Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Cover
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:18:08 -0800, Marshall Rafferty
wrote:
Not to really start discussion, but I notice that on the Norton paperback
cover the guns seem to be on the larboard side, while I believe on the original
GH painting they were starboard. (Though I may have that direction reversed--are
we looking forward?)
Readers of the Norton edition will notice a surprising number of left-handed
sailors on the cover. Even the marine is firing his musket as a lefty, a dangerous
practice since it places the flintlock and flashpan directly in front of his
eye. Those with the Harper Collins edition have none of these problems, and
their hawsers are not cable-laid, as their cover is as Geoff Hunt painted it,
with the guns on the starboard side. The Norton cover is reversed to better
accommodate the title block.
The scene is looking forward, from the main deck in the middle, or waist of
the ship. The foremast and a head sail (jib or forestay sail) are visible
through the smoke. In this part of the frigate, the upper deck is not
planked over, except the narrow gangway over at the side, on which the
marine is standing. Normally, the ship's boats would be stacked on the
large beams overhead, but they are probably being towed astern for the
battle to avoid the hazard of splinters. The dark shape far forward is the
galley stove. The guns have flintlocks, suggesting that this might be the
Shannon in battle with the Chesapeake, but I don't notice anything
definitive that would rule out the earlier battle aboard the Java.
Don Seltzer
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Cover
Th Fontana (HC) FOW paperback of the late 1980s has Geoff Hunt's cover
picture reversed (also HMSS). I suspect that Norton took the layout from HC
when they started republishing them. Has HC redesigned their covers to get
the pictures the right way round as Don seemed to indicate?
Adam Quinan
'Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for a might-have-been'
Commander Ted Walker R.N.
Somewhere around 43° 46' 21"N, 79° 22' 51"W
For some of my family history see
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/quin.htm
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Cover
on 3/10/02 6:02 PM, Don Seltzer at dseltzer@DRAPER.COM wrote:
Even the marine is firing his musket as a lefty, a dangerous practice since
it places the flintlock and flashpan directly in front of his eye.
Damn the marine and his musket. Some superior members of the gunroom are
right handed but left-eyed.
Like me. Part way through aerial gunnery school I was firing with wondrous
form, and explaining everything that was going on in my gun, but I wasn't
hitting much (hard though it may be to believe.)
One of my buddies gives me the old hold a finger at arm's length, point at
the target, and close your eye. The target, damn it, jumps and giggles. My
instructor, probably a Japanese spy, confesses that I'm left eye'd--ain't
that dang strange? And he shows me a lefty way to hold a righty gun.
Thereafter you may imagine the near-miraculous (well, sort of) improvement
in my scores. Flintlock and flashpan a fig!
Charlezzzzz, wondering if ambidextrous applies to vision and smell and
touch and taste
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Cover
Charlezzzzz, wondering if ambidextrous applies to vision and smell
and
touch and taste
Oh yes. Cindy teases me everytime we go to a Chinese restaurant when I order
the sour-and-sweet pork...
Gary W. Sims, Major, USAF(ret)
--------------------------------------------
Lurking hull-down
At or about 34°42' N 118°08' W
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
Hi, All!
Wandering through Fortune of War here and I have a
question:
On pg. 47 of the Norton paperback, Jack is talking to
Stephen about the invitation Stephen has just received to
dine with the captain of La Fleche. Stephen is protesting
his inability to ignore the captain and go on with stowing
his things.
"Why not, for all love? Oh, for a decent ball of
string." (this is Stephen speaking)
"The immemorial custom of the service requires that it
should be accepted. It as as who should say a royal
command; and a refusal is near as a toucher mutiny." (sez
Jack)
And so, can anyone tell me what a toucher mutiny is?
Karen von Bargen
nit picking
San Martin, CA
From: losmp
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
And so, can anyone tell me what a toucher mutiny is?
Probably one of those POB franglais expressions, using "near as a toucher"
to mean a refusal in the circumstances is close to, or tantamount to mutiny,
toucher being touch in French.
Lois
From: homermeyn
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
The word toucher is used in some games, such as bowls, to describe a ball
that is so close as to touch another.
Peace
John
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a
horrible warning." --Catherine Aird
From: Janet Cook
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
I believe 'toucher' is used here as a noun, not an adjective.
From OED: Toucher. colloq.or slang.(a) A case of close contact, an exact
fit. (b) A very near approach; in phr. as near as a t., very nearly, all
but. 1828
Janet
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
Karen, are you practicing on us. This phrase is like the Japanese
baseball team the "Nippon Ham Fighters." They're sponsored by Nippon
Ham; they don't fight ham. "Near as toucher" means all but or
practically and can be applied to any word.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
Gerry:
I am as stupid as stupid gets. Not practicing at all. Sorry to disappoint...
Karen
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:41 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
Here's a side of Jack and Sophie's marriage that we rarely see.
Jack, admitting that he is not a great reader, however:
'Every novel that I have ever looked into is all about love; and I have
looked into a good many, because Sophie loves them, and I read aloud to her
while she knits, in the evening. All about love.'
FOW p. 53
Don Seltzer
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
And what a beautiful way to end his remark - "All about love." What better
expression of the enduring love relationship between a married couple than
to sit quietly together in the evenings, enjoying each other's company? And
POB makes that point so subtly and so gently.
Linda
From: MacKenna Charleson
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
I agree. Also, there's something in Jack's dialogue that suggests his
continuing state of bemuse where women are concerned. He loves Sophie, but
even this passage suggests an outsider looking in to a gender he never really
understands.
(By the way, this is something I *could* see Crowe playing very well -- even
brilliantly -- though, as I understand it, the women of the canon get short
shrift in the film, so we're unlikely to see such. Which we can scoot this
comment over to the DCT thread with ease, and probably should.)
-=MacKenna, who rarely reads novels about love, but doesn't mind the
occasional good tight ECU on a face that expresses it
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
I think MacKenna, as so often, is "spot on" here . . . Jack's closing
comment, "All about love," is a "subtle and gentle" way to characterize
those quiet homey evenings between man and wife -- for us, and for POB.
But that was not Jack's conscious intention! It seemed to me that his
tone was, "Sheesh ... all this 'love' business! What a bore!" After
all, his point is that he doesn't read novels for his own enjoyment--and
not at all, except for those evenings with Sophie. So, one can be a
loving spouse and not necessarily enjoy all the mooning and swooning. I
guess that is the main point, huh?
--------------------
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
I too was just about to copy in something bearing on this topic when you,
shipmate, furnished me with a ready-made subject heading. Something we
should remember when we are speculating on strains and difficulties in the
Aubreys' marriage:
Jack has just reported in to the Admiral at Pulo Batang, who says he had a
note from Mrs Aubrey.
"The sight of that familiar hand struck Jack with astonishing force, and for
a moment he could have sworn he heard her voice: for this moment it was as
though he were in the breakfast-parlour at Ashgrove Cottage, in Hampshire,
half the world away, and as though she were there on the other side of the
table, tall, gentle, lovely, so wholly a part of himself."
The admiral proceeds to make a rather coarse speech to the effect that "all
wives were the same .. wives were all the same."
" 'Not mine,' said Jack; but not aloud..."
Dear Sophie.
And it comes in all the better as we have just been reminded of certain other
types of females, with the Admiral's bevy of "cooks" (about whom I have my
doubts) and his strongly embarrassed response to the name of Louisa Wogan.
(In fact, Jack has even been so benevolent as partly to approve Herapath's
flight, seeing that it was done for love.)
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Witticisms
Towards the end of Jack's colloquy with the Admiral in Ch. 1, POB begins to
entertain us and himself.
Jack, being told he must give up his "followers" as the Adm is short of men,
cries out upon losing so many "in one fell sloop?"
To which the Admiral: "What sloop, Aubrey?"
"Why, as to that, sir, I do not mean any specific vessel: it was an allusion
to the Bible." Norton pb p. 17
Which of course it is, rather, =Macbeth=... slightly mangled. I love both
the mangling and the misattribution. And POB puts the kicker to it when a
page or two later the Admiral says
"You remind me of that old Sodomite."
"Sodomite, sir?" cries Jack, [obviously flushing and wishing he could take
offense at an Admiral] while the Admiral retorts [doubtless pleased as Punch
w/himself]
"Yes. You who are so fond of quoting the Bible, you must know who I mean."
And now, moving onwards (but not nearly caught up with those who are on p.
53) I find myself greatly amused by Maturin's straightforward greeting to the
political adviser, Wallis, which I will leave you, however, to discover for
yourselves (p. 20).
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Trice Happy! (WAS Re: [POB] GRP:FOW Witticisms)
These comical passages are wonderful, as is the pokerfaced greeting
Maturin gives Wallis on their first meeting; thanks, Mary, for reminding
us of these. On this reading, in fact, for some reason I felt as if FOW
is on the whole much more lighthearted than any of the other early
novels--this despite the gloom of British mariners faced with reversals
in the American war, and despite the sinister aspects of Stephen's
activities. Flashes of humor abound, from those noted in Chapter 1 on
through to the end--including of course the zany antics of the inmates
of the Asclepia hospital/asylum, and the time when Jack practises upon
the poor Mr. Evans, telling him Stephen 'is an Irish Papist himself, ha,
ha, ha! Drunk as a lord every morning by nine o'clock, and never a shoe
to his name.'
And then toward the end, when Stephen, Diana and Jack . . .
>
>
>
>
>
SPOILER WARNING
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. . . have escaped to the _Shannon_, and Stephen is in conversation with
the ship's surgeon:
'She had just slipped out from Marblehead, and there she was, right
under our lee at dawn, and we snapped her up in a trice.'
'In a what?'
'A trice.'
Wonderful stuff! And a wonderful book.
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:12 AM
Subject: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
When O'Brian starts to explore a theme, he'll show it in
various aspects, from different points of view. Perhaps
a key theme of FOW is how different people see the same
situation differently. When Stephen discussed to
progress of the war with Cut Wallis, we saw how the
English, the Americans, and presumably everyone else had
a valid beef, a reason for their actions. Early in the
book, Jack and Stephen and Yorke are dining, and Stephen
says "I have never yet heard two accounts of the battle
of Trafalgar that consist with one another in their
details." I think that sums up a theme of this book:
everyone sees things from their own perspective. We
still don't even know how the fire started on Fleche:
both Stephen and the Fleche surgeon were shown to be
careless with their smoking materials; either could have
started a fire, or it could have been something else
entirely.
One such perspective issue I love comes on pages 57-59
Norton (right after the comment about different
accounts): Jack writes to Sophie "People may say that
Yorke is no great seaman, but he is a very good fellow,
and he drank his two bottles without turning a hair."
