|
|
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:18:08 -0800, Marshall Rafferty 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
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'
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
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)
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 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
The word toucher is used in some games, such as bowls, to describe a ball
that is so close as to touch another.
John
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a
horrible warning." --Catherine Aird
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
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 Gerry:
I am as stupid as stupid gets. Not practicing at all. Sorry to disappoint...
Karen
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
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
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
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?
--------------------
Steve Ross
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]
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
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 . . .
. . . 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.
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
=====
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: 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
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.
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 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.
(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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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?
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
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
And there's a recurring character called the "handsome sailor" who stands
for whatever Melville needs at the moment.
Charlezzzzz
I'd hate to think that Jagiello lost his beauty to old age.
Age cannot wither, nor custom stale his infinite variety.
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
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
The Wenger clan was settled in the Linville-Edom area of
Pennsylvania in the 1700's.
- Susan Wenger, married into the lot
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
I read the phrase "well-plucked" as meaning plucky or brave almost
automatically. It seemed to fit in well enough.
Adam Quinan
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
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.
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
--------------------
Steve Ross
Alec O'Flaherty
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
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
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: 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
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
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.
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
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
POB was a deep file, with many levels to his humor. Perhaps both interpretations
can be true.
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
And also brings up the image of Jack reading these novels aloud to Sophie.
"All about love."
Don Seltzer
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
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)..."
--
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
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
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
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.
I'm ashamed to say I wanted the Java to blow the Constitution to kingdom
come.
Linda
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
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
Whew! Thanks, Rowen. Now I don't feel so much like (Across-the-) pond scum.
Linda
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
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
--
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
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.
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,
In FOW, p. 220, the above verse is repeated, but with two more lines appended:
"Still through my pulses glides the kindling fire
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
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
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
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....]
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Finally Stephen gets some use out of Diana!
Linda
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 Well, turnabout is fair play, don't you think? And they ain't married yet!
Linda
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
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
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?
And then, of course, why is it "either/or"? Is there a way to save all?
;-)
Rowen
My compliments to Mr Seltzer and desire him to say what the letters GRP (in the Subject line) mean
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
--------------------
Steve Ross
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
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
ZZZZ is stringing us along.
Ginger
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.
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
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 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
But never mind that; it was a fine navel metaphor.
Martin @ home:
Bob:
Er, me too. Go Navy!
Karen
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
--
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
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).
--------------------
Steve Ross
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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!!
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
losmp 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 : }
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
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
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
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
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
Going back to Alice's comment, could someone tell me the English translation
of
"Waakzaamheid"?
Chris Literally, wakefulness - alert(ness) pronounced wak' zam hate (the "w" is somewhere between (English) "v" and "w")
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
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
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
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 What's your name son?
Foreshaw,sir Midshipman Foreshaw of The Starship Surprise(away team).
Beam me up Bonden!
alec
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
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
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
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: "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
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
I doubt there was much sympathy with the US invasion of Canada, however...
Ted
(Empire Loyalist)
;)
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
Reading the string thread on this first full day of spring,
Beloved Charlezzzzz's "ganza" Megillah string theory,
David Hipschman
That great Spoiler
it wd be good, if, like puppies
read chapter after chapter,
I wdn't
Charlezzzzz
As an officer and a gentleman, was Jack splitting hairs when he said he had
not given his parole, so it was all right for him to escape? Was he too sick
when the others gave their paroles? Parole seemed implicit to me since he
wasn't in a dank jail cell. Had the Americans forgotten, or were they acting
in bad faith, with no intention of exchanging him? And nowadays, it is an
officer's duty to escape, isn't it?
Linda
In chapter 8 of FOW, Jack, Stephen, and Diana escaped from Boston in a
small fishing scow. Sailing shortly before dawn, they traveled from the
inner harbor to the open waters of Massachusetts Bay, where they were
picked up by the frigate Shannon on patrol. The route they took indicates
that POB had studied contemporary charts of the harbor.
See
http://www.hmssurprise.org/Photos/Gallery/Escape_from_Boston.htm
Much of Boston's waterfront is built on filled-in land. Most of South
Boston was shallows and mudflats in 1813. Castle Island and Fort
Independence, guarding the entrance to the inner harbor, is on a peninsula
today, but was a separate island in the early 19th century. Just across
the deep water channel was Governor's Island, now the southern tip of Logan
airport. The rest of the airport was formerly shallows and tidal flats.
In the outer harbor, the ship channels to the ocean have not changed as
much. One channel leads eastward between Deer Island and Lovell's Island.
Another channel, less obvious, leads southeasterly between Lovell's and
George's Island. During the Civil War, the imposing Fort Warren was built
on George's Island to control the approaches, but in 1813 there was
only a small battery located there.
When they left the commercial shipping wharves of Boston at around 3 am,
the wind was blowing from the NW. Jack steered somewhat north of east to
compensate for the considerable leeway of the scow. The ebb tide carried
them along at 4 or 5 knots. The Chesapeake was anchored in the deep water
channel, probably under the guns of Castle Island. Jack steered a course
through the shallows to the north of Castle and Governor's islands, across
what would be the runways of the airport today. Passing the Chesapeake on
their starboard side, they could hear the calling of the morning watch
before 4 am.
Continuing on, the wind began to veer forward, increasing their leeway.
They could no longer keep on an easterly course, and found themselves
scraping the rocks on the northern point of Long Island. The sun rose at
4:30 above Lovell's Island ahead. Not sure if they could weather Lovell's
Island, Jack chose to turn southeast through the narrow channel, with the
battery on George's Island to his lee. Rounding the southern tip of
Lovell's they could see the Shannon hull up beyond the Brewsters, standing
in from the Graves, small islets to the north of the Brewsters.
http://www.hmssurprise.org/Photos/Gallery/Shannon_in_Offing.htm
Thanks to Bill Nyden for placing these photos in the Gunroom photo gallery
website, along with
http://www.hmssurprise.org/Photos/Gallery/Arriving_in_Boston.htm
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 3/22/02 7:22:08 AM, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes:
The Chesapeake was anchored in the deep water
channel, probably under the guns of Castle Island.
This is a phrase I've wondered about. Just exactly what is meant by "under
the guns"?
Does this mean "under the protection of the guns", or "within gunshot range"
- which could be as much as ? a mile? more? away, or "directly beneath the
location of the guns which are higher on a cliff", or "too close for the guns
to be angled down enough to hit"?
Rowen
Initially he was too sick. Later they kept holding him because they thought
he was involved in espionage against them (and the French). They would not
have been obligated to exchange a spy.
Marian
Linda:
I wonder if Jack would have left if he had given his
parole. I mean, he had a duty to help Stephen, being his
friend, but was his word more than his friendship?
Honestly, I doubt he would have stayed but it would have
been a difficult moral issue for poor Jack!
