."
Lois
Thank you, Lois. I am very glad to have this quote in full: my "Compleat Angler"
was lent, and of course not returned, long ago (as were my first *four* copies
of "Master and Commander"--at least my acquaintances have sound literary tastes!)
Richard O'Neill
Richard O Neill wrote
Is Lord Byron mentioned anywhere in the canon?
Yes he is- from the venerable Mr Miles' site-
Byron (3): -- Lord George, poet, grandson of Admiral Byron
Desolation Island Chapter 3 The Fortune of War Chap 6 Treason's Harbour Chap 4 The Reverse of the Medal Chaps 2&8 The Hundred Days Chap 4
See also
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/FEB1602/0790.html
alec
Coincidentally, just prior to Gregg's return, I was thinking of his custom made chip logs as I read chapter 9 of FSOW. The Surprise is cracking on, with all possible sail set, to reach an island where Martin might operate on the comatose Stephen. In the midst of the action, POB gives us a nice little lesson in the use of the log, without it seeming to be a lesson at all. But buried in the narrative are the technical details of measuring speed.
The chip log was attached to about 150 fathoms of line, wound on a large reel held by a ship's boy. The first 15 fathoms was marked off by a red cloth, and was called the stray line. Its purpose was to let the log float free of the turbulent wake before measurement began. As the red marker passed through the hands of the seaman casting the log, he would shout out "Turn". A second person would turn a 28 second sand glass. At the end of the interval, he would shout "Nip", and the log line would be gripped, and the nearest "knot" would be noted. The spacing, approximately every 8 fathoms, was such that each knot represented a speed of 1 nautical mile per hour.
In the episode in FSOW, Jack ordered the stray line marker moved another 15 fathoms to allow the log to drift well clear of Surprise's wake. That leaves just 120 fathoms on the reel, which run off in the 28 seconds, nearly pulling the ship's boy overboard. If accurate, that would mean that the Surprise was plowing through the waves at just over 15 knots, a remarkable speed.
Don Seltzer
Even at a paltry 6-7 knots the pull on the reel, when
you nip the line, is surprisingly substantial.
For high speeds, they woudl often go to a 14 second
glass and double the reading they get off the log
line.
Chapter 6 /pge 207
This seems to be totally Jack's contemplation-certainly not Stephen's
'--No more than two cables lengths away began the noble sward, a sweet smooth green with two brooks running through it upon which HIS tent had been pitched until that morning, a green theatre riimmed by green forest, and beyond the forest wild rocky hills rising in abrupt, fantastic shapes....and not the rank excessive exuberance of the tropics either but the elegant green of the county Clare.'
Was Jack ever in County Clare?
Association of ideas?
Maybe
alec
musings
just this line on pge 166
Jack left...disregarding the pilots plea for a last toast to St Peter...
Page 172
when the excellent Mr Lopez (with the blessing) will guide us to the open sea
Does anyone think that Stephen thinks that if Jack had waited for a toast to St Peter-the grounding might have been avoided?
But then again the pilot was drunk!
no need to reply,simply thinking out load
alec
page 202
On Stephen's fall
Nothing was broken but he was miserably bruised,shattered,battered,strained and this happenaed at a most unfortunate time.
alec
Mr Horner's reaction to his wifes bad health pge 183
Stephen 'had the feeling that the man's chief emotion,now that the first shock of dismay were over,was anger-anger against the world in general and anger against her too for being ill. It did not surprise him very much :in the course of his professional career by land he had seen many and many a husband ,and even some lovers,angry at a woman's sickness,impatient,full of blame: quite devoid of pity,
'AND ANGRY' (my caps) that it should be EXPECTED of them.
That's Patrick O Brian speaking.
I've racked me brains.
I've gone up and down the archives under clench: vile and Molter
Please can someone,in laymans terms, make sense of Jack's pun for me?
thanks
alec
Alec,
Page number? Is that when he says "Molter allegro" or "Molter legato" or
something similar?
As I remember he's playing on Molter and *molto,* the latter part of
numerous musical terms meaning "very," e.g., molto allegro: very fast;
i.e., faster than regular allegro :-) ; or molto legato = very smooth
(connected). Etc.
Marian
Found it Molter vivace, page 141. Marian has the solution.
No, I don't think he was. I believe the passage is simply the narrator
talking -- as he often does!
Marian
At 6:09 PM -0400 8/19/2002, Marian Van Til wrote:
... I've just finished *The Ionian Mission* and [Stephen] is a self-absorbed,
clueless, shrewish and, yes, self-righteous wretch indeed on quite a few occasions
in that book (and not just in that book, but there's a kind of cumulative effect
there; which continues in Treason's Harbor). Even while making judgements about
*Jack's* behavior. Inexcusable. There were at least a few times when I wanted
to wring his scrawny little neck (before tossing him overboard). I don't see
how Jack could put up with it; he couldn't, except for his exceptionally cheerful,
sanguine personality.
I don't agree about Stephen in IM (he does pull his own weight, with dangerous spying missions, tricky negotiations, political consulting, etc), but I think that Marian's characterization does apply to FSOW. Teamed up with Martin, Stephen is too often just a pain in the butt nuisance, contributing little and just gettin in the way. After the damages to the Surprise in Brazil, Jack and the crew work heroically around the clock to repair and refloat the ship, Stephen and Martin simply go off botanizing to stay out of everyone's way. And so it goes throughout the book. Stephen even goes into a sanctimonious snit when the pursuit of the Norfolk interferes with his wishes to explore the Galapagos Islands. And think of the trouble he causes with his tumble out of the stern windows (I'll give him a few credit points for shouting Taboo, Taboo while pointing at Jack's crotch aboard the pahi). Even on the deserted island he is selfish and demanding, insisting that Jack risk his neck climbing the slender palm trees. A further nuisance when he suffers yet another tumble aboard ship and falls into a coma. And in the final chapter, while everyone is again working double shifts to escape, Stephen can't even do his simple assigned task of collecting food without frequent halts to observe the fauna.
Stephen has lost a great deal of moral advantage. It would serve him right if something bad would happen in the next book, such as Diana running off with another man.
Don Seltzer
I don't totally disagree with you Don, but let us not forget the occasions that Stephen helps Jack's career, etc. It is, after all, a friendship of give & take.
Ted
Don wrote:
After the damages to the Surprise in Brazil, Jack and the crew work heroically
around the clock to repair and refloat the ship, Stephen and Martin simply go
off botanizing to stay out of everyone's way.
Think how much they might have delayed the repairs without this exercise in
botanizing!
Martin @ home:
Don wrote
After the damages to the Surprise in Brazil, Jack and the crew work heroically
around the clock to repair and refloat the ship, Stephen and Martin simply go
off botanizing to stay out of everyone's way. And so it goes throughout the
book.
I think in this instance you are being a little harsh on Stephen.
In his letter to Diana -which he devotes largely to praising Jack-
'But if you watched him this last fortnight I believe you would allow him a certain heroic quality'
Stephen also recounts-
'all the skilled hands were employed dealing with the guns, and Martin, the purser and I were entrusted with the jolly-boat( a vile machine) to tow heavy casks ashore; and I do assure you we were perpetually aware of that impassive, determined and authoritative eye; we felt it upon us in all our comings and goings, and we were a meek as schoolboys.
After the first few days however we were released, with bleeding hands and no doubt permanently injured spines, since there was no more wholly unskilled work to do.'
But overall Stephen does act a bit like a spoiled child.
I think this exchange (page 187) sums up the Jack/Stephen relationship and their state of minds at this present stage of their lives.
Jack to Pullings-while chasing the Danae---
'You might let the Doctor know. He loves a good chase.'
'Where is the Doctor he asked sometime later, when the Surprise was tearing away southwards under a perfectly astonishing show of sail with the wind on her quarter.'
'Well' said Pullings 'it seems he was up all night -the gunner's wife taken ill-and now he and the chaplain are at peace by the gunroom stove at last,spreading out their beetles. But he says that if he is given a direct order to come and enjoy himself in the cold driving rain if not sleet too as well as a tempest of wind, he will of course be delighted to obey.'
Jack could easily imagine the rapid flow, the fluent run of bitter and often mutinous expressions that Pullings did not see fit to pass on. He said 'I must ask Killick to make him a Megallen jacket too; his servant is no hand with a needle.'
'The gunner's wife you said. Poor woman ....But she could not be in better hands. You remember how he roused out Mr Day's brains on the quarter deck of the Sophie and set them to rights directly.'
Sometimes Jack is just too good to be true!
alec
In a message dated 8/22/2002 3:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
alec1@EIRCOM.NET writes:
Sometimes Jack is just too good to be true!
It seems that Jack is a little out-of-it with regard to Steven's likes. To
Jack , it is a good chase- to Steven it is standing in the sleet watching
nothing but heavy seas, and a ship in the distance. he would rather be with
his beetles- smart man( in this case)
John B
Don wrote
Teamed up with Martin, Stephen is too often just a pain in the butt nuisance,
contributing little and just gettin in the way. After the damages to the Surprise
in Brazil, Jack and the crew work heroically around the clock to repair and
refloat the ship, Stephen and Martin simply go off botanizing to stay out of
everyone's way. And so it goes throughout the book.
Stephen even goes into a sanctimonious snit when the pursuit of the Norfolk
interferes with his wishes to explore the Galapagos Islands. And think of the
trouble he causes with his tumble out of the stern windows (I'll give him a
few credit points for shouting Taboo, Taboo while pointing at Jack's crotch
aboard the pahi).
