It's probably heresy to mention that I sometimes find the necessity for POB in every book to 'fill in' past important happenings and 'need to know' background details.
At times I wondered would it not be preferable to have a short 'preface' in the later books which would cite important background data for the benefit of the reader who casually picked up - say- book thirteen.
However today I started to read ROTM again and discovered how in this book how absolutely brilliantly this 'filling in' is done by the master.
As a result of a few conversations between people we do not know -we learn very quicky(first nine pages) the following
The Surprise
-breaker's yard
-current mission
-24 pounder
-sailing qualities
-12% of prize money
Jack
Large man
-music lover
-record of prizes Med/Indian ocean
-good at maths
made mint/squandered-gambling/horses/entertaining
silver mine fiasco
randy/put before the mast
married -good looking wife
fathers background
Excellent seaman/dashing but Taut
Dislikes women on board
Stephen
Half Catalan
-Dublin London Barcelonaconection
- renouned medico
well known naturalist
intelligence agent
pale eyes/scrub wig
Also the Barrett Bonden connection -and Blaine's difficulties in Whitehall.
All appears totally effortless and is done with delicious nuggets of humour and additional new insights into Navy life. All round it's simply superb.
Alec
OOPS
Maybe I should learn how to finish my sentences and improve my grammar!
It's probably heresy to mention that I sometimes find the necessity for POB in every book to 'fill in' past important happenings and 'need to know' background details, a little annoying.
snip
However, today I started to read ROTM again and discovered in this book how absolutely brilliantly this 'filling in' is done by the master.
alec
Interesting Alec, interesting. I had similar thoughts after completing the first few pages. For a change the "fill-in" as you put it, was really quite painless.
As one who has read the canon more than once, indeed I imagine for anyone who is reading the canon for the first time (in chronological order), the "fill in" does seem unnecessary. Why so religiously do we need to be told about stuff we already know? I can come up with two potential reasons, one: POB's editor/publisher requested the "fill-in" in order to inform new-comers of previous events, or two: as there was quite some time-lapse between publication of each novel POB felt that even the most avid reader needed a little reminder of what went on in the last book, and that it is only when the canon is read one book immediately after another that the "fill-in" becomes a little tedious.
Lindsay
51'20" N
04'45" E
alec to Gunroom : Permission to relay a smutty school boy type contribution. Sir!
Gunroom to squeeker: Permission Denied
alec To Gunroom : Ah go on go on go on go on and- it's by POB.
Gunroom to alec -Ok then but only after the Watershed.
Page 31
Stephen to Jack worrying about Jack's ability to handle the difficult issue of the massive amount of 'money' ---
says to him
'I will come with you, if I may,so that if the Admiral proves inquisitive, I may toss him off with a round turn.'
Even Jack has to smile at his total innocence.
alec
(thinking the admiral would prefer richardson to do the deed)
I remember a boat's crew pulling away in one scene.
I'm not sure if this Uk slang usage has made it over to the U.S?
So I copied- this from the English slang page-
'toss off Verb. To masturbate. Term applied to males. [1700s]'
This meaning is known and asssumed by Jack in this instance as is evident from his thoughts in the next paragraph.
alec
Well, now we can guess what *Jack* meant, but what did Stephen (in his total innocence) mean?
Alice
Thanks, Alec. I've been wondering since this thread started just what was so wrong with Stephen's answer, and concluded that I must have misunderstood the meaning of the "round turn" idiom. I was unaware of the slang phrase you defined; that makes the exchange clear.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
In FSOW, reference is made to the infamous 1797 mutiny of the Hermione, in which all of the officers were murdered and the crew took the ship into a Spanish port in the West Indies. At the beginning of ROTM, Jack brings in a large group of these mutineers who had since joined the crew of the USS Norfolk. The latter part is pure fiction. No Hermione was ever found in the US Navy.
The three names given during the account of the courtmartial are also fictional, not corresponding to any of the Hermione's crew. But there is something about POB's detailed description of these three mutineers that has the ring of authenticity.
'George Norris, gunner's mate, aged 28 years, five feet eight inches, sallow complexion, long black hair, slender build, has lost the use of the upper joint to his forefinger of the right hand, tattooed with a star under his left breast and a garter round his right leg with the motto Honi soit qui mail y pense. Has been wounded in one of his arms with a musket-ball'
'John Pope, armourer, aged 40 years, five feet six inches, fair complexion, grey hair, strong made, much pitted with smallpox, a heart tattooed on his right arm.'
'William Strachey, aged 17 years, five feet three inches, fair complexion, long dark hair, strong made, has got his name tattooed on his right arm, dated 12 December.'
These descriptions are not of the Hermione's crew, but of some of the key figures of an even more famous mutiny a decade earlier. George Norris is actually James Morrison, boatswain's mate of the Bounty. John Pope is actually armourer Joseph Coleman, and William Strachey corresponds to seaman Thomas Ellison, except for the change of the date from 25 October.
So what is the significance of 12 December? It was the birthday of Richard Patrick Russ.
Don Seltzer
Having read the Canon several times, I thought that on the occasion of my first participation in a Group Read I would attempt to see if the particular volume developed any particular theme. (If there are any ground rules for the Group Read please let me know.)
In considering _The Reverse of the Medal_, I proffer the notion it deals with the theme of "crime and punishment," more-so than most of the volumes. In particular, it dwells on the many ways in which punishment fails to fit the crime. Also, many "crimes" become fuzzy, and one questions if they are crimes. The worst things that occur have to do with varying types of deception: traitors, informers, and deceivers, lying and conning (and cunning) and concealment.
The first chapter sets out at least six subplots of "crime"/ "punishment"/ deception: (1) Adm. Pellew, sodomy, ill; (2) Capt. Goole, informer, vindictive, envious; (3) Waters the flagship surgeon, self-deceptive, tumor/infection, paranoid; (4) Hermiones, mutiny; (5) crew of HMS Surprise, consorting with prostitutes; (6) Jack -- evidence of fornication, out-of-wedlock child. Throughout, Jack's kindness, tolerance, and good humor are in evidence. And Sam Panda is a gift, not a burden.
Chapter Two deals with pure deception -- Wray, con-men and deceivers of various kinds.
Then there's discussion of the good luck, bad luck, Jonah-aboard aspects of life, what one might call the fortuity of things.
As we know, ROTM resolves with a scene of great emotional power, one of the most powerful in the entire Canon, demonstrating Jack's adherence to the code of duty, honor, country, and the love and regard he has earned as Captain Jack Aubrey.
The fact that Stephen Maturin's entire life is a deception is not dealt with in this novel. ROTM belongs to Jack and his enemies, and to the concepts of how one courts good fortune and bad fortune. On the one hand, POB sees outcomes as making no sense, being the result of chance. On the other hand, he sees adherence to duty as a pure good act.
Don Seltzer has described (in an electrifying way) how:
At the beginning of ROTM, Jack brings in a large group of these mutineers who had since joined the crew of the USS Norfolk. The latter part is pure fiction. No Hermione was ever found in the US Navy. The three names given during the account of the court-martial are also fictional, not corresponding to any of the Hermione's crew. But there is something about POB's detailed description of these three mutineers that has the ring of authenticity. [....] These descriptions are not of the Hermione's crew, but of some of the key figures of an even more famous mutiny a decade earlier. [...the Bounty.]
So what is the significance of 12 December? It was the birthday of Richard Patrick Russ.
I find Don's sharpness in making this discovery remarkable. It reaffirms my intuition that the depth of the Canon comes from POB wrestling with the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil behavior, because he himself had broken his own fundamental code. Here he identifies with the concept of mutiny. But he tries to excuse himself by making it an excusable mutiny.
Phyllis Chamberlain
34° 06' N 117° 43' W
on 9/2/02 11:43 PM, Phyllis Chamberlain at phch@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
I thought that on the occasion of my first participation in a Group Read I would attempt to see if the particular volume developed any particular theme.