And then Stephen writes in his coded diary "Captain Yorke
seems a polite, amiable, and literate man, no mere
sea-officer."
Two perspectives, both seeing much the same
characteristics, interpreting them differently. Great
stuff!
- Susan
=====
To learn about "The Port-Wine Sea," my parody of Patrick O'Brian's wonderful
Aubrey-Maturin series, please visit http://www.sea-room.com
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
Interesting observations, Susan. I began the reread yesterday, and had
noticed some similar spots. On pages 15 Jack describes the aborted chase of
the American ship: "but I was advised - that is to say, I considered it my
duty not to chase, in view of the fact that Mrs Wogan was an American
citizen...."
and on p. 26 Stephen gives us HIS take on it: "And even then, the zeal of my
captain very nearly defeated me: this whaler, clearly recognizable on the
horizon, appeared early one morning before I was about, and it was only by
representing to him that I should certainly hang myself from the
mainyard-spritsail-gubbins or something of that sort if he did not desist
that I persuaded him to resume our course..."
And of course we have the two points of view of wives: Admiral Drury's "wives
are all the same" and Jack's "not mine" that Mary mentioned before.
As another 'theme' of FOW, I think O'Brian consciously emphasized the
farcical bits at the beginning. We have the wombat eating the gold lace. We
have the Admiral, with his misunderstanding of "What sloop", "Sodomite" for
Abraham, argument with Jack over retaining his men, his obvious 'connection'
to Louisa Wogan. (By the way, has anyone ever seen someone with YELLOW
eyes?). We have Stephen's opening to Mr. Wallis. We have the cricket match,
the great scene with the specimen-alcohol drinking Flitches tossing eggs back
and forth while Stephen is frantic, and then, to cap it all, Stephen's "near
as toucher mutiny". All of this makes a striking contrast with the tragic
events to come. We are plunged from the tropical heat and humor into the icy
waters of the Atlantic and the spirit-crushing defeat of the Java with the
abruptness of a Finnish sauna. The warmth of the first two chapters seems to
make the pain of the second two doubly hard to bear.
Although O'Brian continued to insert sections such as the "cuts no ice"
scene, Jack's "insanity" and the Indian's question to Stephen later on, it is
in the first two chapters that he really lays the humor on with a trowel.
Rowen
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
From: Susan Wenger
We still don't even know how the fire started on Fleche: both Stephen and
the Fleche surgeon were shown to be careless with their smoking materials; either
could have started a fire, or it could have been something else entirely.
Surely Stephen can be absolved from any blame?
He had been trying to get to sleep for some time while the midshipmen were
singing their 'bawdy' phosphorus song . He was roused from his sleep by
Jack- the fire had started in a different part of the ship.
If Stephen felt he was to blame,would he not subsequently have expresssed
some remorse for the fact?
I think the clear implication is that McLean,whom Stephen had left with his
pipe in his mouth, was responsible.
Just my opinion
alec
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
Could have been. Or maybe not. Stephen was careless
with his smoking, could have dropped a spark or an
unextinguished butt, which then smoldered while he slept,
and eventually enflamed, and he would have been
blissfully unaware. Or it could have been something
else.
Interesting that "Fleche" sounds like flesh, and the ship
went the way of all flesh.
And them men called themselves "flitches." Bacon. Hogs
to be roasted. How neat.
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
In a message dated 3/15/02 10:16:51 AM Central Standard Time, Rowen84@AOL.COM
writes:
On pages 15 Jack describes the aborted chase of the American ship: "but
I was advised - that is to say, I considered it my duty not to chase, in view
of the fact that Mrs Wogan was an American citizen...."
Of course this is a fast cover-up on Jack's part, not just a statement of
his point of view. Jack must be seen to make his own decisions as Captain, and
also he must not let out Stephen's secret to the unknowing.
I note another example of balance: during the chess game between Stephen and
Mr Evans of the American vessel, the subject of republicanism vs. monarchy is
canvassed, with arguments adduced for both sides; and even the game itself results
not in a win-lose situation, but a stalemate.
"Morally you won," said Stsephen. "But at least this time my king was not
discomfited."
That is (I interpret, perhaps too rashly) republicanism may be morally superior,
but through his own cleverness, Stephen deviously carries the day (as is obvious
from the description of his play) - and the monarchy whose interests he has
espoused, yet which is not fully his own nor even his heart's preference, is
not "discomfited" in the person of a chess king.
And we are reminded that Evans and Maturin are two reasonable men, unlike
"the excitable passionate Frenchman, whom no one would take seriously."
And yet whom we are subtly invited on the very same page (p. 137) to take
seriously, to suspect, as an espionage agent must suspect everyone.
pragmatical and absolute, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
Mary S wrote:
That is (I interpret, perhaps too rashly) republicanism may be morally
superior, but through his own cleverness, Stephen deviously carries the day
(as is obvious from the description of his play) - and the monarchy whose interests
he has espoused, yet which is not fully his own nor even his heart's preference,
is not "discomfited" in the person of a chess king.
I think, in this case, you're reading too much into the statement. The whole
point had been made in the earlier conversation. Here Stephen is just making
a joke about the ending of the game, but alluding to Evans' prior comments.
From: J. Bennett
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
(By the way, has anyone ever seen someone with YELLOW eyes?).
I have! A secretary to a Dean at College of DuPage in Illinois had yellow
eyes. They didn't jump out at you any more than light hazel would. I knew her
at least a year before she said they were yellow and then they registered on
me. I truly am not unobservant.
Jill
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Stepen's question
Stephen asks Jack( about American ships) Page 75 harper
'When you say heavier than anything we possess,do you mean in physical
bulk,or in the magnitude of their artillery?'
Somehow I just cannot get Stephen to say these words(in my mind).They just
don't ring true for me.
Am I on my own?
alec
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Stepen's question
I hadn't thought about that, Alec, though I did think that in that part of
the novel, conversation =was= being used for exposition.
For my part, I'm having trouble believing in Jack's extremely detailed and
sometimes even poetically phrased letters to Sophie, in this same volume. They
read, in part, as though O'Brian wrote them for him.
Yes, I know Jack is not stupid, but neither is he a literary cove.
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Learning
Forshaw's punishment(pg 71)
'Bonden,' he called,and his coxwain who was waiting outside the door with
sailcloth and rope-yarn to LEARN(my caps) the young gentlemen to make
foxes,walked in.
I wonder why dod POB use the word 'learn' rather than 'teach'?
Learn is used in slang here(ireland) in the 'teach' mode
e.g. If you hurt yourself doing something you shouldn't be doing a quip
might be 'That'll learn you'
But I thought that as a rule 'learning' was for those being taught-not the
teachers?
alec
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
I am pretty sure ts in the Wind in the Willows that Ratty, Mole and Toad together
with Badger set out to "learn" the ferrets and weasels and stoats about their
occupation of Toad Hall. It is certainly in A.A Milne's dramatization which
i performed in at school some thirty five years ago. When corrected badger responds
no we aren't going to teach them we are going to "learn" them. The implication
being that teaching may happen but learning may not!
Adam Quinan
Stoat Cortez
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
Alec asks
I wonder why dod POB use the word 'learn' rather than 'teach'?
I am thinking that in this passage he is assuming Bonden's voice - phrasing
it the way Bonden would have.
Using "learn" instead of "teach" was also a part of US vernacular - "That'll
larn him"! is an expression still used, pronounced as I have indicated. The
Badger, too, was considered gruff and uneducated - though with great personal
status of course.
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Helen Connor
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
I saw it more as employing the words Bonden himself would have used. Just
another instance of his amazingly good writing, and incredibly light touch
H
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:41 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
Doesn't O Brian lay on Forshaw's good looks just a little too heavily?
Page 36-'an absurdly beautiful child called Forshaw' (sent to get Stephen
for the cricket game).
POB
Page 58 'Forshaw is a good boy -far prettier than his sisters'(Jack in his
letter to Sophie)
(a statement which seems a bit out of character for Jack)
Page 67 'with his teeth flashing in his sunburnt face and his hair
streaming in the wind, he looked uncommon fetching'
POB
This is immediately followed by Warner's question (of the ship/sea)
'Can you imagine anything more beautiful?'
Is this another area where POB is trying to see ,or get us to see, things
from a different viewpoint- maybe hrough Warner's eyes?
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
A slightly cynical lissun once observed that the absurdly handsome young midshipman
is the POB equivalent of that bit character on Star Trek (Trekkies will know
instantly whom I mean) who wears a certain color uniform and is a member of
the away team. Almost certainly he will soon meet a bad end. Perhaps we should
begin a list of these unfortunate young men of good looks.
Lt. Warner is another type of recurring character, but one who differs significantly
from book to book. The first of numerous paederasts was Mr. Marshall in M&C.
None come close to the modern stereotypes, and each seems to be unique. Warner
is portrayed as a hard driving first Lt, "shut up day after day with such a
longing in a ship, where everything is known; and where this must not be know;
where there must be no approach to an overt act."
Don Seltzer
From: Robert Fleisher
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
The only character, as far as I can recall, who is described this way other
than the occasional doomed midshipman is Jagiello, upon his introduction in
"Surgeon's Mate." His abnormal beauty seems to serve O'Brian two primary purposes:
to help advance the plot by attracting love-struck maidens, and to provide a
little humor. Remember Jack shaking his head and saying that he just can't see
what the women see in him. My recollection is that once these authorial needs
are past, in later books where Jagiello is a peripheral character, his physical
appearance goes without comment.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
And there's a recurring character called the "handsome sailor" who stands
for whatever Melville needs at the moment.
Charlezzzzz
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
I'd hate to think that Jagiello lost his beauty to old age.
Age cannot wither, nor custom stale his infinite variety.
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
Two comments on this section.
1) POB's strictures upon tobacco chewing as an American habit can't be too
stern for me, but I do think spoon-bread gets a bum rap here (p. 164). It
would be hard for even Louisa's slipshod household staff to mess it up that
badly. The spoon-bread =I= know is a) in no wise associated with molasses or
any of the other things he mentions and b) absolutely scrumptious, a melting,
golden, dish fit for the gods. I wonder if POB ever tasted the genuine
article. In my imagination Diana Villiers (who I am sure =never= had a
weight problem) scarfs it down every day with delight while she is staying
with Johnson at his Maryland estate. "Lumps of an amorphous grey substance,"
indeed!
2) I noted an interesting choice of quotation by this much-quoting author,
and very apposite. But would =Stephen= have known it, I wondered?