I suspect that because Jack was ill he never got the
opportunity to give his parole. I think the Americans sort
of figured it was impled or thought that 'someone else'
had taken care of it. After all, how would Jack get
anywhere? Apparently it was not thought through
thoroughly. I don't recall hearing anything about Stephen
giving his but then it wouldn't have mattered to Stephen,
given the situation.
If you want to discuss that other fellow, Horatio
Hornblower, his parole meant a lot to him. He managed to
work his way all the way back to the British navy from the
shores of Spain and then turned around and went back to
Spain. He had given his parole and would not go back on
his word. That the Spanish let him go was a bit too
romantic to me but I didn't write it! It seems a similar
situation and is a sort of example of your word being your
bond.
Karen von Bargen
Rowen:
My impression is that under the guns meant that they
could fire the guns over you and hit whatever was coming
but you were unable to be hit yourself due to the angle.
I'll take answer D, "too close for the guns to be angled
down enough to hit".
Does anyone else know?
Karen von Bargen
I've always taken it to mean 'in the field of fire of' - as in
protected or menaced by - or closer. On at least one occasion
(Post Captain?) Jack cuts out a ship anchored _too_ far under
the guns of a fort - they could not be depressed far enough to
hit his boats.
Certainly I have seen it used in reference to a
captured/impounded ship being anchored under a fortresses guns
to discourage/prevent its being retaken. This would not be
_quite_ so effective if it were inside the guns minimum range.
Rick
David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War
role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden
in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes
would have been based on crew availability."'
At 8:43 AM -0800 3/22/2002, Karen von Bargen wrote:
I suspect that because Jack was ill he never got the
opportunity to give his parole. I think the Americans sort
of figured it was impled or thought that 'someone else'
had taken care of it.
I think you have the right of it. All of the other captured officers
probably gave their parole when they were transferred to another ship,
before the voyage north to Boston. Only Jack remained aboard Constitution
because of his serious wounds. Commodore Bainbridge should have asked, but
he was wounded too. In the confusion upon arrival in Boston, it might have
been just one of those details that slipped through the bureaucratic cracks.
I don't recall hearing anything about Stephen
giving his but then it wouldn't have mattered to Stephen,
given the situation.
Fortunately for Stephen, naval surgeons were not considered prisoners of
war, and he was free to leave whenever he wished.
Don Seltzer
According to an old Aussie movie about Galipoli, "under the guns" was
dashing in on horseback while the artillery was aimed too high. A very
dangerous practice since the aim could be lowered (and was, in this
case.) I take it to mean your last two choices below: guns higher and
guns too close. In the case of the Chesapeake, I take it to mean the
guns could hit any ship approaching her.
Jill
On page 134 (Norton), Stephen says to Mr Evans, surgeon of the _Constitution,_ "And had I been out of coats at the time, I should
have joined you at Bunker Hill, and Valley Forge, and those other interesting spots." What does he mean by "out of coats"?
Boyce Kendrick
In a message dated 3/22/02 10:43:41 AM Central Standard Time,
stephen_maturin@REBELSPY.NET writes:
If you want to discuss that other fellow, Horatio
Hornblower, his parole meant a lot to him.
And then there's the book where Horny defuses a dangerous situation at sea by
lying that Napoleon is dead, or something like that - I don't remember the
details. He simply agonizes and agonizes over it afterwards, even when it
turns out that when he gave it, the news was not a lie (though he didn't know
that).
Jack wouldn't have laughed it off, had he lied in such a situation, but I
think he would have gotten over it easier than ol' Horatio (who was big on
agonizing). A gentleman's word meant a terrific amount in those days.
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
I believe it means out of short coats, ie, not a child. Someone else can
better explain at what age one might graduate to long coats, but I didn't
want you to think nobody read this!
Sarah
S
Remember how bent out of shape he got over the rescue of Padeen and
Clarissa? That was two-fold. First, he had given his word not to take anyone
off, and didn't want to even try and wiggle around a pedantic
interpretation. Two, he was backed into a corner, with no opportunity to
make his own decision. Stephen had reasonably assumed he would be in favor
of the rescue. Poor old Jack was certainly perched on the horns of a dilemma
here!
Linda
I know that young boys in genteel society were often dressed up in what
looked like very feminine clothes until they were six or seven years old
(later it was sailor suits). Perhaps Stephen was referring to an
abbreviation of petticoats? Though he would have been actually about six or
seven during the American rebellion.
Adam Quinan
Now that I have your attention.......
I was a bit surprised to see the F word appear in FOW. I didn't recall
seeing it anywhere else.
Doesn't he usually use blanks, for most profanity?
Linda
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, 16:36:33 -0500, Boyce Kendrick wrote:
What does he mean by "out of coats"?
I take it as meaning "had my allegiance not been elsewhere." Stephen would
have been a bit young for Bunker Hill, etc. The list consensus, IIRC, is
that Jack and Stephen are around 30 at the beginning of M&C. That would
place their birthdates around 1770.
Bob Kegel
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:17:54 -0600, Linda asked:
As an officer and a gentleman, was Jack splitting hairs when he said he had
not given his parole, so it was all right for him to escape? Was he too sick
when the others gave their paroles?
It's been awhile since I read FOW. so I have a question. Was the
parole which was given simply to not try to escape, or was it to stay
out of the conflict after an exchange? (Clever of POB to have Jack too
injured to give it... )
Were there different kinds of paroles?
Were exchanged prisoners allowed to rejoin the conflict?
Marshall Rafferty
________
Bainbridge told his captives if they would give their word not to serve
against the US until exchanged, they could go home.
Linda
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:14:35 +0000, Alec wrote of "Waakzaamheid":
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.
Insomnia?
Marshall
I'd disagree with the implication of "turncoat" and go along with
the idea of "had I been old enough".
Martin @ home:
Gotta be. the chap was between 5 and 8 at the time of these particular
disagreements.
I don't know much in the way of US history, but imagine the implication is
that there was something about 1812 that radically distinguished it from
1775. Stephen's loathing for Napolean might have served to make him cross
with the US for doing blockade-busting business with the French whilst
Britain was at war with 'em.
*Alert* *Possible spoiler by way of elaboration*
Hope I'm not giving anything away when I note that his loathing for
Napolean, or his fear of a Napoleonic victory, are such that he effectively
(if rather sweetly and agonisingly) opposes even his erstwhile Irish
comrades when the latter get too close to Boney.
Waddyareckon, lissuns?
Rob.
He uses the cword a couple of times.
--
Only a guess, but I think that 'out of coats' means the same as ''breeched'
That is, out of the long coats or smocks that a young child would have worn
to make certain intimate parental cleaning duties quicker, and into
breeches, which produce that familiar cry- 'MUUUM! I gotta go!' followed by
'Too late! sorry mum.'
