|
|
First Page of Post Captain Discussion
From: Susan Wenger
There are three points I'd like to discuss concerning
"Post Captain, in no order:"
1. Music as color. We've discussed this before, but
perhaps only the part of it. On page 396 (Norton
paperback), Jack dreams of the Magdalene in Queenie's
picture saying, "why do not you tune your fiddle to
orange-tawny, yellow, green and this blue, instead of
those old common notes?" What strikes me this time around
is not the concept of music as color, but the fact that
it comes up again in the book, this time with Stephen
Maturin, on page 448: "The music, I believe, had nothing
to say, but it provided a pleasant background of 'cellos
and woodwinds and allowed the trumpet to make exquisite
sounds - pure colour tearing through this formal
elegance." O'Brian was trying to make a point here,
putting similar thoughts in the mouths of his two
characters, but I'm not sure what that point is. : }
2. Another episode of two takes on the same theme: on
page 400, Jack is under doctor's orders concerning his
diet, and he's thinking achingly about Sophie, having
just come from the wedding of the pink bride.
3. And a final observation for tonight: on page 462,
Stephen is getting over Diana, not having seen her for a
while, and marvels to himself "NB I slept upwards of nine
hours this night,without a single drop. This morning I
saw my bottle on the chimneypiece, untouched: this is
unparalleled." Then he sees Diana at the opera, dispairs
of what she has become, is numb with pain, and the
houseman raps on the door, saying "it's all over now.
This is the end of the piece." SAYING that. (Aloud, it
sounds like "this is the end of the peace."
Thoughts on any of these three episodes?
- Susan
Fame at last. Surely he had me in mind.
Bambi, the tender young doe
Ummm, I think Felix Salten's Bambi was not a tender young
doe, but a buck. Fame is fleeting.
Regarding point 1:
Stephen Chambers
Susan Wenger wrote:
Music as color...
I read O'Brian using music as color twice as natural in light of how the
book is structured with two main male characters, two main female
characters, and the shifting relationships (including conflict) between
them. Having common ideas go through Jack's and Stephen's minds in
different forms is a nice "show, don't tell" way of illustrating how the
two men are similar or different. E.g., in this case, Jack is only
capable of such an abstract idea in a confused-sounding dream, while
Stephen has the idea clear -- and its relation to other structural
descriptions -- in his conscious, rational mind.
In the second incident, music as color also works for me as a part of
O'Brians's conveying how human experience at its deepest and most visceral
requires but still overwhelms all attempts at description. No conflation
of language, scent, music, and color, and (for us, though not for Stephen)
text is adequate for the sensations of Stephen's response to Diana.
Having this all come off the page filtered through the mind of a highly
analytical man recognizing that his analytical outlook isn't remotedly
adequate for the situation makes it very effective for me.
And on page 472, Stephen is watching Diana at the opera: "she felt the
intensity of his gaze and from time to time she looked round the
house; and each time she did so he dropped his eyes, as he would have
done, stalking a doe."
This says a lot about the complicated distribution of power between
Stephen and Diana.
And a final observation for tonight: on page 462, Stephen is getting
over Diana, not having seen her for a while, and marvels to himself
"NB I slept upwards of nine hours this night,without a single drop.
This morning I saw my bottle on the chimneypiece, untouched: this is
unparalleled." Then he sees Diana at the opera, dispairs of what she
has become, is numb with pain, and the houseman raps on the door,
saying "it's all over now. This is the end of the piece." SAYING
that. (Aloud, it sounds like "this is the end of the peace.")
Understated though O'Brian usually is, he also can close his dramatic
scenes with a phrase the resonates in more than one way. This reminds me
of M&C, at the end of the Cacafuego action, where the last sentence is
that Jack "saw the great wound to [Dillon's] heart."
Jerry
Thoughts? Only to say that there can be no end to reading and rereading
POB--always something new to discover and speculate upon.
Gerry Strey
I'm a little behind - just started PC. I actually started it at the
beginning of the month, but I'd also started reading Dana Stabenow and
couldn't pull myself away. Imagine that.
I'm pondering the bear suit. It seems strange to me that this incident
wasn't mentioned often in the canon. The cur-tailed joke appears in nearly
every book, but not the bear suit trek. This seems strange to me - if *I*
had walked 350 miles in a bear suit, thus managing to cleverly avoid being
captured, you can bet I'd tell people about it. Not Jack, though. Odd.
BTW, reading Post Captain at this time of the year works particularly well
for me. I can vivdly remember driving to the library to pick it up one
cold October night two years ago. PC will always remind me of fall.
Greg (Which we are at peak foliage now. Time to spend a day walking the
trails at Walden Pond.)
42º32'34.5" N
It's a long time since I last read PC, but I have a sneaking suspicion Jack
was embarassed about it and realised what Stephen was up to.
Am I right?
Sam
I have a sneaking suspicion that POB was embarrassed about it.
Marshall, trying to avoid puns on "embarrassed."
What was Stephen up to?
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
I was hoping you wouldn't ask..
Off I go to ferret out my copy of PC...
..back! I'm sure I heard someone mention on this very list that there was a
shorter way Stephen could have gone but he just wanted Jack to loose
weight.
I'm sure at the end of the episode where they come to Stephen's place, Jack
gives Stephen one of his penetrating looks that POB does not explain.
Then again, Marshall could be right: POB could be embarrased - although I
thought the episode worked quite well
Sam
Rosemary Davis writes:
Re: the citation where Stephen checks his pulse: You were right, Gerry,
it
is very near the end of TC, thanks! "He took out his elegant watch and
laid
it in the light, watching the centre second-hand make its full
revolution.
His friend too watched it with close attention. 'You are taking your
pulse,
I make no doubt?' he said. 'So I am, too,' said Stephen. 'I have had a
variety of emotions recently and I wished to assign a number at least to
the
general effect, to the physical effect, since quality is not subject to
measure. My number is one hundred and seventeen to the minute.'" -p.
280,
Norton cloth edition. My inability to locate the citation was annoying
me
greatly.
Also Stephen's reaction to seeing Diana in the famous opera scene, at the
end of PC:
"Stephen watched with no particular emotion but with extreme accuracy. He
had noted the great leap of his heart at the first moment and the disorder
in his breathing, and he noted too that this had no effect upon his powers
of observation. He must in fact have been aware of her presence from the
first..."
Don Seltzer
Dear Lissuns,
On a trip to SF this past weekend Jim and I listened
to Post Captain again. I was struck by Jack's
feelings about the Polycrest on pages 231-2 of the
hardbound edition: ". . .but he could not love her.
She was a mean-spirited vessel, radically vicious,
cross-grained, laboursome, cruel in her unreliability;
and he could not love her." I think this is a
reflection of his relationship with Diana.
Earlier in PC he tells Christie-Palliere (page 97-8):
"But, however, as soon as I thought things were going
along capitally with her, and that we were very close
friends, she pulled me up as though I had run into a
boom, and asked me who the devil I thought I was? . . .
So I committed myself pretty far, partly out of
pique, do you see?"
He has an unwanted commitment to both and loves
neither.
I fully recognize that when it comes to Things
Literary, I'm an uneducated oaf. Perhaps even lout.
But I've seen lots of cross-connections written here
on the board in the last few weeks, so I need to ask:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.? I
tend to think they are accidents or even non-existent
in the mind of the author.
But as I say, I know nothing about lit, so I'd accept
education about this.
Gregg
I'd be perfectly happy to bet a dollar that I can out-oaf Gregg in the
Things Literary category; I can't tell an allegory from a crocodile.
But I'd also bet that planning out things like this are the difference
between Himself, and, say, Tom Clancy.
I really enjoy reading Clancy, and even read his stuff a second time.
But it's POB who's series is on my bookshelf at home.
David V. Phillips sasdvp@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
Gregg Germain wrote:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.?
I think John Meyers Meyers did, but that was his goal in Silverlock.
I tend to think they are accidents or even
non-existent in the mind of the author.
I think they're largely accidental, but that they occurred in the author's
subconcious mind.
I'd be interested to hear what any authors on the list have to say. What
does Greg think, Astrid?
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
Gregg Germain
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.?
Dear Gregg,
I think the good ones do.
Ray McP
Yes.
Karen von Bargen
If it was a once-in-a-while occurrence, I'd think
accident. This happens quite often in POB, much more
often than in, say, Clancy. I don't think it's an
accident. I doubt that he worked very long to get these
connections in, but I think they occurred to him and he
had a chuckle as he inserted them.
When one of O'Brian's characters has a dream, it's not
there just to fill a page - his books are too tightly
drawn for that. The dream relates to an event in the
book - either as foreshadowing or as the character's
subconscious processing of the event. When an animal
event mimics a human event, it's there as deliberate
humor. He knew what he was doing, a deep old file. He
didn't draw arrows, he was satisfied that some readers
would get the connections, others wouldn't mind the brief
digression, since the parallel only takes up a sentence
or two.
My vote: deliberate, but not over-worked.
I think it's possible to find all sorts of meanings
that seem to have a connection but that the author
never ever heard of.
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
Never heard of? Are you implying that POB was even less well read than me,
when surely I am familiar with most of them, although Diana was a Huntress,
wasn't she?
Sarah
I was not specific - I wasn't speaking SPECIFICALLY
to Diana/huntress thought.
And yes, I do think it's possible for you to know
something that POB didn't ;^)
Gregg
There is something else about the canon that I'm
convinced is true, but have not done enough research
to prove. It has been over 40 years since I studied
(or read) Elizabethan drama, but I remember that the
authors often used the names to describe the
predominant characteristic of the dramatis personnae:
for example, "Truewit" and "Truelove." POB does this
very subtly. Consider the following:
Sophia--means wisdom and is the name of one of
his his first ships which he loves and loses.
(Don't think beyond the first 2 books.)
Vat denk je?
Ray McP
Yessss. And many others - the one who comes to mind is
Timely, the bosun who interrupts Jack and Mercedes when
they do not wish to be disturbed.
Wallis?
He only gets one mention, but it pops out at you.
And the boatswain Mr Bulkley, a large man, on the Surprise in 13 GS.
Adam Quinan
These sorts of name choices are easy to accept as
being done on purpose, of course.
My favorite example of this sort of invention is one
"Admiral Sievewright".
Gregg
Diana is the Latin equivalent of the Greek Artemis who
was the huntress. You're right, and it does fit.
Gregg posed the q:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.? I
tend to think they are accidents or even non-existent
in the mind of the author.
I would say absolutely! Good authors always challenge their readers with
things like that. At least my wife does when she writes... shes always
prompting: did you get how this and that are related and how this
repesents one thing and is mirrored some where else. I usually nod and say
yes, it
is a wonderful thing.
Barney
Yes--I agree with Barney. Here is the English professor arguing:
especially when we note a consistent pattern of such awareness in an
author's writings, he certainly did plan such things. POB is too careful
of a craftsman to ignore the implications of the images and language he
uses. He is clearly meticulous. Why would he ignore figurative language
and allusive diction and so on?
Randal
PO'B has far too much fun with words for names to be entirely innocent
of meaning. Diana is one that sums up the character of the character.
Babbington I wonder about, though, but O'Brian makes up for it when he
gives him a cargo of Lesbians, a scene which makes me hug myself with
delight.
I have not read the next thirty messages, so this may have been hammered to
death already ... but I do think most of the allusions and allegories used
were planned and intentionally evocative. I have definitely seen it taken
too far (one literature class I took as an undergrad got into a debate about
whether the use of that versus which in some novel was simply a grammar
mistake or an attempt to objectify the object - I quit my English major the
next day). But I think the major difference between very good writers and
average writers is that in POB there is enough subtlety to question whether
the allusions are intentional or whether we the readers are being clever.
Ayn Rand, who was a decent philosopher but a poor writer in my estimation,
never left any doubt. The "allusions" slap you in the face and kick you in
the shins. That question is simply one tribute to the artistry of one of the
masters.
Curtis
Curtis Ruder
But I think the major difference between very good writers and average writers
is that in POB there is enough subtlety to question whether the allusions are
intentional or whether we the readers are being clever.
Well are there ANY references to these allusions in
his notes?
Gregg
I thought I'd wait I while before I put my share in:
As an English Lit. student I have had this discussion many times in
classes, most often concerning poetry. We questioned that the poet
intentionally used hard consonant sounds (for example) and various
far-flung word associations. And yes - some may be there by accident,
others by direct design, but most (depending on the writer) are
subconscious in the writer's mind. For example if I wanted to
describe an apple I could say:
The apple was round, green and moist.
A better writer would say:
The apple was bursting ripe, a tight round skin and moist pink flesh.
Obviously I have used more decorative language in the second example,
but it also evokes the symbolism of apples in literature: sex. Also
I have used lots of 'r' and 's' sounds which give the example a flowing,
rolling sound. Initially that was unconscious, but then a non-accidental
writer would 'sculpt' the text. I sculpted the text to emphasis this:
The apple was bursting ripe, a stretched round skin and moist flesh.
All I've done is removed the 'pink' as I thought it was too overt
and unnecessary (also lacked r and s sounds) and substituted
stretched for tight. Looking at a small section of text this way
shows how a writer can coolly mould sentences to give the best effect.
Patrick O'Brian is not a poet, but he is a highly aware author.
He knew what he was doing. To look at his names for example:
The name Diana is appropriate for Mrs Villiers because of it's
associations with the huntress god. To a reader already acquainted
with the Roman mythology it would give an added 'feel' to the character
that O'Brian would not need to describe, just as the 'r' and 's' sounds
supply something that would take many more words to describe. Diana's
name is an example of a logical, thinking connection in the author's
mind. To come to Pullings: say it to yourself: 'pullings', without any
connection to character. Now compare with 'babbington'. Pullings is a
simple two-syllable word, and to me is does give vague connections to
solidity, hard work etc. Babbington is flashier: three-syllables and
for some reason reminds me of a monkey (A baboon for all love!). The
other things that Ray mentioned are also things that just wallow on the
edge of a reader's mind, waiting to associate themselves:
Ray McPherson wrote:
Pullings. Hummmmm. If we assume that POB used every
name to explain something, then maybe Pullings is a
man who has to drag himself hand-over-hand up the
naval ladder without any safety net.
These are, I believe more sub-conscious connections in the author's
mind than Diana's name. He probably never realised he thought it, but
could you imagine swapping the names of Jack's earliest mids around?
It just doesn't work - and not simply because I know the characters,
and could not imagine changing their names - it's deeper than that.
When analysing a work of literature we have to remember that it is the
product of what's inside the writer's head. A human brain isn't very
good at making things up from scratch. If you were asked to create a
name for a character, the chances are you'd wouldn't make the name up.
Some things may not have any meaning to the reader, being perhaps,
the name of POB's first school friend. But others such as Diana's name
have direct literary connections, and others such as Pullings have more
unconscious associations.