On p. 179 a man referred to as "Broad-brim," clearly a Quaker, befriends
Stephen and to one of his kindly cautions, Stephen replies:
"He that is down needs fear no fall, he that is low, no pride."
This is from one of the poems in John Bunyan's PILGRIM'S PROGRESS. Bunyan
as a Baptist Dissenter was not quite the same thing as a Quaker, but
somewhere in Friendly proximity enough to make this an aptly chosen line.
(I also wonder how many Quakers there were in Boston at that time, their
principal hang-out being Philadelphia.)
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI 2]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
In a message dated 3/16/02 5:10:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@AOL.COM
writes:
(I also wonder how many Quakers there were in Boston at that time, their
principal hang-out being Philadelphia.)
I don't know about Boston, but Nantucket in this era was a bastion of
Quakerism.
Bruce Trinque
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
The Wenger clan was settled in the Linville-Edom area of
Pennsylvania in the 1700's.
- Susan Wenger, married into the lot
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
This post wouldn't make sense without I clarify: they
weren't Quakers, but Mennonites, which was probably more
similar in those days than it is now.
- Susan
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
On 16 Mar 2002 at 16:50, Susan Wenger wrote:
This post wouldn't make sense without I clarify: they weren't Quakers,
but Mennonites, which was probably more similar in those days than it is now.
Not really.
Doug
From: Mary S
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
In a message dated 3/16/02 6:32:08 PM Central Standard Time, Batrinque@AOL.COM
writes:
I don't know about Boston, but Nantucket in this era was a bastion of Quakerism.
Oh, that's right (remembering now the early chapters of MOBY DICK)
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:51 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Scoundrels-hang the whole shooting- match
The French sometimes get a bad 'press' from O'Brian but isn't it interesting
that this was the prevailing view of Americans held by a senior navy
personage!
'An American' cried the Admiral. There you are-all of a piece! Damned
rascals-convicts themselves, for the most part, piebald mongrels for the
rest-they lie with black women, you know, Aubrey; I have it on good
authority they lie with black women. Disloyal-hang the whole lot of them,
the whole shooting match..
..That's American gratitude for you. All of a piece.
.and what did they do ? I'll tell you what they did, Aubrey; the bit the
hand that fed them. Scoundrels.
HeHeHe
BTW wouldn't Admiral Drury be a great part for a senior English actor to
play. In the sequel/prequel,seeing as FSOW is a tentpole(!) project! Live
and learn.
Happy St Patrick's Day
alec
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Scoundrels-hang the whole shooting- match
I can assure the good Admiral that not all Americans are disloyal piebald
mongrels. In the language of the day, the loyal ones migrated north (or
perhaps more sensibly, south) to get away from the disloyal piebald ones and
their descendants inhabit the northern parts of this continent to this day.
However, I must admit that some Canadians do lie with black women.
Non-piebald Canadian with few convictions.
Adam Quinan
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Scoundrels-hang the whole shooting- match
The admiral's small tirade could give rise to answers in several directions.
Here are a couple of thoughts:
1. Samuel Johnson, who did not much care for Americans, and who was
amazingly difficult to refute: "How is it we hear the loudest yelps for
liberty from the drivers of negroes?"
2. Sam Panda.
Charlezzzzz
From: DJONES01
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: POB: Group Read (FOW)
Have the typo gremlins struck again, or is it just brain-fade on my part?
On p 48 Stephen is rushing to dine with the Captain and ..."they saw him
pass at a shambling run, SQUARE-RIBBED [my caps] and fairly trim ..."
Should this be square-rigged?
POB keeps up a steady supply of humour after the comical opening scenes. I
particularly liked Stephen's (deliberate?) misunderstanding about the
President on p96 "A most unfortunate choice, sir. No bottom, weak, easily
blown from side to side." SNIP "I was referring to the ship, sir, to the
frigate President."
Also on p105 when Jack has laboured up to the crosstrees "What a flat I
should look, was I to drop down among them like an act of God". Flat as a
pancake, indeed.
Elaine Jones
Walsall, England
52° 36' 01" N 1° 55' 46" W
From: Jean A
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread : FOW
As previously noted, there were lots of Quakers in Nantucket, and also in New
Bedford, where Moby Dick begins.
Quakers also abounded in the surrounding town, as did meeting houses.
I particularly remember the Apponegansett Meeting House, in neighboring
South Dartmouth. It is a perfectly preserved 18th century Quaker structure.
It is opened once a year for services. I remember attending one in the early
1950s.
There are separate entrances for men and women, and a unique wooden partition
that could, if lowered, separate the structure down the middle.
That particular meeting was memorable for its peace and quiet. The only
sounds were from insects buzzing around outside the open windows.
At one point an elderly gentleman rose and spoke briefly about something that
had occurred to him, and then sat down.
(In recent years I discovered that he was the uncle of a woman I know.)
He was the only person who felt so moved.
There were some guests who were introduced and spoke - I believe they were
from Africa.
Altogether a lovely quiet afternoon.
Jean A.
From: losmp
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread : FOW
There has been active Quaker worship everywhere i've lived in the past
twenty years, Connecticut, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Maryland.
And there's a kind of sweet mystery series with a Cambridge, MA Quaker
detective, 3 good books, the fourth, well, the first three are nice reads in
the genre, starting with Quaker Witness, by Irene Allen.
Lois
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
In a message dated 3/17/02 11:54:57 AM, DJONES01@DEMJ.FREESERVE.CO.UK writes:
"they saw him
pass at a shambling run, SQUARE-RIBBED [my caps] and fairly trim ..."
Should this be square-rigged?
Sounds like 'square-rigged' to me.
I wondered the same thing about a phrase on p. 23, "She was an agent of no
great importance, but a loyal,WELL-PLUCKED one, not to be bought;"
Is this a phrase I'm not familiar with, did they get rid of all the
pinfeathers, or should it have been 'well-picked'?
Rowen
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
I read the phrase "well-plucked" as meaning plucky or brave almost
automatically. It seemed to fit in well enough.
Adam Quinan
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
I think the meaning 'picked' or 'outsorted' is better. Certainly it can mean
that here-to give an instance-in Hurling if the ball is flying through the
air and a few players jump with hands up to catch it the commentator might
say :
'and the sliotar has been plucked from the air by the fantastic D J Carey'.
And in the old days you could certainly 'pluck' a girl from the line of them
standing against the back wall in the Ballroom!
I take it to mean singled out and expertly captured!
alec
From: Ruth Abrams
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
I thought "a rare plucked 'un" was used throughout the canon to mean
someone brave. Hence, "well-plucked" seems sort of a prettied-up
colloquialism.
Though pluck has that meaning, the OED does not list any such usage for
"plucked."
Ruth A.
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:55 AM
Subject: GRP FOW Rare Plucked Ones
Rowen asks about the use of "plucked":
POB actually uses this phrase quite often, usually putting it in Jack's
mouth, and usually with the slangy "'un" rather than "one." It seems to
mean "having remarkable dash and spirit," and can describe a woman like
Mrs. Wogan:
"It seems she offered to pistol the prime minister or blow up the Houses
of Parliament -- something very shocking, that was obliged to be played
pianissimo; so I had a curiosity to see her. A rare plucked 'un, of that
I am very sure: an ugly four days' blow, and her cabin as neat as a
pin!" -- DI pp. 83-84
. . . or a sea captain:
"You will tell me that the Minerva is the heaviest of the two, and that
the Magicienne only carries twelve-pounders; but Lucius Curtis is a rare
plucked 'un, a damned good seaman." -- TMC p. 178
. . . or even a fighting cock (where you must admit "plucked" is an
interesting choice of words! I have wondered whether the origin of the
phrase may not actually be in cock-fighting):
"He was a rare plucked 'un, and he went on even when there was no hope
at all. I am not sorry I backed him: should do it again. Did you
say there were letters?" --PC p. 81
--------------------
"With these bestial Goths, these drunken Huns all about me -- I could
weep from mere vexation." -- FOW p. 47
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Edmund Burton
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)--plucked
Alec O'Flaherty wrote:
I think the meaning 'picked' or 'outsorted' is better.
I don't think so, not in this case. In the OED, the first
definition of 'plucked' is 'Having pluck or courage; usually in comb.,
as good-plucked, rare plucked, well-plucked; so bad plucked, deficient
in courage.
1846 Thackeray, Van. Fair xxxvii, What a good plucked one
that boy of mine is.'
Pluck III 6. The heart, liver, and lungs (sometimes with other viscera)
of a beast, as used for food.
7. colloq. (orig. app. pugilistic slang) The heart as the
seat of courage; courage, boldness, spirit; determination not to
yield but to keep up the fight in the face of danger or difficulty.
1785 Grose Dict. Vulg. T. s.v. He wants pluck, he is a
coward.
E. Burton
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW Rare Plucked Ones
Steve, to me the two phrases had seemed quite different, although you may be
right here. I'd associated "rare plucked 'un" with the notion of "plucky",
spunky, full of fight. The description of Mrs. Wogan on the other hand,
sounds like it means "well-selected". While "plucked" can mean chosen,
picked, it just doesn't sound right to me in this context, although I could
just be quibbling about the non-slangy presentation employed by Wallis in
this particular sentence.
Is there any mention in the OED of either version of the phrase: "rare
plucked 'un" or "well-plucked"?
Rowen
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)--plucked
Oops...I'm afraid I replied to Steve and asked about the OED before I read
this post or the one from Ruth. Thank you Mr. Burton and Ruth A.
"Pluck" as in "courage" seems to be the correct meaning here. Thanks for
helping clarify it.
Rowen
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)--plucked
From: Rowen
Thank you Mr. Burton and Ruth A. "Pluck" as in "courage" seems to be the
correct meaning here. Thanks for helping clarify it.
Ok ,I concede gracefully(bit like Stephen coming up side of ship heheh)
Seriously-I see I was wrong.
alec
From: brumby6
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word for everything!
Stephen is talking to Mr. Evans as they sail to Boston. He mentions a phrase
spoken by Mr Adams: "Hominy grits cut no ice with me," and wonders about the
source and meaning of such an expression.
Mr. Evans attributes it to an Iroquois expression, "katno aiss' vizmi",
meaning "I am unmoved, unimpressed."
I am thinking this is not entirely accurate.
Of course this is also the bit where Mr Evans and Stephen compare the speech
patterns of Southerners and Northerners, with those from the South having a
lisping delivery and being difficult to understand. (Should we Southerners
be insulted here?) Mr Evans is quick to explain that in Boston, English is
pure and undefiled, the only colonial expressions deriving from intercourse
with the Indians. Maybe this explains the inclusion of that curious Iroquois
expression above.