Peace
John
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a
horrible warning." --Catherine Aird
As I understand it, there were several types of parole.
In those days, officers, at least, would expect to be exchanged with
capturedf enemy officers of equivalent rank. Even common seamen and soldiers
would often be exchanged. One of the many complaints about Napoleon was that
he did not observe this custom and kept his prisoners for the duration of
hostilities. If there were no equivalent prisoners in the enemy hands, then
an officer might be released to go home under parole not to fight against
his captors until he had been formally exchanged. So a prisoner of the
Americans could be released under parole not to fight the Americans until
"exchanged" but he could serve against the French.
Additionally, one could give one's parole not to escape while you were
waiting to be exchanged, this would allow free movement and the chance to
live in a comfortable residence and avoid the discomfort and inconvenience
of being locked up in a cell.
Adam Quinan
I'd go so far as to suggest that 'coats' is short for 'petticoats', for
lads and laddettes were dressed alike until a certain age (the precise
number of years escapes me).
H
And the sword, too, damn my eyes!
Boyce
I was working from the term "to wear the King's coat", meaning to serve in
the army or navy. Further study shows me Sarah, Martin and Rob are correct.
In TMC, page 331, Pullings congratulates Jack on the birth of his son: "But
a boy!--Our nipper, sir, if ever I get a settled command of my own, shall
come to sea the minute he is out of coats, and properly breeched."
Adam wrote: "Perhaps Stephen was referring to an abbreviation of
petticoats?"
I now recall an old picture of my father, born in 1904. He looks to be about
2 years old and is wearing what looks very much like a petticoat.
Bob Kegel
"Not out of coats" has only one meaning in the context of the times: he had
not been "breeched", or "breached" as POB spelled it, and which was discussed
in our last Groupread.
Jean A.
By "breached" do you mean "made to leap clear of the water, whale-like"? Sounds unbaleineced to me. (I learned that word from the
French sea-salt box.)
Boyce
[Forwarded to restore the original subject line. It's a continuity thing--don't they give Oscars for that? Keep ever in your minds,
listwains, that "Oscar" is a registered trademark!]
Boyce
(SMALL SPLOILER)
From the reading I've done there seems to be your standard parole, where you
agree not to escape until exchanged and for this you are allowed your
freedom from prison, then conditions can be applied. For instance if it was
inconvenient to drag a prisoner around then the condition would be to go
back to your army/navy and not to fight until an appropriate exchange with
an officer of equal rank had been completed. Once the exchange took place
one was free to continue fighting.
IMHO Jack was very much in the right as his word had to be given explicitly
and could not be assumed. It is my understanding that the norm would be to
treat an officer who had not given his parole as a regular prisoner and
curtail his freedom (sorry, I had to get the word "curtail" in somewhere). I
believe this is the case when Jack and Stephen are locked up in Temple
Prison in the Surgeon's Mate.
Just my random thoughts.
Cheers
Brian
At the very end of M&C, Jack has been captured and carried to Gibraltar. Clearly,
he has given parole not to fight until formally exchanged, and not to give other
aid to the British either, since we see him, frustrated, in Gib merely watching
while everybody else is busy as...beasts...in getting the British ships ready
for the Action in the Gut that is to follow.
Charlezzzzz
I think that Steven would have seen the two wars as very different. In 1776
the colonist were fighting for independence from a somewhat overbearing
government. I believe that Steven would have seen this as a just war (he
would later support several South American independence efforts.)
The 1812 conflict on the other hand included a attempt by the US to take
Canada. The more imitated cause, the British Navy's belief that it was
entitled to stop American flag merchant men, to look for British seamen to
press into navy service might have seemed to Steven to be "normal business."
(the most extreme case of this being the Chesapeake - "horrible old" Leopard
incident, an embarrassment even to the most arrogant officers in the British
Navy, and the cause of so many problems for our heroes) I think Steven
might have also seen the US as trying to take advantage of the British
preoccupation with the little Frenchman who was causing so many problems in
Europe at the same time.
Randy Hees
Doesn't he usually use blanks, for most profanity?
Linda:
It seems to be blanks for gentle folk, the actual word
printed out for the rest of the ungentle world.
Karen
In a message dated 3/23/02 8:48:21 AM Central Standard Time, Sherkin@AOL.COM
writes:
he had not been "breeched", or "breached" as POB spelled it
I think that was most likely a typo, actually. Or a POB spelling error not
corrected by the editors?
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
Below is a link to a very interesting article entitled "So Uneasy A Ship -
The Unfortunate Career of the Frigate Chesapeake" by Joseph C. Mosier.
http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/ches1.htm
The article also contains links to the officials letters after the action
between the Chesapeake and the Shannon, as well as a link showing her
current whereabouts (ducking and running for cover!)
My apologies if this link has already been posted to the list, but it's
relevant to the current group read of FOW.
Elaine Jones
Steve wrote: "....though I sometimes wonder if the gentlemanly
dealings with enemy commanders like Christy-Palliere are not a bit
idealized".
The whole set of actions between Christy-Palliere and Jack happened
almost exactly as PO'B wrote - the honourable return of the sword to
the surrendered commander of the brig, the sang-froid of the continued
breakfast in the cabin as battle approached, the British ball smashing
the case of wine, the captured British commander viewing the Battle of
Algeciras from the Great Cabin of the "Desaix", and so on.
They took place in 1801 between Christy-Palliere and Lord Cochrane
(Thomas, not his uncle Alexander), former commander of the little
4-pdr. brig-sloop "Speedy" which a few weeks before had taken the
Spanish 12-pdr. xebec frigate "Gamo", 32.
The Revolution had perhaps diminished the Anglo-French mutally cordial
and gentlemanly behaviour as respectful enemies, "the best of
enemies", so prevalent in the 18thC, but much evidently survived.
Now, who has got the proper text of the incident in the Seven Years
War, I think (US : The French and Indian War, Europe: the Third
Silesian War - 1756-63, at any rate, the war of "The Last of the
Mohicans") when a French army commander besieging a British position
(in Canada?) sent in a letter to the defending commander reading
something like: "Sir, I look forward to the Pleasure of meeting you as
a Friend, after I have had the Honour of facing you as an enemy"?
Regards,
Roger Marsh
"Dans ce pays-ci [La Grande Bretagne, Britain], il est bon de tuer de
temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" (Voltaire, 1757).
Boyce Kendrick wrote:
"My compliments to Mr Seltzer and desire him to say what the letters
GRP (in the Subject line) mean."
Why, suitably for the Canon, though an anachronism, it must be that
well-known boat-building material known in Ameriglish as "Fiberglass"
and in Britspeak as "GRP" - Glass Reinforced Plastic.