Even on the deserted island he is selfish and demanding, insisting that
Jack risk his neck climbing the slender palm trees. A further nuisance when
he suffers yet another tumble aboard ship and falls into a coma. And in the
final chapter, while everyone is again working double shifts to escape, Stephen
can't even do his simple assigned task of collecting food without frequent halts
to observe the fauna.
Don
I am unable to look into your eye or hear your vocal tones as you 'utter' the above words but may I ask if there is a hint of 'tongue in cheek' here?
Or is this real heartfelt critisism?
alec
I suspect the tongue is firmly cheeky.
Stephen and Martin are assigned the task of rowing heavy supplies
ashore, as being something that they, as unskilled lubbers, may do. When
the tasks are done and all are waiting for the next spring tide, they
are at leisure to go off and scandalize the owl-faced tigerbears a
little more.
alec wrote
Or is this real heartfelt critisism?
Even Criticism
As you have probably noticed Eircom E Mail does not possess the luxury of a spielchecker-
a
In a message dated 8/22/2002 2:13:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
alec1@EIRCOM.NET writes:
(After detailing some of what may be thought to be Stephen's shortcomings)
Sometimes Jack is just too good to be true!
I have gotten a good deal of mileage out of the saying "you should allow all
your friends three faults before you start counting faults against them."
What would Stephen's three faults be? And Jack's?
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S Or is this real heartfelt critisism?
And why wouldn't it be?! Stephen doesn't deserve real heartfelt critisism
and/or criticism?
Marian
It seems that Jack is a little out-of-it with regard to Steven's likes.
To Jack , it is a good chase- to Steven it is standing in the sleet watching
nothing but heavy seas, and a ship in the distance. he would rather be with
his beetles- smart man( in this case)
I think maybe you're missing an element of Jack's character. He doesn't do
this because he's clueless or inconsiderate. Quite the opposite. When he
periodically suggests Stephen come on deck, he does it for one of two
reasons, it seems to me: either because he wants him to be able to share in
something that is giving him (Jack) a great deal of joy or because he's
seen something -- some part of the natural world -- birds or other animals
or natural formations that he thinks will be interest *Stephen.*
The fact that Stephen usually has no interest in the thing that's giving
Jack such pure pleasure is a failing of Stephen's, I think, not Jack's.
There are also, in fact, quite a few times throughout the canon when Jack
sees an unusual animal or sight in the natural world when he's alone and
he'll say to himself, "How I wish Stephen were here [so he could see and
enjoyit]." Is Stephen ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time --
in any of the 20 books -- when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before
his own, or in a way similar to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
Marian
I don't totally disagree with you Don, but let us not forget the occasions
that Stephen helps Jack's career, etc. It is, after all, a friendship of give
& take.
Quite true. But in my reading of it, though a couple of times Stephen does
some extraordinary things which help Jack, on a day-to-day basis, which is how
friendships and all relationships are ultimately lived, Jack mostly gives and
Stephen mostly takes. Stephen is, on the whole, a selfish and self-absorbed
man in a way that Jack is not.
Marian
From: Marian Van Til There are also, in fact, quite a few times throughout the canon when Jack
sees an unusual animal or sight in the natural world when he's alone and he'll
say to himself, "How I wish Stephen were here [so he could see and enjoyit]."
Is Stephen ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time -- in any of the 20
books -- when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before his own, or in a way
similar to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
Oh, Marian, I think there are.
Stephen knows that Jack loves Sophie and that Sophie loves Jack. There are
a number of times when he intervenes to assure that they have every
opportunity to meet, and to forward their romance. Without Stephen's
assistance and machinations, they would probably not have persevered and
married. Now, you might argue that this might have been a desirable
outcome, but it would have been counter to their desires, and Stephen helped
them to achieve their desires.
Think of Sophie's attitude when Jack was in debtor's prison, and Sophie's
attitude towards that after Stephen had talked to her about Jack in debtor's
prison-- the homey baking and the flour about her there, what an image.
Anyway, there are a number of times when Stephen intervenes in Jack's best
interests, career and domestic, saves his bacon a few times, he does.
The relationship is more Even-Steven than you state, I think.
Lois
In a message dated 8/22/02 18:09:31, rxbach@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
But in my reading of it, though a couple of times Stephen does some extraordinary
things which help Jack, on a day-to-day basis, which is how friendships and
all relationships are ultimately lived, Jack mostly gives and Stephen mostly
takes. Stephen is, on the whole, a selfish and self-absorbed man in a way that
Jack is not.
Very good points, Marian (and Don Seltzer) - you are right, I just never thought
of Stephen in those terms.
But I wonder how much of this is due to his self-absorption with Diana? It
seems he's always drifting off into some past conversation with her, building
nuances into their meetings, wondering what she's up to, what she meant by
this or that, and not being "present in the moment."
When people are in the throes of this pitiable exercise (or indeed, any other
problem which absorbs the mind totally, e.g., an illness, or a debt come due,
or your mother is coming to visit), they do tend to tune out the rest of the
world, and not overly concern themselves with how they can please those
around them on a day-to-day basis. Jack, because he is certain of Sophie's
loyalty, can afford to be more magnanimous and good-hearted.
But, think back to the times when Jack has something on his mind (getting a
ship, a promotion, prize money, Miss Jones on the North American station),
and he tends to draw into himself and not exhibit the ebullient generosity
that we've come to associate with Jack.
Alice
In a message dated 8/22/02 7:09:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
rxbach@earthlink.net writes:
But in my reading of it, though a couple of times Stephen does some extraordinary
things which help Jack, on a day-to-day basis, which is how friendships and
all relationships are ultimately lived, Jack mostly gives and Stephen mostly
takes. Stephen is, on the whole, a selfish and self-absorbed man in a way that
Jack is not.
Yes, but you forget the initial and continuing purpose for having Stephen on
board-- company for Jack. Any of his officers will appear on deck at any time
he calls. But Stephen, joy, always speaks his mind, and softens the isolation
of the Captaincy of a ship. Jack knows, therefore, that Stephen is there because
he enjoys Jack's company, not because he has to pretend to. And how many times
has Stephen listened to the same story without shrewishly reminding Jack that
he heard it in ';02 and again in '08?
Sarah
Good points made by Lois and Alice. I think this is another fine example of
POB's realism. Friendships between real people in the real world are
normally not, as Lois said, even-Stephen; usually one person puts forth more
effort, and ideally some sort of balance is struck between each person's
individual quirks and foibles. This is one of the things that makes the
Canon so real and so believable - POB gives Jack and Stephen realistic
faults and foibles...Sometimes Stephen is preoccupied and has little time or
patience for Jack; sometimes Jack is preoccupied and has little time or
patience for Stephen. Just like a real friendship! Because Jack is shown
(at sea) as being more concerned with practical matters, I think this may
make Stephen appear to be the less sympathetic of the two at those times.
But not in my house. -RD
If they suspect me of intelligence, I am sure it will soon blow over (TFOW,
p.184)
I agree. I notice that when there is bloodshed or
disease, Stephen works tirelessly, day and night, sawing
and stitching and soothing. His bedside manner may leave
something to be desired, but he always puts his patients'
interests above his own.
Another thing - Stephen makes a poor first impression;
but everyone who knows him loves him, pets and cossets
him, takes care of him. O'Brian doesn't show Stephen's
good points as clearly as he shows Jack's, because that
would slow the plot: but Stephen's finest attributes are
reflected in the attitudes of everyone who knows him. It
is HARD to befriend someone whose behavior and appearance
are eccentric - a lot of people are afraid of the social
stigma of being friends with an oddball. Stephen is
certainly eccentric, but once people get to kow him, they
seek him out not only for his advice, but for his
company. He's a rare jewel, our Stephen.
- Susan
Another thing - Stephen makes a poor first impression; but everyone who
knows him loves him, pets and cossets him, takes care of him.
Your countryman Johns(t)on aside, Susan!
And what about those dreadful Frenchies, who ripped out his fingernails?
And how many times has Stephen listened to the same story without shrewishly
reminding Jack that he heard it in ';02 and again in '08?
And in '13, and '13, and '13...
No wonder everyone was confused about when the War of 1812 ended.
While Stephen in IM, TH and FSOTW does seem self-absorbed and shrewish at
times, I wouldn't agree with deeming him "useless". It's just that POB, as
usual, leaves whole chunks of the action to our imagination. And while it's
true that in times of nautical crisis he can't help with anything, and is
usually occupied only with his natural philosophy, we can't forget that he is
also a first rate physician, and with this alone he probably helped Jack a
lot. Given the dismal standard of navy surgeons at the time, having someone
like Stephen aboard must have been a blessing for Jack. Even though it's not
described explicitly in these particular episodes, we can imagine that
Stephen saved many Surprises health, limb and life during those voyages.
Especially on a mission like in FSOTW, with virtually no chance of getting
new crewmen, it was priceless - with a lesser man for physician the Surprise
would end up severely undermanned in a long cruise through difficult climes.
The irrational faith that the hands had in his powers also helped the
Surprises' morale.
On the other hand I keep wondering about Stephens behaviour in FSOTW in the
gunner's wife affair. He knew what was going on, but as always didn't share
his knowledge with Jack, putting loyalty towards his patients first. In
principle it was the right thing to do, but perhaps if he'd told Jack about
the gunner's wife affair the murder would have been prevented? A difficult
choice - patients' confidentiality vs. the good of the ship, and ultimately
their lives. If he could predict the tragic outcome, would he have warned
Jack? Did it haunt him?
Pawel
What would Stephen's three faults be? And Jack's?
As a friend Stephen is secretive, un-reliable in time keeping, & can dress embarssingly.
