|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Did anyone else find that "Litle shit..." right at the beginning a bit jarring? Especially since -- as we've discussed -- the canon's approach to profanity varies quite a bit...
Also I note Stephen referring to Jack as "the animal," an inferior prototype for the far more delightful "the creature."
-Jerry, nerdily wishing there were radians in the canon after all and wondering whether Charlezzzz has explained the whole Baby as Cacafuego concept to its mother
When Jack rescues Stephen from the rack, Stephen can scarcely breath, but his first priority is the mission: he wants to interrogate the colonel, he formulates the language of the official report "while trying to escape," and he instructs Maragall where to find the French's papers. Courage and strength, by God.
And POB's use of suggestive detail and allusion is especially effective in describing of Stephen's torture and its effects.
Using the Wenger Method (TM), I read the passage where Sophia is present and a vixen screams in the background with new appreciation.
-Jerry
On page 8 Norton paperback (can you tell I just started?):
'And Captain Aubrey ... the name is familiar.'
'The son of General Aubrey, my lord,' whispered the secretary.
'Yes, yes. The member for Great Clanger, who made such a furious attack on Mr Addington....'
Great Clanger. A google search reveals some interesting items and people but nothing in the way of a place. In a UK slang dictionary, a "great clanger" is a big mistake. Was Jack's father representing a place called Great Clanger, or is this a euphemism for something else?
And speaking of name tie-ins (with Great Clanger - sort of), if you say Belle Poule out loud, it has a rather nice ring to it. (D'ye smoke it?)
Alice
Ouccch- BTW what is a rotten borough?
According to EB, it's a depopulated election district that retained its original representation. The term was applied by English parliamentary reformers to such constituencies that were maintained by the crown or a patron.
Before the Reform Act of 1832, more than 140 out of 658 seats were in rotten boroughs, 50 of which had fewer than 50 voters.
A Google search on "rotten borough" gives quite a few hits.
Kerry
Kerry Webb
Canberra, Australia
http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/
It's not in Gary Brown's "PASC." Which means the gauntlet is thrown - it's time for a new edition, to include the stuff omitted the first time, such as Great Clanger," and references from "Blue at the Mizzen."
=====
To learn about "The Port-Wine Sea," my parody of Patrick O'Brian's wonderful Aubrey-Maturin series, please see
http://www.ericahouse.com/browsebuy/fiction/wenger/index.html
OR
http://www.sea-room.com
... and of course the new First Lord makes a clanger regarding Maturin's status as an agent before the assembled civillians, admirals etc...
Sam
GroupRead: HMS Surprise:
On the first page of Chapter five, we discover Stephen sleeping on deck, encased in a bag.
When awakened:
"What is it?" asked Stephen at last, with a bestial snarl.
"Nigh on four bells, sir."
"Well, what of it? Sunday morning, surely to god, and you would be at
your
holystoning?"
The bag, worn against the moon-pall, stifled his words but not the whining
tone of a man jerked from total relaxation and an erotic dream."
Jean A.
From: "Jean A" , Saturday, November 03, 2001 12:11 PM
"The bag, worn against the moon-pall, stifled his words but not the whining tone of a man jerked from total relaxation and an erotic dream."
Could moon-pall be another word for 'dew'?
Jim
On page 30 (Norton paperback), Jack is on the Lively while Hamond is away, representing his Whig interest in Coldbath Fields. Coldbath Fields is a real place.
On page 32 (ditto), Jack refers to the officers in the Lively's gunroom as "slightly Benthamite."
Straightaway to PASC went I, where there is neither a Benthamite nor a Coldbath of any kind to be found. On to Google:
Benthamite: Utilitarianism
From http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/utilitar.htm:
"Although Utilitarianism is often closely associated with Jeremy Bentham, and, more generally, with English philosophical, political and cultural attitudes (as Nietzsche would later jeer, "only the Englishman seeks happiness"), the roots of this political and ethical doctrine are actually in Italy. [snip]
The Benthamite doctrine, perhaps most famously laid out in Bentham's 1789 treatise and updated by John Stuart Mill's 1850 tract, was explicitly opposed to the rationalist Natural Law, Enlightenment and Romanticist-individualist perspectives that yielded up the "metaphysical" concept of "natural". They opposed the concept of "natural rights" as enshrined in political documents such as the 1776 American Declaration of Independence and the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Instead, the utilitarians argued for a more "empirical" social philosophy and a consequentialist set of ethics. They argued that all human action was reducible to the "calculus of pleasure and pain". As these were the only guides for human action, then the utilitarians effectively proposed a restructuring of laws and the implementation of policy propositions which yielded the "greatest happiness to the greatest number of people". They used the concept of "utility" as the measuring rod of happiness, which they believed was comparable across people -- and consequently summable."[snip of more stuff]
Coldbath Fields (much more interesting):
Turns out there's been a prison there for enough time to encompass the time of Hamond. If I read Utilitarianism correctly, this would be quite a contrast to the prison. What's to be made of that juxtaposition?
From http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LONcoldbath.htm:
"There has been a prison at Coldbath Fields since the 17th century. It got its name because in the early days the prison was surrounded by fields near an important well. Coldbath Fields Prison was rebuilt in 1794 and was enlarged during the 19th century. By the time the building was completed, the jail could house over 1,000 prisoners.
Coldbath Fields Prison was a House of Correction which meant it was a jail run by local magistrates and that most of the prisoners served short term sentences. The prison contained men, women and children until 1850 when it was decided to restrict it to male offenders over 17.
In the 19th century Coldbath Fields Prison, like other jails, adopted the Silent System whereby prisoners were forbidden to communicate with each other. Hard Labour was also introduced. The idea being that prisoners should be forced to carry out unproductive work. The illustration below shows two prisoners working a crank to pump water. Those on the tread-wheel for six hours climbed the equivalent of 8,640 feet. Hard Labour was not officially abolished until 1948. However, for many years prisoners had been given more productive work to do in less severe conditions than those experienced in the 19th century."
A good Jeremy Bentham site is
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/info/jb.htm
Wich includes a photo of the old sod's semi-mummified body which sits in a box for all to see at University College London. He had the highest motives, but has much to answer for. Dickens parodied his teachings via Mr Gradgrind in Hard Times (1854).
Cheers!
Ray@TheBay
55:044.17 North
1:48.90 West
A quick dictionary check under pall suggest several possible interpretations of moonpall: having a gloomy or depressing effect; to lose savor or interest, or (rare) nausea or a qualm. Given the many superstitions related to moonlight or the full moon in particular, I would guess "moonpall" to be a minor depressing, weakening or sickening effect of moolight. It's surprising that the rational and sceptical Stephen should have believed in it, but perhaps this is another example of POB's finding a term he couldn't resist.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
On page 122, we hear of Harrowby who "was a lay preacher, belonging to some west-country sect...." In other books of the canon, sects and sect members are mentioned again. How did these sects relate to the country as a whole and how have they evolved today?
Barney
I'm sure it has been discussed here before, but is there a consensus as to POB's need to separate JA and Cochrane on page 123 of my Norton HB:
SA observes: "but no, Cochrane ashore was too flamboyant to be typical, too full of himself, too conscious of his own value, too much affected by that Scotch love of a grievance; and there was that unfortunate title hanging about his neck, a beloved millstone. There was something of Cochrane in Jack, a restless impatience of authority, a strong persuasion of being in the right;...."
and further on page 159, SA thinking of his letters from Sophie, mentions that Mrs. Williams wants her daughter to end up " not in seaside lodgings the other end of England or in Peru;..."
Barney
Early in the book, there's a reference to a glowing compass. Can anyone enlighten me (Gregg?) on how they achieved this? Was phosphorescent paint used in those days?
thanks
Kerry
Kerry Webb
Canberra, Australia http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/
No phosphorescents.
The binnacle was divided into compartments. the central compartment held the compass; one or both of the compartments to the side held a light source. Candle or oil lamps.
I do believe they had red glass to avoid killing your night vision.
Perhaps it is the small oil lamp or candle inside the binnacle which is illuminating the compass and casting the glow.
Don Seltzer
Thanks for the explanation, but the scene I was referring to was in the Lively's launch, so I envisaged a hand-held compass, which I wouldn't expect to have a candle or oil lamp.
Kerry
Kerry Webb
Canberra, Australia http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/
Bringing up the rear here as usual . . .
Great Clanger: Another one of those whimsical made-up names O'Brian is so good at. (Scrivener; Corporal Dredge of the Marines -- are we supposed to infer that the latter is some sort of bottom-feeder?)
Not knowing the idiomatic sense of the word, I associated "Clanger" with the noun "clangor." Isn't it true that Jack would prefer that his dear father would cease making such an infernal racket in the Commons?
Steve Ross
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
"Wail, wail, wail!" set disk wicket woof, "Evanescent Ladle Rat Rotten Hut!"
In the great tradtion of Anthony Trollope -- e.g., the Duke of Omnium and Gatherum, Mr. Slope, ...
Larry
--
Larry Finch
::finches@bellatlantic.net larry@prolifics.com
::LarryFinch@aol.com (whew!)
N 40° 53' 47"
W 74° 03' 56"
At 10:07 AM -0500 11/5/2001, Barney Simon wrote:
I'm sure it has been discussed here before, but is there a consensus as to POB's need to separate JA and Cochrane on page 123 of my Norton HB: SA observes: "but no, Cochrane ashore was too flamboyant to be typical, too full of himself, too conscious of his own value, too much affected by that Scotch love of a grievance; and there was that unfortunate title hanging about his neck, a beloved millstone. There was something of Cochrane in Jack, a restless impatience of authority, a strong persuasion of being in the right;...."
I think that is so. POB wanted to make clear that Jack Aubrey was his own creation, and was not intended to be just a fictionalized version of Cochrane. The passage preceding the one Barney quoted also gave him the opportunity to comment on the nature of naval officers in general (although it is extremely dubious that Stephen could have known Capt. Riou).
Don Seltzer
On page 151-152, Stephen has made a bet with Mr White, the envoy's chaplain, that he can read by starlight. He is to open to a random page and read what is there written.
SIGNIFICANT COMMENT: Jack Aubrey, who knows such things, glances at the sky and says that there won't be much starlight.
When the sun set, "Stephen opened the book, and holding
it with the page to the bow-wave he read,
'Speed the soft intercourse from soul to soul
And waft a sigh from Indus to the Pole.'
"Mr. White, I exult, I triumph. I claim my bottle;"
Very convenient, that the page he opened to just happened to start with a poem. DID Stephen read by starlight, or did he con the chaplain by opening at random and reciting what he'd pre-memorized, without anyone else being sharp-eyed enough to verify that was what was on the page?
And if it was a con, WHY? He wasn't that hard-up for a bottle of ale, was he? And what is the relevance of that particular poem?
It is amazing how much one can see if one looks carefully. An how little light is needed if one fully dark adapts.