Regards,
Roger Marsh
I am intrigued by Philip Broke; and the care and detail with which O' Brian
draws him as a character -- and, as much detail as he gives us and care he
seemed to take, he lets him just sort of fade away after this book. Is Broke
mentioned more than once later on? I always regret that POB "let him get
away." I think Broke would have been an very interesting ongoing (if
intermittant) character; having made him a cousin of Jack's is the perfect
ploy, and his personality is a good foil for Jack's. Of course, as an
historical figure it might have been tough for O'Brian to have him appear
more frequently without doing violence to history, which I imagine he was
loath to do. But he could have had Jack visit Broke a time or two while
ashore -- seeing that Broke never went to sea again due to the injuries
related to his near scalping during the Shannon/Chesapeake encounter.
I know the stuff about Broke's gunnery innovations, etc., applied to the
historical Broke. But the other detail makes me wonder whether O'Brian
himself devised the personal biographical stuff about Broke (re: his
character/personality, his marriage, his faith, etc.), or whether POB was
basing it on historical data -- letters, diaries, documents, from those who
knew Broke and/or the man himself. Anybody know?
There's a portrait of Broke at this link:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Philip+Bowes+Vere+Broke&hl=en&btnG=Google+
Search
To see a larger, much better view click on the picture, which will divide
the screen horizontally; scroll down the bottom part to Broke's protrait. A
painting of the battle between the Shannon and Chesapeake is also among the
War of 1812-related stuff there.
Marian
Andy Hartley summed up the feeling of many American readers when he
said: "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."
I am encouraged to think that this may indicate that humanity towards
one's fellow-men (and women too, of course; "men" in the sense of "
mankind"; "Mensche" rather than "Maenner") may yet triumph on a global
scale over nationalism, fanaticism and factionalism.
Ands there is much hope in our youth, the youth of today. When my
middle son was 9½, a couple of years ago, the village primary school
asked for poems on Armistice Day, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the
11th month, a day which still holds such resonance in France, Britain
and Germany particularly. Well, some did reply with triumphalist
offerings on the lines of "Yah boo sucks, we forcefully applied the
toes of our boots to Teutonic glutea maxima" - if you have my meaning
smoak'd, Ma'ams and Sirs - but many children showed remarkable
insight.
My own boy, who has always been very aware of such awful conflicts as
Kossovo and the many others of his young life, and also of the
resulting human and refugee problems, wrote several really very mature
stanzas on both the horrors and the courage of war, recognising that
the German soldier exhibited just the same bravery and suffered the
same fears and sacrifices as the British. I am sure he would have
extended this to include all other participant nations, French, US,
Japanese, Italian, our Empire partners...
He than launched, at the age of just 9½, into his closing 4 lines:
"So people say we won the war, but no-one really wins
Well, it made me weep. Still does.
He's sitting in the next room right now at the piano (an old
instrument by Schwechten, Berlin, c. 1880-1890 at a guess), on a sunny
Sunday Spring morning, writing a song - sounds a sombre but beautiful
one. He is 12.
Peace to all,
Roger Marsh
"I was the enemy you killed, my friend" (Wilfred Owen, 1917
Give you joy of your wonderful son, Roger! Such insight at an age when
most children, including my own, think of war as a glorious enterprise
where evil legions are mown down by the square-jawed heroes of our side.
I asked this before but don't appear to have received a responce.
Page 156 Harper
Stephen,referring to a a crew member of an American merchantman and
an'incident' with 'Leander'.
'A man was killed,or died or at all events lost the number of his mess:
What does 'lost the number of his mess' mean?
Thanks
alec
I believe it was said that spoiler warnings were not posted for Group Read
ordinarily, but I am posting one here for the Drama of Jack's Arm. This is
one of the most compelling plot devices in the whole series for me, and the
one that made me finally skip to the end because I had to know what
happened. So I don't want to spoil that for anyone else.
Also, Mr Reade is discussed here as well, so if you don't know him, stop
now.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Following discussions of the horrors of war on the individual, and the
concept of an enemy's anonymity:
I was very surprised when Jack got shot. Absolutely on pins and needles
when he told Stephen to just bind it up, he could have it off later if he
wished. Of course Stephen has been "whipping off" (Jack's term) arms and
legs as easy as
kiss my hand since M&C, but this was PERSONAL. It's so hard to imagine a
society where amputations are the order of the day.
Then he gets so sick, nearly unto death, with a smell of gangrene about him.
Is it coming off now? Then he is taken to the hospital in Boston, and is
writing so earnestly to
Sophie, Stephen admits to himself that Dr. Choate is more hopeful about the
arm than he is - OK, now it's coming off, right?
So Jack convalesces and gets stronger. They escape. They go into battle with
the Chesapeake, with the arm bound up again. So I'm left hanging. (actually,
no - I cheated again!)
I felt as if I were suffering with Jack every second - yet I don't remember
any other wounding in the Canon getting so much attention. It moved the
whole concept of the war from the abstract to the concrete, because I "knew"
Jack.
As for Mr. Reade: when Jack saw his little arm on the pile of limbs - I felt
a physical pain in my belly.
Linda
I hope you are now comforted by the evidence in subsequent that Mr Reade's
arm is regrowing nicely and by the time he becomes Admiral of the Fleet, he
will be wholly restored. ;-)
What is he - a lizard? [G]
Linda
Little Harper is also convalescing nicely.
The joke about Reade's arm (which Linda is too fresh a lissun to have
experienced) is:
S
that in later volumes, POB is inconsistent about the length of Reade's arm -
first it is gone at the shoulder, then later he has a stump - hence the
comment about regeneration...So, yes, he is a lizard, sorta.
-RD
LOL, Rosemary! I had vaguely felt the inconsistency, but thought I was just
imagining. Details, details, details!
Linda
From: "Roger" I am encouraged to think that this may indicate that humanity towards one's
fellow-men (and women too, of course; "men" in the sense of " mankind"; "Mensche"
rather than "Maenner") may yet triumph on a global scale over nationalism, fanaticism
and factionalism.
I think this will often be the case on the individual level, when we feel we
have something in common with the "enemy". That's why we are always encouraged
to focus on the "otherness" of the enemy when a conflict is looming - otherwise
we would lose our nerve and back off.
My own boy, who has always been very aware of such awful conflicts as Kossovo
and the many others of his young life, and also of the resulting human and refugee
problems, wrote several really very mature stanzas on both the horrors and the
courage of war, recognising that the German soldier exhibited just the same
bravery and suffered the same fears and sacrifices as the British.
I have always tried to remind my battle-hungry youngster to see the other
side of war. I think it does sink in, but he doesn't choose to show it yet.
We read Douglas Reeman's HMS Saracen, which is set partly against the
Gallipoli campaign, and I believe it made him stop and think. He has since
gone back to read it on his own (but probably only to pick out the battle
scenes!)