Linda
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
Evans is having a joke. Cutting, storing and shipping ice to the south was a
lucrative business in New England until the invention of artificial
refrigeration. I believe the phrase "cuts no ice" derives from it.
From: brumby6
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
Was he joking, or was he covering up? After all, he had just finished saying
there were no colonial expressions used in Boston. So he was about to get
caught.
Linda
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
His explanation cuts no ice with me.
As far as i am concerned, he was well and truly caught out but quick
wittedly improvised a bit of Iroquois sounding mumbo-jumbo to cover up.
Adam Quinan
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different wordforeverything!
POB was a deep file, with many levels to his humor. Perhaps both interpretations
can be true.
From: John Finneran
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:00 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW: Richardson
Dean King's PO'B biography has some interesting background to what was
happening in PO'B's "real life" at the time he was writing FOW. See the end
of chapter 17 and beginning of chapter 18 (about pp. 237 - 245 of the hc).
Of particular note (from p. 238):
In late October 1977, Patrick and Mary O'Brian travelled by autombile from
Collioure to England. PO'B hand delivered the manuscript of Desolation
Island to his editor, and the couple then went on to attend a wedding.
Following the wedding, the couple (with Mary at the wheel) were involved in
a car crash, which nearly killed them both. Patrick was in the hospital for
one month and Mary for two.
Here's King:
"But Mary was badly injured in the wreck. She lay unconscious in the
hospital for days, with two broken legs and a concussion. Trying to bring
her back to reality, Patrick, who was also banged up but not so severely,
read to her from a Samuel Richardson novel. This, they both believed,
helped revive her."
PO'B's interest in Richardson at this period is reflected early in FOW when
Captain Yorke and Stephen discuss Richardson and his works (pp. 51-52).
John Finneran
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
And also brings up the image of Jack reading these novels aloud to Sophie.
"All about love."
Don Seltzer
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
Four great novelists of the high 18th century: Fielding, Smollet,
Richardson, Sterne.
Smollet: was a doctor of medicine, and shipped out on a 74 as surgeon's
assistant for one of England's disastrous sieges. Scots, of course, and so
his first novel "The Adventures of Roderick Random" (1748) made him many new
enemies since most of the unpleasant characters (with names such as Crab,
Potion, and Gawkey) were recognized as fellow writers. For a libel on a
British admiral - "an engineer without knowledge, an officer without
resolution, and a man without veracity" - Smollet served three months in
prison. Certainly well worth reading (Humphrey Clinker) but vy strange to
the modern ear.
Richardson: tell truth now, has any lissun ever read through any of
Richardson's novels? Consider Clarissa Harlowe (a title with an odd
resonance for us Trueloves): it's about 2000 pages of sensibility. Jeez!
Sam'l Johnson, praising Richardson's grip on female psychology, said words
to the effect that if you were to read Richardson for the plot, you wd hang
yourself.
Fielding: his first book was a parody on Richardson's Pamela: Shamela. His
Tom Jones is one of the great books of the century.
Sterne: Tristam Shandy is one of the great books of any century, and I
seldom hear the clock strike on a Saturday night without I... never mind.
Charlezzzzz
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
Richardson: tell truth now, has any lissun ever read through any of
Richardson's novels? Consider Clarissa Harlowe (a title with an odd
resonance for us Trueloves): it's about 2000 pages of sensibility. Jeez!
Sam'l Johnson, praising Richardson's grip on female psychology, said words
to the effect that if you were to read Richardson for the plot, you wd hang yourself.
Mrs Wogan had much the same opinion...Pg 164 DI....""she had actually read right through Clarissa Harlow without hanging herself (though that was sometimes only for want of a convenient hook)..."
--
Mary A
42º36'53" N
71º20'43" W
From: losmp
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Charles Munoz
Richardson: tell truth now, has any lissun ever read through any of
Richardson's novels?
Yes, Charlezzzzz.
But the rest of the truth is that it happened to be a mandatory college
course read. In the days before grade inflation.
Lois
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
Dear me, what a requirement! What was the course? 18th century novel? Even
then, if I were setting up a full semester of 18th century novels, I cd omit
Richardson, I think, merely letting Joseph Andrews point backwards to
Pamela, and maybe assigning parts of Pamela for reading...badly put, but I
know what I mean.
Charlezzzzz
From: losmp
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
Dear me, what a requirement! What was the course?
Dear me, dear me. I'd have to dig up an old transcript, to remember.
But this reminds me of a comment on another, arguably lesser author I once
also read entire works of for a paper: Gaboriau. Of him it was said--maybe
by Gide-- that in his day, his works were perfect for a train trip, but that
in those times, the train took a lot longer than it does now.
Lois
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
The battle Java v Constitution -conclusion Pge 124 Harper
'No' said Chads in a dead voice. 'It will not do.' He looked at Jack,who
bowed his head:then he walked aft,as a resolute man might walk to the
gallows,walked between the sparse gun crew,silent now, and hauled the
colours down.
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there a
cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
Or has O Brian got all readers so involved with Jack and the Royal Navy that
you feel feel a little( or not so little?) tinge of regret for Chads,Jack
and the Navy .
I certainly found it an emotional passage.
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
I'm ashamed to say I wanted the Java to blow the Constitution to kingdom
come.
Linda
From: Bob Saldeen
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
on 3/19/02 17:04, Alec O'Flaherty at oflahertyalec@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there a
cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
Geez, Alec. You're Irish--aren't you supposed to be yelling "yippee" with us
Yanks? ;-)
For my part, I always like it when "we" win. Can't help it, Jack or no Jack.
bs
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
In a message dated 3/19/02 5:05:23 PM, oflahertyalec@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there
a cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
Or has O Brian got all readers so involved with Jack and the Royal Navy
that you feel feel a little( or not so little?) tinge of regret for Chads,Jack
and the Navy .
What an interesting question! Never in life, sir! I can't recall feeling
anything but the same anguish and shock that Chads and Jack felt! Cheer for
the enemy? Blasphemy, sir.
(I have to admit that when reading about this battle for the first time my
own historical ignorance had left me unprepared for Java's defeat, an
eventuality which smarter coves no doubt foresaw, and I was absolutely
devastated by Jack's despair on the way to Boston.)
I don't think this is entirely the result of fine writing though. I doubt
that even O'Brian would have been able to give me that same feeling if he'd
placed Jack in the French navy.I don't know if I speak for all of us
colonials, and I'd never consider myself a right Tory, nor even a strong
anglophile, but when I read O'Brian I consider England, and the Royal Navy,
as "mine". Our common (or uncommon) language, our shared history and
culture, the knowledge that England has been a good and true ally during most
of our recent existence, all lead to the feeling that we are cousins, with
common interests, and make it easy to focus on the characters rather than the
nationalism.
Would you have found it difficult to rally to Jack and Stephen if they had
been Americans, fighting the British Navy?
Rowen
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Whew! Thanks, Rowen. Now I don't feel so much like (Across-the-) pond scum.
Linda
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Rowen
Would you have found it difficult to rally to Jack and Stephen if they had
been Americans, fighting the British Navy?
Let's just say that we Irish had our own difficulties with the British
fighting forces in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.(No love lost).
But I felt 'lump in throatish' for Jack,Chads and the pride of the Navy at
the lowering of the Java colours -and I have credit O'Brian with that not
inconsiderable achievement.
Thanks for the considered reply.
alec
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
brumby6 wrote:
I'm ashamed to say I wanted the Java to blow the Constitution to kingdom
come.
As a student of American History, I knew the outcome as soon as the Java sighted
the Constitution :(
Larry
--
Larry Finch
::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com
::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!)
N 40° 53' 47"
W 74° 03' 56"
From: Greg White
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there
a
cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
Interesting question. At no point in the canon did I root for my
countrymen, quite the opposite, in fact.
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
71º20'13.2" W
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Alec O'Flaherty wrote:
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there a
cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
I never "cheer" at the results of battles in the canon. There is some vicarious
satisfaction when Jack or Stephen succeeds at a difficult task; but both battles
in FOW, the Constitution v. Java and Chesapeake v. Shannon, end with a
desolation caused by the deaths of so many men, regardless of the victor.
When I first read FOW, I was unaware of the Constitution-Java encounter, but,
having visited "Old Ironsides" in Boston as a squeaker, and knowing she had
never lost a battle, q.e.d., I knew the outcome before reading it.
One more question if I may
The next page -The burning of the Java; the vast pall of smoke that rose
over her as she blew up...
Was the Java set on fire by the crew of the Constitution or were the flames
as a result of the battle?
Java was too damaged take in as a prize, and splitting the Constitution's crew
to handle both ships would have made Commodore Bainbridge vulnerable to a
takeover by the English prisoners. So he burned her.
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Dreaded Mowett Poetry Thread
As has been previously discussed, most of Mowett's nautical poetry is taken
from "The Shipwreck", an epic poem written by WIlliam Falconer in the mid
18th century. POB was sufficiently fascinated to occasionally repeat
certain portions. It was in M&C that Mowett first recited,
"While o'er the ship the gallant boatswain flies,
Like a hoarse mastiff through the storm he cries,
Prompt to direct the unskilful still appears,
The expert he praises, and the timid cheers"
In FOW, p. 220, the above verse is repeated, but with two more lines appended:
"Still through my pulses glides the kindling fire
As lightning glances on the electric wire."
But these are not the next lines in Falconer's poem. They do appear, but
1000 lines later! The later scene is a lightning storm,
"E'en now my ear with quick vibration feels
The explosion burst in strong rebounding peals;
Still through my pulses glides the kindling fire
As lightning glances on the electric wire:
Yet, ah! the languid colours vainly strive
To bid the scene in native hues revive."
Can any of our resident poets explain why POB chose to link these lines?
Together, they don't make any logical sense to me, and it doesn't seem to
improve the poetry to join them.
Don Seltzer
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: GRP FOW: Despair
I am finding this book very grim going. I see that many, myself included,
are haunted by the picture of Jack at the rail of the Constitution. His
despair, his dumb suffering, his constant seeking for rescue, his broken
heart, his pneumonia - heavy stuff! Most of us have never felt the
relentless pain he felt from that musket ball wound. I know from my own
smashed arm, even with morphine, nothing is more debilitating than pain. His
entire personality changes, as he alienates everyone around him. Ordinarily,
even though the seamen surrounding him are his enemies, they would like and
respect him. It chills me to see him among common men who dislike him.
Linda
From: John Germain
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW: Despair
His death by the overwhelming forces of weevils in the next book will have you hanging from the nearest hook.