With a writer like O'Brian, names are of course, not the only symbolism
etc. used in the books. The Polychrest/Diana example is a good one.
Once you've read the stories it's time to look for the threads and
cross threads. Looking at the back of the weaving doesn't destroy the
realism, but increases your respect and admiration for the author and
his subtle artistry.
Hope everyone's still awake!
Samuel Bostock
sambostock@YAHOO.CO.UK writes:
With a writer like O'Brian, names are of course, not the only symbolism
etc. used in the books. The Polychrest/Diana example is a good one. Once
you've read the stories it's time to look for the threads and cross
threads.
I'll second Susan's nomination for POST OF THE DAY! Thanks for a very
cogent explanation, Sam. We've discussed some of POB's poems before, and
concluded that he was a better novelist than poet, I think. However POB's
conscious
use of names, symbols and precise word choices shows up wonderfully in his
short stories, most of which are much darker and oblique than the Aubreyad.
IMO, his writing shares many qualities with poetry. For one thing, like
poetry, one has to read more carefully than with most fiction: miss a word
and you can miss the entire point of a paragraph. His writing is also more
'sensual' - color, sound, touch are incorporated throughout the writing.
And his writing reads extremely well aloud, too.
Rowen
I don't believe anyone has mentioned the hapless and, ultimately, betraying
Scrivener.
Jean A.
Betraying, how? I don't remember him being anything other than helpful
after the aborted attempt at highway robbery.
Stephen Chambers
Ah, but who alerted the press gang who made it an early night at Pullings'
Betrothal Party?
Jean A.
Scriven stuck his head into the room to *warn* Jack about the tipstaffs'
arrival, not to betray him to them.
Page 213 of Post Captain (Fontana paperback) at Pullings dinner
indicates that Scriven may not have been totally helpful.
Adam Quinan
I'll have to try and find my copy of Post Captain tomorrow night, it's been
a year since I last read it and it was boxed up with all my other books.
:-(
Stephen Chambers
Interesting how two people's interpretation can differ of the same
passage. However, there is another part of the story, and I can't find
the passage where Jack and Stephen discuss Scriven but it is clear that
Jack and Stephen believe Scriven had betrayed the party to the tipstaff
rather than was trying to warn him.
--
Adam Quinan
"The din was so great that Stephen alone noticed the door open just enough
for Scriven's questing head: he placed a warning hand on Jack's elbow, but
the rest were roaring still when it swung wide and the bailiffs rushed in."
It appears Scriven tipped the tipstaff, not Jack. He certainly missed the
boat back to the Polychrest and appears not again.
In HMSS Jack mentions him " You are much too inclined to find excuses for
scrubs, Stephen: you preserved that ill-conditioned brute Scriven from the
gallows, nourished him in your bosom, gave him your countenance, and who
paid for it? J. Aubrey paid for it. "
Bob Kegel
Dear Lissuns,
On a trip to SF this past weekend Jim and I listened
to Post Captain again. I was struck by Jack's
feelings about the Polycrest on pages 231-2 of the
hardbound edition: ". . .but he could not love her.
She was a mean-spirited vessel, radically vicious,
cross-grained, laboursome, cruel in her unreliability;
and he could not love her." I think this is a
reflection of his relationship with Diana.
Earlier in PC he tells Christie-Palliere (page 97-8):
"But, however, as soon as I thought things were going
along capitally with her, and that we were very close
friends, she pulled me up as though I had run into a
boom, and asked me who the devil I thought I was? . . .
So I committed myself pretty far, partly out of
pique, do you see?"
He has an unwanted commitment to both and loves
neither.
I fully recognize that when it comes to Things
Literary, I'm an uneducated oaf. Perhaps even lout.
But I've seen lots of cross-connections written here
on the board in the last few weeks, so I need to ask:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.? I
tend to think they are accidents or even non-existent
in the mind of the author.
But as I say, I know nothing about lit, so I'd accept
education about this.
Gregg
I'd be perfectly happy to bet a dollar that I can out-oaf Gregg in the
Things Literary category; I can't tell an allegory from a crocodile.
But I'd also bet that planning out things like this are the difference
between Himself, and, say, Tom Clancy.
I really enjoy reading Clancy, and even read his stuff a second time.
But it's POB who's series is on my bookshelf at home.
David V. Phillips sasdvp@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
Gregg Germain wrote:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.?
I think John Meyers Meyers did, but that was his goal in Silverlock.
I tend to think they are accidents or even
non-existent in the mind of the author.
I think they're largely accidental, but that they occurred in the author's
subconcious mind.
I'd be interested to hear what any authors on the list have to say. What
does Greg think, Astrid?
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
Gregg Germain
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.?
Dear Gregg,
I think the good ones do.
Ray McP
Yes.
Karen von Bargen
If it was a once-in-a-while occurrence, I'd think
accident. This happens quite often in POB, much more
often than in, say, Clancy. I don't think it's an
accident. I doubt that he worked very long to get these
connections in, but I think they occurred to him and he
had a chuckle as he inserted them.
When one of O'Brian's characters has a dream, it's not
there just to fill a page - his books are too tightly
drawn for that. The dream relates to an event in the
book - either as foreshadowing or as the character's
subconscious processing of the event. When an animal
event mimics a human event, it's there as deliberate
humor. He knew what he was doing, a deep old file. He
didn't draw arrows, he was satisfied that some readers
would get the connections, others wouldn't mind the brief
digression, since the parallel only takes up a sentence
or two.
My vote: deliberate, but not over-worked.
I think it's possible to find all sorts of meanings
that seem to have a connection but that the author
never ever heard of.
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
Never heard of? Are you implying that POB was even less well read than me,
when surely I am familiar with most of them, although Diana was a Huntress,
wasn't she?
Sarah
I was not specific - I wasn't speaking SPECIFICALLY
to Diana/huntress thought.
And yes, I do think it's possible for you to know
something that POB didn't ;^)
Gregg
There is something else about the canon that I'm
convinced is true, but have not done enough research
to prove. It has been over 40 years since I studied
(or read) Elizabethan drama, but I remember that the
authors often used the names to describe the
predominant characteristic of the dramatis personnae:
for example, "Truewit" and "Truelove." POB does this
very subtly. Consider the following:
Sophia--means wisdom and is the name of one of
his his first ships which he loves and loses.
(Don't think beyond the first 2 books.)
Vat denk je?
Ray McP
Yessss. And many others - the one who comes to mind is
Timely, the bosun who interrupts Jack and Mercedes when
they do not wish to be disturbed.
Wallis?
He only gets one mention, but it pops out at you.
And the boatswain Mr Bulkley, a large man, on the Surprise in 13 GS.
Adam Quinan
These sorts of name choices are easy to accept as
being done on purpose, of course.
My favorite example of this sort of invention is one
"Admiral Sievewright".
Gregg
Gregg,
At the risk of sounding stupid - what about Admiral Sievewright - it's not
a made up name - there's a guy in our village with that name.
Sam
You don't sound stupid....I just thought that an
Admiral's name starting with 'sieve" was pretty funny
and maybe selected on purpose.
Gregg
I think the humor is (my understanding, anyway)--it¹s ironic that an
admiral
would have a family name of sieve-builders. Sieves being not very
watertight.
Bob
Even more ironic as the name of a chief of naval intelligence who is
careless about leaking information.
Don Seltzer
Diana is the Latin equivalent of the Greek Artemis who
was the huntress. You're right, and it does fit.
Gregg posed the q:
Do you all really think POB (or any author) sits
there and plans these metaphores, allusions, etc.? I
tend to think they are accidents or even non-existent
in the mind of the author.
I would say absolutely! Good authors always challenge their readers with
things like that. At least my wife does when she writes... shes always
prompting: did you get how this and that are related and how this
repesents one thing and is mirrored some where else. I usually nod and say
yes, it
is a wonderful thing.
Barney
Yes--I agree with Barney. Here is the English professor arguing:
especially when we note a consistent pattern of such awareness in an
author's writings, he certainly did plan such things. POB is too careful
of a craftsman to ignore the implications of the images and language he
uses. He is clearly meticulous. Why would he ignore figurative language
and allusive diction and so on?
Randal
PO'B has far too much fun with words for names to be entirely innocent
of meaning. Diana is one that sums up the character of the character.
Babbington I wonder about, though, but O'Brian makes up for it when he
gives him a cargo of Lesbians, a scene which makes me hug myself with
delight.
I have not read the next thirty messages, so this may have been hammered to
death already ... but I do think most of the allusions and allegories used
were planned and intentionally evocative. I have definitely seen it taken
too far (one literature class I took as an undergrad got into a debate about
whether the use of that versus which in some novel was simply a grammar
mistake or an attempt to objectify the object - I quit my English major the
next day). But I think the major difference between very good writers and
average writers is that in POB there is enough subtlety to question whether
the allusions are intentional or whether we the readers are being clever.
Ayn Rand, who was a decent philosopher but a poor writer in my estimation,
never left any doubt. The "allusions" slap you in the face and kick you in
the shins. That question is simply one tribute to the artistry of one of the
masters.
Curtis
Curtis Ruder next day). But I think the major difference between
very good writers and
average writers is that in POB there is enough
subtlety to question whether
the allusions are intentional or whether we the
readers are being clever.
Well are there ANY references to these allusions in
his notes?
Gregg
I thought I'd wait I while before I put my share in:
As an English Lit. student I have had this discussion many times in
classes, most often concerning poetry. We questioned that the poet
intentionally used hard consonant sounds (for example) and various
far-flung word associations. And yes - some may be there by accident,
others by direct design, but most (depending on the writer) are
subconscious in the writer's mind. For example if I wanted to
describe an apple I could say:
The apple was round, green and moist.
A better writer would say:
The apple was bursting ripe, a tight round skin and moist pink flesh.
Obviously I have used more decorative language in the second example,
but it also evokes the symbolism of apples in literature: sex. Also
I have used lots of 'r' and 's' sounds which give the example a flowing,
rolling sound. Initially that was unconscious, but then a non-accidental
writer would 'sculpt' the text. I sculpted the text to emphasis this:
The apple was bursting ripe, a stretched round skin and moist flesh.
All I've done is removed the 'pink' as I thought it was too overt
and unnecessary (also lacked r and s sounds) and substituted
stretched for tight. Looking at a small section of text this way
shows how a writer can coolly mould sentences to give the best effect.
Patrick O'Brian is not a poet, but he is a highly aware author.
He knew what he was doing. To look at his names for example:
The name Diana is appropriate for Mrs Villiers because of it's
associations with the huntress god. To a reader already acquainted
with the Roman mythology it would give an added 'feel' to the character
that O'Brian would not need to describe, just as the 'r' and 's' sounds
supply something that would take many more words to describe. Diana's
name is an example of a logical, thinking connection in the author's
mind. To come to Pullings: say it to yourself: 'pullings', without any
connection to character. Now compare with 'babbington'. Pullings is a
simple two-syllable word, and to me is does give vague connections to
solidity, hard work etc. Babbington is flashier: three-syllables and
for some reason reminds me of a monkey (A baboon for all love!). The
other things that Ray mentioned are also things that just wallow on the
edge of a reader's mind, waiting to associate themselves:
Ray McPherson wrote:
Pullings. Hummmmm. If we assume that POB used every
name to explain something, then maybe Pullings is a
man who has to drag himself hand-over-hand up the
naval ladder without any safety net.
These are, I believe more sub-conscious connections in the author's
mind than Diana's name. He probably never realised he thought it, but
could you imagine swapping the names of Jack's earliest mids around?
It just doesn't work - and not simply because I know the characters,
and could not imagine changing their names - it's deeper than that.
When analysing a work of literature we have to remember that it is the
product of what's inside the writer's head. A human brain isn't very
good at making things up from scratch. If you were asked to create a
name for a character, the chances are you'd wouldn't make the name up.
Some things may not have any meaning to the reader, being perhaps,
the name of POB's first school friend. But others such as Diana's name
have direct literary connections, and others such as Pullings have more
unconscious associations.
With a writer like O'Brian, names are of course, not the only symbolism
etc. used in the books. The Polychrest/Diana example is a good one.
Once you've read the stories it's time to look for the threads and
cross threads. Looking at the back of the weaving doesn't destroy the
realism, but increases your respect and admiration for the author and
his subtle artistry.
Hope everyone's still awake!
Samuel Bostock
sambostock@YAHOO.CO.UK writes:
With a writer like O'Brian, names are of course, not the only symbolism
etc. used in the books. The Polychrest/Diana example is a good one. Once
you've read the stories it's time to look for the threads and cross
threads.
I'll second Susan's nomination for POST OF THE DAY! Thanks for a very
cogent explanation, Sam. We've discussed some of POB's poems before, and
concluded that he was a better novelist than poet, I think. However POB's
conscious
use of names, symbols and precise word choices shows up wonderfully in his
short stories, most of which are much darker and oblique than the Aubreyad.
IMO, his writing shares many qualities with poetry. For one thing, like
poetry, one has to read more carefully than with most fiction: miss a word
and you can miss the entire point of a paragraph. His writing is also more
'sensual' - color, sound, touch are incorporated throughout the writing.
And his writing reads extremely well aloud, too.
Rowen
I don't believe anyone has mentioned the hapless and, ultimately, betraying
Scrivener.
Jean A.
Betraying, how? I don't remember him being anything other than helpful
after the aborted attempt at highway robbery.
Stephen Chambers
Ah, but who alerted the press gang who made it an early night at Pullings'
Betrothal Party?
Jean A.
Scriven stuck his head into the room to *warn* Jack about the tipstaffs'
arrival, not to betray him to them.
Page 213 of Post Captain (Fontana paperback) at Pullings dinner
indicates that Scriven may not have been totally helpful.
Adam Quinan
I'll have to try and find my copy of Post Captain tomorrow night, it's been
a year since I last read it and it was boxed up with all my other books.
:-(
Stephen Chambers
Interesting how two people's interpretation can differ of the same
passage. However, there is another part of the story, and I can't find
the passage where Jack and Stephen discuss Scriven but it is clear that
Jack and Stephen believe Scriven had betrayed the party to the tipstaff
rather than was trying to warn him.
--
Adam Quinan
"The din was so great that Stephen alone noticed the door open just enough
for Scriven's questing head: he placed a warning hand on Jack's elbow, but
the rest were roaring still when it swung wide and the bailiffs rushed in."
It appears Scriven tipped the tipstaff, not Jack. He certainly missed the
boat back to the Polychrest and appears not again.
In HMSS Jack mentions him " You are much too inclined to find excuses for
scrubs, Stephen: you preserved that ill-conditioned brute Scriven from the
gallows, nourished him in your bosom, gave him your countenance, and who
paid for it? J. Aubrey paid for it. "
Bob Kegel
Peter wrote,
But I'm curious now - how did you get interested in Arthur Upfield?