He than launched, at the age of just 9½, into his closing 4 lines:
"So people say we won the war, but no-one really wins Well, it made me weep. Still does.
You must feel very proud of your son for his maturity and sense of humanity.
It sounds as though Charlezzzzz has an up-and-coming rival in the poetry stakes!
He's sitting in the next room right now at the piano (an old instrument
by Schwechten, Berlin, c. 1880-1890 at a guess), on a sunny Sunday Spring morning,
writing a song - sounds a sombre but beautiful one. He is 12.
Your piano is about 15 years older than our Broadwood White upright iron grand.
I wonder which lissun has the oldest piano?
Elaine Jones
Just watched Gary Cooper in Sargent York, a patriotic movie for the time
when England was fighting but not yet the US. You will remember that York
was a pacifist.
John
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:47:36 -0500, Marian wrote:
Is Broke mentioned more than once later on?
Apparently not, according to Gary Brown's PASC; only the brief
mention in FSOW of his forming a militia. In the historical note,
Brown comments that Broke never served at sea again following
his head injury incurred during the Shannon/Chesapeake victory.
I wonder if his never serving at sea again, combined with his
"dour" character, contributed to his being dropped. I'm struck by the
description (by Jack) of his wife as a "rich hypochondriac" named
Louisa, and the historical reference of his affectionate letters to
her, addressing her as "my beloved Loo/Looloo," again courtesy
of Brown's notes.
It doesn't sound as though his letters were dour. Probably the serious
type, especially in public.
Marshall Rafferty
p.s. New crewmates could do much worse than obtain a copy of Gary
Brown's "Persons, Animals, Ships and Cannon in the Aubrey-Maturin Sea
Novels of Patrick O'Brian."
It is an indispensable companion to the series, though it obviously
contains many spoilers.
This is my first posting to the list, aside from a brief intro, so bear with
me.
When a man joins a ship's company, he is given a number. This number
indicated the mess he was assigned to. A mess was a group of men that ate
together. The number also indicated where he was to sling his hammock. The
number was printed on a wooden tag that was to be attached to the end of the
hammock when stowed away. The number, essentially, indicated the sailor's
place in the ship's company. If you were to "lose the number of your mess",
you have lost your place in the ship's company. Normally this would be
used to describe a death or an injury so severe that you were unable to
continue to serve. I don't believe that it was used to refer to someone just
transferring to another ship, being paid off, or other routine occurrences.
The tag would remain on the hammock when stowed away (i.e. up on deck),
and of course a sailor was generally sewn up in his hammock for burial.
Only then would the tag be removed, because of course it was no more use
to him.
But a sailor being drafted to another ship, or discharged or whatever,
would also lose the number of his mess, though not in as spectacular
fashion. Likewise if his hammock was destroyed by storm or enemy action,
he would also have lost the number of his mess.
It may be that the phrase is a euphemism that has transcended the
original meaning. For instance, we all know what "passed on" or "passed
away" means, though I dare say it originally meant no more than a
traveller who had passed on down the road. And it always sounds odd to
other ears to hear an American speak of "going to the bathroom", a
euphemism that may have utterly transcended the plain meaning.
It may be that the phrase was first used to describe death at sea in a
genteel fashion, a bit of black humour, suitable to be wrote home, much
as Jack glosses over such things when writing to Sophie. But then its
use became general, as is so often the case with really useful jokes,
and in time its more spectacular meaning became the accepted one, and
sailors genuinely losing the number of their mess would be treated as
being ghostly apparitions until they had carved a new one.
But yes, welcome aboard, Jim. Carve yourself a niche, fill your wooden
mug up with some cheery brew and take a seat by the fireside. You may
tell us about yourself if you wish - the list is full of sea-lawyers and
sea-pilots and more birders than you can shake a stick at.
I have the Honour to be
Peter Mackay
35° 17' 30" S, 149° 9' 59" E
I think that by his last appearance in the canon, Reade's arm has regrown so
much that he can now be fitted with a hook which would mean that his elbow
had regenerated.
And in the as-yet unpublished Jet-Black Shore, he is a topmast hand. I
wonder if Himself was having another of his little jokes with us?
Is there any concensus as to the cause of the fire on 'La Fleche'.
I had felt that McLean was set up by POB to be the guilty party-but from
various posts it seems to be a matter of debate/uncertainty.
Is there any clue in 'real history' as to the cause of the fire?
alec
ps Excuse my asking this if it's stupid-but were there any other survivors
of the fire other than Jack's blue cutter crew-all his own people(by and
large)
a
on 3/24/02 2:29 PM, Peter Mackay at peter.mackay@BIGPOND.COM wrote:
> It may be that the phrase is a euphemism that has transcended the
> original meaning.
A couple of times in the canon a character is said to have "copped it." To
me, this means that he died. But that's clearly not always the case.
And to "look a bit old fashioned." Seems, by context, to mean badly injured.
Anybody have any insight on these POBian turns of phrase?
Charlezzzzz
When I was a kid I was often told I would "cop it" for doing something
wrong. Then it meant simply getting a dressing down.
Kevin, still alive in TO.
43° 38' 44" N
Google found me this one from Kipling's story "The Janeites"
"For the unit is doomed. Literally. One of the officers - in private
life an actuary - estimated that members in a forward artillery unit
like theirs have a life expectancy of six weeks. This, as it turns
out, is a generous estimate. For the Germans launched a last
offensive that overran their entire front and in Humberstall's words,
'Believe me, gents - or Brethren, I should say - we copped it cruel.'
A few confused, blood-soaked hours after Humberstall comes to
consciousness, dazed and wounded, to find himself the only Janeite
left. His mates had all been killed, and 'Lady Catherine and the
General was past prayin' for.' "
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jasa1/newsdc99.htm
Martin @ home:
The only use in the Canon of "feeling old-fashioned" that I recall (and
admittedly, I'm not Don!) is in one of the early books, and it doesn't refer
to death. SMALL EARLY CANON SPOILER BELOW:
.
.
.
.
it refers to Stephen's having performed surgery which prevented a sailor
from losing his private parts. The sailor - or possibly a friend or
relative of the sailor - is thanking Stephen and says he would have felt
"right old-fashioned" without them.
I have two acquaintances (separate - i.e., not a couple) who have a daughter
and a son, respectively, named Oriel and Uriel. Not that those aren't
nice-sounding names, but the poor things will go through school as Oral and
Urinal, for all love. -RD, whose cat is named Emily
In the old days, of course, men didn't have genitalia. Dam' new fangled
invention, cause of endless trouble, forever getting caught in things,
best to chop them off entirely as Stephen advises on several occasions.