Greg Edwards
who has seen amature astronomers complain at how the Milky Way is wrecking
their night vision and shadows from Jupiter.
Actually, I believe that Stephen was to read by the the light of the phosphorescence of the disturbed plankton in the wake of the Surprise, not by starlight. I don't believe it for a second. Not that Stephen was conning White, but rather this is another case of POB not letting the facts interfer with a good story;) I've been told that reading a modern newspaper is not possible by moonlight and I know starlight is dimmer and I suspect that glowing plankton are dimmer than moonlight. And has anyone been watching the aurora over the Midwest USA the last two nights? Even with a 3/4 moon, the very clean and dry air is clear enough for me to see red and blue/white patches at 41N from the street in front of my house.
Claude, enlisted for drink
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Susan Wenger wrote:
Very convenient, that the page he opened to just happened to start with a poem.
Strictly, we don't know that it _started_ with a poem, but still I like your point. Do we know what volume he was reading from?
DID Stephen read by starlight, or did he con the chaplain by opening at random and reciting what he'd pre-memorized, without anyone else being sharp-eyed enough to verify that was what was on the page?
Having bluffed my way through a language reading profiency exam this way once, I love this thought!
And if it was a con, WHY?
Stephen does love to tease. And didn't he not think so highly of the envoy's entourage? (One of them was particularly obnoxious but I don't remember if it was the chaplain.)
And what is the relevance of that particular poem?
Diana?
Two other small commments for the HMSS groupread:
(1) The mystical mathematician who Stephen befriends seems partly modeled on Ramanujan, who we discussed here recently in connection with taxicabs and the number 1729.
(2) Around page 170 (don't have the book here) Jack and Stephen conclude a heart-to-heart conversation by shaking hands. A footnote in my copy of _Emma_ says (after Emma and Knightley shake hands after an emotionally cathartic conversation of their own) that in those times shaking hands meant something more personal and intimate than it does to us now. I think O'Brian lifted the moment from Austen as a homage.
-Jerry
And the name Waakzaamheid, which means "vigilance", is equally appropriate in view of the Dutch captain's many successes in outguessing and outmanoeuvring JA - though this may be serendipitous: I have no idea whether a real ship of that name foundered in far southern latitudes at the dramatic date of DI.
London Lois
51° 28' 50" N 000° 10' 53" W
Lois Anne du Toit
lois@glomas.com
"Man is the only animal that both laughs and weeps for man alone is struck by the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." (William Hazlitt)
Amazing indeed, the ability of the human eye to adapt to the darkest conditions, though I don't have that ability, stumbling through even modestly starry nights like a mole. Still more amazing, that in my recollection it wasn't the sun that they waited for to set, but Venus, that bright planet that can be seen as a sickle in even the smallest telescope when it is close to the sun (circling the sun within earth's orbit).
Reinhard Gloggengiesser
47? 40' 41" N
11? 10' 15" E
reglogge@planet-interkom.de
IMHO Stephen was not "conning" Mr. White, no one seems to have thought of the type size? One cannot compare reading a newspaper with text set in 8-9 point with a book which could be anything from 12-14 point. What is more, his luck could have been increased by the chance of verse, which is much easier to read than a paragraph of solid type. Try it.
Tony Davison
from KwaZulu-Natal
There are two pages in the Norton paperbag edition that I find to be the most beautiful of the entire canon - period. The beginning of chapter five, pp 98-99 starts out with a description of a noon-day-scene over Bombay with the hot and fiery sun beating down upon the bazaars and then following that very same sun over to the Atlantic ocean where it just rises above the horizon to bathe the wallowing Surprise in sudden sunlight.
The ensuing scene with Stephen being woken up by the captain of the afterguard and ending up holystoning the deck under the shadow of a stark-naked Captain Jack Aubrey ist just wonderful IMHO.
Those two pages make up a whole novel within a novel within a magnificient series - they have it all: Stephens cantakerous character (judaic superstitial ritual cleanliness - archaic fools!), his unseamanlike behaviour (who ever heard of an officer cleaning the decks!), his sometimes erratic scientific methods (protecting his head with a bag against the moon-pall). Also again we find animals *commenting* on human actions (the cock crowing in the nearby coop, the hen crying that she has laid an egg, an egg!). The final appearance of Jack on the deck is just too much to bear - the entire scene is brought to a surprising and at the same time promising end. You could just leave it there and then and be hopelessly addicted to this gifted writer - just with these two pages.
Awed
Reinhard Gloggengiesser
47° 40' 41" N
11° 10' 15" E
reglogge@planet-interkom.de
On this pass through the Canon I better appreciate a Gunroom post from last winter saying that O'Brian really found his rhythm in HMSS, especially in humor.
I was dropping off to sleep as I read last night, but do we learn from Bonden that Jack -- offstage -- has not only ordered some floggings but carried them out himself with zeal? If I read that passage correctly, I'm curious what response it generated from other Lissuns.
-Jerry
IMHO Stephen was not "conning" Mr. White, no one seems to have thought of the type size?
And remember that Stephen excluded footnotes from the test.
Gerry Strey
Madison, Wisconsin
Gerry Strey comments about Maturin 's effort to read once the moon goes down: "And remember that Stephen excluded footnotes from the test."
What Stephen read was a couple of lines from Pope's poem, wch "is" a letter from Heloise to Abelard. "Eloisa to Abelard." You can find the whole poem by Googling. You remember the situation, of course: Abelard had been castrated by thugs sent by Heloise' uncle. Heloise goes into a convent; Abelard becomes a monk. The lovers, no longer capable of sexual love, write from a distance...yet what passion there is in the lines quoted, as Heloise moves from sexual toward spiritual love.
So here's my problem:
It's *almost* true that POB never wastes a quotation. Everything echoes. Nothing stands all by itself, meaning nothing else but its bare words. So why did he pick these particular words for Maturin to read in his dim triumph? Why? Love, OK. Distance, OK. But castration? Convent? Why this particular poem? (POB cd have selected any poem from 18th century literature. Or, for that matter, from any literature from any century, as he does elsewhere.) Was there something particularly Maturinoid about Pope's poem?
Here's a comment by A. Franklin Parks that may have some bearing: "Eloisa's persisting tendency to translate the spiritual experience into erotic terms indicates that the spiritual union she attains in the course of her contemplation, a state surpassing anything she has heretofore achieved, encompasses rather than eliminates sexual response."
Well, go figure. One of the aspects of life which POB does *not* bring into the canon (pace list clergy) is precisely the question of spirituality, though you can find it in the short stories...or, to be more precise, you find life after death and a search for judgment in those stories--maybe not spirituality itself?
'Speed the soft intercourse from soul to
soul And waft a sigh from Indus to the Pole.'
A few points: the lines are by Alexander Pope, and I suppose it was a volume of poetry that Stephen was holding. The lines...
Speed the soft intercourse from soul to soul
And waft a sigh from Indus to the Pole
(1) are not entirely irrelevant to Surprise's voyage, are they? (2) and "soft intercourse" is a phrase--that Pope was a subtle poet--that is not entirely irrelevant to Stephen's wishes, are they? (3) and maybe most important of all, it wasn't the sun that set, nor was it the moon: it was the planet Venus. Venus!
Charlezzzz, praying for a nifty solution that will tie it all together...and lurking in the archives
Jerry Shurman
On this pass through the Canon I better appreciate a
Gunroom post from
last winter saying that O'Brian really found his
rhythm in HMSS,
especially in humor.
That's my opinion as well. The first book was a
little awkward what with the jumping around in place
and time. PC was a little better in that regard.
But in HMSS, we get what I consider to tbe THE best
line I've read anywhere:
[referring to Mrs. Williams}..is the most unromantic
beast to ever urge her thick, squat bulk over the face
of the protesting earth."
=====
See my replicas of ancient nautical navigational instruments:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/saville/backstaffhome.html
In a message dated 11/7/01 10:15:59 AM Central Standard Time,
Charlezzzz@AOL.COM writes:
Abelard had been castrated
by thugs sent by Heloise' uncle.
As a kid I cracked up reading Mark Twain's account of this story in (I think)
THE INNOCENTS ABROAD: Heloise's uncle was a canon of Notre Dame Cathedral,
and Twain keeps referring to him as "the old howitzer."
a wicked contumelious discontented froward mutinous dog,[FSW1]
Mary S
At 11:14 AM -0500 11/7/2001, Charlezzzz@AOL.COM wrote:
What Stephen read was a couple of lines from Pope's poem, wch "is" a letter
from Heloise to Abelard. "Eloisa to Abelard."
So here's my problem:
It's *almost* true that POB never wastes a quotation. Everything echoes.
Nothing stands all by itself, meaning nothing else but its bare words. So why
did he pick these particular words for Maturin to read in his dim triumph?
It is puzzling. Heloise and Abelard are the perfect lovers, with their
love remaining steadfast over distance and even death. What a contrast
with the fickle, faithless Diana. Perhaps that is the point of the
quotation, to hint how shallow their relationship really was, only a pale
imitation of the true love between H & A.
I believe that POB's attitude and intentions regarding Diana changed
throughout the canon, and she underwent three or four distinct phases. In
the first phase of PC and HMSS, she is comparable to Dillon as a major, but
temporary character brought in for the space of a book or two to first test
the friendship of Stephen and Jack, and then to further torment Stephen.
The second phase of Diana did not come for six years and three books later,
when she once again appeared onstage, humbled and rehabilitated.
Don Seltzer
Gregg wrote:
[referring to Mrs. Williams}..is the most unromantic
beast to ever urge her thick, squat bulk over the face
of the protesting earth."
Which reminds me that recently I thought of the ideal casting for Mrs
Williams - but I will not mention the name of the lady, a former prime
minister of this country, in these circumstances.
Martin @ home:
Rubbish. Ted Heath looks nothing like Mrs Williams.
You, sir, are seriously weird.
Kerry
Kerry Webb
In a message dated 11/7/2001 7:10:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, reglogge@PLANET-INTERKOM.DE writes:
There are two pages in the Norton paperbag edition that I find to be the
most beautiful of the entire canon
I have just got back to HMS Surprise(I am trying to complete the canon and am up to "The Commodore" , also catching up missing "Treason's Harbour- )
I immediately went to HMSS and reread that chapter and agree that it is a most complete and descriptive section.
It overcomes my objections to some parts of POB that are jumpy in time and lack transition of space. It describes the vicissitudes of wind on the track of the voyage and indicates how many miles can be made in days and then few made in weeks. It is described much clearer here than in some of the other instances in the novels
John B
In a message dated 11/7/2001 11:15:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, Charlezzzz@AOL.COM writes:
So why
did he pick these particular words for Maturin to read in his dim triumph?
In a later book, when Maturin foregoes his laudanum, he starts to recover his sexual feelings- which he has lacked- - I think he mentions that he wwas aware that his thoughts of love were more ethereal than sexual. perhaps in the present period, he is thinking on that plane?