Seems to me that many writers, including POB, when they begin thinking of a book, decide on certain patterns that they intend to follow, certain themes for the book. This limits them, and having limits is essential unless one wants to spend a lifetime spinning. Consider one of Shakespeare's plays in wch clothing seldom fits. Over and over we see that theme. "Why do you dress me in borrowed robes?" And we can feel Shakespeare's pleasure in inventing scenes where he can develop a theme like that. It isn't the major theme of MacBeth, but it's one of the ways Shakespeare has of holding the work together.
In considering _The Reverse of the Medal_, I proffer the notion it deals with the theme of "crime and punishment," more-so than most of the volumes. In particular, it dwells on the many ways in which punishment fails to fit the crime.
So...brava! bravissima! You've put your finger precisely on themes that POB has selected to emphasize in this work. Posting of the week, votes I. And the next time I read ROTM I'll take pleasure watching POB at work. Thankee indeed, Phyllis.
Charlezzzzz, enlightened once again
Don S:
'William Strachey, aged 17 years, five feet three inches, fair complexion, long dark hair, strong made, has got his name tattooed on his right arm, dated 12 December.'
So what is the significance of 12 December? It was the birthday of Richard Patrick Russ.
Perhaps, in addition to a bit of literary fun, POB does this to give himself more of a conexion with the seaman - to personalise him a bit more. Jack thinks he 'could not lay his hand on his heart and swear that in young Mitchell's place he would have risked his life for the imfamous Pigot.'
This is probably the author also admiting that the young man could have easily have had the name Richard Russ tattooed on his arm, and giving himself a note to allow him to describe his abhorance of the trial more forcefully.
Equally guilty,
Sam.
Catching up on the group read discussion, back on Sept. 2, Don Seltzer wrote
'William Strachey, aged 17 years, five feet three inches, fair complexion, long dark hair, strong made, has got his name tattooed on his right arm, dated 12 December.'
These descriptions are not of the Hermione's crew, but of some of the key figures of an even more famous mutiny a decade earlier. George Norris is actually James Morrison, boatswain's mate of the Bounty. John Pope is actually armourer Joseph Coleman, and William Strachey corresponds to seaman Thomas Ellison, except for the change of the date from 25 October.
So what is the significance of 12 December? It was the birthday of Richard Patrick Russ.
A nice catch by Don, and the joke might be a bit more elaborate: the fictional mutineer's initials are W.S., just like William Shakespeare, so POB might be making an identification between himself, the mutineer, and Shakespeare (and don't forget William Palafox, the PO'B character in The Golden Ocean).
John Finneran
Don Seltzer wrote:
I won't venture a guess as to what was considered classical and modern in 1813, but others more versed in poetry might find some clues at:
http://65.107.211.206/victorian/art/crisis/crisis2g.html
Falconer, of course, is the real author of most of Mowett's poetry. Rowan borrowed heavily from the horrid writings of Samuel Walters.
There are a couple of bits of poetry in ROM that clearly aren't from Falconer's work, based on the subject and the style. I wonder if anybody--Don?--knows the source.
One is the note that Stephen receives from Diana (Norton, p. 141) to tell him that she has run off with Jagiello (that's not, of course, how she puts it):
Why should a foolish marriage vow,
Which long ago was made,
Oblige us to each other now,
When passion is decayed?
More than any other poem in the Canon that I can think of, this could be O'Brian's invention. Does anybody know?
The other is more substantive, and relates to the immense fortune in bonds that Stephen rescues from the Danaë. Stephen quotes in in full (Norton, p. 21), after telling Jack, "Everyone has heard the [first] couplet....But how many know how it goes on?" Later, Sir Joseph improbably quotes the whole thing back to Stephen, minus the first couplet (p. 152):
In vain may heroes fight and patriots rave
If secret gold sap on from knave to knave....
Blest paper credit! last and best supply!
That lends corruption lighter wings to fly!
A single leaf shall waft an army o'er
Or ship off senates to a distant shore.
Pregnant with thousands flits the scrap unseen
And silent sells a king, or buys a queen.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/personal/aha/Epistle_to_Bathurst.html
Rowen
Excuse me - that got away before I'd added the source:
"Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
EPISTLE III. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE ALLEN, LORD BATHURST. Of the use of Riches. That the true use of Riches is known to few, most falling into one of the Extremes, Avarice or Profusion."
There is a great deal which POB didn't use:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_se/personal/aha/Epistle_to_Bathurst.html
Rowen
Here's Diana's poem - from John Dryden.
source:
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/dryden10.html
JOHN DRYDEN (1631-1700)
WHY SHOULD A FOOLISH MARRIAGE VOW
* Original Text: John Dryden, Marriage à-la-Mode (1673).
* First Publication Date: New Court Songs and Poems (1672).
* Representative Poetry On-line: Editor, I. Lancashire; Publisher, Web Development
Group, Inf. Tech. Services, Univ. of Toronto Lib.
* Edition: 3RP 2.58. © G. G. Falle and I. Lancashire, Dept. of English (Univ.
of Toronto), and Univ. of Toronto Press 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Why should a foolish marriage vow,
2 Which long ago was made,
3 Oblige us to each other now
4 When passion is decay'd?
5 We lov'd, and we lov'd, as long as we could,
6 Till our love was lov'd out in us both:
7 But our marriage is dead, when the pleasure is fled:
8 'Twas pleasure first made it an oath.
9 If I have pleasures for a friend,
10 And farther love in store,
11 What wrong has he whose joys did end,
12 And who could give no more?
13 'Tis a madness that he should be jealous of me,
14 Or that I should bar him of another:
15 For all we can gain is to give our selves pain,
16 When neither can hinder the other.
Rowen
Oh, dear! I missed a quotation from my favorite poet. It's been many years since I read the Epistle to Bathurst, and I had no recollection of it. But you're right; O'Brian selected his lines very carefully, and even improved one of them for his purposes.
Thanks so much.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
on 9/3/02 1:37 PM, Bob Fleisher at rlfleish@FLASH.NET wrote:
The other is more substantive, and relates to the immense fortune in bonds that Stephen rescues from the Danaë. Stephen quotes in in full (Norton, p. 21), after telling Jack, "Everyone has heard the [first] couplet....But how many know how it goes on?" Later, Sir Joseph improbably quotes the whole thing back to Stephen, minus the first couplet (p. 152):
'Tis Pope's EPISTLE III, wch is several pages long and begins:
Who shall decide, when Doctors disagree,
And soundest Casuists doubt like you and me?
You hold the Word, from Jove to Momus giv'n,
That man was made the standing jest of heav'n,
And Gold but sent to keep the fools in play,
For half to heap, and half to throw away.
Stephen is quoting one of the best known stanzas--not the whole thing.
Charlezzzzz
on 9/3/02 1:37 PM, Bob Fleisher at rlfleish@FLASH.NET wrote:
Why should a foolish marriage vow,
Which long ago was made,
Oblige us to each other now,
When passion is decayed?
More than any other poem in the Canon that I can think of, this could be O'Brian's invention. Does anybody know?
John Dryden, and it's quite a strange poem metrically: the first four lines of each stanza are iambics (four or three deeDUMs per line...why SHOULD a FOOLish MARRiage VOW) but the next four are a different, dancing, meter--anapests, either four or three per line: dee dee DUM dee DUM dee DUM... till our LOVE was loved OUT of us BOTH)
Marriage a la mode
Why should a foolish marriage vow,
Which long ago was made,
Oblige us to each other now
When passion is decay'd?
We lov'd, and we lov'd, as long as we could,
Till our love was lov'd out in us both:
But our marriage is dead, when the pleasure is fled:
'Twas pleasure first made it an oath.
If I have pleasures for a friend,
And farther love in store,
What wrong has he whose joys did end,
And who could give no more?
'Tis a madness that he should be jealous of me,
Or that I should bar him of another:
For all we can gain is to give our selves pain,
When neither can hinder the other.