About arms, etc. regenerating:
If Stephen had had reliable antibiotics, he would not have had to swop
off so many limbs, because human bones do indeed grow back. How do I
know? I had a very badly broken leg when a car hit me. The tibia and
fibula broke through the skin, and lots of bone got kind of mashed up in
the nice area about two inches below my knee. Stephen would have had to
have it off quickly with a sharp instrument before gangrene set in,
there was all kinds of gravel and bits of the road in the wound too...
A lovely brilliant doctor earlier in the 20th century developed a method
for regrowing bone. Dr. Ilazarov used the spokes of bicycle wheels poked
through the limb as a sort of trellis for regrowing broken bones. His
external fixator looked like the Eiffel Tower on my leg! My doctor had
studied with Ilazarov and that helped me understand what I was getting
into--or what was going into me, which were modified bicycle spokes!
The device, scary looking as it was, didn't hurt as much as the injury,
though of course I had to take anti-clotting drugs and antibiotics as
the flesh around the device infected. I wish I had known about the
following website two years ago:
http://www.ilizarov.org.uk/biog.htm
My bones grew back. I mean, the bones in my leg regenerated, grew back
and I now have my leg again. So it couldn't historically have happened
to Midshipman Reade, but it *did* happen to me! In truth, bones
regenerate nearly every time they are broken--that's what's going on
even inside a plaster cast. Bones are amazing! They don't just grow
back, they get stronger where you use them! That's why your bones get
more dense when you lift weights. Human beings have wonderful bodies.
As my leg healed, I thought of the prayer, "All my bones shall say, God
who is like You." (It's a quote from Psalm 35.) Science and religion go
together pretty well sometimes.
Ruth A.
Rosemary wrote:
The only use in the Canon of "feeling old-fashioned" that I recall (and
admittedly, I'm not Don!) is in one of the early books, and it doesn't refer
to death.
The term is also used in FOW on p. 118, and refers to the state of health of
a sailor who was injured in battle. In that case it means that he was not feeling
altogether well.
Kerry
Of course, another consideration is time. During a
battle, there isn't much time to devote to the saving of
limbs, when another man's life is ebbing on the next cot.
When Jack's arm was being bandaged in FOW, another man
was clutching his liver.
Give you joy of your recovery of your leg!
- Susan
Ruth:
Having seen those bicycle spoke thingies on TV I can
attest that they are the single worst thing I could
possibly imagine having attached to my person. They give
me the flying creeps. They are hideous to behold.
Obviously they work, but oh, man...
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for a dose of
squeamishness....
Karen
ps Ain't science wonderful? We'd be calling you Stumpy now
if it weren't!
In a message dated 3/24/02 5:47:18 PM Central Standard Time,
ruthie@THEWORLD.COM writes:
As my leg healed, I thought of the prayer, "All my bones shall say, God
who is like You." (It's a quote from Psalm 35.)
Wonderful post, Ruth, with its fascinating details. Give you joy of your "new"
leg. And then there's "I will praise You O God for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made..." Ps 139:14
As CS Lewis said, "no wound was ever healed in a corpse," making the point
that doctors don't heal, rather they assist the body's natural healing powers.
All that bone-growing often generates a lump, as my father had on his
clavicle and a friend now has on his shin. My husband's broken legbone
showed thicker at the broken place on the x-ray, but not through the skin.
gluppit the prawling strangles, there, [FoW8]
Mary S
Ruth Abrams wrote:
If Stephen had had reliable antibiotics, he would not have had to swop
off so many limbs, because human bones do indeed grow back. How do I know? I
had a very badly broken leg when
I hope a doctor responds to this as it raises an interesting question that
centres on the difference between a healing fracture and a regenerating limb.
Midshipman Reade would surely be out of luck and sporting some degree of missing
limb even today.
I believe that when a fracture like Ruth's heals, callus forms around
the fracture and slowly hardens, like setting glue, to unite the
fractured bones. This is a repair rather than the regeneration of a limb
that has been removed. What Ruth's very capable doctor did was ensure
optimum conditions for the formation of the healing callus to reform the
bone as close as possible to the original. The doctor also took steps to
prevent infection so that the leg did not have to be removed for that
reason.
For a removed limb to regenerate, the body would have to produce the
many kinds of tissue that make up a limb (bones, muscle, skin etc.) in
the right form and scale. I believe the closest analogy to the
regeneration of a limb would be pregnancy as a pregnant woman produces
those many kinds of tissues in the fetus, rather than just the callus
that heals bone. But pregnancy is the exception to a general rule. The
function of the auto-immune system is to identify and reject foreign
matter...anything that is "not self." Without an effective auto-immune
system, all kinds of hostile matter (like bacteria, fungi and other
parasites) could enter the body and damage it. A fetus is "not self" so
it needs to be exempted from rejection by the auto-immune system. (That
exception is not always finely tuned which is one reason why so many
fetuses are spontaneously aborted--but, from the body's point of view it
is better to be biased toward rejection to prevent hostile invasion.)
Unlike the healing process of a fracture, which is part of the self, the
auto-immune system of most creatures would see a regenerating limb as
foreign (not self or a fetus) and would reject it. There is interest in
the few animals that do regenerate limbs to understand how their
auto-immune systems allow for this further exception without weakening
their response to other foreign matter.
Could I have an orthopaedic or immunology consult please?
Kevin, taking a healing break in TO.
43° 38' 44" N
You make a good point in explaining the difference between healing and regeneration, but why would regeneration, if it were possible, be considered "not self"? It would have to be accomplished by the differentiation of stem cells produced by the body. I am no immunologist, but that seems like "self" to me.
--
Mary, my understanding is that most tissues in adults lose their
potential for differentiation and growth. That is why most forms of
injury result in permanent damage. For example, Ruth's leg was not
restored to its former condition as would be consistent with the
implication of your suggestion that stem cells could have stepped in and
"regenerated" the damage. Even an organ as vital as the heart will
remain scarred if damaged...say by an infarction or heart attack. Brains
do not recover from major strokes. If your suggestion were correct, one
would expect stem cells to regenerate hearts and brains at least as
urgently as a missing limb.
This contrasts with the ability of some animals, particularly some
amphibians, which retain their ability to replace damaged or lost parts.
Not only am I no immunologist, I have no medical or scientific training
at all. However, I think that most growth and differentiation in humans
takes place in the womb where the fetus is under the protection of the
mother's auto-immune system. With birth the infant has to rely on its
own auto-immune system. Part of the development of mammals is that the
infant "seals off" its own auto-immune system at an early age in order
to make it effective against even its own aberrations. That is why stem
cells cannot repair even life threatening damage in vital organs.
I assume this "sealing off" is similar to other brakes on normal
development such as the achievement of normal height.
I recall seeing x-rays of fully formed teeth growing from the lining of
the stomach. That was an apparent bizarre generation but it was caused
by the patient's cancer damaging the DNA of the cells of the stomach
lining.