In a message dated 11/7/2001 11:26:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, gregg_germain@YAHOO.COM writes:
[referring to Mrs. Williams}..is the most unromantic
beast to ever urge her thick, squat bulk over the face
of the protesting earth."
I do love his descriptions of Mrs. williams, tho he becomes more tolerant in later books.
"Well, what of it? Sunday morning, surely to god, and you would be at
your
holystoning?"
The bag, worn against the moon-pall, stifled his words but not the whining
tone of a man jerked from total relaxation and an erotic dream."
We all know of POB's trick of putting some of the description in the words
of the lower deck, eg - da da - 'the grass combing bugger' etc. Could this
be a more subtle example?
Stephan is a notoriously light sleeper - star/moon light may keep him
awake - but the lower deck would attribute the bag to him being subject to
the same superstitions as themselves.
Or perhaps it is POB's irony - SM makes light of JA's supersitions but is
subject to them himself?
Toss a coin!
Samuel
It is quite clear that Stephen read that particular poem because it
happenned to be in the book he had and that was the page that opened at
random. POB merely recorded the incident as it occurred aboard HMS
Surprise that evening. I always thought that Charlezzzz believed that
Homer and POB never nods.
Just returning from a local POB discussion group, where coincidentally we were discussing HMSS, and the question of Dil's death was discussed at some length. Why did O'Brian feel it necessary to kill off this character, when it would have been the simplest thing in the world for the ship to sail away from India and we the readers would not think it strange if she did not appear again as a character?
One gentleman had this intriguing opinion: that O'Brian has a limit to his level of emotional involvement with his characters, that Dil was the most emotionally pure character in the entire canon, that she had become too real and too poignant for O'Brian, and having found himself out of his emotional comfort level he felt the need to abandon her. The gentleman (a psychologist) wondered if there was something in O'Brian's personal life that would correspond to this, and when another in the group explained the story of O'Brian's young daughter, born with spina bifida I believe, whom O'Brian abandoned (along with the rest of the family I guess), we all thought this psychologist bloke had gotten off a pretty good one! What say the lissuns? Is there something subconsciously personal being played out in O'Brian's sacrifice of Dil?
Kathryn Guare
Dil isn't the subject of her own story, but rather an object in
Stephen's story. That is to say that what we are seeing is his reaction
to another person-- perhaps a mirror image of his relationship with
Diana? He gives Dil her life's desire, the silver bangles, and it kills
her. Would getting his life's desire-- Diana-- kill him? We don't find
out this time because Jack saves him from himself by denying Diana
passage on Surprise.
--
I sometimes wish I didn't have that ability. riding home through the
darkened countryside with the most appalling headlights man could devise, my
eyes tend to strain far beyond their illumination. Then some prat comes the
other way with full beam on and dazzles me so that I cannot see properly for
some time.
Incidentally for a couple of nights last week the sky was so clear and the
moonlight so bright, that I could see better with just the side lights than
with head lights. If it wasn't so damned cold I would have been tempted to
sit down at the side of the road and read for a bit, I'm sure it would have
been possible.:-)
Stephen Chambers
I love this entire section of the book - the first half of chapter 7: the dense, lyrical, evocative, non-stop descriptions of India. It is O'Brian at his best, a master at the top of his form. His descriptions of Dil, especially her delight with the bangles, are beautiful; he always describes children with a special affection even though he often kills them soon after.
O'Brian can create an entire scene with a very few words. "She burst into wild laughter, slipped them all on, all off, all on in a different order, patting them, talking to them, giving them each a name." The image is perfect - you know exactly how Dil feels, you see her there and envy her her joy, and share Stephen's happiness, and smile to yourself, too. This is what makes O'Brian so wonderful to read. He can pick out the one simple action or word that reveals up the whole scene to his readers. This is, of course, what this list is all about: sharing those wonderful evocative moments with others - "I can't believe he got so much into one sentence..."
One of my favorite passages is in PC, where Diana meets Stephen and says something like "You do know I'm a woman, Maturin?" "Yes, I assume you must be since you have so little notion of time..." - forgive me for mangling it. But there it is, their entire relationship. They love each other because they can't control each other. They would eventually have only contempt for someone whom they could manipulate. Stephen knows he's smarter than anyone else around and could play them however he chooses - except Diana. She knows she's beautiful and sexy and can make a fool of any man she chooses - except Stephen. And they know that they won't try their games on each other.
In a message dated 11/7/2001 10:04:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, sturley@MICROSOFT.COM writes:
another in the group explained the story of O'Brian's young daughter,
born with spina bifida I believe, whom O'Brian abandoned (along with
the rest of the family I guess)
Is this factual? documented? where, may I ask?
John B
I feel as if I have dropped something along the way. A correct
interpretation of this passage will help me pick it up:
On p. 87 of the Norton paperback edition: Sir Joseph is filling in Mr.
Waring, his replacement as intelligence chief, on Stephen's background:
----------
"He is himself a perfect Quixote: an enthusiastic supporter of the
Revolution until '93; a United Irishman until the rising, Lord Edward's
adviser--his cousin, by the way--"
"Is he a Fitzgerald?"
"The wrong side of the blanket."
----------
Just what does this last phrase signify? Thanks in advance . . .
Steve Ross
bastardy, I believe
Simon
A person born "on the wrong side of the blanket" was illegitimate, a
bastard. So Stephen is biologically related to the Fitzgeralds, but not
officially related.
Ever since we started the Group Read for HMS Surprise, I have been stuck in
a brain cramp that will not go away! The posts are sensibly marked HMSS,
but I persist in reading it as HMS with the subject of the thread as the
name of a ship. Thus I am now imagining a fleet of lovely ships with names
such as : "Jack Naked", "Great Clanger" and "Wrong Side of the Blanket".
Mary A
The episode with Stephen and Dil is one of my
favorites also, especially in the audio version where
Stephen finds Dil has died and the bracelets are gone
from her arm. O'Brian does not tell us how she's
died, but we know the guilt Stephen feels for her
death. And he carries her to the shore to her funeral
pyre. "Prayers, lustration; chanting, lustration."
This is both O'Brian and Tull at their best.
Ray McP
In a message dated 11/8/2001 11:22:33 AM Central Standard Time,
LISTSERV@HMSSURPRISE.ORG writes:
A person born "on the wrong side of the blanket" was illegitimate, a
bastard. So Stephen is biologically related to the Fitzgeralds, but not
officially related.
And thereby a bit of a double bastard, as the "Fitz" prefix signified descent
from a named group without benefit of clergy.
John Donohue
At the time of POB's death certain journalists began their process of 'we've
built him up now let's drag him down', and at the same time Dean Kings
biography came out.
I have not actually read the bio yet, but some excerpts I have seen alluded
to some darker areas of his life that he would rather have had left buried.
At the same time the journalists started there own 'muck raking' and
produced several articles about how he abandoned his first family, with one
of the main reasons being his disabled child. This all occurred just before
WW2 from what I remember. Try a Google search and see what that returns.
Stephen Chambers
That one is easdy- he is illegitimate- True?
Question- Do two wrong sides make a "legitimate right?"
The respected John Donohue wrote:
"And thereby a bit of a double bastard, as the "Fitz" prefix signified
descent from a named group without benefit of clergy."
I think this is true in latter days; for example, illegitimate children of
Charles II, were given surnames beginning with "Fitz".
For example, Fitzroy.
However, I believe that in the beginning - at the time of the Norman
invasions of England, and later, Ireland, Fitz was merely Norman French for
Fils, that is, son of.
Stephen's "relatives", the Fitzgeralds, were very grand indeed.
(Here are some more books to add to your collections.)
The recent biography of Stephen's 'cousin', Lord Edward Fitzgerald, by Stella
Tilyard.
He fought in the British army in the Revolution, was gravely wounded, and
carried off the battlefield ( I forget the name of the battle) by a runaway
slave, who stayed with him for the rest of his life and became his great
friend. Together, they made their way from Indian tribe to tribe and
eventually went down the Mississippi to New Orleans.
Of course, he lost his life in the Rebellion of 1798, disregarding Stephen's
advice.
"The Aristocrats", also by Stella Tilyard. This was also a Masterpiece
Theatre production in the last year or so. Lord Edward Fitzgerald's mother
was the illegitimate grand-daughter of Charles II. Her father was the Duke
of Lennox.
"The Twilight Lords", by Richard Berleth.
The first half of the book deals with the "The Rebel Earl", Maurice
Fitzgerald, in the ghastly Elizabethen Wars of the 16th century.
The Fitzgeralds came to Ireland at the time of the Norman invasion in the
12th century, and like most of the Normans, became " more Irish than the
Irish" in a century or so.
The Fitzgeralds were very close to being "uncrowned kings."
Edward's father was the Duke of Leinster, the premier nobleman of Ireland.
Oddly enough, being the descendent of English kings, he was brought up by his
mother under strictly Rousseauan principles and after he resigned from the
British army, he went to Paris, where he sympathized with the Revolution.
There is also a very good recent biography of the Irish playwright, Richard
Brinsley Sheridan, in which Lord Edward is a principle player.
He fell in love with Sheridan's wife, who had a child by him. Both Sheridan
and Lord Edward adored the child, as they adored her mother, and Sheridan
brought her up as his own ( his wife had died in the meantime) until her
tragic death as a two-year old.
Jean A.
I will use this on my partner who not only acts like Charles II
once in a while, he even looks like him.
Dick
McEachern & FitzRoy LC
We often post our opinions on the best of POB - favorite book, cover,
passage, first chapter, etc. In a new category, I vote for HMSS as the
worst opening scene in the canon.
The description of the meeting of the Admiralty Board is difficult enough
to follow even after several readings. For a first time reader it is an
extremely confusing start, plunked down in the middle of a debate about an
unfamiliar issue. It is one of the rare passages that is from the
viewpoint of a character other than Jack or Stephen, and this person isn't
identified at first. Even when named as Sir Joseph Blain [sic], we don't
really know enough about him to fully understand the nature of the debate.
Uncharacteristically, POB also gets some of the facts wrong.
What a contrast to the wonderful opening scene in the Governor's House in
M&C, aboard the Charwell in PC, or the two domestic scenes in TMC and DI.
Can anyone suggest a worse opening scene?
Don Seltzer
Offhand, I can't think of a "worse" opening, though personally I had no problem in understanding the action and context. It's characteristic of POB that he makes no cencessions to the reader, though as the series extends I think this particular idiosyncracy of transposed and inverted scenes fades away and the narration becomes more straightforward.
How about worst/best closingings? I'd bet that many lissuns would vote for the closing of LOM.
Gerry Strey
I didn't think it was too bad. It became clear right
away that they were thinking of the pile of pounds
that came from the action at the end of PC. And it was
clear what it all meant to Jack.