Charlezzzzz
It was mentioned recently that canned foods were a French innovation that was developed during the period of Napoleonic wars. I wondered, and still don't know, how the contents of the cans were kept from spoiling before the can was used, in the absence of any knowledge of bacteria or the need for sterilization? Was the food--meat, I suppose--so heavily salted that spoilage was not a problem?
Along a related line in ROM, Jack, several times, drinks beverages from cans--a can of beer and cans of champagne come to mind. Were these sealed metal cans in the sense that we use the term, or something else? And again, how did they keep the drink, particularly the beer, from spoiling?
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
My understanding is that the "can" referred to in this case was simply a tankard or something of that nature, a container into which the beer (or champagne) was poured when served. I suspect that POB mischievously used the undoubtedly authentic term "can" because of seeming incongruity of the image to modern eyes.
Bruce Trinque
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
This was mentioned fairly recently, but according to the NSOED a can is:
"A vessel for holding liquids, now spec. one of metal, and usu. cylindrical with a handle over the top. Also (chiefly N. Amer.), any large cylindrical metal container, a bin. Old English."
It was for serving, not for storage, so spoilage was not an issue.
The currently familiar can is a mid 19th century term:
"A (usu. cylindrical) container of tin plate or aluminium in which food, drink, etc., can be hermetically sealed; (such a container and) its contents. Cf. TIN n. 2. M19."
Martin @ home:
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
I've wondered this too. And I'm thinking -- in relation to the food, anyway, not the beer -- of our use of the word "canning" or "to can," meaning to preserve food in glass jars. But I don't suppose they used great numbers of glass jars on a constantly and often violently moving ship?
Re: the beer I presumed a tankard of some kind -- made of pewter or something else --could be referred to as a "can."
Marian
Ah, so it's a problem of terminology. In the US during the 19th century, if you bought a container of beer at a bar to take out--say, to your job site--it was called a pail of beer. It crossed my mind that that's what O'Brian could have been meaning.
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
on 9/3/02 4:47 PM, Bob Fleisher at rlfleish@FLASH.NET wrote:
In the US during the 19th century, if you bought a container of beer at a bar to take out--say, to your job site--it was called a pail of beer.
It cd also be called a grower, I think.
And, as to "cans" weren't there drinking songs like "Then hey! Let the cannikin clink"?
Charlezzzzz
I wondered, and still don't know, how the contents of the cans were kept from spoiling before the can was used, in the absence of any knowledge of bacteria or the need for sterilization? Was the food--meat, I suppose--so heavily salted that spoilage was not a problem?
Meat could be preserved in fat. Confits were kept this way.
Lois
Meat Confits. Keep at least 6 months when made in France, and stored in a cool place, cellar, eg.
Here's a French recipe with pictures, followed by an American one:
http://www.boutique-des-terroirs.com/preconfi.htm
Home > Ethnic Dishes > French
Duck Confit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serves: 6
Ingredients:
* 2 (5 pound) ducks
* 2 teaspoons salt
* 2 tablespoons black peppercorns, cracked
* 6 cups rendered duck or pork fat
* 12 garlic cloves, peeled
* 12 fresh thyme sprigs
Remove ducks' legs and breasts, saving remaining bones and wings for brown duck stock. Leaving bones and skin attached, chop breasts into halves. With a cleaver, remove tips of drumsticks to use in stock. Sprinkle all over with salt and pepper, and set aside at room temperature 45 minutes. Then place duck pieces in a Dutch oven with rendered fat, garlic and thyme. Cook over low heat, uncovered, 1 1/2 to 2 hours. To test for doneness, pierce with a sharp fork. It should just fall off fork when shaken. Transfer duck pieces to a medium baking dish and add the fat. Let cool to room temperature, cover with plastic wrap, and refrigerate at least 24 hours or as long as 4 weeks. Before serving, lift duck pieces out of fat. Remove and discard skin and any excess fat by warming slightly on a rack in the oven. Serve duck hot or cold.
Bob Fleisher I wondered, and still don't know, how the contents of the cans were kept
from spoiling before the can was used, in the absence of any knowledge of bacteria
or the need for sterilization? Was the food--meat, I suppose--so heavily salted
that spoilage was not a problem?
Along a related line in ROM, Jack, several times, drinks beverages from
cans--a can of beer and cans of champagne come to mind. Were these sealed metal
cans in the sense that we use the term, or something else? And again, how did
they keep the drink, particularly the beer, from spoiling?
Know idea about the first question. The second refers I think to open vessels,
not sealed cans, or tins.
Ted
A can in this sense was a simple drinking vessel. There are porcelain coffee
"cans" from the 18th century - just straight sided mugs.
-- In rereading--well, re-listening to--Reverse of the Medal, I just came across
one of those little O'Brian gems that always make me smile, but that I don't
remember from one reading to the next. Babbington (Norton, p. 187) is asking
Stephen for advice as to how to get Fanny Harte/Wray away from her abusive husband
Andrew Wray, and Stephen misunderstands him:
"Listen, William, my dear," said Stephen, "if you wish me to advise you to
commit adultery..."
"No, no, sir," cried Babbington, smiling. "No, I don't need any advice about
adultery."
With what we know of Babbington's background, it's an amusing exchange, but
O'Brian's touch of adding "smiling" makes it perfect.
Bob Fleisher "No, no, sir," cried Babbington, smiling. "No, I don't need any advice
about adultery."
With what we know of Babbington's background, it's an amusing exchange,
but O'Brian's touch of adding "smiling" makes it perfect.
Good catch! You are right - the word "smiling" makes a
huge difference in that sentence.
'The Reverse of the Medal' is one of my favourite Aubrey-Maturin
books, since it proved a sheet anchor to me once.
One thing to note is that TROTM, like 'Master & Commander' is
fairly heavily based on the assorted exploits of Lord Cochrane.
Ted
Page 10
Of Appollo -the centre of Sir William's 'attention'.
Richardson-'as a reefer he was so horribly pimpled that he was known as Spotted Dick.'
So this is the Richard(Dick) Richarson we had encountered in earlier books.
But then on page 32
Stephen-
'William Richardson,joy,will you tell me where the Captain is now?'
Of course maybe Stephen got the name wrong -but there was no correction by William/Richard?
Alec
Perhaps the "Dick" was short for "Richardson"?
Martin @ home:
Maybe -but I do recall him being called Dick Richardson because I remember thinking about the parents christening a 'Richardson' with the first name Richard!
By the way as I continue to read I see here on page 34 with Stephen and Sam Panda-
But in FSOW in the Gunroom it is said-(253)
'If Rowan were here he would knock your poet on the head'
I don't think RoWan was on the Surprise at all -didn't he get left back in Europe?
Is Stephen cracking up-or is it me?
alec
In his incisive "Persons, Animals, Ships and Cannon in the Aubrey-Maturin Sea
Novels" Anthony Gary Brown discusses the question of Richardson's first name.
He notes: "Given that he is nowhere called Richard Richardson, 'Dick' may
simply be his nick-name, with 'William' being his proper given name."
Remarkably enough, Richardson's surname is shortened ot 'Richards' in "The
Truelove" and "The Commodore".
Bruce Trinque
Thanks to both Martin and Bruce-
Yes and thinking about it-given that his long term nickname was Spotted Dick-it probably got shortened to Dick!
Remarkably enough, Richardson's surname is shortened ot 'Richards' in "The
Truelove" and "The Commodore".
This contraction was quite common; Richards', Johns' etc as contractions of
"Richard's Son" or "John's Son." Among Welsh names the relationship is also
expressed at the beginning of the name; apRhys (Rhys' Son) contracts ultimately
to Price.
Whether it happened to the name during the course of a few years isn't quite as
sure, like Davis and Davies.
Larry
I wonder why the Grapes had to be burnt down.
Was it a changing of the guard. The things that you relied upon,maybe even took for granted, no longer there to lean on?