[oops, spoiler]
John Germain
[which he could tell you of horrors....]
From: John Finneran
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:29 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW: String
On p. 47 (Norton pb), Stephen is trying to secure his vast collections of
natural objects aboard ship and he asks Jack, "would you have another piece
of string in your pocket at all?", and, later, "Oh, for a decent ball of
string."
(Rather oddly, since Stephen would presumably need chains or heavy ropes to
really secure his crates and other heavy objects: string would seem utterly
inadequate.)
Then, near the book's end, when Stephen must leave the Acturus to go onto a
boat bound for the Shannon, he asks again,
"Jack, have you a piece of string in your pocket? I cannot climb down
without doing up my parcel." (p.271)
This odd repeated question parallels the ending of PO'B's short story "The
Rendezvous", where the narrator comes across a mysterious stranger and ask
him twice, "Have you a piece of string?" The stranger replies, "Yes, a
whole ball of string. A whole ball of string. Twine."
What the significance of all this is, I don't know (I'm torn as to whether I
should end my post here or conclude with an awful pun; oh, all right, here's
the pun:) but I'm tw'ine to figure it out.
John Finneran
From: Sandlund, Ragnhild
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
I just read the whole of Pamela for the second time... Pity me, messmates,
though I must admit to skimming bits this time around. Both times it's been
for a university course, of course. Last time in Manchester for 18th C.
novels and this time for "The Early English Novel" - we read Shamela to
follow, which made some of us very happy after having wanted sorely to
strangle Pamela (or Richardson, makes no odds which one) for a few weeks...
And now we're into Tristam Shandy. Oh joy!
Ragnhild
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
And now we're into Tristam Shandy. Oh joy!
Mindful of My Brother Jack, I often used to read Tristram Shandy -
sounds like a cooling drink - on army activities. I bought a fresh one
last weekend, though I fear a paperback TS isn't worth a real lot.
[checks] Just as I feared - prices start at 10c.
A wonderful read, with the humour shining through on every page. I love
the way that the book starts halfway through, Sterne declaring that he's
only been sort of clearing his literary throat previously.
So many great characters and superb lines!! And I doubt that there's
another book short of the Bible so alluded to in other works.
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
OK, I was thinking about checking into some of those All About Love novels
that Jack was reading to Sophie, just to get the authentic flavor of course,
but yall are starting to scare me. Is this not something we would do for
quiet entertainment nowadays?
Linda
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
In a message dated 3/20/02 0:33:04, w.a.nyden@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:
I never "cheer" at the results of battles in the canon. There is some
vicarious satisfaction when Jack or Stephen succeeds at a difficult task; but
both battles in FOW, the Constitution v. Java and Chesapeake v. Shannon, end
with a desolation caused by the deaths of so many men, regardless of the
victor.
Well said, Bill: you have stated my thoughts entirely. And I'm reminded of
the general desolation Jack feels at the sinking of the Waakzaamheid:
"My God, oh my God," he said. "Six hundred men." (pg 236, Norton paperback)
"But it filled him with sorrow, a strange abiding grief." (pg. 237)
(Can you tell where I am in the GroupRead?)
Alice
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
on 3/20/02 4:29 AM, John Finneran at John.Finneran@PILEOFSHIRTS.COM wrote:
The stranger replies, "Yes, a
whole ball of string. A whole ball of string. Twine."
What the significance of all this is, I don't know
John, I bet we worked it out when we discussed Rendezvous. But I'm in one of
those moods where I won't look anything up, so I'll give you a new answer.
Hemingway.
As where Hemingway refers to Huck Finn as the fundamental, indispensable
American novel, and without you've read Huck Finn you ain't read nothing.
Mark Twain...the whole megillah...whole shooting match...whole ball of
string. Life on the Mississippi. Whose name wasn't Mark Twain at all, the
creature. MT=POB. See? It all ties together.
Charlezzzzz
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Was the Java set on fire by the crew of the Constitution
or were the
flames
as a result of the battle? I don't recall any mention of
fire prior to the
hauling down of the colours.
Here it is, on page 120 of the Norton PB:
" The Javas, undismayed, fired like demons, streaming
sweat under the smoky sun, often with blood: and the
stabbing flames from almost every shot they fired set
light to the tarred wreckage hanging over the side:
fire-buckets, powder, fire-buckets, powder, the remaining
officers had them running in a continual stream."
Sounds like they sort of did it to themselves.
Karen von Bargen
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Like the defeat of the Guerriere by the Constitution some months earlier,
the Java was too badly damaged to take as a prize. Both ships were burned
deliberately by the Americans, after transferring prisoners and items of
value.
The couch of Capt. Dacres of the Guerriere graces the great cabin of the
Constitution today, and the Java's wheel was carried across to replace the
one that Jack and his cohorts shot away at the beginning of the battle.
Don Seltzer
which he felt some of the emotion of Chads and Aubrey when it came time to
strike
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
Hi, All!
Just wondering, did anyone else find it amusing that
Stephen took advantage of Diana's seasickness to get
coffee the way he liked it? I think it funny that neither
Jack nor Stephen are willing to tell Broke that his coffee
left something to be desired, something like strength!
Norton PB, pg. 299 "Jack nodded, but no more, for Broke
was at hand, politely asking for news of Mrs. Villiers.
Stephen said that the most distressing symptoms were over,
that a tonic draught, such as coffee of triple or even
quadruple strength, followed by a small bowl of arrowroot
gruel, reasonably slab, would set her up by the
afternoon."
Oh, hor, hor, hor!!
Karen von Bargen
easily amused
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
Finally Stephen gets some use out of Diana!
Linda
From: John Germain
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
By God, Madam Brumby, if you were a man I should call you to account for those
words.
As it may be, I must forgive your feminine humours.
I beg you, Madam, to ask your husband to remind you of the care that must
be taken of the reputations of married women.
Which, Mrs. Villiers is.
My respects to your husband.
I am &c.
John Germain
Jersey
British Channel Islands
49º11'30"N
02º06'12"W
WGS84
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
Well, turnabout is fair play, don't you think? And they ain't married yet!
Linda
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:42 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
In honor of the vernal equinox, can you spot POB's astronomical mistake in
FOW? It is very subtle, but one that a knowledgable seaman like Jack would
have detected immediately, and it is crucial to the plot.
Don Seltzer
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
I think we can all agree on the sentiments below by Bill and Alice.
But the original question sort of has two parts to it. Part 2: If it is an
"Us or Them" situation, who is "Us" and "Who" is them? In other words, if
you had to rush into a burning building to save Jack and Stephen, or several
hundred Americans you don't "know", who would you pick?
As I have read further into FOW, a post earlier this week describing
Lawrence and the Chesapeake was brought home, now that I "know" Lawrence.
Viewing the site of that battle must have been moving indeed.
Linda
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
In a message dated 3/20/02 7:53:07 AM, brumby6@SWBELL.NET writes:
In other words, if
you had to rush into a burning building to save Jack and Stephen, or several
hundred Americans you don't "know", who would you pick?
Ethical questions like this always depend upon HOW you ask the question.
friends or strangers?
countrymen or foreigners?
two humans or several hundred humans?
eminent scientist and noteable Captain of the Navy or three hundred
transportees?
two men past their prime or several hundred children?
fictional characters or real people?
And then, of course, why is it "either/or"? Is there a way to save all?
;-)
Rowen
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
My compliments to Mr Seltzer and desire him to say what the letters GRP (in the Subject line) mean
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: FOW: String
John, I bet we worked it out when we discussed Rendezvous. But I'm in one of
those moods where I won't look anything up, so I'll give you a new answer.
Ah, yes.
I think we discussed a portion of the Rendezvous as the Theseus and Ariadne
and Minotaur myth turned on its head, where POB's protagonist gets the
string to lead out of the labyrinth at the end of his torturous walk through
marshy land, after he's traversed his labyrinthine path, rather than when he
enters it.
As for the other tie-up-your-parcel string references, maybe sometimes a
string is just a string.
Lois
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Yes, a very interesting question, and Rowen's reply took the words right
out of my fingers, if I were able to articulate the way she does. Lovely
reply.
I almost sneer when an American hoves into view (heaves? hives?), when I'm
reading POB,
I am Royal Navy, or at least a visiting particular friend.
I have problems as it is with being a flag-waving American--after
a quarter century living in Panama, I was surprised at the views espoused
back here, mostly by my NC neighbors, re "furriners," and that sort, and
most people truly have no idea of how the Third World is struggling with
disease, corruption, poverty, all the ills. I'm having even more problems
with things as they stand after 9/11 but won't get into politics (although
I already have, I see.) Mumpish this morning.
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
on 3/20/02 10:35 AM, losmp at losmp@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
As for the other tie-up-your-parcel string references, maybe sometimes a
string is just a string.
Never! Too easy! No fun!
A string is an umbilicus.
That ties POB to Lawrence Sterne. Hemingway to Mark Twine. Jack to Stephen.
Charlezzzzz, thinking of the omphalos at Delphi, and scorning the idea
that string is merely string. And pondering a study of string theory, wch
may comprise the entire universe. And is not a string a clew?
From: Jean A
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Americans
I must credit Don Seltzer with some kind of prescience because I was just
going to ask him about Java's wheel on Constitution.
If I remember, it is a 'double" wheel.
I had wondered how and why it had survived Java's burning.
Jean A.
(I am sure that Don knows where we can find a picture.)
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
ZZZZZ wrote:
Charlezzzzz, thinking of the omphalos at Delphi, and scorning the idea
that string is merely string. And pondering a study of string theory, wch
may comprise the entire universe. And is not a string a clew?
That's you, Z, from clew to earing! Howsoever, I must admit, there may
be something to what you say. And here I was chugging along, under the
naive impression that Stephen's plaintive requests for string to hold
down his multifarious possessions were simply another way to
characterize him as the very opposite of a practical mariner!
But that theory is now growing somewhat threadbare, I will allow.
--------------------
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Bob Saldeen
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Yikes. So far I think I'm the only American that roots for the U.S team!
The last time I was completely outnumbered was when I voted for Wired
magazine in the "what should the teenager get as a gift magazine
subscription" contest.
Outnumbered once again, but standing firm,
bs
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
Charlezzzzz, thinking of the omphalos at Delphi, and scorning the idea
that string is merely string. And pondering a study of string theory, wch
may comprise the entire universe. And is not a string a clew?
What occurs to me this morning, Charlezzzzz, are the words: high strung.
Lois
From: Ginger Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
ZZZZ is stringing us along.