And there were some nuggests in there that I liked -
like the one where reference to the yellow folder
would be equal to flinging an inkwell at the head of
the dopey recipient.
=====
Can anyone suggest a worse opening scene?
FWIW, though I agree with your assessment of the opening for HMSS, I dislike
the opening of PC just about as much.
I can't wait for the opening of TMC. My second favorite, after TSM.
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
Someone wrote recently that as soon as they started HMSS, they could
tell that O'Brian had moved into "series mode." Could this be because
of the opening, assuming as it does some awareness of the events of the
last novel? I agree that anyone who started out with HMSS would feel
lost for a while. In my case, however, the opening felt fine. Perhaps
the book should come with a disclaimer for non-initiates!
Steve Ross
At 11:33 AM -0600 11/9/2001, Steve Ross wrote:
Someone wrote recently that as soon as they started HMSS, they could
tell that O'Brian had moved into "series mode."
The question has been raised several times of when POB began writing the
novels as a series. I believe that he wrote HMSS with the idea that it was
the last Aubrey-Maturin book that he would undertake. He then went off on
different literary pursuits, including his biography of Picasso.
After a space of several years, he returned to A-M with TMC. Most will
agree that this is the "oddball" book, capable of standing alone, and the
most easily excised from the canon without disrupting the other books.
Most notably, POB skips over several very eventful years of Jack and
Stephen's lives, advancing Jack to the role of a senior captain, and thus
limiting his possibilities for future books.
It is with DI that POB clearly undertakes a plan for a series, creating
plots that are not intended to be brought to completion within the span of
a single book. And by TGS, he has reached what I think John Berg once
called "sausage-making" mode; writing a continuing saga while pinching off
a book every ten chapters/100,000 words.
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 11/9/2001 9:50:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, dseltzer@DRAPER.COM writes:
Can anyone suggest a worse opening scene?
"It was a dark and stormy night....."
Seriously, I agree- and find that lack of introduction and transition often leaves me two paragraphs behind in these books- Also the filling out of characters which I expect to contribute to story and they suddenly die or disappear without warning- I think of that young cavalryman who wore spurs and was always in a catastrophe- What happened to HIM?
I don't find the opening of HMSS too bad at all. To my mind it reads like
an almost seamless continuation of PC. The openings I don't like are the
ones (later books, mainly) where POB goes through the ritual motions of
introducing the central characters to us yet again. OK, he finds new ways
of doing so each time, but I find myself thinking "yeah, yeah, let's get on
with it, we know all this". It is frustrating to have to go through the
introductions yet again, just in case a first-time reader has blundered into
the series in the middle instead of starting at the beginning like a
Christian ;-)
Elaine Jones
In a message dated 11/9/2001 12:29:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
skross@LSU.EDU writes:
Perhaps
the book should come with a disclaimer for non-initiates!
I think each book should stand on its own with prior references coming in as
the tale progresses. Not always does a person start with volume 1 and go
right through
John B
From: Don Seltzer
The description of the meeting of the Admiralty Board is difficult enough
to follow even after several readings. For a first time reader it is an
extremely confusing start, plunked down in the middle of a debate about an
unfamiliar issue.
I totally agree, Don, because this is exactly what happened to me. I *was*
that first-time reader. The first book in the canon I read was an old copy
of M&C, which I thought was "OK" (I know, shame on me). I didn't know at the
time that there was a whole series, but a couple of years later I saw HMSS
in our public library and thought "hello, here's another book by that
O'Brian bloke". I borrowed it and started to read, couldn't make head nor
tail of what was going on, found the humour in the scene rather heavy-handed
and gave up.
Some time later, for some reason I started again, re-reading M&C then
following on with the rest of the books in the correct order. Therefore,
when I came to HMSS I knew what was happening, stayed with it, and
ultimately found it perhaps the most rewarding book of them all.
Clive
J Scates
Shall I throw out the question: what about similarities
between Dil and
Diana?
Buried at the end of an interesting post is an
interesting question:
Was Diana in India at the same age as Dil? (maybe 11-12
years old?) The spirit is the same - was Dil the younger
Diana?
I finally got a chance to get into HMSS and have so far have the following
comments-
favorite expression- "You have debauched my sloth !!- Stephen- I can picture
the censure on that discovery.
Great dramatic description- - the storm in the high latitudes- I could feel
the cold, damp and fear.
Gotta love the word sanglewich, courtesy of Killick.
The boy who is almost pulled overboard when Surprise is going so fast that
the line runs out before 28 seconds is named Bent Larsen. Wasn't that the
name of a prominent Danish chess master from around the time HMSS was
written (1973)? What to make of this?
Canning held my interest a lot more this time through. What a fine rival
for Jack and Stephen -- a mix of positive and negative traits by the inner
standards of the book, perhaps a different mix by the standards of the
reader...
-Jerry
I came across this passage on page 215. It seems to relate to many of our
recent threads about Dil, Diana, and POB's private life, and something I
heard in Newport.
"I get so sick of lies: I have been surrounded with them and with deception
in one form or another for so long. Disguise and subterfuge - a dangerous
trade - the taint must come through at last. There are some, and Diana is
one I believe, who have a separate truth of their own: ordinary people,
Sophie and myself for example, are nothing without the ordinary truth,
nothing at all. They die without it; without innocence and candour.
Indeed the very great majority kill themselves long long before their time.
Live as children; grow pale as adolescents; show a flash of life in love;
die in their twenties and join the poor things that creep angry and
restless about the earth. Dil is alive..."
Last week at Newport, Dean King related a story about why POB chose to have
Dil die. Apparently, it was some type of retribution for Stephen's
"betrayal" of Jack, pushing him towards marriage with Sophie not because of
friendship, but because he wanted Diana for himself. Supposedly POB told a
reporter (Mark Horowitz?) that "the point of the death of Dil is that
[Maturin] had done a wholly dishonourable thing that has its image in the
death of that child. You do something profoundly dishonourable and you've
killed something, you've killed a part of your honour."
I'm rather stunned by that reasoning, if POB was accurately quoted and he
sincerely believed what he was saying. In previous readings, I did not
pick up on any dishonorable betrayal by Stephen. Perhaps he was not
totally honest with Jack in his competition for Diana, but neither was
Jack. Where is Jack's retribution? And why must innocent Dil suffer? Did
POB really think this way?
Don Seltzer
In a message dated 11-10-01 7:52:58 AM, jscates@TEXAS.NET writes:
Shall I throw out the question: what about similarities between Dil and
Diana?
I'd be interested in your comments on this. I don't really see similarities.
.
I'd be interested in other's opinions of WHY POB includes Dil. What is her
function in the overall story?
Rowen
Question- Do two wrong sides make a "legitimate right?"
Two wrongs may not make a right. But three rights make a left.
-Vanessa, profound today
I don't know why POB includes Dil. But I think that
Dil is a reflection of Stephen, not of Diana.
Ray McP
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:58:01 -0500, Don S. gives and account of POB
remarking to a reporter and concluding:
" You do something profoundly dishonourable and you've
killed something, you've killed a part of your honour."
and asked:
Where is Jack's retribution? And why must innocent Dil suffer? Did
POB really think this way?
Wow. This *is* startling. In three readings of the canon and numerous
list messages this would never have occurred to me. I'd wonder if POB
thought this up after the fact if he weren't so methodical.
Was he still feeling his own early dishonor? The source, perhaps, of
the theme of many of his short stories?
A formalized sense of honor might become very important to someone
who had once behaved badly. POB seemed very formal.
Very disturbing.
Marshall Rafferty
________
One disadvantage of this rollicking ongoing group is that it is easy to
lose track of a thread. I like to read through to the end of the stack
before replying to anything, since you never know when someone else will
get the jump on you! But when the conversation spreads and tatters and
gets all frizzy, in that wonderful way we have, it can be hard to go
back and find the post you want to reply to. Hence I initiate a new
topic to join the existing exchange about O'Brian's claim that Dil's
death was a form of retribution inflicted on Stephen for what he had
done regarding Jack and Diana.
As we all know by now, POB was skilled at misdirection and at creating a
false image of himself and his work (I am still wondering whether there
was any truth to his claim that he had experience on a sailing vessel of
some kind; if not, that makes his artistry that much greater!). So we
will never know the truth about what *originally* motivated him to write
this episode in the way he did, despite his supposed "explanation" to an
interviewer. But the fact that he could describe it that way shows that
he could and did think about his characters in such terms, and I think
that is the important thing. If you feel, as I do, that the author
identified most strongly with Maturin, then the destruction of that
beautifully drawn character is a painful experience O'Brian inflicted on
himself, either because of what he had allowed Stephen to do to Jack, or
because of what he had himself done in real life. Perhaps both.
Someone (Ray McPh?) said these speculations are "disturbing" . . . I
agree. They are also enlightening.
Steve Ross
I remember Don's original post with O'Brian's comments on the retribution
idea, and I somehow jumped to the idea that Dil's death was Stephen's price
for having killed Canning (it had been a while since I had read HMSS). But,
of course, the duel occurs considerably later. So now I'm not at all clear
on the issue--what is that that Stephen "had done regarding Jack and Diana"
that required retribution? He and Jack were in competition for Diana, but
I'm not clear on what he did that was "profoundly dishonourable." Somebody
want to help me out?
Bob Fleisher
Houston, TX
He and Jack were in competition for Diana, but I'm not
clear on what he did that was "profoundly dishonourable."
He manipulates Jack into staying away from Diana by pointing out his seeing
Diana would greatly distress Sophie. This when they are discussing a letter
that Jack has just received from Sophie, in which she releases him from
their bond.
Greg
42º32'34.5" N
On Tuesday 13 November 2001 12:39, Greg White wrote:
He manipulates Jack into staying away from Diana by pointing out his seeing
Diana would greatly distress Sophie.
But this is perfectly good advice. In the end Jack was much better off with
Sophie, and Diana might have broken him completely. I imagine an impartial
friend, withoud any interest in Diana would still give the same advice - stay
away from that woman, keep to Sophie. Stephen did have interest in Diana, but
still this advice was nothing "dishonourable".
The passage about Dil is one of the saddest parts of the Canon. My
interpretation has always been that it's a metaphor for the relationships of
Europeans with other cultures. We arrive, are welcome in good faith, also in
good faith try to make other people happy our way, and the consequences are
disatreous. Just like Stephen's gift caused Dil's death.
Pawel
--
I think it is simplification to say"try to make people HAPPY our way" We,
both european and american ,try to make people behave our way-- maybe we
think they are happy but I doubt if most of them feel that way- The British
empire is a good example- We hear of the 'great things' they did for the
colonies- but not many are really grateful for their supervision- .The basic
ideas are good and laid basis for godd, but the 'happy part' was more on the
rulers' side than on the colonists.
Hawaii, Africa are other examples-Did the Boers care for the happiness of the
natives?