Blaine in trouble at the admiralty; Diana on her merry way and then you turn that corner looking for comfort.
I love Stephen's double take -did anyone ever have a car stolen from a place you know you last left it? And a car is mobile.
Is it me just getting better at appreciating it or is some of O Brian's narrative, thoughtful and descriptive prose in say the pages 60 to 160 here as good s it gets?
Alec
I love Stephen's double take -did anyone ever have a car stolen from a
place you know you last left it?
Well, no.
But I once reported a car stolen because it wasn't where I parked it every
day at school. It was only as I was giving details to the police, that I
recalled that that morning, "my" place was taken by someone else for the
first time, and I'd had to park somewhere else.
If you can't trust your own brain, who -can- you trust?
Lois
I had a co-worker that did that regularly- sometimes his wife would drive
him and sometimes he would drive himself- we always had to check when we
left- he would be standing there on the curb waiting and someone would drive
by and remind him his car was in the lot- and vice versa- we would find him
wandering the lot and tell him his wife was waiting at the office.
John B
Stephen when he hears that the Cricket game is going to last two days
'You will never play all this afternoon and all tomorrow too, for God's love?cried Stephen, shocked out of all civility by the thought of such insufferable tedium drawn out to such unconscionable length.'
Hehehe
And then shortly after when Martin was extolling the game -he says of Blaine-
'and once he told me that cricket was played regularly in Heaven, and that from a man with his attainments is surely a recommendation.
'I must draw what comfort I can from the doctrine of Limbo.'
was Stephen's reply
What a brilliant response.
Does anyone know what O 'Brian's personal view on cricket was? He certainly manages to convince the reader of Stephen's dislike of the game-but his narrative detail would indicate that he followed the game closely and maybe even liked it.
Refs above pages 186 and 190
alec
At the risk of raking over old moles(palsied or not)-
Marian wrote
There are also, in fact, quite a few times throughout the canon when Jack
sees an unusual animal or sight in the natural world when he's alone and he'll
say to himself,
"How I wish Stephen were here [so he could see and enjoyit]." Is Stephen
ever that considerate of Jack? Is there a time -- in any of the 20 books --
when Stephen thinks of Jack's interests before his own, or in a way similar
to that? There may be, but I can't think of any.
Pge 230 ROTM
Blaine to Stephen--
'Allow me to help you to a little more pudding.'
'With all my heart' said Stephen holding out his plate.
'How I wish Jack were here; he takes a truly sinful pleasure in pudding, above all this one.'
alec:-)
(one man's platypus is another man's pudden')
Can't argue with that. But Jack says it much more often.... :-)
Marian,
I think this is one of the loveliest passages of the
canon:
Page 178: "Why do I feel such an intense pleasure, such
an intense satisfaction?" asked Stephen. For some time
he searched for a convincing reply, but finding none he
observed, "the fact is that I do." He sat on as the
sun's rays came slowly down through the trees, lower and
lower, and when the lowest reached a branch not far above
him it caught a dewdrop poised upon a leaf. The drop
instantly blazed crimson, and a slight movement of his
head made it show all the colours of the spectrum with
extraordinary purity, from a red almost too deep to be
seen through all the others to the ultimate violet and
back again. Some minutes later a cock pheasant's
explosive call broke the silence and the spell and he
stood up.
At the edge of the wood the blackbirds were louder still,
and they had been joined by blackcaps, thrushes, larks,
monotonous pigeons, and a number of birds that should
never have sung at all. His way now led him through
ordinary country . . . But it was ordinary country raised
to the highest power: the mounting sun shone through a
faint veil with never a hint of glare, giving the colours
a freshness and an intensity Stephen had never seen
equalled. The green world and the gentle, pure blue sky
might just have been created; and as the day warmed a
hundred scents drifted through the air.
"Returning thanks at any length is virtually impossible,"
he reflected . . . "How few manage even five phrases with
any effect. And how intolerable are most dedications too,
even the best. Perhaps the endless repetition of flat,
formal praise" - for the Gloria was still running in his
head - "is an attempt at overcoming this, an attempt at
expressing gratitude by another means."
Although POB borrows generously from events in Cochrane's life, he
occasionally takes pains to differentiate Jack from Sir Thomas. At the
beginning of chapter 4, Jack is placed in a similar situation as Cochrane
in 1809, when asked to lead a fireship attack. Jack opposes such types of
warefare, and avoids the unpleasant assignment based upon the excuse of his
lack of seniority compared to other captains on the scene.
Cochrane's fortunes take a different, twisted turn. He is asked by the
Admiralty to lead a fireship attack upon a squadron of French ships in Aix
(Basque) Roads. Initially, he is reluctant to accept the command because of
the jealousy it would arouse among the many senior captains and admirals in
the blockading fleet. However, once persuaded to take the assignment, he
enthusiastically embraces the method, and escalates the fire ship attack
with explosive vessels of his own design.
Despite difficult conditions, the attack is a success, with the dozen or so
French ships of the line running aground in the confusion. Cochrane, with
a few frigates and smaller inshore ships, moves in to complete the victory,
signalling the main fleet for support. Admiral Gambier, the overly
cautious commander on the scene, refuses to risk his ships in the shallow
waters. Hours of signalling follow, in which Cochrane pleads for support,
and Gambier directs him to withdraw, in progressively stronger terms.
Eventually, Cochrane complies.
The victory was only partial, as many of the French ships were refloated.
Gambier's report gave full credit to Cochrane, who was awarded a Knight of
the Bath. Cochrane, rather than show appreciation, demanded a court
martial of Admiral Gambier. This was the undoing of Cochrane's career. A
court martial was convened, but key evidence was not admitted and the
Admiralty closely controlled the proceedings, assuring Gambier's acquittal.
At a time when he should have had his pick of commands, Cochrane was
instead blacklisted. He did not have another ship for the rest of the war.
Don Seltzer
(Spoilers)
POB also often forshadows later events, as in 'HMS SURPRISE', when
Jack & Stephen are up the foremast & talking of money. Stephen
tells Jack how some Bombay merchant could make money by various
speculations, if he knew Linois's whereabouts. Stephen goes on
"Then there are the funds, or their Indian rquivalent, which lie
far beyond my understanding. Even an untrue word, intelligently
spread & based upon the statement of an honest man, would answer,
I collect: It is called rigging the market."
All this forshadows 'The Reverse of the Medal'.
Ted
Cochrane's fortunes take a different, twisted turn. He is asked by the
Admiralty to lead a fireship attack upon a squadron of French ships in Aix (Basque)
Roads. Initially, he is reluctant to accept the command because of the jealousy
it would arouse among the many senior captains and admirals in the blockading
fleet.
'Twas this incident that led one of Lord Gambier's subordinate Admirals, Sir
Eliab Harvey, who had been passed over in favour of the junior Cochrane, to
lambast his boss as "an incompetent, hypocritical, canting, avaricious Methodist"
(as alluded to in TMC). Perhaps even more bizarre than his choice of words (though
he was rich, and well-connected, and untimately let off the hook) was that he
chose to toss his dummy in front of both Cochrane and Sir Harry Neale, Gambier's
Captain of the Fleet. Harvey's subsequent court-martial makes entertaining reading.
Gary
It is a surprise to me, in reading Pepys, how important fireships were, and
how often they were purchased and prepared before a fleet went out to fight
the Dutch.
Somebody said, I think in the gunroom--or perhaps I read it someplace--that
the crew of a fireship, if captured, were killed out of hand. Anybody know?
I too have read that & certainly, in the age of wooden ships that
were very seldom sunk by gunfire, fire was the thing sailors
feared most. So it would make sense that they might not get good
treatment if captured. Few related links below
Ted
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/anth/abstracts/Coggeshall.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist_prog3b.shtml
http://www.hrofi.demon.co.uk/fireships.html
http://www.huntermuseum.org/robertsalmon.htm
http://homepages.enterprise.net/iainlogan/guadirra/chap19.html
http://www.baysidetreasures.com/fireships.htm
At 12:33 AM -0400 9/27/2, Charles Munoz wrote:
Somebody said, I think in the gunroom--or perhaps I read it someplace--that
the crew of a fireship, if captured, were killed out of hand. Anybody know?