Perhaps you caught the TV series a few years back?
The dreaded TV series?? No, I have never had the experiance of seeing the
telly version of Bony. Though I have heard some rumours.
Oddly enough, I came across a National Geographic magazine in 1989 where
there was a letter to the Editor thanking them on an article about
Australia. The lady writing the letter mentioned how much she enjoyed
reading the Upfeild novels as a child. Well, I certainly got curious and
started investigating where I could find such books.
For the Seattle lissun's (??) The UW Bookstore not only had most of them,
they ordered me the ones that weren't there. Within a year I had the entire
series including the MM one which got shipped to me from Florida, and was
one of only two known copies in the States. They then got me the few that
weren't available here also. I have had many a good night's read with these
books. My favourite still is 'The Mystery of Swordfish Reef', followed
closely by the first of the series, 'The Sands of Windee'. The aboriginal
Sherlock Holmes! I'm wondering if Bony ever did figured out how to roll his
own ciggies? (I used to get a good laugh at those little scenes describing
how he'd mangle the process!)
That's one of many things I like about a really good book, the humour that
will occasionally pop up unexpectedly. And since this is a POB list, I'll
get him in here some how...
I loved the entire bee 'thing', the 'garment', and the bear suit bits in
Post Captain, not to mention the way Killick gets away with what he does in
regards to JA. I know I may not be a literary giant, or very sophisticated,
I read books for the pure enjoyment of them... And I must say some of the
things in PC had me chuckling right along. (Notably Killick telling Jack he
wasn't going to help with Stephen's bees!)Oh! And lest I forget... That bit
where Jeannot is telling Captain Christy-Palliere that there was someone to
see him! I laughed outright at that one!
Sigh, for HMS Surprise to read next...
Terrijo
Can't resist joining in the discussion on "lit critting" and how
much/little
authors intend. I have a "from the horse's mouth" insight on this which I
can partly share with the list - even though it must remain an anonymous
insight, it's an interesting one. A very well-known, top-flight South
African author (wrote in Afrikaans) once told me in confidence that he was
constantly astounded at what literary critics read into his work - he went
so far as to say that he could hardly recognise what they came up with as
his own writing - and, yes, this was a very highly educated and intelligent
man. His opinion of literary criticism (translated from a letter that I've
kept to this day): "a right load of balls. The author writes what makes
sense to his mind and resonates in his heart at that time on that day; and
the reader sees what makes sense to his mind and resonates in his heart at
that time on that day; and these two, both honest, need not be the same at
all. But the literary critic, who has no head and no heart but only ego,
twists and turns the written word into some grandiose, allusion-filled,
'meaningful' artificial sham of a schema that only an ass would want to be
associated with."
My feeling is that authors do, of course, consciously come up with some
stuff eg the reference to JA seeing Dillon lying on the Cacafuego's deck
"with a great wound in his heart". Other stuff is generated from the
subconscious; and I'd put many of the passages where we see JA's take on
something and then, not too much later, SM's take on the same or similar
subject as being in this category - I know that I often think "oh yes! now
there's something I could usefully have character X think about" and I end
up, during editing, finding that more characters than X had the thought
(I'm not saying all the JA/SM things are like this, but I'm dead sure some
are).
And, finally, still other stuff, a whole LOT of stuff, exists only in the
minds of the devoted reader which isn't to say it's not "true". POB didn't
have to INTEND an allusion consciously for an insight to be true for a
reader. Any halfway great writing is going to have nuances for people and
shed lights for people that the writer never in a million years "thought
of" in a conscious way.
How's that for sitting on the fence?
London Lois
There was an old science fiction story by Isaac Asimov I believe, about
a physics professor who invented a time machine. He was telling an
English professor at a party that he had brought Shakespeare back to the
20th century as he thought that he was such a genius that he would adapt
well to the future. Unfortunately although things had started well, it
had ended in disaster.
Lois Anne du Toit wrote:
The author writes what makes sense to his mind and resonates in his heart
at
that time on that day; and the reader sees what makes sense to his mind and
resonates in his heart at that time on that day; and these two, both
honest,
need not be the same at all.
I bet this is really what's at bottom in all this.
I've seen poetry discussions between two people I know
well. They had totally different ideas of the meaning
of the piece, the allusions/metaphors, and it was
clear each was seeing the piece through their own
life-lense.
But the literary critic, who has no head and
no heart but only ego, twists and turns the written word into some
grandiose, allusion-filled, 'meaningful' artificial sham of a schema that
only
an ass would want to be associated with."
Reminds me of a scene from movie with Anthony
Hopkins playing C. S. Lewis (Shadowlands I believe.
He's seated with his literary friends, who are trying
to get Lewis/Hopkins to admit that the kids stepping
through the closet loaded with fur coats was an
allusion to the birth process. Lewis/Hopkins chuckled
and said, no, they're just stepping through a closet
loaded with fur coats.
It's stuff like that, plus experiences in watching N
people come up with N+1 allusions/metaphors that
suggests to me that POB would be surprised at a lot of
our suggested metaphors.
Other stuff is generated from the
I suspect this happens a lot. See below.
and I'd put many of the passages where we see JA's take on
something and then, not too much later, SM's take
on the same or similar subject as being in this category - I know that I
often think "oh yes! now there's something I could usefully have character
X think about" and I end up, during editing, finding that more characters
than X had the thought (I'm not saying all the JA/SM things are like this,
but I'm dead sure some are).
Supposedly, a writer is supposed to "know" their
characters so well, and have developed them so well,
that the characters respond all by themselves in the
author's head.
M&C p369 [or possibly 396] (Norton h/c): JA remarks upon how free and easy
his mids are with him - it's touching and typical of him that he doesn't
realise that the reason is largely his own kindliness and friendly attitude
towards them. More light is shed on this relationship eg at PC p46-47 where
Babbington remarks: "You would take him for an ordinary person - not the
least coldness or distance". While this refers to JA ashore, his very real
liking for youngsters and his mids in particular is found in many passages
eg poor little Parslow PC 225-226, one of my all-time favourites.
London Lois
Before we complete the group discussion of Post Captain, I have a few notes
on the historical basis for the naval battles.
The episode of the capture and rescue of Jack and Stephen returning to
England aboard the Lord Nelson is based upon real events. The East
Indiaman Lord Nelson was attacked by the French privateer Bellone on Aug.
14, 1803. Despite very stiff resistance from the Lord Nelson, the
privateer did capture her, and both ships headed for the Spanish port of
Corunna. When a British frigate appeared on the scene, the Bellone drew
her off. The Lord Nelson was subsequently attacked by the Seagull, 18,
with the battle extending through the night and into the next day. The
French-held Lord Nelson was on the verge of making her escape when Sir
Edward Pellew's squadron of four ships of the line made their appearance.
The cutting out of the Fanciulla from Chaulieu harbor is mostly the
invention of POB, but there are some loose ties to the exploits of the
Dart. The Dart was an experimental sloop with similarly shaped bow and
stern, and armed entirely with carronades. On the night of July 7, 1800,
the Dart accompanied by several smaller vessels and boats attacked four
French frigates anchored in Dunkirk harbor. Crewmen from the Dart managed
to board and cut out one of the frigates, the Desiree, 40.
The final battle, in which four British frigates encountered the four
Spanish treasure ships, happened on Oct. 5, 1804, pretty much as described
by POB. A few of the captain's names are different, including Jack Aubrey
substituting for the Lively's regular captain, Hammond. The Spanish
Mercedes did blow up, and the other three frigates struck to the British.
And because war had not officially been declared between Britain and Spain,
the officers and crew were denied their normal shares of prize money.
Don Seltzer
I seem providentially to have dropped in at a time when a progressive
Group Read cum discussion is under way. If we are just finishing up
Post Captain, that accords fairly well with the location of my own
bookmark at the moment . . .
As for the Geoff Hunt cover: Can anyone tell me just what the gun crew
seems to be firing at in that illustration? The gun, it seems, is
trained well forward. If this is gunnery practice, I wouldn't expect to
be able to see the floating target from this angle; but there does seem
to be something out there, some kind of looming dark shape. A shore
battery? The smoke of enemy gunnery? (no; surely all parties in this
scene are going about their business much too calmly for this to be the
heat of battle.)
Don't want to seem obsessive, but, like many, I find that the Hunt
pictures round out the POB experience for me perfectly. I don't know
what I will do when they all come out in new editions, with the Oprah's
Book Club seal on them . . . sigh . . .
Steve Ross
Steve, don't worry. I've heard that the seal will be a reproduction of the
Nile Medal. In addition, there is a reliable rumor that the publishers
expect such a response with this publicity and the upcoming movie that they
plan to release several product tie-ins, including a Budweiser-branded
cuddly stuffed sloth, a Greenpeace combination plastic light-saber/narwhal
tusk,
and a mail-in coupon to the Columbian Embassy for a free Fisher-Price
'Little
medico's Naval Surgeon kit', complete with a little plastic saw, bottles of
fake blood and leaches, and a free 'starter' bottle of laudaunum.
Personally, I'm hoping that Oprah will invite some of the Newport crowd to
show off their nifty duds.
Rowen
Your note caused me to reach for the book in question once again to
examine the cover. While I cannot say that I see anything disintguishable
in the line of fire - it seems that the smoke is fairly well obscuring
anything that they might be firing at - my eye was drawn to the tall,
straight figure standing in the foreground. It strikes me that this was
the closest that Geoff Hunt ever came to an actual depiction of Jack
Aubrey, with his ubiquitous yellow hair in a queue and hat worn in the
somewhat outdated Nelson style. For those who will be in Newport this
weekend, I would love it if someone could pose the question to Geoff. Is
this indeed meant to be a depiction of Jack Aubrey? And did he consciously
decide in future covers NOT to attempt any further direct depiction of the
main characters? Or am I wrong? Are there characters discernible on other
covers in the canon?
Obsessive you say? Join the club! :-)
Kathryn Guare
Which brings to mind a question (or three):
If a ship has just fired, let's say, all it's starboard cannon, the recoil
will cause the ship to roll ... which way? Or are there too many factors
(e.g. number, size, weight of the cannon, wind, swells) to know this? What
happens if cannon are fired from both sides, or opposite sides in rapid
succession?
Logistics, anyone?
Alice
Having looked again at this one I, too, am mystified. If you look at the
angle of the gun barrel, it appears as if the gun has just fired into the
sea a few yards off the port bow. Even allowing for the possibility that
the
ship has rolled to port since firing, the amount of smoke in the picture,
and its proximity to the gun, would seem to show that the gun has *just*
fired, so any roll since then would be negligible.
Clive
Probably not such a difficult problem to get an estimate of the first order
effect. A physics student would start out with conservation of momentum.
The mass and velocity of the cannonball is matched by the mass and velocity
of the recoil of the cannon, which eventually gets transmitted to the
sideways motion of the ship.
So, fire a single starboard 18-lber at 1500 ft/sec. MV = 27,000. The 4000
lb gun will recoil at 6.75 ft/sec. The breeching ropes stop the recoil and
transmit the momentum to the 1000 ton ship. The ship will "recoil"
sideways at a fraction of an inch per second.
That simple analysis assumes that the gun is level with the ship's natural
center of rotation, about which it rolls. Fire a gun on the quarterdeck,
perhaps ten feet above this center of rotation, and you create a moment
which will tend to make the ship roll a bit to larboard. How much depends
upon how the ship's mass is distributed, but I expect that the motion would
be slight for a frigate or larger.
Regarding the PC cover illustration, I originally thought that it portrayed
the Lively chasing the Spanish frigate in the final scene of PC. I recall,
though, that someone (Bruce?) asked Geoff Hunt about it, and he replied
that it was just a gunnery exercise. In either case, I am surprised that
the two forward bow chasers are drawn as carronades, rather than long guns.
Don Seltzer
Don, thank you for this answer! On the question of the chasers, though,
wouldn't this indicate that the ship in question is not the Lively, but
the Polychrest? My already-dim memory of what I read a few days ago
seems to indicate that the Polychrest was equipped only with carronades,
and that Jack had two of them moved to the bow when he needed a chaser.
If this is correct, then it provides a possible answer to the mystery:
The scene is the Polychrest's extended pursuit of the privateer Bellone,
which ended in Jack's being thanked and rewarded by representatives of
the merchant fleet, and chewed out by that grasping, infernal scrub
Harte. No surprise that people in the scene are so calm; as O'Brian
tells us, despite occasional gunfire in both directions, the chase
settled into a kind of routine, with the turning of the glass, the bell
rung regularly, hands piped to dinner, etc.
As for Kathryn Guare's note about the figure standing on the rail being
Jack, I agree completely. In fact, I seem to recall having heard
someone once remark that Jack could be found in EVERY Hunt cover
illustration. I can't claim to have done a systematic study, but I have
looked, and in some cases this is demonstrably untrue (although, to be
fair, I didn't use a microscope). There are some other covers, however,
in which some of the officers do look rather Aubreyesque. PC is the
closest, though.
Steve Ross
Don Seltzer wrote:
Regarding the PC cover illustration, I originally
thought that it portrayed
the Lively chasing the Spanish frigate in the
final scene of PC. I recall,
though, that someone (Bruce?) asked Geoff Hunt
about it, and he replied
that it was just a gunnery exercise. In either
case, I am surprised that
the two forward bow chasers are drawn as
carronades, rather than long guns.
I'm doing this from memory (don't have the book with
me), but doesn't the ship in the illustration have
pitifully low barricades? More like present day HMS
Rose than what ships had back then on the weather
deck?
Gregg
Linnea wrote:
I loved it (in PC) when dear Sophie thought to send hampers and venison
to
Jack, which made it possible for him to finally be able to invite and
entertain guests in the manner befitting a captain, although he was
penurious at the time.
"'Ah,' said Jack. 'The Mapes hamper is directed to Dr Maturin, I see.'
'It's all one, sir,' said Killick. "
I can't remember whom he entertained
Speaking to Stephen Jack says ""Will you have dinner with me tomorrow?
Canning is coming, and I have asked Parker, Macdonald and Pullings."'
Bob Kegel
Still panting along, 1/2 a book behind the group.
pg 95 "with two feluccas in the darse" What is a DARSE?
pg 126 boarding netting is described as "taut and trim" : I thought it was
desirable for it to be anything BUT taut?
pg 205 JA says to SM: "I dare say you will reject some of the cripples and
Abraham men" : what are Abraham men? and why might they be candidates for
the surgeon to find them unfit for the service?
Thank you, listswains
London Lois asked:
pg 95 "with two feluccas in the darse" What is a DARSE?
Sounds like the wrong context but quite fascinating. The Shorter OED
has
DARSE as a variant of DACE, the freshwater fish. For the loss of the "R" it
refers to BARSE as an earlier form of BASS.