In latter days, colonialism is less blatant but still there. Panama Canal
zone, Oil interests in mid East.,etc
John B
That's what I meant. Still Stephen acted in perfectly good faith and couldn't
possibly have predicted the outcome (although somebody more familiar with the
facts of life there probably could).
Pawel
He might have been mislead by her valor and ability to defend herself. he
mentions early in the scene that other children had bangles and were Ok-
perhaps his were too extravagant .
John B
At 11/13/2001 10:02 AM -0800, Pawel Golik wrote:
But this is perfectly good advice. In the end Jack was much better off with
Sophie, and Diana might have broken him completely. I imagine an impartial
friend, withoud any interest in Diana would still give the same advice - stay
away from that woman, keep to Sophie. Stephen did have interest in Diana, but
still this advice was nothing "dishonourable".
I think Pawel is correct here. In fact, doesn't Stephen himself grapple
with whether his advice is honest or out of his ulterior motive? (I
haven't kept up with the group read.) Nevertheless, he can't help believe
that his actions were dishonorable.
The passage about Dil is one of the saddest parts of the Canon. My
interpretation has always been that it's a metaphor for the relationships of
Europeans with other cultures. We arrive, are welcome in good faith, also in
good faith try to make other people happy our way, and the consequences are
disatreous. Just like Stephen's gift caused Dil's death.
I like this interpretation a lot. Indeed, this little bit of HMSS could be
excerpted as a parable on Westerners' dealing with other cultures.
Mike
40° 05' 27" N 088° 16' 57" W
I believe POB was describing the way there was no good
solution to the "Dil" situation - Stephen could buy her
for fourteen pence and keep her as a pet? Bring her to
Mrs Broads for a life as a serving girl? Leave her where
she was, and soon her grandmother would sell her and her
maidenhead for fourteen cents? Dil's situation was
hopeless, she had no future. Go live with Diana as a
servant?
POB had other plans for Diana. POB may have
thought Dil would be better off suddenly dead than living
in misery, her free spirit broken. He described similar
thoughts towards Diana - despair over any relationship
that would break her spirit. Diana accepted OF HER OWN
VOLITION various alternatives to living with Mrs Williams
and the Teapot: Dil was too young to make a choice, so
POB chose for her - death. Diana "died" in Stephen's
eyes when she consciously moved with the goal of pleasing
Canning. Dil was a revisiting of the same theme. IMHO.
- Susan
So what do we make of the subsequent treatment of Sarah and Emily Sweeting?
Remorse on the part of POB/Stephen perhaps?
Kerry
That was POB's description of yet another possibe answer.
Diana accepted the "patronage" of Canning and Johnstone
to escape her unhappy circumstances. Dil died. Emily
and Sarah were delivered to Mrs Broad's to be serving
girls. Who was best off? POB didn't say - he just
showed various situations that females without means,
without support, without marriage, without fathers, could
encounter. He had an idea he wanted to explore, and he
explored different possibilities every time he revisited
the problem. Maybe.
I think Greg has the right of it, that the retribution is for Stephen's actions in
keeping Jack away from Diane, even if it's good advice, even if it is probably
unnecessary advice:
"Jack had nearly wrecked his career because of her [Diana], and his chance of
marrying Sophia. In retrospect he resented it bitterly, just as he resented her
unfaithfulness, although she owed him no fidelity. He hated her, in a way; he
thought her dangerous, if not evil; and he dreaded an encounter - dreaded it for
Stephen more than for himself." (Norton, p. 198).
But Stephen's self-acknowledged dishonor is right there; I just missed the
significance the several times I read it. That's why it pays to reread these
books. Thanks, Greg:
"'Stephen: I say, Stephen,...Here's Sophie writing me the damnedest
rigmarole...the drift of it is, that if I choose to feel myself free, nothing
would make her happier. Free to do what, in God's name?...What the devil can she
mean by it? Can you make head or tail of it?'
"'It may be that someone has fabricated - it may be that someone has told her that
you have come to India to see Diana Villiers,' said Stephen, hiding his face with
shame as he spoke. This was a direct attempt at keeping them apart, for his own
purposes - partly for his own purposes. It was wholly uncandid, of course, and he
had never been uncandid with Jack before. It filled him with anger; but still he
went on, 'or that you may see her here.'" (Norton, p. 205)
And to address your question about Stephen grappling with the honesty of his
advice, the sequence ends with:
"It was Stephen who took pen and ink and sat down to his diary...'But now [Jack]
is at a stand. With that odious freedom I prattled on: in doing so I overcame my
shame; but it was bitter cruel and sharp while it lasted. In the instant between
his asking, could I make head or tail of it? and my reply, the Devil said to me,
"If Aubrey is really vexed with Miss Williams, he will turn to Diana Villiers
again. You already have your work cut out with Mr. Canning." I fell at once.
Yet already I have almost persuaded myself that my subsequent words were the same
as those an honest man would have used: myself, if this attachment had not
existed.'" (Norton, p. 208)
I would argue that O'Brian's position would be that, whether the advice was good
or not, the motive was dishonorable, despite Stephen's self-justification. But
Dil's death seems awfully Old-Testament, even if she was put into the book for
that purpose alone.
Bob Fleisher
Pawel wrote: "The passage about Dil is one of the saddest parts of the Canon.
My
interpretation has always been that it's a metaphor for the relationships of
Europeans with other cultures. We arrive, are welcome in good faith, also in
good faith try to make other people happy our way, and the consequences are
disastrous. Just like Stephen's gift caused Dil's death."
To which I cry "Bravo!" And stamp my feet. And cheer.
And, as to POB's comments (which he may have indeed made) to the reporter, he
was following the rule of never speaking quite truly to a long-eared undeedy
journalist gowk. The gowk will misquote you anyway. [Journalist Members of
the Gunroom are excluded from this comment.][Most of them, anyhow.][Or maybe
just one or two.]
Charlezzzz, which does not, of course, preclude some of POB's own
deepest feelings from *also* driving his art in the direction it took. (I
love to remember that Freud himself pointed out the value--and the need--to
"overanalyze.") Who will claim that POB was simpler and easier-to-see-through
than any of us?
Uh, but book 19 was The Hundred Days, not the Yellow Admiral...
Interesting discussion of Dil's significance. The explanation of her as the
symbol of Stephen's lost innocence (Dil=Stephen's innocence, Stephen's
gift=Dil's death, Stephen unwittingly kills his own innocence) is logical,
but somehow I don't really see her in that way. And somehow I don't feel as
if Stephen has lost his innocence. If he really had, he'd feel no remorse
over his actions with Jack. I think that Pawel and Susan have given better
interpretations of this situation.
To me, it seems that POB is presenting the question of whether it's worth
getting our heart's desire if that attainment destroys us. Is it better to
have had the moment of joy and lost everything as a result, or to have never
experienced the joy? This comes up again and again in his work.
Perhaps Dil has no symbolic significance at all...but I certainly cried my
eyes out over this passage.
I do think there's a difference in the situation of Sarah and Emily, in that
they are originally presented with less obvious personalities than Dil. And
despite the fact that they end up as servants, they don't seem overtly
unhappy.
Also, despite SMALL SPOILER
.
the fact that she does indeed marry Stephen, Diana never really strikes me
as "tamed". We are constantly presented with the possibility of her
infidelity and/or separation from Stephen. And it's her wildness in driving
that ultimately destroys her. -RD
Yes! Rosemary, that's exactly right.
She is never tamed for more than a moment. If she were to be
Sophie-like, she would be boring. For the sake of the narrative, she
must always be a blithe spirit, liable to run away with a passing
adventurer. That Stephen succeeds, even for a moment here and there, is
one of the triumphs of the Aubreyad, one of the roars of the canon.
I think that the episode of Dil, when Stephen causes
her death with a gift of her heart's desire is a
foreshadowing of Diana's death. When Stephen marries
Diana he provides her the money and independence which
ultimately leads to her death.
Vat denk je?
Ray McP
I've been kicking this retribution thing around in my head today (an
odd thing for me to do at work), and am still undecided. I'm also not
sure why I found POB's explanation (as related by an interviewer):
""the point of the death of Dil is that [Maturin] had done a wholly
dishonourable thing that has its image in the death of that child.
You do something profoundly dishonourable and you've
killed something, you've killed a part of your honour."
almost twisted, when Rowen's statement:
"Dil is innocent, pure, clear sighted, giver of unconditional love to
Stephen; Diana is worldly, tainted, constantly involved in muddled
thinking, and has no capability to love without payment of some kind.
Stephen's touch kills Dil; Diana's touch 'kills' Stephen."
seems to me quite straightforward.
Stephen's act of "dishonour" in misleading Jack seems kind of small
potatoes to me, though Stephen is harder on himself. There are reasons
he needs his drugs
Still, I can think of a number of reasons why Dil might die.
Maybe she was that innocent, happy, youthful Stephen whom POB
occasionally mentions. A youth whom Stephen, and probably
others, killed years before.
Maybe POB felt an "insert tragedy here" mood coming on, and developed
the need-to-pay rationale afterwards. He certainly felt, as someone
just noted, a need to hurt Stephen, and possibly himself.
I also wonder why Dil so quickly lost her street smarts.
Marshall Rafferty
________
Rosemary Davis
Interesting discussion of Dil's significance. The
explanation of her as the
symbol of Stephen's lost innocence (Dil=Stephen's
innocence, Stephen's
gift=Dil's death, Stephen unwittingly kills his own
innocence) is logical,
but somehow I don't really see her in that way. And
somehow I don't feel as
if Stephen has lost his innocence.
I agree with you because Stephen had to have lost his
innocence LONG before these events. Consider his life
as a spy; his involvement with the '98 rising. Those
are innocence-killers.
=====
Peter Mackay
She is never tamed for more than a moment. If she
were to be
Sophie-like, she would be boring. For the sake of
the narrative, she
must always be a blithe spirit, liable to run away
with a passing
adventurer.
Hmm is it possible that there is some POB in the
character Diana, when we think of his leaving his
first family?
=====
Ray McPherson
Nah. Diana was Diana and she took over the reins at
all times, whether she had money (or was under the
protection of someone who did) or not.
I cannot recall for sure at the moment, but did
major figures (Diana plus one other who I shall not
name for spoiler's sake) died AFTER POB's wife died?
Could be as simple as a melancholy settling over POB.
=====
Marshall Rafferty
Maybe POB felt an "insert tragedy here" mood coming
on, and developed
the need-to-pay rationale afterwards. He certainly
felt, as someone
just noted, a need to hurt Stephen, and possibly
himself.
You know it coudl be as simple as that: The story
was coming to and end. Stephen was leaving India,
presumably. So what was POB going to do with Dil?
Lots of options. Maybe he simply chose the most
heart-rendering?
I also wonder why Dil so quickly lost her street
smarts.
I've often wondered that myself. She would have
known the dangers even before she got the bangles.