Ginger
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
on 3/20/02 11:22 AM, Steve Ross at skross@LSU.EDU wrote:
That's you, Z, from clew to earing! Howsoever, I must admit, there may
be something to what you say. And here I was chugging along, under the naive
impression that Stephen's plaintive requests for string to hold down his multifarious
possessions were simply another way to characterize him as the very opposite
of a practical mariner!
Oh, dear me. Did I ever deny that point? That's the main thing...the rest
are hidden, subaqueus, subconscious--soggy strings that nevertheless help tie
the story to the universe. But mainly, it's a joke on Maturin's unsalty view
of the world. Next he'll ask Bonden for a safety pin.
Charlezzzzz, pointing out that Freud somewhere recommends over-analysis.
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
At 1:02 PM -0500 3/20/2002, Charles Munoz wrote:
Next he'll ask Bonden for a safety pin.
No, he asked Lt. Keyne in chapter 7 of FOW.
Don Seltzer
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
In a message dated 3/20/02 9:54:38 AM Central Standard Time, Charlezzzzz@COMCAST.NET
writes:
A string is an umbilicus.
I hate to contradict the doyen of our List, even in the cause of precision,
but an umbilicus is ... a belly-button. Like the omphalos at Delphi (belly-button
of the world, I suppose).
You're just stringing us along, Charlezzzzz.
Losing the thread of my discourse,
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
on 3/20/02 4:38 PM, Mary S at Stolzi@AOL.COM wrote:
I hate to contradict the doyen of our List, even in the cause of precision,
but an umbilicus is ... a belly-button. Like the omphalos at Delphi (belly-button
of the world, I suppose).
You have the right of it. I shd have written "umbilical cord," shd I not? That
wd have had the additional grace of roping cord and string together in one line
of words.
Charlezzzzz
From: Martin
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
But never mind that; it was a fine navel metaphor.
Martin @ home:
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Bob:
Er, me too. Go Navy!
Karen
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 08:15 pm, Greg White wrote:
Interesting question. At no point in the canon did I root for my countrymen,
quite the opposite, in fact.
It is interesting indeed. I'm neither English nor American. and for historical
reasons should probably root for the French, but obviously find myself siding
with the RN throughout the Canon.
However this points to a very interesting and appealing quality of POB's writing
- the way in which he describes "enemy". He is as far from a straight, black-and-white,
"us-good, them-bad" description as possible, which is another thing setting
him way above other writers, like CSF or Kent.
Each time Americans are mentioned, they are portrayed as noble and honourable
(Johnston being the only possible exception, although one can understand his
motives), and many times in DI and FOW Jack expresses his admiration for
American commanders and uneasiness at having to fight them. It is very clear
especially in the final chapters of DI. Same thing with the French, with the
exception of the agents that question Stephen in Port Mahon, and later in
Paris in SM, they are portrayed as men no different than our heroes, just
hapening to be on the other side. Christy-Paillere and Duhamel are good
examples.
Obviously this makes fighting them more difficult morally, and it shows in
Jack's moods after each action, in the way he tries to prevent unnecessary
casualties on either side, the way he treats prisoners of war etc.
Actually it's interesting to notice that more often than not, the true
"villains" of the Canon are Englishmen (Ledward and Wray!).
I find this complex, multi faceted and humane view of war one of the most
appealing qualities of POB's writing, so far above your run of the mill "war
adventures".
Pawel
--
Pawel Golik
http://www.gen.emory.edu/cmm/people/staff/pgolik.html
Currently at 33°48'53"N 84°19'25"W
Home is at 52°12'25"N 21°5'37"E
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
At 9:47 AM -0500 3/20/2002, Boyce Kendrick wrote:
My compliments to Mr Seltzer and desire him to say what the letters GRP
(in the Subject line) mean.
I do not recognize your name, and assume that you are newly arrived. If
so, welcome aboard, and join the line of other new lissuns who are
patiently awaiting recognition by the official list greeter, who is
apparently detained by more pressing duties.
GRP is just a notation used to distinguish posts which are related to our
"Group Read." Some of us are rereading the canon, discussing and picking
apart one book a month. Currently, we are working on Fortune of War (FOW).
Please feel free to jump in with any observations, questions, or vile
clenches.
Don Seltzer
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
FOW, p. 154 Norton [after Jack tells Stephen of the Hornet's sinking of
the Peacock]:
'"Oh," said Stephen. There was a curious stab at his heart: he had not
known how much he felt for the Navy.'
In this case, isn't Stephen in much the same position as the American
readers whose sympathies lie with the defeated English sailors? Of
course he is not on the "enemy's" side in this particular battle, but
ultimately his political loyalties (to the extent that he has any) are
with Ireland and/or Catalonia. He *thinks* he serves the Navy only as a
means to the greater end of defeating Napoleon; but in fact a friendship
and liking has grown up between him and his shipmates over the years,
and by extension he feels a sympathy for the (Royal) Navy as a whole.
The point is this: such sympathies can exist apart from and alongside of
either our dismay and sadness at the loss of life, or our feelings about
which "side" is in the right. Certainly, in both FOW and DI,
Stephen--as well as some Englishmen--have stated that England, by its
own actions, brought the war upon itself! So you can be "for" one side,
and still feel sympathy for the sufferings of the other side. This is
in line, IMHO, with Pawel's good comments on POB's portrayal of war
(though I sometimes wonder if the gentlemanly dealings with enemy
commanders like Christy-Palliere are not a bit idealized).
--------------------
"These are mere whimsies, my dear, vapours, megrims." -- DI p. 67
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
I think POB is reflecting an attitude which continued through the First
World War, in which solidarity among leaders in a particular calling--even
when those leaders served different nations--was greater than their certain
inter-class affiliations in their own nation. See the custom of having the
captured enemy officer join his "peers" at table, which Jack observes and
benefits from.
This attitude is depicted in that great must-see film, Grand Illusion,
among other works.
Lois
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: GRP FOW: "katno aiss' vizmi" again
In earlier discussions of Mr. Evans' interesting Iroquois "etymology"
for the colloquialism "cut no ice," the opinion has generally been that
Evans was simply having a joke, practising upon the poor naive Stephen.
I agree with this interpretation, but the fact is that nobody seems to
be certain. There is an apparent shortage of Native American linguists
on the list, and in the absence of an authoritative opinion, the
possibility has been generally left open. Even Gary Brown's admirable
"Guide for the Perplexed" website, which has no problem giving
translations for most other non-English phrases in POB, says of "katno
aiss' vizmi":
"(Well.... it might be Iroquois!)"
Therefore I think it worthwhile to quote the passage at slightly greater
length (FOW p. 139 Norton):
" 'But in what does the figure consist? Is it desirable that ice should
be cut? And if so, why? And what is the force of with?'
After barely a moment's pause, Mr Evans said, 'Ah, there now, you have
an Indian expression. It is a variant upon the Iroquois katno aiss'
vizmi-- I am unmoved, unimpressed.' "
If the Indian etymology were correct (or, another possibility, if it
were false but Evans believed it to be correct), there would be no
reason for him to "pause" before giving his reply. In fact, however, he
has come up with this red herring on the spot, and he produces it
smoothly and convincingly enough that Stephen does not think of
questioning it. That he did so with "barely a moment's pause"
demonstrates his high degree of wit, and makes this passage even more
humorous than it already is. So (in the absence of any contrary
opinion), we may now consider this question closed, may we not?
Apologizing for wasting the group's time on trivialities ... but then,
of such are doctoral dissertations made!,
Steve Ross
in 30° 24' 32"N, 91° 05' 28"W --which has suddenly become a hotbed of
POB enthusiasts
From: Ginger Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
I confess to having read the whole of Richardson's Pamela. I've tried to
read Clarissa but never gotten very far with it.
But there are other interesting 18th century novelists. Fanny Burney, for
one, Elizabeth Inchbald, Robert Bage, Ann Radcliffe. It's surprising how
much is available. There's also Sarah Fielding, sister to Henry - also a
novelist.
Ginger Johnson
From: Ginger Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, brumby6
wrote:
Is this not something we would do for
quiet entertainment nowadays
Some of us would.
Some of us have odd tastes in reading, too.
Speaking for herself,
Ginger
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
In a message dated 3/20/02 5:36:59 AM Central Standard Time, brumby6@SWBELL.NET
writes:
Is this not something we would do for quiet entertainment nowadays?
Well, you might prefer Fielding's TOM JONES, which has a lovely heroine named...
Sophia.
Richardson is difficult I think, and Fanny Burney somewhat so. Bet you could
find Gutenberg texts on-line to give you a sampling.
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Mme Bahorel
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
on 3/19/02 17:04, Alec O'Flaherty at
oflahertyalec@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
I just wonder what American readers reaction is to this passage. Is there
a cry of 'yippee'. Another blow against the Royal Navy.
Not for me, but then, I've been through so many phases of
British sympathies that I just tend to sympathise politically
with the protagonists in the books I'm reading.
Plus, any blow for the RN at that point is not good because
Boney is still a threat until 1815, and with the hindsight of
history, I can dislike Boney to my heart's content and feel any
reversals for the RN to be in Boney's favour.
Mme Bahorel
51°30'N, 0°6'W
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mmebahorel
"Rivers belong where they can ramble; eagles belong where they
can fly. I've got to be where my spirit can run free, got to
find my corner of the sky." - Pippin
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
if
you had to rush into a burning building to save Jack and Stephen, or
several
hundred Americans you don't "know", who would you pick?
Linda - looking at Stephen, looking at Jack, thinking of Jack in a fireman's
carry, saying, C'mon, Stephen, let's go!!
From: homermeyn
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: SPOILER please ignore previous draft
Steve wrote
...(though I sometimes wonder if the gentlemanly dealings with enemy commanders
like Christy-Palliere are not a bit idealized).
Maybe.
It was as you say 'Gentelmanly' behavior but the word has now almost lost
it's 18th/19th century meaning.
This was and is a class thing and more than that, a breeding thing, in the
most literal way.
The ruling class at that time were aristocrats and chauvanists, not
democrats, and their bloodlines were of vital importance to them. One could
not become a gentleman, one was born a Gent or a commoner. The social
divisions that we in England until very recently called the 'Middle class'
and the 'Working class' did not and still do not exist for them. It was, and
still is, 'Us' and 'them' and very much in that order.
Think of it as a racist thing and you will be near the mark.
Jack would have allowed his daughter to marry Christy-Palliere's son, but
not Bonden's or Napoleon's or Canning's
Within the Aristocracy there were many degrees, and even a Marriage below
one's station was not possible for many Aristocratic men and even today, the
old rules are still there.