On the other hand I think this might be what we are after:
http://www.eurodata.
com/articles/toulon.htm
"The oldest part of the port, the darse vieille, dates from the 16th
century, when Louis XIV turned Toulon into a great naval base by building
an
arsenal to the west (the darse neuve). In 1793 a young, then unknown
artillery captain launched his stellar military career in Toulon by forcing
the English to withdraw under a hail of cannon. As a result, Napoleon
Bonaparte was promoted to brigadier general."
pg 205 JA says to SM: "I dare say you will reject some of the cripples
and Abraham men" : what are Abraham men? and why might they be candidates
for the surgeon to find them unfit for the service?
Again the SOED gives:
"sham Abraham [see Abraham-man below], feign illness or insanity. L18.
Comb.: Abraham-man (obs. exc. Hist.) [perh. alluding to the beggar in Luke
16], after the dissolution of the religious houses (which had provided
charity), a beggar feigning insanity."
I believe I have seen elsewhere that it referred to a ward at the
Imperial War Museum - in its earlier incarnation as Bedlam.
Yes, see Phrase and Fable at:http://www.bartleby.com/81/76.html
"Abram-Man,
or Abraham Cove. A Tom o' Bedlam; a naked vagabond; a begging impostor.
Martin @ home:
(re: darse)
Martin gave the old French usage at Toulon. Something tickled my memory
and
I looked up "arsenal" in my Webster's. Verrrrrry interesting:
"Arsenal [Italian arsenale, dock, from Arabic dar-al-sina'ah, court or
house
of industry]..." Surely "darse" is another derivative from the same
Arabic
phrase.
Remember the Mediterranean/Moorish civilization in that other thread? Here
it is again, you see.
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI
2]
Mary S pg 404 (Norton h/c) JA seeks a classical allusion to thirst: he comes up with
Achilles or Andromache. What is the allusion? Offhand, I'd associate thirst
most famously with Tantalos: a cursory search comes up with alternatives like
Kronos, Leto, the Argonauts for the position of the famously thirsty. Might
it be the Argonauts, as JA is talking names beginning with A???
Yes, it IS high time I got a life and stopped musing upon minutiae, don't
tell me.
London Lois, definitely not anal-retentive
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
I puzzled over this one too, but in the end it seemed fairly plain that
the classical reference after which Jack is groping is not a
mythological, but a historical one. The only "A" I can think of that
fits is the Hellenistic king Antiochus I (324-261 B.C.), who fell in
love with his father's young wife Stratonice and wooed her away, along
with a portion of his father's kingdom. A very romantic tale told by
Plutarch, and to do him justice, Jack can be forgiven for mixing up
historical and mythological references; the two have not always been
kept totally distinct in the minds of readers (dare I say, present
company included?).
Steve Ross
Agamemnon?
Gregg
Lois wrote:
pg 16 JA is groping for a classical allusion "Actaeon, Ajax, Aristides"
to
express his situation in re his father's remarriage. Dim of me, but I
can't
come up with the name he's looking for, and this is annoying because it
may
well settle the vexed question of JA's relationship with the erstwhile
dairymaid. Help!!!
Lois, did you ask this question twice? I THINK I remember having tried
to address it a few minutes ago . . . but my own posts reach me from the
list only slowly, so I can't be sure.
I am just finishing up PC myself, so it looks like we are in stride . .
Steve Ross
I don't have a copy of MC at hand for reference, but
think of the phonetic pronunciation of those names and
you'll realize that Jack is trying to recall Oedipus.
Plus the reference to feet, marriage, fathers, mothers
and "not quite the thing"
Claude, enlisted for drink
Oedipus does seem a good candidate; however, I am not convinced by the
pronunciation. Jack's tutors would most likely have pronounced it as
"EE-dipus" (or, if they were real sticklers, OY-dipus). The part about
feet escaped my attention; how does this come in (in MC, I mean)?
--Steve, willing to be persuaded, but still of the opinion that
Antiochus is the most likely answer
Steve is right of course about the pronunciation. In
my minds' ear I hear the names as spoken by an Iowan
of the 21st century:) But Jack knew that there was
something peculiar about the feet and I think that
that is a reference to when Laius, Oedipus' father,
drove a spike through the infant Oedipus' feet and
left Oedipus exposed to the elements to die. I don't
have a copy of MC to quote, maybe another lissun could
supply the passage to the Gunroom?
Claude, enlisted for drink
Lois.Du.Toit@GLOMAS.COM writes:
pg 126 boarding netting is described as "taut and trim" : I thought it
was desirable for it to be anything BUT taut?>>
Yes, this point has been brought up in the past and the consensus was that
POB errred here, and that the boarding netting should be slack.
pg 205 JA says to SM: "I dare say you will reject some of the cripples
>and
Abraham men" : what are Abraham men? and why might they be candidates for
the surgeon to find them unfit for the service?
To quote from Anthony Gary Brown's wonderful PASC: "The reference is to the
Abraham ward at the Bedlam Hospital for the Insane in London, supposedly
populated by those who only pretended to be mad to facilitate theft and
idleness.
Bruce Trinque
Steve Ross wrote: "I puzzled over this one too, but in the end it
seemed
fairly plain that
the classical reference after which Jack is groping is not a
mythological, but a historical one. The only "A" I can think of that
fits is the Hellenistic king Antiochus I (324-261 B.C.), who fell in
love with his father's young wife Stratonice and wooed her away, along
with a portion of his father's kingdom. A very romantic tale told by
Plutarch, and to do him justice, Jack can be forgiven for mixing up
historical and mythological references; the two have not always been
kept totally distinct in the minds of readers (dare I say, present
company included?)."
Included indeed!
And on a related note, I should venture to say that most history swiftly
becomes mythology ;)
I take it that you were answering this question:
pg 16 JA is groping for a classical allusion "Actaeon, Ajax, Aristides" to
express his situation in re his father's remarriage. Dim of me, but I
can't come up with the name he's looking for, and this is annoying because
it
may
well settle the vexed question of JA's relationship with the erstwhile
dairymaid.
rather than the "thirst" one. If so, the expected light is, indeed, thrown.
Many thanks - ain't this the list of the world?
London Lois
I thought it was Oedipus, too, when I read it, but have to agree that
Antiochus sounds more like it.
Linnea (thrilled to be talking Greek!)
Claude wrote: "I don't have a copy of MC at hand for reference, but
you'll realize that Jack is trying to recall Oedipus.
Plus the reference to feet, marriage, fathers, mothers
and "not quite the thing"
You are probably thinking of another passage. I should have quoted the full
PC (note - not M&C) p16 reference, which is as follows:
SM asks JA: "'Had you not thought of going to Woolhampton - of going to
your
father's house?'
'Yes ... yes. I mean to give him a visit, of course. But there is my new
mother-in-law, you know. And to tell you the truth, I don't think it would
exactly answer.' He paused, trying to remember the name of the person, the
classical person, who had had such a trying time with his father's second
wife; for General Aubrey had recently married his dairy-maid, a fine
black-eyed young woman with a moist palm whom Jack knew very well. Actaeon,
Ajax, Aristides? He felt that their cases were much alike and that by
naming him he would give a subtle hint of the position: but the name would
not
come, and aftre a while he reverted to the advertisements. 'There's a great
deal to be said for somewhere in the neighbourhood of Rainsford ... '"
Oedipus, tangled web though he wove, doesn't seem to fit the case: Gregg
suggested Agamemnon - could you elaborate, Gregg? I can't recall anything
in the bloodsoaked history of Atreus and his brood that could well
illustrate
Jack's pickle. My favourite candidate is still Steve's Antiochus I - but am
still thinking on it ...
London Lois
When Agammemnon is killed by his wife Clytemnestra, she takes a rather
sorry consort to her bed (Aegisthus, I think). The children of Agammemnon
(Orestes and Electra) are uncomfortable with this situation. So there is an
undesirable step-parent in the story. I'm still not sure that's what Jack
had in mind, though.
-Vanessa
Besides, that's a second -husband-, not a second wife.
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
Hippolytus had an =extremely= trying time with his father Theseus' second
wife, Phaedra. The young man was innocent in the case, but his
stepmother's
lies cost him his life, as I recall.
Somehow I think this is the situation Jack is dimly recalling - even though
"Hippolytus" does not begin with an A.
For intelligence, there is nothing like a keen-witted, handsome woman, [DI
2]
Mary S
Aha! That's a good 'un! Stepmother in love with stepson and gets stepson
into deep trouble - indeed, the deepest possible. Apt enough to bear away
the prize, though a little unfair of POB to make us look for classical A's
if he meant Hippolytus.
Just as well JA couldn't recall the name if it was Hippolytus: Stephen
might have been doubled up with laughter again (PC p263 Norton h/c: "Stephen
was
doubled in his chair, rocking to and fro, uttering harsh spasmodic squeaks:
tears ran down his face") at the thought of Jack in such a chaste role!
PC 263-264 is up there among my favourite passages; never fails to bring a
smile to my face.
London Lois, which she's not far from doubled up herself at the thought of
Jack as Hippolytus
Despite a search of the archives, I'm in doubt whether or not the following
point has already been made. If it has, apologies!
Sensitised in advance by the groupread discussion of SM observing Diana at
the opera, I found this passage very striking, as bearing upon that later
scene:
pg 57 (Norton h/c) SM writes in his diary about Diana's flirting with him:
"My position would be the most humiliating in the world but for the fact
that she is not so clever as she thinks; her theory is excellent, but she
has not the control of her pride or her other passions to carry it into
effect. She is cynical, but not nearly cynical enough, whatever she may
say.
If she were, I should not be obsessed."
If I read this correctly, he is saying that Diana's coquetry is rendered
"innocent" and even pleasing by the fact that it is not totally dishonest:
because she does honestly feel something of what she pretends. Should that
change, ie should her behaviour become all "sham" with no substance behind
it to redeem it, then his feelings would change. Well, isn't this EXACTLY
what happens in the opera scene?
London Lois
51° 28' 50" N
Yes -- and a very good point you have made.
Bruce Trinque
To this passage can be added the following which explicates the
situation:
He is, indeed, fated to see her "making postures, moving with artful
negligence" - the death of what he most loved in her: "that ... infinitely
touching unstudied unconscious grace".
How typical of Stephen that he considers whether he is not at least
partially to blame for the corruption of Diana: and one can't help feeling
that, although he tries to dismiss a similar thought at the opera (p 472),
he isn't really able to do so. Stephen's seeing an analogy to himself in
the
miseries of Mr Jones, Polychrest's purser (PC 288-289) - "A man cannot
still
be asking; and what you ask for is not given free ... a man cannot make a
whore of his own wife" - must surely rank as one of the saddest pieces of
introspection on Stephen's part in The Canon.
London Lois
I like the extremes of what Stephen goes through in his feelings about
Diana: at one time he is sure he no longer admires her, that she has
lost the qualities that made her special, so that we then are ready for
him to not love her any more, and what happens? he goes and forgets all
his prior insights about her, and we find that he is still mad about
her. This is very like "real life", wherein we all make resolutions
about our emotional lives in moments of cool blood, and then, when we're
in the midst of our hot blood once again, all our resolve goes by the
board.
Also, I'm rereading TYA, which is the book before the one in which Diana
dies. I have just read the part where Stephen has been at Woolcombe and
had a wonderful reunion with Diana, as well as Brigid, Sophie, etc.
Diana once again drives him to the port where he is to catch a ride to
Jack's ship, and Stephen and Diana are alone to say goodbye, which they
do "as lovers", sadly, unwillingly,etc.
I think this may be the last time he ever sees her. If so, how nice
that POB gave them such a lovely last time together.
Isabelle Hayes
I am about to descend into lit-crittery: can't believe it! Makes me think
someone has already posted this - if so, apologies.
pg 82-83 (Norton h/c): SM is walking to Mapes to visit Diana. It is
night-time: "... far on his right hand the barking of a roe-buck in search
of a doe, and on his left the distant screaming of a rabbit with a stoat at
work upon it. An owl."
Applicability of all this to SM is too obvious to be coincidence - or is
it?
London Lois
And elsewhere in PC where Diana invites SM and JA to dinner to dine on
Dover Sole, I wonder who is dining on whose soul...
Was Dover Sole then a famous dish?
Greg Edwards, prefering abalone
There is an instance of unusual nautical knowledge displayed by SM at p198
(Norton h/c) where he writes in his diary: " ... a powerful squadron moving
out past Haslar in line ahead, all studdingsails abroad ..."
Not very great knowledge, to be sure, but he recognises the formation and
the sails carried ... unwonted expertise that I don't think would occur in
the later books of the Canon.
London Lois
Gregg Germain
I'm doing this from memory (don't have the book
with
me), but doesn't the ship in the illustration have
pitifully low barricades? More like present day HMS
Rose than what ships had back then on the weather
deck?
To expand:
I located a very small image of the PC cover. First
off, that doesn't look like a bow chaser to me. It's
really just ahead of the fore-shrouds which puts it
just ahead of the foremast.
And from this very small image, it does look to me
like the barricades are pitifully short. Perhaps it
is not a frigate at all?
Gregg
Steve Ross wrote:
Don, thank you for this answer! On the question of the chasers, though,
wouldn't this indicate that the ship in question is not the Lively, but
the Polychrest? My already-dim memory of what I read a few days ago
seems to indicate that the Polychrest was equipped only with carronades,
and that Jack had two of them moved to the bow when he needed a chaser.
No, this is not the Polychrest because most of the guns shown are regular
cannon on trucks. Only the bowchaser is a carronade, mounted on a slide if
you look very carefully.
I don't have the cover in front of me, but what kind of gold epaulette is
Jack wearing? A single one on the left shoulder for commander, or shifted
to the right side after his promotion and appointment to Lively?
Don Seltzer
Don, he's wearing an epaulette on BOTH shoulders. Maybe he had a visiting
Post Captain or Admiral on board?
Mark
With me little glass, it appears there's one aboard each shoulder.
Alice, much better with gold than with conservation of momentum (still
digesting your answer, Don)
In which case, Geoff Hunt must have nodded. In 1804, a post captain with
less than 3 years seniority, like Jack, would wear just a single epaulette
on the right shoulder.
Steve Ross was wondering about the dark shape, just above the smoke. That
seems to be the stock of the bower anchor. A similar stock of the sheet
anchor is seen further aft.
Don Seltzer
But I thought Geoff Hunt said that none of the characters actually appear
on the cover - that's certainly a statement which would cover his noddings.
And why a long time ago, I quit looking for anyone I might recognize.
Alice
The figure on the cover of PC definitely has an epaulette on each
shoulder, but who else could it be, but JA? The discription of
transferring the epaulette from one shoulder to the other was so fleeting
and minor (the epaulette only seemed of great importance in MC) that it
could easily have been overlooked by Geoff Hunt. The one definite
picture of JA is on the cover of MC, standing in the stern with one
epaulette on the left shoulder. I have them both on my desk with a
strong magnifying glass.