=====
At 5:34 AM -0800 11/14/2001, Gregg Germain wrote:
Hmm is it possible that there is some POB in the
character Diana, when we think of his leaving his
first family?
[Spoilers]
Or possibly POB was indulging in a personal fantasy related to events in
his earlier life. In this fantasy, it is the mother who cannot cope and
abandons the infant daughter with a birth defect (WDS). The love and care
of the father then cures the child (COM). To complete the story, the
mother must return just long enough to see what a fine job the father has
done, and to become the dutiful wife (TYA). But it is too late; he has
already found a potential replacement, and the bad wife's days are numbered
(THD). Of course the father needn't worry about actually raising the child.
That's what the servants are for.
Don Seltzer
Bob wrote:
I would argue that O'Brian's position would be that, whether the
advice was good or not, the motive was dishonorable, despite Stephen's
self-justification. But Dil's death seems awfully Old-Testament, even if
she was put
into the book for that purpose alone.
Marshall replied:
...Stephen's act of "dishonour" in misleading Jack seems kind of small
potatoes to me, though Stephen is harder on himself. There are reasons
he needs his drugs
I think the only way this is really understandable is if we try to step out
of our 20th/21st century mindset, a time in which we've arrived at a kind of
vague morality no longer grounded in "natural law," with the ultimate focus
being on the individual and his/her rights, with far less thought for
well-ordered *society* than Jack and Stephen had. That philosophical/moral
underpinning which is normal to us (though some of us would argue its
validity -- and effectiveness) was foreign to the 18th/early 19th century.
Consequently, I think it's extremely difficult for us to comprehend in any
gut way the concept of honour in that time (and earlier, of course).
We know things ultimately turned out with Jack and Sophie. But Stephen could
just as well have helped destroy Jack's -- and Sophie's -- life with his
dishonorable act. More, he was blatantly lying to his dearest friend to
further his own ends, i.e., he was making his own word worthless, and making
himself untrustworthy (whether Jack knew that or not is a moot point). That,
I submit, is far more than "small potatoes" -- even in our time, I hope; but
it's repercussions would have been far greater then in a time when one's
word was -- had to be -- as good and as reliable as any written contract.
Marian
Finally finished rereading HMSS last night...here are a few of my favorite
bits not already referenced in the groupread.
Pages refer to the Norton hardcover.
P. 164, Stephen is teaching Bonden to write, and quotes a poem, "From thence
our rolling neighbours we shall know/And on the lunar world securely pry By
God I believe I see the albatross."
"...believe I see the albatross," said Bonden's lips silently. "It don't
rhyme. Another line, sir, maybe?"
P. 186, "...sailing through a milky sea towards a possible though unlikely
ecstasy at an indefinite remove was, if not the fulness of life, then
something like its shadow."
And someone already pointed out the obvious: it's natural, ain't it, when
one is composing fiction, to work out one's fantasies by having one's
characters enact them.
Regarding Dil losing her street smarts: could this be a metaphor for the
foolishness to which one is prone (even while knowing better) when one has
fallen hopelessly in love? Been there, done that. -RD
I know it's not done any more, but there is something to be said for
what European culture did for other peoples, e.g. in those societies
that were used to enslave their neighbors, and/or eat them, Christianity
was an alternative way of looking at the world, and some of them
actually were grateful for the opportunity to do away with the old ways.
Isabelle Hayes
Quite right. Not everything the colonialists did - or
tried to do - was bad; and the myth of the "noble
savage" has been debunked.
=====
Responding to Rosemary's post, a paragraph I especially enjoyed is the one
where O'Brian describes Stephen helplessly starting to laugh in response
to one of Jack's silly moments. Unlike the passages from Stephen's diary,
were he's so analytical and cynical and hard on himself and on the world
around him, here we directly see him responding to human warmth despite
everything. A touching little moment.
-Jerry
[Spoilers]
Or make the child so engaging and charming, that even a baby-killer would
be happy to nurture and raise her.
Lois
Bob wrote:
I would argue that O'Brian's position would be
that, whether the advice was good
or not, the motive was dishonorable,
I beg your pardon, but I somehow missed the beginning
of this tread. What is the dishonorable thing that
Stephen did?
Ray McP
Hmm is it possible that there is some POB in the
character Diana, when we think of his leaving his
first family?
I don't think there's any question. At one point she leaves behind her
own daughter, a daughter in need of love and care to overcome her
affliction.
The difference is that Diana always comes back.
I don't think I need to mention the curious role of children in the
Aubreyad - so often they are not just children, but objects of guilt.
Even Jack's brood - in TMC Stephen suspects that Jack throws the girls
in the air, and Jack feels bad about it.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:42:02 -0500, Marian wrote:
But Stephen could
just as well have helped destroy Jack's -- and Sophie's -- life with his
dishonorable act. More, he was blatantly lying to his dearest friend to
further his own ends, i.e., he was making his own word worthless, and making
himself untrustworthy (whether Jack knew that or not is a moot point). That,
I submit, is far more than "small potatoes" -- even in our time,
Very well, I withdraw the potatoes, but I think that Bob's description
of killing Dil in retribution for Stephen's falsehood is indeed "Old
Testament." Kind of like those kids who were eaten by bears for
making fun of old what's'isname.
I'm afraid that I don't share Marian's view of the decline in morality
from Stephen's time to ours. I think people have been making this
claim throughout recorded history. Frankly, I've never read anything
in history, literature (including the canon) or Scripture which leads
me to believe that people used to be better in their personal morality
than they are today. Our views of societal roles, certainly they have
changed, but I hear Cicero crying "Oh, the Times! Oh, the Morals!"
I also am not sure that honor precisely equals morality, even in
Stephen's time. I'm trying to remember whether or not Stephen ever
frantically sought out a priest for confession the way he sought those
coca leaves. Did he ever mention confession of his sins? One would
think he'd have dwelt on it from time to time.
I think that part of what I found "disturbing" about POB's supposed
sense of honor was its stilted, formal sound. (Of course, the source
is questionable, and he *did* have a mischievous way of answering
questions.
If I'd only read the canon, I'd have thought that POB cared
about honor, but not sin. If I'd only read his short stories, I'd
have thought that POB was obsessed with sin.
Marshall, more questions than answers, as usual
________
In a message dated 11/14/2001 12:04:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bhayes@CATSKILL.NET writes:
some of them
actually were grateful for the opportunity to do away with the old ways.
The same argument could be made to make the Bolsheviks, the good guys!
Arthur Ransome, better known nowadays as a children's author, was
present in Russia for most of WW1, first researching Russian folk tales
and then as a journalist and war correespondent. He was a witness of the
demise of the Tsarist regime and the first and second 1917 Revolutions.
He was not a Communist, though he was on the Liberal side of early 20th
century British politics, (so was that crusty old Conservative, Winston
Churchill).
His opinion was that the tsarist regime was a total disaster for the
Russian people and that the Kerensky government wasn't much of an
improvement. However he was captivated by the Bolshevik leaders who he
knew quite well, he played chess with Lenin and eventually married
Trotsky's secretary. His opinion was that the Bolsheviks, particularly
in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution and war, were a great
improvement over the previous regimes.
He gave up publicising his political beliefs after his return to England
in the early 1920s, so his views of subsequent Stalinist developments is
unknown.
I'm afraid that I don't share Marian's view of the decline in morality
from Stephen's time to ours. I think people have been making this
claim throughout recorded history. Frankly, I've never read anything
in history, literature (including the canon) or Scripture which leads
me to believe that people used to be better in their personal morality
than they are today. Our views of societal roles, certainly they have
changed, but I hear Cicero crying "Oh, the Times! Oh, the Morals!"
I didn't mean quite what Marshall inferred from what I said (but I
understand why he inferred it!). I think he's right in terms of the
individual, personal morality of some probably being not all that much worse
than it's been throughout history (how's that for a qualified statement?).
What I really meant was that we are now, for the first time in human history
that I know of, living in a time in which -- at least according to
philosophers and sociologists and ethicists -- there is no longer any
commonly acepted *objective standard*, outside our individual selves, by
which to judge whether something is moral. Oh, the vestiges of that
[Judeo-Christian] standard are still here, and many, many people still
adhere to it, but in terms of the underlying philosophical underpinnings of
society, that centuries-long foundation is crumbling -- to be replaced with
... what?
Most people, I would guess, haven't yet thought through the most unsetttling
implications of where that's going to lead and, e.g, how it will change (and
already has) human dignity.
Marian
I can't quite follow that Dil had to die to punish
Stephen for deceiving Jack. I think that the whole
episode (which is, by the way, one of my favorites in
the canon-and I like the bear suit too!) is a way to
show that Stephen has the ability to immerse himself
in a way of living that would be very different from
the European mold. The only times he is stressed or
conscious of how he should behave are when the
Europeans erupt onto the scene. Had Diana not come
into Bombay, he might never have returned to the ship.
Nonetheless, when Dil (a symbol of the culture,
someone to whom he might have felt an ongoing
obligation) is killed, he recognizes that he may not
stay; he is foreign to the culture and his actions, no
matter how well intentioned, will not result in what
he desires. His grief beside the funeral pyre is at
least partly a recognition that he has to leave the
hope of oblivion and return to the world of rules and
obligations and espionage.
Sue Reynolds
Marshall Rafferty
Very well, I withdraw the potatoes,
I generally don't complain about spelling errors on the
list, making my fair share I'm sure: but the proper canon
spelling is:
potoooooooo
Also recently quoted by another lissun:
"At times, whatever he might say, he was surely lost in a cloud of
unknowing; but at least it was a peaceful cloud at present and sailing
through a milky sea towards a possible though unlikely ecstasy at an
indefinite remove was, if not the fulness of life, then something like
its shadow."
Can there be any better description of the feeling of pleasurable
wonderment/anticipation one feels when in love, yet separated from the
object of one's love, by distance and/or by ignorance as to his or her
attitude towards oneself?
I have been thinking about these things as I play catch-up, a few weeks
behind the avante-garde (or so it would seem) in the Group Read. A few
pages after the quoted passage, Stephen the naturalist is enjoying
himself in the chains, reveling in the warm spray of the southern ocean
while still pondering Diana and reciting to himself a psalm about being
blessed and cleaned "whiter than snow" by ritual cleansing ("Asperges
me, Domine . . ."). This, for me, rounds out the feeling of this
episode as a kind of blessed period of "suspended animation" in which
Stephen would be happy to remain forever, were it not inevitable that he
would be brought up suddenly face to face with reality and possibly
Diana's rejection (I don't want to be crudely symbolist here, but there
has got to be some significance to the fact that the "Asperges me" scene
ends suddenly with Stephen capturing a sea snake and the simultaneous
cry of Land Ho!).