Jack has no faults -except he might try & steel your girl.
Ted
As a friend Stephen is perhaps over secretive, un-reliable in time keeping, & carries bits of cut out anatomy too often about his person.
Jack has no faults -except he might try & steel your girl.
Ted
There are also, in fact, quite a few times throughout the canon when Jack
sees an unusual animal or sight in the natural world when he's alone and
he'll say to himself, "How I wish Stephen were here [so he could see and
enjoyit]." Is Stephen ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time --
in any of the 20 books -- when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before
his own, or in a way similar to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
I seem to recall that Stephen might do that once or maybe even twice over music he hears? POB makes Stephen a much more inward looking, self absorbed character than the generally unreflective Jack.
Ted
(& let us not forget that the shared love of music forms an important part of Jack & Stephen's friendship for all love).
pawel wrote
Big Snip
.... the gunner's wife affair the murder would have been prevented? A difficult
choice - patients' confidentiality vs. the good of the ship, and ultimately
their lives. If he could predict the tragic outcome, would he have warned.
Jack? Did it haunt him?
You have given me a cue.
Isn't this book largely about choices and how our apparently 'small' decisions one way or another can have long term implications.
Stephen also had the choice to perform an abortion and refused with the words 'He will kill me' He will kill me' ringing in his ears.
But what about Jack's 'choice' to take Hollom on board after first refusing him and totally against his better judgement? That choice started a chain reaction which lead to the death of 4 people!
And then there is Stephen's choice to hire Higgins!
By the way I believe that Stephen's decision not to tell Jack about the 'affair' would not 'haunt' him.
He would ,I think, follow all the same courses again-except maybe for hiring Hollom-but that's not a moral or an ethical issue.
alec
He would ,I think, follow all the same courses again-except maybe for hiring
Hollom-but that's not a moral or an ethical issue.
Correction -Higgins
a
Marian wrote
There are also, in fact, quite a few times throughout the canon when Jack
sees an unusual animal or sight in the natural world when he's alone and he'll
say to himself, "How I wish Stephen were here [so he could see and enjoyit]."
Is Stephen ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time -- in any of the 20
books -- when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before his own, or in a way
similar to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
I think this is a very unfair portrayal of Stephen whose deep friendship for and admiration of Jack is manifested on many occasions.
In any event their personalities complement each others,not reflect them.
More at the weekend when time is more plentiful!
alec
Stephen also had the choice to perform an abortion and refused with the
words 'He will kill me' He will kill me' ringing in his ears.
"Maybe he will", Stephen thought. But knowing that, he still would not
take the course that might have saved her, and was extremely angry with
Higgins when he performed the abortion. The abortion that very nearly
killed her.
Stephen knows that Jack loves Sophie and that Sophie loves Jack. There
are a number of times when he intervenes to assure that they have every opportunity
to meet, and to forward their romance. Without Stephen's assistance and machinations,
they would probably not have persevered and married.
While I'm not sure I subscribe to Marian's view (it being one I haven't
really contemplated before), surely much of Stephen's assisting Jack and
Sophie toward marriage was self-serving? I seem to remember Stephen
struggling with the thought that he was pushing them together to push
Jack and Diane apart.
Now, that doesn't mean anything except this: if you already think
Stephen is selfish, you'll interpret his actions as self-serving, if
you think he is not selfish, you'll think he's being noble.
All that being said, there may be occasions later in the books where
Stephen dips his hand in to help. Perhaps not as overt as the time
discussed above, but Stephen does serve as a counselor (albeit a
shrewish one).
Nathan, still undecided on Stephen's selfish nature
But what about Jack's 'choice' to take Hollom on board after first refusing
him and totally against his better judgement? That choice started a chain reaction
which lead to the death of 4 people!
Sorry 'to the loss of 5 lives.' Without making any moral judgments.
alec
At 11:23 PM +0100 8/22/2002, alec1@eircom.net wrote:
I am unable to look into your eye or hear your vocal tones as you 'utter'
the above words but may I ask if there is a hint of 'tongue in cheek' here?
Or is this real heartfelt criticism?
Not tongue in cheek at all. But neither is it criticism of Stephen, merely an observation of his behavior in FSOW. I have no wish to "reform" him into a more saintly, but less interesting character.
Stephen has both his highs and lows, but I cannot think of another book in which he comes off so poorly. And POB makes him pay for it in the next book, with the loss of Diana. But Stephen is also allowed to redeem himself through support of Jack during his crisis.
Don Seltzer
I am only finishing chapter 6, so maybe I entered the fray a bit too soon.
So far I am making some allowances for Stephen as he had received those anonymous letters- and also his letter to Diana highlighted, so well, Jack's strengths- and with such obvious admiration.
And in fairness he did do 'a few days' backbreaking/hand-bloodying work when the Surprise was grounded.
Also he is used by O Brian to be the humorous foil on occasions.
(as in the invitation on deck to view the chase quoted previously).
Back to Chapter 7.
Alec
And in fairness he did do a few days backbreaking/hand-bloodying work when
the Surprise was grounded.
But those were Stephen's words in his letter to Diana. Do you really think that Stephen and Martin were being rewarded for their 'back-breaking' labor? Reading between the lines, I imagine that Jack and the others decided that what little benefit which was derived from their labors was not worth all of the complaining that accompanied it.
Don Seltzer
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'Being rewarded'
And if you imply that in his letter to Diana that Stephen was blatenly lying about his 'days' with bloodiied handss ans permanent spine damage(from memory) with him Martin doing all they could to help Jack and the Surprise when it was grounded.
Then Sir we Disagree -and Bigtime
alec
I've read a few of Don's (and Marian's) comments of Stephen in FSOW with
lively interest. Somehow, although some might view the comments as critical
of Stephen (they are, of course), they have added a certain richness to his
character; and I like him better for it.
First, please understand, I know Stephen has faults. Mary, in answer to
your earlier question about his three faults, I would answer them as: moody,
indifferent hygiene, eccentric (wch may or may not be a fault). But those
faults are all *outward* in nature, and I've been guilty, perhaps, of
overcrediting Stephen's inner voice, making him almost the godlike,
omniscient voice of a narrator.
This applies particularly to the above comment. I must admit that I don't
remember the passage, so I neither support or debate the comment. However,
there is something quite amusing.., entertaining.. (I can't quite get the
proper word) about thinking of Stephen deceiving himself and Diane about
his and Martin's labors. It makes Stephen more human to me, less perfect
in his introspection.
Nathan, having a hard time putting this all properly
Nathan
Don't mind Don and Marian
bitter and twisted
hehe
'Maturin 2004' 'Maturin 2004'
Lets stop beatin' round the Bush
a
Lets stop beatin' round the Bush
and get right to theart of him!
John B
In a message dated 8/23/02 16:18:47, NVarnum@ARKAYINDUSTRIES.COM writes:
First, please understand, I know Stephen has faults. Mary, in answer to
your earlier question about his three faults, I would answer them as: moody,
indifferent hygiene, eccentric (wch may or may not be a fault). But those faults
are all *outward* in nature, and I've been guilty, perhaps, of overcrediting
Stephen's inner voice, making him almost the godlike, omniscient voice of a
narrator.
Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
*I* do.)
Alice
O'Brian had a good ear for the way people talk, and a way
of seeing things with a fresh eye (and ear). A lot of
people put themselves in the middle of whatever is
happening. If people all around me are working round the
clock to offload the ship and chop trees for wood with no
tools, and bail the ship night and day, and Joe Doe is
assigned a bailing cup for an hour, well, after 50
minutes his back is going to be hurting and his ribs are
going to be cramping, and he's going to think he's the
great hero of the war. So it is with Stephen, too. He
was assigned to do something, and it grew in importance
and difficulty in his own mind, as it does in everyone
else's who's working hard on the task. His hands are
softer than those of the seamen, and if he had to do what
would seem light labor to them, it is backbreaking to
him, and he's not going to say "no" to Captain Aubrey,
but he's going to disgruntle away in his letters to
whoever will listen to him. Luckily, his recipient knows
him well enough to read between the lines.
- Susan, who singlehandedly keeps the government
running, day in and day out, by tirelessly shuffling her
official documents with diligence and backbreaking
effort. Why just today, the electric pencil sharpener
was unplugged, and I had to sharpen my number two
MANUALLY.
Good points made by all. I am hopelessly biased towards Jack AND Stephen.
If we're discussing them as real people, well, there are real people like
that and they are even married to each other!
What I relish about their relationship is the characterizations,
each showing the other in high relief: Jack, slaving away over every fine
point of sailing on his ships, and Stephen over his coded messages or his
beetles; Jack, stern about Stephen's lateness aboard or to a dinner, and
Stephen's shrewishness and his "Not above a hundred times," in reply to
Jack's enthusiastic offer to tell a story again; Stephen's scruffiness
versus naval spit and polish.
I can't separate the two nor do I want to parse out who gives more
to the friendship. Not that parsing hasn't evoked some wonderful replies
and images and memories.
I don't think that Stephen was being unreasonably cross about not
being able to set foot on the Galapagos with Martin--any natural
philosopher would have rebelled after being cooped up in a ship for months
and months, especially after the ordeal they had all been through, getting
round the Horn in such ghastly weather. I always find it humorous and
vexing at the same time that poor Stephen only has to set foot on land to
explore, to be called back to the ship, to lose not a moment.