Jill
For those who have never seen it, the cover illustration for the original
US Lippincott edition of Post Captain in 1972 seems more appropriate for a
romance novel. Jack is portrayed as a slim handsome man with light brown
hair with just a hint of a ponytail. Standing on the quarterdeck in the
midst of a battle, he is scowling and brandishing his sword at some unseen
enemy off-stage to the right. A lovely dark-haired damsel, a shawl draped
demurely around her shoulders, is gazing fondly at Jack from the foot of
the mainmast. Off in the distance is a two decker ship of the line, her
mizzen mast blown to a stump, but all plain sail set on the fore and main
masts.
I've also seen an early Collins edition which shows a Victorian-looking
lady riding a horse sidesaddle, all dressed in green, I believe.
Don Seltzer
Nathan the "lurker" wrote:
Is tension necessary in great literature? Perhaps, yes I would agree
with that. However, tension and unpredictability can be derived from
many sources other than threat of death. Indeed, the Canon is fraught
with tension: Stephen's pursuit of Diana, Jack's trials on land, the
political intrigue. These are just a *very* few of the unpredictable
events in the Canon.
Yes indeed; and after all, as we have just been discussing, there *is* a
death towards the end of PC: the "Diana at the Opera" scene.
"Had he had a hand in her death? He shook his head to deny it."
O'Brian said, famously, that M&C was not intended as the start of a
series; I seem to recall having read somewhere that he originally didn't
intend to continue past PC either. If that is the case, how does it
affect the argument in terms of our knowledge/expectation about the
future for the main characters?
With apologies for drawing out the PC discussion ... ready to move on
Steve Ross
From "World Wide Words" today:
Someone had enquired about the origin of the phrase "Barking Mad":
"Nicholas Shearing of the OED kindly hunted
through their database of citations and found that their earliest
reference - almost certainly anachronistic, as it's in a historical
novel about the Napoleonic wars - is from Patrick O'Brian's Post
Captain of 1972: "A thief from the Winchester assizes had gone
raving, staring, barking mad off Ushant". "
Martin @ home:
Still hirpling along trying to catch up to the group read.
PC p 261 (Norton h/c) Jack gives Babbington orders re going ashore "and
desired him to 'top his boom'".
Explanation of topping one's boom, please. I hope it may not be some
indelicate reference to Babbington's anatomy/libido - but suspect it to be
just some way of saying 'get going asap'.
London Lois
When tidying up a boat in harbour, one attaches a topping lift line to
the end of the boom to keep it from flopping down on deck in an
unseamanlike manner (at least before going to the bar ashore).
Adam Quinan
At PC p285 (Norton h/c) we have a wonderful instance of that abstractedness
of Stephen's, caused by absolutely focussed concentration, to which Gary
drew our attention in the M&C passage (sorry, copy not to hand) where
Stephen, on being reminded that he is soaked, ponders for a while and comes
up with "It is the rain."
In the present passage, Stephen has gone wandering on the Goodwin sands and
been oblivious of the making tide. "Stephen retracted [sic ?retraced] his
footsteps towards the stump of a mast protruding from the sand where he had
left his boots and stockings, and to his concern he found that these prints
emerged fresh and clear directly from the sea. No boots: only spreading
water, and one stocking afloat in a little scum a hundred yards away. He
reflected for a while upon the phenomenon of the tide, gradually bringing
his mind to the surface, and then he deliberately took off his wig, his
coat, his neckcloth and his waistcoat."
This whole incident, especially pgs 284-286, with the detailing of the
boat's crew's remarks upon and to Stephen, is POB's humour at its best.
London Lois
Could some listswain who is both kind and intelligent (ie any one of you
out there) please enlighten my darkness? In PC pg 323-326 (Norton h/c),
Stephen
takes Diana to Brighton by chaise and they have a conversation whose
import, I think, I am far from fathoming.
Stephen catches Diana out in a half-lie about the extent of her
acquaintance with Brighton: we hear that JA disapproves of Brighton and, in
particular,
the Prince of Wales' set, as being dissolute. Diana is quite critical of
JA; Stephen speaks of the strains in his friendship with JA. Diana mourns
the
failure of the dinner party at which Canning, JA and SM were guests and
Stephen says of Diana's attitude to Canning at the dinner:
"'The preference was very marked.'
'Oh no, no, Stephen. It was only common civility. Canning was the stranger,
and you two were old friends of the house; he had to sit beside me and be
attended to ... '"
Diana is at some pains to be unusually nice to Stephen: "'Oh, what is that
bird?'" but Stephen is more than a little acerbic in his reception of these
pleasantries. Finally, he is almost overcome by the loneliness he feels,
but not quite; he dissembles about his plans, mentioning, inter alia, that
his
next stop will be London.
Diana exclaims: "'... But Brighton is quite out of your way - I had
imagined you had to go to Portsmouth when you offered me a lift. Why have
you come
so far out of your way?'
'The dew-ponds, the wheatears, the pleasure of driving over grass.'
'What a dogged brute you are, Maturin, upon my honour,' said Diana. 'I
shall lay out for no more compliments.'
'No, but in all sadness,' said Stephen, 'I like sitting in a chaise with
you; above all when you are like this. I could wish this road might go on
for ever.'
There was a pause; the chaise was filled with waiting; but he did not go
on, and after a moment she said with a forced laugh, 'Well done, Maturin.
You
are quite a courtier. But I am afraid I can see its end already. There is
the sea ... ' "
Finally, Stephen finds she is to stay with Lady Jersey (whose crowd he
connects with Canning). Diana is at pains to point out the family
connections and the respectability of her hostess. Conversation becomes
merely superficial: and the incident ends thus:
"They parted at Lady Jersey's door, having said nothing more, amidst the
flurry of servants and baggage: tension, artificial smiles."
Among the questions I have here:
London Lois wondering whether she's just having a bad brain day or whether
this passage is really unusually elliptical ...
Lois Anne du Toit
Among the questions I have here:
1. "the chaise was filled with waiting" : for what from whom? is Stephen
waiting for some equally tender remark from Diana? Might he, given the
smallest encouragement, actually have gone on to declare his feelings? And
what of Diana? Is she waiting for some more fervent avowal from him, and
does she become cruel when this is not forthcoming? Or, handed what she has
been angling for, does she simply play the coquette and withdraw? Or does
Stephen give her more than she expected, enough so for her to get "stage
fright" and and make a hasty and incidentally cruel withdrawal?
I have not reread PC for sometime, so I may not still remember properly, but
I always thought of this passage as "The Great Passage of Missed
Opportunities". I imagined at this point that Stephen really wanted to ask
Diana to marry him, but was still much too afraid that she would turn him
down and that he would not be able to bear it. Diana, for her part, had had
a taste of Jack and Canning and Mrs Williams and the Teapot and was starting
to think that maybe Stephen was a good choice after all. But she couldn't
quite bring herself to say it either. At this point, they each required the
other to make the move, and unfortunately, they were both too bruised by
their pasts and their personalities to proceed. If either of them could have
gone past pride to say what was really on their minds, the impasse might
have been broken, they might have lived happily ever after, and there would
have been a lot of tension and plot lines missing from the rest of the
canon. But neither was able to clear that self imposed hurdle and so they
went their separate ways, causing themselves and each other great
unhappiness.
2. am I right in thinking the fruitless wait, rather than Lady Jersey's
crowd with its implication of Canning (and possibly rakishness), is what
drove them to the "tension, artificial smiles"?
I think you are.
3. what is the significance for all the conversation that follows of
Diana's
having refused Stephen's conversational gambit about his friendship with
JA?
I am not sure I understand your question, but I thought most of the
conversation was of the stilted type people might engage in when they are
trying to pretend that they do not care about the conversation; when they
are trying to convince themselves that it doesn't matter a bit; when they
are not suceeding very well at their self deception. When they are trying
to talk about everything except what they really want to talk about.
"Mother of thyme, crushed by our carriage wheels", says Stephen. That
wasn't all that was crushed. The Golden Opportunity was stomped on too.
Mary A
I've always felt that one of the things that kept
Stephen and Diana apart at this point was that they
both had/have a relationship with Jack.
Ray McP
How is Diana's last name pronounced?
Is it, could it have been, anglicized?
Bob, ignorant in French except for food and kissing
Well, my Midwestern mental ear hears it as VILL-yers.
Gerry Strey
Tull pronounces it "VILL-ers" -- the second i is elided.
Bill Nyden
I've always thought of it pronounced as it is spelt (to me) - Villyers
Stephen Chambers
Assuming the origin is French - they would pronounce it Vill - Yay. The
Limeys would pronounce it Vill - Ears
Well I am a Limey and your phoneticism s pretty much the same as mine. :-)
Stephen Chambers
I always imagine Stephen and Jack pronouncing it in the anglicised form -
Villyers. But how would Diana herself pronounce it? I'm not sure. Would
there have been some kind of social kudos in having a name with French
origins, some romantic connotations perhaps, or was it to be played down in
times of war against France?
For myself, I can't hear the French pronunciation without thinking of the
Metro station in Paris, bringing back happy memories of working at the OECD.
Crossing over to another thread - lunch breaks ? an hour and a half at
least!
Elaine Jones
Villiers is a well established English name pronounced in an English
style as Vill-yers. George Villiers, the 1st Duke of Buckingham
(1592-1628) did feature in Dumas' The Three Musketeers.
Adam Quinan
Post Captain was an interesting exercise in a writer's working out
decisions about his characters.
In any series of books, or Saga, the author(s) can use perhaps three ways
to
deal with the leading characters. These are, to grossly oversimplify:
1. Hornblower: all of the lead characters (Hornblower, Bush, Brown,
Lady
Barbara) remain more or less "in character" for the entire series. The
interest
lies, in part, in how these fixed characters respond to different
situations;
2. Sherlock Holmes: Holmes' character remains constant, but Watson,
the
occasional Mrs. Watson, Mrs. Hudson and even Lestrade vary substantially as
the
demands of the stories dictate;
3. Poirot: Dame Agatha varies the characters of /everyone/ according
to the
visions presented to her in the bathtub.
I think that POB was, in PC, trying to decide on which model to adopt. He
finally chose, I believe, a variant of Conan Doyle's structure. Jack, most
of
the Naval personnel and Sophie remain fairly constant over the Saga. If the
story demands different "constant" characters, POB drops some people out
(Rev.
Martin) and introduces others (Dil). OTOH, Maturin's and Diana's characters
vary
quite wildly, depending on POB's ideas while writing.
Thus, the characters of Diana and Maturin /are/ complex, confusing and
unbelievable, to me, because POB varies them, book to book or even within a
book, as the story in his mind demands --- there is no "standard" Stephen
or
Diana.
So, as I begin each book again, I pretend that the Stephen and Diana in
that
book are completely different people than the characters of those names in
the
preceding books. This seems to make both characters more ---- acceptable,
or
real, to me.
Cheers
Al Revzin
Al Revzin Wrote:
Jack, most of
the Naval personnel and Sophie remain fairly constant over the Saga. If the
story demands different "constant" characters, POB drops some people out
(Rev. Martin) and introduces others (Dil). OTOH, Maturin's and Diana's
characters
vary quite wildly, depending on POB's ideas while writing.
Thus, the characters of Diana and Maturin /are/ complex, confusing and
unbelievable, to me, because POB varies them, book to book or even within a
book, as the story in his mind demands --- there is no "standard" Stephen
or Diana.
Very insightful! I hadn't thought of it this way, but it does fit into
something I have been thinking about, after having first sprained my brain
trying to puzzle out the symbolism of Stephen's different states of dress
in HMSS: By contrast with Stephen's ambiguities, Jack is much more
black-and-white. As far as his clothing is concerned, he is either fully
dressed or stark naked (waking Stephen on deck ready to go swimming) . . .
never anywhere in between, though his "full dress" can be either formal or
informal.
I trust that no Lister over-ate excessively this Thanksgiving.
Thanks . . . I over-ate only moderately; but I did indeed over-eat. Then I
did it again.
Steve Ross
References to Norton h/c
I find this basic mistake (like the latitude one) disquieting: I take a lot
on trust from POB.
Am also fairly amazed that this stuff hasn't been corrected in these
recently published editions.
London Lois which she's wondering if she should just masthead herself
without waiting for the axe to fall ;)
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
The latitude-longitude confusion was recognized long ago. When it was
pointed out to O'Brian, his response was "Oh, I'm left-handed."
No explanation for the "Orion", though maybe it was a matter of an English
mispronunciation of the French "Orient."
Bill Nyden
Seems unlikely that "Orient" would trip even JA's tongue ... and then
there's the question of the HMSS passage which isn't direct speech.
However,
my wits seem more than usually ahoo this morning, so I've probably
misunderstood you - sorry!
London Lois
I have checked my Harper Collins paperback of PC and on p426 it definitely
say "the L'Orient".
Martin @ home with email problems:
Martin! how fascinating! so was the error in POB's manuscript and was
typesetting of the Norton editions done from POB's manuscripts rather than
from the Harper Collins eds? Or did some benighted Norton copy editor
introduce the error?
London Lois
References to Norton h/c ed.
1. Questions:
p332 SM reflects upon immediate past events: "He had been much caressed at
the Admiralty; a very civil, acute, intelligent old gentleman called in
from
the Foreign Office had said the most obliging things ... " Do we know who
this was?
The JA/SM duel: at what point is it actually, formally called off - or
isn't
it? It just, kind of, sorta, vanishes ... nearest I can find is p384 at the
end of the Chaulieu-Fanciulla exploit where JA stands watching poor
Polychrest sink and: "'Come, brother," said Stephen in his ear, very like a
dream. 'Come below. You must come below - here is too much blood
altogether.
Below, below. Here, Bonden, carry him with me.'" Sorry for this question -
I'm not the sharpest scalpel in the sickbay.
2. Comments:
p 331: SM is riding through Aragon: "A shower on the Maladetta, and
everywhere the scent of thyme ... 'My mind is too confused for anything but
direct action,' he said ... "
p. 333: "[Stephen] saw Heneage Dundas stop on the pavement outside, shade
his eyes, and peer in through the window, evidently looking for a friend.
His nose came into direct contact with the glass, and its tip flattened
into
a pale disc. 'Not unlike the foot of a gasteropod,' observed Stephen, and
when he had considered its loss of superficial circulation for a while he
attracted Dundas's attention, beckoning him in and offering him a cup of
tea
and a piece of muffin."