When Princess Diana was first linked with Charles there were murmurings
about this, 'Royal should marry Royal' and so on but in the end she was
found to be acceptable. It has been suggested that the reason Camilla Parker
Bowles did not marry Charles was a breeding thing.
I couldn't possibly comment
Stephen's whole life was shaped by his bastardy, because it meant so much
more at that time. He was a Fitz, but 'from the wrong side of the blanket'.
This is why he grew up in Catalonia, possibly the result of a liason with
some one below one's station, but not a peasant. Had his mother been a
commoner, he would never have been acnowledged.
Peace
John
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a
horrible warning." --Catherine Aird
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Reminds of Das Boot, a German film about a German U-boat during WWII. Easy
to find yourself against your own countrymen, before you realized what was
happening.
Linda
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Quick question
Can someone explain this line:-pg 156 Norton
'A man was killed,or died,or at all events lost the number of his mess:'
Does 'lost the number of his mess'- mean killed?
thanks
alec
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
At 1:53 PM -0500 3/20/2002, Boyce Kendrick wrote:
Incidentally, in checking the online OED to make sure that masters and
master's mates were the ones responsible for assisting with
navigation, I noticed that under the word master, was listed the obsolete
form, "master and commander," of which OED says "until
1814 the title of the officer in the navy since called COMMANDER.
How often does one get to correct the OED? The correct year is 1794.
After 1794, the commissioned rank formerly called "Master and Commander"
was shortened to simply Commander, removing the confusion with the warrant
rank of Master.
And Alec O'Flaherty wrote:
Does 'lost the number of his mess'- mean killed?
Yes. A seaman had several numbers assigned to him, a ship's number, a
hammock number, but by far the most important was the number of his mess.
Without it, one did not get fed!
Don Seltzer
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: Rites of Spring
Don asked:
In honor of the vernal equinox, can you spot POB's
astronomical mistake in
FOW?
As I recall from prior discussion of this subject, it had
to do with when Jack and Stephen could have seen the
Southern Cross?
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Rites of Spring
Good try, but the reference to the Southern Cross in FOW only has Forshaw
talking of it aboard Fleche, not actually observing it. He might well have
been commenting that it was too far south to observe.
No, the error I'm thinking of involves a fundamental skill of seamanship,
and is one that sailor Dudley Pope would not likely have gotten wrong.
Don Seltzer
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:46 AM
Subject: GRP FOW Re: Rites of Spring
I don't know what the tidal constant is for Boston Harbour (and I am too lazy
to look it up), but the moon is setting when the tide is full when Jack decides
to to take to the ebb tide in the Joe's small fishing boat out to meet Shannon
(p 270ish). Usually the tide would be full when the moon is high in the sky.
There are exceptions usually caused by the particular geographic land shapes
and how far from the open sea the harbour is which is why I would want to look
up the tidal constant.
Adam Quinan
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW Re: Rites of Spring
Adam is right on the mark. To a seaman like Jack, it was fundamental that
the times of tides were linked to the phase of the moon (or Age of the Moon,
as Jack would say). Any sort of navigation in restricted waters, whether weighing
anchor in Shelmerston or fleeing Boston Harbor in a fishing scow, would require
him to know the state of the tide. A rising tide would cause water to flow into
a harbor, making it difficult to leave. An ebb tide would create a current that
could carry a ship to sea despite light or even adverse winds. Few things upset
Jack as much as missing his tide, which forced a 12 hour wait until the next
high tide.
This is precisely what Jack is considering on p. 269 of FOW. He is watching
the moon, sky, and the currents to judge the time of high tide, so that they
can use the subsequent ebb current to carry them out to sea. He almost certainly
knows that for Boston high water comes in late morning on days when the phase
of the moon is full, and can estimate from that.
But POB has described the moon as gibbous, setting about an hour or so before
sunrise in late May. This places it as just a day or two before the full moon.
When Jack, Stephen, and Diana depart in the scow at about 3 am in the middle
watch, they are are actually leaving at or shortly before low tide. Before they
reach the sea, they will be battling the incoming current from the rising tide.
POB reverses the situation the very next day, when the Chesapeake weighs anchor
to put out to sea. Again he observes that it is timed to take advantage of the
ebbing tide, but now he properly places it in late morning.
Don Seltzer
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
losmp wrote:
Each time Americans are mentioned, they are portrayed as noble and honourable
Maybe POB knew where his bread was buttered? I believe a substantial portion
of his income derived from American sales : }
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
While usually I'm always the first with a cynical explanation, I don't
believe this was the case. After all, if I'm not mistaken, the success of his
books in the USA came quite a while after the first volumes were written. I
also don't know the sales figures from France, but I don't think they were
economically as important as US and UK. And I can easily imagine a French
person reading POB and not cringing (with the possible exception of Stephen's
Port mahon ordeal), while the same with CSF is hard to imagine (they still
did translate the Hornblower novels into French - I wonder how they were
received).
Pawel
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
CS Forester admitted to that same influence, deliberately stationing HH
away from any possible encounters with Americans during the War of 1812.
POB had several reasons to be complimentary towards Americans. It was a
Philadelphia publisher that "commissioned" the first three books of the
canon. In fact, there is a kindly mention of a Philadelphia publisher in
FOW, who is agreeable to publishing Herapath's translations.
Don Seltzer
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
At 03/20/2002 10:17 AM -0800, Bob Saldeen wrote:
Yikes. So far I think I'm the only American that roots for the U.S team!
Well, I wasn't exactly pulling for the US team so much as I was unsteady in
my support for Jack.
Mike, fair weathered fan
40° 05' 27" N 088° 16' 57" W
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
At 03/20/2002 12:42 PM -0800, Pawel Golik wrote:
While usually I'm always the first with a cynical explanation, I don't
believe this was the case.
I agree with Pawel and offer another reason. Only a generation or so
earlier these Americans were British. There is a common history,
tradition, culture, and sometimes family. The degree of separation would
have been less than fighting Canadians or Australians, but likely less than
most European opponents. Perhaps POB was capturing some of this
ambivalence in his characters reactions.
Mike
"heavy, graceless, dark-faced, rude, domineering, inefficient, rich and
mean," [THD p. 45 describing Captain Ward]
40° 05' 27" N 088° 16' 57" W
From: Andy Hartley
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
During all the battles with Americans, I find myself terribly conflicted.
Always hoping something will come up to prevent their coming to blows.
Though I do feel terribly guilty when Jack beats them and I find myself
pleased. I get a similar feeling watching "Das Boot" when I can't quite
bring myself to root for the destroyers.
Andy
From: Chris Glover
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
Going back to Alice's comment, could someone tell me the English translation
of
"Waakzaamheid"?
Chris
51.31.22N
01.08.42W
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
Literally, wakefulness - alert(ness)
waak = wake
zaam = suffix "ful"
heid = suffix "ness"
pronounced wak' zam hate (the "w" is somewhere between (English) "v" and "w")
From: Jan Hatwell
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
In a message dated 3/20/02 5:56:48 PM GMT Standard Time,
mmebahorel@LAPOSTE.NET writes:
I just tend to sympathise politically
with the protagonists in the books I'm reading
I think this is true; if I enjoy an author I try to see the point of view he
has given his characters. I am American and English and my life is one
constant giddy round of seeing the other side.
BTW, does anyone else take what I do from the Jack reading to Sophie scene --
"All about love" ? Surely he must be wishing they could be doing something
other than reading about it?
Jan
51º 29' 25" N
00º 08' 01" W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Drabogues
On p. 224, Stephen applies this term to some "trollops."
POB again indulging his fancy for exotic words; this one I had not noted
before. I find "drab" in the Oxford Universal, but "drabogue" only in the
etymology - said to be from the Irish "drabog."
On the very next page, we have some fun when Jack speaks of Broke's stoicism,
"like ... a patient on the Monument, as they say."
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
on 3/20/02 12:07 PM, Steve Ross at skross@LSU.EDU wrote:
The point is this: such sympathies can exist apart from and alongside of
either our dismay and sadness at the loss of life, or our feelings about
which "side" is in the right.
It's worth considering , too, the skill with which POB makes good fellers
out of both sides. Not accidental. It's not only our own sympathies that are
called up here; it is POB's manipulation of them.
Charlezzzzz
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Americans
At 11:08 AM -0500 3/20/2002, Sherkin@aol.com wrote:
I must credit Don Seltzer with some kind of prescience because I was just
going to ask him about Java's wheel on Constitution.
This brings to mind the following vision.
Young 'urchin' in RN blue knocks on the door of the White House, "Please
sir, can we 'ave our wheel back?"
Stephen Chambers
50° 48' 38"N 01° 09' 15"W
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Americans
What's your name son?
Foreshaw,sir Midshipman Foreshaw of The Starship Surprise(away team).
Beam me up Bonden!
alec
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Andy Hartley
I get a similar feeling watching "Das Boot" when I can't quite
bring myself to root for the destroyers.
Good point-yeah I felt for those German submariners. And got to like and
admire them.
It makes you think, doesn't it?
How really imbedded are our 'inner feelings'- when we can empathise with U
boat sailors.
I'm sure that if there was a good TV series on the life of Napoleon we(I)
would start to get to like him too.
Not tonight though.
alec
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
The word itself means 'Vigilence'.
I remember checking it our before and finding it also had some medical
inferences -but I can't find that line tonight.
Anyway 'Vigilence' would have been the idea/theme when the ship was being
named.
alec
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: GRP: FOW Jack and Diana and Stephen
On pg 269, as they are escaping, Jack is thinking that Diana is unlucky,
that she brings bad luck and that he does not want to be around her. But
maybe Stephen has earned a chance with her.
Did he feel that she had brought bad luck to him, or to Stephen, or just in
general?
Linda
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Ahh, but don't we always empathize with the underdog? Who ever wanted to be
the cowboys when the Indians were on the run and ran lighting raids on the
settler's camp? Isn't part of the reason we love and admire Jack precisely
because Britain with it's tiny population stood alone against the huge
juggernaut of France?
A desperate stand is always more romantic than an evenly matched battle or a
huge advantage that is easily fulfilled. The U-boats become charming by
their very attrition rate. That is how we can simultaneously feel for Custer
at Little Big Horn, and the Black Kettle at Washita.
Sarah
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: "Michael R. Ward"
Only a generation or so
earlier these Americans were British. There is a common history,
tradition, culture, and sometimes family.
There were also a good many British people who thought that the Americans
were in the right during the War of Independence and sympathised with them.
Even a generation later in 1812 I should imagine that there would still be
reasonably strong connections of kinship. There may have also been some
sympathy with some of the US war aims in 1812, after all the British did
abandon the practice of one of the prime casus belli before the war even
started by stopping the press of American sailors.