Jack has his cares in keeping the ship afloat and weatherly, with
enough stores for a long voyage, finding a good crew, and maintaining a
happy atmosphere, if possible. But Stephen has his cares as well: tending
those in sick bay and especially the men injured during nasty weather or
battles, ensuring that he has enough medical supplies, training his
loblolly boys and hoping for a good assistant, and often and often playing
his double role--setting ashore to gather intelligence or set up networks,
weighing the impact of his every word with his associates and unproven men
like Wray.
Jack must maintain impersonal relationships with his officers and
crew (and as the Lissuns all know, it's a great relief to him to have
Stephen aboard to share their passion for music and their common
lives). It is Stephen who must hear personal and wrenching details of
people's lives and try to help his patients. In The Far Side of the World,
he's had the usual share of broken bones and diseases to tend, but over and
above that, the awful request that he perform an abortion, anathema to his
profession and religion. He knows by refusing that Mrs. Horner may well be
killed by her husband, or may do herself great damage by trying to abort
the child. He has to live with these decisions, as Jack has to live with
his decisions of command, but I believe that Stephen's preoccupations weigh
more heavily.
~~ Linnea Angermuller
On Friday 23 August 2002 08:45 pm, Alice Gomez wrote:
Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
> *I* do.)
I believe it is because POB manages to have us see it though early XIXth
century perception, when drug addiction didn't have the stigma it has now.
There were no drug cartels then, no dealers selling drugs to children. Of
course an addiction could destroy a person's soul and life as much as it can
today (we have a chilling reminder of that later in the Canon with Padeen),
but it wasn't viewed as the evil and socio-destructive force it is considered
now. There was much more tolerance towards the drug habit, and POB though his
mastery helps us avoid seeing Stephen's habit through modern eyes.
Pawel
True, and Stephen had pretty good control over his laudanum use. But there's
a certain psychological profile that fits an addict. OTOH, he seems to be
able to quit for long stretches of time, so I don't know if that makes him an
addict or an habitual user. There IS a difference, I believe, dealing with
physical dependence versus psychological dependence on a drug, or class of
drugs, e.g. narcotics.
I don't know enough about the profile of drug addicts to be able to expound
effectively or authoritatively on this topic. I also know that Stephen and
his drugs have been discussed, if not to death, then surely to an overdose
here, and I'm not sure I want to start the Dreaded Drug Thread again.
But (where this is going) it's possible that his self-absorption and
preoccupation are typical of the arrested emotional maturity one finds in
addicts of any stripe.
Alice, who really likes Stephen best. Honest.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, at 20:45:47 EDT, Alice wrote:
Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
*I* do.)
We overlook it because POB does. Stephen gets off easy. I know
laudanum isn't heroin and coca leaves aren't crack cocaine but Stephen's
addictions seem to have remarkably little effect on his day-to-day life.
He's never too stoned to take care of his patients, or too wired to write a
coherent report to Sir Joseph. Jack, his closest friend, doesn't seem to
notice a problem. In DI, when Stephen goes cold turkey, Jack merely
"wondered how it came about that Stephen should have grown so hellfire
peevish these recent days." I've seen a few people in drug withdrawal and
"peevish" is not my adjective of choice. In LOM, Padeen's theft of laudanum
gradually lowers Stephen's dose. Stephen finishes detox'ing while he's
unconscious. Padeen ends up in irons and ultimately, Australia. Stephen gets
off easy.
I'm still thinking this over but it seems POB won't let Stephen face
this issue head-on, or doesn't know how to.
Bob Kegel Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
*I* do.)
Because POB never showed us the ugly seemier side of
addiciton?
At 9:53 PM +0100 8/23/2, alec1@eircom.net wrote:
And if you imply that in his letter to Diana that Stephen was blatenly
lying about his 'days' with bloodiied handss ans permanent spine damage(from
memory) with him Martin doing all they could to help Jack and the Surprise when
it was grounded.
Then Sir we Disagree -and Bigtime
That I can cheerfully agree with.
But it would be tedious to others on the List to continue to go back and
forth on this point, with the added danger that a discussion would
degenerate into a debate.
Don Seltzer
Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
*I* do.)
I'm not so sure he was addicted-he just found laudanum gave him a little comfort.
Alec-sipping his Mandaretto
And it was written
Is Stephen ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time -- in any of the 20 books -- when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before his own, or in a way similar to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
> >
>
'No greater love hath man for fellow man than to name a genus of turtle after him'(a letter from St Paul to the Dalmations)
page 244
..'Comparing them with Testudo aubreii on the Indian Ocean, which Maturin had discovered ,described and named giving Jack his only liklihood of earthly immortality.'
Peace- I beg!
Alec
Excellent point. Jack and Stephen manifested their love for each other each
according to his own lights. We know how Jack sat up with Stephen for months
when he was semi-conscious, listening to him rave. We also know have many times
Stephen sewed Jack's ears on, patiently, tenderly. Friendship.
alec wrote about Horner's anger with Mrs Horner (seen thru SM's POV), POB quote:
*Stephen had the feeling that the man's chief emotion, now that the first shock of dismay was over, was anger -- anger against the world in general and anger agains her too for being ill. It did not surprise him very much: in the course of his professional career by land he had seen many and amany a husband, and even some lovers, angry at a woman's sickness, impatient, full of blame: quite devoid of pity, and angry that it should be expected of them.*
sez alec, "That's P O'B speaking"
Alec, do you mean that you think P OB was angry over this sort of thing too, or that he was a very observant writer?
IMHO I doubt P OB would get angry with his dear Mary -- he loved her a great deal -- but perhaps he observed within himself his irritation that no one would cook for him, or make a wonderful pudding for dessert, or be there to type his mss ... but it seems to me that he was too much the gentleman where she was concerned to be angry with her. Probably he felt a little guilty about being irritated, or temporarily nasty-tempered!
However, as an acute observer of humankind, P OB undoubtedly noted that many men hide their fear behind anger or irritation ("what'll I do without her?") or, in the more scrub-like type, "d---- her anyway! Who'll take care of ME? and the CHILDREN? *I* certainly don't have time for that nonsense!"
Stephen has seen all types and I found this observation an excellent one... based on an experience I had!
Once upon a time (1987), my "ex" (then my fiance) went with me to an appointment where I had outpatient surgery for removal of a polyp. For weeks after, he was moody and distant. I couldn't figure out what the h--- he was angry about. "What is wrong? Please tell me." He wouldn't.
Once the biopsy came back NEGATIVE (thank God!) he confessed, "I was afraid you had cancer." Bless him, but I said, "O please don't put that kind of ju-ju on me! But thank you for caring so deeply." For my part, I never see the point in worrying over such things until I have results. Meanwhile I just pray.
Marja the Capts Clerk, which she sometimes has trouble understanding these charming male creatures
From Marja
alec wrote about Horner's anger with Mrs Horner (seen thru SM's POV),
Alec, do you mean that you think P OB was angry over this sort of thing
too, or that he was a very observant writer?
I was thinking just out load really!!!But i was thinking out loud of this phase
of his life.
(The line that stood out was- 'quite devoid of pity, and angry that it should be expected of them.')
'As a father, O'Brian (when still called Russ) had a son and a daughter by his first wife, Sarah Jones, a young Welsh woman he had met in Chelsea, London, in 1935. The daughter, Jane, was born with spina bifida in early 1939, and the shock devastated the young author. After taking his family to live in the Norfolk Broads, he effectively abandoned them and returned to London, desperate to play a part in the war.
His son Richard, who survives him, tells in a biography of the author to be published in the spring how little part his father played in their lives. When Jane died at the age of three, O'Brian was barely in contact with his family.'(telegraph)
alec
Don wrote, I don't agree about Stephen in IM (he does pull his own weight, with =
dangerous spying missions, tricky negotiations, political consulting,=
etc), but I think that Marian's characterization does apply to FSOW.=
Teamed up with Martin, Stephen is too often just a pain in the butt=
nuisance, contributing little and just gettin in the way. After the=
damages to the Surprise in Brazil, Jack and the crew work heroically=
around the clock to repair and refloat the ship, Stephen and Martin =
simply go off botanizing to stay out of everyone's way.
Don, I believe Jack almost pleaded with the good Doctor to stop trying to help, because he was not handy with an axe or any other wood-working tool -- remember his hopeless efforts? I'm not sure how poorly Martin did, but I don't imagine he was much good either
Marja the Capt's Clerk, which I too would be rather useless during construction except maybe for painting and prettying things up.
Alec, do you mean that you think P OB was angry over this sort of thing
too, > or that he was a very observant writer?
POB's father was a doctor. It could be something that Dad observed and
discussed at home--ie, something that POB remembered hearing, rather than
experienced or observed himself.
Lois
A few questions on FSOW if anybody can be so kind-
Why does wetting sails make a ship travel faster?
What is a spithead nightengale? A policeman?
What is a specktioner?
Page 261 Just before Stephen fell
'The order was purely formal,since the hands were already there'
What was the order-is 'turning up' an order?
Same page
'Perhaps it was Wednesday' replied Stephen.
Snip
'Probably Wednesday I said' in rather an impatient tone.
I've lost the significance -is it just to show that himself and Jack are on different wavelengths?
PS
I love this bit (260)
Stephen was reading Mowett's Iliad and was keeping to one book a day,no more, to make the pleasure last.
I wonder did O Brian ever envisage that some of his readers would ration HIS books-'to make the pleasure last.'
Alec-with thanks
On 25 Aug 2002 at 14:03, Alec O' Flaherty wrote:
I can't answer all of these questions, Alec, but I can give you an
answer to the first.
Why does wetting sails make a ship travel faster?
Over time, sails would canvas sails would stretch, enlarging the
space between the threads of the canvas. This would allow some air to
travel through the sail material rather than pushing on the sail.