The JA/SM duel: the tame evanescing of this duel which has so occupied
centre stage with reactions to it from so many quarters down to the likes
of
Lakey and Plaice, leaves a bit of a blank feeling, a sense of being let
down, almost of POB copping out of a very tricky situation: JA has lost
Diana to Canning and knows the duel isn't worth fighting; but can't
withdraw
because of the dictates of honour and courage: SM stands revealed as a
"deadly old file" and he too refuses to withdraw: hmmm. Will both parties
delope? too blah. How about friends' intervention with the loading of the
pistols? nope, done already by CSF. I can't imagine what a satisfactory
outcome would have been, but a mere blank leaves rather the taste of those
long-ago serial adventures where one episode ends with the hero chained in
a
cellar with poison gas seeping in and, probably, water rising as well, and
the next begins with "Freeing himself in a single bound, he battered down
the door and escaped."
London Lois
Lois wrote:
The JA/SM duel: at what point is it actually, formally called off - or
isn't it? It just, kind of, sorta, vanishes ...
I think the matter is laid to rest when Stephen special status with the
Admiralty is revealed to Jack:
"I am requested and directed to avail myself of the counsels and advice of
S. Maturin, esquire, MD etc., etc., appointed pro hac vice a captain in the
Royal Navy his knowledge and discretion.'
I take this as Stephen's apology - he had in fact lied to Jack - and Jack's
acceptance.
Bob Kegel
aha! thank you, Bob, I find that eminently satisfactory - the feeling is
not
unlike having some kind friend finally scratch the itch in that unreachable
part of one's back ... It hangs together with the reconciliation when
Polychrest sank and concludes that process beautifully.
London Lois
*thank heavens for the List
Bob Kegel wrote:
Tace is the Latin for a candle.
I've never figured out what expression Jack is thinking of and mangling,
here. Tace being Latin for "be silent," but what do candles have to do with
it?
A sad, brutish grobian, [IM, p45]
Mary S
Perhaps he's thinking of candlestine?
Cheers, Peter
Actually it is an assumption that the intended hearer is able to understand
Latin but an eavesdropper or servant will not know that Tace is the Latin
for be quiet not candle. Jack would use it when one of his companions was
mentioning matters which should not be spoken of openly.
A similar idiom was to use the French phrase "pas devant les domestiques".
(or les enfants) Only works with uneducated servants and children.
What a problem our children's French immersion schooling has caused us.
They now comment nastily on our accents, vocabulary and generally are highly
amused or embarrassed by our attempts to speak French.
This question was handled in the Archives... way back in 1996!
Always Google before speaking is the moral, I suppose.
http://mat.gsia.
cmu.edu/POB/APR96/0634.html
Brief excerpt
'Colloquial 1688: (Shadwell): I took him up with my old repartee;"Peace"
said I, "Tace is Latin for a candle!" '
It also occurs in the works of Swift, Fielding and Scott.
So it is not Jack making up something, but an expression whose confusion is
inherent in its original use. Presumably the uneducated would not "get" it,
but the educated would know that the main point was in the word "Tace!" iow
"shut up."
Deeply, obstinately ignorant, self-opinionated, and ill-informed,
Mary S
Susan wrote:
The main page is:
http://jfinnera.www1.50megs.com/pob.html
etc. ...
All this speculation, however, helps us understand only why the
characters ended up not trying to shoot one another. It still doesn't
answer Lois' *original* question, which was (IIRC) why O'Brian wrote it
this way. It seems like an unsatisfying loose end, at first. But maybe
we can interpret it differently? Could it not be part of O'Brian's
ingenious subtlety to "show" us, rather than "tell" us, how the two
men's relationship has developed here? Very different from the proposed
duel near the very beginning of the Canon, where Jack is forced to
deliver a formal (and somewhat stiff) apology to remain on speaking
terms with Maturin! As often, Charlezzz (in the Archives) showed the
way: he pointed out how PO'B signals the evolution in their
relationship, by having Stephen address Jack as "brother" at the
critical point.
One more point (here I am going out on a limb again): I wonder if the
mention of dueling in M&C, PC, *and* HMSS might not be an intentional
unifying theme that sets off these books as a sort of trilogy (clearly
they are separated in more than one way from the other books in the
series). We have already talked about the many ways in which O'Brian
signals the moral ambiguity of Stephen's duel with Canning. If I am
right that Stephen's "moral crisis" is the major (or one of the major)
theme(s) in HMSS, does O'Brian want us to think that, symbolically, by
killing Canning Stephen killed himself or part of himself (after all, he
did talk about how the two men were similar, both being religious/ethnic
outsiders, etc.)? Here again Stephen's recital of Vergil's Aeneid may
be relevant: in the height of his delirium, he quotes the line about
how Aeneas impulsively slew Turnus. For many critics, this has been
seen as Aeneas symbolically killing himself, or at least his "old" self.
I'll spare you any more tortured imaginings. BTW I did have fun
browsing the archives; I even found this old entry from 1998, which
today's lissuns might still enjoy, though it is a little dated:
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/POB/MAY0198/0588.html
Have fun, all.
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
Steve Ross
You do recall very correctly, and yes, it was Cicero I meant. I didn't
say the cases were exactly congruent, though; just that his treatment of
the prisoners was controversial.
On the duel question (PC): I too find Bob's proposal helpful (Stephen
revealing his special status and professional need to lie, serving as a
kind of apology to Jack). In that very conversation, however, POB has
Jack make reference to 'my love for you.' This tells me that I and
Charlezzzz may still be right in thinking that what really stopped them
from dueling was their new status as brothers. And I stand by my
suggestions in my post of yesterday (who says we're not competitive?).
Steve Ross, A.K.A. Lord Clonfert
I have been re-re-re reading 'Post Captain', mainly in spare moments on pilot boat ADOLPHUS & on my own little 'Surprise' at sea. I had a few thoughts Lissuns might find interesting, but first a major SPOILER space... (ie, be careful if you are yet to read the book folks).
.
.
'Post Captain' thoughts: In this book POB has Jack Aubrey at his most stupid. IMHO in no other book is Jack shown as so deeply stupid -by land- immature & lacking in insight. Of course it is only the second book & Jack is not yet fully developed as a character. Certainly, in this book, he is less developed, as a character, than Stephen Maturin. In fact this is, to me, much more a book about Stephen than Jack.
My own impression is that both Jack & Stephen are certainly 'sleeping' with the awful Diana at different stages of this book. She really is a most horrible character: Cold, hard, manipulative, cruel, calculating & faithless, all together a bad lot. POB uses the 'sweet & innocent' & even slightly cloying, Sophie as a very clear contrast here. Bluff, what you see is what you get, Jack Aubrey is no kind of match for Diana. Stephen Maturin, intelligent, complicated, insightful, capable of being far, far, more ruthless than Jack, might be. In a sense of course both Stephen & Diana are far more 'damaged goods' than basically happy Jack & Sophie.
One very neat thing did strike me in this reading of the book for the first time. When Jack & Stephen's rivalry for Diana is at its height, Stephen shows, for the first time, that he is 'a man of blood' has fought many duels & is a 'deadly old file' with a pistol & sword. Jack is surprised. Just afterwards Jack jumps into the sea & saves one of his drowning sailors. Stephen is surprised & especially so, at the fact that Jack thinks so little of his life saving efforts. A neat revolving of the characters normal roles of warrior & life saver. Yet, to me Stephen is much more a killer, than Jack, despite the fact that Jacks job is killing his nations enemies & Stephen's is, at least ostensibly, saving lives as a Doctor.
Now POB was, IMHO, almost certainly something of a snob. He admired upper class society, at least to a point, yet he was not, for assorted reasons of finance -for many years- background & action, a true member of it. I suppose Jack & Sophie are fine examples of traditional 'society', while Stephen & Diana are examples of people, well brought up & finely mannered but not really of society & on the fringes of it, though more so in Stephen's case since he is both a bastard & a catholic with a past.
Now I wonder where POB got his inspiration for the awful Diana...
Ted
Now I wonder where POB got his inspiration for the awful Diana...
He looked into his own heart.
I hadn't thought much about the role reversal before, but you are right.
Stephen can be a coldly brutal lifetaker, while Jack can save them
without thought. Remember how he leapt into the sea after his friend?
That was set up many books in advance.
He looked into his own heart.
Yes, I suppose it must have been partly, at least, that.
Ted
SPOILERS BELOW
Listening to the unabridged Patrick Tull audiobook recording of "Post
Captain" (this must be at least my eighth time through the novel) I have been
struck by the recurring theme of communication barriers which so thoroughly
dominate the central part of the book. Again and again, characters are
constrained from communicating in any effective way. Jack Aubrey of course
is by the custom of the servicisolated from his officers aboard the cursed
Polychrest; at dinner no officer may initiate conversation and their replies
to the captain's words are confined to bland agreement. Although Jack
observes his first lieutenant's harsh punishments for petty offenses, he
feels unable to openly rebuke him for fear of undermining his authority.
Jack cannot reveal the depth of his emotions to Sophie once his fortune is
lost because she has ten thousand pounds and society would universally
disapprove. Sophie is unable to reveal her feelings because society simply
does not permit a single woman to do so. Heneage Dundas cannot convince Jack
of the foolishness of his actions because Dundas was so long junior to Jack.
Diana and Stephen maintain a brittle superficiality of words between
themselves because Stephen considers himself inadequate and because Diana ...
well, because Diana is Diana. Stephen and Jack can no longer open themselves
to one another because of mutual jealousy over Diana. Even Canning cannot
explicitly offer Jack command of a privateer because this would breach
etiquette.
The obvious and conventional literary sequel to all this would be the
author's subsequent pitch that establishing communication brings peace and h
appiness. But Patrick O'Brian was seldom obvious or conventional. When
Stephen Maturin at the behest of Dundas truly speaks his mind to warn Jack of
his folly, near disaster results: a threatened duel between Jack and Stephen.
Only the intervention of external events defuses the tension and allows the
reestablishment of free and easy communication (within O'Brianesque limits,
of course). The apparent moral is that communication is not a means to an
end, but instead a consequence of exterior existence. And that is, I think,
a thread which runs through O'Brian's novels: real communication is a fragile
blossom at best, futile to attempt through direct effort, a gift of blind
circumstance alone. Perhaps no man is an island, but in the world created by
Patrick O'Brian, each man is surely a peninsula approached only by a very
narrow and uncertain causeway.
Bruce Trinque
Bravo! Well said, Bruce.
In addition, there is a profound irony that music succeeds where words fail. I am just my first time through the books, alas, and am in the Ionian Mission. So, an example from this novel may suffice: Just before an action (or threatened action) SM and JA have a bit of music in the cabin, with no sheet music--Stephen plays a riff (sorry for the contemp California jargon here--the fault of my upbringing) on the cello, which Jack answers on the fiddle, and they engage in a Dueling Viols kind of question and answer with variations on a theme, "conversing" (the word used by POB) by music. They do this at various times in the books I have read so far (and sometimes the music is a debate or duel rather than a conversation), and this wordless communion between kindred spirits somehow expresses subtler matters that the two of them could never share in language, inept and awkward as human language is in the best of times. So many times, language fails them, even at the most crucial times.
I realize that I am observing nothing new, and you more experienced Man-o-War's men (and women) amongst the Lissuns have no doubt noted this long before now. But it helps me to set it down.
Randal
Thanks Bruce for that brilliantly insightful piece -and as you say ~O Brian 'was seldom obvious or conventional'. Isn't it ironic that at a time when their friendship is at its lowest ebb, that Stephen is compelled to communicate the 'mutiny' information to Jack.
By the way we have often remarked how O Brian uses animals/insects as metaphors of human behaviour/feelings in his books. In Chapter 3 of Post Captain-the cockfight
'The owners of the birds set them to the ring, clasping them just so and whispering close to their proud close-cropped heads. The cocks stalked out on their toes, glancing sideways, circling before they closed.
SNIP-
:saw his shadow and lurched in to get his death wound. Still he would not die; he stood with the spurs labouring in his back until the mere weight of his exhausted opponent bore him dow -an opponent too cruelly lacerated ro rise and crow.'
I wonder if this was a 'premonition' of the upcoming potential duel between the ' proud heads' of Jack and Stephen. And also a view on the ultimate futility of it?
alec
By the way -a thought that has struck me since I posted the above. In the cockfight'scene' is the following line-
'one eye gone and streaming blood'
The resolution of the 'Jack/Stephen conflict'-comes with Stephen's words-
'Come below. You must come below-here is too much blood altogether. Below,below. Here Bonden, carry him with me.'
Just a thought.
alec
Thanks for reminding me of the cock fight scene, Alec. When recently listening
to that episode, I too felt this was an example of POB's technique of making
a parallel commentary on plot events through the use of animal observations.
Bruce Trinque
What a JOY it is to read gunroom this morning! Kudos to
Bruce, Randal and Alec for their great insights into
"Post Captain."
I'd like to tail onto Bruce's thesis that "a failure to
communicate" is the theme of this book. O'Brian spells
this out at least twice in "Post Captain:"
One, on the failure of words in communication:
page 287: "Smell is of all senses by far the most
evocative: perhaps because we have no vocabulary for it -
nothing but a few poverty-stricken approximations to
describe the whole vast complexity of odour - and
therefore the scent, unnamed and unnamable, remains pure
of association; it cannot be called upon again and again,
and blunted, by the use of a word; and so it strikes
afresh every time, bringing with it all the circumstances
of its first perception."
The second, on page 470:
A foolish German had said that man thought in words. It
was totally false; a pe5rnicious doctrine; the thought
flashed into being in a hundred simultaneous forms, with
a thousand associations, and the speaking mind selected
one, forming it grossly into the inadequate symbols of
words, inadequate because common to disparate situations
- admitted to be inadequate for vast regions of
expression, since for them there were the parallel
languages of music and painting. Words were not called
for in many or indeed most forms of thought: Mozart
certainly thought in terms of music. He himself at this
moment was thinking in terms of scent."
So: I agree with Alec's insight about the role of music,
and I think that we are onto the very key to this book.
Well done, gentlemen!
- Susan
Susan Wenger quoted POB's writerly comments on the theme of inadequate
communication...
A foolish German had said that man thought in words. It was totally false;
a pernicious doctrine; the thought flashed into being in a hundred simultaneous
forms, with a thousand associations, and the speaking mind selected one, forming
it grossly into the inadequate symbols of words
TS Eliot puts similar thoughts into the mind of Apeneck Sweeney...
Death or life or life or death
from ³Sweeney Agonistes.²
Charlezzzzz
Susan wrote
So: I agree with Alec's insight about the role of music, and I think that
we are onto the very key to this book. Well done, gentlemen!
Just to say that that was Randall's insight-much and all as I'd like to claim it!
alec
Just another thought on the 'communication' theme.
This series of poor/failed communication efforts serves as a backdrop to Jack's handling of the potential mutiny.
Suddenly now though, there is no time for blurred messages or useless noises.
The time for true leadership is here -and cometh the hour, cometh the man. With clear thinking and clear words Jack totally undermines the mutineers.