P.S. I just did a search on this issue and got a "404" on the prime
reference. However, I noted that the author was at the University of
Toronto, so I will try to reach him tomorrow for the real answer.
Kevin differentiating in TO.
43° 38' 44" N
Mary, Re stem cells...another thought.
Isn't the inability adult stem cells to differentiate the reason that
stem cells for research and cloning are taken from fetal tissue? The
adult body is full of many kinds of stem cells, but they cannot be used
for cloning etc. because they have lost the range of differentiation
that fetal stem cells have.
Kevin in TO.
43° 38' 44" N Mary, my understanding is that most tissues in adults lose their potential
for differentiation and growth. That is why most forms of injury result in permanent
damage.
You are correct.
I only meant that *if* regeneration occured it would be a regeneration of "Self" rather than "Other" and therefore not necessarily on the immune system's hit list. I thought the problem was a matter of the molecular on/off switches rather than the immune system. Growth does not continue forever and limbs do not regenerate in mammals because the molecular switches that regulate cell division are shut off and we don't know how to turn them back on. And to do so would be possibly dangerous because unregulated cell division is cancer and therefore not very helpful to the organism. A fetus or child still has those molecular switches turned on. They can grow, but the down side is the virulence of many childhood cancers. The immune system deals with cancer tissue because it recognizes DNA damage, rather than because it recognizes 'alien' as it would with an invading microorganism.
--
Kevin
>Isn't the inability adult stem cells to differentiate the reason that
>stem cells for research and cloning are taken from fetal tissue? The
>adult body is full of many kinds of stem cells, but they cannot be used
>for cloning etc. because they have lost the range of differentiation
>that fetal stem cells have.
I believe this is correct. In theory though, there might be ways to make cells from an adult regenerate. There is a lot of research being done on the problem of trying to get the spinal cord to regenerate after injury. A few years ago, this was nothing but science fiction. A few years from now, the goal may be within striking distance.
--
Mary Arndt wrote:
I only meant that *if* regeneration occured it would be a regeneration
of "Self" rather than "Other" and therefore not necessarily on the immune system's
hit list.
I think we agree? (Then I don't have to do detective work tomorrow!) In lay
person's terms, for a limb to regenerate, stem cells would have to start assuming
the role of the cells that would make the limb. But the body's rule for adult
stem cells is, "Thou shalt not differentiate like that." Then the body says,
"If you're breaking the rules, you're not me and I will destroy you because
you are a threat."
Kevin in TO.
43° 38' 44" N Well, yes we mostly agree. But I would be willing to believe that *if* the
stem cells were somehow induced to start differentiating into muscle, bone,
blood vessels and nerves needed to make up an arm, the body would not necessarily
say "you are not me" and destroy it. Unless the cells' DNA appeared damaged,
the body would probably recognize this new thing as "me". The thing is, getting
those cells to differentiate is very, very hypothetical, because those molecular
switches are firmly turned off in a normal, healthy adult.
As an aside regarding Ruth's shattered bone, we tend to think of bone as solid,
hard and unchanging. It is not unchanging at all, but rather plastic. Bone is
contantly being modeled (and dissolved) in the body. That is why osteoporosis
occurs and why weight bearing excercise helps fend it off; and why a broken
bone can knit itself together. There must be a structure for the osteoblasts
to work on e.g. the broken ends placed in close proximity to each other.
--
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, at 16:02:32 -0800, Kerry Webb wrote:
... refers to the state of health of a sailor who was injured in battle.
In that case it means that he was not feeling altogether well.
There's the sailor, in DI pp 266-267, who tells Stephen: "Now by your leave,
sir, I must go aloft. There's Moses Harvey looking down quite old-fashioned,
for to be relieved."
The gunner in IM, page 57, says of gunpowder "... very old-fashioned some
of it smelled and tasted, too."
Bob Kegel
Stephen remembers where he had seen Pontet-canet.
'Do you see a skimmer, sir?' asked Mr Evans, blocked behind him.
Non sequiter. What does this exchange mean? I
One meaning of skimmer is ornitholgical. OED online says: "A bird of the North American genus Rhynchops, esp. the black skimmer (R.
nigra). The name has reference to the manner in which these birds obtain their food, by skimming small fish, etc., from the surface
of the water with the lower mandible.
I don't have a copy of FOW, and I don't remember the context, but I imagine there is some vile (or wry) clench at work.
Boyce See
http://www.hmssurprise.org/NatlHist/Skimmers.html,
part of the "Dr. Maturin's Natural History" tour at
http://www.hmssurprise.org/NatlHist/
Larry
Boyce Kendrick wrote:
I am honored that a Finch has taken the trouble to fill me in on a bird
of a different feather. (They are different aren't they?)
Very different. Sometime I will introduce you to my distant relatives, the
Galapagos Finches that Charles Darwin studied ;)
Larry
I take it to mean that Stephen has decided that P-C is no skimmer, but is a
real red-hot agent of the French. POB often uses the animal world to
symbolize the human world: here he has Stephen doing just that thing.
Charlezzzzz
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Cover
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
From: Gary W. Sims
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Cover
--------------------------------------------
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
nit picking
San Martin, CA
From: losmp
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
From: homermeyn
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
Peace
From: Janet Cook
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Groupread: FOW
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:41 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
From: MacKenna Charleson
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Softer Side of Jack
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
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
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
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)
>
>
>
>
>
SPOILER WARNING
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:12 AM
Subject: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
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
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
From: J. Bennett
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPREAD:FOW:themes
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Stepen's question
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Stepen's question
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Learning
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
Stoat Cortez
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Helen Connor
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Learning
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:41 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
From: Robert Fleisher
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Forshaw's good looks
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
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
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
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
From: Doug Essinger-Hileman
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
From: Mary S
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW: arriving in Boston
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
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Scoundrels-hang the whole shooting- match
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Scoundrels-hang the whole shooting- match
From: DJONES01
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: POB: Group Read (FOW)
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
From: losmp
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread : FOW
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
From: Ruth Abrams
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:55 AM
Subject: GRP FOW Rare Plucked Ones
"With these bestial Goths, these drunken Huns all about me -- I could
weep from mere vexation." -- FOW p. 47
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
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW Rare Plucked Ones
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)--plucked
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: POB: Group Read (FOW)--plucked
From: brumby6
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word for everything!
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
From: brumby6
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different word foreverything!
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW Those Indians - they have a different wordforeverything!
From: John Finneran
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:00 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
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
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: losmp
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Bob Saldeen
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
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
71º20'13.2" W
From: Bill Nyden
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Dreaded Mowett Poetry Thread
Like a hoarse mastiff through the storm he cries,
Prompt to direct the unskilful still appears,
The expert he praises, and the timid cheers"
As lightning glances on the electric wire."
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."