With enough wind, and when the last fratcion of speed isn't
necessary, this is not problem. However, in very light wind, wind
which is hardly moving the ship as it is, then the loss of propulsion
is problematic.
So the canvas is wetted. This swells the threads, making the canvas
more "wind tight." And that creates a situation where the wind pushes
the sail more and goes through less.
HTH
Doug
Why does wetting sails make a ship travel faster?
Fills up the interstices, probably makes the material swell as well
What is a specktioner?
Chap in charge of the speck, or blubber. Great word, that!
What is a spithead nightengale? A policeman?
A bosun's call, in other words the bosun's whistle - as used by
quidditch referees (current advertising slogan in the Nauticalia
chain of shops).
Martin @ home:
Somehow these observations by Stephen don't seem to fit in with his perceived 'ignorance' of all things nautical.
Pge 268
he much admired the two smooth hulls upon which the platform and its house reposed,the windward hull acting as a counterpoise in a side-breeze,so that there was a much greater lateral stability as well as much less friction,an improvement that might be introduced into the Navy. etc
alec
Sorry Martin I should have put the words in context
Page 270
of Jack on the pahi and the women that guarded him-
'one helping him along with a flying kick that would have done credit to a Spithead nightengale.'
Presumably is the owner of the whistle that the reference is to!
Thank you
alec
For me, too, as for alec, the passage on anger-at-the-woman popped out as
the author speaking. There's something raw and personal in it, and not at
all borrowed. Neither is it quite appropriate for Stephen's thoughts in
context. POB stuck it in because it's something he wanted to say, as part
of his personal exorcism.
Phyllis Chamberlain
I've noticed this happens with some frequency, throughout the canon, not
just in FSOTW. Every time, it makes me wonder to myself: would Stephen
really know that or talk like that? Sometimes it seems to involve nautical
information O'Brian is trying to get across to us and instead of having
Stephen ask Jack and Jack explain, Stephen says it himself. But it doesn't
come off authentically to me.
Think of that supposed nautical knowledged coupled with, e.g. the incident
(fresh in my mind, as I read it just last night) when Jack and Stephen go
aboard the Danae, and Stephen's reading the directions re: how to find the
hidden strong box full of important papers (press the third bolt on the
starboard side of ...) and he says, Oh, they gave me the wrong directions .
He doesn't even remember that he's facing aft, so what he thinks is
starboard is larboard. That's a pretty fundamental, lubberly, one might
even say, stupid mistake. Yet periodically he talks about sails, lines,
ropes, etc., correctly in a way which seems well beyond his normal almost
non-existent knowledge or use of nautical terminology. (Note his constant
use throughout the books of "upstairs"/"downstairs" and "left" and "right"
instead on deck/below deck and larboard/starboard -- though once in a while
he uses the latter.)
I recall some other instances in FSOTW, but I can't look them up at the
moment.
Marian
I know there are those dubious about that 'bear episode'
But I must say in FSOW - the whole episode from Stephen falling into the sea to the rescue was to me like a 'Drug Trip'(laudanam?)- or even worse a - 'Dallas dream Scene'.
Did anyone else get the feeling that it was just added in or something?
With the best will in the world - I could not connect with it at all.
But at the same time I'm looking forward to seeing those 'tall dark' women 'who paid no attention to their nakedness' in a film.
Should one ever be made.
alec
Alec asked:
Why does wetting sails make a ship travel faster?
To which Doug replied:
Over time, sails would canvas sails would stretch, enlarging the space
between the threads of the canvas. This would allow some air to travel through
the sail material rather than pushing on the sail. With enough wind, and when
the last fratcion of speed isn't necessary, this is not problem. However, in
very light wind, wind which is hardly moving the ship as it is, then the loss
of propulsion is problematic.
So the canvas is wetted. This swells the threads, making the canvas more
"wind tight." And that creates a situation where the wind pushes the sail more
and goes through less.
My two cents:
This is one theory. And remember, air across the surface of the sail *pulls*
rather than pushes it.
Another theory (IIRC from previous discussions) is that when a sail is wet
and the wet begins to evaporate, it creates a microclimate of cooler, denser
air across the sail's surface. This allows (and here is where this gets
tricky) the lighter, warmer air to slide across the surface more smoothly,
creating more pull. The heavier, more dense air is in fact a sort of tiny
low pressure system which, when confronted with the lighter, dryer air (a
tiny high pressure system) interacts to create wind just as when high
pressure and low pressure meet in weather systems. We are talking mere
molecules of thickness here. I *think* I have that right, but may have the
highs and lows reversed.
The third theory is that wetting the sails is an old wives' tale, and gives
people something to do when there's nothing else to do. Wetting the sails
makes them incredibly heavier and unresponsive to wind. Wetting them with
salt water just adds the weight of the salt even after they dry.
Alice
Alice it's the one I like best!
And
The third theory is that wetting the sails is an old wives' tale, and gives
people something to do when there's nothing else to do. Wetting the sails makes
them incredibly heavier and unresponsive to wind. Wetting them with salt water
just adds the weight of the salt even after they dry.
hehe
a
Heavy, dense air is high pressure. In weather terms, high pressure air falls
or sinks to the ground and is generally stable. Which is why a city is more
smoggy in high pressure! Low pressure is less dense, has an uplift
action,and is unstable. Which is why the same city sparkles after a storm has
passed through, and much can be seen with much crisper definition. This is
also why high pressure cloud formations tend to be flattish, stratiform, and
slower moving, "like a patient, etherized upon the table", while low pressure
cloud formations stack vertically -- those lovely, wicked cumulonimbus clouds
are the product of much uplifting ... and a bit of downdraft on either side
as well.
Of course, as Alice notes, wind and weather is often dependent on the
charming friction between two masses of varying pressure.
As far as wingforms go, high pressure gives a bit of a push from one side and
low pressure a bit of a suck from the other, and Bob's your uncle, lift or
impetus of sorts.
-=MacKenna, looking askance at her Cliff's Notes version of pressure systems
In a message dated 8/25/02 16:17:51, Cat0NineTales@AOL.COM writes:
Heavy, dense air is high pressure.
Yes, you are correct. And high pressure always wants to push into a low
pressure system to equalize the pressures. (Nature abhors a vacuum.) This
creates wind and 'fronts', more so if the pressure gradients are very close
together, or 'tight.' See
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_con_pres.html
for example.
The tighter the gradient, the more wind is created.
One of the wetting-the-sails theories uses this concept, though I doubt in
Jack's time anyone applied this to wet sails. Certainly Jack knew about lows
and highs (from his glass barometer) but probably didn't think to apply it to
the tiny microclimate across a sail.
Alice
I wonder if Jack would have been trained or instructed in the theories and
works of Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782), whose work constituted what pilots
know as Bernoulli's Principle -- about the high and low pressures under and
over a wingform to create lift.
A nice, basic page on it:
http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/davea/aviation/bernoulliPrinciple.html
Bernoulli was an amazing man, who'd won scientific prizes for some nautical
implications of his theories. I didn't realize *how* amazing he was, or all
the drama behind his history, until I looked here:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Bernoulli_Daniel.html
Thus, I guess we have to ask the question: Would Jack have known about high
and low pressure areas across a sail? He was certainly of the era to have
been exposed to it, if naval training brought such to bear.
-=MacKenna
Given Daniel Bernoulli's work in subjects related to astronomy, math,
medicine, nautical stuff (what MacKenna mentions, and also his work re: the
best size and shape for an anchor) and even music (re: string vibrations),
it's amazing that he isn't mentioned by Jack or Stephen anywhere in the
canon (or is he?). He would have been a natural for both Jack and Stephen
to have known about and honored for his work in areas of interest to both
of them (but more so to Jack).
Given that, despite O'Brian's extraordinary erudition, can we assume that
he didn't know about Bernoulli?
Marian
on 8/25/02 6:42 PM, Alice Gomez at Ladyshrike@AOL.COM wrote:
And high pressure always wants to push into a low pressure system to equalize
the pressures. (Nature abhors a vacuum.)
Was it not some Lissun who named her cat "Nature" for just that reason?
Charlezzzzz, relishing the memory
on 8/25/02 7:09 PM, MacKenna Charleson at Cat0NineTales@AOL.COM wrote:
Thus, I guess we have to ask the question: Would Jack have known about
high and low pressure areas across a sail? He was certainly of the era to have
been exposed to it, if naval training brought such to bear.
There's a scene somewhere in the canon in which ducks are being plucked for
the gunroom's dinner, and their feathers, blown toward and across the sails,
attract Jack's attention. Just that. He never progresses to become
Bernouilli any more than Maturin becomes Darwin. But the seeds are there,
blowing in the wind.
Charlezzzzz, in oar of POB's restraint
Which I weren't wondering if Jack could have *become* Bernoulli or come up
with such revelations on pressure on his own, but rather -- would Jack, as a
squeaker or something grander, have learned about Bernoulli's work and
theories while at his books or training.
I don't remember a bit of Bernoulli cited in the canon (and he is a
significant figure to 18th-Century nautica, sure), but then there's a lot I
don't remember about a lot of things. :)
-=MacKenna
Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical, as Marian noted, is
mostly for the benefit of those around him. He comes off being ignorant in
communicating with others.
In his private *thoughts*, however, he seems to know a great deal more than
he lets on verbally. Whether this is true, or, again as Marian points out,
POB used this literary device for the benefit of the reader, only The Shadow
knows... And maybe POB.
Alice
In a message dated 8/25/2002 8:03:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
alec1@EIRCOM.NET writes:
‘Perhaps it was Wednesday’ replied Stephen.