It was Jack, in chapter 4 of ROTM.
Don Seltzer
At 10:05 PM -0500 9/26/2, Anthony Gary Brown wrote:
'Twas this incident that led one of Lord Gambier's subordinate Admirals,
Sir Eliab Harvey, who had been passed over in favour of the junior Cochrane,
to lambast his boss as "an incompetent, hypocritical, canting, avaricious Methodist"
(as alluded to in >TMC). ...
Also some remarks about psalm-singers and cheating old women out of their
estates.
Don Seltzer
Although one suspects that there must be some truth in this, a
quick through David Hepper's "British Warship Losses in the Age of
Sail" tends not to support it. A relatively small number of
fireships were taken before they could be ignited, and in these
cases the Captains at least survived captivity. It might have
been different for the crew; it might have been different if
either officers or crew were take whilst fleeing from a ship they
had just ignited.
Gary
Jack says it in ROTM, page 115: "No one who has been in a fireship can
expect any quarter: if he is taken he is either knocked on the head directly
or put up against a wall and shot a little later ..."
I don't recall sailors treating the gunners so shabbily when they capture
batteries that fired red-hot shot at them.
Bob Kegel
There's a passage in Pepys where, returning from the funeral of Captain
Christopher Mings, Pepy's coach is stopped by a group of sailors. They ask
him to use his influence to get them assigned as the crew of a fireship in
memory of their dead skipper.
Charlezzzzz
Midshipman and later author Frederick Marryat was a protege of Cochrane at
this time. He volunteered to serve aboard one of the special explosion
ships at Basque Roads, of which he wrote:
" If ever I felt the sensation of fear it was after I had lighted this
fire. We were not two hundred yards off when she exploded. A more
terrific and beautiful sight can not be conceived; but we were not quite
enough at our ease to enjoy it. The shells flew up into the air to a
prodigious height, some bursting as they rose, and others as they
descended. The shower fell about us, but we escaped without injury".
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 9/27/2002 6:58:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes:
Also some remarks about psalm-singers and cheating old women out of their
estates.
Well, that's in the Holy Tradition, ain't it?
Matthew 23:14: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye
shall receive the greater condemnation."
savage, explosive, obstinate and cantankerous [HMSS 78]
Mary S
I have recently been reading about various early modes of
warfare and find that the Fireship was employed, at least when
fighting each other, by the Vikings in sea battles.
For info the usual system was to 'raft' the bigger ships
together into a 'platform' whilst the smaller ships harried any
attackers and themselves landed troops on the enemies platform.
The platform tended to be one ship 'deep' with larger ships
sticking out at bow and stern, for which reason they were
sometimes armoured in these regions.
Fighting was mainly hand-to-hand after an initial archery
exchange as ships tried to close.
You can see that fireships would be a great threat to the
unmanouverable platform, if they could close.
Rick
David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War
role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden
in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes
would have been based on crew availability
Catching up on the group read, some thoughts on the great pillory scene (pp.
265-267):
(1) it is, of course, tremendously well-written and wonderfully evocative.
It is much briefer than I had remembered, but allows the reader to imagine
all sorts of unenumerated details: as written, the scene ends with the cry
"Off hats" and the hats coming off and the crowd cheering; in my memory,
before actually re-reading, there was much that happened after this, with
Jack, overcome with emotion, weeping, but unable to wipe the tears away,
with his hands locked in the pillory. Am I alone in this? Do others
remember other details of this scene which don't exist in the written
record?
(2) Continuing the theme of things which aren't there, it occurred to me
while reading, that this scene would be a fine place for PO'B to list out
the spectators (which he does to a limited extent, though he leaves most of
them unnamed), lists being a favorite PO'B literary technique. I'm unsure
whether a list, a nice long list, would have helped or hurt this scene. One
unnamed person, who surely must have been there, was Padeen Colman, who was
somewhat conspicuouslyt not mentioned. From the evidence of The Far Side
of the World (if not earlier volumes), it is clear the Awkard Davis was the
strongest sailor aboard the Surprise, with the powerful Barret Bonden a
distant second, until the arrival of Padeen, whose strength was comparable
to, if not greater than, Davis's. Both Davis and Bonden have prominent
roles in this scene, and if there's mention of strongman #1 and strongman
#3, there seems to be a gap with no mention of strongman #2.
(3) But look who is present: "a dumb Negro bosun's mate" (p. 266). Who
could this be but Alfred King, whom we haven't seen since Master and
Commander? King was one of PO'B's many great minor characters who had
seemingly disappeared without a trace.
Incidentally, it's my casual observation (i.e., I've noticed but haven't
confirmed this by carefully checking each instance) that PO'B tends to refer
to those of African descent as "Negroes" on land but as "blacks" at sea,
which perhaps reflects differing social statuses for the same individuals by
land and sea (i.e., by land they are Negroes, part of a different race from
the English mainstream, the difference accentuated by the capital N, but by
sea, they are just sailors, just like the rest of the sailors, though they
are also, incidentally, black).
(4) Finally, still thinking of literary technique, I wondered while reading
if PO'B should have ended the book at the end of this scene. It certainly
would have been a memorable ending and have ended the book on a high note,
but reading further, I'm convinced that PO'B's actual ending is much better:
we come to a great emotional climax with the pillory scene, then
anti-climax, which quickly builds again, first with mystery, then with the
revelation of the gret plot inside the Admiralty, then with Stephen about to
alert Sir Joseph, and the hall-porter saying, "never fret yourself about
haste post-haste: here is Sir Joseph himself, coming up the stairs,
a-leaning on Colonel Warren's arm." (p.287) PO'B writes wonderful endings,
so I can't argue this is his best, but it was the one that made me the most
eager to go out and buy the next book in the series.
John Finneran
it is, of course, tremendously well-written and wonderfully evocative.
It is much briefer than I had remembered, but allows the reader to imagine all
sorts of unenumerated details:
Continuing in my prideful, whisky- and Ryder Cup-fed mood, I repeat my sole
original contribution to POBian scholarship: "a lesser author would have made
more of this".
Gary
Yes, it is one of, if not the most emotionally powerful scene POB
wrote.
Ted
At 9:08 PM -0700 9/29/2, John Finneran wrote:
in my memory, before actually re-reading, there was much that happened
after this, with Jack, overcome with emotion, weeping, but unable to wipe the
tears away, with his hands locked in the pillory. Am I alone in this? Do others
remember other details of this scene which don't exist in the written record?
Yes, I was again surprised at how brief the actual scene is. Thought a few
pages must be missing.
Cochrane was also sentenced to the pillory, but that punishment was dropped
because of a fear of a general riot from his Westminster constituency.
Besides a fine, he was also sentenced to prison for a year. After serving
much of the term, he decided to escape, in the best sailor tradition by
scaling the walls. His freedom was shortlived, because he insisted in
showing up at Parliament to claim his seat.
Was Cochrane really guilty? If Cochrane had been tried alone, he would
probably have been acquitted. But tied to his crooked uncle and the other
codefendents, he was dragged down with them. Cochrane fiercely maintained
his innocence in later life, filling a great portion of his autobiography
with tedious arguments about small points in the trial. His descendants
carried on the debate, facing off with descendants of Lord Ellenborough
into the 20th century with a war of words, pamphlets, and books.
Don Seltzer
Back on September 02, 2002, Phyllis Chamberlain wrote:
Then there's discussion of the good luck, bad luck, Jonah-aboard aspects
of life, what one might call the fortuity of things. As we know, ROTM resolves
with a scene of great emotional power, one of the most powerful in the entire
Canon, demonstrating Jack's adherence to the code of duty, honor, country, and
the love and regard he has earned as Captain Jack Aubrey.