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: GRP FOW: Despair
From: John Germain
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW: Despair
From: John Finneran
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:29 AM
Subject: GRP: FOW: String
From: Sandlund, Ragnhild
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
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
easily amused
From: brumby6
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
From: John Germain
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Groupread:FOW Stephen taking advantage of Diana
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
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:42 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
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?
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [POB] GRP: FOW: String
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Jean A
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Americans
(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
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
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
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Ginger Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
From: Martin
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: String
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
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
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
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
"These are mere whimsies, my dear, vapours, megrims." -- DI p. 67
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
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: GRP FOW: "katno aiss' vizmi" again
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
From: Ginger Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: FOW: Richardson
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
51°30'N, 0°6'W
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mmebahorel
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
From: homermeyn
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: SPOILER please ignore previous draft
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Quick question
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: Rites of Spring
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Rites of Spring
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:46 AM
Subject: GRP FOW Re: Rites of Spring
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW Re: Rites of Spring
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
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
From: Andy Hartley
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Chris Glover
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
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)
waak = wake
zaam = suffix "ful"
heid = suffix "ness"
From: Jan Hatwell
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
51º 29' 25" N
00º 08' 01" W
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Drabogues
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
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Americans
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
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
From: brumby6
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: GRP: FOW Jack and Diana and Stephen
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Ruth Abrams
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW:Bostonians on the margin
From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Linnea
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
From: Rob Schaap
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Rob.
From: Rick Ansell
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Question for Americans
--
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)
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
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)
From: Mary S
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Mourning Doves
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: David Hipschman
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: String
or Tying it all together
or POB helps everyone celebrate Purim
marked our protagonists twain
and tied the rope and cord of their affection together,
an umbilicus to the parchment scroll Queenie,
with her stringent knowledge of Hebrew knew,
a scroll engendering there
three-cornered hats and plum paste too
and the "grogger" noise
of Jack's gnashing teeth
as she helped him thread his way through trigonometry.
Here on this side of POB's pages
strung-out at each novel's end
grateful for the Canon's infinite connectivity
to the universal spool
as we string ourselves along
purposefully blind
to the great Spoiler's end
so that even the truest mate
can't help us tie-up
our treasured parcels at the end.
N44-20.02 W089-00.92
Hangared at PCZ
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: String
who gives away
the plot-device we all know is coming...
and lambkins, we never read the Spoiler's
bad give-aways, but felt that we cd
book after book, forever.
even ask for my
ever-filling glass of sillery,
or to hear the sailors playing Locatelli's
last concerto down on the orlop:
just let me stay there on deck,
watching, reading the twenty-first volume
by starlight or even by the wake's
luminescence; and then the twenty-second
volume under the vertical sun with soft wind
riffling the pages for me.
Know what? Then I'd reach out my hand
for a harp, and I'd strum the background
while some mighty-voiced, mighty-spirited
reader gives, us, once again,
the next volume and then the next,
damn near forever.
From: brumby6
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:17 AM
Subject: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:22 AM
Subject: Escape from Boston
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Escape from Boston
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
San Martin
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Escape from Boston
wondering if it's in Sea of Words...
From: Rick Ansell
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Escape from Boston
--
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: J. Bennett
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Escape from Boston
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
Mount Pleasant, DC
From: Mary S
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Thistle Farm
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
From: brumby6
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole plus spoiler for Truelove/Clarissa
P
O
I
L
E
R
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
From: brumby6
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 7:52 PM
Subject: GRP FOW : Profanity
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: brumby6
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans (and DI spoiler)
From: Martin
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Rob Schaap
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW : Profanity
Cheers, Peter
From: homermeyn
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Helen Connor
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
once historical-costume-obsessed
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW : Profanity
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Jean A
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Out of coats
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Out of coats
Mt Pleasant, DC
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:25 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: [POB] GRP FOW S. M. "out of coats"
Mt Pleasant, DC
From: Brian Wilson
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW An Officer's Parole
From: Randy Hees
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:59 AM
Subject: 1776 vs 1812, was "out of coats"
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW : Profanity
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Out of coats
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: DJONES01
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: POB: The Frigate Chesapeake
Walsall, England
52° 36' 01" N 1° 55' 46" W
From: Roger
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: SPOILER Re: [POB] GRP:FOW Question for Americans
Hampshire, England
From: Roger
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:51 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW The Rites and Wrongs of Spring
Hampshire, England
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:47 PM
Subject: GRP: FoW: Captain Broke
From: Roger
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Perhaps a little victory, but death remains a sin.
And wars still go on and people still die
But for Wars I and II people still cry."
Hampshire, England
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:35 AM
Subject: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
From: brumby6
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:01 AM
Subject: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
(pondering things she will hopefully never know anything about)
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
From: brumby6
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: Spoiler - Reade's arm
P
O
I
L
E
R
From: brumby6
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Spoiler - Reade's arm
From: DJONES01
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
Perhaps a little victory, but death remains a sin.
And wars still go on and people still die
But for Wars I and II people still cry."
Walsall, England
52° 36' 01" N 1° 55' 46" W
From: John Berg
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW Qestion for Americans
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: FoW: Captain Broke
From: Jim
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
Mate
your Obedient servant
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Spoiler - Reade's arm
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Spoiler - Reade's arm
From: Alec O'Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 12:47 PM
Subject: GRP:FOW Cause of the fire
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
From: Kevin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
79° 22' 33" W
From: Martin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FOW-lost the number of his mess
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:25 PM
Subject: names and old-fashioned
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: Old-fashioned privates
From: Ruth Abrams
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
From: Kerry Webb
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:02 PM
Subject: Old fashioned
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: The Drama of the arm plus
From: Karen von Bargen
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
From: Mary S
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Kevin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler about Midshipman Reade
79° 22' 33" W
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler aboutMidshipmanReade
Mary A
42º36'53" N
71º20'43" W
From: Kevin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler aboutMidshipmanReade
79° 22' 33" W
From: Kevin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus Spoiler aboutMidshipmanReade
79° 22' 33" W
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus SpoileraboutMidshipmanReade
Mary A
42º36'53" N
71º20'43" W
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus SpoileraboutMidshipmanReade
Mary A
42º36'53" N
71º20'43" W
From: Kevin
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plus SpoileraboutMidshipmanReade
79° 22' 33" W
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GRP FOW The Drama of the arm plusSpoileraboutMidshipmanReade
Mary A
42º36'53" N
71º20'43" W
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: old-fashioned
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Bambi Dextrous
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Not a flame in sight, a question about Fortune of War
'I doubt it,' said Stephen.
--
From: Boyce Kendrick
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Not a flame in sight, a question about Fortune of War
Mt Pleasant, DC
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Not a flame in sight, a question about Fortune of War
--
Larry Finch
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Not a flame in sight, a question about Fortune of War
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Not a flame in sight, a question about Fortune of War
From: Bill Nyden