Snip
‘Probably Wednesday I said’ in rather an impatient tone…
I’ve lost the significance –is it just to show that himself and Jack are
> on different wavelengths? >
I can't make out at all what Stephen is talking about, having scoured the
preceding several pages for a reference, in the vain and prideful hope (it
now appears) that I could be of help.
Maturin doesn't even seem to be on the wavelength with HIMSELF. Too much
laudanum? :)
I suspect the "Wednesday" reference is to some piece of conversation which
was lost in the editing.
He SAYS he's been talking about the long-handled net. Not about Wednesday.
Like ... a galvanized manatee, or dugong, [RoM, p. 224]
Mary S 'one helping him along with a flying kick that would have done credit
to a Spithead nightengale.'
Either I have a nasty mind, or the interpretation given by Alec is in error:
*I* thought a Spithead nightingale was a lady of the night!
--
In a message dated 8/23/02 7:46:11 PM, Ladyshrike@AOL.COM writes:
Why do we always overlook the fact that Stephen is a drug addict? (I know
*I* do.)
_I_ don't.
But good call on that '3 faults' business. And nice followup to Pawel, who
also made an excellent point.
I've only got 400 messages to go. Why is everyone so verbose this weekend?
Rowen
Full moon. Make that 401 messages.
Alec wrote
What is a spithead nightengale? A policeman?
Imagine the dawn chorus in the fleet anchorage at Spithead as the
disciplined nighttime silence is broken by hundreds of Bosun's pipes.
Peace.
John.
'The trick of getting donkeys down from minarets, is always to find that
part of a donkey which seriously wishes to get down.' (Lord Vetinari.)
To me the proa text, and the other similar passages, reads as the author
telling us that Stephen admires the hull; the technical description is a
narrational description so that the reader knows what he is looking at
rather than his actual thoughts.
As to the other points the Port/Starboard mix-up could easily happen when
disoriented below decks we don't know how many times he has turned around,
Jack would never make such an elementary mistake after a life at sea,
especially as his career wouldn't have progressed much beyond cabin boy if
he did.
As to the refusal to use maritime terminology I think it was just his way of
showing off, a bit like POB's refusal to remember the name of Los Angeles,
as if it was beneath his dignity to remember such trivia.
Stephen Chambers
Alice wrote, Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical, as Marian noted,
is mostly for the benefit of those around him. He comes off being ignorant in
communicating with others. In his private *thoughts*, however, he seems to know a great deal more than he lets on verbally.
Alice -- I think you are in the right of it madam. My personal feeling about PO'B is that he sometimes uses SM as his "personal representative" in the Canon. And we all know what great fun PO'B had "pulling one over" on those less knowledgeable than himself. SM may have done it for fun, or simply did it because he was *ever* keeping his own counsel, what with his combined professions, both of which demanded the deepest confidentiality on his part.
PS Alice, I like the theory that the wetted sails are "denser" due to swollen threads. Anyone who's carried an umbrella in downtown Manhattan can testify that the wetter one's umbrella gets, the stronger the wind seems, and WHOOOF!! Just a sec' -- gotta stop and pick up a new umbrella from the street vendor
Marja the Capts Clerk
Susan Wenger wrote, Stephen makes a poor first impression; but everyone who knows him loves him, pets and cossets him, takes care of him.
Then Pete wrote, Your countryman Johns(t)on aside, Susan!
And what about those dreadful Frenchies, who ripped out his
fingernails?
And Marja writes, OOwwwwww, Pete! Poor Stephen. Apparently they also broke his fingers and racked his body (wonder if he got any taller) (sorry, horrible joke)
... and what about that guy in New South Wales SM almost killed, and Canning's friends? Nonetheless, that is the "reptilian" side of Stephen. His scientific curiousity is appealing; his discretion is appealing, and most of all, his kindness (I think of the scenes of him and Sophia by the fire in PC). Without the last two, I don't think Clarissa would have confided in him, nor would Diana have stuck with him, nor, for that matter, our dear Captain Aubrey -- for to him Stephen's scientific curiousity was quite a bother!
I love that scene in PC where Jack says, let me look to your pistols, and SM demurs, saying they are quite functional, when in fact he has NEITHER pistol. Then Jack reaches into Stephen's left holster and finds
EEEEEEEEEEUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!
"WHAT is that?"
"A teratoma."
(I fully expected Jack to chuck this item far, far away, leading Stephen to search for it in the dark, but Jack was tolerant of Stephen's little ways ...)
And Susan, I used to play Stephen's trick too, but now that I have no other sailor to practice upon, my house is a terrible mess.
Marja the captains clerk, squeamishly
I keep wondering about Stephens behaviour in FSOTW in the gunner's wife affair. He knew what was going on, but as always didn't share his knowledge with Jack, putting loyalty towards his patients first. In principle it was the right thing to do, but perhaps if he'd told Jack about the gunner's wife affair the murder would have been prevented? A difficult choice - patients' confidentiality vs. the good of the ship, and
ultimately their lives. If he could predict the tragic outcome, would he have
warned Jack? Did it haunt him?
I very much liked your points about Stephen's value to the Surprises -- keeping morale up with his mere presence. Excellent.
I rather think that Stephen has settled his ethics w/r/t Jack -- he only carried a tale once, and that regarding a mutiny a-borning (PC). Jack is aware of SM's ethics in this regard, and instead of asking Stephen questions he will not answer (though he does still try) he focuses his attention on the behaviour of his crew. Jack, having been before the mast, is well aware what those sidelong glances mean. Most of the time. He does get taken by surprise again (TL/CO). I think people often confide in SM, being as he's a doctor 'n all. He is a necessary outlet for their confidences, and it is fortunate that they can have confidence in him.
But yes, I am sure SM is occasionally "haunted" by these incidents, as he probably is by every life he has to take.
Marja, never maturing as rapidly as Maturin.
In a message dated 8/26/02 6:22:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
katma56@yahoo.com writes:
But yes, I am sure SM is occasionally "haunted" by these incidents, as
he probably is by every life he has to take.
"Life he has to take"? Can you clarify this? I only remember the two
Frenchmen who were out to kill him-- is this what you were referring to? He
never seems particularly haunted by their deaths that I can recall.
Sarah
Sure, Stephen is POB's alter-ego in certain ways. But that doesn't mean
that he's truly nautically knowledgeable and lets on not to be. If that's
how Alice interpreted my remarks about Stephen's lack of nautical
knowledge, I must say that was not my meaning.
Stephen TRULY had almost no nautical knowledge. Zilch. Nada. He's not
pretending. That would be a misreading. There are countless examples which
show he truly doesn't have that knowledge. Just two:
There's the incident I already mentioned the other day in FSOTW when he and
Jack are in the Danae and he can't tell larboard from starboard because
he's facing aft. It may be in that connection -- or another, I don't
remember exactly -- that there's a statement in FSOTW to the effect that
Stephen had not acquired any nautical knowledge to speak of and never would.
In the previous book (Ionian Mission) there's the time he was showing away
to Graham, using terms the meaning of which he doesn't have a clue. Stephen
realizes he may be in trouble because of Graham's prodigious memory, and he
is. Graham remembers the terms Stephen was using, and repeated them at
dinner in the cabin, asking about them. Jack knew instantly what Stephen
had done and was going to try to protect him, but one of the officers
explained the terms to Graham. Graham felt like he had been made a fool,
and Stephen realized he had been a scrub (he acknowledges that to himself).
That's what put Graham out for a while so that he wouldn't talk to Stephen.
His lack of nautical knowledge and his nautical clutziness go together,
hand in glove, in my view.
Does anybody think he really *liked* falling in all the time, barking his
shins, getting wet, water-logging his expensive watch, almost killing
himself when he runs along the gangway, all unheeding, falls 6 feet into
the waist and puts himself into a coma?
I think the couple of instances when Stephen appears to have more technical
nautical knowledge than usual are examples of POB nodding a bit, not
bothering to bring in a character who really would have that knowledge to
impart to us.
Marian
He comes back every voyage with a cabin full of specimens, all dead from
natural causes. He also found some seabirds whilst marooned on his rock
that were freshly and conveniently deceased.
I don't recall Stephen's squeamishness over the origins of his scientific
samples. But I will read more closely in the future.
Sarah
In a message dated 8/26/2002 8:02:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ThistleFrm@AOL.COM writes:
He never seems particularly haunted by their deaths that I can recall.
Nor did he particularly worry about his dismemberment of Wray and partner
John B
And why should he have been, they were both traitors, who would have killed him & Jack in a blink, if they could have done so without much risk, taking money from the enemy & caring not what loyal men their treason killed?
Ted
Sorry about misinterpreting your remarks, Marian, but I still disagree. I
think Stephen had much more nautical knowledge than ever he let on. Your
examples to the contrary are good but not necessarily proof. The business
with Graham was merely Stephen having a little fun at the expense of someone
who had no sense of humor, and coming to regret it later.
In one of the early books, there was a time when Stephen and a newcomer are
sitting in the crosstrees and Stephen explains all the sails and rigging
(correctly, I'm assuming) to the new guy. We discussed that during the group
read of the book a few months ago, and one of the points in the discussions
was that POB uses Stephen's character to explain things to the reader.
Stephen doesn't not need to show away his nautical knowledge. He's already
head and shoulders above everyone else on any ship because of his advanced
degree in medicine, his knowledge of several languages, his natural history
acumen - and he's well-respected as a highly educated man (and trephiner).