The fact that this is in such stark contrast to our previous experiences in
PC adds to our perception of Jack's stature and sets him apart as a true leader
of men (on the seas anyway).
alec
A set of remarkable insights, Bruce. Thankee.
And there's more to be said. Think of the first challenge given and accepted
on the first pages of the first book. The insult that leads to the challenge
is not given in any words at all: the insult is Maturin's nudge in Jack's
ribs during the concert.
And how is the challenge accepted? Not in so many words, but -- in
accordance with convention -- by the mere exchange of addresses.
Charlezzzzz, shot rolling
Alec O' Flaherty wrote: snip
The resolution of the 'Jack/Stephen conflict'-comes with Stephen's words-
'Come below. You must come below-here is too much blood altogether. Below,below.
Here Bonden, carry him with me.'
Only one thing to add, that Stephen calls Jack "brother" while this happens,
which salves our hearts.
Isabelle Hayes
:saw his shadow and lurched in to get his death wound. Still he would not
die; he stood with the spurs labouring in his back until the mere weight of
his exhausted opponent bore him dow -an opponent too cruelly lacerated ro rise
and crow.'
I wonder if this was a 'premonition' of the upcoming potential > duel between
the ' proud heads' of Jack and Stephen. And also a view on the ultimate futility
of it?
And then Jack says something like "... he did not really want to fight."
"He did not, though he was a game bird, to be sure. Why did you
bet on him?" Stephen asks Jack.
"I liked him; he had a rolling walk like a sailor. He was not what
you would call a wicked, bloody, cock, but once he was in the
ring, once he was challenged, he would fight. He was a rare
plucked 'un & he went on even when there was no hope at all. I am
not sorry I backed him: Should do it again..."
This to me says much of Jack Aubreys character: both his liking of
the game bird made to fight & his desire to back such a character.
One thing Jack & Stephen do share is courage & love of courage.
Ted
Cockfighting is still around to a limnited extent in the US. Oklahoma has a
ballot measure coming up that would outlaw it, and there's great hue and
cry in some wuarters over the potential disappeance of this manly sport.
Animals rights groups are of course appalled at such activities, but in
Oklahoma, those clever good ol'boys figgured out how to shut them up, by
gum! Apparently the Oklahoma Supreme Court managed to rule (sometime in the
early 1960s) that chickens aren't animals, and therefore aren't subject to
animal cruelty.
Astrid Bear
MINOR SPOILERS BELOW
Listening to my audiobook recording of "Post Captain" I have found a ... a
what? A parallel image? I don't quite know what to call it, and I surely
don't know what it signifies, but here it is:
On page 396 of the Norton edition Jack slowly awakens: "Some exquisite
dreams: the Magdalene in Queenie's picture saying, 'Why do you not tune your
fiddle to orange-tawny, yellow, green and this blue, instead of those old
common notes?' It was so obvious: he and Stephen set to their tuning, the
'cello brown and full crimson, and they dashed away in colour along -- such
colour! But he could not seize it again; it was fading into no more than
words; it no longer made evident, luminous good sense."
And on page 448 Stephen writes in his diary of a concert he had attended in
Plymouth: "Curious music, well played, particularly the trumpet: a German
composer, one Molter. The music, I believe, had nothing to say, but it
provided a pleasant background of 'cellos and woodwinds and allowed the tru
mpet to make exquisite sounds -- pure colour tearing through this formal
elegance. I grope to define a connection that is half clear to me -- I once
thought that this was music, much as I thought that physical grace and style
was virtue; or replaced virtue; or was virtue on another plane. But although
the music shifted the current of my thoughts for a while, they are back again
today, and I have not the spiritual energy to clarify this or any other
position."
The colour of music. What is O'Brian playing at here? The connection to
Diana in Stephen's jottings is clear enough (the reference to "physical grace
and style") but how does this correlate to musical "colour"? Evidently,
style is key here, not formal structure. Jazz, if you will, rather than
dogged adherence to printed sheet music. And there may be something here
which relates back to the playing of the adagio of Hummel's D major sonata by
Sophie and Diana -- their very different styles of playing -- earlier in the
book. And by Jack, too, later on, playing that same adagio very like Sophie,
like a girl, like a sixteen-stone girl, notes true with nothing but
platitudes. Does Jack's later dream of coloured music, coming immediately
after he is made post, mark his transition from past limitations to new
self-command? Or something else?
That's it. Just aimless musing.
Bruce Trinque
Bruce wrote:
The colour of music.
Which links to another thread - I have in front of me a paperback
"The Colour of Saying"
which is an anthology of verse spoken, mostly in radio broadcasts, by
Dylan Thomas. Interestingly, the collection contains none of his own verse.
The Introduction is by the two editors, but it quotes many of Thomas'
own words:
"Poetry, to a poet, is the most rewarding work in the world. A good poem
is a contribution to reality. The world is never the same once a poem
has been added to it. A good poem helps to change the shape and
significance of the universe, helps to extend everyone's lnowledge of
himself and the world around him."
The title comes from one of his own poems:
Once it was in the Colour of Saying
Once it was the colour of saying
-- On page 396 of the Norton edition Jack slowly awakens: "Some exquisite
dreams: the Magdalene in Queenie's picture saying, 'Why do you not tune your
fiddle to orange-tawny, yellow, green and this blue, instead of those old common
notes?' It was so obvious: he and Stephen set to their tuning, the 'cello brown
and full crimson, and they dashed away in colour along -- such colour! But he
could not seize it again; it was fading into no more than words; it no longer
made evident, luminous good sense."
apologies for re-opening a thread so long after the last post; I came
across this during an heroic trawl through a week's worth of mail.
"Confusion" of the senses is a medically-documented condition, synesthesia,
whereby a person may "hear" a colour, "taste" shapes, etc. A google came up
with http://members.tripod.com/TarotCanada/Synesthesia.html for starters.
my humble and ignorant opinion is that syesthetes are able to make
connections between their sensory that escape the rest of us; they think
outside of the box, in a way; and exploit all the given information fully.
I think this scene shows Jack just briefly grasping a new angle on his
position, before being dragged back into his conventional ways of thinking.
Did O'Brian know of synesthesia? It's been known for a while, and he may
have come across it in his research. It would certainly show genius to
think up something so counterintuitive on his own.
I'll stop rambling vaguely now.
Naturally he did. Is there not a famous poem by Rimbaud, a poem in wch he
assigns each vowel a different color, and was not POB a very frenchie for
the language?
Voyelles
A noir, E blanc, I rouge, U vert, O bleu: voyelles,
Golfes d'ombre; E, candeurs des vapeurs et des tentes,
U, cycles, vibrements divins des mers virides,
O, suprême Clairon plein des strideurs étranges,
Charlezzzzz
By coincidence, in the last few days I read through Alfred Bester's classic
science fiction novel "The Stars My Destination" at the climax of which its
central character, Gully Foyle, experiences synesthesia.
Bruce Trinque
The same experience can be had under the influence of drugs. While in
hospital pumped up to the eyeballs with morphine I was listening to some
CDs. There was one track where a load of violins started up half way
through. I kept playing it over and over because I was almost 'hearing in
colour' at the time and this gave wonderful sensations over and above
anything I would normally get from listening to music.
Stephen Chambers Vladimir Nabokov had synesthesia, as does his son Dmitri. See: http://www.theinfinitemind.com/mind149.htm
Subject: GroupRead:PC:Three points
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:13:39 -0700
"Mrs Broad, what have you for dinner? . . .
"No beef or mutton . . . but I have a nice loin of weal,
and a nice piece of wenison, as plump as you could wish;
a tender young doe, sir." . . .
"Ah dear God," he said to the empty room, "a tender young
doe."
and on page 472, Stephen is watching Diana at
the opera: "she felt the intensity of his gaze and from
time to time she looked round the house; and each time
she did so he dropped his eyes, as he would have done,
stalking a doe."
Two "doe" episodes, different from each
other, but remarkably similar.
From: Bambi Dextrous
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:34:08 +0800
Subject: GroupRead:PC:Three points
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:29:35 -0700
Subject: GroupRead:PC:Three points
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:09:31 +0100
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC:Three points
The music as colour incidents, remind my of the starting sequence of
Fantasia, and in a certain mood most of us can abstract the music we listen
too into some sort of picture.
50° 48' 38" N
01° 09' 15" W
From: Jerry Shurman
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC:Three points
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:09:18 -0700
From: Gerry Strey
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC:Three points
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Greg White
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:14:55 -0400
Subject: GroupRead:PC: The Bear Suit
71º20'13.2" W
From: Samuel Bostock
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:13:55 +0100
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC: The Bear Suit
From: Marshall Rafferty
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:25:47 -0700
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC: The Bear Suit
From: Greg White
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:22:23 -0400
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC: The Bear Suit
71º20'13.2"
From: Samuel Bostock
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 17:25:43 +0100
Subject: Re: GroupRead:PC: The Bear Suit
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:25:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Stephen's pulse
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:24:28 -0700
Subject: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:56:52 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: David Phillips
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:03:59 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
From: Greg White
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:04:49 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
71º20'13.2" W
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:12:35 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Karen von Bargen
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:23:44 -0000
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:26:53 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:54:26 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Thistle Farm
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:58:05 EDT
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:56:25 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:08:22 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Aubrey--the name of an elf king in German
mythology implying eternal youth and
superior powers. Jack's nautical
abilities are almost magical.
Maturin--haven't found anything definitive; how-
ever, I think this means mature. Stephen
often cares for Jack as a parent would a child.
Diana---Divine--also goddess of nature and
fertility, but I don't think that necessarily fits.
Preserved--Killick performs a preserving function
for both Jack and Stephen in providing
human comforts, preparing food, clothes, etc.
Bonden--he is bound to Jack throughout the canon.
Scriven--that's easy and not very subtle.
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:14:18 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Peter Mackay
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:17:13 +1000
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:41:28 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:26:01 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:10:00 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Barney Simon
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:35:52 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Randal Allred
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:14:48 -1000
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Peter Mackay
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:18:47 +1000
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Curtis Ruder
Date: Mon Oct 22 2001 - 23:35:08 EDT
Subject: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:13:01 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Samuel Bostock (sambostock@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 07:43:26 EDT
Subject: apples and literature
Babbington--baby? Mowett?????
Suffolk, UK
From: Rowen 84
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:54:07 EDT
Subject: Re: apples and literature
Looking at the back of the weaving doesn't destroy the realism, but
increases your respect and admiration for the author and his subtle
artistry.
From: Jean A
Subject: Re: Apples and Literature
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:32:14 EDT
Surely, in this instance, POB chose the name deliberately!
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:31:59 +0100
Subject: Re: Apples and Literature
50° 48' 38" N
01° 09' 15" W
Approx. 180 inches above sea level
When the pin is pulled Mr Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: Jean A
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:23:00 EDT
Subject: Re: apples and literature
From: Steve Turley
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:09 -0700
Subject: Re: apples and literature
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:32:57 -0400
Subject: Group read Scriven Helpful? Re: [POB] Apples and Literature
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:06:22 +0100
Subject: Re: apples and literature SPOILER
From what I remember I thought that he firstly tipped off Jack that the
tipstaffs (no pun intended) were waiting for him outside and that the Press
were attracted by the ensuing scuffle, joining in and helping. The
tipstaffs were given a good beating and pressed into the Navy with protests
about the
legality of the proceedings.
Prior to this Scrivener was a fount of information regarding loopholes in
the law regarding debtors and recommended the Liberties of Savoy and
travelling on a Sunday.
I don't claim this as gospel though, but it does explain my confusion over
the betrayal.
From: Adam Quinan (adam.quinan@HOME.COM)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 22:07:06 EDT
Subject: Scriven Re: [POB] apples and literature SPOILER
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 02:24:13 -0700
Subject: Re: apples and literature SPOILER
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:24:28 -0700
Subject: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:56:52 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: David Phillips
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:03:59 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
From: Greg White
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:04:49 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
71º20'13.2" W
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:12:35 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Karen von Bargen
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:23:44 -0000
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:26:53 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:54:26 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Thistle Farm
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:58:05 EDT
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:56:25 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:08:22 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Aubrey--the name of an elf king in German
mythology implying eternal youth and
superior powers. Jack's nautical
abilities are almost magical.
Maturin--haven't found anything definitive; how-
ever, I think this means mature. Stephen
often cares for Jack as a parent would a child.
Diana---Divine--also goddess of nature and
fertility, but I don't think that necessarily fits.
Preserved--Killick performs a preserving function
for both Jack and Stephen in providing
human comforts, preparing food, clothes, etc.
Bonden--he is bound to Jack throughout the canon.
Scriven--that's easy and not very subtle.
From: Susan Wenger
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:14:18 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Peter Mackay
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:17:13 +1000
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:41:28 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:26:01 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Samuel Bostock
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:07:29 +0100
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain (Adm. Sievewright)
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:46:40 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain (Adm. Sievewright)
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Bob Saldeen
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:01:14 -0500
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain (Adm. Sievewright)
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:25:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Adm. Sievewright
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:10:00 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Barney Simon
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:35:52 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Randal Allred
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:14:48 -1000
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Peter Mackay
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:18:47 +1000
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Curtis Ruder
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:13:01 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Samuel Bostock (sambostock@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 07:43:26 EDT
Subject: apples and literature
Babbington--baby? Mowett?????
Suffolk, UK
From: Rowen 84
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:54:07 EDT
Subject: Re: apples and literature
Looking at the back of the weaving doesn't destroy the realism, but
increases your respect and admiration for the author and his subtle
artistry.
From: Jean A
Subject: Re: Apples and Literature
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:32:14 EDT
Surely, in this instance, POB chose the name deliberately!
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:31:59 +0100
Subject: Re: Apples and Literature
50° 48' 38" N
01° 09' 15" W
Approx. 180 inches above sea level
When the pin is pulled Mr Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: Jean A
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:23:00 EDT
Subject: Re: apples and literature
From: Steve Turley
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:09 -0700
Subject: Re: apples and literature
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 19:32:57 -0400
Subject: Group read Scriven Helpful? Re: [POB] Apples and Literature
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:06:22 +0100
Subject: Re: apples and literature SPOILER
From what I remember I thought that he firstly tipped off Jack that the
tipstaffs (no pun intended) were waiting for him outside and that the Press
were attracted by the ensuing scuffle, joining in and helping. The
tipstaffs were given a good beating and pressed into the Navy with protests
about the
legality of the proceedings.
Prior to this Scrivener was a fount of information regarding loopholes in
the law regarding debtors and recommended the Liberties of Savoy and
travelling on a Sunday.
I don't claim this as gospel though, but it does explain my confusion over
the betrayal.