A related sub-theme is the fate of the Surprise, which is to be broken up at
the beginning of the book, but which gets a new lease on life by the end,
similar to the fortunes of Jack, which reach a low ebb, only to be turned
with great power in the pillory scene.
Which brings me to a related point: the book's title is, I think, like The
Surgeon's Mate, a play on words: this turning of fortune is, I think, the
pun meaning of the title's "Reverse", but my question is: what is the
primary meaning? The Reverse of the Medal: the only medal I recall
mentioned in the book is Jack's Nile medal: is there anything of
significance on the back of it? Or is perhaps the title an idiomatic
expression like "the other side of the coin"?
John Finneran
I think that "the other side of the coin" is the likely meaning. There is
nothing particularly significant about the reverse side of the Nile medal.
I'm not sure which side is considered the front, but a goddess (Britannia?)
is shown on one side, with a small picture of Nelson, and a fine scene of
the battle is on what is probably considered the reverse (though the sun is
incorrectly shown setting in the east).
Don Seltzer
Big OED gives "things turning for the worse" as a 'reverse of the
medal' meaning as early as 1641, in the diaries of John Evelyn.
'Le revers de la medaille' is common in contemporary French for
'the other side of the picture'. When I (with the honour of
speaking British English, true and pure.........) first saw RoM, I
immediately read it as 'a turn for the worse' - though, in truth,
I cannot recall ever actually having heard the expression used.
Gary
A phrase I found the other day in "Jane Eyre" may be of interest.
The scene is set at Lowood school where from a misplaced idea of the
meaning of charity Mr Brocklehurst is determined to humiliate the
orphan girls placed in his charge. Noticing that some of the wretches
have been ungrateful enough to grow hair he commands that the first
form rise up and direct their faces to the wall while he inspects
them,
"He scrutinised the reverse of these living medals some five
minutes."
So far I have also noticed a "it doesn't signify" and an "in
course". I also wonder if Mrs Williams might be partly modelled on
the loathsome Mrs Reed.
Martin @ home:
In Swedish, "medaljens baksida" means the same as in French, and is
probably a loan from that language.
[ whoohoo! "Svenska Akademiens ordbok" (the Swedish OED) is online.[1]! ]
It's first mentioned in Nyblom's "Bilder från Italien", 1864.
[1] http://www.svenskaakademien.se/saob/. According to the website,
there are only three dictionaries on Germanic languages comparable to
the SAOB -- "Deutsches Wörterbuch", "Woordenboek der Nederlandsche
Taal", and The Oxford English Dictionary. Go Swedish!
-g.
Yesterday, John Finneran was wondering about a possible connection between
the title and Jack's Nile medal. I remarked that the goddess on the front
of the medal was possibly Brittannia. I've since looked it up, and the
figure actually portrays Peace. With the scene of the battle on the
reverse, it could be said that the medal shows War & Peace.
Coming up this Trafalgar Day, Sotheby's is auctioning off the Davison
collection of Nelson memorabilia. Alexander Davison was Nelson's prize
agent who commissioned at his own expense the minting of medals to be
awarded to every officer and sailor connected with the battle of the Nile.
They were made in four flavors: gold for admirals and captains, silver for
lieutenants, gilt bronze for senior warrant officers, and bronze for
everyone else.
The auction later this month includes several extra medals that Davison
kept for himself. For £25,000 you might walk away with a gold medal. For
only £1200 - £1800, you could get a silver medal similar to Jack's.
Don Seltzer
Sorry I can't join this thread in the normal way-I've just returned from a spell of NoMail.
On my last read of Reverse of The Medal I remember delving into the archives an reading this which I tought was the 'completest thing'/
It is from Gibbons Burke from 1996 and he ponders the book's title.
He wrote-
'This is my favorite of O'Biran titles because it offers so many angles of meaning (The Surgeon's Mate being another.) Gerry Strey suggested it represents Jack's world turned updside down. The reversal of fortune is clearly an angle, but there is another, which is a *** SPOILER **** for those who have not read Reverse of the Medal. Be ye warned.
I would suggest that O'Brian chose "Medal" rather than "Coin" for the
title because of the associations with honor. But another purely
mechanical difference might be that a medal's reverse side might simply have the embossed inverse image of the face of the medal, and might not be designed for viewing the reverse side. If the medal were, say, stamped into silver, and had the likeness of a man on it, then the face of the medal would be an image of this man's face in bright shiny metal. The reverse of the medal might show the same likeness, but perhaps tarnished and darkened, since it is not normally seen. Now, it is in this novel that Jack meets the reverse of his medal - where Sam Panda is described as having Jack's physiognomy, but in a darker shade. The honor/dishonor theme works here too.
Carrying this theme of the darkened likeness on the reverse side of the medal farther, it might signify the idea that the novel explores how the darker side of Jack's own nature (greed, and pride) leads him by the nose into ruin - he loses his fortune, his liberty, his commission in his beloved service, and (to the rest of the world) his honor. And it is only by the blessed graces of his wife that he manages to keep his family after she realizes Sam Panda's paternity.
It was greed for financial gain (the same ambition that made him such a daring and successful captain) that led him into the shoals of the financial markets. And his stubborn pride kept him from mounting a successful legal defense.
Cheers,'
end quote
Alec
Here's a nice POBian touch (on the Suprise, which is to be broken up after
the mission):
"It all gave a pleasant illusion of eternity, this quiet sailing under a perfect
sky towards a horzon perpetually five miles ahead, never nearer; but at the
same time every man aboard, apart from the Gibraltar lunatics and one homegrown
innocent named Henry, knew that there was no permanence about it at all." (pp.79-80)
Innocent Henry was never mentioned before and is never mentioned again.
John Finneran
Great minds think alike, Bruce and Charlezzzzz...could the joke possibly be
set in New Jersey because of the Mafia/Sopranos connection? ("make sure he's
dead...") Just a wee thought.
I have always loved that quote from ROTM, John - thanks for posting it (obviously,
I'm not keeping up with the Group Read.) I also like the usage of "innocent"
to denote someone who was not quite all there in the head. My mother used to
say "simple," as in, "Your cousin, the one with the son who was a little bit
simple..." -Simply, RD
It may be of interest that this is one of many English loan words in Thai,
and has just that meaning, nothing to do with not guilty. --
I can't recall which famous novelist of the early to mid 20th century had
one of his characters use the following expression. "Oh no, he's not simple,
he's harmless!"
I am a bit behind my times and have had to delete many a recent post unread
so forgive me if this topic has been covered...
In ROTM we are bombarded with the idea that money, an excess of money anyway,
leads to no good.
There is the unhappy brass box with money enough to overthrow an empire.
Every character who looks upon the wealth contained therein reacts with
horror. There is Jack, this time it is the making of money, not losing it,
that is his downfall. Poor Jack's situation is made much worse by the
General and his consuming greed.
Stephen is owed a fortune by Wray and is therefore frustrated at every turn
in trying to talk to him.
Even Stephen himself, a newly inherited Croesus describes the effects of
wealth "entirely discreditable" (p210 Norton pb), and goes on at length
(facetiously, perhaps) about the superiority complex he is confronted with.
Does the writing of this book coincide with POB's rise to fame and,
consequently, fortune? Does he deal with his own reversal of fortune through
his characters? Certainly I believe the speech of Stephen's to be the voice
of O'Brian.
Vanessa, frowsty and dissolute
You might be right however I like Micheal Caine (son of a
Billingsgate fish porter, who's mother was a cleaner) on this
subject: "I've been poor & I've been rich & I know which I
prefer."
Ted
O Brian needs Stephen to be in a position to buy/supply the Surprise and therefore the inheritance was a matter of expediency rather than natural plot development. And somehow I feel the idea of Stephen being extremely wealthy(artificially) did not sit too well with O Brian- maybe indeed this is to do with his own changed circumstrances.