About the only arena where the seamen know more than Stephen is in nautical
knowledge. So he lets them enjoy their expertise, and seeming superiority in
this area. (What's he got to lose?)
Nautical klutziness aboard ship (or almost aboard ship) does not necessarily
equate to lack of nautical knowledge.
Alice
During out all-too-short cruise on the schooner Zodiac, just ten
days ago, I found myself referring to "below," "below decks," and
"downstairs." Also "aft" and "there at the back." The "bow" and the
"front." "Ah! This would be a .... boom, then."
There's a kind of peculiar blend where there is some knowledge,
but no real practice. At least I never referred to the "pointy end" of
the vessel.
As to Stephen's basic nautical knowledge, or lack of it, I think
O'Brian wanted to convey ignorance, but slipped up at times.
Except perhaps in the case of M&C, where he hadn't set Stephen's
course.
Oh, and the time Stephen gave such a concise and detailed report of
the French vessels at harbor as part of his intelligence work.
Marshall
IIRC, Stephen does not really enjoy killing animals, the way some people do. He will, but for a reason (science, eating, etc) but it aint his idea of fun.
Ted
I think POB conceived of Stephen's lack of nautical abilities as a means of
explaining nautical stuff to the lubbing reader. It worked well as a
characterization device, as well as an explanatory device, so he played it
up, increasingly.
Yes, I think you are in the right of it, without a doubt.
Ted
Hear him! Hear him!
For the same reason, very many nautical novels, from Marryat's "Peter Simple"
onward, begin with the hero as a newly-joined Midshipman, so that he (and the
reader) may have esoteric sea lore easily imparted.
Richard O'Neill
Early in the series, the Frenchman warns Jack about
Stephen spying on the French fleet during peacetime.
Jack's genuine laughter at the possibility that Stephen
is a spy is so unfeigned that the Frenchman believes him.
Yet, Stephen is already far too discreet to be studying
the fleet withOUT understanding what he is seeing. He
does have some naval intelligence at this point, although
he conceals it by his bumbling mannerisms.
Stephen's nautical knowledge and abilities change with
the need of the storyteller, but the basic persona is
consistent. I could always see myself or someone I know
in his actions - in his bewilderment at the array of
sails and lines, his landlegged inability to judge the
roll of the ship he's boarding, his general ineptitude
about nautical matters. Very early on, Jack learns that
Stephen needs help in boarding any vessel, and ever
after, Stephen has had no experience in boarding unaided
to learn from. Some of his ignorance is stubbornness,
some is camoflage for his intelligence work, some is
convenient - if he can't be counted on to paddle a boat
without losing the oars, then someone will be assigned to
paddle him about. Most of it is his attentiveness to
what matters to him and inattentiveness to everything
else. Stephen not knowing starboard from larboard is
similar to the stereotypical literary college professor
forgetting to tie his shoelaces, or losing his eyeglasses
that are perched on his forehead. Stephen doesn't learn
"ropes" because he has no need to learn ropes - he relies
on Jack for that, and he burrows into his intelligence,
his naturalizing, his doctoring, his interests. O'Brian
has fun with Jack's total reliance on Stephen's medical
abilities, while Stephen insists there isn't much a
doctor can do most of the time; Jack's confidence that
Stephen can fix anybody he chooses to fix by rousing out
their brains and setting them aright is humorous.
Stephen has the same total confidence in Jack at sea -
Stephen never worries about falling overboard in the dead
of night, trusting entirely that Jack will notice that
he's gone and will rescue him. Stephen doesn't worry a
bit about being adrift in Fleche's lifeboat - he KNOWS
that Jack will take care of everything. In the same way,
Stephen doesn't learn much nautica because he has total
confidence that Jack will handle that end of things.
It's not as who should say "ignorance," it's just
concentration on other stuff.
For all the times I've flown in airplanes, I don't find
it absurd that I don't know how to land a jetliner in an
emergency. My ignorance exceeds Stephen's = I trust that
if the pilot dies, the copilot will land us safely, and
if the copilot also dies, the airline company will catch
us in a giant net. I just don't think about it - I get
on the plane, I take my seat, I read my book, I fasten my
seatbelt when told, I shuffle off, and when I look out
the window, I don't know exactly where I am
geographically, and I don't know where the nearest
airport is, and I don't know how to maneuver to avoid
mountains, and I'm not certain how this object which is
heavier than air is floating on it, propelling through
it, getting from one place to another, doesn't just
plummet - I take it all on faith. Thus, I find Stephen's
behavior in this regard realistic.
Ah, but Susan your faith is misplaced. A coming edition of Sixty Minutes
will report that the standby nets of several MAJOR airlines have HOLES in
them! And that tests with emory boards smuggled aboard by three women
reporters caused even further abrasion! Film at Eleven!
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret)
Thinking of Jack and Stephen on the island, hoping for rescue, it struck
me that POB never took the easy way out. He has Jack sitting and drawing on
the sand his calculations for the pahi's course while they were aboard her,
the headings that the "Surprise" was on when Stephen fell overboard, all
the factors involved. But POB goes on to have Jack remember that the pahi's
sheets had been slackened off during church, shortening the perpindicular
of the two lines he drew in the sand, "enough to loosen the cold grip round
his heart a little."
An author who hadn't really sailed a ship, who hadn't physically mastered
a nautical life, would never have had to go into this detail to make us
realize the gravity of their situation. This isn't even the best example I
can give of all the factors that POB usually summons up to explain a
decision, as my memory is so bad. One perhaps good illustration is in "The
Letter of Marque" (which I am reading already, racing ahead, can't stop):
many factors come to bear upon Jack's decision to not dash away from an
English navy ship which has spotted them, although he doesn't want to spare
the time to be summoned aboard her nor explain his actions. POB must have
taken up all the logs and reports and historical records that he read like
a sponge, and then he uses them to show an almost breathtaking complexity,
as Jack juggles the pros and cons in his mind, which would have been very
clear to any naval person of the age, but not otherwise to us.
The best examples of course are when Jack is sailing for days to pursue or
evade, and his every calculation and decision on rigging and strengthening
the masts, the knees, etc. are described by this non-nautical author. It's
amazing.
~~ Linnea (who wishes for just a small sponge implant)
Susan Wenger drew a very good analogy about Stephen's trust in Jack and
hers in airplane pilots. (Right, Gloria and Heather?)
I think it's interesting how we can delve and delve into these characters.
Sometimes I'm a tiny bit put off by Stephen's apparent ignorance about
nautical affairs, even as I enjoy it, but Susan as usual has put her finger
on the main point: that Stephen trusts so in Jack and in his shipmates'
care of him, he hasn't really had to learn "the ropes," and can use his
precious time for his beetles and codes.
I have known a few men like that--usually the more learned, the
more like
Stephen--who can never find their keys nor navigate their domestic affairs
nor their own homes without their wives and kids to steer them around, but
yet are absolute demons at work for detail and precision (where there again
they are greatly aided by their staffs). Most of them are so preoccupied
with their work, research or their avocations, they can barely come up for
the kind of air we mortals breathe. I've enjoyed knowing them but I'm glad
I don't have to live with them, or work for them. One knows darn well that
they would be able to navigate pretty well if they had to, but since they
don't have to, they use their time for more important concerns.
S P O I L E R for the Far Side of the World:
spoiler spoiler .........
Stephen's trust was the most striking when Jack had rescued him in
FSOW, both while they were in the water and on the island. When the
Surprise's boat found them, Stephen casually looked up and back down at
their "ambergris" find, spoke of "the boat," and went on with his musings.
He trusted Jack's optimistic reassurance that yes, they'd be rescued. It
was clear that Jack wasn't optimistic at all, at all.
~~ Linnea
I agree with Alice. though I have found all the comments very interesting.
Jack is surely a product of his upbringing. He learnt the nautical arts at
a very impressionable age. POB stresses that his enormous generosity is a
characteristic of the service. Stephen, on the other hand, is a one-off.
It is sometimes difficult to understand that his extreme hatred of Napoleon
motivates him to risk his own life again and again and help the British
government.
Margaret MJ
Don't be silly, Gary. All nets have holes in 'em. That's how they're made. ;-)
Rowen
Well, yes, but it's also true that all cars are unable to accelerate with
your foot on the brake, but that did not stop the notion of "unintended
acceleration" being a pseudo-news story that nearly destroyed one car
company
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret) IIRC, Stephen does not really enjoy killing animals, the way some people
do. He will, but for a reason (science, eating, etc) but it aint his idea of
fun.
As witness his marvellous encounters with animals in the monastery at the top of the
mountain in, IIRC, Java.
--
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 04:04 , Linnea wrote:
Susan Wenger drew a very good analogy about Stephen's trust in Jack and
hers in airplane pilots. (Right, Gloria and Heather?)
I am with you all the way Linnea, agree wholeheartedly
Susan........never wanted to learn how to fly, one ego in the house is
enough!
So long as he knows what he is doing (about which he gets thoroughly
tested twice a year), I am content to curl up with my POB and let the
expert get me to my destination safely.
Gloria
Rosemary, Linnea and the Lissun (Alice?) all make wonderful points about Jack and Stephen's friendship.