Adam Quinan
From: Ruth Abrams
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW:Bostonians on the margin
One thing I love about Fortune of War is the characterization of early
19th century Boston. Three characters stick out for me in particular:
the Indian doorkeeper, the passing Quaker, and the "Negro stranger." All
three help Stephen, and all three share his outsider status.
Stephen also doesn't understand their position in the society he's
visiting. He continually says "Ugh" to the Indian, until the man
explains to him that Indians say ugh to white people to express disgust.
(Hilarious!) Stephen doesn't expect the Quaker to offer him money, and
has to stop himself from being offended.
POB is most overt about this "stranger observing the Other" trope in the
vignette in which a passing black man offers Stephen help with
directions. Here is the passage:
"Yet before he had time to knock he found he knew the place: although
the fog removed it from its context and altered its perspective, it was
the tavern where he had met Mr Herapath and his friends. The place was
open, and as he pushed the door a rectangular flood of orange light lit
up the fog. 'Come in and drink a cup of coffee, friend,' he said to his
companion.
'But I am a nigra, sir, a black man,' said he.
'That is no very heinous crime.'
'Oh brother, you sure are a stranger here,' said the Negro, laughing,
and he vanished into the fog, laughing still." FOW Norton PB pp.238-239.
In all three of these incidents, POB combines gentle humor, social
commentary and some kind of information about Stephen's character. I'm
not sure what POB was trying to say about race in these books. It shows
up as an issue in nearly every book, but never as the foreground. Very
interesting.
I also like seeing this view of the city where I live, a backward view
in time. The fog alters its perspective, but it is the tavern where I
had a coffee with John Finneran(:->)
Ruth A
From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
I doubt there was much sympathy with the US invasion of Canada, however...
Ted
(Empire Loyalist)
;)
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Chiming in again on this. I had intended to write this morning, also, that
during these encounters, whether French vs. British or RN vs. Americans, I
find myself more and more empathetic to the common sailors, wounded and
dying and being patched up by Stephen as best he can, amputating without
anesthesia. Those men lived very hard lives, perhaps brutal lives in the
sense that there was no time to refine any aesthetic sense; and they died
very hard deaths. If so badly wounded that they couldn't work aboard a
ship, what did they do on land, what could they do? The first time I sailed
thru the books, I tried not to think of them too much, but now, older and
wiser, it does bother me. I quit reading or watching sea stories after
Billy Budd--couldn't stand the floggings, so at least POB avoids such
needless cruelties.
It's interesting that we aren't allowed into the minds of any of
the common sailors, and it's a saving grace, really, in reading the novels.
~~ Linnea
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
It must be admitted that the British troops in Canada invaded parts of the
territories claimed by the United States and captured Fort Detroit and
Mackinac Island before the Americans invaded Upper Canada. But the sentiment
in Upper Canada (now Ontario whose motto is "Loyal she began, loyal she
remains") where the population included a large number of Empire Loyalists
was definitely not pro-American. Some Americans may have believed that the
Canadians (and recent American immigrants lured by offers of free land) were
aching for republican liberty while being crushed under the Hessian boots
of their British masters. In fact they weren't so unhappy and the War of
1812 is considered as a war of Canadian Independence in some circles.
Adam Quinan
From: Rob Schaap
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
G'day Sarah,
A desperate stand is always more romantic than an evenly matched battle or a
huge advantage that is easily fulfilled. The U-boats become charming by
their very attrition rate. That is how we can simultaneously feel for Custer
at Little Big Horn, and the Black Kettle at Washita.
All on the mark, of course, but I think the decisive factor is who you're
with. They're fully human to you - subjects, not just objects. People
never met are not.
The first propaganda move is always to 'other' the enemy (goes back to the
likes of Lasswell, that insight). But the propagandist finds it a lot
harder to demonise people we know than people we don't. And might not
manage it at all if there is no already-there prejudice with which to
resonate. I find prejudices in Sydney that are not there in the much more
conservative Hobart. I'm of the opinion that this is because Sydney is big
enough to support and produce enclaves (the suburb of Cabramatta is called
'Vietnamatta' for instance) - whereas Hobart is not. There the peoples
live beside below and above each other, drifting into each other's
experience daily.
Same with Das Boot and Stephen 'n' Jack. I think even Stephen would have
found a soft spot for The Tyrant had he had a chance to watch Rod Steiger's
unlikely but not altogether unsuccessful portrayal of him in 'Waterloo'
(and in which Wellington is no more likeable than he is anywhere else,
imho).
Anyway, Stephen and Jack are really good blokes
Cheers,
Rob.
From: Rick Ansell
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:32:21 -0500, Adam Quinan
wrote:
the British did
abandon the practice of one of the prime casus belli before the war even
started by stopping the press of American sailors.
I was interested to read 'the other side of the story' on this
in Popes 'Life in nelsons Navy'. Apparently US protections,
unlike those the British issued, contained only a cursory
description, just height and apparent age. They could be
obtained very easily, all a man had to do was swear before a
Notary that he was American and he got one. From 1796 he only
had to state to a customs official that this was the case. There
was no check that he was who he said he was.
As a result a trade in fraudulent US documents built up, GBP 5
being the going rate.
With the US refusing to 'clean up its act' American protections
were looked upon with great distrust and the US government as
actively conniving at starving the Royal Navy of men.
Then in 1790 aliens could claim US citizenship after two years
under residence or, after 1795, five years under US
jurisdiction, which included service in US ships.
But, under British law, British born meant British till death.
Whatever that US protection said, if you were born in Britain,
or in the US before independence, you were liable for pressing
(according to the British).
So what was a poor Lieutenant of a shorthanded ship, whose very
life might depend on better manning, sent aboard a vessel and
finding right seamen with American documents to do?
Rick
--
Aboard Invincible
Off Woodham (by 4in)
51 Deg 20 Min 33 Sec N
00 Deg 30 Min 14 Sec W
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:48 AM
Subject: Sympathy for the underdog (was: RE: [POB] GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans)
I'm not sure everybody instinctively feels for the underdog, but among us
civilized folk here I would hope we do. There are underdogs and underdogs,
however. For whatever reasons (I haven't quite figured them out) I've
*never* had sympathy for Custer (no doubt in large measure because of his
arrogance; whether he was actually as arrogant as he's been portrayed, I
admit I've not bothered to find out). While watching *Das Boot,* my heart
sympathized with the individual Germans until my conscious mind began to
remind me that, whatever the circumstances, these guys were part of the Nazi
machine which was trying it's damndest to destroy civilization, not to
mention all the Jews who were a part of it.
In FoW, I find, it's far, far easier for an American to sympathize with the
RN's losses at American Navy hands. As someone else pointed out, there was a
bond between the two, as being from the same source, the same culture, as
having many of the same values, and the same language -- family, really --
which did not obtain regarding the French and the English (as Jack thinks to
himself later).
My reaction when I read those passages is one of emotional conflict. How can
one not sympathize deeply with Jack as a man we've come to love, and because
of that, with the institution, the Royal Navy, he represents (and with
Philip Broke, e.g. -- partly because he's Jack's friend and cousin)? But his
surly unfriendliness after capture also highly irritates me, though I
understand it's source. On the other hand, Lawrence is also an extremely
sympathetic character as POB portrays him.
As Charlezzzz pointed out in this thread, POB is extremely skillful in
manipulating our sympathies for both sides. That's true throughout the
canon. In fact, I had absolutely NO interest or sympathy with naval or
military matters of any kind, and thus, no interest in any individual navies
(or any armed forces) before I read O' Brian. But how can one not develop
some interest in the Royal Navy itself when it is Jack's life and animates
his soul in the way it does in the books? (And then, by extension, the U.S.
Navy). O' Brian is responsible for a substantial change in my outlook in
that regard.
Marian
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Lovely post Linnea. I especially liked your phrase "there was no time
to refine any aesthetic sense" so their lives were perhaps brutal;
occasionally I think about what life was like for my ancestors of only
several generations ago; my mother, for example, was born in what is now
the Ukraine, and was living there during WWI, when her townspeople were
evacuated by the Austro-Hungarian empire to which they belonged, when
the Russians were invading, and she never forgot the march out of town,
seeing it being shelled across the river; she never forgot the mud
either.
No telephones, cars, washing machines, etc. No time. Lots more
brutality.
Isabelle Hayes
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Alec O'Flaherty wrote:
I'm sure that if there was a good TV series on the life of Napoleon we(I)
would start to get to like him too
You can probably rent a video of Abel Gance's "Napoleon", which should
do it for you, in terms of appreciating the early man.
Isabelle Hayes
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Sympathy for the underdog (was: RE: [POB] GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans)
on 3/21/02 8:48 AM, Marian Van Til at rxbach@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
While watching *Das Boot,* my heart
sympathized with the individual Germans until my conscious mind began to
remind me that, whatever the circumstances, these guys were part of the Nazi
machine which was trying it's damndest to destroy civilization, not to
mention all the Jews who were a part of it.
Marian has the right of it.
The writers, directors, actors, all skillfully made me sympathize with the
individuals in that submarine. I wanted no harm to come to them. I wanted
them to do no harm, either. They were people in a deep predicament, and any
of us, given the conditions of 1944, might have found ourselves aboard: I
believe that submarine sailors in Germany were drafted aboard--not
volunteers.
And yet I've hunted those bastards, hunted them loaded and ready to drop,
and wd have dropped whooping with pleasure if I'd ever found one. Because
they were fighting for a cause wch I still believe was evil if any cause was
ever evil.
Charlezzzzz
From: Mary S
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Mourning Doves
Wondering whether this bird did indeed hang around Boston, I did a websearch
which tells me that yes, indeed it might. Also learned these interesting
facts which impinge upon the Canon at certain points and also refer back to
our recent discussion of scientific naming:
Mourning Dove, Zenaida macroura
Scientific name: The genus name Zenaida was coined from the name of the wife
(Zenaide) of Charles Bonaparte, a French ornithologist who lived and worked
in the early 1800s.
Not as early as our period, however, he being born only in 1803. He was a
nephew of the Corsican Ogre, and it tells more about him at this informative
page:
http://www.goldengateaudubon.org/EducResources/EarlyBirds/BonapartesVictories.
htm
Or shorter link
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2341509
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: David Hipschman
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: String
Reading the string thread on this first full day of spring,
or Tying it all together
or POB helps everyone celebrate Purim
Beloved Charlezzzzz's "ganza" Megillah string theory,
marked our protagonists twain
and tied the rope and cord of their affection together,
an umbilicus to the parchment scroll Queenie,