I don't know why I feel the need to go over that, since POB described it
all better than I could ever hope to . . . but it forms a background to
the questions I am still framing in my mind:
Given all that we have been observing about the Jack-Diana-Stephen
triangle and Stephen's "betrayal" of Jack by manipulating him away from
Diana, what, if any, is the import of Stephen's relationship with
*Sophie*? Stephen and Jack spar verbally, with some embarrassment and
misunderstanding (Stephen's feeling of shame playing counterpoint),
immediately after each of them has read a letter or letters from
Sophie[*see added question below!]. We know, or think we know, what
Sophie means to Jack, but what does she mean to Stephen? Maybe this: she
is the "ideal" friend of the opposite gender, and she and Stephen can be
completely open with each other. This is the type of relationship that,
at one point, seemed possible for Stephen and Diana; but that was
derailed by Romance rearing its ugly head (to Diana's regret). In any
case, it is their friendship (S. and S.) that makes it possible for
Stephen to give Jack good (though not disinterested) advice about his
relationship with Sophie, right? Because he knows Sophie's position and
her mind, much better than Jack.
Sorry if I am boring you-all with all this. What I am wondering is
whether it is not possible that it is his friendship with *Sophie* that
makes it possible for Stephen to have any happiness, or at least the
anticipation of happiness, as he seems to have during the trip across
the sea to India. Despite all his disappointments, he at least has that
one genuine relationship to fall back on. And, it seems, that may be
exactly what is meant at the very end of _Post Captain_, where it is
*Stephen*, not Jack, who says to himself, "Sophie . . . God bless her."
Thinking he may be trying to be too smart here . . .
Steve Ross
Just got a break from chores and read some more of HMS Surprise.
1- Am I right in thinking "Autre pays,autre merde"(206) might be a French
mixaphor?
2 I was struck by the scene in which Jack is tring to explain his reluctance
to writing Sophie Several times jack apologizes for possible 'insulting'
Stephen and Stephen takes great offense at the remark- "It would be scarcely
honourable to pay it off..." I see no reflection,in this statement, on
Stephen, but he rejoins "Do you pretend to teach me the difference between
honourable and dishonourable conduct?"
Then Stephen turns around and graphically and brutally describers Jack as
'obese, 'scarred', 'old','earless','no Adonis', no 'flashing wit'-
Such an attacck should have desereved Stephen a very fat lip- but all jack
does is gaze with a heavy , troubled, contenance and walk away- he even
THANKS Stephen.
In his subsequent penning, Stephen does explain his reason-The Debbil made
me do it.
Blatherin' John B
John B wrote:
Just got a break from chores and read some more of HMS Surprise.
1- Am I right in thinking "Autre pays,autre merde"(206) might be a French
mixaphor?
John, you and I are at almost exactly the same point in our reading!
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're right about the saying. What Jack meant to
say was "autre pays, autre moeurs": "Another country, different habits"
(kind of "when in Rome do as the Romans do"--but not exactly). What he
ends up saying is "Another country, different s**t"!
As for the subsequent exchange, I kind of thought that Stephen's very
prickly reply (to what Jack certainly didn't mean as a disparaging
remark about his honor) sprang out of his irritation/anger at himself
for half-consciously steering Jack away from Diana (as we were
discussing at the beginning of the Death and Retribution thread!). When
he then says, or writes, "the Devil made me do it" it seemed that he was
remonstrating with himself over that "dishonourable" act. No?
I like how you draw the connection between that exchange and Stephen's
graphic series of insults flung in Jack's face!
--------------------
Steve Ross
At 1:04 PM -0600 11/16/1, Steve Ross wrote:
Diana's rejection (I don't want to be crudely symbolist here, but there
has got to be some significance to the fact that the "Asperges me" scene
ends suddenly with Stephen capturing a sea snake and the simultaneous
cry of Land Ho!).
There is no symbolism whatsover in Stephen's determined pursuit of the sea
serpent, despite the warnings of the crew that it was poisonous. Nor is
there any symbolism to be attached to the scorpion on the stairs, or the
two tigers named Right and Wrong guarding the house, or the snake that
spooks Johnstone's horse when he comes courting Diana.
Don Seltzer
Don Seltzer saith: "There is no symbolism whatsover in Stephen's determined
pursuit of the sea
serpent, despite the warnings of the crew that it was poisonous."
Is Don hinting that Diana was a sea serpent? Not poss! That sea serpent, once
caught, managed to kill itself.
Charlezzzz, remembering the story of Lamia, who appears (in Keats' poem)
as a serpent in the guise of a beautiful woman (or is it vice versa?)...and
who is identified by some wild scholars as Lilith. Diana as Lilith? Not poss.
In a message dated 11-14-01 7:46:31 PM, rafferty@DRIZZLE.COM writes:
If I'd only read the canon, I'd have thought that POB cared
about honor, but not sin. If I'd only read his short stories, I'd
have thought that POB was obsessed with sin.
Interesting comment, Marshall.
I've been trying to think how to explain what I think POB was after. I can't
quite put it in words. I don't think it is either honor or sin but something
that is deeply personal and related to his idea of self - self-respect, or
self honesty, or anti-hypocrisy, or something like that. So Stephen KNOWS
he's false to his friend and it doesn't matter that no one else knows, or
that it has a good result for Jack and Sophie. It only matters that Stephen
is false. He's lost control over some part of himself and it's that loss
that matters. Control is one of the central issues for Stephen, but not
control of others: self-control.
Does this make any sense?
Rowen
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:28:15 EST, Rowen wrote:
I've been trying to think how to explain what I think POB was after. I can't
quite put it in words. I don't think it is either honor or sin but something
that is deeply personal and related to his idea of self - self-respect, or
self honesty, or anti-hypocrisy, or something like that.
Ah, Rowen, you've done far better in putting it into words than I was
able to. I was groping.
Self-respect. I keep wondering whether we're talking about
Stephen or POB, or both.
So Stephen KNOWS
he's false to his friend and it doesn't matter that no one else knows, or
that it has a good result for Jack and Sophie. It only matters that Stephen
is false. He's lost control over some part of himself and it's that loss
that matters. Control is one of the central issues for Stephen, but not
control of others: self-control.
Does this make any sense?
It makes sense to me; not only for Stephen, with his blend of cold
self-analysis and strained rationalizations (though, don't we all do
that at times?), but his continual drug dependencies. Drugs must be
wonderful things when thought is too painful.
I don't believe that Stephen ever did resolve his conflicts; neither
did O'Brian, or he'd perhaps been more accepting, less angry when
the story of his birth name and background came out.
So. This is also what's so wonderful about these stories and this
special friendship between Jack and Stephen. Morality is not harped
on, and conventional honor simply takes a back seat, just as that
impending duel is dropped at the realization that enough blood has
been shed.
I'm sure that this friendship was something which the sometimes
lonely author must have dreamed about. Maybe his relationship
with his brother Sydney had some of these qualities of natural
warmth.
By the way, I've not yet read King's biography of POB.
Marshall Rafferty
________
In a message dated 11/16/01 8:31:58 PM Central Standard Time,
Charlezzzz@AOL.COM writes:
Diana as Lilith? Not poss.
Diana as Lilith, Sophie as Eve... seems rather poss to me.
pragmatical and absolute, [FoW8]
Mary S
OK, that's the last time I go racking my brain to wring some hifalutin'
interpretation out of one of these books for you lot! There I went and
squeezed every ounce of what meagre intelligence I could summon up into my
post, in an attempt to understand what's going on, and all I get is some
words from Don "Mr. Facetious" Seltzer . . . looked like a proper flat, I
did!
By the way, I know I should try to stop making these cross-volume, rather
tenuous connections, but: Doesn't Stephen write in his diary that Dil
suspects him of being a "were-bear?" My knowledge of folklore is kind of
shaky, but I assume this would be analogous to a werewolf. Where else in
the Canon does one of the major characters appear in the guise of a *bear*?
Don wrote:
"There is no symbolism whatsover in Stephen's determined
pursuit of the sea
serpent, despite the warnings of the crew that it was poisonous."
and Charlezzz added:
"Is Don hinting that Diana was a sea serpent? Not poss! That sea serpent,
once
caught, managed to kill itself.
Charlezzzz, remembering the story of Lamia, who appears (in Keats'
poem)
as a serpent in the guise of a beautiful woman (or is it vice versa?)...and
who is identified by some wild scholars as Lilith. Diana as Lilith? Not
poss." etc. ...
Steve Ross
I stayed up vey late last night after trying to stay ahead of the post ts
that 'jest keep on tickin' and finished HMSS.
As I drifted off, my mind wandered around the Dil death - and suddenly, I
got the thought that her death was not such a bad thing. Stephen realized
that in a few months or years, she would be forced into prostitution or
abject poverty- with a short life hardly worth living. Her youthful zest
would be squelched. His alternatives did not seem to him to be much
better-servant or such i n England if he bought her,total revamp of her self
if given over to the Portuguese for training. By presenting her with the one
thing that she longed for, the bangles, she had probably reached the zenith
of her life-nothing would ever surpass that joy- So to die at that moment is,
to me, not the worst way to go. Stephen remarks that there were few signs of
trauma
As i re- read the battle scene near end of HMSS, I again felt the drama and
suspense of that fight. It was as good as the first time. when he did
scenes like this, POB was at his (Non-philosophical) best.
In this book, I found Stephen very irritating- granted, he was in some agony
over Diana, but some of his inner m,eanness semmed to come through. His
ripping of Jack for not writing was brutal, but in turn he takes offense at
jack for a remark on 'honour' that i no way was aimed at him.
then he does that hatchet job onthe two girls who are denigrating Diana(yes,
they were callous, but he was older,more worldly but still brutal.)
Part of his description was on their cleanliness ,where he is a total slob,
oblivious to even elemental toilet,- glad he never operated on me- All in
all, I donot find him ,in this book, a very sympathetic character.
splavicatin' John B
Steven K Ross
OK, that's the last time I go racking my brain to wring some hifalutin'
interpretation out of one of these books for you lot! There I went and
squeezed every ounce of what meagre intelligence I could summon up into my
post, in an attempt to understand what's going on, and all I get is some
words from Don "Mr. Facetious" Seltzer . . . looked like a proper flat, I
did!
At least you didn't call me "Mr. Farcical Comic." My apologies for a weak
attempt at humor that fell short of the mark. I would very much regret if
you were discouraged from making future insightful comments.
Having read several of the Cochrane biographies, I thought it to be a "me
too" book, offering no more, and in some instances less than previous
publications. It would be hard for any biography of Cochrane not to be
highly entertaining, but this one is marred with numerous errors.
Don Seltzer
Several items -
(All page numbers refer to Norton paperbacks.)
1. Lazaretto Island (page 73): I was unable to find anything at Google about
a specific Lazaretto Island at Port Mahon - but other references re
"lazaretto" point to leper colonies at various places around the world, some
on islands even.