Alec
In the POB manuscript collection at the Lilly Library, there are three
typewritten sheets entitled "Thoughts for further naval tales", dated 14
April, 1981. Written after the completion of Ionian Mission, these pages
are a plan for POB's next three books, probably created for his publisher.
The first in this series (which would become Treason's Harbour), would
focus more on the intelligence aspect than on naval battles. The opening
is set in Malta, with a relaxed Jack and Stephen being spied upon by French
agents. Rather than a conventional narrative summary of the characters,
the introductions are to be made by the comments of the agents.
A previous villain, Andrew Wray, is to be reintroduced as traitor working
for the French. There is to be some conversation between Wray and Stephen
regarding the nature of treachery and intelligence services. The naval
situation requires dealing with troublesome Beys of the Barbary coast and
the Red Sea, including crossing the Suez on foot. There is to be a chase
of a treasure ship, but Wray's treason includes setting up an ambush by a
superior French squadron. The Surprise narrowly escapes from the French
ships, but is forced to sink the treasure ship when just on the point of
capture.
"This sounds pretty bald, but I mean to have fun with a diving-bell, bought
by Maturin for viewing the wonders of the deep, and eventually (though not
in this book) to be used for salving the French gold to buy Surprise when
she is sold out of the service."
The next book (FSOW) begins with Surprise headed back to Britain by way of
the West Indies. They encounter an admiral in a slow ship pursuing the USS
Norfolk, a 28 gun frigate bound for the Pacific to wreak havoc among the
British whalers. Jack is ordered to take up the pursuit, which leads
around the stormy Horn, to the island of Jaun Fernandez to refit, and then
to Chile and Peru.
Well out into the Pacific on a warm, foggy night, Stephen falls overboard
and Jack dives in to rescue him. The Surprise comes about immediately, but
cannot find them in the murk. The next morning, Jack and Stephen are
rescued by a canoe of feminist Polynesian ladies seeking an island to live
without men. Jack and Stephen are in danger of being Sunday dinner, but
the Surprise appears and they are exchanged for four ten-penny nails.
The American frigate is eventually found wrecked on a coral reef, but their
officers claim that the war is over. While Jack is pondering this claim, a
sudden storm blows the Surprise out to sea. The two camps agree to unite
in building a vessel. The Americans appear to have the upper hand when an
American whaling ship arrives, but it is soon followed by the Surprise.
The third book (ROTM) will include events that POB has been foreshadowing
several times. The Surprise returns to Plymouth to be paid off. Jack,
taking passage aboard the cartel ship falls in with a stranger who confides
that Napoleon is dead or captured and peace is imminent. Jack is persuaded
to invest in stocks to take advantage of the news, and advises his father
to do the same. Just as with Cochrane, he is arrested for rigging the
market, tried, found guilty, and dismissed the service. Although Cochrane
was imprisoned, Jack is to be fined, and perhaps sentenced to the pillory.
Stephen purchases the decommisioned Surprise, perhaps using gold recovered
from the sunken treasure ship of the earlier book, with the view of either
becoming a privateer, or carrying on a war of liberation in Chile (which
POB acknowledges is throwing history slightly out of beat). Talleyrand's
agent from Surgeon's Mate returns the Blue Peter and assists Stephen in
foiling Wray. Finally, "Aubrey is reinstated either in time for the
Hundred Days or at an historically foggy period that leaves the possibility
of further warefare, perhaps with France, certainly with America, or even
in Chile again."
Provided through the courtesy of the Lilly Library, Bloomington, IN
Don Seltzer
"This sounds pretty bald, but I mean to have fun with a diving-bell, bought
by Maturin for viewing the wonders of the deep, and eventually (though not in
this book) to be used for salving the French gold to buy Surprise when she is
sold out of the service."
I wonder why POB abandoned this idea and gave Stephen a fairy
godfather instead. The diving bell never quite lived up to its
potential as a plot device, after being so laboriously hauled
around by ship and camel.
Katherine
In addition to the three dated typewritten sheets entitled "Thoughts for
further naval tales", there are several other handwritten sheets titled
"vague notions for JA", "Thoughts about naval tales A", and "Thoughts about
naval tales continued B". They all cover much the same ideas for the
three books following Ionian Mission. It is difficult to determine the
order in which they were written, but it seems likely the handwritten notes
preceeded the typewritten outline. The differences in the different
versions provide some indication of how the plots evolved in POB's mind.
Initially, Jack's dismissal from the service and purchase of the Surprise
to become a privateer is meant to coincide with the period of the 100 Days,
in which Napoleon escaped from Elba. But POB asks himself whether there
were any privateers at this time.
The alternative was to send Jack after an American raider into the Pacific,
including Jack diving after Stephen who falls overboard. In this early
concept, the two are rescued by a Polynesian couple eloping to a desert
island, which on further consideration "perhaps there may have been several
young ladies on the island".
The third book in this sequence, which would later become ROTM, was to end
with Jack going on to liberate Chile, ending with some historical victory
or the 100 days. But then POB writes "No, no: Wray is at last unmasked
thanks to friendly (Surgeon's Mate) French agent (possibly returning Blue
Peter) & is compelled to confess - JA pardoned in time of 100 days".
All of this begins to come together in the final sheet, in which POB writes:
"The three that I suggested on the earlier sheet A still seem fairly good,
but I think I should bring in another theme, one that should run through
them all (more or less visibly), knitting them together & providing a means
for JA's restoration to the Navy, to wit, the villainy of A Wray..."
He goes on to suggest the various mischief that Wray might instigate,
including getting rid of Sir Joseph through complications with a Lady
Blaine (perhaps explaining why Sir J was temporarily engaged). The new
Mrs. B was to have a dislike for Stephen. The Babbington-Fanny Wray liaison
is mentioned as a possible source of information for unmasking Wray.
And finally POB takes a second look at the scenario of the Surprise headed
for the West Indies, encountering an admiral in a slow ship pursuing the
American raider. Initially, POB thought to have the admiral hail Jack,
ordering him to take up the chase, around the Horn if necessary. POB now
dismisses this as unbelievable, deciding that "a proper mission far better
for other reasons."
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 10/22/02 9:57:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes:
And finally POB takes a second look at the scenario of the Surprise headed
for the West Indies, encountering an admiral in a slow ship pursuing the American
raider. Initially, POB thought to have the admiral hail Jack, ordering him to
take up the chase, around the Horn if necessary. POB now dismisses this as unbelievable,
deciding that "a proper mission far better for other reasons."
Isn't this the plot line reported to be in the movie being made?
Bruce Trinque
These notes are a fascinating glimpse into POB's creative process. Thanks
for sharing them.
Something I have often speculated about is whether, and how, access to a
computer would have affected this process. It seems that at the very least,
much of the drudgery of writing would have been eliminated. It's so much
easier to make corrections, and to rearrange big chunks of text at a time,
with even the most basic word processing program than with a typewriter.
Also, a computer database would help organize the huge volume of historical
data that POB was working with, as well as making it easier to keep details
straight such as the names of minor characters, the length of Reade's arm,
etc.
Using a manual typewriter or longhand, it would be a daunting task to make
any changes in the plot or structure of a book after you had gotten well
under way. If in the midst of writing a story you have second thoughts
about a plot element or character and decide to change directions, I think
you might be unwilling to go back and revise every scene in which this
character or story element appears if you had to retype the whole thing
from the beginning. Being caught up in the story, you would feel more of a
need to move it along to its conclusion than to go back and quibble about
details in the first few chapters. So you might wind up with balloons that
never get off the ground or oratorios that don't get performed, just
because your muse is hull down on the horizon and you must crack on to keep
up.
This is just futile speculation because as a non-artist I can't really hope
to understand the process by which a work of art is made,but it's
interesting to think about. I don't necessarily think POB's work, or
Tolstoi's or Dickens', would have been improved if they had used a word
processor, but would it have been different?