From: Adam Quinan (adam.quinan@HOME.COM)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 22:07:06 EDT
Subject: Scriven Re: [POB] apples and literature SPOILER
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 02:24:13 -0700
Subject: Re: apples and literature SPOILER
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: "Terrijo ..."
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:19:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Bony & a PC bit
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:20:25 +0100
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:02:35 -0400
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
Shakespeare had been amazed that people still enjoyed his plays and
studied them so he had been enrolled in a English literature class.
Unfortunately he failed the course because he couldn't understand all
the important allusions etc. that the literary critics had discovered in
his works over the centuries.
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:12:55 -0700
Subject: Re: POB: Post Captain
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:58:09 -0000
Subject: Groupread: PC: also M&C:JA and midshipmen
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:36:51 -0500
Subject: GRP:PC The Battles
From: Steve Ross
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:17:35 -0600
Subject: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Rowen 84
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:24:00 EST
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Kathryn Guare
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:17:36 -0800
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:40:54 EST
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: thekaines
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:36:11 -0000
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:53:59 -0500
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Steve Ross
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:19:35 -0600
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
Baton Rouge
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:30:26 -0800
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:35:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Favorite Food Scenes in the Canon
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
Not a photographic memory but remembers being photographic.
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Subject: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:35:03 -0000
pg refs Norton h/c
pg 16 JA is groping for a classical allusion "Actaeon, Ajax, Aristides" to
express his situation in re his father's remarriage. Dim of me, but I can't
come up with the name he's looking for, and this is annoying because it may
well settle the vexed question of JA's relationship with the erstwhile
dairymaid. Help!!!
London Lois
From: Martin Watts
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:00:37 -0000
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
1 The Abraham Ward, in Bedlam, had for its inmates begging lunatics, who
used to array themselves "with party-coloured ribbons, tape in their hats,
a fox-tail hanging down, a long stick with streamers," and beg alms; but
"for
all their seeming madness, they had wit enough to steal as they went
along."-Canting Academy.
2 See King Lear, ii.
3.
3 In Beaumont and Fletcher we have several synonyms:-
4
"And these, what name or title e'er they bear,
Jackman or Pat'rico, Cranke or Clapper-dudgeon,
Fraier or Abram-man, I speak to all."
Beggar's Bush, ii. 1. "
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Mary S
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:00:39 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:47 AM
Subject: M&C a question
From: Steve Ross
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:48:39 -0600
Subject: Re: M&C a question
Baton Rouge
From: Gregg Germain (gregg_germain@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:58:33 EST
Subject: M&C a question
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Steve Ross
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:07:40 -0600
Baton Rouge (yes, I know there are coordinates expected . . . hold your
darn horses!)
From: claude
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:23:07 -0800
Subject: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
From: Steve Ross
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:00:02 -0600
From: claude
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:12:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:44:59 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!)
41°37'53"N
72°22'51"W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Subject: Re: M&C a question
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:30:50 -0000
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Linnea
Subject: Re: M&C a question
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 20:53:19 -0500
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:56:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!) - classics and
the dairy-maid
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Vanessa Brown
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 00:59:37 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!) - classics and
the dai...
From: Mary S
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:25:15 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!) - classics and
the dai...
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Mary S
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 20:59:13 EST
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!) - classics and
the dai...
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 08:12:03 -0000
Subject: Re: Group Read: PC - questions (belated. sorry!) - classics and
the dairymaid
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:11:43 -0000
Subject: Groupread: PC Diana SPOILER WARNING
000° 10' 53" W
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:45:00 EST
Subject: Re: Groupread: PC Diana SPOILER WARNING
41°37'53"N
72°22'51"W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:17:53 -0000
Subject: Re: Groupread: PC Diana SPOILER WARNING
PC 288 (Norton h/c)
Stephen writes in his diary about Diana (a long and revealing passage): "
... the Diana of the St Vincent ball ... exactly as I knew her then, with
none of the vulgarity or loss of looks I see today. As for the loss, that
very trifling loss, I applaud it and wish it may continue. She will always
have that quality of being more intensely alive, that spirit, dash and
courage, that almost ludicrous, infinitely touching unstudied unconscious
grace. But if, as she says, her face is her fortune, then she is no longer
Croesus; her wealth is diminishing ... it may reach a level at which I am
no
longer an object of contempt. That, at all events, is my only hope; and
hope
I must. The vulgarity is new, and it is painful beyond my power of words to
express: there was the appearance of it before, even at that very ball, but
*then* it was either facetious or the outcome of the received notions of
her
kind - the reflected vulgarity of others; *now* it is not ... Shall I one
day find her making postures, moving with artful negligence? That would
destroy me. Vulgarity: how far am I answerable for it? In a relationship of
this kind each makes the other, to some extent. No man could give her more
opportunity for exercising all her worst side than I."
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Isabelle Hayes
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 04:20:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Groupread: PC Diana SPOILER WARNING
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:40:30 -0000
Subject: Groupread: PC nature applied to Stephen SPOILER WARNING
On the right (the lucky side), the buck in search of a doe; the suffering
rabbit on the left, the unlucky side. All aspects of what SM experienced in
and brought to the relationship with Diana exemplified: the lust, the
suffering/dying (for she certainly killed part of Stephen) and the wisdom.
Even a friendly wisdom, if owls may in general be said to represent that
quality. And all of this the more striking because immediately following
this passage, Stephen sees the house "And under the elms his own cob
tethered to a hazel-bush."
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Gregory Edwards
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 21:11:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Groupread: PC nature applied to Stephen SPOILER WARNING
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:53:41 -0000
Subject: Groupread: PC SM and nautical knowledge SMALL SPOILER
51° 28' 50" N
000° 10' 53" W
From: Gregg Germain
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 08:39:00 -0800
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:44:13 -0500
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: "C. Mark Smith"
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 06:13:25 -0600
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:35:38 EST
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: Don Seltzer
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:29:03 -0500
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 20:41:53 EST
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
From: "Jill H. Bennett"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:37:16 -0800
Subject: Re: GRP:PC The Cover
35º 18' 23" N 120º 51' 37" W
From: Don Seltzer
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:53:06 -0500
Subject: GRP:PC Other Covers
From: Steve Ross
Subject: Re: Tension in great literature (possible vague spoilers)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:21:10 -0600
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Martin Watts
Subject: Re: GRP:PC Barking mad
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:30:57 -0000
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:10:56 -0000
Subject: PC: topping one's boom
;)
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 21:43:40 -0500
Subject: Re: PC: topping one's boom
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:26:26 -0000
Subject: PC : Stephen's abstractedness - SMALL SPOILER
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:32:47 -0000
Subject: PC: Stephen's coach journey with Diana - SMALL SPOILER
1. "the chaise was filled with waiting" : for what from whom? is Stephen
waiting for some equally tender remark from Diana? Might he, given the
smallest encouragement, actually have gone on to declare his feelings? And
what of Diana? Is she waiting for some more fervent avowal from him, and
does she become cruel when this is not forthcoming? Or, handed what she has
been angling for, does she simply play the coquette and withdraw? Or does
Stephen give her more than she expected, enough so for her to get "stage
fright" and and make a hasty and incidentally cruel withdrawal?
2. am I right in thinking the fruitless wait, rather than Lady Jersey's
crowd with its implication of Canning (and possibly rakishness), is what
drove them to the "tension, artificial smiles"?
3. what is the significance for all the conversation that follows of
Diana's having refused Stephen's conversational gambit about his friendship
with JA?
From: Mary Arndt
Date: Wed Nov 07 2001 - 13:32:26 EST
Subject: PC: Stephen's coach journey with Diana - SMALL SPOILER
From: Ray McPherson
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 17:23:22 -0800
Subject: Re: PC: Stephen's coach journey with Diana - SMALL SPOILER
A POB Question: Diana
From: Bob Saldeen (bs@BS.NU)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 11:32:22 EST
From: Gerry Strey (gestrey@MAIL.SHSW.WISC.EDU)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 12:06:00 EST
Subject: A POB Question: Diana
Madison, Wisconsin
From: William Nyden
Subject: Re: A POB Question: Diana
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 14:20:19 -0800
a Rose by another name
37° 25' 15" N 122° 04' 57" W
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:26:28 -0000
Subject: Re: A POB Question: Diana
50° 48' 38" N 01° 09' 15" W
Approx. 180 inches above sea level
When the pin is pulled Mr Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: Dan Reed (danreed@SYMPATICO.CA)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 21:31:49 EST
Subject: A POB Question: Diana
From: Stephen Chambers
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:53:50 -0000
Subject: Re: A POB Question: Diana
50° 48' 38" N 01° 09' 15" W
From: DJONES (DJONES01@DEMJ.FREESERVE.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 16:17:33 EST
Subject: A POB Question: Diana
Walsall, England
52°36'01" N 1°55'46" W
From: Adam Quinan (adam.quinan@HOME.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 21:15:23 EST
Subject: A POB Question: Diana
'Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for a might-have-been'
Commander Ted Walker R.N.
Somewhere around 43° 46' 21"N, 79° 22' 51"W
From: Al Revzin
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:44:59 -0700
Subject: Back to Post Captain --- & Characters.
I trust that no Lister over-ate excessively this Thanksgiving
From: Steven K Ross
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:08:49 -0600
Subject: The Dread Clothing Theory Strikes Again! WAS Re: [POB] Back to
Post Captain --- & Characters.
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:13:26 -0000
Subject: PC and HMSS - surprising error by POB
In PC p426 and HMSS p46 there are statements that HMS Orion blew up at the
battle of the Nile whereas we all know it was the French flagship L'Orient.
The former is in a passage of direct speech by JA: if intended to be a
howler, it's an ill-chosen one, imo, a mistake one simply cannot imagine JA
making. The latter, though referring to JA's memories, is not direct
speech.
From: Bill Nyden (w.a.nyden@WORLDNET.ATT.NET)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 10:21:09 EST
Subject: PC and HMSS - surprising error by POB
a Rose by another name at Home
37° 23' 28" N 122° 04' 09" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:55:14 -0000
Subject: Re: PC and HMSS - surprising error by POB
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: martin_sj_watts@lineone.net
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 13:43:10 EST
Subject: PC and HMSS - surprising error by POB
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:59:36 -0000
Subject: Re: PC and HMSS - surprising error by POB
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:05:06 -0000
Subject: PC: some questions/comments
Another instance of SM haunted by unhappy memories/thoughts conjured up by
scent: in this case (at least, I like to think so), the sad journey to
Portsmouth with Diana (pp 323ff) " ... 'Do you think I may ask what this
delightful smell is without being abused?' 'Thyme,' said Stephen absently.
'Mother of thyme, crushed by our carriage-wheels.'" (p325)
What quintessential POBian genius: a tiny incident adds volumes to the
characterisation of SM and sets a gentle smile on my face.
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Bob Kegel
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:10:08 -0800
Subject: Re: PC: some questions/comments
'It is possible that you may be required to undertake some negotiations,
and
that I may be of use in them.'
'Well, I must be discreet myself, I find,' said Jack, sitting down and
looking wonderingly at Stephen. 'But you did say. . .'
'Now listen, Jack, will you? I am somewhat given to lying: my occasions
require it from time to time. But I do not choose to have any man alive
tell
me of it.'
'Oh no, no, no,' cried Jack. 'I should never dream of doing such a thing.
Not,' he added, recollecting himself and blushing, 'not when I am in my
right mind. Quite apart from my love for you, it is far, far too dangerous.
Hush: mum's the word. Tace is the Latin for a candle. I quite understand -
am amazed I did not smoke it before: what a deep old file you are. But I
twig it now.'
'Do you, my dear? Bless you.' "
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Lois Anne du Toit
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:41:52 -0000
Subject: Re: PC: some questions/comments
THFTL*
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
From: Mary S
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 17:28:56 EST
Subject: PC: some questions/comments
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Peter Mackay (peter.mackay@BIGPOND.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 17:36:08 EST
Subject: PC: some questions/comments
From: Adam Quinan
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 22:06:19 EST
Subject: PC: some questions/comments
From: Mary S
Date: Fri Nov 30 2001 - 10:48:52 EST
Re: PC: some questions/comments
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Steve Ross
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:41:24 -0600
Subject: The Dropping of the Duel, the Archives, and the
Aubrey/Maturin Trilogy (was Re: [POB] PC: some
questions/comments
Thank you Susan; I now have that safely bookmarked. On checking the PC
group discussion I find there was little mention of the duel or
discussion of why it was dropped the way it was. But that may be
because it *had* been discussed, fairly recently; the Archives show this
question having been raised as recently as October 2000 (and as early as
1996). In sum, the sense of the group seems to be that Jack and Stephen
tacitly agreed to let the issue drop [although some lissuns seem to
think that, for form's sake, Jack must have given some sort of apology
off-stage]. In the course of a battle scene, Stephen urges Jack to come
below, with the significant words, "here is too much blood altogether."
So, after having been unable (because of the press of events) to carry
out their original plan to duel, S & J find their relationship has
developed to a point that it would be unthinkable to duel at all.
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Steve Ross
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:38:03 -0600
Subject: Cicero; the Duel; was Re: [POB] The Nelson Question
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Ted
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: A few Thoughts on 'Post Captain' -SPOILERS- (100% POB)
From: Pete the Surgeons Mate
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: A few Thoughts on 'Post Captain' -SPOILERS- (100% POB)
From: Ted
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: A few Thoughts on 'Post Captain' -SPOILERS- (100% POB)
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:17 PM
Subject: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Randal Allred
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
O'ahu
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
Death is life and life is death
I gotta use words when I talk to you
But if you understand or if you dont
That¹s nothing to me and nothing to you
We all gotta do what we gotta do
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Astrid Bear
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain -- A Failure to Communicate
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: John Gosden
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
by: Dylan Thomas
Soaked my table the uglier side of a hill
With a capsized field where a school sat still
And a black and white patch of girls grew playing;
The gentle seaslides of saying I must undo
That all the charmingly drowned arise to cockcrow and kill.
When I whistled with mitching boys through a reservoir park
Where at night we stoned the cold and cuckoo
Lovers in the dirt of their leafy beds,
The shade of their trees was a word of many shades
And a lamp of lightning for the poor in the dark;
Now my saying shall be my undoing,
And every stone I wind off like a reel.
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Heather Robertson
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
Heather
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
Je dirai quelque jour vos naissances latentes:
A, noir corset velu des mouches éclatantes
Qui bombinent autour des puanteurs cruelles,
Lances des glaciers fiers, rois blancs, frissons d'ombelles;
I, pourpres, sang craché, rire des lèvres belles
Dans la colère ou les ivresses pénitentes;
Paix des pâtis semés d'animaux, paix des rides
Que l'alchimie imprime aux grands fronts studieux;
Silences traversés des [Mondes et des Anges]:
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
50° 48' 38"N 01° 09' 15"W
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
From: Martin Watts
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Post Captain - The Colour of Money
Return to Main Page