While I was searching for Lazaretto Island, I came across an interesting
webiste, put together by Francis Miles - an online PASC of sorts (scroll down
to the bottom of the page):
http://freespace.virgin.net/francis.miles/
2. Mandragore (page 74): why, it's "mandrake," for all love!
From:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007974/1_1man.htm
"It was believed that mandrake possessed the magic power to heal a great
variety of diseases, to induce a feeling of love, affection and happiness.
That is why the roots of mandrake used to be as expensive as gold. However,
except for the myths about this herb, there is also documented data that it
has been widely used in ancient medicine. A Roman physician reported co
mplicated surgical operations having been performed in Alexandria
under the anaesthetic effect of mandrake. Arabian physicians also used it for
anaesthetic purposes. In 11th and 12th centuries, mandrake was recognized as
an effective painkiller by the famous at that time Universities of Bolonia
and Salerno.
The “amazing” effects of this herb are actually due to the high content of
the alkaloids scopolamine, mandragorin, and hyosciamine. Mandrake is no
longer used in medicine. All myths about this plant have already been
dispelled and there is no mystery about it anymore. "
3. Old Subtlety (page 87): Does anyone know to whom this refers?
4. Cecilia Williams and her "much-teazed yellow hair" (page 91): Is this
"teazed" the same as our contemporary "teased" hair? Does teasing or teazing
imply the use of the heads of the teazle plant, long used to raise the nap on
woolen goods? Were the heads of teazles in vogue in 1800 for "teasing" hair?
Am I barking up the wrong plant?
For more on the teazle plant, see:
http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/t/teazle09.html
Alice
Page 265: "Did you do the Heautontimoroumenos at school?"
whispered Mr Stanhope.
What is this man whispering about?
- Susan
Very good question! From the context, it would seem as if Stanhope, in
his delirium, has been reliving his school days, and
"Heautontimoroumenos" is the title of a classical Greek poem that the
terrible "Dr. Bulkeley" forced him to memorize. But there is far more
to this episode than that. I don't know that particular poem, but the
title itself, in Greek, means "he who values/prizes himself" (*heauton*
is a reflexive, so "self;" *timoroumenos* is a middle form of *timao:*
to prize, honor, or hold something/someone in esteem). Think of this in
the context of Stephen's own moral/ethical "crisis" (as I have decided
to call it), and in the context of Rowen's recent post:
I don't think it is either honor or sin but something
that is deeply personal and related to his idea of self - self-respect, or
self honesty, or anti-hypocrisy, or something like that.
Man, what a group! Together, we could write the Critical Edition of the
Aubreyad!
--------------------
Steve Ross
So sorry! There I go, flying off the handle again. It's not
"self-esteem." Timoroumenous (I THINK) comes from *timoreo*: to avenge
or punish. But this fits the story even better, doesn't it?
--Steve
As always, I have far too many technical questions about this book. In
particular, I ended up being totally lost during the last, long-ranging
battle with Linois, and the maneuvers surrounding it (what direction
they were heading, bearing of the wind, etc. . . . ). Maybe someday
when I reread this book yet again, it will become clear. But in the
meantime:
1. p. 285 (Norton paperback edition): " . . . as the strain came on to
the drag-sail, opening like a parachute beneath the surface, it dropped
further still." Is this an anachronism?
2. p. 289:
3. pp. 303-4 (Jack addressing the assembled captains of the China
fleet): " . . . with one or two of your fine ships on one side of him
and Surprise on the other, I will answer for it if we can beat the
seventy-four, let alone the frigates." Is this a typo?
--------------------
Steve Ross
John B wrote:
In this book, I found Stephen very irritating- granted, he was in some agony
over Diana, but some of his inner meanness semmed to come through.
I agree and I don't agree. Yes, Stephen is not at his most attractive
for much of this book. In other words, he is fallible; he is human; he
is even unlikable at points. Does this make him unsympathetic? Not to
me . . . because I am sure as heck pretty fallible! But I am glad you
are pointing out these aspects, because I am coming to be more and more
of the opinion that the main portion of this book is really about
Stephen's moral "crisis" (inasmuch as any of these books can be "about"
a
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Mary S
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Group Read: HMSS; Reading by phosphorescence
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Group Read: HMSS; Reading by phosphorescence
From: Martin Watts
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Jack naked (plus DCT)
50° 44' 58" N
1° 58' 35" W
From: Kerry Webb
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Jack naked (plus DCT)
Canberra, Australia http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Jack naked
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read: HMSS; Reading by phosphorescence
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Jack naked
From: Samuel Bostock
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Moon-pall
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read: HMSS; Reading by phosphorescence
From: Kathryn Guare
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:38 PM
Subject: Group Read:HMSS: Psychoanalyzing O'Brian (Spoiler)
From: William Nyden
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read:HMSS: Psychoanalyzing O'Brian (Spoiler)
Bill Nyden
a Rose by another name
37° 25' 15" N 122° 04' 57" W
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: GroupRead:HMSS:reading by phosphorescence
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: Steve Turley
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read:HMSS: Psychoanalyzing O'Brian (Spoiler)
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read:HMSS: Psychoanalyzing O'Brian (Spoiler)
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:54 AM
Subject: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Simon Holmes
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
From: Mary Arndt
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:10 AM
Subject: On His Majesty's Ship "Great Clanger"
From: Ray McPherson
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Group Read:HMSS: Re: Dil (poss spoiler)
From: JohnMckD@AOL.COM
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
Evanston by the Illiwimichiana Sea
From: Stephen Chambers
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Group Read:HMSS: Psychoanalyzing O'Brian (Spoiler)
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: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
From: Jean A
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fitz, was wrong side of the blanket
( Sorry if I told you more than you'd care to know.)
From: McEachern & FitzRoy LC - Attorneys and Counselors
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
Attorneys and Counselors
Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 6:52 AM
Subject: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
From: Gerry Strey
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
Madison, Wisconsin
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Greg White
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
71º20'13.2" W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: The series, was Worst opening?
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
From: DJONES
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
Walsall, England
52°36'01" N 1°55'46" W
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
From: thekaines
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Worst opening?
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: Characterizations
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: POB- reread of HMSS
From: Jerry Shurman
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Groupread: HMSS: A few random thoughts
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:58 PM
Subject: GRP HMSS: Lies & Deception
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Characterizations HMSS Spoiler.
I see differences.
.(Spoiler space)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dil is innocent, pure, clear sighted, giver of unconditional love to Stephen;
Diana is worldly, tainted, constantly involved in muddled thinking, and has
no capability to love without payment of some kind.
Stephen's touch kills Dil; Diana's touch 'kills' Stephen.
From: Vanessa Brown
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: GRP: HMSS Wrong side of the blanket
From: Ray McPherson
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Characterizations HMSS Spoiler.
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: GRP HMSS: Lies & Deception
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:24 AM
Subject: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Robert Fleisher
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Greg White
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
71º20'13.2" W
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
Pawel Golik
http://www.gen.emory.edu/cmm/people/staff/pgolik.html
Currently at 33°48'53"N 84°19'25"W
Home is at 52°12'25"N 21°5'37"E
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Pawel Golik
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Michael R. Ward
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Kerry Webb
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Robert Fleisher
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
Houston, TX
From: Charlezzzz@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:00 PM
Subject: HMSS Death and Retribution
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: Dil/Book 19
.
.
.
.
.
.
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19
From: Ray McPherson
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19 (Spoilers)
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:42 AM
Subject: Stephen's dishonourable act (was: RE: [POB] HMSS Death and Retribution
From: Rosemary Davis
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:03 AM
Subject: HMSS Groupread
42º44'8"N, 84º32'21"W
From: Isabelle Hayes
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Gregg Germain
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
Gregg
Sailing Master, Artillery Capt., Glover's Marblehead Regiment (GMR)
From: Jerry Shurman
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: HMSS Groupread
From: losmp
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19 (Spoilers)
.
.
Or possibly POB was indulging in a personal fantasy related to events in
his earlier life. In this fantasy, it is the mother who cannot cope and
abandons the infant daughter with a birth defect (WDS). The love and care
of the father then cures the child (COM). To complete the story, the
mother must return just long enough to see what a fine job the father has
done, and to become the dutiful wife (TYA). But it is too late; he has
already found a potential replacement, and the bad wife's days are numbered
(THD). Of course the father needn't worry about actually raising the child.
That's what the servants are for.
From: Ray McPherson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Peter Mackay
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Dil/Book 19
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's dishonourable act (was: RE: [POB] HMSS Death and Retribution
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Adam Quinan
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS Death and Retribution (Stephen, Dil, etc.)
From: Marian Van Til
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's dishonourable act
From: sue reynolds
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Dil
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's dishonourable act (was: RE: [POB] HMSS Death and Retribution
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: HMSS: Stephen in love; Sophie; Diana
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
[*ADDED QUESTION: How come the mail always gets everywhere so much more
quickly than the Surprise?]
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Mixaphors(groupread)
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Mixaphors(groupread)
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: HMSS: Stephen in love; Sophie; Diana
From: Charlezzzz@AOL.COM
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:31 PM
Subject: Stephen in love (Sophie, Diana)
From: Rowen 84
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: Stephen's dishonourable act (was: RE: [POB] HMSS Death and Retribution
From: Marshall Rafferty
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen's dishonourable act (was: RE: [POB] HMSS Death and Retribution
At, or about:
47°40'54"N. 122°22'8"W.
From: Mary S
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Stephen in love (Sophie, Diana)
35° 58' 11" N
86° 48' 57" W
From: Steven K Ross
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 8:49 AM
Subject: Silly? Maybe not . . . how about facetious? (was Re: [POB] Stephen in love (Sophie, Diana)
Whatever the hell those coordinates are
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: HMS Surprise( group read)Dil
From: Jebvbva@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 12:20 PM
Subject: HMSS- (group read)
From: Don Seltzer
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Silly? Maybe not . . . how about facetious?
From: Ladyshrike@AOL.COM
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 7:13 PM
Subject: GroupRead: HMS Surprise
From: Susan Wenger
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: GrpRead:HMSS:Heautontimoroumenos
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: GrpRead:HMSS:Heautontimoroumenos
a complacent pragmatical worldly fellow (HMSS p. 196) . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Disregard previous message! (was GrpRead:HMSS:Heautontimoroumenos
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: HMSS: A couple of technicalities
" 'Yes, sir. Shall I cast off the drag-sail, sir?'
'No: and we will not go about too fast, neither: space out the orders,
if you please.'" "Going about" means tacking, right? Well, this is
what had me puzzled: I thought that in the course of tacking,
everything had to be done "smartly," with dispatch, or else you would
miss stays. So how is it possible to space out the orders and not to
risk appearing like a lubber? Maybe I should get one of those "Age of
Sail" games and learn how to really do it.
a complacent pragmatical worldly [and obsessive!] fellow . . .
30° 24' 32"N
91° 05' 28"W
From: Steve Ross
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:00 PM
Subject: HMSS: Stephen's clothing and his moral crisis (includes spoilers)...LONG