Katherine
Katherine T writes:
Something I have often speculated about is whether, and how, access to
a computer would have affected this process. It seems that at the very least,
much of the drudgery of writing would have been eliminated. It's so much easier
to make corrections, and to rearrange big chunks of text at a time, with even
the most basic word processing program than with a typewriter. Also, a computer
database would help organize the huge volume of historical data that POB was
working with, as well as making it easier to keep details straight such as the
names of minor characters, the length of Reade's arm, etc.
From my .sig collection:
"I use pen and paper, like a Christian"
That said, POB started writing long before the word processor, so the
challenges of writing in longhand and with a typewriter were probably
known to him.
Using a manual typewriter or longhand, it would be a daunting task to make
any changes in the plot or structure of a book after you had gotten well under
way. If in the midst of writing a story you have second thoughts about a plot
element or character and decide to change directions, I think you might be unwilling
to go back and revise every scene in which this character or story element appears
if you had to retype the whole thing from the beginning. Being caught up in
the story, you would feel more of a need to move it along to its conclusion
than to go back and quibble about details in the first few chapters. So you
might wind up with balloons that never get off the ground or oratorios that
don't get performed, just because your muse is hull down on the horizon and
you must crack on to keep up.
The computer does not always simplify. You have to install software,
take backups, watch out for viruses, cannot write in a cottage w/o
electricity, are distracted by email and the web...
This is just futile speculation because as a non-artist I can't really
hope to understand the process by which a work of art is made,but it's interesting
to think about. I don't necessarily think POB's work, or Tolstoi's or Dickens',
would have been improved if they had used a word processor, but would it have
been different?
Perhaps they would have been hackers[1] instead of writers, so that we
would have great code and no novels... the great Russian OS,
Tolstox... Scrivener 1.0, the bane of Word...
/g.
[1] In the original sense of great programmer.
--
In all creative processes you have to call a halt to mods at some point,
otherwise you will continue refining for ever and never get to the point of
having a finished product. In engineering you have the Design Freeze which
makes any future change such a daunting beaurocratic process that you make
damned sure that the change is necessary before you consider pushing it
forward. In POB's case using a manual typewriter probably had a similar
result. Just imagine if he had a word processor we would probably only have
had three books with ten years between each as he spent endless hours making
sure that there were no inconsistencies.:-)
Stephen Chambers I love the way POB manages to place one-liners throughout, for example while
watching the interminable cricket match at Ashgrove.
"...Stephen, who had played the game once, in the Spice Islands, but who had
never quite mastered the finer points; nor, for that matter, the coarser ones
either."
"'You will never play all this afternoon and all tomorrow too, for God's love?',
cried Stephen, shocked out of civility by the thought of such insufferable tedium
drawn out to such unconscionable length."
"'Listen, William my dear,' said Stephen, 'if you wish me to advise you to
commit adultery...' [Martin on Banks] "...he often came down to watch us,and once he told me that
cricket was played regularly in Heaven..." Nick, who was caught chuckling out loud on the tram today.
This is not really a true Group Read contribution however.....
I bought one audio tape. It was M&C and the narrator was Robert Hardy.
My main purpose in buying it was to hear Jack and Stephen's voices as interpreted by the actor. And also to get some pronounciations which I was uncertain about,including Maturin.
Overall however I was greatly disappointed by the tape, mainly because it was cruelly abridged and skipped over parts of the book which were I felt were integral.I never bought another.
However one thing struck me while re-reading the pillory scene in ROTM and that is how easily it would lend itself to powerful and evocative narration.
Are there any lissuns out there with an audio version of the pillory scene? How does it compare in emotional impact to the written word?
I'd say Mr Tull could really 'get into' that scene'!!
alec
Yes, I have heard the Patrick Tull unabridge recording of ROTM, including
the pillory scene, aand ... oh, my, does he ever 'get into' it! It is an
intense, emotionally effective performance. (I also once had the pleasure of
hearing Patrick read this scene live and it was wonderful.)
I have heard only one of Mr. Hardy's renditions of an Aubrey-Maturing novel,
and I must say that I ranked his performance far below that of Patrick Tull
(this is a subjective thing, of course, and there are undoubted some who feel
differently) and this isn't even getting into the inadequacies of abridged
versions. I firmly believe that listening to a well-recorded (e.g., Patrick
Tull) unabridged version of a POB adds a new dimension to your "reading".
Bruce Trinque
From: John Gosden
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read--Reverse of the Medal
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Bob Fleisher
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 12:51 PM
Subject: Group Read--Reverse of the Medal
Houston, TX
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: GroupRead:ROTM
From: Ted
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read--Reverse of the Medal
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:30 AM
Subject: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson
(stealing from another thread and wondering if Sir Wiliam Pellew-ever thought of the word callipygian?)
From: Martin
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson/Rowan
Stephen to Sam
Will you wait here now whileI see if the Captain is at leisure...Mr Rowan will no doubt show you the various ropes for a moment.
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson/Rowan
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson/Rowan
From: Larry & Wanda Finch
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM-Richardson/Rowan
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 8:55 PM
Subject: GROUPRead:ROTM- The Grapes
From: losmp
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM- The Grapes
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 1:34 AM
Subject: Re: GROUPRead:ROTM- The Grapes
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 1:09 PM
Subject: GROUPRead;ROTM -Stephen's Cricket put-downs
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:FSOW Useless Stephen
ornery
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: GroupRead:ROM:beauty
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:38 PM
Subject: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Anthony Gary Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
who could never warm to Blue-Light Jimmy Gambier...........
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Ted
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fireships was [POB] GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Anthony Gary Brown
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Bob Kegel
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
46°59'18.661"N 123°49'29.827"W
From: Charles Munoz
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fireships
From: Mary S
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Rick Ansell
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM Cochrane & Aubrey
--
From: John Finneran
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:08 PM
Subject: GRP: ROTM: The Pillory Scene
From: Anthony Gary Brown
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: ROTM: The Pillory Scene
stopping now
From: Ted
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: ROTM: The Pillory Scene
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: ROTM: The Pillory Scene
From: John Finneran
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
From: Anthony Gary Brown
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
hoping for the obverse..........
From: Martin
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Gustaf Erikson
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 12:57 PM
Subject: GRP:ROTM: Theme and Title
From: John Finneran
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: GRP: ROTM: Henry
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:23 PM
Subject: jokes/great minds/Henry
From: John Gosden
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:41 AM
Subject: jokes/great minds/Henry
John R. Gosden
7*51'59"N / 98*20'28"E
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: jokes/great minds/Henry
From: Vanessa Brown
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:39 AM
Subject: Grp Read: ROTM: Evils of $$
From: Ted
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Grp Read: ROTM: Evils of $$
(Not as rich as he should like just now, not nearly)
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Grp Read: ROTM: Evils of $$
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 1:46 PM
Subject: LL: Thought for further naval tales
From: Katherine T
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: LL: Thought for further naval tales
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:56 PM
Subject: LL: More Thought for further naval tales
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: LL: More Thought for further naval tales
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
From: Katherine T
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: LL: More Thought for further naval tales
From: Gustaf Erikson
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: LL: More Thought for further naval tales
-- Patrick O'Brian, on his choice of word processor.
Gustaf Erikson, M.Sc. Engineering Physics ***
http://stureby.net/gustaf/
Be a better psychiatrist and the world will beat a psychopath to your
door.
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: LL: More Thought for further naval tales
50° 48' 38"N 01° 09' 15"W
From: Nick Coleman
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: [ROTM] Various snippets of POB humour
'No, no, sir,' cried Babbington, smiling. 'No, I don't need any advice about
adultery.'"
[Stephen] "I must draw what comfort I can from the doctrine of Limbo."
From: Alec O' Flaherty
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:02 AM
Subject: GRPRead:ROTM - audio versus reading
From: Batrinque@AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: GRPRead:ROTM - audio versus reading
41°37'52"N 72°22'29"W
Return to Main Page