Though on some fundamental level they do *not* understand each other, one of the greatest gifts of their friendship is that they are deeply devoted to one another even though they do not have total understanding. Stephen pokes fun at Jack ("Heavens, Jack, what things you tell me!") and Jack pokes fun at Stephen ("What a fellow you are, Stephen!") -- but it is mild fun, done out of that spirit of love between brothers. Jack cannot understand Stephen's devotion to all things taxonomical and botanical, but, as one Lissun put it so well, says to himself, "How I wish Stephen were here to see this!" Yet to fulfill his maritime duties, he'll deny his friend a chance at the Galapagos. (No wonder Stephen gets waspish at times)
The points iterating Stephen's many duties as surgeon, discreet listener, and "pressure release valve" for the crew and the captain are very well made and I fear being redundant. Stephen is perhaps useless as a *sailor* -- but he is useful at nearly everything else. And Jack, while not great at biological science, uses his determination to teach himself mathematics, find a way out of prison (TSM), and maintain a leader's role in the face of disappointments, hardships, and sometimes mutinous behavior in his crew. He is a wonderful leader. His determination and optimism are not opposite to SM's character but complementary. Stephen, too, is very determined (witness his long pursuit of Diana, his survival (TWICE!) in HMSS, and his determination to continue his intel work *gratis* in spite of being poor. Men with lesser ethics would definitely take the money.
But where JA is optimistic and cheerful, SM tends to see some of the best and worst in human character, and tends to be melancholy. Jack is nearly always uplifted by a fine sailing day, whereas Stepehen's reaction to same depends upon his mood. (But a rare beetle might uplift him.) Jack tends to be a quick assessor of character (at least at sea) and sadly for him, lacks this keen perception when it comes to scrubs like Kimber the lead-mine guy. If JA doesn't like someone, he tends to avoid dealing with them (unless he must as a matter of duty). Stephen performs manipulations upon them, and sometimes even *autopsies!*
Marja
parsing about like a jack in the box
Jack's and Stephen's friendship is one of equals. But POB bases the
strength of their relationship on the fact that they are so different,
hence non-competing.
In his bio of Joseph Banks, POB refers to a letter in which Banks describes
himself as a "never emulating" friend. POB finds this to be "surely most
significant." In a rare personal observation, O' Brian writes,
"Ordinary competition plays such an important part in the relations between
men, and is the cause of so much decay in friendship, that a 'never
emulating' companion, one who does not feel ... that all encounters are
contests, with evident superiority on one side or the other, must be
wonderfully restful."
I found it interesting when POB introduced the character of Amos Jacob in
THD. At first appearances, he seemed an excellent companion for Stephen,
with the common interests of medicine and spying. But as the story
progressed, I sensed that cracks were developing in their close bond,
originating in small jealousies and competition in their intelligence
efforts. One of my disappointments with BATM was that POB apparently
dropped this line of development, relegating Dr. Jacob to a minor
supporting character, whose purpose was simply to facilitate some plot
development (showing up at convenient times to announce what was happening
elsewhere). Gone were the interesting interactions with Stephen.
Don Seltzer
And look at the one time JA and SM did compete (over Diana in PC). There
was a certain amount of decay in their friendship for that brief period
of time. Obviously a theme POB felt strongly about.
Nathan
On 29 Aug 2002 at 8:31, Don Seltzer wrote:
Jack's and Stephen's friendship is one of equals.
I've just started rereading the canon, and POB makes this point in
the very first chapter of MC. After inspecting Sophie, while being
rowed back to shore, Jack realized that he was no longer one of 'us',
but rather had become one of 'them'. While it has shut him off from
the ship's company in many ways, it was also the price that had to be
paid -- 'and by God it's worth it.' Then he heads off to his meeting
at the Crown with Stephen -- 'to his meeting with an equal'.
It is an exquisite reflection on Jack's part -- I can vouch from
personal experience.
Doug Essinger-Hileman
Spephen replied
To me the proa text, and the other similar passages, reads as the author
telling us that Stephen admires the hull; the technical description is a narrational
description so that the reader knows what he is looking at rather than his actual
thoughts.
I'm not sure I can agree here Stephen
In the middle of the description of the hull etc ...is this
'The idea of the Navy considering a man of war with two hull for a moment, after the terrible outcry it had raised about a slight change in the traditional stern MADE HIM SMILE(my caps) and his eye ran along the tall rising stems...etc
Stephen smiles at his own thoughts I would guess ?
Alec
Alec, I sit here at my computer picturing you smiling, assuming you are smiling
at your own (written) thoughts.
Frequently.
Marian, smiling at Alec smiling
Go to Second Page of Far Side of the World Discussion
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead: FSOW Superstition and Story; Homer and Theme
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead: FSOW Superstition and Story; Homer and Theme
(William Hazlitt)
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: GroupRead: FSOW Superstition and Story; Homer and Theme
Mate
your Obedient servant
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: GRP:FSOW Admiral St. Ives
From: Linnea
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 6:04 PM
Subject: Gp Rd: FSOW: Leviathan
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Gp Rd: FSOW: Leviathan
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Gp Rd: FSOW: Leviathan
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Gp Rd: FSOW: Leviathan
--------------------------------------------
Surfacing to blow
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: Katherine T
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Gp Rd: FSOW: Leviathan
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Gp Rd: FSOW: Stephen and Martin
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Gp Rd: FSOW: Stephen and Martin
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:10 AM
Subject: Subject: Gp Rd: FSOW: Stephen and Martin
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Gp Rd: FSOW: Stephen and Martin
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: Gp Rd: FSOW: Stephen and Martin
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: GRP:FSOW More Historical background
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 12:57 PM
Subject: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: EB
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Howard Douglass
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff,
And damm'd be him (sic) who first cries, "Hold, enough!"
From: Mark Iliff
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
51º27'46"N
57'42"W
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Howard Douglass
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Howard Douglass
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
John B
From: John Gosden
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FSOW Who wrote Shakespeare's punchlines
--------------------------------------------
Awash in fond memories
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: Linnea
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:06 PM
Subject: Grp Rd: FSOW: More on Leviathan
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
53 23 N 006 35 W
From: Linnea
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
--------------------------------------------
Grateful no one else noticed,
or cared to venture a comment anyway
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: GRP:FSOW That's our Jack
From: Richard O'Neill
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW That's our Jack/Liver and Lights
From: losmp
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW That's our Jack/Liver and Lights
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW That's our Jack/Liver and Lights
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Jean A
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Group read FSOW, Blood eagle
From: Charles Munoz
Sent:
Saturday, August 17, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
he¹d come back as a frog or a fish,
or be eaten by eels,
to know how it feels.]
From: Richard O'Neill
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
who once shot a deer, at 600 yards, with a light machine gun--a purely reflex
action for which he is nevertheless sorry
From: losmp
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Richard O'Neill
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW;Leviathan/Blood
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: GRpRead :FSOW:Leviathan/Blood/Byron
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: GRP:FSOW Running off the reel
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Running off the reel
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: GRP Read: FSOW:Small point -Jack & County Clare
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Groupread: FSOW- The Blessing
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:13 PM
Subject: GRPRead:FSOW: Stephen's injuries
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: GRPRead:FSOW:Mrs Horner and Stephen-and POB
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: GRPRead:FSOW: that clench
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead:FSOW: that clench
Could you please give a page number when making these comments/requests as I
can't remember every word in all twenty books, only about 74% of them and it
takes me several minutes to find the exact page if you don't give it!
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead:FSOW: that clench
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead:FSOW: that clench
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP Read: FSOW:Small point -Jack & County Clare
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Martin
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Mary S
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: losmp
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: Balance between Jack and Stephen
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Balance between Jack and Stephen
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Balance between Jack and Stephen
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen/Choices
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen/Choices?Correction
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen/Choices
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen/Choices/correction 2
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Linnea
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: marja millard
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: grprd FSOW Horner
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: grprd FSOW Horner
From: marja millard
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Useless ol' botanizing Stephen FSOW
From: losmp
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: grprd FSOW Horner
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:03 AM
Subject: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
From: Martin
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:49 AM
Subject: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
From: Phyllis Chamberlain
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: grprd FSOW Horner
34° 06' N 117° 43' W
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: GRPRead:FSOW A sense of unreality
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: MacKenna Charleson
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: MacKenna Charleson
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: MacKenna Charleson
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Wetting the sails (was GRPRead FSOW; A few questions)
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
From: Mary S
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: John Gosden
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Beverly McCord
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: John Meyn
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW; A few questions
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
50° 48' 38"N 01° 09' 15"W
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: marja millard
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:17 PM
Subject: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical; wetting the sails
From: marja millard
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:41 PM
Subject: Stephen makes friends and enemies (SPOILER ALERT ALL AFTER PC)
From: marja millard
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 6:22 PM
Subject: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confidences SPOILERS!
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confidences SPOI...
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confidences SPOI...
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confid...
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confidence...
From: Ted
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confidence...
From: Alice Gomez
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Ted
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confid...
From: Ted
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Richard O'Neill
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
--------------------------------------------
Who while flying always pictures in which clearing he
will land the beast when the crew finish their bad fish
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: Linnea
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: GP RD: FSOW: No easy way out
From: Linnea
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Margaret Morgan-Jones
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
--------------------------------------------
Rushing off, having thrown gasoline on the cookstove
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: John Gosden
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Dr Maturin and patients' and fellow officers' and crew's confid...
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Doug & Gloria Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's perceived ignorance of all things nautical
whose expert can keep out of her kitchen though, there my ego is to the
fore!
From: marja millard
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:00 PM
Subject: Balance of Friendship ja sm
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: Balance of Friendship ja sm
From: Nathan Varnum
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Balance of Friendship ja sm
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Balance of Friendship ja sm
Drowsy Frowsy List Greeter, Rated Able
39°51'06"N 79°54'01"W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRPRead FSOW -Stephen s Naval Expertise
Note: For space purposes, the Far Side of the World discusion has
been broken into two parts.
Return to Main Page